Abiogenesis ... fact or fraud

[Mastriani]

Is the Chemical Origin of Life (Abiogenesis) a Realistic Scenario?

Let us look at the origin of life. There are only two possibilities for the existence of life:

1. Chance assembly of life from chemicals
2. There is a Creator who designed biological systems

If you deny the existence of a Creator, scientific studies demonstrate that you must believe each of the following things about the origin of life:

Scientific Facts

Solution
Homochirality somehow arose in the sugars and amino acids of prebiotic soups, although there is no mechanism by which this can occur (1) and is, in fact, prohibited by the second law of thermodynamics (law of entropy). (2)reject the second law of thermodynamics.

In the absence of enzymes, there is no chemical reaction that produces the sugar ribose (1), the "backbone" of RNA and DNA.
"science of the gaps"

Chemical reactions in prebiotic soups produce other sugars that prevent RNA and DNA replication.
discard chemistry data "science of the gaps"

(1).Pyrimidine nucleosides (cytosine and uracil) do not form under prebiotic conditions and only purine (adenine and guanine) nucleosides are found in carbonaceous meteorites (1) (i.e., pyrimidine nucleosides don't form in outer space either).
discard chemistry data "science of the gaps"

Even if a method for formation of pyrimidine nucleosides could be found, the combination of nucleosides with phosphate under prebiotic conditions produces not only nucleotides, but other products which interfere with RNA polymerization and replication (1).
discard chemistry data "science of the gaps"


Purine and pyrimidine nucleotides (nucleosides combined with phosphate groups) do not form under prebiotic conditions (3).
discard chemistry data "science of the gaps"


Neither RNA nor DNA can be synthesized in the absence of enzymes
"science of the gaps"
Enzymes cannot be synthesized in the absence of RNA and ribosomes.
"science of the gaps"

Nucleosides and amino acids cannot form in the presence of oxygen, which is now known to have been present on the earth for at least four billion years (4), although life arose at least ~3.5 billion years ago.
discard geological data discard chemistry data

(5)Adenine synthesis requires unreasonable HCN concentrations. Adenine deaminates with a half-life of 80 years (at 37°C, pH 7). Therefore, adenine would never accumulate in any kind of "prebiotic soup." The adenine-uracil interaction is weak and nonspecific, and, therefore, would never be expected to function in any specific recognition scheme under the chaotic conditions of a "prebiotic soup." (6) Cytosine has never been found in any meteorites nor is it produced in electric spark discharge experiments using simulated "early earth atmosphere." All possible intermediates suffer severe problems (7). Cytosine deaminates with an estimated half-life of 340 years, so would not be expected to accumulate over time. Ultraviolet light on the early earth would quickly convert cytosine to its photohydrate and cyclobutane photodimers (which rapidly deaminate) (8.). Mixture of amino acids the Murchison meteorite show that there are many classes of prebiotic substances that would disrupt the necessary structural regularity of any RNA-like replicator (9). Metabolic replicators suffer from a lack of an ability to evolve, since they do not mutate (10). The most common abiogenesis theories claim that life arose at hydrothermal vents in the ocean. However, recent studies show that polymerization of the molecules necessary for cell membrane assembly cannot occur in salt water (11). Other studies show that the early oceans were at least twice as salty as they are now (12) Life arose in freshwater ponds (even though the earth had very little land mass), using some unknown mechanism.
discard geological data discard chemistry data

Comparison of the dates of meteor impacts on the moon, Mercury, and Mars indicate that at least 30 catastrophic meteor impacts must have occurred on the earth from 3.8 to 3.5 billion years ago (13). These impacts were of such large size that the energy released would have vaporized the entirety of the earth's oceans (14), destroying all life.
discard geological data discard chemistry data

(Small edit, sorry I know it's long, but necessary) Recent "studies" have evaluated the possibillity of the presence of TNA in prebiotic conditions, which in and of itself is reactionary with enzymes that are destructive to RNA. Thus there is a new theory that a condition existed that would have changed TNA to RNA through some other as yet unnamed enzyme base. Which also implies the idea of the "self actualizing" molecule.

I know that many evolutionary, empiricists are proponents of the above mentioned "theories", my problem is that from a strictly methodological, data driven perspective, they don't work.

I lean adamantly towards fraudulent data corruption based on agenda.

I remember my sophomore year in college chemistry was started by Dr. T. Thurman will the following maxim: "Twist the data hard enough, and it will scream whatever you want. In my lab, screaming equates to failure, and fail you will if you can't unfalsifiably show me your results."

[BGoodForGoodSake]

Since the first experiments regarding abiogenisis up to now, science is no closer to solving this riddle.

However there have been some interesting hypothesys put forth to try to explain the origins of some of the components of life.

[dad]

Since the first experiments regarding abiogenisis up to now, science is no closer to solving this riddle.

However there have been some interesting hypothesys put forth to try to explain the origins of some of the components of life.

I'd like to see them take a spaceship with no life, go to the moon, or someplace, and then try to cook some up. Why try here, where life abounds?

[Mystical]

If one counts the number of trial assemblies of amino acids that are needed to give rise to the enzymes [required for life], the probability of their discovery by random shuffling turns out to be less than 1 in 1 x 10 to the 40,000th power. -Frederick Hoyle (British astronomer)

Any event in which the chances are beyond 10 to the 50th power is impossible.

--One Heartbeat Away (Mark Cahill)

[AttentionKMartShoppers]

Any event in which the chances are beyond 10 to the 50th power is impossible.

Not to the people who require impossibilities due to their worldview. And they'll always return with "any combination is just as improbable as any other on"-completely sidestepping the issue at hand that WORKING combinations are fare outnumbered by non-working combinations.

And while they dogmatically assert that Intelligent Design isn't science, they have no problem with "blind chance" being a mechanism.

[sandy_mcd]

Any event in which the chances are beyond 10 to the 50th power is impossible. --One Heartbeat Away (Mark Cahill)

It's possible, but extremely unlikely. Why this need to misuse words ?

[Mystical]

sandy_mcd:

Um, no, it's not possible.

Why this need to misuse words?

What are you talking about?

[sandy_mcd]

Um, no, it's not possible.

Why this need to misuse words?

What are you talking about?

Mark Cahill and others apparently do not understand the meanings of the words "possible" and "impossible". Communication is difficult enough without misusing words. If some event has a probability of 1 in the whatever, then it is possible it will occur. Impossible events are those which have 0 chance in the whatever. "Impossible" does NOT mean "highly unlikely".
How can something which has some finite chance of occurring, however small that chance is, be redefined as being impossible ? What profit is there from misusing words ?

[Mystical]

sandy_mcd:

Mark Cahill and others do not understand the meanings of the words "possible" and "impossible."

Maybe it's you that doesn't understand?

If some event has a probability of 1 in the whatever, then it is possible it will occur.

Not if it is beyond 10 to the 50th.

Impossible events are those which have 0 chance in the whatever.

Not according to mathematicians.

"Impossible does NOT mean "highly unlikely".

You're right, it means not possible.

How can something which has some finite chance of occurring...

The point is it (development of life randomly) there is no chance.

[BGoodForGoodSake]

sandy_mcd:

Mark Cahill and others do not understand the meanings of the words "possible" and "impossible."

Maybe it's you that doesn't understand?

If some event has a probability of 1 in the whatever, then it is possible it will occur.

Not if it is beyond 10 to the 50th.

Sorry Mystical this is incorrect.

Impossible events are those which have 0 chance in the whatever.

Not according to mathematicians.

Wrong again by definition Sandy is correct.

"Impossible does NOT mean "highly unlikely".

You're right, it means not possible.

So one in 10 ^ 50 is not impossible.

How can something which has some finite chance of occurring...

The point is it (development of life randomly) there is no chance.

That's your position obviously, Sandy's point is that the term impossible is being used incorrectly in this case. And I wholey agree.

[Jbuza]

Then is there nothing that is impossible?

[sandy_mcd]

Then is there nothing that is impossible?

Of course not. I'll let you try to think of some examples. But in the the case which came up there is some slim chance (less than 1 in 10 to the 50th power). But by definition it is still possible; there is always that 1 in 10 to the 50th plus power possibility.
I am really confused by why people have a problem with this. How can you give odds on something and then turn around and say it is impossible ?

Luke 18:27

[Mastriani]

Interesting replies by all.

Of course the bartering for practicality of definitions is rather non-sensical. Probability of statistics is a clearly logically human function of dealing with situations we find in our limited scope of understanding, and being wholly pragmatic, doesn't mean the possibilities actually exist/ever did exist.

The problem with modern science, as has been proven consistently by the natural order, is that sterilized conditions of laboratory experiments may lend to certain desirable outcomes, yet those outcomes/conclusions all too often fail in the reality of a universe that is far from sterilized. Psychology often suffers from these same failures when it is applied to the "reality" of life in this world.

You can create an extensive, exhaustive algorithm to "mathematically" explain or explain away anything, at any time. Science and mathematicians do it often. But, those numbers/conclusions, being pure epistemic functions of flawed human logic and limited perception abilities do not alter reality.

There have been numerous attempts by gifted scientists to create the simplest amino acid that is accepted as the basic building block of life. They can't, because the are unusable and decay, and are not, even in optimal laboratory situations, recombinable to other compounds necessary for the development of an organism.

I will agree to disagree, what you call mathematical plausibility, I call improbability.

[aa118816]

I think Borel's law states that the factor of 10 to the 200th is the crossing line for the statistically impossible. I would say that abiogenesis is metaphysical. Please look at the book Origin of Life by Rana to gain a thorough treatment of the different theories scientists are pursuing.

Dan

[AttentionKMartShoppers]

Then is there nothing that is impossible?

Of course not. I'll let you try to think of some examples. But in the the case which came up there is some slim chance (less than 1 in 10 to the 50th power). But by definition it is still possible; there is always that 1 in 10 to the 50th plus power possibility.
I am really confused by why people have a problem with this. How can you give odds on something and then turn around and say it is impossible ?

Luke 18:27

I don't see how something that demands for the 2ndlaw of thermodynamics to not hold true for several billion years on earth is impossible...not just improbable.