Origin of life

[Poison]

ANd could you explain exactly why creation of information requires intelligent design?

Because he says so...

PS: to Patrick: I really love your sentences.

[Springer]

All life requires informations to be passed from one generation to another. On earth it's by the mean of DNA, but it could be anything. Like code in computerized artificial life.
By the way, artificial life experiments, even though quite simplified, and based show that information can emerge from chaos without intelligent selection, but by selection darwinian style.

I would appreciate it if you would indicate specifically on what you are basing that conclusion.

ANd could you explain exactly why creation of information requires intelligent design?

The DNA code, even in its simplest known form, is far too complex to self organize. Laws of probability prohibit such from ever happening

[Poison]

You can not explain it, so it must be created? Scientists look for better explanations than this...

[alextemplet]

I think the previous discussion about an rna world could possibly supply the necessary stepping stones for the development of dna from non-living matter. Also, the argument that there is no proof means it didn't happen is rather weak. Back in Darwin's day, nobody understood heredity, but they knew it happened. I don't know if anyone back then hypothesized about a double helix called dna, but even they did they weren't able to prove that dna exists. But just because they couldn't prove it doesn't mean anything, or else I don't think Watson and Crick would've become quite so famous. As someone wiser than me once said, "Absence of proof is not proof of absence."

My memory's a bit fuzzy, but I read something about the rna world hypothesis once, and I think it mentioned research that showed that rna could've developed naturally on the early earth. I also once read in Astronomy magazine that there was evidence that some amino acids might occur naturally in outer space, so perhaps that had to do with it as well. Can anyone provide any additional information on these questions?

[MrMistery]

I also saw this on the discovery channel quite some time ago-they said that a few aminoacids(i think they gave cistein as an example)occur naturally in space dusts and nebulas.

[Springer]

You can not explain it, so it must be created? Scientists look for better explanations than this...

You can't explain it, but it evolved anyway. This is not science, but religion masquerading as science.

[MrMistery]

Have you actually ever read a book on evolution? There is a lot of research to support evolution, even if this research is not complete. A few hundrets years ago, when people knew nothing about how evolution and population genetics work, your example would have been a good one.

This is not science, but religion masquerading as science.

That is exactly what creationism is. I couldn't have said it better myself.

[Poison]

This is not science, but religion masquerading as science.

That is exactly what creationism is. I couldn't have said it better myself.

Yes, Agreed.

[Springer]

Have you actually ever read a book on evolution? There is a lot of research to support evolution, even if this research is not complete. A few hundrets years ago, when people knew nothing about how evolution and population genetics work, your example would have been a good one.

This thread is about abiogenesis, which is impossible. I've read the "research"... all interpreted exclusively within the paradigm of evolution, which always holds to the pre-drawn conclusion that evolution is true. Thus, there is no other choice. Everything is forced into the evolutionary framework of thinking.
A few hundred years ago, evolution would have been far more tenable than now. When Darwin was alive, single cell life was thought be be a relatively "simple" mass of protoplasm. It was believed that a continuity existed between life and non-life. Of course, we now know that another evolutionary prediction has failed... that the gulf between a cell and inorganic matter is enormous and cannot possibly be bridged by intermediates which could have come about by evolution.
Thus, the general theory of evolution has suffered a fatal blow. Intelligent design exists, because there is no other possible way that single cell life could have come into existence.... therefore, Darwin's theory of evolution by natural selection is demolished.
Einstein said, "No experiment can prove me right, but one experiment can prove me wrong." It doesn't matter how much "evidence" you think there is in favor of evolution... all false theories can come up with "evidence". Laws of probability absolutely prohibit abiogenesis from ever occurring... therefore, intelligent design is the only other logical choice.

[alextemplet]

As stated before, the chemicals necessary for life (amino acids, nucleotides, etc.) probably existed on the early earth. Earth probably isn't that much different from many other planets, so if those chemicals existed on earth, surely they existed elsewhere. There's trillions of trillions of stars in the universe, and at least half of those are believed to have planets, and even if only ten percent of those planets are earth-like, that's still trillions of chances for life to develop. It may be improbable for non-living amino acids and nucleotides to come together and start living, but given enough chances, it's going to happen somewhere.

[Springer]

As stated before, the chemicals necessary for life (amino acids, nucleotides, etc.) probably existed on the early earth. Earth probably isn't that much different from many other planets, so if those chemicals existed on earth, surely they existed elsewhere. There's trillions of trillions of stars in the universe, and at least half of those are believed to have planets, and even if only ten percent of those planets are earth-like, that's still trillions of chances for life to develop. It may be improbable for non-living amino acids and nucleotides to come together and start living, but given enough chances, it's going to happen somewhere.

If you actually calculate the probability of DNA coming together by chance, then you can only come to one conclusion... that even one strand of DNA could not possibly form by random molecular interactions, even if you allow for trillions of planets over billions of years.
I find it amusing that a theory touted to be a "fact" actually relies on such vast improbabilities to explain the origin of life.

[CoolJay221]

My teacher says that All life came from the same ancester