Abiogenesis: Is the RNA hypothesis dead?

[Nineveh]

abiogenisis will never pass away. At least until SETI gets some feedback

 

[bob b]

Indeed that's why Atheist never say God is impossible, just improbable.

Some things or either one way or another.

The idea of an intermediate probability in such cases is a fiction: it is either impossible or certain (zero or one).

 

[bling]

13.7 billion years ago there was no life in the universe.
4.6 billion years ago there was no life on earth.
3.5 billion years ago there was life on earth.

Somewhere in that first 10 billion years of the universe, or first billion years of the earth something happened that meant life emerged. We don't know how, but we know it did. This is why I find Creationists harping on about abiogenesis so uninteresting; we know it happened, just not how.

It sounds like a huge amount of time for a lot of things to happen, but if you go with your numbers and life started 3.5 billion years ago, we also find that the earliest organic life could exist was maybe 3.6 billion years ago and even then it was extremely hostile. We are talking about going from simple chemical compounds to extremely complex long molecules in a relative short amount of time. Life seems to appear on the seen as soon as it is possible to have life if geological and fossil evidence is correct. There are just no theories (and really no hypothesis) are this time being presented for pear review on how that could happen. It just takes a lot less faith to believe in a creator’s involvement then chance being the source. RNA, DNA, and proteins happening by chance are just unbelievable unlikely, so the latest has been something happens in other places in the universe and some kind of organic energy cycle without RNA, DNA or protein, but that just generates more questions then answers.

 

[Mr Jack]

It just takes a lot less faith to believe in a creator’s involvement then chance being the source.

The creator you posit would by it's very nature have to be vastly more complex than any early life. I don't see any reason to consider that more likely.

Life, remember, doesn't have to be likely. It could be extremely unlikely. The universe is a very, very big place and it's had a very, very long time. The simple fact is that any discussion of the likelihood of life is based on complete ignorance; we don't know how common life is in the universe; we don't know how likely life is to evolve on to intelligence from the simplest replicator; we don't know anything at all about that first replicator so we can't even begin to assign meaningful probabilities to it.

We do, however, know that at some point the universe went from having no life in it to having life in it. Everything else in the universe that has come to be explained has turned out to have a natural explanation; I see no reason to believe that trend won't continue.

 

[bob b]

The creator you posit would by it's very nature have to be vastly more complex than any early life. I don't see any reason to consider that more likely.

Life, remember, doesn't have to be likely. It could be extremely unlikely. The universe is a very, very big place and it's had a very, very long time. The simple fact is that any discussion of the likelihood of life is based on complete ignorance; we don't know how common life is in the universe; we don't know how likely life is to evolve on to intelligence from the simplest replicator; we don't know anything at all about that first replicator so we can't even begin to assign meaningful probabilities to it.

We do, however, know that at some point the universe went from having no life in it to having life in it. Everything else in the universe that has come to be explained has turned out to have a natural explanation; I see no reason to believe that trend won't continue.

I think you may have just answered your own question.

Isn't there a vast difference between a universe coming into existence, complete with physical laws etc, and its operation according to physical laws from that point onward?

In the same way isn't there a vast difference between life coming into existence from lifeless chemicals, and life proceeding to diversify and change once that first cell began to reproduce?

 

[bling]

The creator you posit would by it's very nature have to be vastly more complex than any early life. I don't see any reason to consider that more likely.

Life, remember, doesn't have to be likely. It could be extremely unlikely. The universe is a very, very big place and it's had a very, very long time. The simple fact is that any discussion of the likelihood of life is based on complete ignorance; we don't know how common life is in the universe; we don't know how likely life is to evolve on to intelligence from the simplest replicator; we don't know anything at all about that first replicator so we can't even begin to assign meaningful probabilities to it.

We do, however, know that at some point the universe went from having no life in it to having life in it. Everything else in the universe that has come to be explained has turned out to have a natural explanation; I see no reason to believe that trend won't continue.

When it comes to God; we are not dealing with a created being, He always was. Life on the other hand was created, so either there was a creator of life or random chance created life. We can look at the mathematical odds for the complex molecules of life coming together randomly under even ideal situations and wind up with statistical impossibilities. Now as far as life being in other places in the universe, we do have a good understanding of the size, age and probability of organic life staining planets. The latest books out on the subject support the idea that earth is extremely unique and could easily be the only planet capable of staining organic life in the universe. Some exotic form of life, like plasma life form, is great for science fiction writers, but way beyond reality. We don’t know how to make organic life so even thinking about inorganic life is a huge waste of time.

We can not conceive of an eternal being, but to explain life or this random creation of a universe that could result in one planet with life requires virtually an infinite number of universes. If that is the case how lucky can you be to have been created in the first place?

 

[writer]

20, 18

20, 18

13.7 billion years ago there was no life in the universe.

13.7 billion years ago, you weren't here.
God however's without beginning

4.6 billion years ago there was no life on earth.

Neither you, nor any other human living, except the GodMan,
were around 4.6 billion years ago.
I, however, don't dispute that there probably wasn't any life on earth then

3.5 billion years ago there was life on earth.

Whether there was or wasn't: fer sure u weren't

Somewhere in that first 10 billion years of the universe, or first billion years of the earth something happened that meant life emerged.

Life (God) created it

We don't know how,

I know the Creator created life.
Since i know the Creator

This is why I find Creationists harping on about abiogenesis so uninteresting; we know it happened, just not how.

This's why i find atheists' harping on about abiogenesis so boring. They claim to know something happened while at the same time not being even close to any mechanisms

18 And your empirical evidence for this is .... ?

All around me.
Have you been to a zoo?
Or outside?
Life begets life.
It can be observable to even u

 

[Skeptic]

The idea of an intermediate probability in such cases is a fiction: it is either impossible or certain (zero or one).

That's just plain nuts! ... When it comes to empirical questions, humans can only know probabilities! We cannot know with certainty that the laws of nature are not going to change tomorrow. We can only make an educated guess based on past experience. When key evidence is missing from historical records, we can only make educated guesses as to what transpired, based on the evidence that is available.

With regard to the origin of life, we have bits and pieces of empirical evidence, all of which suggest a natural origin. We have ZERO evidence suggesting any kind of supernatural origin of life!

Even when it comes to the existence of God, I cannot know with certainty that God does not exist. Likewise, you cannot know with certainty that God does exist. The God hypothesis answers nothing and has no supporting evidence. Therefore, it is unreasonable to suspect that God exits, even though God might exist. It is reasonable to suspect that the existence of God is unlikely.

 

[Skeptic]

13.7 billion years ago, you weren't here.
God however's without beginning

And your empirical evidence for this is .... ?

Neither you, nor any other human living, except the GodMan,
were around 4.6 billion years ago.

And your empirical evidence for this is .... ?

Life (God) created it

And your empirical evidence for this is .... ?

I know the Creator created life.

And your empirical evidence for this is .... ?

Since i know the Creator

And your empirical evidence for this is .... ?

This's why i find atheists' harping on about abiogenesis so boring. They claim to know something happened while at the same time not being even close to any mechanisms

I find creationist's harping on about Biblical creation very boring. They claim to know that it happened, while at the same time have no evidence whatsoever to back up their claims. ... Remember, alleged evidence AGAINST evolution is not evidence FOR creationism!

All around me.
Have you been to a zoo?
Or outside?

The empirical evidence all around me, at the zoo and outside, strongly suggests natural origins.

Life begets life.

Do you have any evidence that life could never come from non-life via complex natural processes?

Do you have any empirical evidence that anything could ever come about via supernatural processes?

 

[bob b]

That's just plain nuts! ... When it comes to empirical questions, humans can only know probabilities! We cannot know with certainty that the laws of nature are not going to change tomorrow. We can only make an educated guess based on past experience. When key evidence is missing from historical records, we can only make educated guesses as to what transpired, based on the evidence that is available.

With regard to the origin of life, we have bits and pieces of empirical evidence, all of which suggest a natural origin. We have ZERO evidence suggesting any kind of supernatural origin of life!

Even when it comes to the existence of God, I cannot know with certainty that God does not exist. Likewise, you cannot know with certainty that God does exist. The God hypothesis answers nothing and has no supporting evidence. Therefore, it is unreasonable to suspect that God exits, even though God might exist. It is reasonable to suspect that the existence of God is unlikely.

You do not understand what I was saying.

In the case of throwing dice, multiple outcomes are possible, and if one continues to throw, then eventually all of the outcomes will occur. Thus one can talk of the probability of something occurring.

In some cases, however, such as the origin of the universe, there are only two outcomes under consideration, natural or supernatural. Only one actually occurred. So the probability is either zero or one, depending on which actually occurred, and which didn't.

People speak loosely of probabilities, but I was talking about probability theory, which doesn't speak loosely.

 

[Mr Jack]

When it comes to God; we are not dealing with a created being, He always was.

I find such statements utterly uncompelling.

We can not conceive of an eternal being, but to explain life or this random creation of a universe that could result in one planet with life requires virtually an infinite number of universes.

There's no reason to believe the probability is that low.

If that is the case how lucky can you be to have been created in the first place?

Of course I was that lucky; we wouldn't be having this conversation if I wasn't. It's classic selection bias.

 

[writer]

And your empirical evidence for this is .... ?

And your empirical evidence for this is .... ?

29 And your empirical evidence for [Mr Jack wasn't here 13.7 billion years ago] is .... ?

Mr Jack.
Ask Mr Jack if he was here 13.7 billion years ago

And your empirical evidence for [Mr Jack wasn't here around 4.6 billion years ago] is .... ?

Mr Jack, firstly.
Ask Mr Jack if he was here around 4.6 billion years ago

And your empirical evidence for [Life created life] is .... ?

Az i told u in posts 27, 17, and 15:
reproduction.
Unless u don't find reproduction empirical.
Which i'm not surprised if u don't.
Since things such as life, or the obvious, seem to escape your detection.
Also life's organization and complexity

And your empirical evidence for [writer knows his Creator created life] is .... ?

Az i tole u in post 27:
i've met Him

And your empirical evidence for [writer knows his Creator] is .... ?

i met Him, and talk to Him, and He talks to me

They claim to know that it happened, while at the same time have no evidence whatsoever to back up their claims.

Thas untru

evidence AGAINST evolution is not evidence FOR creationism!

Thanks. However twisting the argument is not worthy of someone claiming to value evidence or truth.
My comment against abiogenesis was against abiogenesis

The empirical evidence all around me, at the zoo and outside, strongly suggests natural origins.

R u saying that life producing life's unnatural?

Do you have any evidence that life could never come from non-life via complex natural processes?

Yes. No one in all of history's ever seen it do so.
What everyone, except mebbe u, has seen and can see is that
life comes from life. Both plants and animals.
That's the precedent. That's the fact.
That's the truth. That's empirical.
That's verifiable. That's visible.
That's our experience. That's not too hard to c.
If u wanna phrase it another way: which is more prevalent?
Obviously the only one we know. Which is more likely?
Life comes from nonlife, or life comes from life, or life comes from both?

Do you have any empirical evidence that anything could ever come about via supernatural processes?

Yes. Us.
Organization of nonlife also comes from life. Such as towns and buildings.
Whenever people happen across organization, that's deserted, they know some folks made it one time. Like the pyramids. They neither made themselves
nor were made by accident or chance

18 He who claims that something is physically impossible should provide some empirical evidence that this is the case. ... Don't you think?

i have

Did [Pasteur] prove that the first living entities could not have arisen through natural processes?

What first living entities?
What makes them different from Pateur's living entities?

 

[Skeptic]

You do not understand what I was saying.

In the case of throwing dice, multiple outcomes are possible, and if one continues to throw, then eventually all of the outcomes will occur. Thus one can talk of the probability of something occurring.

In some cases, however, such as the origin of the universe, there are only two outcomes under consideration, natural or supernatural. Only one actually occurred. So the probability is either zero or one, depending on which actually occurred, and which didn't.

People speak loosely of probabilities, but I was talking about probability theory, which doesn't speak loosely.

DoogieTalons said:

"Indeed that's why Atheist never say God is impossible, just improbable."


He was talking about what we can and cannot know.


You replied:

"Some things (are) either one way or another.

The idea of an intermediate probability in such cases is a fiction: it is either impossible or certain (zero or one)."


While it is trivially true that God either exists or He doesn't, humans can never really know one way or another. But, after weighing various sources of empirical evidence, we can rationally come up with a general and tentative assessment of probability.

Getting back to abiogenesis, since human observation has so far shown us that:

• there is no evidence for supernatural processes,
• the only evidence we have for anything consists of natural processes,
• life is composed of only natural elements, like organic molecules,
• there is plenty of evidence for the natural origin of organic molecules,
• there is plenty of evidence for the natural origin of macromolecules,
• there is plenty of evidence that pre-life Earth conditions allowed for chemical processes analogous to those found in life.

it is rational to tentatively conclude that life probably arose via natural processes.


With regard to the existence of God, since human observation has so far shown us that:

• there is no evidence for supernatural entities or processes,
• there is no evidence that the universe or life arose supernaturally,
• the only evidence we have is for natural entities and processes,
• there is plenty of evidence that matter/energy/whatever exists,
• there is no evidence of a time when matter/energy/whatever did not exist,
• there is no evidence that the Big Bang was the beginning of matter/energy/whatever,
• there is no evidence that the universe was ever created out of nothing,
• there is no evidence that the universe ever created at all,

it is rational to tentatively conclude that God, the alleged Creator, probably does not exist.

 

[Skeptic]

Mr Jack.
Ask Mr Jack if he was here 13.7 billion years ago

Do you have any empirical evidence that your alleged God was without a beginning?

Mr Jack, firstly.
Ask Mr Jack if he was here around 4.6 billion years ago

Do you have any empirical evidence that your alleged GodMan, was around 4.6 billion years ago?

Az i told u in posts 27, 17, and 15:
reproduction.
Unless u don't find reproduction empirical.
Which i'm not surprised if u don't.
Since things such as life, or the obvious, seem to escape your detection.
Also life's organization and complexity

Do you have any empirical evidence that your alleged God created life? ... Life's organization and complexity is NOT evidence of creation by God.

i met Him, and talk to Him, and He talks to me

Have you tried taking medication for your hallucinations?

Thas untru

You have provided no evidence whatsoever to back up your God-did-it claim.

R u saying that life producing life's unnatural?

While life producing life is natural, you have no evidence whatsoever that life could never be produced naturally from nonlife.

Yes. No one in all of history's ever seen it do so.
What everyone, except mebbe u, has seen and can see is that
life comes from life. Both plants and animals.
That's the precedent. That's the fact.
That's the truth. That's empirical.
That's verifiable. That's visible.
That's our experience. That's not too hard to c.
If u wanna phrase it another way: which is more prevalent?
Obviously the only one we know. Which is more likely?
Life comes from nonlife, or life comes from life, or life comes from both?

I asked you whether you had any evidence that life could never come from non-life via complex natural processes. That fact that no one has ever seen it is NOT evidence that it could NEVER happen! ... The possibility remains, as does the probability.

Yes. Us.
Organization of nonlife also comes from life. Such as towns and buildings.
Whenever people happen across organization, that's deserted, they know some folks made it one time. Like the pyramids. They neither made themselves
nor were made by accident or chance

I asked you whether you had any empirical evidence that anything could ever come about via supernatural processes. ... You have NOT presented any evidence for supernatural causation.

i have

:yawn: ... No, you have not.

What first living entities?

Whatever were the first living entities. ... You do agree that there was a first living entity on Earth, don't you?

What makes them different from Pateur's living entities?

We don't know what the first living entities looked like or how they behaved. ... But we have no reason to suspect that, whatever they looked like, they could not have had a natural origin.

 

[writer]

What

What

34 your alleged God

He's my God
i'm His creation

Do you have any empirical evidence that your alleged God was without a beginning?

Yes.
Him

Do you have any empirical evidence that your alleged GodMan, was around 4.6 billion years ago?

Yes.
Without beginning means greater than 4.6 billion.
Tho as man He began about 2000 years ago
when He was conceived in His mom's womb

Do you have any empirical evidence that your alleged God created life?

Yes.
Life

Life's organization and complexity is NOT evidence of creation by God.

It's not evidence that life was created by nonlife.
Rather it's evidence that its Designer created it

Have you tried taking medication for your hallucinations?

What hallucinations?

You have provided no evidence whatsoever to back up your God-did-it claim.

Thas untrue

you have no evidence whatsoever that life could never be produced naturally from nonlife.

Except that nonlife doesn't create life. Nonlife doesn't create period.
Does electricity make life?
Wind?
Erosion?
Acids?
Heat?
Light?
Salt water?
Vents?
Nonlife making life's not natural. It's not supernatural.
It's unnatural. It's not.
Nor can Evolutionists, or Abiogenesisists, create life. Tho they have alot of time.
I think some of em r still tryin

I asked you whether you had any evidence that life could never come from non-life via complex natural processes.

Such as?
Wind + electricity?
Stirring + erosion + acids?
Lots of stirring + electricity + magnetism + meteors?

That fact that no one has ever seen it is NOT evidence that it could NEVER happen!

It's evidence that it's never happened.
In all o' time people've seen.
In all o' time Abiogenesisists've been stirrin or cookin their pots or whatever.
It hasn't happened

The possibility remains,

Mebbe in your hallucinations, fantasy novels, or rebellion 'gainst God.
What possibility?
Has time changed? So that it can't happen ever now,
but it used to happen once?
Just once electricity sparked life...
What a joke

as does the probability.

Here an Abiogenesisist, or Evolutionist, may be revealed.
Possibility = Probability.
Did u learn that in science class?

You have NOT presented any evidence for supernatural causation.

To the contrary: Life.
God. You yourself're evidence.
You're wonderfully constructed.
Believe me

first living entities on earth...we have no reason to suspect that, whatever they looked like, they could not have had a natural origin.

Nonlife makin life
's not natural

 

[Skeptic]

He's my God
i'm His creation

Yes.
Him

Yes.
Without beginning means greater than 4.6 billion.
Tho as man He began about 2000 years ago
when He was conceived in His mom's womb

Yes.
Life

It's not evidence that life was created by nonlife.
Rather it's evidence that its Designer created it

:yawn:

What hallucinations?

These hallucinations: "i met Him, and talk to Him, and He talks to me "

Except that nonlife doesn't create life. Nonlife doesn't create period.
Does electricity make life?
Wind?
Erosion?
Acids?
Heat?
Light?
Salt water?
Vents?
Nonlife making life's not natural. It's not supernatural.
It's unnatural. It's not.
Nor can Evolutionists, or Abiogenesisists, create life. Tho they have alot of time.
I think some of em r still tryin

Such as?
Wind + electricity?
Stirring + erosion + acids?
Lots of stirring + electricity + magnetism + meteors?

It's evidence that it's never happened.
In all o' time people've seen.
In all o' time Abiogenesisists've been stirrin or cookin their pots or whatever.
It hasn't happened

Mebbe in your hallucinations, fantasy novels, or rebellion 'gainst God.
What possibility?
Has time changed? So that it can't happen ever now,
but it used to happen once?
Just once electricity sparked life...
What a joke

Here an Abiogenesisist, or Evolutionist, may be revealed.
Possibility = Probability.
Did u learn that in science class?

To the contrary: Life.
God. You yourself're evidence.
You're wonderfully constructed.

:yawn:

Believe me

I have no good reason to believe you.

Nonlife makin life
's not natural

:yawn: ... Supernatural creation is not natural.

 

[writer]

Why

Why

These hallucinations: "i met Him, and talk to Him, and He talks to me "

Why do u say that's hallucination?
Cuz u think God's dumb?

I have no good reason to believe [that "Skeptic" is wonderfully constructed].

To the contrary: "Skeptic"'s a good reason

Supernatural creation is not natural.

Then we're "even."
Since nonlife producin life's unnatural.
Supernatural creation---supernatural anything---however would be natural to you if you made nature--if you r God.

God made us to receive Him. That's the purpose of your human life,
Skeptic

 

[lucaspa]

Shapiro thinks it is.

http://sciam.com/article.cfm?chanID=sa022&articleID=B7AABF35-E7F2-99DF-309B8CEF02B5C4D7

You need to separate the opinion of one person from the idea. Your thread starts off with an idea: that the RNA hypothesis does not work

But then it shifts to the opinion of a person: "Shapiro thinks" The RNA hypothesis may be correct or incorrect. But it's correctness does not depend on Shapiro agreeing with it.

Shapiro needs careful reading. He is a very opinionated scientist and you need to test his statements. For instance, Shapiro says "DNA holds the recipe for protein construction. Yet that information cannot be retrieved or copied without the assistance of proteins."

That's not true. This paper shows that you don't need DNA to make proteins. All you need is the RNA in ribosomes!
7. P S Chimmel and R Alexander, All you need is RNA. Science 281:658-659, Jul. 31, 1998.

Shapiro is talking about "directed protein synthesis". But you don't need that for the first life. That can evolve later.

Also, you don't need long RNA for ribozymes. The shortest ribozyme is 3 bases long. It catalyzes cleavage of 2 base RNAs.

Shapiro likes "metabolism first" abiogenesis theories. I tend to agree but I'm not sure it's an either-or proposition. That is, you can have ribozymes forming on clay substrates and engaging in replication and also have protocells derived from proteins at the same time. The protocells can absorb the RNA complexes and end up with 2 ways to internally make proteins and nucleic acids: protein catalysis of new proteins and nucleic acids and RNA synthesis of new proteins and nucleic acids.

If you are not familiar with the field, I would sit back and let the people in the field fight it out and then check back when consensus is reached. Eventually the data will force a consensus.

 

[lucaspa]

It's not evidence that life was created by nonlife.
Rather it's evidence that its Designer created it

By "Designer created it" you mean that an entity (you think God) manufactured the first life.

However, there is evidence that life comes from nonlife. What evidence? It's been done.
Start here: http://www.theharbinger.org/articles/rel_sci/fox.html
and we can discuss it in much greater detail.

Except that nonlife doesn't create life. Nonlife doesn't create period.

Again, see above. In all you list, you forgot "chemistry". Chemistry creates life.

If you are Christian, then you believe that chemistry is the mechanism God used to create life.

 

[writer]

To the contrary

To the contrary

ribozymes forming on clay substrates and engaging in replication

To the contrary:
spontaneous generation doesn't work