Ok.



No way! not unless you can demonstrate ID is the cause! What you would have done is prove abiogenesis or NDT is false, (something all scientific theories must adhere to). You still have to make a scientific case for ID.





It is not one of preference, it is one of evidence! I want you to be very clear on this point, it is not some ‘life style choice’, or ‘denying God type of excuse’, it is following the scientific trail of evidence 100%. No choices, no faith, no beliefs, no preferences, etc.





Agreed, That is where the evidence is leading, to an abiogenesis explanation. As far as excluding ID, that exclusion is not one of a wave of the hand dismissal, it is not considered because no one has provided evidence to begin a scientific explanation.


(my paragraphing)

Re.a It could well be impossible, but you wont know until you try will you?

Re.b The proof comes after the experimentation, not before it.

Re.c But there is evidence, this is why science is actively pursuing the matter.


(my paragraphing)

Re.a How is it evidence of a creator? This is just a statement without scientific investigation. Show me the science behind that statement, and you might be on your way to convincing me, else I’m inclined to think you have the same argument you have had all along, i.e. If not abiogenesis, then creation. Your 100% reliant on having your POV the default position.

Re.b How is that evidence for a supreme being? Show me the science that ‘proves’ this point.

Re.c How is complexity evidence for ID?

Explain the above without resorting to “If not X then Y”. this is what the scientific community demands, ID does not get a free pass.

Re.d Absolutely not, ID has no positive explanations. The only way you can convince me otherwise is to provide a theory/explanation that can stand on it’s own merits. No free pass for ID.

Re.e Agreed, what do you think I should do about that? Propose a science experiment for me please!

(my paragraphing)

re.a I feel all of points mentioned in ‘a’ have been addressed previously.

Re.b emotional commitment? My ideas could change with the evidence.

Re.c So where to from there, seems to me you are proposing neither side has enough evidence to make a call?


OK my turn. If you were given a monitory grant from the Discovery Institute to ‘prove’ the existence of ID, via a demonstration [of positive evidence]. On what experiment 9line of research) would you spend your money on? In the charter is a clause specifically stating that they don’t want more of the same evidence that disproves evolution (they feel they have enough of this already).

$$$, where does it go?

From you position water could not be considered as evidence for creation I would think. From my position water is a necessary component of life and the environment. For abiogenesis the argument is that you need a medium where chemicals can mix and interact.




Can you provide a link for that please.




Why would you expect that? do you think the world was represented in a petrii dish? Come on lets be a bit realistic.




Please explain why you believe this?




And you know this how?




What time frame would you propose?





How will you know what conditions to use?

What do you mean by natural conditions? What are those?

It demonstrate that what could be literally interpreted as unfounded speculation is actually based on assumptions that the ‘universe’ is consistant. I.e. unless otherwise shown/observed, a universal universe is taken for read.




Well I have to live with what is considered as evidence, the fact that you don’t accept such things does not make it ‘not evidence’. But lest be clear about this, you do acknowledge that I have posted my evidence don’t you? and that what you are actually stating is that you don’t think my evidence is good enough, have I got that right?




Because the DIRECT evidence so far is limited to planets whose masses are Jupiter sized or bigger (one or two smaller exceptions are now on the books), but the principle and knowledge strongly implies that there is no restriction on size, so even though we cant find any yet, there is good scientific evidence to say that we will.




Re.1 matter into energy, yes. Have we don the reverse? I’m a bit out of date on this.
Re.2 some scientist claim it is impossible to know what existed before the big bang as it impossible for evidence to survive. But what is your evidence that energy existed.
Re.3 Why could our big bang not have been triggered by some event that did have a beginning? How do you arrive at your conclusion?
Re.4 Agreed, life arose after the big bang.
Re.5 This would be dependant upon you proving Life contains a code (as with ‘meaning’, and not data), if you can do this I will be most impressed. Tell you what, there is a section in the forum (formal debate) for a one on one debate, do you want to go head to head on this, so we are not interrupted with multiple questions from all directions?
Re.6 house of cards I’m afraid, you have built a ‘theory’ upon presumption.

Of course there’s a problem, why cant “the only one left” be wrong also?
If you do not try to find out you will never know. It show that you are unable or unwilling to test your idea, you want to ‘win’ by default!
Look, just suppose that we are both actually wrong on this, who’s method will ultimately find a correct answer, the side that keeps looking or the side that has decided that they are right?




They are your words deadlock, they match exactly what I have been saying your method boils down to all along.
Reasoning does provide a more correct version, one that allows 3 or more choices, and it is the one that sciences has been using for centuries, it is: If not X, then, ?

The way that would translate to our questions would be:

If not, abiogenesis, then, ?
If not, ID, then, ?
If not, creation, then, ?

It is the only possible way science can work. No free pass.




Unless something new comes up, yes, science has reached an impasse, theories get put ‘on hold’, forgotten about, there has to be something to “get your teeth into”.




Unknown.




How can you? by example solve the following: X = A + B + C, where A = 2, and B and Care unknown. An algebraic answer is not acceptable if your going to claim X is an impossibility (assume X equalling 1 billion or grater equals abiogenesis).




I thought that was your claim, perhaps it is you that ought to show me However I was only using it to show how the logic flowed, re a claim of ‘never’.




Good we are in agreement then, I think, i.e. that mitosis in its current form is a natural process, making DNA from chemicals in it’s immediate environment. And that DNA, evolved or was created, by some method.

We already know that monomers form polymers. We know that these can become enveloped inside lipid vesicles and hence "protected". We know that these vesicles can absorb more "building blocks". We know that we can get self-replicating peptides or hexanucleotides. Once we have one of those inside a vesicle we have a starting point from which long-chain molecules of more-or-less infinite capacity can be created.

Chance:

Your contention that “If not X then Y” cannot be used in a debate over two competing scientific theories is generally true, assuming that a “Z” possibility might exist. However, if there are only two possibilties, then disproving one does prove the other. In the case of ID… it is either existent or non-existent. You say that it is non-existent. If I can prove that life could not have possibly evolved without ID, then I’ve proven ID exists.

You keep accusing me of believing in ID because I don’t believe in evolution, i.e., you think my evidence is solely by default. Yet I’ve pointed out evidence for ID, and you flatly reject it, saying there’s no science behind it. I maintain that complexity is positive evidence of ID, as is beauty and purpose in nature. You think that I’ve given default evidence because I don’t believe it could have evolved. If a perfect pyramid were discovered on Mars, the conclusion would be quickly drawn that it was produced by intelligence. Why? Because natural processes don’t produce that kind of perfection. Our own experience has taught us that. Symmetry, beauty, and purpose require intelligent input. In this example of the pyramid on Mars, there would be no need to provide a mechanism as to how the pyramid got there. The evidence speaks for itself. It could not have just come about by chance. If all four corners were exactly the same distance from the peak, you would conclude that some external source of intelligence had to be involved because laws of probability would prohibit such a thing from occurring by chance. Is that a “default position”? No. That is positive evidence of creative design. Even if I couldn’t produce a trace of any other evidence of life on Mars, the evidence would stand on its own.

My point is, your assertion that there is no positive evidence of ID is ridiculous. You argue that all my evidence is merely a reflection of my incredulity of evolution. You demand that I provide some sort of experimental evidence to prove ID. Your denial of the evidence I've presented is no less irrational that trying to deny that a pyramid on Mars would serve as evidence of an intelligent creator.

The reality is, it is the evolutionists, not the creationists, that seize the default position. You believe in abiogenesis not because there is any evidence to support it, but because you don’t believe in God and will refuse to believe in him unless he reveals himself in some predetermined way that you decide qualifies as “science.”

Abiogenesis remains impossible by all known laws of science. If you can demonstrate a law of science that will allow the spontaneous formation of life, please do so. If you cannot and yet still refuse to believe in intelligent design, you are only demonstrating your insistence on believing what you want to believe, not objective evaluation of the facts. You continue to demand positive proof of ID, yet you cling to evolution without any positive proof. Why don't you demand proof that abiogenesis is even possible? There is only one reason... because you reject God.

What sort of proof are you looking for to convince you that there is a God?

You haven't described how DNA can self organize... you've described how polymers could form chains or repeating subunits, which has nothing to do with a genetic code. Your suggestion that entraped polymers within a vescicle could serve as a starting point to life is pure fantasy. Where do you get the idea that long-chain molecules of "more or less infinite capacity" could or would be formed?

You speak as if the molecules intended to become a genetic code. I just see DNA as a long chain molecule.



Because long chain molecules exist. To put it simply: because there's nothing in chemistry to prevent it. What particular aspect of chemistry do you think would prevent it?

What´s the difference between your phrase above and "savhdsvdjavd sabsakbaka alfnlacnlancal dsvmnsdvmsç" ? Are both two simple long chains of letters ?



Temperature, pressure , the presence of water, source of energy, concentration and etc...

You may see it that way, but that is not what it is. It is a complex purposeful genetic code. It doesn't matter whether or not you see "intention" in it or not... the sequences undeniable demonstrate purpose, and that simply cannot come about by chance.


Laws of probability prohibit it. What aspect of chemistry allows for purposeful sequential binding of nucleotides without a pre-existing template?

They only have meaning by human convention.



All of which are conditions that can make OR break long chain molecules.



And *you* may see it *that* way but the sequences don't demonstrate any intention to purpose anymore than the Haber process intends to make ammonia. I ask again, what evidence is there that DNA came about on purpose?




Again, *which* laws of probability?

Ribose forms readily from formaldehyde, then we need a catalyst for it to form deoxyribose etc. I'm still baffled as to why you should think that small-step construction couldn't work.

They are non-random... and nature is random. Randomness and order are not human conventions. They define the second law of thermodynamics.



You are arguing the unarguable. You're saying a genetic code came about by random chance. That is no more possible than flipping a coin 100,000 times and getting heads every time. It simply cannot be done.


Nature is random. You cannot get purposeful sequences without intention, unless you can point to some law of chemistry that allows such a thing to occur. What abiogenesis boils down to is a refutation of laws of probability. You think that because you can flip a coin and get heads once, you can get heads 100,000 times in a row. You put on your blinders and see DNA as without purpose, when it undeniably shows purpose.
This is not a matter of opinion or convention. It is non-random, and you have yet to explain how randomness can produce something that is organized.



What does ribose forming formaldehyde have to do with hundreds of thousands of bits of organized information? Do you think you've made point by dodging the question? You're only demonstrating that you'd prefer to wallow in ignorance rather than face the truth.

First you are making the “IF” assumption, without testing you cant tell, IF there are only two possibilities. By not allowing for the possibility that there may be more than two choices, your setting yourself up for a fall.

Second, you say that ID is existent or non existent, which is a true statement, and to prove either of those statements, you must do some science (apples and apples and all that). BUT do not bring in an orange. Prove the existence of ID or try to disprove the existence of ID, ether approach (if able to be done scientifically), will tell you something.

So why is it wrong to mix two questions? Because disproving one, does not automatically prove the other, what it does do is give you an line of investigation to follow (i.e. the ‘second’ point).

Does disproving 1+1 = 3 prove 1+1 = 4 by default (If not 2 then 4)?, if you restrict yourself to only two possible outcomes, you will never known the answer, you only think you will know the answer.

Third, have you ever seen a scientific proof, that concludes that, it disproved theory X, therefore theory Y is correct. I mean, have you? There are real and valid reasons why this approach is not taken – because we cant be certain that there are only two possibilities, we could be hugely mistaken about everything, no free pass.


(my paragraphing)

Re.a Yes I think your explanation is reliant upon If not, X, Then, Y.

Re.b Show me the science then.

Re.c Complexity is a state, not self evident proof. Is non-complex by default un-created? The real question is not one of, yes there is complexity (we all agree it exists), but one of competing theories that explain how complexity arises, you have ID, and microevolution, I have Abiogenesis, micro and macro evolution. Beauty like complexity is again a state (a subjective one at that), it is not in itself some self evident proof.

Re.d We can make those conclusion because we have good knowledge of design (and the designer), and nature. A person who was never educated (or someone from the very distant past) may not come to the same conclusion, proving how subjective judgement is not a scientific method. Sure you can make judgements calls, and make reasoned assumptions, but it is important to realise that that is the starting point, not the end.




(my bold)

And why not? many a YEC has claimed “no experimental evidence exists” for evolution! So if I can take the trouble to find (positive evidence) it on the net, post it, and debate it, I don’t see why you should not do the same for your case. That’s reasonable isn’t it? Currently in the ID debates it’s all been one way, me defending abiogeneses and evolution providing my evidence and you picking it apart or rejecting it. By contrast your best is to claim a default position or claim an observation about complexity or beauty is self evident of design! What I need is the science that supports the “complexity is caused by ID”, or “beauty is a product of ID” claims. A claim is not the proof!






There you go projecting what I and atheists think again, lets just stick to what can be reasonably discussed regarding the evidence that support our positions. If you want to discuss this aspect I opened a topic in the miscellaneous “will discussing evolution result in atheism”.





This is interesting,


quite amazing that you can “see the fault in my reasoning”, yet not your own! Same sentence re worded.



Do you see? Making claims about what people want to believe, does not settle the matter, only discussing the evidence will (for matters that can be solved with science).
So what are the evaluation of the facts that support ID, because so far they have only been <repeated> By contrast your best is to claim a default position or claim an observation about complexity or beauty is self evident of design! What I need is the science that supports the “complexity is caused by ID”, or “beauty is a product of ID” claims. A claim is not the proof, it is the beginning of the journey, not the end!


(my paragraphing)

Re.a I think that only fair, if we are to do it scientifically, and not rely on what one would like to believe.

Re.b now that is just a ridiculous thing to say. You know what us evolutionists claim as the evidence, to say we have non is not accurate. You dispute the evidence, not reject that it does not exist, ok? Can we please get past this semantic argument at least?

Re.c Abiogenesis is a line of investigation following positive evidences indicating that abiogenesis should be possible. There is no theory describing the mechanism.

Re.d The evidence takes me where it leads. Re- rejection of God, if you are implying that “deep down I know God exists, and for reasons only known to myself, I’ve got some grievance that I express as rebellion” is way off mark. That would be like rejecting the tooth-fairy, because I have a toothache. A patently ridiculous argument. I can’t not believe in something I don’t believe exists can I?

Re.e A bit off topic, but a good old fashioned miracle would go a long way to convincing me. Something like, the feeding of the 5000, the parting of the red sea, walking on water, turning water into wine, healing the sick, or raising the dead sort of stuff. If you want to continue with this line of questioning I respectfully ask that you start a new topic.

What part of Nature is random?! Living things most surely aren't. Chemistry isn't. The observable laws of physics aren't. What IS?!



It's nothing like flipping a coin 100,000 times. It's more like flipping lots of coins and filtering out the ones that come up heads, then flipping again etc.




Do all chemical reactions have purpose? If not, why not?



Are we to take it that you aren't actually familiar with the "laws of probability"? Because you have dodged the question again.



How about "all of chemistry" (as per the 2nd LOT which you've already mentioned) given an energy source?



It has to do with the fact that nobody thinks DNA came into being fully-formed but that all the bits of it can clearly be formed in the natural environment without outside influences coaxing them - in the same way that all chemical reactions occur. What is it about this one that you think makes it impossible?

It is random because no aminoacid has more probability to connect to a chain than any other then the order aminoacids connect to each other to form a chain is random.



No it´s not that way because the probability is not conditional.



Yes if they are guided by an intelligent being.

Yes, and only few combinations of aminoacids have meaning by life convention.



That´s why abiogenesis is impossible

Even if that were true (which you've given no evidence for), so what? Do you assume that there's only one molecule that can form life? Why?



Pardon me?



What makes you think chemical reactions are guided by an intelligent being?



Really? How many? Ball park figure.



Really? So how do long chain molecules exist at all? Why don't you break down into your constituents every time you step out into the sunlight or take a dip in the water?

You suppose that if you personally witnessed a miracle such as walking on water you would believe in God. How would that be proof? Would that not be a default position? Would you reason, “I have no scientific explanation how someone could walk on water, therefore it must be God…” or, “There are no laws of physics that allow a man to part the Red Sea, so he must have the power of God as he claims to have…” You're still left without a mechanism as to how it occurred, and you are still in the dark as to the nature of the supreme being. Again, this evidence would, according to your line of reasoning, be invalid because there would be no “science” behind it… It would be a default position. Essentially, you would reason that science can’t explain it, so it must be God. Yet you have admitted to me that this would convince you. You flatly deny that the lack to ability of “science” to explain something provides evidence of God, yet you state that you would believe in God if you witnessed something that science could not explain…such as healing the sick. In other words, you prefer to “pick and chose” what miracles will convince you. The existence of life is a miracle… you cannot show me any science that can demonstrate how single cell life evolved from inorganic matter… Yet you deny that this is evidence of a God. However, if some other miracle were to occur, you would be convinced. If you were to see someone walk on water, how could you be certain that your eyes weren’t deceiving you, or that the person wasn’t a master of illusion and there wasn't some unknown scientific explanation that made it possible? In short, how would you know it was "God" and not some other force yet to be discovered? You're constantly imagining forces and conditions in the ancient past that created life.

There is no science behind any theories of abiogenesis. Science is invoked to justify a predrawn conclusion of gradualism. It is imagined that matter can self-organize from simple to complex, involving gradual pre-biotic stages. None of this is experimentally proven or is even conceptually possible. Can you give me an example of a pre-biotic form that would be viable, could reproduce, and could have evolved either spontaneously or from something even simpler? Can you give me a clue as to how complex the DNA would have to be? Can you provide any insight into how the simplest functional DNA could spontaneously come together? These are basic critical questions that remain completely unanswered.
In the case of a “miracle”… you might not be able to explain the precise mechanism as to how water could be turned into wine, but somehow it was done and so “science will someday find a way.” That is your mindset. You have arbitrarily excluded God. You could not assume that it was God because it would be “untestable” and you couldn’t provide a mechanism as to how it was done.

A miracle might be defined as "a reality that apparently supercedes laws of science." You don't believe water can be turned into wine because you've never seen it happen and you can't imagine any laws of physics or chemistry that would permit such to happen. Thus, you conclude it is impossible. If you saw it occur, you would concede that God exists. I see no difference in this miracle and the miracle of life. I cannot imagine any laws of physics or chemistry that allow life to self-organize, and I've never seen it happen... so why should I conclude that it happened without divine intervention any more than you would conclude that it required divine intervention to turn water into wine?

You can't appeal to natural selection as a "filtering device" because pre-biotic molecules are non-reproducing. To get the first DNA capable of self preservation and reproduction, you're going to need to get 100,000 heads without filtering.





All you can do is imagine outside influences coaxing the formation of DNA. This is why this forum is so aptly named "evolution fairytale". You can't point to any science that allows for DNA to form... you can only imagine that somewhere, somehow it will all be worked out. This is the entire crux of evolutionary theory... man's imagination.



You haven't been able to demonstrate that it is remotely possible to form DNA by random events. No you're asking me to show why it's impossible. I've stated that DNA is too organized and too purposeful to have come about by chance. All you can say is that chemistry is "non-random" (a meaningless point) and that must mean that anything is possible, including fortuitious formation of a highly complex genetic code. What you're saying is anything but science... it amounts to nothing less than wishful thinking.

That´s true for any one who knows something about chemistry. And who said that only one can form life ?



Pardon me what ?



It Depends on what you want. For example, to get gas from petroleum do you think it´s natural or guided by an intelligent being ?



You only have to count what exists in nature.




Because they are protected into cells.

The lack of water is evidence against abiogenesis but the presence of water is not evidence for.It would only be evidence for if you proved me that if life was created it would not use water.But as you can´t prove that then the presence of water is not evidence for and neither against abiogenesis.


http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v.../atmosphere.asp



Of course , if I want to classify the experience as a proof instead of a hope.



Because all living beings use left-handed.



Because it happened during Miller´s experience and he had to build a trap for it to work it out.



a century is enough



The conditions we can find in nature.

What´s the answer to 1+1 ? a real number.How many do real numbers exist ? infinite.So, we conclude that we have infinite possible answers to 1+1.Therefore you cannot make an analogy between a question with infinite possible answers and one with only two possible answers

No, they aren't. That's why I keep bringing up self-replicating molecules. They *do* reproduce and they are vulnerable to selective pressure.



Why would you need to? DNA is made up of discrete units, all of which can form naturally. What outside influences coax the formation of ribose?



I haven't tried. Chemical reactions aren't random events in my view.



Meaningless?! Talk about moving the goalposts! And I certainly didn't say *anything* is possible. In fact that's the opposite of my point. I've said that the things that *are* possible are pretty much certainties (i.e. there's no danger that the Haber Process will turn out a batch of Chanel No.5 one of these days).

Formation of a genetic code is only fortuitous if that's the aim from the outset. The analogy is that if I shuffle a deck of cards, what are the odds of ending up with the specific order I end up with?

That any amino acid has an equal chance of joining a chain? The world is rarely that simple my friend. There could be any number of issues with bond interactions or molecular shape. I prefer evidence to guesswork.



If there are lots of molecules that can carry genes, then it's not so surprising that life exists.



Please don't be obtuse. I was asking you to elaborate.



You know what I think. What do YOU think?



What exists may not be all of the possibilities. Why would it be?



So all we need is a semi-permeable membrane then?

Ordered and random are not subjective terms, but are used to define the second law of thermodynamics. DNA gene sequences are not random… they are ordered and purposeful. These are not human perceptions… these are undeniable facts. No amount of liberal, relativistic thinking is going to change that. You seem to think that order is in the eye of the beholder. Your analogy to a deck of cards is false because there is a 100% probability that you will get a sequence. What you’re not going to get is some sort of ordered sequence.

According to your line of reasoning, no amount of order would convince you of a God, because you would argue that there was no purposeful direction at the outset, so one outcome would be just as likely as the other.

Good grief, NO! The 2LOT refers to 'entropy', not disorder. They very much ARE subjective terms as far as the 2LOT is concerned. Entropy and disoredr are NOT the same thing. Besides which (and with a weary sense of resignation) what has the 2LOT got to do with this?



Not even sure what you mean by this. They are ordered because one produces another nearly identical but they are random inasmuch as different creatures have different ones. They are only purposeful inasmuch as a methane molecule is purposeful.



Of course you will if you take small steps because taking the wrong step will negate the next one.



Worse than that. I see no reason why this kind of order speaks of God at all. Why should 'God' be the answer?

But I'll add a proviso to that. My profile says 'agnostic' and I am. Organic life doesn't speak to me of God but the quantum world might well do. The kind of order that exists there is much more puzzling to my mind.

In a discussion of abiogenesis, you have to rely on some highly unlikely fortuitous event to get the first DNA started. Your suggestion of "small steps" leading up to DNA is not based on any science. You presume that one gene sequence would be favored over another. You can argue that point once life has started, but we're talking about the genesis of life from random molecules. So the fundamental question remains unanswered... How do you get order from chaos? How do you get purposeful gene arrangements, i.e., genetic code, from random molecular interactions? There is no principle of chemistry or physics that suggests that this is possible. Your argument that chemistry is "non-random" dodges the question. There is no law of chemistry that favors one nucleotide sequence over another without a pre-existing DNA template.

We don't start with DNA though do we? We start with simpler molecules. We probably get RNA before DNA anyway.



A gene sequence that uses materials more efficiently could multiply more quickly. That's just one example.



Where does chaos exist?



How do you get ethanol from random molecular interactions? How do you get ribose? How do you get peptides?



Covalent and ionic bonding, autocatalysis, ordinary polymerisation, chemo-autotrophic surface theory...in fact there's nothing in chemistry or physics to suggest it couldn't happen.



Why do you need to favour one nucleotide sequence over another?

"... probably get RNA..."? No known mechanism.





God bless,
Al

Fine. The spontaneous formation of RNA is equally impossible.



We're talking about the first RNA. It can't replicate.




What does that have to do with RNA?


None of the above properties suggest that RNA could self-organize.



Life is complex. RNA is not a haphazard conglomeration of base pairs. It is a genetic code. If you can show me some science that suggests it can form on its own, please do so. So far all you've offered is a smokescreen.

Do you want some chemistry knowledge ? So let´s go.

Chemical Stability
Chemical stability is a question of whether the components can even react at all. By definition, all components in a hypothetical primordial soup would be stable, because if they were not, they would have already reacted. Amino acids are relatively stable in water and do not react to form proteins in water, and nucleotides do not react to form DNA. In order to make amino acids and nucleotides react to form a polymer, they must be chemically activated to react with other chemicals. But this chemical activation must be done in the absence of water because the activated compounds will react with water and break down. How could proteins and DNA be formed in a hypothetical primordial watery soup if the activated compounds required to form them cannot exist in water? This is the problem of Chemical Stability.

Chemical Reactivity
Chemical reactivity deals with how fast the components react in a given reaction. If life began in a primordial soup by natural chemical reactions, then the laws of chemistry should be able to predict the sequence of these chains. But when amino acids react chemically, they react according to their reactivity, and not in some specified order necessary for life. As the protein or DNA chain is increasing in size through chemical reaction, we should see the most reactive amino acid adding to the chain first, followed by the next most reactive amino acid, and so on.

Let's assume that we begin with the sequence R-T-X, and will add two amino acids "B" and "A" to it. If amino acid "B" is the most reactive amino acid, the sequence would be R-T-X-B-A. However, if "A" is the most reactive amino acid, then the sequence would be R-T-X-A-B. In a random chemical reaction, the sequence of amino acids would be determined by the relative reactivity of the different amino acids. The polymer chain found in natural proteins and DNA has a very precise sequence that does not correlate with the individual components' reaction rates. Since all of the amino acids have relatively similar structures, they all have similar reaction rates; they will all react at about the same rate making the precise sequence by random chemical reactions unthinkably unlikely. This is the problem of Chemical Reactivity

Chemical Selectivity
Chemical selectivity is a problem of where the components react. Since the chain has two ends, the amino acids can add to either end of the chain. Even if by some magical process, a single amino acid "B" would react first as desired for the pre-determined life supporting sequence followed by a single amino acid "A," the product would be a mixture of at least four isomers because there are two ends to the chain. If there is an equal chance of amino acid "B" reacting in two different locations, then half will react at one end, half at the other end. The result of adding "B" will form two different products. When the addition of amino acid "A" occurs, it will react at both ends of the chain of both the products already present. As in the previous example, the major products would be R-T-X-B-A and A-R-T-X-B as well as A-B-R-T-X and B-R-T-X-A and others. The result is a mixture of several isomers of which the desired sequence seldom results, and this is the problem with only two amino acids reacting. As the third amino acid is added, it can react at both ends of four products, and so on, insuring randomness, not a precise sequence.

Since proteins may contain hundreds or thousands of amino acids in a sequence, imagine the huge number of undesired isomers that would be present if these large proteins were formed in a random process. Evolutionists might argue that all proteins were formed in this manner, and nature simply selected the ones that worked. However, this is only an ad hoc assumption and it ignores the fact that we do not have billions of "extra" proteins in our body. Furthermore, nature is not intelligent. There is nothing in nature to do the selecting all-the-while splicing together non-functioning (therefore non-selectable) amino acids toward a working whole. Evolutionists say that nature is blind, has no goal, and no purpose, and yet precise selection at each step is necessary. This is the problem of Chemical Selectivity.




First, Of course, if no molecules could carry genes then life would not exist even created.Second, the fact is, the numbers of no-functional molecules are billion times bigger than functional ones.And at last, we are not discussing if life is possible but if it could begin spontaneously.



Don´t you know what conditional probability is?



If I knew what do you think I had not asked you.



Because they do not exist.



To protect them yes, and I would like to know your theory about the formation of this membrane.But if you protect a pepitide into a membrane how can it react with others ?

That's a big "IF", and there is no scientific reason to believe its possible.

OTH, there is at least one reason to beleive its not possible, e.g. Chirality.

Terry

Well you asked, that was my answer, it’s the best I could think of, certainly there are problems with all you have said, but IMO such a thing would be a good starting point.





Yes, absolutely, pick and choose (you have nailed it), and have my video camera and half a dozen TV channels recording it also. The ‘miracle’ has to be so unambiguous that it leaves no possibility of fraud, or scientific explanation. Additionally, I would also require the person performing the miracle to be cooperative with additional requests of demonstrations and allow scientific testing.



I wouldn’t.




The method of turning water into wine, would require a science way beyond what even today would seem impossible, (transmutation on a fantastic scale). I would be struggling to think how science could even reasonable come up with a way it could be even feasible!



The first has no scientific explanation, the latter does. Even though you dispute it, science has posed an explanation/s for ‘life’ but as far as I am aware science has not posed an a explanation for turning water into wine.

A bit confusing this. However I would clarify that it was not submitted as ‘proof’ rather as part of the requirements.




This is going to take a bit of work to reply to, in the mean time can you summarise the points for your argument.



It’s not ‘proof’ its ‘evidence that supports’.




Why do you discount a selective advantage for left handed amino-acids? Or discount some problem, or that it was out evolved? Just because evolution took path ‘A’ instead of ‘B’ does not constitute a proof.




Yes, but understandably in the confines of a ‘test tube’ some measures need to be made to simulate distance from the strike.




It might be if every experiment ended in hitting a brick wall.




Can you list them please?

(my bold)

Your changing the question!

My question is : Does disproving 1+1 = 3 prove 1+1 = 4 by default (If not 2 then 4)? The question is not dependant upon numerology, that is just a convenience for the purpose of explaining a point. I could just have easily have stated “Does disproving plum + peach = apple prove, plum + peach = orange by default (If not 2 then 4)?”

The question stands and remains unanswered!

No , I didn´t change the question.You used a fallacy to prove your point. if 1+1 had only two possible answers then disproving 1+1=3 prove 1+1=4 by default.You are using the fact that 1+1 has infinite possible answers to ask disproving 1+1=3 prove 1+1=4 ? or 1+1=5 ? or 1+1=6 ? until infinitum, to compare with a situation that has only two possible answers.

Now I can use the same trick against you, disproving a bit is not 1 prove it´s 0 by default?

Confusing but you understood the point and changed your statement, now I agree.



veryyyyyyyyy weak one.



Please show me what is the selective advantage for left handed ?



distance from the strike ? if the amino-acid is in the atmosphere then it´s vunerable to lightnings and Uv.




Who proposed the theory has the obligation to show where in the nature that phenomenon occurs or occurred.

Deadlock you seem to have ignored the explanation I gave re the numbers are not important.

Analogy repeated (and fixed) - The question is not dependant upon numerology, that is just a convenience for the purpose of explaining a point.
I could just have easily have stated “Does disproving plum + peach = apple prove, plum + peach = orange by default (If not apple then orange)?”

There is no fallacy, nor trickery – I am only interested in the underlying principle.




This is a little different, the design (of the computer) limits electrical signals to either ON (1) or OFF (0). If there is some output the input can be deduced.
But even then we must be cautious from a purely logical position, because a ‘1’ or ‘0’ could be caused by a malfunction (short or open circuit). I have had practical exposure to that exact situation while repairing old computers. All seems well, the test computer is passing the equipment under test, the one’s and zero’s are doing their thing, and if one only accepts “If Not X, Then, Y, then the equipment under test is being certified as serviceable. BUT it was only when I began to doubt the test computer, and it’s own internal logic that I discovered a hardware fault giving me an alternate to “If Not X, Then, Y”. Basically “If not, X, Then, either Y, or Fault”.

So that aside I would ask you to answer the question in the sprit it is intended.

No problem, ill try to clarify when I have been misunderstood.




I can live with that.




The evidence is quite weak, I have read various articles on the matter but I cant remember where they were, in Talk Origins we have these chapter headings (full article follow the link): http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/abioprob/o...l#homochirality


I don’t pretend to understand them in any great detail.




There is a vast amount of environment available, it only takes one place on the earth where the conditions are favourable. I don’t think anyone is claiming abiogenesis could start in every place on the earth. Various ideas are, volcanic activity above or below the water, input from lightning, input from meteorites. The simulation is just that a simulation, I really do think you are taking this a little to far, i.e. finding fault with the experiment in its ability to replicate some environment.





Well it appears to me that you are stating that the “Miller-Urey” experiments did not represent the “conditions found in nature”, I’m only asking you to tell me what, and why you think they should have been (if not a reducing atmosphere), then we can see if the experiment had some relevance to abiogenesis.


You previously posted a link re reducing atmospheres, with various articles against the existence of them. In reply, abiogenesis is not reliant upon a ‘global’ existence of a reducing atmosphere, even if we postulate an oxygen rich atmosphere during an early earth, the conditions of a reducing atmosphere can still be found in the vicinity of vulcanism.

There seem to be a lot of points to address. There's one model which does a good job of covering all points. Essentially if you have a metal lattice surface, simple molecules such as carbon dioxide are reduced to anions such as acetate and pyruvate which then bind to it. What you get is a simple citric acid cycle which is autocatalytic. It is hypothesised that further autocatalytic cycles may occur on the metal surface and that these may act to catalyse and thus speed each other up. With the surface as a medium we have plenty of scope to allow for later formation of phospholipid membranes and other 'extras'. What this means is that one can eventually exchange the metal surface for an organic one with the mechanisms already in place.

Before anyone mentions the fact that this is speculative, yes, it is. Likely abiogenesis research always will be...but the burden was really only to suggest ways in which it *might* be possible to produce something complex. Unfortunately by definition we will be required to go into some head-achingly difficult chemistry to get anywhere near the necessary detail.

In other words, you would take the "default position" that God does exist after you totally exhausted scientific explanations, correct?



So, you're saying that if you witnessed Jesus performing miracles as recorded in the New Testament, you would not have believed unless he allowed a video camera and "scientific testing". You're certain that the earth is 4.5 billion years old and that life evolved from inorganic matter. Why aren't you demanding "scientific testing". I think you need to ponder the insanity of your position.



And I am struggling to think how science can come up with a reasonable way DNA can form on its own. So far there is nothing.



No, abiogenesis does not have a scientific explanation. It is nothing more than a pseudoscientic smokescreen. If you can present any data that qualifies as science, let's see it.

You've presented a speculative argument on the origin of the cell membrane. I have never seen an explanation as to how DNA or RNA could form on its own. You stated that the "burden" is to suggest a way that it might be possible. No one has. All that can be done is to change the subject and talk about self replicating peptides and protein/lipid membranes, pretending that this speculation is solving the mystery of life when in fact it's obvious that the real question is being dodged.

Speculative arguments were what were asked for. We've already accepted that we don't know the actual mechanism.

I *have* just given you a way that DNA can form, so it appears that you didn't understand the ramifications of it. Otherwise, I'm not quite sure what you're viewing DNA as *being*. It's really just a collection of repeating, simple "bits". I'm still not sure why you think that (particularly) RNA couldn't form as it can self-catalyse and I've just given you a method by which you can "scaffold" the whole process. The *actual* molecule's formation doesn't represent much of a problem for anything. What it actually produces is very impressive but...so what?

However, I get the impression that nothing short of producing DNA in a vat of lukewarm water is going to convince, so I'm not sure of the utility of continuing this...

It's a genetic code... not simple repeating "bits".

So you'd accept that the molecule could form but not that it could have the function it does?

I accept that random molecular parts could come together to form a larger molecule. What I'm denying is the possibility of a complex genetic code coming together by chance. That is no more possible than throwing random bits of information on a CD. Whatever you end up with on that CD will be random "snow" and will serve no function or purpose. However, you seem to think that order can result from chaos. That is simply impossible.
To this point, you haven't even demonstrated that non-functional DNA could come about by chance. Whatever "model" you propose has not been verified by experimentation. Did you say you were calling this "science"?

And I can't see why that should be the case. DNA comes in so many variations that it doesn't seem unlikely at all.



But you don't throw random bits, you throw bits that do stuff. There are plenty of places in the world where random stuff doesn't do much at all...and you don't take any notice of them because nothing is happening. And "nothing" can really only happen in one way, so we don't differentiate.



We both think that. We merely differ on the means to that order.



The science is in testing the hypothesis by producing the kind of environments that might produce life and seeing what happens.

How many different music or data CD's are possible? Is it possible that any of a billion such CD's could have been produced without intelligence? Can random bits of information ever produce anything meaninful. The answer is an emphatic NO.!



You're still dodging the question. Where do you get the first bit of information that does something?



And what has happened? Has life or "pre-life" been produced? Do you think that a racemic mixture of amino acids proves anything?

A chemical reaction that produces something else...a protein say. DNA essentially just produces lots of these.



Ongoing Work

In The Field...

Ghadiri has also worked on chirality.

I hope you don't mind the bare links but the request was just for an overview of what sort of work is going on and I felt this was the best way. Given that life is thought to have taken millions of years to form in a very basic form, this isn't bad for 50 years of work.

The principle is the same, a bit can only be 1 or 0 and life can be only created by an intelligent being or created by abiogenesis.