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 EarthScienceguy in post #44]

F=ma If you have an acceleration vector that means there is a force being applied on all the particles that the acceleration vector is affecting. Now in the case of particles in orbit, the force is causing the particles to move in a circular orbit around the planet. There can be a change in velocity if there is a change in magnitude or direction. Now in the case of particles in orbit, they are constantly changing direction because of the circular orbit they are in. So by definition, an object in orbit around a body has to be accelerating around the body.

Yes ... the acceleration vector is perpendicular to the direction of motion of the particles (ie. towards the planet), and they stay in orbit because their velocity perpendicular to the acceleration vector (tangential velocity) is sufficient to balance the pull towards the planet. Orbital mechanics 101. Two particles next to each other can shake hands all the way around the planet because they are experiencing the same acceleration towards it, and have the same tangential velocity keeping them in proximity to each other. If one was a magnet and the others were iron particles, don't you think they'd very happily join up with zero impact from their absolute motion?

So UV light would dissociate water with or without an ozone layer present. The sun gives off the entire electromagnetic spectrum so it really does not matter what wavelengths of light dissociates CO2 because the sun is going to admit it and there is going to be nothing in the earth's atmosphere to stop it.

Not if there is enough O2 to absorb UV light below 200 nm. And the Sun's emission peaks long beyond 200 nm. The relative emission below 200 nm is small. But head up into the stratosphere right now and you'll find about 5 ppmv of H2O all the time, and about 20% O2. If the tropopause wasn't a cold trap, there would be more H2O above it. There is plenty of H2O above the ozone layer. But I'll ask the Sun the next time I'm in the same city and see if it will "admit" to photodissociating CO2. Look at any wavelength resolved plot of solar radation from the Sun at the top of the atmosphere relative to what hits Earth. I linked one of those in post 35 ... here it is again:

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File ... ectrum.png

If the Earth's atmosphere has "nothing there to stop it", what is absorbing all of that light (UV included)?

Because volcanoes emit very little if any ammonia today.

Really? What source are you using to compare volcanic emissions of NH3 now vs. eons ago? "Little if any" has no value attached to it.

https://www.sandatlas.org/volcanic-gases/

No, they were not because they were recently put there during Noah's flood. Exactly like Walt Brown's theory predicted.

A resounding endorsement of Walt Brown! So Noah's flood put amino acids on comets and meteorites? You've outdone yourself! I'm speechless. Wow.

[Bradskii]

Therefore in a human-like species with a 20 year generation time, each progeny would receive over 182 new mutations...Kimura, King, and Jukes say that deleterious mutations are ten times more likely to be definitely harmful than neutral.

Ok...

So that means that either every generation 164 deleterious mutations were added to the genetic load or 1638 deleterious mutations were added to the genetic load every generation.

Where does the 1638 come from? Never mind...we'll go with the 164 deleterious changes. So slightly less a chance of survival. And we also have a much smaller number of beneficial changes, with a slightly greater chance of survival. Now, what generally happens to members of a species that have a smaller chance of surviving versus those that have a greater chance? Correct! They don't live as long. And don't get to pass on those pesky deletrious changes.

And the ones with a greater chance of survival? Correct again! They DO get to pass on the beneficial changes. Hence...natural selection. That is, the bad changes are literally taken out of the gene pool and the good ones remain and propagate. So the bad changes don't accumulate. So you can't keep adding them on each generation. Every now and then nature resets the count for the bad changes.

If you all want to have a SNP mutation as part of evolution then there are consequences for that. That means out of the 3.5 million differences 3.15 million would be deleterious or 31 million would be deleterious because 90% of all mutations are harmful.

This is just nonsense. I've no idea where these figures come from. I think you've completely misunderstood what has been written. And together with your propensity for quoting chapter, page number and verse from books and articles you obviously haven't read leads me to believe that you are woefully ignorant of the subject matter at hand and are simply regurgitating information you are cuttin' 'n' pastin' from some creationist site.

Either come up with some arguments yourself or I think we're done.

[Bust Nak]

... leads me to believe that you are woefully ignorant of the subject matter at hand ...

Moderator Comment

Please refrain from personal remarks.

Please review the Rules.

______________

Moderator comments do not count as a strike against any posters. They only serve as an acknowledgment that a post report has been received, but has not been judged to warrant a moderator warning against a particular poster. Any challenges or replies to moderator postings should be made via Private Message to avoid derailing topics.

[EarthScienceguy]

[Replying to Bradskii in post #0]

Where does the 1638 come from? Never mind...we'll go with the 164 deleterious changes. So slightly less a chance of survival. And we also have a much smaller number of beneficial changes, with a slightly greater chance of survival. Now, what generally happens to members of a species that have a smaller chance of surviving versus those that have a greater chance? Correct! They don't live as long. And don't get to pass on those pesky deleterious changes.

1. There are two ways of looking at the 182 changes. Either the 182 are all beneficial and they come out of 1820 total changes or there were a total of 182 changes and 164 were deleterious.

2. You are not speaking of Kimura's Neutral theory you are speaking of Dawkins selectionists theory. Kimura showed that Dawkins's selectionist theory could not answer Haldane's Dilemma.

3. Who is passing on the beneficial traits? Those with deleterious traits that are going to die? All of those with deleterious traits would have to die off so as not to pass those deleterious traits on. This is why it takes 300 generations per beneficial change So it really does not matter whether you pick Kimura's Neutral theory or Dawkin's Selectionist theory both will take 300 generations to pass on each beneficial change in the genome.

And the ones with a greater chance of survival? Correct again! They DO get to pass on the beneficial changes. Hence...natural selection. That is, the bad changes are literally taken out of the gene pool and the good ones remain and propagate. So the bad changes don't accumulate. So you can't keep adding them on each generation. Every now and then nature resets the count for the bad changes.

Who is producing this propagation? Those with beneficial and deleterious mutations? That is all there would be in the population are those with beneficial and deleterious mutations? In that case, the entire population would die. If you are saying that all of these mutations are in different sets of parents then you are talking about producing a bottleneck that according to those books that I did not read like Kimura's. It would take 300 generations for each beneficial change to go through the population.

EarthScienceguy wrote: ↑Tue Sep 28, 2021 3:09 pm
If you all want to have a SNP mutation as part of evolution then there are consequences for that. That means out of the 3.5 million differences 3.15 million would be deleterious or 31 million would be deleterious because 90% of all mutations are harmful.
This is just nonsense. I've no idea where these figures come from. I think you've completely misunderstood what has been written. And together with your propensity for quoting chapter, page number and verse from books and articles you obviously haven't read leads me to believe that you are woefully ignorant of the subject matter at hand and are simply regurgitating information you are cuttin' 'n' pastin' from some creationist site.

These are your numbers. You are the one that said that you were 0.1% different from your wife. If you are saying that SNP's are involved in evolution the above is what it means. So I would not be checking the birthdate of my wife I would be checking the species.

Either come up with some arguments yourself or I think we're done.

Nobody is forcing you to respond.

[EarthScienceguy]

[Replying to DrNoGods in post #0]

Yes ... the acceleration vector is perpendicular to the direction of motion of the particles (ie. towards the planet), and they stay in orbit because their velocity perpendicular to the acceleration vector (tangential velocity) is sufficient to balance the pull towards the planet. Orbital mechanics 101. Two particles next to each other can shake hands all the way around the planet because they are experiencing the same acceleration towards it, and have the same tangential velocity keeping them in proximity to each other. If one was a magnet and the others were iron particles, don't you think they'd very happily join up with zero impact from their absolute motion?

How are you orientating these particles? Is one closer to the Earth or planet than the other one? If that is the case then the speed of the one further away would be higher than the speed of the one closer. There is really no way for these particles to "hold Hands" because they are already holding hands with Saturn if we are talking about the rings of Saturn.

For example:

If there are 2 1 kg rocks in the upper rings of Saturn and they are 1 mm apart the force of gravity between them would-be F=G (1)^2/(.001)^2 or F = 1E6 G

Saturn would apply a gravitation force of F = G (1)(6E26) / (2E8)^2 or F = 2E10 G Four orders of magnitude greater. Any torque force caused by the planet's gravity would pull apart two particles that were attracted to each other by their gravities.

If the particles are spinning this is going to be even more true because of the tidal forces that spinning produces in a gravitational field.

This is why Shoemaker levy 9 broke apart when it began to orbit Jupiter. Comets are loosely associated balls of ice.

But keep watching, I am sure one day those particles will defy the laws of physics and come together.

Not if there is enough O2 to absorb UV light below 200 nm. And the Sun's emission peaks long beyond 200 nm. The relative emission below 200 nm is small. But head up into the stratosphere right now and you'll find about 5 ppmv of H2O all the time, and about 20% O2. If the tropopause wasn't a cold trap, there would be more H2O above it. There is plenty of H2O above the ozone layer. But I'll ask the Sun the next time I'm in the same city and see if it will "admit" to photodissociating CO2. Look at any wavelength resolved plot of solar radiation from the Sun at the top of the atmosphere relative to what hits Earth. I linked one of those in post 35 ... here it is again:

You said there can't be any oxygen. Now there is enough absorb UV Light? Photodissociating CO2 is what this paper says can happen. It really does not matter there would have been more than enough water to do the job.

Really? What source are you using to compare volcanic emissions of NH3 now vs. eons ago? "Little if any" has no value attached to it.

The present is the key to the past is only applicable when it fits your theory. If there is a pesky observation that does not fit your theory then let's throw that idea out until it fits our theory again.

https://www.sandatlas.org/volcanic-gases/
No, they were not because they were recently put there during Noah's flood. Exactly like Walt Brown's theory predicted.
A resounding endorsement of Walt Brown! So Noah's flood put amino acids on comets and meteorites? You've outdone yourself! I'm speechless. Wow.

Yes, that is what he predicted 30 years ago. And what we see on comets is what he predicted.

He also predicted this:

PREDICTION 38: Asteroids are rock piles, often with internal ice acting as a weak glue.9 Large rocks that began the capture process are near the centers of asteroids and comets.

Four years after publishing this prediction in 2001 (In the Beginning, 7th edition, page 220), measurements of the largest asteroid, Ceres, found that it does indeed have a dense, rocky core and a mantle primarily of water-ice.10

On 23 January 2014, it was announced that two jets of water vapor were discovered escaping from Ceres at a combined rate of 13 pounds per second.

PREDICTION 43: A deep, penetrating impact on a large asteroid, such as Ceres, will release vast volumes of water vapor. (This prediction has now been confirmed.9 See Figure 12.)

And this

PREDICTION 39: Most of the rocks (pebble-size and larger) comprising asteroids and comets will be found to be rounded to some degree. (This rounding occurred as the rocks tumbled and were eroded in the powerful fountains of the great deep, just as rocks are tumbled and rounded in fast-flowing streams.)

The European Space Administration announced on 18 December 2014 that huge, rounded boulders—1 to 3 meters in diameter—are stacked “layer upon layer” “all over” Comet 67P. [See Figure 8 on page 358.] They jokingly call them dinosaur eggs, and believe they could be the basic building blocks that clumped together to form” comets.11

[DrNoGods]

[Replying to EarthScienceguy in post #55]

How are you orientating these particles? Is one closer to the Earth or planet than the other one? If that is the case then the speed of the one further away would be higher than the speed of the one closer. There is really no way for these particles to "hold Hands" because they are already holding hands with Saturn if we are talking about the rings of Saturn.

For example:

If there are 2 1 kg rocks in the upper rings of Saturn and they are 1 mm apart the force of gravity between them would-be F=G (1)^2/(.001)^2 or F = 1E6 G

Saturn would apply a gravitation force of F = G (1)(6E26) / (2E8)^2 or F = 2E10 G Four orders of magnitude greater. Any torque force caused by the planet's gravity would pull apart two particles that were attracted to each other by their gravities.

You're ignoring the fact that they are in stable orbits and can exist side-by-side in the ring as they orbit. The pull of Saturn's gravity is countered by their tangential velocity (which is the definition of a stable orbit), so the relative motion of one rock to the other is zero (ignoring any other forces that may be acting on the rocks). If you're flying in an airplane going 500 MPH at 35,000' do you think the passenger next to you is somehow going to be ripped away due to the fact that Earth's gravity acting on both of you is greater than gravitational attraction of the two humans? Or take two astronauts on the ISS sitting side-by-side as they are both travelling some 17,000 MPH in orbit, with Earth's gravity acting perpendicular to their orbital motion as the same time. You're missing a fundamental point here.

You said there can't be any oxygen. Now there is enough absorb UV Light? Photodissociating CO2 is what this paper says can happen. It really does not matter there would have been more than enough water to do the job.

You're the one claiming the O2 level in Earth's atmosphere has been the same from day 1, not me. Evidence suggests very little atmospheric O2 after formation, and lots of CO2 and some N2 and H2O, among other volcanic gases including NH3. Photodissociation of H2O and CO2 (presumably the source for your O2 that evidently wasn't there in significant quantities until about 2.5 billion years ago) both have absorption cross sections that we know as a function of wavelength. It wouldn't be too hard to run through some calculations to show how much O2 could be produced via this process given vertical profiles (volume mixing ratios as a function of altitude) of H2O and CO2. Have you done these calculations, or just want to believe that Earth's atmosphere has always had the composition it does now because that somehow supports the biblical creation story, and humans and land animals being able to breathe air one week after the planet formed?

The present is the key to the past is only applicable when it fits your theory. If there is a pesky observation that does not fit your theory then let's throw that idea out until it fits our theory again.

Not that is a perfect description of "creation science"! AIG may sue you for copyright infringement.

This rounding occurred as the rocks tumbled and were eroded in the powerful fountains of the great deep, just as rocks are tumbled and rounded in fast-flowing streams.

Or ... the rocks were in orbits like billions are now in the asteroid belt between Mars and Jupiter, and they bump into each other countless times over the millennia, becoming more rounded in the process. Then, some of them clump together to form larger "rock piles", which eventually capture more rocky material as the larger ball of rock sweeps out smaller rocks in its path. Its gravitational pull gets larger as it grows and sweeps out more material and attracts it gravitationally, and if it gets big enough it becomes spherical just like every planet and large moon does. How to you think Ceres formed in the first place, and why is it spherical when smaller asteroids are more potato shaped? Isn't this scenario a far more likely explanation than nonsense about "the great deep"?

[EarthScienceguy]

[Replying to DrNoGods in post #0]

quote]You're ignoring the fact that they are in stable orbits and can exist side-by-side in the ring as they orbit. The pull of Saturn's gravity is countered by their tangential velocity (which is the definition of a stable orbit), so the relative motion of one rock to the other is zero (ignoring any other forces that may be acting on the rocks). If you're flying in an airplane going 500 MPH at 35,000' do you think the passenger next to you is somehow going to be ripped away due to the fact that Earth's gravity acting on both of you is greater than gravitational attraction of the two humans? Or take two astronauts on the ISS sitting side-by-side as they are both travelling some 17,000 MPH in orbit, with Earth's gravity acting perpendicular to their orbital motion as the same time. You're missing a fundamental point here.[/quote]

If the object is rotating it will produce tidal forces in the object what will tear apart a loosely held object. So whether they are traveling at the same speed does not matter.

You're the one claiming the O2 level in Earth's atmosphere has been the same from day 1, not me.

What? Yes, I do claim that O2 levels have not changed. If this is the case then there is no reason for photodissociation to occur any faster than it does today.

Evidence suggests very little atmospheric O2 after formation, and lots of CO2 and some N2 and H2O, among other volcanic gases including NH3. Photodissociation of H2O and CO2 (presumably the source for your O2 that evidently wasn't there in significant quantities until about 2.5 billion years ago) both have absorption cross sections that we know as a function of wavelength. It wouldn't be too hard to run through some calculations to show how much O2 could be produced via this process given vertical profiles (volume mixing ratios as a function of altitude) of H2O and CO2. Have you done these calculations, or just want to believe that Earth's atmosphere has always had the composition it does now because that somehow supports the biblical creation story, and humans and land animals being able to breathe air one week after the planet formed?

I suppose I could do that calculation but the amount of granite on the earth is ample evidence for the amount of oxygen in the early earth atmosphere.

Or ... the rocks were in orbits like billions are now in the asteroid belt between Mars and Jupiter, and they bump into each other countless times over the millennia, becoming more rounded in the process. Then, some of them clump together to form larger "rock piles", which eventually capture more rocky material as the larger ball of rock sweeps out smaller rocks in its path. Its gravitational pull gets larger as it grows and sweeps out more material and attracts it gravitationally, and if it gets big enough it becomes spherical just like every planet and large moon does. How to you think Ceres formed in the first place, and why is it spherical when smaller asteroids are more potato shaped? Isn't this scenario a far more likely explanation than nonsense about "the great deep"?

The problem is they cannot be in orbit. They can be traveling away from the Earth in a straight line. If they were traveling in a straight line away from the earth then they would begin to orbit each other like Pluto and its moon and then if they were close enough with enough gravitational attraction they might come together very gently because then their velocities would be the same.

[EarthScienceguy]

[Replying to Miles in post #0]

1. Land animals were the only animals on the Ark.
2. Adaption not evolution was the main driving force of change after the flood. Meaning no new information was needed to create the complexity of species that we see.

[EarthScienceguy]

[Replying to JoeyKnothead in post #50]

Why do you believe it is a fact?

[DrNoGods]

[Replying to EarthScienceguy in post #57]

If the object is rotating it will produce tidal forces in the object what will tear apart a loosely held object. So whether they are traveling at the same speed does not matter.

Who says the objects are rotating? The plane passengers and astronauts obviously are not (at least at any kind of speeds to matter), and the rocks and particles in Saturn's rings aren't necessarily rotating at high speeds either. Accretion happens and does not violate any laws of physics.

What? Yes, I do claim that O2 levels have not changed. If this is the case then there is no reason for photodissociation to occur any faster than it does today.

The net photodissociation rate of CO2 to form O2 depends on the amount of UV light at any given point, and its wavelength. The more O2 there is already, the less UV light at the right wavelengths is available to photodissociate CO2 (to make CO + O mainly, then subsequent reactions can make O2):

https://www.pnas.org/content/pnas/early ... 0.full.pdf

A lot of the early CO2 was taken up by the formation of carbonate rocks, with estimated partial pressures for CO2 of ~10 mbar in the Archean and ~1 mbar in the Proterozoic (from above paper). So the amount of O2 that could be made from CO2 photodissociation is (obviously) less than the total partial pressures of CO2. 10 mbar today would be 1% of the total surface pressure on Earth (about 1 Bar). But photodissociation of 10 mabr of CO2, or even 100 mbar, could not make an atmosphere with 21% O2 as we have today. And neither could photodissociation of H2O which makes mainly H+ and OH-.

I suppose I could do that calculation but the amount of granite on the earth is ample evidence for the amount of oxygen in the early earth atmosphere.

If "early" is 2.5 billion years ago or later, then there was oxygen starting to become available, but before that what evidence is there for lots of O2 in the atmosphere (anywhere near today's 20.9%)?

https://www.amnh.org/exhibitions/perman ... atmosphere

The problem is they cannot be in orbit. They can be traveling away from the Earth in a straight line. If they were traveling in a straight line away from the earth then they would begin to orbit each other like Pluto and its moon and then if they were close enough with enough gravitational attraction they might come together very gently because then their velocities would be the same.

If "they" are the asteroid belt rocks, then they are in orbit around the Sun, not each other. And Pluto has moons because it is big enough to hold them in stable orbits. Are you claiming that the asteroid belt rocks are not orbiting the Sun but traveling in straight lines away from Earth? Is this another Walt Brown dream?