Can information increase?

Originally posted by Coletti
It's not being nit-picky. God is in the details little one.

and you call no1 a sophist?
you Know all the elements and the energy was present. PERIOD.
If you want to continue to pretend you don't that's ok since it only makes you look silly.

Originally posted by frogstomp
and you call no1 a sophist?
you Know all the elements and the energy was present. PERIOD.
If you want to continue to pretend you don't that's ok since it only makes you look silly.

If you are talking about the Earth then the energy was not present. There was no stored energy that lead to the formation of life. You have to add energy in the form of solar radiation - which is not "present." Radiation is always moving, coming and going, arriving and leaving.

Only potential energy is "present." And it is the formation of organized potential energy that has not been explained. How does one go from solar radiation of organized potential energy? It would seem that every time a life like compound was formed, solar radiation would destroy it.

God is in the details - and science has no answer for this particular detail. Sophist care not for details, they tend to get in their way.

Originally posted by frogstomp
3 billion years isn't exactly a short time.

and since the gravitation of the earth determines the make up of the ecosphere all the elements that are necessary to form organic coumpounds were present. those supposed improbilities are somebody's pipedream.

Allow me to shed some light on your pipedream. True, the earth has all the elements necessary - but you missed my point. Very harsh conditions are necessary for the spontaneous formation of the chemicals composing a cell. In fact, very DIFFERENT conditions are necessary for formation of DNA than for amino acids. There are no conditions known in which both are formed spontaneously and are stable. Thus, there is no coherent theory of abiogenesis; in fact, I'd call it a current impossibility. I am currently studying chemistry, and I have done some looking into chemical abiogenesis.

Let's talk about improbabilities. First off, I'm sure you realize that proteins make up the cell and DNA is necessary to provide templates for those proteins. When DNA is formed spontaneously, it forms and decomposes continuously. So, for abiogenesis to occur, we need the correct DNA for all proteins necessary for life (I will return to them) to form (imagine that probability!) and then be stabilized immediately by the protection that a cell normally provides. It is highly speculative as to whether this is even possible for the reasons given in the above paragraph.

Now, the THEORETICAL minimum number of proteins necessary to obtain live is about 120. The actual simplest creature is closer to 200, but we'll work with 120. You may know, that as amino acids form, they give rise to two different chiralities in a racemic 1:1 mixture. 50% are right-handed, 50% are left-handed. All amino acids in living things are left-handed. So by random processes of abiogenesis we need 120 proteins of ONLY the left-handed type to occur in one place.
Probability:
(1/2)^120
Inconceiveable even within 3 billion years.
This has been simply for the chirality of the amino acids, not the specific types that must be produced nearly simultaneosly. And, I did not enter into the complexity of DNA.

Originally posted by yousers
Allow me to shed some light on your pipedream. True, the earth has all the elements necessary - but you missed my point. Very harsh conditions are necessary for the spontaneous formation of the chemicals composing a cell. In fact, very DIFFERENT conditions are necessary for formation of DNA than for amino acids. There are no conditions known in which bot ...[text shortened]... that must be produced nearly simultaneosly. And, I did not enter into the complexity of DNA.

Problems with the creationists' "it's so improbable" calculations

1) They calculate the probability of the formation of a "modern" protein, or even a complete bacterium with all "modern" proteins, by random events. This is not the abiogenesis theory at all.

2) They assume that there is a fixed number of proteins, with fixed sequences for each protein, that are required for life.

3) They calculate the probability of sequential trials, rather than simultaneous trials.

4) They misunderstand what is meant by a probability calculation.

5) They seriously underestimate the number of functional enzymes/ribozymes present in a group of random sequences

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/abioprob/abioprob.html#Intro


Dream on.

Originally posted by yousers
Allow me to shed some light on your pipedream. True, the earth has all the elements necessary - but you missed my point. Very harsh...[text shortened]..
This has been simply for the chirality of the amino acids, not the specific types that must be produced nearly simultaneosly. And, I did not enter into the complexity of DNA.

On the chirality issue, don't some scientists theorise that the first amino acids may have formed on chiral crystals, causing the L versions to be formed preferentially. Is it not also possible that once a couple of L versions are formed that there is a difference in the way they interact with other amino acids, causing them to bind more effectively with other L amino acids. One of the most commonly occuring amino acids (and simplest), Glycine ,doesn't occur in left and right versions, so surely your probabilities have to be modified slightly to account for all of this.
~corp1131

Originally posted by frogstomp
Problems with the creationists' "it's so improbable" calculations

1) They calculate the probability of the formation of a "modern" protein, or even a complete bacterium with all "modern" proteins, by random events. This is not the abiogenesis theory at all.

2) They assume that there is a fixed number of proteins, with fixed sequences for each ...[text shortened]... om sequences

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/abioprob/abioprob.html#Intro


Dream on.

1) They calculate the probability of the formation of a "modern" protein, or even a complete bacterium with all "modern" proteins, by random events. This is not the abiogenesis theory at all.

All we see in life is "modern" protein. You are the spokesman for science, surely you can provide some empiricle evidence of any other, more simple protein....

2) They assume that there is a fixed number of proteins, with fixed
sequences for each protein, that are required for life.

Again, all of our observations tell us that such things are necessary. I used the theoretical number of proteins necessary - the KNOWN number of proteins necessary to carry out the basic functions of life.

3) They calculate the probability of sequential trials, rather than simultaneous trials.

Perhaps you'd like to show me a workable probability calculation. The formation of a living cell must have sequential elements to it.

4) They misunderstand what is meant by a probability calculation.

What am I missing here?

5) They seriously underestimate the number of functional enzymes/ribozymes present in a group of random sequences

Tell me about the formation of these enzymes and ribosymes. Perhaps we should add them in to expand our probability beyond the mathematical impossibility we already have.

Where is you empiricle evidence here, frogstomp? I'm working with what modern science has.

P.S. NOT a creationist.

Originally posted by corp1131
On the chirality issue, don't some scientists theorise that the first amino acids may have formed on chiral crystals, causing the L versions to be formed preferentially. Is it not also possible that once a couple of L versions are formed that there is a difference in the way they interact with other amino acids, causing them to bind more effectively with ...[text shortened]... surely your probabilities have to be modified slightly to account for all of this.
~corp1131

Chiral crystals are not possible because the conditions necessary for random formation of proteins and other necessary chemicals do not permit their formation or existence. The laws of chemistry and experimentation have shown that neither chirality is more likely to bind to the other. Chiral enatiomers have identical chemical properties.
You are correct for the case of Glycine. However, this puts a negligible dent in (1/2)^120, not to mention the probabilities of DNA, etc.

Originally posted by yousers
1) They calculate the probability of the formation of a "modern" protein, or even a complete bacterium with all "modern" proteins, by random events. This is not the abiogenesis theory at all.

All we see in life is "modern" protein. You are the spokesman for science, surely you can provide some empiricle evidence of any other, more simple protein... ...[text shortened]... nce here, frogstomp? I'm working with what modern science has.

P.S. NOT a creationist.

from the site i posted

Firstly, the formation of biological polymers from monomers is a function of the laws of chemistry and biochemistry, and these are decidedly not random.
Secondly, the entire premise is incorrect to start off with, because in modern abiogenesis theories the first "living things" would be much simpler, not even a protobacteria, or a preprotobacteria (what Oparin called a protobiont [8] and Woese calls a progenote [4]), but one or more simple molecules probably not more than 30-40 subunits long. These simple molecules then slowly evolved into more cooperative self-replicating systems, then finally into simple organisms [2, 5, 10, 15, 28]. An illustration comparing a hypothetical protobiont and a modern bacteria is given below.

[2] Orgel LE, Polymerization on the rocks: theoretical introduction. Orig Life Evol Biosph, 28: 227-34, 1998

4] Woese C, The universal ancestor. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA, 95: 6854-6859.
5] Varetto L, Studying artificial life with a molecular automaton. J Theor Biol, 193: 257-85, 1998
8] Ruse M, The origin of life, philosophical perspectives. J Theor Biol, 187: 473-482, 1997
28] Eigen M, and Schuster P, The hypercycle. A principle of natural self-organization. Springer-Verlag, isbn 3-540-09293, 1979

Originally posted by frogstomp
from the site i posted

Firstly, the formation of biological polymers from monomers is a function of the laws of chemistry and biochemistry, and these are decidedly not random.
Secondly, the entire premise is incorrect to start off with, because in modern abiogenesis theories the first "living things" would be much simpler, not even a protobacteria, ...[text shortened]... hypercycle. A principle of natural self-organization. Springer-Verlag, isbn 3-540-09293, 1979

All this technical language and one big assumption that stands out: "....These simple molecules then slowly evolved into more cooperative self-replicating systems." Hmmm, how did that happen? It must have been magic!

Have you seen the cartoon where the scientist has written out mathematic solution all over the chalk board - and in the middle there is the statement "and then a miracle happens." That is the typical "scientific" explanation of abiogenesis.

Originally posted by frogstomp
from the site i posted

Firstly, the formation of biological polymers from monomers is a function of the laws of chemistry and biochemistry, and these are decidedly not random.
Secondly, the entire premise is incorrect to start off with, because in modern abiogenesis theories the first "living things" would be much simpler, not even a protobacteria, ...[text shortened]... hypercycle. A principle of natural self-organization. Springer-Verlag, isbn 3-540-09293, 1979

objections:
1) You draw these ideas from purely speculative attempts to make abiogenesis possible. Your authors begin with natural evolution as an axiom: evolution is correct, therefore abiogenesis MUST have happened. There is little or no evidence for any such occurence.
2) Anything less than a living cell is again a theoretical entity. Currently, we cannot construct anything simpler and living than a cell
3) Molecules cannot undergo natural selection or any related evolutionary processes. Self-replication is a necessary condition for any of these to have relevance.

Originally posted by yousers
objections:
1) You draw these ideas from purely speculative attempts to make abiogenesis possible. Your authors begin with natural evolution as an axiom: evolution is correct, therefore abiogenesis MUST have happened. There is little or ...[text shortened]... ion is a necessary condition for any of these to have relevance.

actually they start with:
"Firstly, the formation of biological polymers from monomers is a function of the laws of chemistry and biochemistry, and these are decidedly not random."

Originally posted by Coletti
All this technical language and one big assumption that stands out: "....These simple molecules then slowly evolved into more cooperative self-replicating systems." Hmmm, how did that happen? It must have been magic!

Have you seen the cartoon where the scientist has written out mathematic solution all over the chalk board - and in the middle there is t ...[text shortened]... "and then a miracle happens." That is the typical "scientific" explanation of abiogenesis.

No, not magic. Nucleotide triphosphates spontaneously form under certain conditions as the Miller experiment showed. Nucleotide triphosphates spontaneously polymerize into RNA. RNA should be self replicating in the presence of nucleotide triphosphates. I am not aware of any experimentation that's been done to verify this, but this does not mean we have to rely on "magic did it" or the equivalent "God did it". RNA has secondary structure and like proteins can form enzymes. Such enzymes have been observed in living organisms. These enzymes could conceivably catalyze any chemical reaction imaginable, including self replication and the formation of enzymes which could assist in the replication of the original RNA.

This is a detailed explanation of how simple molecules could slowly evolve into more cooperative self-replicating systems. No magic is needed. Now, there is a ton of experimental work that needs to be done here, but simply because it hasn't been done doesn't make it impossible and doesn't mean God has to do magic to make it work. It's all perfectly reasonable chemistry.

Originally posted by yousers
The laws of chemistry and experimentation have shown that neither chirality is more likely to bind to the other. Chiral enatiomers have identical chemical properties.

The only non-biological way to separate enatiomers is to use a chiral surface which binds prefferentialy to one enantiomer, the chiral surface being made up of an enantiomerically pure substance. Chiral enantiomers (as oppose to non chiral enantiomers?!) are chemically generally identical, but in biological systems it makes a huge difference (see thalidomide), and biological systems are just complicated chemistry. I'm sure that this has to at least make it slightly more likey you would get a lot of L amino acids in one place.
~corp1131

Originally posted by corp1131
The only non-biological way to separate enatiomers is to use a chiral surface which binds prefferentialy to one enantiomer, the chiral surface being made up of an enantiomerically pure substance. Chiral enantiomers (as oppose to non chiral enantiomers?!) are chemically generally identical, but in biological systems it makes a huge difference (see thalidomid ...[text shortened]... least make it slightly more likey you would get a lot of L amino acids in one place.
~corp1131

You make a good point, but you must realise that there are no biological systems at this point. We are creating them from non-living chemicals. We have no chiral surfaces that are one pure enantiomer. These things are arising spontaneously in a 1:1 ratio.

Originally posted by corp1131
The only non-biological way to separate enatiomers is to use a chiral surface which binds prefferentialy to one enantiomer, the chiral surface being made up of an enantiomerically pure substance. Chiral enantiomers (as oppose to non chiral enantiomers?!) are chemically generally identical, but in biological systems it makes a huge difference (see thalidomid ...[text shortened]... least make it slightly more likey you would get a lot of L amino acids in one place.
~corp1131

what do you make of this?

http://www.abc.net.au/science/news/stories/s387111.htm