Abiogenesis is completely relevant to the discussion because no evolution is possible without a way to create the first, most primitive, most minimalistic, living thing.
Meedan wrote:Well, just as 'pathetic' I'm afraid.
We'll see. Read below.
I'll say again, that I am not an expert on abiogenesis.
You do not need to be an expert to understand the probability calculations for forming the first protein -- read below.
I know that there are many theories about how the simple building blocks of a protein could have formed etc...
You know that there are many theories? Meedan,
all the possible theories about the first protein (and thus first life) are
only two:
-- Abiogenesis
-- Deliberate design (creation)
Abiogenesis is impossible (read below). Deliberate creation is possible.
...but I don't know enough about the theories to argue in favour of them, and it is obvious from your posts that you do not know enough to criticise them.
That it is obvious from my posts that I do not know enough how to criticise abiogenesis is only your conclusion, based on your other conclusion that the article I supplied is "pathetic". But the article is not pathetic at all --- read below the continuing proof against your incorrect conclusion.
How convenient then, that this topic isn't about abiogenesis.
This topic may not be about abiogenesis, but without abiogenesis or an alternative theory you don't have any life, and without having any life, the supposed phenomenon of evolution cannot even occur! Did you notice that when you do not have natural selection there is no evolution? So, before we talk about evolution, we ought to be FIRST talking about a way to create the first life. Even if you are one of those who think that God created the basic building blocks of life, and then evolution takes on, but then, where are the transitive fossils, with the lack of which I made a point in a previous post?
It is right. Proteins cannot be replicated if there was no life to begin with. Since life itself is built of proteins, proteins must have 'happened' somehow, and according to evolution that would be through random changes (mutations) in non-living matter.
Aha! I didn't know you were talking about abiogenesis. (this applies to most of the other things you said in your post). I would not accept any criticisms of abiogenesis until that person has understood it, and until I have understood it.
Aha? In my post,
I explicitly pointed out the FIRST PROTEIN several times. So, you cannot blame me with your excuse that you did not know. It is your fault alone, irrelevant to the discussion.
Don't be so harsh on the author. How about writing an article about evolution yourself first and put it on a public page for everyone to inspect?
I've read some really good criticisms of evolution, and I've read some parodies of criticisms. This article comes so close to being a parody that it's funny (positive) how poor its arguments are.
That is your personal opinion that I am disproving -- see below.
First of all, while abiogenesis is technically not part of the theory of evolution, it is inextricably tied with it. Non-living matter to living matter is still evolution of matter.
Same applies here, I don't know enough about the theories and hypotheses of abiogenesis. I obviously wouldn't call it evolution of matter though, perhaps a better phrase would be 'chemical reaction' (forming compounds), whatever it turns out to be.
There would be no evolution without living matter in the first place, so we are obliged to discuss how life appeared first before we discuss evolution. It is like discussing towers without knowing what bricks are. Thus, my discussion of abiogenesis in this topic is justified; nobody coerces you to discuss it, but it is not clever of you to dismiss the discussion.
Second, you fail to realize that even the simplest form of life is already very complex. You have to show how you got from non-living matter to the simplest living.
No I don't and No I don't. Have you ran out of arguments against evolution?
It is not logical of you to tell me that I have run out of arguments against evolution when in my previous post I have clearly used abiogenesis as an argument that evolution has not any chance to occur at all. It is you that dropped discussing fossils because you didn't have an argument against mine, and now you drop abiogenesis as a required prerequisite for starting evolution because you don't have an argument against mine. I have countered successfully all your arguments so far; at present you are the one without any arguments.
You are laughing, but the word "modern" which you use does not appear in the entire article. The author did not compare based on age.
I think the author was using the example of a protein found in humans, thus, modern.
Your thinking is incorrect. Here's a section of the article I already quoted in this topic:
But even this is a "virtual certainty" compared to the probability of correctly assembling any one of the known biological proteins by chance!
...
The 500 amino acids that make up an average-sized protein can be arranged...
The 500 amino acids are involved in those calculations disproving that chance could have created the first protein, whatever else is written in the article. Now please read
here, a book chapter titled "Probability and the First Proteins" in a book (note the title) "Evolution: Possible or Impossible" which presents a proof with step-by-step calculations that a protein even with as few as 400 amino acids can never appear by chance:
The length of the average protein in the smallest known living thing is at least 400 amino acid links, containing more than 7,000 atoms.
Please have a careful read of the following (and also the entire chapter of the book) to prove to yourself that
it is completely impossible that abiogenesis is true, and thus evolution is also false. The emphasis in bold and coloring are mine:
For lack of any other way to estimate the proportion of meaningful amino acid sequences, let it be assumed that a similar probability exists as in the alphabet. We will, however, use the figure of 1 in 4400, because the amino acids are fewer than the alphabet letters, there being only 20.
On that basis, for an amino acid chain 400 long, the probability of getting a usable protein would be 1 in 4400, which is 1 in 10^240.
In using this formula based merely on the alphabet analogy, there is, of course, an uncertainty factor. There are many similarities, however, between the alphabet and the 20 amino acids. Some letters are much more “reactive” than others, like amino acids, and some are used sparingly. This uncertainty affects only the first stage of our study, namely, the first protein molecule to be produced by chance. There must be at least 239 matching protein molecules for a set, in order to provide the minimum number for the smallest theoretically possible living entity.
...
The probability of getting the first protein molecule was influenced by the formula taken from the alphabet analogy. The second one is more difficult to obtain, we have just seen, because it has to be more exact to match the first one, instead of being just any protein.
The total number of possible orders in a chain of 400 amino acids of 20 kinds is 20^400. (The formula is: the number of kinds to the power of the number of units in the chain.) As stated above, 20^400 is the same as 10^520.
Considering the first one as already obtained, we need 238 more. The second one could be any one of those 238. The probability is therefore 238/10^520. The third one could be any of the 237 still needed, so its probability would be 237 /10520. Calculating all of these, and allowing for one substitution per chain, we arrive at a probability of 1 in 10^122470. (See note 24 below.) Even if almost a trillion different sequences might work in each protein, the probability resulting is 1 in 10^119614. (See note 25 below.)
This figure represents the second through the 239th protein molecules. Multiplying in the first one, which was at a probability of 1 / 10^236, we arrive at the final figure for the minimum set needed for the simplest theoretical living entity, namely. 1 chance in 10^119850.
Earlier, we obtained the figure of 10^75 which was the total number of chains made since the earth began. In order to allow for overlapping sets of 239 each, we will use that same figure to represent the total protein sets formed. Dividing into the big figure just calculated, we learn that the odds against one minimum set of proteins happening in the entire history of the earth are 10^119775 to 1. (See note 26 below.)
Even if such a set could be obtained, we would not have life. It would simply be a helpless group of nonliving molecules alone in a sterile world, uncaring and uncared for, the end of the line. In chapter 10 we will see that even if unlimited substitution is allowed in 9/10 of all the positions, the odds against one minimum set of proteins are still beyond comprehension.
...
The odds against such a correctly ordered set of proteins for the smallest conceivable living entity are thus hopelessly large beyond understanding. The next chapter will make it easier to realize the gigantic size of even the smaller figures with which we have been dealing.
Chance was given every possible concession in this investigation. Its failure was miserable [pathetic, Meedan?] beyond power to describe. Yet chance is the only natural way that the first proteins could have been arranged. In all of the careful efforts of Oparin and his followers in their attempts to get life from nonlife, no real way has been found to get away from chance. It is the only possible source of the sequence, in the absence of planning, in spite of the millions of words and the valiant efforts expended in the attempts that have been made.
There is no real reason at present to believe that any living thing has ever existed that is simpler than the Mycoplasma hominis H39, which is the smallest living entity known. Although some viruses may be smaller, they do not qualify as autonomous self-replicating systems. A virus cannot duplicate itself without the help of a host cell whose machinery it must use to manufacture its proteins and nucleic acids. Instead of being an earlier step on the ladder of evolution, viruses are now thought by some scientists to be just the opposite, a deterioration or setback rather than part of the line of progress. Could it be that they are intimately involved with the curse that the Bible describes as having come upon the earth as a result of man’s sin?
Both the Mycoplasma hominis H39 and the theoretical smallest living thing have proteins averaging at least 400 amino acids of the 20 common varieties. Dr. Morowitz’ eminent work on the lower limits of size and complexity for living things was done, in part, for the National Aeronautics and Space Administration. Obviously the reason was to enable space missions to recognize any possible forms of life that might be simpler or different from our own. There seems to be no actual scientific evidence that would indicate a more primitive, simpler method of duplication than the one in use in existing living things.
Neither is there any adequate reason to think that there was ever a lesser number of amino acid types used in proteins. Many vital functions require proteins with all the twenty kinds included. Even viruses use all twenty. The same twenty are part of the theoretical minimal cell.
It is significant that the Yale team working on this subject has revised its figures upward at least twice. As research has progressed, it has become clear that the minimal living thing requires more parts than was at first thought. From 45 different proteins estimated as the lowest minimum in 1967, the number needed has risen to at least 124 different protein species. The average molecular weight per protein has also been revised upward slightly.
If words are adequate, the situation appears utterly hopeless for a random linkup in a usable order. Even the hormones which the modern Lamarckian theory requires are likewise outside the realm of reasonable probability, as we saw in the case of insulin. Some hormones are complex proteins much larger than insulin.
Meedan wrote:Don't forget that nobody is saying that one of the proteins we have today just magically appeared.
Meedan, how did they appear if even the first protein cannot appear by chance? You don't have natural selection, so you don't have evolution, and the only way for a protein to be created is by pure chance. However, this only way is proved to be impossible. You cannot in all possible logic tell me that we must not discuss how living matter appeared for the first time before even thinking about discussing evolution.
He was a parliment under King George III, its intresting you hear that quotation alot these days.