Abiogenesis and evolution: James Tour

@soothfast said
This is either nonsense or a false premise. If I understand it rightly, it's the latter.

If you do not have the proper environment so what is required can occur, more time means nothing. If you do not have the proper material required, more time means nothing. If you don't have the proper material in the proper quantities and states, more time means nothing. The list goes on and on, for each segment of the process. Nothing nonsensical about it, logically if what is needed isn't there, more time does nothing.

So long lengths of time do not overcome many of the large obstacles for non-life to move towards life. Let alone a very large series of them getting this right occurring back to back, because getting step one doesn't mean step two will occur right away and time can cause the successful step one result to degrade into uselessness, making it as meaningless as having nothing good occur that would cause life.

@kellyjay said
If you do not have the proper environment so what is required can occur, more time means nothing. If you do not have the proper material required, more time means nothing. If you don't have the proper material in the proper quantities and states, more time means nothing. The list goes on and on, for each segment of the process. Nothing nonsensical about it, logically if w ...[text shortened]... grade into uselessness, making it as meaningless as having nothing good occur that would cause life.

What do you mean by the 'proper material'? Of course the material is there, otherwise there would be no life. The 'proper environment' is of course important; for somewhere like 500,000,000 years there was nothing but single - celled life on earth, until enough oxygen existed in the atmosphere to allow more complex life forms to develop. So there's your time factor, anything less than 500,000,000 years would not have been enough time, because there would not have been enough oxygen. During that time none of your degradation occurred, and 500,000,000 years is not 'right away' is it? Your logic is fundamentally flawed at so many levels it's hard to know where to start, so let's start with that.

@kellyjay said
If you do not have the proper environment so what is required can occur, more time means nothing. If you do not have the proper material required, more time means nothing. If you don't have the proper material in the proper quantities and states, more time means nothing. The list goes on and on, for each segment of the process. Nothing nonsensical about it, logically if w ...[text shortened]... grade into uselessness, making it as meaningless as having nothing good occur that would cause life.

There is no such thing as proper in nature. You are anthropomorphizing again. Either a chemical reaction occurs, or some other chemical reaction occurs instead. Neither one is "proper." It's merely that one of them we call "life" and the other we don't call "life."

large obstacles for non-life to move towards life...
A squirrel can move towards a nut, that is true. But nature does not move towards anything, life or otherwise. When talking about the origin of life, a chemical reaction occurs, or some other chemical reaction occurs instead; that's all that ever happens, there is no movement towards anything. You are anthropomorphizing again (again). You do it constantly.

@kellyjay said
If you do not have the proper environment so what is required can occur, more time means nothing. If you do not have the proper material required, more time means nothing. If you don't have the proper material in the proper quantities and states, more time means nothing. The list goes on and on, for each segment of the process. Nothing nonsensical about it, logically if w ...[text shortened]... grade into uselessness, making it as meaningless as having nothing good occur that would cause life.

What alternative do you propose to the scientific ones presented to you in this thread KellyJay?

@indonesia-phil said
What do you mean by the 'proper material'? Of course the material is there, otherwise there would be no life. The 'proper environment' is of course important; for somewhere like 500,000,000 years there was nothing but single - celled life on earth, until enough oxygen existed in the atmosphere to allow more complex life forms to develop. So there's your time factor, an ...[text shortened]... s fundamentally flawed at so many levels it's hard to know where to start, so let's start with that.

This planet has been described as a Goldilocks planet where everything just happened to be set up perfectly for life. Do you think that on this planet is a given that all of the material to make life happen to be in the same place at the same time, and it was strung together in such a way that life started was just a given too, that overcoming the odds for all of this was a 1? You see the difficulty in this, yet you ignore the probabilities that had to be overcome without giving that a second look.

The number of things that have to be done with precision while avoiding contamination is astronomical, but you think it is all just a given, nothing is required to make it happen, its all just ordinary stuff, why do you think that, because it happens all of the time everywhere we look, no, because it doesn't happen anywhere else but here where ever we look?

The timing of these events is the key thing, not how much time you think random rolls of the dice are required to make. If it cannot move forward due to one key element not being there, then the only time a roll of the dice would all for a real chance be when all of the key pieces are there, making it even harder to hit than it is to miss.

The only time a real chance for these things to get a life would be when all of these things occur precisely at the same time and place, in a friendly environment. So when everything lines up there is a chance, and after that it doesn't stop but must continue to be a life-friendly environment, always not breaking down, moving to equilibrium where all things move naturally. You have a lot of faith in nothing and mindlessness.

@kellyjay said
This planet has been described as a Goldilocks planet where everything just happened to be set up perfectly for life. Do you think that on this planet is a given that all of the material to make life happen to be in the same place at the same time, and it was strung together in such a way that life started was just a given too, that overcoming the odds for all of this was a 1?

You have a point. Where your error is in thinking this somehow counters evolution, which doesn't deal with abiogenesis. Evolution is about the diversity of of life not the initial creation of it.

Even if you could prove intelligent design it still wouldn't contradict evolution because an intelligent creator could've simply used evolution as the mechanism to develop life on earth.

@kellyjay said
This planet has been described as a Goldilocks planet where everything just happened to be set up perfectly for life. Do you think that on this planet is a given that all of the material to make life happen to be in the same place at the same time, and it was strung together in such a way that life started was just a given too, that overcoming the odds for all of this was a ...[text shortened]... to equilibrium where all things move naturally. You have a lot of faith in nothing and mindlessness.

"Mindless chance cannot make holes in a cat's fur in just the right place where the eyes peek out; only a mind can do that."

Can you spot the flaw in that argument, @KellyJay? Because that is exactly how you have been arguing all along here.

@kellyjay said
This planet has been described as a Goldilocks planet where everything just happened to be set up perfectly for life. Do you think that on this planet is a given that all of the material to make life happen to be in the same place at the same time, and it was strung together in such a way that life started was just a given too, that overcoming the odds for all of this was a ...[text shortened]... to equilibrium where all things move naturally. You have a lot of faith in nothing and mindlessness.

There is no inevitability that anything will or did happen at all. If conditions had not been right for life to begin, and if all of the 'material' had not been in the same place at the same time, then life would not have begun. Nothing is inevitable, evolution is not inevitable. For 500,000,000 years, the environment was not 'life - friendly' for anything other than single - celled life. Had conditions not changed, there would still only be single - celled life. Bringing that into the macro level, crocodiles have been around for about 95,000,000 years, because they are well adapted to their environment and nothing better came along to alter the gene pool. Things are not 'trying' to evolve, a crocodile isn't looking to become anything other than a crocodile, and 'nature' is not trying to make a better crocodile; there is no 'driving force', there is no conscious design, there is no 'mind' trying to make things happen, it's just a process, and if you understood just a little about how evolution works you would understand this.

@vivify said
You have a point. Where your error is in thinking this somehow counters evolution, which doesn't deal with abiogenesis. Evolution is about the diversity of of life not the initial creation of it.

Even if you could prove intelligent design it still wouldn't contradict evolution because an intelligent creator could've simply used evolution as the mechanism to develop life on earth.

The thing is out of the beginning of life that is where all the information in life gets injected into life. That information guides processes and checks all the processes. Those instructions the information is primary part of the whole ball of wax. Without explanation on the information you have not addressed life.

@indonesia-phil said
There is no inevitability that anything will or did happen at all. If conditions had not been right for life to begin, and if all of the 'material' had not been in the same place at the same time, then life would not have begun. Nothing is inevitable, evolution is not inevitable. For 500,000,000 years, the environment was not 'life - friendly' for anything other than s ...[text shortened]... a process, and if you understood just a little about how evolution works you would understand this.

I have zero complaints about the acknowledgment evolution and a mind directing the processes. I do have giving mindlessness credit!

@indonesia-phil said
There is no inevitability that anything will or did happen at all. If conditions had not been right for life to begin, and if all of the 'material' had not been in the same place at the same time, then life would not have begun. Nothing is inevitable, evolution is not inevitable. For 500,000,000 years, the environment was not 'life - friendly' for anything other than s ...[text shortened]... a process, and if you understood just a little about how evolution works you would understand this.

Without life we don’t have life is that what you are saying? No one is disputing there is life the details on why and how is the discussion. You may as well have two people discussing the origin of a painting, natural processes or a painter? Simply saying there is the painting 🖼 just accept that no need for a painter leaves a lot unanswered.

@moonbus said
"Mindless chance cannot make holes in a cat's fur in just the right place where the eyes peek out; only a mind can do that."

Can you spot the flaw in that argument, @KellyJay? Because that is exactly how you have been arguing all along here.

You really don’t think these things through do you, the world has all the material required for life, that you consider a given a lucky happenstance.

The arrangement of the material is not something that you can just blow off as a happy coincidence, anymore than you can the instructions in a IKEA box on how to assemble a desk, a mind is at work at the bottom of those instructions.

@kellyjay said
I have zero complaints about the acknowledgment evolution and a mind directing the processes. I do have giving mindlessness credit!

So you now accept evolution as a fact? My goodness, we really are making progress, aren't we?

@kellyjay said
Without life we don’t have life is that what you are saying? No one is disputing there is life the details on why and how is the discussion. You may as well have two people discussing the origin of a painting, natural processes or a painter? Simply saying there is the painting 🖼 just accept that no need for a painter leaves a lot unanswered.

No, that isn't what I'm saying, and it isn't what I said. Read my post again and have another go at understanding it.

@indonesia-phil said
So you now accept evolution as a fact? My goodness, we really are making progress, aren't we?

You have never heard me say anything to the contrary, go back and look at all of my posts they are about mind and mindlessness. If life is programmed to behave in a way that causes what we/some would cause evolution it is programmed to do just that. If you think evolution is from a common ancestor and it is encoded into life to do that, that is one of the most incredible feats of programming ever, but then when some think mindlessness could do it, they have no stinking clue about the complexity they are mindlessly giving mindlessness credit for. They cannot explain the start of life and deny a mind at work during the whole thing including branching out without destroying what is there is far more complex.

I've been here a long time do a search if you think I'm wrong.