My Abiogenesis Challenge

Abraxos · May 9, 2017

PsychoSarah said:
-_- are you serious now, comparing a nonliving computer to living entities? Also, a more fitting comparison would be that the RNA based life is like a basic calculator, and modern cells are like laptops (in terms of comparing complexity). However, these basic RNA based cells do meet all the qualifications of life. They have a simple metabolism, genes that are passed down to daughter cells through reproduction via division, in the proper environment these processes are self-sustaining, their basic cell membrane maintains an internal environment that can be different from the external environment, they grow, and since they have genetic material, evolution applies to them.

It should be no shock that these experiments do not produce modern cell types that took millions of years at a minimum to develop. Personally, I am shocked that the abiogenesis experiments got this far just within a few decades.

Biogenesis is a part of cell theory, not a theory by itself. Furthermore, as the conditions for abiogenesis no longer exist outside of lab provided environments, both theories can be correct. In nature right now, abiogenesis simply cannot happen. Even in the few places that have environments somewhat similar to the ancient Earth, any life that started to develop would be out competed and consumed by the life already there that was billions of years of evolution ahead of it.

In any case, the antithesis to biogenesis is spontaneous generation, which claims that complex life such as maggots can arise from non-living matter. And it is true that nothing like a modern living cell can arise from anything but other cells, as biogenesis suggests. However, biogenesis only applies to such cells, not the ancient, first cells on this planet. But hey, if you can't handle both being right, then consider biogenesis disproven by abiogenesis experiments that did produce life from non-life if you want, I don't care, the cells are there so denying that they are alive is just willfully being ignorant at this point.

Pretty serious. However way you want to say what life is comparable to, you still only have a piece of plastic. :/

Even if you want to consider RNA as life (though the simplest form of life as determined by prominent evolutionists is a single cell), Miller-type experiments have not produced much of anything other than a few random amino acids. No proteins were produced, no molecules combined into larger molecules, no nucleotides; which should not be shocking as random chemical reactions produce random molecules. Aside from that there are other factors to take into account on getting organic life from nonlife. Just having a few amino acids is by no means enough.
To use an analogy, life (single cell) is like a house, you simply have produced brick. (and that's being generous as a brick is purposely shaped and baked accordingly). To get a house you require workers, a blueprint, a sequence on where those brinks are supposed to go in what order and at which time.

Interestingly, Fred Hoyle the man who first advanced nucleosynthesis recognized the improbability of the origin of life through random chance.
"believing that the 1st cell arrived by chance and accident is like believing that a tornado could sweep through a junk yard and create a Boeing 747."

"Life cannot have had a random beginning. The trouble is that there are about two thousand enzymes, and the chance of obtaining them all in a random trial is only one part in 10 to the power of 40,000, an outrageously small probability that could not be faced even if the whole universe consisted of organic soup. If one is not prejudiced either by social beliefs or by a scientific training in to the conviction that life originated on the Earth, this simple calculation wipes the idea entirely out of court ..."

Personally I think abiogenesis is just a vanity project and waste of time when it could be well spent on more important and productive things.

xianghua · May 9, 2017

PsychoSarah said:
The answer is no. As long as there is a plausible natural process for the origin of a living organism (computer-like or not).

so if you will find something that looks like a regular computer. but just have a self replicating system and made from organic components. you will not conclude design?

Speedwell · May 9, 2017

xianghua said:
so if you will find something that looks like a regular computer. but just have a self replicating system and made from organic components. you will not conclude design?

If there is no evidence of intelligent manufacture then it will not be possible to reach a conclusion. Design, itself, is not directly detectable.

Bungle_Bear · May 10, 2017

xianghua said:
so if you will find something that looks like a regular computer. but just have a self replicating system and made from organic components. you will not conclude design?

Can you give us an example of such a thing? If not your question is meaningless.

Kylie · May 10, 2017

AV1611VET said:
Discuss abiogenesis in this thread without mentioning evolution.

Easy, since abiogenesis describes how life started and evolution describes how life changes over time, the two are completely different topics. It is as easy to talk about abiogenesis without discussing evolution as it is to discuss the assassination of Archduke Ferdinand without discussing the tactics employed during the First World War.

xianghua · May 10, 2017

Speedwell said:
If there is no evidence of intelligent manufacture then it will not be possible to reach a conclusion. Design, itself, is not directly detectable.

yep. i know about your position. i just want to hear what is sarah position about that too.

xianghua · May 10, 2017

Bungle_Bear said:
Can you give us an example of such a thing? If not your question is meaningless.

what is the difference between a spinning motor and a computer?( from design detection prespective)

Speedwell · May 10, 2017

xianghua said:
yep. i know about your position. i just want to hear what is sarah position about that too.

It's not "my" position. It's how everyone (except creationists) goes about deciding whether an object is designed or not.

Speedwell · May 10, 2017

xianghua said:
what is the difference between a spinning motor and a computer?( from design detection prespective)

None. They represent different kinds of functional organization, but functional organization of any kind is not evidence of design.

Bungle_Bear · May 10, 2017

xianghua said:
what is the difference between a spinning motor and a computer?( from design detection prespective)

So you can't give me an example of a self-replicating computer made from organic materials?

Before posting again, think about what people are saying to you. You appear to be taking absolutely no notice of the responses you're getting.

xianghua · May 11, 2017

Bungle_Bear said:
So you can't give me an example of a self-replicating computer made from organic materials?

Before posting again, think about what people are saying to you. You appear to be taking absolutely no notice of the responses you're getting.

so a spinning motor can evolve naturally when a computer cant? i think that its unlogical.

Speedwell · May 11, 2017

xianghua said:
so a spinning motor can evolve naturally when a computer cant? i think that its unlogical.

Depends on what you mean by a "computer." A brain is a computer, but so is an electronic device in a plastic box with a display screen and a keyboard.

You should give this up. You cannot come up with a device or object which non-IDers would conclude was designed merely on the basis of functional complexity. There isn't such a thing.

Bungle_Bear · May 11, 2017

xianghua said:
so a spinning motor can evolve naturally when a computer cant? i think that its unlogical.

I have asked you several times now for an example of the device which you think causes problems for evolution. You have not provided one. When you do that we can have a sensible discussion. If you cannot do that there is nothing to discuss.

xianghua · May 12, 2017

Bungle_Bear said:
I have asked you several times now for an example of the device which you think causes problems for evolution. You have not provided one. When you do that we can have a sensible discussion. If you cannot do that there is nothing to discuss.

any spinning motor is a problem for evolution. we know that a spinning motor is evidence for design and not for a natural process.

Hammster · May 12, 2017

ADMIN HAT ON

Closed at OP request

ADMIN HAT OFF

My Abiogenesis Challenge

Christ is King

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Whoot!

Defeater of Illogic

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Whoot!

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Whoot!

Well-Known Member

Carpe Chaos

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency