The origin of Life

[marke]

Here are quotes I picked up from Casting Serious Doubts about Darwinian Origins of Life at http://forum.bible-discussion.com/sh...n-of-Life-html

"There is no known law of nature no process and no known sequence of events which can cause information to originate by itself in matter." Dr. Verner

"To press the matter further, if there were a basic principle of matter which somehow drove organic systems toward life, its existence should easily be demonstrable in the laboratory." Fred Hoyle

"Put bluntly, the organization of chemicals necessary for life to begin are endlessly complex and very, very unlikely to occur in a random manner. Some researchers have gone so far as to calculate the probability of life emerging by sheer chance alone and concluded that the odds against it were astronomically absurd. In short, the odds against life spontaneously emerging were so high the number exceeded the total number of particles in the known universe. In discussing that possibility, two scientists note with caution:
"The probability of life originating at random is so utterly miniscule as to make it absurd." Chandra Wickramasinghe

"The evidence... shows that some sequence of events of almost zero probability did take place over 3,500 million years ago. Before the event, the chances that it would occur were exceedingly small." J. Brooks

"Thus, one must inevitably come to the conclusion that the origin of life has yet to really be explained. Sure, various theories have been tossed around and a few unconvincing experiments have been conducted, but the fact remains that the actual sequence of events which led to life on Earth remain completely mysterious. Several quotes from experts confirm this in a variety of different ways: A scenario describing the [origin] of life on earth by chance and natural causes which can be accepted on the basis of fact and not faith, has not yet been written." Hubert P. Yockey

"What is so frustrating for our present purpose is that it seems almost impossible to give any numerical value to the probability of what seems a rather unlikely sequence of events... An honest man, armed with all the knowledge available to us now, could only state that in some sense, the origin of life appears at the moment to be almost a miracle." Dr. francis Crick

There are more quotes, but the point is clear. Life and matter could not possibility have begun apart from the supernatural creative act of God.

[phank]

Comes straight from bible-discussion.com, so of course it's science. What else could it possibly be?

Now, if anyone is interested in the research itself, there are multiple good sources. Here's a good place to start. For those who can't read very well, here's the science. For those who STILL can't read, I hope you're content with marke's quote mining.

[phank]

Also, Carl Zimmer does a pretty readable job of covering the scinece.

[shunyadragon]

Here are quotes I picked up from Casting Serious Doubts about Darwinian Origins of Life at http://forum.bible-discussion.com/sh...n-of-Life-html

"There is no known law of nature no process and no known sequence of events which can cause information to originate by itself in matter." Dr. Verner

"To press the matter further, if there were a basic principle of matter which somehow drove organic systems toward life, its existence should easily be demonstrable in the laboratory." Fred Hoyle

"Put bluntly, the organization of chemicals necessary for life to begin are endlessly complex and very, very unlikely to occur in a random manner. Some researchers have gone so far as to calculate the probability of life emerging by sheer chance alone and concluded that the odds against it were astronomically absurd. In short, the odds against life spontaneously emerging were so high the number exceeded the total number of particles in the known universe. In discussing that possibility, two scientists note with caution:
"The probability of life originating at random is so utterly miniscule as to make it absurd." Chandra Wickramasinghe

"The evidence... shows that some sequence of events of almost zero probability did take place over 3,500 million years ago. Before the event, the chances that it would occur were exceedingly small." J. Brooks

"Thus, one must inevitably come to the conclusion that the origin of life has yet to really be explained. Sure, various theories have been tossed around and a few unconvincing experiments have been conducted, but the fact remains that the actual sequence of events which led to life on Earth remain completely mysterious. Several quotes from experts confirm this in a variety of different ways: A scenario describing the [origin] of life on earth by chance and natural causes which can be accepted on the basis of fact and not faith, has not yet been written." Hubert P. Yockey

"What is so frustrating for our present purpose is that it seems almost impossible to give any numerical value to the probability of what seems a rather unlikely sequence of events... An honest man, armed with all the knowledge available to us now, could only state that in some sense, the origin of life appears at the moment to be almost a miracle." Dr. francis Crick

There are more quotes, but the point is clear. Life and matter could not possibility have begun apart from the supernatural creative act of God.

Many, many, many problems and contradiction here. First, Darwinian evolution has nothing to do with the origins of life, not the origin of matter and energy. Second, probability has absolutely nothing to do with the sequence of events in either evolution nor the origins of life. Third, basic knowledge of science, math, and statistics is totally missing in action here. Fourth, these arguments are ancient road kill repeated mindlessly in hundreds of threads.

Frustrating isn't it? Mindless religious agendas in control the minds of more than half the population of America!!!

[Tiggy]

I see no scientific evidence of any sort, just a list of people expressing their personal incredulity.

Are there any points in that pile of quotes you wish to discuss, or did you just come here to 'witness'?

- T

[USIncognito]

God created the first primordial lifeforms ~3.5 billion years ago and it's been evolving ever since.

Now what marke?

[magellan004]

First, Darwinian evolution has nothing to do with the origins of life, ...

There is a necessary and close connection between the start of life and the notion of evolution. You can't have evolution starting in a vacuum. Presumably you start with a population of some sort. Why would living things not evolve then get into a population then start to evolve?

The regress problem exposes evolution, opposes evolution and deposes evolution. (Courtesy of Paias Wingti, Ex Pie Minister of New Guinea.)

Magellan

[shunyadragon]

There is a necessary and close connection between the start of life and the notion of evolution. You can't have evolution starting in a vacuum. Presumably you start with a population of some sort. Why would living things not evolve then get into a population then start to evolve?

The point is to separate and not equate the science of evolution with that of the science of the beginning of evolution.

The regress problem exposes evolution, opposes evolution and deposes evolution. (Courtesy of Paias Wingti, Ex Pie Minister of New Guinea.)

Magellan

What qualificatins does this turkey have to give credence to this assertion? Actually absolutely none.

[magellan004]

The point is to separate and not equate the science of evolution with that of the science of the beginning of evolution.

You can classify to your heart's content. If I were to say 'We take an object moving at greater than the speed of light and construct the science of its dynamics' you might ask - 'Why do you start there?'
Starting with a 'Population' is of the same order of fantasy.

Magellan

[Jorge]

There is a necessary and close connection between the start of life and the notion of evolution. You can't have evolution starting in a vacuum. Presumably you start with a population of some sort. Why would living things not evolve then get into a population then start to evolve?

The regress problem exposes evolution, opposes evolution and deposes evolution. (Courtesy of Paias Wingti, Ex Pie Minister of New Guinea.)

Magellan

*********************************************

That is a point that I have expressed here time and time again - 'til I'm blue in the face.

They want their cake and to eat it too. They want to eliminate God yet compartmentalize
Evolution apart from abiogenesis. They won't admit what is obvious to a three-year-old:
YOU CANNOT EVOLVE SOMETHING UNTIL THAT SOMETHING FIRST EXISTS !!!

Then some clowns say, "Okay, God created life ... now what?"

Well, WHAT God? What are HIS attributes? What do we know of HIM?
WOULD such a God use a process of death and extinction to bring about
a being created in HIS image? Etc ... etc ... etc ... etc ... etc ... etc ...

The 'thinking' of these people is shallow beyond comprehension.

Jorge

[marke]

Comes straight from bible-discussion.com, so of course it's science. What else could it possibly be?

Now, if anyone is interested in the research itself, there are multiple good sources. Here's a good place to start. For those who can't read very well, here's the science. For those who STILL can't read, I hope you're content with marke's quote mining.

I should point out a few things. First, the facts or evidence or issues may be legitimately be introduced by anyone, no matter whether their credentials are less than what some others might have. Dismissing the facts by belittling those who point those facts out is a technique employed by those unable or unwilling to deal with the issues themselves. If an idiot posts something on a thread the very best thing someone can do is to intelligently deal with the subject matter and if the idiot has made wrong assumptions or cconclusions or statements about that evidence then that will come out in the response.

Another thing I would like to point out is that quotes from articles will always be only partial when not quoting the whole article. If an idiot or anyone else lists a quote out of context, there is no purpose in attacking the idiot without showing the quote to be wrong. Otherwise, if the idiot is attacked but the quote is left standing, then nothing is proven wrong with the quote as it stands.

The talkorigins article you listed pointed out several other links which also provide support for the idea that abiogenesis is impossible. Perhaps it might be advantageous for us to look more deeply into the various arguments themselves in order to gain a greater understanding of the facts and evidence.

[Tiggy]

*********************************************

That is a point that I have expressed here time and time again - 'til I'm blue in the face.

They want their cake and to eat it too. They want to eliminate God yet compartmentalize
Evolution apart from abiogenesis. They won't admit what is obvious to a three-year-old:
YOU CANNOT EVOLVE SOMETHING UNTIL THAT SOMETHING FIRST EXISTS !!!

Which is exactly why evolution and abiogenesis are two separate scientific fields of study.

Then some clowns say, "Okay, God created life ... now what?"

Well, WHAT God? What are HIS attributes? What do we know of HIM?
WOULD such a God use a process of death and extinction to bring about
a being created in HIS image? Etc ... etc ... etc ... etc ... etc ... etc ...

The 'thinking' of these people is shallow beyond comprehension.

Yeah , you always run from those questions too, just like you run from all YEC questions.

- T

[marke]

Many, many, many problems and contradiction here. First, Darwinian evolution has nothing to do with the origins of life, not the origin of matter and energy. Second, probability has absolutely nothing to do with the sequence of events in either evolution nor the origins of life. Third, basic knowledge of science, math, and statistics is totally missing in action here. Fourth, these arguments are ancient road kill repeated mindlessly in hundreds of threads.

Frustrating isn't it? Mindless religious agendas in control the minds of more than half the population of America!!!

The subject is filled with unanswered questions and mysteries hard to understand, and scientists of all stripes are divided over these issues, which does provide a fertile ground for discovery and discussion. Let the games begin.

[Tiggy]

Perhaps it might be advantageous for us to look more deeply into the various arguments themselves in order to gain a greater understanding of the facts and evidence.

Go for it. Provide the empirical evidence that shows abiogenesis is not just improbable, but 100% impossible. Then we can examine the claim critically.

- T

[marke]

I see no scientific evidence of any sort, just a list of people expressing their personal incredulity.
Are there any points in that pile of quotes you wish to discuss, or did you just come here to 'witness'?
- T

Yes, I do look forward to many intense discussions arising from this subject matter.