AminoAcids only polymerize in very controlled lab experiments, it never occurs spontaneously in nature.

Another very controlled lab experiment.



If that was true we could find abiogenesis happening in vulcanic regions or inside caves

Some additional information re this question.
Basically, chirality in one direction or another is more stable, (or self catalytic)

Extracts from science daily. http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2004/...40709084055.htm

Yep. But unless you can propose a better method of investigation, were stuck with it.
By the way, how would you propose to falsify such an experiment?




Trouble is, that whatever comes from current conditions finds a fully fledged biotic world waiting to mug it the moment it steps outside, it don’t stand a chance. We have a 4.6 billion year head start.




Anyhow a little more on the Miller – Urey experiment, this article from Scientific American is working on a different reducing atmosphere (carbon dioxide and nitrogen) from the original (methane and ammonia).



Yet more positive evidence that biotic building blocks can be made from inorganic material.

Nice dodge.

The first link hypothesized the formation of a cell membrane... completely dodging the question of DNA. Many of the articles on abiogenesis focus on a system where conditions could be met for DNA to form... but they shed no light on how DNA could form spontaneously.

The second link discussed replicating proteins which require pre-existing RNA... another dodge.

What you have is pseudoscientific rhetoric which vainly attempts to diffuse the creationist arguments ...a big smokescreen. It doesn't work. Let's see some evidence that RNA or DNA can self organize. I've been hammering on this point for days... and no one can offer the vaguest idea as to how this is remotely possible. Let's cut to the chase: If it's possible for RNA to self-organize, point out whatever principles of chemistry are or could be operative.

Why do you keep saying that? I've had to do all the work so far!



No, pre-empting the fact that I'd be asked for the whole kit and kaboodle.





I haven't seen *any* arguments - just bald assertions.



I've told you over and over - simple polymerisation. Can you give me some indication of your chemistry knowledge so I can have an idea of where to pitch such an explanation? Just to kick off, you've got pentagonal sugars, phosphate groups and simple bases bonded by covalent and hydrogen bonds. What is it about the polymerisation that you find unlikely?

Ordered base pair sequences (tens of thousands of them) which serve as a genetic code. You cannot accomplish this by blind polymerization any more than you can throw random bits of information at a CD and come up with music. You seem to overlook the enormous complexity of DNA, imagining it to be a random conglomeration of phosphates, sugars, and base pairs which can form by blind chance.

Put the aminoacids in a random environment within a cycle of production and reaction and see if homochirality appears.



from inside of what ?



First, atmosphere was not reducing.Second, of course we can make biotic building blocks from inorganic material otherwise life couldn´t be created.This experiment has the same problem of Miller-Urey experiment, they don´t show any natural environment where all the amino-acids needed for life can be created and not to be destroyed.After that , this environment must let the amino-acids polymerize to build more complex molecules.

That wont work, because without isolating elements of an environment, you wont know which ones contributed, which ones were detrimental and which played no part at all, you will be forever chasing your tail. The only method is to systematically crunch the variables, until you know what does what, this is how pharmaceuticals are gleaned from raw herbs, you find out what the active ingredients are. There is no shortcut to this method.
Edison has a similar method to find out what would make the incandescent light bulb, he was reasonable certain he could make such a thing, but eliminating the variables was a tedious necessity task. This is what scientist do more often than not.

Now for the first part of my question, how would you have conducted such a test, in the laboratory or outdoors in a swamp?




From the reducing environment (the progenitor of an early step towards abiogenesis), which may have only been one of many steps.


(myparagraphing)

Re.a Both experiments used reducing atmospheres!

Re.b If they could do as you ask, I would rather think the problem would have been solved! This is but one small step on the road to understanding, which IMO is heading in the right direction, i.e. it is proving a concept. I find it rather perplexing that you seem to feel they have failed at this early stage.

But the number of different base pair sequences that can work seems to be practically infinite (everything has a slightly different sequence).

But in nature there´s no isolating environment, things are free to go and to come and the goal of the experiment is to prove that abiogenesis can happen in nature and not in a controlled environment in lab.



We should find these reducing environments producing these progenitors.



But the primitive atmosphere was not reducing, then the experiments are out of reality.



The only thing they discovered is that is very difficult to build many amounts of aminoacids in nature and then polymerize them.They are in a dead end for 50 years long, walking on circles and do you want me to consider them well succeded to prove abiogenesis ?

Do you mean "if", or are you saying it *wasn't* reducing?

I'm sure you'd agree that a book containing 100,000 letters could be written in a seemingly infinite number of ways. However, randomly throwing 100,000 letters on a printing press is not ever going to result in anything meaningful, because the number of nonsensical combinations is infinitely greater. If you believe that it really doesn't matter what the sequence in the genetic code is, pehaps you could put your hypothesis to the test by attempting to manufacture a new life form in the lab. If there are so many possible pathways to life, why is it that all evolutionists agree that all life on earth descending over 4.5 billion years from one original strand of DNA? If multiple pathways to life are possible, then it follows that life should have evolved independent of other life more than once. The fact is, evolutionists need over a billion years of chance to have the slightest hope of life evolving. They base their theory on ridiculous improbabilities which they refuse to honestly scrutinize. You think you've answered my contention by stating that there must be an infinite number of possibilities. If you took every form of life on earth [e.g., 2 million different DNA combinations] and factored that into the possibility of one strand of DNA containing 100,000 base pairs evolving by chance, you'd increase the odds from 10^-400,000 to less than 10^-392,000. Give yourself 5 billion years, 10 billion planets with optimal conditions, milliions of reactions every second in every ml of primodial soup, and you'll still never reduce the probability to anything even remotely believable.

Letters and base pairs aren't the same thing. Indeed DNA uses 4 base pairs rather than 26 letters.



I don't have a lab. I believe there is ongoing work in that area anyway. I'll see if I can look up the work on proto-virii later.



No it doesn't because once life had come about, it would have little in the way of limiting factors, hence the original life would have taken up all available resources before any other proto-life could have a go (having said that there are people who claim that life DID come about in several ways but that we now have the dominant form only.



They don't "evolve" by chance. They react given certain conditions. And you don't start by throwing together 100,000 bits, you go through various simpler systems, adding all the time. What are the odds of a single base pair forming a hydrogen bond to another one? What are the odds of the Haber process producing ammonia? What were the odds that the Miller-Urey experiments would throw up most of the amino acids required for simple life?

The point is, the odds of a specific sequence of a 100,000 base pair strand of DNA coming together by chance is 10^-400,000.



A virus is an obligate intracellular parasite and does not qualify as autonomous life or as a precursor to autonomous life. You can suppose that a proto-cell existed, but there is no science behind it. You can't even conceptualize such a thing in any specific terms. So there you have it. You have no evidence that it existed, and you can't even imagine what it might have been like.




I think all evolutionists agree that single cell life as we know it is far too complex to have suddenly been thrown together, and that DNA must have gone through some sort of evolution from simpler to complex. However, there has to have been some functional autonomous "proto-cell" or "pre-biont" which was not reducible further and therefore had to have been somehow thrown together by chance. If you honestly look at what would have been required for such an autonous unit, giving evolution every concievable benefit of the doubt, you're still left with insurmountable improbability. No one has proposed a model that realistically demonstrates a conceptual continuum between life and non-life, If you imagine DNA gradually forming from molecules, you need to propose some sort of selective pressure that's going to cull out the useless forms and favor the forms that will survive and reproduce. No one can suggest such a thing. All they have is their imaginations and wishful thinking. All they can do is speak in the vaguest of terms, grossly simplifying the complexity of life.

"What ifs." Not believable or provable. This is the old "chance + time" equals humans. Science fiction, not science fact.





God bless,
Al

You've ignored, several times, that 100,000 base pairs don't need to come together by chance. *That's* why we were talking about self-replicators earlier. I had a feeling you hadn't grasped why. The Ghadiri self-replicator (just 32 amino acids long) looks like this: RMKQLEEKVYELLSKVACLEYEVARLKKVGE. There's no earthly reason why it can't form (as proven by the fact Ghadiri managed it). Let's say it's protected (say by a lipid layer, or a clay pocket, or a metal matrix) and there's no reason why it can't react further AND replicate. Once that happens, the sky's the limit.





You can try and repeat it in a lab. You *can* conceptualize it - a simple aoutocatalytic cycle inside a lipid membrane. Done. I've already shown you how you can get an autocatalytic cycle. Lipid layers form naturally in our world, let alone in a prebiotic one where no-one's using any of the materials.



No. The fact that *you* can't conceptualize it, is not evidence against it.



The fact that they DO reproduce is the selective pressure. The ones that *don't* reproduce will degrade and become material for the rest.

It only needs to work once.

What does a self replicating protein have to do with DNA?


Glossing over reality does not constitute conceptualization. Show me how you get from subunits to DNA. Pointing out and autocatalytic cycle involving protein polymers has nothing to do with DNA.



If you can conceptualize it, then explain yourself without resorting to vague generalities.



You haven't explained how one base pair sequence could be favored over another. If you can't demonstrate this, what reason is there to believe that DNA could self-organize?

I´m saying it wasn´t reducing

First, the Ghadiri self-replicator was created in a very controlled experiment in lab.There´s no place in nature that this kind of pepitide can be formed spontenously.Second, its sequence is very specific , if you change one aminoacid it´s not self-replicator anymore.For this kind of pepitide to replicate itself, it needs two half of itself.So, the odds for the first molecule to form is 20^-32.As it needs two half of itself to replicate so the probability of the second molecule is 20^-16 * 20^-16 = 20 ^-32.Thus the probability of formation of two Ghadiri self-replicator is 20^-64.

(my paragraphing)(my bold)

re.a Of course there are isolated environments! islands, caves, mountains, deep underwater trenches, thermal gradients, etc. The earth is not one homogeneous place. All that is needed is a little stability of one of the environments, an undersea volcanic vent would easily fulfil that requirement. Plus the environment is sterile (pre abiogenesis) there is no competition, if some stable chemical is formed, it’s there for good, until evolution comes along and [Clint Eastwood] “makes it’s day” [/Clint Eastwood].

Re.b yep and to get to that point you must use laboratory experiments to find the conditions that make it work by systematic elimination. I suppose that if you want your specific condition met, you would need to work out in the lab a viable abiogenesis recipe, then take it outside and pour it on a section of sterile ground, stand back, wait, and there’s your proof. Your expecting such a proof (the goal as you put it) to be satisfied by the preliminary steps of figuring out the abiogenesis process, and that is just unrealistic.






If the same conditions exist, that would be possible, if not then no. That is the major problem, i.e. it being difficult to know what the conditions of an early earth were with any certainty. If the conditions were known we could whip up a batch “instant life” tomorrow couldn’t we?




No, absolutely not, all you need is a localised environment, producing the right conditions. You don’t need a global condition.

Just as an hypothetical, lets just pretend that the abiogenesis event really does require just 6 stable molecules (SM1-6). Once these molecules meet they will naturally join up and begin replicating imperfectly (and the rest is history). Lest assume that:

SM1 is formed in a reducing volcanic environment.
SM2 is formed by UV light on the atmosphere
SM3 is formed in comets and meteorites
SM4, 5, 6, well you get the picture.

What is needed in this scenario is for the 6 chemicals to meet in the vicinity of an undersea volcano. Given the nature of the formation of the earth, volcanic action, meteorite/comet bombardment, strong UV light were rather more common than they are today, the probability would seem certain that such and event would come about in a watery world.




No one is saying this will be easy to get to the goal of replicating abiogenesis. And I dispute the inference that they are going in circles, much has been learned to date. But what do you say to the question that, in principle, producing building blocks of life (amongst other) from non life, is positive evidence for abiogenesis?

The reason it is being pursued is because the science has a line of positive evidence to follow, i.e. it is believable or not unreasonable, given what is currently known. Your confusing that ‘provable’ is the ‘be all and end all” of scientific enquiry, the enquiry phase is where we are at right now regarding abiogenesis.

For Abiogenesis isolated environment must be without oxygen, without any uncontrolled source of energy and without water.In the presence of oxygen no aminoacid can be formed.Any source of energy as lightining, heat or UV destroys aminoacids faster than builds them.In the presence of water no polymerization can be done.All this proved in labs.That´s the reason why to build up pepitides is a very difficult and delicated process.



Unrealistic is to make a flawed experiment using conditions that do not exist in nature and say "Oba, Abiogenesis is possible !".



First, Please show me any hipothetical localised environment producing the right conditions.Second, a localised environment cannot have the concentration of aminoacids needed to have the number of reactions per second to face the low probability of the event.As I said to form one molecule of Ghadiri Group the probability is 20^-32.



What kind of miracle is this ? 6 molecules meeting in the vicinity of an undersea volcano? Even if this was possible, I would like to ask if these 6 molecules are aminoacids or some type of pepitides ?



You´re again using a requirement as evidence.Producing building blocks of life from non life is a requirement so much for creation as for abiogenesis.

Two things: Firstly it shows that self-replicators (like DNA) occur quite easily; secondly once you have a self-replicator you have a scaffold upon which to build other things (a la "the roman arch").



Seriously?! Nucleotides are a gift for chemical reactions. OH functional groups, negatively charged oxygen, double bonds. Put the subunits near each other and you'd be surprised if they *didn't* bond.



Citric acid cycle + membrane protection = metabolising entity.



Why would it need to be? How much junk DNA is there?

The Miller Urey experiments *required* water. Which experiments are you talking about?

Besides which I'm not sure where you get your claim from. 8 of the 20 amino acids are hydrophobic (alanine, valine, phenylalanine, leucine, isoleucine, tryptophan, methionine and proline) but even the hydrophilic ones will form in water (though they tend to hydrogen bond).

Self replicators do not occur "quite easily"... only in highly controlled lab experiments. Secondly, you cannot extrapolate protein peptides to DNA. As I reminded you, DNA is not made up of simple repeating subunits. Therefore, your extrapolation of peptides to DNA is absurd.




I challenged you to not use vague generalities. As if life is that simple!



You continue to be in denial, imagining that DNA is really quite simple and that the nucleotide sequence is unimportant. Also, show me the proof that "junk DNA" is useless.

If life is as simple as you imagine, can you give me a reason why it can't be manufactured in a laboratory? If DNA can come together by chance, why can't it be synthesized in a laboratory? If gene sequence is unimportant, then we should be able to create life easily. If self replicators can occur "rather easily", then why have none ever been found in nature?

you are confusing formation of aminoacids with polymerization.

Or over a billion years of different conditions with megatonnes of material...



You may remind me of that as often as you like, but you're wrong. They're called 'nucleotides'.



What you actually want is an exact pathway from non-life to life over millions of years then? You don't think - given that what was asked for was speculation - that may be unreasonable?!



You mean prove a negative?



Simple is relative. You have to get the conditions right. You can't just screw molecules together.



Perhaps you'd like to rethink that sentence...

No. Again I'm pre-empting. I addressed the formation of amino acids when I stated that water was required for the Miller Urey experiments* (and asked which experiments you were talking about).

*The formation of leucine from valine, for instance, requires water to get from 2-isopropylmalate to 3-isopropylmalate.

Given that amino acids also form in space and are found in comets and meteors, the above isn't even necessary...

I repeat, DNA is not made of simple repeating subunits. A sequence is necessary for it to be a genetic code. Yes, there are nucleotides, but they're not repeating. Your fixation on protein self-replication is entirely irrelevant to the evolution of DNA.


I don't expect an "exact pathway". If you propose that life evolved from inorganic matter, the burden of proof is on you. You assume it happened only because you refute ID. You expect others to believe abiogenesis without providing the slightest clue as to how it is possible. You cannot provide even a vague pathway, and yet you call this "science."



You can't just assume that "junk DNA" is useless because you haven't ascribed a function to it.

Look up Malcolm Simons and the Australian company Genetic Technologies, which now holds the patents for "non-coding DNA." That's right, junk DNA is useful.

Anyone can posit a "most probably" scenario, but the point is, it hasn't been done. No science, just speculation.

"It only had to happen once." And then the organism was destroyed by a lava flow. I can write science fiction stories too.




God bless,
Al

'For it to be a genetic code', yes. For it to exist as a molecule, no.



I'm not sure there's much point in repeating myself since I'm not sure I can make it any clearer but the fact that self-replicating molecules exist is evidence in itself.




As Chance said so much more eloquently than me, what we have are several good avenues of enquiry. Not much money is put into abiogenesis research because it's not really that important, so I'd guess it'd take a long time to come to anything like a firm conclusion, but you only asked for possibilities. I get the feeling you're still wrestling with a strawman requiring the entire molecule coming together before we "flick the 'on' switch" so to speak. I'm not sure whether you're following me on the stepwise nature of the process.



You can assume it's the best hypothesis until a better explanation comes along. Do you have one?

And you suppose such an environment could not possible exist?, even today we find anaerobic bacteria, which if exposed to oxygen will kill them! You don’t seem to be making a point. I have explained that isolated environments can exists, you then go on about what can and cant be stable? The point is that the things well see necessary for life today may have taken a very contorted ‘evolutionary’ path, and something that seems impossible in today’s environment is not applicable to the past. Your making too many assumptions about the nature of the earth and the chemistry that was active at that time period.




I dispute the point about the experiments being unrealistic, as it’s necessary in these preliminary days to isolate “the good from the bad”. If you poured everything into a pot and lit a flame under it, you would learn nothing.




What are the right conditions, do you know what they are?
I’m certain now one knows for sure because if they did they would start experimenting from that point wouldn’t they! The current experiments are starting from as a basic position as would seem possible, what can be known for sure is more frequent vulcanism, meteoric/comet bombardment, water, and little to no oxygen, after that who knows.

Your probability ‘calculations’ are less than worthless, because you are not in position to know the environmental baseline nor the sequence of the ‘evolutionary’ steps that abiogenesis took.


(my paragraphing)

Re.a oh dear me! The idea of an explanation via hypothetical/pretence, seems to have evaded you. The example I gave was to show how likely a single abiogenesis event could be (almost certainly just one of many), no more.

Re.b unknown and unimportant for the purpose of explaining chance meetings of an unknown mechanism.

The whole point is that abiogenesis could have required a thousand similar events (or maybe a single one), some more probable than others. This is why it will be so difficult to determine how abiogenesis began, there are so many variables. It is also why there is no theory.



No I am not!

Requirements: The requirements for life are determined by what we find today, DNA, amino acids proteins etc. There is also an assumption that the earth is sterile. There is also an assumption that to get to cellular life, you have to pass through evolving steps.

Evidence for abiogenesis: The evidence is that some of these requirements for life can be created from scratch via rather simple and some would say probable conditions in a pre biotic world.

I said "polymerization can´t be done in the presence of water".It has nothing to do with formation of aminoacids.

I said "aminoacids can´t be built in the presence of oxygen".

I said "aminoacids can´t be built in the presence of an uncontrolled source of energy" because lightning, heat or UV destroys aminoacids faster than they are built.

What didn´t you understand ?

I would like to know the name of this bacteria.But the important point is the environment must have multiple conditions for abiogenesis.It must be free of oxygen , must have a source of energy and in a magical way to protect the aminoacids from that source of energy.The aminoacids need a fluid to get them together for the polymerization but this fluid can´t be water.For the last, it needs a great concentration of aminoacids reacting to face the low probability of formation of self-replicators.



But all experiments of abiogenesis are based on assumptions about the nature of the earth and the chemistry that was active at that time period.



I don´t have to know what the right conditions are, the theory is not mine.I´m analyzing the coherence of the theory.



But they failed to prove that those options are viable.



Abiogenesis didn´t happen that´s the reason why we don´t know the sequence steps it took.Unless you show me a new chemistry law ,all those reactions are based on probability.It´s useless to hide yourself behind the proof of no existence.



Abiogenesis is formation of "LIFE" and not formation of aminoacids.




You don´t have so many variables.We know all the variables, we know how aminoacids can be formed and how polymerization works.What we don´t know is any natural environment , even hypothetical one, where those reactions can occur in nature to form life.Atheists hide themselves behind hypothetical variables that they even cannot show what they are.



That´s exactly the point where the experiment failed.The conditions was not probable, the conditions was artificial.

(my paragraphing)

Re.a. Google anaerobic bacteria.

Re.b presuming abiogenesis forms the way you expect it to, yes? Supposing it didn’t.






Have to start somewhere, what would you propose a better method, alphabetical?




I can only suggest that you consider what if any is a better alternative, if there is non, then lets stop arguing about how irrelevant it is.




And why is that? because there are so many variables to test for a mechanism that is unknown. You want proof, I say that is unrealistic for this stage.




Deadlock, let me prove to you why your reasoning is false on this, here is your question: “What is the probability of being dealt 4 aces?”. Please show your working.




Stop splitting hairs, to get to abiogenesis likely involves a myriad of steps, when the classification of life is to be applied is purely arbitrary. Back to the original example – do you understand the point I was making regarding events and likelihood.





You know all the variables!!! – please enlighten me.




And I have show that:
a that isolated environments exists even now
b your probability is basless.

Then you're just wrong on both counts.



That's also wrong but even supposing it was right, so what? So they were built without the presence of oxygen (a common environment on early Earth - though you seem to think you have a firm handle on what that environment was?)



Also wrong but again, so what? If you were right, you'd merely be eliminating environments that wouldn't allow for amino acid formation.

I think you have to study a little more chemistry before you continue on this thread

I´m not presuming any thing, you proposed a theory and the theory is flawed.You have to give me another theory and perhaps I change my mind but you can´t expect I agree with you only because I can´t prove abiogenesis didn´t occur in an unknown way that one day perhaps someone discovers it.



Why can´t I do the same thing ?



The better and obvious alternative is that life was created.



So, when theory gets more realistic you can show me again.



supposing in sequence:

1/52 * 1/51 * 1/50 * 1/49 = 1/6497400



Your example was absurd to be seriously considered.



We know the chemical involved , we know how they react, we know the necessary conditions to them to react and we know the environment proposed by Urey-Miller.What do you want more ?



No environment is completely isolated otherwise it will be condemned by entropy.And you failed to show an environment which can have the necessary conditions for abiogenesis.



Your assertion is baseless

This does not constitute an argument. Perhaps you should enlighten us yourself?

*edit* Can you show us the chemical basis for formation of the Ghadiri protein being at a chance of 1 in 10^32?

I'd also like a reference to the "fact" that the early Earth wasn't a reducing atmosphere.

You don't have "several good avenues of inquiry". You can grasp at straws and point to self replicating molecules, but that doesn't provide any evidence that a genetic code could evolve. There is no viable theory of abiogenesis. What you have is the hope that someday "science" will figure it out, based on the assumption that a pathway in fact exists that excludes ID. Does it ever occur to you that the reason abiogenesis is conceptually impossible is because it is impossible? No... you refuse to consider that possibility because you've made up your mind that God does not exist.

In point of fact, I don't study abiogenesis at all. Plenty of scientists do however. Just what is it you think they're doing if they don't have several good avenues of enquiry? And who on Earth funds them?

Also, I don't assume that a pathway exists that excludes ID. ID isn't excluded, it's disqualified before it gets to the starting line. You say I have to provide a pathway? Then you have to produce a designer or your story is a total non-starter (by your lights not mine).

Now you're really grasping at straws. Since people are studying abiogenesis, I guess it must be a valid theory.


Same thing.


Yes... you're the one claiming it happened and insisting that it's science.



I don't have to "produce a designer" to conclude that a designer exists. The results of design are obvious... they speak for themselves.

In post 131 I explained why the process of polymerization of aminoacids is a random process.



The chance is 20 ^-32, because there are 20 different types of aminoacids in 32 possible positions.A basic probability calculation.



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

There is nothing here to suggest that one version is more stable than another. There is no energy preference for the two, and the other problem you have is that even if you produce an imballance of more than one type than the other temporarily, they will revert back to a racemic solution.

Terry

(my paragraphing)

Re.a You are, and I’m going to demonstrate it to you, at the 4 aces further down. *

Re.b Not a scientific theory, OK! abiogenesis is being investigated because it is the only (so far) line of enquiry that can be investigated scientifically. All the others cant be investigated, there is no way too investigate them!

<moved>

I’ll show you why this is wrong in the 4 aces. *



I don’t understand what you mean here.




Fine, can you propose an experiment that will test for ‘design’ that will support this?




It’s (currently) “the only party in town”. No other idea can be possibly be investigated by science.


* The four aces:

(my emphasis)

Interesting answer, but please:

a. why did you assume, 52 cards?
b. why did you assume, only 4 aces?
c. why did you assume, each card is unique?
d. why did you assume, order is unimportant? (perhaps your being to generous here)
e. why did you assume, being dealt 4 aces first up? If you were playing stud poker, the answer would be considerable less!

chance sits down at the table with deadlock there is a sum of money 9philispophic position) in the pot. Each player has $1000 (world view) in starting chips.

chance – “hi ‘deadlock’, glad you could make the game”. “The game is abiogenesis, do you know the rules?” “I’m assuming you don’t from the answer you gave above”.





(my paragraphing)

Re.a This sentence makes no sense to me. What has entropy got to do with anything regarding environments?

Re.b I don’t know what is required, and neither do you.

Frankly not very convincingly. Concentraion of amino acids, orientation of the molecules and environmental conditions would all have different effects.



So Ghadiri performed a miracle?!



I can't get your link to work. Here's another one though.

The most obvious piece of evidence if the reduced nature of iron ore in the deepest stratae (though one might attribute that to volcanic activity I suppose).

You are being evasive.If you have technical arguments then please show them.If not , please stop using rhetorical meaningless assertions.



No, because Ghadiri is an intelligent being and there´s no miracle if an intelligent being build something.Miracle is it builds itself by chance as you believe.

The research of abiogenesis itself proves the design because it failed to prove it can happen naturally.



Yes, I Know because abiogenesis does not have the rules of your hypothetical game, the rules of abiogenesis are the laws of chemistry and probability, and unless you show me a new law that I don´t know your argument is flawed.

Of Course it has.If an environment is completelly isolated it will end in a cold death by entropy.Abiogenesis cannot happen in an isolated system, it needs source of energy and chemicals.