Abiogenesis and Probabilities

Creationism, Evolution, and other science issues

Moderator: Moderators

Post Reply
User avatar
DrNoGods
Prodigy
Posts: 2716
Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2017 2:18 pm
Location: Nevada
Has thanked: 593 times
Been thanked: 1642 times

Abiogenesis and Probabilities

Post #1

Post by 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?
In human affairs the sources of success are ever to be found in the fountains of quick resolve and swift stroke; and it seems to be a law, inflexible and inexorable, that he who will not risk cannot win.
John Paul Jones, 1779

The man who does not read has no advantage over the man who cannot read.
Mark Twain

User avatar
brunumb
Savant
Posts: 5993
Joined: Thu Nov 02, 2017 4:20 am
Location: Melbourne
Has thanked: 6607 times
Been thanked: 3209 times

Re: Abiogenesis and Probabilities

Post #361

Post by brunumb »

Noose001 wrote: Fri Oct 22, 2021 8:30 am
brunumb wrote: Fri Oct 22, 2021 7:55 am
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.
Of course you do need to explain. Unless you can answer those questions you are simply throwing out claims and hoping some of them stick. I have a degree in chemistry, organic chemistry to be specific, and part of my studies included biochemistry and cell biology. So, teach away.
Noose001 wrote: Fri Oct 22, 2021 8:30 am 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.
You have used the term "triggers" but not explained how that works. In reality, it is nothing more than the effect of the physical and chemical environment that the molecules are in. It is no more purposeful than water 'deciding' which path to take when it makes its way down a hill.
Noose001 wrote: Fri Oct 22, 2021 8:30 am 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.
No laws of chemistry are broken, including the laws of conservation of mass and energy. Please indicate which reactions you feel would release excessive and harmful amounts of energy. Maintaining body temperature is a necessary process in warm-blooded animals by the way.
Noose001 wrote: Fri Oct 22, 2021 8:30 am Law governing biochemical processes? Life.
Now we really do need an explanation. How exactly does life govern biochemical processes? What we know is that a composite of organic molecules connected and functioning in a systematic way results in structure that we regard as a living thing. We refer to it all collectively as life. But as far as we know there is no additional magical component involved. You may be able to demonstrate otherwise, so please have a go.
Noose001 wrote: Fri Oct 22, 2021 8:30 am 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 outcome of natural chemical processes may be beneficial without requiring chemicals to specifically act with purpose. Harmful processes would not have allowed an organism to survive and would not have been passed on through the process of evolution through natural selection.
George Orwell:: “The further a society drifts from the truth, the more it will hate those who speak it.”
Voltaire: "Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities."
Gender ideology is anti-science, anti truth.

Noose001
Apprentice
Posts: 207
Joined: Tue Oct 05, 2021 3:32 am
Has thanked: 33 times
Been thanked: 7 times

Re: Abiogenesis and Probabilities

Post #362

Post by Noose001 »

DrNoGods wrote: Fri Oct 22, 2021 1:42 pm
No ... it shows the action of genes, signaling proteins, etc. proceeding through the chemical reactions they control after eons of evolution.
1.Yeah, control is the word. That kind of control is never found in physico-chemical reactions hence biochem are not the same as chemical processes.
2.Genes are only part of the control because their generation is also controlled and not random or through physico-chemical processes but biochemical processes. So the control/purpose is beyond genes.
3. For every book about randomness, there's 5 against.
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.


Every biochemical processes occur in a living cell, that's why they are called biochemical and not chemical, otherwise life should be popping up in every environment.

Example; Amide bond formation.
The first two sentences are fine, and of course there is a purpose for the processes (to protect the cell, etc.)
Enough said but then you think life protecting processes arose from random non purposeful processes?!! So when did they become purposeful?

Noose001
Apprentice
Posts: 207
Joined: Tue Oct 05, 2021 3:32 am
Has thanked: 33 times
Been thanked: 7 times

Re: Abiogenesis and Probabilities

Post #363

Post by Noose001 »

brunumb wrote: Fri Oct 22, 2021 8:41 pm
I have a degree in chemistry, organic chemistry to be specific, and part of my studies included biochemistry and cell biology. So, teach away.
It is very important for a Biochemist to understand both Organic, inorganic and physical chemistry to high levels.
You have used the term "triggers" but not explained how that works. In reality, it is nothing more than the effect of the physical and chemical environment that the molecules are in. It is no more purposeful than water 'deciding' which path to take when it makes its way down a hill.
Timely triggers show purpose
Now we really do need an explanation. How exactly does life govern biochemical processes? What we know is that a composite of organic molecules connected and functioning in a systematic way results in structure that we regard as a living thing.

And how does this 'systematic way' arise from 'non systematic way'? When does it become systematic when you insist systematic (Biochemical processes) are the same as non systematic (Chemical processes).
The outcome of natural chemical processes may be beneficial without requiring chemicals to specifically act with purpose.

Benefit and purpose are two different things.
Harmful processes would not have allowed an organism to survive and would not have been passed on through the process of evolution through natural selection.
So how many/much 'harmful processes/ conditions' where present in the prebiotic environment?

User avatar
DrNoGods
Prodigy
Posts: 2716
Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2017 2:18 pm
Location: Nevada
Has thanked: 593 times
Been thanked: 1642 times

Re: Abiogenesis and Probabilities

Post #364

Post by DrNoGods »

Noose001 wrote: Sun Oct 24, 2021 2:56 am
3. For every book about randomness, there's 5 against.
What does randomness have to to with anything? No one is claiming that biological systems arose from pure random chance. Chemical reactions are not random; photochemical reactions are not random; natural selection is not random. There's nothing special about biochemical systems compared to any other chemical systems, other than the prefix bio being used to distinguish this class of chemistry from others. The fundamental laws of chemistry are the same in bioligical systems as in any other.
Every biochemical processes occur in a living cell, that's why they are called biochemical and not chemical ...
Right ... it is a convenient way to classify this category of chemistry. But the chemistry itself is nothing special.
... otherwise life should be popping up in every environment, at least here on Earth.
It does pop up in nearly every environment.
Example; Amide bond formation.
Amide bonds form outside of biological systems. Ever heard of polyamides like nylons, kevlar, etc.? They also form in bioligical systems (eg. peptides) but amide bond formation is not exclusive to biological systems and the chemistry of amide bonds in peptides and in synthetic polyamides is the same.
Enough said but then you think life protecting processes arose from random non purposeful processes?!! So when did they become purposeful?
I've never claimed "life protecting processes" arose from random, non-purposeful processes. That is your description. My claim is that they never were or are "purposeful" in the sense you are apparently using that word (ie. they "know" what they are doing and are working towards a planned, end goal). These processes evolved similarly to all other life processes to handle various functions of the living thing. We have lungs in order to extract O2 from the air, fish have gills to extract O2 from water. If some random mutations caused a fish to develop lungs instead of gills, it would not survive in water and reproduce and that would be the end of the line for those mutations in fish. However, if it further developed other changes to get out of the water full time and extract O2 from the air ... like maybe evolve into an amphibian with fins evolving into legs for locomation ... then it may survive and reproduce as a new species.
In human affairs the sources of success are ever to be found in the fountains of quick resolve and swift stroke; and it seems to be a law, inflexible and inexorable, that he who will not risk cannot win.
John Paul Jones, 1779

The man who does not read has no advantage over the man who cannot read.
Mark Twain

User avatar
brunumb
Savant
Posts: 5993
Joined: Thu Nov 02, 2017 4:20 am
Location: Melbourne
Has thanked: 6607 times
Been thanked: 3209 times

Re: Abiogenesis and Probabilities

Post #365

Post by brunumb »

Noose001 wrote: Sun Oct 24, 2021 2:56 am
DrNoGods wrote: Fri Oct 22, 2021 1:42 pm
No ... it shows the action of genes, signaling proteins, etc. proceeding through the chemical reactions they control after eons of evolution.
1.Yeah, control is the word. That kind of control is never found in physico-chemical reactions hence biochem are not the same as chemical processes.
Control may be the word but you have offered no explanation of how this control is achieved or demonstrated how any molecules are able to act with purpose.

Noose001 wrote: Sun Oct 24, 2021 2:56 am Every biochemical processes occur in a living cell, that's why they are called biochemical and not chemical, otherwise life should be popping up in every environment.
That's why they are called biochemical, but they are also chemical. It is just a convenient classification term. Humans are also apes. Calling people humans does not mean that they are not also apes.

Noose001 wrote: Sun Oct 24, 2021 2:56 am Example; Amide bond formation.
Amide bonds are not unique to biochemical reactions. Nylons are polymers where the linking group in the long chains is an amide bond. The same functional group chemistry is involved.

Noose001 wrote: Sun Oct 24, 2021 2:56 am Enough said but then you think life protecting processes arose from random non purposeful processes?!! So when did they become purposeful?
They may appear to be acting purposefully, but molecules do not control their own behaviour. They behave according to their physical and chemical properties. Clouds do not purposefully create pictures of rabbits in the sky even if that's what we might see.
George Orwell:: “The further a society drifts from the truth, the more it will hate those who speak it.”
Voltaire: "Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities."
Gender ideology is anti-science, anti truth.

Noose001
Apprentice
Posts: 207
Joined: Tue Oct 05, 2021 3:32 am
Has thanked: 33 times
Been thanked: 7 times

Re: Abiogenesis and Probabilities

Post #366

Post by Noose001 »

DrNoGods wrote: Sun Oct 24, 2021 11:04 am
What does randomness have to to with anything? No one is claiming that biological systems arose from pure random chance. Chemical reactions are not random; photochemical reactions are not random; natural selection is not random. There's nothing special about biochemical systems compared to any other chemical systems, other than the prefix bio being used to distinguish this class of chemistry from others. The fundamental laws of chemistry are the same in bioligical systems as in any other.
Please explain further; why is abiogenesis not by chance/randon. Is it planned?!
It does pop up in nearly every environment.
No it doesn't, except from plan, i.e life from life.
Amide bonds form outside of biological systems. Ever heard of polyamides like nylons, kevlar, etc.? They also form in bioligical systems (eg. peptides) but amide bond formation is not exclusive to biological systems and the chemistry of amide bonds in peptides and in synthetic polyamides is the same.
I didn't say amide bond formation is exclusive to biological systems; the artificial amide bond formation is possible only that it is harsh or toxic to life.

We have lungs in order to extract O2 from the air, fish have gills to extract O2 from water. If some random mutations caused a fish to develop lungs instead of gills, it would not survive in water and reproduce and that would be the end of the line for those mutations in fish. However, if it further developed other changes to get out of the water full time and extract O2 from the air ... like maybe evolve into an amphibian with fins evolving into legs for locomation ... then it may ...
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.

Noose001
Apprentice
Posts: 207
Joined: Tue Oct 05, 2021 3:32 am
Has thanked: 33 times
Been thanked: 7 times

Re: Abiogenesis and Probabilities

Post #367

Post by Noose001 »

brunumb wrote: Sun Oct 24, 2021 5:17 pm
Control may be the word but you have offered no explanation of how this control is achieved or demonstrated how any molecules are able to act with purpose.
As far as i can recall you are the one to offer all the explanations. Mine is to dismiss all claims without supporting explanations.
That's why they are called biochemical, but they are also chemical. It is just a convenient classification term. Humans are also apes. Calling people humans does not mean that they are not also apes.
Nope. Biochemical is not chemical, mind the 'bio'.
Amide bonds are not unique to biochemical reactions. Nylons are polymers where the linking group in the long chains is an amide bond. The same functional group chemistry is involved.
1. Polymeres are not necessarilly peptides
2. Artificial amide bond formation is not the same as biochemical amide formation. That's where i was drawing the difference.
Clouds do not purposefully create pictures of rabbits in the sky even if that's what we might see.
It takes a mind to decide that there's a picture of a rabbit in the cloud formation.

User avatar
brunumb
Savant
Posts: 5993
Joined: Thu Nov 02, 2017 4:20 am
Location: Melbourne
Has thanked: 6607 times
Been thanked: 3209 times

Re: Abiogenesis and Probabilities

Post #368

Post by brunumb »

Noose001 wrote: Tue Oct 26, 2021 4:35 am I didn't say amide bond formation is exclusive to biological systems; the artificial amide bond formation is possible only that it is harsh or toxic to life.
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.

Noose001 wrote: Tue Oct 26, 2021 4:35 am 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.
Help me Zeus! Never mind. Lord Google has answered my prayer:
Lungfish have a unique respiratory system, having both gills and a lung. It is the only type of fish to have both organs, and there are only six known species around the world.
George Orwell:: “The further a society drifts from the truth, the more it will hate those who speak it.”
Voltaire: "Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities."
Gender ideology is anti-science, anti truth.

Noose001
Apprentice
Posts: 207
Joined: Tue Oct 05, 2021 3:32 am
Has thanked: 33 times
Been thanked: 7 times

Re: Abiogenesis and Probabilities

Post #369

Post by Noose001 »

brunumb wrote: Tue Oct 26, 2021 4:48 am
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.

Help me Zeus! Never mind. Lord Google has answered my prayer:
Lungfish have a unique respiratory system, having both gills and a lung. It is the only type of fish to have both organs, and there are only six known species around the world.
[/quote]
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).

User avatar
The Barbarian
Sage
Posts: 876
Joined: Tue Jan 12, 2021 8:40 pm
Has thanked: 204 times
Been thanked: 586 times

Re: Abiogenesis and Probabilities

Post #370

Post by The Barbarian »

Noose001 wrote: Tue Oct 26, 2021 5:25 am 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).
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

Post Reply