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?

[DrNoGods]

[Replying to Noose001 in post #367]

Please explain further; why is abiogenesis not by chance/randon. Is it planned?!

It isn't planned. The processes of chemical reactions, and natural selection, are not random. All atoms do not react with all other atoms to make stable bonds and stable molecules. Natural selection does not allow any possible combination of anything you can imagine to appear in living things as a random process would. Nothing has to be "planned." Life evolves to survive and reproduce in the environment it finds itself in, which puts major constraints on what can and cannot happen via evolution. If mutations appear randomly, they don't spread through a population if they are deleterious, but can if they are beneficial. This process is not random, nor is it planned.

No it doesn't, except from plan, i.e life from life.

How did life begin then? What was the first living organism on Earth and how did it form? We don't know the answer to that question yet (you or me or anyone else) so any claims you make on a specific mechanism or process can't be justified. All you can do is offer an opinion.

More nonsense. How is that possible? A fish outside water dies because it doesn't jave lungs; a fish without lungs dies in water because it doesn't have gills. A transition should have both lung and gills yet there's no creature with such features.

Already answered in prior posts (you are mistaken).

[brunumb]

You are just plucking nonsense out of the air. An amide bond is an amide bond no matter where it occurs. How on earth can you say that so-called artificial (???) amide bonds are harsh and toxic to life? It just beggars belief.

True, butvit is a fact that artificial amide bonds rely on conditions that are hostile to life. That's why chemistry is not biochemistry.

There is no such thing as an artificial amide bond. If it can form in cells it can form under conditions that are not hostile to life. Biochemistry is just chemistry. Repeating your mantra doesn't change anything. All you have done is make unsubstantiated claims. Demonstrate that they are true.

If it exists, it means it's not transitional. It has existed since it's creation with those special features(lungs and gills). It will loose non of the them (lungs or gills).

Firstly, there is no evidence they were created. Secondly, their existence now does not disqualify them from being transitional. Organisms branched off in the distant past where either of those features were lost depending on the environment they encountered at the time. If the niche occupied by lungfish persisted then there was no environmental pressure on them which would cause them to disappear.

[Noose001]

Fact is, every fish with an air bladder has a lung. Bladders were first used as organs of oxygen absorbtion before they were used to balance buoyancy. They still do work that way. It's why a goldfish in a bowl of oxygen-depleted water, will gulp air. Lungfish merely have a more functional version, as do we. There is no clear demarcation. There are only variations on a theme.

And it's not surprising. The first chordates had neither lungs nor gills. They absorbed oxygen through skin and gut, as some primitive chordates do today. They are transitional to fish with gills and lungs, since their skin is homologous with gills and gut homologous with lungs. The major difference was that both of these, over time, increased surface area to facilitate gas transfer.

Darwin believed that lungs evolved from gas bladders, but the fact that fish with lungs are the oldest type of bony fish, plus molecular and developmental evidence, points to the reverse – that lungs evolved before swim bladders. Gills were present in the earliest fish, but lungs also evolved pretty early on, potentially from the tissue sac that surrounds the gills. Swim bladders evolved soon after lungs, and are thought to have evolved from lung tissue.

https://askabiologist.asu.edu/questions ... ills-lungs

Or, each was created the way they are.

[Noose001]

It isn't planned. The processes of chemical reactions, and natural selection, are not random. All atoms do not react with all other atoms to make stable bonds and stable molecules. Natural selection does not allow any possible combination of anything you can imagine to appear in living things as a random process would. Nothing has to be "planned." Life evolves to survive and reproduce in the environment it finds itself in, which puts major constraints on what can and cannot happen via evolution. If mutations appear randomly, they don't spread through a population if they are deleterious, but can if they are beneficial. This process is not random, nor is it planned.

No such thing as natural selection or beneficial mutations.

How did life begin then? What was the first living organism on Earth and how did it form? We don't know the answer to that question yet (you or me or anyone else) so any claims you make on a specific mechanism or process can't be justified.

Life creates life, fact. This is what is observed today.

Firstly, there is no evidence they were created. Secondly, their existence now does not disqualify them from being transitional. Organisms branched off in the distant past where either of those features were lost depending on the environment they encountered at the time. If the niche occupied by lungfish persisted then there was no environmental pressure on them which would cause them to disappear.

As if evolution is a fact, no it's not.
Human language completely disproves evolution. Human language is a 'specific' trait that has nothing to do with mutations and natural selection. Wherever the human language comes from is where all specific traits come from.

[Noose001]

You are just plucking nonsense out of the air. An amide bond is an amide bond no matter where it occurs. How on earth can you say that so-called artificial (???) amide bonds are harsh and toxic to life? It just beggars belief.

There is no such thing as an artificial amide bond. If it can form in cells it can form under conditions that are not hostile to life. Biochemistry is just chemistry. Repeating your mantra doesn't change anything. All you have done is make unsubstantiated claims. Demonstrate that they are true.

Artificial= manufactured in the lab.
There are so many companies making proteins and they rely on artificial amide bond formation. The conditions they use to achieve amide bond formation are differwnt from what a living organism does.

[brunumb]

No such thing as natural selection or beneficial mutations.

Nope. There is overwhelming evidence for both regardless of your denial. There is zero evidence for any other alternative. We go where the evidence leads.

Life creates life, fact. This is what is observed today.

Nope. What we observe today is living organisms reproducing. There is no creation involved. Hidden in the shadows of the distant past is how it all began. That we don't yet know.

You people speak as if evolution is a fact, no it's not.

Nope. Evolution is as good as a fact regardless of your denial. In the 150 years since Darwin formalised the theory and pipped Wallace at the post, it has gone from strength to strength. No one has managed to disprove it yet. Your Nobel prize awaits, if you can do it.

Human language completely disproves evolution. Human language is a 'specific' trait that has nothing to do with mutations and natural selection. Wherever the human language comes from is where all specific traits come from.

Submit your thesis and get your prize. Animals uttering sounds and using them as a form of communication is nothing particularly special. One can reasonably see how that communication became more sophisticated along with the evolution of increased intelligence in human beings. No magic required.

[Difflugia]

Human language completely disproves evolution.

I'm pretty sure that complex language offers a selective advantage. Does adaptive coloration completely disprove evolution, too?

[DrNoGods]

[Replying to Noose001 in post #376]

The conditions they use to achieve amide bond formation are differwnt from what a living organism does.

Which has no bearing on the nature or details of the amide bond itself. It is the exact same bond. Is liquid water formed from water vapor condensing when temperatures fall below the prevailing dew point different from liquid water formed from ice melting (or any other mechamism for forming liquid water)? If it were different it wouldn't be called water, and the same with an amide bond.

No such thing as natural selection or beneficial mutations.

Unfortunately, these have both long been proven to be "things." A statement like this is just as nonsensical as claiming that cheese does not exist because you don't like cheese. Do you believe in artificial selection (eg. breeding dairy cows for better milk production, or corn for higher yields, etc.)? Nature can do the same kind of thing, as proven countless times.

[The Barbarian]

Fact is, every fish with an air bladder has a lung. Bladders were first used as organs of oxygen absorbtion before they were used to balance buoyancy. They still do work that way. It's why a goldfish in a bowl of oxygen-depleted water, will gulp air. Lungfish merely have a more functional version, as do we. There is no clear demarcation. There are only variations on a theme.

And it's not surprising. The first chordates had neither lungs nor gills. They absorbed oxygen through skin and gut, as some primitive chordates do today. They are transitional to fish with gills and lungs, since their skin is homologous with gills and gut homologous with lungs. The major difference was that both of these, over time, increased surface area to facilitate gas transfer.

Darwin believed that lungs evolved from gas bladders, but the fact that fish with lungs are the oldest type of bony fish, plus molecular and developmental evidence, points to the reverse – that lungs evolved before swim bladders. Gills were present in the earliest fish, but lungs also evolved pretty early on, potentially from the tissue sac that surrounds the gills. Swim bladders evolved soon after lungs, and are thought to have evolved from lung tissue.

https://askabiologist.asu.edu/questions ... ills-lungs

Or, each was created the way they are.

It comes down to what the evidence shows. And even knowledgeable YE creationists admit that there is very good evidence for the evolution of lungs from simple chordates. Given that there is no scriptural support for denying this evolution, and that there is abundant evidence for it, one has to conclude that it did evolve.

[The Barbarian]

No such thing as natural selection or beneficial mutations.

It's directly observed. Even organizations like "Answers in Genesis" admit that natural selection is a fact. Would you like me to show you? And of course, we have many, many examples of favorable mutations. The HPAS1 allele that allows Tibetans to live and reproduce at very high altitudes is an example that evolved in humans in the last few thousand years. Would you like to learn about more of them?

Life creates life, fact.

God says that life was brought forth by things already created. I believe Him. You should, too.

As if evolution is a fact, no it's not.

We observe it happening all around us. Perhaps you don't know the scientific definition for biological evolution. What do you think it is?

Human language completely disproves evolution.

Human language is far beyond any language used by any other species.


Human language is a 'specific' trait that has nothing to do with mutations and natural selection. Wherever the human language comes from is where all specific traits come from.
[/quote]

It has been suggested that Broca’s and Wernicke’s areas are unique to humans. Broca’s and Wernicke’s areas are cortical areas specialized for production and comprehension, respectively, of human language. Broca’s area is found in the left inferior frontal gyrus and Wernicke’s area is located in the left posterior superior temporal gyrus. Non-human primates (both apes and monkeys) possess cortical areas that are in similar locations to and have similar cytoarchitecture as Wernicke’s and Broca’s areas in humans, and are probably homologous to them...In both macaques and humans, this region is likely involved in producing orofacial expressions and in understanding the intentions behind orofacial expressions of others. In humans, it has evolved an additional communicative function, namely speech production. However, it does not appear to be involved in monkey vocalizations, which are instead mediated by limbic and brainstem areas. Regarding Wernicke’s area, evidence suggests that the left superior temporal gyrus is specialized for processing species-specific calls in macaques just as it is specialized for speech comprehension in humans, although the specific anatomical focus of this macaque specialization is still in doubt.
https://carta.anthropogeny.org/moca/top ... ckes-areas

According to the authors, during primate evolution area Tpt became increasingly connected with inferoparietal regions and these contributed to a link between the auditory system and a parieto-
premotor circuit with incipient Broca’s area. A second parallel pathway may also have evolved directly between the precursor of Wernicke’s area and prefrontal cortex. Hypothetically, Broca’s
area developed, in part, as a phonological rehearsal device entailed in generating complex vocalizations. Eventually, an evolving parieto-premotor circuit contributed to the origin of a
lexicon (perhaps at the level mastered by apes schooled in American Sign Language). Syntax and the generation of discourse, however, emerged only later in conjunction with further elaboration of these circuits (Aboitiz and García 1997). Because Aboitiz and García’s model is well-reasoned and based on comparative and experimental evidence, their observations warrant serious
consideration.

The anatomical arrangement of the language areas fits this large-scale cortico-cortico network and can be described as part of it. In this sense, the neural architecture involved in language is
embedded in a complex system of large-scale connectivity that is the hallmark of the primate brain, and therefore should not be considered as an isolated system working independently of
similarly organized cortico-cortico networks (Aboitiz and García 1997:388).
https://ibro.org/wp-content/uploads/201 ... s-Area.pdf

The neuroanatomy of speech areas in the brain for making and understanding speech are much more ancient than our species. The fact that chimpanzees are competent in language and can converse with us in sign language indicates that human speech evolved out of simipler and earlier functions.