Abiogenesis

[liamconnor]

Again, I rarely wander over to the sciences and more rarely set up an argument. Not my forte.

But I recall reading that a famous atheist became a theist (not a Christian) because of the problem of abiogenesis.

Now, as I understand the term, it refers to the theory that life can come from non-life.

In simplistic terms, a rock can, over time, produce (on its own, nothing added to it; the development happens "within") cells.


Question:

Do I understand the term "abiogenesis"?


Based on my (or your corrected version's) definition, has it been reproduced by scientists?

[rikuoamero]

So, the mechanism that stops these changes that you agree takes place is?

Time and the the Second Law of Thermodynamics.

[quote=""IT'S A YOUNG WORLD AFTER ALL"
©1986 by Paul D. Ackerman"]...the the Second Law of Thermodynamics, which states that all real processes in the physical universe—when isolated and left to themselves—go irreversibly downhill toward increasing disorder and chaos.

Evolution only works in the imaginations of evolutionist scholars like George Wald and William R. Bennett. In the real world, any system posited to produce ordered and meaningful outcomes will inevitably be subject to the processes of decay and disordering known to scientists as the law of entropy (Second Law of Thermodynamics).
http://www.creationism.org/books/ackerm ... Chap13.htm

[/quote]

Sigh. Is the Earth a closed or open system?

[benchwarmer]

So, the mechanism that stops these changes that you agree takes place is?

Time and the the Second Law of Thermodynamics.

[quote=""IT'S A YOUNG WORLD AFTER ALL"
©1986 by Paul D. Ackerman"]...the the Second Law of Thermodynamics, which states that all real processes in the physical universe—when isolated and left to themselves—go irreversibly downhill toward increasing disorder and chaos.

Evolution only works in the imaginations of evolutionist scholars like George Wald and William R. Bennett. In the real world, any system posited to produce ordered and meaningful outcomes will inevitably be subject to the processes of decay and disordering known to scientists as the law of entropy (Second Law of Thermodynamics).
http://www.creationism.org/books/ackerm ... Chap13.htm

[/quote]
Umm, that's a head scratcher. And a complete misunderstanding of what the scientific meaning of evolution is.

Let's put it this way. When you were born, did you or did you not inherit genes from both your mother and father along with a few possible mutations? There are genetic tests that you can take to determine your genetic makeup if you feel like validating what really happened. In a nutshell, you evolved from your parents. Unless of course you are a clone and then I concede that you did not.

Since we seem to keep reproducing, we by definition keep evolving. No amount of pointing to holy books will change the observable facts of genetic biology.

[DrNoGods]

[Replying to post 468 by ttruscott]

Time and the the Second Law of Thermodynamics.

The second law of thermodynamics states that in an isolated system, entropy can only increase over time. The Earth is not an isolated system ... it receives energy from an external source (the sun). A macro evolution process whereby many small changes over long periods of time result in substantial changes in the form of an organism is not prohibited by the Second Law. Ackerman used the phrase "when isolated and left to themselves", whereas the Second Law applies specifically to an isolated system, a closed system, which is one that does not have anything going in or coming out.

Heat generated in a process increases the entropy of that process ... it is not simply order vs. disorder. There are plenty of examples where disorder becomes order, but when the entire closed system is considered the entropy increases. Many websites have a thorough discussion of this misunderstanding of the 2nd law of thermodynamics as it relates to evolution, for example:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/thermo.html

which has additional references (and there are many other examples). The key point is that the 2nd law of thermodynamics only refers to the entire closed system, and that requires consideration of all of the inputs and outputs related to that system.

[DBSmith]

[Replying to post 466 by DrNoGods]


I see. I agree and think most of us know what a theory is. Similarly, I’m not suggesting to discard the entire body of evidence. Theories are required to consist of lots of evidence. Well, you emphasized my point in not recognizing that in the not too distant past, it was the case that the number of “prehuman� fossils were extremely limited, yet entire skulls and skeletons were constructed and sold to the public based on tiny fragments. And forgive me, I have learned to use the word prehuman to avoid unnecessary arguments over the use of words which can used to distract from the actual conversation. And I try to maintain and understand the importance of words in science and religion interactions. And your notion of “given enough time� is particularly noted. Another of the fudge factors that keeps getting extended. Using the current equations in science, there will never be enough time for life to have evolved as you describe …even from the time rocks solidified to the present, and it gets worse if you add in the complexities of higher life forms.

Yes, the recent newer finds bring forth new evidence and new ideas. Thanks for the article. There are several more like it just recently published. They usually do not support the old ideas, hence the word new. They tend to rewrite the stories and change beliefs which actually brings out part of my point: Quickly bringing up the new and ignoring the old that has been used to support evolution and elevate it to a theory. And, I think it has been called a theory for quite a long while.

The reasoning of the past to arrive at today’s theory of evolution can’t be discarded as easily as one would, perhaps, believe. The past was/is used to support evolution….and the more recent present as well, but the major tenets remain unchanged: no proof. You want to point out my calling to attention of the actual number of fossil fragments during a very long moment in time as if it is in error. We know it’s not. You define yourself, just as my post defines me. I was just curious in my post, considering the past week of articles on new findings. It’s an active arena filled with different levels of knowledge and willingness to believe.

A finding that recently won my attention when it appeared more than a few years back was the discovery and analysis of 40k yr old DNA in the 3 yo boy found in Siberia, 2012. The result is the rewriting all the theories of migration that populated North and South America. Shows all the previous theories to be less attractive to say the least. I was surprised to find it quoted in a 2015 book I was using to teach Immunology at a nearby university. Immunology as you may know is an area fraught with problems when it comes to the theory of evolution. The book actually had a whole chapter on evolution to try and combat these problems, which the author called misconceptions. Imagine that. The students taking the course were surprised to find that the tenets of evolution were not as solid as they had been led to believe when “all� the evidence in the literature (as it pertained to the immunology course) was placed before them. Imagine that.

Too many of our graduating seniors are in this category of evolution being forced upon them from one side of the data….especially if they want to get an A. So, I did teach them that evolution is just a theory, and gave evidence why it’s just a theory and should not be taught as if it is true enough to be elevated and called the laws of evolution in the field of science.

It’s a slippery slope many want to and continue to fight about. Wouldn’t it be nice if “all� the data could be honestly laid out and let folks decide from what’s there. I think that was also one of the results of the congressional investigation I mentioned in an earlier post.

Humans have not been shown to share a common ancestor with chimpanzees any more than any other animals in the genetic tree share a common ancestor. A while back there was an article published showing a 98%, or so, DNA identity between chimps and humans. But, it was not emphasized that the DNA comparison only utilized less than 2% of the DNA. Yes, chimps and humans have fingers and toes, etc… which one would expect to show up in a DNA analysis which is why only 2% of the DNA was used, DNA from areas of anatomic similarity. No surprise there. But, the article using another article to call the remaining DNA junk DNA is again part of my point. Within that other remaining 98% of human DNA, “junk DNA,� is reason why we humans build air conditioners and chimps live in trees. You gotta love it. Anyway, the joy in the journey dealing with people.

Well, you are right about being challenged for simple summary statements on what is really out there. Kind of hard to argue with sweeping statements that ring with truth that can’t be isolated enough to start an argument over the definition of a word or a position on a preconceived evolutionary tree. No one disagrees with the mountain of evidence you note, it’s the use of that mountain of evidence we all are aware of that is the problem, …gotta have real proof to draw proven conclusions from that evidence. That mountain of evidence is the theory of evolution…and should not be confused with proven scientific facts. For example, there are proven scientific facts on how DNA works which should not be confused with proof of the theory evolution.

Its not a battle on the definition of theory or the use of a word to win an argument. It’s the working knowledge of how life functions and continues to exist: the sweeping summary statements, if you will, as it pertains to life, life as we know it today.

Thanks again for you comments....

[DBSmith]

[Replying to post 467 by rikuoamero]

Well, "kind" was in the scientific literature for years and years if you look into it. But, you are right in a sense. Evolutionary science tends to rename things to aid in the acceptance of what is to follow from them. My favorite one is renaming spiritual experiences with paranormal activity. How many kids growing up will look into the literature to learn of this change, just like their disuse of "kind." Kind has definitive meaning, and that makes it problematic and, therefore, needing replacement.

I think the use of feline kind and canine kind and humankind makes sense. It's actually quite plain and simple to understand, and is an acceptable term. It has a history with it that some don't want lingering in their content to avoid distractions, perhaps.

Our current knowledge of how DNA works offers support for DNA of the feline kind being able to evolve into the various kind of cats we have on this earth, from lions and tigers and house cats. But, no evidence for evolving into something other than feline kind. Same with canines and the other different animal kinds,

...and of note, the faith-based humankind being made in the image and likeness of God(kind).

anyway, appreciate your comment

[DrNoGods]

[Replying to post 472 by DBSmith]

Humans have not been shown to share a common ancestor with chimpanzees any more than any other animals in the genetic tree share a common ancestor. A while back there was an article published showing a 98%, or so, DNA identity between chimps and humans. But, it was not emphasized that the DNA comparison only utilized less than 2% of the DNA. Yes, chimps and humans have fingers and toes, etc… which one would expect to show up in a DNA analysis which is why only 2% of the DNA was used, DNA from areas of anatomic similarity. No surprise there. But, the article using another article to call the remaining DNA junk DNA is again part of my point. Within that other remaining 98% of human DNA, “junk DNA,� is reason why we humans build air conditioners and chimps live in trees. You gotta love it. Anyway, the joy in the journey dealing with people.

I have to take issue with this explanation as far as the specifics. Full genomes have now been sequenced for humans, chimpanzees and bonobos, and the result is that the differences between chimps and bonobos is only about 0.4%, while the difference between either of these and humans is about 1.3%

https://phys.org/news/2012-06-scientist ... .html#nRlv

More recent studies are leaning towards bonobos being slightly closer to humans based on some muscle similarities:

http://www.iflscience.com/plants-and-an ... mpanzees-/

http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2012/06/ ... -relatives

It is not the 2% difference (1.3% being a better number) in the genomes that leads to the conclusion that chimps and bonobos are our closest relative, but the other 98.7% that we share with them. The 1.3% difference is what is primarily responsible for the behavioral and phenotype variations, although we also know a lot more now about noncoding ("junk") DNA as far as roles in gene regulation, in particular. Your comment (as I read it) suggested that the comparison of similarity between humans and chimps/bonobos was based on only an analysis of 2% of the DNA, but this is not correct ... it is the more than 98% similarity that leads to the conclusion that these are our closest relatives, and mutation rates and genetic geneology further support the conclusion that we share a common ancestor that is neither us, nor them, but "behind" both (chronologically) in the evolutionary tree.

1.3% of roughly 3 billion base pairs is still a lot of difference (39 million!) so plenty enough to create the observed behavioral and phenotype differences. Mutations in just one gene can have significant consequences to an organism (eg. causing many debilitating diseases in humans).

I"d also take issue with the position that animals don't evolve into other "kinds" (ie. macro evolution). Hippos are the closest living relatives to whales (which were once land animals), but they are not an ancestor of whales ... they share a common ancestor predating them both that was neither a hippo nor a whale.

http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrar ... vograms_03

Humans share a common ancestor with chimpanzees and bonobos, but that common ancestor was not a human, chimp or bonobo and doesn't live now. Genetics research has shed a great deal of light on evolutionary processes that could never have been derived from comparative analysis of fossils alone.

[DBSmith]

[Replying to DrNoGods]

OK, simple question. It pertains to the articles you list and to all the many articles starting way back from 1975 actually. Basically, its the methodology of the experiments. And, for sure full genomes have been sequenced.

What is the actual percent of the human genome that is actually being measured in the research these articles report in the journals of science? Now, again, we are looking for the DNA that is actually being measured, not the amount of DNA that the DNA being measured is extracted from.....

As one understands the science at work here, one will quickly see that it is less than 2% of the total DNA that is actually being measured after it has been extracted from the several billions of base pairs you describe, leaving essentially the "junk DNA." Since the sequences are known, the sequences of interest can be isolated.

So, the identity that you so proudly report, which is OK, is actually a 98% identity of 2% of the total genetic makeup. People in review articles will argue of whether its really 94% or 95% and the like. Did you ever wonder why? As my sweeping [summary] statements, you described, alludes, politics scattered with ideology and mingled with science entices many a soul to being able to believe.


And please understand, I'm not demeaning the wonderful work to delineate the 2% which is exceedingly important for our understanding, esp for understanding and treatment of human disease and maintaining good health. A lot of great work has been done in these areas. As far as their application in medicine, these are and have been wonderful steps for the good of mankind.

[DBSmith]

[Replying to post 474 by DrNoGods]


Again, the biomolecules, the biochemical complexes and building blocks of our anatomy and bodily functions….they are essentially the same for humans and chimps. Why would one expect the DNA sequences in the articles to be so different? Why the excitement? Again, it proves we both have fingers and toes and have to go to the bathroom occasionally. I’ll bet Neanderthals did too. Hence, its not about science so much in this area, instead open interpretation with little evidence....searching to support an ideology.

And, of course, the future is wide open for new findings.

I read the article on you posted from Berkeley. Its a list, a narrative for folks to quote and use to preach evolution. The narrative lacks supporting documentation for the claims. Its another short story with color pictures and a good theory of evolution article. But, if this article or any other had the proof, we would all know it. A Nobel Prize would be awarded! Come on. Similar to what you posted...are we gonna have to do better than that.

I continue to respond, like so many, to the purported claims, ...where are the facts to prove the conclusions? Simply and plain...where is the proof for a common ancestor among so many other things. It would be nice if folks could keep evolution as a theory with all its faith, hope and searching to one day finding a common ancestor instead of continually claiming its existence without the proof. It confuses too many. We have a lot of evidence and facts on cancer, and spend billions of dollars on research. But folks don't claim to have found the cure in every article. And sure, it's not the same because of the short term...people die if your wrong. Quick comparative thought: medicine is required to make extreme efforts to base its conclusions on proven facts before treating folks and particularly so in published guidelines in the journals. Can evolutionists to do the same?

[DrNoGods]

[Replying to post 476 by DBSmith]

Quick comparative thought: medicine is required to make extreme efforts to base its conclusions on proven facts before treating folks and particularly so in published guidelines in the journals. Can evolutionists to do the same?

If you look at the entire body of evidence from the fossil record and genetics analyses, what explanation other than the theory of evolution makes sense for how life diversified on this planet? Give me one example that can falsify the theory and your job is done. Not misunderstood objections like violations of the second law of thermodynamics, or a claim that radiometric dating does not work, or (even worse) a redefinition of evolution to claim that it must explain the origin of life, or any of the most common erroneous counters. But a legitimate observation or experimental result that can disprove the theory. No one has yet done this, so it remains the most logical and most supported (by observation and experiment) theory we have.

As for the similarity of chimp and human genomes, there have been studies that use only the protein coding regions (ie. genes) which indeed represent only about 2% of the total genome, but there have been other studies using the entire genome, or chromosome-by-chromosome comparisons. A well known comparison by Jeff Tomkins is often cited (I believe he is a creationist, or at least anti-evolution). He did a chromosome-by-chromosome comparison and published a 70% similarity using the "BLAST" software. Then a bug was discovered in that code and (to his credit) he repeated his comparison and got a value of 88%. This was further challenged by others pointing out additional errors in the BLAST software that didn't properly manage insertions and deletions, and higher numbers were obtained (in the 97% range for the whole genome, not just the coding regions). If you want to read a summary of the entire debacle this is just one link:

https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent ... 8-similar/

(the comments deteriorate into the usual name calling and the like).

The point is that the cumulative evidence from the fossil record and genetics work support evolution as a valid explanation of how life diversified on this planet once it had formed (however that happened ... another topic entirely). Until someone comes up with a better explanation ... and that has not happened yet ... it is the best we have.

As for publications in peer reviewed journals, I tried some quick Google searches to find out how many science papers had been published concerning evolution in peer-reviewed journals since Darwin's time, but could not find any estimates (although I expect this info is available somewhere). This Wikipedia page:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Level_of_ ... _evolution

states that:

"As of May 2017 there are 475,793 scientific papers in PubMed that mention 'evolution'."

And this article:

http://www.dulvy.com/uploads/2/1/0/4/21 ... iewing.pdf

lists (Table 1) 5,481 papers published in 2012 alone concering evolutionary biology. The total number of science papers published on evolution since Darwin's time must be measured in the hundreds of thousands. Only a small fraction of these science papers may contain actual physical evidence, dated samples, etc., but the point is that the body of supporting evidence for evolution is gigantic, while definitive falsifications of the theory do not exist.

The Wikipedia link above also has an interesting table showing the belief among different religions groups for evolution as the best explanation for the "origin of human life" (presumably restricting the question to human evolution only, not the general subject). Jehovah's Witnesses are at the bottom of the list, by far, which I would assume means that human evolution (from a great ape ancestor) is actively taught as being false by that group (only 8% believe that this is a valid explanation). The next group up from the bottom are Mormans at 22%, with evangellical protestants close on their heels at 24%. Interesting.

[McCulloch]

Life comes from life; the sperm and the egg, are alive and well in the bodies of the parents and come together to create a new life….and we all know the biological complexities throughout the animal kingdoms.

We agree on these things:

• Life forms reproduce. Life forms reproduce after their own kind. Humans produce other humans. Flies produce other flies. Mushrooms produce other mushrooms.
• A long time ago, there was no life. Life had to start somehow.
• We don't understand how life started. Some say that is was a supernatural event involving clay. Others say that it was natural involving RNA.
• There is strong evidence that there were once many life forms that no longer exist.
• There is also strong evidence that many of the life forms that exist now did not exist at the same time as most of the now extinct species existed.

Evolution is a theoretical framework that explains the known facts. Biologists are virtually unanimous that evolution is the only theory that fits the known facts.

How do we then think about the origin of life itself? Do we look for a natural process that fits with the existing theory or do we look to religious myths?