Consideringlily, Oncedeceived and defining evolution

[Oncedeceived]

Well then this goes back to my point. Its not necessarily true that life cant come from non life.

It is not necessarily true that it can.

Gods actions necessarily break the laws of the universe and as such any assumptions or hypothesis' assuming such things cannot be tested or verified in any way whatsoever even hypothetically.

Why would God's actions necessitate breaking any laws of the universe? In actuality, it is not possible for the abiogenesis event to be tested or verified. We can gain knowledge of what can be known, but we don't know what can't be known. As it stands right now, the theories that are out there have problemistic aspects.

We have a good idea how life could have arisen from non-living matter, it still needs a lot of work as a theory, but its no where near on par as "goddidit".

What good idea? Each theory has holes that create almost insurmountable obstacles. Not that they might never be filled, but it remains to be seen.

Evolution did it is no more informative if the data is not there. If the information increases and we find a naturalistic cause then so be it. To me it wouldn't effect my worldview. As I said, I think that evolutionary processes are God did it processes in a way anyway.

Although I was the one that openned the door on my viewpoint, I would still like this to be a scientific discussion rather than a Creation VS. Evolution discussion. My fault of course for bringing it in though.

 

[Oncedeceived]

You didn't read Enemy Properly. He clearly said:

Once you have your first one...it does happen. So we have the cart, then the horse, and then they're off and running.

Sounds simple, yes? Too simple I think. If you take the prion for example. It needs a host to replicate...what host? They are non-living and need a living host to replicate. Not only that, being that they are non-living they are not linked into chains that prevent individual reactions from reaching equilibrium and stopping. They would reach a point of equilibrium and they would stop.

The actual difficulty in the beginning would be the supply of nucleotides for repliction. But that would just slow the process down, not stop it.

Again, it is more than that. You need a host, then you need a way to keep the information in the next step.

 

[Oncedeceived]

My husband needs the computer. I will finish in a few minutes.

 

[Oncedeceived]

I said it is beautiful because of its simplicity for a reason. No matter how complicated evolution may seem, no matter how complex and how many interplaying factors biologists propose and look at and try to factor, the fact is it comes down to 3 simple rules. Replicate accurate, but not perfectly, and compete.

Some of the best minds of our time feel it is much more complicated than you are describing.

That is simple in anyones language, and that is everything. With just that, all of this complexity arises. The law is simple, the consequences are vast. The law is beautiful, and from it, beautiful complexes arise.

Nice thoughts but again, it is not simple.

You are putting the cart before the horse. The 'accidental' event didn't make life be mathematical, the laws of the universe made the chemical event occur in a mathematical way.

What makes the laws of the universe mathematical?

See when you say mathematical, understand it as logic. Maths = Logic. And the sort of logic we are seeing here is stupidly obvious: If a chemical molecule can form readily, and stay stable: That molecule will accumulate. If a molecule is somewhat stable, and causes replication of itself (or is replicated or whatever), then that molecule will numerate.

So the universe is logic, yes?

How can a chemical molecule for readily, and stay stable. It would reach a point of equilibrium and it would stop like I said in another post.

Obviously both of these statements are givens. There is no doubts about them, but that is all evolution is about, and all abiogenesis hypothesises. Really brutally obvious logic statements.

Many disagree.

It wasn't the specific chemicals that made the laws of evolution simple, it is the laws of a sort of universal evolution (LOGIC) which made life. The origin of life is more akin to a phase change in that evolution. It stepped over from mearly stable creation of random molecules into a directed replication of a single molecule.

How would the laws of 'universal evolution' make life?

First of all, Darwinian evolution doesn't propose to explain it, and so no there is no need to explain how evolution created life. Evolution explains the variation of life AFTER it has started.

Yes, evolution is considered to be after life started but it couldn't start without life and that is foundational to evolution.

As for the gap there. Congratulations! You found something which humans don't know the absolute answer to! We'll get right onto that, and solve that, just for you!

Just for me!! You do realize that this gap is being researched by hundreds if not thousands of scientists as we speak?

And what do you mean by your comment on a billion years? [wash my mouth][wash my mouth][wash my mouth]? A billion years is a whole HEAP of time. C'mon, upon you rmind up and consider it.

I could say the same of you. I could say open your mind to the problems as well as the possibility. Problems push science far more than possibility, at least as much.

Not that either bacteria or us have any relevence on the pre-life chemical soup. But knowing how fast chemical reactions occur, 1 billion years isn't a matter of waiting for several years before each new attempt was made. Chemicals were interacting constantly, reacting, breaking down, re-combining, drying, heating, cooling etc constantly, on a global scale for a billion years.

Chemical reactions are not life or living.

Not much time. Stop kidding yourself.

This is not just a problem with me kidding myself. Francis Crick the Scientist that discovered DNA feels that the time for life to come into being is too short.

"...The real fossil record suggests that our present form of protein based life was already in existence 3.6 billion years ago.... This leaves an astonishingly short time to get life started"

Francis Crick,[SIZE=-1] "Split genes and RNA Splicing," p 264-271 v 204, Science, 20 April 1979.[/SIZE]

Oh, you know the absolute minimum limits required for a generic replicator do you? Or are you trying to judge the first replicator from todays 'Post 3 BILLION YEARS of EVOLUTION Life'? The most simple replicator today is not simple. It is highly adapted, highly evolved, and incredibly complicated. I GUARANTEE life did not start out 100th as complicated as that... it started simple, it started poorly, it was fragile, pathetic, and probably didn't even successfully replicate 90% of the opportunities it had. But as long as it can replicate... then eventually it will, and then there will be two.

No I don't know the absolute minimum limits required but neither do you nor anyone else either for that matter. It is hypothesized but we don't really know. But according to many the time is considered very short.

Do you understand how DNA is replicated?

Yes, but we are talking about before DNA existed.

Do you understand that RNA can form secondary structures and like proteins, catalyse reactions? Please take the time to put these two factors together and consider the consequences.

I think that maybe you should do some research yourself.

Replication need not be complicated. Accurate proof read reliable replication certainly does need to be. But thats what evolution creates, not what evolution comes from.

We are not talking about the evolution of life to life but life from non-life.

Evolution has spent 3 billion years changing things. RNA and DNA are the same molecule, but with one atom difference. De-OXY-ribose nucleic acid instead of Ribose nucleic acid. One has no oxygen. That is the difference. And the fact that you now see DNA as the memory molecule and RNA as the worker molecule is one of the reasons I believe as I do. RNA does stuff as well as storing the information. But it seems DNA is a more stable molecule than RNA so any organism which copied its genetic code on DNA instead of RNA would ahve had an advantage. Nonetheless, it still needed to keep RNA versions of its genome around in order to form its active RNA enzymes. Eventually proteins replaced RNA in that role too, and now we only see RNA acting as the intermediate. It carries the genetic message to the transferRNA which translates the message into proteins.

Regardless, it is this simple pre-life molecule that is so important and nothing at this point explains it.

You find some funny 'problems'. The fact that life can only use one and not the other...of course life only synthesises the ones it can use. The others are useless to it...why waste resources creating energy and building parts which are useless to it.

How can pre-life use anything?

Yes both would have existed early earth. yes, this might have been a problem...It only needed to happen once.

Why would it happen again? If we allow the first event hypothetically, what would cause the second event?

It can have been the MOST improbable thing in the universe for all it matters. It only needed to have happened once. Just like being dealt a royal flush, its only highly improbable up until the moment it happens. After that time, it happened. Probability is irrelevent.

That really doesn't make sense. You are special pleading here.

Life started from non-life is not meant to be a descriptive premise. You are spot on, its like saying God did it. Which ironically, even if God did it, it would still be abiogenesis, llife coming from non-life. The point is to explain HOW. So HOW did life come from non-life?

Well, I am proposing that all of life is actually non-life reorganised. The average person does not consider a DNA molecule to be alive, a protein isn't alive, phospholipids aren't alive. but a cell is nothing more than the sum of its parts. As such, non-living chemicals created by chance before life began, eventually triggered a serious of self replicating molecules which lead down the slippery slope of 'life'.

I'm still waiting for anyone to explain HOW 'God did it'.

You can shake and jumble non-life all you want but at one point it has to create life which as far as we know, has no lingering evidence of just how that occurred.

 

[Oncedeceived]

I can provide it, now that you have stopped being coy about your reasoning.

Being coy didn't have anything to do with it. But I'm not going to argue with you.

I am not sure if you realize this but a cladogram is a symbolic representation of evolutionary relationships. It is sequenced by DNA analysis where it is possible and morphology where it is not.

The key word here is symbolic.

So to say that you are not against evolution but against a systematic cladogram is like saying you believe the U.S. exists but you are against maps.

No, it isn't. The cladogram breaks down under these problems. It reflects what is known but it leaves out the unkown which is why it is symbolic.

In other words, your statement makes no sense.

It doesn't surprise me that it doesn't make sense to you.

Evolution is a natural process how else would you judge it by except a “purely naturalistic worldview”.

You judge it on its merits and its flaws regardless of worldview. The worldview of some colors those areas.

More importantly, how can you verify a supernatural worldview? How can you isolate supernatural mechanisms from natural ones?

I am not even sure you can. I don't think we need to. I am not trying to convince you or anyone else about supernatural mechanisms; I am providing information that I feel puts origins by natural causes under question.

Here is part of the explanation of research that exists that you may not be aware of…

I am.

http://www.gwu.edu/~darwin/BiSc151/Eukaryotes/Eukaryotes.html

(all quotes are from the above site and have been attributed)

​

In answer to the contention that cellular ancestry is uncertain, the first clues of common ancestry of prokaryotic and eukaryotic cells are outlined below.


The second point I want to make is about the origin of various organelles. I believe there was a statement about how various structures inside the nucleus of a cell came to be wrapped in a nuclear membrane. A key difference between prokaryotic and eukaryotic cells is the presence of the nucleus in eukaryotic cells. (The difference is so simple to understand it is in our sixth grade science curriculum.)

Yes, I agree it is simple to understand. Yet it has nothing to do with what I was referring to.

One of the best theories of the presence of various structures inside of eukaryotic cells was pioneered by Lynn Margulis. The Endosymbiosis Theory is supported by various lines of evidence. In short, the theory posits that organelles like mitochondria and chloroplasts were captured symbiotic cells

From your link(Note: these are not to be considered to be my own words. They are from the link you provided.)

Note: similar evidence to support the idea that spirochaete bacteria gave rise to flagella does not exist. Tubulin (the primary component of microtubules) has not been found in any prokaryote, and DNA has never been found in flagella. Most evolutionary biologists reject the idea that flagella originated by symbiosis. Endosymbiosis is undoubtedly a fascinating concept and, at first glance, the evidence appears to support it as the mechanism for the evolution of chloroplasts and mitochondria. But it really isn't very good evidence - it is questionable on two counts.

1. It supports the alternative hypothesis equally well (in fact some of the features of mitochondria may be explained better by the alternative hypothesis).
2. It is the wrong sort of evidence because none of these data have been shown to be synapomorphies between prokaryotes and organelles.I want to delve deeper into this but it is late and I am going to go to bed.

I think the “problem” does actually originate in worldview. An Intelligent Design proponent inserts God into murky areas of evolution and is content with the explanation that God poofed various cell structures into existence. For example, I think this cell needs a mitochondria and then *poof a mitochondria appears.

The problem with divine caveat is it posits a tinkering God, incapable of creating natural processes to create complex life.

The problem with inserting God into a scientific explanation all together is it propagates ignorance. Example, positing God intervened in cellular evolution rather than actually attempting to find natural explanations like endosymbiosis.

I think that is why you are unaware of research that explains some of the mysteries of cellular evolution. You think you already know the answer. God did it.

I do want to address this as well. I am not unaware of the evidence you provided so your assumptions are false.

 

[Aegist]

Wow, a whole post of one line replies. Do you always 'discuss' things by simply saying "Others disagree" "It isn't as easy as that" and "You don't know for sure". You know, its really not a discussion when you do that.

M: An argument isn't just contradiction.
A: It can be.
M: No it can't. An argument is a connected series of statements intended to establish a proposition.
A: No it isn't.
M: Yes it is! It's not just contradiction.
A: Look, if I argue with you, I must take up a contrary position.
M: Yes, but that's not just saying 'No it isn't.'
A: Yes it is!
M: No it isn't!

Agreed? can we please discuss the topic now? Can you respond to the point of my words, rather than the specifics which I clearly am not going into?

When I say "My personal hypothesis is that maybe life started as a fluke molecule of RNA found itself able to self replicate" simply replying with "Nu uh" doesn't convince me that I am wrong. Nor does "Others think its harder than that". I don't care that others think its more difficult than that. More difficult answers have been supposed for millenia for problems which were solved with ridiculously easy solutions.

But all of that is irrelevent. Entirely irrelevent. You suggested that it can't happen, I suggested it can. I have no proof. You have no contrary proof, but at least I have an understanding of how it might be possible. And as such, I have a line of research to follow should I so desire. A theist who thinks "God Made Life" has nothing but intellectual laziness.

What makes the laws of the universe mathematical?
So the universe is logic, yes?

I have no idea what makes the laws of the universe, but our observations clearly indicate a mathematical logic behind things.

How can a chemical molecule form readily, and stay stable. It would reach a point of equilibrium and it would stop like I said in another post.

Yes, but that equilibrium is determined by its stability and its rate of formation. If it is incredibly stable, the equilibrium may not be reached for billions of years. Or indeed if its rate of formation is fast, or even increasing (as its constituent parts increase in availability), then the equilibrium point may not be reached for a long time. Equilibriums are only really worth considering if the conditions are stable or the decay is comparable to the formation rate.

How would the laws of 'universal evolution' make life?

What I see going on in our understanding of this universe is simple particles, atoms, molecules, planets etc interacting in law guided manners. Smaller 'things' tend to interact with each other to form 'clusters' which in turn interact with other clusters to form larger cluster clusters, etc. So electrons protons and neutrons interact to form atoms. Different numbers of those create different properties, but nonetheless we have small things interacting to create a new 'thing'. These things (atoms) interact with other atoms to create new 'things': Molecules. Molecules interact to make a huge diversity of things, one of which I guess you could call planets etc.

now the point of this is that each level, each step of the way is just a thing, behaving in a law induced many. Protons do what they do, and thats all. Thansk to that, we have a universe full of hydrogen (the most stable of all of the proton based clusters), and hence the most numerous (Equilibrium point? I dunno, depends on how many protons are still being produced somewhere in the universe, how often Hyrdogen is formed now, and how long hydrogen lasts).

Anyway, hydrogen everywhere, plus lots of other types of atoms. They interact in their manner, and molecules form. This is not hypothesised, its demonstrated and factual. Let atoms interact in different environments, with different stimulie, and they will react. Right? Right. Then you get molecules.

Now of course molecules are INCREDIBLY diverse. Unlike atoms which seem reasonably limited to number of protons and number of neutrons with fluctuations in the number of electrons, molecules have an infinite number of combinations between those atoms and the number of atoms used.

but nonetheless, molecules are formed. What is the most abundant molecule in the universe? I have no idea to be completely honest, but at a guess I'm going to have a few stabs in the dark:
H2O? CH4? SiO2? CO2? NH3?

These molecules are abundant because of the abundance of their substratum (Hydrogen and other low proton atoms), the readiness of their formation (spontaneous reactions maybe?), and the stability of the formation (low energy state). Now I admit, I am a terrible chemist, so try to overlook any details I have screwed up, but the point is that some molecules are far more abundant than others and it is due to those same 3 criteria as determines the abundance of atoms as no doubt determines the abundance of every 'particle' or 'thing' in the universe. The abundance of its components, the ease of formation, and the stability of the end product.

So that is what I think of as "Universal evolution", and that has only a very lose connection to biological evolution, because as I said before, biological evolution is like a phase change in the evolution process. Biological evolution doesn't obey those three rules, it obeys the three rules of replicators, which I have already covered.

Now with the universal evolution, what you end up with the is a diminishing number of molecules as they increase in complexity and they decrease in stability. But thanks to atoms doing their thing throughout all time, we get a consistent turnover of molecules. As old molecules decay we get atoms or smaller molecules back in the mix ready to react again and re-create a new molecule.

So we have a steady constant background of CH4, NH3, CO2, H2O etc on Earth plus probably a reasonably steady supply of larger molecules which combine those molecules in certain ways. Then far larger molecules which combine many of them in amny different ways, but as those molecules form and then decay there is a constant coming and going of different forms. Eventually...one day... if it ever happens (for it is no doubt incredibly unlikely), one of those molecules happens to replicate itself. Pow. We exit universal evolution, and enter biological evolution.

And thats all it is.

Simple? No. I don't pretend it is simple, but I can't really write a book on the subject here can I? Nor do I have the actual knowledge to spell it all out. In my head it is only conceptual, but at least it works. Chemically it makes sense, and chemically there is nothing stopping a molecule from doing this. All we know is that life seems to have come from non-life, and we want to figure out how. Looking at life we can see that there is nothing in it which isn't simply a chemical interaction, so it is safe to assume that the answer to the origin can be found in similar solution based chemical reactions.

I think the biggest trap is to stop assuming that the first replicator needs to be as sophisticated as the simplest replicator around today. I'd bet my life that the first replicator was not 100th of the sophistication of the simplest biological replicator available today. Any biological entity around today is at the end of 3.6 billion years of evolution...It is just as advanced (even in its simplicity) as we humans are.

Just for me!! You do realize that this gap is being researched by hundreds if not thousands of scientists as we speak?

That was exactly my point.

Chemical reactions are not life or living.

Aren't they? Maybe some aren't, but life is only a definition prescribed by humans. Where we draw the line is up to us, usually in a communal nature. So while not all chemical reactions are life, all life is chemical reactions. Just how we define the difference, is up to us. Personally, I think it is 'replication of self', but many others think it is "Self-replication of a sufficiently complex entity".

This is not just a problem with me kidding myself. Francis Crick the Scientist that discovered DNA feels that the time for life to come into being is too short.

"...The real fossil record suggests that our present form of protein based life was already in existence 3.6 billion years ago.... This leaves an astonishingly short time to get life started"

Francis Crick,[SIZE=-1] "Split genes and RNA Splicing," p 264-271 v 204, Science, 20 April 1979.

Fine, he thinks its too short. Partly editorial flair, partly a statement of disbelief that we should be so lucky. I too could say something like that and still not contradict what I am saying here. 1. A billion years is a whole heap of time, 2. the chances of a replicator forming are so unlikely, that maybe it only happens once every 10 billion years. Therefore 1 billion years is too short...but that doesn't mean it can't happen. It just means it happened sooner rather than later.
[/SIZE]

I think that maybe you should do some research yourself.

Thanks. So does that mean you aren't going to bother reading up on PCR and RNA?

Regardless, it is this simple pre-life molecule that is so important and nothing at this point explains it.

Chance.

Pure, simple, Chance. Randomness. Luck. Coincidence.

Ask any creationist about evolution and the first thing they will mention is random chance, but evolution is not about chance. Evolution is very specific. Abiogenesis on the otherhand is ALL ABOUT random chance, and yet not one creationist seems to accept that.

One chance creation, once which sparked a bushfire to end all bushfires which has spread over the entirety of the earth. It only needed to happen once, it had a whole lot of time to do it (if it didn't happen in the first billion years, it probably would have happened in one of the next few billion), and once it happened, there was no going back.

How can pre-life use anything?

How do you think 'life' uses things? Chemical reactions. We eat because our DNA molecules need free electrons stolen from the carbon chain molecules to replicate. Well, guess what, H2 'uses' O2 to make H2O. Its all the same thing, just different degree of sophistication.

Why would it happen again? If we allow the first event hypothetically, what would cause the second event?

I think you are confused here. The 'second event' would be 'caused' by the same randomness that caused it the first time... if the second creation of a replicating molecule ever happened. If it did, it seems it was rather quickly destroyed by the first event, or lost due to some other cause. Once life starts to evolve, it is rewarded by 'eating' everything it can to replicate itself. Especially other replicating molecules.

The reason we conclude there was only one origin of life? All life on earth is identical at the molecular levels. DNA. RNA. Proteins. All same chirality. virtually all of them even have the same tRNA (and that is an interesting topic to look into!) and therefore translate DNA into proteins identically.

If there were two seperate origins, we should see some differences...anything.

That really doesn't make sense. You are special pleading here.

You can shake and jumble non-life all you want but at one point it has to create life which as far as we know, has no lingering evidence of just how that occurred.

I am sure you have heard of the anthropic principle. Life must have come from non-life, and if it didn't, we wouldn't be here to marvel at it. The chance of it not happening is irrelevent so long as there is some chance. There is no special pleading involved, it is simple parsimony. We're here. Evolution explains the complexity, unlikelihood or not, chance explains the beginning.

Life is made up of nonlife components. Non-life starting life is not a ridiculous idea. Evidence from the beginning seems unlikely, but chemical evidence of the theory will come with time.

 

[Edx]

Why would God's actions necessitate breaking any laws of the universe?

Becuase thats the Creationist position.

In actuality, it is not possible for the abiogenesis event to be tested or verified.

Why not? Because "we werent there"?

We can gain knowledge of what can be known, but we don't know what can't be known. As it stands right now, the theories that are out there have problemistic aspects.

Of course it has problematic aspects, but its got sound evidence to support it. We also have no evidence that anything has ever been poofed into existence from nothing, so we have no reason to consider that a viable scientific alternative. So since we have no reason to believe we were all poofed out of nothing then we are left with the fact that life is here now and it wasnt before. Even if there were no theory of abiogenesis it still wouldnt be reasonable to assume the Creationist position. We'd have to just say we dont know how it happened.

Evolution did it is no more informative if the data is not there. If the information increases and we find a naturalistic cause then so be it. To me it wouldn't effect my worldview.

It may not be informative just saying that but its not the same as saying goddidit. At least abiogenesis is science, goddidit can only ever be taken on faith.

As I said, I think that evolutionary processes are God did it processes in a way anyway.

That would make you a TE and then there wouldnt be anything to debate.

Ed

 

[Oncedeceived]

Becuase thats the Creationist position.

How is it the creationist's position?

Why not? Because "we werent there"?

No, but we are limited by what we don't know about the environment and other factors.

Of course it has problematic aspects, but its got sound evidence to support it. We also have no evidence that anything has ever been poofed into existence from nothing, so we have no reason to consider that a viable scientific alternative. So since we have no reason to believe we were all poofed out of nothing then we are left with the fact that life is here now and it wasnt before.

Well actually we do have evidence about 'things' that 'poof' into existence. Quantum physics is an area that would challenge this hypothesis.

Even if there were no theory of abiogenesis it still wouldnt be reasonable to assume the Creationist position. We'd have to just say we dont know how it happened.

Of course, that is due to the fact that nothing supernatural can be used in the Scientific model.

It may not be informative just saying that but its not the same as saying goddidit. At least abiogenesis is science, goddidit can only ever be taken on faith.

You are right, it comes down to your worldview. Science doesn't say anything about God. It doesn't mean that God didn't do it, it just means that it is out of the scientific realm to determine whether or not He did it.

That would make you a TE and then there wouldnt be anything to debate.

Why is that? What makes my position harder to accept than the TE position?

 

[Oncedeceived]

Wow, a whole post of one line replies. Do you always 'discuss' things by simply saying "Others disagree" "It isn't as easy as that" and "You don't know for sure". You know, its really not a discussion when you do that.

I am sorry but I was in a little bit of hurry. It was late and I wanted to get all the posts responded to.

Agreed? can we please discuss the topic now? Can you respond to the point of my words, rather than the specifics which I clearly am not going into?

The point of your words is the problem really. You respond with long answers that are in some ways not really needed to make your point. IMHO.

When I say "My personal hypothesis is that maybe life started as a fluke molecule of RNA found itself able to self replicate" simply replying with "Nu uh" doesn't convince me that I am wrong. Nor does "Others think its harder than that". I don't care that others think its more difficult than that. More difficult answers have been supposed for millenia for problems which were solved with ridiculously easy solutions.

I gave you reasons for my conclusions.
1. When discussion prions, one of the problems was that prions would need a host.
2. RNA, here is a link that I think describes the problems.
http://www.grisda.org/origins/20045.htm

But all of that is irrelevent. Entirely irrelevent. You suggested that it can't happen, I suggested it can. I have no proof. You have no contrary proof, but at least I have an understanding of how it might be possible. And as such, I have a line of research to follow should I so desire. A theist who thinks "God Made Life" has nothing but intellectual laziness.

I do have contrary evidence as provided in the link I just gave you.

I think that claiming intellectual laziness is a cop out. It labels my argument as ignorance when in fact I can support my conclusions with scientific evidence. I may not be able to "prove God" but I can support my worldveiw even within the scientific arena.

I have no idea what makes the laws of the universe, but our observations clearly indicate a mathematical logic behind things.

Exactly. It seems to me that intelligence includes mathematical logic does it not? So we could also say in just as clear of terms that our observations indicate intelligence, can we not?

Yes, but that equilibrium is determined by its stability and its rate of formation. If it is incredibly stable, the equilibrium may not be reached for billions of years.

The problem is the stability for that long of period. Chemical reactions come together and break apart. If within a billion years this event never occurred it seems highly unlikely that it ever did.

Or indeed if its rate of formation is fast, or even increasing (as its constituent parts increase in availability), then the equilibrium point may not be reached for a long time. Equilibriums are only really worth considering if the conditions are stable or the decay is comparable to the formation rate.

Yes, conditions are important to stability and on the early earth it was most unstable. Regardless, stability is only one in many problems.

What I see going on in our understanding of this universe is simple particles, atoms, molecules, planets etc interacting in law guided manners. Smaller 'things' tend to interact with each other to form 'clusters' which in turn interact with other clusters to form larger cluster clusters, etc. So electrons protons and neutrons interact to form atoms. Different numbers of those create different properties, but nonetheless we have small things interacting to create a new 'thing'. These things (atoms) interact with other atoms to create new 'things': Molecules. Molecules interact to make a huge diversity of things, one of which I guess you could call planets etc.

now the point of this is that each level, each step of the way is just a thing, behaving in a law induced many. Protons do what they do, and thats all. Thansk to that, we have a universe full of hydrogen (the most stable of all of the proton based clusters), and hence the most numerous (Equilibrium point? I dunno, depends on how many protons are still being produced somewhere in the universe, how often Hyrdogen is formed now, and how long hydrogen lasts).

Part of the problem that I think you are forgetting is that all this has to have a beginning and you are focused mainly on the after world. Each of the directions you have presented have serious flaws and yet you continue to ignore those and say it doesn't matter because it just happened.

Anyway, hydrogen everywhere, plus lots of other types of atoms. They interact in their manner, and molecules form. This is not hypothesised, its demonstrated and factual. Let atoms interact in different environments, with different stimulie, and they will react. Right? Right. Then you get molecules.

Wrong. The environment was very different on early earth and living things were not present at one time. It takes non-living matter to become living matter and that is not in evidence. Saying it is does not make it so.

Now of course molecules are INCREDIBLY diverse. Unlike atoms which seem reasonably limited to number of protons and number of neutrons with fluctuations in the number of electrons, molecules have an infinite number of combinations between those atoms and the number of atoms used.

but nonetheless, molecules are formed. What is the most abundant molecule in the universe? I have no idea to be completely honest, but at a guess I'm going to have a few stabs in the dark:
H2O? CH4? SiO2? CO2? NH3?

Some of the needed requirements for the early earth to produce RNA would have been:
1. Ribose
2. adenine and quanine
3. cytosine and uracil

Each which has their own problems before you can even start to get to the problems of the RNA.

These molecules are abundant because of the abundance of their substratum (Hydrogen and other low proton atoms), the readiness of their formation (spontaneous reactions maybe?), and the stability of the formation (low energy state). Now I admit, I am a terrible chemist, so try to overlook any details I have screwed up, but the point is that some molecules are far more abundant than others and it is due to those same 3 criteria as determines the abundance of atoms as no doubt determines the abundance of every 'particle' or 'thing' in the universe. The abundance of its components, the ease of formation, and the stability of the end product.

Sounds good but this simply is not the case.

So that is what I think of as "Universal evolution", and that has only a very lose connection to biological evolution, because as I said before, biological evolution is like a phase change in the evolution process. Biological evolution doesn't obey those three rules, it obeys the three rules of replicators, which I have already covered.

What you have covered is your opinion and you haven't provided much for evidence.

Now with the universal evolution, what you end up with the is a diminishing number of molecules as they increase in complexity and they decrease in stability. But thanks to atoms doing their thing throughout all time, we get a consistent turnover of molecules. As old molecules decay we get atoms or smaller molecules back in the mix ready to react again and re-create a new molecule.

So we have a steady constant background of CH4, NH3, CO2, H2O etc on Earth plus probably a reasonably steady supply of larger molecules which combine those molecules in certain ways. Then far larger molecules which combine many of them in amny different ways, but as those molecules form and then decay there is a constant coming and going of different forms. Eventually...one day... if it ever happens (for it is no doubt incredibly unlikely), one of those molecules happens to replicate itself. Pow. We exit universal evolution, and enter biological evolution.

First of all, we don't know what the early earth's atmospere was like completely, but we do know certain ingredients and your premises do not meet with those we do know.

Simple? No. I don't pretend it is simple, but I can't really write a book on the subject here can I? Nor do I have the actual knowledge to spell it all out. In my head it is only conceptual, but at least it works. Chemically it makes sense, and chemically there is nothing stopping a molecule from doing this.

Well forgive me for being blunt here, but what you know in your head is really not relevant. I have provided you with the problems associated with what you are suggesting and you continue to disregard those problems.

All we know is that life seems to have come from non-life, and we want to figure out how. Looking at life we can see that there is nothing in it which isn't simply a chemical interaction, so it is safe to assume that the answer to the origin can be found in similar solution based chemical reactions.

If we just assume anything we are not working within the scientific model. Those assumptions must have support.

I think the biggest trap is to stop assuming that the first replicator needs to be as sophisticated as the simplest replicator around today. I'd bet my life that the first replicator was not 100th of the sophistication of the simplest biological replicator available today. Any biological entity around today is at the end of 3.6 billion years of evolution...It is just as advanced (even in its simplicity) as we humans are.

I think that everyone understands that. It but there still has to be evidence.

Aren't they? Maybe some aren't, but life is only a definition prescribed by humans. Where we draw the line is up to us, usually in a communal nature. So while not all chemical reactions are life, all life is chemical reactions. Just how we define the difference, is up to us. Personally, I think it is 'replication of self', but many others think it is "Self-replication of a sufficiently complex entity".

Well this is a significant point.

Fine, he thinks its too short. Partly editorial flair, partly a statement of disbelief that we should be so lucky. I too could say something like that and still not contradict what I am saying here. 1. A billion years is a whole heap of time, 2. the chances of a replicator forming are so unlikely, that maybe it only happens once every 10 billion years. Therefore 1 billion years is too short...but that doesn't mean it can't happen. It just means it happened sooner rather than later.
[/color][/size]

Again, you are just stating your opinion and have nothing to back it up. Sorry but it takes more than that.

Thanks. So does that mean you aren't going to bother reading up on PCR and RNA?

I have read up on it and it was long before we posted here. You would have to provide more information than just putting out there PCR and RNA. Each topic holds magnitudes of topics and you just through it out there without specifing what you were referring to.

Chance.

Pure, simple, Chance. Randomness. Luck. Coincidence.

And a whole lot of other requirements as well.

Ask any creationist about evolution and the first thing they will mention is random chance, but evolution is not about chance. Evolution is very specific. Abiogenesis on the otherhand is ALL ABOUT random chance, and yet not one creationist seems to accept that.

I do. Other creationists know that evolution has to have a beginning and that beginning is with random chance.

One chance creation, once which sparked a bushfire to end all bushfires which has spread over the entirety of the earth. It only needed to happen once, it had a whole lot of time to do it (if it didn't happen in the first billion years, it probably would have happened in one of the next few billion), and once it happened, there was no going back.

This rather contridicts your notion that it happened the same way twice.

I think you are confused here. The 'second event' would be 'caused' by the same randomness that caused it the first time... if the second creation of a replicating molecule ever happened.

I think you are confused here. The 'second event' would be 'caused' by the same randomness that caused it the first time... if the second creation of a replicating molecule ever happened. If it did, it seems it was rather quickly destroyed by the first event, or lost due to some other cause. Once life starts to evolve, it is rewarded by 'eating' everything it can to replicate itself. Especially other replicating molecules.

No, I don't think I am confused.

The reason we conclude there was only one origin of life? All life on earth is identical at the molecular levels. DNA. RNA. Proteins. All same chirality. virtually all of them even have the same tRNA (and that is an interesting topic to look into!) and therefore translate DNA into proteins identically.

If there were two seperate origins, we should see some differences...anything.

I think that it would be interesting as well.

I am sure you have heard of the anthropic principle. Life must have come from non-life, and if it didn't, we wouldn't be here to marvel at it. The chance of it not happening is irrelevent so long as there is some chance. There is no special pleading involved, it is simple parsimony. We're here. Evolution explains the complexity, unlikelihood or not, chance explains the beginning.

In your opinion. There are many opinions.

Life is made up of nonlife components. Non-life starting life is not a ridiculous idea. Evidence from the beginning seems unlikely, but chemical evidence of the theory will come with time.

Perhaps, perhaps not. Regardless, it take evidence and at this point there are problems with that.

 

[Aegist]

With regards to difficulty of early chemistry on Earth leading to life you said:

I gave you reasons for my conclusions.
1. When discussion prions, one of the problems was that prions would need a host.
2. RNA, here is a link that I think describes the problems.
http://www.grisda.org/origins/20045.htm

The problem is the stability for that long of period. Chemical reactions come together and break apart. If within a billion years this event never occurred it seems highly unlikely that it ever did.

Yes, conditions are important to stability and on the early earth it was most unstable. Regardless, stability is only one in many problems.

Part of the problem that I think you are forgetting is that all this has to have a beginning and you are focused mainly on the after world. Each of the directions you have presented have serious flaws and yet you continue to ignore those and say it doesn't matter because it just happened.

Some of the needed requirements for the early earth to produce RNA would have been:
1. Ribose
2. adenine and quanine
3. cytosine and uracil

Each which has their own problems before you can even start to get to the problems of the RNA.

First of all, we don't know what the early earth's atmospere was like completely, but we do know certain ingredients and your premises do not meet with those we do know.

I read the paper by Gibson, and I liked most of it. It raised lots of good points and was well referenced. No doubt chemically the simplistic notion of RNA self-catalysis and self-replication is unlikely at best given the assumptions we have made about early Earth chemistry. But of course there are about a thousand different areas that we could be mistaken, either with regard to RNA being the beginning, or about the initial conditions, or about the chances involved given the timeframe. I have freely admitted that what I have described is simply my thoughts on the matter and un-supported by experimentation or anything really, so attacking what ultimately is no more than a laymans perspective on it is hardly worth the time. Abiogenesis is not my field, and I don’t know much at all about earth chemistry.

Nonetheless, Chemical reactions occurring continuously on early earth are not denied, nor are the creations of complex molecules. Maybe that paper has merit with regards to it’s critique of ‘the RNA world’, but I find it hard to think that any paper which starts with “Explaining the origin of life has remained one of the most bothersome problems for those espousing the view that nature can only be understood within a naturalistic philosophy” and ends with “Considering the conditions necessary for the establishment of life, it appears that the most plausible explanation for the origin of life is an intelligent creator.” God is not an option for any real scientist, and ‘problesm with the naturalistic philosophy’ is PRECISELY what science DOES! It almost angers me that some fool with a PHD (I assume) looks at a field of science and thinks “Ooohhh… we can’t answer this yet, therefore it is a problem, therefore God must have done it.” It is bloody insulting to the thousands upon thousands of previously “problematic” areas of reality which ‘the naturalistic’ worldview has solved!

The fact is humans do NOT, in their natural state, understand virtually anything of their world. Thanks to science we have opened our understanding a million fold, and in doing so we have found more and more problems that need to be solved. To pick and choose from those new and remaining problems and decide absolutely that “Ahuh! A problem which we have not yet solved! God must have done it!” is just upsetting.

I have no idea what makes the laws of the universe, but our observations clearly indicate a mathematical logic behind things.

Exactly. It seems to me that intelligence includes mathematical logic does it not? So we could also say in just as clear of terms that our observations indicate intelligence, can we not?

Not at all. I mean that in the strongest sense possible: Not AT ALL is that indicated. Mathematicall logic is not intelligent, infact it is quite stupid. It is an absolute relational fact. If you have one thing copy itself, there will be 2 things. This isn’t intelligent, this is just a fact…regardless of the conditions.

Logical relationships aren’t intelligence, they are a complete lack of intelligence. Understanding those relationships requires intelligence, because intelligence is the sorting through of options. Logical relationships are absolute, there are no options.

Anyway, hydrogen everywhere, plus lots of other types of atoms. They interact in their manner, and molecules form. This is not hypothesised, its demonstrated and factual. Let atoms interact in different environments, with different stimulie, and they will react. Right? Right. Then you get molecules.

Wrong. The environment was very different on early earth and living things were not present at one time. It takes non-living matter to become living matter and that is not in evidence. Saying it is does not make it so.

Wow. This shocked me. You have just denied chemistry. I was talking about atoms reacting with atoms to create molecules. Molecules reacting with molecules to create larger molecules…and you say no. No that doesn’t happen…

I didn’t mention life. I spoke only of chemistry.

Addressing what you have said though, life…is only non-life interacting with sophistication to replicate itself. Go ahead, look for yourself. Every part of a living organism can be looked at in isolation, and when considered in those circumstance that part would be considered ‘non-life’. So I think non-life giving rise to ‘life’ is really obvious. Nothing to do with my saying so making it so…you know it is true as well as I do. Life = Sophisticated non-life. Organised Non-life. Self-replicating non-life. However you want to look at it, life is made from non-life.

This rather contridicts your notion that it happened the same way twice.

What notion? You keep refering to this, but I have no idea what you are talking about. Life started once. That’s all. (in all likelihood)

 

[Aegist]

just looking around for more information on the subject and I found this article: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/abioprob/abioprob.html

which more importantly than the article itself, has many references to highly relevent papers, including: http://www.sciencedirect.com/scienc...serid=10&md5=94256f55f74fc043c7c9d8f2bb3b0dbb
and
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/...tPlus&list_uids=8684470&itool=pubmed_Abstract
and
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0387092935/thetalkorigin-20/


The second and third are really just references, while the first one at least is the full article. but the third one in particular I suspect is precisely what I think of when I think of abiogenesis. Self-Organisation. That is what moves the universe.

 

[Oncedeceived]

With regards to difficulty of early chemistry on Earth leading to life you said:

I read the paper by Gibson, and I liked most of it. It raised lots of good points and was well referenced. No doubt chemically the simplistic notion of RNA self-catalysis and self-replication is unlikely at best given the assumptions we have made about early Earth chemistry. But of course there are about a thousand different areas that we could be mistaken, either with regard to RNA being the beginning, or about the initial conditions, or about the chances involved given the timeframe. I have freely admitted that what I have described is simply my thoughts on the matter and un-supported by experimentation or anything really, so attacking what ultimately is no more than a laymans perspective on it is hardly worth the time. Abiogenesis is not my field, and I don’t know much at all about earth chemistry.

Which is fine, but it is always nice to learn, yes?

Nonetheless, Chemical reactions occurring continuously on early earth are not denied, nor are the creations of complex molecules.

Now or early earth?

Maybe that paper has merit with regards to it’s critique of ‘the RNA world’, but I find it hard to think that any paper which starts with “Explaining the origin of life has remained one of the most bothersome problems for those espousing the view that nature can only be understood within a naturalistic philosophy” and ends with “Considering the conditions necessary for the establishment of life, it appears that the most plausible explanation for the origin of life is an intelligent creator.”

I learned long ago that finding papers without bias is almost impossible on both sides of the fence.

God is not an option for any real scientist, and ‘problesm with the naturalistic philosophy’ is PRECISELY what science DOES!

Whoa, wait a minute. There have been great scientists that believed in God. There still are. That being said I do agree that Science works on a natuaralistic basis.

It almost angers me that some fool with a PHD (I assume) looks at a field of science and thinks “Ooohhh… we can’t answer this yet, therefore it is a problem, therefore God must have done it.” It is bloody insulting to the thousands upon thousands of previously “problematic” areas of reality which ‘the naturalistic’ worldview has solved!

Why should it anger you? It angers you because you don't like that God is presented into the mix. This person is biased to God but there are many Scientists that are biased against God as well. The only time that should be a problem is when the biases inhibit progressed knowledge. Knowledge or truth should not be colored by bias.

The fact is humans do NOT, in their natural state, understand virtually anything of their world. Thanks to science we have opened our understanding a million fold, and in doing so we have found more and more problems that need to be solved. To pick and choose from those new and remaining problems and decide absolutely that “Ahuh! A problem which we have not yet solved! God must have done it!” is just upsetting.

Of course it is. You're worldview is being questioned. It is a common reaction, on both sides once again. I don't think that we have to look at things in realistic terms and looking at all sides improves our understanding of those things that are in question.

Not at all. I mean that in the strongest sense possible: Not AT ALL is that indicated. Mathematicall logic is not intelligent, infact it is quite stupid. It is an absolute relational fact. If you have one thing copy itself, there will be 2 things. This isn’t intelligent, this is just a fact…regardless of the conditions.

Well this leads into another topic so lets just let this one go.

Wow. This shocked me. You have just denied chemistry. I was talking about atoms reacting with atoms to create molecules. Molecules reacting with molecules to create larger molecules…and you say no. No that doesn’t happen…

No, I haven't denied chemistry. I am denying that non-living chemicals would become living.

I didn’t mention life. I spoke only of chemistry.

Yes, but you were claiming that the atoms clustering brought about molecules correct?

Addressing what you have said though, life…is only non-life interacting with sophistication to replicate itself.

How does non-life interact with sophistocation? You'll have to explain this one.

Go ahead, look for yourself. Every part of a living organism can be looked at in isolation, and when considered in those circumstance that part would be considered ‘non-life’.

No, I don't believe so. Every cell in our body is alive. It is living cells that give us life. If any living organism has non-living cells there is damage to that organism and perhaps death to it.

So I think non-life giving rise to ‘life’ is really obvious. Nothing to do with my saying so making it so…you know it is true as well as I do.

No, I do not agree. I have given you reasons for my viewpoint, I think that you have missed those arguments if you believe that I think that life came from non-life. It is possible but I feel as of now nothing convinces me of such.

Life = Sophisticated non-life.

Definition?

Organised Non-life. Self-replicating non-life. However you want to look at it, life is made from non-life.

Thousands of scientists are trying to show this, and haven't. I don't think that you or I can calim it is true when they can't.

What notion? You keep refering to this, but I have no idea what you are talking about. Life started once. That’s all. (in all likelihood)

I'll refresh your memory:

You said: I think you are confused here. The 'second event' would be 'caused' by the same randomness that caused it the first time... if the second creation of a replicating molecule ever happened. If it did, it seems it was rather quickly destroyed by the first event, or lost due to some other cause. Once life starts to evolve, it is rewarded by 'eating' everything it can to replicate itself. Especially other replicating molecules.

 

[Aegist]

No, I haven't denied chemistry. I am denying that non-living chemicals would become living.

But as I explicitly stated, your response was responding to the simple statement; Atoms interacting will react to make molecules given various circumstances.

this is simple chemistry, and undeniably true.

You denied it, and hence you denied chemistry. I didn't mention life, and so for you to now assert that you denied non-life turning into life, means you simply chose to assume that I was talking about life. I was talking about chemistry.

Do you agree or not, that atoms will naturally interact with other atoms and form molecules? That Hydrogen, given the right conditions will form H2 molecues, that O atoms, given the right conditions will form O2 molecules. And furthermore that O2 and H2 molecules, given the right conditions will spontaneously form H2O?

How does non-life interact with sophistocation? You'll have to explain this one.

Regularity. Orderliness. repition. control mechanisms. Feedback mechanisms. That sort of stuff = sophistication.

No, I don't believe so. Every cell in our body is alive. It is living cells that give us life. If any living organism has non-living cells there is damage to that organism and perhaps death to it.

Pfft. Jump size scales by a few degrees why don't you? We're talking about 'life' within the context of the origin of life, and the vast majority (all of it I think) has been about the chemical nature of the origins of life...and now you think 'every part of life' refers to "Cells"????

No, the parts of life that I am refering to are the molecular parts. A cell is a lifeform, either in a collaborative with other cells or solo. What makes up a cell? Lipids (non-living lipis), DNA (non-living DNA (according to conventional definitions of life)), RNA (Non-living RNA), Proteins (non-living proteins) etc etc etc.

Every single part of an organism is non-living in its own right. it is only in the combination of those components does the organism come to be thought of as "Alive".

Thousands of scientists are trying to show this, and haven't. I don't think that you or I can calim it is true when they can't.

Thousands of scientists are trying to figure out how non-life can spontaneously form life, yes. No one has any doubts that the components of any living organism are in themselves not alive.

I'll refresh your memory:

I knew where it came from, but the quote itself was in reply to somethign you said about it... I don't know why you mentioned it in the first place. It is still jsut as irrelevent now, if life formed more than once (I don't think it did)..then whatever I said before. You mentioned it, i responded, then you talked about life forming more than once as if it was something I had to defend...?? I don't understand that.

 

[Aegist]

Self-Reproducing Molecules Reported by MIT Researchers
http://w3.mit.edu/newsoffice/tt/1990/may09/23124.html

 

[Oncedeceived]

I have not had internet due to a lack of electricity!!! Its been cold!!

I'll not be able to post because I am leaving for Christmas and won't be back until late Sunday night. I'll get to this as soon as I can. Sorry for all the delay.

 

[Lilandra]

I have not had internet due to a lack of electricity!!! Its been cold!!

I'll not be able to post because I am leaving for Christmas and won't be back until late Sunday night. I'll get to this as soon as I can. Sorry for all the delay.

I am sorry to hear this. I won't overwhelm you with questions in your absence.

Me and my family will be away for about a week and a half as well.

 

[Oncedeceived]

But as I explicitly stated, your response was responding to the simple statement; Atoms interacting will react to make molecules given various circumstances.

this is simple chemistry, and undeniably true.

Simple chemical interactions due to certain circumstances is true yes.

You denied it, and hence you denied chemistry. I didn't mention life, and so for you to now assert that you denied non-life turning into life, means you simply chose to assume that I was talking about life. I was talking about chemistry.

You did mention complex molecules, which I took to mean such as with living organisms.

Do you agree or not, that atoms will naturally interact with other atoms and form molecules? That Hydrogen, given the right conditions will form H2 molecues, that O atoms, given the right conditions will form O2 molecules. And furthermore that O2 and H2 molecules, given the right conditions will spontaneously form H2O?

Compounds do form given the correct conditions to do so. Simple compounds do form, but the complex molecules needed for life are not so simple and do not spontaneously form.

Regularity. Orderliness. repition. control mechanisms. Feedback mechanisms. That sort of stuff = sophistication.

Control mechanisms? Such as.....?

Pfft. Jump size scales by a few degrees why don't you? We're talking about 'life' within the context of the origin of life, and the vast majority (all of it I think) has been about the chemical nature of the origins of life...and now you think 'every part of life' refers to "Cells"????

Every living organism is made up of cells. That is the point. It is a jump that you seem to forget when determining what could happen with chemical reactions. You can not have life without discussing the complexity of cells.

No, the parts of life that I am refering to are the molecular parts. A cell is a lifeform, either in a collaborative with other cells or solo. What makes up a cell? Lipids (non-living lipis), DNA (non-living DNA (according to conventional definitions of life)), RNA (Non-living RNA), Proteins (non-living proteins) etc etc etc.

Each of these you mentioned are very complex and hardly the simple chemistry that you claim.

But I ask you then what defines life? A cell is a living thing, yet as you say it is made up of non-living parts. So what provides the living part from the non-living parts?

Every single part of an organism is non-living in its own right. it is only in the combination of those components does the organism come to be thought of as "Alive".

All living things have different combinations of these components, so alive does not mean the same in all organisms? What is your take on that?

Thousands of scientists are trying to figure out how non-life can spontaneously form life, yes. No one has any doubts that the components of any living organism are in themselves not alive.

Thousands of scientists know that it is not as simple as it sounds, to form living matter out of non-living matter as well.

I knew where it came from, but the quote itself was in reply to somethign you said about it... I don't know why you mentioned it in the first place. It is still jsut as irrelevent now, if life formed more than once (I don't think it did)..then whatever I said before. You mentioned it, i responded, then you talked about life forming more than once as if it was something I had to defend...?? I don't understand that.

What? I said that life needed a way to not only replicate but to have a way to continue to replicate and you said that it just did it again the way it did before. It is relevant.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Self-Reproducing Molecules Reported by MIT Researchers
http://w3.mit.edu/newsoffice/tt/1990/may09/23124.html

It think the significance of this article is that it was way back in the 80's and 90's that this occurred. Rebek is still working on this and nothing new has arisen in all this time.

 

[EnemyPartyII]

It think the significance of this article is that it was way back in the 80's and 90's that this occurred. Rebek is still working on this and nothing new has arisen in all this time.

So? Life took a billion years to emerge... I think we can give the scientists a FEW more years at least

 

[Aegist]

Simple chemical interactions due to certain circumstances is true yes.

You did mention complex molecules, which I took to mean such as with living organisms.

Compounds do form given the correct conditions to do so. Simple compounds do form, but the complex molecules needed for life are not so simple and do not spontaneously form.

Why not? I mean, sure, the chances of a human chromosome forming spontaneously is next to impossible, but we're not talking about direct formation of a specific chemical, but the proposed formation of a class of chemical. Nucleic Acids for instance.

This is a red herring anyway, because I do not believe nuclaic acids, proteins or lipids spontaneously self-organised themselves as we see them today. I just challenge your assertion that it can't happen. Simnple molecules are acombination of atoms, concatomers just join lots of simple atoms together, often this is done with the assistance of a catalyst. Catalysts can come in the form of simple molecules. Therefore 'complex' molecules can easily form from an abundance of simple molecules.

Control mechanisms? Such as.....?

hmmmm...Now you are asking me to get into specifics. There are thousands of control mechanisms in the average cell...but getting me to name and describe a single one is a pain.

I dunno, how about the proteins which specifically attach themselves to genes to stop gene expression (gene silencing), and then the counter proteins which attach themselves to the silencers thereby forcing them to release the chromosome, un-silencing the gene. That is one example of a control mechanism. Pretty muche very cellular activity is controlled by sophisticated control mechanisms.

Every living organism is made up of cells. That is the point. It is a jump that you seem to forget when determining what could happen with chemical reactions. You can not have life without discussing the complexity of cells.

But you can discuss the origin of life without confusing it with the complexity of evolved life. Don't strawman this argument by trying to force the origin of life to deal with modern cellular constructs. They just are not relevent.

Each of these you mentioned are very complex and hardly the simple chemistry that you claim.

Because they are extant examples of the chemistry of life, not the chemistry that I, or anyone else, expects to be the basis of the first lifeform.

But I ask you then what defines life? A cell is a living thing, yet as you say it is made up of non-living parts. So what provides the living part from the non-living parts?

You see, this is the problem YOU must overcome. Personally, my philosophy is that life is a label we have created and applied to particular chemical phenomenon with varying degrees of justification. Forced to label what makes life life, I would say replication, but even that isn't specifically accurate. In fact I now think that 'life' in the broad sense is a misnomer, and instead we can talk about 'our biological life' which is defined as the descent from the common ancestor. Everything descended from that ancestor is 'alive' insofar as it is one of 'us'. Maybe we will soon create some virtual life which will evolve just as well as our life has, and that will be a second version of life. It won't be 'us' it will be life#2. But this is another story.

The point here is, YOU have to deal with the fact that you discern between life and non-life, while for me the fact that all 'life' is made up from non-life, is just obvious. There is nothing BUT non-life.

All living things have different combinations of these components, so alive does not mean the same in all organisms? What is your take on that?

ON the 'replication' definition: the components are irrelevent so long as the DNA can replicate. On the 'us' definition, the components are irrelevent because the lifeform is a direct descendent from our ancestor, and so is part of 'us', the tribe we call 'life'.

Thousands of scientists know that it is not as simple as it sounds, to form living matter out of non-living matter as well.

The irony of the fact that you are using the word of thousands of scientists, all of who believe that life started from non-life, to support your argument is lost on you isn't it?

What? I said that life needed a way to not only replicate but to have a way to continue to replicate and you said that it just did it again the way it did before. It is relevant.

OK then, there seems to be a mis-communication. Forget what was said, let me reply to this now afresh: Yes, life needs to be able to replicate, in order to replicate. of course. But when you talk about a self replicating molecule, or a template molecule, the methods and the means are usually expected to be part of the definition.