Abiogenisis by the Numbers

What would be "unscientific" would be presenting calculations based on evidence so incomplete that you can't set starting conditions. That's exactly the spot that origin-of-life researchers find themselves in, and I'll bet that they will freely admit it. Each passing year, though, seems to bring us closer to having a better handle on those early reactions. The recent discovery that a volcanic gas, carbonyl sulfide, is a potent "catalyst" for connecting up amino acids (in water solution....) to make polypeptides is just one more step.We may well never know all the steps that led up to the "first replicator" - it was nearly four billion years ago in an environment very unlike ours today, and we will likely never be certain about the fine details of that environment. But they're working on ideas, and making progress.

Huh? "Dissolving" doesn't do that! Egg white is a solution of a whole protein in water! You might want to check your sources, or take a chemistry class.But welcome aboard!

1) I got the impression, maybe incorrectly, that you were debating that since there is not a number from the abiogenesis camp that the lack of that number somehow "showed/proved" something...it doesn't. I, once again maybe incorrectly, felt that you were trying to support your position by throwing in the water/amino acid thing. I was being cautious because I've heard ridiculous claims based on nothing more than a statement like the one you made, that ends up being a ripple effect of a regurgitated statement. So, maybe you would care to elaborate EXACTLY on the scenario where you think that water's ability to "dissolve amino acids" fits into the improbability of abiogenesis. Although, I think it might be off topic I think if you say it, you should qualify it.2) Yeah, I should have said "creation" by "god".3) I think those that have stated some numerical "proof" of the improbability based on supposition and likelihood is very shaky. I think those that are EXPERTS in this area are being cautious because they don't feel enough is known to hazard a guess...unlike the people that AREN'T experts in the field, apparently.Intelligent design isn't intelligent.

But we have very little reason to believe it occured naturalistically....... Math comes first, then empirical evidence. That's the way science works. That's the way it worked for relativity, that's the way it's currently working for string theory....... You'll have to shell out the bucks for one of Dembski's book for specific calculations.......though Dembski and ID proponents in general are known for their meticulous work, and I haven't heard any objections to such numbers that really hold any weight. Perhaps you are correct.....and it is to avoid such objections that ID proponents never make an attempt at giving the odds of a whole animal forming, but just ONE viable molecule.......and why they grant ridiculously favorable circumstances for it forming, such as putting all the carbon in the universe on earth.Even still, the numbers they come up with are ridiculously improbable........ Oh, really? When was the last real break through on the subject? The Miller experiment? In order to maintain a cell structure, first life's cell wall would've had to been formed of proteins.......besides, it isn't like RNA is exactly muck scientists accidently make all the time either. Finally, I've heard that the RNA world idea has lost favor........

Recent? That discovery is a good ten years old now........and really amounts to nothing to get excited over. What progress? "Hey, here's some more goop we found naturally occuring on earth that we find in animals"?

In order to disolve, something has to break down into more basic stuff, correct? Therefore, an amino acid (which is a molecule) would have to break down into seperate atoms.......correct? Thanks!

As I stated in another posts, the only suppostitions they make when coming up with these numbers are ridiculously favorable toward the formation of first life naturalistically.........like, as I said earlier, supposing that all the carbon in the universe was located on earth....... Or maybe they're intentionally being vague in order to cover up lack of evidence......BTW, I believe guys like Mike Behe and Dembski would be suprised to be informed that they're not experts on the subject.......

Well, it was only published within the last month or so. Perhaps you had prior notification?

Well, aside from the fact that the only way we've ever observed anything happening is "naturalistically." Although I do wish you would explain what you mean by that term. Perhaps a better question would be, what don't you mean by that term? Well, no, that wouldn't make any sense. Math, being logic, is a process where conclusions are derived from axioms. But we don't know any of the axiomatic conditions of the universe, so it's impossible to derive any conclusions about the universe. That was Aristotle's big mistake, and now I see that you're repeating it.Instead, observation leads to explanitory, sometimes mathematical models. Not the reverse, as you have it. That's not the way it worked for relativity. Relativity was derived from Maxwell's equations, which themselves were derived from observations stemming from the Michelson-Morley experiment.As for string theory, hopefully it isn't lost on you that you've given two examples from one narrow discipline, one of which you were mistaken about, and the other of which is not even science. There are absolutely no observations that support string theory, and very likely, there are absolutely no observations that could ever be made. Cell walls aren't made out of proteins. They're made out of lipids. Did you perhaps think that it might have behooved you to aquaint yourself with basic cellular components such as the lipid bilayer, which, incedentally, we've managed to create through totally inorganic and "naturalistic" processes?I guess not. I'll never understand why creationists show up so confident that ignorance and bluster can take the place of knowledge.

Not correct. Amino acids, sugars, and a very large array of other smallish biomolecules dissolve in water with no bonds broken at all.

Behe mentions something about studies along those lines in Darwin's Black Box, which is a good 8 years old now.

No. Glucose molecules, for instance, are still glucose molecules when they're dissolved into your ice tea. They don't break up into their component atoms of hydrogen, carbon, and oxygen.So, apparently, we can add chemistry to the list of things you felt no need to educate yourself on before commenting?

Where did you get that bizarre factoid? I'll bet a 30-pack of Keystone Light against a single bottle of Guiness that there's enough carbon in the sun alone to equal the mass of the entire Earth. Anyone know the carbon abundance of ol' Sol off the top of their head?

The first part of your post was sweet but the second part didn't have to be added. Let's try to stick to the topic and raise the level a little.

---

How pierceful grows the hazy yon! How myrtle petaled thou! For spring hath sprung the cyclotron How high browse thou, brown cow? -- Churchy LaFemme, 1950

But I'll repeat the bet that he doesn't mention carbonyl sulfide, and again that you didn't know carbonyl sulfide's chemical formula prior to today.