Chemistry plus Biology = Abiogenesis:

[iceaura]

However, i have to admit that some creationists have a deeper understanding of biological processes and how complex life actually is, compared to some people

They all peddle misinformation and misrepresentations of that complexity.
One can of course find people more ignorant than they are, about biological complexity. But that frames their insistence on misrepresenting it, to their audience of greater ignorance - it's not a good look.

Life is about trillions of chemical interactions perfectly knit together. Given that the age of earth is only 4 billions, you need several additional "miracles" daily, without losing the previous milestones.

An example of the misinformation they peddle. It's possibly unconscious, it's possibly an entry in "How To Lie With Statistics" - your choice.
The better they actually understand biological theory, the worse such assertions look - from the viewpoint of integrity and so forth.

 

[iceaura]

The probability of useless stopper reactions grows exponentially as any hopeful peptide chain grows larger.

And we see why we need a transcript.
Because that, by itself, is irrelevant. By "irrelevant" is meant it doesn't matter, or have anything to do with the likelihood of living beings evolving from complex but non living complexity via any of the possible evolutionary mechanisms (Darwinian, Lamarckian, etc). If we had a transcript, we could identify the wrong turn in the argument.

Is a Daisy's Fibonacci growth pattern an intelligent design? 1
Who is the designer? 2
The Daisy, 3
God?4
A mathematical growth function? 5
Bingo! 6

1) No 2) Nobody 3) No 4) No 5) No 6) What?

 

[iceaura]

nn

 

[Write4U]

don't understand your meaning here

OK,
"purpose" implies a consciously motivated intent.

But gravity is also a causal motivation dynamic force for water to run downstream in the direction of greatest satisfaction (the swimming pool), but there is no conscious intent involved at all. It is a mathematical imperative that water subject to gravity must run downhill. In doing so it unconsciously generates a kinetic energy, which able to do other work (generate electricity) or cause erosion of the shortest path downhill.

All this is a result of unconscious, but quasi-intelligent behavior of the universe and its physical/mathematical potentials.

 

[globali]

There is a sufficient and well-accepted theory available - what is lacking is a solid description of the actual course of events, the history,....

The fact that a solution to a problem is hard, doesn't mean that the problem is unsolvable. On the other hand, if an explanation has flaws in the theoretical description, it is not even a working hypothesis to start with. Saying that anything can happen in billion years is not a theory. At least not a scientific one.

 

[Write4U]

Write4U said:
Is a Daisy's Fibonacci growth pattern a mathematical design? 1

(replaced intelligent with mathematical]
Who is the designer? 2
The Daisy, 3
God?4
A mathematical growth function? 5
Bingo! 6

1) No 2) You are right. It is a non-intelligent mathematical design, Yes?
Nobody 3) No 4) No 5) No 6) What?

Is petal growth an expression of growth function? If the growth function is expressed in a common evolved mathematical organizational growth function of many physical things, can we say that the growth function is a common mathematical growth function of many naturally occurring objects?

This is the point; The daisy doesn't know maths, its DNA sets up a naturally evolved efficient growth function in accordance to a universal mathematical exponential function. Bingo!

 

[paddoboy]

Why doesn't ID fall under the same 'abiogenesis' banner? It certainly seems consistent with your assertion that once there was no life and now there is. So what justifies excluding it?.

And that point seems to depend upon a pre-existing adherence to some form of atheism and/or metaphysical naturalism. (I don't disagree necessarily, though my own naturalism is more methodological. Ontologically, I'm inclined to favor agnosticism. We just don't know the ultimate nature of reality.) I'm just saying that this hidden atheistic/naturalistic premise still needs to be acknowledged, clarified and argued for, since the whole point of the thread seems to revolve around it.

Once being a good Catholic boy, I sometimes still sit and wonder that question...You know, why doesn't ID also fall under the Abiogenesis blanket...
Then after thinking it through some, I see the need to give myself an uppercut.
Let me explain....Why doesn't the same standards apply to any supposed IDer? I mean how can anyone accept that some all powerful, all knowing, and existing for eternity, could ever be imagined to exist? So by those standards, isn't such beliefs then superfluous at best? Ýour agnosticism would also best fit myself. I mean if extraordinary evidence arose that showed we are the creation of some deity, and all other possibilities were invalidated, then sure! that deity/person/ghost or whatever, would have my endearing respect and devotion. But it's just impossible in the light of science in this day and age, and how science has pushed such needs to near oblivion.
The same scenario was put to me rather sarcastically and facetiously re what would I do if GR was finally surpassed [with me being labeled as a GR fan boy ] Simple, if and when that did happen, I would absorb whatever knowledge I could on the matter, and like the reputable scientists around the world, encompass it with open arms.
I don't go out to antagonise or rebuke religious people per se. I really don't give a stuff about them and their beliefs. I have the attitude of live and let live. The exception to that rule, is when such religious people start crusades against science, then sure! I'll give them both barrels. I have plenty of religious friends, including my beautiful wife and we all have tolerance for each others beliefs or non beliefs. I don't push mine down there throats, and they do not attempt that with me...with one small exception...The Mrs will always ask me to come to church with her on Christmas day. I always mange without any hostility to avoid it though!!

 

[Write4U]

The fact that a solution to a problem is hard, doesn't mean that the problem is unsolvable. On the other hand, if an explanation has flaws in the theoretical description, it is not even a working hypothesis to start with. Saying that anything can happen in billion years is not a theory. At least not a scientific one.

But that's not what scientists say. Scientist say that the probability of a future event lies in a identifiable range.
Really, probability theory is a useless exercise? You realize that Pi is a function of probability theory.

What is basic probability theory?
Probability theory is the branch of mathematics concerned with probability. ... Typically these axioms formalise probability in terms of a probability space, which assigns a measure taking values between 0 and 1, termed the probability measure, to a set of outcomes called the sample space.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Probability_theory

What I don't understand is the desire to prove science wrong and supernatural intervention right.
What is this masochistic obsession with intentional extraordinary miraculous interference by some unknowable entity, who requires your adoration and prayer to grant your wishes with the exact same probability factor of becoming true as in science?

 

[wegs]

I've read through a good portion of this thread, and it would seem that you ended up agreeing with exchemist (sort of) yet is it paddoboy, that you insist on considering abiogenesis a ''theory?''

 

[paddoboy]

is it paddoboy, that you insist on considering abiogenesis a ''theory?''

Abiogenesis is as certain as evolution, being the only scientific answer available wegs...But you are are renowned for your grand contacts extraordinae..
exchemist, imo was playing semantics, and sadly that was supported by James.
And again, this same debate elsewhere did not raise such controversy. As a link from Write4U says...."Although the occurrence of abiogenesis is uncontroversial among scientists, there is no single, generally accepted model for the origin of life, and this article presents several principles and hypotheses for how abiogenesis could have occurred."
which shows the semantics played by exchemist.

 

[Write4U]

Abiogenesis, or informally the origin of life, is the natural process by which life has arisen from non-living matter, such as simple organic compounds. While the details of this process are still unknown, the prevailing scientific hypothesis is that the transition from non-living to living entities was not a single event, but a gradual process of increasing complexity that involved molecular self-replication, self-assembly, autocatalysis, and the emergence of cell membranes.

Although the occurrence of abiogenesis is uncontroversial among scientists, there is no single, generally accepted model for the origin of life, and this article presents several principles and hypotheses for how abiogenesis could have occurred.

White flocculent mats in and around the extremely gassy, high-temperature (>100°C, 212°F) white smokers at Champagne Vent.

The earliest known life-forms on Earth are putative fossilized microorganisms, found in hydrothermal vent precipitates, that may have lived as early as 4.28 billion years ago, relatively soon after the oceans formed 4.41 billion years ago, and not long after the formation of the Earth 4.54 billion years ago.

NOAA - http://oceanexplorer.noaa.gov/explorations/04fire/logs/hirez/champagne_vent_hirez.jpg

Cannot go further back, cause then we are talking about life forming before the earth itself was formed and that won't do at all.
I believe it is reasonable to assume that the oldest known simple life forms are the closest to the purely abiogenetic transformation possible. The difference between bio-chemical and "living" organisms may not even be detectable.

We know humans split off from a common ancestor line of hominids, but we don't know exactly when. Does that mean we have no theory of human evolution? Ah it's disputed, OK.....

 

[wegs]

Abiogenesis is as certain as evolution, being the only scientific answer available wegs...

So, in other words...life was inevitable? I wonder why, though.

But you are are renowned for your grand contacts extraordinae..

''Renowned?'' Well, then. lol

 

[Q-reeus]

And we see why we need a transcript.
Because that, by itself, is irrelevant. By "irrelevant" is meant it doesn't matter, or have anything to do with the likelihood of living beings evolving from complex but non living complexity via any of the possible evolutionary mechanisms (Darwinian, Lamarckian, etc). If we had a transcript, we could identify the wrong turn in the argument....

I see that style all the time in your perennial arguing with someone else in the political sub-forums. Bald accusations intended to inflame. Or maybe an 'honest' pathological trait. Either way - if you can't be bothered to go into detailed counterarguments, just give it a rest here.

 

[Q-reeus]

....I don't go out to antagonise or rebuke religious people per se. I really don't give a stuff about them and their beliefs. I have the attitude of live and let live. The exception to that rule, is when such religious people start crusades against science, then sure!...

Complete and utter lying hypocrite. How many sample posts of yours would you like me to link here, giving the lie to that BS? You are the most militantly intolerant individual I have ever had the misfortune to cross swords with. By far. A projection hypocrite of the lowest order.

 

[paddoboy]

So, in other words...life was inevitable? I wonder why, though.

Actually, that is the opinion of some scientists. But again, the general consensus is that if it were to all start over again, things would certainly have been different.

''Renowned?'' Well, then. lol

Don't be embarressed, its a bloody fact!! I have made my share of E-Mails to reputable, notable scientists and probably only received replies from 10% or so.

 

[paddoboy]

Complete and utter lying hypocrite. How many sample posts of yours would you like me to link here, giving the lie to that BS? You are the most militantly intollerant individual I have ever had the mispleasure to cross swords with. By far.

No, its a fact. Link all you like. Show me where I have attacked any religious person who has not attacked or insinuated some nonsense about scientific theory being wrong, including yourself.
And really! You need to calm down. Its your own fault you have been railroaded into a corner, making ridiculous and stupid usnscientific claims, including your creationist video.

 

[wegs]

Actually, that is the opinion of some scientists. But again, the general consensus is that if it were to all start over again, things would certainly have been different.

Hmm. I thought that the general consensus is that if life is inevitable here (on earth) it could be inevitable elsewhere, yes? (with the right conditions, etc)

I didn't mean to open a Pandora's Box in your thread.

Don't be embarressed, its a bloody fact!! I have made my share of E-Mails to reputable, notable scientists and probably only received replies from 10% or so.

You lost me here. lol

 

[paddoboy]

Bald accusations intended to inflame. Or maybe an 'honest' pathological trait. Either way - if you can't be bothered to go into detailed counterarguments, just give it a rest here.

Complete and utter lying hypocrite. How many sample posts of yours would you like me to link here, giving the lie to that BS? You are the most militantly intolerant individual I have ever had the misfortune to cross swords with. By far. A projection hypocrite of the lowest order.

 

[wegs]

Q-reeus - are you religious? Sorry, I became active here again recently, and have just run across your posts. It would help me with context.

 

[Write4U]

So, in other words...life was inevitable? I wonder why, though.

One hypothesis is that originally there was such an abundance of mineral riches and favorable environmental conditions that it became chemically "necessary" for life to emerge. That is not as speculative as it sounds.

Ernest Schoffeniels

“This book is an answer to Monad’s Chance and Necessity. The origin of life and the evolution of biological systems is explained in the light of a deterministic approach in which ‘chance’ has no place. All physico-chemical processes are determined, and biological systems are no exception to this general rule.

This inadequacy of classical thermodynamics to explain biological systems is stressed, and information theory is used to describe these systems in a more satisfactory manner.

http://www.eoht.info/page/Ernest Schoffeniels

This just became clear to me. In a deterministic universe certain conditions make it deterministically necessary for a spontaneous original self-referential result.

If Life is a deterministic necessary condition by the presence of sufficient available conditional values and functions, then the universe will respond as it must by spontaneously creating a self-assembled pattern which answers to the mathematical necessity and to our conception of requirements of Life.