Abiogenesis and Probabilities

[DrNoGods]

I'm creating a new thread here to continue debate on a post made by EarthScience guy on another thread (Science and Religion > Artificial life: can it be created?, post 17). This post challenged probability calculations in an old Talkorigins article that I had linked in that thread:

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

Are the arguments (on creationist views) and probabilities presented reasonable in the Talkorigins article? If not, why not?

[brunumb]

Precisely, a hybernating bear doesn't replicate, a viron outside a cell doesn't do much but there's no question that they are both living things.

There are plants and insects that hybernate/in stupor for 1 or 2 decades, can we say they are alive/ dead during this period?

The hibernating bear doesn't replicate, but then nor do you when you are asleep. Your cells do and your life functions continue. As a living organism you have the potential to replicate barring any damage that prevents you from doing so. Hibernating or in stupor is not dead.

[brunumb]

But is it actually required for life? It may simply be that the conditions under which these molecules formed favoured the L-configuration. Again, not knowing the answer now doesn't mean that there is no natural answer. Nor is it a compelling reason to insert a celestial chemist with a predilection for chirality into the process.

Yes, L-amino acids are required for life, D-amino acids are toxic for life.

You can argue that 'natural selection' happened, that all self replicating peptides with D forms could not continue to be alive and all L forms might have continued to be alive, BUT, the sorting in nature can not be by chance.Not possible.

When a lock is made for a particular key, then only that key will work in that lock. We can postulate that L-amino acids were dominant when life arose and that subsequently they are required over D-forms. When you demonstrate that your alleged process of sorting in nature is not possible you will have made your case. First you will have to establish that an actual sorting process would have been involved.

[brunumb]

Precisely, a hybernating bear doesn't replicate,

So a person who doesn't have children isn't alive? Are you sure of that? If the bear replicated before hibernating, would he then be alive? What if he didn't replicate until he came out of hibernation? Would he not be alive until he replicated?

a viron outside a cell doesn't do much

So what does it do? We can list hundreds of things going on in a hibernating bear. Let's see your list for the things a virus particle does outside a cell.

but there's no question that they are both living things.

You've assumed so, but so far, you haven't been able to show us why you think so.

There are plants and insects that hybernate/in stupor for 1 or 2 decades, can we say they are alive/ dead during this period?

Metabolic processes slow down drastically, but they don't stop. Again, show us that such things are going on in a virus particle. Fact is, a virus particle outside a cell does have chemical changes, but those changes degrade the virus, and make it non-functional after a time.

Good. Apply the same reasoning to a virus outside a cell; just because the processes associated with life are not undertaken by a virus outside a cell doesn't mean it's not anloving thing.

All you are doing is establishing that there is reasonable debate about whether viruses are living things or not. There is nothing new there.

[brunumb]

In the absence of time, oxygen and carbon and the so called natural formation is indeed nothing. But time is not natural.

Unsubstantiated claim. Please show where this has been demonstrated to be true. Otherwise, dismissed.

[brunumb]

And like i said before, God creates through the mind of men. Several scriptures confirm this including Genesis 1.
Q. What do you think the 'surface of the deep' in Genesis 1 means?
Oxygen and so called natural processes, are all in the mind.

So it's religious propaganda versus science?
Whatever.

Scriptures confirm nothing. They are merely claims.

[Noose001]

That depends on whether or not time extends infinitely both forwards and backwards.

Sorry but no such thing.
'Time' with no beginning or end is eternity; eternity is TIMELESSNESS.

OK ... then replace "born" with "conceived." In the scheme of eternity the mere average 9 months between conception and birth is irrelevant (as is the length of a human lifetime). Is there any evidence of any kind that you can present that demonstrates the existence of a human being as a living thing prior to conception, or after death? Or, if you want to nitpick then prior to the existence of the specific sperm and egg that get together to create conception.

1. It is not known at what point a 'person' becomes a 'person' after conception, hence the abortion debate. We don't a particular sperm and a particula ovum make a specific person.
2. If asked for age, no one ever includes the prenatal period, only from birth because that's when your parents were actually aware that you are indeed a person.

Its not that I don't believe you, but that science cannot yet accurately describe what preceeded our universe, if anything, or what the characteristics of that would be. We can speculate but that's it ... we don't "know." And there may have been light but no sound assuming "sound" refers to pressure waves travelling through a medium (there is no sound in a vacuum), or no light at all, or something other than light like quantum fields or who knows what. But you cannot definitively say that it was dark and silent (whatever silent means in this context).

Darkness and silence are 'properties' of nothingness, so they don't really begin to exist at any point (i mean they are nothing). But darkness and silence are not the issue here, the issue that exposes your view of 'Time' is the word 'BEFORE'; it describes a time period which means there was time 'before' the universe began.

[Noose001]

When a lock is made for a particular key, then only that key will work in that lock. We can postulate that L-amino acids were dominant when life arose and that subsequently they are required over D-forms. When you demonstrate that your alleged process of sorting in nature is not possible you will have made your case. First you will have to establish that an actual sorting process would have been involved.

That's what you need to demonstrate.

The hibernating bear doesn't replicate, but then nor do you when you are asleep. Your cells do and your life functions continue. As a living organism you have the potential to replicate barring any damage that prevents you from doing so. Hibernating or in stupor is not dead.

That's precisely why a virus can not be considered dead or non living outside a cell not unless it is killed. Adds to my point, life and chemical processes or so called properties of life, are two different things.

Bacterial spores are also very much alive and stay so for long periods of time without the so called properties of life.

I'm glad you agree that the dead don't resurrect. There are some other good threads on that topic.

We can keep the body alive as you described, but once a certain amount of brain damage occurs the body will no longer be able to function on its own. It's referred to as being brain dead.

Brain transplant would 100% fail.

Thought experiment:
If a succesful brain transplant was done between Jane and Paul; would Paul become Jane and Jane become Paul? If indeed the brain gives life and consciousness, then the answer should be affirmative.

[DrNoGods]

[Replying to Noose001 in post #327]

Sorry but no such thing.
'Time' with no beginning or end is eternity; eternity is TIMELESSNESS.

So you've answered your own question.

1. It is not known at what point a 'person' becomes a 'person' after conception, hence the abortion debate. We don't a particular sperm and a particula ovum make a specific person.

The abortion debate has nothing to do with when a brain has developed sufficiently to create awareness of self. Many people's views on abortion are driven entirely by their religious beliefs, and those vary from every sperm and egg being sacred, to a fretilized egg, to later periods. These are not scientific viewpoints and have no relation to when a fetus becomes aware of its existence.

2. If asked for age, no one ever includes the prenatal period, only from birth because that's when your parents were actually aware that you are indeed a person.

Then why did you quibble with my comment about birth and death and make the comment that you were kicking 2 months before birth? Pick t=0 for a human and stick with it.

But darkness and silence are not the issue here, the issue that exposes your view of 'Time' is the word 'BEFORE'; it describes a time period which means there was time 'before' the universe began.

You described darkness and silence as a state of existence before this universe existed. Was there no time then either? The fact is that you don't know what existed, if anything, before this universe because this is not yet known. It could have been "nothing", it could have been something. That is the nature of unsolved scientific problems.

[DrNoGods]

[Replying to Noose001 in post #328]

Thought experiment:
If a succesful brain transplant was done between Jane and Paul; would Paul become Jane and Jane become Paul? If indeed the brain gives life and consciousness, then the answer should be affirmative.

Remove the word "life" (the brain doesn't "give life" ... but is necessary in humans to control the many functions that do sustain life), and replace Jane with John (or Paul with Susan) so that you maintain sex, and this hypothetical brain transplant should produce two people with all of their memories, behaviors, etc. in the other person's body.

But one's body is also part of the set of memories and behaviors, experiences, etc. so there would likely be some serious confusion about that part (and far more so if you did the transplant between and male and a female ... that might cause too much confusion because of all the social and functional differences between men and women). Then there are physical differences between people as far as their conditioning, history of accidents, surgeries, diseases, etc. which can leave all kinds of differences between two people even if they were identical twins. It is not a simple thought experiment if you include all of these kinds of details.

To keep it simple, do the transplant between two similarly-aged men (or women) of similar body types and geographic locations (which would not alter your premise I don't think) and I'd argue that Paul would become John (or Jane becomes Susan) as far as their memories, behavior, etc. notwithstanding the issues related to looking in the mirror and not seeing what they expect, and the significant implications of that.

But I think your point was not on all the details like this, but rather on the general idea that if the brain is the source of consciousness then a transplant (all else being equal) would or would not result in essentially swapping the people into new physical bodies. I'd argue that it would in this hypothetical scenario, because of my belief that the brain is the source of consciousness, where memories are stored, personal preferences, behavoral drivers, etc.

[Noose001]

The abortion debate has nothing to do with when a brain has developed sufficiently to create awareness of self.

And when is that? Brain developement starts from the formation of pluripotent cells which is a few days to weeks within fertilization, to postnatal period (around adolescent age).

Then why did you quibble with my comment about birth and death and make the comment that you were kicking 2 months before birth? Pick t=0 for a human and stick with it.

No t=0 in your model of time. My model only requires awareness.

You described darkness and silence as a state of existence before this universe existed. Was there no time then either? The fact is that you don't know what existed, if anything, before this universe because this is not yet known. It could have been "nothing", it could have been something. That is the nature of unsolved scientific problems.

Shift from no awareness to awareness by a mind is the shift from t0 to t1. I can comfortably describe the conditions before the beginning of the universe.

And, same conditions apply after the universe (when one dies). It is dark and silent.