Excuse me?! I thought *you* were going to teach *me* chemistry! I'm not being evasive, I'm stating very simple principles of chemistry. It *isn't* random.



Ghadiri didn't screw the molecules together. Did he know that he would produce a self-replicator? How many molecules of the same size would also be self-replicators?

There you go again, relying on the logical fallacy of: If, Not, ‘X’, Then, ‘Y’ to make your argument. ID has nothing to support it, it’s not science if you cant devise a hypothesis that can be tested.




Sorry deadlock, but your evading the question, please explain why you made the assumptions, listed ‘a’ through to ‘e’.

The rules are simple the “laws of chemistry” are me handing out the cards to you, no cheating, no slight of hand. But chemistry is a very big subject, which chemicals shall I choose, how many decks are available, are the cards unique, are there more in one place than another, do I deal them today, in an hours time, or in a decades time? Non of this has been decided, there are no rules I have to follow, other than deal!

Now do you see?
The only way you can derive a probability is by “stacking the deck” with assumptions.

This is just meaningless, how is a volcanic vent affected by this? If such a vent lasted for a million years and it was only required for 100 years to perform ‘it’s bit’ re abiogenesis, entropy can go and “jump in the lake”.

Environments can be ‘isolated’ without being ‘vacuum sealed away from the rest of the word, you know. A cave is an isolated environment with respect to it receiving no light from the sun, yet air, and water can circulate through them.

It would be a fallacy if we have more than two choices but it´s not the case.We have only two choices then if, not, 'X', then, 'Y' is a valid conclusion.



Because you didn´t tell me the rules of your hypothetical game.But it´s an invalid analogy because we know the laws of chemistry involved.



how about aminoacids ?



is the ocean enough ?



No, we have 20 types of cards



It´s irrelevant



How about 1 billion years ?



Of course it is



I see you are using false analogies.

You have been show the logical fallacy this belongs to. There’s no free pass for ID if you want to call it science. Science requires testability, and repeatability! Even some the ID elite have admitted to this aspect, i.e. that ID is not testable.


(my paragraphing)

Re.a I didn’t tell you the rules (conditions) of abiogenesis either, so you assumed you knew the rules, didn’t you! In both cases, your answer reflected your preconceived assumptions of what the rules (conditions) should be, and as I demonstrated with the 4 aces, that is folly.

Re.b No! You do know how chemistry behaves (card dealing, no tricks), but NOT what conditions, concentrations, elements, molecules, quantities of each, and time span, (the cards), were involved. Despite your protests, this analogy is rock solid!






ok, good choice, what are the conditions we shall simulate?




perhaps, perhaps not, how will you decide?




20? Sorry are you making assumptions again? did I restrict myself in that way, what about “tarot cards” “old maid” “fish”? Your making assumption upon assumption, and digging yourself into a deeper hole with every sentence.




Is it, you think that a high concentration of ace of spades will not affect the probability of being dealt that card? You need to rethink this.




Indeed, why not!



? of course ‘what’ is, rules? There are only the rules of chemistry, (dealing cards) how the various hands turn out, depends on the variables.




Despite you reluctance to accept the analogy, you will have to make good this claim, show me where the analogy is inadequate. There is only process and variables, what is missing from the analogy or abiogenesis in each regard?

What principles ? You used invisible chars ? is "Frankly not very convincingly" your
simple principle of chemistry ?



Of course he did.



That was the goal



few ones.

Of course it is, when reseachers achieve to build life in the lab they will prove ID.



Of course I know the rules , unless you know a new chemistry law that nobody knows



1 - Conditions are based on geological research
2 - Concentrations and quantities are based on the elements that exist in earth and their amount.
3 - Elements are the elements that exist in the earth and are used by living beings.
4 - Time span is 1 billion years
5 - Despite your blind faith your analogy is cracked rock.



The assertion is yours, I don´t believe in abiogenesis, I don´t think there is any viable condition.



It´s the largest place possible



Assumptions ? How many aminoacids do you want to use ?



It´s irrelevant because none of the 20 aminoacids are more used than the others.



Because not even 15 billion years are enough.



The variables are known.



Because I know the rules and variables involved in abiogenesis and you hided the variables and rules of your game.

So Can I assume you gave up Urey-Miller ?



But Where are the gases and the source of energy necessary to build the aminoacids ?

I found in the internet a good text that clarifies how the experiences of abiogenesis are very artificial.

Origin of Life Experiments and Investigator Interference

Investigator interference will now be summarized. Investigators do not have 5 billion years to conduct origin of life experiments, so some interference is necessary.

Interference Strategy #1: Eliminate the Undesirable Chemicals

If chemical A and chemical B react to form chemical P, then this chemical reaction can be written as A+B—> P. Suppose that Miller’s water trap contains 3 chemicals, A, B and C. The possible reactions involving the chemicals are as follows: A + B–>P and A +C->D.

Unfortunately, the second reaction is favored. So after a few days all of the chemicals in the flask are D, but the researcher desires chemical P. So instead of using the contents of the flask to create P, he orders A and B from his chemical supplier. He mixes these two chemicals while applying heat, and the product is P. This process is how organic chemists make chemicals. They control the chemicals that they start with, and this influences the products that they get. Applying this technique to origin of life scenarios is questionable because it is not clear how nature can exclude the undesirable chemicals.

One of the functions that enzymes perform is to eliminate undesired reactions. They accomplish this by speeding up the desired reactions. When investigators manipulate the chemicals in their system to create a desired product, they are mimicking this particular mode of enzyme action. They are using their knowledge of chemistry because the required molecular knowledge is not present in the system.

Examples of cross reaction elimination:

• Fox’s thermal proteins. He did not include carboxylic acids or other organic components (like aldehydes) that might terminate a growing protein chain.

• The most extreme examples of cross reaction elimination involve RNA. The reason is that ribose is included freely, but no amino acids are included. This is not a plausible condition. Amino acids react very quickly with sugars like ribose to create very long chain polymers. Anyone who has baked cookies or toasted a piece of bread is familiar with this reaction. Browning is caused when amino acids (especially lysine) react with sugar. This reaction would make any sugar present in the primordial soup unavailable for RNA formation.

Interference Strategy #2: Concentrating Volatile Chemicals

Concentrated formaldehyde is critical for the synthesis of ribose. Concentrated hydrogen cyanide and ammonia are critical for the synthesis of adenine. It is not clear how these chemicals could ever be present in high concentrations on the early earth.How does one concentrate a chemical that boils at sub-freezing temperatures in a small puddle? This is a difficult problem.

Interference Strategy #3: The Use of Condensation Agents or Activated Monomers

Condensation agents help form all of the bonds that are necessary in biological precursors, whether RNA or protein. Condensation agents remove water and by doing so promote the formation of large biological molecules. Condensation agents were discussed for proteins, but they have also been used to successfully join RNA nucleotides into short chains. RNA synthesis usually just skips this step, and instead researchers usually just add an activated monomer like impA, impG, impC, or impU.

There are no plausible synthesis mechanisms for the condensation agents or the activated monomers. If they are created in Miller’s spark experiment or if they exist in meteorites, then the amount present is minuscule. How some investigators can add these chemicals in abundance to reactions, and still think that they are modeling plausible prebiotic conditions is certainly not clear.

Nevertheless, the motivation for using these techniques is clear. Without these techniques, the biological precursors are limited to a size that is too small to be biologically active.Given that condensation agents and activated monomers are often coupled with carefully timed washes designed to grow the protein or RNA molecule.

Interference Strategy #4: Controlling the Energy Sources

In most experiments, destructive energy sources are eliminated by the investigator. For example, if the trap in Miller’s spark chamber is illuminated with UV light, many of the products will be destroyed.

Interference Strategy #5: Substituting Human Knowledge

This is the most subtle form of interference, and the most common. In systems that lack the required molecular knowledge, it is very easy for researchers to unintentionally add knowledge to the system through the design of their experiment.

The carefully controlled sequential washes that accompany many RNA and protein chain elongation experiments are a perfect example. Often a growing RNA or protein molecule is attached to a stationary substrate, activated nucleotides or amino acids are added, and a rinse is applied after the desired chemical bond forms. This form of interference is present in most prebiotic experiments, and sometimes it goes unnoticed.

Conclusion:

The goal was to show that the precursors to life whether RNA or proteins are extremely difficult to create. Maybe one or two such molecules are expected given optimal conditions and 5 billion years. The design inference based on this conclusion alone is very strong. If the entire ocean is packed tight with either proteins or RNA, then the odds that one of the molecules can self replicate is still zero. Several thousand bits of knowledge are required, and zero tries (or almost zero) will never allow chance to create this much knowledge.

Many investigators researching the origin of life are disappointed with their progress, and this shows in the scientific literature. Today, it is acceptable to publish an article that is critical of the origin of life paradigm as such articles do get published.

Any publication suggesting the possibility of design is either rejected or starts a witch hunt in which the editor who approves the article is the target. The first step in any scientific revolution is to realize that there is a problem with the current theory, and for many scientists this realization has already taken place. Joyce and Orgel summarize the situation as follows:
“In our initial discussion of the RNA World we will accept The Molecular Biologist’s Dream: “Once upon a time there was a prebiotic pool of Beta-D-nucelotides . . . We will now consider what would have to happen to make the dream come true. This discussion triggers the Prebiotic Chemist’s Nightmare: how to make any kind of self replication system form the intractable mixtures that are formed in the experiments designed to simulate the chemistry of the primitive earth.”

I'm afraid I can't make sense of that at all...



These two claims are just wrong. He set out to just study self-organising molecules. The fact that they replicated was either a bonus, or inevitable depending on your view.



How do you know this?

Your insistence in evade the answer is the final evidence that you don´t have an answer.



Don´t make me laugh ! He set out to study "Self-Organising" molecules and was the fact they replicated a bonus ? Imagine if I set out to study DNA and the fact that they replicate is a bonus. But the fact is that the pepitide he built was not a self-replicator. I think that he´s being almost dishonest saying that and I will explain that in a different post.



Because it has been done many lab tests trying to build functional pepitides.One of the more important experiments concerning the origin of life was performed by Keefe and Szostak.The authors of this paper in Nature searched six trillion random peptides each composed of 80 amino acids. They were looking for a sequence that could bind the chemical, ATP. They found only four sequences!!! in this large pool with ATP binding activity.

The Lie of Self-Replicating Pepitide

In 1996, an article was published in Nature in which David Lee reports to have found a self replicating peptide.The title of the article is appropriately “A Self Replicating Peptide.” Unfortunately, the investigator interference required for self replication is perhaps the most extreme in the history of origins research. This experiment is not even relevant to the origin of life.

The peptide of interest contains 32 amino acids. The sequence is as follows:

arg-met-lys-gln-lys-glu-glu-lys-val-tyr-glu-lys-lys-ser-lys-val-ala-
cys-leu-glu-tyr-glu-val-ala-arg-leu-lys-lys-leu-val-gly-glu.


The peptide does not self replicate using amino acids. Instead it uses a pool of two peptides, one is 17 amino acids long and the other is 15 amino acids long. The amino acid sequences of these two peptides are shown below. Notice that if a peptide bond forms between ala (last amino acid on right in the peptide with 17 amino acids) and cys (first amino acid on left in the peptide with 15 amino acids) then a replica of the self replicating peptide results.

arg-met-lys-gln-lys-glu-glu-lys-val-tyr-glu-lys-lys-ser-lys-val-ala

cys-leu-glu-tyr-glu-val-ala-arg-leu-lys-lys-leu-val-gly-glu


Because the peptide with 32 amino acids facilitates the formation of this single peptide bond, Lee claims that this peptide can self replicate. But is this really true? To self replicate, this peptide requires a pool of two peptides. One of these peptides has the same amino acid sequence as the first 15 amino acids in the self replicating peptide, and the other has the same amino acid sequence as the next 17 amino acids. Where do these peptides come from? In this case, they are supplied by the investigator.

Due to the difficulties, peptides with more than six amino acids are expected to be very rare chemicals. Peptides composed of 15 to 17 amino acids will be much more scarce. Yet to self replicate, this peptide requires an abundant supply of both, and not just any peptide will do. One of these peptides must be identical to the first half of the self replicator, and the other peptide must be identical the second half of the self replicator.

This last requirement is particularly troublesome. Suppose the self replicator comes into contact with two random peptide chains. One is 15 amino acids long and the other is 17. How often will the two smaller peptides be an exact replica of the self replicator? Answer 1 time in every 4x10^41 tries (assuming that every amino acid has a 1 in 20 chance of occurring at each position). Given the low concentration of peptides in the primordial soup, the probability for such an encounter is zero.

The interference does not stop here. It is critical that the first amino acid in the peptide with 15 amino acids be a cysteine. Cysteine has chemical properties that facilitate peptide bond formation, and to make sure that the interference sets the record for the most ever, the alanine (last amino acid on right in the peptide with 17 amino acids) must be chemically altered to make it much more susceptible to attack by cysteine.

Finally, the self replicating peptide contains eight lysines. Lysine is instrumental in its self replication as its charge plays a role in aligning the two small peptides. Lysine is one of the amino acids that has yet to be synthesized under plausible prebiotic conditions. So even if lysine was present in the soup, its concentration would have been negligible.

Every possible strategy of interference is employed by this investigator to promote replication. This mixture of peptides has almost no chance of existing on the primitive earth. Even if it did, as soon as the supply of 15 and 17 amino acid peptides runs out, the replication stops. Despite all of this interference, the claim of self replication is not valid. Self replication involves a system that can duplicate all of its components. In this system, the self replicating peptide is supplied with one peptide containing 15 amino acids and one with 17 amino acids. A true self replicating molecule could generate these two smaller peptides from the amino acids in the primordial soup.

The authors of this paper tried to use dynamite to blow up the door , but the door withstood the blast and did not open. So the authors just said that it was open.

Proteins do not self replicate, and this explains why most scientists rejected the self replicating protein hypothesis in favor of the self replicating RNA hypothesis.

oh! come on deadlock! even ive got trouble making any sense out of that.

I'm sorry but I can't address an incoherent point.



The first of all, simply cutting and pasting, without attribution, is plagiarism - I presume you meant to link...

So, perhaps you'd like to put into your own words why you think it's *not* self-replication and what *would constitute self-replication.



And I can think of 3 self-replicators that came out of those experiments. Not bad for less than a hundred years of testing in small-scale experiments (compared to billions in a whole universe).

Your point re ATP binding is odd. One might equally say that it's amazing that 4 sequences bind ATP and not one (or none). If none had then it would've been necessary to use something else.

If you had read his posts you would understand

It would be plagiarism if I said that text was mine what I didn´t say.



It´s not self-replicator because the only thing that it does is to catalyse the bond of two pre-existing half of itself.To be a true self-replicator it must make a copy of itself using free monomers and activate the link.




Please, Show them !



I think you missed the point.They tested 8 trillions types of pepitides to find 4.In Each try they tested a different type, it´s not the same that a soup of amino acids reacting randomly.

“I just love it when a plan comes together”.
By your own admission, ID is currently unproven, yes? Aaaannnnnnd, also by your own admission, laboratory experiments are inadmissible, because they are not natural, remember!!!, Thanks ‘deadlock’ you just did my job for me, you have excluded ID by yourself, science can’t prove ID,




Rules WRT to chemistry - yes, but conditions, NO! (thoes you are assuming)



Re.1 True, which ones do you what to use, altitude, temperature, depth, etc, etc.

Re.2 True, which environment do you want to test, a lake, desert, stream, deep sea volcanic vent, rocky, sandy, saline, fresh, bright, or dark? etc, etc.

Re.3 Elements, yes, but in what concentrations and combinations, there are 92 elements, I wont even hazard a guess at how many molecules are possible (in various environments).

Re.4 I could live with that.

Re.5 from you points 1 – 4, your inability to demonstrate that you know the conditions for abiogenesis (4 aces) is getting weaker by the minute. And if you cant define them any probability argument falls flat on it face.




More assumptions on your part, ‘you don’t think there is any viable condition for abiogenesis’, As I have shown by listing some of the variable, there must be Billions.




?




Is the production of aminoacid a product from abiogenesis, or is it a requirement for abiogenesis? Do you know for certain that abiogenesis did not proceed merrily along for a million years, building some stable framework before aminoacids could be conscripted? This is what I mean by you assuming. If you don’t know the process, you cant make a probability argument, your core assumptions are not known.




Your answer is irrelevant, to the question, i.e. that a more common thing is more likely to ‘dealt’ than a rare thing.




I have shown that you cannot reliably come up with such a number without making assumptions, about the nature of the abiogenesis event.




Now that is such a ridiculous thing to say, if you cant calculate the probability of being delt 4 aces, how can you possible know what the conditions are that lead to abiogenesis.




You, I, and every person can find rules of chemistry, this is not in dispute. But you have not been able to even come up with a cursory list of the variables. You try to hide this fact by claiming certain aspects of current life (say a combination of aminoacids, cant possibly be created naturally) it’s a red herring, a straw man argument, because that is not what the abiogenesis event proposes.

What has my position on the Urey-Miller experiments have to do with entropy, please take a little time a formulate a reasonable question.

However since you asked, my opinion on the Urey-Miller experiments, as largely remain unchanged.




So, your [I]assumption[/] is, that gasses are required to build aminoacids, which are in turn required for abiogenesis, yes?

from the artical:



Obviously!

(my inclusion of # numbers)

#1 – Assumption, researcher desires P
#2 – Assumption, undesirability re an unknown environment, and unknown process.
#3 – Misconception showing a principle is not proof of abiogenesis.
#4 – Misdirection, assuming current life process are applicable to the abiogenesis event.

From this point on I gave up, the entire post is saying “this wont work, because conditions NOW, for existing life systems or chemicals required for life, wont allow it” . Well obviously!!

The entire document is a straw man argument, completely obscuring what abiogenesis is proposing. The post tries to shoehorn abiogenesis into a jigsaw puzzle where every piece represents a currently required chemical for life, and life is created when the last piece is inserted (like building a watch). Assumption upon multiple assumption.

It’s a complete misrepresentation of abiogenesis.

Excuse me , But I think you are losing yourself ! Why do you think ID needs laboratory experiments to be natural ? It´s a requirement for abiogenesis not for ID.

Many conditions were proposed by many scientists, be free to propose yours.



The Theory is yours I don´t have to prove the conditions of abiogenesis , that´s your duty.



I don´t want to test it because many scientists have proposed many environments and all of them failed .If you have a better environment for abiogenesis, be free to show



The elements must be the elements which life is made of.



I don´t have to demonstrate the conditions of abiogenesis, you are the person who is saying it´s true, so you are the person who must demonstrate it´s true.That´s the way science works.



If the process does not exist I will never know it anyway.So, I don´t have to prove that there are not any unknown process of abiogenesis.All the processes shown until now are flawed.If you don´t have any new one to show so your argumentation is useless.



The assumptions are the ones accepted by the most scientists.You are in a ridiculous position saying that there are conditions nobody knows that can make abiogenesis possible.It almost sounds mystical.



So , please tell us what abiogenesis proposes.

Chance , please don´t make us lose our time. Show soon your theory of abiogenesis if you have any one.

Well I did nearly lose my coffee!
Why does it need a laboratory? by your own admission of course.

(my bold)

True, I would suspect that it is an attempt to eliminate the least likely scenarios. If one is to perform experimentation, how would you begin testing? Do you think you are more likely to get results basing the variables on reason or elimination in alphabetical order? You must start somewhere, don’t you agree? Why do you think that approach is problematic?



Excuse me! you previously stated you knew what the conditions were




Failed? Strange way of putting it. If you eliminate a certain condition from a set, have you not increased your knowledge by some fraction? Should you actually get some molecule considered necessary for life (but not necessarily a part of the actual abiogenesis event), would you not include that as an increase in our knowledge?




Well we can eliminate a few elements then cant we? or can we? To get to ‘life’ (as we know it now) we must pass through the abiogenesis event, and perhaps a whole rounds of chemical evolution. Are you confident that radiation from uranium decay did not have some small but crucial part to play? No I don’t think you can restrict yourself to the chemicals of current life at all.




Cant do that now can I? There are a lot of variables to contend with, the only evidence is circumstantial (a point I have made repeatedly, so please stop asking for demonstrations of proof). And I agree it is how science is working, do you see anything intrinsically wrong with the methods currently being used?




My argument? I’m showing you why your position on having a probability argument is flawed!


(my bold)

Please read the question again, “the assumptions” are WRT probability calculations, not about what scientists select for their experimental conditions.




How can you be arguing against a position if you don’t know what it is! Nevertheless, I propose this Wiki explanation as good as any (this also answeres your post #222):

Abiogenesis (Greek a-bio-genesis, "non biological origins") is, in its most general sense, the generation of life from non-living matter. Today the term is primarily used to refer to hypotheses about the chemical origin of life, such as from a primordial sea or in the vicinity of hydrothermal vents, and most probably through a number of intermediate steps, such as non-living but self-replicating molecules (biopoiesis). Abiogenesis remains a hypothesis, meaning it is the working assumption for scientists researching how life began. If it were proven false, then another line of thought would be used to modify or replace abiogenesis as a hypothesis. If test results provide sufficient support for acceptance, then that is the point at which it would become a theory.

It's implicit if you don't attribute it.



Is this just your definition? The usual definition is 'A molecule which can make an identical or near-identical copy of itself from smaller subunits. Either way, you've told us half of the story. The two halves of the Ghadiri molecule bind to the first peptide, are ligated and produce a copy (c.f. Curr Opp Chem Biol 1 491-496 1997)



Julius Rebek, Gunther Kiedrowski and the famous Sun Y replicator. That's four.



And I'm still missing the point. Why is this an issue?

"Each try"?! Is there actually time to do 8 trillion seperate tries?!

Where do you think a reseacher can create life ?

No, it´s not



Don´t be ridiculous, the smallest subinits must be exactly 17 aminoacids long and 15 aminoacids long and have the same sequence of the original one.The only thing it is doing is to catalyse the bind.



of course there is.

The problem is that all the scenarios proposed until now don´t turn abiogenesis viable.



I know what it is, But I wanted to know what you think it is and I saw nothing in your definition that can eliminate the problems shown in the article I posted.

Life? You were referring to proving ID, remember! Lets not confuse the two.

Which only reflect our best efforts in understanding the problem, there has been progress, in the ‘proving of underlying principles’, and in the elimination of some scenarios. I don’t see haw yo can claim that any of these preliminary phases have disproved abiogenesis (seems to me that anything short of a “slam dunk” explanation for abiogenesis is the proof that it is disproved)




Ok we are agreed on the definition, no need to bring this up again.

Regarding your article – as I said, it’s a straw man argument. The article presuppose some condition, or feature, that is not proposed by abiogenesis, then argues against that presupposition.

Here is an analogy – Single cell life is the simplest form of life, it is highly improbable or chemically impossible, that all the elements for that first cell can have formed by random, thus abiogenesis is impossible. Swap out “single cell” for any of the arguments made in that article and you will find that each is essentially the same argument I have just made in italics.

If single cell life is the simplest form of life, then do you agree that abiogenesis is impossible?

Your presupposition apparently is that there is some autonomous self-replicating "pre-biont" or "Proto-cell". This is purely imaginary and not supported by one iota of scientific data. If you want to restrict this inquiry to science, then why do you discount the conclusion that single cell life is the simplest form of life, when that is in fact what is observed?

Yes, I Know them but you are saying that there are conditions that I don´t know which can change the result for abiogenesis, so it´s your obligation to tell me what the conditions are for I can re-calculate the probability of abiogenesis.

The fact of they have increased their knowledge has nothing to do with the veracity of abiogenesis. The only knowlegde they achieved is abiogenesis is impossible

Why not ? What proofs do you have that other chemicals had crucial part to play ?

You can spend the rest of your life trying, that´s your right, but you can´t say that choice is based on science, it´s your atheist worldview which keeps you believing.

No you are not, the only thing you said is that I don´t know the process but you didn´t show what part of the process I don´t know.

The Sun Y replicator was created copying a protein of the yeast.I want a self-replicator created by a random process

Because in a random process you have no guarantee that in the next try the pepitide built will be different from the pepitides already formed.So , you don´t know when a specific pepitide will appear or if it will appear some day.

If a reseacher creates life then I prove that an Intelligent Designer can create life.What´s the problem ?

If it´s not random why the pepitides don´t have always the same sequence ?

IMO it is imposable for abiogenesis to form a single celled life form such as an amoeba in one go. Such life is far to complex to arise in a single event.



It’s not imaginary at all, there is supporting evidence. I have posted my evidence many times now, so if you feel there is something ‘unscientific’ about it, then please enlighten me. Seems to me you use the words “not one iota” to mean “I don’t agree with it”, and that’s not the same thing.

A modern single cell is very sophisticated, the original conditions (whatever they were) may no longer exist, nor might the product be able to compete in a highly evolved ecosystem. Would we even recognises it for what it is?

OK, what is the temperature required for abiogenesis? Once you give me that I will give you some alternatives for you to consider.

Repost

The problem is one of your own making, you will not be able to accept your own findings! Do you want to change your mind about accepting laboratory results?

Have you thought about what are you saying ? It´s difficult to believe that you are not seeing the silly argument you are using.

First of all I have nothing against the lab results itself.The only problem is that they must simulate true natural conditions if the goal of the experiment is to show that a specific phenomenon can occur in nature.Abiogenesis experiments didn´t fulfill That task.Second, an intelligent designer does not need to follow those requirements because an intelligent designer is not a naturalistic phenomenon.Intelligent Designer is a person using his intelligence to build something.So, if a human being can build life in lab then he will have proved that life can be created by an intelligent designer.

Then we agree that single cell life is "irreducibly complex"? If you disagree, then please point out how a cell could be reduced to self-replicating autonomous units, or demonstrate how a cell could have evolved without resorting to vague undefined precursors that you cannot produce or demonstrate how they function.

If you agree that an amoeba could not be produced by a "single event', then you cannot rely on multiple smaller events unless you can show that each of these events produced some sort of autonomous self-replicating unit.


You have posted imaginary hypothetical precursors. Extrapolation of laboratory-produced self-replicating molecules to proto-cells does not constitute science.
It is nothing more than wishful thinking.



That's a convenient excuse that amounts to nothing less than a cop-out. You say we don't know what conditions of the ancient earth were. Fine. You are free to speculate whatever conditions you might suppose could have existed. Even though you cannot prove that there ever was a "primordial soup" or that whatever conditions you chose existed, you're theory would be taken seriously if it had any validity. The fact is, regardless of the scenario you choose, you still cannot come up with any continuum, either conceptual or empirical, between non-life and single cell life. You can't do this even if you're granted total liberty to imagine whatever conditions you want. All you can suggest are whimsical abstract proposals that are completely unsupported by science. You cannot propose anything that could be subjected to, as you say, the "rigors of science", because any such proposal would be immediately proven false.

The mindset of the evolutionist is, "If I can imagine it, it happened". In the case of abiogenesis, you can't even imagine it. Yet you still insist it happened.

Abiogenesis does not qualify as a hypothesis any more than "A man can survive on Pluto" is a hypothesis.
THere is no proposed mechanism, no hypothetical pathway. All "intermediate forms" between non-life and life are abstract and not supported by any experimental evidence that such forms would be viable and could reproduce. The only reason for believing in abiogenesis is a prior commitment to the general theory of evolution coupled with a preconceived disbelief in intelligent design.
I could insist that a man can survive on Pluto, and defend my "hypothesis" with statements like "someday science will figure it out", or "research is actively underway". I could extrapolate studies on natives of Tibet that survive in frigid temperatures and high altitudes with low oxygen, and I could extrapolate that to Pluto. So far, the arguments I've heard in favor of abiogensis are no less absurd.
You point out self-replicating molecules produced in a lab and extrapolate that to DNA... and you call it "science". It is the antithesis of science. Science is about observation and experimentation, not putting on blinders and engaging in wild speculation based on ideology.
It's obvious that the only people who believe in abiogenesis are those who want to believe it. Real science is convincing to a skeptic.

One last comment on this thread: we DON'T extrapolate that to DNA! No wonder you're confused. What we do is view this as a fruitful avenue of investigation.

That a man could live on Pluto IS a hypothesis - it's just one backed up by very little evidence but that is (in theory) subject to experimentation and falsifiability.

You are using the property of self replication of proteins as evidence that abiogenesis, which includes the self organization of DNA, is possible. That is extrapolation. If you deny this, then please provide any evidence you have that DNA can form from randomly interacting molecules without referring to protein self-replication.

(my paragraphing)

Re.a good.

Re.b debateable, because there is differing opinion on what the conditions would have been like.

Re.c interesting – if the intelligent designer does not use materialistic processes, how would you propose science test for a design then? If the intelligent designer just ‘snapped his fingers’ and DNA appeared, there would be no clues in the material world science could follow, to discover that design could it! Therefore, the search for an intelligent design can never be a scientific endeavour (this does not preclude the intelligent designer from being real however) can it?

Re.d And by your own logic be able to detect the design also (I mean if you know how to build it you know what to look fore), do you agree? So, can you say the same for the current situation regarding “is ID science” do you have an ID test?

Yes single cell life is "irreducibly complex", I have never denied this. You seem to be under the impression that this fact disproves evolution, on the contrary it is support it, by showing how features are coopted and adapted, modified (sometimes poorly) from existing features.

Behe’s famous flagellum has been dissected aat the molecular level and an evolutionary pathway been built up showing the ancestory, see this link.
http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/abstract/0700266104v1

The links you seem to think not there are embedded in the DNA.







The self replicating molecules are real, why do you deny that such a thing is not valid evidence? I really don’t understand you reluctance on this aspect.


(my paragraphing)

Re.a what is it that you find invalid about such conclusion?

Re.b there are lines of evidence to follow.

What I find most perplexing is your dismissal of the original premise of abiogenesis, based sole on the idea that it cant be replicated this very instance. So my next question is do you find the hypothetical position of abiogenesis inconsistent, if so what bit of it is? Perhaps if we get this question out of the way we can make some headway.