Abiogenisis by the Numbers

Since you are an expert, please list the various theories of abiogenesis, and their assumptions.

You have really shown your simplistic view of abiogenesis with this post.Abiogenesis theory assumes simple chemical replicators as the first life, not a baby floating in the "dangerous" ocean. (Thar be sharks and pirates!)Ooh! Oh no! How will the baby bacteria survive without someone to feed and burp it!

And sometimes Klansmen marry black women........that doesn't mean that, in general, they're not highly incompatible, does it? And, in some fields, one in a hundred billion wouldn't have such terms applied to it......... Well, sure, when there are already formed RNA strands to catalyze it.......but that doesn't help your argument any, does it? Speaking of BS analogies.........you can't tell me with a straight face that a scientist making an RNA strand is equivilant in complexity to a child scribbling, let alone LESS complex......Any time and intelligence has intentionally acted in any way to achieve a desired result, it's, by definition, intelligent design. Weeeeellllll, that's pretty self-explanatory there buddy........first life must have formed in the ocean.......and there were obviously no other living things in there with it (or to help preserve it), so it was therefore "left alone". Who said a billion? We're talking about ONE, which we all evolved from........which would have probably died at conception, as you seem to have just admitted. So there's a one in about 65000 chance of WHAT happening, exactly?

People who aren't good at sarcasm shouldn't try it.......Now, answer the question proposed, or admit that first life, apart from having to be able to replicate and metabolize (BTW, I notice suspiciously that you haven't stated that the self-replicating RNA could metabolize.......and, if it couldn't do THAT, how did it survive?) would've had to find a way to locate and collect its own food.......like a means of propulsion and detection.

Seeded Earth theories, underwater vent theories, chemical affinity theories, etc., etc.........RNA world is just one more in a long list of "what ifs".This message has been edited by RisenLord, 11-15-2004 03:56 AM

---

"I am not ashamed of the gospel of Jesus Christ, for it is the power of God unto salvation..." Romans 1:16"For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse. Because, though they knew God, they did not glorify Him as God, nor were thankful, but became futile in their thoughts, and their foolish hearts were darkened. Professing to be wise, they became fools, and changed the glory of the incorruptible God into an image like corruptible man-and birds and four footed animals and creeping things." Romans 1:20-23

I have no idea what I was looking at, but it looked one helluva lot more complex to me.......This message has been edited by RisenLord, 11-15-2004 04:06 AM

---

"I am not ashamed of the gospel of Jesus Christ, for it is the power of God unto salvation..." Romans 1:16"For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse. Because, though they knew God, they did not glorify Him as God, nor were thankful, but became futile in their thoughts, and their foolish hearts were darkened. Professing to be wise, they became fools, and changed the glory of the incorruptible God into an image like corruptible man-and birds and four footed animals and creeping things." Romans 1:20-23

I've barely read any Dembski at all, so why should that be an idication of its obscurity? I think it's unfair of you to expect me to provide calculations that only exist in a book I don't own.......if you want references to his proposal, fine, but that's the best I can be expected to do.

Anthropology and chemistry have different stringencies on the term "incompatible", so your analogy is silly.The components of a ribonucleotide are compatible, otherwise ribonucleotides could not form from those components. Which fields would not use "overwhelming majority" to describe 99,999,999,999 out of 100,000,000,000? Or are you just writing whatever pops in your mind again? Why do the "overwhelming majority" of your rebuttals to me involve placing words in my mouth?I never said preexisting RNA strands were required for chemical RNA synthesis. In fact, I said the exact opposite. There are purely chemical conditions that favor the production of ribonucleotides. Actually, that is exactly what I am saying, at least at the level of a directed-vs-nondirected approach. By the scientists method the crayon marks would appear randomly on the page. Children scribbling would concentrate the scribbles on the panda, because they are guiding the process (however inaccurately).Sometimes scientist utilize random processes when they have no way to "intelligent design" what they want, due to lack of knowledge. Isn't it interesting how randomness produced molecules with activity that man could never design? It's not at all self-explanatory. Why do you think life formed in the ocean? Why not a pond or a mud puddle or in soil? Guess what happens if you have a single chemical replicator? It replicates! Simple replicators replicate extremely fast, and exponentially. Reread the thread, or standard ID calculations. I'm tired of explaining probabilities to you.

This the crux of your problem. You think that simple chemical replicators need to eat and metabolize and swim and sense. Hell, most bacteria don't do all of those things. That is why I called your view of abiogenesis theory "simplistic".We're talking a population of chemical/biochemical replicators here, not cellular life. They don't need to metabolize to "survive".

RisenLord,I see you have taken to including the Romans passage on Godsense removal in your posts.Are you so incapable of arguing your point that you have to accuse your opponents of being supernaturally ignorant?Why don't you do some research instead of invoking the supernatural...

How do the three theories you mention other than RNA world describe the first replicators?For example, many underwater vent theories utilize RNA strands as first life, and so are also RNA world theories.But you knew that, didn't you?

Do you need me to define the word "genesis" for you, Crash? If not, what about my statement is confusing? Would it help if I put the SPECIAL part of SPECIAL relativity in bold and caps? You've shown how RNA can self-replicate.......I don't recall you showing how RNA could metabolize and survive without the protection of a cell....... Certain vital chemicals having chemical affinites toward certain other vital chemicals would make self-assembly much more likely. Wait, wait, wait.........YOU assert that quantum gravity "theory" explains cosmic variablity........yet, somehow, it becomes MY assertion, huh? Then to back up this assertion, you post a link to a paper that's not about quantum gravity!Just admit Physics isn't your subject......unlike you, I won't feel the need to yell insults at you in order to make myself feel smarter just because I know more about a particular subject than you do. Viruses survive by making cells into copies of themselves, more or less.......they don't require longevity, which first life would. YOU bring up life on other planets, but I'm the one who needs to stay on track, huh? From references to a source I don't even have, yeah. I don't have any copies of the Newtonian laws of physics laying around, either........ Of course intelligent design has never created anything that's self-assembling........if it was self-assembling, it wouldn't be intelligently designed, and vice versa. Duh.If you think self-assembly is a more productive method than intelligent design, then instead of typing out a rebuttle to this post, maybe you should lay back and wait for one to self-assemble...... Self-sustaining, as it doesn't pop as soon as someone touches it......calm down and take a deep breath, Senor Frog.This message has been edited by RisenLord, 11-15-2004 04:38 AM

---

"I am not ashamed of the gospel of Jesus Christ, for it is the power of God unto salvation..." Romans 1:16"For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse. Because, though they knew God, they did not glorify Him as God, nor were thankful, but became futile in their thoughts, and their foolish hearts were darkened. Professing to be wise, they became fools, and changed the glory of the incorruptible God into an image like corruptible man-and birds and four footed animals and creeping things." Romans 1:20-23

In order to replicate, the replicator would need energy, correct? It would therefore need to metabolize, yes?

In your thread-opening post you state and ask: About a hundred posts later you state: So you started a thread whose sole purpose was to refute the calculations of Dembski, yet you haven't read Dembski, and think it is unfair of us to ask you for the calculations.Do you see the absurdity in that?

I've simply added a signature to my posts, because I will never be ashamed of who I am or of He who died for me. It was not intended as a rebuttle of any sort, and I don't see how it could be construed that way. If a simple profession of faith upsets you, I feel sorry for you.

---

"I am not ashamed of the gospel of Jesus Christ, for it is the power of God unto salvation..." Romans 1:16"For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse. Because, though they knew God, they did not glorify Him as God, nor were thankful, but became futile in their thoughts, and their foolish hearts were darkened. Professing to be wise, they became fools, and changed the glory of the incorruptible God into an image like corruptible man-and birds and four footed animals and creeping things." Romans 1:20-23