Proof against abiogenesis/evolution -- affirmative proof of God

[Wiccan_Child]

Basically, chemistry is a necessary but not a sufficient condition for life, just as chemistry is a necessary but not a sufficient condition for computers. Computers are a product of an exogenous intelligence, though a comparatively weak one compared to the vast intelligence that forms the basis of living things. Human beings with all their intellect and creativity, cannot create a physical machine that can gather its own food from its environment, think for itself, reprodruce itself, etc.

Not yet.

There isn't anything about life that I can see that requires it be the product of chance-based chemical recreations. By analogy to computers and other man-made objects, it makes sense that life is the product of a supreme intelligence with far greater power than ourselves.

Well, there's where you're going wrong: your analogy is flawed. By your own admission, humans have yet to make artificial life. So, no computer, nor any other other man-made object, is a replicator. To that end, the most reasonable explanation for the origin of computers et al is: a designer.

Now, with living systems, it's a different story entirely: populations of living systems replicate. This single fact makes your analogy fail, since the most reasonable explanation for complexity in replicating systems is not design, but evolution: accumulated variation from a relatively simple population of ancestors to a relatively complex population of descendants. And since the evidence is quite literally overwhelmingly in favour of common descent, and not a speck of evidence exists for intelligent design, guess which one is more likely to be true?

To put it another way, there is more evidence for common descent than there is for the existence of atoms. Go figure.

 

[True_Blue]

Okay, let's see then...

if islam had an infinite hell and an infinite heaven, would you be a Muslim?

pascal's wager will only lead to jesus if Christianity has the greatest reward and the worst punishment.

Oh, and what if the correct religion is one that hasn't been discovered yet?

And about how gambling in Las Vegas doesn't involve logic....

if I am playing Blackjack and I get 20, it's pretty logical that you're going to stand, not hit. or am I missing something there as well?

You want to show me how natural selection and/or any other non-random method of passing on traits does NOT play a major role in evolution? How are they poor engines? I must have missed those posts....

If Islam did have an infinite hell, it would survive disqualification, and allow analysis and comparison vice Christianity. If you've read the Koran, you'll see it has almost no credibility as a book, let alone a holy book. Anyways, the idea that you get X number of virgins in Heaven doesn't pass the sniff test. Jesus essentially said that the positive experience in the afterlife is ineffable and beyond our ability to comprehend. That make more sense to me than saying we will live in tents with a bunch of virgins.

As I explained earlier, Pascal's Wager does not lead to Jesus because of the nature of people. The Holy Spirit leads people to Jesus.

For many people, the true religion was not known to them during their lifetime. God, in his mercy, knows who his elect are, and he judges people according to their intrinsic character and their actions in light of their individual life experiences. In your case, however, the true religion has been shown to you.

Once you've actually started playing Blackjack, your subsequent decisions should be governed by the probabilities of the game. But the wise decision is to not start playing Blackjack in the first place. Everything in the casino is funded out of the difference between the money you bring into the place and the money with which you leave.

Natural selection is inherently reductionistic--it creates no new genes. To power evolution, changes in the genetic code are needed. Here is an interesting article on mutation's shortcomings as an engine for positive changes in the genetic code.

 

[True_Blue]

Not yet.
Well, there's where you're going wrong: your analogy is flawed. By your own admission, humans have yet to make artificial life. So, no computer, nor any other other man-made object, is a replicator. To that end, the most reasonable explanation for the origin of computers et al is: a designer.

Now, with living systems, it's a different story entirely: populations of living systems replicate. This single fact makes your analogy fail, since the most reasonable explanation for complexity in replicating systems is not design, but evolution: accumulated variation from a relatively simple population of ancestors to a relatively complex population of descendants. And since the evidence is quite literally overwhelmingly in favour of common descent, and not a speck of evidence exists for intelligent design, guess which one is more likely to be true?

To put it another way, there is more evidence for common descent than there is for the existence of atoms. Go figure.

I figure that you're basically saying that since life forms replicate, they were not designed. You've made an assumption without basis.

Here is my assumption: life forms are incredibly complex, and therefore must have been designed. Here is my basis: since humans cannot make self-replicating computers, cars, etc., I cannot imagine inanimate, unimaginative nature doing what animate, creative, intelligent human beings cannot.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

I figure that you're basically saying that since life forms replicate, they were not designed.

You figure wrong. I'm pointing out that your analogy is flawed: man-made objects aren't replicators, but living systems are. Thus, explanations for their origins are not necessarily the same. Indeed, as it turns out (qv. Darwin's 1859 On the Origin of Species), the best explanation we have for the biodiversity of our planet is the theory of common descent: all life on Earth is descended from a* common ancestor that lived ~3.5 billion years ago. The 'magic man dunnit' explanation is a tad less plausible.

That said, the latter is the most plausible explanation for things like TVs and sky-scrapers. The evidence for (a) designer(s) is overwhelming: we can go and ask them to do it again, for instance.

Here is my assumption: life forms are incredibly complex, and therefore must have been designed. Here is my basis: since humans cannot make self-replicating computers, cars, etc., I cannot imagine inanimate, unimaginative nature doing what animate, creative, intelligent human beings cannot.

You make three hidden assumptions:

1. Humans cannot now, nor ever will, manufacture replicating systems.
   As it happens, software exists that does just that.
2. Since I, personally, cannot imagine how it could have happened, it therefore couldn't have happened.
   The fact that other people (experts, no less) can comprehend the theory is, I guess, notwithstanding.
3. Nature and humans are of equal expertise.
   Nature has two important things humans don't: time, and patience. Evolution works by trial-and-error over countless aeons, whilst humans must plan ahead (we only live ~70 years, after all).

*There was likely not one single ancestor, but a few that arose relatively close together. It should also be noted that notions of lineage and 'ancestor' & 'descendant' get a little muddled as one probes the very beginnings of life.

 

[mpok1519]

As an FYI, there is no such thing as a negative probability. Probabilities by definition range between 0 and 1, with 0 being completely impossible and 1 being certain. You should not expect to generate a negative number.

The number I came up with 1/10^7500, as a complete WAG, but it's premised on assumptions. What's important are the assumptions, not the number.

If you're "pretty sure" that one can support life based on the reality of Earth, you've made an assumption based on faith. I haven't made the point on this thread that it's just as improbable that a planet like Earth could support life as it is for a cell to evolve. But why don't we just assume that all 1 octillion planets actually can support life? That's a very generous assumption in favor of evolution, and I went even further in Post #1 and assumpted a trillion trillion universes densely pacted with particles capable of coalescing to form life. In other words, I expanded Earth to encompass the entire universe, and multiplied by a trillion trillion universes. That's a far more generous assumption than your assumption above.

So, you dont think more than say, three planets could harbor out of that octillion? Or is that too outrageous to assume?

Also, the universe might not even have a size or shape; space might go on forever.

 

[True_Blue]

You make three hidden assumptions:

1. Humans cannot now, nor ever will, manufacture replicating systems.
   As it happens, software exists that does just that.

1. 
   
   Not all things that replicate are alive, Wiccan. Computer viruses are not alive. I'm not willing to debate this point further. We either recognize living things when we see them, or we do not. I had this debate with my little brother a month ago, and it was pointless, and I don't want to repeat the experience with you.

 

[True_Blue]

So, you dont think more than say, three planets could harbor out of that octillion? Or is that too outrageous to assume?

Also, the universe might not even have a size or shape; space might go on forever.

I do think it's not inconceivable that space goes out forever, though I don't think that stars, energy, and matter fill that infinite space, based on the cosmology implied in Genesis 1:2. God could create an infinitely filled universe, but by definition that would be a faith-based assertion, and I only want to have faith in things to the extent required.

There have been a lot of books written on the topic of the probability of other planets capable of supporting life, and I'm not a good source for the latest thought on the uniqueness of earth. This is a good source for recent thought on the topic: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rare_Earth_hypothesis.

When we consider the extremely fine tolerances in play, it's not outrageous to assume that there are no other planets like earth in the entire visible universe out to 14 billion light-years.

Let's assume life must be organic, which is not an essential requirement of the probability model that is the basis of this post. Given that assumption, consider the following:

- The planet's orbit must be extremely close to circular. Otherwise, the temperature extremes would destroy life.
- It must have an atmosphere that keeps temperature stable and within an extremely close tolerance.
- The atmosphere must be thick enough to prevent meteors from destroying the surface
- The planet must be protected by other planets to keep asteroids and comets away. Jupiter, Saturn, and the moon provide excellent protection. Remember Shoemaker-Levy?
- The planet must rotate on its axis at almost precisely the same rate as ours to provide an event temperature.
- The planet would have to have lots of water to keep temperature in balance.
- Given that the planet would have to have lots of water, it could not be on a 90 degree axis, or else the ice caps would be tremendously larger and the center of the earth would be a desert. The weight at the poles would bulge the equator and skew the rotation.
- Any life on another planet would have to be counterbalanced by other organisms running metabolism in reverse. Otherwise, the life form would gobble up all the available food and drown in its own excrement. Balanced ecosystems are essential.
- The planet would have to have a powerful magnetic field or similar structure to shield the life forms from harmful solar rays.
- The star around which the planet revolves would have to be extremely stable. Observations indicate that the sun itself is very uniquely conducive to live in many respects.

I don't think the rare earth theory is quite as compelling as the low abiogenesis probability argument, but it's a good argument nevertheless.

If you assume that life arose from evolution/abiogenesis, the tolerances are vastly tighter than for creation. For example, the sun would to be stable for 1-3 billion years, and you have to have a huge initial influx of organic-molecule-delivering life forms, followed by no new comets, which would destroy the newly-formed life. The wikipedia site does a good job summarizing these effects.

I may post this in a new thread...

 

[mpok1519]

yeah, but, even that one in an octillion chance over time by the laws of probability will continutally reoccur as long as time continues, for octillions and octillions of years continually.

Also, that slim chance seems more possible than spontaneous spawning of a planet, a solar system, and all life as we know it, including the dinosaurs, a man, a woman,(not to mention all the choirs of angels, the devil, a war schisming heaven in two), and the transition from nudity to fig-leave fashion, all within a few hundred hours or so, if one takes Genesis literally.

-our orbit is eliptical, not circular, contrary to belief.
-our atmoshphere is thick enough to destroy not all meteors. The crater in the Yucatan is proof that 'planet killers' do exist.
-Mars rotates on an axis very similiar to ours, so this is not a highly exclusive attribute to earth.
-Earth is not saved by meteors from outer planets; its safer, but not saved.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

Not all things that replicate are alive, Wiccan. Computer viruses are not alive.

That all depends on what you mean by alive. Typically, something is alive if it is descended from a replicator, and metabolises its environment. As computer viruses don't metabolise, they aren't usually considered alive.
Nevertheless, only the 'replicate' part is important: simple replicating strands of RNA are enough to, eventually, beget life on Earth. Whether said strands are/were 'alive' is irrelevant.

I'm not willing to debate this point further. We either recognize living things when we see them, or we do not. I had this debate with my little brother a month ago, and it was pointless, and I don't want to repeat the experience with you.

Lurkers, I do hope the irony isn't lost on you.

 

[Naraoia]

Thaumatury, I'm not interested in whether you know more chemistry than I do. I don't think the readers on this thread care either.

This one does. And alternately laughs her heaviest muscles off and bangs her head against a wall. Can't really decide if I'm infinitely amused or infinitely frustrated by this thread.

I am interested in whether you can show by chemistry and by math that abiogenesis is not impossible.

True_Blue's Thesis (one of many possible wordings): Abiogenesis impossible under any reasonable assumptions, with or without chemistry.

You can disprove that thesis by showing that abiogenesis is possible with chemistry.

Where have you been these past thirty-some pages?

 

[Naraoia]

Not all things that replicate are alive, Wiccan. Computer viruses are not alive. I'm not willing to debate this point further. We either recognize living things when we see them, or we do not. I had this debate with my little brother a month ago, and it was pointless, and I don't want to repeat the experience with you.

I can't help but marvel at your amazing confidence in your own wisdom.

 

[thaumaturgy]

Thaumatury, I'm not interested in whether you know more chemistry than I do. I don't think the readers on this thread care either.

But you are trying to make a point about chemistry.

You can't just run away from it after you bring it up!

If this is how you defend your own points, well....

I am interested in whether you can show by chemistry and by math that abiogenesis is not impossible.

No, it doesn't appear to be the case. It appears you are more interested in having someone confirm your faulty assumptions for you and when you are shown repeatedly the failings of those assumptions and your underlying ignorance of the chemistry that is essential to the assumptions you try to dazzle people with rhetoric.

Sorry if we hold your feet to the fire. You see, in this courtroom, you don't get to redefine terms as you like, or select which things you find important which things you don't. This courtroom is a bit more stringent apparently than any you've set foot in.

True_Blue's Thesis (one of many possible wordings): Abiogenesis impossible under any reasonable assumptions, with or without chemistry.

Too bad abiogenesis is chemistry and you apparently don't know much about chemistry.

You see, that's the key. That's what you need to learn.

You can disprove that thesis by showing that abiogenesis is possible with chemistry.

Well, I think Millery and Urey and Oro have done quite a good job of starting that.

Again, don't tell us what our "time line" is to get to the final proof, considering, as I said earlier you have had 2 millenia to prove the Christian God created everything.

But more importantly, how many times do we have to hand you your behind in this debate on the central topic of chemistry before you acquiesce that an understanding of chemistry and how statistical probability works in chemistry is of some value?

That's what I find fascinating. Standard Creationist Hubris and Disrespect for other fields.

As Celsus said in the 2nd Century:

"the following are the rules laid down by them. Let no one come to us who has been instructed, or who is wise or prudent (for such qualifications are deemed evil by us); but if there be any ignorant, or unintelligent, or uninstructed, or foolish persons, let them come with confidence."

 

[thaumaturgy]

Human beings with all their intellect and creativity, cannot create a physical machine that can gather its own food from its environment,

BEHOLD: The Solar Calculator

 

[thaumaturgy]

I figure that you're basically saying that since life forms replicate, they were not designed. You've made an assumption without basis.

No, you missed his point. Wiccan was saying that since life forms "replicate" they are "molded" by evolutionary processes like genetic drift, mutation and filtered by natural selection.

Computers, in that they don't replicate (yet) are, by necessity, designed to work from the start.

As you no doubt know, not all life forms work in a given environment due to poor genetics or maladaptation. They die. Those that do work in that environment long enough to replicate pass along that "spec" to future generations to leverage into improvements.

Here is my assumption: life forms are incredibly complex, and therefore must have been designed.

Sounds like an assumption without basis.

Here is my basis: since humans cannot make self-replicating computers, cars, etc., I cannot imagine inanimate, unimaginative nature doing what animate, creative, intelligent human beings cannot.

Oh, my mistake, you have made an assumption with a faulty basis. You have built a strawman when you say:

unimaginative nature

Then you compound your error by argumentum ad ignorantiam of the "personal incredulity" variety when you use phrases like;

I cannot imagine

So you see, your basis is riddled with too many fallacies to support it.

How did this go over in Law School?

 

[thaumaturgy]

.

 

[Vene]

And chemistry is unquestionably non-random.

There isn't anything about life that I can see that requires it be the product of chance-based chemical recreations.

Does anybody else spot the contradiction?

Can't really decide if I'm infinitely amused or infinitely frustrated by this thread.

I know the feeling.

 

[True_Blue]

yeah, but, even that one in an octillion chance over time by the laws of probability will continutally reoccur as long as time continues, for octillions and octillions of years continually.

Also, that slim chance seems more possible than spontaneous spawning of a planet, a solar system, and all life as we know it, including the dinosaurs, a man, a woman,(not to mention all the choirs of angels, the devil, a war schisming heaven in two), and the transition from nudity to fig-leave fashion, all within a few hundred hours or so, if one takes Genesis literally.

-our orbit is eliptical, not circular, contrary to belief.
-our atmoshphere is thick enough to destroy not all meteors. The crater in the Yucatan is proof that 'planet killers' do exist.
-Mars rotates on an axis very similiar to ours, so this is not a highly exclusive attribute to earth.
-Earth is not saved by meteors from outer planets; its safer, but not saved.

There are dozens of parameters that Creationists have pointed out that must be in place for organic life forms to survive. If one believes in evolution, the tolerances are far tighter--the universe does not have octillions of years to be successful, because after sufficient time, black holes would gobble up their respective stars, and the stars would complete the process of converting their mass into scattered EM rays. I personally do not think the universe is infinite, and an assumption to the contrary seems to require faith, and it seems to require a Creator.

Time is a function of mass and velocity within the context of our physical universe. Heaven is outside of our universal time altogether. Hence, the events in Heaven described in the Bible did not happen in conjunction with human concepts of time. The Bible doesn't say how long Adam was by himself, and it doesn't say how long it took Adam and Eve to sin. I think it took about a year, but I have absolutely no basis for that. It could have taken no more than 128 years (assuming Cain and Abel were twins, and that Seth was born a year later).

As an FYI, If you read my thread more carefully, you'll see that I said "extremely close to circular." You're other points are technically accurate.

 

[True_Blue]

That all depends on what you mean by alive. Typically, something is alive if it is descended from a replicator, and metabolises its environment. As computer viruses don't metabolise, they aren't usually considered alive.
Nevertheless, only the 'replicate' part is important: simple replicating strands of RNA are enough to, eventually, beget life on Earth. Whether said strands are/were 'alive' is irrelevant.

Lurkers, I do hope the irony isn't lost on you.

Ok, I'll bite, Wiccan. Let's assume that a computer virus is not alive [IT IS NOT ALIVE], but that a computer virus can be analogized to a "protobiont" or a "hypercycle" according to the TalkOrigin article. Let's assume that a living computer program requires sentience. We can't define sentience, but we know it when we see it, and there are lots of examples of sentient computer programs on Star Trek episodes, which thinking human beings can recognize as such immediately when exposed to one. Let's also assume that the computer program, whether virus or computer, can exist outside of the computer itself. In other words, the evolution of the computer hardware is extremely unlikely, but notwithstanding, let's assume it away to be nice to evolutionists and for the sake of discussion.

A computer program is a collection of 1s and 0s. You can model it very easily by flipping a coin. Heads =1, tails =0. Now, a computer virus consists of two sets of software, one being the virus, and the other being the substrate programs that the virus infects. What do you think is the probability that by flipping a coin a million times a second for 10 billion years (galactic lifespan), that a simple program+virus would form? Now, human beings, in all their wisdom and intelligence, lack the capacity to create a sentient program. What is the probability of such a program forming from chance where human beings fail? Now add the computer hardware. Do you see just how impossible this is?

 

[TemperateSeaIsland]

Ok, I'll bite, Wiccan. Let's assume that a computer virus is not alive [IT IS NOT ALIVE], but that a computer virus can be analogized to a "protobiont" or a "hypercycle" according to the TalkOrigin article. Let's assume that a living computer program requires sentience. We can't define sentience, but we know it when we see it, and there are lots of examples of sentient computer programs on Star Trek episodes, which thinking human beings can recognize as such immediately when exposed to one. Let's also assume that the computer program, whether virus or computer, can exist outside of the computer itself. In other words, the evolution of the computer hardware is extremely unlikely, but notwithstanding, let's assume it away to be nice to evolutionists and for the sake of discussion.

A computer program is a collection of 1s and 0s. You can model it very easily by flipping a coin. Heads =1, tails =0. Now, a computer virus consists of two sets of software, one being the virus, and the other being the substrate programs that the virus infects. What do you think is the probability that by flipping a coin a million times a second for 10 billion years (galactic lifespan), that a simple program+virus would form? Now, human beings, in all their wisdom and intelligence, lack the capacity to create a sentient program. What is the probability of such a program forming from chance where human beings fail? Now add the computer hardware. Do you see just how impossible this is?

You're describing something very similar to a genetic algorithm.

 

[True_Blue]

You're describing something very similar to a genetic algorithm.

Not really, though we could use genetic algorithms as the basis of a similar analogy.