Welcome guest, is this your first visit? Create Account now to join.
  • Login:

Welcome to the Online Debate Network.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed.

Page 3 of 5 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 5 LastLast
Results 41 to 60 of 89
  1. #41
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Louisiana
    Posts
    9,162
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Abiogenesis and evolution - The protein dilemma

    Quote Originally Posted by RLMS
    Is the highly improbable/impossible argument negated by a possible eternal/infinite choice?
    I think so, but at a price I don't think anyone here is willing to accept.
    First the problem of an actual infinite set aside, there is a second problem that is not considered IMO, so I will use your question as a chance to bring it out.

    If one appeals to an infinite past or cycles etc; such a positions makes it so that all events, no matter how improbable they may seem, MUST be said to either have happened already, or be happening now. The biggest problem with that is that there is no real distinction between any two events as far as chances go. If Infinite time means that all things have or are happening, then any explanation no matter how outlandish must be held as "probable". I gave an example earlier of explaining how an orange came to be in a persons hand. If one were to appeal to infinite time, then my explanation of a meteor causing the orange to fly through a jet engine, is statistically indistinguishable from the probability that it was purchased at the orange cart behind you. This utterly destroys skepticism IMO. One simply can not justifiably doubt any claim once an appeal to infinite is made.

    It's such a laughable idea that it was a common joke format for "Get Smart". Where some unlikely event would occur to Max and he would proclaim that it was the second time it had occurred to him.
    To serve man.

  2. Likes Squatch347, rlms liked this post
  3. #42
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Posts
    19
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Abiogenesis and evolution - The protein dilemma

    Quote Originally Posted by torpex View Post
    Thirdly, your argument still assumes that chance was the only factor involved.
    As I have mentioned before my argument clearly resides in the mutation part of evolution that is chance, not the selection part that does not require chance.


    Fourthly, proteins are made from amino acids, all the proteins required for life require 20 different amino acids. experiments recreating the earths early atmosphere and environment have produced over twice that number, including all the necessary ones. This is not the famous original Stanley Miller experiment which, scientists agree, did not accurately represent a young earth, but the follow up experiment which in fact got even better results than the flawed one.
    So, while no one knows precisely how the first protein formed, we do know two important things:
    1) proteins are made of, amino acids, which we do know can occur naturally. the smallest proteins in life forms are made of just 20 amino acids.
    Yes, I know, I mentioned this in my post and I gave you a universe of amino acids to get your protein, not just a few in a test tube. I am very familiar with the Miller/Urey experiment and many that were done afterwards. I believe I have clearly shown that having amino acids and declaring you have proven the beginning of life, is kind of like discovering silicon and declaring you have proven computers weren't made by humans, they just happened naturally.

    2) any inference that proteins must have formed via chance reactions between completely random atoms, is ignoring the above, so it turns out that, far from impossible, life beginning naturally might not even have been improbable.
    Don't forget, the math in your OP and ongoing posts are entirely guilty of the false premise listed in 2).
    You need to read the post again, I did not say that. I said if you made every atom in the universe an amino acid. To put it another way if you assumed that you had 1e+80 amino acids. I never said anything about making proteins with random atoms.

    That's flat out nonsense. See sickle cell anemia in my link below.
    Whether a trait is favorable or not can be determined by an organisms surroundings, but not it's number of proteins.
    You are missing the whole point of evolution.
    Mutations happen at the codon level to chemically alter or at the folding level to alter the shape. These are random chance happenings that must produce a new protein that can be used by the organism.
    Once a new protein that can be used by the cell is produced then the organisms surroundings determine whether or not this new protein is good for its survival or not. This is where the selection part of evolution occurs, the part that isn't random.

    In sickle cell anemia the protein for red blood cells has been changed by one codon(one amino acid different) making a miserable life for those who are unfortunate enough to inherit this disease. I am not exactly sure what point you are trying to make with this, we could also talk about the other 6000+ genetic disease where the original proteins have been altered and don't work properly anymore.
    I think it is a pretty good argument on my side that proves the delicate nature of how proteins interact. Most of the time when even 1 protein is changed it is fatal to the organism, that goes to show how every protein is essential to the organism.
    Last edited by rlms; November 26th, 2012 at 04:04 AM.

  4. Likes disinterested liked this post
  5. #43
    torpex
    Guest

    Re: Abiogenesis and evolution - The protein dilemma

    Quote Originally Posted by rlms View Post
    As I have mentioned before my argument clearly resides in the mutation part of evolution that is chance, not the selection part that does not require chance.
    Your argument fully relies on the assumption that complex proteins can only have occurred naturally, via pure chance. This is why your OP is based on ignorance.
    Quote Originally Posted by rlms View Post
    I am very familiar with the Miller/Urey experiment and many that were done afterwards. I believe I have clearly shown that having amino acids and declaring you have proven the beginning of life...
    Well let's not forget that I haven't made any claim about how life did or did not start, you have. Indeed, all I've done is demonstrated to you why:
    - you first need to know how something did happen before you can then try to employ probability on it, you cannot use probability to determine how something happened, that’s just backwards
    - your numbers for the probability of the formation of the average sized modern day protein, have precisely zero bearing on how the first ever useful protein formed
    - your argument is, and continues to be what you explicitly claimed it isn't; a "no one can explain it, therefore a being intended it" argument from ignorance, one which assumes that large proteins can only have naturally begun to exist through pure chance

    Quote Originally Posted by rlms View Post
    You need to read the post again, I did not say that.
    I did, plus revised my post before you or anyone responded to it.

    Quote Originally Posted by rlms View Post
    You are missing the whole point of evolution.
    No, I'm pointing out the assumptions and misconceptions your OP relies on.

    Quote Originally Posted by rlms View Post
    These are random chance happenings that must produce a new protein that can be used by the organism.
    Once a new protein that can be used by the cell is produced then the organisms surroundings determine whether or not this new protein is good for its survival or not. This is where the selection part of evolution occurs, the part that isn't random.
    This, much like your OP, merely assumes that the evolution of complex proteins is a process that goes on in organisms, that larger proteins have evolved since the origin of life, when it cannot even be claimed unlikely that:
    - amino acids occurred naturally
    - proteins of perhaps all modern lengths were produced by autocatalytic molecules, (not - as your argument requires - random assemblies of amino acids) long before anything that could be called an organism ever existed
    - self replicating proteins were what produced RNA then later DNA, then cells, then multicellular organisms, etc
    let's make it clear, I'm not claiming that is indeed what happened, but since you are willing to claim it didn't, can you explain why those events are either impossible or even improbable?

    This is my point, the OP makes the mere assumption that complex proteins occurred through chance assemblies of amino acids, which is not necessarily the case, but whatever the case, "I don't know" still =/= "it could only be the work of a god."
    Quote Originally Posted by rlms View Post
    In sickle cell anemia the protein for red blood cells has been changed by one codon(one amino acid different) making a miserable life for those who are unfortunate enough to inherit this disease.
    A mutation that makes anyone with it more likely to survive in a malaria rich environment than anyone without it, so precisely my case in point.
    Quote Originally Posted by rlms View Post
    Most of the time when even 1 protein is changed it is fatal to the organism
    Correct, which in no way precludes evolution because:
    - most being fatal is not the same as all being fatal, "not many" is still "some"
    - you would expect that the majority of mutations in such incredibly complex molecules would be disadvantageous, only the ones that aren't tend to be passed on
    - your statement assumes that the origin of complex proteins could not have happened entirely before the existence of organisms

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    If you are presented with two theories and one requires 10 variable and the other requires 1billion variables
    then you should prefer the theory that requires 10 variables.
    In itself true, but irrelevant here. Please note that neither I, nor the OP offered any theories of how the origin of life on earth happened, all the OP offered was a statement of how it did not happen, and all I did was explain the flaws of that claim.

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    That was why my orange example is perfect. Both theories explained how the orange got to your hand. One required a chain of highly unlikely events in order to be true.
    given that I do not know how the orange actually came to be in your hand, the one with the fewest variables (that you just purchased it from the orange stand behind you), is preferable to one that supposes a long chain of improbable events.
    Very true, but the OP is an argument that necessarily precludes an unknown natural mechanism that made the origin of life on earth actually rather probable. My example above refers to one of these possible mechanisms.
    Also, your analogy (again, far from perfectly) implies we have two competing theories of what happened, when actually in this thread, neither the OP nor I have presented even one.

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    where is the science in what you said? Where is the experiment that shows amino acids arrange themselves into proteins in any real natural environment?
    You forget, I'm not making any claims on the origins of life, I already fully conceded I have not the faintest idea how life started. My only claim is, neither does the OP, especially not on the merit of the argument given. “it didn’t happen like this, ergo it happened like this” is the exact same false dichotomy people used to employ when looking at how complex humans were. Turns out the fact that “it didn’t occur purely via chance” in no way implies “it didn’t happen naturally,” which is the same fallacious reasoning the OP is employing.

    If you would like to read about such experiments, try this one.
    http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...0522210926.htm
    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    You have fundamentally misunderstood the OP.
    The OP assumes and in fact uses amino acids in it's calculations. You have responded as though the OP refers to random attoms.
    That is not the case. Please re-read the OP.
    Again, I have, plus amended my post to reflect this before you'd even posted your response.
    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    Regarding the amino acid concentration... what % are left handed, and how many are right handed?
    homochirality remains a mystery. There's various hypotheses, some involve biotic origins, others abiotic, it's still an unknown, which is fine since I do not claim to know.

  6. #44
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Louisiana
    Posts
    9,162
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Abiogenesis and evolution - The protein dilemma

    Quote Originally Posted by torpex
    In itself true, but irrelevant here. Please note that neither I, nor the OP offered any theories of how the origin of life on earth happened, all the OP offered was a statement of how it did not happen, and all I did was explain the flaws of that claim.
    Well, you do assert that the claim and the reasoning in the OP is flawed. I do not believe that you have substantiated it. (I explain below the justification of my belief).

    Quote Originally Posted by TORPEX
    Very true, but the OP is an argument that necessarily precludes an unknown natural mechanism that made the origin of life on earth actually rather probable
    Right, because that would be a fallacious appeal to ignorance.(see bottom of post) Which is exactly the case you have made.
    In fact, it is the exact argument in the OP that would FORCE one to look for such a natural mechanism, because it is unreasonable to believe that it occurred through chance.

    The Op doesn't claim that such a thing is impossible, however there is no such mechanism.

    Quote Originally Posted by TORPEX
    Also, your analogy (again, far from perfectly) implies we have two competing theories of what happened, when actually in this thread, neither the OP nor I have presented even one.
    I can think of 3 ideas that would compete, but any way you look it the theory presented in the OP (that of random chance) is soundly evidences as being unreasonable to accept.

    Quote Originally Posted by TORPEX
    “it didn’t happen like this, ergo it happened like this” is the exact same false dichotomy people used to employ when looking at how complex humans were. Turns out the fact that “it didn’t occur purely via chance” in no way implies “it didn’t happen naturally,” which is the same fallacious reasoning the OP is employing.
    I see your point. However if there is no driving mechanism that basically necessitates the construction of proteins naturally, then the argument presented in the OP is very strong.
    There is no such mechanism, so the OP offers a strong argument.

    If you disagree, then please offer the evidence that such a mechanism does exist.

    Quote Originally Posted by TORPEX
    If you would like to read about such experiments, try this one.
    The link says they started with a protein.... not exactly relevant to the OP.

    Quote Originally Posted by TORPEX
    homochirality remains a mystery. There's various hypotheses, some involve biotic origins, others abiotic, it's still an unknown, which is fine since I do not claim to know.
    Without that information the math you sighted is useless IMO.



    Quote Originally Posted by TORPEX
    Your argument fully relies on the assumption that complex proteins can only have occurred naturally, via pure chance. This is why your OP is based on ignorance.
    You are begging the question, and asserting that appealing to our ignorance is a valid response to the OP.
    It is not.
    If the OP is true UNLESS there is a mechanism that actually causes otherwise mixed amino acids to arrange themselves into proteins, then the OP is sustained until such evidence is actually presented.

    You can not simply appeal to ignorance as a valid counter. It is a logical fallacy.

    Quote Originally Posted by APPEAL TO IGNORANCE FALLACY
    http://www.fallacyfiles.org/ignorant.html
    An appeal to ignorance is an argument for or against a proposition on the basis of a lack of evidence against or for it. If there is positive evidence for the conclusion, then of course we have other reasons for accepting it, but a lack of evidence by itself is no evidence.
    Like wise, you have argued that the OP is false/flawed because we don't know that such a mechanism does not exist.

    It is a fallacious counter.
    The truth is, you don't know if the OP is flawed or not because the existence of the proof against it, that you offer to counter it, is itself unknown.

    Quote Originally Posted by TORPEX
    No, I'm pointing out the assumptions and misconceptions your OP relies on.
    You may be pointing out an assumption, but you have not supported that it is in fact a "Misconception".
    To serve man.

  7. #45
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Posts
    19
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Abiogenesis and evolution - The protein dilemma

    Torpex
    but the simplest is made up of 20.
    and the longest protein is titin, the mouse titin is made up of 35,213 amino acids. That is why we used an average figure, which happens to be approximately 288 amino acids for a protein.

    the simplest theorized self-replicating protein is only 32 amino acids long.
    Self-replicating protein? Seriously?
    Proteins have no information to self-replicate, nor do they have the ability to get the raw materials, and they don’t carry around the chemicals or mechanisms to create bonds. A self-replicating protein, without the support of a cell, is impossible.

    What they are speaking of is some proteins ability to do something called post translation modification. In effect, this makes a protein able to change the folding pattern of another similar protein that has already been created by a cell. It is not capable of producing anything, only changing the shape of an existing similar protein.

    To stretch scientific fact to try and make a point to this extent shows true religious fervor.
    This is very bad science and I challenge anyone to explain the mechanism as to how a single protein will replicate itself.

    care to recalculate the odds of such a protein happening by chance, over a billion years, factoring in how many chemical reactions were occurring in earth's oceans per second during that billion years? Because I definitely wouldn't.
    Actually, it turns out someone already has.
    "The probability of it forming randomly, in sequential trials, is approximately 1 in 10^40......if we assume the volume of the oceans were 10^24 liters, and the amino acid concentration was 10-6M (which is actually very dilute), then almost 10^31 self-replicating peptides would form in under a year, let alone millions of years. So, even given the difficult chances of 1 in 10^40, the first stages of abiogenesis could have started very quickly indeed."
    This ignores the very essence of what I am saying, because, we still have to come up with several thousand new proteins in a span of approximately 500 million years to have our first cell, which is blue green algae. And, again we will be dealing with an average of 288 amino acids with the same 1 in 1e+300 odds.

    But, let’s look at this for a second and throw away all we know about proteins and say this self-replicating fairytale protein is something to consider.
    This math gives us 3.35e+49 water molecules with a total of 3.35e+43 amino acids(using 1 ppm, even though your formula is written as Moles, I am not about to try and guesstimate the Moles of a make-believe molecule)

    This leaves us with every molecule interacting 1.06e+27 times per second to get your 1e+31 proteins. Not exactly a likely scenario.

    Now that we are calculating real world, let’s revisit the assumptions. Most of these amino acids would never even touch another amino acid at that dilution, and when they did it would be rare that a bond would form. Then we have to have all left-handed amino acids that makeup this protein, try plugging that into the equation. Top that off with the dissolution of bonds over time. Why don’t you look at the experiments that that tried to reproduce proteins with just such scenarios, they fail to produce a single protein and all had right and left handed amino acids in their polypeptides.

    You keep saying I have faulty assumptions and bad math without showing proof, but, here I have shown you clearly why your assumptions and math do not work.

    These self replicating proteins also would have left us with some kind of chemical signatures in the rocks. There would be clear evidence that they existed because the rocks themselves would be made up of the same chemicals as the proteins.
    But, there is none. We find the first fossils of blue green algae in the form of Stromatolites.

    I looked at your link and the only thing that I saw that supported what you said was the title. The actual content of the article was designing a new and improved protein from an existing protein that was 80 amino acids long. A good point if you are arguing for a designer. Fascinating article though.

    ---------- Post added at 07:10 AM ---------- Previous post was at 06:41 AM ----------

    Thrashee
    The only thing the OP has argued is that tiny odds equals impossibility. It does not.
    Statistically impossible is part of logic and reason that we use everyday to make decisions.
    When a five year old tells her parents that her one year old brother climbed up a stack of shelves and ate the candy, it is possible. And if they were total fools they would believe her, but, parents use statistical impossibility in their logic to rule out the 1 year old did it.
    When someone emails me to tell me I can make millions if I just send them my bank information, I use statistics to rule out the possibility of it being valid. By the way, I have a couple of bridges in New York City I would sell you real cheap

    So if you want to toss out the perfectly valid possibilities that time and the number of universes might be infinite, go right ahead.
    Most astrophysicists already have.

    http://www.danling.com/earthling/Doc.../The%20End.pdf
    Last edited by rlms; November 28th, 2012 at 02:00 AM.

  8. Likes MindTrap028 liked this post
  9. #46
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Posts
    19
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Abiogenesis and evolution - The protein dilemma

    Torpex
    Well let's not forget that I haven't made any claim about how life did or did not start, you have.
    The main objective of the OP is to show that the current theories are statistically impossible. I haven’t shared my theory, that would be a whole new thread.

    you first need to know how something did happen before you can then try to employ probability on it
    If I know how something happened why do I need probablility to figure out how it happened.


    your argument is, and continues to be what you explicitly claimed it isn't; a "no one can explain it, therefore a being intended it" argument from ignorance, one which assumes that large proteins can only have naturally begun to exist through pure chance
    My argument is “science has shown the extreme complexity of proteins and living organisms, therefore the current theories are not valid that might have been believable 100 years ago.”

    This, much like your OP, merely assumes that the evolution of complex proteins is a process that goes on in organisms,
    The Theory of Evolution assumes that complex proteins are created within the organisms! Without new proteins you can’t have evolution because that is the very basis for life and what makes cells operate and interact with each other.
    It takes new proteins to make new and different traits, so I am not sure how you think this whole process works. Please take time to learn a little about the cell and how it works.

    when it cannot even be claimed unlikely that:
    - amino acids occurred naturally
    Of course amino acids occur naturally, it is a rare event, but it does happen. That isn’t even an issue in this debate.

    -
    proteins of perhaps all modern lengths were produced by autocatalytic molecules, (not - as your argument requires - random assemblies of amino acids) long before anything that could be called an organism ever existed
    - self replicating proteins were what produced RNA then later DNA, then cells, then multicellular organisms, etc
    let's make it clear, I'm not claiming that is indeed what happened, but since you are willing to claim it didn't, can you explain why those events are either impossible or even improbable?
    Very good statement, this is really the crux of the matter when it comes to abiogenesis.
    Research has been going on for well over 60 years trying to produce exactly what you are referring to here. Why do you not hear much about it? Because they have failed miserably and the only things they have produced are amino acids.

    The hope was that certain amino acids would be attracted and drawn to one another and would replicate proteins and it would be shown how this would defy the odds that my OP brings up.
    This is the “Holy Grail” of such research. With all of the money and resources that have been put into these projects over the decades we now know the opposite to be true:

    • proteins are difficult to assemble, requiring complex machinery to carry out the connections and folding
    • they are unstable and lose their shape easily(denatured)
    • they have a very limited lifespan outside of life
    • are not “drawn” to each other to auto-assemble

    The auto-assembly part, imo, is the most important of all. Had that been proven with research then the odds of the OP would then be a moot point.
    My point is that it has been tried for many years and has been proven false. To say it may be discovered at a later time, when many experiments over half a century has proven that are no natural attractions, is just wishful thinking.

    If we did not have these experiments we could say it was an unknown. But, I believe enough experimentation has been done to show it has been thoroughly falsified.
    If it were true it would be easy to prove since there are only 20 amino acids to test for auto-assembly.

    As to the self-replicating proteins, RNA and DNA, life itself should teach you that there is no such thing. Study viruses and lower life forms that have fairly complex structures and proteins and yet cannot even reproduce, but must break into a cell and use it’s mechanisms to propagate.
    I have already touched on the issues of no chemical signature or fossil evidence in previous posts.

    So to recap we have:

    • No fossil evidence
    • No chemical signature in the precambrian rocks
    • No explanation as to how the mechanisms would operate
    • No success in showing these magic proteins and self-replicating RNA despite the decades of trying


    But I forgot you can just say, “Eternal Past made it”. All power and glory to Eternal Past

    I think when you study how life works on a molecular level and understand the machinery behind what makes it work, you really understand how ludicrous any serious self-replication of protein, RNA and DNA really is without the cellular entourage supporting them.
    Last edited by rlms; November 28th, 2012 at 06:46 PM.

  10. #47
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    Oklahoma
    Posts
    419
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Abiogenesis and evolution - The protein dilemma

    Quote Originally Posted by rlms View Post
    The main objective of the OP is to show that the current theories are statistically impossible.
    Submit your objection to people who are actually experts in the field and come back to us.

    If abiogenesis/evolution were impossible and could be proven wrong through "simple math", I'm pretty sure that the experts would have figured it out already and the entire house of cards would have collapsed.

    You are not going to get convincing feedback or criticism debating molecular biology with laymen.
    ~Zealous

  11. #48
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Posts
    19
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Abiogenesis and evolution - The protein dilemma

    Quote Originally Posted by ZealousDemon View Post
    Submit your objection to people who are actually experts in the field and come back to us..
    Many experts in the field have realized the impossibility of life by natural means and do believe in a God or a higher power of some sort that had a hand in creating life.
    Here is an interesting fact that might surprise you; According to the Pew Research Center 51% of scientists believe in God or a higher power, and of the 41% who don't believe in God only 17% are strong atheist, the rest are agnostic, falling in the don't know, don't care group.
    We are led to believe that most scientists are atheists when just the opposite is true.

    Name:  ScientistGodBelief.gif
Views: 170
Size:  3.3 KB

    Notice the fact that the older scientists are more likely to be agnostic/atheistic than the younger ones.
    Look at the 18-34 group where 66% believe in God/higher power compared to the 65+ where there are only 46%.
    This goes with what I was saying about abiogenesis being more believable in the past when we knew less about protein interaction and the inner workings of the cell.
    In the late 70's, when I was first introduced to abiogenesis, our text books said that amino acids were present in a small warm pond and that they combined to form an amoeba. It used the Miller/Urey experiments as proof of this. Nobody believes this anymore. With the scientific knowledge that we now have we know this ludicrous, but, then it was somewhat believable and no one seriously questioned it.

    If abiogenesis/evolution were impossible and could be proven wrong through "simple math", I'm pretty sure that the experts would have figured it out already and the entire house of cards would have collapsed.
    Many of the people who promote ID were staunch atheistic evolutionists until they looked at the facts.
    The fact that the majority of biological/medical scientists(51%) believe in God/higher power says a lot because of the strong evolutionary slant of most of the university classes have that teach these subjects.
    Don't forget that there is an extreme prejudice and backlash against these ideas within the scientific community so most who believe this will keep silent so as not raise the ire of the vocal minority.

    You are not going to get convincing feedback or criticism debating molecular biology with laymen.
    You may be right, I honestly didn't think it was that complicated. But, I am working off of years of study and base knowledge, so, maybe without that basic understanding of how the mechanisms work, it is harder to comprehend the impossibility factor that just seems so obvious. And, I am seeing that you can easily be led down paths that run contrary to the known workings without that base knowledge.
    I know that most people could understand it if they took the time, but, realistically most people don't care enough to.

    I really expected better arguments than:
    Eternity did it
    You have to use quantum mechanics and have a PhD(but didn't offer to supply the correct equation to get the answer and didn't even understand the main point of the OP)
    You can't be right because otherwise everyone would agree with you
    Already disproven autoassembling proteins(although natural attraction of certain amino acids is the only legitimate argument concerning abiogenesis)


    I am still disappointed that no one challenged the evolution part of the equation.
    I think most missed the significance of it's implications. It is by far the most impossible naturalistic scenario.

  12. Likes disinterested liked this post
  13. #49
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    Oklahoma
    Posts
    419
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Abiogenesis and evolution - The protein dilemma

    Quote Originally Posted by rlms View Post
    Many experts in the field have realized the impossibility of life by natural means and do believe in a God or a higher power of some sort that had a hand in creating life.
    Here is an interesting fact that might surprise you; According to the Pew Research Center 51% of scientists believe in God or a higher power, and of the 41% who don't believe in God only 17% are strong atheist, the rest are agnostic, falling in the don't know, don't care group.
    We are led to believe that most scientists are atheists when just the opposite is true.
    Everything you just said is completely irrelevant.

    1. Whether a scientist believes in a god or not does not necessarily imply that they believe that that god had an active hand in creating life. Some percentage of those scientists are likely to be deists.
    2. Further, even if they did agree that some god is at least partially responsible for life does not mean that they're going to agree with your reasoning or justification.
    3. Your objection to current abiogenesis/evolution theory is simply an objection of the idea that randomness accounts for the creation and complexity of life. If your explanation is "God did it" than you're simply using a God of the Gaps argument which is one of the most well known fallacies used by proponents of Intelligent Design.

    Don't try and weasel out of this. If you're not interested in discussing the issue with somebody who may actually know a thing or two what they're talking about, as if you feel it's impossible for you to be wrong, than just say so.
    ~Zealous

  14. #50
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Posts
    19
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Abiogenesis and evolution - The protein dilemma

    Quote Originally Posted by ZealousDemon View Post
    1. Whether a scientist believes in a god or not does not necessarily imply that they believe that that god had an active hand in creating life. Some percentage of those scientists are likely to be deists.
    True, I did not mean to imply that because they believed in something that transcends the laws of nature that they were ID proponents. Good point.

    2. Further, even if they did agree that some god is at least partially responsible for life does not mean that they're going to agree with your reasoning or justification.
    My reasoning is based on scientific fact and no one here has even slightly disproven that. The only true objection stems from the bigotry against the idea of a God, so, without that bigotry most would readily accept my argument.

    3. Your objection to current abiogenesis/evolution theory is simply an objection of the idea that randomness accounts for the creation and complexity of life. If your explanation is "God did it" than you're simply using a God of the Gaps argument which is one of the most well known fallacies used by proponents of Intelligent Design.
    The fact still remains I have not said,"God did it". The OP simply shows the naturalistic impossibility without giving conclusions as to the source of the creation of proteins whether it is some unknown intelligent life, God, gods, the flying spaghetti monster...

    Don't try and weasel out of this. If you're not interested in discussing the issue with somebody who may actually know a thing or two what they're talking about, as if you feel it's impossible for you to be wrong, than just say so.
    Far from it, I was very much looking forward to debating someone well versed in this subject, that is why I posted here. If abiogenesis and atheistic evolution are possible it is not going to affect what I believe in the slightest, so I really have nothing on the line here from a personal standpoint. My main reason for confronting this is so that people will quit twisting science to fit their world views, whether it is for atheism, God, gods, etc...
    Facts are facts and should not be ignored simply because they do not fit into a persons narrow way of thinking.

  15. #51
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Seattle, Washington USA
    Posts
    7,405
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Abiogenesis and evolution - The protein dilemma

    RLMS

    You have at the root of your arguments the misconceptions that come with the word "random" While for humans a common definition of random is the seeming inability to find a pattern, a philosophically random event is one that cannot be known until it occurs. That is a random event is an event without determinant causality. AKA something that "just happens". We call the roll of a dice "random" but in truth there is nothing random about it. Gravity, friction, molecular interaction, strong and weak forces and so forth all come together to create a chain of determinate events and if we knew every factor and angle and force that goes into the throw of the dice we could predict exactly what outcome it will have and tell you exactly why it came out the way it did. But since we lack that instantaneous knowledge we are at a loss to predict the outcome of the dice throw and so we call it random.

    When you look at all the possible protein combinations and call each of them equally probably you are making a gross over simplification that utterly ignores all the causal properties of the universe. There is debate int he quantum arena as to whether anything is or isn't truly causal but above that level wee see a strong and predictable determinism in the behavior of matter and energy. For nearly all practical purposes its clear our universe is deterministic and follows definitive laws. One event leads to the next and the next in a chain of interaction that is massively complex, and for us impossible to predict, but at least appears utterly deterministic.

    Now consider a snowflake. To construct one at a molecular level with an exact realized shape would require massive numbers of "tries" were you to have no guiding principle, rule, design etc... Yet snow flakes happen all the time with many complex forms and shapes. This is because the laws that govern the behavior of matter and the circumstances of our planet's atmosphere do not assemble them through random processes. They happen through specific conditions and specific laws and they make snowflakes without any trial and error required. No random assembly is happening, instead it is deterministic and if we could decode all events in the universe we could even predict how each and every snowflake for all time will be formed or even if there is true quantum variability give you a rough idea of it.

    Furthermore, you and others here have made the mistake of assuming two falsehoods about random chance in different arguments.

    1. Assuming that each random event is not independent in a truly random scenario. (this comes into play in MTs argument that over infinite time all probabilities must come true) That is false. Each event in an random series (if indeed it is random) are completely inexpedient of one another. Compound chance only is considered when you take an event series as a compound outcome. You could flip a coin and have it come up heads every single time. It is possible. While probabilities would approach certainty, they would never actually arrive at it.

    2. Assuming that events in the universe are independent. In a universe where everything is fundamentally interacting every event has an influence on the outcome of every other event. If one part of a protein forms it makes other parts of the protein much more likely. If a living system exists, then it vastly increases the circumstance for another living system to arise from it. Its like assuming that just because you have a hole in the ground, the chance of water filling it is the same as if you didn't have a hole in the ground. The universe does not operate in that way and your math utterly fails to take any of that into account.

    Atheists do not see the world as a place of utterly random events that happen without meaning. But neither do they see our world as a place designed by a human like mind that considers us the intended outcome and purpose of the universe which we inhabit. We are an integral part of the universe, a necessary outcome but not the ends or intent of its mechanisms. Those ideas are the product of wishful thinking rather than objective investigation. Ideas of god did not come from a search for the origin of life, they came from the fear of an uncertain and dangerous world long before we understood how any of it worked at a natural level. Since their invention men have sought to take every discovery and use it as justification for their existing supernatural beliefs or to deny the objective observation because it badly conflicts with their preconceived notions.

    We don't live in a universe that has a chance of creating life. We live in a universe that will and did create live because of how the fundamental workings of the universe operate. The need to put a human like emotion as the root cause of that system is folly, as is the desire to insist it must be a magical power that stems from a human like will. First stop and learn how it works, probe the unknown and stop making assumptions before you know just because you don't.
    Feed me some debate pellets!

  16. Thanks BasicInstinct thanked for this post
  17. #52
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Louisiana
    Posts
    9,162
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Abiogenesis and evolution - The protein dilemma

    Quote Originally Posted by SIG
    Furthermore, you and others here have made the mistake of assuming two falsehoods about random chance in different arguments.

    1. Assuming that each random event is not independent in a truly random scenario. (this comes into play in MTs argument that over infinite time all probabilities must come true) That is false. Each event in an random series (if indeed it is random) are completely inexpedient of one another. Compound chance only is considered when you take an event series as a compound outcome. You could flip a coin and have it come up heads every single time. It is possible. While probabilities would approach certainty, they would never actually arrive at it.
    First, your response is most damaging against the argument formulated against the OP which I was responding to.
    It commits the logical fallacy called "Gamblers fallacy".
    If each universe has a 1 in #( with 188 zeros behind it) chance to "randomly" producing a single protein, then infinite universes do not make for a better chance.
    Just like flipping a coin heads 10 times, does not increase the chance that you will get tails on the 11th. The 11th try is still 50/50.

    Second, your response doesn't really change my argument at all. While you may be right that I was incorrect to assert that all events do in fact occur.
    My point is that all events become indistinguishable or all equal in their probability. If infinite tries means that it "approaches certainty", then all events no matter the odds can be considered a near certainty.

    Quote Originally Posted by SIG
    2. Assuming that events in the universe are independent. In a universe where everything is fundamentally interacting every event has an influence on the outcome of every other event. If one part of a protein forms it makes other parts of the protein much more likely. If a living system exists, then it vastly increases the circumstance for another living system to arise from it. Its like assuming that just because you have a hole in the ground, the chance of water filling it is the same as if you didn't have a hole in the ground. The universe does not operate in that way and your math utterly fails to take any of that into account.
    Are you arguing that it is really more of a 50/50 chance, because the initial conditions either necessitate it, or they do not?

    It also seems that you are arguing that life is a "necessary" product of our universe.
    I would challenge you to support how that is the case. It seems to me that there is enough uncertainty in the universe that you can't possibly make that claim with any confidence. In fact, with that kind of logic it is wrong to conclude any kind of intelligence to be a cause of anything. If you found the 10 commandments indented in the side of a mountain, you would be forced to say that it may have occurred without intelligent input because our universe necessitated it to exist. After all, its all interactive if that is how the rock eroded, it is just a function of the accumulative interactions of the universe.
    To serve man.

  18. #53
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Seattle, Washington USA
    Posts
    7,405
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Abiogenesis and evolution - The protein dilemma

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    First, your response is most damaging against the argument formulated against the OP which I was responding to.
    It commits the logical fallacy called "Gamblers fallacy".
    If each universe has a 1 in #( with 188 zeros behind it) chance to "randomly" producing a single protein, then infinite universes do not make for a better chance.
    Just like flipping a coin heads 10 times, does not increase the chance that you will get tails on the 11th. The 11th try is still 50/50.
    I didn't read the opposing posts all that much. I do however find that creationists (as the OP did) use the word "random" to describe the atheist view. And while that may be used by some atheists, I and others of my ilk do not use that word and find those who do to me wrong in their arguments. While it is used, in a serious debate it is a strawman. The OP sets up the only alternate explanation to specific Godly creation as being pure random odds with an independent chance and then shoots it down. But a universe of pure random independent events is no more sophisticated than "the bible tells me so." and if I attacked your belief as if that were its only basis you would rightly castigate me as attacking the worst argument theists have to offer.

    Second, your response doesn't really change my argument at all. While you may be right that I was incorrect to assert that all events do in fact occur.
    My point is that all events become indistinguishable or all equal in their probability. If infinite tries means that it "approaches certainty", then all events no matter the odds can be considered a near certainty.
    If, and only if, they were actually random and independent which is where my second argument and the one I am more passionate about comes in. The first was more a technical correction about the nature of probability in independent events. I in fact don't think our universe is comprised of independent random events.

    Are you arguing that it is really more of a 50/50 chance, because the initial conditions either necessitate it, or they do not?
    No, ultimately my argument is that there is no chance what so ever. I would say the universe can only ever be exactly as it is and that anything which happens is the only actual possibility despite our inability to predict it. Random is really just unpredictable and the unpredictable is not philosophical but practical.

    It also seems that you are arguing that life is a "necessary" product of our universe.
    Correct, and we know that because we observe that it happened. Just like gravity is a necessary product of mass and we know that because we observe that to be the case. We know our universe created life, unless we introduce the idea that there is a force beyond anything we are able to observe and posit it acted instead of all that we can observe. While that could be true, its pure presumption unless we have complete understanding of everything we can observe and we know that is not true. There is a great deal we yet don't understand about how the universe operates so presuming what it cannot possibly do is a leap too far in the face of the clear observation of the result of it.

    Its like the claims of miracles because someone walks who a doctor said "will never walk again!" It assumes the doctor has perfect knowledge when if fact he does not. He makes a judgement on hugely imperfect knowledge in fact. The miracle is them measured as if the uncertainty were certainty and its very presumptuous, at least as much so as the doctor's claim.

    I would challenge you to support how that is the case. It seems to me that there is enough uncertainty in the universe that you can't possibly make that claim with any confidence.
    I can only tell you that I have more confidence that the world we know produced the word we observe than a world we don't know or can't observe did it instead. I can also say with confidence I've never seen demonstration of an event that is not causal, aka that happens independent of any prior event and is thus truly random. All events I see are causal and so I suspect that the events that gave rise to life were also causal. Nor do I observe any real patterns in life that make me think they were created by a human like mind to serve a human like desire or objective.

    The theist views sees creation as something that was wanted, and when a thing is wanted you have some kind of utility or reason and I just don't see it. Even theists often default to 'I don't understand gods goals, I just trust they are for the best" And that isn't a path of knowledge, its a path of hope. An atheist doesn't see evidence of a universe that fulfills some goal, simply one that operates according to its own rules. I don't say life is here because of chance, nor do I say its here because a god desires it. I say life is here "because" that is the only think that can happen in this universe that we live in. We can seek to understand how, but why is only a question that applies from a subjective viewpoint. How is the domain of the universe, why is the domain of ourselves.

    In fact, with that kind of logic it is wrong to conclude any kind of intelligence to be a cause of anything.
    Now we will fall down a well of definitions. Intelligence vs Will. I would say Will is a better word for what you mean than intelligence. Intelligence has all kinds of causes. My intelligence causes me to write these words to you and yours to translate them into symbolic meaning which is in fact electrons moving in your brain which itself has causes so on and so forth in an vast interconnected web of causality that encompasses all there is. Will however, or the idea of spontaneous creation of events is something else beyond mere intelligence. Intelligence is a process bound in cause and effect, will-invention, the cause without its own cause. that I see no evidence for, only a desire that our will can change the universe without itself being a result of said universe.

    If you found the 10 commandments indented in the side of a mountain, you would be forced to say that it may have occurred without intelligent input because our universe necessitated it to exist.[/QUOTE]

    I would assume they got there by someone carving them. If I found the 10 commandments inscribed in the surface of Mars where I know no human has been, then I would assume there is an intelligence like ours outside of the earth. If we found the 10 commandments inscribed on the surface of every planet in the universe, then I would be forced to assume there was a power beyond the universe that was human like and which acted to put them there.

    But we only find the 10 commandments in the works of human beings and in places where humans could easily put them there which argues strongly they are made by humans for human purposes. Likewise we find humans only here on earth so far which argues we are a product of the earth and the earth is in the solar system arguing it is a product of that system and so on and so forth showing that all natural things are a product of the natural universe they are found to be in.

    After all, its all interactive if that is how the rock eroded, it is just a function of the accumulative interactions of the universe.[/QUOTE]

    But we would know it as an exception unless all mountains tended to erode that way. When it comes to life on earth we don't really have any other test beds that have similar conditions and where we can examine the results. That is why scientists are so excited to start discovering other planets and to be exploring the ones near us. Though they are not exactly the same they may have enough similarities that it could demonstrate if life is common under the conditions where we find it here and that will help us learn about life itself.

    We have a great many mountains to examine but we have only one world with conditions that would enable a system like ourselves to flourish. There may be a great many others but we currently lack the ability to examine them, much as an ancient tribe might have lacked the ability to discover there are lands beyond their own. So a mountain with such an inscription is something we can easily test and examine if it is a common natural event or not. Life so far is a bit beyond our ability to make such basic observations about.
    Feed me some debate pellets!

  19. Thanks BasicInstinct thanked for this post
  20. #54
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Posts
    19
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Abiogenesis and evolution - The protein dilemma

    Siegfried
    You have at the root of your arguments the misconceptions that come with the word "random"
    Ok, a few of us have this misconception that part of evolution is random. A few of the other places that seem to have this misconception: Berkeley, Harvard, Oxford, Yale, Indiana University, and about every other college and scientific journal.

    The mechanisms of evolution—like natural selection and genetic drift—work with the random variation generated by mutation. For example, exposure to harmful chemicals may increase the mutation rate, but will not cause more mutations that make the organism resistant to those chemicals. In this respect, mutations are random—whether a particular mutation happens or not is generally unrelated to how useful that mutation would be.
    In addition, experiments have made it clear that many mutations are in fact "random," and did not occur because the organism was placed in a situation where the mutation would be useful.
    http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evosit...1aRandom.shtml

    A central tenet in evolutionary theory is that mutations occur randomly with respect to their value to an organism; selection then governs whether they are fixed in a population.
    http://www.nature.com/nature/journal...ture10995.html

    This information is now available for the set of gene deletions in yeast, but not for the random mutations that are likely to dominate evolutionary change.
    http://sysbio.harvard.edu/csb/resear..._projects.html

    Through several billion years, living things have evolved to achieve an enormous diversity. The driving force in creating this diversity is random mutations in their genes.
    http://nar.oxfordjournals.org/content/34/4/e30.full

    quoted Lewis Thomas, former Dean of Yale Medical School that without random mutations we would be bacteria:

    Every time that scientists have examined the process of mutation, seeking to learn if there are recognizable patterns, the answer seems to be that mutation is essentially random. If we think of the causes of mutation, such as chemical mistakes in DNA replication or repair, or physical damage due to cosmic rays or other radiation, we see that there is no reason to expect mutation to be anything except random.
    http://www.indiana.edu/~oso/evolution/selection.htm

    In molecular biology and genetics, mutations are accidental changes in a genomic sequence of DNA: the DNA sequence of a cell's genome or the DNA or RNA sequence in some viruses. These random sequences can be defined as sudden and spontaneous changes in the cell. Mutations are caused by radiation, viruses, transposons and mutagenic chemicals, as well as errors that occur during meiosis or DNA replication.[1][2][3] They can also be induced by the organism itself, by cellular processes such as hypermutation.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mutation

    a common definition of random is the seeming inability to find a pattern
    I was thinking the exact same thing as I was reading this…

    When you look at all the possible protein combinations and call each of them equally probably you are making a gross over simplification that utterly ignores all the causal properties of the universe.
    Gee, I never thought of that. If only I hadn’t slept through chemistry…
    Yes, I am aware of the differing degree of difficulty in amino acid bonding and protein to protein interaction.

    So, if this helps your case then enlighten me. What amino acids have an attraction to each other that cause them to come together to defy all odds and make proteins?

    For nearly all practical purposes its clear our universe is deterministic and follows definitive laws.
    Yes, and I have pointed them out and you are ignoring them

    Now consider a snowflake.
    A snowflake made of frozen water molecules and a rare complex protein made of a string of amino acids have nothing in common with each other. This isn’t even relevant.

    If one part of a protein forms it makes other parts of the protein much more likely.
    Before the entire protein would be constructed the individual polypeptides would disassemble.

    The universe does not operate in that way and your math utterly fails to take any of that into account.
    It was not my intention to figure a real life scenario. I thought that people who understand the mechanisms of a cell would also understand that the simplistic would best show the impossibility.
    If we make it real life and factor in chemical bonding principles, left handed chirality, disassembly counteracting assembly, limited protein to protein interaction, aerobic and anaerobic environments needed, etc…
    Then we just make it all the more impossible, so, I don’t really see your point. I have to show you greater odds than 1 in 1e+300 for an average protein for you to concede it has severe problems?

    Atheists do not see the world as a place of utterly random events that happen without meaning.
    On one hand you claim logic and reason and on the other you claim some mysterious order of the cosmos that defies its own laws. You only say this because you know good and well there is no way you can defend your theories and directly confront the facts I have brought out.
    So, you hide behind this fog of words that makes you feel like you have countered the odds. The reality is you haven’t even challenged a single scientific fact, just spit out philosophical nonsense about snowflakes.

    Ideas of god did not come from a search for the origin of life
    And this counters the OP how? Now you are an expert in religion and know exactly how it originated without a shred of evidence to back you up. Similar to the way you reach your conclusions in the rest of your theories.

    We live in a universe that will and did create live because of how the fundamental workings of the universe operate.
    Wow, so you have a completely new understanding of chemical reactions, proteins, mutations, and basic cellular biology that no one else if privy to.
    Because, last I checked there were no serious abiogenesis theories out there other than from the evolution propaganda websites. And those can be shot down by anyone with any knowledge of cellular biology.

    First stop and learn how it works, probe the unknown and stop making assumptions before you know just because you don't.
    I have given you facts and you have given me words. I challenge you to specifically show how your “enlightened” thinking make the odds any better or even gives life a fighting chance of appearing.
    If you really are knowledgeable then you should be able to give specifics instead of these obtuse ramblings.
    Last edited by rlms; November 30th, 2012 at 02:57 AM.

  21. Likes disinterested liked this post
  22. #55
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Louisiana
    Posts
    9,162
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Abiogenesis and evolution - The protein dilemma

    Quote Originally Posted by SIG
    I would assume they got there by someone carving them.
    I would challenge you to justify such arbitrary reasoning.
    Certainly it could occur naturally right?
    And Certainly if it did, then it would be a necessary function of the universe.

    so you can not distinguish or draw a conclusion based on it's existence, unless you are just going to bring your bias into the conclusion.

    Quote Originally Posted by SIG
    I didn't read the opposing posts all that much. I do however find that creationists (as the OP did) use the word "random" to describe the atheist view. And while that may be used by some atheists, I and others of my ilk do not use that word and find those who do to me wrong in their arguments. While it is used, in a serious debate it is a strawman. The OP sets up the only alternate explanation to specific Godly creation as being pure random odds with an independent chance and then shoots it down. But a universe of pure random independent events is no more sophisticated than "the bible tells me so." and if I attacked your belief as if that were its only basis you would rightly castigate me as attacking the worst argument theists have to offer.
    The problem is, that just because it exist and obeys natural laws, doesn't mean the natural laws are themselves a sufficient explanation for it's existence.
    That is simply to assume what you seek to prove.
    As above with the 10 commandments. If I simply assume that it came about through natural erosion, then the explanation is equally as valid as what you are saying here.
    And my rejection of your assertion that it was the result of some "will" mirrors your objection to the argument of the OP.


    Your explanation is completely worthless because it fails to be able to make any distinction =even in places where we know one exists.
    To serve man.

  23. #56
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Seattle, Washington USA
    Posts
    7,405
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Abiogenesis and evolution - The protein dilemma

    Quote Originally Posted by rlms View Post
    Ok, a few of us have this misconception that part of evolution is random. A few of the other places that seem to have this misconception: Berkeley, Harvard, Oxford, Yale, Indiana University, and about every other college and scientific journal.
    The examples you give are a different meaning of random. The random in your example, where you consider all combinations of molecules equally likely and interdependent to create a set of odds, is not the same kind of random they use to differentiate planned and unplanned mutations. They are saying quite clearly that mutation is not directed, such to say living things don't "design" mutations with a purpose in mind such that if it gets colder the genes purposefully re-arrange to create adaptations useful against the cold as a reaction. That is not to say that there is no dependent causality involved in mutation. We know radiation bombardment can create mutations. We know that some carcinogenic chemical agents can create mutation and we have at leas some notion of how mutations occur and propagate.

    Again, while it is unpredictable for us, and while it is not done with some kind of plan formulated by a human like mind (so far as we can tell) it is not truly random. Each event in the development of life is causal steming from activities in the environment and the laws by which matter an energy in the universe operate.

    Your random equations assume that anything is possible, but in our universe, anything is not possible, only one outcome of any given situation is actually possible. Our sense of multiple possible outcome is only due to our uncertainty, aka lack of knowledge as to what the situation is.

    While the equivocation is understandable the word random has multiple meanings. You are taking the meaning clearly outlined in the literature on evolution and then using the same word to imply they advocate for a purely statistical meaning of the same word.

    Yes, I am aware of the differing degree of difficulty in amino acid bonding and protein to protein interaction.
    Then you should put them to use if you want to make a valid argument instead of treating each possible interaction as having equal and independent probability.

    So, if this helps your case then enlighten me. What amino acids have an attraction to each other that cause them to come together to defy all odds and make proteins?
    We don't yet have the information to say, but we have made significant progress over the years of experimentation and observation. We can show the generation of amino acids, and we can demonstrate how amino acids can form Proteinoids which while not true proteins have many of the same properties and themselves can form cell like membranes. While that is far from demonstrating abiogenesis it is also far from just random assemblies of amino acids that arise in equal probability as your mathematical model would have us contemplate. These molecules are not formed randomly but are formed predictably under the right conditions, conditions that can be reproduced in naturally occurring circumstances.

    I cannot prove to you how Abiogenesis happens, but I can show that your argument for its impossibility is built on a number of false assumptions such as this one.

    Yes, and I have pointed them out and you are ignoring them
    No you have not pointed to any actual scientific laws. You have instead implied that chemistry happens by pure random processes that could have any imaginably outcome rather that following predictable and repeatable patterns which is what we actually observe.

    A snowflake made of frozen water molecules and a rare complex protein made of a string of amino acids have nothing in common with each other. This isen’t even relevant.
    You don't understand the analogy. I am saying that just as proteins are not formed by a random assembly of any imaginable combination of amino acids, snowflakes are not formed by any imaginable combination of water molecules. They instead follow patterns based on the exact conditions in which they are formed and the molecular bonding behaviors of water molecules. Another example would be a fractal pattern. The entirety of the pattern could be a vast number of data points and if you considered all points as equally variable the "chance" of such a pattern appearing would be beyond astronomical. But in truth it is the expression of a rather simple formula that represents a much smaller amount of base information that is then expressed into the full fractal pattern.

    The point is to illustrate that the sum of parts is not a thing you can look at independent of the causation that creates it. Complex expressions can be the inevitable outcome of comparatively simple origins and using independent statistical random chance is not a valid way to examine them. It doesn't reflect the truth of our reality.

    Before the entire protein would be constructed the individual polypeptides would disassemble.
    Indeed, if such a process was entirely independent. But we can see how proteins are assembled in our cells and they don't get built in one fell swoop. Its a multi part process of bonding in stages and there is little reason to imagine it would happen differently. Different compounds essentially hold the amino acids together as the thing is assembled. There are many chemicals that can only form in the presence of catalysts and the like that enable combinations that otherwise would not be possible. Like the sand in an oyster without which a pearl cannot form.

    It was not my intention to figure a real life scenario. I thought that people who understand the mechanisms of a cell would also understand that the simplistic would best show the impossibility.
    Sorry but simplifications that are just plain wrong are not useful in understanding much of anything. They only serve as a tool for disinformation and a means of making a false argument.

    If we make it real life and factor in chemical bonding principles, left handed chirality, disassembly counteracting assembly, limited protein to protein interaction, aerobic and anaerobic environments needed, etc…
    Then we just make it all the more impossible, so, I don’t really see your point. I have to show you greater odds than 1 in 1e+300 for an average protein for you to concede it has severe problems?
    No, they don't. As I've outlined many of the steps in abiogenesis can be demonstrated in part or in principle eliminating vast swaths of possibilities from your random odds nonsense. Those principles eliminate huge swaths of your "possible" formations thus ruling them out of the set of outcomes. Those outcomes are in fact not part of the possibilities but the impossibilities.

    On one hand you claim logic and reason and on the other you claim some mysterious order of the cosmos that defies its own laws. You only say this because you know good and well there is no way you can defend your theories and directly confront the facts I have brought out.
    The order of the universe is not mysterious, it is evident by observation. Gravity is not a mystery except that we don't as of yet fully understand its operation. Its existence however is no mystery at all. The universe is clearly an ordered thing. your "facts" are not facts but deceptions. The universe is not a random place where all imaginable combinations of amino acids are possible. We know for a fact a great many of them are absolutely impossible and will never happen. We know that certain combinations that are present in life on this planet are not only possible but are proven to have come to be. Where you jump the shark is to say you know that some magic personality made them because you don't yet have the ability to do it yourself. That is not logic at all, just a leap of faith. It is not based on facts but on hope and desire.

    So, you hide behind this fog of words that makes you feel like you have countered the odds. The reality is you haven’t even challenged a single scientific fact, just spit out philosophical nonsense about snowflakes.
    Just because you fail to understand it, doesn't make in nonsense. Dismiss reason if you like but it won't be lost on everyone.

    And this counters the OP how? Now you are an expert in religion and know exactly how it originated without a shred of evidence to back you up. Similar to the way you reach your conclusions in the rest of your theories.
    Actually there is a vast quantity of evidence to show that human beings invent religions. In fact every description of religion we have comes from human beings. We have absolutely no objective evidence for any religious teaching in the sense that it comes from outside of mankind. You cannot observe Thor or Jesus in the soil or in the stars or anywhere but in our minds and the works we have fashioned to represent those ideas. Gravity on the other hand, while found described in books can be seen in the universe everywhere we look.

    My statement does not counter the OP, it is an incitement of your own model of the origin of life, specific creation by a deity.

    Wow, so you have a completely new understanding of chemical reactions, proteins, mutations, and basic cellular biology that no one else if privy to.
    Because, last I checked there were no serious abiogenesis theories out there other than from the evolution propaganda websites. And those can be shot down by anyone with any knowledge of cellular biology.
    What ******** you offer. There are many serious abiogenesis theories. What we don't have are any good experiments that as of yet have proven any of them out. Many theories have been shown true in time that originally required experimentation to demonstrate. Many others have been shown false upon sufficient testing. You seem to lack a basic understanding of the process of science if you think only theories must be verified to be seriously considered. Since you asked we didn't engage in linkwars I won't point you at the many that exist and are under investigation but some simple research can turn them up. And of course there are challenges to them but that is the way of science, a means to find the truth.

    I have given you facts and you have given me words.
    You gave arguments based on false assumptions and I have attempted to correct those assumptions. And yes, I used words to convey my arguments. Until telepathy is developed I will continue to do so.

    I challenge you to specifically show how your “enlightened” thinking make the odds any better or even gives life a fighting chance of appearing.
    I already have. I have shown you the universe is not random, that things happen based on causal properties of matter, that simple origins can express complex patterns, that protein like molecules have been proven to form under natural conditions despite whatever odds there may be in that level of complexity, that it doesn't happen randomly but deterministic. Just because we don't yet know the series of events and elements needed, doesn't mean it is not possible.

    ---------- Post added at 12:15 PM ---------- Previous post was at 11:59 AM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    I would challenge you to justify such arbitrary reasoning.
    Certainly it could occur naturally right?
    And Certainly if it did, then it would be a necessary function of the universe.
    It isn't arbitrary. We observe humans carving things that have meaning to them and have observed this to be true since humans have had sufficient tools to do so. We have not observed nature making inscriptions in human languages anywhere. A good first assumption is that if we find carvings in a human language that humans put them there. If we can climate that as a possibility then we must consider less probably but still possible explanations. If we lived in a house together an I find the milk jug half empty I'm going to assume you drank or in some way used that milk since that is how milk typically leaves jugs. you would be a pretty nutty person to say the milk unicorn took it and we would take that explanation as highly unlikely and unfounded due to prior experience.

    so you can not distinguish or draw a conclusion based on it's existence, unless you are just going to bring your bias into the conclusion.
    Bias is not such a problem in a situation like that. Bias by observation and past experience is useful in determining a theory of how something happened.

    A situation without such bias would involve perhaps what we thought were ordered markings that remind us of language. Indeed there are what are determined to be natural formations that remind us of language. Here we have a situation where bias is less useful because we are more looking by way of analogy than specific past experience. The markings are like language but they are not a known human language of known human origin.

    The problem is, that just because it exist and obeys natural laws, doesn't mean the natural laws are themselves a sufficient explanation for it's existence.
    We don't have sufficient explanations for gravity but that doesn't mean it had to be created by gods that love us. Go ask a physicist why mass bends space time. You won't get an answer because we don't yet have one. But that doesn't mean gravity is impossible or we should reject that it is naturally occurring or that we need to invent a magical agent that causes it.

    That is simply to assume what you seek to prove.
    No it is to reason and then test. The most likely explanation for human language written in a rock on a planet full of humans is that a human made it. That doesn't mean you know it for an absolute fact, but its a pretty damned likely theory. Then you set about testing it if you want to be sure. You might ask around for witnesses to its creation or accounts of who did it or search for a signature or swab it for dna or any number of tests to further support or reject the theory.

    Your explanation is completely worthless because it fails to be able to make any distinction =even in places where we know one exists.
    I don't have a specific explanation MT, I am only working with limited known observations; that the natural universe exists, that it has reliable operating mechanisms, and that life exists now, and that life once didn't exist on earth. It is therefore fairly likely that the natural operating mechanisms of the universe created life. Exactly how it happened we have to experiment and test till we can either rule it out as impossible (not just unlikely) or we can demonstrate how it happens (even if only by modeling using known principles).
    Feed me some debate pellets!

  24. Thanks BasicInstinct thanked for this post
  25. #57
    torpex
    Guest

    Re: Abiogenesis and evolution - The protein dilemma

    Quote Originally Posted by ZealousDemon View Post
    Submit your objection to people who are actually experts in the field and come back to us.
    Fear not, this "objection" to proteins being formed through chance was dealt with almost 30 years ago, it's just that not all the evolution deniers update their websites to reflect it.

    http://ncse.com/cej/5/2/new-proteins-without-gods-help

    Quote Originally Posted by rlms View Post
    and the longest protein is titin, the mouse titin is made up of 35,213 amino acids. That is why we used an average figure, which happens to be approximately 288 amino acids for a protein.
    No, please be honest - in your OP you used the average size of a modern protein to argue that "chance is not even a remote possibility to have been the vehicle by which the first life forms came about."

    Quote Originally Posted by rlms View Post
    Self-replicating protein? Seriously?
    Proteins have no information to self-replicate, nor do they have the ability to get the raw materials, and they don’t carry around the chemicals or mechanisms to create bonds. A self-replicating protein, without the support of a cell, is impossible.
    This is very bad science and I challenge anyone to explain the mechanism as to how a single protein will replicate itself.
    The following peptide:
    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
    is able to self replicate itself, albeit given two specific source peptides.

    Quote Originally Posted by rlms View Post
    This ignores the very essence of what I am saying, because, we still have to come up with several thousand new proteins in a span of approximately 500 million years to have our first cell, which is blue green algae. And, again we will be dealing with an average of 288 amino acids with the same 1 in 1e+300 odds.
    Yet again, this STILL assumes numerous things, for instance that the first ever cell in existence was as complicated as the simplest modern cell, and more importantly, that each of the many amino acid positions in a protein must be filled by the one particular amino acid suitable for that position.

    In reality, the latter is false, and many proteins show in their structure that they were built of smaller subunit sequences of amino acids.
    Quote Originally Posted by rlms View Post
    You keep saying I have faulty assumptions and bad math without showing proof, but, here I have shown you clearly why your assumptions and math do not work.
    And I've demonstrated numerous times and in numerous ways why your application of math doesn't make any sense.
    It just doesn't seem to sink in - you need to know precisely how something happened or will happen, before applying probability in any useful way. You cannot look at an unexplained thing and say it didn't happen naturally or by chance.
    Since you've failed to understand any of the previous thought experiments I tried to teach you this with, I'll try one last one.

    If you know nothing of why it is that way, the odds that any person on the planet happens to be in the specific house or building they are at midnight, are less than 1 in 1,000,000,000.
    it's only when you DO know anything of why it is that way, that the odds change.
    You know that the persons parents were from that country - approx 1 in 100,000,000.
    You know that the person works within 10 miles of their home - approx 1 in 100,000.
    You know that the person lives in that very place - approx 1 in 5. (A very conservative estimate)
    You observe that the person is in that house - the odds are 1.

    See where you're going wrong yet?

    I really can't make this any clearer but you seem unable (dare I say unwilling) to see your error - it's only once you DO know how it came to be that way, that probability can be used to say whether it would happen again. Once something has already happened the odds are 1, which has absolutely no say on how it did happen.
    As well as my numerous examples demonstrating why using probability to determine if something occurred naturally is at best laughable, at worst dishonest, Thrashee tried to tell you too.
    Quote Originally Posted by thrashee View Post
    Consider this--out of all the atoms in the universe and all the possible combinations of putting them together, what are the odds that you'd be exactly who you are right now, this exact amalgam of individual atoms pieced together? Now do the same thing for all the atoms that comprise the keyboard you're using to write in this thread. What are the odds of that exact combination being used by the combination of atoms that make you you? Now do the same thing for the computer itself and all its constituent parts--the case, the hard drive, the RAM, the monitor. Keep going as you take stock of every physical object in your house. And that's all without stepping outside! How long would it possibly take for this precise arrangement of atoms to fall into place as they are right this moment? And yet there you are, reading this.
    All of which, you needed to ignore to continue defending your OP.

    Quote Originally Posted by rlms View Post
    The main objective of the OP is to show that the current theories are statistically impossible. My argument is “science has shown the extreme complexity of proteins and living organisms, therefore the current theories are not valid that might have been believable 100 years ago.”
    I've never seen any current theory which reflects the theory your OP objects to. However, I have found an approx 30 year old refusal of an argument effectively identical to yours.
    (See quote at the bottom of this post)

    Quote Originally Posted by rlms View Post
    If I know how something happened why do I need probablility to figure out how it happened.
    This begs 2 questions:
    1) given that improbability had nothing to do with this knowledge, nor can probability be used to determine it, what did happen and how do you know?
    2) why post an OP which relies entirely on (improper use of) probability, when you can just answer 1)?


    Quote Originally Posted by rlms View Post
    The Theory of Evolution assumes that complex proteins are created within the organisms!
    I accidentally omitted the word "necessarily" in:
    "This, much like your OP, merely assumes that the evolution of complex proteins is a process that necessarily goes on in organisms"
    when clearly every naturalistic hypothesis of abiogenesis suggests that complex proteins existed long before the first thing that might be called an "organism" did.

    Quote Originally Posted by rlms View Post
    Of course amino acids occur naturally, it is a rare event, but it does happen. That isn’t even an issue in this debate.
    It really is - the odds of you winning the lottery are slightly different if, instead of one ticket, you have 50 billion.

    Quote Originally Posted by rlms View Post
    Very good statement, this is really the crux of the matter when it comes to abiogenesis.
    Research has been going on for well over 60 years trying to produce exactly what you are referring to here. Why do you not hear much about it? Because they have failed miserably and the only things they have produced are amino acids.
    well this is what I'm saying, at this stage no one knows, with the emphasis on no one. However, stochastic self-assembly mechanisms, the self organizing patterns predicted by the late Alan Turing, have been observed in cultures of E Coli.


    Quote Originally Posted by rlms View Post
    To say it may be discovered at a later time, when many experiments over half a century has proven that are no natural attractions, is just wishful thinking.
    but in the same breath, to claim that because we've done lots of experiments, haven't found any, therefore:
    a) they don't exist
    b) there's no natural explanation

    would be no less wishful thinking, topped off with fallacious reasoning in making said claim.

    Quote Originally Posted by rlms View Post
    If it were true it would be easy to prove since there are only 20 amino acids to test for auto-assembly.
    and I say again; many proteins show in their structure that they were built of smaller subunit sequences of amino acids.
    Quote Originally Posted by rlms View Post
    As to the self-replicating proteins, RNA and DNA, life itself should teach you that there is no such thing. Study viruses and lower life forms that have fairly complex structures and proteins and yet cannot even reproduce, but must break into a cell and use it’s mechanisms to propagate.
    I can only imagine why you'd be looking at modern life forms and viruses to argue anything about how life originated - that's like looking at a cruise missile and arguing the first weapons could not have been made by cavemen.
    Quote Originally Posted by rlms View Post
    I have already touched on the issues of no chemical signature or fossil evidence in previous posts.
    aah yes, what chemical signature would you expect and why? You already know that proteins easily denature, organic compounds can be found everywhere, regardless of whether life ever did, what would you expect to see?

    Quote Originally Posted by rlms View Post
    But I forgot you can just say, “Eternal Past made it”. All power and glory to Eternal Past
    Hopefully I've made this pretty clear by now, this being the third time I think I've said it - I don't claim to know how it happened, all I claim is that your OP is flawed in numerous ways and that if you were basing any conclusions on the reasoning within it, then neither do you.

    Quote Originally Posted by rlms View Post
    I think when you study how life works on a molecular level and understand the machinery behind what makes it work, you really understand how ludicrous any serious self-replication of protein, RNA and DNA really is without the cellular entourage supporting them.
    That's the best thing about science, when each unknown gets answered, it poses more unanswered questions. Every door opened leads to more closed doors, it's only those of us who know the most, that have the best appreciation for how much we still don't know.

    Notice though, this certainly isn't the first time you've assumed that the first self replicating thing on earth was comparable with the simplest modern living cell.

    Quote Originally Posted by rlms View Post
    Many experts in the field have realized the impossibility of life by natural means and do believe in a God or a higher power of some sort that had a hand in creating life.
    Not realized - concluded.

    Quote Originally Posted by rlms View Post
    We are led to believe that most scientists are atheists when just the opposite is true.
    Really? I've never been led to believe that. Perhaps you're confusing how most scientists accept evolution.

    Quote Originally Posted by rlms View Post
    Don't forget that there is an extreme prejudice and backlash against these ideas within the scientific community so most who believe this will keep silent so as not raise the ire of the vocal minority.
    The flat earthers out there say the exact same thing.


    Quote Originally Posted by rlms View Post
    I really expected better arguments than:
    Eternity did it
    You have to use quantum mechanics and have a PhD(but didn't offer to supply the correct equation to get the answer and didn't even understand the main point of the OP)
    You can't be right because otherwise everyone would agree with you
    Already disproven autoassembling proteins(although natural attraction of certain amino acids is the only legitimate argument concerning abiogenesis)


    I am still disappointed that no one challenged the evolution part of the equation.
    I think most missed the significance of it's implications. It is by far the most impossible naturalistic scenario.
    I expected a better argument than:
    - strawman (saying "this refutes the modern theory" is dishonest at best)
    - appeal to ignorance (probability may tell you how it did not happen, it says nothing about how it did, without an implied false dichotomy such as....)
    - non sequitir (it does not follow that "it didn't happen like this, so it didn't happen naturally at all")

    And I'm still disappointed that every attempt to draw your attention to these things has fallen on deaf or non-understanding ears.

    Since I'm not supposed to post links and just expect you to read through it, I'll quote from the following link:

    http://ncse.com/cej/5/2/new-proteins-without-gods-help
    Creationists do their own calculations to show that the chance formation of biologically useful proteins is impossible. These calculations almost always involve the erroneous assumption that each of the many amino acid positions in a protein must be filled by the one particular amino acid suitable for that position. Since there are twenty different amino acids available for each position, the chance of randomly getting a string of 200 amino acids all in the right order is (1/20)200. If you plug this expression into a calculator, it will tell you that it equals essentially zero. Thus, the creationists say, you can't get such a protein by a chance ordering of amino acids. As Duane Gish of the Institute for Creation Research (ICR) put it (1976), "The time required for a single catalytically active protein molecule to arise by pure chance would be billions of times the assumed age of the earth."

    But proteins, even modern highly evolved specialized proteins, are not built with that degree of specificity. What's more, many proteins show in their structure that they were built of smaller subunit sequences of amino acids (Doolittle, 1981) or they have a simple metalo-organic core that could have functioned alone as a primitive precursor of today's complex enzyme. So the creationist calculations give an answer of zero probability because the creationists make at least two major errors in their assumptions: they assume a degree of specificity that has not been shown to exist in real proteins, and they insist that newly formed proteins must be as efficient as their older and highly evolved counterparts.

    We've been trying to explain all this to the protein "experts" at ICR for the last seven years. We have told them that new proteins could indeed form from the random ordering of amino acids. We have warned them that their calculations were based on faulty assumptions and soon someone would document the natural formation of a new protein from the random association of amino acids.

    Now it has happened! Not one, but two, new proteins have been discovered. In all probability new proteins are forming by this process all the time, but this seems to be the first documentation of this phenomenon. The newly discovered proteins are enzymes that break down some of the byproducts produced during nylon manufacture. Since nylon first came into commercial production in 1940, we know that the new enzymes have formed since that time.
    Last edited by torpex; December 1st, 2012 at 12:55 AM.

  26. Thanks Sigfried, BasicInstinct thanked for this post
  27. #58
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Louisiana
    Posts
    9,162
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Abiogenesis and evolution - The protein dilemma

    Quote Originally Posted by SIG
    We don't have sufficient explanations for gravity but that doesn't mean it had to be created by gods that love us. Go ask a physicist why mass bends space time. You won't get an answer because we don't yet have one. But that doesn't mean gravity is impossible or we should reject that it is naturally occurring or that we need to invent a magical agent that causes it.
    Actually gravity doesn't help you out. Because Gravity being the value that it does have isn't a sufficient explanation to explain it having that exact value as opposed to any other.
    You have misunderstood my point, I think.

    Quote Originally Posted by SIG
    I don't have a specific explanation MT, I am only working with limited known observations; that the natural universe exists, that it has reliable operating mechanisms, and that life exists now, and that life once didn't exist on earth. It is therefore fairly likely that the natural operating mechanisms of the universe created life
    Your conclusion doesn't follow at all.

    Quote Originally Posted by SIG
    Exactly how it happened we have to experiment and test till we can either rule it out as impossible (not just unlikely) or we can demonstrate how it happens (even if only by modeling using known principles).
    The problem is, it doesn't matter how it occurred. Using your logic ANYTHING as long as it occurs in the universe can be said to have occurred because of the natural operating mechanisms.

    Quote Originally Posted by SIG
    It isn't arbitrary
    Certainly it is, because you give preference to what you have seen, while the other explination is equally as valid.
    Therefore you have arbitrarily (IE without reason) chosen to go with your bias assumption. All the while you can not rule out
    and must accept the validity of the natural explination.

    Quote Originally Posted by SIG
    We have not observed nature making inscriptions in human languages anywhere.
    So, we haven't observed proteins forming in a natural environment, and have only observed them being constructed from scratch by intelligent forces.
    Yet you would object to concluding that they must have therefore first been formed by intelligent forces.

    Quote Originally Posted by SIG
    If we can climate that as a possibility then we must consider less probably but still possible explanations. If we lived in a house together an I find the milk jug half empty I'm going to assume you drank or in some way used that milk since that is how milk typically leaves jugs. you would be a pretty nutty person to say the milk unicorn took it and we would take that explanation as highly unlikely and unfounded due to prior experience.
    No, we just so happen to live in a universe where the milk spontaneously disappeared.
    As we live in a universe, and the milk diapered, then we are free to conclude that in our universe it is only natural for that milk to have disappeared.
    After all, it is completely possible for milk to disappear (or dematerialize).

    Quote Originally Posted by SIG
    Bias is not such a problem in a situation like that. Bias by observation and past experience is useful in determining a theory of how something happened.
    O, well if your bias is not a problem, then by all means just base all of your arguments on your own personal bias, and appeal to it as the validation of your arguments.
    That seems very logical.

    Quote Originally Posted by SIG
    No it is to reason and then test. The most likely explanation for human language written in a rock on a planet full of humans is that a human made it.
    If you are willing to accept that an event as unlikely as one with over 100 zeroes behind it, actually did occur.
    Then the odds of letters being eroded into a rock through natural processes are insignificant.

    Quote Originally Posted by SIG
    That doesn't mean you know it for an absolute fact, but its a pretty damned likely theory. Then you set about testing it if you want to be sure. You might ask around for witnesses to its creation or accounts of who did it or search for a signature or swab it for dna or any number of tests to further support or reject the theory.
    going on about the 'tests' is irrelevant. Your very suspicion is unjustified in the light of accepting absurd odds in one case, and rejecting them in another.

    The very reason you "suspect" and thus assert by testing that an intelligent cause should be investigated and given preference so as to justify investigating THAT vs investigating erosion patterns, is because all other explanations are so unlikely as to cause such investigation and suspicion to be unreasonable.
    That is the case of the OP. The idea that it occurred naturally is so absurdly unlikely, that one should not even suspect it as being the cause. Yet you do, and the reasoning you offered applies to EVERY absurd yet physically possible outcome.

    You have asserted that because it occurred in nature, then it must have been the result of nature. All I have done is assert that natural causes are to be blamed for lettering in Rock....Your protest shows your standard to be lacking, as it is YOUR standard and your reasoning that I am using.
    To serve man.

  28. #59
    torpex
    Guest

    Re: Abiogenesis and evolution - The protein dilemma

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    That is the case of the OP. The idea that it occurred naturally is so absurdly unlikely, that one should not even suspect it as being the cause.
    No, The idea that it occurred via the one particular natural method the OP has suggested is so absurdly unlikely, that one should not even suspect it as being the cause.

    You appear to have confused:

    "it didn't happen this way"

    with

    "it didn't happen naturally."

    It's a rather blatant false dichotomy to try and reason that "it either happened this way naturally, or it didn't happen naturally at all"

    or if you'd rather, it does not follow that because life did not occur through the random permutations of amino acids, as the OP argues, that therefore life did not originate through entirely natural processes.

    The argument in and after the OP relies not only on this fallacy, but several others which I've pointed out along the way.

  29. Likes Sigfried liked this post
  30. #60
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Louisiana
    Posts
    9,162
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Abiogenesis and evolution - The protein dilemma

    Quote Originally Posted by TORPEX
    You appear to have confused:

    "it didn't happen this way"

    with

    "it didn't happen naturally."
    Not really.

    What is said is that lacking some law or rule in nature which shows preference to the joining of
    amino acids which will lead to a functioning protein, THEN the OP depicts our best understanding of what "natural"
    occurring proteins would be like, and we should not expect such a thing to occur.

    Quote Originally Posted by TORPEX
    It's a rather blatant false dichotomy to try and reason that "it either happened this way naturally, or it didn't happen naturally at all"
    That is not what is argued or even assumed.

    It is only that this is the best nature can do, because there is no inherent preference of amino acid interaction which would tend to create proteins from scratch.
    Thus, all things being equal we should not expect it, and in fact it is ridiculous to expect it.

    Quote Originally Posted by TORPEX
    or if you'd rather, it does not follow that because life did not occur through the random permutations of amino acids, as the OP argues, that therefore life did not originate through entirely natural processes.
    It only doesn't follow IF the process is in fact not random.
    I am betting that it would be argue that you are in fact right, that it isn't "random" but rather it is governed by some highly prohibitive rules of chemistry which would actively work to prevent
    the natural formations of proteins.

    Quote Originally Posted by TORPEX
    The argument in and after the OP relies not only on this fallacy, but several others which I've pointed out along the way.
    I have responded to all objections directed at me, None have been sustained.


    P.S. I think you gave a link regarding "new proteins".
    My question is this, have they been able to "recreate" the protein in a lab from the natural conditions which it was found? Otherwise, they seem to make the faulty assumption that because it was "just discovered" that it must then be "newly formed".
    To serve man.

  31. Likes rlms liked this post
 

 
Page 3 of 5 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 5 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. The Gaza Dilemma
    By ians25 in forum Current Events
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: January 20th, 2009, 08:55 AM
  2. The Traveller's Dilemma
    By Trendem in forum General Debate
    Replies: 21
    Last Post: September 17th, 2007, 06:09 PM
  3. Ethical Dilemma
    By Iluvatar in forum Hypothetical Debates
    Replies: 9
    Last Post: October 3rd, 2006, 01:40 PM
  4. Abiogenesis, baby steps
    By Slipnish in forum Science and Technology
    Replies: 36
    Last Post: April 4th, 2006, 06:42 PM
  5. Intelligent Design vs Atheistic Abiogenesis
    By Meng Bomin in forum Philosophical Debates
    Replies: 52
    Last Post: December 27th, 2005, 07:58 PM

Tags for this Thread

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •