Posted on 08/24/2005 10:16:24 PM PDT by LibWhacker
If you're asking "where did matter come from" (and it sounds like this is where you are trending), it may be an artifact of the expansion of the universe. Physicist can explain it eloquently, but it has something to do with the gravitic potential energy of the universe translating into matter in accordance with Einstein's equation.
I did Google "Law of Biogenesis." It comes from Pasteur's experiments that show bacteria do not spontaneously generate -- or that life isn't suddenly zapped into existence, which is a blow for creationism, not science. The latter hypothesizes a gradual shading from self-replicating molecules (Google that and you'll get about 300 research papers; it'll make your head hurt) to primitive lifeforms. At no point could you actually point at one of the products and say, "this is life and its parent is non-life." Each would simply be points on a spectrum from non-life to life.
In other words, something came from nothing, in violation of the first law of thermodynamics.
You always have to start with a given now don't you?
I did Google "Law of Biogenesis." It comes from Pasteur's experiments that show bacteria do not spontaneously generate -- or that life isn't suddenly zapped into existence, which is a blow for creationism, not science. The latter hypothesizes a gradual shading from self-replicating molecules (Google that and you'll get about 300 research papers; it'll make your head hurt) to primitive lifeforms. At no point could you actually point at one of the products and say, "this is life and its parent is non-life." Each would simply be points on a spectrum from non-life to life.
You really are quite funny.
Non-life did not evolve into life.
Shading.
LOL!
No. If you don't understand something, simply say so.
You are incredibly ignorant in Microbiology. Perhaps an Inro. to Microbiology course would do you good.
How is that impossible?
Based on the laws of probability it is.
No, I understood exactly what you said.
You started with molecules which came from where?
And then somehow, somehow, inexplicity, life slowly came from non-life!
LOL!
Why Abiogenesis Is Impossible
Jerry Bergman, Ph.D.
In spite of the overwhelming empirical and probabilistic evidence that life could not originate by natural processes, evolutionists possess an unwavering belief that some day they will have an answer to how life could spontaneously generate. Nobel laureate Christian de Duve (1995) argues that life is the product of law-driven chemical steps, each one of which must have been highly probable in the right circumstances. This reliance upon an unknown “law” favoring life has been postulated to replace the view that life’s origin was a freakish accident unlikely to occur anywhere, is now popular. Chance is now out of favor in part because it has become clear that even the simplest conceivable life form (still much simpler than any actual organism) would have to be so complex that accidental self-assembly would be nothing short of miraculous even in two billion years (Spetner, 1997). Furthermore, natural selection cannot operate until biological reproducing units exist. This hoped for “law,” though, has no basis in fact nor does it even have a theoretical basis. It is a nebulous concept which results from a determination to continue the quest for a naturalistic explanation of life.
http://www.trueorigin.org/abio.asp
"First, eliminate the impossible, life coming from non-life. How is that impossible?"
"Based on the laws of probability it is."
Is that supposed to be an answer? What are the "laws of probability" and how do they preclude the possibility of life evolving from simple molecules?
Why Abiogenesis Is Impossible
Jerry Bergman, Ph.D.
In spite of the overwhelming empirical and probabilistic evidence that life could not originate by natural processes, evolutionists possess an unwavering belief that some day they will have an answer to how life could spontaneously generate. Nobel laureate Christian de Duve (1995) argues that life is the product of law-driven chemical steps, each one of which must have been highly probable in the right circumstances. This reliance upon an unknown “law” favoring life has been postulated to replace the view that life’s origin was a freakish accident unlikely to occur anywhere, is now popular. Chance is now out of favor in part because it has become clear that even the simplest conceivable life form (still much simpler than any actual organism) would have to be so complex that accidental self-assembly would be nothing short of miraculous even in two billion years (Spetner, 1997). Furthermore, natural selection cannot operate until biological reproducing units exist. This hoped for “law,” though, has no basis in fact nor does it even have a theoretical basis. It is a nebulous concept which results from a determination to continue the quest for a naturalistic explanation of life.
http://www.trueorigin.org/abio.asp
Declaring something "impossible" is the same as saying you've proven a negative. It can't be done. In the case of abiogenesis, not all the variables are known as of yet. Declaring something "impossible" is a bit like that patent office manager who said everything had already been invented around the turn of the 20th century.
It's almost like you "won't go there" because of the consequences you see in connecting the dots. Morton's Demon has you firmly in its grasp.
Zero chance is about right, since an optically active amino acid racemizes over a period of time to eventually become a 50-50 mixture of the D and L isomers. The time frame is different for each amino acid, and has been (attempted) to be used as a biological clock. However the process is sensitive to temperature and moisture, so it isn't a true "half-life" phenomenon. The time frame as I recall is on the order of a few thousands, to maybe a few hundreds of thousands of years, and would be long done after the millions or billions of years you are wanting to look at.
That's not an answer. Life may be improbable, but that's not the same as impossible.
Probability of what? You don't know any of the variables -- like the amount of organic material available, the number of catalysts, the amount of added energy, the time period over which this may have happened, or even what early or proto-life forms would have looked like. So how can you compute probability?
The probablitly of producing DNA from organic material.
Oh, I see the word Proto-life again.
So exactly what is this proto-life?
You guys are really in a Star Trek fantasy world.
All you guys have to do to prove the probabality wrong is produce life in the Lab, which you have not been able to do under ideal circumstances.
Hey, but why don't you spend your time on something really useful, like trying to change lead into gold since you have a far better chance in doing it.
Here is a link to an article yesterday by MSNBC on what the evolutionists think man will look like in the future.
Not the similarities to the Star Trek characters.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7348103/
Keep the faith!
Alright, lets say that it is highly improbable.
The Improbability of Abiogenesis
According to the theory of evolution, taken in the broad sense, living matter arose at some point in the past from non-living matter by ordinary chemical and physical processes. This is called abiogenesis. Creationists often attempt to calculate the probability of this occurring, which is difficult to do. However, it is possible to give an estimate based on reasonable assumptions.
Amino acids and nucleic acids are the building blocks of life, and they come in two forms, which spiral left and right. All life consists of only one of these forms. Since both forms are generated equally by inorganic chemical processes, it seems hard to imagine that life could have originated having only one of these forms. Recently it has been claimed that meteorites have an excess of one form over another. But due to racemization, these forms tend to equalize over time, so we can expect that in a primitive earth, there would have been essentially equal numbers of both forms.
Biologists currently estimate that the smallest life form as we know it would have needed about 256 genes. (See Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences Volume 93, Number 19, pp. 10268-10273 at http://journals.at-home.com/get_doc/1854083/8551). A gene is typically 1000 or more base pairs long, and there is some space in between, so 256 genes would amount to about 300,000 bases of DNA. The deoxyribose in the DNA ``backbone'' determines the direction in which it will spiral. Since organic molecules can be generated in both forms, the chance of obtaining all one form or another in 300,000 bases is one in two to the 300,000 power. This is about one in 10 to the 90,000 power.
It seems to be necessary for life that all of these bases spiral in the same direction. Now, if we imagine many, many DNA molecules being formed in the early history of the earth, we might have say 10 100 molecules altogether (which is really much too high). But even this would make the probability of getting one DNA molecule right about one in 10 to the 89,900 power, still essentially zero. (emphasis added)
And we are not even considering what proteins the DNA generates, or how the rest of the cell structure would get put together! So the real probability would be fantastically small.
Biologists are hypothesizing some RNA-based life form that might have had a smaller genome and might have given rise to a cell with about 256 genes. Until this is demonstrated, one would have to say that the problem of abiogenesis is very severe indeed for the theory of evolution.
http://www.cs.unc.edu/~plaisted/ce/abiogenesis.html
Just have faith in the god of chance!
Why DNA? DNA isn't life. Proteins would seem to me to be far more important. But if we put that aside for a second, how do you calculate the odds? How much organic material do you have? In what environment? Over what period of time? How much DNA do you need? These are all questions you'd need to answer before your probability computation could hold water.
All you guys have to do to prove the probabality wrong is produce life in the Lab,
No, all we have to do is show that your numbers are wrong. I'm not saying life started naturally. I'm saying that you can't exclude the possibility and that you're pontificating about odds when your math (assuming you have any) doesn't worth.
As for your silly link, the bizarre drawings were done by an MSNBC graffic artist -- I'm not sure what that has to do with biogenesis.
Well, the evolutionists have about given up trying to prove that life could have begun on life on earth.
That is why they are starting to look toward space.
All you guys have to do to prove the probability wrong is produce life in the Lab, No, all we have to do is show that your numbers are wrong. I'm not saying life started naturally. I'm saying that you can't exclude the possibility and that you're pontificating about odds when your math (assuming you have any) doesn't worth.
Well, if life didn't begin 'naturally'then you have no evolution.
The math is such that it makes life becoming non-life highly improbable
And then you have to add on that 'life' surviving to reproduce.
Hoyt (the astronomer) said that the odds of such a thing happening was equivalent of a tornado going through a junkyard and producing a 747.
But ofcourse, in the fantesy world of the evolutionist, they think this represents a real possiblity.
As for your silly link, the bizarre drawings were done by an MSNBC graffic artist -- I'm not sure what that has to do with biogenesis.
It just shows the mentality of the evolutionists who are getting their ideas from Star Trek and Star Wars.
The Improbability of Abiogenesis
According to the theory of evolution, taken in the broad sense, living matter arose at some point in the past from non-living matter by ordinary chemical and physical processes. This is called abiogenesis. Creationists often attempt to calculate the probability of this occurring, which is difficult to do. However, it is possible to give an estimate based on reasonable assumptions.
Amino acids and nucleic acids are the building blocks of life, and they come in two forms, which spiral left and right. All life consists of only one of these forms. Since both forms are generated equally by inorganic chemical processes, it seems hard to imagine that life could have originated having only one of these forms. Recently it has been claimed that meteorites have an excess of one form over another. But due to racemization, these forms tend to equalize over time, so we can expect that in a primitive earth, there would have been essentially equal numbers of both forms.
Biologists currently estimate that the smallest life form as we know it would have needed about 256 genes. (See Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences Volume 93, Number 19, pp. 10268-10273 at http://journals.at-home.com/get_doc/1854083/8551). A gene is typically 1000 or more base pairs long, and there is some space in between, so 256 genes would amount to about 300,000 bases of DNA. The deoxyribose in the DNA ``backbone'' determines the direction in which it will spiral. Since organic molecules can be generated in both forms, the chance of obtaining all one form or another in 300,000 bases is one in two to the 300,000 power. This is about one in 10 to the 90,000 power.
It seems to be necessary for life that all of these bases spiral in the same direction. Now, if we imagine many, many DNA molecules being formed in the early history of the earth, we might have say 10 100 molecules altogether (which is really much too high). But even this would make the probability of getting one DNA molecule right about one in 10 to the 89,900 power, still essentially zero. (emphasis added)
And we are not even considering what proteins the DNA generates, or how the rest of the cell structure would get put together! So the real probability would be fantastically small.
Biologists are hypothesizing some RNA-based life form that might have had a smaller genome and might have given rise to a cell with about 256 genes. Until this is demonstrated, one would have to say that the problem of abiogenesis is very severe indeed for the theory of evolution.
http://www.cs.unc.edu/~plaisted/ce/abiogenesis.html
Well that explains all those aliens that keep abducting so many Art Bell listeners and it also explains where all those crop circles are coming from. Oh, and what about those cattle mutilations and what else, con-trails.
"The Bible is worth all other books which have ever been printed."
Patrick Henry,
Wirt Henry's, Life, vol. II, p. 621
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.