Intelligent Design???

[shunyadragon]

I described various environments of amino acid environments suitable for conditions of abiogenesis and polymerization of amino acids known to exist at the time life formed:261 and 262

Still waiting for your atheist friends from scientific journals. If they are atheists publishing in scientific journals they will not give their religion.

 

[BilliardsBall]

You still have not explain the assertion of 1/100,000th. This is not what is required for abiogenesis to take place, because the shotest possible chain of RNA or DNA has not been determined for abiogenesis to begin to take place. You have refused to read and understand the peer reviewed literature, and make the typical Creationist assertions that things have to happen instantaneously, and not over millions of years as the evidence indicates through natural processes.

Tar with amino acids in an unstable solution is not RNA, even a short string.

 

[tas8831]

Therefore, the information required to operate a living organism had to have come from them.

What was that information, and where did it come from, and how do you know?

 

[exchemist]

Tar with amino acids in an unstable solution is not RNA, even a short string.

Er, who says that it is?

 

[shunyadragon]

Tar with amino acids in an unstable solution is not RNA, even a short string.

Who said anything about 'Tar with amino acids in an unstable solution is not RNA, even a short string?'

 

[Polymath257]

False ? Please tell me why ? Do you know of a chemical process that is capable of developing information sufficient to select two or more options based upon particular needs ?

Lots and lots of fuzzy words here. Many chemicals change reactivity depending on environment. That is a simple version of 'selecting options based on needs'.

For example, many proteins change configuration when the pH changes. This can either activate or deactivate the working of that protein. If that lowered pH signals a 'need', we now have a protein that changes its activity based on a 'need'. That can be anything from moving away from the change to breathing faster (in more complex organisms).

The point is that the 'need' is based on a change in chemical environment, and the 'selection' is a changed activity in that new environment. Both of these are trivially present whenever there are more complex chemicals.

 

[Polymath257]

A lot of it. Tell me, the volcanic earth developed an atmosphere, as it cooled, what else was there besides light ?

You mean in the atmosphere? Methane, ammonia, water vapor, sulfur dioxide, carbon monoxide and dioxides. All of these are present in large amounts on other planets in our solar system and would have been present on the early Earth. In addition, we have all the minerals that were naturally on the early Earth: phosphates, for example, various forms of mica (allowing localized environments for catalysis), etc.

Oh, and the light would have been heavy with UV radiation, which can help in the formation of many of the basic chemicals.

Does this begin to answer your question?

 

[shmogie]

You mean in the atmosphere? Methane, ammonia, water vapor, sulfur dioxide, carbon monoxide and dioxides. All of these are present in large amounts on other planets in our solar system and would have been present on the early Earth. In addition, we have all the minerals that were naturally on the early Earth: phosphates, for example, various forms of mica (allowing localized environments for catalysis), etc.

Oh, and the light would have been heavy with UV radiation, which can help in the formation of many of the basic chemicals.

Does this begin to answer your question?

I already knew the answer. My respondent implied there was more present than the atmosphere, rock, and light.

There was nothing more

 

[Polymath257]

I already knew the answer. My respondent implied there was more present than the atmosphere, rock, and light.

There was nothing more

And water, of course. What else do you think is required? That atmosphere consisted of a pretty good mix of chemicals. As do the rocks. neither are simple chemically.

 

[Jose Fly]

Hey @shmogie you missed a couple of things.

First, who's going around "scientifically stating something had to have happened, with little evidence that it did"? Second, what work is being done into the notion that a god or gods created the first life?

 

[Dan From Smithville]

I nwver said abiogenesis was not piossible according to my assertions,

Sure you did.

I stated they we unsolved problems that make abiogenesis not possible till they are solved.

This does not make any sense.

My inference, is that they never would be,

Like you would have any idea.

I could be wrong,

Probably.

it has happened before.

I imagine it is a familiar experience for you.

Lets see, the theory is that the rock of the earth, combined with the atmosphere were the source of life,

Sure. Make up any straw man you like. Still a straw man.

Therefore, the information required to operate a living organism had to have come from them.

Rock and atmosphere are therefore rock and atmosphere. No hypotheses states what you cooked up here. It is not even a useful or accurate summary.

Just state that abiogenesis today, is not understood, nor can it be explained. It has never been observed or replicated.

It isn't. If it was, researching it would be an exercise and not exploration.

Facts we both can agree on

If we must agree on something besides your error rate, it is that "we do not know" is still all we have, but it is a place to work from and not giving up and declaring it is too incredible or it was done with magic. I am not that intellectually lazy.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Until science demonstrates how it happened, it is de facto stating it could not.

No it is not. Where do you get this stuff? Are you just making it up as you go?

We do not know all there is to know about gravity and much related to it has not been demonstrated. We still have gravity.

Give up, of course not, why would I want that ?

Because it would be logical and rational.

To be clear, I am not a lawyer, heaven forbid.

I never thought that you were.

I do however have a crimonology degree, and a criminal justice degree, both requiring many law classes, and lectured at the University level. I served through the ranks, from patrol officer, to 17 years as Director of Public Safety.

When we discuss the criminal justice system, I am sure you will be an asset in that discussion.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Nonsense. Now you are playing the gnostic card, you can only understand this if you have special qualifications and unique qualifications. Witness nullification. I say again, nonsense.

Having some idea of the basics and what is actually stated in science should be a minimum qualification at least. Have you considered meeting that standard?

You state you are a geologist and I am sure you are great with rocks, but does being a geologist prime facie qualify you as a bio chemist or biologist ?

No more than my degrees would qualify me as a geologist, but I bet we could understand each other in a discussion and I feel confident he understands science and the important details. In evolutionary science, geology and biology are very close friends.

Perhaps you are implying that I don´t have the required intelligence ? I don´t need to quote numbers, lets just say I have an adequate IQ.

Adequate for what?

I don´t know how many graduate biology classes you had, I had none myself, but I had undergraduate courses.

What were they in?

Once again, you choose to discuss me rather than a simple, provable, non refutable statement, the precursor organism would have to have had information to function, whether it be DNA or RNA based. No mechanism has been found for non living chemical reactions to develop this information to the extent required for abiogenesis.

That is pretty much why we have scientists researching this. What is your point?

My statement, but a fact. My atheist bio chemists will tell you so.

What?

Argue with them, question their intelligence or qualifications.

They are not here making wild assertions on this forum. You are.

BTW, lay people can understand conclusions, and they don´t really care if they are established by the scientific method, or the pick a card, any card method, as long as they are true, logical and reasonable.

Can you get some of those lay people to post on here?

 

[Dan From Smithville]

FACTS represent a sound argument, whatever you believe an agenda to be. Personal anecdotal claims ? Saying a cell requires Coded DNA read by RNA to operate and survive is a personal anecdotal claim ? Is it subjective ? Yes, to the claim of abiogenesis.

The "you" statements are always a dead giveaway. They usually appear in a discussion of this type when the statement maker cannot address the issue.

If I were wrong in my assertions, and you were able to refute them you would. Ditto for other posters.

Then , we would both research in depth, cite appropriate recognized sources, then post them.

This is how logic works, first a propoisition, THEN testing for soundness.

So, if you worried much less about motives, agenda's, et.al. (me) and concentrate on the issue, you would increase your credibility significantly.

Drive by personal comments do little in support of the cause for abiogenesis, they are illogical.

Actual, I think there is some emotion here.

Although the Christian world view is happily and gleefully attacked, and we are used to it, and cope with it, many of the " a natural cause for everything camp" aren't used to their particular world view being challenged, and some get very angry and resort to the "you" statements. Sorry

So this is what an argument looks like when the wheels have completely fallen off.

 

[Sapiens]

So this is what an argument looks like when the wheels have completely fallen off.

Naw ... that was a argument that did not have wheels attached from the get-go.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Naw ... that was a argument that did not have wheels attached from the get-go.

So you are saying that the pivotal historical event of the wheels falling off was not so much a falling off, but a never being installed event and it happened much earlier? I am going to have to incorporate this with my previous work into a new synthesis and agree with you.

 

[Polymath257]

What wheels? I never saw any wheels.

 

[shunyadragon]

I already knew the answer. My respondent implied there was more present than the atmosphere, rock, and light.

There was nothing more

. . . and the most important ingredient for the beginning of life, energy in the form of heat from the sun and the most important, the internal heat of the earth.

 

[shmogie]

So this is what an argument looks like when the wheels have completely fallen off.

Interesting response. You have NOT once refuted any of the facts of my posts. Why not I wonder ?

You dance around the periphery, thinking indirect ad hominems, innuendo, and sarcasm is a defense of abiogenesis.

It is not, it is an indictment of what you understand of the subject.

Otherwise, you would offer direct, cogent, counterclaims.

I find this quite often with the abiogenesis proponents. They are either ignorant of what they believe, or will describe in exhaustive detail a minor chemical process in the grand scheme of their idea of what had to have happened to create the alleged precursor organism. This "evidence" of abiogenesis in the grand scheme of things is very underwhelming. When pinned down, whatever they are describing, at least by the honest ones, is admitted to be an infinitely small step toward life

 

[shmogie]

. . . and the most important ingredient for the beginning of life, energy in the form of heat from the sun and the most important, the internal heat of the earth.

As I told you earlier, I will posts some of the extreme difficulties with abiogenesis research.

I want to thank you for pushing me into this magical mystery tour, it has given me the opportunity to revisit areas that my memory was losing, and to learn of new research and criticisms of that research. Books that were dusty on the shelf were reopened and reviewed.

I of course could easily find hundreds of pages of serious flaws in the concept, written by well qualified scientists whom you would call creationists. My criteria was to cite atheists, since atheists disqualify creationist scientists.

I could cite one of my good friends, a recently retired professor of microbiology at a well known Ca. university who has over 100 peer reviewed articles and papers in his primary area of research, cancer. He does not support abiogenesis for a whole host of reasons based upon his understanding of cellular biology, but he is a supporter of ID.

Richard Dawkins, that guru of new atheism, says that anyone who does not believe in abiogenesis is a fool, therefore, the idea's of my friend are foolish.

I will give you some more quotations on the matter, then I will cite one article from one of the premier abiogenesis researchers today. In it, he discusses the problems with the primary hypotheses of abiogenesis today, and offers a new one of his own.