Proof against abiogenesis/evolution -- affirmative proof of God

[TemperateSeaIsland]

alot?

Hehe

There are probably a small number who do and some might bring it up as a cool idea after having a few too many drinks.

The idea that some of the simpler molecules needed for life (Amino acids) may have come from space is pretty prevalent but not life itself.


True_Blue

I'm writing a response to your questions but it may take till tomorrow (2nd July GMT).

 

[pgp_protector]

Abiogenesis and evolution are two separate things.

Alot of scientists think the first microorganisms on earth came from meteors containing microbes suspended in cryogenic animation.

Its very possible for microbes to survive in ice and then become reanimated.

Even if true, all that will do is move the first life form off earth, but not show how life started.

So do we keep going back to each planet where life is found, find that it started from a meteors, that came from a planet that had life start from a meteor, that came from a planet that had life start from a meteor, that came from a planet that had life start from a meteor, that came from a planet that had life start from a meteor, that came from a planet that had life start from a meteor, that came from a planet that had life start from a meteor, that came from a planet that had life start from a meteor, that came from a planet that had life start from a meteor ?

 

[TemperateSeaIsland]

Even if true, all that will do is move the first life form off earth, but not show how life started.

So do we keep going back to each planet where life is found, find that it started from a meteors, that came from a planet that had life start from a meteor, that came from a planet that had life start from a meteor, that came from a planet that had life start from a meteor, that came from a planet that had life start from a meteor, that came from a planet that had life start from a meteor, that came from a planet that had life start from a meteor, that came from a planet that had life start from a meteor, that came from a planet that had life start from a meteor ?

Turtles all the way down.

 

[pgp_protector]

Turtles all the way down.

Well maybe time loops onitself

Sometime in the far future 10^10^100( Googolplex) years that last meteor with a spec of life goes through a glitch in time / space to the beginning of time causing the first event

 

[Wiccan_Child]

Well maybe time loops onitself

Sometime in the far future 10^10^100( Googolplex) years that last meteor with a spec of life goes through a glitch in time / space to the beginning of time causing the first event

Well, as the Doctor said: "OK, time isn't linear. It's a big wibbly wobbly ball of timey wimey stuff."

 

[pgp_protector]

Well, as the Doctor said: "OK, time isn't linear. It's a big wibbly wobbly ball of timey wimey stuff."

That sentence got away from you.

 

[mpok1519]

Im more inclined to believe amino acids may have came from outer-space, and eventually evolved into early organisms resembling self-sufficient mitochondria.

I'm even more interested in as to how amino acids formed dna.

 

[True_Blue]

Im more inclined to believe amino acids may have came from outer-space, and eventually evolved into early organisms resembling self-sufficient mitochondria.

I'm even more interested in as to how amino acids formed dna.

Why do you believe the amino acids should come from outer space? What conditions would give rise their creation in the extraterrestrial environment?

 

[True_Blue]

Please be clear, it isn't "my" question it was posted originally by Temperate Sea Islander.

What possible reason would that matter?

You aren't setting yourself up for an "out" on this one are you? I hope not.

I think you'll have to ask Temperate Sea Islander for explicit details on the step-wise reaction.

(EDITTED TO ADD: I have forwarded an example lab from a university organic chemistry class that describes the reaction directly to True_Blue to avoid posting the information in a public forum, even though this information is freely available in most chemistry classes, this is a serious reaction and the reactants and products can be quite dangerous.)

Where do you get this idea? Indeed if I am not very much mistaken the stronger acid is needed to protonate the weaker, so I don't know why you'd make this claim in regards to this particular reaction.

That's what YOU are supposed to provide. It's kinda the whole point of the exercise. It is a standard type of exercise in intro organic chemistry classes. You are provided with reactants and several products which form from the competiting reactions. Note the differences in these three products, the ONLY DIFFERENCE is where the NO2 attaches to the ring. The different positions are "ortho", "meta", and "para".

The key here is that you can check if your "random processes" technique when applied to this reaction.

All you have to do is show us

Look, True, if your system can't do this, it isn't worth much when applied to a much more complex system like biogenesis. This should be a piece o' cake for your patented "random chemistry system" approach.

This is hardly a "method of analysis", this is a simple, known reaction in organic chemistry that results in a variety of products and you have to use your bizarre "pure random chemistry skills" to assess how much of each final product is the result.

I am pretty sure you know this isn't going to be pretty for your "pure random system" calculations, so you are avoiding it. But further I find it quite telling that you have no background information on this, given the reaction you could easily have googled it and found the answer in a couple hits.

The only thing then would be to try to figure out how your "pure random system" would possibly have come up with that mix of products in those proportions.

That is just "bizarre".

(I know what you are attempting to do here and really it's OK. No one here actually expects you to know the chemistry, let alone get this right using your "random processes" technique, but you don't have to dance around it so much.)

Thaumaturgy, I have provided an analytical technique (probability) to test whether the abiogenesis model has validity. I used what I believed are extremely favorable assumptions to show the shortcomings of the general conception of the theory. One can say that probability has no bearing whatsoever to organic chemistry, and if so, the conversation is over--that person has put their faith in chemistry as the source of life and truth. But if a person says that probability is a useful tool to judge the veracity of the abiogenesis model, then that person might object to the assumptions I used in my original model, and say that the model should have a closer nexus to biochemistry. If so, then I do not have the skills to build the model and fashion the assumptions in a way that will be convincing to a graduate-trained biochem specialist. The best I can do is suggest a framework with which to get started, which such person can accept or modify. I would assume life consists solely of a moderately long arrangement of the four base pairs of DNA (no cell membrane, metabolism, etc), take each of the four base pairs and identify which set of chemical reactions would spawn each of the base pairs, and calculate the odds of each reaction producing the required molecular arrangement. Make other simplifying assumptions as you see fit. Calculate the result.

 

[pgp_protector]

Tell us True Blue.
What are the Odds of a Human with your Exact DNA makeup being formed ?

 

[True_Blue]

Tell us True Blue.
What are the Odds of a Human with your Exact DNA makeup being formed ?

My question is what are the odds of any kind of DNA being formed without a lab or another living organism?

 

[LewisWildermuth]

My question is what are the odds of any kind of DNA being formed without a lab or another living organism?

Actually, many of the ideas about abiogenesis do not start with DNA, it is quite possible that DNA was not used until life had long since started.

There are several likely candidates such as RNA and TNA that would do the job just fine.

If you had studied abiogenesis well enough to prove it wrong as you claim one would think that you would know these things. Or are you lying about studying it well enough to have proven it wrong?

 

[LewisWildermuth]

Why do you believe the amino acids should come from outer space? What conditions would give rise their creation in the extraterrestrial environment?

It is not should the come from space, but how many and did that kick-start life on Earth that is the question True Blue.

Wow, again, if you had studied enough to disprove abiogenesis, one would think that you would have run across this by now. After all, it just takes googling amino acid and space to find out when it was found and how it could be made.

Are you sure that you really studied this subject enough to claim to have dis-proven it?

 

[True_Blue]

It is not should the come from space, but how many and did that kick-start life on Earth that is the question True Blue.

Wow, again, if you had studied enough to disprove abiogenesis, one would think that you would have run across this by now. After all, it just takes googling amino acid and space to find out when it was found and how it could be made.

Are you sure that you really studied this subject enough to claim to have dis-proven it?

If abiogenesis theorists are moving to outer space for the origin of amino acids, that should be a big red flag to the atheists on this forum that the scientific construct has major flaws. You're right--the general movement in this field is to rely on meteors, comets, etc. as the source of amino acids, since the evidence doesn't really allow an earth-based formation mechanism. I'm hoping that you will come to see that the assumptions are adverse.

This afternoon, I had a two-hour conversation with a gentleman who believes in God as the source of the universe, complexity, and life. But he believes that God is an impersonal force rather than a being with an independent mind. Yet if God were impersonal, he would have no capacity for creativity and inventiveness, and the universe and life is full to the brim with creativity and inventiveness. In my view, this gentleman's difficulty lies in coming to terms that if God is real, he must be obeyed. That's a hard thing to accept, and it requires present changes in our lifestyle to act in conformity with God's character.

 

[EnemyPartyII]

If abiogenesis theorists are moving to outer space for the origin of amino acids, that should be a big red flag to the atheists on this forum that the scientific construct has major flaws. You're right--the general movement in this field is to rely on meteors, comets, etc. as the source of amino acids, since the evidence doesn't really allow an earth-based formation mechanism. I'm hoping that you will come to see that the assumptions are adverse.

The scientific evidence STRONGLY supports the idea that aminos can be produced on commets, AND that those comets then seed planets.

The scientific evidence ALSO supports the idea that aminos and more complex poly carbon chains can be produced on crystaline surfaces at ocean volcanic vents "black smokers"... so why, exactly, should it be a problem for abiogenesis that the number of non biological sources of organic molecules seems to be INCREASING?

Once upon a time, there was no known non biological way to form organic molecules. There are currently 3 known ways (comets, Miller-Urey atmospheric electrolosis, black smokers) and several more theorised ways. Not to mention several observed non-biological examples of self replicating molecules (e.g. prions)... so it seems the closer we look, the easier explaining abiogenesis becomes. I'd stop poking at the issue if i were you, leave yourself SOME room for your wierd devotion to non-scientific creationism, before the God of the Gaps is lefft with no more gaps to explain!

 

[LewisWildermuth]

If abiogenesis theorists are moving to outer space for the origin of amino acids, that should be a big red flag to the atheists on this forum that the scientific construct has major flaws. You're right--the general movement in this field is to rely on meteors, comets, etc. as the source of amino acids, since the evidence doesn't really allow an earth-based formation mechanism. I'm hoping that you will come to see that the assumptions are adverse.

This afternoon, I had a two-hour conversation with a gentleman who believes in God as the source of the universe, complexity, and life. But he believes that God is an impersonal force rather than a being with an independent mind. Yet if God were impersonal, he would have no capacity for creativity and inventiveness, and the universe and life is full to the brim with creativity and inventiveness. In my view, this gentleman's difficulty lies in coming to terms that if God is real, he must be obeyed. That's a hard thing to accept, and it requires present changes in our lifestyle to act in conformity with God's character.

Again, as a Christian, please quit bearing false witness.

What makes you think that it is okay to lie about science? Please just stop it. If you cannot post in this forum without resorting to false witness then go elsewhere.

You twist words that are said to you, even the words of fellow Christians, you continuously misrepresent what science says, even after being corrected.

Please, please stop this sin.

 

[EnemyPartyII]

This afternoon, I had a two-hour conversation with a gentleman who believes in God as the source of the universe, complexity, and life. But he believes that God is an impersonal force rather than a being with an independent mind. Yet if God were impersonal, he would have no capacity for creativity and inventiveness, and the universe and life is full to the brim with creativity and inventiveness. In my view, this gentleman's difficulty lies in coming to terms that if God is real, he must be obeyed. That's a hard thing to accept, and it requires present changes in our lifestyle to act in conformity with God's character.

Its always amusing to see creationists attempting to impose limits on God (i.e. he can't be creative AND dispasionate at the same time) this always suggests to me that it is the creationist who lacks imagination, and cannot conceive of any form of creation beyond the bearded old man with tweasers and magnifying glass.

 

[True_Blue]

The scientific evidence STRONGLY supports the idea that aminos can be produced on commets, AND that those comets then seed planets.

The scientific evidence ALSO supports the idea that aminos and more complex poly carbon chains can be produced on crystaline surfaces at ocean volcanic vents "black smokers"... so why, exactly, should it be a problem for abiogenesis that the number of non biological sources of organic molecules seems to be INCREASING?

Once upon a time, there was no known non biological way to form organic molecules. There are currently 3 known ways (comets, Miller-Urey atmospheric electrolosis, black smokers) and several more theorised ways. Not to mention several observed non-biological examples of self replicating molecules (e.g. prions)... so it seems the closer we look, the easier explaining abiogenesis becomes. I'd stop poking at the issue if i were you, leave yourself SOME room for your wierd devotion to non-scientific creationism, before the God of the Gaps is lefft with no more gaps to explain!

Prion theory is not my specialty, and Wikipedia is not Gospel, but it says that prions are a "a poorly-understood hypothetical infectious agent."

I've been closely following the alleged discoveries of amino acids on meteorites. The underlying observational data is still under question, which makes it a poor topic for debate on CF, at least for now. I am doubtful, but keeping an open mind.

 

[EnemyPartyII]

Prion theory is not my specialty, and Wikipedia is not Gospel, but it says that prions are a "a poorly-understood hypothetical infectious agent."

I've been closely following the alleged discoveries of amino acids on meteorites. The underlying observational data is still under question, which makes it a poor topic for debate on CF, at least for now. I am doubtful, but keeping an open mind.

By all means, don't take wikipedia as gospel. Research it a bit more and you will see that prions are far more than hypothetical, they are experimentally verified, and they are, indeed, non-living, self replicating molecules

http://www.mad-cow.org/prion_evol.html

http://www.cdc.gov/ncidod/dvrd/prions/

 

[True_Blue]

By all means, don't take wikipedia as gospel. Research it a bit more and you will see that prions are far more than hypothetical, they are experimentally verified, and they are, indeed, non-living, self replicating molecules

http://www.mad-cow.org/prion_evol.html

http://www.cdc.gov/ncidod/dvrd/prions/

When they cure Mad Cow Disease on the basis of prion theory, I will be thoroughly convinced. Right now, I'm undecided, and not thoroughly convinced.