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 #348]

Yes, bacteria (without a brain or nerves) are aware of the environment. This is just part of life.

It comes down to the definition of "aware." You're using it to also mean simple chemical reactions that result from sensory molecules and subsystems. Note that in the article you linked the author's were careful to put works like "smart" and "feel" into quotes ... why do you think they did this?

Many simple creatures have light sensitive molecules that react to photons and can "tell" the creature whether they are in light, or not, or a flagellum that can sense something that causes a reaction, or some type of mobility. For example:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3963450/

But these are not conscious decisions by the creature to take in information and weigh it in some way to make a decision. They are chemical and photon sensors that automatically cause certain reactions or responses without any thought or decision making process by the creature.

Venus fly traps do not consciously "know" a fly has landed on their inner leaf surfaces and then close to capture it because they are hungry or are consciously "hunting." There are tiny receptor hairs that trigger chemical signals and closure of the "trap" when a fly (or other bug) tickles the hairs sufficiently. There is no thought process involved or any decision making by the plant. It is not "aware" of anything in the process (using aware as it is generally defined). Bacteria are similarly not "aware" of anything.

Life arising from nonlife (abiogenesis) is postulated to be the process whereby more and more complexity is built up in the various chemical, photon, electrical interactions and inputs so that eventually something assembled that fit a minimum definition of "alive." It is analogous to a simple grouping of light sensitive molecules transitioned to a light patch, then a concave structure to better focus light (eye cup), then eventually full blown eyes of various types. The initial light sensitive molecules may not be described as "seeing", but via a long progression of evolution something appeared which could "see." And like the word "alive", "seeing" is not a fixed, hard defintion.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3143066/

http://faculty.jsd.claremont.edu/dmcfar ... c_1994.pdf

[Noose001]

It comes down to the definition of "aware." You're using it to also mean simple chemical reactions that result from sensory molecules and subsystems. Note that in the article you linked the author's were careful to put works like "smart" and "feel" into quotes ... why do you think they did this?

Even human awareness depends on chemical reaction, receptors and everything.

Many simple creatures have light sensitive molecules that react to photons and can "tell" the creature whether they are in light, or not, or a flagellum that can sense something that causes a reaction, or some type of mobility. For example:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3963450/

But these are not conscious decisions by the creature to take in information and weigh it in some way to make a decision. They are chemical and photon sensors that automatically cause certain reactions or responses without any thought or decision making process by the creature.

No such thing as simple creatures. Receptors asses the environment and relays it to decision making 'organs' through a complex series of reactions. For the cytoplasm to move in one way and not the other, a decision has to be made first.

[DrNoGods]

[Replying to Noose001 in post #353]

Even human awareness depends on chemical reaction, receptors and everything.

Yes ... which makes it more remarkable that you claim abiogenesis is "impossible." Chemical reactions are at the root of all living things, which are all made of the same set of atoms in the periodic table. These combine to make molecules such as proteins, structural compounds, etc., and these can form more complex organs such as hearts, livers, brains, etc. Then these combine into more complex systems like mammals. The brain is a very complex system, which is far more capable than its component parts.

Receptors asses the environment and relays it to decision making 'organs' through a complex series of reactions.

What are "decision making organs"? Consciousness requires a certain level of development leading to a brain that is sufficiently complex to allow a decision making process that is distinct from simple receptor/reaction pathways that allow a venus fly trap to close, or a bacterium to respond to external actions. A bacterium is not conscious in the same way a mammal is, or even a worm. If you are claiming that a bacterium is conscious, you're using a nonstandard definition of the word.

[Noose001]

Yes ... which makes it more remarkable that you claim abiogenesis is "impossible." Chemical reactions are at the root of all living things, which are all made of the same set of atoms in the periodic table. These combine to make molecules such as proteins, structural compounds, etc., and these can form more complex organs such as hearts, livers, brains, etc. Then these combine into more complex systems like mammals. The brain is a very complex system, which is far more capable than its component parts.

Purpose is the difference. Chemical processes have no purpose or expections but biochemocal process have purpose.

What are "decision making organs"? Consciousness requires a certain level of development leading to a brain that is sufficiently complex to allow a decision making process that is distinct from simple receptor/reaction pathways that allow a venus fly trap to close, or a bacterium to respond to external actions. A bacterium is not conscious in the same way a mammal is, or even a worm. If you are claiming that a bacterium is conscious, you're using a nonstandard definition of the word.

Yeah, that shows a brain is just one way to decision making. If bacteia recwives info about the environment and goes north as oppsed to south, then it has decided.
It is definately aware of the environmeny (unlike a stone). The level of awareness might not be same as that of a mammal or a worm but it is aware.

[brunumb]

Chemical processes have no purpose or expections but biochemocal process have purpose.

Biochemical processes are just chemical reactions. The molecules behave according to their physical and chemical properties, They have no way to assess or evaluate what they are doing and therefore cannot behave with any purpose. If you disagree, please explain how molecules get their purpose.

[DrNoGods]

[Replying to Noose001 in post #355]

Purpose is the difference. Chemical processes have no purpose or expections but biochemocal process have purpose.

You've said this before, but have yet to explain any difference between the chemistry rules that goven biochemistry vs. any other chemistry. There is nothing special about biochemistry as far as the basic laws of chemistry, how ionic and covalent bonds work, etc. Biochemistry just happens to be a term used to describe chemistry in biological systems, similar to how the terms organic and inorganic chemistry are used. It is a convenient word to group a subset of the large field of chemistry, and does not involve anything called "purpose."

If bacteia recwives info about the environment and goes north as oppsed to south, then it has decided.
It is definately aware of the environmeny (unlike a stone). The level of awareness might not be same as that of a mammal or a worm but it is aware.

There is no evidence for this claim using any normal definition for the word aware. I wish we had the old spell check back!

[Noose001]

Biochemical processes are just chemical reactions. The molecules behave according to their physical and chemical properties, They have no way to assess or evaluate what they are doing and therefore cannot behave with any purpose. If you disagree, please explain how molecules get their purpose.

You've said this before, but have yet to explain any difference between the chemistry rules that goven biochemistry vs. any other chemistry. There is nothing special about biochemistry as far as the basic laws of chemistry, how ionic and covalent bonds work, etc. Biochemistry just happens to be a term used to describe chemistry in biological systems, similar to how the terms organic and inorganic chemistry are used. It is a convenient word to group a subset of the large field of chemistry, and does not involve anything called "purpose."

I think i have explained this a number of times.
The difference between chemistry and biochemistry is so huge but let me talk about 'purpose' again.

Biochemical processes don't just happen, they are triggered at the 'right time', that means they don't follow phsysico-chemical laws. The products are 'needed' for the next cascade, harmful byproducts are actively evacuated from the process( so that the process is succesful). This is purpose.

[brunumb]

Biochemical processes don't just happen, they are triggered at the 'right time', that means they don't follow phsysico-chemical laws. The products are 'needed' for the next cascade, harmful byproducts are actively evacuated from the process( so that the process is succesful). This is purpose.

What causes the trigger?
Why are they not following the normal laws of chemistry?
What laws are governing the actions of these particular molecules?
How are the alleged harmful chemicals expelled?

You have made numerous claims but actually explained nothing. In particular, you have not explained how molecules, which are simply aggregates of chemical matter, have purpose.

[Noose001]

What causes the trigger?
Why are they not following the normal laws of chemistry?
What laws are governing the actions of these particular molecules?
How are the alleged harmful chemicals expelled?

You have made numerous claims but actually explained nothing. In particular, you have not explained how molecules, which are simply aggregates of chemical matter, have purpose.

I don't need to explain anything, if i do then i'll be traching biochemistry which a very wide discipline.
For example one of the triggers of Glycolysis is the presence of glucose (a product from other metabollic processes NEEDED in the cells) in the blood; insulin is realeased through some other biochemical processes; the insulin triggers the opening of energy operated gates on the cell membrane (a whole cascade of events); glc is taken in and through a series of bichemical processes(glycolysis), energy is realsed for cell use. Each step shows purpose.

It can not follow normal physico-chemical laws. Outside the cells, some of these processes would release a great of heat or would require heat which is not ideal for life, biochemical processes happen in a sepcial environment against physico-chemical laws.

Law governing biochemical processes? Life.

Harmful materials are taken out through complex biochemical processes again, failure to which they may become harmful to the cell. For instance, lactic acid accumulation in the muscles when they are overworked. They are purposeful.

[DrNoGods]

[Replying to Noose001 in post #360]

Each step shows purpose.

No ... it shows the action of genes, signaling proteins, etc. proceeding through the chemical reactions they control after eons of evolution. There are end results to the processes, but they are not proceeding under some kind of thought process by the components and chemicals which are working towards a purpose. You should grab a copy of the book "Life Unfolding" (Jamie R. Davies, Oxford University Press, 2014). He outlines what was known as of 2014 as far as embryonic development, and describes how signalling proteins, gene action and chemistry control the initial development of the fertilized egg without any thought or purpose behind it. It isn't just handwaving or unsupported claims, but very interesting science.

It can not follow normal physico-chemical laws.

But it somehow does ... precisely. Give one example of a chemical reaction occurring in a biological system that cannot occur outside of such a system, with the correct conditions. There may be unique biological environments that don't occur elsewhere, but the chemistry and physics going on in biological systems do not break any "physico-chemical" laws. And I don't think you can refute that with any examples.

Harmful materials are taken out through complex biochemical processes again, failure to which they may become harmful to the cell. For instance, lactic acid accumulation in the muscles when they are overworked. They are purposeful.

The first two sentences are fine, and of course there is a purpose for the processes (to protect the cell, etc.), but the word "purpose" as you're using it seems to suggest that it is not just chemistry happening driven by proteins and genes doing their thing, but has some intelligence behind it. There is no reason to believe that is the case.