Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Abiogenesis Challenge

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

Over on a recent thread, we witnessed some flailing about with respect to abiogenesis (see comments 374-376). Thoroughly confused about critical distinctions, such as the difference between deterministic forces and contingent possibilities, some seem to think that the fact that “nature forms stars and planets” means that nature can do just about anything. No need to ask any hard questions, kids! Just close your eyes and imagine the possibilities.

This is what so much of the materialistic abiogenesis creation story amounts to.

I have posted essentially this challenge before, but for Zachriel and anyone else who thinks materialistic abiogenesis is anything more than a laughable made-up story, here it is again:

—–

For purposes of this challenge, I’m willing to grant you all the amino acids you want. I’ll even give them all to you in a non-racemic mixture. You want them all left-handed? No problem. I’ll also grant you the exact relative mixture of the specific amino acids you want (what percentage do you want of glycine, alanine, arginine, etc.?). I’ll further give you just the right concentration to encourage optimum reaction. I’m also willing to give you the most benign and hospitable environment you can possibly imagine for your fledgling structures to form (take your pick of the popular ideas: volcanic vents, hydrothermal pools, mud globules, tide pools, deep sea hydrothermal vents, comets, dust clouds in space . . . whichever environment you want). I’ll even throw in whatever type of energy source you want in true Goldilocks fashion: just the right amount to facilitate the chemical reactions; not too much to destroy the nascent formations. I’ll further spot you that all these critical conditions occur in the same location spatially. And at the same time temporally. Shoot, as a massive bonus I’ll even step in to prevent contaminating cross reactions. I’ll also miraculously make your fledgling chemical structures immune from their natural rate of breakdown.

Every single one of the foregoing items represents a huge challenge to the formation of life, but I’m willing to grant them all for the present exercise.

Now, with all these concessions, go ahead, what is your theory about how life formed?

—–

Note:

I also reiterate my open invitation for Zachriel, AVS, billmaz and anyone else to do a guest post laying out their strongest evidence for abiogenesis. There have been no takers yet, but the invitation remains open.

Comments
Bob O'H: I am sure that Eric could be willing to make further "concessions" (he is truly a generous guy! :) ). Please, ask for specific ones.gpuccio
November 17, 2015
November
11
Nov
17
17
2015
12:18 AM
12
12
18
AM
PDT
I'm not an abiogenensis researcher but I can already see why your conditions might be inadequate. If you're going to set a generous challenge, you could make sure you're being generous in the right was. As it is, you've eliminated any explanation based on DNA or RNA. FWIW, if you wanted to find out what current theories about abiogenesis are, you could start with wikipedia, and then follow the links.Bob O'H
November 17, 2015
November
11
Nov
17
17
2015
12:16 AM
12
12
16
AM
PDT
brian douglas: I do like specific and precise questions. So, if you don't mind, I will try to answer yours according to my personal views. Eric will certainly give his personal answers too, if he likes. So, let's go on: 1) Was it a one time event? Biological design is certainly not a one time event. OOL, the appearance of eukaryotes, the Cambrian explosion, and probably each new protein superfamily are obvious examples of separate design interventions, at different times. OOL could have been a "one time" design intervention, but anyway it certainly required some time and was not an "instant" event. With what we know, I believe that LUCA (probably similar to prokaryotes) was the first living being, or group of beings, on our planet. But we cannot exclude previous steps in OOL: we just don't have any facts supporting that kind of hypothesis. 2) (Genesis)? I never discuss religion in a scientific context. 3) Is the earth 6000 years old? No. 4) or a few billion? A few billion. 5)Is there constant intervention? There are certainly multiple, repeated interventions in time, as already discussed. We cannot exclude some kind of constant intervention, but certainly there are special distinct interventions which are distinct and different from any kind of "constant" intervention at other times. 6) Is the designer bound by physical laws? The process of design is certainly bound by physical laws, because it happens in space and time. 7)Is the design front loaded? No. The only "front-loading" we can observe are some minor adaptational algorithms, which are obviously designed, but certainly have some role. 8) Is the designer material or supernatural? I have repeatedly said that "natural" and "supernatural" have no clearly defined meaning, IMO. And "material" is certainly not the logical opposite of "supernatural". The only thing that is certain is that one or more conscious biological designers are real. He or they exist. For me, that is enough to say that he or they are part of reality, whatever meaning you can choose to give to the strange word "nature". Regarding the "material", I don't think that the designer(s) of biological life has a material body (I am not a fan of the "aliens" theory), but he certainly can interact with matter as we understand it. 9) Is there a common ancestor to all earth life or was each “kind” created as is? Most certainly there is evidence of common descent. Probably universal, but I would not be really sure. Specific forms of life are certainly the result of specific design, probably acting on previously existing forms of life, through designed descent. 10) Did life on earth originate elsewhere in the universe? Possible, but I don't think that, at present, we really have facts pointing to such a theory. 11) Were Adam and Eve really the first humans? I never discuss religion in a scientific context. 12) Did all extant animal and plant life on earth descent from Noah’s ark? I never discuss religion in a scientific context. I hope you find my answers clear enough. I am ready to discuss them in greater detail, if you like.gpuccio
November 17, 2015
November
11
Nov
17
17
2015
12:15 AM
12
12
15
AM
PDT
"I was discussing this issue with an illogical guy called Brian..." Sorry, I don't recall discussing this with you. I do remember talking to Joe about chemistry acting the same now as it did in the past. Maybe you were reading that discussion and had difficulty comprehending it. I know that reading comprehension was a serious problem with Joe, as was basic math (he even claimed that wavelength = frequency), but I assumed that you didn't suffer that serious mental handicap.brian douglas
November 16, 2015
November
11
Nov
16
16
2015
07:45 PM
7
07
45
PM
PDT
Doesn't look like your challenge will be met Mr Anderson. I was discussing this issue with an illogical guy called Brian and his position was that chemistry just was different in the past, he didn't give any justification. He was appealing to nature but then went outside how nature is repeatedly observed to operate which contradicts his strict naturalistic worldview. Furthermore, this guy Brian that I was conversing with believes that nature existed before it existed, he is very illogical. hahaha The law of biogenesis shows that as far as nature operates that you only get life from life, But some like this guy Brian I was conversing with the other day, engage in special pleading, reject how nature is known to operate, and pretend chemistry was different in the past which is a cop out. He appealed to nature while rejecting how nature is known to operate. The law of biogenesis shows that life could not have originated spontaneously in nature and that we have to go beyond a natural cause for how life originated. Chance dun it is a cop out. Design trumps chance.Jack Jones
November 16, 2015
November
11
Nov
16
16
2015
06:57 PM
6
06
57
PM
PDT
Turnabout is fair game Mr. Anderson. Given the exact same concessions you mentioned above, or any others that you deem necessary, what is your theory about how life formed? Now, keep in mind, that god-did-it is a cop out. I expect the same level of detail, with mechanisms and intermediary steps, that you expect of the evolution side. Was it a one time event (Genesis)? Is the earth 6000 years old, or a few billion? Is there constant intervention? Is the designer bound by physical laws? Is the design front loaded? Is the designer material or supernatural? Is there a common ancestor to all earth life or was each "kind" created as is? Did life on earth originate elsewhere in the universe? Were Adam and Eve really the first humans? Did all extant animal and plant life on earth descent from Noah's ark? I could go on, but this should be a good start. You answer all of this, and I will attempt to answer your question.brian douglas
November 16, 2015
November
11
Nov
16
16
2015
06:36 PM
6
06
36
PM
PDT
The combinatorial explosion kills both abiogenesis and Darwinian evolution dead. This truth cannot be repeated often enough. It's simple math.Mapou
November 16, 2015
November
11
Nov
16
16
2015
06:11 PM
6
06
11
PM
PDT
You're being extremely generous to them Mr Anderson.Jack Jones
November 16, 2015
November
11
Nov
16
16
2015
05:28 PM
5
05
28
PM
PDT
1 9 10 11

Leave a Reply