Proof against abiogenesis/evolution -- affirmative proof of God

[Naraoia]

I am willing to accept your point that the ICR's research does not kill off abiogenesis completely. It’s very difficult to completely rule out a scientific viewpoint. To zoom back a bit in this debate and look at the bigger picture, the reason I bring up prehistoric atmospheres is an admittedly aggressive attempt to change one of the assumptions in my probability model from 50% favorable interactions between molecules to 1% or less.

But there's a big gap in the time line between the time life is hypothesised to have originated (possibly as early as a few hundred million years after the earth's formation) and the evidence you cite for an oxygen-containing atmosphere (about 1.6 billion years after the earth's formation). A lot can happen in a billion years.

Evolutionists have a lot of moving parts to reconcile. For example, the early atmosphere would have to be such that the earth would not overhead. If volcanos are spewing mostly CO2 and water vapor into the atmosphere, how hot would the surface of the earth be?

Probably nice and comfy for hyperthermophilic organisms BTW, the sun would have been young and faint compared to its present strength IIRC (where are the astro-people when I need them?).

Would the early atmospheric composition be sufficient to shield solar radiation?

Why would it have to? Oceans are pretty good at that.

Lots of moving parts. When I look at the other planets, I see the difficulty of assuming atmospheres other than the one we’ve got, which is beautiful by comparison.

Ummmm... do I smell a massive non sequitur?

How does the atmospheric composition of other planets imply that the one we've got is the only one we could have, given that our oxygen-rich atmosphere is nothing like any other in the solar system? (And what does beauty have to do with it?)

Free oxygen, unlike you've asserted, is reactive. I don't know where I encountered the idea (might've been John Gribbin's Deep Simplicity, not sure), but it totally makes sense that oxygen couldn't be stably maintained in an atmosphere without a steady source of it (in this case, oxygenic photosynthesis). This consideration alone makes me doubt that the original atmosphere of the earth contained much of free oxygen.

(But then of course I'm going on random knowledge bites and common sense here. I'd actually appreciate to hear what some people with more relevant expertise say about the above idea.)

 

[True_Blue]

You are not modelling independent events. To give a simplistic example, the chances of an RNA oligomer popping into existence directly from carbon, nitrogen, hydrogen, oxygen and phosphorus is... well, 1 in a number that probably wouldn't fit on the screen. On the other hand, the chance vastly increases once you have nucleotides (although a catalyst is probably still required from what I've read). So the two events are not independent. The same goes for each and every intermediate step, whatever those may be. Consequently you can't just multiply all the probabilities. The sad conclusion is that your probability calculation doesn't make any sense as a model. (On a second look, it doesn't really make sense at all, but you could help me out on that)
.

I've addressed or otherwise don't want to deal with some of the points you've made. However, you point about INDEPENDENCE is absolutely critical. Hear that, everyone else? Hear, Thaumaturgy, etc? If you want to defend atheism against my attack, this is the aspect of my model that you need to focus in like a laser beam and attack to the best of your abilities. If you want to form a cell or a component of a cell, is the order of the constituent parts "dependent" or "independent" for the purpose of calculating probabilities for cellular evolution? This is the question that I poured most of my thought into as I constructed this thread. I don't want to answer this question for you immediately. If my time writing this post instead of studying for the bar exam is going to matter at all for the purposes of comparing God versus atheism, I must ask that you ponder this question for yourself and decide which assumption is best. In this debate, you guys are the judge and jury.

-----
I would rather you deal with the paragraph above rather than this one, but I want to politely respond to Naraoia to the extent practicable.

I can't speak for ICR, but personally, I pulled the 50,000 number out of my rear end. A bacterial flagellum has 70,000,000 atoms. I’m being illustrative, of course, because the simplest life form would not have a flagellum, but it would have DNA/RNA or similar structure. Check out the pictures here: http://www.ks.uiuc.edu/Research/flagellum. How can one look at a cell and conclude that it evolved? It’s instructive that claims about evolution/abiogenesis arose before anyone had a clue about how complicated cells are. If Darwin knew, he probably would not have written his book.

 

[TheGnome]

For something to be intelligently designed, wouldn't the creation be made out of the least amount of parts? If a man can only build a simple calculating machine by building a machine the size of your average refrigerator, while another man can build that same machine a size that can fit easily in your pocket, which one would you say is more intelligently designed? God doesn't need any matter to exist, therefore God must have been intelligently designed!

Also, I don't remember anyone posting this recently:

It's ridiculous calculating probabilities for something that already happened. I don't know how you could account for all of the rules necessary for atoms to come together as well as keeping in mind the size of the universe and throw up some number--especially without the necessary education to back you up. Do you operate under the assumption that things are currently working under magic? If so, then how did scientists figure out the rules behind physics and chemistry to begin with?

 

[True_Blue]

For something to be intelligently designed, wouldn't the creation be made out of the least amount of parts? If a man can only build a simple calculating machine by building a machine the size of your average refrigerator, while another man can build that same machine a size that can fit easily in your pocket, which one would you say is more intelligently designed? God doesn't need any matter to exist, therefore God must have been intelligently designed!

It's ridiculous calculating probabilities for something that already happened. I don't know how you could account for all of the rules necessary for atoms to come together as well as keeping in mind the size of the universe and throw up some number--especially without the necessary education to back you up. Do you operate under the assumption that things are currently working under magic? If so, then how did scientists figure out the rules behind physics and chemistry to begin with?

While I don't accept your first paragraph, some Christian philosophers like Thomas Aquinas in the Summa Theologica make the subtle argument that God could be thought of as infinitely simple. It's called the doctrine of Divine Simplicity. You have to be the judge of whether God is more reasonable or evolution is.

Your picture comes from the TalkOrigins article, which I've already cited to and rebutted in Post #1 on this thread. I've adjusted for it by adding 15 precursors.

Atoms with set numbers of protons and electrons can only bond with other atoms in a certain discrete number of ways. If we're talking about atoms as the constituents of life, I'm assuming in this particular model that there are only two ways that atoms could bond with each other, one of which is conducive to abiogenesis. You can feel free to research that in more detail and create your own model.

Finally, assuming that we exist because we evolved begs the question.

 

[True_Blue]

But there's a big gap in the time line between the time life is hypothesised to have originated (possibly as early as a few hundred million years after the earth's formation) and the evidence you cite for an oxygen-containing atmosphere (about 1.6 billion years after the earth's formation). A lot can happen in a billion years. Probably nice and comfy for hyperthermophilic organisms BTW, the sun would have been young and faint compared to its present strength IIRC (where are the astro-people when I need them?). Why would it have to? Oceans are pretty good at that. Ummmm... do I smell a massive non sequitur?

How does the atmospheric composition of other planets imply that the one we've got is the only one we could have, given that our oxygen-rich atmosphere is nothing like any other in the solar system? (And what does beauty have to do with it?)

Free oxygen, unlike you've asserted, is reactive. I don't know where I encountered the idea (might've been John Gribbin's Deep Simplicity, not sure), but it totally makes sense that oxygen couldn't be stably maintained in an atmosphere without a steady source of it (in this case, oxygenic photosynthesis). This consideration alone makes me doubt that the original atmosphere of the earth contained much of free oxygen.

(But then of course I'm going on random knowledge bites and common sense here. I'd actually appreciate to hear what some people with more relevant expertise say about the above idea.)

As a YEC, I don't particularly care much for billion year time scales [on planet earth at least]. I am interested in any studies you have showing that an oxygen atmosphere could not be maintained without a steady production of oxygen from life forms on a time scale of 100,000 years or less.

Also, keep in mind that without oxygen you get no ozone, and with no ozone, the sun's rays would more readily destroy complex organic molecules.

I don't believe we've found a thermophilic organism that grows in temperatures above 80 degrees C. Hence they would not survive on Venus, for example. 100 degrees C is certainly the upper bound. Still, you've postulated a good creative idea.

 

[Baggins]

I've addressed or otherwise don't want to deal with some of the points you've made. However, you point about INDEPENDENCE is absolutely critical. Hear that, everyone else? Hear, Thaumaturgy, etc? If you want to defend atheism against my attack, this is the aspect of my model that you need to focus in like a laser beam and attack to the best of your abilities. If you want to form a cell or a component of a cell, is the order of the constituent parts "dependent" or "independent" for the purpose of calculating probabilities for cellular evolution? This is the question that I poured most of my thought into as I constructed this thread. I don't want to answer this question for you immediately. If my time writing this post instead of studying for the bar exam is going to matter at all for the purposes of comparing God versus atheism, I must ask that you ponder this question for yourself and decide which assumption is best. In this debate, you guys are the judge and jury.

Oooh look everone True Blue thinks he's found a straw he can grasp

How can one look at a cell and conclude that it evolved?

Because we are intelligent enough to have looked at the evidence and understood it.

This is just an argument from ignorance " I don't know hopw this happened therefore a miracle occured" it is one of the worst arguments it is possible to imagine.

If this is the best you can do to make atheists think again I'm afraid it is back to the drawing board for you.

You are going to have to come back with something better than this.

I checked out the Grotzinger and Rothman paper as well, and, interesting as it was, it has been superceeded by more up to date studies viz:

http://www.springerlink.com/content/j76871832260706n/

Also, as others have pointed out, there are other signs of life in rocks up to 3.8ba so it isn't as if the absence of stromatolites in the early PreCambrian is of grave importance

It’s instructive that claims about evolution/abiogenesis arose before anyone had a clue about how complicated cells are. If Darwin knew, he probably would not have written his book.

Darwin wrote his book because that is where the evidence took him, no new piece of evidence has ever been produced to show that he was wrong.

 

[Baggins]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyperthermophile

[URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strain_121"]Strain 121

, an [/URL]Archaea living at 121°C in the Pacific.

Only 50% out TB

 

[True_Blue]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyperthermophile



Only 50% out TB

Stand corrected.

 

[Baggins]

Stand corrected.

I shouldn't worry, I did a double take when I saw those figures. Pretty amazing how tenacious life can be.

 

[Aerika]

Why have you posted "proof" against Evolution on a site called Christian Forums ? It seems you don't believe it yourself. Admittedly convincing Creationist is significantly easier than convincing scientist. But if your theory cannot hold up to criticism from this venue, how is it going to become published in a Scientific Journal or Magazine?

 

[True_Blue]

Why have you posted "proof" against Evolution on a site called Christian Forums ? It seems you don't believe it yourself. Admittedly convincing Creationist is significantly easier than convincing scientist. But if your theory cannot hold up to criticism from this venue, how is it going to become published in a Scientific Journal or Magazine?

A few posters have put a lot of time and good faith into responses, but so far the discussion has been around the fringes of my argument. The corpus of the argument hasn't been dealt with. As I mentioned earlier, at least one true corpus of the argument can be on whether abiogenesis can be accurately modeled using dependent or independent probability formulae, or some other alternative mechanism that an evolutionist/atheist/abiogenesis proponent might propose. I would be really impressed if someone proposed an alternative model for abiogenesis and allowed us to evaluate it.

 

[ChordatesLegacy]

When you talk about God killing the weak and the infirm, you make a valid argument. In their heart-of-hearts, I don’t believe people doubt God exists. Rather, they question whether He’s a good God, and they question whether He has our best interests in mind.

I know you and I both know that your calculation is tongue-in-cheek, but lest anyone take it seriously, the key number in your question is setting the number of instances per second to 10^1000. Not a reasonable assumption. Your numbers are the functional equivalent of setting P=1. That’s Drake and TalkOrigins did, and that isn’t accurate.[/quote

Doing statistical analysis with a population of one is at best inaccurate and at worst total nonsense. When we find life on another piece of rock somewhere we will then be able to do reasonable calculations.

Quite clearly life appeared on this planet some 3.5-4 billion years ago, so the odds of it happening are one to the number of planets in the universe. If we find life on another planet we could then say its 2 to the number of planets known, which is a couple of hundred at present.

AIGs calculations are meaningless as there are parameters that are not represented such as the number of different environments on the early earth and the number of ways chemicals can react in these environments, which must be a very large number.

In any case, even though life has not yet been created in a test tube, with our knowledge of biology increasing exponentially, it is only a matter of time before someone stands on a stage in Stockholm to receive a Nobel Prize for being the first to do so.

I suppose that will be the end of creationism, or maybe not, I mean creationists are pretty indoctrinated

 

[True_Blue]

I hear what you're saying, CL. Estimation models are ALWAYS better when we have data. The real model in question is abiogenesis itself. Since evolutionists have created the abiogenesis model or else relied on its existence to support the underlying philosophy of athesim, they have waived the right to protest my model showing that their model is impossible. Since there isn't data to support abiogenesis, there need be no data to support my model either.

For scientific reasons that are completely unrelated to this thread, I don't believe mankind will ever be able to create life out of a test tube. (I support the efforts if there is sound commercial value in such a thing.) And even if they did, they'd only be proving intelligent design (by humans).

 

[ChordatesLegacy]

I hear what you're saying, CL. Estimation models are ALWAYS better when we have data.

Agreed, and at present it is impossible to do statistical analysis on the amount of times abigenesis has occurred.

The real model in question is abiogenesis itself.

Again we at present only know of one case (i.e. life on earth) so modelling at its very best will be fundamentally flawed for this reason.

Since evolutionists have created the abiogenesis model or else relied on its existence to support the underlying philosophy of athesim,

Why would abigenesis and atheism be connected, after all you are atheist to all the worlds deities bar one.

Any arguments you use against abigenesis you must also use against you deity, so give me the odds of a super deity spontaneously appearing


they have waived the right to protest my model showing that their model is impossible.

No protest to your model, just pointing out the flaws, which are many.

Since there isn't data to support abiogenesis, there need be no data to support my model either.

There is plenty of evidence to support abiogenesis, after all it took 8-9 billion years to create the elemental composition of our solar system, I an sure your super deity could have sped things up a bit, after all according to you he is all powerful.

For scientific reasons that are completely unrelated to this thread, I don't believe mankind will ever be able to create life out of a test tube.

Why not, its only a matter of chemistry.

(I support the efforts if there is sound commercial value in such a thing.) And even if they did, they'd only be proving intelligent design (by humans).

Not at all, once life is created in a test tube; it will show the chemistry of life is possible. Or are you saying your great deity was only capable of similar feats (i.e. creating only the most basic lifeforms) if so the universe could not be the work of the same entity.

 

[Cabal]

I've addressed or otherwise don't want to deal with some of the points you've made. However, you point about INDEPENDENCE is absolutely critical. Hear that, everyone else? Hear, Thaumaturgy, etc? If you want to defend atheism against my attack, this is the aspect of my model that you need to focus in like a laser beam and attack to the best of your abilities. If you want to form a cell or a component of a cell, is the order of the constituent parts "dependent" or "independent" for the purpose of calculating probabilities for cellular evolution? This is the question that I poured most of my thought into as I constructed this thread. I don't want to answer this question for you immediately. If my time writing this post instead of studying for the bar exam is going to matter at all for the purposes of comparing God versus atheism, I must ask that you ponder this question for yourself and decide which assumption is best. In this debate, you guys are the judge and jury.

Oh dear. Reread my posts. I addressed the independence part (and so did MANY other people). You can't just plonk atoms down and multiply their probabilities using ordinary multiplication, otherwise you'll get exactly the results you want if we did arise by nothing but sheer chance (which, again, is NOT how these things work). As soon as you start to use, surprise surprise, CHEMISTRY, the existence of even a single van der Waals bond between two of your atoms and your

Total probability of n particles joining together = p1 x p2 x ..... x pn

formula goes right out the window. And obviously, chemistry (not to mention thermodynamics and biochemistry which you oh so recklessly discard) don't stop being applicable even if you want it to be.

 

[czar]

Seriously what is the point ? Stop challenging abiogenists and assuming that your magic nonsense is true creationists. Aliens , Panspermia ,Abiogenists you have a lot of alternatives however even if god created humans and every species separately this doesn’t disprove evolution !
EVOLUTION doesn’t explain the origins of the firs organism or organisms !
However given the data from genetic marker and viral DNA combined with deactivated DNA its ridicules to assume differently however lets give you the benefit of doubt XD.

BTW did you know that evolution is a brut force algorithm approach to a multilayer password with possible changes to layers in a distributed computing system ? O and we have evolutionary algorithms in computing.

BTW blue define life then we can talk this massage will be repeated until you answer this.

 

[ChordatesLegacy]

Is deep hydrogen the key to unlocking abigenesis; some people thing so.

LINK

Quote

That hydrogen might be a mere curiosity - or it might be relevant to the hot conditions where life seems to have originated

 

[Naraoia]

I've addressed or otherwise don't want to deal with some of the points you've made. However, you point about INDEPENDENCE is absolutely critical. Hear that, everyone else? Hear, Thaumaturgy, etc? If you want to defend atheism against my attack, this is the aspect of my model that you need to focus in like a laser beam and attack to the best of your abilities. If you want to form a cell or a component of a cell, is the order of the constituent parts "dependent" or "independent" for the purpose of calculating probabilities for cellular evolution? This is the question that I poured most of my thought into as I constructed this thread. I don't want to answer this question for you immediately. If my time writing this post instead of studying for the bar exam is going to matter at all for the purposes of comparing God versus atheism, I must ask that you ponder this question for yourself and decide which assumption is best. In this debate, you guys are the judge and jury.

I don't think non-independence skews the chances the way you think it does. Just to highlight some steps where I think the chances are much higher than 50%

There's a fair chance that simple building blocks of life such as amino acids and nucleobases were present on the very early earth - either from local reactions or from impacting bodies such as the Murchison meteorite. (AFAIK cytosine is one of the mysteries, but if memory serves other bases found in life's nucleic acids aren't problematic).

Under the right circumstances (eg. the presence of clay catalysts), ribonucleotides readily polymerise.

Fatty acids will readily form micelles in an aqueous solution, and under the right circumstances they form double-membraned vesicles.

Once an imperfect replicator perfect enough not to render itself extinct in the process of replication exists, evolution starts up. I think I've posted a link to rjw's essay about Lenski et al's digital organisms. I've never had a problem with evolution and I find figuring out how complex systems could've evolved a fun mental exercise, not a stumbling block - but Lenski et al's results surprised even me. Once you have natural selection, complexity isn't actually improbable. And we are probably talking about a large population of replicators (once one successful replicator appears it'll multiply exponentially until it reaches carrying capacity), so there are a lot of experiments going on.

You may also want to consider that there's more than one way to complexity, even to a single complex structure. Bacterial and archaeal flagella operate on similar principles but actually are quite different beyond the superficial similarities. So even if the chance of one particular kind of complex life form evolving is small that doesn't mean that the chance of any complex life form evolving at all is also small.

-----
I would rather you deal with the paragraph above rather than this one, but I want to politely respond to Naraoia to the extent practicable.

I can't speak for ICR, but personally, I pulled the 50,000 number out of my rear end.

I thought so. Bad idea if you want to build a model on it.

A bacterial flagellum has 70,000,000 atoms.

I still don't understand why you are using atoms when the units in the abiogenesis problem are very clearly not atoms.

I’m being illustrative, of course, because the simplest life form would not have a flagellum, but it would have DNA/RNA or similar structure. Check out the pictures here: http://www.ks.uiuc.edu/Research/flagellum. How can one look at a cell and conclude that it evolved?

I've seen pictures of a flagellum. I've also read The Flagellum Unspun by Dr Ken Miller and watched a great video about a step-by-step model of flagellum evolution. So I guess one could conclude that with a very basic understanding of biochemistry and evolution.

It’s instructive that claims about evolution/abiogenesis arose before anyone had a clue about how complicated cells are. If Darwin knew, he probably would not have written his book.

Darwin knew about a number of difficulties, some of which he thought were formidable. Still he wrote Origin. Darwin knew about the eye, which is one of the most popular irreducibly complex systems - and debunked it. He also considered the hive-building instinct of honeybees - and explained its origin in a way that all I could say was (I can't give you edition, page number off hand but IIRC it's in the chapter on instinct). I don't think cells would've scared Darwin.

 

[Naraoia]

Your picture comes from the TalkOrigins article, which I've already cited to and rebutted in Post #1 on this thread. I've adjusted for it by adding 15 precursors.

How have you rebutted it? I agree that the p = 1 argument is dodgy, however, that wasn't the main point of the TO article. For me the greatest attraction of the essay is the numberplay they do with moles and concentrations and volumes and stuff - and that numberplay is a tad bit more realistic than your independent 50% probabilities. (And the point that we can't draw statistical conclusions based on a sample size of one is completely valid.)

Atoms with set numbers of protons and electrons can only bond with other atoms in a certain discrete number of ways. If we're talking about atoms as the constituents of life, I'm assuming in this particular model that there are only two ways that atoms could bond with each other, one of which is conducive to abiogenesis.

Which still wouldn't mean that the probability of that way of bonding is 50%. As Vene has excellently illustrated with the hydrobromic acid example.

 

[Naraoia]

As a YEC, I don't particularly care much for billion year time scales [on planet earth at least].

Unfortunately we do - and the palaeosol samples mentioned in your link were much younger than the estimated origin of life.

I am interested in any studies you have showing that an oxygen atmosphere could not be maintained without a steady production of oxygen from life forms on a time scale of 100,000 years or less.

As I've said, I read about the instability of oxygen-rich atmospheres in a popular book (which is currently 2000 km from me) and don't remember who did the modelling. Just to bring up an idea I find reasonable. I'd be as interested in the studies as you are

Also, keep in mind that without oxygen you get no ozone, and with no ozone, the sun's rays would more readily destroy complex organic molecules.

Not if the complex organic molecules form in a sheltered place (in a rock crack, near a deep sea vent, deep in an ice sheet... can't think of other proposed ideas off hand)

I don't believe we've found a thermophilic organism that grows in temperatures above 80 degrees C.

I do believe we have. I've certainly heard about one discussed in a lecture... wait, see if I can find them. I could.

Hence they would not survive on Venus, for example.

Venus is closer to the sun than earth and Venus has a truly hellish atmosphere. You also haven't addressed the point about the young sun being weaker.

100 degrees C is certainly the upper bound.

It's certainly not. Meet Pyrolobus fumarii.

Still, you've postulated a good creative idea.

Don't give me the credit, I get these ideas from people who know the stuff I'm only beginning to learn