Abiogenesis: The Unholy Grail of Atheism

[Ringtone]

Please identify how you account for supernatural processes and the various supernatural agents who managed those processes.

Please identify and describe the magical properties you attribute to mindless, raw nature that overcame the following obstacles discussed in the article:

All uncontrolled conditions and all forms of undirected energy readily denature the peptide bonds of proteins. This is especially true of the sort of conditions that are known to prevail as a result of volcanic eruptions and large meteorite impacts, and the energy derived from such events is redundantly catastrophic. The various conditions and forms of energy that can create amino acids are the very same as those that gleefully destroy proteins.

As for UV energy….

The destructive intensity of its long wavelengths exceeds the constructive facility of its short wavelengths; consequently, the quantum efficiency of the inhibitions it exerts against the polymerization of organic compounds is approximately five orders of magnitude higher than its threshold for the facilitation of their formation. In order to produce even non-functional amino acids, for example, biochemists must not only control for a certain range of conditions—including temperature—but must also select for the compound-producing wavelengths of light energy as they screen out the compound-destroying wavelengths. Yet both types of light are unremittingly shed by stars, under which life’s amino acids, except for glycine, readily break down. In other words, while directed ultraviolet energy can induce the chemical reactions that produce amino acids, undirected ultraviolet energy readily inhibits their formation or destroys them.

Hence, I alluded to the various, alternative hypotheses for abiogenesis which have driven the primordial soup deeper and deeper into the ocean, actually, all the way down to the ocean floor. Here, beyond the reach of natural light’s destructive wavelengths, it is imagined that life’s various precursors formed on the backs of crystals or clay formations and then, in accordance with their self-ordering properties, assembled themselves inside discrete hydrothermal vents. However, in hindsight, it turns out that the problems of polymerization in the ocean are even more daunting due to the problem of dispersion and the higher probability of the toxic cross-reactions of dissymmetric molecules.

And the denaturing temperatures associated with geothermal or hydrothermal energy?

Crickets chirping​

Go get your buddy Joey. Maybe he can help you figure these problems out. He knows it all! He knows that abiogenesis happened for sure. He's real opened-minded, enlightened, hip, woke even. He's a real special kind of guy, his shit don't stink. He knows all about how the mindless properties of chemistry created life against a staggeringly complex array of factors pushing against the prospect.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Abiogenesis is more of a materialistic conjecture about how it might have possibly happened,

Not really. It's just the name given to the physical process that connects two states of affairs: no life, then life. One analogue is "star formation". Once there was no star in a location, then there was a star. What connects these two states? Star formation.

What conjecture or speculation have i undertaken to say this? None.

 

[anotherlife]

The OP appeals to every ID’iot creationist shibboleth and cliche in a desperate attempt to press his religious extremist agenda. What Miller-Urey established was that the building blocks of organic life (complex organics from simple compounds), form quite readily.

Religious extremists have a need to discredit science discovery because knowledge and learning tend to supplant fear and superstition.




Abiogenesis FAQs: The Origins of Life

Abiogenesis is the field of science dedicated to studying how life might have arisen for the first time on the primordial young Earth. Despite the enormous progress that has been made since the Miller-Urey experiment, abiogenesis is under constant attack from creationists, who continually claim that the origin of life by natural processes is so unlikely as to be, for all practical purposes, impossible. Following are some articles that challenge this claim and demonstrate the fundamental misconception at the core of the creationists' arguments.

Lies, Damned Lies, Statistics, and Probability of Abiogenesis Calculations
How likely is it that even a single bacterium could form by chance in the primordial sea? Not very likely, that's for sure, and creationists have been only too happy to provide ludicrously huge numbers purporting to be the odds against such a thing. However, even if these calculations are correct, they are irrelevant, as modern theories of abiogenesis require nothing of the kind to happen. This article briefly illustrates what abiogenesis really is and shows why the creationists' probability calculations do not matter.

Borel's Law and the Origin of Many Creationist Probability Assertions
Creationists have asserted that a statistical principle called "Borel's Law" mathematically demonstrates that abiogenesis is impossible. This article explains what Borel's Law is and shows that Borel himself clearly understood that his law was not relevant to the probability of the origin of life.

Spontaneous Generation and the Origin of Life
Creationists often claim that Louis Pasteur disproved spontaneous generation and hence any naturalistic origin of life. This article shows what Pasteur really demonstrated and gives a history of the subject from early ideas of spontaneous generation to modern ideas about the origin of life.

The Origin of Life
A discussion of the main models on the spontaneous origin of life that aims to show how cellular complexity could have gradually emerged from simple systems - in contrast to the sudden appearance of complexity that creationists claim to have been necessary at the beginning of life. Central issues like the composition of the early atmosphere of the Earth and the origin of the homochirality of amino acids and sugars are reviewed as well.

Review of the Miller-Urey experiment chapter of Icons of Evolution
Jonathan Wells of the Discovery Institute has made false claims about abiogenesis research in his book Icons of Evolution.

An Index to Creationist Claims: Abiogenesis
Brief replies to various origin-of-life claims by antievolutionists.

Knowledge and learning supplant fear and superstition?

More bad luck and loss come to you through your computers than ever before in history.

If you had little to fear in the past, now you have plenty of reasons nonstop. Entire new industries are founded on the new fears that come from knowledge and learning.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

If you had little to fear in the past, now you have plenty of reasons nonstop.

Only if you are irrational. And that isn't something your computer can do anything about.

 

[Hollie]

Please identify how you account for supernatural processes and the various supernatural agents who managed those processes.

Please identify and describe the magical properties you attribute to mindless, raw nature that overcame the following obstacles discussed in the article:

All uncontrolled conditions and all forms of undirected energy readily denature the peptide bonds of proteins. This is especially true of the sort of conditions that are known to prevail as a result of volcanic eruptions and large meteorite impacts, and the energy derived from such events is redundantly catastrophic. The various conditions and forms of energy that can create amino acids are the very same as those that gleefully destroy proteins.

As for UV energy….

The destructive intensity of its long wavelengths exceeds the constructive facility of its short wavelengths; consequently, the quantum efficiency of the inhibitions it exerts against the polymerization of organic compounds is approximately five orders of magnitude higher than its threshold for the facilitation of their formation. In order to produce even non-functional amino acids, for example, biochemists must not only control for a certain range of conditions—including temperature—but must also select for the compound-producing wavelengths of light energy as they screen out the compound-destroying wavelengths. Yet both types of light are unremittingly shed by stars, under which life’s amino acids, except for glycine, readily break down. In other words, while directed ultraviolet energy can induce the chemical reactions that produce amino acids, undirected ultraviolet energy readily inhibits their formation or destroys them.

Hence, I alluded to the various, alternative hypotheses for abiogenesis which have driven the primordial soup deeper and deeper into the ocean, actually, all the way down to the ocean floor. Here, beyond the reach of natural light’s destructive wavelengths, it is imagined that life’s various precursors formed on the backs of crystals or clay formations and then, in accordance with their self-ordering properties, assembled themselves inside discrete hydrothermal vents. However, in hindsight, it turns out that the problems of polymerization in the ocean are even more daunting due to the problem of dispersion and the higher probability of the toxic cross-reactions of dissymmetric molecules.

And the denaturing temperatures associated with geothermal or hydrothermal energy?

Crickets chirping​

Go get your buddy Joey. Maybe he can help you figure these problems out. He knows it all! He knows that abiogenesis happened for sure. He's real opened-minded, enlightened, hip, woke even. He's a real special kind of guy, his shit don't stink. He knows all about how the mindless properties of chemistry created life against a staggeringly complex array of factors pushing against the prospect.

Oh, my. Have you been trolling Uncommon Descent? The various appeals to biology you don't understand have a familiar resemblance to one or more of the angry, fundie cranks.

That confused assembly of reasons why biology is superseded by your various supernatural entities does nothing to make a case for those supernatural entities as a causation. It's a tactic that is stereotypical of angry fundies; to make every attempt to discredit science by reaching for some perceived flaw.

The fact remains, however, that the building blocks of life, a infant on earth and in the cosmos, readily combine to form protein chains.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Please identify and describe the magical properties you attribute to mindless, raw nature that overcame the following obstacles discussed in the article:

No magic is required. It is simply, "selection". You have confused yourself again. You are the one proposing magic.

 

[ding]

Please identify and describe the magical properties you attribute to mindless, raw nature that overcame the following obstacles discussed in the article:

No magic is required. It is simply, "selection". You have confused yourself again. You are the one proposing magic.

No. Not magic. Something beyond space and time capable of creating the material world.

Something more like a mind without a body as the matrix for the material world.

So it’s not magic. It’s beyond your comprehension and you use ancient texts to confirm your bias because you are too lazy, ignorant or of limited vision (or all three) to consider anything beyond your preconceived notions.

 

[ding]

So before I address the question I am going to share with you a few videos of how molecular machines actually work so that the answer to this question can be better understood and is less of a black box and becomes more real to you such that your only possible takeaway from these videos is how incredibly intricate and complex life is.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

No. Not magic. Something beyond space and time capable of creating the material world.

...with special magical powers, who has no creator, who is eternal and unique, and who is perfect. Ding, i don't know who you think you are fooling, but you are not referring to some guy named ned who lives in extradimensional space in a world full of neds and jacks and erics. Spare me your lies. You are embarrassing yourself.

 

[ding]

No. Not magic. Something beyond space and time capable of creating the material world.

...with special magical powers, who has no creator, who is eternal and unique, and who is perfect. Ding, i don't know who you think you are fooling, but you are not referring to some guy named ned who lives in extradimensional space in a world full of neds and jacks and erics. Spare me your lies. You are embarrassing yourself.

No. As the solution to the first cause conundrum. Something which is eternal and unchanging.

But you are the one who needs to spare us. Stop insulting my view of existence with your overly simplistic rendition of what I am talking about. You lack the intellectual capacity to argue anything else and it makes you look like a fool.

 

[Ringtone]

No magic is required. It is simply, "selection". You have confused yourself again. You are the one proposing magic.

Ah! I'm confused again, eh? Well, you're obviously an expert. Perhaps you can explain to the author of the article how mindless nature pulled the following off. Please, by all means, unravel this riddle for us. See if you can do better this time around given that your magical wand of "selection" would obviously be of no avail against the energy problem From the article:

Accordingly, today’s Neo-Darwinists believe that UV energy played only an indirect role in the polymerization of organic compounds. Variously, nature’s abiogenic laboratories are the planet’s interior cauldrons, the oceans and outer space. In the latter, the organic molecules in gaseous mixtures are partially converted by polarized light inside cooling asteroids. And the most interesting of these organic-bearing space debris are the “water-altered” variety with carbon-rich deposits, as their meteoric fragments contain many mixtures of amino acids that are predominately left-handed. 4 Much has been made of this by the zealots of scientism—the stuff of pigheaded presupposition and sensationalistic journalism (for example, “More evidence for asteroids creating life on Earth”!). But since the leftward-leaning mixtures of the amino acids that are found in meteorites are abiotic, cooler heads recognize that their significance has been wildly exaggerated. 5

[. . .]

Accordingly, it is believed that the chemical properties of α-dialkyl amino acids are uniquely susceptible to the manipulations of the interplanetary medium’s two-step mechanism of polarized light and aqueous alteration. The overall quantity of x is reduced as some portion of its dextro-enantiomers are optically reoriented and aqueously altered, and another portion of the same are decomposed and thereby divorced from their enanteiomeric counterparts. The result is a smaller, altered mixture of x with an excess number of levo-enantiomers. While the finer details of the process are unknown, the outcome is manifest. 11

What is not manifest are the purely natural processes by which these space travelers avoided being racemized on Earth, achieved homochirality and transferred it to the α-hydrogen amino acids of extant biochemistry. Was homochirality transferred before or after replication? If before, how in the absence of organic information? If after, why in the presence of an established system? Given the inevitability of racemization in heterogeneous environments (that is to say, given the vain pretensions of chemically acquired homochirality) and given the magical nature of transferring a mulishly intrinsic property from one type of amino acid to another … oh, never mind! Behold, another of the many impenetrable riddles of abiogenesis.​

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

. Perhaps you can explain how mindless nature pulled the following off.

I can explain it in one word: selection.

Whew, that was easy.

By the way, you are performing a parlor trick older than dirt: bait and switch. No, it doesn't become better with age.

 

[Ringtone]

. Perhaps you can explain how mindless nature pulled the following off.

I can explain it in one word: selection.

Whew, that was easy.

By the way, you are performing a parlor trick older than dirt: bait and switch. No, it doesn't become better with age.

You slogan-spouting fool. Selection?! The chirality of nature's paltry collection of pertinent organic materials is the exact opposite of life. From the article:

While the unfathomable reaches of intergalactic space are slightly partial to left-handed amino acids, albeit, to the wrong type with respect to known terrestrial life, there is no intrinsically apparent reason that terrestrial life could not be based on a molecular biophysics of right-handed amino acids and left-handed sugars instead. Yet terrestrial life is decisively biased about the type and the optical form of its amino acids. While the process would be only slightly less mysterious, insofar as it were left to the mindless devices of nature, why would the supposed prebiotic chemistry of nature take such a circuitous route as that outlined in the paragraph above this one and not simply amplify the chirality of the α-hydrogen amino acids of life?​

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

The chirality of nature's paltry collection of pertinent organic chemicals is the exact opposite of life.

Shameless lie. You are exaggerating to the point of a shameless lie. These are desperate, basless, stupid YEC talking points.

Furthermore, even if all of your shameless exaggeration were true, it STILL would not constitute evidence for your childish sky daddy fantasy.

That should give you a hint of how wrong you are.

 

[james bond]

The following article reviews the most relevant findings in abiogenetic research to date and touches on the potential metaphysical presuppositions for science (methodological naturalism, philosophical/ontological naturalism) in the light of those findings. Where do we go when the findings show that a natural mechanism of sheer chemistry for the origin of life is implausible, cannot be given and/or is indemonstrable? In light of the evidence, I propose a return to the open-ended, methodological naturalism of tradition, that applied by the great theistic scientists prior to Darwin, the latter of which, in my opinion, begs the question and leads to error. I say there's no way the rudimentary, self-ording properties of mere chemistry could have possibly produced the sequestered materials and information of life.

Abiogenesis: The Unholy Grail of Atheism

By Michael Rawlings
February 4, 2009


While the historical presupposition for science is not a methodological naturalism wherein philosophical naturalism serves minimally as a regulative principle, most of today’s practicing scientists insist that origins must be inferred without any consideration given to the possibility of an intelligent agent of causation and design. The range of scientific inquiry is inordinately curtailed accordingly. Though any rational evaluation of the empirical data might recommend them, potentialities outside the boundaries of this range of inquiry are flatly dismissed. Hence, should one reject the guesswork of an arbitrarily imposed apriority that conflates agency and process, one is said to reject science itself, as if the fanatics of scientism owned the means of science. . . .

What was actually produced in the published Miller-Urey experiment of 1953 were 5 amino acids (3 of the 20 fundamentals of life) and the molecular constituents of others. The dominant material produced in the experiment was an insoluble carcinogenic mixture of tar—large compounds of toxic mellanoids, a common end product in organic reactions. However, it was recently discovered that the published experiment actually entailed the production of 14 amino acids (6 of the 20 fundamentals of life) and 5 amines in various concentrations. In 1952, the technology needed to detect the other trace amounts of organic material was not available. But the unpublished Miller-Urey experiments conducted over the next several years show that a modified version of Miller’s original apparatus featuring a volcanic spark discharge system, which increased air flow with a tapering glass aspirator, produced 22 amino acids (9 of the fundamentals of life) and the same 5 amines. .

I would think the atheists/agnostics here do not know how to do Miller-Urey even though they claim it worked. They will not be able to use it to create amino acids because they do not know what gases to mix. Here is a website where they can demonstrate their findings, failures, and successes, if any. I am claiming most won't be successful or even try it because they can't do it. They do not know what gases were present in the early atmosphere and screw up. It's not that hard.

Miller-Urey Experiment

 

[ding]

. Perhaps you can explain how mindless nature pulled the following off.

I can explain it in one word: selection.

Whew, that was easy.

By the way, you are performing a parlor trick older than dirt: bait and switch. No, it doesn't become better with age.

No. Selection is for living things.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

To give everyone else some insight into this plagiarized, discredited talking point:

Certain misguided chemists (and their plagiarists, like Ringtone) have tried to claim that life could only form in the presence of a pure source of "left handed" amino acids. They argue that, since this pure mixture did not exist, life could not have formed.

This talking point is deacdes old. The first time scientists heard it, they laughed at it and said that it is in no way necessary that only left handed amino acids be present...


...and that was the end of that. But, once in a while, a YEC goober will dust off this old, charaltan's talking point and try to impress people with big words.

Pay no mind.

 

[Hollie]

No magic is required. It is simply, "selection". You have confused yourself again. You are the one proposing magic.

Ah! I'm confused again, eh? Well, you're obviously an expert. Perhaps you can explain to the author of the article how mindless nature pulled the following off. Please, by all means, unravel this riddle for us. See if you can do better this time around given that your magical wand of "selection" would obviously be of no avail against the energy problem From the article:

Accordingly, today’s Neo-Darwinists believe that UV energy played only an indirect role in the polymerization of organic compounds. Variously, nature’s abiogenic laboratories are the planet’s interior cauldrons, the oceans and outer space. In the latter, the organic molecules in gaseous mixtures are partially converted by polarized light inside cooling asteroids. And the most interesting of these organic-bearing space debris are the “water-altered” variety with carbon-rich deposits, as their meteoric fragments contain many mixtures of amino acids that are predominately left-handed. 4 Much has been made of this by the zealots of scientism—the stuff of pigheaded presupposition and sensationalistic journalism (for example, “More evidence for asteroids creating life on Earth”!). But since the leftward-leaning mixtures of the amino acids that are found in meteorites are abiotic, cooler heads recognize that their significance has been wildly exaggerated. 5

[. . .]

Accordingly, it is believed that the chemical properties of α-dialkyl amino acids are uniquely susceptible to the manipulations of the interplanetary medium’s two-step mechanism of polarized light and aqueous alteration. The overall quantity of x is reduced as some portion of its dextro-enantiomers are optically reoriented and aqueously altered, and another portion of the same are decomposed and thereby divorced from their enanteiomeric counterparts. The result is a smaller, altered mixture of x with an excess number of levo-enantiomers. While the finer details of the process are unknown, the outcome is manifest. 11

What is not manifest are the purely natural processes by which these space travelers avoided being racemized on Earth, achieved homochirality and transferred it to the α-hydrogen amino acids of extant biochemistry. Was homochirality transferred before or after replication? If before, how in the absence of organic information? If after, why in the presence of an established system? Given the inevitability of racemization in heterogeneous environments (that is to say, given the vain pretensions of chemically acquired homochirality) and given the magical nature of transferring a mulishly intrinsic property from one type of amino acid to another … oh, never mind! Behold, another of the many impenetrable riddles of abiogenesis.​

I’m not sure what you think is accomplished with your tedious cutting and pasting.

All of your bloviating is tired and repetitious diatribes against science and discovery. As we see so often with your cutting and pasting, the crestionist ministries struggle to find some inconsistency with the established biological sciences and attempt to use that as an indictment of the entirety of the science community. It's a common tactic of the creationist crowd. They are unable to adhere to principles of the scientific method and peer review as it relates to substantiating their outrageous claims so they are left with flaccid attempts to discredit science.

We have no reason to believe any such gods or supermagical being or beings are necessary for existence, and to invoke one raises the question of evidence that the creationists are unable to present. So it is left for ID’iot/creationists to vilify science in failed attempts to justify their special pleadings for gods. That creationists arbitrarily stop at "a" point and don't ask what made god(s) is their choice to do, but its inconsistency, by definition, literally screams out as amateur.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

I’m not sure what you think is accomplished with your tedious cutting and pasting.

Oh, I do. He is trying to "beguile" with fifty cent words. That's what charlatans do.

 

[Ringtone]

The chirality of nature's paltry collection of pertinent organic chemicals is the exact opposite of life.

Shameless lie. You are exaggerating to the point of a shameless lie. These are desperate, basless, stupid YEC talking points.

Furthermore, even if all of your shameless exaggeration were true, it STILL would not constitute evidence for your childish sky daddy fantasy.

That should give you a hint of how wrong you are.

You're still spouting slogans. You're the liar, indeed, a sociopath like Hollie apparently. You can't just discuss the matter in good faith, with an honest and open mind. You have to insult, lie, get all personal. Introductory Biochemistry 101: the amino acids and sugars of raw nature are right- and left-handed respectively. Those of life are left- and right-handed respectfully. What's next? Are you going to deny the laws of thermodynamics, Maxwell' equations, Hubble's law, the fundamental interactions of nature, the existence of bosons and fermions. . . .

By the way, I'm not a young earth creationist, but then you'd know that if you had read the article, just like you'd know that the only research discussed in the article is that of the proponents of abiogenesis. The work of creationist/Id theorists is not discussed at all. LOL!