Abiogenisis

Valjean · Jan 28, 2023

nPeace said:
Why, we didn't have to go in a lab to know that intelligent agents create blueprints, which are a plan with specific instructions, for reaching an intended goal of particular design.

And 'blueprints also occur naturally. Not all blueprints are intentional or goal oriented plans. The ground surface in a ditch is a perfect 'bluepring' for the bottom of a puddle, for example. No intentional planning went into it.

However, the lab experiments cement that fact. To this day, scientist have not been able to produce amino acids out of the more than 100, with only left handed molecule - all 20, needed for life.

Where do you get the idea that only levorotatory isomers must be present in amino acids? Both isomers may be present. It's just that only the left handed ones are biologically active.
https://www.jw.org/finder?wtlocale=E&docid=1101998022&srctype=wol&srcid=share&par=61
When scientists make amino acids in laboratories, in imitation of what they feel possibly occurred in a prebiotic soup, they find an equal number of right-handed and left-handed molecules. “This kind of 50-50 distribution,” reports The New York Times, is “not characteristic of life, which depends on left-handed amino acids alone.” Why living organisms are made up of only left-handed amino acids is “a great mystery.” Even amino acids found in meteorites “showed excesses of left-handed forms.”[/quote]This is very misleading. It implies that only left handed isomers may exist in vivo.

That says quite a lot about the involvement of an intelligent mind.

No, it doesn't. How do you see this as indicative of an intelligent mind?
If I say water runs downhill, is that evidence of intelligence?

Once there was no life on earth. Now there is life. Therefore an intelligent agent must have created life, because brains are more complex, and there were no brains on earth, but now there are, and we don't need brains really, to live. Plants don't.

Huh? That's just logical nonsense. It doesn't even begin to follow.
And what does the existence of brains have to do with anything???

There is evidence of a creator. How strong, or weak that evidence is, does not verify it.

What is this evidence of a creator?
I'll wager that your evidence is not actually evidence, and that you're also relying on false facts or conclusions.
So go ahead, hit me with some "evidence."

nPeace · Jan 28, 2023

Valjean said:
???? -- What's your point? This isn't evidence for anything.

It's evidence that you can't demonstrate how it can be done... and with that, without intelligent interference.

Valjean said:
Blenders don't reproduce with variation; they don't reproduce at all. Evolution doesn't apply to them.
You've read how evolution works in hundreds of posts. How is it you make such absurd "analogies" and think they're somehow meaningful?

It's easy to understand why it means nothing to an atheist, since they - for the most part, are not reasonable, but even Fred Hoyle isn't that unreasonable. "...believing the first cell originated by chance is like believing a tornado ripping through a junkyard full of airplane parts could produce a Boeing 747."

Valjean said:
Why do you post on these threads if you're going to ignore everything you read?

What did I ignore?

Valjean said:
Are you saying biological processes that occur in nature are different from those observed in vitro, or that the same processes can't be observed both in vitro and in vivo?

Neither.

Valjean said:
What point are you trying to make here? Apparently I'm missing it.Huh? Where'd you come up with that? Whoever said it requires intelligent minds to build simple things? Both simple and complex things occur naturally, with no magic or intelligence needed.

The scientists in the lab did not say that. Please stay on track with what I am referencing, and avoid going all over the place.
Maybe don't disconnect my statements. That might help.

Valjean · Jan 28, 2023

George-ananda said:
In my opinion, no proof can be presented for either side.

As for me I believe intelligent intent is involved in nature. Something like DNA developing by chance stretches credulity but I can't disprove it.

Why DNA? There are much more complex systems in a body than simple DNA.

Polymers form easily. Monomers just automatically bond to the ends, by simple chemistry. A polymer can potentially grow to any length, provided there are enough monomers floating around in the neighborhood.

George-ananda · Jan 28, 2023

Valjean said:
Why DNA? There are much more complex systems in a body than simple DNA.

Polymers form easily. Monomers just automatically bond to the ends, by simple chemistry. A polymer can potentially grow to any length, provided there are enough monomers floating around in the neighborhood.

I was getting at more you can take an egg cell and a sperm cell and have all those other complexities form from that.

exchemist · Jan 28, 2023

nPeace said:
It's evidence that you can't demonstrate how it can be done... and with that, without intelligent interference.

It's easy to understand why it means nothing to an atheist, since they - for the most part, are not reasonable, but even Fred Hoyle isn't that unreasonable. "...believing the first cell originated by chance is like believing a tornado ripping through a junkyard full of airplane parts could produce a Boeing 747."

What did I ignore?

Neither.

The scientists in the lab did not say that. Please stay on track with what I am referencing, and avoid going all over the place.
Maybe don't disconnect my statements. That might help.

So @nPeace , what is this evidence you think science is ignoring?

nPeace · Jan 28, 2023

Valjean said:
And 'blueprints also occur naturally. Not all blueprints are intentional or goal oriented plans. The ground surface in a ditch is a perfect 'bluepring' for the bottom of a puddle, for example. No intentional planning went into it.

Did you mean "blueprint"?
All blueprints are intentional, and goal oriented, ALL.

Valjean said:
Where do you get the idea that only levorotatory isomers must be present in amino acids? Both isomers may be present. It's just that only the left handed ones are biologically active.

Biologically active??? Oh boy :facepalm:

Am I talking Dutch, or something? Did I say something about being "biologically active".

Must the Molecules of Life Always be Left-Handed or Right-Handed?
One of the strangest aspects of life on Earth—and possibly of life elsewhere in the cosmos—is a feature that puzzles chemists, biologists and theoretical physicists alike. Each of life’s molecular building blocks (amino acids and sugars) has a twin—not an identical one, but a mirror image. Just like your right hand mirrors your left but will never fit comfortably into a left-handed glove, amino acids and sugars come in both right and left versions. This phenomenon of biological shape selection is called “chirality”—from the Greek for handedness.

On Earth, the amino acids characteristic of life are all “left-handed” in shape, and cannot be exchanged for their right-handed doppelgänger. Meanwhile, all sugars characteristic of life on Earth are “right-handed.”. The opposite hands for both amino acids and sugars exist in the universe, but they just aren’t utilized by any known biological life form. (Some bacteria can actually convert right-handed amino acids into the left-handed version, but they can’t use the right-handed ones as is.) In other words, both sugars and amino acids on Earth are homochiral: one-handed.

Valjean said:
This is very misleading. It implies that only left handed isomers may exist in vivo.

Pardon me? You are saying that scientists mislead us?

Valjean said:
No, it doesn't. How do you see this as indicative of an intelligent mind?
If I say water runs downhill, is that evidence of intelligence?

Oh my head.

What?

Just like the blender is not biological, water is not intelligent. There.

Valjean said:
Huh? That's just logical nonsense. It doesn't even begin to follow.
And what does the existence of brains have to do with anything???

My point exactly. Thank you.
At least it got through to someone.
Tell that to @exchemist. It's kogical nonsense. It doesn't even begin to follow.

Valjean said:
What is this evidence of a creator?
I'll wager that your evidence is not actually evidence, and that you're also relying on false facts or conclusions.
So go ahead, hit me with some "evidence."

I hope you have not been hibernating, because, in such a case, you would need to wait until your brain thaws out, and see it a few days ago, come back to you.

exchemist · Jan 28, 2023

Subduction Zone said:
What drives me nuts are the articles that he chooses that involve scientists looking at one small part of the problem of abiogenesis. They of course do so to understand independent mechanisms. But all they ever do is to say "That did not produce life". And they answer is always "Of course not". That was not its intent.

And speaking of that here is just one of many articles on solving the chirality problem. From my understanding there are actually several possible solutions so we may never know for sure which one is responsible for us. You may be able to read this, And if I sat down and kept cross checking terminology I might get it too. But right now I am lazy and am just gathering info:

Origin of Homochirality in Biosystems

I've just had a quick look. It seems the authors want to address how homochirality could have maintained itself in the prebiotic world, given that there is a natural tendency in many cases to racemise over time. They explore the fact that some racemic mixtures tend to crystallise into L and D homochiral crystals, due to higher lattice energy being available from better packing. They extend this to the idea that there can be a tendency even in solution for homochiral domains to form and that, once formed, they slightly alter the local thermodynamics such that the racemisation process will tend to favour forming more of the predominant enantiomer, as it is now slightly energetically favoured. At least, I think that's what it is saying - it's late here and I've had a couple of glasses of wine with dinner.

exchemist · Jan 28, 2023

nPeace said:
Did you mean "blueprint"?
All blueprints are intentional, and goal oriented, ALL.

Biologically active??? Oh boy Am I talking Dutch, or something? Did I say something about being "biologically active".

Must the Molecules of Life Always be Left-Handed or Right-Handed?
One of the strangest aspects of life on Earth—and possibly of life elsewhere in the cosmos—is a feature that puzzles chemists, biologists and theoretical physicists alike. Each of life’s molecular building blocks (amino acids and sugars) has a twin—not an identical one, but a mirror image. Just like your right hand mirrors your left but will never fit comfortably into a left-handed glove, amino acids and sugars come in both right and left versions. This phenomenon of biological shape selection is called “chirality”—from the Greek for handedness.

On Earth, the amino acids characteristic of life are all “left-handed” in shape, and cannot be exchanged for their right-handed doppelgänger. Meanwhile, all sugars characteristic of life on Earth are “right-handed.”. The opposite hands for both amino acids and sugars exist in the universe, but they just aren’t utilized by any known biological life form. (Some bacteria can actually convert right-handed amino acids into the left-handed version, but they can’t use the right-handed ones as is.) In other words, both sugars and amino acids on Earth are homochiral: one-handed.

Pardon me? You are saying that scientists mislead us?

Oh my head. What?
Just like the blender is not biological, water is not intelligent. There.

My point exactly. Thank you.
At least it got through to someone.
Tell that to @exchemist. It's kogical nonsense. It doesn't even begin to follow.

I hope you have not been hibernating, because, in such a case, you would need to wait until your brain thaws out, and see it a few days ago, come back to you.

@nPeace, what is this evidence that you think science is ignoring?

nPeace · Jan 28, 2023

exchemist said:
So @nPeace , what is this evidence you think science is ignoring?

Evidence science is ignoring?
Did I say that? I'm sorry, can you point out where I said that?
Hopefully you are not desperately building a strawman... after avoiding the posts you are avoiding.

Nimos · Jan 28, 2023

nPeace said:
In what sense?
You made a guess, didn't you?
Now why would you think I understand that to mean you did not base it on some knowledge, or facts?
Is it because atheists try to pin that one on believers, as though they just make guesses out of thin air, for their beliefs?

Come now Nimos. let's not stoop to that level.
Leave that for the die hard atheists - the ones that are desperate for something to win against.

It wasn't meant like that. At least no more than you just referring to them as guessing.

However, even then there is a difference between the two. Because let's say that you have some sort of experience, you would still have to prove that it is a divine event and that your specific God did it and not one of the others. And so far we have no methodology to determine any of these things.

nPeace · Jan 28, 2023

exchemist said:
@nPeace, what is this evidence that you think science is ignoring?

Ah yes. It's a strawman.

nPeace · Jan 28, 2023

Nimos said:
It wasn't meant like that. At least no more than you just referring to them as guessing.

However, even then there is a difference between the two. Because let's say that you have some sort of experience, you would still have to prove that it is a divine event and that your specific God did it and not one of the others. And so far we have no methodology to determine any of these things.

So, are you saying your guess was different to the scientists? I'll have to correct myself.

It Aint Necessarily So · Jan 28, 2023

nPeace said:
You mean like what you are doing? No.

I had written, "How about an example of an atheist making a dogmatic claim that cannot be supported and repeating it? Do you have one, or is that how you understood what you have read?" I assume that if you had such an example, you would have produced it.

nPeace said:
False beliefs can be justifiable beliefs.

No, they can't, not according to the rules of inference applied to evidence. If the process is done properly, it produces sound (correct) conclusions, and these cannot be successfully rebutted (falsified). It's analogous to applying the rules of inference that are the laws for addition to addends. Do it properly, and you arrive at a correct sum every time. And if one does it incorrectly, he can be shown that assuming he is conversant in those rules. This is how it works in academic circles. This is how peer review works. This is how jury trials proceed. If a scientist or prosecutor makes an error in an argument, his claim is falsifiable, and once again, if he is trained in the ways of critical thinking, it is possible to show him that. This process is also called debate and dialectic.

nPeace said:
Faith is the assured expectation of what is hoped for, the evident demonstration of realities that are not seen.

And that's the kind of thing one comes up with then he isn't tethered to evidence and allows words to have whatever meaning suits him. Faith is not hope. I only practice the latter, and evidence of realities unseen is also meaningless. It can't be called evidence if it isn't evident, that is amenable to empirical analysis.

nPeace said:
Scientists use these words loosely, and at times interchangeably.

Theory and hypothesis? Not in my experience. That's what lay people do, who often use the word theory to mean hypothesis or hunch. Scientifically literate people know how a theiry and hypothesis differ, and the difference is extreme.

nPeace said:
Spontaneous generation is a superseded scientific theory that held that living creatures could arise from nonliving matter.

If this is meant as an argumentagainst abiogenesis, it isn't. It's an argument that maggots don't develop from rotting meat in a few days or mice from rags and corn.

nPeace said:
It's evidence that you can't demonstrate how it can be done... and with that, without intelligent interference.

Why do you think this is relevant? You keep repeating it. Do you consider this evidence against naturalistic abiogenesis? Is that why you keep repeating it? Do you know what an ad ignorantiam fallacy is?

nPeace said:
It's easy to understand why it means nothing to an atheist, since they - for the most part, are not reasonable, but even Fred Hoyle isn't that unreasonable. "...believing the first cell originated by chance is like believing a tornado ripping through a junkyard full of airplane parts could produce a Boeing 747."

"Hoyle's Fallacy, sometimes called the junkyard tornado, is a term for Fred Hoyle's flawed statistical analysis applied to evolutionary origins, in which he compares the probability of cellular life evolving to the chance of a tornado "sweeping through a junkyard" and assembling a functional aeroplane"

Also, Hoyle was an atheist. He was making an argument that the origin of life was improbable - a very lucky coincidence, not the creation of an intelligent designer. There is a school of thought that life forms whenever the ingredients for it to do so are in an environment where they have the time to arrange themselves into dissipative structures according to the known laws of thermodynamics the way water freezes whenever conditions are right for it. Neither is a lucky coincidence of parts just happening to arrange themselves accidentally.

nPeace · Jan 28, 2023

Nimos said:
However, even then there is a difference between the two. Because let's say that you have some sort of experience, you would still have to prove that it is a divine event and that your specific God did it and not one of the others. And so far we have no methodology to determine any of these things.

We? Speak for yourself Nimos.
Remember, you limit yourself to methodological naturalism.
That's not my fault. Don't blame us Christians for your lack.

osgart · Jan 28, 2023

This all sounds like an argument relying heavily on the conviction of methodological naturalism to be true to draw conclusions about what the evidence says. Iow it's more faith in the method than evidence revealing anything about abiogenesis.

Since biology is organic chemistry therefore life is organic chemistry. That argument is one of the assumption they make. What else could it be is the fallback therefore it must be true.

That things happen naturally does not reveal every natural phenomenon.

Life, among other things, is the ability to reason, possess qualities of character, and intelligence. A purely physical process can never explain all the attributes that life possesses; it's like talking about apples to explain ideas.

Abstract qualities have no physical explanation. They are two different categories.

Valjean · Jan 28, 2023

nPeace said:
It's evidence that you can't demonstrate how it can be done... and with that, without intelligent interference.

But being unable to demonstrate a mechanism for something isn't evidence that it occurred magically, nor does "intelligent interference" explain anything. It certainly doesn't explain how anything's done. God is not a mechanism.
Until a hundred or so years ago, we couldn't explain how almost anything was done, but we didn't deny it happened, or attribute it -- in most cases -- to magic.

It's easy to understand why it means nothing to an atheist, since they - for the most part, are not reasonable,

Au contraire. It's you who misuses logic and reason, and your errors have been pointed out to you a hundred times, yet you fail to learn.
You still don't understand evidence, or how logic works, or what an analogy is.

... the first cell originated by chance is like believing a tornado ripping through a junkyard full of airplane parts could produce a Boeing 747."

What did I ignore?

Apparently you just ignored the thousands of explanations over the years, of why the junkyard tornado analogy doesn't fly.

Hoyle was a good astronomer, but a bad biologist. He was also an atheist, by the way. He was not arguing for divine creation.
His argument assumes the sudden emergence of advanced, cellular life forms, and mostly ignores the mechanisms of natural selection. He was unaware of the natural, chemical formation of many biological constituents and structures.

Tell me, what step in the development of the first cell do you find unbelievable, and why? You're arguing from incredulity.

The scientists in the lab did not say that. Please stay on track with what I am referencing, and avoid going all over the place.

No, you said that:
"Hard to believe how one can think it requires intelligent minds to build simple things, but highly complex things require no intelligent mind."

exchemist · Jan 28, 2023

nPeace said:
Evidence science is ignoring?
Did I say that? I'm sorry, can you point out where I said that?
Hopefully you are not desperately building a strawman... after avoiding the posts you are avoiding.

Posts 172 and 178.

- You refer to evidence of a creator, without saying what you think it is.

-Then you refer to science not following the evidence where it leads, without saying what you have in mind.

What is this evidence?

And I'm not trying to avoid any serious point you want to make. But if you engage in a Gish Gallop*, as you appear to have been doing, I am not going to react to each and every half-baked remark you throw out in the hope of overwhelming me with the sheer volume of crap. Come on, make a serious point, properly reasoned, and I'll address it properly. OK?

*Gish gallop - Wikipedia

Nimos · Jan 28, 2023

nPeace said:
So, are you saying your guess was different to the scientists? I'll have to correct myself.

Not sure what you mean?

nPeace said:
We? Speak for yourself Nimos.
Remember, you limit yourself to methodological naturalism.
That's not my fault. Don't blame us Christians for your lack.

A methodology applies in general, so others can see how you conducted your research and reach the conclusion you did. So there is no limitation to specific groups, if you have to do that, then I would argue that your methodology is flawed.

exchemist · Jan 28, 2023

osgart said:
This all sounds like an argument relying heavily on the conviction of methodological naturalism to be true to draw conclusions about what the evidence says. Iow it's more faith in the method than evidence revealing anything about abiogenesis.

Since biology is organic chemistry therefore life is organic chemistry. That argument is one of the assumption they make. What else could it be is the fallback therefore it must be true.

That things happen naturally does not reveal every natural phenomenon.

Life, among other things, is the ability to reason, possess qualities of character, and intelligence. A purely physical process can never explain all the attributes that life possesses; it's like talking about apples to explain ideas.

Abstract qualities have no physical explanation. They are two different categories.

Life is not the ability to reason. Most organisms do not reason at all.

Life is biochemistry, not organic chemistry.

Valjean · Jan 28, 2023

nPeace said:
Thanks for pointing that out.
Scientists look for natural explanations.
So, is it fair to say, scientists, are not necessarily seeking to follow the evidence where it leads, but presupposing that the evidence must lead to natural explanations?

No, it's completely wrong. Science follows the evidence wherever it leads, even if it violates some personal, a priori assumption. If the evidence leads to an unnatural explanation, that's where science will go.
Of course, it's hard to conceive what an unnatural explanation might be, or what evidence might point to one, without rendering the phenomenon natural.

So far, science has found some pretty bizarre things, but never anything unnatural or supernatural.

Abiogenisis

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Advaita Vedanta, Theosophy, Spiritualism

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Well-Known Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Nothing my eye, Something for sure

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Well-Known Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member