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

reply to post by edmc^2


And then of course we get the Gish Gallop of assorted cut & paste quotes. Do you really think the researchers are unaware that things can hydrolyze in water? Do you really think they would suggest something that is thermodynamically impossible? If you've seen any such suggestion, please point it out.

Homochirality has obviously yet to be explained but again - the fact it hasn't been explained yet doesn't mean it will never be explained and certainly doesn't constitute proof that abiogenesis is impossible. Let's just cut to the chase, shall we? If you think that the proposed hypotheses for abiogenesis are impossible, kindly provide evidence for this. To start with, you should address what the researchers are actually suggesting. I'll make it easy for you - here's an article summarizing the unsolved problems of one of the hypotheses (the "RNA world" hypothesis).

Link

It's a very clear run-down of the challenges that have to be met in order to explain how the first replicator could have been formed by natural, unguided means. It also suggests possible, testable solutions to these problems. If you see anything here that defies the laws of chemistry and physics or that can be ruled out for any other reason, please explain what and why.

Of course to me the Creator - Yahweh/Jehovah/Yehowah God IS the most REASONABLE, logical and common-sensical answer because it has SOLID FOUNDATION.

One of which:

That Life on earth can only come from pre-existing life'

or to be more precise –

Intelligent Life on earth can come only from pre-existing Intelligent Life.


In addition the existence of the Universe itself with all of its PRECISE MATHEMATICAL LAWS and constants points to INTELLIGENCE at work.

To ignore it is to be an ignorant fool.

The same old unsubstantiated claim. It's still an argument from ignorance, which is still a logical fallacy.

And NO - there's NO MAGIC involve - but a FULL and COMPLETE understanding of the "molecular structure of matter”, energy and ALL COSMIC laws and Natural Forces.

Being the ONE responsible for such laws thus He has the ability and the POWER to do so as He wills.

To quote the scripture since you brought it up:

(Isaiah 40:26) . . .“Raise YOUR eyes high up and see. Who has created these things? It is the One who is bringing forth the army of them even by number, all of whom he calls even by name. Due to the abundance of dynamic energy, he also being vigorous in power, not one [of them] is missing."

Quoting the Bible as proof that the Bible is right is just about as circular as you can get. I wouldn't even call it bad logic, it's non-logic.

So... why would the creation of the universe..”halting of planetary/celestial motion...surviving several days unscathed in a fishes digestive system...various accounts of resurrection....walking on water...changing the molecular structure of matter on a whim...” be considered unscientific just because they can't be understood in today's technology and current understanding of physics?

As a wise man once said: "you should always keep an open mind but not so open that your brain falls out". In other words, don't rule anything out off-hand but apply a modicum of healthy skepticism. If you want me to believe something, you need to give me a reason to believe. You make a claim, you back it up with some kind of evidence. The more fantastic the claim, the higher the demands on the evidence. There is no shortage of fantastical claims, every mythology has them. Are the claims of the Hindu, Mayan and Norse mythologies scientific? If not, why not?

reply to post by radix


"Not only does the "intelligence is needed" theory lack any supporting evidence, it also lacks any explanatory value as it simply raises a whole host of new questions. It's a scientifically useless theory. "

Hypothetically lets assume an intelligent entity like creator,, came up with the ideas, functions, laws of physics, methods, and madness and initiated the universe we reside in and that created us.... lets assume for a moment that is true and really happened...

now from your position is it rational or comprehendible that that can be done? looking at the universe operates... can you think to your self, you understand that an intelligent entity could have initiated the universe ( knowing the truth of it on the back burner,, but even being skeptical too the truth but trying to see how it is possible that the entity did create the universe) could you understand how it was possible? could you still work to see how it was done and every little detail that goes on to making it all work,, still with the understanding that some creator was responsible for its existence and ways? Even if you knew a creator was responsible,, can you still look at this same universal work,, and claim the creators work is not that impressive of it,, for there is a lot of repetitive patterns,, and blind chance and dumb aspects of its creation,,,, therefore the creator isnt very smart,, isnt very sophisticated,, and is very lazy...

reply to post by radix


Thanks for the latest link but before I delve into the "RNA World" hypothesis - one thing that I need to know from you.

To be true and consistent to your own belief - the creation of life without Intelligent Creator / Designer.

I have a very simple and quick question:

If the laboratory correspond to the RNA / DNA world (environment) and the RNA / DNA molecules correspond to the building blocks of life, who do you think the Team Szostak correspond to?

Intelligence / Designer / Creator or Blind Chance Event?

That's all.

///later...

reply to post by ImaFungi

Hypothetically lets assume an intelligent entity like creator,, came up with the ideas, functions, laws of physics, methods, and madness and initiated the universe we reside in and that created us.... lets assume for a moment that is true and really happened...

now from your position is it rational or comprehendible that that can be done? looking at the universe operates... can you think to your self, you understand that an intelligent entity could have initiated the universe ( knowing the truth of it on the back burner,, but even being skeptical too the truth but trying to see how it is possible that the entity did create the universe) could you understand how it was possible? could you still work to see how it was done and every little detail that goes on to making it all work,, still with the understanding that some creator was responsible for its existence and ways? Even if you knew a creator was responsible,, can you still look at this same universal work,, and claim the creators work is not that impressive of it,, for there is a lot of repetitive patterns,, and blind chance and dumb aspects of its creation,,,, therefore the creator isnt very smart,, isnt very sophisticated,, and is very lazy...

I'm not sure I'm understanding you correctly but your reasoning seems to lead up to the argument "it looks designed so it must be designed" and I just don't find that very convincing. The idea that a mind created the universe is a pretty extraordinary one and the fact that we can't disprove it is a rather poor reason to believe it. I'm not asking for evidence to be contrary, I truly believe that accepting claims without evidence is not only irrational but potentially downright dangerous.

reply to post by edmc^2

To be true and consistent to your own belief - the creation of life without Intelligent Creator / Designer.

I have a very simple and quick question:

If the laboratory correspond to the RNA / DNA world (environment) and the RNA / DNA molecules correspond to the building blocks of life, who do you think the Team Szostak correspond to?

Intelligence / Designer / Creator or Blind Chance Event?

Team Szostak are obviously observers. They try to emulate the environment on pre-biotic Earth and then study what chemical reactions could occur. Of course they set the parameters for the model but the model needs to be consistant with the best available data on what conditions were like at the time. You can question the accuracy of the model but claiming (as you did when you were discussing the Miller-Urey experiment) that all results that come out of a laboratory experiment are proof that an intelligence had to be present to get these results is one of those extraordinary claims that needs to be justified by extraordinary evidence.

You would need to demonstrate that the observed chemical reactions could not have happened without an intelligence present - that somehow the scientists were able to make these molecules behave in a way they could not have done naturally.

reply to post by radix


A short version of what i was attempting to get across..,.,.,

imagine for a fact an intelligent creator created this universe we exist in and are of.,.,,. assume that is true and real and a fact,,,,,,


in our position right now of existing in this universe ( that, for this argument, we know for a fact was created by an intelligent creator) does it seem plausible to you or comprehendible or possible that a creator could have initiated this universe?

as the universe is in all its ways,,,,, could it have been created by an intelligent creator ( imagining that it was) or would it seem impossible? ( it would only be able to seem impossible, but not be impossible, for as ive said we are imagining we know for a fact, and it is a fact an intelligent creator created the universe,,, for this thought experiment )


with everything you know about the universe,,,, could it be practically possible for an intelligent entity to have created this universe? or is it too hands off,, laissez faire,, and sloppy to be associated with what we know as intelligence?

What possible data could exist of a pre-biotic earth?

reply to post by radix

You would need to demonstrate that the observed chemical reactions could not have happened without an intelligence present - that somehow the scientists were able to make these molecules behave in a way they could not have done naturally.

It seems as if this is akin to:
1) proving a tree falling in the woods is making a sound, even if there is no one there to hear it?
2) The most basic question is how many different types of chemical reactions are you aware of that naturally occur, and what are the results of these reactions?

reply to post by edmc^2


You discount the obvious fact that life on this planet evolved/evolves, yet cling frantically to one particular ancient myth (out of countless myths) that not only defy the science you pretend to use, but defy anything resembling common sense. They are myths, they didn't happen. There would be an easy way to show your god exists, via controlled experiment, as I am sure you are aware............

Not sure what you're getting at with your examples re chemistry and electricity. These things don't invalidate their respective fields of science, as much as give us the opportunity to add to them. The same way the abiogenesis hypothesis potentially will also...The same basic principles of Ohm's law are still used in the design of the grid that powers your computer (though obviously more complex mathematically). They still hold true for measuring resistance/resistivity of superconductors.

A bit different to implying that gravity and the laws of planetary motion can be halted, on a whim, without consequence (there would be dire consequences). That the dead can rise from tombs. That people can live in the digestive system of fish. No magic required to violate the most basic laws of science, apparently. After all.....god... and superconductors...

Where they don't break every observation of science and have the possibility of being substantiated, we know they didn't happen. No biblical flood, no slave race in Egypt, no exodus, no wandering the desert. Other stories such as Noah's ark, break every rule of common sense.

Perhaps we don't need to try to gain understanding of physics, medicine, biology etc. We just need to accept "god did it" and pray. Sacrifice the odd goat or turtle dove and if he is pleased, all will be ok.

I will just say that you seem nice enough personally. Your belief less so, as it is based on a lavish pile of (religious) bovine excrement.

It is obvious that you start with a religious belief, then try to find whatever you see as "loopholes" or gaps in knowledge, to fit your god in. This pre emptive attack on abiogenesis, amounts to putting your fingers in your ears and singing "la la la god did it la la" as loudly as you can. It will be humerus to see what creationists come up with to deny abiogenesis, should it prove a viable explanation further reducing the need for things like mythical sylphs, leprechauns, biblical gods etc.

The subject of hominid evolution, particularly from Australopiths onwards (yes, we are not only descended from a common ancestor with the great apes, we are apes ourselves) explains your god IMO, rather than the other way around. There has been some good work that correlates changes in the size and shape of the brain to areas that explain things like increased dexterity/ use of thumbs, speech etc, also reflected in the culture and artefacts found. Here, most likely you will also find the birth of god, a very recent addition. This would be the true "genesis" of both god and his "holy" book. Perhaps scratched on a cave wall somewhere, when some primitive human wondered what caused things like lightening, thunder. A god for every occasion seemed to follow. Your god differs slightly in that you only need the one. Yet it is the same basic primitive superstition. Your religion, like Voodoo, Charmanism and witch doctory in general could be studied by areas such as Cultural Anthropology, Mythology, Psychology etc. They don't belong in the physical sciences, the way you are trying to place it there (as yet).

It's a shame that religious fundamentalism turns people away from views of conscientious dissenters, those that feel an intelligence could exist without first having been brainwashed by a religious cult, yet they get lumped together. Another shame is that these more staunch fundamentalist views help turn people towards complete atheism, even if it is very understandable.

reply to post by ImaFungi

with everything you know about the universe,,,, could it be practically possible for an intelligent entity to have created this universe? or is it too hands off,, laissez faire,, and sloppy to be associated with what we know as intelligence?

Possible? Sure. Plausible? That's more problematic. In what way would a universe that was created by an intelligence look different from a universe that wasn't? I have no idea. The claim is that this particular intelligence is omnipotent so obviously any conceivable universe could have been created by such an intelligence. In other words, we can make no predictions what a universe created by an omipotent intelligence would look like.

It's fun to speculate but knowledge will come from following where the evidence leads us.

reply to post by totallackey

What possible data could exist of a pre-biotic earth?

Geological/geochemical data, mostly.

reply to post by totallackey

It seems as if this is akin to:
1) proving a tree falling in the woods is making a sound, even if there is no one there to hear it?
2) The most basic question is how many different types of chemical reactions are you aware of that naturally occur, and what are the results of these reactions?

Gibberish. If edmc^2 claims that a chemical reaction could not have occurred without the presence of an intelligence, he needs to explain why - it's that simple.

I'm still waiting for your evidence that science has conclusively eliminated abiogenesis. Are we to understand that you don't have any? Have you been fibbing, totallackey?

reply to post by radix


Geological/geochemical data taking its current form, correct?

reply to post by radix


How could my statement be considered gibberish? It is two legitimate questions.

Question 1: How can you possibly determine a chemical reaction took place if there is no one there to witness it?

Question 2: Provide a list of naturally occurring chemical reactions and the results. I can think of one off the top of my head, although I am sure there are others. The one I am thinking of has not resulted in life.

No. I have not been fibbing.

Originally posted by totallackey
reply to post by radix

 

Geological/geochemical data taking its current form, correct?

Of course.

reply to post by totallackey

How could my statement be considered gibberish? It is two legitimate questions.

Question 1: How can you possibly determine a chemical reaction took place if there is no one there to witness it?

Sorry, still gibberish. Do you understand the difference between analyzing the products of a chemical reaction and directly influencing the reaction?

Question 2: Provide a list of naturally occurring chemical reactions and the results. I can think of one off the top of my head, although I am sure there are others. The one I am thinking of has not resulted in life.

Wow. You can only think of one naturally occurring chemical reaction? We must have very different definitions of a naturally occurring chemical reaction. Let's hear yours.

No. I have not been fibbing.

So present your evidence.

reply to post by radix


Explain the difference.

reply to post by radix


Yeah we must a different perspective. I asked for yours. I can only think of one. How many do you have that have occurred naturally?

reply to post by totallackey


The analysis happens after the reaction has taken place. I would have thought this was obvious.

Now, about that evidence?

reply to post by radix


So, how could this possibly be considered past evidence? By definition and agreement it is current.