Author Topic: Abiogenesis is impossible  (Read 4295 times)

Abiogenesis is impossible
« on: January 03, 2017, 08:12:02 PM »
Abiogenesis is impossible

http://reasonandscience.heavenforum.org/t1279-abiogenesis-is-impossible

The origin of life emerged as a scientific problem with Louis Pasteur’s demonstration of the apparent implausibility of spontaneous generation of life forms. By an uncanny coincidence, the experiment was reported in 1859, the same year Darwin published The Origin of Species, which among other seminal ideas, included the proposition on LUCA.

The origin of life was either due to:
a) unguided, random, aleatorial chemical reactions
b) physical necessity
c) creation through  a intelligent agency

Unguided coincidental chemical reactions have not the creative action to make the most detailed and concentrated organizational structure known to humanity.
Chemical reactions and bonds can show bonding preference of one substrate to the other, but that does not explain the specific instructional arrangement of nucleotides.
Evolution is not a driving force prior to DNA replication. Intelligent design remains therefore the best explanation as causal agent of the origin of life. 

Cells are irreducibly complex, and store huge amounts of information, which is a hallmark of intelligent design. The origin of life is therefore best explained through the creative action of a intelligent designer.

The possibility that life might have emerged through unguided, aleatorial, random chemical reactions is comparable to the chance that a tornado sweeping through a junkyard might assemble a Boeing 747 from the materials therein.. Its as well extremely unlikely that chance/luck can write a book, or produce instructional complex information. Nor will unguided, random events produce cells that are more complex than a 747, and contain more information than a encyclopedia britannica. Hoyle: " Life as we know it is, among other things, dependent on at least 2000 different enzymes. How could the blind forces of the primal sea manage to put together the correct chemical elements to build enzymes?"

The cell requires inumerous molecular machines and instructional information, precise energy supply, and a complex metabolic network  to support life. It is quite clear that there is a minimal number of genes required to permit cells to become alive,  an extremely tiny possibility that this self replicating factory would emerge - for the support of complex life.

A  frequent argument is given in response  that one shouldn't be surprised to life existing, because the origin of life happened, chance is 1 - not at all surprising.

However, this argument is like a situation where a man is standing before a firing squad of 1000 men with rifles who take aim and fire - - but they all miss him. According the the above logic, this man should not be at all surprised to still be alive because, if they hadn't missed him, he wouldn't be alive.

The nonsense of this line of reasoning is obvious. Surprise at the unfathomable complexity of the cell, given the hypothesis of chance producing it, is only to be expected - in the extreme.

If we consider as the most complex machine ever built by man, and take as parameter :

https://www.quora.com/Whats-the-most-complex-machine-ever-built-by-mankind

then the Large Hadron Collider is the most expensive and complex scientific machine ever built. It took  10,000 scientists and engineers from over 100 countries, as well as hundreds of universities and laboratories.

As another example, the Airbus A380. Huge airliners are incredibly complex. The A380 has about 4 million parts, with 2.5 million part numbers  produced by 1,500 companies from 30 countries around the world,  including 800 companies from the United States.

compared to this, the most simple cell is still far far more complex. This lead Michael Denton to write in  Evolution: A Theory In Crisis :

“The complexity of the simplest known type of cell is so great that it is impossible to accept that such an object could have been thrown together suddenly by some kind of freakish, vastly improbable, event. Such an occurrence would be indistinguishable from a miracle.”

“To grasp the reality of life as it has been revealed by molecular biology, we must magnify a cell a thousand million times until it is twenty kilometers in diameter and resembles a giant airship large enough to cover a great city like London or New York. What we would then see would be an object of unparalleled complexity and adaptive design. On the surface of the cell we would see millions of openings, like the port holes of a vast space ship, opening and closing to allow a continual stream of materials to flow in and out. If we were to enter one of these openings we would find ourselves in a world of supreme technology and bewildering complexity.”

…veritable micro-miniaturized factory containing thousands of exquisitely designed pieces of intricate molecular machinery, made up altogether of one hundred thousand million atoms, far more complicated than any machine built by man and absolutely without parallel in the non-living world (Denton, 1986, p. 250).

Advocates of naturalism often try to sidestep and state either that a) evolution explains the feat, or b) " we don't know yet how life emerged, but one day science will know ", as if natural mechanisms would explain life's origin, no matter what. Thats a classic example of " evolution of the gaps ". We don't know yet, therefore evolution.

Neither Evolution nor physical necessity are a driving force prior dna replication :

Without code there can be no self-replication. Without self-replication you can’t have reproduction. Without reproduction you can’t have evolution or natural selection.

Heredity is guaranteed by faithful DNA replication whereas evolution depends upon errors accompanying DNA replication.  ( Furusawa, 1998 ) We hypothesize that the origin of life, that is, the origin of the first cell, cannot be explained by natural selection among self-replicating molecules, as is done by the RNA-world hypothesis. ( Vaneechoutte M )
The origin of the first cell, cannot be explained by natural selection (Ann N Y Acad, 2000) DNA replication had therefore to be previously, before life began, fully setup , working, and fully operating, in order for evolution to act upon the resulting mutations. That means, evolution was not a driving force and acting for the emergence and origin of the first living organisms. The only remaining possible mechanisms are chemical reactions acting upon unregulated, aleatorial events ( luck,chance), or

physical necessity.  ( where chemical reactions are  forced into taking a certain course of action. )  Spontaneous self-assembly occurs when certain compounds associate through noncovalent hydrogen bonds, electrostatic forces, and nonpolar interactions that stabilize orderly arrangements of small and large molecules. ( Protocells Bridging Nonliving and Living Matter, page 43 ) The argument that chemical reactions in a primordial soup would not act upon pure chance, and that  chemistry is not a matter of "random chance and coincidence , finds its refutation by the fact that the information stored in DNA is not constrained by chemistry. Yockey shows that the rules of any communication system are not derivable from the laws of physics.  He continues : “there is nothing in the physicochemical world that remotely resembles reactions being determined by a sequence and codes between sequences.” In other words, nothing in nonliving physics or chemistry obeys symbolic instructions.
 
DNA contains a true code. Being a true code means that the code is free and unconstrained; any of the four bases can be placed in any of the positions in the sequence of bases. Their sequence is not determined by the chemical bonding. There are hydrogen bonds between the base pairs and each base is bonded to the sugar phosphate backbone, but there are no bonds along the longitudional axis of DNA. The bases occur in the complementary base pairs A-T and G-C, but along the sequence on one side the bases can occur in any order, like the letters of a language used to compose words and sentences. Since nucleotides can be arranged freely into any informational sequence, physical necessity could not be a driving mechanism.

 If design, or physical necessity is discarded, the only remaining possible mechanism for the origin of life is chance/luck.

Would you  say that it is plausible that a tornado over a junkyard could produce a 747 ?
Would you  say that it is plausible that mindless random chance can write a book ?

Paul Davies puts it more graphically: ‘Making a protein simply by injecting energy is rather like exploding a stick of dynamite under a pile of bricks and expecting it to form a house. You may liberate enough energy to raise the bricks, but without coupling the energy to the bricks in a controlled and ordered way, there is little hope of producing anything other than a chaotic mess.’ It is one thing to produce bricks; it is an entirely different thing to organize the building of a house or factory. If you had to, you could build a house using stones that you found lying around, in all the shapes and sizes in which they came due to natural causes. However, the organization of the building requires something that is not contained in the stones. It requires the intelligence of the architect and the skill of the builder. It is the same with the building blocks of life. Blind chance just will not do the job of putting them together in a specific way. Organic chemist and molecular biologist A.G. Cairns-Smith puts it this way: ‘Blind chance… is very limited… he can produce exceedingly easily the equivalent of letters and small words, but he becomes very quickly incompetent as the amount of organization increases. Very soon indeed long waiting periods and massive material resources become irrelevant.’

The cell is like a factory, that has various computer like hierarchically organized systems of  hardware and software, various language based  informational systems, a translation system, hudge amounts of precise instructional/specified, complex information stored and extract systems to make all parts needed to produce the factory and replicate itself, the scaffold structure, that permits the build of the indispensable protection wall, form and size of its building, walls with  gates that permits  cargo in and out, recognition mechanisms that let only the right cargo in, has specific sites and production lines, "employees", busy and instructed to produce all kind of necessary products, parts and subparts  with the right form and size through the right materials, others which mount the parts together in the right order, on the right place, in the right sequence, at the right time,   which has sophisticated check and error detection mechanisms all along the production process, the hability to compare correctly produced parts to faulty ones and discard the faulty ones, and repeat the process to make the correct ones;  highways and cargo carriers that have tags which recognize where  to drop the cargo where its needed,  cleans up waste and has waste bins and sophisticated recycle  mechanisms, storage departments, produces its energy and shuttles it to where its needed, and last not least, does reproduce itself.

The cell is an interdependent functional city. We state, “The cell is the most detailed and concentrated organizational structure known to humanity. It is a lively microcosmic city, with factories for making building supplies, packaging centers for transporting the supplies, trucks that move the materials along highways, communication devices, hospitals for repairing injuries, a massive library of information, power stations providing usable energy, garbage removal, walls for protection and city gates for allowing certain materials to come and go from the cell.” The notion of the theoretical first cell arising by natural causes is a perfect example of irreducibly complexity. Life cannot exist without many numerous interdependent complex systems, each irreducibly complex on their own, working together to bring about a grand pageant for life to exist.

The salient thing is that the individual parts and compartments have no function by their own. They had to emerge ALL AT ONCE, No stepwise manner is possible, all systems are INTERDEPENDENT and IRREDUCIBLE. And it could not be through evolution, since evolution depends on fully working self replicating  cells, in order to function.

How can someone rationally argue that the origin of the most sophisticated factory in the universe would be probable to be based on natural occurence, without involving any guiding intelligence ?

To go from a bacterium to people is less of a step than to go from a mixture of amino acids to a bacterium. — Lynn Margulis

Offline aitm

Re: Abiogenesis is impossible
« Reply #1 on: January 03, 2017, 09:15:52 PM »
yeah....intelligent designer...some of the time.....yea for the some of the time intelligent designer! Woo-hoo!

 
A humans desire to live is exceeded only by their willingness to die for another. Even god cannot equal this magnificent sacrifice. No god has the right to judge them.-first tenant of the Panotheust

Re: Abiogenesis is impossible
« Reply #2 on: January 03, 2017, 09:44:02 PM »
These guys are just crawling out of the woodwork.
Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able?
Then he is not omnipotent,
Is he able but not willing?
Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able or willing?
Then why call him god?

Re: Abiogenesis is impossible
« Reply #3 on: January 03, 2017, 09:45:15 PM »
yeah....intelligent designer...some of the time.....yea for the some of the time intelligent designer! Woo-hoo!

 (Image removed from quote.)

Does bad design mean no design ?

http://reasonandscience.heavenforum.org/t1302-does-bad-design-affect-the-argument-from-design?highlight=bad+design

It is generally agreed that no human being is perfect or designs things perfectly and yet we are intelligent.
Even suboptimal designs require a designer. The Newcomen steam engine was not nearly as efficient or practical as Watts’ steam engine, but no one in his right mind would suggest on that basis that Newcomen’s engine self-assembled by random chance. Second, some designs that may look suboptimal to us are actual optimal e.g. the panda’s thumb; the panda uses his “thumb” (actually a specialized bone in the wrist) for near continuous grasping of bamboo. If it had used an opposable thumb to do so, as proponents of naturalism suggest as a superior design, it would almost certainly suffer from permanent carpal tunnel syndrome. Third, what we see now is the world as marred by the curse upon sin. For all we know, people as created may have been able to synthesize every necessary vitamin, but some of those abilities may have subsequently been lost due to genetic corruption and drift. Furthermore : Since Genesis history includes the origin of sin and death, it is crucially foundational to the logic of the gospel: a good world, ruined by sin, to be restored in the future.


Some, for example, point to the cruelty in nature, arguing that no self respecting designer would set things up that way. This argument assumes an infallible knowledge of the design process. But that need not be the case. It may well be that the designer chose to create an “OPTIMUM DESIGN” or a “ROBUST AND ADAPTABLE DESIGN” rather than a “perfect design.” Perhaps some animals or creatures behave exactly the way they do to enhance the ecology in ways that we don’t know about. Perhaps the “apparent” destructive behavior of some animals provides other animals with an advantage in order to maintain balance in nature or even to change the proportions of the animal population.

Under such circumstances, the “bad design” argument is not an argument against design at all. It is a premature — and, at times, a presumptuous — judgment on the sensibilities of the designer. Coming from theistic evolutionists, who claim to be “devout” Christians, this objection is therefore especially problematic. For, as believers within the Judeo-Christian tradition they are committed to the doctrine of original sin, through which our first parents disobeyed God and compromised the harmonious relationship between God and man. Accordingly, this break between the creator and the creature affected the relationship between men, animals, and the universe, meaning that the perfect design was rendered imperfect. A spoiled design is not a bad design.

Juda Kenol : I tend to see many atheists disagree that the quality of nature does not equate to a causal agent but do so not on a logical basis. Its not a question of whether an agent was behind it or not, it is a question of whether great grandma soup could have done a better job; which is less erroneous; and must be done so in scrutiny of every cosmological to subatomic detail . What are you comparing deficiency of the eyeball to when you call it 'unintelligently designed ? Your own conception of God? What you would of done if you were god ? Once you admit this your argument becomes subjective and therefore not an argument at all. Even if we were to accept it, a plant cell is more complex than a space shuttle and if you believe a space shuttle is not intelligently designed , i become less inclined to believe in ID because you exist...

Re: Abiogenesis is impossible
« Reply #4 on: January 03, 2017, 10:06:58 PM »


This shit again?
Save a life. Adopt a Greyhound.


Re: Abiogenesis is impossible
« Reply #5 on: January 03, 2017, 11:11:16 PM »
(Image removed from quote.)

This shit again?
They never go away.  They don't read.  They don't listen.  The roll in the fact they are full of shit; and they love the smell of that.
Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able?
Then he is not omnipotent,
Is he able but not willing?
Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able or willing?
Then why call him god?

Offline Hijiri Byakuren

  • ULC Minister, Honorary Doctor of Divinity
  • *
  • Posts: 5023
  • Total likes: 1665
  • That's DOCTOR Hijiri, to you!
    • Pathos
Re: Abiogenesis is impossible
« Reply #6 on: January 04, 2017, 12:59:57 AM »
I'm not reading this novel.


Equal opportunity butt-stabber.

Re: Abiogenesis is impossible
« Reply #7 on: January 04, 2017, 01:58:51 AM »
I'm not reading this novel.
50 shades of Ken Ham :P

Re: Abiogenesis is impossible
« Reply #8 on: January 04, 2017, 02:03:14 AM »
Anyone can sit there and say that X is impossible.

Just like they did with the telegraph, and electricity, and flight, and rocketry, and space travel, and the internet, and self driving cars, etc.

Winner of WitchSabrinas Best Advice Award 2012


We can easily forgive a child who is afraid of the dark; the real
tragedy of life is when men are afraid of the light. -Plato

Offline pr126

Re: Abiogenesis is impossible
« Reply #9 on: January 04, 2017, 02:05:35 AM »
Religion.

Not dissimilar to the internalized beliefs of leftist ideology so prevalent in western universities where students get indoctrinated into the Marxist theology.

Different ideology, same results.
The Frankfurt School's "The long march trough the institutions".

See Feminism, Post Modernism, SJW, Open Society, and other culture destroying ideas such as STD, obesity, sexual deviance, gender confusion, mental illness becomes a virtue to be celebrated.
The road to perdition.

Here are the results:
Sorry but you are not allowed to view spoiler contents.


« Last Edit: January 04, 2017, 02:59:51 AM by pr126 »
It is easier to fool people than convince them that they have been fooled. - Mark Twain

Re: Abiogenesis is impossible
« Reply #10 on: January 04, 2017, 05:57:20 AM »
(Image removed from quote.)

This shit again?

 :rotflmao:                        :rotflmao:

This is the first time I saw that meme. Oh my gawd, my insides. I burst. 

Re: Abiogenesis is impossible
« Reply #11 on: January 04, 2017, 05:59:35 AM »
Religion.

Not dissimilar to the internalized beliefs of leftist ideology so prevalent in western universities where students get indoctrinated into the Marxist theology.

Different ideology, same results.
The Frankfurt School's "The long march trough the institutions".

See Feminism, Post Modernism, SJW, Open Society, and other culture destroying ideas such as STD, obesity, sexual deviance, gender confusion, mental illness becomes a virtue to be celebrated.
The road to perdition.

Here are the results:
Sorry but you are not allowed to view spoiler contents.

Echo...Echooo....Echoooooo




This shit again?



Offline Baruch

Re: Abiogenesis is impossible
« Reply #12 on: January 04, 2017, 06:43:44 AM »
Challengeatheism ... I will respect you, and give you a decent response ...

1. Cells are like factories, amazing isn't it?

2. Biology, cellular or neural is not like computers and software.  They are analog, not digital.  Digital is more limited, like only having integers to compute with.

3. Simple organiic molecules have been created in "early earth" experiments, and are found in outer space nebulas (even amino acids).  So simple organic molecules are both generated by living and non-living processes.  This has been a crisis in biochemistry since the mid 19th century, once the first organic molecule was synthesized by industrial process, thus putting a stake in the heart of "vitalism" as far as science is concerned.

4. In so far as we can know, there is a gap in our understanding, of how you get from these simple organic molecules to simple living organisms.  This may take early planetary conditions (why no pre-life forming now? ... I suspect oxygen to be the culprit) or billions of years of simple evolution to demonstrate.  We don't have exact knowledge of early planetary conditions (there was little oxygen, life created most of that), and we can't do long term controlled experiments.  We will have to visit many planets with primitive life, to do a comparative study, if we can ever do that.

5. Reductionism as an empirical tool, has its limitations.  Dealing with living things and thinking beings is one of them.  It works really good with atoms.  But without reductionism, we can't do exact science.  So exact science will never have a handle on "life" or "consciousness" ... the things of greatest interest to religion and most human beings.
« Last Edit: January 04, 2017, 06:48:10 AM by Baruch »
שלום

The friendly cup of noodles
« Reply #13 on: January 04, 2017, 07:02:24 AM »
Atheism: Lack of belief in gods an deities.

Challenge: "Abiogenesis is impossible."

Challenger: challengeatheism

Anaology: Because it is like a 1000 men death squad firing nd hitting a man...and intelligent design is awesome, look I can make up several other anologies to show how impossible abiogenesis is.

Reasoning presented by the challenger: "Hail Intelligent Design! Even though I don't really get what is this irreducible complexity, it looks very complex. Let's argue from ignorance. Fuck falsifiability, I dunno what it is, because I don't understand what scientific method is, so fuck it anyway. Cells are soooo complex and soooo cute, look at them, they are full of information! I am drowning in false dilemma(s) because I think this IC thing sounds cool and it looks some sort of a theory against the theory of evolution which I have no idea that that it is actualy the evolutionary sciences have been at work for a long time to make these explanations and the basic theory of evolution itself has been the crucial beginning point of modern sciences and as it constantly keeps getting confirmed right and left -which I keep benefitting every time I get sick- I have no idea the field has been far advanced and embraces everything, therefore I don't understand that by pulling something out from cell biology that I don't get, I am actually not able to challenge the theory of evolution or atheism or cup of noodles for that matter, because it is fucking meaningless. Because while one is a scientific theory, the other is an ancient greek word used to describe a neutral position of the group of people who lack the belief of gods and deities; a nonbeliever group that is consisted of every kind of people from every culture, some might have never heard the word abiogenesis, or even care about it, some might not even call themselves atheists. The cup of noodles is my only ally here. Because abiogenesis is impossible, because obviously there must be a designer and I want one and it feels cold and unsafe, I feel like there must be one."


Atheism: Lack of belief in gods and deities.

« Last Edit: January 04, 2017, 07:12:03 AM by drunkenshoe »

Offline pr126

Re: Abiogenesis is impossible
« Reply #14 on: January 04, 2017, 07:20:22 AM »
Echo...Echooo....Echoooooo

(Image removed from quote.)

This shit again?

Just being yourself again?
It is easier to fool people than convince them that they have been fooled. - Mark Twain