Proof against abiogenesis/evolution -- affirmative proof of God

[True_Blue]

As others have pointed out, evolution does not deal with the origin of life. It deals with speciation. Now that we've gotten that little matter out of the way, let's talk chemistry.

It looks like you're trying to make a purely probabilistic argument in an area where pure probability is not applicable. If chemistry was purely random chance, it would be fairly useless, and I'd be looking for a job in another field. Fortunately, chemistry is far from random.

Why do chemicals react? The simplest answer is that the product of the reaction has greater stability than the individual reactants, and this limits your possibilities -- reactions that generate molecules that are less stable than the starting molecules will not proceed. The second factor that constrains the possibilities is that atoms will only fit together in certain ways to make molecules, much like puzzle pieces will only fit together certain ways. For your back-of-the-envelope calculations to be applicable, they will need to account for these limitations.

Which is more stable: a strand of DNA sitting out in the open by itself, or a lump of sugar? Sugar is less stable than CO2 and H2O. In different posts, I've made the point that the massive, inexorable flow of entropy and natural chemistry works against the complex molecules that are the constituents of life. Removing biochemistry and entropy from the model and reducing it to bare probabilities makes it much easier for abiogenesis.

 

[atomweaver]

Chemical reactions are reductionistic--they like to form nice, simple inert gases and solid precipitates. Chemical reactions are mini-explosions. It should be clear that explosions create nothing orderly.

Bold emphasis mine. How ironic that I was writing an example using buckminsterfullerene, a product of the combustion of pure carbon, while you were writing the above. How much more ordered a product can you get than spherical C60 molecules?

 

[TheManeki]

Which is more stable: a strand of DNA sitting out in the open by itself, or a lump of sugar? Sugar is less stable than CO2 and H2O. In different posts, I've made the point that the massive, inexorable flow of entropy and natural chemistry works against the complex molecules that are the constituents of life. Removing biochemistry and entropy from the model and reducing it to bare probabilities makes it much easier for abiogenesis.

Sugar and DNA are both similarly stable. However, they are made from different raw materials by different reaction pathways under different conditions. There is no chance that a sugar molecule would be produced from a DNA synthesis reaction. Chemistry does not work by random chance, any more than cooking does.

By removing chemistry, kinetics, entropy, enthalpy, and the rest from the equation makes your "bare probabilities" useless, because they fail to accurately describe chemical processes.

 

[True_Blue]

Vene, I read your linked articles to the extent my subscriptions allow, and frankly they don't say what you think they say. Researchers are nowhere close to creating living cells from non-living constituents, nor from creating those constitutients from scratch save from cannibalizing them from other life forms, nor from demonstrating how such parts could form naturalistically. The article you gave me on Monte Carlo simulation doesn't give us their assumptions, and it only models a tiny link in the abiogenesis process.

Anyways, why don't you run your own model and give us the results? Get in the game rather than trash-talkin'.

 

[TeddyKGB]

Which is more stable: a strand of DNA sitting out in the open by itself, or a lump of sugar? Sugar is less stable than CO2 and H2O.

Chemical reactions are not required to form the most stable molecules possible at all times.

In different posts, I've made the point that the massive, inexorable flow of entropy and natural chemistry works against the complex molecules that are the constituents of life. Removing biochemistry and entropy from the model and reducing it to bare probabilities makes it much easier for abiogenesis.

You don't have a clue what you're doing.

 

[thaumaturgy]

Which is more stable: a strand of DNA sitting out in the open by itself, or a lump of sugar? Sugar is less stable than CO2 and H2O. In different posts, I've made the point that the massive, inexorable flow of entropy and natural chemistry works against the complex molecules that are the constituents of life. Removing biochemistry and entropy from the model and reducing it to bare probabilities makes it much easier for abiogenesis.

No, removing biochemistry and entropy from the model makes it easier for you to construct a model that bears no relationship whatsoever to an ineherently chemical and biochemical process.

Note what others on here like Maneki have said about this. We are dealing with systems that react according to rules, not a random slapping of one element into another. Although random slamming of molecules together does play a role.

But do keep in mind that a firm understanding of not just biochem and entropy but more broadly chemistry and enthalpy is quite handy to the debate.

The fact that the system is anything but pure random actually helps explain life's origins.

 

[thaumaturgy]

Chemistry does not work by random chance, any more than cooking does. .

To be fair, this is precisely why Mrs. Thaumaturgy no longer lets me cook dinner.

 

[Vene]

Anyways, why don't you run your own model and give us the results? Get in the game rather than trash-talkin'.

Why? It's much funnier reading you say that chemical reactions are explosions.


And it's a bit arrogant for me, an undergrad biotechnology student, to make big sweeping statements about abiogenesis and exactly what happened and didn't happen. Especially when there are promising ideas like the RNA world hypothesis.

 

[True_Blue]

Why? It's much funnier reading you say that chemical reactions are explosions.

And it's a bit arrogant for me, an undergrad biotechnology student, to make big sweeping statements about abiogenesis and exactly what happened and didn't happen. Especially when there are promising ideas like the RNA world hypothesis.

Dude, I'm attempting to communice basic principles using informal heuristics, not get an A on some insignificant biochemistry exam. I can draw on any analogy I please if it communicates a concept better.

 

[True_Blue]

No, removing biochemistry and entropy from the model makes it easier for you to construct a model that bears no relationship whatsoever to an ineherently chemical and biochemical process.

Note what others on here like Maneki have said about this. We are dealing with systems that react according to rules, not a random slapping of one element into another. Although random slamming of molecules together does play a role.

But do keep in mind that a firm understanding of not just biochem and entropy but more broadly chemistry and enthalpy is quite handy to the debate.

The fact that the system is anything but pure random actually helps explain life's origins.

When I read and understand the rules of chemistry, the inevitable outcome-inert gas and inert rock, seem inexorable and inevitable:

http://courses.cm.utexas.edu/biverson/ch310m/fall2007/MainPagesSp06/GoldenRules.html

 

[uberd00b]

These statistical arguments always seem a little dishonest to me.

Chemicals can only bond a certain number of ways, there are rules to it rather than it being completely random.

Chemicals bonding the way they do is inevitable given their structure and the laws that govern them.

 

[TheManeki]

Dude, I'm attempting to communice basic principles using informal heuristics, not get an A on some insignificant biochemistry exam. I can draw on any analogy I please if it communicates a concept better.

Unfortunately, the only concept you are communicating is your lack of knowledge of chemistry. Perhaps you should take some biochem classes, pass a few "insignificant biochemistry exams," and then get back to us. Heck, it would probably aid you in appreciating biotech R&D.

 

[True_Blue]

These statistical arguments always seem a little dishonest to me.

Chemicals can only bond a certain number of ways, there are rules to it rather than it being completely random.

Chemicals bonding the way they do is inevitable given their structure and the laws that govern them.

As I said earlier, bare chemical reactions create unreactive rock and unreactive gas (O2, CO2, H2, H2O, etc.). I assume that fact away in my probability analysis. That's why they can never hope to find even a simple sugar on Mars. We live in a world full of marvelous, intelligently designed factories that create sugars and other complex organic compounds in vast quantites. We truly take the underlying process for granted.

 

[True_Blue]

Unfortunately, the only concept you are communicating is your lack of knowledge of chemistry. Perhaps you should take some biochem classes, pass a few "insignificant biochemistry exams," and then get back to us. Heck, it would probably aid you in appreciating biotech R&D.

Why don't you get in the game and provide your own analysis?

 

[Vene]

Dude, I'm attempting to communice basic principles using informal heuristics, not get an A on some insignificant biochemistry exam. I can draw on any analogy I please if it communicates a concept better.

You're right, biochemistry is useless. Too bad that your biotech company completely relies on biochemistry to make you money. Not to mention chemistry's value in the green revolution.

Now, I personally don't care if you know anything about chemistry, biology, or any science. I care more about you spouting nonsense about theories you don't understand.

When I read and understand the rules of chemistry, the inevitable outcome-inert gas and inert rock, seem inexorable and inevitable:

http://courses.cm.utexas.edu/biverson/ch310m/fall2007/MainPagesSp06/GoldenRules.html

Wait, you're going to lecture the chemist (alright geochemist) on chemistry. This should be good.

 

[TheManeki]

Why don't you get in the game and provide your own analysis?

I have provided my analysis: I told you several times that chemical reactions do not occur by random chance, and that you are grossly underestimating the likelihood of abiogenesis.

I am rather flattered that you think I am able to come up with an accurate model to describe such a complex system, but it is beyond me. However, that does not mean that I cannot recognize some serious flaws inherent in your attempt. It would be analogous to you drawing a stick figure on a piece of paper and telling me it is an accurate representation of Michaelangelo's "David." My artistic talents may be so poor I can only draw stick figures myself, but I know enough to say that your stick figure doesn't look anything like "David."

 

[True_Blue]

I have provided my analysis: I told you several times that chemical reactions do not occur by random chance, and that you are grossly underestimating the likelihood of abiogenesis.

I am rather flattered that you think I am able to come up with an accurate model to describe such a complex system, but it is beyond me. However, that does not mean that I cannot recognize some serious flaws inherent in your attempt. It would be analogous to you drawing a stick figure on a piece of paper and telling me it is an accurate representation of Michaelangelo's "David." My artistic talents may be so poor I can only draw stick figures myself, but I know enough to say that your stick figure doesn't look anything like "David."

You're right--determining the probability of a cell evolving from chance is vastly beyond the capabilities of the human race. However, the probability can be ESTIMATED by making simplifying assumptions. My question for you is what simplifying assumptions would you make, and once made, what is the numerical result? In some ways, this exercise reminds me of some of my difficulties as an Air Force cost estimator trying to communicate with engineers. Engineers dwell in the realm of precision, whereas estimators dwell in the realm of probability and statistics. When discussing abiogenesis, precision is unrealistic.

Most responders on this thread have been quibbling over minutae and have lost lock on the big picture. The mere fact that living cells create complex molecules practically by magic does not mean that the tenets of chemistry allow such cells to have spontaneously generated either instantaneously or or over a trillion trillion years.

The probability is so small, impossible, in fact, that God is a much more reasonable explanation, notwithstanding our inability to understand how God himself came to be. He is the only explanation by process of elimination.

 

[Cabal]

Crystals are not alive. Their formation is proof of the underlying elegance of the mathematical system that governs the universe (another proof of God) than a natural manifestation of the extraordinary complexity of life forms. If you pour sand out of a buck onto a flat surface, the sand forms a nice pyramidal shape. The shapeliness of the sand is quite unrelated to the complexity of life. Also, I think you misapprehend the word "order" as applied to crystals. Crystals are not some sort of mystical exception to the Second Law of Thermodynamics. They're pretty to look at, but the arrangement of atoms in crystals is the result of the withdrawal of heat from the system, not the addition of it.

Physicist. I know, using the word "order" is bad, but like it or not, they maximise entropy.

And I couldn't give two hoots whether crystals aren't alive or not. The meat of your argument was plonking down particles and saying it wasn't possible - and even if your probability assumptions were true, which they sure as hell aren't, the idea of a limit of probability is pointless because the statistical interpretation of entropy will kick it into the ground of every time. The only other part of your argument is to what initiates life, and you practically destroy your own argument by saying that it's probably a chemical catalyst. And you're probably right, science will discover what this is in the future.

Also, despite slamming Drake's assumptions, why do you then use a surprisingly Drake-esque formula to "prove" that aliens couldn't have seeded earth?

Sorry for only focusing on the probability argument, but really that seemed like the only thing worth commenting on, and even then assuming equiprobability is about as valid as assuming p=1.0 in Drake's paper.

 

[TheManeki]

You're right--determining the probability of a cell evolving from chance is vastly beyond the capabilities of the human race. However, the probability can be ESTIMATED by making simplifying assumptions. My question for you is what simplifying assumptions would you make, and once made, what is the numerical result? In some ways, this exercise reminds me of some of my difficulties as an Air Force cost estimator trying to communicate with engineers. Engineers dwell in the realm of precision, whereas estimators dwell in the realm of probability and statistics. When discussing abiogenesis, precision is unrealistic.

Your attempts at simplification have rendered your numbers easy to calculate, but the results bear no resemblance to reality. Much like a stick drawing of "David" -- easy to draw, hard to recognize as "David."

Most responders on this thread have been quibbling over minutae and have lost lock on the big picture. The mere fact that living cells create complex molecules practically by magic does not mean that the tenets of chemistry allow such cells to have spontaneously generated either instantaneously or or over a trillion trillion years.

If you like statistics, let me couch it this way: It looks like the error bars on your estimate would make the odds not 1 to 1e7500, but 1 to 1e(7500 +/- 7499). That's not exactly minutiae. Your error bars are too wide to be useful for demonstrating anything except your lack of knowledge of chemistry.

The probability is so small, impossible, in fact, that God is a much more reasonable explanation, notwithstanding our inability to understand how God himself came to be. He is the only explanation by process of elimination.

Yet again, probability has nothing to do with chemistry, rendering your attempt at a point invalid. You may not understand how something works, but that doesn't mean God worked a miracle to make it happen.

I think we need a version of Clarke's Third Law for creationists. Instead of "Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic," how about "To a creationist, any sufficiently advanced science is indistinguishable from the miraculous" ?

 

[True_Blue]

Your attempts at simplification have rendered your numbers easy to calculate, but the results bear no resemblance to reality. Much like a stick drawing of "David" -- easy to draw, hard to recognize as "David."

If you like statistics, let me couch it this way: It looks like the error bars on your estimate would make the odds not 1 to 1e7500, but 1 to 1e(7500 +/- 7499). That's not exactly minutiae. Your error bars are too wide to be useful for demonstrating anything except your lack of knowledge of chemistry.

Even if you provided the basis of your error bars, and you didn't, this isn't the sort of statistical problem in which error bars are relevant. You're right that my assumptions have no basis in reality--that's the whole point of this exercise. Reality is much worse for abiogenesis at every level.

Here's a dose of reality. For abiogenesis to even have a prayer of working, a materially non-oxygen atmosphere is required, as with H2, CH4 and NH3 in Stanley Miller's experiment. Disregarding the fact that H2, and perhaps CH4 and NH3 as well, might dissipate into space given Earth's gravity, as well as prehistoric surface temperature, volcanos are not the source of such gases, as evolutionists practically have to believe. Here's a link to the percentages and types of gases emitted by representative volcanos. Note the really high composition of oxygen in those gases. http://volcanoes.usgs.gov/Hazards/What/VolGas/volgas.html.