randman dissects talkorigins.org FAQ

[Jerry Smith]

Originally posted by randman
"Means it has chemical properties that cause it to catalyze the formation of another one approximately like it."

OK, Jerry, then we have self-replicating molecules happening all the time. The article then states quite forcefully.

"Once a molecule forms that is approximately self-replicating, natural selection will guide the formation of ever more efficient replicators."

Please show where natural selection works among rocks. I mean it clearly states that once a molecule forms, "natural selection WILL GUIDE THE FORMATION OF EVER MORE EFFECIENT REPLICATORS."

Have we ever seen chemical properties evolve efficient chemical properties? Personally, I can't believe you don't see this. Do I have to spell it out to you?

Rocks form. They are thus self-replicating. They don't develop more efficient means of self-replicating. The properties of such chemicals are fixed. They are not subject to natural selection. They are not alive.

Think about it.

In case you have forgotten the very quote you are criticizing, it says that COMPLEX MOLECULES SPONTANEOUSLY FORM (not self-replicators)

It says that ONCE A SELF-REPLICATOR DOES FORM, natural selection guide the formation of ever more efficient replicators.

 

[randman]

Bull, all chemicals can be self-replicatin under the definitions you guys have come up with, but their properties are fixed. They don't evolve new properties.

That's the whole thing. The article is claiming because molecules can from into more complex molecules, and this is how rocks form isn't it, that this mechanism is sufficient to form life, but for that to happen the intrinsinc qualities of chemicals must evolve, and they cannot. Those aspects of matter are fixed.

 

[Jerry Smith]

Originally posted by randman
Bull, all chemicals can be self-replicatin under the definitions you guys have come up with, but their properties are fixed. They don't evolve new properties.

That's the whole thing. The article is claiming because molecules can from into more complex molecules, and this is how rocks form isn't it, that this mechanism is sufficient to form life, but for that to happen the intrinsinc qualities of chemicals must evolve, and they cannot. Those aspects of matter are fixed.

Ok, please use your VAST knowledge of organic chemistry to demonstrate that the "properties" (I assume you mean the chemical structure) of an organically self-replicated molecule must be identical to its parent molecule.

Hint: think DNA

 

[Morat]

Bull, all chemicals can be self-replicatin under the definitions you guys have come up with,

Wrong. Most chemicals aren't. Self-replicating molecules make copies of themselves. Most compounds don't do this.

but their properties are fixed. They don't evolve new properties.

Who says they did? Each self-replicating molecule had fixed chemical properties. But imperfect replication would obviously yield different molecules, with obviously different properties.

That's the whole thing. The article is claiming because molecules can from into more complex molecules, and this is how rocks form isn't it,

No. Not even close. Not even remotely. This, in fact, would be an excellent description of how rocks aren't formed.

Rocks form one of three ways. Can you remember them from school?

Rocks do not take raw materials and make copies of themselves.

that this mechanism is sufficient to form life, but for that to happen the intrinsinc qualities of chemicals must evolve, and they cannot.

No they don't. All it takes is imperfect replication. Different self-replicating molecules replicating in different fashions. Some more efficient, some less. Different molecules, different properties.

It's a fairly simple concept.

 

[randman]

"In case you have forgotten the very quote you are criticizing, it says that COMPLEX MOLECULES SPONTANEOUSLY FORM (not self-replicators)

It says that ONCE A SELF-REPLICATOR DOES FORM, natural selection guide the formation of ever more efficient replicators."

Anyway you read it, it is deceptive. Why do they state complex molecules spontaneously form, and the very next line state "Once a self-replicator does form." That's bogus. First, it could mean that molecules are self-replicating since they form into more complex molecules, and thus are stating it happens easily, that we observe it happening, that molecules form more complex molecules and go on and then once they form (the inference being that they do this all the time), they are then subject to natural selection and the rest is history. They could mean that.

Or, they could be not including a huge gap between complex molecules and self-replicating forms, but since self-replicating is approximate, it could just about mean anything.

Either way, the intention is clear. The fact complex molecules spontaneously form is given as evidence for life spontaneously forming, and given in such a way that it is an inevitable product, despite the fact that no complex molecules, carbon or otherwise, has ever behaved this way.

 

[Jerry Smith]

I think they give their readers credit for a hint of intelligence and ability to read English. Maybe they shouldn't.

Did you even read the Abiogenesis FAQ or are you going to continue to nitpick a three paragraph side note about it that mentions the fact that abiogenesis is irrelevant to evolution?

 

[Jerry Smith]

Either way, the intention is clear. The fact complex molecules spontaneously form is given as evidence for life spontaneously forming, and given in such a way that it is an inevitable product, despite the fact that no complex molecules, carbon or otherwise, has ever behaved this way.

This is malarkey. The EXTREMELY CLEAR, STATED INTENTION is to refute ill-informed claims that abiogenesis is impossible, or depends on "probability" (chance) and is too improbable.

 

[Morat]

English is your second language, isn't it? Do you need the "See Spot Run" version?

Anyway you read it, it is deceptive. Why do they state complex molecules spontaneously form, and the very next line state "Once a self-replicator does form."

Because self-replicating molecules are complex?

Step 1: "Form complex molecule that self-replicates.
Step 2: "Self-replicating molecules replicates".

It seems quite straightforward. They explain how a complex molecule like a self-replicator could form (lots of complex molecules, especially carbon ones, form sponteanously under a wide range of conditions).

Then they say it begins to replicate, because that's what a self-replicating molecules does.

How is this confusing?

That's bogus. First, it could mean that molecules are self-replicating since they form into more complex molecules,

That's not what self-replication means, Randman. Yeah, sure, it could mean that. If you change the word "Red" to mean "Black" then you get Red and White Zebras.

It means what it says. Complex molecules form. Once one forms that can self-replicate, it does.

and thus are stating it happens easily,

Nope. If they said "Self-replicating molecules replicated", you'd be screaming "where do self-replicating molecules come from".

Why are you whining that they started from the beginning? Simple biochemistry?

that we observe it happening, that molecules form more complex molecules and go on and then once they form (the inference being that they do this all the time), they are then subject to natural selection and the rest is history. They could mean that.

They could mean that. If you redefined half the words in the English language.

However, this is about the accuracy of the FAQ, not whether it's written for poor readers.

Or, they could be not including a huge gap between complex molecules and self-replicating forms, but since self-replicating is approximate, it could just about mean anything.

COuld be. Thankfully, in the Abiogensis FAQ they link to, they talk about how Abiogensis is a new field where much research is just now being done and much is unknown.

I don't think they're hiding "holes" since they freely admit the tentative nature of abiogenesis research.

Either way, the intention is clear. The fact complex molecules spontaneously form is given as evidence for life spontaneously forming,

No. It's given as evidence that complex molecules form.

and given in such a way that it is an inevitable product, despite the fact that no complex molecules, carbon or otherwise, has ever behaved this way.

You mean, other than it behaving that way for chemists?

Are you seriously claiming that self-replicating molecules don't exist?

 

[randman]

Maybe an analogy would help. If I state in showing how one can go from A to B. First take Main Street south, and "once" you hit...

The "once" there implies inevitability. So Talkorigins is stating the fact molecules form into more complex molecules shows that they will form into self-replicating forms. Remember that this FAQ is directed to the public as an introductory piece to explain in layman's terms how criticism of evolution and here abiogenesis is unfounded.

OK, then Talkorigins states that "Once a molecule forms that is approximately self-replicating, natural selection will guide the formation of ever more efficient replicators." The implication is once again inevitability. Why? Because natural selection will guide the formation of ever more efficient replicators.

But is this true? Would natural selection work in this way? What is competing against the self-replicator? The answer is other non-living matter.

The answer is clearly no. The competition for resources as someone stated would actually just "kill" or actually "change" the self-replicating chemical into a part of something non-self-replicating, not strengthen it.

To state that natural selection would make it ever more efficient is just something we have never seen in terms of physical matter.

 

[Jerry Smith]

Originally posted by randman

The answer is clearly no. The competition for resources as someone stated would actually just "kill" or actually "change" the self-replicating chemical into a part of something non-self-replicating, not strengthen it.

You propagandist!!! You've never seen this so-called "killing" or changing into non-self-repicating, in terms of physical matter! You are propagandizing!

The point of the above is that you get a little bit of allowance for talking about what the possibilities are when you are refuting a simplistic claim than when you are explaining the details of Abiogenesis (as in they do in the Abiogenesis FAQ).

 

[randman]

Jerry, I can't believe you don't see this. The article states specifically that natural selection works on self-replicating molecules and makes them ever more efficient (LOL).

OK, show me one instance of that happening.

 

[randman]

Maybe this will help. "Natural selection" actually produces quite a few extinctions. That paves way for other "things." In the case of "natural selection" for non-living matter (which is quite an absurdity by the way), the end result is not likely to be "ever more efficient" replicators, but ever more physical matter as we see it today.

 

[Jerry Smith]

Originally posted by randman
Jerry, I can't believe you don't see this. The article states specifically that natural selection works on self-replicating molecules and makes them ever more efficient (LOL).

OK, show me one instance of that happening.

randman,

We have not seen this happening in nature. It is an easy conclusion to arrive at, with the simple given of a self-replicating organic molecule. If you like, send some feedback to the Archive & say "Hey, we don't know for sure that natural selection will guide a self-replicator to become more efficient.. you should probably change the wording of your article from 'will' to 'might'."

I'm sure that if a correction is in order the author will make it. If not, I'm sure they will explain to you the exact reasons why it isn't in order.

 

[randman]

The reason they have "will" is deliberate. The whole tone and ordering of their phrases is to create a false impression, namely that abiogenesis is not improbable, or that it is incorrect to think it is improbable. The fact is molecules haven't chanegd that much, and though complex molecules form, we have never seen the mechanism for producing that be extended into the process Talforigins suggests. Talkorigins is a propaganda site. The way they express things appears to be designed to get people to believe them, but not give an accurate picture of the reality of the issues.

They are basically stating that molecules naturally form into self-replicating forms, and that natural selection makes these forms "ever more efficient." There is not a hint that these are just pure speculations. Moreover, we know the mechanisms involved in molecules forming more complex molecules, and we know that Talkorigins is wrong to infer this mechanism is known to produce the process proposed. The fact is these are fxed properties of matter, and in order to acheive what Talkorigins is speaking of, there must be an evolution of the mechanism from what causes complexity in molecules to something else entirely.

 

[randman]

So in conclusion,

1. "Once" is wrong to use here. "Once" implies inevitability, which isn't the case.

2. "Will form" is also wrong since this is not factual, and actually opposite of the likely result.

This paragraph was designed to create a false impression, as if the mechanisms for producing the first life form have been discovered. The mechanism for producing more complex molecules, however, has been shown to be more likely not to produce self-replicating forms.

Secondly, self-replicating forms that we know about are not likely to survive under "natural selection" so it is false to state "natural selection" will form ever more efficient replicators.

 

[Jerry Smith]

Originally posted by randman
The reason they have "will" is deliberate. The whole tone and ordering of their phrases is to create a false impression, namely that abiogenesis is not improbable, or that it is incorrect to think it is improbable.

According to their stated intention, their aim is to show that probability arguments can't really be applied because almost none of the process is purely random, but that's just how I as an English-speaking person read it.

If you think their intention was sinister, why not check your facts by:
a) sending them feedback asking about the wording
or
b) read their ABIOGENESIS FAQ and see what representations they make when dealing with the issue to a degree of depth instead of just making a freaking side note

The fact is molecules haven't chanegd that much, and though complex molecules form, we have never seen the mechanism for producing that be extended into the process Talforigins suggests.

hmmmmmm.....

Talkorigins is a propaganda site. The way they express things appears to be designed to get people to believe them, but not give an accurate picture of the reality of the issues.

That is supposed to be what you are demonstrating in this thread. So far you have nitpicked one word "will" where it MAY be better stated "might". You aren't doing a good job of supporting your claim.

They are basically stating that molecules naturally form into self-replicating forms, and that natural selection makes these forms "ever more efficient." There is not a hint that these are just pure speculations. Moreover, we know the mechanisms involved in molecules forming more complex molecules, and we know that Talkorigins is wrong to infer this mechanism is known to produce the process proposed. The fact is these are fxed properties of matter, and in order to acheive what Talkorigins is speaking of, there must be an evolution of the mechanism from what causes complexity in molecules to something else entirely. [/B][/QUOTE]

 

[Morat]

Jerry: Remember, this is the guy that thinks a quote from World Book outweighs everyone on the subject.

I'm not so sure he's capable of the tortured logic required to realize that the brief answer has more detail, if you click the link to the full abiogenesis FAQ.

After all, not many people can make that jump.

 

[randman]

Ah, ridicule if you can't answer the substance of your opponent. A favorite evolutionist tactic.

 

[Jerry Smith]

Originally posted by randman
So in conclusion,

1. "Once" is wrong to use here. "Once" implies inevitability, which isn't the case.

You mean it isn't the case that "Once" implies inevitably, if that's what you mean.

2. "Will form" is also wrong since this is not factual, and actually opposite of the likely result.

"Will form" - what complex organic molecules? No, it has been shown that they will form under natural circumstances...

"will" guide the formation of more efficient self-replicators? - ok. lets see if they have a reasoning for this, and if not are willing to change it to "might".

By the way, you are propagandizing again. Unless you know for sure what the "likely result" is.

This paragraph was designed to create a false impression, as if the mechanisms for producing the first life form have been discovered. The mechanism for producing more complex molecules, however, has been shown to be more likely not to produce self-replicating forms.

This paragraph is designed to refute a popular misconception about the impossibility of abiogenesis.

Secondly, self-replicating forms that we know about are not likely to survive under "natural selection" so it is false to state "natural selection" will form ever more efficient replicators.

as discussed, should probably have been "might".

Hey, I am impressed really (honestly, no sarcasm this time).

You did more than I expected to have absolutely NO valid complaint with the archive. You found one. So what that it was small - you actually went out, did the homework and came up with something to back yourself up. Can you teach that trick to Nick? I do appreciate your willingness to address the issues as such in this case.

 

[Jerry Smith]

Originally posted by randman
Ah, ridicule if you can't answer the substance of your opponent. A favorite evolutionist tactic.

Yeah. We learned it from Petreley. You like it?