Object Lesson on the Impossibility of Abiogenesis

[AV1611VET]

It is flawed from its initial assumptions.

Remarks like this are a dime a dozen.

Any child can make it.

 

[Split Rock]

Remarks like this are a dime a dozen.

Any child can make it.

Any child can cut and paste from the internet... no need to get nasty, buddy.
I explained earlier why the initial assumptions are flawed. Do I need to repeat myself?

 

[AV1611VET]

Do I need to repeat myself?

Just link me back to your opinion, and if it makes sense and I don't detect any technobabble subterfuge, I might respond.

 

[crjmurray]

Says who?

SOURCE

I'll admit that here, the author of the article uses the word "impossible," whereas I use the word "improbable."

But the point is, it appears to be a matter of he-said/she-said.

I say it's improbable, others says it's improbable, others says it's impossible, some say it's a flawed premise -- pick one and go with it.

Yawn. OK whatever.

 

[Loudmouth]

Says who?

SOURCE

I'll admit that here, the author of the article uses the word "impossible," whereas I use the word "improbable."

But the point is, it appears to be a matter of he-said/she-said.

I say it's improbable, others says it's improbable, others says it's impossible, some say it's a flawed premise -- pick one and go with it.

The author didn't even show that the first life required a single protein, much less 256 of them. It would seem that the calculations are entirely irrelevant.

 

[crjmurray]

The author didn't even show that the first life required a single protein, much less 256 of them. It would seem that the calculations are entirely irrelevant.

That would require facts and stuff. Too hard.

 

[Strathos]

Aren't the first lifeforms speculated to be self-replicating RNA molecules? Not nearly anything as complex as even the simplest cell alive today.

 

[Loudmouth]

Aren't the first lifeforms speculated to be self-replicating RNA molecules? Not nearly anything as complex as even the simplest cell alive today.

The RNA World hypothesis is probably the most popular hypothesis in the field of abiogenesis research right now. As one of my previous posts discussed, you can get functioning RNA enzymes from random sequences. These RNA enzymes fill the role played by proteins in modern cells. In fact, some of the catalysts for basic genetic machinery is RNA based, such as ribozymes. These are RNA enzymes that are only stabilized by proteins, and they are responsible for making proteins from mRNA. From a certain point of view, we still live in an RNA dominant world.

 

[AV1611VET]

The RNA World hypothesis is probably the most popular hypothesis in the field of abiogenesis research right now. As one of my previous posts discussed, you can get functioning RNA enzymes from random sequences. These RNA enzymes fill the role played by proteins in modern cells. In fact, some of the catalysts for basic genetic machinery is RNA based, such as ribozymes. These are RNA enzymes that are only stabilized by proteins, and they are responsible for making proteins from mRNA. From a certain point of view, we still live in an RNA dominant world.

The trick is this though:

1. How long from the Big Bang to the first RNA enzyme?
2. How long from the first RNA enzyme to man?

If it was 3.8 billion years ago, that's only 11,983,680,000,000,000 seconds.

Mother Nature must have been on steroids, eh?

 

[Loudmouth]

The trick is this though:

1. How long from the Big Bang to the first RNA enzyme?

1. 
   
   About 10 billion years.
   
   

   [*]How long from the first RNA enzyme to man?

   
   3.5 billion, or so.
   

If it was 3.8 billion years ago, that's only 11,983,680,000,000,000 seconds.

Mother Nature must have been on steroids, eh?

Huh? Evolution is not abiogenesis.

 

[PsychoSarah]

It's your challenge, Sarah, not mine.

Gitter done!

-_- by that logic, every time you issue a challenge such as the one in this thread, you would literally have to go out and do the action yourself. I issued the challenge for you to do, and ironically, I don't have a deck of cards on me.

So unless you feel up to bailing on a really easy challenge (which is more meaningful if you do it yourself anyways), it still stands.

 

[AV1611VET]

-_- by that logic, every time you issue a challenge such as the one in this thread, you would literally have to go out and do the action yourself. I issued the challenge for you to do, and ironically, I don't have a deck of cards on me.

So unless you feel up to bailing on a really easy challenge (which is more meaningful if you do it yourself anyways), it still stands.

I'll pass -- thanks.

 

[PsychoSarah]

I'll pass -- thanks.

This means I win, by the rules you follow for your challenge, being unwilling to do it or unable makes you wrong and me right

 

[AirPo]

Sarah wins!

/All future "challange" therads.

 

[dysert]

This is pretty funny. I've read about half the posts so far. The "pro-abiogenesis" folks are fiddling with trying to come up with conditional probabilities while Rome is burning.

 

[Loudmouth]

This is pretty funny. I've read about half the posts so far. The "pro-abiogenesis" folks are fiddling with trying to come up with conditional probabilities while Rome is burning.

We are still waithing for the anit-abiogenesis folks to demonstrate that a single protein is needed for abiogenesis.

 

[DerelictJunction]

This is pretty funny. I've read about half the posts so far. The "pro-abiogenesis" folks are fiddling with trying to come up with conditional probabilities while Rome is burning.

I don't understand your analogy. Could you make it a bit more clear.

What do you mean by "fiddling with trying to come up with conditional probabilities"
What does "Rome" represent in the analogy?

 

[dysert]

I don't understand your analogy. Could you make it a bit more clear.

What do you mean by "fiddling with trying to come up with conditional probabilities"
What does "Rome" represent in the analogy?

Have you not heard of the expression, "Fiddling while Rome burns"?

 

[Loudmouth]

Have you not heard of the expression, "Fiddling while Rome burns"?

The only ones fiddling with numbers are the creationists. We are asking the creationists how their probabilities relate to abiogenesis.

 

[DerelictJunction]

Have you not heard of the expression, "Fiddling while Rome burns"?

Yes. However, I don't understand how that analogy applies to the discussion we are having here.

Implying that I am ignorant doesn't really help. You used the analogy. So, you should be able to easily explain the point you are trying to make.