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?

[Noose001]

But you have no evidence for that belief? What makes you think it's true then? Is a strand of nucleic acid outside the body nothing more than a chemical?

(Denial that nucleic acid, outside of a cell, is alive, but believes a virus which is nucleic acid outside of a cell, is alive)

But it's outside of a cell, and cannot perform its supposed “purpose.” So you're still saying that a virus is not alive by the very definition you offered. A virus particle is nucleic acid outside of a cell, and by your definition, not alive. And once again, you've assumed that which you proposed to prove.

I really think you haven't thought this through very well.

A hybernating bear doesn't fully funnction as is required yet it's alive.

Hmmm... it breathes, it has a heartbeat, it metabolizes food for energy, it can respond to stimuli; it sure seems fully functional. What system in a bear does not work in hibernation?

A virus outside a cell is much alive.

You just said nucleic acid, outside of a cell is not alive. And that's what a virus is. You still seem conflicted about that.

It doesn't replicate, so?!

[DrNoGods]

[Replying to Noose001 in post #219]

I don't have to, only those who claim life arose feom non life need to prove their claims, failure to which i can claim anything against.

Abiogenesis is still a hypothesis, same as it was way back in this thread when you claimed it was impossible. It has not been proven that life originated via such a mechanism, and I've not seen any claims here that it has. But your entire objection seems to be based on the idea that because abiogenesis has not yet been proven and the details uncovered, it is therefore impossible. That's not how it works.

Any open hypothesis can be supported by evidence, observation, etc., or falsified in some way to show that it is invalid. If it is falsified then it is discarded, and if it is sufficiently supported then it may become a theory and accepted as correct (ie. as close to a fact as science gets). In between, it remains an open problem and you cannot simply declare it to be "impossible" just because it has yet to be solved. Should we declare cancer to be "impossible" to solve and give up (or pray) instead of doing more research to better understand it and possibly cure it?

No one is claiming that abiogenesis has been proven to be correct, yet you are claiming that it is impossible. It is you who needs to support that claim, but so far you haven't.

[DrNoGods]

[Replying to Noose001 in post #253]

Does the brain create the mind or the mind create the brain?

By all observations, the brain creates the mind (ie. consciousness is an emergent property of a brain). Some of these observations are that things without brains do not have minds (consciousness); things with brains that have their brains damaged can have impaired consciousness, and this can vary in degree depending on the severity and location of the damage; things with brains that die appear to simultaneously lose their consciousness; consciousness is not limited to humans.

Human brains form from the neural tube and we know a great about how that development process works. Prior to a certain point in brain development the eventual conscious human has no self awareness, then it does, and this transition point appears to be directly related to progress in brain development. Just a coincidence?

These are just a few, simple observations that suggest that "brain creates mind" and not the other way around. What have you got to support the idea that mind creates brain? Where (and what) is the "mind" that is driving the development from neural tube to fully-formed brain?

[The Barbarian]

The mind is not merely an epiphenomenon of the brain. But that's one of the things it is.

[Difflugia]

The mind is not merely an epiphenomenon of the brain. But that's one of the things it is.

Would you mind expanding on this a bit? What else do you think the mind is?

[brunumb]

Nope. Viruses have some protective barrier to protect the nucleic acid from DYING.

Nucleic acid is not living and as such cannot die. What you are describing is no different from painting a can to stop it from rusting.

[brunumb]

Possible but still, let's assume the distribution in nature is 75% L configuration, why is life skewed toward L configuration ( more than 75%)? Is there some sorting in nature?

Yeah, there is probably some god sorting them out with his cosmic chemical sieve. Good grief. Don't you know that nature works in mysterious ways.

[brunumb]

No. Biochemistry is chemistry that simply refers to those processes involving mostly organic molecules occurring in living things. Those reactions are all governed by the same physical and chemical properties of matter. There is no other 'special' ingredient involved in biochemical reactions.

I believe biochemistry is chemistry supported by LIFE.
This means life is a separate entity from the chemical reactions. Chemical reactions follow all phyisico-chemical laws such as 2nd law of thermodynamics, biochemical processes do not. In fact, biochemical processes are shielded from the environment (physical laws).

You can believe that if you like but now demonstrate that it is true. All biochemical reactions are just a classification of chemical reactions. They do obey all the laws governing matter and there is no evidence that any magical intervention is involved, including this mysterious shielding, whatever that might be.

[brunumb]

That's why i said physical reality (includes chemical reaction) is an illusion.

Now you are just in the speculative land of woo. One can imagine anything happening there. Not much use if you can't demonstrate that it is true.

[brunumb]

What other position am I criticising? I don't know precisely how or when abiogenesis occurred, but what I know of chemistry and the history of this planet allows me to conclude that it is possible and did indeed occur. What alternative would you suggest best explains the chemistry of life we observe?

Again, if you don't know Time, don't say 'once upon a time'. Agian, past is not real and therefore abiogenesis is just a story.

I offer you creation.

But past is not real and creation is very much just a story,