Abiogenesis is impossible

[Mister Agenda]

Abiogenesis is impossible

To prove that all life forms came to be without God, evolutionary theory must show that atoms somehow formed into some form of life and then evolved upward to mankind.

Is the fallacious argument from ignorance (if you're wrong, I must be right) the only one you know how to make?

That first part of that, abiogenesis, is impossible. Also whatever that first creature was, it will not evolve upward to the first living cell.

That's a really big burden of proof you're taking on there. I hope your back doesn't break under it.

So some evolutionists came up with a scheme to hide all that impossibility. They said that evolution does not include abiogenesis (life from non-life) and that abiogenesis is a separate topic.

The theory of biological evolution by means of natural selection of variations was arrived at independently by Darwin and Wallace in the 1800s based on their observations of variations among and between species and what had so far been shown by the fossil record. It applies only to biological organisms that reproduce. Abiogenesis is the hypothesis that the first living thing was a product of natural processes; but God could have 'poofed' the first prokaryote into existence and evolution would apply thereafter. There is no sense in which the theory of evolution depends on the hypothesis of abiogenesis. The only reason to insist that it does is in hope that if you can take down abiogenesis, you can bring down evolution with it; but you could completely demolish abiogenesis and evolution would still stand. If you want to take down evolution, you have to take down evolution.

So they take the atoms to mankind task and divide it into separate pieces. But the 2 pieces do not add up to the whole task, thus hiding the impossible parts by leaving them out of both pieces.

Word-salad.

Now if you honestly divide the atoms to mankind task into 2 pieces, you have atoms to the first living creature in the first part, and the same first living creature evolving upward up to mankind in the second part. But that is not what evolutionists do. They take abiogenesis and make the first living thing as small as possible. (BTW - even that can be proven false) and start with a much larger and advanced creature for the second part. That gap is a great deception. That tiny little theorized first thing (which they still do not state what it is) could never cross that gap and evolve to the more advanced creature.

You keep using words like 'never' and 'impossible'. I do not think they mean what you think they mean.

The conundrum is if the first living creature is too small and primitive, then it could not even survive, reproduce, and evolve up to an RNA or DNA based creature.

Spontaneously-formed complex molecules survive all the time today, even though there are life forms that like to eat many of them. Not a conundrum, just a baseless assertion.

But if the first living creature is advanced, then the already impossible odds against abiogenesis become so mind-boggling against it.

Good thing the first part wasn't a problem then, eh?

To calculate the odds against abiogenesis is difficult. But one technique is to underestimate the odds against. That will set a lower bound for the odds.

I hope there aren't any bare assertions to follow.

First living thing is protein based

It probably wasn't.

First living thing is RNA and protein based

Could be.

Now for the first living thing to be RNA based, the creature would be much more complex. Such a creature would have an RNA code of at least 500,000 nucleotides.

This part, you need to prove. There's a Nobel Prize in it for you if you can.

It would contain at least 1000 different proteins types, with at least a million total individual proteins. That would be about 100 million amino acid base pairs. The total number of atoms in such a creature would be greater than 1 billion.

More Nobel fodder if you can actually prove it.

Further complications arise for such a first creature. The RNA code must match the 1000 proteins that exist in the first creature. The proteins must be all in place and functional at the start. The entire RNA to protein system must be complete with all of the proteins to run it in existing and in place.

There's no prize for most unfounded assumptions.

Obviously, this creature could never have just popped into existence. So the odds against this creature are probably infinite. But at least for a lower bound, the odds against such a creature are at least 10^1,000,000,000 to one.

Garbage in, garbage out.

Now could this first creature ever evolve upward to DNA based through natural selection? The answer is no. The reason is that until all of the proteins are in place to use DNA, DNA provides no survival advantages.

Sounds like you're going for more Nobel Prizes in biology and chemistry than any single person has won before.

In fact, if the creature tries to rely on the incomplete DNA system, it would die. So there would still be miracles of miracles still needed to get to the first DNA based cell.

An even smaller first living RNA based creature does not help. It just increases the number of intermediate creatures up to the first cell. That increases the total number of miracles of miracles. But the total odds against do not decrease.

Actually, it helps a lot, because of natural selection. It isn't a random process. Once you have replication, selection for stability and complexity inevitably follow. The reason you think the total odds don't decrease is because you don't understand how natural selection acts as a filter, keeping what improves reproductive success, and discarding what reduces it. It can only work with random variations, but what it does with those variations isn't random at all. You can't predict what the particular outcome will be, but you can predict it will be reproductively successful...and after the fact, whatever path it took will seem unlikely, because of all the alternative paths that it could have taken, but at that point all you're really saying is that if things had been different, they would be different.

First living thing is DNA based

Probably not.

Another problem is that RNA based creatures exist.

That's a very interesting admission. Are you sure you want to stick with it?

Abiogensis is false

You didn't even come close to proving this. You only showed that you can parrot creationist websites.

So no matter where it starts, abiogensis requires a multitude of miracles of miracles to get to the first cell. The odds against, if not infinite, are too mind boggling to even comprehend.

You keep using that word 'miracle'. I do not think it means what you think it means.

The odd against the atoms to mankind theory are much higher than those for abiogenesis. It can be shown that all the species that would be produced by upward evolution require miracles of miracles.

You say it can be shown, but you didn't show it.

So for atheistic origin science a vast multitude of miracles of miracles must occur, one after another, in an exact sequence, in an exact manner as if directed by a super intelligence.

Actually, they could have gone in a variety of manners and in many different sequences. If they had, the history of the development of life would be different.

For creation, only 1 miraculous person is needed. Everything else becomes simple.

You may have a point, however since the evidence supports evolution, it's irrational to discount it. The best you can possibly do is for the miraculous person to have created the first cell, because we know how life developed after that.

Occam’s razor selects creation by God.

Occam's razor isn't supposed to be used to shave off evidence inconvenient to the conclusion you want to reach.

[Minimalist]

Is this moron still spamming the board?

[Crossless2.0]

Ocam's razor would only apply if you can demonstrate that your explanation is even plausible.

So, you have to prove God first. Go ahead, I'll wait.

. . . And the wait continues . . .

[Tonus]

For creation, only 1 miraculous person is needed. Everything else becomes simple.

But that "only 1 miraculous person" is far more advanced and complex than anything you spent discussing in the rest of the post. You speak of the series of highly-improbable to nigh-impossible events that must occur in an unbelievable sequence in order to get a few bits of organic matter to come into existence, then reject that for the existence of a being that is orders of magnitudes more complex than we can even imagine.

So tell us, which sequence of events created this hyper-complex and incalculably-powerful being in his full and final form? Or is god also the end result of an evolutionary process that started with godlike protein strands? Make sure to document your work with plenty of calculations. Thanks.

[Esquilax]

Is anyone else starting to imagine everything Grace writes as written in crayon, by now?

[SavedByGraceThruFaith]

---

Abiogenesis is impossible

To prove that all life forms came to be without God, evolutionary theory must show that atoms somehow formed into some form of life and then evolved upward to mankind.

Is the fallacious argument from ignorance (if you're wrong, I must be right) the only one you know how to make?

That first part of that, abiogenesis, is impossible. Also whatever that first creature was, it will not evolve upward to the first living cell.

That's a really big burden of proof you're taking on there. I hope your back doesn't break under it.

So some evolutionists came up with a scheme to hide all that impossibility. They said that evolution does not include abiogenesis (life from non-life) and that abiogenesis is a separate topic.

The theory of biological evolution by means of natural selection of variations was arrived at independently by Darwin and Wallace in the 1800s based on their observations of variations among and between species and what had so far been shown by the fossil record. It applies only to biological organisms that reproduce. Abiogenesis is the hypothesis that the first living thing was a product of natural processes; but God could have 'poofed' the first prokaryote into existence and evolution would apply thereafter. There is no sense in which the theory of evolution depends on the hypothesis of abiogenesis. The only reason to insist that it does is in hope that if you can take down abiogenesis, you can bring down evolution with it; but you could completely demolish abiogenesis and evolution would still stand. If you want to take down evolution, you have to take down evolution.

So they take the atoms to mankind task and divide it into separate pieces. But the 2 pieces do not add up to the whole task, thus hiding the impossible parts by leaving them out of both pieces.

Word-salad.

Now if you honestly divide the atoms to mankind task into 2 pieces, you have atoms to the first living creature in the first part, and the same first living creature evolving upward up to mankind in the second part. But that is not what evolutionists do. They take abiogenesis and make the first living thing as small as possible. (BTW - even that can be proven false) and start with a much larger and advanced creature for the second part. That gap is a great deception. That tiny little theorized first thing (which they still do not state what it is) could never cross that gap and evolve to the more advanced creature.

You keep using words like 'never' and 'impossible'. I do not think they mean what you think they mean.

The conundrum is if the first living creature is too small and primitive, then it could not even survive, reproduce, and evolve up to an RNA or DNA based creature.

Spontaneously-formed complex molecules survive all the time today, even though there are life forms that like to eat many of them. Not a conundrum, just a baseless assertion.

But if the first living creature is advanced, then the already impossible odds against abiogenesis become so mind-boggling against it.

Good thing the first part wasn't a problem then, eh?

To calculate the odds against abiogenesis is difficult. But one technique is to underestimate the odds against. That will set a lower bound for the odds.

I hope there aren't any bare assertions to follow.

First living thing is protein based

It probably wasn't.

First living thing is RNA and protein based

Could be.

Now for the first living thing to be RNA based, the creature would be much more complex. Such a creature would have an RNA code of at least 500,000 nucleotides.

This part, you need to prove. There's a Nobel Prize in it for you if you can.

It would contain at least 1000 different proteins types, with at least a million total individual proteins. That would be about 100 million amino acid base pairs. The total number of atoms in such a creature would be greater than 1 billion.

More Nobel fodder if you can actually prove it.

Further complications arise for such a first creature. The RNA code must match the 1000 proteins that exist in the first creature. The proteins must be all in place and functional at the start. The entire RNA to protein system must be complete with all of the proteins to run it in existing and in place.

There's no prize for most unfounded assumptions.

Obviously, this creature could never have just popped into existence. So the odds against this creature are probably infinite. But at least for a lower bound, the odds against such a creature are at least 10^1,000,000,000 to one.

Garbage in, garbage out.

Now could this first creature ever evolve upward to DNA based through natural selection? The answer is no. The reason is that until all of the proteins are in place to use DNA, DNA provides no survival advantages.

Sounds like you're going for more Nobel Prizes in biology and chemistry than any single person has won before.

In fact, if the creature tries to rely on the incomplete DNA system, it would die. So there would still be miracles of miracles still needed to get to the first DNA based cell.

An even smaller first living RNA based creature does not help. It just increases the number of intermediate creatures up to the first cell. That increases the total number of miracles of miracles. But the total odds against do not decrease.

Actually, it helps a lot, because of natural selection. It isn't a random process. Once you have replication, selection for stability and complexity inevitably follow. The reason you think the total odds don't decrease is because you don't understand how natural selection acts as a filter, keeping what improves reproductive success, and discarding what reduces it. It can only work with random variations, but what it does with those variations isn't random at all. You can't predict what the particular outcome will be, but you can predict it will be reproductively successful...and after the fact, whatever path it took will seem unlikely, because of all the alternative paths that it could have taken, but at that point all you're really saying is that if things had been different, they would be different.

First living thing is DNA based

Probably not.

Another problem is that RNA based creatures exist.

That's a very interesting admission. Are you sure you want to stick with it?

Abiogensis is false

You didn't even come close to proving this. You only showed that you can parrot creationist websites.

So no matter where it starts, abiogensis requires a multitude of miracles of miracles to get to the first cell. The odds against, if not infinite, are too mind boggling to even comprehend.

You keep using that word 'miracle'. I do not think it means what you think it means.

The odd against the atoms to mankind theory are much higher than those for abiogenesis. It can be shown that all the species that would be produced by upward evolution require miracles of miracles.

You say it can be shown, but you didn't show it.

So for atheistic origin science a vast multitude of miracles of miracles must occur, one after another, in an exact sequence, in an exact manner as if directed by a super intelligence.

Actually, they could have gone in a variety of manners and in many different sequences. If they had, the history of the development of life would be different.

For creation, only 1 miraculous person is needed. Everything else becomes simple.

You may have a point, however since the evidence supports evolution, it's irrational to discount it. The best you can possibly do is for the miraculous person to have created the first cell, because we know how life developed after that.

Occam’s razor selects creation by God.

Occam's razor isn't supposed to be used to shave off evidence inconvenient to the conclusion you want to reach.

---

There is no proof that man evolved from some apelike creature at all.

What proof do you have of evolution changing one kind into another?

None.
It has never been observed.

---

Abiogenesis is impossible

To prove that all life forms came to be without God, evolutionary theory must show that atoms somehow formed into some form of life and then evolved upward to mankind.

Evolution has nothing to say about the subject of Abiogenesis, NOTHING!. Just as gardening has nothing to say about the subject of hairdressing!

Also, evolution does not have the goal or objective in mind to produce some ultimate life form. Only truly stupid people who simply do not understand the subject say these sorts of things!

You obviously don't have a clue how evolution actually works and until you get at least a little proper knowledge of the subject under you belt may I respectfully suggest that you steer away from the subject rather than, as you are currently doing, making an absolute arse of yourself!

So where does the theory of evolution start with, the present world?

How can it claim that evolution explains all the different species if it cannot account fro the first cell.

[Jackalope]

What's a "kind"? That term seems missing from any biology text I've ever read.



Never mind that evolution doesn't make the claim that creatures change from one thing to another.

[Ryantology]

None.
It has never been observed.

You're obviously talking about God, not evolution. I've observed evolution. I have my dad's eyes and my mom's hair color. I am a genetically-unique creature, unlike exactly anything which has ever lived before. That's what evolution is, chumpsworth. You're welcome.

[Bad Wolf]

Grace you dumb fuck, its clear from your post that you haven't listened to anything we have told you in previous threads of yours. I wish you could see how stupid you look, its making everyone else here cringe. Its just sad. If you aren't going to listen to us or educate yourself about the topics you are talking about, please fuck off

[Esquilax]

There is no proof that man evolved from some apelike creature at all.

Not that I think you'll even click on these links, but: Human chromosome two, definitive proof of man's apelike ancestry. A comprehensive list of transitional fossils showing the lineage.

Suck it.

What proof do you have of evolution changing one kind into another?

Here's a list of literally nothing but that.

By the way, what's the definition of a kind?

None.
It has never been observed.

Liar, liar, liar, LIAR.