Checkmate evolutionists

[SLD]

And now this:

It's very obvious to anyone who is not a brainwashed atheist that life was created using extreme advanced technology.
Fact: There is zero evidence that life can self-start.
Anyone who thinks it can is not aware of what's required. It's beyond impossible for such things to happen by any amount of chance or any law of physics or chemistry…
After 100 years of origin-of-life research by thousands of intelligent minds, there is absolutely zero evidence that life could self-start. Many of those scientists went on record stating that they now believe that abiogenesis is impossible…
It's not that science cannot explain origin of life, it's a case that science is highlighting the fact life cannot self-start. We know the characteristics of atomic bonding and the construction of molecules and compounds. It's clearly obvious to anyone that studies the molecular structures in cells that these cannot occur by natural mechanisms including chance.
There are lots of hypotheses, but on examination, they are all just wild speculation. The biggest farce are the mystical self-replicating molecules… read the papers in detail, it's just simple chemical bonding with no function. Life requires molecules with function. Function requires extreme complexity and intelligence. Replication of functional molecules requires other Intelligent machines. Where did the information come from? Saying that hydrothermal vents can make simple lifeless molecules does not quantify as an explanation for how life started.
This research is not getting any closer to explanation, in fact it's getting further away as more details of the complexity of life emerge.
If you analyse the numerous steps required to build life, you will find that not one is scientifically feasible. Therefore, the logical conclusion is abiogenesis is absolutely impossible.
No natural chemistry will produce anything more than inanimate molecules. Amino acids are just simple molecules averaging 19 atoms in size. The simplest theorized peptide is 32 amino acids long. The probability of it forming randomly in sequential trials, is approximately 1 in 10 to the power of 40 which is the equivalent of one individual winning the euro millions lotto jackpot 5 times in a row.
Proteins contain thousands of atoms, DNA has millions and the simplest known bacterium 600 billion atoms which all need to be ordered into specific lipids, peptides, proteins, enzymes, carbohydrates, nucleobases, nucleosides, and nucleotides. Hundreds of proteins are needed to coordinate themselves into the required structures and biochemical molecular machinery. This cannot be done without lots of detailed code.
But more importantly, the system needs to be energised with power, ie. bioelectric potentials which need to be generated by a variety of biological processes which will allow for movement and functionality of multiple complex molecules, capable of utilising this energy source, reading the code and executing its instructions which require motion and specific actions.
Even if you had all the molecules, how do they assemble into something that could function assuming it could be sparked into life? Where did the code come from? The information encoded on the DNA of e-coli bacteria is the equivalent of eight hundred pages of information. Multiple structures are required to operate in parallel, and cannot survive independently.
Chance cannot do it and no amount of time can achieve the impossible. What makes inanimate molecules come alive? Science has never succeeded in making a fully assembled dead cell reanimate, so what's the probability that some natural fluke of nature can do it with unstructured random molecules?
It's obvious life cannot self-start. If life cannot self-start then something had to start it, ie, a creator.... aka God.

 

[Elixir]

I detest stuff that is very obvious to anyone who is not a brainwashed atheist.
Goddam superstitious troglodytes.

 

[bilby]

And now this:

It's very obvious to anyone who is not a brainwashed atheist that life was created using extreme advanced technology.

Is it? Then why did literally nobody posit advsnced technologies as the cause of life before the Industrial Revolution? Atheism was rare; So how come nobody noticed the obvious?

Fact: There is zero evidence that life can self-start.

Fact: Prefacing an incorrect claim with tbe word "Fact:" doesn't make it correct.

Anyone who thinks it can is not aware of what's required.

I think it can, and I studied Molecular Biology, so I have a fairly good idea of what is required.

It's beyond impossible for such things to happen by any amount of chance or any law of physics or chemistry…

No, it's not.

After 100 years of origin-of-life research by thousands of intelligent minds, there is absolutely zero evidence that life could self-start.

Nonsense. There's tons of good evidence for several different possible ways.

Many of those scientists went on record stating that they now believe that abiogenesis is impossible…

Many scientists went on record saying that Relativity was impossible; Many scientists went on record saying that Plate Tectonics was impossible. Many scientists are just as hidebound and unwilling to accept change as anyone else.

Fortunately, "many" is not "all", and reality arbitrates when such disagreements arise.

It's not that science cannot explain origin of life, it's a case that science is highlighting the fact life cannot self-start.

No, it's not.

We know the characteristics of atomic bonding and the construction of molecules and compounds. It's clearly obvious to anyone that studies the molecular structures in cells that these cannot occur by natural mechanisms including chance.

Don't be daft. Natural selection is more than capable of explaining any level of complexity, as it provides a detailed methodology for increasing the complexity of any cyclic chemical reaction system.

Simple cyclic chemistries are not just possible, they are inevitable, in any environment with liquid water, contaminated with small amounts of ammonia, sulphur compounds, and other simple salts, that is exposed to energy gradients (such as daylight or vulcanism).

There are lots of hypotheses, but on examination, they are all just wild speculation.

"I don't like them" is not synonymous with "they are all wild speculation".

The biggest farce are the mystical self-replicating molecules… read the papers in detail, it's just simple chemical bonding with no function.

WTF is "function"? Molecules, even compkex molecules like RNA, don't have "function"; They have behaviour, that is dictated by chemistry and physics.

Life requires molecules with function.

Function appears to be a story you are telling about systems that behave in complex ways. Life doesn't require function; Function is a story told by life. Your cart is trying to pull your horse.

Function requires extreme complexity and intelligence.

[citation needed]

Function appears to be an all-purpose "scoffing at ideas I dislike" concept, that was made up from whole cloth here.

As I asked already, WTF is "function" and why should we care about it?

Replication of functional molecules requires other Intelligent machines.

No, it doesn't. Replication can occur spontaneously in vitro, and can even be self catalysed by RNA.

Where did the information come from?

Natural selection for molecules that can self-replicate when exposed to an energy gradient.

Saying that hydrothermal vents can make simple lifeless molecules does not quantify as an explanation for how life started.

(Presumably 'quantify' should read 'qualify' here)Why not? Saying that it doesn't, doesn't qualify as an argument.

This research is not getting any closer to explanation, in fact it's getting further away as more details of the complexity of life emerge.

Clearly the author of this hasn't resd, or hasn't understood any current research in Biology, Biochemistry, or Molecular Biology; And clearly he hopes that his audience hasn't either.

If you analyse the numerous steps required to build life, you will find that not one is scientifically feasible.

Water pools on the surface of the Earth, once the temperature falls to below 100°C, and rain begins to occur.

That's one such step. It doesn't strike me as "not scientifically feasible".

Therefore, the logical conclusion is abiogenesis is absolutely impossible.

Don't start torturing logic now; You are already doing enough violence to science and reason.

No natural chemistry will produce anything more than inanimate molecules.

I have an entire planet of evidence that this claim is false.

Amino acids are just simple molecules averaging 19 atoms in size. The simplest theorized peptide is 32 amino acids long.

Who the fuck is feeding you this nonsense? Aspartame - the sweetener in diet drinks - is a peptide two amino acids 'long'.

The probability of it forming randomly in sequential trials, is approximately 1 in 10 to the power of 40 which is the equivalent of one individual winning the euro millions lotto jackpot 5 times in a row.

Leaving aside the absurd failure to grasp that random chance isn't the mechanism at work here (natural selection is), how many times would we expect this to happen if trillions of players played the lottery daily for a billion years? Probably at least once.

Still, with natural selection, it's more like playing a lottery where, if you get one number right today, you get to keep that right number for the next game.

It's almost impossible to lose such a lottery, if you play a few dozen times.

Proteins contain thousands of atoms, DNA has millions and the simplest known bacterium 600 billion atoms which all need to be ordered into specific lipids, peptides, proteins, enzymes, carbohydrates, nucleobases, nucleosides, and nucleotides.

Yup. Natural selection is astonishing, isn't it?

Hundreds of proteins are needed to coordinate themselves into the required structures and biochemical molecular machinery.

Yup.

This cannot be done without lots of detailed code.

Can't it? There is no 'code'. The "DNA code" isn't a thing; It's a metaphor. DNA and amino acids interact via chemistry. No 'code' is required, though if you like to study patterns, you can discern a metaphorical 'code' - a set of constant responses to specific chemicals in specific places at specific times.

But more importantly, the system needs to be energised with power, ie. bioelectric potentials which need to be generated by a variety of biological processes which will allow for movement and functionality of multiple complex molecules, capable of utilising this energy source, reading the code and executing its instructions which require motion and specific actions.

Yes, an energy gradient is needed for life. That's bleeding bloody obvious. Did you think nobody was aware?

Even if you had all the molecules, how do they assemble into something that could function assuming it could be sparked into life?

Via trillions of iterations of natural selection.

Where did the code come from?

There isn't one; It's just chemistry.

Metaphors are oy useful if they are aiding comprehension. When they befuddle comprehension, they are worse than useless.

The information encoded on the DNA of e-coli bacteria is the equivalent of eight hundred pages of information.

If you say so. So what?

Multiple structures are required to operate in parallel, and cannot survive independently.

Yes, all current life is the product of three and a half to four billion years of natural selection. Simple self replicators that could have become life, on the abiotic early Earth, are today just lunch.

Chance cannot do it and no amount of time can achieve the impossible.

"Chance" and "the impossible" are contradictory; You would be wrong to claim that either was needed, but you are provably and logically wrong when you claim both as possibilities.

What makes inanimate molecules come alive?

Depends on how you define "alive". Do you have a rigorous definition?

Thought not.

Science has never succeeded in making a fully assembled dead cell reanimate,

A fully assembled dead cell is a hugely complex result of vast amounts of evolutionary time. It's not even close to being a simple replicator, like a short strand of RNA is.

so what's the probability that some natural fluke of nature can do it with unstructured random molecules?

Observably, 100%

It's obvious life cannot self-start. If life cannot self-start then something had to start it, ie, a creator.... aka God.

It's equally obvious that a God cannot self-start. Indeed ANY argument that says life cannot self start can equally be applied to ANY Gods. So not only is God not the answer; God isn't even an answer.

Any question you ask about life, also applies to a creator God. If uncreated life is doubtful, an uncreated God is equally doubtful.

 

[pood]

And now this:

It's very obvious to anyone who is not a brainwashed atheist that life was created using extreme advanced technology.
Fact: There is zero evidence that life can self-start.
Anyone who thinks it can is not aware of what's required. It's beyond impossible for such things to happen by any amount of chance or any law of physics or chemistry…
After 100 years of origin-of-life research by thousands of intelligent minds, there is absolutely zero evidence that life could self-start. Many of those scientists went on record stating that they now believe that abiogenesis is impossible…
It's not that science cannot explain origin of life, it's a case that science is highlighting the fact life cannot self-start. We know the characteristics of atomic bonding and the construction of molecules and compounds. It's clearly obvious to anyone that studies the molecular structures in cells that these cannot occur by natural mechanisms including chance.
There are lots of hypotheses, but on examination, they are all just wild speculation. The biggest farce are the mystical self-replicating molecules… read the papers in detail, it's just simple chemical bonding with no function. Life requires molecules with function. Function requires extreme complexity and intelligence. Replication of functional molecules requires other Intelligent machines. Where did the information come from? Saying that hydrothermal vents can make simple lifeless molecules does not quantify as an explanation for how life started.
This research is not getting any closer to explanation, in fact it's getting further away as more details of the complexity of life emerge.
If you analyse the numerous steps required to build life, you will find that not one is scientifically feasible. Therefore, the logical conclusion is abiogenesis is absolutely impossible.
No natural chemistry will produce anything more than inanimate molecules. Amino acids are just simple molecules averaging 19 atoms in size. The simplest theorized peptide is 32 amino acids long. The probability of it forming randomly in sequential trials, is approximately 1 in 10 to the power of 40 which is the equivalent of one individual winning the euro millions lotto jackpot 5 times in a row.
Proteins contain thousands of atoms, DNA has millions and the simplest known bacterium 600 billion atoms which all need to be ordered into specific lipids, peptides, proteins, enzymes, carbohydrates, nucleobases, nucleosides, and nucleotides. Hundreds of proteins are needed to coordinate themselves into the required structures and biochemical molecular machinery. This cannot be done without lots of detailed code.
But more importantly, the system needs to be energised with power, ie. bioelectric potentials which need to be generated by a variety of biological processes which will allow for movement and functionality of multiple complex molecules, capable of utilising this energy source, reading the code and executing its instructions which require motion and specific actions.
Even if you had all the molecules, how do they assemble into something that could function assuming it could be sparked into life? Where did the code come from? The information encoded on the DNA of e-coli bacteria is the equivalent of eight hundred pages of information. Multiple structures are required to operate in parallel, and cannot survive independently.
Chance cannot do it and no amount of time can achieve the impossible. What makes inanimate molecules come alive? Science has never succeeded in making a fully assembled dead cell reanimate, so what's the probability that some natural fluke of nature can do it with unstructured random molecules?
It's obvious life cannot self-start. If life cannot self-start then something had to start it, ie, a creator.... aka God.

Is there a cite for this? Something posted on a different message board? Could the writer be invited to join us here in the great seething Satanic mosh pit of heresy and nihilism?

 

[pood]

Many of those scientists went on record stating that they now believe that abiogenesis is impossible…

Many scientists went on record saying that Relativity was impossible; Many scientists went on record saying that Plate Tectonics was impossible. Many scientists are just as hidebound and unwilling to accept change as anyone else.

Fortunately, "many" is not "all", and reality arbitrates when such disagreements arise.

In addition, I would like to know who these “many” scientists are who reject abiogenesis as impossible. I don’t think there are many. I think there are very few, and certainly a minuscule number, if any, among biologists. It’s always amusing how writers invoke “many” scientists who reject this or that established science, and almost invariably it turns out not to be so “many” at all, and in the vast majority of cases, they turn out to be scientists who are speaking of a topic OUTSIDE their field of specialty.

 

[pood]

The author’s probability “arguments” against abiogenesis are particularly mush-witted — the same old, lame old arguments that all creationists mindlessly parrot like a vast squadron of jabbering ventriloquists’ dummies.

What is the posterior probability of life arising on earth? 100 percent.

What is the prior probability? We don’t know. We have no way to calculate, because we have only one data point, earth.

But we can conjure any probability scenario we wish, and the creationist “argument” still fails.

Suppose it takes a quadrillion chemical/experimental trials for the universe to produce by accident even one instance of life, anywhere, here on earth or across the cosmos? No sweat! Those chemical trials have been running since the first planets formed. After a quadrillion trials, the odds that life will form at least once converge to unity.

Of course we have no idea that the odds against life forming naturally are so steep. They could not be so steep at all. We just don’t know. But it doesn’t matter. The point is that the universe is ancient and vast, and has more than enough world and time to run the trials.

Consider too that the universe is probably spatially infinite. That’s what the current evidence shows. And in that case, it doesn’t matter if the odds against life arising even once are 100 quadrillion to one. In that case, in an infinite universe, you will still have an infinite number of populated worlds.

But now suppose tomorrow it were announced that life had been found on Mars, Titan, and Europa. Now it seems the odds of life arising even once have greatly improved.

Will that satisfy the creationist that life arises naturally? Of course not! Because his entire “argument” is question-begging! He simply assumes his conclusion — that abiogenesis is impossible. Therefore, if we were to find life on every single world, the creationist would declare it was impossible that life arose naturally, because, you know, conclusion (abiogenesis is impossible) has been illicitly incorporated into his first premise!

And then the creationist would shift the goalposts and declare that finding life on every world is due to the fact that God (or Allah or whatever) is so generous in his life-creating bounty! Never mind that right now, the average creationist argues that life occurs ONLY on earth, because the whole universe was made just for Man!

There does not seem to be a “shifting goal posts” emoji.

 

[Spacetime Inhabitant]

I was recently watching an episode of Brian Cox's 'Solar System' and now Enceladus is also a possible candidate for a life bearing body within the Solar System.

 

[pood]

I think there is a numer of such bodies, outer moons believed to have vast subsurface oceans of water with interior heat. All could harbor life.

 

[pood]

In this paper, the astronomer Tomonori Totani calculates, using certain (unproven) assumptions, that abiogenesis is so rare that we are probably the only life form anywhere in the observable universe.

However, as he notes, even if this is true, it does not violate the Copernican principle, because the unobservable universe is vastly greater, and possibly infinitely greater, than the observable universe. And in such a universe there will be vast numbers of inhabited planets; in an infinite universe we should expect an infinite number. However we should never expect to make contact with any on this scenario because all or most such life forms are outside one another’s light cones.

The upshot of the paper again is a defeater for creationists, because while the paper hugely stacks the odds against abiogenesis, it still comes up with a vastly populated universe! — albeit one in which we can forget about Star Trek- and Star Wars-type scenarios.

I fact, if the paper is true, it a fortiori strengthens the case against creationism. For why would a creator pick only one planet per observable volume of the universe to plant life? But if the astronomer’s calculations are right, this is just what you would expect from naturalism.

 

[bilby]

How many rock pools were there on all of the Earth's coastlines at the beginning of the Eoarchean Era? How many chemical reactions occured per year, per day, or even per hour, in each of these pools?

The odds of a specific person winning the lottery in a given drawing, or even in an entire lifetime (three or four thousand drawings) are close to zero.

The odds of someone, somewhere winning the lottery in a given drawing are very large indeed.

The odds of nobody winning the lottery after dozens of drawings are close to zero.

The creationists are taking the low probability in the first case, and seeking to persuade themselves that it implies a high probability in the last - it's very unlikely that any given person will win in his lifetime; Therefore it's also very unlikely that anybody will ever win.

This logic is, of course, utter bollocks.

The probability of a given unlikely random event (or sequence of events) occuring somewhere at some time in hundreds of millions of years, is close to one. Even before we consider the massive impact of natural selection.

In fact we see evidence of early life very soon after the end of the Hadean, and the start of the existence of liquid water on the Earth's surface, which suggests that the odds are pretty good that life will spontaneously start given appropriate conditions.

 

[pood]

Not only that, but in the linked paper above by the astronomer Totani, he apparently assumes that early chemical processes that led to the first replicator were entirely random, statistical, which accounts for his estimate of very low odds. But. it is just as feasible that some sort of selection process was going on even before the first replicator appeared.

 

[Spacetime Inhabitant]

The laws of physics must be such that there are two possibilities - that life can not exist or that life can exist. If it is the first then we wouldn't exist, so it must be the latter. This means that factors are built into the universe that cause life to emerge, just as other factors cause stars to be formed. Such processes are not one off events, but regular occurrences. As life is the result of chemical processes then it is not purely random but the result of these processes. Chemical reactions do not produce random results, but specific results.