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?

[Miles]

[Replying to DrNoGods in post #0]
But it really does not matter because the atmosphere of the early earth was the same as it is today. That means the early ocean would have an oxygen concentration that would tend to disassociate organic molecules.

Really! Well science begs to differ.

"Considering the atmosphere of the primitive earth to have contained water vapor, carbon dioxide, carbon monoxide, methane, and ammonia and/or nitrogen, then in the presence of an energy source, such as sunlight or lightning, a number of small molecules like hydrogen cyanide, HCN, are formed. These then undergo spontaneous reaction with other HCN molecules, again in the presence of some energy source and produce adenine and guanine bases (often abbreviated A and G) easily. The other two common bases, cytosine (C) and uracil (U), can also be formed in such experiments, although with more difficulty."
source

And

"The primitive atmosphere of the earth was comprised of little or no oxygen. After the appearance of the first primitive organisms in the oceans and other water bodies, they started to use the water as a source of electron that helped them to carry out the photosynthesis process. The primitive organisms such as cyanobacteria were able to carry out this process, in the presence of sunlight, CO₂ and water, and in return, it produced the oxygen, mostly in the form of dissolved oxygen. "
source

In comparison: today's atmosphere.

According to NASA, the gases in Earth's atmosphere include:

Nitrogen — 78 percent
Oxygen — 21 percent
Argon — 0.93 percent
Carbon dioxide — 0.04 percent
Trace amounts of neon, helium, methane, krypton and hydrogen, as well as water vapor.
source

.

[DrNoGods]

[Replying to EarthScienceguy in post #19]

But there is no way to throw the 20 into the air without the other 480. How would the 20 get separated from the 480? That is the problem. Why would the 20 not react with the other 480? I am still waiting on that. You want to separate the 20 from the 480 with no mechanism for that to happen.

I'm not trying to separate the other 480, I'm just trying to explain that the probability of 20 units of something combining to make a specific 32 segment long thing, by random chance, is a straight statistical probability calculation regardless of whether it is applied to amino acids or anythng else. The other 480 units do not contribute to the 32 segment long thing because by definition it must be formed only from the 20. Hence the 20 in the denominator.

But it really does not matter because the atmosphere of the early earth was the same as it is today. That means the early ocean would have an oxygen concentration that would tend to disassociate organic molecules.

The atmosphere of the early earth is believed to have been mostly N2 and CO2 (from volcanic eruptions), and other volcanic gases, and weakly reducing:

https://www.anl.gov/article/unlocking-t ... atmosphere

They do comment that an N2/CO2 atmosphere would make it harder for amino acids to form (but not impossible), but this does not address the situation in oceans, rivers, lakes, etc. Amino acids do not only form in a gaseous environment. Eventually a lot more O2 found its way into the atmosphere thnks to cyanobacteria:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Oxidation_Event

and this was bad news for the existing microorganisms that didn't need O2 to function. But amino acids were likely plentiful on the early Earth, and existed outside of Earth long before Earth formed as shown in links provided by brunumb earlier in this thread.

Still waiting on the "proof" that evolution is impossible. That is far more interesting than the probability of 20 amino acids forming a 32 unit long peptide.

[EarthScienceguy]

I will start with the impossibility of evolution by looking at the ape to man evolution that is supposedly suppose to have occurred in 6-10 million years.

Humans have 3.5E9 nucleotide sites so if men and apes have a 1% difference in their genomes that means that 3.5E7 of those nucleotide sites have to be different. So if one nucleotide site was changed every year then man to ape would take 35 million years.

But the problem gets worse, apes or humans do not have offspring every year only every 20 years. That means that the ape to man "evolution" would take 700 million years.

But the problem gets worse. Dawkin's preformed developed a famous experiment in which he created a computer program to simulate evolution. His computer program randomly created the phrase "METHINKS IT IS LIKE A WEASEL" the phrase is 28 characters long and made of 27 possible characters. For a 1 in E40 chance. And in 43 generations his program came up with the target phrase. 43 generations is 840 years to make this 28 character phase. If we use Dawkin's program as a conversion factor ape to man evolution would take 29 billion years.

But it gets worse. Crow, Kimura, Ewens, Johnson, Ohta, Milkman O'Donald and others concluded that gene substitution is no better than one gene every 300 generations. That means that ape to man evolution would have taken 210 billion years.
One of the reasons why substitution cannot happen any faster than 300 years is because Kimura estimates that amino-acid altering mutations are 10 times more likely to be harmful than neutral.

Evolution just does not have the time to go from ape to man let alone everything else.

[EarthScienceguy]

[Replying to DrNoGods in post #0]

The atmosphere of the early earth is believed to have been mostly N2 and CO2 (from volcanic eruptions), and other volcanic gases, and weakly reducing:

https://www.anl.gov/article/unlocking-t ... atmosphere

They do comment that an N2/CO2 atmosphere would make it harder for amino acids to form (but not impossible), but this does not address the situation in oceans, rivers, lakes, etc. Amino acids do not only form in a gaseous environment. Eventually, a lot more O2 found its way into the atmosphere thanks to cyanobacteria:

Interesting experiment, they use peridotite a rock that contains Iron II (Fe2SiO4) that they say is made in the absence of oxygen to prove that the early earth's environment when Iron III is produced in an oxygen-dominated environment. When Hematite Fe2O3 occurs in granite the main rock in the continental crust. So it was assumed from the beginning of the experiment that the early atmosphere did not contain oxygen.

This experiment proves nothing.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Oxidation_Event

There already was oxygen on the earth when it was formed.

[brunumb]

Outer space which is full of cosmic, x-rays, and ultraviolet rays is going to produce organic molecules. Really?

So how did they get there?

[DrNoGods]

[Replying to EarthScienceguy in post #24]

There already was oxygen on the earth when it was formed.

From what source? Since you used the word "formed" (rather than "created") I take it you are OK with the accepted process of planet formation via accretion. Given this, once the young planet Earth reached a size where it had swept out the smaller items in its orbit and had enough gravity to become spherical (a planet), it is believed to have been a very hot, molten ball of rock that slowly cooled, while also being bombarded with meteorites and comets as well. Volcanic activity would have been the primary source of admitting gases into the atmosphere, which is why it is believed that the early atmosphere had lots of CO2 (in particular) and N2, with CH4, NH3, CO and H2O tossed in as well. O2 was a relatively minor constituent very early on.

Large quantities of O2 in the atmosphere didn't happen until cyanobacteria came along and provided it on a global scale ... long after the earliest evidence of life forms appeared some 3.5 billion years ago (give or take a few hundred million). The populations and types of microorganisms responded as a result and evolved (or died out) into different species that were compatible with the new environment. This basic evolutionary process has repeated over and over again to produce the diversity of life on Earth, which has constantly changed over the long haul and still is. There is just too much evidence for ToE across the entire plant and animal kingdoms to dismiss it as false.

[Bradskii]

I will start with the impossibility of evolution by looking at the ape to man evolution that is supposedly suppose to have occurred in 6-10 million years.

Humans have 3.5E9 nucleotide sites so if men and apes have a 1% difference in their genomes that means that 3.5E7 of those nucleotide sites have to be different. So if one nucleotide site was changed every year then man to ape would take 35 million years.

Why would any changes happen each year? Anyway, it's base pairs you need to consider. And changes per generation.

'What produces variability between individual organisms – and makes possible evolutionary change – is errors in the DNA copying process. Sometimes, because of this, one base is changed to another – it mutates. Among the six billion base pairs each of us inherits from our parents, a substantial number – a hundred or more – are new mutations.' https://www.amacad.org/publication/uneq ... ifferences

So that's 60 million years to change all the base pairs (not that that would happen). And for a 1% change, that's 600,000 generations. Times 20 years per generation and that's 12 million years. As ape to modern man evolution is very approximately 6 million years, we're in the ball park. And female gorillas for example reach sexual maturity in around ten years. So then we're right on the money.

And that's simply random changes. And you know (as a science guy) that evolution isn't random. So the question is actually...how come it took so long? Even using your figure of 35 million years, if you consider 100 changes per generation - or say 10 per year (not the 1 per year you proposed) we're down to 3.5 million years. Which is about half the generally accepted timescale.

Incidentally, the genetic differences between any two individual humans is already 0.1%. According to you, it seems there's a 3.5 million year difference between my wife and myself. I should maybe check her date of birth.

[JoeyKnothead]

[Replying to brunumb in post #16]

Wow! you totally must miss the point of the oxygen in the environment. And you obviously did not read Ian's article because the values for the concentration are his values. I am simply saying that you have to have a reason to have just the 20 that occur in cells. Otherwise, you have to assume that they are all present. I did not make up this fairy tale I am simply explaining how science, not fairy tales work.

Don't need to have us no 20 to occur in nothing, to notice some kids're born pretty, and some of em ya can't stomach to feed with a slingshot.

Junior there only looks exactly like dad, if dad's spicious about it.

In the replicatory sciences, we readily observe that if a black chick, now she's just pretty'rn a hundred dollars worth of two dollar biscuits. So pretty ya just tell the pretty thing to move on out, just in case this chocolate goddess wants to move her on in, in some indeterminate time in the future, but that if she replicates with her an ugly white dude, naw, say an ugly Somoan, well there's a notion that can be discerned, on how proud he is of the little'n, and she ain't.

Genetics, while not fully understood, is within a chicken chocking grasp of scientific understanding. It sits there in the midst of how come pretty chicks get their drinks for free, and how come I'm the one that hasta buy em.

Evolution is the process of there ya are, the two of em ya are, but the two of em ya ain't.

Until such time it is, your own great grammaw won't lay claim to ya. And your daddy's calling for a DNA test.

Abiogenesis is not possible.

But a god I can't show exists, is?

Life's composed of many inorganic particalingies. Like atoms, and chemicals, and them folks that pick on the less fortunate. Ever hafta eat a dirt clod, cause your sister was bigger'n meaner'n you? In that moment you was composed of non-life, dirtual, bigger'n meaner'n you, cept for what organisms it is, that's now aswimming it about your belly.

It is so not possible that scientists are openly saying that life came from outer space because it could not have happened here. Especially, when the oldest zircon crystals indicate that the early environment on this planet was like it is today.

In what environment's it ever been show zircon was a form of life?

Life don't so much fret it one's rockual roots, it just frets if that pretty chocolate goddess bedded her down with ya, and if there can be it a reality tv show about it.

Life's composed of our sameness, and our ain'tness. That's evolution - that'n there likes a gator that can make the river ripple with bubbles. Or the guy who'd spend his last nickel on that pretty blond waitress with lips like a '68 Searay.

We see it, time upon time, that critter there's exactly like his folks, cept where he ain't. That's evolution. Just the same enough, and just different enough, to drive the cladisticalistics insane.

It don't matter how came life to be, to note that danged if it ain't changed once it did.

[EarthScienceguy]

[Replying to DrNoGods in post #26]

Large quantities of O2 in the atmosphere didn't happen until cyanobacteria came along and provided it on a global scale ... long after the earliest evidence of life forms appeared some 3.5 billion years ago (give or take a few hundred million). The populations and types of microorganisms responded as a result and evolved (or died out) into different species that were compatible with the new environment. This basic evolutionary process has been repeated over and over again to produce the diversity of life on Earth, which has constantly changed over the long haul and still is. There is just too much evidence for ToE across the entire plant and animal kingdoms to dismiss it as false.

Well, I think the rocks tell a different story From your Argonne National Laboratory article:

When there is more oxygen in the atmosphere, iron bonds with oxygen in a 2:3 ratio, and the atmosphere is rich in nitrogen and carbon dioxide. When less oxygen is available, the ratio is 1:1, and the atmosphere contains more methane and ammonia.

This article is saying that Iron forms as Iron III in the presence of oxygen and Iron II when oxygen is not present. Which makes sense because oxygen is highly electronegative. Continental crust is made of granite, one of the main minerals in granite is hematite Fe2O3. Some of the oldest granite rock is dated at 4.3 billion years. So how does all this granite have Iron III and not Iron II if there was no oxygen on the surface of the earth?

Peridotite being formed in a CO2 environment is a prediction that Walt Brown's Hydroplate theory does predict. The subterranean waters would be filled with CO2. This Argonne Lab's results actually supports creation theory.

[DrNoGods]

[Replying to EarthScienceguy in post #29]

This article is saying that Iron forms as Iron III in the presence of oxygen and Iron II when oxygen is not present. Which makes sense because oxygen is highly electronegative. Continental crust is made of granite, one of the main minerals in granite is hematite Fe2O3. Some of the oldest granite rock is dated at 4.3 billion years. So how does all this granite have Iron III and not Iron II if there was no oxygen on the surface of the earth?

There was no claim that the early Earth's atmosphere had NO oxygen, just very little compared to today (20.9%). This article has a chart showing O2 vs. time with a big question mark prior to 2.5 billion years ago:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geologica ... _of_oxygen

Granite is continuously formed (magma), relocated by tectonic plate movements and volcanic activity, convection in the mantle, etc. It didn't all just form 4+ billion years ago and sit there ... the Earth's crust and upper mantle is a very dynamic system on geologic time scales.. Granite also exists under the oceans where most of the O2 in the early atmosphere would have ended up before land plants came along only about 500 million years ago (hence the banded iron formations that we see). It isn't nearly as simple as you are suggesting (ie. Fe2O3 exists in granite so there must have been lots of atmospheric O2).

Peridotite being formed in a CO2 environment is a prediction that Walt Brown's Hydroplate theory does predict. The subterranean waters would be filled with CO2. This Argonne Lab's results actually supports creation theory.

Oh No ... not the Walt Brown Hydroplate nonsense again! Please spare us a revisit of that subject. And creationism is not a "theory" in the scientific sense. It is a class of made-up stories (most religions have one, and they are anything but consistent with each other) that are believed purely on faith. At best they could be called hypotheses ... but with so far no evidentiary support.

Also, you seem happy to make arguments that use, for example, 4.3 billon year old granite on Earth, but are a creationist which is not consistent with those kinds of ages (at least the not biblical version and its supposed time of occurrence). Any proper YEC would not accept 4.3 billion year old rocks, so I take it you are not a YEC?