Proof against abiogenesis/evolution -- affirmative proof of God

[LewisWildermuth]

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.

Then be prepared to be convinced, we have a cure, just not one people like.

Cull the animals infected with prions and quit feeding cattle supplements contaminated with prions.

This has worked everywhere tried.

Are you convinced now or do you have yet another excuse for us?

 

[TheGnome]

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.

So HIV may not be a retrovirus because there is no cure for it?

Since when did the creation of a cure become the basis for the existence of something? Having a cure means you figured out a way to eliminate the infection, not a way to prove what the infection is made out of--that part is easier.

Please, get an education, hopefully at a real college.

 

[thaumaturgy]

Thaumaturgy, I have provided an analytical technique (probability) to test whether the abiogenesis model has validity.

Sorry, but that sentence doesn't make too much sense to me. You see, I've taken analytical chemistry classes and I've actually done analytical chemistry (it wasn't that much fun for me), but I can tell you "analytical techniques" are not just random number calculations. Statistics does play a role, but not without a firm understanding of the chemistry.

One can say that probability has no bearing whatsoever to organic chemistry,

I have never said that. Stochastic processes do play a role in chemistry, but not the way you have done them in your analysis.

and if so, the conversation is over--that person has put their faith in chemistry as the source of life and truth.

So, you aren't going to apply your technique to an organic reaction?

Wow.

But if a person says that probability is a useful tool to judge the veracity of the abiogenesis model,

True, look, we all are abundantly aware of how little chemistry you have under your belt, but the whole point of the exercise was that Temperate provided you with a simple known reaction that produced three configurations of an outcome. The idea was to convince you that a "simple" system which may look like a "random" chance event in chemistry is NOT RANDOM AT ALL.

This is something we who actually have taken the time to learn chemistry have had to learn. It is a topic related to eletrophilic substitution of aromatic rings. The chemistry that goes on in this system shows you that chemistry has subtlety and demonstrably non-random factors that bias certain outcomes.

The fact that you are now running away from a simple challenge to "ground proof" your own hypothesis indicates to me you are not going to rise above the level of usual Creationist spew. And that is sad. Especially when you make such grand claims about how chemistry is done.

It certainly calls into question your own belief in your hypothesis. I mean, you aren't even trying to apply it here. You are trying to run away from it with post hoc justifications.

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.

You know, I'm getting tired of reading your justification and two-stepping around the question. I can see you are a lawyer, you hope that by throwing more words at the problem it will go away.

Sorry, but we all know how much you really believe in your own model now. If you can't use it to do "simple" organic chemistry then how on earth do you think it will apply to really complex problems in organic chemistry like abiogenesis?

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.

Oh, so you are only interested in convincing the uneducated and scientifically illiterate? Again, standard creationist motiff.

The best I can do is suggest a framework with which to get started, which such person can accept or modify.

Well, I think the chemists on this board have told you how to modify your framework: abandon it in preference to actual chemistry. Don't abandon statistics and probability altogether, just don't think generating random probabilities without understanding the underlying chemistry is sufficient to your point.

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.

That's all fine and dandy and I doubt very highly you are capable of even understanding the underlying chemistry involved.

But don't sweat it, we all know what "Creation science" is, it's just "words" meant to promulgate doubt and when the rubber meets the road, well most Creationists don't have the cojones to stand up to the challenge.

But they sure do like to throw more words of "justification" to make themselves sound intelligent on the matter, all while never actually doing anything of value.

Is that all you have? Poorly understood pseudoscience, misapplied probability theory and an unending stream of words to gloss over your failure in the details?

Sorry to hear that. But can't say as I'm surprised.

 

[TemperateSeaIsland]

Is this reaction a necessary condition for abiogenesis? If so, which of the resulting molecules, when created, is necessary for the synthesis of a living organism?

Pedantically.. Unknown, it may be. But for the purpose of this exercise that's not really relevant.

This is a well known and industrially significant reaction and is a good illustration of the self-directing and apparent ordered manner that simple chemical reactions can take place. Because of this it also presents itself as the ideal test for your method for determining the odds of different products being produced from a given reaction mixture.

Do you understand what the image above is showing you? I sometimes forget that chemical schemes can look like ancient Egyptian hieroglyphs to the untrained.

I'll try to explain without trying to sound patronizing...

On the left side of the arrow you have your starting material/reagent this is toluene. Toluene is a mono substituted benzene ring, which had one of its hydrogens’ substituted by a methyl group (the CH3). This leaves you with 5 hydrogens’ (one on each carbon in the ring) left.
On the arrow itself you have the reaction conditions, which in this case is a mixture of concentrated sulphuric and nitric acid at lets say room temperature.

On the left side of the arrow you have the products being formed; A, B and C. Each of these products has had a hydrogen replaced by a Nitro (NO2) group. If your model has any merit then you should be able to calculate the odds of each hydrogen being replaced and thus the ratio of A, B and C being formed.

Are you assuming an aqueous solution?

There is some water but it’s not really relevant to the reaction. The reaction mixture will essentially be mixture of toluene and acids until products start to form.

When nitric acid and sulphuric acid are reacted (something odd about such an attempt--it doesn't seem like a particularly efficient kind of a reaction),

Efficient in what sense? The acids are there to give you the active species the nitronium ion (+NO2) needed for this reaction. This is produced by the nitric acid deprotonating (taking a hydrogen) from the sulphuric acid and losing a molecule of water.

What is the proportion of the products?

That is for your model to predict and explain. If it can’t do this then you’re wasting your time trying to use it to make any prediction when it comes to possible pathways and their likelihood in chemical abiogenesis considering it orders of magnitude more complicated.

If the one necessary for life is formed in 60% proportion, then in that particular stage, the probability of that particular step is 60% under simplistic assumptions.

Can you clarify please

But for some reason, I think you and TemperateSeaIsland are somehow misapprehending something. TemperateSeaIsland seems to be conflating a method of analysis with an algorithm to predict the products of reactions. That's just bizarre to me.

[FONT=&quot]

This is a known reaction that has experimental data that we can test your “algorithm” with. If you think your algorithm can predict pathways and their likelihood in chemical abiogenesis then predicting the outcome of this reaction would be child’s play.
This kind of test is done all the time in chemistry; models are produced and tested against experimental results. If the model is inaccurate when compared with the experimental results then it is either modified with any new data gained from the testing or abandoned[/FONT]

 

[True_Blue]

Sorry, but that sentence doesn't make too much sense to me. You see, I've taken analytical chemistry classes and I've actually done analytical chemistry (it wasn't that much fun for me), but I can tell you "analytical techniques" are not just random number calculations. Statistics does play a role, but not without a firm understanding of the chemistry.

I have never said that. Stochastic processes do play a role in chemistry, but not the way you have done them in your analysis.

So, you aren't going to apply your technique to an organic reaction?

Wow.

True, look, we all are abundantly aware of how little chemistry you have under your belt, but the whole point of the exercise was that Temperate provided you with a simple known reaction that produced three configurations of an outcome. The idea was to convince you that a "simple" system which may look like a "random" chance event in chemistry is NOT RANDOM AT ALL.

This is something we who actually have taken the time to learn chemistry have had to learn. It is a topic related to eletrophilic substitution of aromatic rings. The chemistry that goes on in this system shows you that chemistry has subtlety and demonstrably non-random factors that bias certain outcomes.

The fact that you are now running away from a simple challenge to "ground proof" your own hypothesis indicates to me you are not going to rise above the level of usual Creationist spew. And that is sad. Especially when you make such grand claims about how chemistry is done.

It certainly calls into question your own belief in your hypothesis. I mean, you aren't even trying to apply it here. You are trying to run away from it with post hoc justifications.

You know, I'm getting tired of reading your justification and two-stepping around the question. I can see you are a lawyer, you hope that by throwing more words at the problem it will go away.

Sorry, but we all know how much you really believe in your own model now. If you can't use it to do "simple" organic chemistry then how on earth do you think it will apply to really complex problems in organic chemistry like abiogenesis?

Oh, so you are only interested in convincing the uneducated and scientifically illiterate? Again, standard creationist motiff.

Well, I think the chemists on this board have told you how to modify your framework: abandon it in preference to actual chemistry. Don't abandon statistics and probability altogether, just don't think generating random probabilities without understanding the underlying chemistry is sufficient to your point.

That's all fine and dandy and I doubt very highly you are capable of even understanding the underlying chemistry involved.

But don't sweat it, we all know what "Creation science" is, it's just "words" meant to promulgate doubt and when the rubber meets the road, well most Creationists don't have the cojones to stand up to the challenge.

But they sure do like to throw more words of "justification" to make themselves sound intelligent on the matter, all while never actually doing anything of value.

Is that all you have? Poorly understood pseudoscience, misapplied probability theory and an unending stream of words to gloss over your failure in the details?

Sorry to hear that. But can't say as I'm surprised.

OF COURSE CHEMISTRY IS NOT RANDOM. Chemistry is governed by the laws of math, and there are clear principles and rules laid down that govern precisely how molecules of different configurations react and interact. That's why chemistry is a science.

However, the laws of chemistry do NOT require that molecules interact in such a way to form a complex system, any more than the properties of electrons require that they interact in transistors to form the basis of a computer program. Computer programs are complex--either they were intelligently designed by people, or the molecules and electrons that make up both the circuitry and the software overcame incredible odds to come to together in a cogent fashion that fulfills a purpose.

My model is not designed to run myopic organic chemistry equations. It's designed to illustrate a principle that to go from simply constructed molecules to highly complex structures made out of simple molecules, you must either overcome incredible odds or have a well-designed factory built and operated by an intelligent designer to take raw materials and churn out a fabulously complicated product.

 

[atomweaver]

OF COURSE CHEMISTRY IS NOT RANDOM. Chemistry is governed by the laws of math, and there are clear principles and rules laid down that govern precisely how molecules of different configurations react and interact. That's why chemistry is a science.

However, the laws of chemistry do NOT require that molecules interact in such a way to form a complex system,

Actually, True Blue, if the energy state of the product is lower than that of the reactants, the laws of chemistry DO REQUIRE that the molecules react to form your "complex system", it simply doesn't matter that the product is more "complex" (and here, by complex you simply mean "bigger"...)

My model is not designed to run myopic organic chemistry equations. It's designed to illustrate a principle that to go from simply constructed molecules to highly complex structures made out of simple molecules,

Bolded for Truth. You started with a preconceived notion, and tailored your assumptions to make the math look as if it supported that notion. Wow!!! Big surprise!!!! Your math built upon asssumptions derived from incorrect preconceived notions unequivocally supports those suppositions!!! Film at 11... Designed to illustrate, indeed...

 

[thaumaturgy]

OF COURSE CHEMISTRY IS NOT RANDOM. Chemistry is governed by the laws of math, and there are clear principles and rules laid down that govern precisely how molecules of different configurations react and interact. That's why chemistry is a science.

And that's why your "pure random" model fails. Your pure random model ignores the science in preference to a pure random "coinflip" type experiment.

My model is not designed to run myopic organic chemistry equations.

"Myopic"? So now "proving your point" is relegated to "myopic" status? Sorry, but you can't build a skyscraper until you understand how the bricks fit together.

It's designed to illustrate a principle that to go from simply constructed molecules to highly complex structures made out of simple molecules, you must either overcome incredible odds

And do you not understand that those odds are indeed biased in certain ways by the underlying chemistry?

or have a well-designed factory built and operated by an intelligent designer to take raw materials and churn out a fabulously complicated product.

Look, True_blue, it is obvious you are looking for any excuse to get out of this. If you fail to see that the exercise is merely an attempt to show you that your model will likely fail on a simple analogue to the larger point of your model, then I don't believe anyone should bother with addressing your points.

You see, True, I'll explain it to you as simply as I know how:

1. You have proposed a model for a system we do not yet fully understand.

2. You hope that model will show some key point about the validity of the two hypotheses.

3. The only way to prove, empircally, that your model is of even marginal value in establishing this is to test it against a system that is understood.

Now, let me give you an example:

Suppose I make a "pill" that I claim will make you stronger and smarter. I am basing my formulation only on those things I feel are right and absolutely no testing is done on the pill. It isn't tested for safety, it isn't tested for effectiveness, not even on another animal.

Would you take the pill?

Remember: I'm not a pharmaceutical chemist.

I don't expect you to rise to the occasion here. Creationists apparently can't. You are clearly no exception. I find it interesting though, I suspect that fact that you won't even try your model on this simple exercise indicates you know something might be up. You know either that your model will likely fail or you know you were just guessing at it to begin with and don't want to suffer a hit on your pride.

We scientists don't actually expect much from Creationists because we know their "creation science" is really only a front to make people doubt the regular science. It is sufficient to the Creationist to promulgate doubt, but they never realize that doubt for doubt's sake is nothing of value. If you have something to add with your hypothesis, then be brave enough to test it out, or open enough to admit you don't trust it yourself.

As for the pride thing, believe me I know that pain. Everyone who has a college degree on this board has felt that sting when we spoke "out of school" and made a big claim about something we didn't really understand. It's a natural human response. No one likes to put themselves on the line.

You put yourself on the line with the OP. Now follow through. Show us how effective your hypothesis is in such a way that we can test it.

If it passes muster, well, we can then see if there's some point that it breaks down at. At the very least it will provide a springboard for more discussion. You see, we can't do your homework for you.

If you say it I assume you believe it. If you believe it I assume you will have no fear of testing it.

 

[mpok1519]

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

I believe its very possible that they could have, not should have.

I do not know the specifics of the conditions; yet when they find bacteria on meteors, its very factual to say that the conditions for their creation are feasible, plausable, and definately existent on places other than Earth.

The conditions; I do not know; but I do know that they do exist outside of our atmosphere.

You see, the universe is SOOOOOOOOOOO big that the odds for spontaneous nucleic polypeptide fusion become quite plausable considering the trillions and trillions of light-years of space unseen and undiscovered and unexplored.

Even if a dice has a trillion sides, it will eventually land on each and every side, considering time does not suddenly cease. The odds arent very good, but odds will ALWaYS be defied if you give it enough time.

You may never hit a royal flush in poker in your life-time; but you'll definately see someone else hit one, proving it is possible.

This tells me that God is much more creative than we give Him credit for.

 

[pgp_protector]

I believe its very possible that they could have, not should have.

I do not know the specifics of the conditions; yet when they find bacteria on meteors, its very factual to say that the conditions for their creation are feasible, plausable, and definately existent on places other than Earth.

The conditions; I do not know; but I do know that they do exist outside of our atmosphere.

You see, the universe is SOOOOOOOOOOO big that the odds for spontaneous nucleic polypeptide fusion become quite plausable considering the trillions and trillions of light-years of space unseen and undiscovered and unexplored.

Even if a dice has a trillion sides, it will eventually land on each and every side, considering time does not suddenly cease. The odds arent very good, but odds will ALWaYS be defied if you give it enough time.

You may never hit a royal flush in poker in your life-time; but you'll definately see someone else hit one, proving it is possible.

This tells me that God is much more creative than we give Him credit for.

Are you saying that meteors with bacteria have been found, or could be found ?

 

[True_Blue]

Actually, True Blue, if the energy state of the product is lower than that of the reactants, the laws of chemistry DO REQUIRE that the molecules react to form your "complex system", it simply doesn't matter that the product is more "complex" (and here, by complex you simply mean "bigger"...)

Bolded for Truth. You started with a preconceived notion, and tailored your assumptions to make the math look as if it supported that notion. Wow!!! Big surprise!!!! Your math built upon asssumptions derived from incorrect preconceived notions unequivocally supports those suppositions!!! Film at 11... Designed to illustrate, indeed...

For us to have a conversation, you need to be able to recognize a "complex" object when you see it. A rock is simple. A shovel is complex. A drop of water is simple--an egg is complex. An ice crystal is simple. An ice sculpture is complex. Lightning is simple. A computer is complex. A black hole is simple. A galaxy is complex. A gas cloud post-supernova is simple. A star is complex. Amino acids are simple. DNA is complex. Refrigerator magnets clumped together are simple. Refrigerator magnets arranged in a line to form a sentence is complex. In other words, one needs to be able to know which direction entropy travels given two states separated by time. I certainly am incapable of explaining complexity to an educated person who won't understand.

Over time, shovels degrade to rocks. Ice sculptures degrade to simple ice. Galaxies compress to black holes. DNA eventually degrees into simple compounds. I assert that to go in the opposite direction in the absence of intelligent design, pure chance is required, and the probability of such an event happening in all the examples above is practically infiinitely low.

 

[Blayz]

For us to have a conversation, you need to be able to recognize a "complex" object when you see it. A rock is simple. A shovel is complex. A drop of water is simple--an egg is complex. An ice crystal is simple. An ice sculpture is complex. Lightning is simple. A computer is complex. A black hole is simple. A galaxy is complex. A gas cloud post-supernova is simple. A star is complex. Amino acids are simple. DNA is complex. Refrigerator magnets clumped together are simple. Refrigerator magnets arranged in a line to form a sentence is complex.

Let me try:

True Blue is simple, science is complex.

Well whatdya know, it works.

Ok, so it's just an ad homenim. Consider it retaliation for your earlier lie about how Australians (such as myself) feel about the hole in the ozone layer.

 

[True_Blue]

You see, True, I'll explain it to you as simply as I know how:

1. You have proposed a model for a system we do not yet fully understand.

2. You hope that model will show some key point about the validity of the two hypotheses.

3. The only way to prove, empircally, that your model is of even marginal value in establishing this is to test it against a system that is understood.

Now, let me give you an example:

Suppose I make a "pill" that I claim will make you stronger and smarter. I am basing my formulation only on those things I feel are right and absolutely no testing is done on the pill. It isn't tested for safety, it isn't tested for effectiveness, not even on another animal.

Would you take the pill?

Thaumaturgy, if you don't understand abiogenesis such that you can't even calculate the odds of such a thing with simplifying assumptions, how is nature itself, without any mind, intellect, creativity, will, or inventiveness, supposed to actually bring about life from abiogenesis? I'm reasonably sure that all of humanity, if it focused all of its resources and inventiveness on trying to create a cell from scratch and spent a 100 years doing so, would even come close to succeeding. How is chance and simple chemstry supposed to do it?

With respect to your pill question, here's what I would go about doing. I would assume that you actually are a research chemist, and that you have good faith, but that you don't have a company. I would look at statistics showing that 99% of biotech companies don't make usuable product. I would consider statistics showing that 35% or so pharmaceutical products that are sold actually have no effect. I would consider that the person offering me the pill isn't paying me to take the pill. I would consider that the pill will either be harmless or have inevitable side effects, and consider that the side effects are directly proportional to the degree of the alleged benefit. Based on those assumptions, I would not take the pill. I'm sure I could do more research to tighten up the assumptions, but ultimately we make decisions that unconsciously take probability into account, to varying degrees and with varying degrees of sophistication.

 

[TemperateSeaIsland]

For us to have a conversation, you need to be able to recognize a "complex" object when you see it. A rock is simple. A shovel is complex. A drop of water is simple--an egg is complex. An ice crystal is simple. An ice sculpture is complex. Lightning is simple. A computer is complex. A black hole is simple. A galaxy is complex. A gas cloud post-supernova is simple. A star is complex. Amino acids are simple. DNA is complex. Refrigerator magnets clumped together are simple. Refrigerator magnets arranged in a line to form a sentence is complex. In other words, one needs to be able to know which direction entropy travels given two states separated by time. I certainly am incapable of explaining complexity to an educated person who won't understand.

Over time, shovels degrade to rocks. Ice sculptures degrade to simple ice. Galaxies compress to black holes. DNA eventually degrees into simple compounds. I assert that to go in the opposite direction in the absence of intelligent design, pure chance is required, and the probability of such an event happening in all the examples above is practically infiinitely low.

The universe is simple. God is complex.

 

[pgp_protector]

For us to have a conversation, you need to be able to recognize a "complex" object when you see it. A rock is simple. A shovel is complex. A drop of water is simple--an egg is complex. An ice crystal is simple. An ice sculpture is complex. Lightning is simple. A computer is complex. A black hole is simple. A galaxy is complex. A gas cloud post-supernova is simple. A star is complex. Amino acids are simple. DNA is complex. Refrigerator magnets clumped together are simple. Refrigerator magnets arranged in a line to form a sentence is complex. In other words, one needs to be able to know which direction entropy travels given two states separated by time. I certainly am incapable of explaining complexity to an educated person who won't understand.

Over time, shovels degrade to rocks. Ice sculptures degrade to simple ice. Galaxies compress to black holes. DNA eventually degrees into simple compounds. I assert that to go in the opposite direction in the absence of intelligent design, pure chance is required, and the probability of such an event happening in all the examples above is practically infiinitely low.

Someone get a shovel, it's getting deep in here.

 

[True_Blue]

The universe is simple. God is complex.

Precisely, though your comment interests me given that you say you're an atheist in your profile.

 

[TemperateSeaIsland]

Precisely, though your comment interests me given that you say you're an atheist in your profile.

Yes I am but I'm quite capable of talking in hypotheticals.

So according to your own reasoning a complex omnimax god is far more unlikely to exist than a simple naturalistic universe.

 

[thaumaturgy]

For us to have a conversation, you need to be able to recognize a "complex" object when you see it. A rock is simple.

ORLY?

A rock is "simple". I'm guessing you've never taken a geochemical thermodynamics class then, have you? I'm even willing to bet you've never taken a petrology class.

There's an alarming amount of chemical complexity around mineral assemblages in metamorphic rocks. And like the chemistry cited earlier in this thread requires a sophisticated understanding of Gibbs Free Energy and relative activities and even a few gas fugacities.

You see, True_Blue, you are stumbling right into someone elses' bailiwick and you will not admit you might not have the first idea what you are talking about.

Let's look at a "simplified" version of the geochemistry that goes into the make-up of an igneous rock. This is called Bowen's Reaction series and outlines, rather crudely and in broad terms, stability fields for various mineral phases

But I'm willing to bet dollars to donoughts you'd not be able to differentiate this:

from this;

But the point, again, is that you are so locked into arbitrarily decreeing what is and what isn't complex and then compounding the error by decreeing that somehow "complexity" is anathema and everything must be going to your definition of "simple" away from your definition of complex.

An ice crystal is simple. An ice sculpture is complex.

Simple, like this?

Ice sculptures degrade to simple ice.

Correction: ice sculptures degrade to liquid water.

I assert that to go in the opposite direction in the absence of intelligent design, pure chance is required, and the probability of such an event happening in all the examples above is practically infiinitely low.

Perhaps you need to look really closely at the picture up there that is a snowflake. It forms in hexagonal symmetry with an incredibly high degree of overall symmetry based purely on physical rules. This is not to say random processes are not in play in terms of nucleation, but overall the fact that the snowflake LOOKS AS COMPLEX AS IT DOES is driven, indeed biased by the physical rules.

Unless, of course, you are of the opinion that God makes every snowflake by hand.

But again, what use is your "hypothesis" unless you are willing to test it on a known system, like Temperate's Challenge?

Honestly, why should we believe what you say unless you are willing to have a go at "proving" what you say is valid.

Remember, if you want to sell us something, you have to believe in it sufficiently yourself, first.

 

[Naraoia]

Thaumaturgy, if you don't understand abiogenesis such that you can't even calculate the odds of such a thing with simplifying assumptions, how is nature itself, without any mind, intellect, creativity, will, or inventiveness, supposed to actually bring about life from abiogenesis? I'm reasonably sure that all of humanity, if it focused all of its resources and inventiveness on trying to create a cell from scratch and spent a 100 years doing so, would even come close to succeeding. How is chance and simple chemstry supposed to do it?

I think I've answered that question. Here it is again, bolded so you don't miss it. Do you need to know about the laws of gravity to fall off a tree?

 

[TeddyKGB]

Someone get a shovel, it's getting deep in here.

I'd let you borrow mine, but it just turned into a rock.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

I, for one, am interested in Ture_Blue's definition of 'simple' and 'complex'. His logic does not seem to resemble our Earth logic...