Abiogenesis - The Impossible Theoretical Miracle

Miracle (noun) - a surprising and welcome event that is not explicable by natural or scientific laws...

The theoretical leap from a primordial soup to a living organism is an extremely-low-probability-event, otherwise known as a miracle. This point can be addressed by analyzing the most rudimentary single-celled organism known to humankind. According to the theory of evolution, and not due to any observable fact, archaebacteria are supposedly a whopping 3.8 billion years old, and are theoretically the same as the first life to form from the primordial soup:



The following are the base necessities of the most simple archaeabacteria: Reproduction, Metabolism, Protein Translation, A Cellular Membrane, and Homeostatic Mechanisms.

Reproduction is a must because otherwise the new life form would return back to the chemical slew. This is not an easy step though. Reproduction requires a nucleic acid sequence to be read by a number of proteins. But, in order for the cell to create polypeptide chains (proteins), there needs to be proteins to read the nucleic data If you understand this impossibility, there is no need to read further, you get the point. Because protein chains cannot be made without already existent quaternary proteins, we run into our first paradox. protein chains are made through a process called transcription and translation of genetic code, which is a necessity for even the most rudimentary unicellular organism:



Notice the elaborate steps required for this process^. Let's theoretically say for the sake of argument, that somehow all the necessary proteins for transcription miraculously appeared. From transcription we get strands of mRNA that need to be translated into protein sequences. Yet again, this process also needs proteins, which we still don't have, because protein chains haven't been made yet. Let's say again for the sake of continuing the discussion, that all quaternary proteins for transcription and translation already exist, this allows us to create proteins. This entire process requires energy to work.

Metabolism is required to generate viable energy for the organism. ATP synthase is the most necessary protein in this process, which is odd, because quaternary proteins don't exist yet, because without energy to execute protein transcription/translation, there are no such things as polypeptides chains (protein) yet. But anyway, let's just say ATP synthase is a given:



This is called a quaternary protein, which means it's a huge protein that is comprised of smaller proteins that organize into a larger functional structure. Quaternary proteins require protein sequences to be folded into a tertiary structure by proteins called chaperonins to ensure that the sub-units assemble correctly - this process needs ATP and protein synthesis which we don't have yet. Which makes you wonder, how did any of these primordial proteins assemble a proper tertiary structure if chaperonins, which also have a quaternary structure, do not exist yet?



ATP synthase behaves similar to a motor and requires a proton gradient to spin and form ATP. but a protein gradient is impossible without a Cellular Membrane to establish an electrochemical gradient. You may wonder how this electrochemical gradient is formed... well, it too requires more quaternary proteins (which remember, still don't exist because we don't have quaternary proteins or ATP to make them).



This is known as the electron transport chain. It is embedded in the cellular membrane of prokaryotes and is essential for metabolism and the creation of energy. The first 3 complexes create the electrochemical gradient from the metabolism of macromolecules, which establishes the proton gradient to spin ATP synthase. All of this is fine and dandy, but there needs to be some sort of Homeostatic Control, otherwise the cell will over-metabolize, or under-metabolize. Processes of homeostatic control are observable at all levels - transcription, translation, replication, and metabolism - all of it is tightly regulated by meticulous processes. These processes are necessarily present in even the most rudimentary organism.

Just like all the other functions, Homeostasis requires ATP from metabolism, a cellular membrane to establish a barrier, as well as RNA and proteins to functionally regulate the cell. This is a perpetual process that largely relies on a semi-permeable membrane, meaning that it selectively chooses what goes into and out of the cell. This process, again, requires protein pumps embedded in the plasma membrane.

Keep in mind all of these proteins that we have discussed so far need a precise nucleic acid sequence to properly code for its proteins. It is unfathomable to consider even one of these proteins being made by random chance, let alone the entire arsenal of proteins required for even the most rudimentary life to form. Take for example the gene coding ATP synthase, which has two strands totalling a sequence of over 13,500 nucleic acids. This would mean that approximately 13,500 beneficial mutations would have to occur to create just one protein involved in the metabolic electron transport chain



Remember, the proteins required to even allow mutative misreads of the nucleic acid sequence cannot even exist without this 13,500 base pair protein to make ATP (and the many other necessary proteins required for metabolism and replicating nucleic acid sequences). Here is a video of just how complex nucleic acid replication is:



As you can see, this is a meticulous, factory-like process. It must have been present in the first cell to allow replication. This is the process can sometimes misread nucleic acid sequences during replication. But, to even have the opportunity to mutate genes, this process requires all basic organization and structure to already exist. Therefore, this leap from primordial soup to unicellular organism could not have happened through randomness.. The theory of evolution requires some sort of abiogenesis event to have occurred. For evolutionary theorists to ignore the necessity of abiogenesis would be like a Jewish man tearing Genesis out of his Bible.

If you wish to argue the above conclusion, you have to find some flaw with the science that I presented, but to the best of my knowledge, it is all empirical, undeniable scientific fact.

Further reading (not to be argued on this thread please):
assuming the abiogenesis miracle does occur, the mechanisms of evolution are also incapable of forming complex morphological structures: Here
What about the dinosaurs? Humans undeniably saw dinosaurs

TLDR;

You're scared of things you don't understand and need some kind of validation and final pay-off for your life to have meaning.

originally posted by: watchitburn
TLDR;

You're scared of things you don't understand and need some kind of validation and final pay-off for your life to have meaning.

You want to talk about meaning?

The educational brainwashing that crams evolution into kids at a young age totally strips them from having any meaning in their life. Seriously, if you think you are the meaningless ancestor of mutants, I don't see how you can extract any meaning from life besides concluding that you are an erroneous blip that eventually fades away forever. If that's the case, nothing you do matters, ever. Boy do I remember when I believed that, hook-line-and-sinker during my 8th grade summer. I thought I knew evolution was true, so I therefore contemplated the perpetual nothingness that awaited me. Such is the logical dead end of evolution.

Evolution, therefore, is an extremely dangerous philosophy to have... especially since it didn't actually happen that way. You may think this is a joke, but origins of humanity is a very important issue

a reply to: cooperton

You need an invisible sky daddy and the promise of an eternal soul to find any meaning in your life? I can't help but feel a little sorry for you.

originally posted by: cooperton

originally posted by: watchitburn
TLDR;

You're scared of things you don't understand and need some kind of validation and final pay-off for your life to have meaning.

You want to talk about meaning?

The educational brainwashing that crams evolution into kids at a young age totally strips them from having any meaning in their life. Seriously, if you think you are the meaningless ancestor of mutants, I don't see how you can extract any meaning from life besides concluding that you are an erroneous blip that eventually fades away forever. Boy do I remember when I believed that, hook-line-and-sinker during my 8th grade summer. I thought I knew evolution was true, so I therefore contemplated the perpetual nothingness that awaited me

Evolution, therefore, is an extremely dangerous philosophy to have... especially since it didn't actually happen that way. You may think this is a joke, but origins of humanity is a very important issue.

Evolution? Why are you taking your own thread off topic? Didn't you write this about the Abiogenesis hypothesis?

a reply to: Krazysh0t

You know full well Creationists... or um... Intelligent Design Theorists refuse to allow the Abiogenesis and Evolution to be treated as separate theories. Is all or nothing for them.

a reply to: Puppylove

Yeah I know. I also know why he wrote this thread. Because he kept derailing his other thread (which he abandoned after we pointed out all the logical fallacies in it) about evolution to talk about abiogenesis. Funny how he derails THIS thread to talk about evolution after all this.

a reply to: Puppylove

Not everyone does need a sky daddy but
Stalin, Mao and Pol Pot figured humans were just animals and slaughtered tens of millions, men women and children
Your argument about needing a sky daddy is stupid
Especially when you personalise that statement at a person who probably isn't responsible for killing anyone

Why do you do this, why not just put a bit of thought into your reactions

originally posted by: Raggedyman
a reply to: Puppylove

Not everyone does need a sky daddy but
Stalin, Mao and Pol Pot figured humans were just animals and slaughtered tens of millions, men women and children
Your argument about needing a sky daddy is stupid

Equating atheism to despots is extremely insulting and a HUGE slippery slope fallacy. It's not like religions are totally innocent of abusing citizens when put in charge of governments.

Would you like it if I equated all Christians to pedophiles because the Catholic church hides pedophile priests?

a reply to: watchitburn

Really, so every scientist who asks any question is scared because they don't understand things
The collective IQ of ats is embarrassing
Would you suggest don't ask or question anything?

a reply to: Raggedyman

We can all pick and choose horrible murderous people that follow almost any belief religious or otherwise. Don't pretend Christianity is full of nothing but warm loving figure heads that kiss babies, pet puppies and never hurt a fly. Belief in a Sky Daddy makes not one iota of difference on that matter and you damn well know it.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

If you see them as atheists sorry, just men who thought people evolved
Never mentioned atheism

Seeing as you brought it up though...

originally posted by: Raggedyman
a reply to: Krazysh0t

If you see them as atheists sorry, just men who thought people evolved
Never mentioned atheism

Seeing as you brought it up though...

Oh so your fallacy is even sillier. You are equating believers in evolution to despots. Man... I gave you the benefit of the doubt and that your logic at least had a valid train of thought (albeit an extreme one). But in reality you were just pairing the silliest of things together to create dumb correlations.

a reply to: Puppylove

Pathetic, pathetic argument
Millions have died because some people believe humans are just animals

I have never suggested Christianity doesn't have its hands covered in innocent blood because of stupidity and horrible murderous people, I damn well know it, have said it over and over on these threads

You, you pretend your collective hands are clean...pathetic

a reply to: cooperton

Your OP makes me think of another impossible theoretical miracle, the moon.

It's size, orbit, origin. They seem to defy current theory on how bodies form and orbit. The moon is much larger and closer than other moons in our system. It's EXACTLY the correct size to cause a solar eclipse.

These two topics, evolution and the moon, have always made me contemplate intelligent design rather than random acts.

I believe things evolve, but origins are the real question. Where did we come from? I'm still on the fence with both of these subjects. (Life's origin and the moon's origin) I haven't seen anything that makes me discount either side (random or intelligent) so far.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

It's not like religions are totally innocent of abusing citizens when put in charge of governments.

Or even when they are not in charge of governments. Look at the report that just came out of Pittsburgh.

a reply to: Raggedyman

No unlike you I recognize a despot is a despot because the individual is an asshole and don't attribute the beliefs he happens to share with millions of innocent people who've done nothing similar as the cause. Most Christians are good decent normal people, same as most atheists, evolutionists and theists. Neither belief in evolution nor theism by itself leads to any of this. It's an individual sickness pure and simple and to pretend otherwise is not only dishonest but a crime against all those who've done no wrong you are accusing by association. Collective hands my ass. Get over your tribalism.

originally posted by: MiddleInsite
a reply to: cooperton
It's size, orbit, origin. They seem to defy current theory on how bodies form and orbit. The moon is much larger and closer than other moons in our system. It's EXACTLY the correct size to cause a solar eclipse.

Huh? Which theories are defied by the moon's formation? Astronomy has a very sound theory on how the moon was formed. What, pray tell, is wrong with it?

a reply to: Krazysh0t
a reply to: Puppylove

For the love of Darwin, could you guys, instead of just hurling insults, actually argue the data presented in the OP? Or just don't post at all. Is your non-argument an admittance to the fact that abiogenesis is a faith-based occurrence?

a reply to: cooperton

Abiogenesis is a hypothesis. It's a sound one right now, but even scientists don't agree it is real. I have no need to debate the finer points of it with you. HOWEVER, if you are going to equate it with evolutionary theory, I will point that out and correct you. Plus there is no need to debate the details of your posts if you are going to precipitate your thread on a strawman fallacy (that abiogenesis and evolutionary theory are related).