According to Dredge: Abiogenesis is Magic

[Papasito Bruno]

Hello, Dredge. In regard to your assertions about mathematical probability, I'd like to see your working out. That is, show the basis for your maths--how do you derive the parameters. Then show what calculations you've performed. Talk is cheap.

Any "first simple cell" would need to reproduce in order for the species to survive.  Do you imagine the reproduction of a cell would be a simple process?  I don't.  Is there any evidence that cell reproduction is anything but extremely complex?  Not a bit. 

And let's not forget that a cell cannot form piecemeal - a chaotic mess of molecules must form a living orgaism very quickly, then it must reproduce before it dies (within a few hours).   I wonder how all the cell's internal components manages to get inside a 100%-intact cell wall (since a less-than-100%-intact cell wall spells death). 
There are of course many other functions that a cell must perform in order to survive.  Which one of them is simple? 

A "simple cell" is as oxymoronic as a "simple computer" - no such thing exists or could ever exist - except as a fantasy in self-deluded minds of atheists.

One of my resolutions for this year, well not so much a resolution, butt more of a guide to self-preservation and better management of my time is not get involved in on-line arguments with folks who believe the following (Mind you now this isn't a complete list)

Flat-Earth Society Believers
Conspiracy Theorists (You know the moon hoaxer, or 9/11 Truther types )
Racists (This would included Holocaust Deniers, Free Speech Racists, Fetishizing Racists, Color-Blind Racists, Not-All-White People and Hipster Racists, Apologetic Racists, All-Lives Matter Dickheads, Trump Supporters, etc...)
Evolution is Just a Theory Types
Terrible Argument Misogynistic Asshole Types
Anti-Vaxxers
Those Freaks who Think the sounds generated by the group Abba account somehow for music (I know, you're like c'mon Bruno this is 2017 surely such people don't exists anymore, butt I assure you they do)
Creationists

Butt I'm going to go ahead and give it a whirl just for the heck of it, even if you do seem to be trolling.

It doesn’t appear that just life suddenly started, or even that evolution began after life first appeared; which is usually stated as an argument against the origin of life itself. Most likely evolution was/is part of the process the moment a single molecule formed that was capable of replicating itself.

And if such a self-replicating molecule were to be found today I doubt or don’t think anyone would classify such a simple molecule as alive, so it begs the question is such an event actually “Life from non-life’? This seems to me to be inappropriate, I don’t really see a hard line between the two.
Also, such events are probably not at all uncommon, and has happened a great many times. Who knows the number of life linages that were created over-time? Or that this isn't occurring even now all over the universe.
 
When we examine DNA it shows only one of those lineages fostered all surviving lifeforms that we have today, all the others simply lost the race, butt what a fucking race it must have been!

Anyway I’m not a scientist, only a self-deluded atheist. However; I can say that the only thing approaching fantasy is the belief that some magical, supernatural being created it all. The belief in supernatural beings is in fact the very “Primordial make-believe ooze" the world of fantasy is made out of.

P.S. Sorry to lump you/creationists in with all the other deplorables, butt meh', that's the way it is. After all you believe in the whole silly flood and ark thing, not to mention talking snakes, the Tower of Babel, etc...

[Bad Penny II]

One of my resolutions for this year, well not so much a resolution, butt more of a guide to self-preservation and better management of my time is not get involved in on-line arguments with folks who believe the following

Cool, when you know you're right, when you've self appointed yourself as arbiter of right, why bother?

[No one]

The worst ABBA song is far better than anything conceived by any and all rappers. If you honestly believe that rap is even in the same galaxy as music, then you need to have your head examined.

[Papasito Bruno]

One of my resolutions for this year, well not so much a resolution, butt more of a guide to self-preservation and better management of my time is not get involved in on-line arguments with folks who believe the following

Cool, when you know you're right, when you've self appointed yourself as arbiter of right, why bother?

Why bother indeed, butt again that only applies to those who fall somewhere on my list from my list above. Seriously, if someone actually believes in this day and age the earth is flat is there really any point in trying to argue or dissuade them from their belief?
I imagine you could take such a person up on the International Space Station (ISS), and after days of orbiting the earth they will still deny the earth is round.

Or take yourselves as an example, no matter of discussion will probably shake you from your racists views. Amirite?

[Dave]

I'd be interested in seeing the math from which you derived this conclusion.  Please enlighten us with your probability model for the origin of life. However, I detect the presence of an argument from personal incredulity so I won't get my hopes up.

An unobserved (past or future) event can reasonably be declared impossible without calculating the mathematical probability of that event.   The mathematical probability of some unobserved events, be they deemed possible or impossible, cannot ever be calculated. 
Furthermore, even if the probability of an unobserved event can be calculated, we still may have no way of knowing if is possible or impossible (for example, if the probability of a certain event is calculated to be one in a trillion-trillion, is the event possible or impossible?)


It is reasonable to declare it impossible for my house to be struck by a brick-size meteorite every day for a year, even though the mathematical probability of such an event occurring cannot be calculated.

It is reasonable to declare it impossible that the action of waves crashing onto the sea shore will ever arrange sea shells on that shore to read out my full name, address, age, occupation, home and email addresses, phone number and bank account details, even though the mathematical probability of such an event occurring cannot be calculated.

It is reasonable to declare it is impossible for a forest to ever build a log cabin, even though the mathematical probability of such an event cannot be calculated.

It is reasonable to declare it impossible for baboons to ever build a space craft and fly it to the moon and back, even though the mathematical probability of such an event cannot be calculated.

It is reasonable to declare it impossible for dead matter to ever arrange itself into a self-replicating, living machine within a few hours (ie, before it dies), even though the mathematical probability of such an event cannot be calculated.

Sophism.

Stop throwing the isms around.
I want to know what he likes for lunch.

OK, changed it to a -stry (which it should have been)

[Davin]

If you ask me, all research into how life arose from inanimate matter can be rendered laughable and futile by applying a couple of scientific laws learnt in high school.

According to high school maths, a lot of things would not be possible. Fuck, if I could only use programming techniques or methodologies that they teach in high school, what I do for work every day would seem like magic. Stupid point. The things they high school isn't the complete picture.

The first is the Second Law of Thermodynamics and the second is mathematical probability.

Nope. They even teach why you're wrong in high school. You're working off of a misunderstanding the of the Second Law of Thermodynamics.

[Dave]

One of my resolutions for this year, well not so much a resolution, butt more of a guide to self-preservation and better management of my time is not get involved in on-line arguments with folks who believe the following

Cool, when you know you're right, when you've self appointed yourself as arbiter of right, why bother?

Why bother indeed, butt again that only applies to those who fall somewhere on my list from my list above. Seriously, if someone actually believes in this day and age the earth is flat is there really any point in trying to argue or dissuade them from their belief?
I imagine you could take such a person up on the International Space Station (ISS), and after days of orbiting the earth they will still deny the earth is round.

Or take yourselves as an example, no matter of discussion will probably shake you from your racists views. Amirite?

Yup, so long as it does no damage to others I don't care if they claim the Earth is a cube or that it was created from a skin flake exfoliated from a scratched itch on the bum of the Great Galactic Gallump.

I do wish the would keep it to themselves though.

[Recusant]

I'm glad you decided to return and post in this thread again, Dredge. 

Your argument is a bit repetitive, so my response will be, as well.

Hello, Dredge. In regard to your assertions about mathematical probability, I'd like to see your working out. That is, show the basis for your maths--how do you derive the parameters. Then show what calculations you've performed. Talk is cheap.

Any "first simple cell" would need to reproduce in order for the species to survive.

It looks like you're asserting that self-replicating molecules could only exist within a cell. On what basis do you make that assertion? It seems that your ignorance of current thinking regarding how abiogenesis could have proceeded is hindering your ability to produce a sound argument. No scientist is saying that living cells in the form we find in the current environment sprang into being spontaneously. However, there is plenty of evidence that organic molecules were common on the pre-biotic Earth. A possible path by which simple organic molecules can form more complex self-replicating organic molecules has been shown.

"New theoretical model explains the origins of self-replicating molecules" | Nanowerk

Once you have self-replicating molecules, they need to be protected by some sort of barrier from the surrounding environment to begin to form a primitive version of a cell. One hypothesis regarding how such a barrier might have come about is based on the fact that simple fatty acids under some conditions (which were common on the pre-biotic Earth) will form vesicles. Essentially, these are bubbles of fatty acids.

"Fatty Acids" | Exploring Life's Origins

Combine one of these vesicles with a primitive self-replicating molecule, and you have a good candidate for a precursor of life as we know it.

Do you imagine the reproduction of a cell would be a simple process?  I don't.

It looks like you're conflating the cells that we find in our environment with the earliest steps toward life. Nobody in the modern field of abiogenesis is proposing that that is how life developed.

Is there any evidence that cell reproduction is anything but extremely complex?  Not a bit.

Again, cells that exist now are not examples of how life may have begun, and nobody except Creationists is saying that they are. It's obvious that the earliest forms of life (and certainly the precursors to life) would have been much simpler than what we observe around us.

And let's not forget that a cell cannot form piecemeal - a chaotic mess of molecules must form a living orgaism very quickly, then it must reproduce before it dies (within a few hours).

This is your presentation of how abiogenesis would have taken place. It does not accurately represent current thinking on abiogenesis. If you want to learn about how modern scientists think about abiogenesis, you might take a look at the site I linked above: Exploring Life's Origins

I wonder how all the cell's internal components manages to get inside a 100%-intact cell wall (since a less-than-100%-intact cell wall spells death).

The idea is that the earliest precursors to cells were not as resistant to intrusion as the cells we see in present-day life. You're taking the way that life currently exists as the standard by which we should view the origins of life. I hope you can take on board the idea that this sort of thinking will not help to understand how abiogenesis would have taken place.
 

There are of course many other functions that a cell must perform in order to survive.  Which one of them is simple?

Once you get your head around the fact that the precursors to life and the earliest forms of life are not the same thing as the life forms we see around us, you might be in a position to attempt to challenge the idea of abiogenesis. Right now, you're flailing around in the neighborhood of "not even wrong."

A "simple cell" is as oxymoronic as a "simple computer" - no such thing exists or could ever exist - except as a fantasy in self-deluded minds of atheists.

Apparently you know as little about the development of computers as you do about modern ideas of abiogenesis.

[Bad Penny II]

One of my resolutions for this year, well not so much a resolution, butt more of a guide to self-preservation and better management of my time is not get involved in on-line arguments with folks who believe the following

Cool, when you know you're right, when you've self appointed yourself as arbiter of right, why bother?

Why bother indeed, butt again that only applies to those who fall somewhere on my list from my list above. Seriously, if someone actually believes in this day and age the earth is flat is there really any point in trying to argue or dissuade them from their belief?
I imagine you could take such a person up on the International Space Station (ISS), and after days of orbiting the earth they will still deny the earth is round.

Or take yourselves as an example, no matter of discussion will probably shake you from your racists views. Amirite?

You are right, I'm irredeemable.
You dislike ABBA so are homophobe.
Don't argue the case you'll only make it worse.

[solidsquid]

I'd be interested in seeing the math from which you derived this conclusion.  Please enlighten us with your probability model for the origin of life. However, I detect the presence of an argument from personal incredulity so I won't get my hopes up.

An unobserved (past or future) event can reasonably be declared impossible without calculating the mathematical probability of that event.   The mathematical probability of some unobserved events, be they deemed possible or impossible, cannot ever be calculated. 
Furthermore, even if the probability of an unobserved event can be calculated, we still may have no way of knowing if is possible or impossible (for example, if the probability of a certain event is calculated to be one in a trillion-trillion, is the event possible or impossible?)


It is reasonable to declare it impossible for my house to be struck by a brick-size meteorite every day for a year, even though the mathematical probability of such an event occurring cannot be calculated.

It is reasonable to declare it impossible that the action of waves crashing onto the sea shore will ever arrange sea shells on that shore to read out my full name, address, age, occupation, home and email addresses, phone number and bank account details, even though the mathematical probability of such an event occurring cannot be calculated.

It is reasonable to declare it is impossible for a forest to ever build a log cabin, even though the mathematical probability of such an event cannot be calculated.

It is reasonable to declare it impossible for baboons to ever build a space craft and fly it to the moon and back, even though the mathematical probability of such an event cannot be calculated.

It is reasonable to declare it impossible for dead matter to ever arrange itself into a self-replicating, living machine within a few hours (ie, before it dies), even though the mathematical probability of such an event cannot be calculated.

I understand your example, however, I would classify it as a false analogy. Why? Because baboons building a space craft et al, are not similar situations to something such as the self-assembly and formation of RNA and phospholipids.

With that said, you make the leap from "impossible to calculate" to "monkeys can't build space shuttles" to "...therefore God". That's pretty much the equivalent of saying:



Also, the assumption that "dead" (non-living, yet organic matter) suddenly became a living, replicating cellular structure is a mischaracterization of the current scientific thought on the matter.  The transition is thought of as more of a process of intermediate steps, many of them most likely not successful, yet with the formation and action of primitive autocatalytic cycles it doesn't seem so implausible.

There are also those who take the stance of a divine hand initiating the necessary conditions for that self-assembly.  If the default in your argument is "God did it", why wouldn't it be reasonable to think it was accomplished through assembly of chemical polynucleotides which would eventually form a replicating protocell?

Either way, it's a more logical conclusion to defer to current models based upon experimental inquiry than to invoke the supernatural in my opinion.

[Dredge]

I've learnt to be very skeptical of scientists and their theories.  So here's my general rule for sorting fact from possible fiction: I only believe in scientific theories that have found a use in applied science, since such a use means that the theory is correct beyond any doubt.  This approach to reality is anathema to most atheists, who swallow theoretical science as credulously as children.  And why not?  Theoretical science means you can entertain all sorts of possibilities without having to prove anything, not to mention allowing for specious "evidence" to be imbibed.
For example, without a shred of real evidence, scientists claim that the first primitive cells were much simpler than any cells existing today.  This "dumbing down" of the alleged first life form is a tenet of atheist theology, because extant cells are way too complex for abiogenesis doctrine to handle.  

Abiogenesis is a never-ending story of baseless assumptions and untestable theories - a dreamer's paradise, in other words.

[Dredge]

I'd be interested in seeing the math from which you derived this conclusion.  Please enlighten us with your probability model for the origin of life. However, I detect the presence of an argument from personal incredulity so I won't get my hopes up.

An unobserved (past or future) event can reasonably be declared impossible without calculating the mathematical probability of that event.   The mathematical probability of some unobserved events, be they deemed possible or impossible, cannot ever be calculated. 
Furthermore, even if the probability of an unobserved event can be calculated, we still may have no way of knowing if is possible or impossible (for example, if the probability of a certain event is calculated to be one in a trillion-trillion, is the event possible or impossible?)


It is reasonable to declare it impossible for my house to be struck by a brick-size meteorite every day for a year, even though the mathematical probability of such an event occurring cannot be calculated.

It is reasonable to declare it impossible that the action of waves crashing onto the sea shore will ever arrange sea shells on that shore to read out my full name, address, age, occupation, home and email addresses, phone number and bank account details, even though the mathematical probability of such an event occurring cannot be calculated.

It is reasonable to declare it is impossible for a forest to ever build a log cabin, even though the mathematical probability of such an event cannot be calculated.

It is reasonable to declare it impossible for baboons to ever build a space craft and fly it to the moon and back, even though the mathematical probability of such an event cannot be calculated.

It is reasonable to declare it impossible for dead matter to ever arrange itself into a self-replicating, living machine within a few hours (ie, before it dies), even though the mathematical probability of such an event cannot be calculated.

Sophistry

Why is it sophistry?

[xSilverPhinx]

...is a tenet of atheist theology...

 

[No one]

Dredge:
A dreamer's paradise.

Now, that's funny.

[Sandra Craft]

Abiogenesis is a never-ending story of baseless assumptions and untestable theories - a dreamer's paradise, in other words.

So it's arm wrestling with the Bible then?