Proof against abiogenesis/evolution -- affirmative proof of God

[Blayz]

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)

UV only penetrates about 50-60m into water, so anywhere on the planet under more than 50-60m of water would also be good.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

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 they haven't, your paranoid conspiracy theory doesn't go unnoticed.

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

Sure there is: abiogenesis is fantastically more well evidenced than yours. Though there are no observed instances of it, the theory is sound and the individual steps are well known. This video sums it up nicely:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ozbFerzjkz4

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).

Except they wouldn't: ID requires an intelligence spontaneously creating fully-formed (and fully designed) organisms ex nihilo. Electrifying mud and acid and see what grows isn't ID, it's abiogenesis.

 

[ChordatesLegacy]

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.

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

Well get used to it, because it is a fact.


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.

Oxygen is one of the most reactive elements, during it’s early production by life on Earth it would have oxidised pretty much everything and poisoned most of the life producing it.

Have a read. LINK


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

Not at all, up until free oxygen in the atmosphere, creatures only lived in the sea and water is excellent at filtering UV radiation, as the last poster point out.

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

Sorry you are wrong

[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][SIZE=-1]Bacteria and Archaea live in hot springs heated by geothermal reactions deep in the Earth. Some springs reach temperatures of 80 C (177F). The discovery of these heat-loving bacteria is credited to Professor Thomas D Brock, formerly of the University of Wisconsin at Madison. The bacteria, Thermus aquaticus, live in the hot springs of Yellowstone National Park, Wyoming, and its discovery led to the development of a highly useful bio-technology called Polymerase Chain Reaction (PCR). This is used for a wide variety of purposes including the production of sugar from vegetable matter at high temperatures, in forensic genetic fingerprinting, in medical diagnosis and in screening for genetic and other diseases.[/SIZE][/FONT]


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.

Sorry wrong again

​

[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][SIZE=-1]The current record for temperature tolerance is held by Pyrodictium Occultum, an archaean which survived 121 C (250 F) for an hour. However, John Parkes of Bristol University has evidence of microorganisms living at 170 C (338 F) around volcanic vents on the ocean floor.[/SIZE][/FONT]

[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][SIZE=-1]The extremophiles that live around the mid-ocean ridges live at extreme depths too, where the hydrostatic pressure is enormous. But other organisms such as fish and crustaceans - lobsters - live at these depths too. The secret is for the organism to balance or equalize the internal and external pressures.[/SIZE][/FONT] [FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][SIZE=-1]Holger Jannasch leads a team of researchers at the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution in Massachusetts. Holger is one of the world's leading experts on life around mid-ocean hydrothermal vents. The Woods Hole team found Pyrolobus fumarii, an Archaea, at the mid-Atlantic ridge in 1996. Living at a depth of 3600 meters, and at temperatures of up to 113 C (235 F) the microbe was able to survive both in the presence of oxygen and without it. It is a chemoautotroph, and survives with any intake of organic mater, on hydrogen, nitrates and sulfates. It is one of best examples, so far discovered, of a a microbe that can survive not just at one extremes but in a variety of conditions. The researchers claim that it is good evidence to reinforce the notion of life living in the watery depths below the ice of Europa.[/SIZE][/FONT]

LINK TO IMAGES AND QUOTES

 

[atomweaver]

K, first of all, cut down on the hyperbole. That's very, very tiresome.

Its not hyperbole. If you put these assumptions about how chemistry works into practice in an industrial setting, you will die, and that is no exaggeration. I mention this, because it is a clear way of telling whether the similar assumptions you make in your "statistical analysis" are at all accurate. They aren't, and so the statistic analysis you do based on your faulty assumptions is itself faulty...

Anyways, I don't always make posts that rebut in advance the likely responses. Perhaps I should have here. I would refer you to ionizing radiation in the atmosphere.

What? Weren't you saying that volcanoes "spew out oxygen"? Let me check... Yes, yes you were;

I do know enough about geochemistry to know that volcanoes (at least the ones that mankind has actual experience with) are spewing out mostly oxygen, and therefore volcanoes are a poor source of a purported substantial non-oxygen atmosphere.

Bold emphasis mine.

I am not an expert on atmospheric physics/chemistry, but it seems to me

Uh oh, here we go again. You've got a real high opinion of your ability to guess at how chemistry works, True Blue.

that solar radiation ionizes compounds emitted by volcanoes, and at the end of the day, you're gonna end up with a lot of O2.

For your assumptions about the chemistry to be accurate, you have to know that the conditions of reaction favor your assumed outcome... as your "Golden Rules of O-Chem" link said; provide motive and opportunity.

Motive; the ionization energy of CO2* is 13.769 eV. Show that the ionization energy source you propose is sufficient to break this bond. I'll give you a hint, here; even UV-C at it's short end of 100 nm maxxes out at 12.4 eV, you're looking for more energy than that. The next shortest wavelength range of UV is UV-V (200 nm - 10 nm)

Opportunity; the ionization energy and the CO2 molecule should have a reasonable chance of interacting in large abundance (this is your proposed source for most ofour atmospheric oxygen, after all). Does the atmospheric strata that CO2 is found in (troposphere) experience the ionization energy at the intensity required to break up CO2 in any significant quantity? Or, is that ioinization energy depleted in the higher atmospheric strata before it has a chance to affect the CO2 in any appreciable amount? Here's your second hint, in the term UV-V above, the second 'V' is for 'Vacuum'... want to take a guess at (or, look up on the Internet) UV-V's relative abundance in an atmosphere?


* For simplicity, I picked one volcanic gas with atomic oxygen contained therein. You could do this same exercise with each atomic oxygen-containing gas, but I somehow doubt you'd be so inclined...

 

[True_Blue]

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

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.

Ok. I can only think of three possible origins of life: God, aliens, and chance. If the odds of aliens and chance being the answer is 1/(1*10^7500), then the odds of God is 1 - 1/(1*10^7500), which essentially equals 100%. I like those odds, CL.

 

[True_Blue]

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

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.

Ok. I can only think of three possible origins of life: God, aliens, and chance. If the odds of aliens and chance being the answer is 1/(1*10^7500), then the odds of God is 1 - 1/(1*10^7500), which essentially equals 100%. I like those odds, CL.

I didn't quite say it earlier, but I don't believe mankind will EVER be able to create life out of a test tube from parts synthesized by people. Perhaps they will be able to cut living cells apart and put them back together, but never design, build, and give life to such a cell from stratch. I think scientists that pursue such a goal will develop a renewed appreciation for the marvelous complexity and wonder of life in all forms as we know them.

 

[TheManeki]

Ok. I can only think of three possible origins of life: God, aliens, and chance.

More education in the field of chemistry/biochemistry might help you to realize that your list of options is incomplete.

 

[True_Blue]

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.

I put a great deal of thought into my probability equation. Take a look at the structures in this link, and ask yourself honestly whether the functionality of a flagellum, for example, relies on the order and structure of each of the individual atoms that comprise it. Also, ask yourself to what degree a life form could survive if genes were missing or out of order. I've concluded that a truly precise probability equation will be ever so slighly additive and almost completely multiplicative. If you want to calculate the odds of a bacteria DNA strand forming from C, H, and O atoms, part of the exercise requires determining how many sequences would result in a viable self-replicating strand. Even absurdly high numbers of possibilities don't help those who've put their faith in abiogenesis. You'll see that if you run the numbers.

 

[True_Blue]

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).

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.

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

I very much appreciate your good-faith post, Naraoia. I use atoms because abiogenesis assumes chemical reactions to build a life form. We could expand the base "particle" to be simple sugars or larger molecules. The probability analysis holds even up to the protein level. However, I'm rather convinced that even a simple sugar could not form under naturalistic condictions, and for that reason, I use atoms.

Evolutionists really don't want selective pressure to apply to abiogenesis. Selective pressure in the context of higher life forms eliminates life forms with unfavorable genes. Selective pressure in the context of abiogenesis prevents simple compounds from forming sugars and other far more exceedingly complex organic molecules. To restate my point, chemical natural selection disfavors complex molecules in favor of non-reactive rock, non-reactive gas, and non-reactive liquid. In my view, selective pressure is perfectly synonymous with the 2nd Law. The 2nd Law is not random--it's almost a destructive, malevolent force with respect to life, so of course selective pressure is not random either. In Post #1, I eliminate this selective pressure as a favor to evolutionists.

 

[Cabal]

ask yourself honestly whether the functionality of a flagellum, for example, relies on the order and structure of each of the individual atoms that comprise it.

So the basis of your formula is irreducible complexity? Even its inventor admits it proves nothing.

And the only way you're going to get round entropy is to ignore it, unless you'd care to claim that it's possible for a system to not condense to a macrostate.

 

[True_Blue]

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. It's certainly not.

I have a lot of posts to respond to, so I can't give all of your ideas the attention they deserve. I would point out the idea that the young sun being weaker than today's violates the 2nd Law (maybe that's not what you're saying, and if so, please clarify). I don't have to do any research to justify that statement, and even if such research existed, I won't agree with said research.

 

[Vene]

Also, ask yourself to what degree a life form could survive if genes were missing or out of order.

Please, keep talking. Maybe you'll shown just how little you know. The order of genes is completely and totally meaningless. The order of them has no influence in whether or not a protein is synthesized or how it's synthesized. That's why when a virus inserts its genetic material into a cell it makes no difference where it's inserted, just that it is inserted.

 

[Vene]

I don't have to do any research to justify that statement, and even if such research existed, I won't agree with said research.

This says it all.

 

[True_Blue]

Its not hyperbole. If you put these assumptions about how chemistry works into practice in an industrial setting, you will die, and that is no exaggeration. I mention this, because it is a clear way of telling whether the similar assumptions you make in your "statistical analysis" are at all accurate. They aren't, and so the statistic analysis you do based on your faulty assumptions is itself faulty...

What? Weren't you saying that volcanoes "spew out oxygen"? Let me check... Yes, yes you were;

Uh oh, here we go again. You've got a real high opinion of your ability to guess at how chemistry works, True Blue.

For your assumptions about the chemistry to be accurate, you have to know that the conditions of reaction favor your assumed outcome... as your "Golden Rules of O-Chem" link said; provide motive and opportunity.

Motive; the ionization energy of CO2* is 13.769 eV. Show that the ionization energy source you propose is sufficient to break this bond. I'll give you a hint, here; even UV-C at it's short end of 100 nm maxxes out at 12.4 eV, you're looking for more energy than that. The next shortest wavelength range of UV is UV-V (200 nm - 10 nm)

Opportunity; the ionization energy and the CO2 molecule should have a reasonable chance of interacting in large abundance (this is your proposed source for most ofour atmospheric oxygen, after all). Does the atmospheric strata that CO2 is found in (troposphere) experience the ionization energy at the intensity required to break up CO2 in any significant quantity? Or, is that ioinization energy depleted in the higher atmospheric strata before it has a chance to affect the CO2 in any appreciable amount? Here's your second hint, in the term UV-V above, the second 'V' is for 'Vacuum'... want to take a guess at (or, look up on the Internet) UV-V's relative abundance in an atmosphere?

* For simplicity, I picked one volcanic gas with atomic oxygen contained therein. You could do this same exercise with each atomic oxygen-containing gas, but I somehow doubt you'd be so inclined...

In my response here, I just want to make sure that you understand the larger context of this discussion on atmosphere:
1. My thesis #1: Building blocks to life impossible
2. My thesis #2: Formation of building blocks themselves not realistic in today's atmosphere.
3. Response to #2: Maybe atmosphere had no oxygen
4. Response to #3: (a) radiation, (b) excess heat, (c) no substantial volcanic source of non-oxgygen compounds or resemblence to Stanley's experiment, etc. (d) lots of oxgyen in form of CO2, etc.

Your post above responds to item 4(d). You have a lot of work to do to overcome all the other hurdles laid out above.

 

[True_Blue]

Please, keep talking. Maybe you'll shown just how little you know. The order of genes is completely and totally meaningless. The order of them has no influence in whether or not a protein is synthesized or how it's synthesized. That's why when a virus inserts its genetic material into a cell it makes no difference where it's inserted, just that it is inserted.

You're talking genes, I'm talking atoms (at least, that's what I meant). I'm really not interested in debating semantics and terminology. Only a certain combination of vacuum cleaner parts results in an operational vacuum cleaner. If you get that concept, then we've communicated.

 

[thaumaturgy]

I would point out the idea that the young sun being weaker than today's violates the 2nd Law

While I am no expert on nuclear fusion I found this to be more than a little interesting in light of you "proclamation":

As non-fusing helium ash accumulates in the core, the reduction in the abundance of hydrogen per unit mass results in a gradual lowering of the fusion rate within that mass. To compensate, the core temperature and pressure slowly increase, which actually causes a net increase in the overall fusion rate (to support the greater density of the inner star). This produces a steady increase in the luminosity and radius of the star over time.[12] Thus, for example, the luminosity of the early Sun was only about 70% of its current value.[21] The luminosity increase of a star changes its position on the HR diagram; resulting in a broadening of the main sequence band because stars are observed at random stages in their lifetime.(SOURCE)

(emphasis added).

Now, how does this violate the Second Law?

 

[Vene]

You're talking genes, I'm talking atoms (at least, that's what I meant). I'm really not interested in debating semantics and terminology. Only a certain combination of vacuum cleaner parts results in an operational vacuum cleaner. If you get that concept, then we've communicated.

Then you obviously failed to convey your message. Because there is a huge difference between genes and atoms.

 

[True_Blue]

While I am no expert on nuclear fusion I found this to be more than a little interesting in light of you "proclamation":

(emphasis added).

Now, how does this violate the Second Law?

Ever since I was exposed to diagrams such as those in the link you've provided, I've always thought that there something not quite right about it. I've learned to trust my instincts and always compare what is presented to me with First Principles. For example, the "Table of main sequence stellar parameters" seems to lack calibration to an observed time series.

Rather than speculation, why don't we find data? We've been measuring our own sun for 100-plus years--is there any scientific data that show increased luminosity over time that would fit an increasing exponential curve with good statistical confidence? I fully expect to see a decaying curve, based on what every other closed system does, from nukes to ovens. But good measurement data spanning a hundred years or so would be compelling, especially in chart form.

 

[thaumaturgy]

Ever since I was exposed to diagrams such as those in the link you've provided, I've always thought that there something not quite right about it. I've learned to trust my instincts and always compare what is presented to me with First Principles. For example, the "Table of main sequence stellar parameters" seems to lack calibration to an observed time series.

Yeah, when faced with information in a field I am unfamiliar with, I usually just assume that my "general impressions" or "gut feelings" are probably more right.

I'm not a nuclear physicist or a stellar evolution expert, but I still don't get why you think the sun changing in luminosity going from dimmer to brighter, is some violation of Thermodynamics Second Law.

Rather than speculation, why don't we find data?

So are you saying astronomers and nuclear physicists don't have data?

I fully expect to see a decaying curve, based on what every other closed system does, from nukes to ovens.

Well, if one simplifies the sun to an oven I suppose one would expect an exponential decay curve. Thankfully the sun is just about anything but a kitchen stove.

 

[thaumaturgy]

Ever since I was exposed to diagrams such as those in the link you've provided, I've always thought that there something not quite right about it. I've learned to trust my instincts and always compare what is presented to me with First Principles. For example, the "Table of main sequence stellar parameters" seems to lack calibration to an observed time series.

Yeah, when faced with information in a field I am unfamiliar with, I usually just assume that my "general impressions" or "gut feelings" are probably more right.

I'm not a nuclear physicist or a stellar evolution expert, but I still don't get why you think the sun changing in luminosity going from dimmer to brighter, is some violation of Thermodynamics Second Law.

Rather than speculation, why don't we find data?

So are you saying astronomers and nuclear physicists don't have data?

I fully expect to see a decaying curve, based on what every other closed system does, from nukes to ovens.

Well, if one simplifies the sun to an oven I suppose one would expect an exponential decay curve. Thankfully the sun is just about anything but a kitchen stove.