Proof against abiogenesis/evolution -- affirmative proof of God

[True_Blue]

What dark road are you referring to?

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.

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.

I didn't use biochemistry for several reasons. The first is that it's not my area of expertise. The second is that in the past when I have used biochemistry, the response was that life on other planets or alternate universes may not have been biochemical (ie computer program or plasma-based life form). All of the responses given in the past have not been repeated on this thread because I've closed off those avenues of escape.

You are the judge and the jury in this debate, Thaumaturgy. I invite you to run your own numbers using biochemistry and see what the result is. If you want, you can calculate the odds of 2 base pair forming from chemical reactions of simple molecules. I'm asking you to perform this exercise because if you do, the subject matter will become more intuitive for you. You won't be convinced of my overall thesis unless you roll up your sleeves. Reading articles and arguing in debates is mostly unproductive.

 

[thaumaturgy]

I didn't use biochemistry for several reasons. The first is that it's not my area of expertise.

Yet, ironically, it is central and core to the discussion.

The second is that in the past when I have used biochemistry, the response was that life on other planets or alternate universes may not have been biochemical (ie computer program or plasma-based life form).

Yet, ironically, that was not a central issue raised here.

All of the responses given in the past have not been repeated on this thread because I've closed off those avenues of escape.

You have done no such thing. You've merely developed a strawman and when shown the errors, you have whined that no one plays with your strawman.

You are the judge and the jury in this debate, Thaumaturgy.

No, True-blue, science, data and facts are the judge and jury here.

I invite you to run your own numbers using biochemistry and see what the result is. If you want, you can calculate the odds of 2 base pair forming from chemical reactions of simple molecules.

OK, here goes:

When you say "base pair" do you really understand what is incumbent upon that statement? Do you really?

Let me educate you. Now, remember, I'm not a biochemist, but this is pretty fundamental.

You would have us believe that two base pairs pairing up is a purely random process.

Bases "pair" specifically because of the hydrogen bonds:



In DNA G will bond with C because of the alignment of the hydrogen bonds.

Bases in DNA and RNA are classified as either purines or pyrimadines based on the number of the "cycles" in the molecule. This "complementarity" of the bases leads to certain more common pairings than others.

Purines are only complementary with pyrimidines: pyrimidine-pyrimidine pairings are energetically unfavorable because the molecules are too far apart for hydrogen bonding to be established; purine-purine pairings are energetically unfavorable because the molecules are too close, leading to electrostatic repulsion. The only other possible pairings are GT and AC; these pairings are mismatches because the pattern of hydrogen donors and acceptors do not correspond. (It should be noted that the GU pairing, with two hydrogen bonds, does occur fairly often in RNA but rarely in DNA.)(SOURCE)

What this proves is that the system is not purely random but is, in fact, biased by thermodynamics to prefer one outcome over another.

I invite you to introduce some similar constraints on your model. That's the whole point.

In chemical reactions we often deal with K[sub]eq[/sub] which is an assessment of how far one way or another the reaction goes. Are the pieces more likely together than apart? There's a dynamism in this.

The key here in pointing this out to you is to show you that the system is not merely a 50/50 proposition. There are rules and underlying information your proposal has completely ignored.

I'm asking you to perform this exercise because if you do, the subject matter will become more intuitive for you. You won't be convinced of my overall thesis unless you roll up your sleeves. Reading articles and arguing in debates is mostly unproductive.

No, I'm not convinced of your thesis, not because I'm not smart enough to understand it, but rather because I've got years of chemistry under my belt.

I recommend you do the same before you tell us all how your thesis is more correct than chemistry would indicate.

 

[pgp_protector]

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

And then starting a new thread
http://christianforums.com/showthread.php?t=7252966

 

[Vene]

I didn't use biochemistry for several reasons. The first is that it's not my area of expertise.

No kidding. Too bad that this isn't a valid reason to exclude it. I don't understand programming, but that doesn't mean I should just exclude it when talking about electronics, it means I should either learn it or sit down and shut up.

The second is that in the past when I have used biochemistry, the response was that life on other planets or alternate universes may not have been biochemical (ie computer program or plasma-based life form). All of the responses given in the past have not been repeated on this thread because I've closed off those avenues of escape.

We're talking about life on Earth, and the life here is biochemical.

You are the judge and the jury in this debate, Thaumaturgy. I invite you to run your own numbers using biochemistry and see what the result is. If you want, you can calculate the odds of 2 base pair forming from chemical reactions of simple molecules.

Already been done. The odds are 1:1. Thaumaturgy already brought up the formation of adenine by HCN and NH[sub]3[/sub] (link). And, look what I found: "Adenine and guanine have been synthesised directly from aqueous cyanide solutions and a mechanism for the concentration of hydrogen cyanide in low melting eutectics has been proposed"(link).
Just so you know, adenine and guanine are both nitrogenous bases.

I'm asking you to perform this exercise because if you do, the subject matter will become more intuitive for you. You won't be convinced of my overall thesis unless you roll up your sleeves. Reading articles and arguing in debates is mostly unproductive.

Why is looking at the work done by others unproductive? Because it shows that chemistry isn't random? Because it shows that the things you are trying to measure the probability of have already been done? Because it disproves your pseudoscience?

 

[TheManeki]

And then starting a new thread
http://christianforums.com/showthread.php?t=7252966

Wow. When I followed the link and saw the new thread was in a "forum to discuss the systematic defense of the Christian belief system with Christians," I was preparing myself for a circle of congratulatory back-slapping (we'll stick with that phrase to keep the post family-friendly).

I was encouraged to see that folks over there are giving him a hard time for pulling the same stuff on them, too. I wonder this second setback after an attempt at venue-shopping will enlighten TB.

 

[Naraoia]

You are the judge and the jury in this debate, Thaumaturgy. I invite you to run your own numbers using biochemistry and see what the result is. If you want, you can calculate the odds of 2 base pair forming from chemical reactions of simple molecules. I'm asking you to perform this exercise because if you do, the subject matter will become more intuitive for you. You won't be convinced of my overall thesis unless you roll up your sleeves. Reading articles and arguing in debates is mostly unproductive.

Is anyone else having a déjà vu?

 

[thaumaturgy]

Is anyone else having a déjà vu?

Indeed, but if he insists on asking this question, could one of the local biochemists here (perhaps you Naraoia?) dig up the "association constant" for one of the Watson-Crick pairs of nucleotide bases? And explain to him what that value means in terms of the equilibrium position of two of these bases?

I have been poking around on line but can't find a nice summation that allows me to put a single number out there for him.

I believe that if someone does this it will be educational and might show him there's more to biochemistry than just random coinflips.

Thanks!

 

[True_Blue]

Indeed, but if he insists on asking this question, could one of the local biochemists here (perhaps you Naraoia?) dig up the "association constant" for one of the Watson-Crick pairs of nucleotide bases? And explain to him what that value means in terms of the equilibrium position of two of these bases?

I have been poking around on line but can't find a nice summation that allows me to put a single number out there for him.

I believe that if someone does this it will be educational and might show him there's more to biochemistry than just random coinflips.

Thanks!

There's no need to put a single number on such a thing--assume a range. I can get licenses to software that allows for the mathematical manipulation of ranges and probability distributions (i.e. Crystal Ball, @Risk). But that's perhaps overly elaborate. For our purposes, we can just assume the point estimate on the favorable end of the range.

 

[Vene]

Why make an assumption?
"...all of the biomolecules considered in this study are thermodynamically favored to be synthesized throughout the temperature range from 0 degrees C to between 150 degrees C and 250 degrees C, depending on the biomolecule. Furthermore, activity diagrams have been generated to illustrate that activities in the range of 10(-2)- 10(-6) for nucleobases, ribose and deoxyribose can be in equilibrium with a range of precursor molecule activities at 150 degrees C and 500 bars." link
By the way, the molecules that the study looked at were Adenine, Cytosine, Guanine, Thymine, Uracil, Ribose, and Deoxyribose. I just wish I had access to the article instead of the abstract.

 

[thaumaturgy]

There's no need to put a single number on such a thing--assume a range.

True-Blue, it is obvious you are unfamiliar with a freshman-level chemistry concept called an equilibrium constant. This is usually calculated thusly:

A + B = AB

That means reactant A plus reactant B goes to the compound AB but since it is a dynamic equilibrium it can go back to A + B. But at equilibrium there is a balance that is not necessarily 50/50.

This is why you need to learn some chemistry before telling us how it is done.

In chemistry, as one learns in their freshman year, sometimes the reaction goes most of the way to one side or another. It is possible at equilibrium to find MOSTLY AB and a tiny bit of A + B.

Here's how we calculate the equilibrium constant (K[sub]eq[/sub])

K[sub]eq[/sub] = [AB]/([A])

the figures in the square brackets [...] mean concentration (or activity or something similar) of the compounds.

This isn't a "range" sort of thing. I am simply unable to find the value. I suspect since this is a matter of hydrogen bonding of these items if you have them in a solution, just the two complementary nucleotide bases it will greatly favor the combined (hydrogen bonded items), but I don't know for sure.

You see, True-Blue, this is really why you must, you simply must learn some chemistry before telling us how it is done.

You seem to be lost in this idea that all of chemistry is some random coin-flip.

I can recommend some intro chemistry books to teach you about this sort of thing if you'd like. Or perhaps you could got to your local junior college and audit a chem 1 class. It really is fun.

I am sorry if you are being shamed by your lack of chemical knowledge, we all make mistakes and say things incorrectly if we are not familiar with the field. I've done it myself. Even on this board when I earlier called a nucleotide base an amino acid. It is fine that you are not a chemist. But please, don't be so proud of not being a chemist while telling us how our jobs are done. That's what I am asking.

 

[True_Blue]

I ran across this quote from a cosmologist here that is germane to this discussion.

" Over the last 15 years or so, computer simulations have become the primary tool that theoreticians have at their disposal to understand the formation of galaxies and of structure in the universe. The aim of the simulations is to take what we call initial conditions, which is an early state of the universe, and then see how that primeval, amorphous state evolves into an approximation of the universe we can compare with current observational surveys. Through these simulations we can arrive at an understanding of what the universe is made of, how it is structured, and how it came to be.

Computer-simulated universes are a very powerful tool because they allow you to produce material evidence for what various assumptions about the universe translate into, and then you can take this material evidence and compare it against reality. Because the universe is so complex, most mathematical treatments require many approximations and simplifications, so they are of limited applicability. Yet with a computer simulation you don’t need to make any of those approximations. You solve the equations in the full generality, so it's a very appealing activity for theoreticians to do."

He overstates the case for computer models a little bit--they have to make simplifying assumptions, and the computer power reduces somewhat the degree to which the assumptions are simplified.

Essentially, I am hoping to persuade you guys to study the "cosmology of life" using the same basic analytical techniques that the cosmologists are using. We don't have to be super-complicated to prove that a concept is at least possible. So far, when I run the numbers for abiogenesis using very favorable assumptions, the numbers favor guided evolution at an absolute minimum and spontaneous creation as the most reasonable explanation for the life around us. I encourage you to do your own calculations if you object to the assumptions and math I've provided.

 

[thaumaturgy]

I ran across this quote from a cosmologist here that is germane to this discussion.

Why don't you stick with chemistry? You brought up chemistry. Let's stick with chemistry for a bit before you go running off to a field you hope we won't be able to discuss with you.

" Over the last 15 years or so, computer simulations have become the primary tool that theoreticians have at their disposal to understand the formation of galaxies and of structure in the universe. The aim of the simulations is to take what we call initial conditions, which is an early state of the universe, and then see how that primeval, amorphous state evolves into an approximation of the universe we can compare with current observational surveys. Through these simulations we can arrive at an understanding of what the universe is made of, how it is structured, and how it came to be.

Indeed. But remember, they usually model those things using a sound foundation in physics and astronomy. They don't just randomly assign random possibilities to the outcomes.

If you don't understand what it is they do, then perhaps to you it looks random, but it does involve a lot of foundational assumptions by people who've studied this stuff for a long time.

Essentially, I am hoping to persuade you guys to study the "cosmology of life" using the same basic analytical techniques

And you have been shown that those are indeed quite complex. Your model, however, was so badly oversimplified that it failed from the outset to meet minimal criteria of applicability.

that the cosmologists are using. We don't have to be super-complicated to prove that a concept is at least possible.

Well, if you just want such broad sweeping statements, then I think you've been shown the potential pathways and the fact that they have been carried out in Miller-Urey and Oro and Fox and others. So it seems to me that what we have done for you is to show you that your initial probability functions are much closer to P = 1 and therefore you lose quite a few of your foundational assumptions as mere "multiplications by unity".

I'm sure you are following what I am saying here, but in case you aren't, if you knock out a bunch of your chosen probabilities and replace them with a bunch of 1's then it doesn't matter how many you throw in there, it won't lower the probability.

I know you are impressed with your fascination of statistical probability calculations and this cosmology stuff you just quoted, but please, remember there are chemists on this board who understand how some of the reactions run. They honestly do. As for me I understand how chemistry in general runs (I'm more inorganic in focus), but the key points are the same.

What I'd like to know is why do you insist on ignoring what others here are saying? Do you hold them in less esteem? Are you being openly disrespectful to the biochemists? Why do you think they are not worth listening to?

What is it about them that you so dislike?

So far, when I run the numbers for abiogenesis using very favorable assumptions,

Your favorable assumptions are your "gut feeling guesses". They bear little resemblance to actual chemistry. Why do you seem to despise chemists so much that you won't listen to them when they speak?

 

[True_Blue]

True-Blue, it is obvious you are unfamiliar with a freshman-level chemistry concept called an equilibrium constant. This is usually calculated thusly:

A + B = AB

That means reactant A plus reactant B goes to the compound AB but since it is a dynamic equilibrium it can go back to A + B. But at equilibrium there is a balance that is not necessarily 50/50.

This is why you need to learn some chemistry before telling us how it is done.

In chemistry, as one learns in their freshman year, sometimes the reaction goes most of the way to one side or another. It is possible at equilibrium to find MOSTLY AB and a tiny bit of A + B.

Here's how we calculate the equilibrium constant (K[sub]eq[/sub])

K[sub]eq[/sub] = [AB]/([A])

the figures in the square brackets [...] mean concentration (or activity or something similar) of the compounds.

This isn't a "range" sort of thing. I am simply unable to find the value. I suspect since this is a matter of hydrogen bonding of these items if you have them in a solution, just the two complementary nucleotide bases it will greatly favor the combined (hydrogen bonded items), but I don't know for sure.

You see, True-Blue, this is really why you must, you simply must learn some chemistry before telling us how it is done.

You seem to be lost in this idea that all of chemistry is some random coin-flip.

I can recommend some intro chemistry books to teach you about this sort of thing if you'd like. Or perhaps you could got to your local junior college and audit a chem 1 class. It really is fun.

I am sorry if you are being shamed by your lack of chemical knowledge. It is fine that you are not a chemist. But please, don't be so proud of not being a chemist while telling us how our jobs are done. That's what I am asking.

While I moderately understand hydrogen bonding, which has great relevance in other fields (like bioenergy), I want to adopt it to this discussion. To put words in your mouth (please forgive me), you're basically saying that once Molecule A and Molecule B associate to make AB, they can easily dissociate to make A & B, the degree of dissociation depending on the environment. This certainly depends on the molecules involved, of course, but if I were to apply what you just said to my probability model, that would basically be saying that once 2 parts of something interact to advance forward toward life in the abiogenesis process, they would potentially very easy disassociate after Time 1, requiring the process to start all over again. How do you stack 200,000,000 molecules for decades while keeping them from falling apart? Essentially, hydrogen bonds and similar reactions push molecules toward the formation of homogeneous soups and crystal structures, not DNA strands.

I understand that the interaction of molecules is exceedingly complicated, and it's more like rolling a 20-sided D&D dice (is that how many sides they have?) than flipping a coin. It should be clear, however, that the more sides you assume the dice, the less probable abiogenesis becomes. I assumed a coin rather than a 20-sided D&D cube as a favor to abiogenesis. I think you'll find that the cube actually should have 800 sides or more, but I'm perfectly comfortable using a simple coin.

 

[Vene]

While I moderately understand hydrogen bonding, which has great relevance in other fields (like bioenergy), I want to adopt it to this discussion. To put words in your mouth (please forgive me), you're basically saying that once Molecule A and Molecule B associate to make AB, they can easily dissociate to make A & B, the degree of dissociation depending on the environment. This certainly depends on the molecules involved, of course, but if I were to apply what you just said to my probability model, that would basically be saying that once 2 parts of something interact to advance forward toward life in the abiogenesis process, they would potentially very easy disassociate after Time 1, requiring the process to start all over again.

Stop right there. No, that is incorrect. At equilibrium the net formation and breaking of bonds is 0. The is a ratio of products to reactants at this point. This means that there will be some of both the product (AB) and the reactants (A B). And since you seem to be so found on making assumptions, let's do it. Let's make K[sub]eq[/sub]=0.1. This means that for every one mole (it's a unit used by chemists) of AB there are 10 moles of A and B. That mole of AB is still very significant. It's not like it's just going to disappear, it can go on to react and form molecule ABC and with enough of the starting material even a disfavored reaction will produce a significant amount of product. Not to mention that it is very possible to manipulate the system so that yield is even greater.

The rest of your post rests on your faulty view of chemical equilibrium and is completely invalid.

 

[LewisWildermuth]

You still have not answered my question True_Blue...

Why should I accept your flawed ideas about randomness in chemistry when I can just look at God's creation and see that it is otherwise?

Why should I take your word over God's?

If the Bible is true when it says that creation itself bears witness to God, and your witness contradicts creation itself, why should I accept that God is lying through creation and you are right?

 

[True_Blue]

Stop right there. No, that is incorrect. At equilibrium the net formation and breaking of bonds is 0. The is a ratio of products to reactants at this point. This means that there will be some of both the product (AB) and the reactants (A B). And since you seem to be so found on making assumptions, let's do it. Let's make K[sub]eq[/sub]=0.1. This means that for every one mole (it's a unit used by chemists) of AB there are 10 moles of A and B. That mole of AB is still very significant. It's not like it's just going to disappear, it can go on to react and form molecule ABC and with enough of the starting material even a disfavored reaction will produce a significant amount of product. Not to mention that it is very possible to manipulate the system so that yield is even greater.

The rest of your post rests on your faulty view of chemical equilibrium and is completely invalid.

Take of your dispute with Thaumaturgy, Vene. Hydrogen bonds are reasonably strong--it takes a great deal of energy to break the bonds in water-contaminated ethanol. In any case, I'm interested in your thoughts as applied to the probability of abiogenesis, not your thoughts on how stupid you think I am.

I had a good friend in Saudi Arabia who was a Lebanese, American-trained lawyer. He taught me to pray how to speak in tongues, and when he put his hand on me, I started giggling mostly uncontrollably. But my mind told me this was weird, and I found myself unwilling to pray to God in that way to repeat the experience and take it to a deeper level, despite my long relationship with Him. I simply decided I wasn't going to do it, and that was a failure. In order to believe in God, let alone have a relationship with God, your soul at a minimum has to be willing to pursue and investigate the evidence of His divine power and creativity. The study of the genesis of life is the study of God, not the study of atheism. Science is neutral, but the predispositions of our souls are not. I think that if a person is willing to construct your own custom-designed mathematical model of abiogenesis in good faith, that person's soul will be willing to accept the evidence that results. But if you're not willing to accept the result of your model, you will never start the analysis in the first place.

 

[Vene]

Take of your dispute with Thaumaturgy, Vene.

I don't have a dispute with him. It's you who misunderstood what he wrote.

Hydrogen bonds are reasonably strong--it takes a great deal of energy to break the bonds in water-contaminated ethanol.

I know what hydrogen bonds are, I know that they are relatively strong. This is what I study.

In any case, I'm interested in your thoughts as applied to the probability of abiogenesis, not your thoughts on how stupid you think I am.

Abiogenesis is the name for the model that life appeared from natural processes, so far no supernatural explanation has worked. I'm going with the odds and the natural explanation.

I had a good friend in Saudi Arabia who was a Lebanese, American-trained lawyer. He taught me to pray how to speak in tongues, and when he put his hand on me, I started giggling mostly uncontrollably. But my mind told me this was weird, and I found myself unwilling to pray to God in that way to repeat the experience and take it to a deeper level, despite my long relationship with Him. I simply decided I wasn't going to do it, and that was a failure. In order to believe in God, let alone have a relationship with God, your soul at a minimum has to be willing to pursue and investigate the evidence of His divine power and creativity. The study of the genesis of life is the study of God, not the study of atheism.

Tell you what, if you find empirical evidence of your god (or any god) send me a pm. As far as not keeping an open mind, I'm currently reading the Bible.

Science is neutral, but the predispositions of our souls are not. I think that if a person is willing to construct a simple mathematical model of abiogenesis in good faith, that person's soul will be willing to accept the evidence that results. But if you're not willing to accept the result of the model, you will never start the analysis in the first place.

Your model is heavily flawed as it completely ignores the discipline of chemistry. And I don't have nowhere near enough education on this subject to write up a meaningful model.

I know, I'll make one up with some assumptions:
Premise 1: Life exists.
Premise 2: Life had a beginning.
Premise 3: It either came from a supernatural source of natural source.
Premise 4: There are currently zero evidenced supernatural models.

Conclusion: Life's beginning was entirely natural. That model (whatever the details are) is abiogenesis.

 

[Aerika]

Your model is heavily flawed as it completely ignores the discipline of chemistry. And I don't have nowhere near enough education on this subject to write up a meaningful model.

I know, I'll make one up with some assumptions:
Premise 1: Life exists.
Premise 2: Life had a beginning.
Premise 3: It either came from a supernatural source of natural source.
Premise 4: There are currently zero evidenced supernatural models.

Conclusion: Life's beginning was entirely natural. That model (whatever the details are) is abiogenesis.

How could I not make a comment about Occam's razor?

"All other things being equal, the simplest solution is the best."

 

[True_Blue]

You still have not answered my question True_Blue...

Why should I accept your flawed ideas about randomness in chemistry when I can just look at God's creation and see that it is otherwise?

Why should I take your word over God's?

If the Bible is true when it says that creation itself bears witness to God, and your witness contradicts creation itself, why should I accept that God is lying through creation and you are right?

As an FYI, I don't think chemistry really is random. By the Second Law of Thermodynamics, chemistry is not random but malevolent with respect to life. With respect to complex systems of all kinds, chemistry is an independent force of destruction. My model assumes randomness and assumes away the Second Law, setting the parameters of said chance very, very favorably for abiogenesis.

No one should take my word over God's. Are you referring to something in specific? Creation bears witness in the same way I am bearing witness. On this forum, I'm doing the equivalent of waving a placard in a busy intersection. When little bacteria wiggle around on a petri dish, they are bearing witness to God. When a person models a DNA strand, the DNA is bearing witness to God. You have the choice of believing or not believing the witnesses you encounter, in whatever form those witnesses take.

 

[Blayz]

This isn't a "range" sort of thing. I am simply unable to find the value. I suspect since this is a matter of hydrogen bonding of these items if you have them in a solution, just the two complementary nucleotide bases it will greatly favor the combined (hydrogen bonded items), but I don't know for sure.

FYI Thaumaturgy:

The de-oxy state of the ribose backbone in DNA means that the ring can form a stable pucker that allows the bases to overlap and gain further stability through electron sharing, similar to the way benzene is stabilized through its 2-1-2 etc bonding.

This is why DNA forms a stable double helix. and why RNA does not.

By the Second Law of Thermodynamics, chemistry is not random but malevolent with respect to life

Anyone else getting a mental image of a "chemistry" entity twirling its moustache?