Thinking to Believe

May 6, 2020

35 Responses to “Not a Chance: Why Life Requires a Designer”

1. derekmathias Says:

   
   May 7, 2020 at 12:29 pm

   It’s actually not hard to logically conclude that life evolved from non-life. The idea that non-life cannot create life stems from the fact that we CURRENTLY only see life reproducing from other life. Abiogenesis is the idea that life arose spontaneously from the inorganic chemistry of the prebiotic Earth billions of years ago. As with every hypothesis, one must ask, “If this explanation is true, what evidence should we expect to find?” Four billion years ago, the Earth’s atmospheric and surface conditions were dramatically different from what they are now, so we wouldn’t expect to see abiogenesis occurring today. But what we WOULD expect to see is that prebiotic conditions should be able to create the basic building blocks of life.

   So researchers did exactly that. They used a reducing atmosphere—containing ammonia, methane, carbon dioxide, hydrogen, hydrogen sulfide, water, etc.—and combined it with the expected temperatures, atmospheric electrical activity and ultraviolet light of an early Earth, and let them “cook” for a while. They found that even under a wide variety of different prebiotic conditions, it only takes a few days to spontaneously form dozens of the complex organic molecules essential for life. The repeated heating, cooling and irradiation of these molecules, as would be expected on a prebiotic Earth, can also cause the spontaneous formation of ribonucleotides. And ribonucleotides exposed to certain natural clays can spontaneously assemble into strands of RNA. Not only is RNA capable of self-reproduction, which is a fundamental requirement for life, but it’s very close in structure to DNA, which is the genetic blueprint of almost all life. Furthermore, the most primitive life on Earth is actually based on RNA, so finding a natural pathway to the formation of RNA is a huge step. Not only that, but simple fatty acids that also form naturally in prebiotic conditions AUTOMATICALLY assemble into structures resembling cell membranes. And under the right conditions, DNA inserted into those cell membrane-like structures can successfully replicate.

   Another problem with the claim that it’s impossible to create life from non-life…is that we’ve already done it. Scientists have created a new genome out of off-the-shelf chemicals and inserted it into an empty cell that was stripped of its DNA. The new, synthetic life form then “booted up” and began reproducing, exactly like natural life. Also, using only basic evolutionary techniques, researchers have successfully turned single-celled organisms into multicellular life, something that was previously assumed to be a highly complex process.

   As for the “random chance” argument, that ignores SELECTIVE FORCES found in physics, chemistry and biology, often through the use of catalysts or preadaptation. For instance, what are the odds that hydrogen atoms can combine and form carbon all by themselves? Virtually none. But under the effects of enough gravity to form a star, there is a 100% chance of hydrogen fusing into helium and then into carbon. Fill a container with hydrogen and oxygen gas and there is no chance it will form water. Add enough heat or a spark, and there is a 100% chance you will get water. And so on. We don’t yet know all the selective forces involved in abiogenesis, but considering how easy it is to form so many of the basic building blocks of life through a variety of natural processes, it would be unreasonable to claim that abiogenesis is essentially impossible.

   The fact that so many of the critical initial steps for abiogenesis occur automatically under completely natural conditions is powerful evidence in support of abiogenesis. And keep in mind that nature had a MASSIVE number of these chemical interactions going on all over the planet for hundreds of millions of years before life evolved. All that can turn an extremely unlikely individual event into something almost certain to occur—although the evidence supporting abiogenesis so far shows that the odds are not nearly as long as creationists claim.

   Thus, claiming it’s impossible to create life from non-life is a bet I would never make.

   Abiogenesis:
   https://scitechdaily.com/researchers-solve-puzzle-of-origin-of-life-on-earth/
   https://scitechdaily.com/scientists-reproduce-origins-of-life-on-ocean-floor/
   https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenesis
   https://www.chemistryworld.com/news/why-does-all-life-use-the-same-20-amino-acids/3010824.article
   https://scitechdaily.com/how-did-cells-originally-form-billions-of-years-ago-scientists-identify-molecule-that-may-be-key-to-emergence-of-life-on-earth/
   https://scitechdaily.com/key-found-to-origin-of-life-on-earth-deliquescent-salts-and-hot-humid-summers/
   https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg21528795-500-dna-could-have-existed-long-before-life-itself/
   https://scitechdaily.com/scientists-create-an-essential-component-of-life-find-deep-sea-vents-had-ideal-conditions-for-origin-of-life/
   https://scitechdaily.com/lifelike-chemistry-created-by-pioneering-research-on-origin-of-life/
   https://www.livescience.com/DNA-look-alikes-store-genetic-information.html
   https://scitechdaily.com/new-clues-to-origin-of-life-on-earth-from-meteorite-discovery/
   https://bigthink.com/surprising-science/origins-of-life-hydrothermal-vents
   https://www.sciencenews.org/article/ribose-sugar-needed-life-has-been-detected-meteorites
   https://scitechdaily.com/new-answers-in-the-search-for-the-origin-of-life/
   https://www.livescience.com/oldest-guts-fossilized-primordial-creature.html
   https://scitechdaily.com/interstellar-thread-of-key-piece-in-the-origin-of-life-puzzle-revealed-by-astronomers/
   https://futurism.com/the-byte/scientists-discover-protein-meteorite
   https://scitechdaily.com/rutgers-scientists-have-discovered-the-origins-of-the-building-blocks-of-life/

   RNA evolution:
   https://www.wired.com/2009/05/ribonucleotides/
   https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/02/100222162009.htm
   https://astrobiology.nasa.gov/news/rna-origins-in-sheets-of-clay/
   https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK6360/
   http://www.dnaftb.org/26/ (RNA self-edits)
   https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2016/08/newly-made-rna-strand-bolsters-ideas-about-how-life-earth-began
   https://phys.org/news/2018-05-scientists-primordial-life-earth-replicated.html
   https://scitechdaily.com/how-did-life-begin-new-study-reveals-life-in-the-universe-could-be-common/
   https://www.livescience.com/origin-of-life-rna-universe-model.html

   Creating synthetic life:
   http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/science/7745868/Scientist-Craig-Venter-creates-life-for-first-time-in-laboratory-sparking-debate-about-playing-god.html

   https://www.theguardian.com/science/2019/may/15/cambridge-scientists-create-worlds-first-living-organism-with-fully-redesigned-dna
   https://www.forbes.com/sites/matthewherper/2016/03/24/bio-maverick-craig-venter-hacks-bacteria-to-have-tiniest-possible-genetic-code/#5d5db3043505
   https://www.astrobio.net/news-exclusive/possibility-silicon-based-life-grows/
   https://futurism.com/the-byte/scientists-create-artificial-genome-reproduce

   Turning single-celled organisms into multicellular life:
   https://www.sciencealert.com/scientists-have-witnessed-in-real-time-a-single-celled-algae-evolve-into-a-multicellular-organism
   https://interestingengineering.com/incredible-research-replicates-transition-from-unicellular-to-multicellular-life
   http://www.wired.com/2012/01/evolution-of-multicellularity/
   https://www.livescience.com/transition-simple-complex-cells.html

   LikeLike
2. derekmathias Says:

   
   May 10, 2020 at 6:48 pm

   Hmm. I see you kept my explanation of why there’s good reason to suspect life can evolve from non-life, but you deleted my post on why “intelligent design” failed in the scientific arena and the courts. I even provided links to the trial transcripts so your viewers could see the evidence for themselves. What makes one post acceptable and the other not?

   LikeLike
3. Bob Mason Says:

   
   May 11, 2020 at 5:04 am

   In the past when theists wanted to argue against abiogenesis and evolution, they would use the analogy of a tornado whipping through a junkyard and leaving behind a fully functional 747. Everyone understood the impossible odds of such a random occurrence, which if it were to occur could only have come about by the intervention of a super being. The gazillion monkeys argument, randomly slaving away at a gazillion keyboards to eventually produce a work of Shakespeare, or Moby Dick, has also been used to disparage the random nature of the theory of evolution. However, such analogies are too blunt and quaint for a more scientifically educated audience, so today the pseudo-scientist relies on more subtle, seemingly sophisticated probability calculations to mock the likelihood of spontaneous assembly of protein molecules. It’s a straw man fallacy. The mechanism of evolution is not one of spontaneous assembly of complex molecules but instead is an incremental process of addition and mutation, building over time from the simple to the more complex. There really is no excuse for not understanding this, other than deliberate, willful ignorance. Every decent public library in the country has half a dozen books explaining the incremental nature of evolution. Anyone can check them out and you don’t need a degree in molecular biology to understand the concepts presented.

   As to how the first simple protein molecules formed, abiogenesis is a good working hypothesis, but it lacks an understanding of the environmental conditions needed to initialize it. I suspect we won’t get past that knowledge deficit until we begin exploring the primordial chemistry of planets in other solar systems. It’s unlikely that knowledge void will be filled in my remaining time on this planet. In retrospect, even more devoid of knowledge was the author of Genesis. He was utterly clueless as to the scope of the universe he inhabited, ranging from the microscopic organisms that killed his children to the gravitational effects that produce super clusters of galaxies a billion light years away. I see no reason to abandon 350 years of scientific understanding of nature and fall back on his supernatural explanations to fill in the gaps in my knowledge base just because I can’t yet accurately explain how it all got started.

   LikeLiked by 1 person
4. derekmathias Says:

   
   May 11, 2020 at 12:52 pm

   “As to how the first simple protein molecules formed, abiogenesis is a good working hypothesis, but it lacks an understanding of the environmental conditions needed to initialize it.”

   Well, we can make some good educated guesses about the likely conditions of a prebiotic Earth, including the range of proportions of the elements and molecules (based on analyses of comets, asteroids, etc.). In the 1960s and beyond, researchers duplicated the Miller-Urey experiment using a variety of different plausible atmospheres, all of which produced similar building blocks of life. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miller%E2%80%93Urey_experiment#Other_experiments)

   But I have to agree that resorting to straw man fallacies and arguments from ignorance/incredulity are no basis for understanding how the universe works.

   LikeLike
5. jbsptfn Says:

   
   May 12, 2020 at 1:34 am

   Derek, here is what Science Against Evolution has to say about Miller-Urey (he isn’t a fan):

   https://www.bing.com/search?cp=1252&FORM=FREESS&q=Miller-Urey+experiments&q1=site%3AScienceAgainstEvolution.org

   LikeLike
6. derekmathias Says:

   
   May 12, 2020 at 12:36 pm

   I’m afraid that website is authored by someone without much of an understanding of abiogenesis, evolutionary theory or even the scientific process (my degree is in evolutionary science, so it’s easy for me to spot). I’ll address the main point of the first article to make clear what I mean:

   The Second Law of Thermodynamics applies ONLY to closed systems. The Earth is not a closed system, since it receives abundant energy from the sun, which is used to fuel all life processes. The fact that a single cell can multiply into an adult human being is an example of that. If a single cell had no energy input from an external source, it would simply die. But human beings are open systems and thus the SLOT doesn’t apply. Evolution occurs in the same open system as all life processes, and so would have abiogenesis.

   The author also claims that: “Bailey’s third answer, “no one knows the answer” is not really accurate. The real answer is, “No, it can’t.”” The only correct scientific answer is “no one knows the answer.” We’re still working on the issue, but the fact that we’ve accomplished so much of the abiogenesis equation already is supportive of the hypothesis. Anyone who claims “no, it can’t” is resorting to an argument from ignorance logical fallacy. The answer to “we don’t fully understand this phenomenon yet” is not “then it’s impossible for it to be a natural process and thus must be caused by an intelligent creator.”

   To give you an analogy, hundreds of years ago we had no natural explanation for lightning. Since lightning is incredibly powerful, it can destroy whatever it strikes, humans couldn’t even come close to creating it, and it is even accompanied by a loud, angry rumble, Norsemen at the time concluded it had to have been caused by the gods. What else could lightning and thunder possibly be but Thor expressing his anger and power? What better evidence could there be for the existence of gods?

   We now know such reasoning was faulty and that lightning is actually caused by purely natural phenomena. That’s why just because science doesn’t yet have a clear answer for something doesn’t default as evidence for intelligent design. A lack of an explanation for something is NEVER evidence for another explanation. ALL explanatory claims MUST be supported by evidence. This is why even if we could definitively disprove abiogenesis and evolution, that wouldn’t provide even the slightest bit of evidence in support of intelligent design. ID must be supported by evidence in order to be considered a viable scientific hypothesis, much less a theory.

   LikeLike
7. jbsptfn Says:

   
   May 12, 2020 at 4:24 pm

   Here is one of his articles about the Second Law (in which he says that evolutionists like you make silly arguments about open systems):

   http://www.scienceagainstevolution.org/v7i1f.htm

   Also, you seem to think that science will answer all questions about origin someday. You seem to believe in the Fortress of Facts:

   https://metacrock.blogspot.com/2020/05/debuncking-atheist-fortress-of-facts.html

   If you want to debate the author in the comments section, he will be more than welcoming.

   LikeLike
8. derekmathias Says:

   
   May 12, 2020 at 5:47 pm

   “Here is one of his articles about the Second Law (in which he says that evolutionists like you make silly arguments about open systems):”

   It’s the same site by the guy whose demonstrated he doesn’t understand abiogenesis, evolutionary theory or even the scientific process. He claims to not be making the same mistake as biologists and physicists (you know…the actual experts in evolutionary theory and the laws of thermodynamics who devote their careers to learning and studying the actual evidence), yet he provides no credible arguments to support his claims.

   If you can find a coherent and relevant argument in his articles and present it, that would be great, but he seems to only be fixated on aspects of thermodynamics that aren’t relevant. Entropy is a measure of disorder or randomness of a system. Energy input can decrease that disorder. All life DEPENDS on that fact, and it’s why life can grow from a single cell into a multicellular entity with specialized organs. We take in food and convert it into useful energy to allow us to grow–in effect, becoming more and more ordered. That would be impossible if we ourselves were closed systems. That exact same argument works for both abiogenesis and evolution, since they occur in open systems, using the energy from the sun (mostly), which is converted into biomass (and which itself is consumed). Selective forces work within that dynamic, resulting in chemical, biochemical and species evolution. Thus, his whole argument is invalidated.

   “Also, you seem to think that science will answer all questions about origin someday. You seem to believe in the Fortress of Facts:”

   Not at all. Science is by far our BEST option for understanding the universe, but that doesn’t mean we will discover everything about it. However, considering how much we’ve discovered about abiogenesis so far (evolving RNA naturally is a massive step in the process), I think we have a reasonably good chance of figuring out an entire process within a decade or two.

   But if we don’t, will that be evidence for intelligent design? As I pointed out above, no it wouldn’t, not even slightly…just as the lack of explanation for lightning hundreds of years ago was not any evidence at all for the existence of the Norse gods.

   LikeLike
9. jbsptfn Says:

   
   May 13, 2020 at 10:23 am

   OK, Derek, what do you think of this article?

   http://scienceagainstevolution.info/v24i6f.htm

   LikeLike
10. derekmathias Says:

    
    May 13, 2020 at 12:30 pm

    Again, this is from the SAME website. I would recommend you read what the scientists who actually study the evidence conclude. When well over 99% of relevant scientists (biologists, paleontologists, and scientists from related fields) agree that evolutionary theory is accurate, consider that they may know something that this website author doesn’t.

    Having said that, there are a number of problems with the article, but I’ll point out two simple ones:

    The author claims “Was burying his poop a random behavior that gave him a survival advantage? I can’t imagine what the advantage would be.” This is called an argument from ignorance fallacy. Just because one may not know of a natural answer to something does not mean there isn’t a natural answer. In this case various predators hide their feces to hide their presence from other predators or to avoid challenging more dominant rivals. Dogs, however, don’t actually bury there feces but instead kick grass or dirt to spread pheromones: https://www.petmd.com/dog/behavior/dog-behavior-why-do-dogs-kick-their-feet-after-pooping. It has nothing to do with any intent to bury seeds. Plants take advantage of EXISTING vectors and can become dependent upon them as they evolve (in other words, the original seeds weren’t dependent on animals for seed dispersal originally, but after animals began dispersing seeds after consuming them, natural selection optimized that more efficient method).

    The second problem is his assumption that there was ever a “first” apple tree. That’s not how evolution works. Every species can only ever give birth to its own species, but the accumulation of slight genetic variation over time results in a new species. For a helpful analogy, We know Italian, French, Spanish, etc. evolved from ancient Latin, right? Did a Roman suddenly wake up one day speaking Italian? No, little changes to spelling, grammar and vocabulary were gradually introduced to Latin that eventually led to modern Italian and the other Romance languages. Evolution works similarly. Modern apple trees have been heavily modified by humans using artificial selection, but the ancestral trees had no problems reproducing traditionally.

    LikeLike
11. jbsptfn Says:

    
    May 13, 2020 at 5:43 pm

    I showed Do-While your response, and he just said Thanks. He was just wondering what your response was. If you have a problem with him, you should go to his site, read more of his articles, and e-mail him directly.

    I also wanna share this: Science and religion aren’t in conflict. Science (contrary to your scientism) can’t answer questions about where we ultimately come from. Those Miller-Urey type experiments will fail in that regard.

    LikeLike
12. Theosophical Ruminator Says:

    
    May 13, 2020 at 10:41 pm

    Derekmathias,

    In response to your first comment, you completely miss the point. The question isn’t whether you can get enough biological raw materials. Those materials need to be assembled. That’s what my post is about. While so much more than just proteins are needed for life, I simply focused on this one biological element to show that the probability of even one functional protein forming by chance during the entire 14 billion years that our universe has existed (yet alone the < 1 billion years on the early earth) is so infinitesimally low so as to be virtually impossible. And even if hell froze over and you got one in less than a billion years, you would need ~1500 more to make life, along with a slew of other things. The math doesn’t add up. Chance cannot be your answer. So what do you do? Do you dispute the math? Do you show how it’s possible for a functional protein to form by chance citing statistical probabilities or chemical evidence? No. Instead, you change the subject. You cite the Miller experiment which was useless on so many levels. You cite Venter’s synthetic life, ignoring the fact that intelligence rather the chance accomplished that feat. So much more is wrong with what you’ve written, but I don’t have the time or energy to dispute it all. The point I want readers to see is that rather than showing any error in the math or any real evidence for how even something as basic as a single functional protein can form by chance, you change the subject and talk about hypotheticals and lab results overseen my intelligent agents who are intervening at every step of the way to produce some of the things you note.

    As for your post on intelligent design, I did not delete it. Whenever you include a bunch of URLs in a comment, the comment goes into a pending status for me to approve. And when I read the comment, I decided not to approve it. Why? Because this post is not about the merits of ID in general or court cases. It’s about whether chance can explain the origin of life. Feel free to talk about the origin of life all you want. If you chance topics, however, your comments will be deleted.

    LikeLiked by 1 person
13. Theosophical Ruminator Says:

    
    May 13, 2020 at 10:42 pm

    Bob,

    The probability calculations are based on both probability theory as well as actual lab work. We know that functional proteins are extremely, extremely rare. They are so rare that it is beyond the productive capacity of chance to stumble on even one. Even if every event in the entire universe was working toward building a single protein through the process of trillions upon trillions upon trillions of unique combinations over the last 14 billion years, it would not have tried even a fraction of the possible combinations by this point in time. Chance as an explanation is dead in the water. It’s irrational. What evidence have you presented to show that chance could do this? None. You just assert, contrary to the evidence.

    Appealing to the incremental nature of evolution is a red herring. Of course forming a protein is an incremental process: one amino acid is joined to another, to another, etc. And when that combination of amino acids doesn’t have function, you try again, and again, and again. My post is all about how long it would take to get just one functional protein via this process. Darwin’s mechanism only comes into play once you have life and biological function.

    LikeLiked by 1 person
14. jbsptfn Says:

    
    May 14, 2020 at 6:47 am

    It’s funny how people like Derek always attack ID by default when a topic like this comes up.

    LikeLike
15. Phil Staubs Says:

    
    May 14, 2020 at 10:10 am

    Do you show how it’s possible for a functional protein to form by chance citing statistical probabilities or chemical evidence?
    – It’s amazing that people still use this argument that has been so thoroughly debunked. It completely ignores the process of development for complex proteins, RNA, DNA, etc.. They don’t come from some completely random assemblage of atoms or molecules. They are replicated, and in the replication process, an occasional variation that results in greater success tends to be retained. So if we start with a relatively simple replicator which then accumulates a series of variations, each of which adds a bit to the success of the replicator, we can eventually end up with a far more complex end result. This is a well-known fact in organic chemistry and biology. Why does it continue to be virtually unknown among advocates of ID?

    LikeLike
16. Phil Staubs Says:

    
    May 14, 2020 at 10:34 am

    Darwin’s mechanism only comes into play once you have life and biological function.
    – I’m not sure what you mean by “Darwin’s mechanism”, but evolution requires nothing more than replication and variation. The first replicator can be quite simple.

    LikeLike
17. derekmathias Says:

    
    May 14, 2020 at 12:48 pm

    “If you have a problem with him, you should go to his site, read more of his articles, and e-mail him directly.”

    You were the one who directed me to his website to counter my claims, and I explained the problems with those claims. That’s as far as it needs to go.

    ” also wanna share this: Science and religion aren’t in conflict. Science (contrary to your scientism) can’t answer questions about where we ultimately come from. Those Miller-Urey type experiments will fail in that regard.”

    On the contrary, I reject scientism. What I said was “Science is by far our BEST option for understanding the universe, but that doesn’t mean we will discover everything about it.” I did NOT say science is the ONLY access to truth (which is what scientism is). In fact, when it comes to scientific explanations, one can NEVER claim to know the truth. That is why theories must make testable predictions that could potentially prove the explanation FALSE, not true, because truth is impossible to know for certain and it’s always possible that the next piece of evidence will upend the theory. For instance, Newtons gravitational theory did an excellent job at describing gravity’s effects, but his explanation of gravitational force was wrong. Einstein’s general relativity provided a BETTER explanation for gravity, explaining all what Newton got right while also accounting for where gravitational theory didn’t work. That STILL doesn’t mean general relativity is true. It may be, and the evidence justifies our having high confidence that it makes accurate predictions, but there could be a more accurate explanation which we may or may not eventually discover. All that is all the OPPOSITE of scientism.

    Having said that, science cannot CURRENTLY explain where we all come from, certainly. That’s because science can ONLY work with the evidence we have, and we currently lack sufficient evidence to go beyond hypotheses concerning the source of our universe. We have several compelling hypotheses, though, based on predictions by successful theories in physics, and none of them involve anything supernatural.

    But neither can religion explain where we all come from. It CLAIMS to, of course, but claims that cannot be tested and demonstrated don’t justify belief. We know this is the case because there are literally THOUSANDS of different religions in the world, all of which claim to know the “truth.” Since nearly all of them are mutually contradictory, nearly all or all of them must be false. So it’s clear that religions are not a reliable path to knowledge about where we came from.

    Having seen what we have accomplished so far with abiogenesis, I would be surprised if we don’t end up creating life from non-life through natural means within the next few decades. After all, if abiogenesis were impossible, we would not expect complex organic chemistry and many of the basic life structures to be so easy to create through natural means–including RNA (the basic architecture of the most primitive life, structurally very similar to DNA) and lipid cell membranes.

    LikeLike
18. derekmathias Says:

    
    May 14, 2020 at 1:34 pm

    “While so much more than just proteins are needed for life, I simply focused on this one biological element to show that the probability of even one functional protein forming by chance during the entire 14 billion years that our universe has existed (yet alone the < 1 billion years on the early earth) is so infinitesimally low so as to be virtually impossible."

    Here's my problem with that: those statistical arguments ALWAYS ignore selective forces, which completely change the probabilities and make it impossible to make any such statistical analysis. Simply put, we don’t know all the factors involved in abiogenesis yet, making any such statistical analysis meaningless. To give you a good analogy of what I mean, shuffling a deck of cards and getting a specific order is statistically almost impossible (1 in 10 to the power 68, or 1 followed by 68 zeros, which is roughly equal to the number of atoms in our galaxy). But keep all the cards that are in the right place, shuffle the remainder and again keep those cards that are in the right place, and repeat the process multiple times, eventually you are GUARANTEED to get the desired order…thus changing a tiny fraction of 1% success rate to a 100% chance of success.

    The probability you cite assumes a random jostling of the amino acids needed to form a protein. But that's not a realistic scenario. RNA, for example, forms naturally out of ribonucleotides, but if you just mix together a bunch of ribonucleotides, the odds of getting RNA are virtually nil. However, drip those ribonucleotides on certain clays and they will form RNA AUTOMATICALLY. Evidently the process requires the clay as a catalyst, changing the odds from near zero to 100%. It's almost certain that proteins ALSO require a catalyst. We don't know what that might be, but we have discovered that RNA can fold like proteins, and may have served the same basic function as proteins until the catalyst for the more flexible and variable proteins evolved: https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg21128251-300-first-life-the-search-for-the-first-replicator/

    "You cite the Miller experiment which was useless on so many levels."

    The Urey-Miller experiments have been replicated using a variety of different prebiotic environments, all successfully producing amino acids–the basic building blocks of life. It's the predicted first step for how abiogenesis would start, which is exactly what we would expect to find if abiogenesis is true, so I don't know how it can be called "useless."

    "You cite Venter’s synthetic life, ignoring the fact that intelligence rather the chance accomplished that feat."

    That wasn't my point. The point of that example was to show that life CAN be created from non-life. Abiogenesis is the NATURAL formation of the first life, which is a different argument from whether or not life can be created from non-life. The experiment shows that our genomes–what makes us us–can be constructed out of off-the-shelf chemicals, and can be used to turn a dead cell with no genome into a living, metabolizing organism.

    "The point I want readers to see is that rather than showing any error in the math or any real evidence for how even something as basic as a single functional protein can form by chance, you change the subject and talk about hypotheticals and lab results overseen my intelligent agents who are intervening at every step of the way to produce some of the things you note."

    I'm unaware that I changed the subject. You stated in your first sentence that "We detect design in a number of ways: the purposeful arrangement of parts, specified complexity, and irreducible complexity. All of these features are present in the biological world, and thus it is reasonable to conclude that life was designed by some intelligence." So I provided you with the evidence we have so far that life did indeed form on its own. I didn't address the statistical claims because I didn't think it necessary (since successful results always trump claims of impossibility), but since you deem it important I addressed it above in this comment.

    "As for your post on intelligent design, I did not delete it. Whenever you include a bunch of URLs in a comment, the comment goes into a pending status for me to approve. And when I read the comment, I decided not to approve it. Why? Because this post is not about the merits of ID in general or court cases. It’s about whether chance can explain the origin of life. Feel free to talk about the origin of life all you want. If you chance topics, however, your comments will be deleted."

    Well, since you claimed that "We detect design in a number of ways: the purposeful arrangement of parts, specified complexity, and irreducible complexity," is it not reasonable for me to address why scientists do not consider "specified complexity" and "irreducible complexity" valid arguments?

    LikeLike
19. derekmathias Says:

    
    May 14, 2020 at 1:38 pm

    “It’s funny how people like Derek always attack ID by default when a topic like this comes up.”

    Um…the very first sentence of this article states, “We detect design in a number of ways: the purposeful arrangement of parts, specified complexity, and irreducible complexity. All of these features are present in the biological world, and thus it is reasonable to conclude that life was designed by some intelligence.” The author is literally talking about ID, so if I disagree with that premise…how is it not reasonable to bring up ID?

    LikeLike
20. Bob Mason Says:

    
    May 16, 2020 at 4:08 am

    The probability calculations are based on both probability theory as well as actual lab work? What lab work, published in what nationally or internationally recognized peer reviewed technical journal? And probability theory? I think not:

    http://www.talkreason.org/articles/stephen-meyers.cfm

    LikeLiked by 1 person
21. ablyreasoned Says:

    
    May 17, 2020 at 12:43 pm

    Of course there’s a Designer

    There is no problem accepting a Designer. But you are not arguing for a Designer; you are arguing for your Designer and that Designer does not exist because that Designer is the God Theism Designer.

    Because you see, Man took the real one and only Designer God, and twisted and spun it like only a politician can; aka, Religious Zealot, and turned God into what the Zealot wanted God to be so then, the Zealot could take control, as the Zealot Messenger of the Designer God, by fear where there was no fear, by guilt where there was no guilt, and by shame where there was no shame and lo and behold the self appointed Zealot had a God Theism Designer on his hands with the Zealot Messenger sitting on the God Theism Throne to do God’s bidding on earth, and Heaven and Earth having been trembling ever since.

    The Cosmos and all its attendant planets, galaxies, bodies, elements chemical, electrical, magnetism, gravity, light and mass, energy and life forces, matter, dark matter, small matter, big matter, and no matter what; it is intelligent and operates intelligently; we and everything we know and don’t know are the inevitable parts of that Source, for a good old round word “Cosmos”. I hesitate to use that other good old round word God but to me they are one and the same.

    The difference is this. There was only one God in the beginning but now there are two Gods. The one God, I still accept is God Deism, the God others accept is God Theism. Here’s the difference between the two Designer Gods:

    Jesus, perfectly interpreted the Source and where the kingdom of the source is relative to Man. If you do not begin here, you will not begin.

    20 “The kingdom of God comes not with observation: 21 Neither shall they say, Lo here! or, lo there! for, behold, the kingdom of God is within you.”

    The term “Deism” is chiefly of an intellectual movement of the 17th and 18th centuries that accepted the existence of a creator on the basis of reason but rejected belief in a supernatural deity that interacts with humankind.

    Meaning:

    “Man is a microcosm, or a little world, because he is an extract from all the stars and planets of the whole firmament” (all cosmic forces, including but not limited to, gravity, electricity and magnetism) “from the earth and the elements; and so he is their quintessence”. ( Literally the ‘fifth essence’, the most essential feature, purest form, or most typical example of something; in this case, Mankind, the quintessence of Cosmic Essence; aka, Deism, colloquially (God), THE HIGHER POWERS OF WHICH EVERYTHING IS MADE AND FROM WHICH EVERYTHING COMES.

    The believers of the other Designer God of Intelligent Design, God Theism is a God that intervenes in humankind activities and believes in supernatural intervention of God in the world. Thus Theism has led inevitably to self appointed Oracles and Prophets; aka, divine Messengers who speak on behalf of the God that made Man and of course made the Messenger as well, but to become the spokesperson and communicated his divine will by supernatural means to that Messenger so that Messenger could develop all the rules and laws and etiquette of religious symbols and rituals and sacrifices to show you how to live and behave.

    There is no question that the Cosmos functions as an intelligent entity, that’s why we’re intelligent and the lesser life forms are intelligent too but we don’t call insects, fish, and animals intelligent, we say they have instinct ; aka, Instinct Design, ID.

    It’s just a matter of what Designer God you believe in or accept: give money to, preach about, proselytize for, ritualize about, pray to, go to the Temple for, get married by and determine the laws for.

    My God Deism is for none of that; as Jesu said, “Sacrifices and Offerings you have not desired Father but here you have given me a body so tha I can be all that you want me to be.” The mission of Mankind as a whole, and every boy and girl, man and woman, individually. And if you want a definition of being full of the Holy Spirit that is it!

    It doesn’t matter how many zeros you put after a number, one or none, a hundred or more 000,000,000,000, to make an argument,

    If reason is weak and belief is strong
    Everybody else will always be wrong.

    Religion divided Humans before Genesis devised Religion.
    Humanity Unites Humans, HUH;

    LikeLike
22. blueskinkblog Says:

    
    May 17, 2020 at 2:51 pm

    “This is a tall order. To see why, just consider what it would take to form just a single, small protein consisting of 150 amino acids by chance alone. The odds of such a protein forming by chance alone is 1 in 10^164.”

    You are right – the chances of that are absurdly remote. But there is a third alternative. That protein could have arisen by a process of variation, selection and inheritance – i.e., evolution.

    LikeLiked by 1 person
23. jbsptfn Says:

    
    May 17, 2020 at 7:18 pm

    You and Derek should check out this site: https://evoillusion.org/

    LikeLike
24. derekmathias Says:

    
    May 18, 2020 at 4:57 pm

    “You and Derek should check out this site: https://evoillusion.org/”

    In the author’s “My Statement” section, he makes a classic argument from incredulity argument, which is a logical fallacy, by making observations like “Can you imagine assembling 500 amino acid molecules in strands, and making 2,000 strands per second?” he is appealing to incredulity rather than to the evidence.

    Furthermore, he claims that his site is “an objective discussion about the scientific validity of evolution.” Well, as someone with a degree in evolutionary science, that’s essentially like someone claiming a site is “an objective discussion about the scientific validity of gravity.” No one who understands general relativity would say gravity isn’t scientific. Evolution is an observed fact in the fossil record, genetics and comparative anatomy. Evolutionary theory is the explanation for how evolution works.

    The way you evaluate whether a scientific theory valid is through its testable predictions. And what DOES evolutionary theory predict? Here are the major points:

    1. If all species evolved from a common ancestor over time, transitional species MUST exist in the fossil record (even though none had been discovered before they were predicted).
    2. If all species descend from an ancestral species, NO species can appear earlier in the fossil record than a species from which it descended (no vertebrates in the Cambrian, for example).
    3. If all species evolved from a common ancestor, ALL species MUST be constructed using the same basic pattern that can be modified in some way.
    4. If all species descended from an earlier ancestor, there MUST be some mechanism that introduces change to that basic pattern, upon which natural selection can act.
    5. The process of evolution is extremely slow, so the Earth MUST be billions of years old (even though scientists at the time thought the Earth was only 20 million to 400 million years old).

    So what does the evidence show?

    1. The first transitional fossil was found two years after Darwin’s prediction that they had to exist. Since then we have discovered HUNDREDS or more transitional species in the fossil record. We’ve even managed to predict the physical characteristics a specific transitional species would have and where it would be found in the fossil record…and then gone out and FOUND it.
    2. In undisturbed geological strata, we have NEVER even once found a descendant species appear in the fossil record BEFORE its ancestral species appeared (no human fossils have EVER been found in the Jurassic, for example).
    3. A century after Darwin’s time we discovered that ALL species use the exact same architecture for inheritance: DNA (or the simpler RNA for the simplest life forms).
    4. DNA is constantly modified by mutations. And transposons and polyploidy are two examples of how new information can be added to a genome.
    5. Numerous dating techniques discovered over the past century have revealed the Earth to be 4.543 billion years old with 99% accuracy.

    This is why virtually the entire scientific community of biologists, paleontologists, zoologists, biochemists, etc. accept the validity of evolutionary theory. Does evolutionary theory predict that we will find what that first life was? No, it doesn’t, simply because that early life is extremely unlikely to have left any fossil evidence. Does evolutionary theory predict that we will see the genetic changes that caused the development of new organs or limbs? No, because DNA has a half-life of only a few hundred years and completely degrades within a few million years–long AFTER preservable organs and limbs evolved. To test ANY scientific theory, one must address only the testable predictions–not the untestable predictions, not the straw man arguments, and not current gaps in the evidence.

    LikeLike
25. Bob Mason Says:

    
    May 18, 2020 at 5:53 pm

    It’s a question of credibility of who to believe (or for the cynic, an argument from authority). Do you trust the writings of a retired dentist, Stephen Blume, who read some books on evolution and took a few college classes in biology? Or do you go with the writings of the current president of the National Center of Science and the Environment and Brown University professor of molecular biology, Kenneth Miller, who authors books on biology and evolution? A science based understanding of evolution is at the core of every biology program of virtually every college and university in North and South America and Europe. If you want to understand the fundamentals of evolution, I would go with Miller, not Meyer or Blume.

    LikeLike
26. jbsptfn Says:

    
    May 18, 2020 at 6:52 pm

    Kenneth Miller? President of the National Center of Science? I wouldn’t trust anyone that is supposed to be head of any national agency. They are put there because they keep up the establishment propaganda.

    And, there is this: http://www.scienceagainstevolution.org/v9i11n.htm

    In it, he criticizes Kenneth Miller for saying that Evolution is durable. The theory has only been around since 1859. Not that durable, and durability isn’t an indicator of truth.

    LikeLike
27. jbsptfn Says:

    
    June 19, 2020 at 1:32 pm

    His latest response to you: http://scienceagainstevolution.info/v24i9e.htm

    LikeLike
28. derekmathias Says:

    
    June 19, 2020 at 2:34 pm

    Apparently this post never went through because I included too many supporting links, so here it is without them:

    “Kenneth Miller? President of the National Center of Science? I wouldn’t trust anyone that is supposed to be head of any national agency. They are put there because they keep up the establishment propaganda.”

    Discounting the professional assessments by the head of the National Center of Science shows a lack of understanding of how the scientific community works. Scientists don’t gain fame, prestige, employment, respect, fortune, etc. by simply toeing the line. It’s by OVERTURNING established paradigms that scientists win Nobel Prizes and become valued researchers. Working specifically to support the status quo is virtually guaranteed to reduce a scientist to obscurity.

    Science is BASED on empirical evidence, and scientists who ignore evidence that may contradict their position are essentially sabotaging their careers. This is precisely why creationist scientists aren’t taken seriously by the scientific community. After all, the organizations they work for REQUIRE them to ignore or “creatively interpret” evidence that contradicts their beliefs. This isn’t hyperbole on my part, but something clearly admitted to on their own websites:

    • From the Answers in Genesis Statement of Faith: “By definition, no apparent, perceived or claimed evidence in any field, including history and chronology, can be valid if it contradicts the scriptural record.”
    • From the Creation Ministries International Doctrines and Beliefs: “No interpretation of facts in any field, including history and chronology, can be valid if it contradicts the scriptural record.”
    • From the Creation Research Society Statement of Belief: “The Bible is the written Word of God, and because it is inspired throughout, all its assertions are historically and scientifically true in the original autographs.”
    • From the Institute for Creation Research tenets: “The Bible … is the divinely-inspired revelation of the Creator to man. Its unique, plenary, verbal inspiration guarantees that these writings, as originally and miraculously given, are infallible and completely authoritative on all matters with which they deal, free from error of any sort, scientific and historical as well as moral and theological.”

    You simply cannot sign on to such statements of faith and be a credible scientist.

    “And, there is this: ht tp://www.scienceagainstevolution.o rg/v9i11n.htm”

    Again, that “science against evolution” website is amateur and rife with errors that are easy to spot. If you have a problem with the science, go to either actual science publications or at least science reports based on those science publications.

    “In it, he criticizes Kenneth Miller for saying that Evolution is durable. The theory has only been around since 1859. Not that durable, and durability isn’t an indicator of truth.”

    Durability has NOTHING to do with how long a theory has been around (although over 150 years is a HUGE amount of time for any theory). What’s meant by “durability” is that it has a long record of withstanding tests of its testable predictions. As I noted in my previous post, there are at least five major predictions made by evolutionary theory that could have proven the claim false. And as I showed, the evidence turned out to instead support every one of those major claims. THAT is what is meant by “durability.”

    Now try to apply that same standard to young earth creationism. Can you think of even ONE testable prediction that could potentially prove YEC false? At best I’ve only ever encountered testable predictions that are COMPATIBLE with YEC, but that isn’t sufficient even for a hypothesis, much less a theory, because it’s easy to come up with all sorts of mutually contradictory claims that can be made compatible with reality. What’s needed to scientifically validate a claim is that it must make testable predictions that could potentially prove the claim FALSE (a.k.a, falsifiability).

    LikeLike
29. derekmathias Says:

    
    June 19, 2020 at 2:52 pm

    “His latest response to you: ht tp:// scienceagainstevolution.info/v24i9e.ht m”

    Resorting to red herring and straw man arguments does not help his case. The processes that allow a single cell to grow into a multicellular adult being are the SAME processes that allow evolution to occur: energy comes into a system from an external source, changing the closed system to an open system.

    But the whole argument is pointless because we can OBSERVE evolution occurring in numerous ways, so we KNOW it happens. The question is HOW the process works, and we know from experimentation that it occurs through natural selection. Not only do we see the evolution of species in the genetic and fossil records, but we can see it in real time with short lifespan species, such as bacteria. Here’s one such experiment:

    And yes, I know the instinctive creationist response is to say “but that’s bacteria just evolving into bacteria!” But bacteria is a DOMAIN taxonomic level, not species level. If I showed you every step of the process of a live example of a theropod dinosaur evolving into a sparrow, that would be an example of an animal evolving into another animal, which would be exactly what you’re looking for. Unfortunately, that would take hundreds of millions of years. However, a bacterium evolving into a completely different bacterium can be just as powerful an example of evolution by natural selection as a theropod evolving into a sparrow.

    LikeLike
30. jbsptfn Says:

    
    June 21, 2020 at 11:30 pm

    Do-While has dealt with Antibiotic Resistance before:

    http://www.scienceagainstevolution.org/v8i5f.htm

    http://www.scienceagainstevolution.org/v8i7e.htm

    LikeLike
31. derekmathias Says:

    
    June 22, 2020 at 4:03 pm

    I’m sorry, but everything I’ve seen from him so far has shown he doesn’t understand even the basics of evolutionary theory, nor physics. So there’s little point in my continuing to read his material. Besides, one should always present arguments oneself if possible, rather than pass that responsibility to someone else.

    LikeLike
32. jbsptfn Says:

    
    June 22, 2020 at 9:41 pm

    I would, but I’m not an expert in evolution.

    LikeLike
33. John Says:

    
    July 18, 2020 at 11:04 am

    And … the inorganic prebiotic chemistry on earth came from? You just don’t get it. All that and we’re back to origins and the inescapable necessary intelligence .

    LikeLike
34. derekmathias Says:

    
    July 18, 2020 at 3:51 pm

    Well, this article is about the origin of life, not all matter. However, I did mention above that there are several hypotheses based on successful theories in physics (including quantum mechanics, string theory, oscillation, black holes, etc.) that would account for a naturalistic explanation for the universe. IMO the most elegant explanation is the “universe from nothing” explanation from quantum mechanics, as presented here by Lawrence Krauss:

    No intelligent creator required, just quantum mechanics (and before you ask where did the quantum realm come from, the answer is exactly the same as the theist would answer for the question where did God come from).

    LikeLike
35. ablyreasoned Says:

    
    July 19, 2020 at 1:12 pm

    John:

    The problem with your question is childlike why? why? Where?where? When? When? How? How. When you research for a start, a beginning you are revolving, not evolving. Only the flowers in the garden have apparent beginnings and apparent ends but the Cosmos..it’s like the Theist God herself, no end no beginning.

    Hey this is on the level…spell level backwards…just “get it” and stop debating about why it took man so long to invent some so practical as the wheel, Get over it and enjoy the cycle.

    Nor is there a Big Bang. Both believer and scientist are part of the circle cycle for which the answer exists in simple fact that “forever” and “fornever” are distinctions without a difference except in religion that needs to centralize everything into Oneness and Academia that wants to cut everything up in order to mouse-hole everything

    LikeLike

Leave a Reply

Enter your comment here...

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

Email (required) (Address never made public)

Name (required)

Website

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. ( Log Out /  Change )

You are commenting using your Twitter account. ( Log Out /  Change )

You are commenting using your Facebook account. ( Log Out /  Change )

Cancel

Connecting to %s

Notify me of new comments via email.

Notify me of new posts via email.

Δ