Topic Revival - it seems this is a good place to discuss Abiogenesis
The last post on this thread is almost 3 years old, but the topic endures, due to misunderstanding of what abiogenesis is and how it is possible.
The initial statement, the range of possibilities:
Message 1: There is obviously a lot of speculation about abiogenesis. Particularly in the area of SETI, there is a lot of discussion about the likeliness of the development of life, what kind of life it would (have to) be etc. I'm sure opinions vary from life being extremely rare (or even just one, earth-based instance), and being exclusively carbon and DNA-based, to views that favour life as being almost an essential/inevitable product of the Universe under reasonable circumstances, and available in many chemical makeups and many hereditary/reproductive mechanisms.
In general, I have always held the view that both extremes could still well turn out to be true, because we simply lack substantial evidence or strong indications for either. (life on earth as one single datapoint, so to speak)
However, lately I'm starting to lean towards the "extremely rare" hypothesis, or alternatively the assumption that, even if life is abundant, it would still very likely be based on very similar chemistry (carbon and/or DNA or something very very similar). With a preference for the "extremely rare" hypothesis.
and the typical creationist rejoinder:
Message 28: The vast complexity of a single cell and the nature of chemistry makes abiogenesis simply impossible. Message 30And my reasoning is............................................. Irreducible Complexity
Message 28: Abiogenisis is impossibel and is very likely to be the worst myth ever made by humans.
Message 37: Ps i pity theese retards not understanding how impossibel abiogenisis is.
Message 42: Abiogenisis means that a cell alsters itself without anyone moderating it ( Or the form teached in schools) And i can't understand how anyone can be so stupid to beleive in it.
Message 1: I think it is wrong to teach evolution, abiogenisis and big bang as facts in school. ... Abiogenisis and Big Bang should really not be taught in science class rooms at all. I mean mostly because the odds for that happening are so immensely low that it will never happen. But students will get to study the different variations of abiogenisis and the big bang hypothesis and then later on decide if its even worth considering.
Message 4: Abiogenisis should not be taught as all. Even as it is mathematicly compleatly impossibel scientist still believes in it.
So let's talk about abiogenesis.
First a definition of the term as used in science:
quote:In the natural sciences, abiogenesis, or origin of life, is the study of how life on Earth could have arisen from inanimate matter. It should not be confused with evolution, which is the study of how groups of living things change over time. Amino acids, often called "the building blocks of life", can form via natural chemical reactions unrelated to life, as demonstrated in the Miller-Urey experiment, which involved simulating the conditions of the early Earth. In all living things, these amino acids are organized into proteins, and the construction of these proteins is mediated by nucleic acids. Thus the question of how life on Earth originated is a question of how the first nucleic acids arose.
The first living things on Earth are thought to be single cell prokaryotes. The oldest ancient fossil microbe-like objects are dated to be 3.5 Ga (billion years old), just a few hundred million years younger than Earth itself.[1][2] By 2.4 Ga, the ratio of stable isotopes of carbon, iron and sulfur shows the action of living things on inorganic minerals and sediments[3][4] and molecular biomarkers indicate photosynthesis, demonstrating that life on Earth was widespread by this time.[5][6]
On the other hand, the exact sequence of chemical events that led to the first nucleic acids is not known. Several hypotheses about early life have been proposed, most notably the iron-sulfur world theory (metabolism without genetics) and the RNA world hypothesis (RNA life-forms).
Abiogenesis is the process where life develops from chemicals.
Message 42: Abiogenisis means that a cell alsters itself without anyone moderating it ( Or the form teached in schools) And i can't understand how anyone can be so stupid to beleive in it.
This is obviously false, because (1) abiogenesis occurred before there were cells, and (2) cells don't alter themselves.
The question is whether Doubletime's assertion that abiogenesis is "mathematicly compleatly impossibel" is based on this false definition (straw man) of abiogenesis, or whether he actually has any calculations.
So, far no sites has been able to prove that life is not irreduicible complex.
And yet it has been demonstrated that (a) IC is a prediction of evolution, and (b) it has been observed to evolve.
What IDists have failed to do is demonstrate that IC cannot be due to evolution.
The good proof ...
There is no proof in science, all we end up with are tentative working concepts that appear to represent reality.
What we can have is disproof - invalidation of false concepts. So far IDists have failed to invalidate a single element in evolutionary biology. Of course the major reason is that they don't do science, so they aren't even trying.
... produced a bacteria flaggelum wih out a flaggela.
This is a silly request, as it has nothing to do with whether evolution is valid or not - because you can't make things evolve.
It also has absolutely nothing to do with abiogenesis, which curiously, is the topic of the thread.
And the site you are talking about has been debunked by intelligent design site.
Sorry, but IDists have yet to debunk anything. All they have done is provide an argument that you find compelling, whether it is true or not.
Debunking means showing that a concept is invalidated by evidence that contradicts it.
Example:
concept (A) is that IC is an indicator of ID because such systems cannot evolve.
debunk (B) is the fact that IC has been seen to evolve.
In the case of abiogenesis we can see many of the building blocks readily available on a primal earth, and the steps necessary to produce of simple system of replication and containment by naturally occurring processes is getting closer to reality every year. Once you have a replicating system capable of evolution - the change in hereditary traits in populations from generation to generation you have, imho, the minimal essence of life.
™ Version 4.2
