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
Alicia baldly declares:
Abiogenesis is continually supported by early earth model experiments.
No, Alicia, there is a huge difference in showing the basic macromolecules can arise and producing a living organism. By your logic the geological formation of Stonehenge is supported by earth models that show stones are produced by nature. The different environments required means there needs to be some way of bringing them all together. Also deamination is your position's enemy and cytosine just can't help itself. But hey at least one of its byproducts is uracil.Virgil Cain
November 20, 2015
November
11
Nov
20
20
2015
09:39 AM
9
09
39
AM
PDT
If it’s continually supported, then you accept it, and if it’s refuted then you get rid of it.
You presented two more IF statements in support of your first one. So enough with the wishful thinking. What actually has been done? Andrewasauber
November 20, 2015
November
11
Nov
20
20
2015
09:13 AM
9
09
13
AM
PDT
You present an IF statement and then test it. This is how science works. If it's continually supported, then you accept it, and if it's refuted then you get rid of it. Abiogenesis is continually supported by early earth model experiments.Alicia Cartelli
November 20, 2015
November
11
Nov
20
20
2015
09:09 AM
9
09
09
AM
PDT
if we continually tested early earth models and they failed to produce biomolecules, that would certainly falsify abiogenesis
This is an IF statement. It doesn't demonstrate anything. Do you think that by presenting an IF statement, the statement becomes true? Andrewasauber
November 20, 2015
November
11
Nov
20
20
2015
09:02 AM
9
09
02
AM
PDT
Zachriel, "That's what demonstrate means in science". Demonstration of validity of a theory refers to something extraneous to the theory. If your purported demonstration uses the same assumptions, it does not qualify. E.g. measuring genome homology does not demonstrate common descent but rather assumes it. In order to demonstrate abiogenesis, one must obtain a living cell without recourse to controlled synthesis.EugeneS
November 20, 2015
November
11
Nov
20
20
2015
08:37 AM
8
08
37
AM
PDT
Alicia spews:
But guess what, numerous experiments done over the last 50 years have supported abiogenesis.
Only in your little-bitty mind.
We then test the most likely early earth environments, and guess what, we find that they can all produce the major biomolecules needed for life to arise.
Actually we know it takes different environments to produce the different molecules. And you still can't get a replicator and the path from molecular replicator to biological reproduction is impossible to travel via purely physicochemical processes.Virgil Cain
November 20, 2015
November
11
Nov
20
20
2015
08:35 AM
8
08
35
AM
PDT
Zachriel to Box:
Glad you agree that selection generally removes information, presumably meaning Shannon information.
No. No. No. Not "presumably meaning Shannon information." So-called Shannon information is essentially irrelevant for purposes of biological variation and innovation. Please take some time to reflect on this before mindlessly heading down the rabbit hole about Shannon information. I'm mostly just observing the conversation here as it is OT, so I won't spend a lot of time on back and forth about natural selection in this thread. I do note in passing, however, that you are clearly missing the point that was raised by others: natural selection has nothing to do with producing new biological structures, systems, organisms, and so on. Nor does it have anything to do with the production of the information [note: not Shannon information] required for those biological systems. Natural selection is irrelevant to the task and the problem at hand. Yes, we all agree that some creatures can die off and reduce the available variety that was already in the population. Big deal. It doesn't tell us one useful thing about how the biological innovation was produced. ----- Finally, your continued assertions about the definition of "evolution" can serve as Exhibit A to my other recent post in which I noted the clueless (and occasionally purposeful) conflation of wildly different concepts under the same term. You are a prime example of someone who has fallen into this intellectual trap. Taking a charitable reading of the situation for a moment, I will assume you are doing this because you haven't spent time to think through the issues clearly, rather than doing this because you are being intentionally deceptive. Take some time to think about it if you want to avoid further errors on this front.Eric Anderson
November 20, 2015
November
11
Nov
20
20
2015
08:34 AM
8
08
34
AM
PDT
Andy, if we continually tested early earth models and they failed to produce biomolecules, that would certainly falsify abiogenesis. But instead, we have continually found production of them. The next step is testing scenarios of possible first replication systems. EA, go ahead and read up on some of this stuff. There's a lot of information out there and this thing called the internet gives you access to it all. EA: Please stop with the bluffing. From what you have posted so far, it appears that I and others on this thread know orders of magnitude more about abiogenesis than you do. You are of course welcome to correct that impression. If you have something substantive to say, please do so. Continued bald-faced assertions, all the while failing to deal with the primary issues raised in the OP, demonstrates not only a lack of answers, but a profound lack of understanding of what the issues even are.Alicia Cartelli
November 20, 2015
November
11
Nov
20
20
2015
08:27 AM
8
08
27
AM
PDT
Alicia Cartelli: We note for the record your flippant and arrogant attitude, all the while failing to provide any evidence to support the naturalistic abiogenesis storyline. Simply making bald-faced claims about experiments that allegedly support abiogenesis or vague assertions about things that have been learned, why don't you provide some specific details. The challenge in the OP remains. Go ahead and answer that challenge. I also extend to you the invitation I extended to Zachriel and others: If you have an idea how abiogenesis works, feel free to write it up and I will post it as a head post for discussion. If not, then for the sake of intellectual honesty please take a good look in the mirror, acknowledge the weaknesses in the theory, and stop making blatantly false and misleading statements.Eric Anderson
November 20, 2015
November
11
Nov
20
20
2015
08:21 AM
8
08
21
AM
PDT
we hypothesize, and then try to refute that hypothesis
Alicia, If your hypothesis isn't falsifiable, you'll never refute it. Sigh. Andrewasauber
November 20, 2015
November
11
Nov
20
20
2015
08:21 AM
8
08
21
AM
PDT
No, Andy, we hypothesize, and then try to refute that hypothesis. But guess what, numerous experiments done over the last 50 years have supported abiogenesis. And we can certainly speculate as to what early earth conditions were, as scientists in other fields have already studied this. We then test the most likely early earth environments, and guess what, we find that they can all produce the major biomolecules needed for life to arise.Alicia Cartelli
November 20, 2015
November
11
Nov
20
20
2015
08:10 AM
8
08
10
AM
PDT
Alicia Cartelli:
Supporting hypotheses by experimentation and constructing models of how things occur(ed) is how virtually all of science is carried out.
Your position doesn't have any testable hypotheses nor any models.
We hypothesize that the first biomolecules and the first living organism can be produced by early earth conditions and we’ve supported it.
That is a lie as no one has shown that living organisms can be produced by any earth, early or not. And those molecules were produced in lab conditions, not early earth conditions.Virgil Cain
November 20, 2015
November
11
Nov
20
20
2015
06:57 AM
6
06
57
AM
PDT
We hypothesize that the first biomolecules and the first living organism can be produced by early earth conditions
We speculate, you mean. And you don't even know what early earth conditions were. Yawn. Andrewasauber
November 20, 2015
November
11
Nov
20
20
2015
06:56 AM
6
06
56
AM
PDT
Oh Eugey, you’ll understand science one day, don’t worry! Supporting hypotheses by experimentation and constructing models of how things occur(ed) is how virtually all of science is carried out. We hypothesize that the first biomolecules and the first living organism can be produced by early earth conditions and we’ve supported it. We cannot know if these are the exact events that occurred 4 billion years ago, but we are far from refuting abiogenesis on the early earth. We’ve gotten all the major biomolecules and are working on recreating plausible first replication systems. It’s only a matter of time.Alicia Cartelli
November 20, 2015
November
11
Nov
20
20
2015
06:52 AM
6
06
52
AM
PDT
Zachriel:
For instance, the great age of the Earth is supported by the geological succession, and radiometric dating, among other lines of evidence.
The age of the MATERIALs that make up earth show a great age. Only a little-minded fool would think the age of the materials used = the age of the earth.Virgil Cain
November 20, 2015
November
11
Nov
20
20
2015
06:33 AM
6
06
33
AM
PDT
Alicia the bloviator:
Oh virgy, I’ve never been mistaken here at UD, don’t worry.
You are a legend in your own little-bitty mind. You are also mistaken. We noticed you never provided any evidence for your claim about our alleged impossibility claims. You must be a liar or a coward.
so why is it that you guys have such a problem accepting abiogenesis when we have already demonstrated that many of the reactions needed can occur in early earth models?
Nature can produce stones. Stones are the building blocks of Stonehenge. Bt Alicia's logic nature can produce Stonehenges. Only imbeciles think that life can be reduced to chemical reactions, Alicia. Wipe your chin.Virgil Cain
November 20, 2015
November
11
Nov
20
20
2015
06:31 AM
6
06
31
AM
PDT
@box wrote: “natural selection” is in fact “natural elimination” and can only eliminate stuff; for instance complex stuff and not so complex stuff. In my opinion people who propose intelligent design should research intelligent design (duh). So you would have to explain things in regards to intelligent design, and actually intelligent design needs natural selection. This is because there aren't any watches, cars, airplanes, or other complex objects of that sort found in nature. The fact these don't exist implies a design principle focused on survival and reproduction. The mechanism of creation / intelligent design is choosing. With choosing a possibility, which is in the future, is made the present or not. Natural selection is a sorting mechanism. The highest sort out as the highest, the fittest sort out as the fittest, given the initial variables. That the outcome of natural selection is forced implies a future which is set, a future which can be chosen by intelligent design. Therefore intelligent design can use natural selection to search for forms that reproduce, and most efficiently reproduce, resulting in objects which have a design principle of reproduction and survival. I mean, YOU HAVE TO DO INTELLIGENT THEORY IF YOU PROPOSE INTELLIGENT DESIGN. Why are my fellow creationists not investigating theory on how things are chosen?mohammadnursyamsu
November 20, 2015
November
11
Nov
20
20
2015
05:13 AM
5
05
13
AM
PDT
Box: Yes we see an increase in overall diversity when ‘natural selection elimination’ destroys less new variations than it ignores Given a stable population, diversifying selection will increase diversity within the population. This can occur even without new sources of variation, by increasing the proportion of variants that were previously rare.Zachriel
November 20, 2015
November
11
Nov
20
20
2015
04:31 AM
4
04
31
AM
PDT
Zach: By itself natural selection reduces diversity (...),
And so did Mao Zedong.
Zach: (...) but when in combination with sources of variation, even if that variation is random and non-adaptive, can actually increase overall diversity, as in diversifying selection.
Sure, this is all too obvious. Yes we see an increase in overall diversity when 'natural selection elimination' destroys less new variations than it ignores — assuming that the ignored new variations outnumber the elimination of established variations.Box
November 20, 2015
November
11
Nov
20
20
2015
04:22 AM
4
04
22
AM
PDT
EugeneS: There can be no demonstration of anything relating to past. At best, it is possible to support certain hypotheses by experimentation. That's what demonstrate means in science. For instance, the great age of the Earth is supported by the geological succession, and radiometric dating, among other lines of evidence. That the Earth is billions of years old is considered scientifically established.Zachriel
November 20, 2015
November
11
Nov
20
20
2015
04:02 AM
4
04
02
AM
PDT
Box: Translation: “natural selection” is in fact “natural elimination” and can only eliminate stuff; for instance complex stuff and not so complex stuff. By itself natural selection reduces diversity, but when in combination with sources of variation, even if that variation is random and non-adaptive, can actually increase overall diversity, as in diversifying selection. Box: Note that “natural selection elimination” is not a creative force but a strictly destructive force which only removes information. Glad you agree that selection generally removes information, presumably meaning Shannon information. There was some discussion of that above. On the other hand, it can mean complexity increases its predominance in a population. mike1962: The problem for your kind is that the “many of the reactions” you speak of do not rise to anything near anything like DNA or bloody fingerprints left at a crime scene. Plausible abiotic synthesis of ribonucleotides has been a long-standing problem due to the instability of the component parts. Powner et al. show an elegant and plausible prebiotic pathway that sidesteps this problem. See Powner et al., Synthesis of activated pyrimidine ribonucleotides in prebiotically plausible conditions, Nature 2009. Feel free to move the goalposts.Zachriel
November 20, 2015
November
11
Nov
20
20
2015
03:43 AM
3
03
43
AM
PDT
Alicia, "we’ve already demonstrated" [in relation to early-Earth models]. You guys have not demonstrated anything. There can be no demonstration of anything relating to past. At best, it is possible to support certain hypotheses by experimentation. There can only be more or less plausible reconstructions of hypothetical past events. But abiogenesis is not even there. It is complete bluff. Non-telic causation driving the formation of telic systems is complete non sequitur.EugeneS
November 20, 2015
November
11
Nov
20
20
2015
03:41 AM
3
03
41
AM
PDT
Mapou (attn AC et al): Let us use light switches -- an example I used to teach basic digital electronics, setting up parallel and series connected switches. (Set them up with Vcc+, a limit resistor, a red LED and the switch array to ground and you see NOR and NAND arrays and the issue of actuation as controlling. Then a transistor can be used as an electrically actuated switch, and voila, the door is opened to explain digital circuitry. Including flip flops as systems with digital feedback and thus past state reflexive influence on the next state.) One switch has two states, On/off (closed/open). With a second switch, for each of SW1's states, there are two possible states of SW2. Add a third, and for each joint state of SW1 and SW2, there are two possible states of SW3. So: SW1 -- 2 states; SW! + SW2 -- 4 states; SW1 + SW2 + SW3 -- 8 states. In general for n two bit elements we have 2^n possible configurations, defining a configuration space. An easy transition is to go to a linear array of one bit storage elements (a string): | b1 | b2 | b3 | . . . | bn | --> 2^n possibilities, thus combinatorial explosion of the scope of config space. For the thresholds I have commonly used, 500 bits --> 3.27*10^150 configs, and 1,000 bits --> 1.07*10^301 possibilities. The first of these would drown out the number of possible state observations of our sol system's 10^57 atoms at ~10^14 state inspections per second for each atom, for 10^17 s.The latter would do much more than merely drown out for the 10^80 or so atoms in the observed cosmos. Beyond astronomical config spaces. Now, for D/RNA we have 4-state elements, G-C-A-T/U, and each element physically stores up to two bits of info. Also, for proteins or more generally biologically relevant amino acid strings, each element in the string holds up to 20 possibilities or 4.32 bits (this ignores some oddball cases.) Of course, both D/RNA and proteins come as strings. Also, when we have a functionally specific, wiring diagram based arrangement of coupled parts to achieve a function, such as in the Abu 6500 fishing reel I have commonly used as an example, this result can be expanded into a index of the information content of such FSCO/I. . Take the nodes and arcs wiring diagram, and reduce it to ordered strings in a description language, let us use bits for each element. The info content of the organised pattern is then the number of y/n q's in the description language [of compact form] that specifies the wiring diagram. In effect, we here look forward to the work of a controlled construction element, such as we see in the ribosome. From this it son becomes patent that a "simple" cell is anything but, it is a smart gated, encapsulated, metabolic automaton [with a vastly complex integrated network of interacting chemistry that puts an oil refinery and synthesis plant to shame), with an integral von Neumann kinematic self replicator. That is what is to be explained at OOL, and it is obvious that the advocates of abiogensis have gone well beyond the data, often in a context controlled by the imposed evolutionary materialist ideology described by RationalWiki: "Methodological naturalism is the label for the required assumption of philosophical naturalism when working with the scientific method . . . " So is this issue, mere god of the gaps reasoning, where a vaguely deistic god gets squeezed out by the inevitably progress of evo mat ideology controlled science? Actually, to put this that way shows the first problem: there is a confident manner promissory note here, and one not backed by demonstrated, observed adequate blind watchmaker chance and necessity causes. Worse, on inference to best current, empirically warranted explanation, all observationally relevant causes should be on the table. Ideological lockout as just highlighted is grand atheistical question begging while dressed in the lab coat. That is there is a fallacy of projection here. Second, FSCO/I has a long established, readily observed cause. Intelligently directed configuration, which can of course be automated, as those robotics factory experiments show. Trillions of observed cases in point. And, per the adequate cause/ vera causa test, we should not allow to the table,things snot shown to be capable of accounting for the relevant effect. So what we have had is a rigged inference, which locks out the actually observed cause of FSCO/I, and forces an explanation on causal factors that are only supported by gross extrapolation, highly speculative hypotheses and promissory notes joined to explaining away of inconvenient evidence. A sounder approach will see that there is no support for organised systems of molecular nanotech spontaneously forming and configuring itself to carry out the relevant pattern of functions. There is no evidence of spontaneous formation on realistic conditions of a self replicating RNA system that then proceeds to distill coded instructions and nanotech assemblers etc out of lucky noise, forming the sort of cell we see. The darwinist tree of life has been uprooted and in fact discovered not to have the proposed root. Design sits at the table as of right, not sufferance. KFkairosfocus
November 20, 2015
November
11
Nov
20
20
2015
12:11 AM
12
12
11
AM
PDT
ffffttt! I knew it. All Darwinists are stupid. Lizzy does not understand simple math. I had no idea a simple concept like an exponential increase in search space would be so hard for some people to grasp. That is, until I met stupid Darwinists.Mapou
November 19, 2015
November
11
Nov
19
19
2015
10:12 PM
10
10
12
PM
PDT
You're right pouy, there is no debate. You can't have a debate when one side is completely clueless.Alicia Cartelli
November 19, 2015
November
11
Nov
19
19
2015
09:20 PM
9
09
20
PM
PDT
Mapou.... Its Whahahahahahahahahahahaha!Andre
November 19, 2015
November
11
Nov
19
19
2015
08:41 PM
8
08
41
PM
PDT
Folks, Alicia is just drowning you with worthless crap to make herself look good and give the appearance that there is an actual important debate taking place here. This is a waste of time. As I keep saying everywhere, the combinatorial explosion kills her little dirt-worshipping religion dead. The math is annoyingly simple. Even Alicia could grasp it if she wasn't always busy kissing an invisible Darwinist Arse in the sky. ahahaha...AHAHAHA...Mapou
November 19, 2015
November
11
Nov
19
19
2015
08:37 PM
8
08
37
PM
PDT
Mikey, I hope I didn't hurt your feelings. Anyways, we've already demonstrated the production of nucleic acids under early earth conditions. You are completely clueless as to where the gaps are.Alicia Cartelli
November 19, 2015
November
11
Nov
19
19
2015
07:32 PM
7
07
32
PM
PDT
Alicia CartelliNormal people don’t have any problem making convictions despite not knowing every step the killer took, so why is it that you guys That implies that "us guys" are not normal. Fact not in evidence. I suggest that most normal people after having surveyed the situation would reject your wishful thinking as being what it is. ...have such a problem accepting abiogenesis when we have already demonstrated that many of the reactions needed can occur in early earth models? Because the perp's fingerprints in blood on the victims neck is convincing enough. The problem for your kind is that the "many of the reactions" you speak of do not rise to anything near anything like DNA or bloody fingerprints left at a crime scene. Your gaps are much much greater than your evidence. If you think your set of tinker toys are sufficient to explain the effect, then provide us with a testable model and let's see if it works. That's what real scientists do.mike1962
November 19, 2015
November
11
Nov
19
19
2015
07:24 PM
7
07
24
PM
PDT
Can't ignore what ain't there!Alicia Cartelli
November 19, 2015
November
11
Nov
19
19
2015
06:26 PM
6
06
26
PM
PDT
1 2 3 4 5 11

Leave a Reply