Questions that evolutionists and billions of years proponents cannot answer but disprove their theories.

[shunyadragon]

A yet it is impossible fro a variety of reasons - the vast odds against a very large specific amino acid sequence, the fact that water would disperse any concentration of amino acids and other molecules needed, and the impossibility of all the millions of atoms of specific elements needed in an exact 3D position is space.

Again you are poking around in the dark 'arguing from ignorance' without any knowledge of science. You repeatedly throw manure questions hoping in vain it sticks. and none reflect any knowledge of science.

Hint: There were millions of years 3.7 billion years ago with the suitable conditions for the emergence of life to take place with a constant flow of nutrients and amino acids available.

 

[metis]

Lighten up .. it's not complete nonsense.

..or do you believe that all we see has no author?

My response was due to the mischaracterization of both science and scientist.

To the latter, I do not take a position one way or the other on that because it was prior to any human cognition.

 

[Subduction Zone]

A yet it is impossible fro a variety of reasons - the vast odds against a very large specific amino acid sequence, the fact that water would disperse any concentration of amino acids and other molecules needed, and the impossibility of all the millions of atoms of specific elements needed in an exact 3D position is space.

It is a mistake to say " a very large specific amino acid sequence". That is a strawman argument. I challenge you to find someone supporting abiogenesis that makes the claim that the original life was complex or had to be a specific arrangement of amino acids.

This is not even the "lottery fallacy". You are just wrong about how abiogenesis is thought to have occurred.

Did you at least read the article that I linked to? Not just the headline, the whole thing?

 

[SavedByTheLord]

It is a mistake to say " a very large specific amino acid sequence". That is a strawman argument. I challenge you to find someone supporting abiogenesis that makes the claim that the original life was complex or had to be a specific arrangement of amino acids.

This is not even the "lottery fallacy". You are just wrong about how abiogenesis is thought to have occurred.

Did you at least read the article that I linked to? Not just the headline, the whole thing?

The smallest free-living creature has about 1.3 million base pairs. I was extremely generous and gave a first living creature as much help as I could with only 100,000 base pairs, only 1/13 th as large.

Smallest organisms - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[Subduction Zone]

The smallest free-living creature has about 1.3 million base pairs. I was extremely generous and gave a first living creature as much help as I could with only 100,000 base pairs, only 1/13 th as large.

Smallest organisms - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

And this has been refuted. Those are modern organisms. They all have a 3.7 billion year history of evolution.

The first life was not competing against other life so incredible inefficiencies would not have been a problem.

Do you understand the error that you just made?

Here, let's run an analogy. Let's say that some a pair of parents have a 12 year gap between their children. You are essentially try to claim that a new born baby should be able to run at roughly the same speed as the slowest of its siblings that are 12 years older than it. Do you think that a 12 year difference between a newborn and an adolescent might enable the adolescent to run just a bit faster?

 

[SavedByTheLord]

And this has been refuted. Those are modern organisms. They all have a 3.7 billion year history of evolution.

The first life was not competing against other life so incredible inefficiencies would not have been a problem.

Do you understand the error that you just made?

Here, let's run an analogy. Let's say that some a pair of parents have a 12 year gap between their children. You are essentially try to claim that a new born baby should be able to run at roughly the same speed as the slowest of its siblings that are 12 years older than it. Do you think that a 12 year difference between a newborn and an adolescent might enable the adolescent to run just a bit faster?

That is why I gave you a very small first organism.
But how small do you think it could be and still live, or survive for more than a few minutes or produce offspring?
That is the conundrum for the first living creature. The larger it is the more impossible it is to come into being from natural processes. The smaller it is the more impossible it is to survive for more than a few minutes or produce offspring from natural processes.
Also the smaller it is the more impossible that if it could produce offspring it would ever evolve up to RNA and DNA based.

Remember, there are very many more atoms of specific elements in an exact location in 3D space that must also be present in the small window of time and place for it to come into being.

How about a creature with 1000 amino acids and 100,000 atoms?

Well it is still impossible.

That is why I have exposed abiogenesis as one of the big weakness of the entire evolution theory.

 

[John53]

That is why I have exposed abiogenesis as one of the big weakness of the entire evolution theory.

Evolution doesn't need abiogenesis so it's not any kind of weakness.

 

[Subduction Zone]

That is why I gave you a very small first organism.

Small does not matter. The first organism could have been much much larger. Small and simple are not necessarily the same thing. Your example fails because it is modern life and modern life has had 3.7 billion years of evolution behind it. It is going to be much more complex. It is also going to be much more efficient, and therefore probably smaller.

But how small do you think it could be and still live, or survive for more than a few minutes or produce offspring?
That is the conundrum for the first living creature. The larger it is the more impossible it is to come into being from natural processes. The smaller it is the more impossible it is to survive for more than a few minutes or produce offspring from natural processes.
Also the smaller it is the more impossible that if it could produce offspring it would ever evolve up to RNA and DNA based.

Again, it is not a size issue. It is a complexity issue.

Remember, there are very many more atoms of specific elements in an exact location in 3D space that must also be present in the small window of time and place for it to come into being.

That does not matter. There is a limited way that any of them can react. You will not find atoms combining randomly.

How about a creature with 1000 amino acids and 100,000 atoms?

Well it is still impossible.

I am unaware of how long an RNA molecule has to be to have the ability to self replicate. But why would that be impossible? You do not understand the chemistry. I do not understand the chemistry. When you say that something is "impossible" but can only support yourself with bad logic then you are only making an argument from ignorance.

The proper thing to say is "I don't know". Now you could add "I think that it is highly unlikely". I am going to say that my answer would also be "I don't know". But as to its likelihood I would point out that the experts in the field that know far more than you or I do seem to think that it is possible. I am not going to say "We know for sure that life arose naturally". I will say that the evidence indicates that it is possible.

That is why I have exposed abiogenesis as one of the big weakness of the entire evolution theory.

And there you are demonstrably wrong. Abiogenesis is not part of the theory of evolution.

Please pay attention. Evolution would still work if God magically poofed the first cell into existence and let it run from there. Are you saying that God cannot create a cell? Then it follows that you are saying that God could not have created Adam since he had billions of cells that were all working together. It would be far easier to make a single cell than a whole man. You are essentially saying that Adam is impossible with your argument. It is a self defeating argument on your part.

 

[SavedByTheLord]

Small does not matter. The first organism could have been much much larger.

You mean like a tub of water?

You need to face reality. It is impossible fro a first living creature to have come into being by natural processes no matter what size it was.

It has never happened. There is no record of it ever happening. It is not happening now. And I have shown it is impossible.

 

[Subduction Zone]

You mean like a tub of water?

That is getting too big. But natural vesicles will get to a fair size before splitting on their own.

I could probably find you an article on them. They form naturally from lipids in water. They always have. They would have made a very good cell wall for the first life. They also grow naturally on their own. The larger they get the more apt they are to split into two, so there is a natural size limitation, but that also give a natural form of reproduction once self replicating RNA forms.

You need to face reality. It is impossible fro a first living creature to have come into being by natural processes no matter what size it was.

Why? You keep saying this but you can never support it. You need more than just handwaving claiming that something is 'impossible'. One example, Lord Kelvin is infamous for 'proving' that powered flight could not happen. Except that he didn't do that. It is not that the Wright brothers proved him wrong. When he did that work he based it upon the various engines available at that time. I think that he even had a qualifier in his work. Improvements in gasoline engines allowed the Wright brothers to generate enough thrust with a low enough weight that made flight possible. You quite often are only looking at the equivalent to Kelvin's proof. You look at modern complex life. That is a clear error.

It has never happened. There is no record of it ever happening. It is not happening now. And I have shown it is impossible.

Actually even the Bible says that there was an abiogenesis event from nonlife to life. It uses God,, scientists can see how it could have happened without making God into our personal slave. Abiogenesis is not "proven' but it does look to be very possible. Most would say probable.


But why focus on abiogenesis anyway? Even if it is false it is rather clear, all of the scientific evidence supports evolution. There is, as of yet, no scientific evidence for creationism. Do you remember our short discussion into the scientific method. I was trying to see if you could find a way to apply it to your creationism beliefs. But you ran away from that discussion too soon. Did you realize that you could not do it? If you can form a proper testable hypothesis for creationism you would be on the way to having scientific evidence for creationism.

 

[SavedByTheLord]

That is getting too big. But natural vesicles will get to a fair size before splitting on their own.

I could probably find you an article on them. They form naturally from lipids in water. They always have. They would have made a very good cell wall for the first life. They also grow naturally on their own. The larger they get the more apt they are to split into two, so there is a natural size limitation, but that also give a natural form of reproduction once self replicating RNA forms.


Why? You keep saying this but you can never support it. You need more than just handwaving claiming that something is 'impossible'. One example, Lord Kelvin is infamous for 'proving' that powered flight could not happen. Except that he didn't do that. It is not that the Wright brothers proved him wrong. When he did that work he based it upon the various engines available at that time. I think that he even had a qualifier in his work. Improvements in gasoline engines allowed the Wright brothers to generate enough thrust with a low enough weight that made flight possible. You quite often are only looking at the equivalent to Kelvin's proof. You look at modern complex life. That is a clear error.



Actually even the Bible says that there was an abiogenesis event from nonlife to life. It uses God,, scientists can see how it could have happened without making God into our personal slave. Abiogenesis is not "proven' but it does look to be very possible. Most would say probable.


But why focus on abiogenesis anyway? Even if it is false it is rather clear, all of the scientific evidence supports evolution. There is, as of yet, no scientific evidence for creationism. Do you remember our short discussion into the scientific method. I was trying to see if you could find a way to apply it to your creationism beliefs. But you ran away from that discussion too soon. Did you realize that you could not do it? If you can form a proper testable hypothesis for creationism you would be on the way to having scientific evidence for creationism.

If it cannot happen without an intelligent Creator, how else could it happen?

 

[Subduction Zone]

If it cannot happen without an intelligent Creator, how else could it happen?

Your question makes no sense as asked. No one said that God could not do it. The question is did a God do it or was it a natural event?

EDIT: Or was it aliens?

 

[McBell]

And I have shown it is impossible.

You have done no such thing.

 

[shunyadragon]

A yet it is impossible fro a variety of reasons - the vast odds against a very large specific amino acid sequence, the fact that water would disperse any concentration of amino acids and other molecules needed, and the impossibility of all the millions of atoms of specific elements needed in an exact 3D position is space.

For your information living organisms have a wider range of temperature survival then I knew.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0146638013002520#:~:text=The%20amino%20acid%20polymers%20plausibly,(%3E%20200%20%C2%B0C).

Recent trends in hyperthermophilic enzymes production and future perspectives for biofuel industry: A critical review​

2019, Journal of Cleaner Production
Citation Excerpt :
At elevated temperatures, many organisms have been found living in boiling mud-pots, hot springs, compost, geysers, and hydrothermal vents (Cui et al., 2018; Yu et al., 2018). Fuchida et al. (2014) suggested that the maximum temperature for survival might reach 250 °C which depends on the thermostability of cell metabolites. The most identified thermostable protein so far is rubredoxin from the Archaea Pyrococcus furiosus with a melting temperature of 200 °C (Hiller et al., 1997).

 

[F1fan]

That is why I gave you a very small first organism.
But how small do you think it could be and still live, or survive for more than a few minutes or produce offspring?
That is the conundrum for the first living creature. The larger it is the more impossible it is to come into being from natural processes. The smaller it is the more impossible it is to survive for more than a few minutes or produce offspring from natural processes.
Also the smaller it is the more impossible that if it could produce offspring it would ever evolve up to RNA and DNA based.

Remember, there are very many more atoms of specific elements in an exact location in 3D space that must also be present in the small window of time and place for it to come into being.

How about a creature with 1000 amino acids and 100,000 atoms?

Well it is still impossible.

That is why I have exposed abiogenesis as one of the big weakness of the entire evolution theory.

You offer no facts or arguments. You admit to being confused about nature and reality, and have no knowledge of science, so naturally you have no understanding of how things are. Your opinion, as a fundamentalist who has adopted a bad interpretation of the Hebrew Bible, is irrelevant. We educated folks defer to experts in science, and your confusion about science is entertaining.

 

[F1fan]

If it cannot happen without an intelligent Creator, how else could it happen?

Natural causes. But your lack of understanding, and heavy religious bias, is a deliberate blind spot that educated people don't have.

 

[SavedByTheLord]

Natural causes. But your lack of understanding, and heavy religious bias, is a deliberate blind spot that educated people don't have.

So you are blinded by your religious bias because you have “educated” (indoctrinated ) into evolution and billions of years.

What was the first living creature?
Was it DNA, RNA, proteins or some mix?
What was the code length if RNA or DNA?
Where did it come into being?

 

[muhammad_isa]

Natural causes..

What does that mean?
What is a "natural cause" ?

Something that naturally happens?
Why does it happen?

 

[F1fan]

What does that mean?
What is a "natural cause" ?

This is a common principle of nature. If you don;t know what this means just by reading the words then you are either uneducated, or being obtuse.

Something that naturally happens?
Why does it happen?

Because matter behaves according to the natural laws. Atoms are dynamic, and all nature is in flux. If you don't know what these are then you need to go back to middle school.

 

[shunyadragon]

The following is research into evolution, which has implications for abiogenesis in bridging the physical chemistry with life-organic biology showing how life assembles and evolves with increasing complexity. It is the basis of explaining how the physical increased complexity in evolution. for I doubt @YoursTrue or @SavedByTheLord will remotely understand this, but it may be an interesting point of discussion for those who are interested. This research in part explains why abiogenesis and evolution do not take place as random cause-and-effect event outcomes. This relate also to the principle that all chains of cause and effect outcomes are fractal and not random. Abiogenesis is also an evolving process from physical natural organic in evolving steps that would follow 'assembly theory.'

New 'assembly theory' unifies physics and biology to explain evolution and complexity​

by University of Glasgow

Selection in Assembly Space. (A) Pictorial representation of the assembly space represents the formation of combinatorial object space from building blocks and physical constraints. (B) Observed copy number distributions of objects at different assembly indices as an outcome of selection or no selection. (C) Representation of physical pathways to construct objects with undirected and directed pathways (selected) leading to the low and high copy numbers of the observed object. Credit: arXiv (2022). DOI: 10.48550/arxiv.2206.02279

An international team of researchers has developed a new theoretical framework that bridges physics and biology to provide a unified approach for understanding how complexity and evolution emerge in nature.

This new work on "assembly theory," published today in Nature, represents a major advance in our fundamental comprehension of biological evolution and how it is governed by the physical laws of the universe. The paper is titled "Assembly Theory Explains and Quantifies Selection and Evolution."
This research builds on the team's previous work developing assembly theory as an empirically validated approach to life detection, with implications for the search for alien life and efforts to evolve new life forms in the laboratory.

In prior work, the team assigned a complexity score to molecules called the molecular assembly index, based on the minimal number of bond-forming steps required to build a molecule. They showed how this index is experimentally measurable and how high values correlate with life-derived molecules.

The new study introduces mathematical formalism around a physical quantity called "assembly" that captures how much selection is required to produce a given set of complex objects, based on their abundance and assembly indices.

"Assembly theory provides a completely new lens for looking at physics, chemistry and biology as different perspectives of the same underlying reality," explained lead author Professor Sara Walker, a theoretical physicist and origin of life researcher from Arizona State University.

"With this theory, we can start to close the gap between reductionist physics and Darwinian evolution—it's a major step toward a fundamental theory unifying inert and living matter."

The researchers demonstrated how assembly theory can be applied to quantify selection and evolution in systems ranging from simple molecules to complex polymers and cellular structures.
It explains both the discovery of new objects and the selection of existing ones, allowing open-ended increases in complexity characteristic of life and technology.

"Assembly theory provides an entirely new way to look at the matter that makes up our world, as defined not just by immutable particles but by the memory needed to build objects through selection over time," said Professor Lee Cronin, a chemist from the University of Glasgow and co-lead author.
"With further work, this approach has the potential to transform fields from cosmology to computer science. It represents a new frontier at the intersection of physics, chemistry, biology and information theory."
The researchers aim to further refine assembly theory and explore its applications for characterizing known and unknown life, and testing hypotheses about how life emerges from non-living matter.

"A key feature of the theory is that it is experimentally testable," says Cronin. "This opens up the exciting possibility of using assembly theory to design new experiments that could solve the origin of life by creating living systems from scratch in the laboratory."

The theory opens up many new questions and research directions at the boundary of the physical and life sciences. Overall, assembly theory promises to provide profound new insights into the physics underlying biological complexity and evolutionary innovation.