Total Posts:174|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

On the impossibility of abiogenesis.

LittleBallofHATE
Posts: 284
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/22/2015 12:40:16 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
Modern science takes for granted that the naturalistic origin of life, called "abiogenesis" or "chemical evolution" or "pre-biotic evolution" is extremely improbable but not impossible. "Life" here means a single self-reproducing and self-sustaining biological cell. Science claims that life can arise from inorganic matter through natural processes. This unsupported claim is based on the conviction that all arrangements of atoms are possible and life is considered merely one such arrangement. In what follows I try to explain that such a belief is unfounded because abiogenesis is impossible in principle. My argument, expressed in its simplest form, has two main steps: (1) to show that a computer cannot be generated naturalistically; (2) to show that biological systems contain computers. From #1 and #2 I will argue the impossibility of abiogenesis.

http://www.uncommondescent.com...
I would agree with you, but then we'd BOTH be wrong.
Maccabee
Posts: 1,234
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/22/2015 4:35:13 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
Get down to the nitty gritty and evolutionist believe we came from a rock. Also no matter how you look at it they believe in spontaneous generation (rags turn to rats).
Scripture, facts, stats, and logic is how I argue

Evolutionism is a religion, not science

When seconds count, the police are just minutes away.

"If guns are the cause of crimes then aren't matches the cause of arson?" D. Boys

"If the death penalty is government sanctioned killing then isn't inprisonment is government sanction kidnapping?" D. B

"Why do you trust the government with machine guns but not honest citizens?" D. B

All those who are pro-death (abortion) is already born
kp98
Posts: 729
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/22/2015 8:49:17 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
Objection 03: "The genetic code in a GRC constructor could have arisen from a shorter alphabet, this one from a shorter one and so on, by incremental steps".

Answer 03: This process in no way could reduce the overall prescriptive information in the code. As Don Johnson says

"we have examined both the functional (especially prescriptive) information and the Shannon complexity of life, with Shannon information placing limits on information transfer, including the channel capacity limit that requires an initial alphabet of life to be at least as complex as the current DNA codon alphabet" [9].


It is a pity the OP could not provide his own defence rather than providing one from a rather well known advocate of ID.

But I think that point is quite critical. Essentially, it states the minimum requirement for life is something as least as complex as the 'current DNA codon alphabet', suggesting abiogenesis means something resembling the modern cell (with all its genetic mecanisms) has to appear from nowhere. On my reading, the rest of the paper is padding around that point - and what a lot padding there is!

I don't think any serious 'abiogenesist' would disagree that a fully functional modern cell cannot appear spontaneously out of a 'chemical soup'. The OP has spent a great deal of time attacking a strawman.

What needs to addressed is not the impossility of producing a complex moden cell with all its complicated DNA and ribosomes operating as a marvelously intricate machine - but how hard it is to produce a molecule with the minimum requriement for it to be considered life, or the immediate precursor of life, replication.

Naturally the Paper mentions Urey and Miller, but there is actually work on the problems of abiogenisis dating from after 1952! Although it has not been an popular or well funded area of research, we know that chemical systems less complex than a cell can replicate.

Of course a replicating molecule is not 'alive' (as least some would say it's not), but the key to abiogensis is that non-life to life does not have to be a single giant stride but in a lot of kiddie steps. The first kiddie step is to get a simple replicating molecule that is not quite alive, but not quite dead either. The second kiddie step is to get that molecule up to the level of 'undeniably alive'. It's like crossing a 20 foot wide river without getting you feet wet - it's just not possible in a single stride, but that doesn't matter if there are stepping stones.
DanneJeRusse
Posts: 12,576
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/22/2015 5:54:54 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/22/2015 12:40:16 AM, LittleBallofHATE wrote:
Modern science takes for granted that the naturalistic origin of life, called "abiogenesis" or "chemical evolution" or "pre-biotic evolution" is extremely improbable but not impossible.

Baloney, science does not say that, science understands life is quite probable under a variety of conditions in which we already find life to exist.

"Life" here means a single self-reproducing and self-sustaining biological cell.

But, life is not defined by a single cell.

Science claims that life can arise from inorganic matter through natural processes. This unsupported claim is based on the conviction that all arrangements of atoms are possible and life is considered merely one such arrangement.

And, who exactly makes that conviction? You?

In what follows I try to explain that such a belief is unfounded because abiogenesis is impossible in principle. My argument, expressed in its simplest form, has two main steps: (1) to show that a computer cannot be generated naturalistically; (2) to show that biological systems contain computers. From #1 and #2 I will argue the impossibility of abiogenesis.

That's just plain silly. You're not talking about anything remotely related to abiogenesis, you're just making up nonsensical crap.

http://www.uncommondescent.com...
Marrying a 6 year old and waiting until she reaches puberty and maturity before having consensual sex is better than walking up to
a stranger in a bar and proceeding to have relations with no valid proof of the intent of the person. Muhammad wins. ~ Fatihah
If they don't want to be killed then they have to subdue to the Islamic laws. - Uncung
Without God, you are lower than sh!t. ~ SpiritandTruth
LittleBallofHATE
Posts: 284
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/22/2015 8:12:41 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/22/2015 5:54:54 PM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
At 11/22/2015 12:40:16 AM, LittleBallofHATE wrote:
Modern science takes for granted that the naturalistic origin of life, called "abiogenesis" or "chemical evolution" or "pre-biotic evolution" is extremely improbable but not impossible.

Baloney, science does not say that, science understands life is quite probable under a variety of conditions in which we already find life to exist.

"Life" here means a single self-reproducing and self-sustaining biological cell.

But, life is not defined by a single cell.

Science claims that life can arise from inorganic matter through natural processes. This unsupported claim is based on the conviction that all arrangements of atoms are possible and life is considered merely one such arrangement.

And, who exactly makes that conviction? You?

In what follows I try to explain that such a belief is unfounded because abiogenesis is impossible in principle. My argument, expressed in its simplest form, has two main steps: (1) to show that a computer cannot be generated naturalistically; (2) to show that biological systems contain computers. From #1 and #2 I will argue the impossibility of abiogenesis.

That's just plain silly. You're not talking about anything remotely related to abiogenesis, you're just making up nonsensical crap.

http://www.uncommondescent.com...

You know what? It's pretty funny. I've seen about a million of your replies, supposedly telling everyone how ignorant I am. But none of them have any substance. They are merely your derogatory opinion. You do not provide sources, or even a creditable argument. Nothing but scorn and ridicule. Why should anyone take you seriously?
I would agree with you, but then we'd BOTH be wrong.
kp98
Posts: 729
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/22/2015 9:07:53 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
I don't think I was rude in post #3, but you haven't answered it yet.

I get the your argument, but I reject it because it is essentially a jazzed-up version of the complexity argument - i.o. life is too complex to have arisen spontaneously. It is the old 'whirlwind in jukyard making a boeing 747 idea, but instead of a jumbo jet we have a computer.

No one can deny the fantastic complexity of a living cell. If you watched the bbc documentary I linked to you will be in no doubt it didn't happen by pure chance. And no sensible abiogenetist thinks it did.

Abiogeneticists know the only way abiogenesis can work is to build up to a full-blown living cell is by stages. For example, suppose a molecule arose that tended to form a polymer - i.e. a chain of similar molecules like nylon - buy suppose the polymre is a bit fragile, so on reaching a certain length it tends to snap. That isn't life - it is plain ordinary chemistry, but it is a sort of replication.

What stages came between a simple chemical reaction and full blown life are unknown. Because it happened 4 billion years ago and there are probably many ways it could have gone we may never know how the journey from chemistry to biology happened. But because of arguments like the whirlwind and the 747 and the OP we can be sure it didn't happen in a single step.

But no-one suggested it did. That is a strawman constucted by creationists and IDers.
Maccabee
Posts: 1,234
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/22/2015 10:55:30 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/22/2015 9:07:53 PM, kp98 wrote:
I don't think I was rude in post #3, but you haven't answered it yet.

I get the your argument, but I reject it because it is essentially a jazzed-up version of the complexity argument - i.o. life is too complex to have arisen spontaneously. It is the old 'whirlwind in jukyard making a boeing 747 idea, but instead of a jumbo jet we have a computer.

No one can deny the fantastic complexity of a living cell. If you watched the bbc documentary I linked to you will be in no doubt it didn't happen by pure chance. And no sensible abiogenetist thinks it did.

Abiogeneticists know the only way abiogenesis can work is to build up to a full-blown living cell is by stages. For example, suppose a molecule arose that tended to form a polymer - i.e. a chain of similar molecules like nylon - buy suppose the polymre is a bit fragile, so on reaching a certain length it tends to snap. That isn't life - it is plain ordinary chemistry, but it is a sort of replication.

What stages came between a simple chemical reaction and full blown life are unknown. Because it happened 4 billion years ago and there are probably many ways it could have gone we may never know how the journey from chemistry to biology happened. But because of arguments like the whirlwind and the 747 and the OP we can be sure it didn't happen in a single step.

But no-one suggested it did. That is a strawman constucted by creationists and IDers.

To make the basic building blocks is like dropping toothpicks on the ground and creating letters such as "A". But that doesn't prove that all books evolved out of a factory explosion. As you said a single cell is very complex, in fact it's more complexed than the space shuttle.
Scripture, facts, stats, and logic is how I argue

Evolutionism is a religion, not science

When seconds count, the police are just minutes away.

"If guns are the cause of crimes then aren't matches the cause of arson?" D. Boys

"If the death penalty is government sanctioned killing then isn't inprisonment is government sanction kidnapping?" D. B

"Why do you trust the government with machine guns but not honest citizens?" D. B

All those who are pro-death (abortion) is already born
DanMGTOW
Posts: 1,144
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/23/2015 12:10:29 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/22/2015 4:35:13 AM, Maccabee wrote:
Get down to the nitty gritty and evolutionist believe we came from a rock. Also no matter how you look at it they believe in spontaneous generation (rags turn to rats).

that is a logical fallacy known as a strawman
can you show anything that has gone through peer review that says any life form came from a rock?
i realize that you you probably don't know very much about science since you think evolution and abiogenesis are the same.
i suggest you talk to a scientist who specializes in evolution or abiogenesis and maybe they might be able to explain the differences much better than i can.
kp98
Posts: 729
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/23/2015 8:47:28 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
To make the basic building blocks is like dropping toothpicks on the ground and creating letters such as "A". But that doesn't prove that all books evolved out of a factory explosion. As you said a single cell is very complex, in fact it's more complexed than the space shuttle.

I appreciate the complexity of the living cell....https://www.youtube.com...
at least to some extent. But you mention creating the latter A from tooth picks and creating all books from an explosion - always thinking or expressing things in terms of polar extremes. Let be clear that there is one thing abiogenesists and anti-abiogenesists agree on 100% - it is impossible to to make a living cell in single step from a random chemical soup. That is true whether you compare a cell to 747, a computer or a space-shuttle.

But because the 'single step model' is not what abiogenesis fans propose, attacking it is the very definition of a strawman attack. The standard play book response to that is to claim 'irreducible complexity' so denying there can be a staged process. That is the essence of objection/response 3 in the paper. Full marks to the author for not completely dodging the issue, less than full marks for the actual response!

So the paper could be re-titled 'on the impossibility of single-step abiogensis', or 'the impossibilty of abiogenesis happening in the single-step- way no-one thinks it happened'.
v3nesl
Posts: 4,463
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/23/2015 4:00:05 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/22/2015 4:35:13 AM, Maccabee wrote:
Get down to the nitty gritty and evolutionist believe we came from a rock. Also no matter how you look at it they believe in spontaneous generation (rags turn to rats).

Yeah, and then they run away from the word "spontaneous", which means, in this context: arising from internal forces or causes; independent of external agencies; self-acting. And that's exactly what is proposed.

I think abiogenesis is simply impossible. Not unlikely, but impossible, like the odds of of the pyramids having come from a tornado or flood or other natural events. That's not improbable; there just are no combinations of natural forces that could do such a thing. They were built, there is no other option. And I think that except for some very narrow definitions of the word, Darwinian evolution, the emergence of an entire ecosystem from 'one or several' common ancestors, is also simply impossible.

Repetition can effectively numb the mind. It's a sort of brainwashing to simply repeat claims over and over and over again, with great confidence (yeah, I know, religion does this too). So we seem to have a generation that has stopped thinking about origin of life. They have accepted some wild speculation as fact and no longer even examine the speculations.
This space for rent.
v3nesl
Posts: 4,463
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/23/2015 4:14:44 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/23/2015 8:47:28 AM, kp98 wrote:
To make the basic building blocks is like dropping toothpicks on the ground and creating letters such as "A". But that doesn't prove that all books evolved out of a factory explosion. As you said a single cell is very complex, in fact it's more complexed than the space shuttle.

I appreciate the complexity of the living cell....https://www.youtube.com...
at least to some extent. But you mention creating the latter A from tooth picks and creating all books from an explosion - always thinking or expressing things in terms of polar extremes. Let be clear that there is one thing abiogenesists and anti-abiogenesists agree on 100% - it is impossible to to make a living cell in single step from a random chemical soup. That is true whether you compare a cell to 747, a computer or a space-shuttle.

But because the 'single step model' is not what abiogenesis fans propose, attacking it is the very definition of a strawman attack. The standard play book response to that is to claim 'irreducible complexity' so denying there can be a staged process.

Yeah, but it's actually HARDER to make something complex in small steps over a long period of time. Evolutionists seem to think their counter-hypotheses to IC solve the problem, but they just raise the statistical bar even higher. To deploy a complex, interactive system is a design challenge in and of itself. Let's say you want to deploy a cell phone system in some emerging market in Africa. Would you come in one year, give the people cell phones, come in a year later and build a tower, another tower a year later, then put power for the towers in a year later, then add microwave dishes a decade later, etc? You get the point. The cell phones would be long gone by the time your system was operational.

So when you propose that cells emerged a little piece at a time, you are proposing that each element of the cell as we know it had to serve not one complex function, but many functions over time. The cilia, the flagellum, etc. etc. - they all did something else before they became what they are now. So you see, the building blocks are even more incredible than before IC. How did they 'know' they were going to become the flagella? Each block had to be selected not only for what it did at the present, but for what it would do in the future.

It's impossible. Such a process, you see, would need intelligent guidance even more than a single lucky break. It would need the intelligent guidance over a long period of time.


So the paper could be re-titled 'on the impossibility of single-step abiogensis', or 'the impossibilty of abiogenesis happening in the single-step- way no-one thinks it happened'.

But I just have to point out - until somebody replicates the emergence of a living thing, it's all just a game of 'the price is right'. It's ALL guessing. And I'll wager that life will be synthesized (i.e., a demonstration of intelligent design) long before some pseudo random setup shows the emergence of life. I'm guessing the latter will never happen. It's not possible.
This space for rent.
Maccabee
Posts: 1,234
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/23/2015 4:53:00 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/23/2015 12:10:29 AM, DanMGTOW wrote:
At 11/22/2015 4:35:13 AM, Maccabee wrote:
Get down to the nitty gritty and evolutionist believe we came from a rock. Also no matter how you look at it they believe in spontaneous generation (rags turn to rats).

that is a logical fallacy known as a strawman
can you show anything that has gone through peer review that says any life form came from a rock?
i realize that you you probably don't know very much about science since you think evolution and abiogenesis are the same.
i suggest you talk to a scientist who specializes in evolution or abiogenesis and maybe they might be able to explain the differences much better than i can.
Fine abiogenesis now lets stick with the subject. Do you believe that we came from a rock?
Scripture, facts, stats, and logic is how I argue

Evolutionism is a religion, not science

When seconds count, the police are just minutes away.

"If guns are the cause of crimes then aren't matches the cause of arson?" D. Boys

"If the death penalty is government sanctioned killing then isn't inprisonment is government sanction kidnapping?" D. B

"Why do you trust the government with machine guns but not honest citizens?" D. B

All those who are pro-death (abortion) is already born
10cents
Posts: 61
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/23/2015 5:02:11 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/22/2015 12:40:16 AM, LittleBallofHATE wrote:
Modern science takes for granted that the naturalistic origin of life, called "abiogenesis" or "chemical evolution" or "pre-biotic evolution" is extremely improbable but not impossible. "Life" here means a single self-reproducing and self-sustaining biological cell. Science claims that life can arise from inorganic matter through natural processes. This unsupported claim is based on the conviction that all arrangements of atoms are possible and life is considered merely one such arrangement. In what follows I try to explain that such a belief is unfounded because abiogenesis is impossible in principle. My argument, expressed in its simplest form, has two main steps: (1) to show that a computer cannot be generated naturalistically; (2) to show that biological systems contain computers. From #1 and #2 I will argue the impossibility of abiogenesis.

http://www.uncommondescent.com... : :

Nothing is impossible for our Creator. He can make his people believe in anything.
kp98
Posts: 729
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/23/2015 5:35:00 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
So when you propose that cells emerged a little piece at a time, you are proposing that each element of the cell as we know it had to serve not one complex function, but many functions over time. The cilia, the flagellum, etc. etc. - they all did something else before they became what they are now.

You make a fair point, although I don't see it as fatal. A big problem is to define the line between chemistry and biology. My example of a self-polymermerising molecule that snaps (and thus replicates) is surely not alive, although it does manifest an essential aspect of what we call 'life'.

The case of viruses shows that the distinction between 'non-living' and 'non-living' is not clear cut and does depend more than a little on conventional (or arbitrary) definitions. Does something need to have cilia and flagellum to count as alive? If we agree that a polymer is not alive and an amoeba is, what about all the things in between? What does 'alive' mean - who gets to write the dictionary?

Being a physicalist who doesn't feel the need to be defensive about the many problems of physicalism I freely admit that it is an on-going mystery how to get from chemistry to biology. The truth is that abiogenetic supporters - whether we admit it or not in public - pin their hopes on the principles of Darwinism (i.e mutation and natural selection) coming into operation as soon as a 'minimally complicated replicating molecule' comes into existence.

To those who understand Darwinism, Darwinism is a truism. By which I mean it is hard to see how Darwinian evolution could be avioded given the way replication/reproduction occurs. Indeed it so tautological and obvious that the strangest thing about Darwinism is that no-one came up with it before Darwin!

So it is natural (for a Darwinist) to apply it the problem of getting from a (randomly generated) simple purely chemical replicator to a semi-living replicator and finally to a full-blown biological cell, as I do.

The defect of Darwinism is that it asserts intermediate forms but does not specify them. I freely admit I believe a sucession of intermediate forms links the first replicting chemical to the first true cell, but I don't know what those intermediates are. I am happy to call my belief in that chain of intermediates a 'faith', because what else can I call it?

But I feel - unlike other articles of faith I could mention - belief in Darwinian models is fully justifed by indirect evidence, particularly the logical inevitability of Drawinism. Thus I can believe in a sucession of intermediates I know nothing about, or can even prove existed.

I am not claiming my belief is philosophically sound - indeed I am laying bare it is not! But sdciece is not philosophy, and science is not about certainty. I'd say it is 99.99999 (etc) percent that abiogenesis is the truth. The residual 0.000.....1 exists (I suppose) but it's not worth worrying about. Certainly it would be silly to pin any hopes on such a long shot - that would be worse than spending all your money on a huge party on the hope of winning the lottery next week. Doing that might pay off - but it would hardly be a sensible thing to do!
Pase66
Posts: 775
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/23/2015 6:46:42 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/22/2015 4:35:13 AM, Maccabee wrote:
Get down to the nitty gritty and evolutionist believe we came from a rock. Also no matter how you look at it they believe in spontaneous generation (rags turn to rats).

You do realize that evolution deals with how species came about, and not how life came about, right? Darwin's book was called 'On the Origin of Species', and not 'On the Origin of Life'.
Check out these Current Debates
It Cannot be Shown that The Qur'an is Revelation from God
http://www.debate.org...
Maccabee
Posts: 1,234
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/23/2015 6:56:37 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/23/2015 6:46:42 PM, Pase66 wrote:
At 11/22/2015 4:35:13 AM, Maccabee wrote:
Get down to the nitty gritty and evolutionist believe we came from a rock. Also no matter how you look at it they believe in spontaneous generation (rags turn to rats).

You do realize that evolution deals with how species came about, and not how life came about, right? Darwin's book was called 'On the Origin of Species', and not 'On the Origin of Life'.

Like I said before, my difinition is not concrete. Do evolutionist believe in abiogenesis? And actually I didn't say that abiogenesis is apart of evolution, I said that evolutionist believe in that. Now back on the subject, do you believe that we came from rocks?
Scripture, facts, stats, and logic is how I argue

Evolutionism is a religion, not science

When seconds count, the police are just minutes away.

"If guns are the cause of crimes then aren't matches the cause of arson?" D. Boys

"If the death penalty is government sanctioned killing then isn't inprisonment is government sanction kidnapping?" D. B

"Why do you trust the government with machine guns but not honest citizens?" D. B

All those who are pro-death (abortion) is already born
Pase66
Posts: 775
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/23/2015 7:01:05 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/23/2015 6:56:37 PM, Maccabee wrote:
At 11/23/2015 6:46:42 PM, Pase66 wrote:
At 11/22/2015 4:35:13 AM, Maccabee wrote:
Get down to the nitty gritty and evolutionist believe we came from a rock. Also no matter how you look at it they believe in spontaneous generation (rags turn to rats).

You do realize that evolution deals with how species came about, and not how life came about, right? Darwin's book was called 'On the Origin of Species', and not 'On the Origin of Life'.

Like I said before, my difinition is not concrete. Do evolutionist believe in abiogenesis? And actually I didn't say that abiogenesis is apart of evolution, I said that evolutionist believe in that. Now back on the subject, do you believe that we came from rocks?

I believe we share common ancestors with apes, monkeys, and other primates. Now, I don't believe we share an evolutionary heritage with rocks, for we are living, and rocks are non-living. But, I would like to ask you, can you present to me a scientific hypothesis which deals with the origin of life that is counter to abiogenesis?
Check out these Current Debates
It Cannot be Shown that The Qur'an is Revelation from God
http://www.debate.org...
Maccabee
Posts: 1,234
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/23/2015 7:34:25 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/23/2015 7:01:05 PM, Pase66 wrote:
At 11/23/2015 6:56:37 PM, Maccabee wrote:
At 11/23/2015 6:46:42 PM, Pase66 wrote:
At 11/22/2015 4:35:13 AM, Maccabee wrote:
Get down to the nitty gritty and evolutionist believe we came from a rock. Also no matter how you look at it they believe in spontaneous generation (rags turn to rats).

You do realize that evolution deals with how species came about, and not how life came about, right? Darwin's book was called 'On the Origin of Species', and not 'On the Origin of Life'.

Like I said before, my difinition is not concrete. Do evolutionist believe in abiogenesis? And actually I didn't say that abiogenesis is apart of evolution, I said that evolutionist believe in that. Now back on the subject, do you believe that we came from rocks?

I believe we share common ancestors with apes, monkeys, and other primates. Now, I don't believe we share an evolutionary heritage with rocks, for we are living, and rocks are non-living. But, I would like to ask you, can you present to me a scientific hypothesis which deals with the origin of life that is counter to abiogenesis?
So after all that fluff and feathers you do believe that we came from a rock which is spontaneous generation no matter how you look at it. As to your question yes, I believe that design demands a designer. The golden meme ratio in nature and the DNA code are just two ways to show design in nature. Why do you believe that George Washington on Mount Rushmore was created but the real George Washington who have trillions of cells that are more complicated that the space shuttle evolved by chance?
Scripture, facts, stats, and logic is how I argue

Evolutionism is a religion, not science

When seconds count, the police are just minutes away.

"If guns are the cause of crimes then aren't matches the cause of arson?" D. Boys

"If the death penalty is government sanctioned killing then isn't inprisonment is government sanction kidnapping?" D. B

"Why do you trust the government with machine guns but not honest citizens?" D. B

All those who are pro-death (abortion) is already born
Pase66
Posts: 775
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/23/2015 7:40:07 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/23/2015 7:34:25 PM, Maccabee wrote:
At 11/23/2015 7:01:05 PM, Pase66 wrote:
At 11/23/2015 6:56:37 PM, Maccabee wrote:
At 11/23/2015 6:46:42 PM, Pase66 wrote:
At 11/22/2015 4:35:13 AM, Maccabee wrote:
Get down to the nitty gritty and evolutionist believe we came from a rock. Also no matter how you look at it they believe in spontaneous generation (rags turn to rats).

You do realize that evolution deals with how species came about, and not how life came about, right? Darwin's book was called 'On the Origin of Species', and not 'On the Origin of Life'.

Like I said before, my difinition is not concrete. Do evolutionist believe in abiogenesis? And actually I didn't say that abiogenesis is apart of evolution, I said that evolutionist believe in that. Now back on the subject, do you believe that we came from rocks?

I believe we share common ancestors with apes, monkeys, and other primates. Now, I don't believe we share an evolutionary heritage with rocks, for we are living, and rocks are non-living. But, I would like to ask you, can you present to me a scientific hypothesis which deals with the origin of life that is counter to abiogenesis?
So after all that fluff and feathers you do believe that we came from a rock which is spontaneous generation no matter how you look at it. As to your question yes, I believe that design demands a designer. The golden meme ratio in nature and the DNA code are just two ways to show design in nature. Why do you believe that George Washington on Mount Rushmore was created but the real George Washington who have trillions of cells that are more complicated that the space shuttle evolved by chance?

Evolution doesn't work by chance. It works by natural selection. Also, I explicitly said that human beings and rocks don't share a common ancestor. Let me ask you a question: one could empirically disprove evolution (for example, finding a human fossil in the rock layers that contain Cambrian fossils), but how can one disprove intelligent design? Also, another question I would like to ask is, what would convince you that evolution is correct? To convince me that evolution is wrong, one would have to present to me a fossil which is in the wrong place, and to convince me of intelligent design, one would have to show me the designer.
Check out these Current Debates
It Cannot be Shown that The Qur'an is Revelation from God
http://www.debate.org...
kp98
Posts: 729
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/23/2015 7:56:45 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
You do realize that evolution deals with how species came about, and not how life came about, right? Darwin's book was called 'On the Origin of Species', and not 'On the Origin of Life'.

Evolution only means 'change'. Darwinian evolution is much more specific. It is the idea that biological change occurs because while offspring resemble their parents and each other there is inevitably a degree of difference in their form. Those differences mean that the various offspring have different probability of having offspring themselves. The forms that breed better (are 'fitter') tend to continue, the forms that breed less well ('less fit') tend to disappear.

Essentially Darwinism means a two-phase process - the first is the production of offspring with variation between them (which is now closely identified with genetic mutation). Phase 2 is the process of the differential reproductive potentials of the different forms playing out in the real world.

That the good breeders tend to overwhelm the bad breeders is not rocket science - it is as obvious as it seems - indeed it is a tautology because we have to define 'good breeders' as the ones that breed best - a variety that dies out is not a 'good breeder' by definition!

Natural selection means letting 'Mother nature' select which forms live on and which ones die out by posing them problems like finding food, shelter, a mate, and avoiding predators and so on.

But Darwinism is general. If there is 1) a process of imperfect replication and 2) a way that determines which some variants are 'favoured' and other not favoured Darwinism will apply, and that includes non-living chemical replicators.

The very first, crude and inefficient non-living replicator did not arise by Darwinian evolution - it was a random accident. But getting from that replicating molecule to something truly and undeniably alive would be a Darwinian process.
Ramshutu
Posts: 4,063
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/23/2015 8:17:51 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/22/2015 12:40:16 AM, LittleBallofHATE wrote:
Modern science takes for granted that the naturalistic origin of life, called "abiogenesis" or "chemical evolution" or "pre-biotic evolution" is extremely improbable but not impossible. "Life" here means a single self-reproducing and self-sustaining biological cell. Science claims that life can arise from inorganic matter through natural processes. This unsupported claim is based on the conviction that all arrangements of atoms are possible and life is considered merely one such arrangement. In what follows I try to explain that such a belief is unfounded because abiogenesis is impossible in principle. My argument, expressed in its simplest form, has two main steps: (1) to show that a computer cannot be generated naturalistically; (2) to show that biological systems contain computers. From #1 and #2 I will argue the impossibility of abiogenesis.

http://www.uncommondescent.com...

DNA does not contain arbitrary information or symbolic code in the way it is defined here.

Abstract symbolic information is by definition arbitrary. The word "CAT" is symbolic and arbitrary as it requires the reader and writer to both already agree on what the meaning of the letters and words are.

Computers use arbitrary information and symbolic code in the same way; for example a key sequence for pushing 64 bits from a command register to a memory register; for example to change the output of the screen could potentially be any arbitrary arrangement of 1's and 0's providing that the code (the writer) and the processor (the reader pre-agree on what the definition of these commands are).

DNA, is symbolic, in that arrangements of chemicals in a chain end up being something else, the code is chemical, and therefore causative. It's this causative factor; that the chemical properties of a chain of base-pairs, cause the output through their own chemistry.

As such, it is not arbitrary and, while there could be a number of arrangements given the current laws of physics, the chemical properties of DNA causing specific proteins and behavior being generated, while more complex, are no more arbitrary than the properties of the sun being such that it fuses hydrogen to make helium.

Because of this non-arbitrary and non-abstract nature of DNA, it's fundamental operation is different from any computer system, and as such, cannot be easily compared.
kp98
Posts: 729
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/23/2015 8:55:55 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
Because of this non-arbitrary and non-abstract nature of DNA, it's fundamental operation is different from any computer system, and as such, cannot be easily compared.

I think you may be wrong about that. It seems the genetic code is arbitrary after all. The translation between codons and amino acids could be different and indeed is different in some cells and organisms. Quite a bit about this on the net... one at random is here
https://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com...

In some ways the analogy between DNA is uncannily like a one-tape Turing machine. Note I'm not supporting the impossbility of abiogenesis, but the cell/computer analogy is not all that far-fetched. I see the problem as being that complex computer-like cells are not what abiogenesis as to produce out of thin air, or rather out of chemical soup. What abiogenesis has to do is produce a crude replicator and let Darwinian evolution take over.
DanMGTOW
Posts: 1,144
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/23/2015 9:27:29 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/23/2015 4:53:00 PM, Maccabee wrote:
At 11/23/2015 12:10:29 AM, DanMGTOW wrote:
At 11/22/2015 4:35:13 AM, Maccabee wrote:
Get down to the nitty gritty and evolutionist believe we came from a rock. Also no matter how you look at it they believe in spontaneous generation (rags turn to rats).

that is a logical fallacy known as a strawman
can you show anything that has gone through peer review that says any life form came from a rock?
i realize that you you probably don't know very much about science since you think evolution and abiogenesis are the same.
i suggest you talk to a scientist who specializes in evolution or abiogenesis and maybe they might be able to explain the differences much better than i can.
Fine abiogenesis now lets stick with the subject. Do you believe that we came from a rock?

of course not, that is ridiculous
do you believe we came from clay, sand, or dust?
DanneJeRusse
Posts: 12,576
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/24/2015 1:10:32 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/22/2015 8:12:41 PM, LittleBallofHATE wrote:
At 11/22/2015 5:54:54 PM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
At 11/22/2015 12:40:16 AM, LittleBallofHATE wrote:
Modern science takes for granted that the naturalistic origin of life, called "abiogenesis" or "chemical evolution" or "pre-biotic evolution" is extremely improbable but not impossible.

Baloney, science does not say that, science understands life is quite probable under a variety of conditions in which we already find life to exist.

"Life" here means a single self-reproducing and self-sustaining biological cell.

But, life is not defined by a single cell.

Science claims that life can arise from inorganic matter through natural processes. This unsupported claim is based on the conviction that all arrangements of atoms are possible and life is considered merely one such arrangement.

And, who exactly makes that conviction? You?

In what follows I try to explain that such a belief is unfounded because abiogenesis is impossible in principle. My argument, expressed in its simplest form, has two main steps: (1) to show that a computer cannot be generated naturalistically; (2) to show that biological systems contain computers. From #1 and #2 I will argue the impossibility of abiogenesis.

That's just plain silly. You're not talking about anything remotely related to abiogenesis, you're just making up nonsensical crap.

http://www.uncommondescent.com...


You know what? It's pretty funny. I've seen about a million of your replies, supposedly telling everyone how ignorant I am.

So, you're a sock puppet of a previously banned member? Who would that be?

But none of them have any substance.

You mean, like the substance of your posts, which is just made up nonsense?

They are merely your derogatory opinion. You do not provide sources, or even a creditable argument.

If you just make up crap, no sources or arguments are required, just the pointing out of made up crap.

Nothing but scorn and ridicule.

Then, don't make up nonsensical crap and you won't get ridiculed.

Why should anyone take you seriously?

You mean, like how no one is taking you seriously?
Marrying a 6 year old and waiting until she reaches puberty and maturity before having consensual sex is better than walking up to
a stranger in a bar and proceeding to have relations with no valid proof of the intent of the person. Muhammad wins. ~ Fatihah
If they don't want to be killed then they have to subdue to the Islamic laws. - Uncung
Without God, you are lower than sh!t. ~ SpiritandTruth
Maccabee
Posts: 1,234
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/24/2015 2:24:12 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/23/2015 7:40:07 PM, Pase66 wrote:
At 11/23/2015 7:34:25 PM, Maccabee wrote:
At 11/23/2015 7:01:05 PM, Pase66 wrote:
At 11/23/2015 6:56:37 PM, Maccabee wrote:
At 11/23/2015 6:46:42 PM, Pase66 wrote:
At 11/22/2015 4:35:13 AM, Maccabee wrote:
Get down to the nitty gritty and evolutionist believe we came from a rock. Also no matter how you look at it they believe in spontaneous generation (rags turn to rats).

You do realize that evolution deals with how species came about, and not how life came about, right? Darwin's book was called 'On the Origin of Species', and not 'On the Origin of Life'.

Like I said before, my difinition is not concrete. Do evolutionist believe in abiogenesis? And actually I didn't say that abiogenesis is apart of evolution, I said that evolutionist believe in that. Now back on the subject, do you believe that we came from rocks?

I believe we share common ancestors with apes, monkeys, and other primates. Now, I don't believe we share an evolutionary heritage with rocks, for we are living, and rocks are non-living. But, I would like to ask you, can you present to me a scientific hypothesis which deals with the origin of life that is counter to abiogenesis?
So after all that fluff and feathers you do believe that we came from a rock which is spontaneous generation no matter how you look at it. As to your question yes, I believe that design demands a designer. The golden meme ratio in nature and the DNA code are just two ways to show design in nature. Why do you believe that George Washington on Mount Rushmore was created but the real George Washington who have trillions of cells that are more complicated that the space shuttle evolved by chance?

Evolution doesn't work by chance. It works by natural selection. Also, I explicitly said that human beings and rocks don't share a common ancestor. Let me ask you a question: one could empirically disprove evolution (for example, finding a human fossil in the rock layers that contain Cambrian fossils), but how can one disprove intelligent design? Also, another question I would like to ask is, what would convince you that evolution is correct? To convince me that evolution is wrong, one would have to present to me a fossil which is in the wrong place, and to convince me of intelligent design, one would have to show me the designer.
Natural selection selects, it doesn't create anything new its like product control it make sure it works. If we didnt evolved from rocks then what did we evolved from? You can't prove fossils have any different kids. Plus how do you know how old the rock is?
Scripture, facts, stats, and logic is how I argue

Evolutionism is a religion, not science

When seconds count, the police are just minutes away.

"If guns are the cause of crimes then aren't matches the cause of arson?" D. Boys

"If the death penalty is government sanctioned killing then isn't inprisonment is government sanction kidnapping?" D. B

"Why do you trust the government with machine guns but not honest citizens?" D. B

All those who are pro-death (abortion) is already born
Maccabee
Posts: 1,234
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/24/2015 2:28:22 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/23/2015 9:27:29 PM, DanMGTOW wrote:
At 11/23/2015 4:53:00 PM, Maccabee wrote:
At 11/23/2015 12:10:29 AM, DanMGTOW wrote:
At 11/22/2015 4:35:13 AM, Maccabee wrote:
Get down to the nitty gritty and evolutionist believe we came from a rock. Also no matter how you look at it they believe in spontaneous generation (rags turn to rats).

that is a logical fallacy known as a strawman
can you show anything that has gone through peer review that says any life form came from a rock?
i realize that you you probably don't know very much about science since you think evolution and abiogenesis are the same.
i suggest you talk to a scientist who specializes in evolution or abiogenesis and maybe they might be able to explain the differences much better than i can.
Fine abiogenesis now lets stick with the subject. Do you believe that we came from a rock?

of course not, that is ridiculous
do you believe we came from clay, sand, or dust?
I believe God created man from dust but that's different, God is supernatural and I don't claim that what he did was science. If we didnt came from rocks then what did we came from?
Scripture, facts, stats, and logic is how I argue

Evolutionism is a religion, not science

When seconds count, the police are just minutes away.

"If guns are the cause of crimes then aren't matches the cause of arson?" D. Boys

"If the death penalty is government sanctioned killing then isn't inprisonment is government sanction kidnapping?" D. B

"Why do you trust the government with machine guns but not honest citizens?" D. B

All those who are pro-death (abortion) is already born
DanMGTOW
Posts: 1,144
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/24/2015 2:33:33 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/24/2015 2:28:22 AM, Maccabee wrote:
At 11/23/2015 9:27:29 PM, DanMGTOW wrote:
At 11/23/2015 4:53:00 PM, Maccabee wrote:
At 11/23/2015 12:10:29 AM, DanMGTOW wrote:
At 11/22/2015 4:35:13 AM, Maccabee wrote:
Get down to the nitty gritty and evolutionist believe we came from a rock. Also no matter how you look at it they believe in spontaneous generation (rags turn to rats).

that is a logical fallacy known as a strawman
can you show anything that has gone through peer review that says any life form came from a rock?
i realize that you you probably don't know very much about science since you think evolution and abiogenesis are the same.
i suggest you talk to a scientist who specializes in evolution or abiogenesis and maybe they might be able to explain the differences much better than i can.
Fine abiogenesis now lets stick with the subject. Do you believe that we came from a rock?

of course not, that is ridiculous
do you believe we came from clay, sand, or dust?
I believe God created man from dust but that's different, God is supernatural and I don't claim that what he did was science. If we didnt came from rocks then what did we came from?

congrats, then you believe in abiogenesis.
i don't know where we came from, and it doesn't make much difference to me either way. until your god can prove that it actually exists, then for all i know your god could have expired when it created life.
Mhykiel
Posts: 5,987
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/24/2015 2:34:01 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/22/2015 8:49:17 AM, kp98 wrote:
Objection 03: "The genetic code in a GRC constructor could have arisen from a shorter alphabet, this one from a shorter one and so on, by incremental steps".

Answer 03: This process in no way could reduce the overall prescriptive information in the code. As Don Johnson says

"we have examined both the functional (especially prescriptive) information and the Shannon complexity of life, with Shannon information placing limits on information transfer, including the channel capacity limit that requires an initial alphabet of life to be at least as complex as the current DNA codon alphabet" [9].


It is a pity the OP could not provide his own defence rather than providing one from a rather well known advocate of ID.

But I think that point is quite critical. Essentially, it states the minimum requirement for life is something as least as complex as the 'current DNA codon alphabet', suggesting abiogenesis means something resembling the modern cell (with all its genetic mecanisms) has to appear from nowhere. On my reading, the rest of the paper is padding around that point - and what a lot padding there is!

I don't think any serious 'abiogenesist' would disagree that a fully functional modern cell cannot appear spontaneously out of a 'chemical soup'. The OP has spent a great deal of time attacking a strawman.

What needs to addressed is not the impossility of producing a complex moden cell with all its complicated DNA and ribosomes operating as a marvelously intricate machine - but how hard it is to produce a molecule with the minimum requriement for it to be considered life, or the immediate precursor of life, replication.

Naturally the Paper mentions Urey and Miller, but there is actually work on the problems of abiogenisis dating from after 1952! Although it has not been an popular or well funded area of research, we know that chemical systems less complex than a cell can replicate.

Of course a replicating molecule is not 'alive' (as least some would say it's not), but the key to abiogensis is that non-life to life does not have to be a single giant stride but in a lot of kiddie steps. The first kiddie step is to get a simple replicating molecule that is not quite alive, but not quite dead either. The second kiddie step is to get that molecule up to the level of 'undeniably alive'. It's like crossing a 20 foot wide river without getting you feet wet - it's just not possible in a single stride, but that doesn't matter if there are stepping stones.

It's impossible for a chain of RNA long enough to encode information of the strand itself is impossible to occur naturally.

The environment in which the The back bone can be created in is destructive or in-conducive to the proteins and vice versa. There is only one environment in which RNA of such length are ever made and that is in a living system added my molecular machines.

Life is the result of life or manufacturing.
Pase66
Posts: 775
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/24/2015 2:42:23 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/24/2015 2:24:12 AM, Maccabee wrote:
At 11/23/2015 7:40:07 PM, Pase66 wrote:
At 11/23/2015 7:34:25 PM, Maccabee wrote:
At 11/23/2015 7:01:05 PM, Pase66 wrote:
At 11/23/2015 6:56:37 PM, Maccabee wrote:
At 11/23/2015 6:46:42 PM, Pase66 wrote:
At 11/22/2015 4:35:13 AM, Maccabee wrote:
Get down to the nitty gritty and evolutionist believe we came from a rock. Also no matter how you look at it they believe in spontaneous generation (rags turn to rats).

You do realize that evolution deals with how species came about, and not how life came about, right? Darwin's book was called 'On the Origin of Species', and not 'On the Origin of Life'.

Like I said before, my difinition is not concrete. Do evolutionist believe in abiogenesis? And actually I didn't say that abiogenesis is apart of evolution, I said that evolutionist believe in that. Now back on the subject, do you believe that we came from rocks?

I believe we share common ancestors with apes, monkeys, and other primates. Now, I don't believe we share an evolutionary heritage with rocks, for we are living, and rocks are non-living. But, I would like to ask you, can you present to me a scientific hypothesis which deals with the origin of life that is counter to abiogenesis?
So after all that fluff and feathers you do believe that we came from a rock which is spontaneous generation no matter how you look at it. As to your question yes, I believe that design demands a designer. The golden meme ratio in nature and the DNA code are just two ways to show design in nature. Why do you believe that George Washington on Mount Rushmore was created but the real George Washington who have trillions of cells that are more complicated that the space shuttle evolved by chance?

Evolution doesn't work by chance. It works by natural selection. Also, I explicitly said that human beings and rocks don't share a common ancestor. Let me ask you a question: one could empirically disprove evolution (for example, finding a human fossil in the rock layers that contain Cambrian fossils), but how can one disprove intelligent design? Also, another question I would like to ask is, what would convince you that evolution is correct? To convince me that evolution is wrong, one would have to present to me a fossil which is in the wrong place, and to convince me of intelligent design, one would have to show me the designer.

Natural selection selects, it doesn't create anything new its like product control it make sure it works. If we didnt evolved from rocks then what did we evolved from? You can't prove fossils have any different kids. Plus how do you know how old the rock is?

Natural selection doesn't create anything new. It just selects desirable traits and passes it on, and takes out undesirable traits from the gene pool. Humans evolved from a common ancestor we share with other primates, most likely some bipedal primate. If you're looking for how life ITSELF came about, well, scientists are still working on that. But again, evolution doesn't answer how life itself came about. Evolution answers how the diversity we see in life came about. It answers how different species came about. Also, in your question of "how old the rock is?", first off, you do realize that I'm saying that we're not descended from rocks, right? Also, if you're trying to go on a tangent of how the earth is really 6000-10000 years old, and how carbon dating has proved ineffective, we have many more accurate dating tools, and for the age of the universe, we can tell it's old, because the light from stars billions of light-years away can reach us.
Check out these Current Debates
It Cannot be Shown that The Qur'an is Revelation from God
http://www.debate.org...