Abiogenesis is impossible

[Mike Cl]

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.

In other words the universe is just to gosh darn complicated!  How can a guy be expected to understand all this stuff????   It just makes my head so achy.  But if god did it, then I can understand.....yeah, that's the ticket, god did it.  Now I can sound downright sage.  Hey, ya'll god did it, god did it, god did it.................wow, that is so easy!!

[Hydra009]

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..

Ah yes, Hoyle's fallacy.  I'll give you a minute to guess how it got that name.

How could the blind forces of the primal sea manage to put together the correct chemical elements to build enzymes?"

This is a disingenuous rhetorical question, but what the hell, might as well answer it anyway.

First off, you are approaching this as if chemicals had some sort of agency, that they came up with the idea of the first protocell then got to work.  Completely assbackwards and indicative of a creationist hocus pocus approach to science.

Second, we know that RNA is produced through natural processes.  We also know that phospholipids spontaneously form bilayers in water.  Replicating molecules and the precursors of cell membranes - there's a plausible pathway from non-life to life right there.

The field of abiogenesis gets way more complicated than that, but I'm not sure you can follow a genealogy that doesn't involve a chain of begats, so that'll have to do for now.

The nonsense of this line of reasoning is obvious.

Oh the irony!

[Hakurei Reimu]

Ker-snip.

You know what, you and your ilk talk a long yarn about chances this and chances that, but you never come up with a single calculation that actually holds up under scrutiny. Take your Boeing from a tornado example. What makes you think that the chances of life forming are in any way comparable to a tornado ripping through a junkyard to form a 747? You have no calcuations, not even a back of the envelope calculation. You just walk up and stamp life impossible because two numbers you don't have any idea of the magnitude are "equal" in your eyes. What a laugh.

You talk a long yarn about how life contains soooo much information, comparing it to the Encyclopedia Britannica, but again you have no numbers to back you up in this assertion. You just make up shit and come along with your little stamp.

You bitch about us believing that life came into existence suddenly fully formed comparable to modern life. No. That's what you believe, with your creationism nonsense. Don't you realize that, because your God is supposedly still around, life should still be popping up fully formed, as well as a plethora of less complicated things (including Bibles spontaneously forming â€" oh, wait. That would bankrupt good little Christian publishing houses)? But no, spontaneous creation of both life and books has been disconfirmed. Ergo, your God is dead.

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.

Why not? 1000s of creation idiots keep trying to aim at abiogenesis but keep missing the actual target, with your "fully modern life could not be created by chance" canard. Hey, it's called "modern" life for a reason, sport.

[Hydra009]

You know what, you and your ilk talk a long yarn about chances this and chances that, but you never come up with a single calculation that actually holds up under scrutiny. Take your Boeing from a tornado example. What makes you think that the chances of life forming are in any way comparable to a tornado ripping through a junkyard to form a 747? You have no calcuations, not even a back of the envelope calculation. You just walk up and stamp life impossible because two numbers you don't have any idea of the magnitude are "equal" in your eyes. What a laugh.

Also, it's worth noting that God is exempted from this tornado argument.  It's taken on faith that an omnimax God was around to kickstart the universe from nothing, but a simple bacterium is too complex to possibly arise from the soup of chemicals churning around in the ocean.



^too complicated to possibly have evolved!  Wake up, sheeple!



^100% real and requires no explanation.

[trdsf]

Unreasonable, blind and reasonable faith:

http://reasonandscience.heavenforum.org/t1840-unreasonable-blind-and-reasonable-faith

http://coldcasechristianity.com/2012/christianity-promotes-rational-and-evidential-exploration/

Unreasonable Faith
Believing in something IN SPITE of the evidence. We hold an unreasonable faith when we refuse to accept or acknowledge evidence that exists, is easily accessible and clearly refutes what we believe

Blind Faith
Believing in something WITHOUT any evidence. We hold a blind faith when we accept something even though there is no evidence to support our beliefs. We don’t search for ANY evidence that either supports or refutes what we are determined to believe

Reasonable Faith
Believing in something BECAUSE of the evidence. We hold a reasonable faith when we believe in something because it is the most reasonable conclusion from the evidence that exists. The Bible repeatedly makes evidential claims. It offers eyewitness accounts of historical events that can be verified archeologically, prophetically and even scientifically. We, as Christians are called to hold a REASONABLE FAITH that is grounded in this evidence.

The pages of Scripture support the notion of “reasonable faith”. Perhaps this is why so many Christians are evidentialists and have applied this evidential view of the world to their professional investigations (I’ve assembled a partial list of some of these Christian investigators in a variety of fields). Christianity has not stunted the intellectual growth of these men and women (as Anais Nin seemed to insinuate), but has instead provided the foundation for their exploration. For these investigators, the evidential nature of the Christian Worldview was entirely consistent (and even foundational) to their investigative pursuits in every aspect of God’s creation. Christianity did not cause them to “cease to grow” but, instead, provided the philosophical foundation for their investigations.

be careful to not delude yourself through blind and unreasonable faith.

So, now that you've described your problem, care to address the points I raised?  Personally, I doubt it.  You're just another coward trying to pretend to be a religious bully.

[trdsf]

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.

And what you fail to realize is that in the conditions available four billion years ago, a one-in-a-trillion chance would have happened approximately one billion times immediately.

And you're still expecting complete interlocking systems to arise out of nothing.  You have been told this is not the way it was.  Since you're insisting on that, that makes you a liar.

[trdsf]

Oh, and one other point about the so-called "problem" of irreducible complexity:

The entire history of science is that things that were once inexplicable become explicable when better measurements and/or better explanations come along.

What the argument of irreducible complexity says is: "I can't figure this thing out, and no one else ever will at any time in the future".

Just who the hell do you think you are to dare make such an obscenely arrogant statement?  How delusional are you that you think you are the be-all and end-all of all human knowledge?

Let me see not only your advanced degrees in at least two of the biological sciences, but also your Nobels in both Physiology and Chemistry -- then, and only then, might I give your assertion of possessing that deep a knowledge not only of the present but of the future state of research the most passing glance.  And after about two seconds, my statement will still be, how dare you make such an arrogant statement?

Are you really so appallingly self-centered and conceited that you can't conceive that there might be someone some day smarter than you who might be able to figure out all the things that you personally can't understand?  Because if science worked that way, we'd still be fumbling about in caves trying to figure this wheel thing out.

And if that's the world you want, where arrogant self-righteousness is more valuable, more 'true' than just sitting down and examining the evidence with an open mind rather than a pre-conceived notion, then you are a hypocrite every time you pick up a phone, every time you sit down to spew your uninformed nonsense on the Internet, every time you get into a car -- hell, every time you put on a shirt that has some polyester content.

Just by being on this site, you have accepted the gifts that thousands of years of science have made available to you.

And all you can do is piss all over it.

[Mike Cl]

^This!  2 likes if possible!

[challengeatheism]

Oh, and one other point about the so-called "problem" of irreducible complexity:

The entire history of science is that things that were once inexplicable become explicable when better measurements and/or better explanations come along.

What the argument of irreducible complexity says is: "I can't figure this thing out, and no one else ever will at any time in the future".

Just who the hell do you think you are to dare make such an obscenely arrogant statement?  How delusional are you that you think you are the be-all and end-all of all human knowledge?

Let me see not only your advanced degrees in at least two of the biological sciences, but also your Nobels in both Physiology and Chemistry -- then, and only then, might I give your assertion of possessing that deep a knowledge not only of the present but of the future state of research the most passing glance.  And after about two seconds, my statement will still be, how dare you make such an arrogant statement?

Are you really so appallingly self-centered and conceited that you can't conceive that there might be someone some day smarter than you who might be able to figure out all the things that you personally can't understand?  Because if science worked that way, we'd still be fumbling about in caves trying to figure this wheel thing out.

And if that's the world you want, where arrogant self-righteousness is more valuable, more 'true' than just sitting down and examining the evidence with an open mind rather than a pre-conceived notion, then you are a hypocrite every time you pick up a phone, every time you sit down to spew your uninformed nonsense on the Internet, every time you get into a car -- hell, every time you put on a shirt that has some polyester content.

Just by being on this site, you have accepted the gifts that thousands of years of science have made available to you.

And all you can do is piss all over it.

Is Intelligent Design based on gaps of knowledge and ignorance?

http://reasonandscience.heavenforum.org/t1983-is-intelligent-design-based-on-gaps-of-knowledge-and-ignorance

It's not.

1. High information content (or specified complexity) and irreducible complexity constitute strong indicators or hallmarks of (past) intelligent design.
2. Biological systems have a high information content (or specified complexity) and utilize subsystems that manifest irreducible complexity.
3. Naturalistic mechanisms or undirected causes do not suffice to explain the origin of information (specified complexity) or irreducible complexity.
4. Therefore, intelligent design constitutes the best explanations for the origin of information and irreducible complexity in biological systems.

Observation: Intelligent agents  act frequently  with an end goal in mind, constructing functional irreducibly complex  multipart-machines, and  make  exquisitely integrated circuits that require a blueprint to build the object. Furthermore, Computers   integrate  software/hardware and store  high levels of instructional complex coded information. In our experience, systems that either a)require or b)store  large amounts of specified/instructed complex information  such as codes and languages, and which are constructed in a interdependence of hard and software invariably originate from an intelligent source. No exception.
Hypothesis (Prediction): Natural structures will be found that contain many parts arranged in intricate patterns, metabolic pathways similar to electronic circuits, and irreducible structures  that perform  specific functions -- indicating high levels of  Information, irreducible complexity, and interdependence, like hard/software.
Experiment: Experimental investigations of DNA, epigenetic codes, and metabolic circuits indicate that biological molecular machines and factories ( Cells ) are full of information-rich, language-based codes and code/blueprint-based structures. Biologists have performed mutational sensitivity tests in proteins and determined that their amino acid sequences, in order to provide  function, require highly instructional complex coded information stored in the Genome.   Additionally, it has been found out, that cells require and use various epigenetic codes, namely  Splicing Codes,  Metabolic Codes,  Signal Transduction Codes,  Signal Integration Codes Histone Codes, Tubulin Codes, Sugar Codes , and The Glycomic Code. Furthermore, all kind of irreducible complex molecular machines and biosynthesis performing  and metabolic pathways have been found, which could not keep their basic functions without a minimal number of parts and complex inter wined and interdependent structures. That indicates these biological machines and pathways had to emerge fully operational, all at once. A step wise evolutionary manner is not possible. Furthermore, knock out experiments of all components of the flagellum have shown that the flagellum is irreducible complex.
Conclusion: Unless someone can falsify the prediction, and  point out a non-intelligent source  of  Information as found in the cell, the high levels of instructional complex coded information, irreducible complex and interdependent molecular systems and complex metabolic circuits and biosynthesis pathways, their origin is   best explained by the action of an intelligent agent.

[challengeatheism]

And what you fail to realize is that in the conditions available four billion years ago, a one-in-a-trillion chance would have happened approximately one billion times immediately.

And you're still expecting complete interlocking systems to arise out of nothing.  You have been told this is not the way it was.  Since you're insisting on that, that makes you a liar.

Objection:  There are 31 million seconds in a single year, meaning that if you multiply that by ten billion you get an astronomical amount of chances and don't forget just because something is largely unlikely doesn't mean it's impossible
Answer: Paul Davies once said;
How did stupid atoms spontaneously write their own software … ? Nobody knows …… there is no known law of physics able to create information from nothing.

The protein that enables a firefly to glow, and also reproduce (as its illuminated abdomen also serves as a visible mating call), is a protein made up of a chain of 1,000 amino acids. The full range of possible proteins that can be coded with such a chain is 17 times the number of atoms in the visible universe. This number also represents the odds against the RANDOM coding of such a protein. Yet, DNA effortlessly assembles that protein, in the exactly correct, and absolutely necessary sequence and number of amino acids for the humble firefly. What are we to say of the 25,000 individual, highly specialized, absolutely necessary, and exactly correctly coded proteins in the human body?

Dembsky : We also know from broad and repeated experience that intelligent agents can and do produce information-rich systems: we have positive experience-based knowledge of a cause that is sufficient to generate new instructing complex information, namely, intelligence.  the design inference  does not constitute an argument from ignorance. Instead, it constitutes an "inference to the best explanation" based upon our best available knowledge.  It asserts the superior explanatory power of a proposed cause based upon its provenâ€"its knownâ€"causal adequacy and  based upon a lack of demonstrated efficacy among the competing proposed causes.  The problem is that nature has too many options and without design couldn’t sort them all out. Natural mechanisms are too unspecific to determine any particular outcome. Mutation and natural selection or luck/chance/probablity could theoretically form a new complex morphological feature like a  leg or a limb with the right size and form , and arrange to find out the right body location to grow them , but it could  also produce all kinds of other new body forms, and grow and attach them anywhere on the body, most of which have no biological advantage or are most probably deleterious to the organism. Natural mechanisms have no constraints, they could produce any kind of novelty. Its however that kind of freedom that makes it extremely unlikely that mere natural developments provide new specific evolutionary arrangements that are advantageous to the organism.  Nature would have to arrange almost a infinite number of trials and errors until getting a new positive  arrangement. Since that would become a highly  unlikely event, design is a better explanation.

Even the simplest of these substances [proteins] represent extremely complex compounds, containing many thousands of atoms of carbon, hydrogen, oxygen, and nitrogen arranged in absolutely definite patterns, which are specific for each separate substance.  To the student of protein structure the spontaneous formation of such an atomic arrangement in the protein molecule would seem as im- probable as would the accidental origin of the text of irgil’s “Aeneid” from scattered letter type.1
â€" A. I. Oparin

Mondore, The Code Word
What is the probability of complex biochemicals like proteins and DNA arising by chance alone?
The chance that amino acids would line up randomly to create the first hemoglobin protein is 1 in 10^850. The chance that the DNA code to produce that hemoglobin protein would have randomly reached the required specificity is 1 in 10^78,000.

Joseph Mastropaolo, Ph.D.
According to the most generous mathematical criteria, abiogenesis and monogenesis are impossible to unimaginable extremes.

Abiogenic Origin of Life: A Theory in Crisis, 2005 Arthur V. Chadwick, Ph.D. Professor of Geology and Biology
To give you an idea of how incomprehensible, I use the following illustration. An ameba starts out at one side of the universe and begins walking towards the other side, say, 100 trillion light years away. He travels at the rate of one meter per billion years. He carries one atom with him. When he reaches the other side, he puts the atom down and starts back. In 10^186 years, the ameba will have transported the entire mass of the universe from one side to the other and back a trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion times. That is my definition of impossible. And what resulted from success, if it did occur would not be a living cell or even a promising combination. Spontaneous origin of life on a prebiological earth is IMPOSSIBLE!

The Criterion : The "Cosmic Limit" Law of Chance

To arrive at a statistical "proof," we need a reasonable criterion to judge it by :

As just a starting point, consider that many statisticians consider that any occurrence with a chance of happening that is less than one chance out of 10^50, is an occurrence with such a slim a probability that is, in general, statistically considered to be zero. (10^50 is the number 1 with 50 zeros after it, and it is spoken: "10 to the 50th power"). This appraisal seems fairly reasonable, when you consider that 10^50 is about the number of atoms which make up the planet earth. --So, overcoming one chance out of 10^50 is like marking one specific atom out of the earth, and mixing it in completely, and then someone makes one blind, random selection, which turns out to be that specific marked atom. Most mathematicians and scientists have accepted this statistical standard for many purposes.

Objection:  There are literally billions of stars, with billions of planets in positions that would support life, there are countless scenarios on said planets happening, even right now, that could lead to life and that has been happening for 13.7 billion years on billions upon billions of planets.
Answer: Paul Davies, the fifth miracle page 53:
There are indeed a lot of starsâ€"at least ten billion billion in the observable universe. But this number, gigantic as it may appear to us, is nevertheless trivially small compared with the gigantic odds against the random assembly of even a single protein molecule. Though the universe is big, if life formed solely by random agitation in a molecular junkyard, there is scant chance it has happened twice.

The data demonstrate that the probability of finding even one planet with the capacity to support life falls short of one chance in 101^40 (that number is 1 followed by 140 zeros).

[challengeatheism]

You're just another coward trying to pretend to be a religious bully.

http://reasonandscience.heavenforum.org/t2288-most-frequent-responses-given-by-proponents-of-naturalism-in-a-debate-and-how-they-can-improve-their-debate-skills

The Internet  is dominated by the crude, the uninformed, the immature, the smug, the untalented, the  repetitious, the pathetic, the hostile, the deluded, the self-righteous, and the shrill.    Usually, the tool of the loser of a debate will resort to insult, [Arostotle]  Basic rule of thumb  : When someone with oposit views  starts calling you names, it means he has nothing left to debate against your argument. It also means: The  proponent of intelligent design / creationism  just won the debate.  Namecalling serves no useful purpose and is, therefore, illogical My advice: Do not make any explitic adhom, calling me names, like troll, stupid, idiot etc. , or acusing me of not thinking, or not using my brain. - Do also not  try to attack   my education, ( asking to go back to school, taking a science class etc. )  or ask for my credentials.  It adds nothing to your case, nor does it make naturalism become more compelling.

[Hydra009]

The Internet  is dominated by the crude, the uninformed, the immature, the smug, the untalented, the  repetitious, the pathetic, the hostile, the deluded, the self-righteous, and the shrill.

You have at least 8 of those on lock yourself.  And telling you to go back to school is the inevitable conclusion any normal person comes to when they encounter a deluge of creationist drivel demonstrating such a poor grasp of evolution that it's obvious that not a single day was spent actually studying the topic.

Case in point:

The protein that enables a firefly to glow, and also reproduce (as its illuminated abdomen also serves as a visible mating call), is a protein made up of a chain of 1,000 amino acids. The full range of possible proteins that can be coded with such a chain is 17 times the number of atoms in the visible universe. This number also represents the odds against the RANDOM coding of such a protein. Yet, DNA effortlessly assembles that protein, in the exactly correct, and absolutely necessary sequence and number of amino acids for the humble firefly.

http://arstechnica.com/science/2014/03/understanding-how-fireflies-evolved-their-glow/

Mount Improbable has a much more gentle slope than advertised.

[Hakurei Reimu]

I see you like your cherrypicked authors who write long and hard about how abiogenesis is a theory in crisis. What is the impact index of your little group? I also notice how your authors harp on how modern proteins (hemoglobin) and their genes are impossible to come about through chance alone. Yeah, no shit, but that's not what's claimed. These proteins were evolved through millions of years of repeated trial and error that is evolution. That's why they are MODERN proteins. They didn't exist at the beginning of life. They came along later, long after abiogenesis.

The first replicators were probably 20 base pairs or less. Even if only one of these sequences were able to replicate on its own (unlikely, as close relatives would also be replicators), that would mean that there would be 5 x 10^11 of these molecules in each mole of random 20-unit strands. Once you get one replicator, life climbs the ladder, one rung at a time.

[challengeatheism]

These proteins were evolved through millions of years of repeated trial and error that is evolution. That's why they are MODERN proteins. They didn't exist at the beginning of life. They came along later, long after abiogenesis.

ahahahahahahaha.. NO KIDDING ??!!!

The heme biosynthesis pathway is irreducible complex.

http://reasonandscience.heavenforum.org/t1322-the-amazing-hemoglobin-molecule#1859

Heme biosynthesis is a complex pathway with 8 highly specific steps, of which 6 steps are used by specific enzymes uniquely in this pathway.
The pathway must go all the way through, otherwise heme is not synthesized.
Therefore, the heme biosynthesis pathway is irreducible complex.


Questions:
What good would there be, if the pathway would go only up to the 7th step ? none
What good would there be, if the pathway would go all the way through the 8th step ? Heme would be produced , BUT :
What good for survival would there be for Heme by its own, if not fully embedded in the globin proteins? none.
What good would there be for red bloodcells without hemoglobin, transporting oxygen to the cells in the body ? none, transporting oxygen is essential for the whole process. I conclude therefore that the heme biosynthesis pathway is irreducible complex, and could not have evolved upon mutation and natural selection.

I mentioned that some enzymes have to be imported into the mitochondrion. These enzymes contain special protein sequences called targeting signals that direct them to the right place. So the next question: is globin targeted to the mitochondrion? No - it is synthesised on ribosomes, attached to the Golgi apparatus in the cytoplasm and it stays there. Some of the haem made in the mitochondrion is used by mitochondrial proteins called cytochromes, but the rest is exported back outside where it can attach to the globin protein. Have a look at these Wikipedia pages: heme and porphyrin, for some more details. Porphyrins, by the way, are intermediates in haem synthesis that also have the tetrapyrrole structure.

Researchers have done experiments in which they synthesised globin protein chains to see at what point the haem attached. It can attach when about 80-90 amino acids have emerged from the ribosome - in other words, it attaches to the "nascent chain" as the protein is being synthesised. One of the mysteries that we don't fully understand is how the haemoglobin assembles itself properly - so as it has 2 alpha chains and 2 beta chains each with a haemoglobin attached.

Question : for what reason would evolution try to assemble the heme to the globin ? what survival advantage would there be provided by a globin without the heme ? and what advantage of the heme without the globin ?

How did gene duplication, followed by random mutations and natural selection figure out to produze  the  PBG deaminase enzyme,, used as far as science knows, exclusively in this path way, so no co-option possible ? -  that would produce this complex reaction, ( which is just the third in the whole pathway of total 8 steps )  consisting in 4 highly coordenated , ordered, sequenced and complex steps, forming a geometrically correct tetrapyrrole, and repeat the first two steps in total 4 times ? How did evolution be capable to producte  the right genetic code and informational sequence ?  How did evolution figure out to program  the release of the hydroxymethylbilane enzyme at the right time, after the product, the linear hydroxymethylbilane was catalized, and  while releasing four ammonia molecules ?

[Hijiri Byakuren]

Nothing is irreducibly complex. The less complex version just has a different function/behavior.


Equal opportunity butt-stabber.