Re: [creationevolutiondebate] Re: Abiogenesis
- On 29 Sep 01, at 22:45, atomicbohr@... wrote:
>And you don't like those assumptions because they refuse to
> > > Since Copernicus, the assumption has been that we are nothing
> > > special, i.e., mediocre. We are not the center of the universe,
> > > we are not especially important in the universe, evolution does
> > > not have a direction etc.
> > Science doesn't care about your religious assumptions, Mike.
> > Sorry if you don't like that.
> Hello, LENNY!! This is an assumption of science.
conform to your religious opinions.
Science doesn't CARE about your religious opinions. Sorry if that
bothers you. <shrug>
And if you have any evdience to invalidate any of those
"assumptions of science", please by all means go ahead and tell
us all about it. Other than your religious assumptions.
"There are no loose threads in the web of life"
Check out my reptile page:
Creation "Science" Debunked:
>To be more accurate Shapiro took a highly critical look at the models
>Robert Shapiro is a chemist who actively participated in the post-1952
>experimental investigations of "origin of life by natural chemical
>evolution", and in 1986 published a very significant book (Origins)
>summarizing that work and the conclusions to be drawn from it.
of abiogenesis current at that time. More recently Shapiro has said
some very complimentary things about the models based on pyrites.
> Dismissing asIf this is an accurate assessment of what Shapiro was attempting, it
>unrealistic the idea that either DNA or RNA could ever have spontaneously
>"evolved", because of the complexity of those purine base + sugar +
>phosphoric acid structures. He asks what could have been the simplest
>possible "pre-living" chemical assemblage that might have been able to
>generate the essential quality of life, self-replication.
has been proven incorrect.
> GenerouslyThe calculation is not supplied so it is hard to check the underlying
>oversimplifying to the maximum degree credible (or beyond), he proposes (p.
>296) that the first "proto-life" might conceivably have emerged from a set
>of as few as ten very small "primitive enzymes", each one a mini-protein of
>only 25 links, and all constructed from a set of only four amino acids,
>rather than the twenty that Nature now employs. Assuming for the purpose the
>real natural occurrence of a "primordial soup" that consisted exclusively of
>those four amino acids (which is of course, a simply ridiculous postulate),
>he proceeds to show that, under these absurdly favorable conditions, the
>probability of "spontaneously", or accidentally, forming the requisite set
>of molecules would be about 1 in 10^150. So, if something like 10^150 random
>trials were available, the thing might really have happened. But he had
>previously calculated (p. 126) that, if one assumes that the Earth was
>covered by a 10-km-deep layer of "soup", and that random trials went on at
>the rate of one billion per second in every cubic micrometer (billionth of a
>cubic millimeter) of that ocean for one billion years (the maximum time that
>really elapsed before life appeared), only 1.5 x 10^62 separate tries could
>be made. (I have checked this calculation, and found it correct.) This
>number is so invisibly tiny compared to 10^150 (far tinier than a bacterium
>compared to the whole Solar System!) that the spontaneous natural formation
>of the ten mini-enzymes is thus demonstrated to be strictly impossible.
assumptions. However I am sure that Shapiro did not accept it as the
last word on the matter and anyone doing so is taking an extremely
risky position - that there will be no further advances in the
relevant science. I can say with certainty that there have been
advances and this estimate cannot be accepted.
>Summary: The only rational thing that CAN be demonstrated
>about abiogenesis is that it is impossible.
lease provide us with such a demonstration. Your first attempt was
an irrelevance, the second a strawman and while the third is better
the supposed source of the calculation does not accept your claim !
> Stop grasping atTim, you are the one grasping at straws - you can't even evaluate the
arguments you are providing. Why not accept the fact that the
probability cannot be calculated to any useful degree of precision ?
"The T'ang emperors were strong believers in the pills of
immortality. More emperors died of poisoning from ingesting minerals
in the T'ang than in any other dynasty" - Eva Wong _The Shambhala
Guide to Taoism_