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?

[The Barbarian]

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?

I'm a theist, so I regard the mind as also relating to a soul that is not material in any way. That's not in the least scientific, since science can neither deny nor confirm the supernatural.

[Noose001]

Regardless, oxygen, carbon, and many other things form naturally. You're just wrong about that.

'Naturally' is an illision, do you copy me

As you learned, that's wrong. D-forms exist..

No, that's wrong, too. There are organisms that use L-form sugars. L-glucose, in B. caryophylli, for example.

And as you learned, many different organisms use D-form aminos acids.

No, that's wrong, too.

Among all domains of life, bacteria have the largest capacity to utilize D-amino acids. Bacteria have been described to synthesize more than 10 kinds of D-amino acids, most commonly D-alanine and D-glutamate for crosslinking within the peptidoglycan cell wall. But, cell walls found in other life, such as archaea or plants/fungi in eukaryote, are not composed with D-amino acids.

Furthermore, extracellular D-amino acids released from bacteria regulate remodeling of bacterial cell wall and are thought to function in communication among bacteria to accommodate changing environment. Besides structural function in bacterial cell wall, D-amino acids have been associated to growth fitness and to processes such as biofilm development, spore germination and signaling.

Bacteria develop unique metabolic pathways for multiple D-amino acids, such as amino acid racemization or epimerization. Therefore a variety of D-amino acids in nature can be regarded as molecules originated from bacteria and have been targeted for development of new antibiotics or bacteria-specific markers.

More recently, D-amino acids in interface between bacteria and mammals, such as mammalian gut, are highlighted. Mammals appear to recognize bacteria through metabolizing bacterial D-amino acids in the interface and modulate innate immune system. Moreover, a D-amino acid produced by probiotic bacteria has been identified to modify immune tolerance and ameliorate allergic inflammation in mammalian airway.
https://www.frontiersin.org/research-to ... e#overview

So, is it scientists word against scientists word?
Whatever.

[Noose001]

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?

I'm a theist, so I regard the mind as also relating to a soul that is not material in any way. That's not in the least scientific, since science can neither deny nor confirm the supernatural.

Your beliefs don't matter; Time is everything you ever know in your mind, but time is not physical, so physical reality is an illusion.

And like i said before, God creates through the mind of men. Several scriptures confirm this including Genesis 1.
Q. What do you think the 'surface of the deep' in Genesis 1 means?
Oxygen and so called natural processes, are all in the mind.

[Noose001]

[quote="The Barbarian" post_id=1053137 time=1634477677 user_id=15330

I'm a theist, so I regard the mind as also relating to a soul that is not material in any way. That's not in the least scientific, since science can neither deny nor confirm the supernatural.
[/quote]

The mind is an understanding, the highest level of understanding, also kniwn as the spirit.

The soul is an awareness of self, the lowest level of an understanding by humans. You came in this world with no knowledge of self. Self was your first awareness as you started interacting with this world.

By the time you'll be leaving this world you'd have accumulated so much knowledge and experience whether true or false. That is your spirit.

[DrNoGods]

[Replying to Noose001 in post #288]

Abiogenesis is in fact a brilliant idea. I understand that majority 'believe' there was no life initially and now there's life, so it's only concievable that abiogenesis took place. But in the absence of a proper explanation, it remains a belief.

A majority believe that there was no life, now there is life, because that is what the best evidence we have points to. The second part of that (life exists now) is an undisputable fact. The first part is based on having no physical evidence of life on Earth prior to about 4 billion years ago, and our understanding of how planet Earth likely formed resulting in a very hot, early condition that was likely not suitable for life as we know it. These are not "beliefs" but logical inferences from observations and science's attempt to explain the natural world. Given this scenario, there had to be some mechanism for non life to life and abiogenesis is one hypthosis for how this might have happened. It is a hypothesis, not a belief. Do you know the difference between these two things?

If i claim that life came from fire but i don't know how, is that really an hypothesis or is it a belief?

You can hypothesize that life came from fire, but if there is no evidence to support that hypothesis it will remain a hypothesis. Then you can spend your scientific career trying to support the idea with evidence, observations, reasoning, analysis, etc. and see how you do. Abiogenesis is at least plausible because we know that all living things are made of nonliving chemicals that have combined and react in such ways as to produce the living thing. The precursor atoms are there, the precursor chemicals are there (eg. amino acids outside of anything living), and the question is exactly what steps occurred to form the first living thing (however that is described). What plausibility arguments can you make for life originating from fire (or did you just pull that from the behind)?

An explanation doesn't prove or disprove, but it adds meat to the bone. There's no way to escape the explanation of 'how' and 'when', and claim it's just an hypothesis. Even if you have to claim that each step might have happened by chance, it is an explanation.

Again, you don't seem to understand what a hypothesis is. If the "how and when" were known, then it would not be a hypothesis but a full explanation. Abiogenesis does not claim that every step happened by chance. Chemical reactions are not purely chance; the atmospheric composition of early Earth was a condition that existed based on how Earth formed, volcanism, etc.; the intensity of sunlight and its wavelength distribution (a great factor in many chemical reactions via photochemistr and energy absorption) was not random but based on the emission spectrum of our star; lightning provided electrical input, fires, etc. All of these things set up some initial conditions by which abiogenesis could have happened, so it is a plausible hypothesis. when the "how" is known then it won't be a hypothesis anymore.

[DrNoGods]

[Replying to Noose001 in post #289]

1. Nope

2. If Time stops, the brain (all material and energy) disappear. But disappearance and appearance is a property of the mind; i.e only the mind can tell appearance and/or disappearance.
This alone proves that the brain(and all material and energy) is a property of the mind.

So?

3. It so appears that the brain is nothing more than a filter through which the mind experiences but doesn't diminish the fact that it is a creation of the mind.

More unsubstantiated claims and personal opinion. "Nope" is not a counterargument ... it is a statement of opinion. #2 is is a claim for which you offer no support (more personal opinion), as is #3.

It can even be argued that non living things are conscious.

Let's hear that argument then.

I can tell exactly what happens when you die.

So can I. The chemical reactions that sustained my living body will stop and my corpse will eventually decay (or be cremated in my case). That will be the end of my existence in the universe as a living being.

Imagine you are in restaurant and die suddenly;
a. You'll try to call the waiter but no sound will come out coz the mouth will disappear
b. The chair, the cup and the coffee will disappear, you'll try to stretch your hands but there'll be no hands to reach for the cup
c. No hearing, no seeing, just pitch black( darkness) and silence.No senses, no passage of time too.

No issues there ... a, b and c all follow from the fact that I am dead (see above).

These were the conditions before the universe begun only that you joined this world without knowledge and experience of this world, you will not leave the same, hence a,b and c.

You don't know the conditions before the universe began (no one does, yet anyway). So this is just another statement of opinion.

So, life/ consciousness creates everything through Time.

Another statement of opinion that you've yet to support.

Death is indeed stoppage of time.

For the animal that has died (it can no longer perceive time) ... but time itself marches on for everything else.

[The Barbarian]

Among all domains of life, bacteria have the largest capacity to utilize D-amino acids. Bacteria have been described to synthesize more than 10 kinds of D-amino acids, most commonly D-alanine and D-glutamate for crosslinking within the peptidoglycan cell wall. But, cell walls found in other life, such as archaea or plants/fungi in eukaryote, are not composed with D-amino acids.

Furthermore, extracellular D-amino acids released from bacteria regulate remodeling of bacterial cell wall and are thought to function in communication among bacteria to accommodate changing environment. Besides structural function in bacterial cell wall, D-amino acids have been associated to growth fitness and to processes such as biofilm development, spore germination and signaling.

Bacteria develop unique metabolic pathways for multiple D-amino acids, such as amino acid racemization or epimerization. Therefore a variety of D-amino acids in nature can be regarded as molecules originated from bacteria and have been targeted for development of new antibiotics or bacteria-specific markers.

More recently, D-amino acids in interface between bacteria and mammals, such as mammalian gut, are highlighted. Mammals appear to recognize bacteria through metabolizing bacterial D-amino acids in the interface and modulate innate immune system. Moreover, a D-amino acid produced by probiotic bacteria has been identified to modify immune tolerance and ameliorate allergic inflammation in mammalian airway.
https://www.frontiersin.org/research-to ... e#overview

So, is it scientists word against scientists word?

No, it's the scientific data against your unsupported beliefs.

Whatever.

Yeah, bummer, man.

[Noose001]

A majority believe that there was no life, now there is life, because that is what the best evidence we have points to. The second part of that (life exists now) is an undisputable fact. The first part is based on having no physical evidence of life on Earth prior to about 4 billion years ago, and our understanding of how planet Earth likely formed resulting in a very hot, early condition that was likely not suitable for life as we know it. These are not "beliefs" but logical inferences from observations and science's attempt to explain the natural world. Given this scenario, there had to be some mechanism for non life to life and abiogenesis is one hypthosis for how this might have happened. It is a hypothesis, not a belief. Do you know the difference between these two things?

Yeah right, but what assumptions do those majority make?
If i claimed that spaghetti created life 4 Trillion years ago, you'd first dismiss my story because of Time. You hold to a model of time that doesn't allow such a thing as 4 Trillion years. But is your model an assumption or is it real.
Q. Was there nothing before the universe begun?

Time is everything. On the same basis, i dismiss your story, first based on your assumption of time.

You can hypothesize that life came from fire, but if there is no evidence to support that hypothesis it will remain a hypothesis. Then you can spend your scientific career trying to support the idea with evidence, observations, reasoning, analysis, etc. and see how you do. Abiogenesis is at least plausible because we know that all living things are made of nonliving chemicals that have combined and react in such ways as to produce the living thing. The precursor atoms are there, the precursor chemicals are there (eg. amino acids outside of anything living), and the question is exactly what steps occurred to form the first living thing (however that is described). What plausibility arguments can you make for life originating from fire (or did you just pull that from the behind)?

Non living things are a creation of the mind(life)

Again, you don't seem to understand what a hypothesis is. If the "how and when" were known, then it would not be a hypothesis but a full explanation. Abiogenesis does not claim that every step happened by chance. Chemical reactions are not purely chance; the atmospheric composition of early Earth was a condition that existed based on how Earth formed, volcanism, etc.; the intensity of sunlight and its wavelength distribution (a great factor in many chemical reactions via photochemistr and energy absorption) was not random but based on the emission spectrum of our star; lightning provided electrical input, fires, etc. All of these things set up some initial conditions by which abiogenesis could have happened, so it is a plausible hypothesis. when the "how" is known then it won't be a hypothesis anymore.

1. A hypothesis is not a wild guess, nor is it a belief. A proper explanation seperates a hypotgesis from a belief or a wild guess.

2. Earthly conditions arw not ideal for life; the reason life forms have a protective barrier and a special environment inside the barrier that preserves life.

[Noose001]

More unsubstantiated claims and personal opinion. "Nope" is not a counterargument ... it is a statement of opinion. #2 is is a claim for which you offer no support (more personal opinion), as is #3.

#2. Common knowledge.
Fact: if Time stops, all things disappear because everything is time.

Let's hear that argument then.

Google

So can I. The chemical reactions that sustained my living body will stop and my corpse will eventually decay (or be cremated in my case). That will be the end of my existence in the universe as a living being

Unsubstanciated claims. Can you prove that your death is the end of you and your birth is the beginning?

You don't know the conditions before the universe began (no one does, yet anyway). So this is just another statement of opinion.

I know quite a lot it seems.
It was dark and silent; how can anyone deny this?!

[DrNoGods]

[Replying to Noose001 in post #309]

If i claimed that spaghetti created life 4 Trillion years ago, you'd first dismiss my story because of Time. You hold to a model of time that doesn't allow such a thing as 4 Trillion years. But is your model an assumption or is it real.

What model of time do I hold to? I seriously doubt that spaghetti existed 4e12 years ago, or that it created life, but that has nothing to do with my views on what time is (or isn't).

Q. Was there nothing before the universe begun?

I don't know and neither do you.

Time is everything.

So you keep claiming, along with various statements such as the past doesn't exist. But the supporting evidence is only handwaving and personal opinion so far. What is "everything" in the above statement?

Non living things are a creation of the mind(life).

Opinion noted. Got any supporting evidence for this unusual idea?

1. A hypothesis is not a wild guess, nor is it a belief. A proper explanation seperates a hypotgesis from a belief or a wild guess.

Yet again ... a hypothesis is a proposed explanation for something (a postulate). The explanation comes when the hypothesis has been sufficiently supported by extensive observations and evidence, and not falsified. You're trying to change the definition of the word hypothesis to suit your argument, and expecting a hypothesis to have already been fully explained. This is wrong.

2. Earthly conditions arw not ideal for life; the reason life forms have a protective barrier and a special environment inside the barrier that preserves life.

I can't translate the intended meaning here, but maybe it is related to the (erroneous) idea that biochemistry and chemistry in general are two different things?