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?

[brunumb]

My main question about the subjest at hand is; when and how?

It might be a problem for you but it doesn't really matter when. Exactly when does a pile of timber, bricks and mortar become a house? All living things are constructed from non-living atoms, the basic set of elements that make up everything. Atoms combine to make molecules and molecules combine to make larger structures. When those structures display the characteristics that we associate with life, those structures are regarded as living things. Just because we don't know exactly when the first such structures formed or how they formed does not mean it didn't or couldn't have happened through natural processes. In fact the existence of living things now together with our knowledge of the formation of this planet is strongly indicative that it did. There is absolutely no evidence for an alternative where a magical being took some dirt and poofed it into a living human being or magicked all other life into existence.

[Noose001]

It might be a problem for you but it doesn't really matter when. Exactly when does a pile of timber, bricks and mortar become a house?

When it is finished( nothing to be added) and furnished (has all that is required) to provide shelter. This can be explained in details too, doesn't need a hypothesis.

When those structures display the characteristics that we associate with life,

How? Explain the shift from 'not displaying' to displaying. Only then you'd have explained abiogenesis.

I can also claim that life came from fire but i don't know when and how.

Just because we don't know exactly when ..

Yeah life came from fire but i don't know exactly how.

In fact the existence of living things now together with our knowledge of the formation of this planet is strongly indicative that it did.

Wrong, it is fact that life arises from life now and we don't have to think otherwise. No need for 'once upon a time'. If once upon a time life came from non life, then it would be happening even today.

There is absolutely no evidence for an alternative where a magical being took some dirt and poofed it into a living human being or magicked all other life into existence.

Irrelevant, let's talk abiogenesis.

[The Barbarian]

Which one of those scientists says that viruses are non living

Front Microbiol 2021 Jan 14;11:604048
A Place for Viruses on the Tree of Life
Hugh M B Harris , Colin Hill
...Conceptually, viruses are regarded by many as non-living entities that hijack living cells in order to propagate. A strict separation between living and non-living entities places viruses far from the ToL, but this may be theoretically unsound. Advances in sequencing technology and comparative genomics have expanded our understanding of the evolutionary relationships between viruses and cellular organisms.

and can you name one property of a living thing that a virus lacks?

Cell membrane, t-RNA, ribosomes, ability to replicate independently, Krebs Cycle,... (long list)

If there's non, then it is a consensus.

This is why there isn't. As you see, the distinction between "living" and "non-living" is a very blurred boundary, and there is no consensus as to where to draw a hard line. Viruses may be alive in some senses, but they clearly are not as alive as cells. But they are also more alive then prions.

If bears could hybernate for decades, would anyone question if they are living or not?

Since bears have all the attributes of living things, I wouldn't think so.

Let's agree, if something can DIE or can be KILLED, i'm not sure but it should be alive.

Are prions alive? Why or why not? Are mitochondria alive? Why or why not? Are chloroplasts alive? Why or why not? Can prions, chloroplasts, or mitochondria die, if they lack essential characteristics of living things?

[The Barbarian]

Perhaps the term "living thing" has a lot more to do with our minds than any external reality.


Why Is the Concept "Living Thing" So Elusive? Concepts, Languages, and the Development of Folkbiology.
Sandra Waxman
Abstract
This chapter describes the evolution of a collaborative research project, one that includes myself, Medin, and anthropologists Scott Atran and Norbert Ross and that focuses on the acquisition of folkbiological knowledge from a developmental and cross-cultural perspective. The overarching goal for our research is to discover how children and adults from different cultural milieus construe the biological world, how they identify biological entities and processes, and how their early notions evolve over development. After decades of dedicated work, deep theoretical and empirical controversies abound. Despite these controversies, however, there seems to be strong consensus on at least one point: that the concept alive or living thing is a difficult one to grasp. I begin by asking whether there may be core principles, inherent in the mind of the learner, to support the acquisition of the concepts living thing, animal, or plant. Next, I consider whether there are features of human language, and especially in the names for these biological concepts, that might support their acquisition. Taken together, the work suggests that although the overarching biological concept living thing is indeed rather fragile, it is available as early as 5 or 6 years of age. Perhaps more intriguing, the fragility and elusiveness of the concept alive may be due, at least in part, to the fact that it is so readily eclipsed by its conceptually more powerful and linguistically more polysemous daughter, animal. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2017 APA, all rights reserved)
https://psycnet.apa.org/record/2005-03411-004

[Noose001]

Front Microbiol 2021 Jan 14;11:604048
A Place for Viruses on the Tree of Life
Hugh M B Harris , Colin Hill
...Conceptually, viruses are regarded by many as non-living entities that hijack living cells in order to propagate. A strict separation between living and non-living entities places viruses far from the ToL, but this may be theoretically unsound. Advances in sequencing technology and comparative genomics have expanded our understanding of the evolutionary relationships between viruses and cellular organisms.[/color][/quote]

Most means it's not a consensus. But why would one claim a virus to be non living?

Cell membrane, t-RNA, ribosomes, ability to replicate independently, Krebs Cycle,... (long list

Non of these is necessarily a property of a living thing.
For instance; many organisms(living things) don't use krebs cycle

This is why there isn't. As you see, the distinction between "living" and "non-living" is a very blurred boundary,...

No it's not. Do viruses die? Is there a clear distinction between a dead and a living virus?

Since bears have all the attributes of living things, I wouldn't think so.

So what are those attributes. Surely, krebs cycle is not one of them.

Are prions alive? Why or why not? Are mitochondria alive? Why or why not? Are chloroplasts alive? Why or why not? Can prions, chloroplasts, or mitochondria die, if they lack essential characteristics of living things?

Can they die?
Chloroplasts, mitochondria are never independent of a living cell, are they? If not, they are mere organelles.

[benchwarmer]

Sorry, I'm not sure what you mean by 'bizarre and impossible situation'. Do you mean atoms forming molecules or molecules replicating?

Abiogenesis is impossible

Not sure where that came from, but thank you for clarifying what you are on about. That's a nice assertion, have any evidence to back it up? Notice what sub forum you are in.

If something is capable of reproducing itself, is that alive?
If something can respond to external stimulus, is that alive?
If something consumes other things, is that alive?
etc.

No, there's a list of properties all living things share.

Which is where?

It seems you expect us to be mind readers.

Death normally means an end to being alive, so if the molecule can no longer meet the standard of being 'alive' then it would be 'dead'.

You said a self replicating molecule is alive, can it die is my question.

I did? Care to quote that in context? You seem to be reading far to much into my responses. I was explicitly musing about what 'alive' means. I said IF we assume replication is a sign of being 'alive', then a molecule that replicates would be 'alive' by that definition only.

Stop deflecting.

Who's deflecting? I clearly stated that IF we consider a molecule alive because it replicates, then it is dead when it can no longer replicate.

I'm asking YOU for a definition of life that we can work from. My responses where all very careful to say "IF by alive we mean ...". If you consider 'alive' to mean "walking, talking, breathing, and thinking" then a molecule is not going to qualify.

Let try to find common ground or this will just be more talking past each other.

[Noose001]

Not sure where that came from, but thank you for clarifying what you are on about. That's a nice assertion, have any evidence to back it up? Notice what sub forum you are in.

Sorry but i'm not the one to give any evidence. If you assert abiogenesis, you need to prove and demonstrate or else i'll have the liberty to say it's an impossibility.

I did? Care to quote that in context? You seem to be reading far to much into my responses. I was explicitly musing about what 'alive' means. I said IF we assume replication is a sign of being 'alive', then a molecule that replicates would be 'alive' by that definition only.

No we don't assume nothing and simple replication doesn't imply life, it's replication and more.

I'm asking YOU for a definition of life that we can work from. My responses where all very careful to say "IF by alive we mean ...". If you consider 'alive' to mean "walking, talking, breathing, and thinking" then a molecule is not going to qualify.

No i wont do that. If you are in support of abiogenesis, you need to explain what a living thing is and then explain the shift from non living to life in proper terms.

Let try to find common ground or this will just be more talking past each other.

There's no common ground, i believe life comes from life, something that is common( happens daily).

[Tcg]

Sorry but i'm not the one to give any evidence.

Yes, obviously. But it's a rather strange tack to take given that this is a debate sub-forum where one is expected to present evidence to support their position.


Tcg

[The Barbarian]

Most means it's not a consensus. But why would one claim a virus to be non living?

Because it lacks some of the attributes of living things.

Non of these is necessarily a property of a living thing.

So far they are.

For instance; many organisms(living things) don't use krebs cycle

"Many" would be a huge exaggeration. A few gram-negative bacteria use an offshoot form of glycolosis called the Entner–Doudoroff pathway

The Entner–Doudoroff (ED) pathway is present in a number of bacteria where it can be a major pathway of glucose catabolism under aerobic conditions. The ED pathway (Figure 4) represents an offshoot of the oxidative branch of the PPP.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/bi ... ff-pathway

So to account for those few exceptions,we'll just say "glycolosis."

(Demonstration that viruses lack many things considered essential for living things, and that many biologists do not consider viruses to be living)
This is why there isn't. As you see, the distinction between "living" and "non-living" is a very blurred boundary,.

Do viruses die?

Do prions die?

Is there a clear distinction between a dead and a living virus?

Here, you assume what you proposed to prove.

Chloroplasts, mitochondria are never independent of a living cell, are they?

Neither are viruses. Without a living cell to hold them, viruses soon become degraded and can no longer function. Pretty much like chloroplasts and mitochondria. However, mitochondria and chloroplasts can continue of metabolize and function for at least a while outside of cells. Prions and viruses cannot. The vast majority of them, anyway; there are a few very large viruses that might be close to such things; again, blurring the distinction between living and non-living.

[benchwarmer]

Not sure where that came from, but thank you for clarifying what you are on about. That's a nice assertion, have any evidence to back it up? Notice what sub forum you are in.

Sorry but i'm not the one to give any evidence. If you assert abiogenesis, you need to prove and demonstrate or else i'll have the liberty to say it's an impossibility.

Did I assert it? Maybe quote me? ANY claim made in debate may be challenged. That's how it works. YOU claimed abiogenesis is impossible (out of left field by the way) while I was explaining how a molecule could be considered alive by a limited definition of alive.

I did? Care to quote that in context? You seem to be reading far to much into my responses. I was explicitly musing about what 'alive' means. I said IF we assume replication is a sign of being 'alive', then a molecule that replicates would be 'alive' by that definition only.

No we don't assume nothing and simple replication doesn't imply life, it's replication and more.

Another claim. Please support this.

On this point, I'm really not trying to argue with you, I'm actually trying to figure out what you are talking about. What does 'alive' mean to you? Feel free to either provide a link or present your definition. At this point it's like me telling you that you have blargles in your hair, but I refuse to tell you what blargles are.

I'm asking YOU for a definition of life that we can work from. My responses where all very careful to say "IF by alive we mean ...". If you consider 'alive' to mean "walking, talking, breathing, and thinking" then a molecule is not going to qualify.

No i wont do that.

Clearly, but why? You seem to be implying that you know what alive means, but have no interest in explaining yourself. At this point, any further debate is pointless.

If you are in support of abiogenesis, you need to explain what a living thing is and then explain the shift from non living to life in proper terms.

Cool, well if I claim abiogenesis is the mechanism that started life I will present my evidence. Have I done that?

Let try to find common ground or this will just be more talking past each other.

There's no common ground, i believe life comes from life, something that is common( happens daily).

Well there won't be any common ground if you just ignore what people are actually asking you and simply preaching in your responses. If you are only interested in preaching and not debating based on at least trying to support points and counter points, I suggest the Random Rambling sub forum. No one will much care what you claim or not there.