Science debunks Abiogenesis.

[JimBowie1958]

The article centers on how unlikely it would be for all the right ingredients and circumstances to be present to form the original life forms. That is NOT scientific debunking of anything.

True, it is not scientific as the implied answers are genuinely beyond the scope of what science can address.

But it does fall under circumstantial reasoning and proof, you know, like the kind they use in courts to execute people or send them to jail for rape, assault and murder.

 

[Hollie]

"... It is the result of intelligent minds. DNA contains complex specified information, therefore someone created it."

... because I say so!

You're repeating yourself. I heard it the first time. Repeating it will not make you sound any more intelligent.

You offered nothing of interest to respond to.

"The gawds did it" is hardly an argument.

I offered plenty to respond to. You have not refuted anything I've posted. All I saw from you was the usual talking points. I can see that you are not interested in a honest discussion of the facts. Remain ignorant then. I don't really care.

Classic. You're unable to respond to a single comment I've posted so you stomp your feet like a petulant child.

That's rich. All I've seen from you is mockery. Mostly the repetition of a single phrase..."Because I said so." You have contributed exactly nothing of value, let alone anything worth replying to. I gave you every chance. Good bye. I'll be ignoring you from now on.

I'm afraid the entirety of your attempt at argument is no more supported than "..... because I say so."

 

[Hollie]

"... It is the result of intelligent minds. DNA contains complex specified information, therefore someone created it."

... because I say so!

No. Because every scientific observation ever made says so. Or do you know of an example of such a thing actually being observed to happen? Didn't think so. Care to try again? And I'm still waiting for someone to try refuting anything from the article I posted. My guess is that you can't. Would you care to try?

"No. Because every scientific observation ever made says so."

... because I say so.

It's getting old, Bunky.

I'm afraid you're simply reiterating the Disco'tute party line

CI110: Complex Specified Information indicates design.

Answer me this. If you look at a computer, there is no doubt that someone designed and built it. DNA is more complex than our most advanced computers. It's information density is far superior to anything our technology has produced. And you actually believe that it was the result of chance? Unbelievable. Do yourself a favor. Do a little research on Gene regulatory networks. These are networks with thousands of components, all working together to regulate living processes. They exist in every cell. Not only that, there are meta GRN's comprised of multiple networks. And if just one of the thousands of components were missing, the cell would die. Our most powerful computers cannot model how they work. They are too complex. And all of this is managed by a microscopic molecule called DNA. If you cannot see the hand of the Creator in all of that, then you are willfully ignorant.

Saying that dna has more information stored than a computer is not showing complexity. Everything done, stored, calculated, combined, deleted or saved on a computer is based on programming that is either a 1 or a 0. 2 digits and a lot of data handling capability. That is not the complex part of the life forms with dna. DNA consists of variations and positioning of only 4 nucleotides. The expansiveness of teh data storage is impressive. But as long as it replicates, the data storage is based on relatively simple parts.

Unbelievable. You just don't get it. I'll give it one more try. Here is a short video. It is a CGI animation of what goes on inside a cell. If you can watch this and still not see the truth, then I give up.

https://video.search.yahoo.com/yhs/...=a5535d7fcec7848b57067f3b483007c9&action=view

YouTube videos - despite their bright colors and flashy graphics- are not the most accurate rendition of science.

 

[WinterBorn]

"... It is the result of intelligent minds. DNA contains complex specified information, therefore someone created it."

... because I say so!

No. Because every scientific observation ever made says so. Or do you know of an example of such a thing actually being observed to happen? Didn't think so. Care to try again? And I'm still waiting for someone to try refuting anything from the article I posted. My guess is that you can't. Would you care to try?

"No. Because every scientific observation ever made says so."

... because I say so.

It's getting old, Bunky.

I'm afraid you're simply reiterating the Disco'tute party line

CI110: Complex Specified Information indicates design.

Answer me this. If you look at a computer, there is no doubt that someone designed and built it. DNA is more complex than our most advanced computers. It's information density is far superior to anything our technology has produced. And you actually believe that it was the result of chance? Unbelievable. Do yourself a favor. Do a little research on Gene regulatory networks. These are networks with thousands of components, all working together to regulate living processes. They exist in every cell. Not only that, there are meta GRN's comprised of multiple networks. And if just one of the thousands of components were missing, the cell would die. Our most powerful computers cannot model how they work. They are too complex. And all of this is managed by a microscopic molecule called DNA. If you cannot see the hand of the Creator in all of that, then you are willfully ignorant.

Saying that dna has more information stored than a computer is not showing complexity. Everything done, stored, calculated, combined, deleted or saved on a computer is based on programming that is either a 1 or a 0. 2 digits and a lot of data handling capability. That is not the complex part of the life forms with dna. DNA consists of variations and positioning of only 4 nucleotides. The expansiveness of teh data storage is impressive. But as long as it replicates, the data storage is based on relatively simple parts.

Unbelievable. You just don't get it. I'll give it one more try. Here is a short video. It is a CGI animation of what goes on inside a cell. If you can watch this and still not see the truth, then I give up.

https://video.search.yahoo.com/yhs/...=a5535d7fcec7848b57067f3b483007c9&action=view

I don't need a video to tell me that cellular structure is complex. I have not argued that at all.

But without knowing how complex the first cells were, the argument fails.

 

[WinterBorn]

"... It is the result of intelligent minds. DNA contains complex specified information, therefore someone created it."

... because I say so!

No. Because every scientific observation ever made says so. Or do you know of an example of such a thing actually being observed to happen? Didn't think so. Care to try again? And I'm still waiting for someone to try refuting anything from the article I posted. My guess is that you can't. Would you care to try?

The entire article can be refuted by asking you if the first cells were as complex as cells alive now? Unless you know that to be true, pointing out the complexity of current life forms does not debunk anything.

Science has a pretty good grasp of the minimum complexity required for life. Scientists have found the minimum complexity of life to be about 2000 genes for a self supporting microbe, and about 400 genes for a parasitic microbe. So it is not enough that there be life's building blocks present - they must be arranged in a precise order (and all amino acids must be left-handed) in order for life to function at all. Think about that. Not only do you require the minimum number in the correct order, they must all be left handed. Do you really believe that's possible?

In the length of time we are talking about? Absolutely.

The impossible does not become possible, no matter how much time you give it.

And yet, nothing in this gives any reason for it to be impossible. It is very, very unlikely. But there is nothing showing it to be impossible.

And when you are talking about the possibility of random occurances, the extreme length of time does matter.

 

[WinterBorn]

The fact that it is unlikely does not make it impossible. It certainly is not any sort of proof of intelligent design.

But the implausibility of random coincidences of astronomical proportions IS MOST CERTAINLY circumstantial proof of a Creator, dude, not to mention the Infinite Regression Fallacy.

Random coincidences facing astronomical odds against it is not proof of anything.

 

[WinterBorn]

Evidence that the original processes in life forms may not have been the same as current life forms.

from: Spark of life: Metabolism appears in lab without cells

"Metabolic processes that underpin life on Earth have arisen spontaneously outside of cells. The serendipitous finding that metabolism – the cascade of reactions in all cells that provides them with the raw materials they need to survive – can happen in such simple conditions provides fresh insights into how the first life formed. It also suggests that the complex processes needed for life may have surprisingly humble origins.

“People have said that these pathways look so complex they couldn’t form by environmental chemistry alone,” says Markus Ralser at the University of Cambridge who supervised the research.

But his findings suggest that many of these reactions could have occurred spontaneously in Earth’s early oceans, catalysed by metal ions rather than the enzymes that drive them in cells today.

The origin of metabolism is a major gap in our understanding of the emergence of life. “If you look at many different organisms from around the world, this network of reactions always looks very similar, suggesting that it must have come into place very early on in evolution, but no one knew precisely when or how,” says Ralser."

 

[JimBowie1958]

Random coincidences facing astronomical odds against it is not proof of anything.

Sure it is.

How many times would a poker dealer have to give himself a "random" hand of Royal Flushes before you become convinced that he is cheating?

Dont be stupid for rhetorical purposes. It doesnt work.

 

[WinterBorn]

Random coincidences facing astronomical odds against it is not proof of anything.

Sure it is.

How many times would a poker dealer have to give himself a "random" hand of Royal Flushes before you become convinced that he is cheating?

Dont be stupid for rhetorical purposes. It doesnt work.

It is not about it happening over and over. It only had to happen once in hundreds of millions of years.

 

[RWNJ]

No. Because every scientific observation ever made says so. Or do you know of an example of such a thing actually being observed to happen? Didn't think so. Care to try again? And I'm still waiting for someone to try refuting anything from the article I posted. My guess is that you can't. Would you care to try?

"No. Because every scientific observation ever made says so."

... because I say so.

It's getting old, Bunky.

I'm afraid you're simply reiterating the Disco'tute party line

CI110: Complex Specified Information indicates design.

Answer me this. If you look at a computer, there is no doubt that someone designed and built it. DNA is more complex than our most advanced computers. It's information density is far superior to anything our technology has produced. And you actually believe that it was the result of chance? Unbelievable. Do yourself a favor. Do a little research on Gene regulatory networks. These are networks with thousands of components, all working together to regulate living processes. They exist in every cell. Not only that, there are meta GRN's comprised of multiple networks. And if just one of the thousands of components were missing, the cell would die. Our most powerful computers cannot model how they work. They are too complex. And all of this is managed by a microscopic molecule called DNA. If you cannot see the hand of the Creator in all of that, then you are willfully ignorant.

Saying that dna has more information stored than a computer is not showing complexity. Everything done, stored, calculated, combined, deleted or saved on a computer is based on programming that is either a 1 or a 0. 2 digits and a lot of data handling capability. That is not the complex part of the life forms with dna. DNA consists of variations and positioning of only 4 nucleotides. The expansiveness of teh data storage is impressive. But as long as it replicates, the data storage is based on relatively simple parts.

Unbelievable. You just don't get it. I'll give it one more try. Here is a short video. It is a CGI animation of what goes on inside a cell. If you can watch this and still not see the truth, then I give up.

https://video.search.yahoo.com/yhs/...=a5535d7fcec7848b57067f3b483007c9&action=view

I don't need a video to tell me that cellular structure is complex. I have not argued that at all.

But without knowing how complex the first cells were, the argument fails.

You are not listening. Scientists now know what the minimum requirements for life are. There are actually microscopic critters alive, today, that are at the borderline of that requirement. The simple fact is that nothing less complex can live. So there are no simpler precursors to life as we know it. What you see is what there is. We also know how many thousands of processes are going on inside a cell. It is more complex that a major city. And people like you believe that this wondrous level of complexity, this miracle of life, is the result of random processes. Words fail me.

 

[Hollie]

"No. Because every scientific observation ever made says so."

... because I say so.

It's getting old, Bunky.

I'm afraid you're simply reiterating the Disco'tute party line

CI110: Complex Specified Information indicates design.

Answer me this. If you look at a computer, there is no doubt that someone designed and built it. DNA is more complex than our most advanced computers. It's information density is far superior to anything our technology has produced. And you actually believe that it was the result of chance? Unbelievable. Do yourself a favor. Do a little research on Gene regulatory networks. These are networks with thousands of components, all working together to regulate living processes. They exist in every cell. Not only that, there are meta GRN's comprised of multiple networks. And if just one of the thousands of components were missing, the cell would die. Our most powerful computers cannot model how they work. They are too complex. And all of this is managed by a microscopic molecule called DNA. If you cannot see the hand of the Creator in all of that, then you are willfully ignorant.

Saying that dna has more information stored than a computer is not showing complexity. Everything done, stored, calculated, combined, deleted or saved on a computer is based on programming that is either a 1 or a 0. 2 digits and a lot of data handling capability. That is not the complex part of the life forms with dna. DNA consists of variations and positioning of only 4 nucleotides. The expansiveness of teh data storage is impressive. But as long as it replicates, the data storage is based on relatively simple parts.

Unbelievable. You just don't get it. I'll give it one more try. Here is a short video. It is a CGI animation of what goes on inside a cell. If you can watch this and still not see the truth, then I give up.

https://video.search.yahoo.com/yhs/...=a5535d7fcec7848b57067f3b483007c9&action=view

I don't need a video to tell me that cellular structure is complex. I have not argued that at all.

But without knowing how complex the first cells were, the argument fails.

You are not listening. Scientists now know what the minimum requirements for life are. There are actually microscopic critters alive, today, that are at the borderline of that requirement. The simple fact is that nothing less complex can live. So there are no simpler precursors to life as we know it. What you see is what there is. We also know how many thousands of processes are going on inside a cell. It is more complex that a major city. And people like you believe that this wondrous level of complexity, this miracle of life, is the result of random processes. Words fail me.

Actually, education fails you.

"The simple fact is that nothing less complex can live"

.... because I say so!


I was hoping you could provide a source for your "fact", preferably something peer reviewed which obviously excludes "facts" from the various fundamentalist Christian ministries / ID'iot creation ministries.

 

[WinterBorn]

"No. Because every scientific observation ever made says so."

... because I say so.

It's getting old, Bunky.

I'm afraid you're simply reiterating the Disco'tute party line

CI110: Complex Specified Information indicates design.

Answer me this. If you look at a computer, there is no doubt that someone designed and built it. DNA is more complex than our most advanced computers. It's information density is far superior to anything our technology has produced. And you actually believe that it was the result of chance? Unbelievable. Do yourself a favor. Do a little research on Gene regulatory networks. These are networks with thousands of components, all working together to regulate living processes. They exist in every cell. Not only that, there are meta GRN's comprised of multiple networks. And if just one of the thousands of components were missing, the cell would die. Our most powerful computers cannot model how they work. They are too complex. And all of this is managed by a microscopic molecule called DNA. If you cannot see the hand of the Creator in all of that, then you are willfully ignorant.

Saying that dna has more information stored than a computer is not showing complexity. Everything done, stored, calculated, combined, deleted or saved on a computer is based on programming that is either a 1 or a 0. 2 digits and a lot of data handling capability. That is not the complex part of the life forms with dna. DNA consists of variations and positioning of only 4 nucleotides. The expansiveness of teh data storage is impressive. But as long as it replicates, the data storage is based on relatively simple parts.

Unbelievable. You just don't get it. I'll give it one more try. Here is a short video. It is a CGI animation of what goes on inside a cell. If you can watch this and still not see the truth, then I give up.

https://video.search.yahoo.com/yhs/...=a5535d7fcec7848b57067f3b483007c9&action=view

I don't need a video to tell me that cellular structure is complex. I have not argued that at all.

But without knowing how complex the first cells were, the argument fails.

You are not listening. Scientists now know what the minimum requirements for life are. There are actually microscopic critters alive, today, that are at the borderline of that requirement. The simple fact is that nothing less complex can live. So there are no simpler precursors to life as we know it. What you see is what there is. We also know how many thousands of processes are going on inside a cell. It is more complex that a major city. And people like you believe that this wondrous level of complexity, this miracle of life, is the result of random processes. Words fail me.

Normally I avoid this topic with people who think the scientific method involves having a result in mind and working to only use facts that support that preconceived notion.

Yes, scientists think they know the requirements for life. Not long ago that included a dependence on sunlight as part of their food chain. That is no longer true.

And there are only 4 nucleotides that make up the dna strand. All of the information contained in dna is due to the which nucleotides are used and their positioning.

Claiming intelligent design as "scientific", when there is absolutely no scientific proof of any "creator" is not scientific. Why not claim life was originally formed by aliens seeding planets?

 

[RWNJ]

Answer me this. If you look at a computer, there is no doubt that someone designed and built it. DNA is more complex than our most advanced computers. It's information density is far superior to anything our technology has produced. And you actually believe that it was the result of chance? Unbelievable. Do yourself a favor. Do a little research on Gene regulatory networks. These are networks with thousands of components, all working together to regulate living processes. They exist in every cell. Not only that, there are meta GRN's comprised of multiple networks. And if just one of the thousands of components were missing, the cell would die. Our most powerful computers cannot model how they work. They are too complex. And all of this is managed by a microscopic molecule called DNA. If you cannot see the hand of the Creator in all of that, then you are willfully ignorant.

Saying that dna has more information stored than a computer is not showing complexity. Everything done, stored, calculated, combined, deleted or saved on a computer is based on programming that is either a 1 or a 0. 2 digits and a lot of data handling capability. That is not the complex part of the life forms with dna. DNA consists of variations and positioning of only 4 nucleotides. The expansiveness of teh data storage is impressive. But as long as it replicates, the data storage is based on relatively simple parts.

Unbelievable. You just don't get it. I'll give it one more try. Here is a short video. It is a CGI animation of what goes on inside a cell. If you can watch this and still not see the truth, then I give up.

https://video.search.yahoo.com/yhs/...=a5535d7fcec7848b57067f3b483007c9&action=view

I don't need a video to tell me that cellular structure is complex. I have not argued that at all.

But without knowing how complex the first cells were, the argument fails.

You are not listening. Scientists now know what the minimum requirements for life are. There are actually microscopic critters alive, today, that are at the borderline of that requirement. The simple fact is that nothing less complex can live. So there are no simpler precursors to life as we know it. What you see is what there is. We also know how many thousands of processes are going on inside a cell. It is more complex that a major city. And people like you believe that this wondrous level of complexity, this miracle of life, is the result of random processes. Words fail me.

Normally I avoid this topic with people who think the scientific method involves having a result in mind and working to only use facts that support that preconceived notion.

Yes, scientists think they know the requirements for life. Not long ago that included a dependence on sunlight as part of their food chain. That is no longer true.

And there are only 4 nucleotides that make up the dna strand. All of the information contained in dna is due to the which nucleotides are used and their positioning.

Claiming intelligent design as "scientific", when there is absolutely no scientific proof of any "creator" is not scientific. Why not claim life was originally formed by aliens seeding planets?

Why not claim that you have a functioning brain?...Oh, wait.

 

[WinterBorn]

Saying that dna has more information stored than a computer is not showing complexity. Everything done, stored, calculated, combined, deleted or saved on a computer is based on programming that is either a 1 or a 0. 2 digits and a lot of data handling capability. That is not the complex part of the life forms with dna. DNA consists of variations and positioning of only 4 nucleotides. The expansiveness of teh data storage is impressive. But as long as it replicates, the data storage is based on relatively simple parts.

Unbelievable. You just don't get it. I'll give it one more try. Here is a short video. It is a CGI animation of what goes on inside a cell. If you can watch this and still not see the truth, then I give up.

https://video.search.yahoo.com/yhs/...=a5535d7fcec7848b57067f3b483007c9&action=view

I don't need a video to tell me that cellular structure is complex. I have not argued that at all.

But without knowing how complex the first cells were, the argument fails.

You are not listening. Scientists now know what the minimum requirements for life are. There are actually microscopic critters alive, today, that are at the borderline of that requirement. The simple fact is that nothing less complex can live. So there are no simpler precursors to life as we know it. What you see is what there is. We also know how many thousands of processes are going on inside a cell. It is more complex that a major city. And people like you believe that this wondrous level of complexity, this miracle of life, is the result of random processes. Words fail me.

Normally I avoid this topic with people who think the scientific method involves having a result in mind and working to only use facts that support that preconceived notion.

Yes, scientists think they know the requirements for life. Not long ago that included a dependence on sunlight as part of their food chain. That is no longer true.

And there are only 4 nucleotides that make up the dna strand. All of the information contained in dna is due to the which nucleotides are used and their positioning.

Claiming intelligent design as "scientific", when there is absolutely no scientific proof of any "creator" is not scientific. Why not claim life was originally formed by aliens seeding planets?

Why not claim that you have a functioning brain?...Oh, wait.

Spare me the insults. Especially considering your posted a thread with a title claiming science debunked something, and then posted a link in which science debunked absolutely nothing. It showed a complexity of current life forms, but nothing more. In fact, you have offered virtually nothing more than what is in the article.

Your entire argument is still "It is so complex it must have been created by an intelligence. It is impossible for it to have come about any other way". And that is simply not factual.

 

[WinterBorn]

Did you read the link I posted about metabolism outside the cell?

 

[JimBowie1958]

It is not about it happening over and over. It only had to happen once in hundreds of millions of years.

What do you think "it happening" is exactly?

A bunch of molecules inexplicably hurling themselves together to form a flat screen TV is more plausible.

 

[WinterBorn]

It is not about it happening over and over. It only had to happen once in hundreds of millions of years.

What do you think "it happening" is exactly?

A bunch of molecules inexplicably hurling themselves together to form a flat screen TV is more plausible.

A bunch of chemicals and compounds being stirred, shaken, and lit up with lightning or volcanic heat. Over hundreds of millions of years, the idea that the right combination comes together is not impossible.

 

[RWNJ]

It is not about it happening over and over. It only had to happen once in hundreds of millions of years.

What do you think "it happening" is exactly?

A bunch of molecules inexplicably hurling themselves together to form a flat screen TV is more plausible.

A bunch of chemicals and compounds being stirred, shaken, and lit up with lightning or volcanic heat. Over hundreds of millions of years, the idea that the right combination comes together is not impossible.

The probability approaches ZERO. Mathematicians tell us us that once you reach a high enough number, the probability is essentially zero. The probability of random atoms forming life from non life is higher than the total number of atoms in the observable universe. The impossible is still impossible, no matter how much time you give it.

 

[JimBowie1958]

A bunch of chemicals and compounds being stirred, shaken, and lit up with lightning or volcanic heat. Over hundreds of millions of years, the idea that the right combination comes together is not impossible.

What do you base that on? Your sincere desire for it to be true?

Amino acids have been generated that way, but I dont think I have ever read of anything more complex developing.

I suspect that life somehow evolved in the planetoids of a first generation star that was close enough to a star for obtaining great amounts of heat and energy, but far enough away that it did not evaporate all the atmosphere and water. That planets fragments were scattered through the universe in a cascade of nova's that spread life like a mold, not to depreciate life however..

Transpermia answers problems with abiogenesis much better, IMO, than the quaint notion that it had to develop on a third generation star's planet, here on Earth.

 

[WinterBorn]

It is not about it happening over and over. It only had to happen once in hundreds of millions of years.

What do you think "it happening" is exactly?

A bunch of molecules inexplicably hurling themselves together to form a flat screen TV is more plausible.

A bunch of chemicals and compounds being stirred, shaken, and lit up with lightning or volcanic heat. Over hundreds of millions of years, the idea that the right combination comes together is not impossible.

The probability approaches ZERO. Mathematicians tell us us that once you reach a high enough number, the probability is essentially zero. The probability of random atoms forming life from non life is higher than the total number of atoms in the observable universe. The impossible is still impossible, no matter how much time you give it.

Having more time reduces the odds, because of the additional chances the compounds have to interact.

Do you have any actual scientists saying it is impossible? Every scientist I know (and that is quite a few) do not consider it impossible.