abioGenesis hypothesis: scientific or just a silly idea? What say you?

Originally posted by john_bmth
reply to post by HappyBunny

 

Let's not rush into things, being on nodding terms with basic comprehension skills is a big enough goal for the time being.

Oops, my bad. Got ahead of myself for a minute there.

Originally posted by john_bmth
reply to post by ImaFungi

 

You're making man made technology and living things synonymous when they are clearly not. For example, the computer I am using to type this post cannot divide itself into 2 identical clones, it cannot mate to produce slightly different spec'd offspring. Why? Because it is not life, and life is not man-made technology. Drawing parallels between the two by saying "your computer was designed, ergo life was designed" is a fallacy.

Where did man get the idea to create computers from? what laws did man obey to allow computers to manifest into existence? what materials did they use ( brand new self created materials?)? if man is a biological computer made naturally,,, and man creates man made computers using natural materials,, both existing entities were naturally created in the universe in time,,, whats the big difference ( besides your bias)? www.bing.com...
en.wikipedia.org...-replication

early life on earth used material/ chemical resources it found in its environment to construct and build more complex systems and material forms and functions,, exactly like present day systems of life ( humans) use materials and resources in their environment to construct more complex systems and material technologies,.,.,.

the cells,,, and microscopic parts of early life were not aware of what they were building,, but all surrounding variables and forces including the existence of the cells and microscopic parts were prodded towards constructing complex living and functioning systems of life,,,.,. through evolution when a living systems begins to produce antlers or a horn for protection,, nothing in relation to this living system its cells and biology or anything in the universe,, understood what the concept of defense is,, or horn,,, it was just an accident which became useful? same with camouflage,,,, same with wings,,,, so would you say nature is ran by trial and error,,,, and we live in a reality of trials,,, for the errors dont last long,,,, nothing has intelligence,,,nothing knows what it is doing,,, it is only constantly in every moment either 1 or 0,,, yes or no,,,,, fail or succeed,,,
more importantly related to the seemingly intelligent decision making process or road taking process of the system to produce a defense like a horn,,, im curious about parts of living systems like the heart,, and all organs,, and the shoulder bone and fingers,, and veins and nervous system,,, all these things randomly sprung about and meshed together by accident with nothing in the universe comprehending the ability for the system to work as a whole and have functions,, and have the parts share duties,, down to the microscopic levels,,,

Let's take a moment and reflect on history...

“A rocket will never be able to leave the Earth’s atmosphere.” — New York Times, 1936.

“Flight by machines heavier than air is unpractical (sic) and insignificant, if not utterly impossible.” - Simon Newcomb; The Wright Brothers flew at Kittyhawk 18 months later.

“There is not the slightest indication that nuclear energy will ever be obtainable. It would mean that the atom would have to be shattered at will.” — Albert Einstein, 1932

“The horse is here to stay but the automobile is only a novelty - a fad.” — The president of the Michigan Savings Bank advising Henry Ford’s lawyer, Horace Rackham, not to invest in the Ford Motor Co., 1903

“This ‘telephone’ has too many shortcomings to be seriously considered as a means of communication. The device is inherently of no value to us.” — A memo at Western Union, 1878 (or 1876).

“X-rays will prove to be a hoax.” — Lord Kelvin, President of the Royal Society, 1883.

“Fooling around with alternating current is just a waste of time. Nobody will use it, ever.” — Thomas Edison, American inventor, 1889 (Edison often ridiculed the arguments of competitor George Westinghouse for AC power).

“[Television] won’t be able to hold on to any market it captures after the first six months. People will soon get tired of staring at a plywood box every night.” — Darryl Zanuck, movie producer, 20th Century Fox, 1946.

link

Lesson...never say never.

Since the starting conditions are unknown and can never be conclusively proven, then everything else that follows is falsified. PERIOD. Science has performed experiment after experiment concerning abiogenesis. Not one of them has resulted in LIFE from NOTHING! And they never will. Because it is impossible. post by totallackey ATS 2012.

Questions still unanswered:

1) Point out direct citations provided by squiz that contradict his position
2) Provide a list of his resources that are not peer reviewed.

Simple two step process.

Just as an additional question and tossing in a wrench...

Would the story presented in Genesis concerning the formation of man be considered an example of abiogenesis (i.e., the formation of man from the dust of the ground)?

reply to post by flyingfish


Well, according to the three amigos, I am wrong and my statement is totally false, because nothing is an impossible state of being. So there has always been something according to them.

Originally posted by totallackey
reply to post by flyingfish

 

Well, according to the three amigos, I am wrong and my statement is totally false, because nothing is an impossible state of being. So there has always been something according to them.

how would you disagree with their statement?

reply to post by ImaFungi


Depends on the answer to number 3...

Who thinks this dishonest twit should get the Ban Hammer ?

Would the story presented in Genesis concerning the formation of man be considered an example of abiogenesis (i.e., the formation of man from the dust of the ground)?

Show me someone made of Dust... Last time I checked, people are mostly oxygen by mass. And 65-75% water. I don't recall dust people walking around. Though I have a dust bunny on my desk..

Originally posted by totallackey
Questions still unanswered:

1) Point out direct citations provided by squiz that contradict his position
2) Provide a list of his resources that are not peer reviewed.

Simple two step process.

Question still unanswered: where is your evidence that science has conclusively eliminated abiogenesis?

Just as an additional question and tossing in a wrench...

Would the story presented in Genesis concerning the formation of man be considered an example of abiogenesis (i.e., the formation of man from the dust of the ground)?

Abiogenesis is life from non-life so yes, it would. Testing this particular hypothesis for abiogenesis would seem to require the cooperation of a certain deity which may prove to be a problem. God does not seem overly interested in providing irrefutable proof of his existance.

reply to post by totallackey


Who else believes this troll is squidz's sock puppet? He always receives one solitary star, regardless of how mindless his drivel is and his only agenda is playing a creepy wingman to squidz. Have creationists resorted to making up their own numbers, like how they make up their own qualifications?

reply to post by john_bmth

Appealing for numbers.,..

Originally posted by totallackey
reply to post by john_bmth

 

Appealing for numbers.,..

Not really necessary...your posts make it clear enough that you don't have a clue.

Yeah, this is officially a troll thread. When you refuse to back up your own points and ignore all counterpoints against you, that's a sure sign. You are asking people to prove negatives when the burden is on the one making the claim not the one disproving it.

Originally posted by Barcs
Yeah, this is officially a troll thread. When you refuse to back up your own points and ignore all counterpoints against you, that's a sure sign. You are asking people to prove negatives when the burden is on the one making the claim not the one disproving it.

Can you please ask him what he believes?

Both of you observe the same reality to make your conclusions.

You think the facts of reality point to reality meaning a certain specific thing.

Your opponent comprehends the same information and scientific facts and reality of reality to hold a different meaning.

You have not done a thing either, besides pointing to reality and stating, not intelligent, that is all you have done,
your opponent has stated the opposite.... who is correct,, how do you know for sure whos correct.. and what does the answer to those questions mean?

reply to post by ImaFungi

Your opponent comprehends the same information and scientific facts

They clearly don't comprehend the scientific facts

Originally posted by ImaFungi
Can you please ask him what he believes?

Both of you observe the same reality to make your conclusions.

You think the facts of reality point to reality meaning a certain specific thing.

Your opponent comprehends the same information and scientific facts and reality of reality to hold a different meaning.

You have not done a thing either, besides pointing to reality and stating, not intelligent, that is all you have done,
your opponent has stated the opposite.... who is correct,, how do you know for sure whos correct.. and what does the answer to those questions mean?

If it was just about beliefs, I'd have been out of this thread along time ago. It's about a specific hypothesis in science which has produced a couple successful experiments. This has been denied. Intelligence is being assumed because of complexity, and because abiogenesis hasn't been proven yet. Here's the issue: He is asserting this as fact, when it's clearly a belief (ie logic demands). I very specifically dissected Squiz's posts 10-15 pages back, and showed him exactly why I didn't agree and where he was making the leap of logic. Out of everything I posted, he might have responded to 10% of it at best. The majority went ignored. If he just said that he doesn't know the answer, but believes it was intelligently designed, I'd have no problem with that at all, but a refusal to admit that very basic fact of reality shows his motivations aren't unbiased. I don't support one side vs the other. I admitted time and time again that I don't know the truth about the origins of DNA or if an intelligent designer exists. Do you see what I'm getting at?

reply to post by Barcs


yes I do and i admire your composure and scientific knowledge and passion for understanding truth,,.

to me its a matter of the definition of intelligence and its connotations,,

to me its a matter of not understanding how random, dumb matter, can be so sophisticated, cooperative and seemingly controled to not only organize into uber complex systems such as the macro whole human body,, but also to invent the intelligence system we cant invent ourselves yet we call ourselves intelligent and we call the activities that created this intelligent not intelligent,,
Is the structuure and duties of parts and abilties of the human system not genius? not technical and a work of engineering? how did the skeleton, and nervous system, build itself in proportion at the same time to mind the opposite parts and everything fit like a perfect puzzle working in tandem and un unconnectable connection?

reply to post by radix


OK - now that everyone had their say, let me address yours first and then others later (if time permits):

You said:

Question still unanswered: where is your evidence that science has conclusively eliminated abiogenesis?

Evidence there is, and many. Problem is you have to look for them because they are not published openly in the public due to obvious reasons - monopoly and bias within the scientific community. Besides anyone who goes against the so called "accepted" ideas is laugh at and ostracize. But in any case the evidence is available.

To start, let's use the popular Urey-Miller experiment since this is the experiment that's been used over and over in schools and universities worldwide to bamboozle many and use it as the standard to prove the abiogenesis hypothesis.

Of course proponents of evolution theory readily accept this to be true even though they admit that they really DON'T KNOW the origin of life. They are just waiting for it to "graduate" from being a silly hypothesis to a silly theory.

BUT if you use common sense and logic like I did, you will see that it DOES NOT support the silly hypothesis - instead it supports the opposition. That Life was the result of Intelligent Design / Creation.

Here's what I mean (I'll just point a few out of hundreds if not thousands to keep it short).

Point 1: INTELLIGENCE

- The fact that it required intelligent people to do such controlled experiments is proof enough that Chance Event can't spontaneously generate the building blocks of life. In short Intelligent Guidance IS REQUIRED!

In fact the experiment was NEEDED to be in a CONTROLLED setting so that the outcome will be conducive to what they were trying to prove. That is, given the correct materials, proper knowledge and proper setting one can create non-living organic materials. Couple this with pre-conceived ideas, one can use his/her knowledge to affect the outcome of the experiment. And that is exactly what they tried to do with the Urey-Miller experiment.

A far cry from what abiogenesis hypothesis states, which is: spontaneous generation of life WITHOUT any intelligent guidance.

But if you want to dig deeper, answer this question:

Since NO ONE knows exactly what the earth's early atmosphere was like, why do you think the Urey-Miller team chose a hydrogen-rich atmosphere for the early earth, and then passed an electric spark through it?

Then, ask yourself this: what about other similar experiments - can they manipulate and rigged it in order to obtain what they are looking for?

If so, how honest and trustworthy are these experiments then?

How much trust can you put on them / in them? How gullible are you to believe them?

Point 2: Intelligent INTERVENTION

- The fact that they had to remove the organic materials from being destroyed (by the very environment they were created from) shows that an intelligent intervening agent was required.

Which is again, a far cry from what abiogenesis states - spontaneous generation of life by unintelligent blind chance event in / of nature.

Point 3: THE "TRAP"

- The fact that the setup / apparatus (used in the experiment and in most experiments of this nature) were purposely DESIGNED in such a way, leads me to conclude that it's a FLAWED experiment.

It does not resemble nature at all but an assumption!

Consider the following facts.

In the experiment Miller was able to obtain the simple chemicals by passing electrical spark in the "atmosphere" of his apparatus.

So far so good. But was this all that is needed to prove spontaneous generation of life?

NOT a chance because what they don't openly point to you is the fact that the high voltage electrical sparks or ultra-violet rays (whatever the case maybe) would quickly obliterate the amino acids!



The solution - jerry rig the experiment. Imagine that!

As you can see in the pic below Miller built a "trap" in his apparatus to store the acids. As soon as the acids are formed, they are taken out via the "trap" - to save them from the spark.



But is this the way it happened in nature? Obviously NOT because there's no such thing as a "trap" in nature, unless of course you make it up.

And made it up they did, the "trap" - evolved into what is known as "organic soup" (now called "chemical soup") bubbling forth during the early stages of the earth.

From this - came more wild claims (by evolution scientists), that in the early earth the amino acids WOULD have escaped the lightning or as some claim the ultraviolet rays environment by plunging into the ocean of "organic soup/chemical soup/biomolecules".



However what they don't openly tell you is this:

cont...

...

However what they don't openly tell you is this:

“Whenever two amino acids unite, a water molecule is released. Two molecules of water must be set free in assembling a nucleotide from its components, and additional water is released in combining nucleotides to form nucleic acids. Unfortunately, the formation of water in an environment that is full of it is the chemical equivalent of bringing sand to the Sahara. It is unfavorable, and requires the expenditure of energy. Such processes do not readily take place on their own. In fact, the reverse reactions are the ones that occur spontaneously. Water happily attacks large biological molecules. It pries nucleotides apart from each other, breaks sugar-to-phosphate bonds, and severs bases from sugars.” -- Origins: A Skeptic’s Guide, pp. 173-4

In short - if the amino acids are NOT taken out from the very environment they were created from and then transferred to another equally hostile environment - like the ocean of "organic soup" - they get destroyed (assuming of course that such "organic soup" ocean exist).

But let's just say that miracle of all miracles such oceanic "organic soup" exists, what other detrimental forces / factor is present in the equation? Factors that can affect or even further destroy or shorten the existence of the newly formed molecules (assuming of course that they survive the trip from a lightning / ultra violet light infested environment)?

Well, this:

Molecules needed to put themselves together INTELLIGENTLY in such a way that ONLY LEFT HANDED (amino acids) are SELECTED. This IS a must because in nature both LEFT HANDED and RIGHT HANDED molecules in equal proportion are produced and LIVING organisms use only LEFT HANDED molecules.

Furthermore, before this very important step to happen, BLIND CHANCE - or as claimed by evolutionists - NATURE must come up with an ingenious way to program the molecules so that the CORRECT combinations / sequence and types of molecules are ONLY allowed. ANY molecule or atom that is out of place, missing, out of sequence will be disastrous - NO LIFE!

Compounding the problem in cosmic proportion IS the fact that ONLY 20 kinds of amino acids are needed to be selected by CHANCE/RANDOM. That is, 20 kinds must be SELECTED or SCOOPED out of the hundreds of kinds of molecules in the ocean of "organic soup".

Question to you is: How likely would that happen - scientifically and mathematically speaking?

But let's say miracle of miracles such "precise" random selection happened, would the amino acids at RANDOM now connect up IN CORRECT SEQUENCE and IN CORRECT ORDER in long chains to make proteins? Remember abiogenesis hypothesis claims spontaneous generation of life by chance event.

What do you think?

Remember, a typical protein has about one hundred amino acids and contains many thousands of atoms. In fact in a living cell ALONE there are about 200,000 proteins of which two thousand of them are enzymes, special proteins without which the cell cannot survive. And the human body contains trillions of such molecules where each cell is a complex system in itself with its highly complex programming.

With that in mind, aside from the myriads of precise chemical and biological reactions happening in sub-atomic levels within each molecule, without ANY INTELLIGENT GUIDANCE, what are the chances of these enzymes forming at random in the "soup" of life - if such oceanic "organic soup" exists? What chance do you think of these proteins or enzymes cooperating with each other forming at random without ANY programming involved or INTELLIGENT GUIDANCE?

Really?

Can you instruct a protein or an enzyme to form or do specific task without first understanding the command? What is it like building a very sophisticated house without a blueprint?

But again, let's just assume, miracles of all miracles the enzymes and proteins did form spontaneously without any programming or intelligent guidance, what are the next BIG MIRACLES that needs to happen to form into a simple living cell?

Clue - see the OP and I'll come back next time with the revelation if you haven't figured out yet.

But for now, I'll leave you with the above TO PONDER - gotta go.

BTW - I haven't even touched the surface yet (like folding/information coding decoding/transmission, DNA/RNA production, etc), but as you can see, a scientific picture has emerged once again:

The abiogenesis hypothesis is one silly idea no matter how you look at it.

later...

Your out dated, it's been nearly 60 years since the Miller experiments. Science has made enormous progress on solving the origin of life. Your trying to argue early life was as complex as modern cells.
Early life must have been extremely simple, meaning no complex protein machinery. Modern cells separate themselves from the environment with a lipid bilayer. Modern cells must use proteins to move molecules across their surface.

With naturally occurring simple fatty acids, vesicles can spontaneously grow and divide, no miracles needed. What about the genetic material? The pre-biotic environment contained hundreds of types nucleotides (all it took was just 1 to self polymerize.) recent experiments here have proven some of these are capable of spontaneous polymerization, again no miracles needed.
Links