Origin of Life

[mindlight]

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

 

[Tolworth John]

atheistic evolutionists / abiogenesis proponents to justify their commitment, by blind faith

A faith based view unsupported by facts, because of its faith bases, is impossibleto change.

Think of all the people who believe that to get to heaven one has to be good, and they are 'gooder' than the next person!'
Try changing that view, its harder than challenging evolution.

 

[GrowingSmaller]

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)???

 

[xianghua]

I believe that the scientists are doing the best they can, and evolution is the best scientific model.

actually its not. even in the paper you link to they doesnt count the sequence space, they only talk about fixation time of a given sequence. since a tipical gene is about more then 1000 bp, the sequence space ia about 4^1000. so we need to calculate what is the chance to get a functional gene (and i am refer to a complex function) in such a huge sequence space. if we a ssume that we can change about half of the gene without destroying its function then the chance may be low as 4^500.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

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)???

Not sure what you're asking here - the paper just shows that a mathematical model of the principle elements of evolution shows that the amount of change required by the theory is comfortably achievable in the time available.

There's always going to be more data to be found - more fossils, more extant species, more examples of speciation, more genomes sequenced and compared. I don't think that makes it 'missing' data - there's more than enough already to make it beyond reasonable doubt.

Evidence of evolution had been accumulating for many years before Darwin & Wallace presented their explanatory theory for it, and the theory was accepted fairly quickly in scientific circles, despite fossils not being significantly involved, and molecular genetics being far in the future, and many of the leading figures having traditional biblical beliefs. The detailed study presented by Darwin of the similarities, relationships, behaviours, locations, etc., of living species and subspecies was sufficient to convince them of the theory's validity.

I'm not sure what you're questioning, but here's a paper modeling a more specific evolutionary feature - the camera-style eye: A Pessimistic Estimate for Evolution of an Eye. They estimate about 364,000 generations to go from a light-sensitive patch to a full camera eye, given very conservative (pessimistic) parameters.

 

[mindlight]

Not sure what you're asking here - the paper just shows that a mathematical model of the principle elements of evolution shows that the amount of change required by the theory is comfortably achievable in the time available.

There's always going to be more data to be found - more fossils, more extant species, more examples of speciation, more genomes sequenced and compared. I don't think that makes it 'missing' data - there's more than enough already to make it beyond reasonable doubt.

Evidence of evolution had been accumulating for many years before Darwin & Wallace presented their explanatory theory for it, and the theory was accepted fairly quickly in scientific circles, despite fossils not being significantly involved, and molecular genetics being far in the future, and many of the leading figures having traditional biblical beliefs. The detailed study presented by Darwin of the similarities, relationships, behaviours, locations, etc., of living species and subspecies was sufficient to convince them of the theory's validity.

I'm not sure what you're questioning, but here's a paper modeling a more specific evolutionary feature - the camera-style eye: A Pessimistic Estimate for Evolution of an Eye. They estimate about 364,000 generations to go from a light-sensitive patch to a full camera eye, given very conservative (pessimistic) parameters.

This is not really on topic though I know Growing Smaller really started this distraction. This Thread is about the improbability of chemical evolution of the cell without which biological evolution would be impossible.

 

[essentialsaltes]

Since the cells irreducible complexity

Citation needed.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

This is not really on topic though I know Growing Smaller really started this distraction. This Thread is about the improbability of chemical evolution of the cell without which biological evolution would be impossible.

OK; my comment on the OP is that since it starts with a faulty premise ('the cells irreducible complexity'), the argument is inevitably unsound.

 

[xianghua]

Citation needed.

here: Design and synthesis of a minimal bacterial genome

 

[essentialsaltes]

here: Design and synthesis of a minimal bacterial genome

This does not seem to relate to the study of the origin of life. Nor does it define or demonstrate 'irreducible complexity'.

 

[Steve Petersen]

Irreducible complexity - Wikipedia

 

[Obliquinaut]

Since the cells irreducible complexity requires that all its parts be present and functional and properly organised for it to work.

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

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.

Nope. This is applying probability exactly backwards.

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.

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.

Various attempts have been made by atheistic evolutionists / abiogenesis proponents

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

to justify their commitment, by blind faith, to the improbable possibility that the cell evolved from chemicals by chance.

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.

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

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

 

[Obliquinaut]

OK; my comment on the OP is that since it starts with a faulty premise ('the cells irreducible complexity'), the argument is inevitably unsound.

Agreed. AND it is only made worse by later flaws in the argument including but not limited to:

1. Conflating evolution with origin of life indicates a specific bias of the OP and a general lack of understanding of the topic in detail

2. Misuse of probability (working backwards from a given result)

3. Failure to appreciate the role of stochastic processes and chemical rules

 

[Obliquinaut]

This is not really on topic though I know Growing Smaller really started this distraction. This Thread is about the improbability of chemical evolution of the cell without which biological evolution would be impossible.

The probability that I would wind up sitting at a desk in the Pacific Northwest today given where I was born is equally unlikely. There is an entire planet I could have wound up anywhere in doing any number of things for a living.

Running probabilities backwards does not provide a robust reason to doubt the outcome.

I am, indeed, here where I am.

And again, it must be noted that chemicals bond to other chemicals because of relatively simple specific rules. That keeps it from being 100% perfectly "random". Yes there is a role for random activity in chemistry...every time you buy a product at the store that required a chemical reaction to make required statistically driven processes.

Do you really think that when you buy shampoo it was created by God reaching into the flasks and making the reaction go? No, the chemicals were added in and they reacted because they followed certain rules, but not all the chemicals reacted at the same time. They bounce around with a distribution of speeds in the solution and they have to hit other chemicals at the right speed and in the right orientation to achieve the reaction. The fact that a given product comes out of a reaction is part randomness and a LOT chemical rules.

Things react in nature ALL THE TIME. Literally every second of every single day. And they follow this pattern. Random slamming into each other with just the right speed and orientation in such a way that with a given set of environmental variables they will react in such a way to produce a product. ANd even then that product doesn't always stick around. Ultimately an equilibrium establishes which is biased toward one product over the original reactants. Again, this happens because specific chemical rules.

Simply looking at a product and saying "Gosh this is unlikely!" is to ignore the fact that the product IS likely because it CONTINUES TO EXIST.

 

[xianghua]

This does not seem to relate to the study of the origin of life. Nor does it define or demonstrate 'irreducible complexity'.

its indeed related to ic since they showed a minimal bar for a biological system.

 

[mindlight]

The probability that I would wind up sitting at a desk in the Pacific Northwest today given where I was born is equally unlikely. There is an entire planet I could have wound up anywhere in doing any number of things for a living.

Running probabilities backwards does not provide a robust reason to doubt the outcome.

I am, indeed, here where I am.

And again, it must be noted that chemicals bond to other chemicals because of relatively simple specific rules. That keeps it from being 100% perfectly "random". Yes there is a role for random activity in chemistry...every time you buy a product at the store that required a chemical reaction to make required statistically driven processes.

Do you really think that when you buy shampoo it was created by God reaching into the flasks and making the reaction go? No, the chemicals were added in and they reacted because they followed certain rules, but not all the chemicals reacted at the same time. They bounce around with a distribution of speeds in the solution and they have to hit other chemicals at the right speed and in the right orientation to achieve the reaction. The fact that a given product comes out of a reaction is part randomness and a LOT chemical rules.

Things react in nature ALL THE TIME. Literally every second of every single day. And they follow this pattern. Random slamming into each other with just the right speed and orientation in such a way that with a given set of environmental variables they will react in such a way to produce a product. ANd even then that product doesn't always stick around. Ultimately an equilibrium establishes which is biased toward one product over the original reactants. Again, this happens because specific chemical rules.

Simply looking at a product and saying "Gosh this is unlikely!" is to ignore the fact that the product IS likely because it CONTINUES TO EXIST.

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.

 

[essentialsaltes]

its indeed related to ic since they showed a minimal bar for a biological system.

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

 

[essentialsaltes]

Yes there is an improbability to many things. However ... adds to those odds astronomically.

The universe is astronomically large and old.

 

[Chesterton]

The universe is astronomically large and old.

No, you are.

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

 

[jayem]

The appearance of life on Earth was inevitable. The only chance component was that this particular planet had the right temperature, elemental composition, gravity, and atmospheric conditions. Given these starting points, all the rest is chemistry. Simple life forms would have appeared first. And because of a continuous input of energy--from the sun--more complex life forms would have evolved. (Entropy can be reversed in an open system with an influx of energy.) There is no doubt that life of varying types is present on other planets. The number of stars and planets in the universe is enormous. It is a virtual certainty that some of these will have the right conditions for carbon (or maybe silicon) based life.

People can believe whatever they like. But the irreducible complexity claim is nothing more than the argument from incredulity. Because you can't imagine how life could appear from non-life by natural physiochemical processes, it couldn't have happened. And that's a logical fallacy.