Abiogenesis is impossible

[Unbeliever]

I needn't be "all-knowing" to prove that Santa Claus doesn't exist, nor must I be omniscient to know that a theistic God doesn't exist:


https://infidels.org/library/modern/theodore_drange/incompatible.html

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incompatible-properties_argument




If something - such as a theistic God - cannot logically exist, then it does not, in fact, exist.

[Mike Cl]

" There is no evidence for God " Really ??!!

You are a christian.  And like most I have come in contact with, they are not just brain dead, but brain lacking.  You are typical in that you can't read.  I am not going to read that shit you cut and paste.  I've read it before--many times.  I was very detailed in my research into the question of god and the bible and the christian religion.  I am not going to re-read that shit.  I am more than happy to discuss the issue with you, but I will NOT read that cut and paste crap.  And 'really' there is not a shed of evidence that god exists or existed--any god.  If you want to discuss, then discuss.  I am not the one who invaded your forum, you invaded mine with the clear intention of putting me in  my place and showing me the error of my ways.  Well, do it. 

[TrueStory]

Sure. Chance does not produce Jumbos. Nor books. Nor living cells that are more complex and contain more information than the hadron collider. Intelligence imho can produce all of this......

Actually chance can and does produce literature.  Every possible sentence you can think of has already been done.  Every single sentence in this thread by every poster had been done and if you don't believe me look it up.

https://libraryofbabel.info/

[Unbeliever]

We need us a good gong!

[Mike Cl]

We need us a good gong!

Yeah, we could use that.  But even more, we could use a bigger picture of your avatar, errrr..............girls butt.....................................

[Baruch]

Actually chance can and does produce literature.  Every possible sentence you can think of has already been done.  Every single sentence in this thread by every poster had been done and if you don't believe me look it up.

https://libraryofbabel.info/

Thank you for quoting Nietzsche (myth of eternal return) ... and every bit of literature (say Hamlet) has been and will be written identically an infinite number of times.

The intention behind every word use, is unique to the occasion and the poster ... unless you think we are all one person, with multiple personality disorder, crazily trolling itself.

Sorry ... wejeudhfyjtydw ... isn't literature.

[Baruch]

The problem isn't that people aren't omniscient ... but that per Socrates, we are know-nothings.  As well as delusional and duplicitous about this fact.  Per Buddha, even your vaunted ego doesn't exist.

[Hakurei Reimu]

If that were true, nobody would grasp that unguided, random , lucky events are the only alternative to design.

Because you say so. Nobody is proposing an alternate explanation for books and jumbo jets.

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.

Apparently, these morons have never heard of a ribosome, whereupon singificant enzymic activity is still carried out by RNA in all of life. Their function derive from the fact that each nucleotide base is a different chemical arrangement with different functional groups, with different chemical properties that are brought into proximity by their sequence in the strand. The sequence does determine the chemistry of that RNA strand, the same way that the sequence of amino acids in a protien does determine the chemistry of the protein. The active site of an enzyme takes exactly this kind of form, distinct monomers with different functional groups and chemical properties being brought into proximity by their sequence in the enzyme.

Anyone who says otherwise either doesn't know shit or is lying.

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.

Those letters ATGC stand for chemically distinct nitrogenous bases: adanine, thymine, cytosine and guanine. They only show very little activity in modern DNA because they are paired up with a complementary chain and not allowed to fold around themselves to bring multiple units into close proximity. RNA has no such restrictions (and replacing thymine with uracil), and as such it finds enzymic function in quite ancient mechanisms such as the snRNP system and the ribosome. Hell, even paired-up DNA shows some distinct chemistry because that's how promotor and operator regions do their job.

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

Sorry, sport. You haven't done nearly enough to dismiss the laws of chemistry from the list of possibilities.

then my sources must probably lie ?

To be frank, yes. DNA can only be "pure code" if you ignore the fact that it's still made up of bonded atoms, and thus, will have some chemical properties. Every substance made up of atoms will have chemical properties. Period. Hell, if DNA didn't have some chemical properties, it could not do its job to be the information store of life at all.

[trdsf]

Sorry, Pasteur was going about demolishing the idea of spontaneous generation, not abiogenesis.  Two completely different things.

The rest is equally as factually incorrect.  Thanks for playing, though!  Care to try again and check your facts this time?

[Baruch]

Sorry, Pasteur was going about demolishing the idea of spontaneous generation, not abiogenesis.  Two completely different things.

The rest is equally as factually incorrect.  Thanks for playing, though!  Care to try again and check your facts this time?

19th century spontaneous generation is different than 20th century abiogenesis.  And as I pointed out, there is evidence, incomplete, for abiogenesis.  If natural systems don't follow the limitations of Pythagoras (all reality is numbers) then the restrictions we know about numbers, may well not apply to nature.  The cop out that everything is nature, including mathematics ... is not an excuse.  That is like finding out the moon isn't made a green cheese, and then doubling down, saying that in fact it is made of green cheese, because everything is made of green cheese (because we change the definition of green cheese to match our argument).

[challengeatheism]

You haven't done nearly enough to dismiss the laws of chemistry from the list of possibilities.

Again. Read carefully :

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.  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.

[Hydra009]

Because you say so. Nobody is proposing an alternate explanation for books and jumbo jets.

Yeah.  It really helps that we can watch books and jumbo jets being made.  We can personally see every step of the process if we wish.

God creating biological lifeforms...not so much.  Does he cross his arms and blink, like in I Dream of Jeanie?  Or does he snap his fingers like Q?

[Baruch]

Aristitle's 4 kinds of causation:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Four_causes

Material cause, Formal cause, Efficient cause, Final cause.  This works good if you are describing a Greek creating a statue.  The Material cause is the block of marble.  The Formal cause is the shape that the sculptor will carve out of the marble.  The Efficient cause are the tools the sculptor uses for the carving.  The Final cause is the religious motivation of the sculptor to portray a divinity.  Technically, the human element shows up in the Efficient cause and the Final cause.  But if something is formed in nature, without agency (a crystal of pyrite) ... then there is no necessary Efficient or Final cause.  It simply happens because of the laws of nature, which do not require a deity.  The bone of contention is that everything requires all four causes, and that the Efficient and Final causes require a person.  This is overgeneralizing.  Some things happen because of agency, some things don't.  Materialists don't believe in agency at all.  Spiritualists don't believe in non-agency.  They are both wrong.

[Hakurei Reimu]

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.  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.

So what if the content of DNA is not constrained by chemistry? The replication of DNA is not dictated by the specific base sequence in DNA, but by the mutual and preferential attraction between thyamine and adanine, and cytosine and guanine. The only thing that is required for replication there is that the nucleotides be held in place for long enough for them to spontaneously polymerize together. Proteins only help that occur quickly in modern organisms.

So that's heiredity right there. After that, evolution can take over, favoring sequences that can self-catalyze this polymerization. (RNA is functional.)

Try again.

The bone of contention is that everything requires all four causes, and that the Efficient and Final causes require a person.  This is overgeneralizing.  Some things happen because of agency, some things don't.  Materialists don't believe in agency at all.  Spiritualists don't believe in non-agency.  They are both wrong.

You are wrong to believe that materialists don't believe in agency at all. They do. It exists insofar as it can exist as a property of physical beings.

[Cavebear]

Actually chance can and does produce literature.  Every possible sentence you can think of has already been done.  Every single sentence in this thread by every poster had been done and if you don't believe me look it up.

https://libraryofbabel.info/

It is a reflective program.  You type anything, it claims to have it already.  Seriously, did anyone previously ever type "when on youthful freaked more warp, the loss birthed a wiggle."?