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?
Abiogenesis and Probabilities
Moderator: Moderators
- 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 #1In 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
John Paul Jones, 1779
The man who does not read has no advantage over the man who cannot read.
Mark Twain
- 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 #371[Replying to Noose001 in post #367]
It isn't planned. The processes of chemical reactions, and natural selection, are not random. All atoms do not react with all other atoms to make stable bonds and stable molecules. Natural selection does not allow any possible combination of anything you can imagine to appear in living things as a random process would. Nothing has to be "planned." Life evolves to survive and reproduce in the environment it finds itself in, which puts major constraints on what can and cannot happen via evolution. If mutations appear randomly, they don't spread through a population if they are deleterious, but can if they are beneficial. This process is not random, nor is it planned.Please explain further; why is abiogenesis not by chance/randon. Is it planned?!
How did life begin then? What was the first living organism on Earth and how did it form? We don't know the answer to that question yet (you or me or anyone else) so any claims you make on a specific mechanism or process can't be justified. All you can do is offer an opinion.No it doesn't, except from plan, i.e life from life.
Already answered in prior posts (you are mistaken).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.
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
John Paul Jones, 1779
The man who does not read has no advantage over the man who cannot read.
Mark Twain
- brunumb
- Savant
- Posts: 6002
- Joined: Thu Nov 02, 2017 4:20 am
- Location: Melbourne
- Has thanked: 6627 times
- Been thanked: 3222 times
Re: Abiogenesis and Probabilities
Post #372There is no such thing as an artificial amide bond. If it can form in cells it can form under conditions that are not hostile to life. Biochemistry is just chemistry. Repeating your mantra doesn't change anything. All you have done is make unsubstantiated claims. Demonstrate that they are true.
Firstly, there is no evidence they were created. Secondly, their existence now does not disqualify them from being transitional. Organisms branched off in the distant past where either of those features were lost depending on the environment they encountered at the time. If the niche occupied by lungfish persisted then there was no environmental pressure on them which would cause them to disappear.
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.
Voltaire: "Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities."
Gender ideology is anti-science, anti truth.
-
- Apprentice
- Posts: 207
- Joined: Tue Oct 05, 2021 3:32 am
- Has thanked: 33 times
- Been thanked: 7 times
Re: Abiogenesis and Probabilities
Post #373Or, each was created the way they are.The Barbarian wrote: ↑Tue Oct 26, 2021 10:16 am
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
-
- Apprentice
- Posts: 207
- Joined: Tue Oct 05, 2021 3:32 am
- Has thanked: 33 times
- Been thanked: 7 times
Re: Abiogenesis and Probabilities
Post #374No such thing as natural selection or beneficial mutations.DrNoGods wrote: ↑Tue Oct 26, 2021 10:35 am
It isn't planned. The processes of chemical reactions, and natural selection, are not random. All atoms do not react with all other atoms to make stable bonds and stable molecules. Natural selection does not allow any possible combination of anything you can imagine to appear in living things as a random process would. Nothing has to be "planned." Life evolves to survive and reproduce in the environment it finds itself in, which puts major constraints on what can and cannot happen via evolution. If mutations appear randomly, they don't spread through a population if they are deleterious, but can if they are beneficial. This process is not random, nor is it planned.
Life creates life, fact. This is what is observed today.How did life begin then? What was the first living organism on Earth and how did it form? We don't know the answer to that question yet (you or me or anyone else) so any claims you make on a specific mechanism or process can't be justified.
As if evolution is a fact, no it's not.brunumb wrote: ↑Tue Oct 26, 2021 6:29 pm Firstly, there is no evidence they were created. Secondly, their existence now does not disqualify them from being transitional. Organisms branched off in the distant past where either of those features were lost depending on the environment they encountered at the time. If the niche occupied by lungfish persisted then there was no environmental pressure on them which would cause them to disappear.
Human language completely disproves evolution. Human language is a 'specific' trait that has nothing to do with mutations and natural selection. Wherever the human language comes from is where all specific traits come from.
Last edited by Noose001 on Wed Oct 27, 2021 7:03 am, edited 1 time in total.
-
- Apprentice
- Posts: 207
- Joined: Tue Oct 05, 2021 3:32 am
- Has thanked: 33 times
- Been thanked: 7 times
Re: Abiogenesis and Probabilities
Post #375Artificial= manufactured in the lab.There is no such thing as an artificial amide bond. If it can form in cells it can form under conditions that are not hostile to life. Biochemistry is just chemistry. Repeating your mantra doesn't change anything. All you have done is make unsubstantiated claims. Demonstrate that they are true.
There are so many companies making proteins and they rely on artificial amide bond formation. The conditions they use to achieve amide bond formation are differwnt from what a living organism does.
- brunumb
- Savant
- Posts: 6002
- Joined: Thu Nov 02, 2017 4:20 am
- Location: Melbourne
- Has thanked: 6627 times
- Been thanked: 3222 times
Re: Abiogenesis and Probabilities
Post #376Nope. There is overwhelming evidence for both regardless of your denial. There is zero evidence for any other alternative. We go where the evidence leads.
Nope. What we observe today is living organisms reproducing. There is no creation involved. Hidden in the shadows of the distant past is how it all began. That we don't yet know.
Nope. Evolution is as good as a fact regardless of your denial. In the 150 years since Darwin formalised the theory and pipped Wallace at the post, it has gone from strength to strength. No one has managed to disprove it yet. Your Nobel prize awaits, if you can do it.
Submit your thesis and get your prize. Animals uttering sounds and using them as a form of communication is nothing particularly special. One can reasonably see how that communication became more sophisticated along with the evolution of increased intelligence in human beings. No magic required.
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.
Voltaire: "Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities."
Gender ideology is anti-science, anti truth.
- Difflugia
- Prodigy
- Posts: 3047
- Joined: Wed Jun 12, 2019 10:25 am
- Location: Michigan
- Has thanked: 3277 times
- Been thanked: 2023 times
Re: Abiogenesis and Probabilities
Post #377I'm pretty sure that complex language offers a selective advantage. Does adaptive coloration completely disprove evolution, too?
My pronouns are he, him, and his.
- 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 #378[Replying to Noose001 in post #376]
Which has no bearing on the nature or details of the amide bond itself. It is the exact same bond. Is liquid water formed from water vapor condensing when temperatures fall below the prevailing dew point different from liquid water formed from ice melting (or any other mechamism for forming liquid water)? If it were different it wouldn't be called water, and the same with an amide bond.The conditions they use to achieve amide bond formation are differwnt from what a living organism does.
Unfortunately, these have both long been proven to be "things." A statement like this is just as nonsensical as claiming that cheese does not exist because you don't like cheese. Do you believe in artificial selection (eg. breeding dairy cows for better milk production, or corn for higher yields, etc.)? Nature can do the same kind of thing, as proven countless times.No such thing as natural selection or beneficial mutations.
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
John Paul Jones, 1779
The man who does not read has no advantage over the man who cannot read.
Mark Twain
- 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 #379It comes down to what the evidence shows. And even knowledgeable YE creationists admit that there is very good evidence for the evolution of lungs from simple chordates. Given that there is no scriptural support for denying this evolution, and that there is abundant evidence for it, one has to conclude that it did evolve.Noose001 wrote: ↑Wed Oct 27, 2021 4:08 amOr, each was created the way they are.The Barbarian wrote: ↑Tue Oct 26, 2021 10:16 am
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
- 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 #380It's directly observed. Even organizations like "Answers in Genesis" admit that natural selection is a fact. Would you like me to show you? And of course, we have many, many examples of favorable mutations. The HPAS1 allele that allows Tibetans to live and reproduce at very high altitudes is an example that evolved in humans in the last few thousand years. Would you like to learn about more of them?
God says that life was brought forth by things already created. I believe Him. You should, too.Life creates life, fact.
We observe it happening all around us. Perhaps you don't know the scientific definition for biological evolution. What do you think it is?As if evolution is a fact, no it's not.
Human language is far beyond any language used by any other species.Human language completely disproves evolution.
Human language is a 'specific' trait that has nothing to do with mutations and natural selection. Wherever the human language comes from is where all specific traits come from.
[/quote]
It has been suggested that Broca’s and Wernicke’s areas are unique to humans. Broca’s and Wernicke’s areas are cortical areas specialized for production and comprehension, respectively, of human language. Broca’s area is found in the left inferior frontal gyrus and Wernicke’s area is located in the left posterior superior temporal gyrus. Non-human primates (both apes and monkeys) possess cortical areas that are in similar locations to and have similar cytoarchitecture as Wernicke’s and Broca’s areas in humans, and are probably homologous to them...In both macaques and humans, this region is likely involved in producing orofacial expressions and in understanding the intentions behind orofacial expressions of others. In humans, it has evolved an additional communicative function, namely speech production. However, it does not appear to be involved in monkey vocalizations, which are instead mediated by limbic and brainstem areas. Regarding Wernicke’s area, evidence suggests that the left superior temporal gyrus is specialized for processing species-specific calls in macaques just as it is specialized for speech comprehension in humans, although the specific anatomical focus of this macaque specialization is still in doubt.
https://carta.anthropogeny.org/moca/top ... ckes-areas
According to the authors, during primate evolution area Tpt became increasingly connected with inferoparietal regions and these contributed to a link between the auditory system and a parieto-
premotor circuit with incipient Broca’s area. A second parallel pathway may also have evolved directly between the precursor of Wernicke’s area and prefrontal cortex. Hypothetically, Broca’s
area developed, in part, as a phonological rehearsal device entailed in generating complex vocalizations. Eventually, an evolving parieto-premotor circuit contributed to the origin of a
lexicon (perhaps at the level mastered by apes schooled in American Sign Language). Syntax and the generation of discourse, however, emerged only later in conjunction with further elaboration of these circuits (Aboitiz and García 1997). Because Aboitiz and García’s model is well-reasoned and based on comparative and experimental evidence, their observations warrant serious
consideration.
The anatomical arrangement of the language areas fits this large-scale cortico-cortico network and can be described as part of it. In this sense, the neural architecture involved in language is
embedded in a complex system of large-scale connectivity that is the hallmark of the primate brain, and therefore should not be considered as an isolated system working independently of
similarly organized cortico-cortico networks (Aboitiz and García 1997:388).
https://ibro.org/wp-content/uploads/201 ... s-Area.pdf
The neuroanatomy of speech areas in the brain for making and understanding speech are much more ancient than our species. The fact that chimpanzees are competent in language and can converse with us in sign language indicates that human speech evolved out of simipler and earlier functions.