Abiogenesis is impossible

[snowtracks]

ice melt - 2'nd law of therm. heat outside of the ice disorganizes which is called entropy. not relevant.

Which is rather the point: it's a physical process, not occurring to a set of instructions, just like DNA. No informational content.

And by the way, feel free to just say "I have no argument, and am wrong," next time. It'll save us a lot of time.

biological information is measured in basically 2 ways (you all ready know this, but you want to make things difficult - nice try, but doesn't fly): 1. viability of whole organisms 2. function of biochemical systems.
so the more function, the more information required to perform the function. that's answer, now get off your high horse.

[Esquilax]

biological information is measured in basically 2 ways (you all ready know this, but you want to make things difficult - nice try, but doesn't fly): 1. viability of whole organisms 2. function of biochemical systems.
so the more function, the more information required to perform the function. that's answer, now get off your high horse.

And as I mentioned the first time you fucking tried this, you're injecting a whole bunch of question-begging into your definitions: rather than actually showing a test where one can distinctly find the quantitative substance called information, what you've done is just defined functional organisms and complex systems as possessing information. This isn't a test; it's a baseless assertion.

"What's information?" "It's a thing viable organisms have." "How can you demonstrate that?" "If organisms are viable, it means they possess information, duh!"

Do you not see the problem there?

[snowtracks]

biological information is measured in basically 2 ways (you all ready know this, but you want to make things difficult - nice try, but doesn't fly): 1. viability of whole organisms 2. function of biochemical systems.
so the more function, the more information required to perform the function. that's answer, now get off your high horse.

And as I mentioned the first time you fucking tried this, you're injecting a whole bunch of question-begging into your definitions: rather than actually showing a test where one can distinctly find the quantitative substance called information, what you've done is just defined functional organisms and complex systems as possessing information. This isn't a test; it's a baseless assertion.

"What's information?" "It's a thing viable organisms have." "How can you demonstrate that?" "If organisms are viable, it means they possess information, duh!"

Do you not see the problem there?

i'm not backing if you think the fword is going to do that. and you tell that to your young and beautiful one that also.

[Esquilax]

i'm not backing if you think the fword is going to do that. and you tell that to your young and beautiful one that also.

Don't be afraid, it's only a word. It's not magical, unlike your thinking.

I know another thing that won't make you back down either: logic.

Now, do you have anything substantial, or just more of the same baseless assertions and arrogant insinuations that I already secretly agree with you?

[snowtracks]

so, i put this out there - "one problem for undirected spontaneous interactions from a prebiotic compound is that the dna complimentary 2 strands that form the double helix construction cannot bind with each other unless all the building blocks (nucleotides) are of the same handedness (here, all 19 are left handed). nature and lab experiments have shown nonbiological processes produce molecules in essentially 50% (even distribution of right, left) which corresponds to randomness, whereas encoded information (building instructions) directs handedness from the get-go." - knowing that the evolution microbiologists have given up explaining it; but still, i thought someone on this board would tell how it's done by unidirectional processes. again, two need to be explained: double helix design and construction, and the 19 nucleotides all being one-handed (whereas experimentally it comes up randomly around 50%.).

[Brakeman]

so, i put this out there - "one problem for undirected spontaneous interactions from a prebiotic compound is that the dna complimentary 2 strands that form the double helix construction cannot bind with each other unless all the building blocks (nucleotides) are of the same handedness (here, all 19 are left handed). nature and lab experiments have shown nonbiological processes produce molecules in essentially 50% (even distribution of right, left) which corresponds to randomness, whereas encoded information (building instructions) directs handedness from the get-go." - knowing that the evolution microbiologists have given up explaining it; but still, i thought someone on this board would tell how it's done by unidirectional processes. again, two need to be explained: double helix design and construction, and the 19 nucleotides all being one-handed (whereas experimentally it comes up randomly around 50%.).

Really now, This sounds so much like the "you can't say invisible pixies don't push the car forward if you as a mechanic can't explain why the CD player works" argument.

If the conditions for abiogenesis weren't a rare thing, we'd have new life popping up everywhere. Your argument that conditions would be rare to cause life, does not go against observation, nor our current theories. It doesn't say anything.

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB040.html
Amino acids found in meteorites from space, which must have formed abiotically, also show significantly more of the left-handed variety, perhaps from circularly polarized UV light in the early solar system (Engel and Macko 1997; Cronin and Pizzarello 1999). The weak nuclear force, responsible for beta decay, produces only electrons with left-handed spin, and chemicals exposed to these electrons are far more likely to form left-handed crystals (Service 1999). Such mechanisms might also have been responsible for the prevalence of left-handed amino acids on earth.

[Esquilax]

so, i put this out there - "one problem for undirected spontaneous interactions from a prebiotic compound is that the dna complimentary 2 strands that form the double helix construction cannot bind with each other unless all the building blocks (nucleotides) are of the same handedness (here, all 19 are left handed). nature and lab experiments have shown nonbiological processes produce molecules in essentially 50% (even distribution of right, left) which corresponds to randomness, whereas encoded information (building instructions) directs handedness from the get-go." - knowing that the evolution microbiologists have given up explaining it; but still, i thought someone on this board would tell how it's done by unidirectional processes. again, two need to be explained: double helix design and construction, and the 19 nucleotides all being one-handed (whereas experimentally it comes up randomly around 50%.).

And as I reminded you when you first posted it, arguments from (colossal, arrogant) ignorance don't make your position any stronger, nor ours any weaker. Do you have anything positive, or are you planning to continue covering for your lack of evidence or support by sniping at everyone else?

[snowtracks]

so, i put this out there - "one problem for undirected spontaneous interactions from a prebiotic compound is that the dna complimentary 2 strands that form the double helix construction cannot bind with each other unless all the building blocks (nucleotides) are of the same handedness (here, all 19 are left handed). nature and lab experiments have shown nonbiological processes produce molecules in essentially 50% (even distribution of right, left) which corresponds to randomness, whereas encoded information (building instructions) directs handedness from the get-go." - knowing that the evolution microbiologists have given up explaining it; but still, i thought someone on this board would tell how it's done by unidirectional processes. again, two need to be explained: double helix design and construction, and the 19 nucleotides all being one-handed (whereas experimentally it comes up randomly around 50%.).

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB040.html
Amino acids found in meteorites from space, which must have formed abiotically, also show significantly more of the left-handed variety, perhaps from circularly polarized UV light in the early solar system (Engel and Macko 1997; Cronin and Pizzarello 1999). The weak nuclear force, responsible for beta decay, produces only electrons with left-handed spin, and chemicals exposed to these electrons are far more likely to form left-handed crystals (Service 1999). Such mechanisms might also have been responsible for the prevalence of left-handed amino acids on earth.

credit is due where it's found, poster put some science out there.

"Amino acids found in meteorites from space",
===========================
organic chemist w. bonner said he spent 25 years looking for a terrestrial mechanism for homochirality (one handedness) and didn't find in supporting evidence. so concluded that the source must be extraterrestrial.

"perhaps from circularly polarized UV light in the early solar system"
=======================================
using 100% circularly polarized uv light, the most successful lab expers. yielded only 20% excess lefthanded.
but this results was achieve not by production but by destruction. the uv light destroyed a large fraction of the amino acid, and depending on the directional rotation of the circular polarization, one configuration of the molecules suffered significantly more destruction than the other.

so the hunt has moved to extraterrestrial for a solution. so the appeal goes out to future again.

[Angrboda]

[Sejanus]

Why is this thread still alive?