Proof against abiogenesis/evolution -- affirmative proof of God

[Naraoia]

If you want to be crass about it, apparently ideas leveraged off the Oro experiment I mentioned earlier have been used in Japan to commercially produce adenine, an amino acid.

Either "adenine" or "amino acid" should be something else there

 

[Naraoia]

And thus ends another YEC vs science debate.

I think it was about time. I was starting to feel like a battering ram, and the gates were made of something much harder than wood and iron.

 

[Vene]

Either "adenine" or "amino acid" should be something else there

From what I could find, it looks like the reaction produced both amino acids and adenine. Maybe thaumaturgy got thinking faster than he could type.
"In 1961, Juan Oro found that amino acids could be made from hydrogen cyanide (HCN) and ammonia in an aqueous solution. He also found that his experiment produced an amazing amount of the nucleotide base, adenine." link

 

[Naraoia]

From what I could find, it looks like the reaction produced both amino acids and adenine. Maybe thaumaturgy got thinking faster than he could type.
"In 1961, Juan Oro found that amino acids could be made from hydrogen cyanide (HCN) and ammonia in an aqueous solution. He also found that his experiment produced an amazing amount of the nucleotide base, adenine." link

Ah, I see. Thanks.

 

[True_Blue]

Somehow True_Blue has missed a great chance to prove the validity of his statistic analysis and has also missed some of the work that is being done on abiogenesis. For example, the RNA world hypothesis (1 2).

By the way, kind of hard for me to be an armchair scientist when I am working on a research degree.

"Since there are no known chemical pathways for the abiogenic synthesis of nucleotides from pyrimidine nucleobases cytosine and uracil under prebiotic conditions, it may be the case that nucleic acids did not contain the nucleobases seen in life's nucleic acids." This is from one of the articles you linked, Vene.

 

[True_Blue]

Somehow True_Blue has missed a great chance to prove the validity of his statistic analysis and has also missed some of the work that is being done on abiogenesis. For example, the RNA world hypothesis (1 2).

By the way, kind of hard for me to be an armchair scientist when I am working on a research degree.

"Since there are no known chemical pathways for the abiogenic synthesis of nucleotides from pyrimidine nucleobases cytosine and uracil under prebiotic conditions, it may be the case that nucleic acids did not contain the nucleobases seen in life's nucleic acids." This is from one of the articles you linked, Vene. I assumed this issue away by setting the probability of each interaction resulting in something condusive to life to 50%. Maybe I should have used actually chemistry and set the probability to 0.0001% or less.

By the way, strictly speaking, the study of origins is not science per se because of the lack of observational data. Ultimately, it's all about models and inferences and assumptions. I've provided such things. You guys have provided faith and mostly, but not entirely, meritless criticism. I would very much like to see more from at least one of you guys. Just a little tiny, eensy weesny abiogenesis model, even one that only accounts for a couple DNA base pairs (or a few links on the RNA strand), would be very much appreciated.

 

[True_Blue]

Ah! But no humans were around on the first five days of creation!

I hope you're not going down the Dad Road and saying we can't know what we haven't personally observed. You can show proof of concept without spouting numbers. And unless I've been reading a different thread from you, that's been going on here for quite a few pages. READ THE B***DY TALKORIGINS ARTICLE. And come back with your demands when you've scrutinised the numbers they have.

Sorry for the caps. I can't help but feel that you are playing deaf here, and that's starting to wear my patience extremely thin. ABIOGENESIS DOESN'T SUGGEST THAT COMPLEX ORGANISMS SUDDENLY CAME FROM SIMPLE MATERIALS.

That's rather a big difference between modern abiogenesis theories and spontaneous generation.

Even if that were true you are hardly better with your Bible and all.

Go ahead. The more opportunity for science to shine . From the standpoint of science, the supernatural is beyond the horizon. Your endeavour is like trying to show how empty string theory is from the standpoint of Japanese poetry.

Oh, and I don't think you've "shown" us anything other than profound ignorance of science. Which rather detracts from the value of your comments on the "standpoint of science". Ah. Congrats on thinking independently. I really like how you dismiss evidence against your views by calling it "regurgitation of other's research". Unfortunately there are a couple of issues here:

(1) It wouldn't be too realistic to expect us to do all the research we are "regurgitating" (citing is the word you were looking for). It's years' or decades' worth of work by half a world's worth of scientists.

(2) "Regurgitating" (citing) others' research doesn't mean we don't think for ourselves. Independent thinking doesn't mean you can't look at the evidence.

(3) "Regurgitating" (citing) evidence is usually a sign that someone takes
data into account. No matter how independent your thinking is, it won't stand without a basis in reality.

When I started posting to this thread I didn't think you'd anger me. I'm disappointed.

I’m not going down "that dark road" because I am willing to make extremely reasonable assumptions about the past based on reasonable inferences. That gives us limited insight into the past. One who does not make assumptions, or run the numbers based on said assumptions, is essentially adopting a faith-based viewpoint of the past. If you want to take your faith in abiogenesis and convert that into reason, make some reasonable assumptions and run the numbers and see what results.

I’ve read the Talk Origins article many, many times over many years. I’ve even quoted the relevant language in this thread. They say that either P=1, or else we can’t be bothered running any numbers. That’s called faith, not good faith.

 

[thaumaturgy]

Either "adenine" or "amino acid" should be something else there

my bad. Should have just read "adenine". I got overly type-y there and mistakenly called it an amino acid.

 

[Baggins]

"Since there are no known chemical pathways for the abiogenic synthesis of nucleotides from pyrimidine nucleobases cytosine and uracil under prebiotic conditions, it may be the case that nucleic acids did not contain the nucleobases seen in life's nucleic acids." This is from one of the articles you linked, Vene.

The old:

Science doesn't know something therefore god

argument.

Pathetic.


What will you say when there is a known chemical pathways for the abiogenic synthesis of nucleotides from pyrimidine nucleobases cytosine and uracil under prebiotic conditions?

Nothing because you didn't understand what it meant in the first place and you will have moved on to push your god of the gaps into a new hole in biochemsitry by then.

 

[TeddyKGB]

By the way, strictly speaking, the study of origins is not science per se because of the lack of observational data. Ultimately, it's all about models and inferences and assumptions.

What sort of "observational data" to model ratio is required for something to be a science? It honestly never occurred to me that one could generate models without data, but hey, what do I know? I'm just a guy with a couple of science degrees; I lack the wherewithal to reconfigure science based only on my intuition and what I had for breakfast.

I've provided such things. You guys have provided faith and mostly, but not entirely, meritless criticism. I would very much like to see more from at least one of you guys. Just a little tiny, eensy weesny abiogenesis model, even one that only accounts for a couple DNA base pairs (or a few links on the RNA strand), would be very much appreciated.

It's like you're posting from a parallel universe.

Maybe I need new glasses, but I swear you just got through complaining that modeling is fully one-third of abiogenesis research, and now you're whining that no one has produced a model.

What is it you want - models or data? I have a feeling that, if you'd care to rejoin the inhabitants of Terra-prime, you might find both of those things nearby (in intarwebs terms). In this very thread, perhaps.

 

[True_Blue]

What will you say when there is a known chemical pathways for the abiogenic synthesis of nucleotides from pyrimidine nucleobases cytosine and uracil under prebiotic conditions?

I would repeat myself (again). I've already assumed such a pathway exists in my model. Why don't you make the same assumption and run the numbers and see what results?

 

[Baggins]

I would repeat myself (again). I've already assumed such a pathway exists in my model. Why don't you make the same assumption and run the numbers and see what results?

You don't have a model, god did it is not a model it is a fairy story that explains everything and nothing.

You have already been told countless times while pulling numbers out of your fundement and multiplying them together means nothing.

You have been told countless times that chemistry is not random and life is just chemistry.

I wonder why those things just don't seem to stick, they don't appear to be complex ideas.

 

[LewisWildermuth]

I would repeat myself (again). I've already assumed such a pathway exists in my model. Why don't you make the same assumption and run the numbers and see what results?

Because making up numbers and multiplying them is not how statistics works in the real world. It may impress the uneducated, but it is just another form of lying in the end.

 

[True_Blue]

Because making up numbers and multiplying them is not how statistics works in the real world. It may impress the uneducated, but it is just another form of lying in the end.

So, tell me LewisWildermuth, give me a reasonable probability of two or so base pairs of DNA forming from random chemical reactions, under environmental conditions you think are reasonable.

 

[LewisWildermuth]

So, tell me LewisWildermuth, give me a reasonable probability of two or so base pairs of DNA forming from random chemical reactions, under environmental conditions you think are reasonable.

What are "random chemical reactions"? I have worked in both the plastics and semiconductor industry, we rely on chemistry working in a non-random way to make the parts of the computer you are currently working on.

Your insistence that chemistry is random seems to be in disagreement with God's creation. Why should I accept your idea that chemistry is somehow random over God's own creation?

Since DNA is formed by chemical reactions all the time in your any my body, I would say that the chance that DNA can form by chemical processes is 100%.

 

[Baggins]

So, tell me LewisWildermuth, give me a reasonable probability of two or so base pairs of DNA forming from random chemical reactions, under environmental conditions you think are reasonable.

Good grief man, how many times do you have to be told that chemical reactions are not random before it will stick between your ears?

Chemicals react in a non-random fashion. If the coreect chemicals are ther and the conditions are right the chances of a particular chemical forming are 1:1

 

[Naraoia]

I’ve read the Talk Origins article many, many times over many years. I’ve even quoted the relevant language in this thread. They say that either P=1, or else we can’t be bothered running any numbers. That’s called faith, not good faith.

The whole [wash my mouth][wash my mouth][wash my mouth][wash my mouth]ing rest of the article is full of numbers that aren't 1. Please address those numbers and stop telling lies.

I've kind of had enough, you know.

 

[thaumaturgy]

I’m not going down "that dark road"

What dark road are you referring to?

because I am willing to make extremely reasonable assumptions about the past based on reasonable inferences.

When you get around to doing that, please let us know. So far you have ignored the chemistry and done everything on a purely random basis. You have made virtually no "reasonable assumptions" or "reasonable inferences" that I can see.

Please, True_Blue, if you want us to take your argument seriously you need to read what has been posted on here. There are biochemists (I'm clearly not one of them) who have told you about the biochemical details, and there are chemists (I'm one of them) who've explained the details of how reactions work to you.

The fact that you steadfastly refuse to acknowledge this information in preference to your own "dark path" means you have constructed a strawman argument.

I know this is a standard logic fallacy that Creationists cling to dearly, but it never makes it a valid argument.

You've been shown how your "reasonable assumptions" fail and it has been explained to you how a simple "Bernoulli Trial" approach to a chemically complex system is not applicable.

Yet you keep demanding we address the problem exactly as you have.

If you fail to understand why no one here has addressed the problem as you have, then you have failed to understand what has been posted on this forum.

This thread has run it's course, ...

I swear if I hear one more Creationist leverage his demonstrated ignorance of a topic into one more hubris-laced statement like that I'm going to scream.

I am so desperately tired of scientific illiterates and subliterates making demonstrably faulty claims and then "defending" them by agressively ignoring that which has been presented by numerous more educated people in the field.

It borders on the insane for people to be so agressively ignorant.

Honestly, True-Blue, you are a lawyer, right? Is this how you defend your stances? I have to wonder how you made it through law school.

One thing I'm always (and I do mean always ) afraid of is making an erroneous statement. When I do, I do attempt to read the stuff pointed out to me about my error. Creationists on this board never seem to do that. They are, almost to a person, ignorant of the science they are arguing against but sincerely proud of their ignorance.

Do you want to know why some people treat Creationists with disrespect? It isn't because they have an "alternative view", it's because they create their alternative view out of whole cloth and refuse to learn the facts that might go against their "alternative view".

Creationism is, in the eyes of many scientists, an abrogation of the duty and responsibility to listen to others who may know more than the Creationist.

We are not toadying to authority, but by the same measure we are cognizant that there are thousands upon thousands of "person-hours" of research conducted by honest open forthright scientists who have come to conclusions that are supported by data.

The fact that we see so many Creationists denigrate "citations" on this board is because the Creationists probably are unable to understand the science and wouldn't know where to look for data-based support of their contentions and desperately want everyone else to debate on their level of ignorance.

Sorry, Creationists, but you cannot ignore the data and the information just because it is hard for you to understand that it is out there. When someone tells you something, find a reason to dispute the data, don't make pleas that everyone stop referencing outside research.

If your faith requires such vast levels of dark ignorance, then fine, keep it to yourself. But don't tell a scientist they are wrong about things you demonstrably know virtually nothing about.

You are free to believe whatever it is you want to believe. It is your faith, your prerogative, but don't vomit out something and expect everyone to look upon with glee and marvel at the pretty colors.

And when an art historian hands you a bucket of sawdust and tells you it is not a Jackson Pollock you have produced, don't go trying to redefine who Jackson Pollock was.

You don't have to believe anything a scientist ever says to you.

Ever.

The beauty of the science is that you can CHECK IT OUT IF YOU WANT TO. If you refuse to check it out but still refuse to believe it, then you are beyond science. You are not doing science, and you have no value to science.

Sorry to be so brutal, but as a lawyer in the marketplace of ideas you should know this is how the game is played. If I were to come into a courtroom and just "make up my own intellectual property laws" based on my "feelings" I bet you'd laugh yourself silly if I demanded the right to infringe on your company's IP.

 

[TheManeki]

This thread has run it's course...

Oh, don't be serious! We've only explored the inherent fallacies regarding the first half of the thread's title, "proof against abiogenesis/evolution."

We haven't even discussed the second half -- "affirmative proof of God" -- and the underlying "if it isn't abiogenesis, it has to be miraculous" fallacy, let alone how one could prove a divine creator is the Christian God and not another deity.

 

[plindboe]

Seems that practically all threads with True_Blue consist of people correcting his countless misconceptions, and him ignoring most of it, while introducing even more misconceptions. But I thank him, and the other, very patient, people in this thread for making it an interesting and entertaining read.

Peter