Abiogenesis

[mikkel_the_dane]

And I find that it is a pity that people refuse learn the concept of scientific evidence. Scientific evidence all but eliminates pseudo science and circular reasoning. One has to put one's money where one's mouth is, so to speak.. To have scientific evidence one needs to be willing to make a model that could be refuted if it was wrong.

Yeah, methodological naturalism and the scientific method is useful, but that doesn't stop some people to do another version of philosophy and claim that it is true, that the world is natural.
The idea that you can use in the end logic to prove what the world is, is not limited to the religious side.

 

[setarcos]

Have you ever heard of hidden assumptions?

Yes, now please do me the courtesy of pointing out my hidden assumptions so that I may correct them.

Can you spot that in your own arguments and not just in an other person's claims?

Are you saying that Subduction Zone has made hidden assumptions? Or perhaps your saying that its okay for someone to tell someone else that what they say is nonsense without justification or explanation? Seems to me that's why half the people on this sad little planet want to choke out the other half and vice versa.
And...again, can you please point them out since...well, they are hidden, and they wouldn't be hidden if they weren't hard to spot now would they.
After all that is what respectful debate on what is true is for...getting to an agreed upon understanding.
Please don't say my hidden assumption was assuming a Christian God. Or any God for that matter, I didn't assume a Christian anything and only mentioned that viewpoint when directly asked a question by F 1 Fan about "my" God. Which incidentally has nothing to do with my argument nor the OP's question.

I mentioned purpose and intent in relation to what the Big Bang's results were in order to eliminate a possibility which would make my argument invalid.
Either A or B is true (there is purpose/intent or there is not to the Big Bang) and since we cannot prove which is true and the argument does not concern proving which is true (only in proving a result from the OP's question) we take it as axiomatic that A is not true ( intent in the Big Bang) so that B can be taken axiomatically to be true (no intent in the Big Bang) for the purposes of the argument. This is done in mathematics and Science experiments all the time.
IF B is taken to be the one that is true then can we determine anything about the OP's thought process here that does or does not contradict reality.
As far as intention and purpose go it could reside in any sentient being with enough capability to create and/or manipulate reality on a universal scale. I make no distinction there. But as I've said it makes no difference to the internal logic of my argument.
So anyway...again, please point out my hidden assumptions so that I may correct them if possible.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Yes, now please do me the courtesy of pointing out my hidden assumptions so that I may correct them.

Are you saying that Subduction Zone has made hidden assumptions? Or perhaps your saying that its okay for someone to tell someone else that what they say is nonsense without justification or explanation? Seems to me that's why half the people on this sad little planet want to choke out the other half and vice versa.
And...again, can you please point them out since...well, they are hidden, and they wouldn't be hidden if they weren't hard to spot now would they.
After all that is what respectful debate on what is true is for...getting to an agreed upon understanding.
Please don't say my hidden assumption was assuming a Christian God. Or any God for that matter, I didn't assume a Christian anything and only mentioned that viewpoint when directly asked a question by F 1 Fan about "my" God. Which incidentally has nothing to do with my argument nor the OP's question.

I mentioned purpose and intent in relation to what the Big Bang's results were in order to eliminate a possibility which would make my argument invalid.
Either A or B is true (there is purpose/intent or there is not to the Big Bang) and since we cannot prove which is true and the argument does not concern proving which is true (only in proving a result from the OP's question) we take it as axiomatic that A is not true ( intent in the Big Bang) so that B can be taken axiomatically to be true (no intent in the Big Bang) for the purposes of the argument. This is done in mathematics and Science experiments all the time.
IF B is taken to be the one that is true then can we determine anything about the OP's thought process here that does or does not contradict reality.
As far as intention and purpose go it could reside in any sentient being with enough capability to create and/or manipulate reality on a universal scale. I make no distinction there. But as I've said it makes no difference to the internal logic of my argument.
So anyway...again, please point out my hidden assumptions so that I may correct them if possible.

Let's start over again. You do have quite a bit to learn about science and how it is done. The scientific method is a way of solving problems. Scientists created testable models that allow them to study one aspect of nature. If your concept is not testable, if your model cannot be conceivably proven wrong somehow, then it is not scientific. It is merely a WAG, a Wild Donkeyed, Guess. That is what you have presented so far. The most important question that a scientist can ask himself at times is "how would I prove it wrong?" Scientists have to be bold enough to put their ideas out there with tests that could show it to be wrong, knowing that if it is an idea of any import at all that other experts in the field would be trying to refute it.

If one does not have a way to possibly refute one's ideas then that though is just pseudoscience. It usually involves ad hoc explanations and they are worthless in the sciences. Have you heard of the phrase "That is not even wrong?" That means that an idea is so bad that there is no evidence for it and it cannot be tested. This is about as bad of an insult as one can give in the sciences. Scientists are wrong all of the time. But because they have a way of testing their thoughts those tests that show them to be wrong often give us insight towards the right answer. Wrong does not necessarily mean "worthless". But WAG's are not testable. They kea to no new insights and will just be denigrated by scientists.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Yes, now please do me the courtesy of pointing out my hidden assumptions so that I may correct them.

Are you saying that Subduction Zone has made hidden assumptions? Or perhaps your saying that its okay for someone to tell someone else that what they say is nonsense without justification or explanation? Seems to me that's why half the people on this sad little planet want to choke out the other half and vice versa.
And...again, can you please point them out since...well, they are hidden, and they wouldn't be hidden if they weren't hard to spot now would they.
After all that is what respectful debate on what is true is for...getting to an agreed upon understanding.
Please don't say my hidden assumption was assuming a Christian God. Or any God for that matter, I didn't assume a Christian anything and only mentioned that viewpoint when directly asked a question by F 1 Fan about "my" God. Which incidentally has nothing to do with my argument nor the OP's question.

I mentioned purpose and intent in relation to what the Big Bang's results were in order to eliminate a possibility which would make my argument invalid.
Either A or B is true (there is purpose/intent or there is not to the Big Bang) and since we cannot prove which is true and the argument does not concern proving which is true (only in proving a result from the OP's question) we take it as axiomatic that A is not true ( intent in the Big Bang) so that B can be taken axiomatically to be true (no intent in the Big Bang) for the purposes of the argument. This is done in mathematics and Science experiments all the time.
IF B is taken to be the one that is true then can we determine anything about the OP's thought process here that does or does not contradict reality.
As far as intention and purpose go it could reside in any sentient being with enough capability to create and/or manipulate reality on a universal scale. I make no distinction there. But as I've said it makes no difference to the internal logic of my argument.
So anyway...again, please point out my hidden assumptions so that I may correct them if possible.

Your hidden assumptions are as follows:
You assume that knowledge is not limited. That thinking about something independent of thinking can be determined as true by thinking about it. That the universe must overall make positive sense.

That is not unique to you. That is in a brutal, short sense the 2 schools of thought in philosophy. That we can think the universe to make overall positive sense and that we can't.

 

[wellwisher]

So DNA first came on the scene 1 billion years after the earth formed. To me that seems like to short of a time frame. So the only thing that would make sense is that the evolution of DNA started at the time of the Big Bang theory. That would make DNA's evolutionary time frame 10 billion years which seems more plausible.

Based on the current thinking in Physics, first generation stars could not make all the atoms needed to make DNA or RNA, since RNA and DNA need phosphorous; P, for their critical phosphate backbone. However, first generation stars can make all the smaller atoms needed for the peptide linkage of protein; H, O, N, C and most of the amino acids of proteins. Water was also made by first generation stars, as well as other simple common universal gases like CO, CO2, N2, NH3, etc. This can make the precursors, and then start to make protein.

When the first generation stars ran out of fuel and went nova and super nova, the powerful explosions are what is expected and needed to generate even higher atoms, like Phosphate, that would then allow DNA and RNA to appear. Proteins may have had several billion plus year head start, which may be why can can see trace amino acids, needed for protein, all over the universe.

The DNA is like the hard drive of the cell. It has all the data needed to make all the protein within the cell. The DNA data is sort of configurationally arranged into the cell's operating system. But the protein, is the muscle; output devices, that physically makes things happen. If we had no DNA, but just protein, we would essentially go from a digital life world; modern cells, to an earlier analog life world, where the memory, CPU and muscle are all designed within the muscle.

As an example, say we have an old fashion church tower clock, that works on gears and weights; analog clock. The balance of the gear ratios and the weight being pulled down by gravity, allows the clock to keep good time, all without a CPU or hard drive. The memory and output is all designed within the gear ratios and the force applied by the weight. If we replaced that analog church tower clock, with a modern digital clock replacement, now the processor and hard drive; onboard computer, is separate from the output devices; gears and digital display. This two instead of one tier situation; higher life, adds much more flexibility, since the CPU and hard drive, can be programed separately, allowing a wider range of options, for the same old fashion gears.

My guess is, the first generation stars allowed for the low atomic weight atoms needed for protein, which set up an analog form of life; protein based; cooperative enzymes. The equivalent of the CPU and gears were one, based on protein leverage.

Second generation stars, by adding critically needed higher atoms like P and S, allowed RNA, DNA and additional protein, which allowed life to enter the digital age, so to speak. Chlorophyl needed for photosynthesis would need Magnesium; Mg, atoms. Conceptually, variations of chlorophyl may have formed even before DNA, since RNA and DNA need the heavier phosphate atoms. The protein analog life may have had primate solar power precursors.

 

[Brickjectivity]

A relevant fact about speed and abiogenesis at the molecular scale:

One thing to note when talking about abiogenesis is that the way things move at that scale is very different from how large objects move. This is because small things have tiny mass and can be moved and change direction very rapidly and are not damaged by it. Consider a ping pong ball and how it can speed up very quickly because of a light tap. Molecules are like this but much more so. A tiny amount of energy can cause a great deal of kinetic energy in a molecule. It can vibrate, thrash, undulate, crash into things.

Speed works differently at molecular scales. Lets imagine if we had the ability to change our size and mass:

Because we humans are very large relative to a bit of DNA, the movements of the DNA are very fast to us. It has low inertia due to its low mass, so it can jiggle quickly without being damaged. A tiny amount of energy can make it move very quickly and suddenly. If we were like the size of DNA and could gaze out at an ant towering above and beyond us in real size, that ant would appear to move very slowly or almost not at all. To the ant our movements would be not merely tiny but also too fast to be perceptible. The size is so different, and the speed of tiny things is so different. If we constructed a giant skyscraper made out of small balloons, that would be analogous to how a real life person would seem to a DNA sized person. The real person's molecules would seem like a cluster loosely tied objects that slowly undulated when changing direction to any DNA sized person.

In fiction films (such as Inner Space) people are shrunk and injected into a human body, and they experience time similarly to the large person. Aside from the shrinking, the speed of their bodies is unrealistic, too. This is one of the unrealistic aspects of such a film. If we could shrink down and lose our mass we would be much faster and would age faster, too, relative to a large human. A tiny person would not experience anything like what is imagined in films about people that are shrunk down. I'm not saying that time is different, but things happen much faster when masses are small or when density is lower.

 

[setarcos]

You do have quite a bit to learn about science and how it is done.

Let's start over again.

Yes let's do that....but then again, you've started over by reiterating the same bit ignorance about what I've said.
Anyways...I'll push on.
You don't have to tell me about science or its methods. I have not wavered from in my understanding nor application of the scientific method nor the appropriate references to the theories there in represented.

It is merely a WAG, a Wild Donkeyed, Guess. That is what you have presented so far.

Again, and again. Applications without justification. In conflict with your own touted superior understanding of science and its methods I might add.
You've set yourself up as judge, jury, and executioner without due process. If you would have pointed out aspects of my argument that you find "nonsense" and then give reason as to why then I think we could have been well along in a productive discussion.
As it is I think your militant desire to prove anything even remotely viewed as theistic has blinded you to what my proposals actually state, to which I ,admittedly, ridiculously desired to defend my person against unwarranted and ignorant responses in a seemingly mad pursuit, again, to waist what precious little time I have left on this side of the dark curtain instead of doing what I should be doing - that is answering posters such as "It Aint Necessarily so" which responded with a more respectable post deserved of reply.
It seems as if your afraid of engaging in a discussion about my proposals for fear of being proven wrong in your blind leap of dismissal. Of course it is easier to simply dismiss instead of debate isn't it.

If one does not have a way to possibly refute one's ideas then that though is just pseudoscience.

What about my argument doesn't lend itself to possible refutation? You've not said...oh yeah I forgot, that's your method of reasoning.

It usually involves ad hoc explanations and they are worthless in the sciences. Have you heard of the phrase "That is not even wrong?" That means that an idea is so bad that there is no evidence for it and it cannot be tested. This is about as bad of an insult as one can give in the sciences.

And as such is one of the highest insults to me that you've dealt here.

because they have a way of testing their thoughts those tests that show them to be wrong often give us insight towards the right answer. Wrong does not necessarily mean "worthless". But WAG's are not testable.

Ok, enough with this stupidity. If you've stuck it out this far let me go point by point through my argument, an argument which I might add can be proven wrong and relies on tested and testable theories.
Try to keep in mind that logic tests the hypothesis which is based on falsifiable theories.

Okay, here we go....argued from post 68
Definitions,
An Event: A fundamental change in reality - probabilistic and not deterministic - which itself is the cause of otherwise impossible effects. (Quantum Electrodynamic Theory)
The Big Bang was an event not a happening that evolved.
Evolution: Biological evolution, simply put, is descent with inherited modification. (evolution.Berkeley.edu)
Specifically as concerns the evolution of DNA
DNA: A long chain molecule containing discrete(digital) information. (Erwin Schrodinger - Aperiodic Crystal) studies.
Intention: specific purpose. Specification of function prior to its implementation.

First point :
Only with intent or purpose can one bridge the linear information gap between the information found in the DNA molecule and its evolved predecessor.
Why? Because at the LUCA (last universal common ancestor) boundary the continuation of inherited linear information from descendant to ascendant ceases. Due to Quantum indeterminacy what precedes the LUCA is an event with no inherited linear information. In other words the LUCA did not evolve because it was an event not an evolution.
So what happens with intention? With intention the LUCA no longer is an event but due to the intended collapse of its probability into determination, linear (inherited) information crosses the quantum indeterminacy gap from the intender (sentient purpose) to the intended (evolved DNA). Logic dictates these conclusions from Quantum indeterminacy.
Due to the Big Bang event preceding the LUCA event and this information gap DNA can not be accurately said to have evolved from the Big Bang event...unless we bridge that gap with intent.
You might prove this wrong by pointing out flaws in my logic, Quantum Electrodynamic theory, evolutionary theories of life, or information theory as developed from Claude Shannon's theories, specifically "entropy of an information source" including the aforementioned Theories of Quantum information transference.
Second Point:
We are assuming an event (The Big Bang) without intent for the purposes of this argument.
That is, while the Big Bang may have created the components of an existent entity it did not determine with intent what if any components would evolve any particular entity.
Since the main in vogue relevant scientific theories currently assumes the Big Bang was due to Quantum fluctuations in "probability waves", so called, we can call the Big Bang a probabilistic Quantum event. As such we may say that the Big Bang did not itself evolve. Why? See above definition.
So what did the Big Bang do? It produced the relevant matter/energy and accompanying forces which has rendered possible in reality probabilistic causes of otherwise impossible effects. in other words Quantum indeterminacy in matter cannot be a cause if no matter exists for it to effect. But since matter exists in accordance with quantum indeterminacy that indeterminacy may cause unevolved events.
Third Point:
Evolution takes place on existent entities not events. See above Definitions.
Events aren't evolved changes in existent entities since they involve no linear progressions of inherited information due to quantum indeterminacy.
Evolution began at the LUCA event and anything effectively evolving from that event including every evolved entities predecessors cannot evolutionarily speaking predate that event.
Fourth Point:
DNA did not evolve from the Big Bang. DNA did not start evolving at the Big Bang event.

Now, if you can't see the logic or scientific validity of my proposition then I can't help you to understand what I mean. I've compressed the argument down to the basics to the best of my ability here.
If you can understand what I'm getting at but see a flaw in the argument then by all means please share what you've found.
Otherwise this discussion has become a pointless waist of my time and I will no longer respond to
"That's nonsense" or "That's not scientific" without you justifying your opinions.

 

[setarcos]

You assume that knowledge is not limited.

Where did you get that idea?

That thinking about something independent of thinking can be determined as true by thinking about it.

You lost me here. What does " independent of thinking " mean in the context of my posts?

That the universe must overall make positive sense.

Um, again whatever gave you the idea that I thought the universe must make sense - at least to me?

That we can think the universe to make overall positive sense and that we can't.

That seems profound, and yet....nonsensical.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Yes let's do that....but then again, you've started over by reiterating the same bit ignorance about what I've said.
Anyways...I'll push on.
You don't have to tell me about science or its methods. I have not wavered from in my understanding nor application of the scientific method nor the appropriate references to the theories there in represented.

Now now, don't get angry just because you are wrong. It is also a bad sign when you have to break up a short post unnecessarily and write a book in response.

Again, and again. Applications without justification. In conflict with your own touted superior understanding of science and its methods I might add.
You've set yourself up as judge, jury, and executioner without due process. If you would have pointed out aspects of my argument that you find "nonsense" and then give reason as to why then I think we could have been well along in a productive discussion.

When you refuse to have a proper discussion you enable others to do that.

As it is I think your militant desire to prove anything even remotely viewed as theistic has blinded you to what my proposals actually state, to which I ,admittedly, ridiculously desired to defend my person against unwarranted and ignorant responses in a seemingly mad pursuit, again, to waist what precious little time I have left on this side of the dark curtain instead of doing what I should be doing - that is answering posters such as "It Aint Necessarily so" which responded with a more respectable post deserved of reply.

There you go, making false claims about others just because you know that you are wrong. Don't use personal attacks, try to use evidence.

It seems as if your afraid of engaging in a discussion about my proposals for fear of being proven wrong in your blind leap of dismissal. Of course it is easier to simply dismiss instead of debate isn't it.

What about my argument doesn't lend itself to possible refutation? You've not said...oh yeah I forgot, that's your method of reasoning.

And as such is one of the highest insults to me that you've dealt here.

Ok, enough with this stupidity. If you've stuck it out this far let me go point by point through my argument, an argument which I might add can be proven wrong and relies on tested and testable theories.
Try to keep in mind that logic tests the hypothesis which is based on falsifiable theories.

Okay, here we go....argued from post 68
Definitions,
An Event: A fundamental change in reality - probabilistic and not deterministic - which itself is the cause of otherwise impossible effects. (Quantum Electrodynamic Theory)
The Big Bang was an event not a happening that evolved.
Evolution: Biological evolution, simply put, is descent with inherited modification. (evolution.Berkeley.edu)
Specifically as concerns the evolution of DNA
DNA: A long chain molecule containing discrete(digital) information. (Erwin Schrodinger - Aperiodic Crystal) studies.
Intention: specific purpose. Specification of function prior to its implementation.

First point :
Only with intent or purpose can one bridge the linear information gap between the information found in the DNA molecule and its evolved predecessor.
Why? Because at the LUCA (last universal common ancestor) boundary the continuation of inherited linear information from descendant to ascendant ceases. Due to Quantum indeterminacy what precedes the LUCA is an event with no inherited linear information. In other words the LUCA did not evolve because it was an event not an evolution.
So what happens with intention? With intention the LUCA no longer is an event but due to the intended collapse of its probability into determination, linear (inherited) information crosses the quantum indeterminacy gap from the intender (sentient purpose) to the intended (evolved DNA). Logic dictates these conclusions from Quantum indeterminacy.
Due to the Big Bang event preceding the LUCA event and this information gap DNA can not be accurately said to have evolved from the Big Bang event...unless we bridge that gap with intent.
You might prove this wrong by pointing out flaws in my logic, Quantum Electrodynamic theory, evolutionary theories of life, or information theory as developed from Claude Shannon's theories, specifically "entropy of an information source" including the aforementioned Theories of Quantum information transference.
Second Point:
We are assuming an event (The Big Bang) without intent for the purposes of this argument.
That is, while the Big Bang may have created the components of an existent entity it did not determine with intent what if any components would evolve any particular entity.
Since the main in vogue relevant scientific theories currently assumes the Big Bang was due to Quantum fluctuations in "probability waves", so called, we can call the Big Bang a probabilistic Quantum event. As such we may say that the Big Bang did not itself evolve. Why? See above definition.
So what did the Big Bang do? It produced the relevant matter/energy and accompanying forces which has rendered possible in reality probabilistic causes of otherwise impossible effects. in other words Quantum indeterminacy in matter cannot be a cause if no matter exists for it to effect. But since matter exists in accordance with quantum indeterminacy that indeterminacy may cause unevolved events.
Third Point:
Evolution takes place on existent entities not events. See above Definitions.
Events aren't evolved changes in existent entities since they involve no linear progressions of inherited information due to quantum indeterminacy.
Evolution began at the LUCA event and anything effectively evolving from that event including every evolved entities predecessors cannot evolutionarily speaking predate that event.
Fourth Point:
DNA did not evolve from the Big Bang. DNA did not start evolving at the Big Bang event.

Now, if you can't see the logic or scientific validity of my proposition then I can't help you to understand what I mean. I've compressed the argument down to the basics to the best of my ability here.
If you can understand what I'm getting at but see a flaw in the argument then by all means please share what you've found.
Otherwise this discussion has become a pointless waist of my time and I will no longer respond to
"That's nonsense" or "That's not scientific" without you justifying your opinions.

And then you go off the deep end. Why would you mix up the Big Bang and abiogenesis?

Please listen. It is your burden of proof to show that what you are posting is not pseudoscience. You keep confirming my claims. that you ahve no understanding of the sciences at all.

Here is what you need to do to have a valid argument. You need to first focus on the area that you want to discuss. If you want to discuss the Big Bang, fine, if you want to discuss abiogenesis, that is fine too. They are unrelated topics.

Second if you have an alternate viewpoint then you need to have a testable model. You need to tell us what reasonable test based upon the predictions of your model that could possibly prove it to be wrong if it is wrong. If you cannot do that then you just have psedoscience.

Do you need links on the scientific method and scientific evidence? I can gladly provide them. But it s rather obvious that you simply do not have a clue and you have no interest in correcting your errors.

 

[setarcos]

My apologies for the delay in responding. I got caught up in some childish nonsense.

I'm still not clear what you mean "evolved from the Big Bang."

That's not my statement, that's implied from the OP. That the evolution of DNA began with the Big Bang.

Why did you think that needed to be said in this discussion, and why do you think you know that?

F1 fan said DNA's evolution (came about) due to the laws of physics. I think that implies the inevitable development of DNA due to the way those laws function. In a deterministic universe that may be true however we pretty much know now that we do not live in a universe of Newtonian determinacy according to current scientific consensus but in a universe of quantum indeterminacy.
So even given God like computing power we could not determine the eventual inevitable evolution of DNA out of the primordial soup of matter and forces created from the Big Bang event Let alone establish its inevitableness.
DNA couldn't have been a foregone conclusion due to quantum indeterminacy. Between the last universal common ancestor and the Big Bang event there is no linear information transference as there would be between evolved related entities due to this indeterminacy.
As such knowing the laws of physics that DNA must follow today and having enough ability to compute its matters every minute temporal step in the "past" is not enough to validate DNA's inevitable created origins from the Big Bang.
As I've attempted to show...since evolution could not breach the indeterminacy gap and thus ceased to function at that gap DNA could not have evolved "from" the Big Bang event. I don't know why that's so hard of a concept to grasp for some or why some think that somehow implies sentient interference. I must be missing something?

What calculations?

I must concede this point. Upon further reflection and study there seems to be a tit for tat consensus among the calculations done by various scientists both in support of and disagreement with how to exactly calculate the probabilities.
Until a further understanding is achieved by me I cannot side with a particular specific calculation at this time.
Initially here is a sampling of my reasoning...

"Even assuming extremely favorable prebiotic conditions (whether realistic or not) and theoretically maximal reaction rates, such calculations have invariably underscored the implausibility of chance-based theories. These calculations have shown that the probability of obtaining functionally sequenced, infromation-rich biomacromoleules at random is, in the words of physicist Ilya Prigogine and his colleagues, "vanishingly small...even on the scale of...billions of years."
From: Prigogine, Nicolis, and Babloyantz, "Thermodynamics of Evolution,"23.

The probability of even a single functioning protein or corresponding functional gene by chance alone...stands at no better than 1 chance in 10^164.
From: Stephen Myer Calculations "The God Hypothesis"

"Chance" is an inadequate explanation for the origin of biological information
From: De Duve, "The Constraints of Chance"; Crick, Life Itself, 89-93

"Nobel laureate Christian de Duve, a leading origin-of-life biochemist until his death in 2013, categorically refected the chance hypothesis precisely because he judged the necessary fortuitous convergence of events implausible in the extreme."
From: De Duve, "The Beginnings of Life on Earth," 437.

"...synthesizing (or maintaining) many essential building blocks or RNA molecules under realistic conditions has proven either difficult or impossible."
From: Shapiro, "Prebiotic Cytosine Synthesis."

"Hitching the components together in the right manner raises additional problems of such magnitude that no one has yet attempted to do so in a prebiotic context."
From: De Duve, Vital Dust, 23.

"...for every one DNA sequence that generates a short functional protein fold of just 150 amino acids in length, there 10^77 nonfunctional combinations-combinations that will not form a stable three-dimensional protein fold capable of performing a specific biological function."
From. Molecular biologist Douglas Axe. Established while working at the University of Cambridge Medical Research Council Lab from 1990 to 2003 using site-directed mutagenesis.

"In fact, if one considers the possible constants and laws that could have emerged, the odds against a universe that has produced life like ours are immense." Stephen Hawking, A Brief History of Time.

"Why did the universe start out with so nearly the critical rate of expansion that separates models that recollapse from those that go on expanding forever, that even now, 10 thousand million years later, it is still expanding at nearly the critical rate? If the rate of expansion one second after the Big Bang had been smaller by even one part in 100 thousand million million, the universe would have collapsed before it ever reached its present size." Ibid.

…"he showed (Roger Penrose) that there were 10^10^101 configurations of mass-energy that correspond to highly ordered universe like ours. But he had also shown that there were vastly more configurations 10^10^123 -- that would generate black-hole dominated universes. And since 10^10^101 is a minuscule fraction of 10^10^123, he concluded that the conditions that could generate a life-friendly universe are extremely rare …"
From: Penrose, "Time-Asymmetry and Quantum Gravity." aslo Penrose, The Road to Reality, 757-65; Gordon, "Divine Action and the World of Science," 259-61,267.

Hoyle's junkyard tornado and 747 fallacy? It's been refuted.

Which refutation specifically are you speaking of? I've noticed some refutations have mistakenly misapplied Hoyle's analogy to what he wasn't referencing. And Dawkins refutation really misses the mark.

There are compelling thermodynamic arguments to assert that life forms wherever conditions permit it.

As I've said, I cede my opinion for now. The debate continues.

what is your purpose for making that claim in this discussion?

My point here was to reinforce the idea that the "Last universal common ancestor's" development from the Big Bang event and from that the evolution of DNA was a probability event not an inevitable evolution out of the primordial matter and forces.

it's not important where the abiogenesis occurred. Everything was in place for evolution to begin once life existed on earth whatever its origin.

This is a good point. If we take abiogenesis and place it elsewhere in the universe and then some sort of panspermia event happened on earth it just takes the problems of abiogenesis generation and moves it elsewhere.
Finding all the nucleotides etc. in space rocks says absolutely nothing about how they got there, let alone developed.
The debate continues....

 

[setarcos]

And then you go off the deep end. Why would you mix up the Big Bang and abiogenesis?

I wasn't going to respond since your post seemed to be repeated the same unsubstantiated drivel. However this caught my eye. Its at least something remotely resembling a discussion about my opinion which may produce some reasonable fruit.
First I'd have to ask you why you think I mixed up the Big Bang and abiogenesis?
In your answer consider that it was the OP which originally brought up the question of DNA's evolution beginning with the Big Bang. I contrary to what you've stated here have actually made a hard distinction between the Big Bang even and the Abiogenesis event resulting in the "LUCA" and supposedly natural eventual evolution of DNA. My point states that DNA's evolution, however it happened" began at the Abiogenesis event not the Big Bang event as the poster suggested.
Now hopefully from here on we can be cordial with each other in our responses.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I wasn't going to respond since your post seemed to be repeated the same unsubstantiated drivel. However this caught my eye. Its at least something remotely resembling a discussion about my opinion which may produce some reasonable fruit.
First I'd have to ask you why you think I mixed up the Big Bang and abiogenesis?
In your answer consider that it was the OP which originally brought up the question of DNA's evolution beginning with the Big Bang. I contrary to what you've stated here have actually made a hard distinction between the Big Bang even and the Abiogenesis event resulting in the "LUCA" and supposedly natural eventual evolution of DNA. My point states that DNA's evolution, however it happened" began at the Abiogenesis event not the Big Bang event as the poster suggested.
Now hopefully from here on we can be cordial with each other in our responses.

LOL! Please, ease up on the projection. You were the one that posted "drivel". If you do not understand something then you should try to ask questions. As to you mixing up the Big Bang and abiogenesis I am not the only one that thought that from your posts. if more than one person comes to the same conclusions from what you wrote it is a good sign that if you did not mean to say that you still implied it somehow.

You should not get mad when people point out flaws in your reasoning. Let me try to help you a bit. To even have evidence in the sciences you one needs to have a clear testable hypothesis first.

So, what is your clear testable hypothesis? What tests based upon its own predictions could conceivably refute your hypothesis if it is wrong?

 

[osgart]

So DNA first came on the scene 1 billion years after the earth formed. To me that seems like to short of a time frame. So the only thing that would make sense is that the evolution of DNA started at the time of the Big Bang theory. That would make DNA's evolutionary time frame 10 billion years which seems more plausible.

This is an informative video that would definitely tie in with abiogenesis. Collective intelligence in nature is not in the realm of philosophy, but is now science.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

As I've attempted to show...since evolution could not breach the indeterminacy gap and thus ceased to function at that gap DNA could not have evolved "from" the Big Bang event ... My point here was to reinforce the idea that the "Last universal common ancestor's" development from the Big Bang event and from that the evolution of DNA was a probability event not an inevitable evolution out of the primordial matter and forces.

It sounds like what you are saying is that DNA was not an inevitable outcome of universal expansion. Maybe, but why are you making that point? Is somebody insisting otherwise?

"The probability of even a single functioning protein or corresponding functional gene by chance alone...stands at no better than 1 chance in 10^164."
From: Stephen Myer

This kind of calculation was debunked with Hoyle's fallacy - the one referring to a tornado assembling a 747 in a junkyard. The biological and engineering processes aren't analogous. The events that accumulate to generate a protein or gene occur are directed by the laws of chemistry, just as the instructions for pieces of matter to form a sphere when planets form are directed by the laws of physics. These creationist arguments ignore directed processes in nature and calculate as if the parts (amino acids and nucleotides in the case of large biomolecules, chunks of matter with planet formation) weren't interacting with one another but rather, were finding themselves thrown into a sphere by coincidence - a far less likely outcome than the inevitable sphere formation.

"Why did the universe start out with so nearly the critical rate of expansion that separates models that recollapse from those that go on expanding forever, that even now, 10 thousand million years later, it is still expanding at nearly the critical rate? If the rate of expansion one second after the Big Bang had been smaller by even one part in 100 thousand million million, the universe would have collapsed before it ever reached its present size."

Now the fine tuning argument. I don't know how valid those numbers are, but let's stipulate to the universe being unlikely. Once again, OK, but what's your purpose for introducing that idea to this discussion? Rhetorical question, really. Hoyle's fallacy and fine tuning in the same post for no apparent reason. You've been careful to avoid referencing an intelligent designer, and if I recall correctly, specifically denied it at one point, but I only ever see either of those tropes with creationists of one variation or another. If that's what motivates you, I can address the fine tuning argument and why it argues for a naturalistic reality, one that imposes strict limitations on an intelligent designer that it must discover and obey to make a universe fit for the evolution of matter, life, and mind.

 

[setarcos]

It sounds like what you are saying is that DNA was not an inevitable outcome of universal expansion. Maybe, but why are you making that point?

I tried to point out that DNA could not have been an inevitable outcome of the Big Bang "expansion" event. That is important because if DNA were an inevitable outcome of that expansion then Quantum uncertainty would be irrelevant to my argument and consequently DNA could be said to have evolved from that inevitability. Again...the OP proposed DNA evolved from the Big Bang event. I say it couldn't have for the reasons I presented. I simply made a counter argument to the OP's proposal.

This kind of calculation was debunked with Hoyle's fallacy

You'll have to elaborate on why you think so.
The point here isn't that complexity arose all at once in a "tornadic" burst of immense improbability. Hoyle's "improbability tornado" is better understood as an accumulation of steps, each with its own probability calculations which when accumulated increase the improbability of the final result.

The biological and engineering processes aren't analogous.

This deserves closer scrutiny and involves information theory I think. How do we know when something has been biologically (naturally) assembled verses purposefully engineered (unnaturally assembled)?

The events that accumulate to generate a protein or gene occur are directed by the laws of chemistry, just as the instructions for pieces of matter to form a sphere when planets form are directed by the laws of physics.

Correct but you know as well as I, I'm sure, that given the interacting complexities involved a particular gene or protein's generation, while governed by the laws of chemistry are not an inevitable creation of those laws in any particular instance. A particular protein doesn't have to exist because chemistry allows it to exist. A particular planet doesn't have to exist because physics dictates spherical planets must exist. Are there perfectly spherical planets? Not likely. Why? Because, while physical laws may dictate that a sphere is the most efficient shape for energy to take, other factors come into play which dictate how close to an actual perfect sphere a planet can get.
In both cases certain conditions must be existent on which those laws may work. According to these scientists work, those conditions are not inevitable but probabilistic given alternative possible conditions based on the same laws.
Take a poker game for example.
52 cards...not a very large number in comparison to what we've been discussing.
The odds of being dealt a royal flush are 649,739 : 1 . Of course that's the odds that all of the necessary cards would be dealt overall forming the royal flush - the card holder can shuffle them into the right order.
But that's not enough in the formation of genes etc. Those cards must be dealt in the correct order from the get go which adds another layer of complexity. In nature temporal accumulations in the wrong order may effect how the cards can combine to make the royal flush.
But that's still not the complete picture of Abiogenesis. We must add other specifically dealt hands into the probability calculations. For instance, in order to produce specific functional molecules we may for instance have to have been dealt - cards in the correct order mind you- a straight flush (odds 72,192.33:1) in the second hand. Now those numbers aren't bad odds taken individually when dealing with a universe of stuff to work with. But were not just taking them individually.
Those odds must be calculated in relation to each other and those probabilities are accumulative.
For instance the odds of being dealt a royal flush in the first hand and then a straight flush in the second would be...
Given that A and B are dependent events, the probability of A happening AND B happening given A is P(A)*P(B after A) =
46,906,172,301.87 to 1 against.
And that's just for 2 events in relation to each other...and doesn't even account for the probability of being dealt the respective cards in the correct order. Now throw in the fact that you need multiple accumulative events, each with their own probabilities, to happen in order to create a functional long chain molecule and you can see how rapidly the improbabilities accumulate.

ignore directed processes in nature and calculate as if the parts (amino acids and nucleotides in the case of large biomolecules, chunks of matter with planet formation) weren't interacting with one another but rather, were finding themselves thrown into a sphere by coincidence - a far less likely outcome than the inevitable sphere formation.

This, I think, is a misunderstanding or misrepresentation of what some "creationists" are considering.
These directed processes are natural laws performing their functions but they do not dictate what events those functions inevitably work on. Probability does.
The whole point scientists Like Einstein, Hawking, Feynman, Born, Bohr, Schrodinger, etc. all continued to ask themselves ,even after discovering apparent "laws" of nature, why this universe is the way it is, isn't because their calculations bring them to conclude that it had to be this way but rather its because those calculations show that it probabilistically should have been some other way.

Now the fine tuning argument. I don't know how valid those numbers are

That quote is from Stephen Hawking. I think he probably has done his due diligence in his calculations so I'll trust he's probably correct.

let's stipulate to the universe being unlikely. Once again, OK, but what's your purpose for introducing that idea to this discussion?

I didn't. If you reread my posts I think you'll see that I mentioned nothing specifically about the probability of the universe being the way it is. Much of these discussions about God and creationism has been brought up by other posters. Mainly, I suspect, in response to a misunderstanding of why I mentioned intention in my argument.
I've tried to explain my reasonings for that which concern Quantum uncertainty and probability rather than God.

Hoyle's fallacy and fine tuning in the same post for no apparent reason.

As I've pointed out...my original arguments mentioned neither Hoyle, his supposed fallacy, nor fine tuning. Those subjects were brought into the discussion by others.

You've been careful to avoid referencing an intelligent designer, and if I recall correctly, specifically denied it at one point

Exactly. That's because my arguments do not concern those things but I felt I needed to explicitly deny that connection because my experience has taught me that theists or intelligent design proponents aren't the only adherents to certain ideologies that let their emotions dictate their responses rather than reason. Naturalists etc. are just as guilty in that regard at times. Simply because some ID'ers or theists present their ideas unreasonably, many, oh so many, naturalists, atheists, etc. think all ID'ers or theists are morons, something they think their immune to apparently, and simply dismiss their arguments without consideration, even if they have nothing to do with God or intelligent design specifically. A fallacy of the highest order if you ask me.

I can address the fine tuning argument and why it argues for a naturalistic reality, one that imposes strict limitations on an intelligent designer that it must discover and obey to make a universe fit for the evolution of matter, life, and mind.

I'm interested. But bare in mind, this is a tangent discussion which probably has little to do with my argument I presented here in answer to the OP's proposal.

 

[setarcos]

As to you mixing up the Big Bang and abiogenesis I am not the only one that thought that from your posts.

Then you are not the only one who is mistaken. Can you give me an example?

If you do not understand something then you should try to ask questions.

Isn't this what I asked you to do? Hmmm

You should not get mad when people point out flaws in your reasoning.

I don't and I haven't. I get upset when people dismiss my reasoning as flawed without presenting reasoning of their own.

So, what is your clear testable hypothesis? What tests based upon its own predictions could conceivably refute your hypothesis if it is wrong?

I've told you, if you'd actually read my proposals. My hypothesis is logically derived from the work of other scientists in the fields of Quantum Electrodynamics, information theory, Biology, and the theory of evolution.
You might refute my conclusions by testing my logical inferences from those fields of study and giving counter arguments.
Or you can prove something wrong in those fields of study. I highly doubt that would be feasible in the time we have here though. Unless you already know something those scientists don't?
I think your getting confused in what is meant by the evidence presented. I am not attempting here to formulate some new theory of reality. I am considering the theories of others and what we may conclude from them.
I've noticed you can't drop the attempts at little insults here and there. A little advice...I'm over that. Its a waste of your time. I simply have had a bad week and usually don't take that emotional bait and respond in kind.

 

[Subduction Zone]

You'll have to elaborate on why you think so.
The point here isn't that complexity arose all at once in a "tornadic" burst of immense improbability. Hoyle's "improbability tornado" is better understood as an accumulation of steps, each with its own probability calculations which when accumulated increase the improbability of the final result.

As your argument was formed it was just an unsupported claim. You need to flesh it out much better than that. I have only seen people support that with terribly ignorant ideas of how proteins form. Once one identifies the strawman there is no need to do any math to refute the claim.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Then you are not the only one who is mistaken. Can you give me an example?

Isn't this what I asked you to do? Hmmm

I don't and I haven't. I get upset when people dismiss my reasoning as flawed without presenting reasoning of their own.

I've told you, if you'd actually read my proposals. My hypothesis is logically derived from the work of other scientists in the fields of Quantum Electrodynamics, information theory, Biology, and the theory of evolution.
You might refute my conclusions by testing my logical inferences from those fields of study and giving counter arguments.
Or you can prove something wrong in those fields of study. I highly doubt that would be feasible in the time we have here though. Unless you already know something those scientists don't?
I think your getting confused in what is meant by the evidence presented. I am not attempting here to formulate some new theory of reality. I am considering the theories of others and what we may conclude from them.
I've noticed you can't drop the attempts at little insults here and there. A little advice...I'm over that. Its a waste of your time. I simply have had a bad week and usually don't take that emotional bait and respond in kind.

LOL! Debate properly or ask your questions properly . There is no good reason to break up a post excessively and write an excessively long reply to every question. Try to deal with a post in its entirety or focus on one point in it. You cannot see your errors when you respond as you did All that you have is denial.

And why didn't you clearly state what your "hypothesis" is? I used scare quotes because if you cannot answer the next question it is not hypothesis by definition:

And what tests based upon the predictions of your hypothesis could possibly refute it?

 

[setarcos]

There is no good reason to break up a post excessively and write an excessively long reply to every question.

I've actually been asked to do that by some posters to make the ideas clearer. Some people prefer that.

Try to deal with a post in its entirety or focus on one point in it. You cannot see your errors when you respond as you did All that you have is denial.

?? I think you splitting hairs as some sort of defense mechanism here? What are you afraid of?
Just respond to the debate. Forget the rest.
Its not feasible at times to respond to a post in its entirety without breaking it up in order to avoid confusion.
My post's usually reflect the length of the posts I'm responding to or the length I feel is needed to get my point across. Nobodies perfect in that regard though.
I don't know why you think I'm in denial? About what?
Is this your modus operandi? To pick at the person instead of discussing their propositions until they give up on having a discussion with you? Would that make you feel better? As if you've won something?

And why didn't you clearly state what your "hypothesis" is?

?? My posts have stated my hypothesis...over and over again. Are you reading them at all?

what tests based upon the predictions of your hypothesis could possibly refute it?

Are you familiar with the rudiments of Logic? Test the hypothesis by testing the logic.

 

[setarcos]

As your argument was formed it was just an unsupported claim. You need to flesh it out much better than that. I have only seen people support that with terribly ignorant ideas of how proteins form.

The fleshing out comes with the discussion. It evolves in the back and forth to a clarification of the specifics. I'm not here to write out every minute step of every minute conclusion all at once. That is not feasible given the limitations on post length etc.
Since you've said some people have terribly ignorant ideas of how proteins form I'm assuming your familiar with the general concepts. So how do you think proteins form? I'm willing to be educated by your thoughts and go from there. Once one identifies the strawman there is no need to do any math to refute the claim.

Once one identifies the strawman there is no need to do any math to refute the claim.

Fair enough. So lets identify the strawman here. What do you think it is?