Origin of Life

[xianghua]

No, they showed (what they believe to be) a minimal set for Mycoplasma mycoides. Not a minimal bar for a biological system.

and a genome isnt a biological system?

 

[xianghua]

People can believe whatever they like. But the irreducible complexity claim is nothing more than the argument from incredulity.

science is base on experiments. so far all experiments prove that there is no stepwise to evolve a biological system. so basically the claim of irreducible complexity is base on scientific method were evolution belief isnt.

 

[Halbhh]

Since the cells irreducible complexity requires that all its parts be present and functional and properly organised for it to work. Since the probability of such an arrangement emerging by chemical evolution by chance is virtually 0 we have to conclude that it is a product of a Creator.

"The picture of the cell provided by modern molecular biology has led scientists to redefine the question of the origin of life. The discovery of lifes information processing systems, with their elaborate functional integration of proteins and nucleic acids, has made it clear that scientists investigating the origin of life must now explain the origin of at least three key features of life.

1) they must explain the origin of the system for storing and encoding digital information in the cell, DNAs capacity to store digitally encoded information.
2) they must explain the origin of the large amount of specified complexity or functionally specified information in DNA.
3) they must explain the origin of the integrated complexity - the functional interdependence of the parts- of the cells information - processing system." Meyer Signature in the Cell

Various attempts have been made by atheistic evolutionists / abiogenesis proponents to justify their commitment, by blind faith, to the improbable possibility that the cell evolved from chemicals by chance.

1) random molecular interactions
2) lawlike forces (necessity)
3) a combination of necessity and chance

However the probability of the complex specificity of function and sequence, organisation and appearance of intelligence, that we can observe in the cell, emerging by chance is so low as to render these attempts completely preposterous

We know for sure God created all that is -- this Universe, and thus all that is in it also!

When discussing the mere small details of just chemistry, that's interesting, but perhaps you'd agree it can get a little too involved and make us miss the big picture at times. Or even if you don't think so because you love chemistry, still I hope to talk with you about something special to know, which you can consider quickly and easily.

If, like me, you truly believe that God created all that is

then, logically, everything, including the laws of nature -- physics, chemistry -- is His design.

Right?

So, if physics is His design, His work, as I believe, believing He created everything, then....

therefore it follows logically that it could be that physics, chemistry, really work great, because He made them!

I bet you agree with all of that (just my guess), but here's what I want you to consider:

Why shouldn't we expect that God would choose to make physics, chemistry, that is favorable to life!?

Why would He choose to make physics that is unfavorable to life?

We can think that's pretty unlikely. In fact, we can learn about things in physics and chemistry that show they are in fact powerfully supportive to life. Ok, this is an almost obvious truth, I suppose. I just want people to think out the implication of it more fully.

If He made physics that is favorable to life, then if follows logically that life may arise on other planets by natural processes... (But, when life arises on other planets, it doesn't follow that conditions on such planets would remain favorable for life to continue on those planets for long though!)

Physics that may lead to life naturally -- Because He is the Designer of physics! and this is His Universe. His.

Yes?

But anyone reading this -- notice that there are many powerful advantages to Earth that very, very few other planets out there will have, and I can list them, because astrophysics is my hobby, and I'd be happy to, just ask.

 

[mindlight]

Nope. Irreducible complexity examples are almost always debunked rather quickly.

Debunked! Until you can duplicate the cell you have not debunked it. Since you as an intelligent agent do not have a snowballs chance in hell of duplicating the processes that you say formed the cell and that despite your "mastery" of the laws of chemistry which you suggest make this inevitable why should. I believe your claim to have debunked anything?

I believe it's called HYDROGEN BONDING and BOND ANGLES. That's pretty much the basis. If you have two chemicals that can coordinate then one chemical can easily "template" the other chemical or some other chemical. The passage of the information is pretty simplistic.

Ok do that for all the chemicals involved , sequence and organise them and supply them with the info and functionality to start transcription, transport and translation. Afterall it is simplistic. You cannot so cut the arrogance.

If you want to discuss EVOLUTION you need to remember that ORIGIN OF LIFE has nothing to do with evolution.

Really but if you want to deny the involvement of the Creator then you are going to need both chemical and biological evolution.

Chance does play a role in chemistry, but usually not as loosey-goosey as you may think. Chemicals follow a suite of rather specific rules, most of which are relatively simple. But when combined produce emergent complexity.

But never a functioning cell. The proof is in the doing.

Again, misuse of probability and a general lack of understanding of basic chemistry does NOT provide evidence of a Creator or Intelligent Design.

the odds are against a naturalistic process producing the complexity of a functioning cell.

 

[mindlight]

We know for sure God created all that is -- this Universe, and thus all that is in it also!

When discussing the mere small details of just chemistry, that's interesting, but perhaps you'd agree it can get a little too involved and make us miss the big picture at times. Or even if you don't think so because you love chemistry, still I hope to talk with you about something special to know, which you can consider quickly and easily.

If, like me, you truly believe that God created all that is

then, logically, everything, including the laws of nature -- physics, chemistry -- is His design.

Right?

So, if physics is His design, His work, as I believe, believing He created everything, then....

therefore it follows logically that it could be that physics, chemistry, really work great, because He made them!

I bet you agree with all of that (just my guess), but here's what I want you to consider:

Why shouldn't we expect that God would choose to make physics, chemistry, that is favorable to life!?

Why would He choose to make physics that is unfavorable to life???

If He made physics that is favorable to life, then if follows logically that life may arise on other planets by natural processes, Because He is the Designer of physics! and this is His Universe. His.

Yes?

But anyone reading this -- notice that there are many powerful advantages to Earth that very, very few other planets out there will have, and I can list them, because astrophysics is my hobby, and I'd be happy to, just ask.

God created a universe of which the laws of science give a measure of discernment and cause for wonder. But the universe does not contain the sum of his wisdom or creativity and so it is a place where a merely naturalistic method will not give the ability to create from nothing nor indeed understand how life was created. So experts on this forum will strut and parade their titles and knowledge but cannot duplicate what they claim to understand. This supernatural and miraculous element will always mean that understanding requires a balance between what we know of the how of scientific laws , what we know of how the Creator acted and what we do not know about how He acted.

 

[jayem]

science is base on experiments. so far all experiments prove that there is no stepwise to evolve a biological system. so basically the claim of irreducible complexity is base on scientific method were evolution belief isnt.

Read about the Miller-Urey experiment and the work of Juan Oro. Amino acids (the building blocks of proteins) and nucleotides (of which RNA and DNA are composed) have been created experimentally from simple compounds by purely natural processes. That's still quite a ways from knowing how life appeared, but it's a first step.

Miller-Urey Experiment

You think 300 years ago, anyone would have thought it possible that we'd understand the biochemical basis of inheritance, or how nerve cells transmit impulses, or how the immune system fights infection? You have no idea of what we may learn in centuries to come.

 

[Halbhh]

God created a universe of which the laws of science give a measure of discernment and cause for wonder. But the universe does not contain the sum of his wisdom or creativity and so it is a place where a merely naturalistic method will not give the ability to create from nothing nor indeed understand how life was created. So experts on this forum will strut and parade their titles and knowledge but cannot duplicate what they claim to understand. This supernatural and miraculous element will always mean that understanding requires a balance between what we know of the how of scientific laws , what we know of how the Creator acted and what we do not know about how He acted.

Indeed God must be above nature, not subject to nature! We surely agree on that, and of course, it's very likely that if both of us were to list say what we see as the 25 most important things about faith and following Christ, there would be a general overlap and agreement. Likely on everything that is crucial. I only occasionally participate in these debates on the small details of creation only in order to help those that are seeking but have not yet found God, and wonder at versions of creation, to let them know that they aren't required to believe creation took precisely 156 hours (or any other certain number), in order to be saved. Not a salvation requirement. That real believers who can testify about real things in their lives think a whole wide range of different ideas about small details of creation! That there are even a good half dozen or more major theories of small details of creation even! So that these seekers would be unblocked by misconceptions about what is faith in God, and thus be freed to able to seek to find God, and learn about Christ, and be saved. I know that usually the only good thing any of us can do is to tell the Good News, and sometimes with direct quotes from Christ. Praise the Lord!

 

[Gene2memE]

Since the cells irreducible complexity

Aaannnnd, brakes on right there. You're assuming your premise without demonstrating it.

requires that all its parts be present and functional and properly organised for it to work.

Strike two. Cells dont require "all its parts be present and functional and properly organised" for functionality - you can chop very large parts of a cell's genome and it will still function.

Since the probability of such an arrangement emerging by chemical evolution by chance is virtually 0 we have to conclude that it is a product of a Creator.

Strike three - that's an unfounded assertion, with no working shown. How did you arrive at this probability calculation?



Abiogenesis is an unsolved question in chemistry/biology - that still doesn't mean an invisible space wizard (um, I mean intelligent designer) poofed it into existence. It also doesn't provide any reasonable alternative to the current paradigm of evolutionary biology.

Until you can DEMONSTRATE intelligent design, rather than just ASSERT it, no reasonable person should be swayed by this feeble line of argumentation.

 

[Gene2memE]

No, you are.

But seriously, I'm wondering if sexual reproduction as a process is irreducibly complex.

Nope - there's plenty of evidence on the evolution and nature of the development of sex. Literally hundreds of thousands of papers on the topic.

 

[Chesterton]

Nope - there's plenty of evidence on the evolution and nature of the development of sex. Literally hundreds of thousands of papers on the topic.

Thanks for the links, but the first one doesn't address what I said, and I'm not going read hundreds of thousands of papers to see if those papers attempt to.

 

[Gene2memE]

Wiki: Evolution of sexual reproduction - Wikipedia

Basic university level presentation: www.evolution.unibas.ch/teaching/evol_fort/pdf/Origins.pdf

 

[Anguspure]

Here are some equations I don't understand:
There’s plenty of time for evolution

Does epigentics change this? Or evo-devo? Or Chicxulub?

I believe that the scientists are doing the best they can, and evolution is the best scientific model. But can we honestly say it all adds up, or is there missing data (space for new discoveries which change the odds, and prove the old set wrong)???

We're not talking about Evolution here as such, rather the thread OP focuses on Biogenesis.

Of course the Scientific endeavor is provisional, however unscientific bigotry is revealed when the best and only available explanation for the observed phenomena is discounted on the grounds of priori ideological/world view commitments.

 

[Anguspure]

The universe is astronomically large and old.

When we are discussing Biogenesis it becomes apparent, very quickly, that the Universe is far, far to young, in the order of 100 times to young, for the observed phenomena to have arisen, even on one occasion, by chance.

It is clear to any honest and knowledgeable person that in order for any example of life to have arisen within this Universe, there must be a process apart from chance that is capable of causing systems of such functional coherence to have come about.

Thus far, the only candidate for such a process is Creative Intelligence and this is the same process that is immediately recognized by all humanity in the first instance.

Biology is the study of complicated things that have the appearance of having been designed with a purpose." - Richard Dawkins

It takes "careful education" (consistent brain washing?) from a young age for a person to discount the initial perception and commit to the view that Creative Intelligence is not an explanation and that another one must be sought.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Yes there is an improbability to many things. However when we speak of a cell we are talking about a complexity that is unlikely to arise from random collisions because there is a complex specificity of sequence , function and arrangement that adds to those odds astronomically. So we are not just talking about the spontaneous arrival of an amino acid from mixing chemicals and passing electric current , we are talking about an arrangement of 20 different kinds that must cohere perfectly in specific sequence, function and areangement. Indeed unless all the required variables are present it cannot happen in fact. But how those influences were put in place in the first place so that it could happen is a mystery. A cannot cause B without B already existing. But A is required if we want to prove evolution. It seems the evidence says the chicken came first but how can there be a chicken if there was not first an egg.

Thing is, a modern cell is the product of 3.5 billion years of evolution. The very first replicators would have been relatively simple - perhaps just single strands of RNA, perhaps without even a cell wall (there are many hypotheses being researched - 'RNA World' is a popular subset). Comparing them with modern cells is like comparing a sled with the latest Audi A4.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

and a genome isnt a biological system?

No, it's an abstraction of part of a biological system.

 

[pitabread]

Since the cells irreducible complexity

Nope. IC has not yet been demonstrated to be a valid concept with respect to biology.

However the probability of the complex specificity of function and sequence, organisation and appearance of intelligence, that we can observe in the cell, emerging by chance is so low as to render these attempts completely preposterous

Except we don't have enough information to make a legitimate probability calculation given that we don't (and likely never will) be able to account for all possible variables.

Trying to refute origin of life scenarios via probability is woefully misguided.

 

[pitabread]

But seriously, I'm wondering if sexual reproduction as a process is irreducibly complex.

Not really, when you consider the existence of hermaphroditism.

 

[Anguspure]

Thing is, a modern cell is the product of 3.5 billion years of evolution. The very first replicators would have been relatively simple - perhaps just single strands of RNA, perhaps without even a cell wall (there are many hypotheses being researched - 'RNA World' is a popular subset). Comparing them with modern cells is like comparing a sled with the latest Audi A4.

Quite apart from the problems with RNA world hypothesis, the functional coherence of even a sled is such that it is fantastically improbable that such a thing would have originated by chance during the age of the universe, let alone the A4.

The idea that even the most basic example of a life (which display far more functional coherence than any piece of machinery thus far designed and built by mankind) might have originated in this way defines and deepens the concept of the absurd to a very great degree indeed, one might suggest to the point of lunacy.

...but they became destitute in their reasoning and became dull in their heart without understanding. (Romans 1)

 

[Anguspure]

Read about the Miller-Urey experiment and the work of Juan Oro. Amino acids (the building blocks of proteins) and nucleotides (of which RNA and DNA are composed) have been created experimentally from simple compounds by purely natural processes. That's still quite a ways from knowing how life appeared, but it's a first step.

Miller-Urey Experiment

You think 300 years ago, anyone would have thought it possible that we'd understand the biochemical basis of inheritance, or how nerve cells transmit impulses, or how the immune system fights infection? You have no idea of what we may learn in centuries to come.

This experiment has been discounted on a number of grounds and yet continues to come back from the grave ....... Zombie Science anyone?
https://evolutionnews.org/tag/zombie-science

 

[pitabread]

This experiment has been discounted on a number of grounds and yet continues to come back from the grave

Discounted how exactly? The experiment accomplished what it set out: demonstrating the formation of amino acids from chemical precursors.