Originally posted by AThousandYoung
Here is what I've written on abiogenesis in the past:

[b]The Earth probably formed about 4.5 billions years ago. It was a hot, inorganic ball of rock with oceans and an atmosphere containing nitrogen, carbon and hydrogen atoms in some gaseous form or another, but no oxygen gas (O2). I don't really know what molecules these atoms were organized in ...[text shortened]... org/wiki/Cell_(biology)#Origins_of_cells[/i]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Origin_of_life

[/b]A very interesting post.

The Earth probably formed about 4.5 billions years ago. It was a hot, inorganic ball of rock with oceans and an atmosphere containing nitrogen, carbon and hydrogen atoms in some gaseous form or another, but no oxygen gas (O2). I don't really know what molecules these atoms were organized into, but it doesn't really matter. When gasses of made up of these elements are exposed to lightning, ultraviolet light or heat, simple organic molecules will form, as demonstrated by Stanley Miller and Harold Urey in 1953, and I believe others since.

The only 2 major problems I have with the Miller-Urey experiment is: that they require an absence of oxygen as you noted above, as it would oxidise these organic particles and render them useless; the other is that in their experiment they created mounds of destructive tar that would eliminite early life.

Amino acids, short proteins, nucleotides, ATP (and probably other nucleoside triphosphates), and other molecules characteristic of living things are some of the organic molecules that have been observed to form in laboratory recreations of these conditions.

Are these without the problems I cited above?

Now RNA, like DNA, already has an obvious mechanism by which it could replicate itself. This is the point at which substances began to catalyze the synthesis of smaller molecules into copies of themselves; that is, they reproduced. Being genetic material with no proofreading systems with the potential to be exposed to uv light, such RNA chains began to mutate into chains with slightly different base sequences. Any of these which folded into enzymes that catalyzed their own reproduction would begin to out compete the other RNA chains in terms of reproduction and using up the raw materials for reproduction. The process of evolution has begun, even before life existed.

Okay. Although as you said, this is only random chains of nucleotides, not life itself yet. Just like putting a frog (my apologies to FS) in a super-blender, which breaks it down on a microbiological level, would have all the necissary organic material, would this microcosm left to itself, create life? Hense my assertion in calculating the odds.

Now, sometimes more than one molecule of RNA would get trapped inside and begin to self-replicate; sometimes some copies of the RNA inside the protocell would mutate into different forms. In this way different enzymes would come into being, providing a more varied environment inside the protocell.

When I last checked (end 2004) no one had yet synthesized a "protocell" using basic components which has the necessary properties of life (the so-called "bottom-up-approach" ). This is within highly controlled lab environments, compared to the randomness of prebiotic earth. So I'd contend that the protocell theory is just that and hasn't yet been verified scientifically.

This theory sound semi-plausable but there are a couple big jumps in the cell formation that I just can't get to stick. Sure phospholipids spontaniously form the lipid bylayer, and rhybozymes seem to catalyze the cleavage and formation of covalent bonds in RNA strands at specific sites. Where did the mitochondia come from? Or the ATP motors which would provide the gas to run this engine?

Originally posted by bbarr
You are confused here. First, there is no reason to think that the location of the base pairs are fully independent of one another. Given that subsets of these base pairs will all come together, we should be calculating conditional probabilities rather than independent probabilities. Second, there is no reason to think that there was only one chance to get ...[text shortened]... sn't mean that some alternate set of base pairs could not also constitute a "right sequence".

These are very important considerations that you need to account for, Halitose. Also are you assuming that possible mutations are drawn from a uniform distribution? Among the other questionable modeling assumptions that creationists/IDiots employ to get astronomical numbers, the assumption that every possible outcome has equal probability of being realized is another which they nearly always assume but never formally state.

If you choose not to address bbar's criticisms, then even if you should produce incredibly tiny probabilities, all you'll have done is convince us that abiogenesis almost certainly didn't occur through a process similar to drawing full sequences of 500,000 base pairs with replacement from a uniform distribution. I don't think too many of us will argue with you on that conclusion.

Originally posted by telerion
These are very important considerations that you need to account for, Halitose. Also are you assuming that possible mutations are drawn from a uniform distribution? Among the other questionable modeling assumptions that creationists/IDiots employ to get astronomical numbers, the assumption that every possible outcome has equal probability of being realize ...[text shortened]... m a uniform distribution. I don't think too many of us will argue with you on that conclusion.

Word.

Originally posted by telerion
These are very important considerations that you need to account for, Halitose. Also are you assuming that possible mutations are drawn from a uniform distribution? Among the other questionable modeling assumptions that creationists/IDiots employ to get astronomical numbers, the assumption that every possible outcome has equal probability of being realize ...[text shortened]... m a uniform distribution. I don't think too many of us will argue with you on that conclusion.

Among the other questionable modeling assumptions that creationists/IDiots employ to get astronomical numbers, the assumption that every possible outcome has equal probability of being realized is another which they nearly always assume but never formally state.

Are you suggesting anything other that random processes. I'd be interested in your model that would destroy the notion of a uniform distibution.

Originally posted by Halitose
[b]Among the other questionable modeling assumptions that creationists/IDiots employ to get astronomical numbers, the assumption that every possible outcome has equal probability of being realized is another which they nearly always assume but never formally state.

Are you suggesting anything other that random processes. I'd be interested in your model that would destroy the notion of a uniform distibution.[/b]

Most certainly!

Most often we model natural processes with distributions other than the uniform. The most common is the normal or lognormal distribution. I assume you are at least familiar with the first of these two.

Another popular one is the Poisson. Here is a link to a class website that describes a bit about the Poisson and some of its applications to biology. At the bottom it also makes some short reference to the Gaussian distribution, the Bernoulli distribution, and the Boltzman distribution and how they are used.

http://info.bio.cmu.edu/Courses/03438/PBC97Poisson/PoissonPage.html

The major point is that modeling natural events as random does not imply assuming a uniform distribution. Most often in the examples I have encountered, scientists do not assume this.

Finally, let me finish with the disclaimer that I am neither a chemist nor a biologist working on abiogenesis. I do not know which sorts of distributions they prefer to use. It would probably not be too hard to find out.

Originally posted by telerion
Most certainly!

Most often we model natural processes with distributions other than the uniform. The most common is the normal or lognormal distribution. I assume you are at least familiar with the first of these two.

Another popular one is the Poisson. Here is a link to a class website that describes a bit about the Poisson and some of its appli ...[text shortened]... which sorts of distributions they prefer to use. It would probably not be too hard to find out.

Creationist probability theories gives me the impression of trying to do a boxed 1200 piece puzzle blindfolded with the expectation of completing it by tossing it all back in the box every time the piece you pull out of the box doesnt fit,,, and then starting over.

Originally posted by frogstomp
Creationist probability theories gives me the impression of trying to do a boxed 1200 piece puzzle blindfolded with the expectation of completing it by tossing it all back in the box every time the piece you pull out of the box doesnt fit,,, and then starting over.

That's exactly it! Some even think that you should shake the box up and then pull out complete a puzzle.

Originally posted by frogstomp
Creationist probability theories gives me the impression of trying to do a boxed 1200 piece puzzle blindfolded with the expectation of completing it by tossing it all back in the box every time the piece you pull out of the box doesnt fit,,, and then starting over.

You need some intelligence (or at least a sorting mechanism) either way FS. How do you know the piece is either right or wrong.

Originally posted by Halitose
You need some intelligence (or at least a sorting mechanism) either way FS. How do you know the piece is either right or wrong.

quantum mechanics does the sorting.

Originally posted by frogstomp
quantum mechanics does the sorting.

So where do the quantum "mechanics" come from?

Are you saying that "mechanics" evolved before broken cars?😉

Originally posted by frogstomp
quantum mechanics does the sorting.

😕. You got me there. As I'm a self-proclaimed weak aquantumist, you gonna have to give me the basic version of how it achieves this sorting.

Originally posted by Halitose
😕. You got me there. As I'm a self-proclaimed weak aquantumist, you gonna have to give me the basic version of how it achieves this sorting.

best I can offer you is check out the periodic table and learn basic chemistry first.
The reasons behind how chemistry works the way it does lies at the Quantum level.

Originally posted by frogstomp
best I can offer you is check out the periodic table and learn basic chemistry first.
The reasons behind how chemistry works the way it does lies at the Quantum level.

You should play rugby. Your sidestep is your greatest asset.

Originally posted by frogstomp
best I can offer you is check out the periodic table and learn basic chemistry first.
The reasons behind how chemistry works the way it does lies at the Quantum level.

Please continue...

Or else it will seem as if you don't have a clue what you talking about...

Originally posted by dj2becker
Please continue...

Or else it will seem as if you don't have a clue what you talking about...

Come then dj2becker, since you obviously see fit to cast your aspertions upon quantum theory, perhaps you would be so kind as to explain to us (in your own words) what quarks are, how many different types there are, how electron orbits and spins work and what the relative forces are in molecular bonding. You obviously know a great deal about it to be able to say that others are talking nonsense.