Statistical evidence of god

[Myles]

God created the eye so people could read the Bible.

 

[spidergoat]

And myopia so we could invent glasses.

 

[Pete]

This is what Craig Venter points out in the video posted, that the LEAST complexity required for a self replicating genome is still very complex.

We know for example that viruses are far simpler than bacteria. A virus may include 5000 letters in its code, whereas the simplest bacteria known has 580,000 letters.

However, viruses are parasites, so we know that they could not have appeared spontaneously before bacteria.

You didn't even bother to click the TalkOrigins link, did you?
The first self-replicators would be much, much simpler than bacteria.

Please, try to read this article:
TalkOrigins - Probability of Abiogenesis calculations
It's not very long. You might even want to check some of the references to make sure it's not just lies.

Therefore, the first truly self-replicating organism must have involved not only several hundred thousand nucleotides (which are themselves composed of three or more molecular units), but also the cell required to boot it up...the genome being somewhat like the hard drive in a computer.

Overall, I would still suggest that the chances of this spontaneously appearing by chance, even given large bubbling pools of amino acids over millions of years, are not just absurd, but clearly impossible.

I gave you a link to a self-replicating peptide made with only 32 nucleotides, and the Wikipedia RNA World hypothesis article describes self-replicating RNA with fewer than 200 nucleotides. RNA polymerase is discussed more in the TalkOrigins page linked above.

I really recommend you read it.

 

[Carcano]

The first self-replicators would be much, much simpler than bacteria.

Yes Ive the used the TalkOrigins articles before in my debates with Christians on my guitar forum.

The problem with the specific article you linked here is that it doesnt demonstrate HOW increasing complexity occurs between non-coded organic material and coded organisms.

This obviously does not occur by evolution because evolution depends on changes in code. If there is no code there is no evolution.

Now the RNA World hypothesis is interesting, but is there any existing species that can be studied. Or is it just a theory about life forms which may have existed billions of years ago?

 

[spidergoat]

If there is no heredity, there is no evolution. It doesn't need to work with a code.

 

[Pete]

Yes Ive the used the TalkOrigins articles before in my debates with Christians on my guitar forum.

The problem with the specific article you linked here is that it doesnt demonstrate HOW increasing complexity occurs between non-coded organic material and coded organisms.

Once you have a coded replicator, complexity can increase by evolution.
If the first coded replicator (the "replicating polymer" stage) was not designed, then it must be simple enough to have formed by chance in a suitable environment - which is what the bulk of that article describes.

Now the RNA World hypothesis is interesting, but is there any existing species that can be studied. Or is it just a theory about life forms which may have existed billions of years ago?

Yes, people do study RNA polymerase replicators. I'd hesitate to call them a species... it's sufficient that they are coded replicators.

 

[iceaura]

This is what Craig Venter points out in the video posted, that the LEAST complexity required for a self replicating genome is still very complex.

So we conclude that early replication did not involve genomes.

Or organisms such as we know today.

So?

The problem with the specific article you linked here is that it doesnt demonstrate HOW increasing complexity occurs between non-coded organic material and coded organisms.

We have a general theory that has proven reliable and versatile in handling exactly such situations, and may apply here as well. Beyond that, we await further investigation.

Again: what are you trying to say ? That we don't know (and may never know) exactly how it happened ?

 

[Carcano]

If the first coded replicator (the "replicating polymer" stage) was not designed, then it must be simple enough to have formed by chance in a suitable environment...

Yes, but I havent seen any good evidence of that yet. The replicating peptide link provided only one paragraph of very murky info. I'd like to see a diagram of what it looks like...verification of replication by other scientists, and so on.

I'm perfectly happy to accept that very simple coded organisms exist...if they do.

Something I did find is this extensive article on nanobacteria, but again, there is no confirmation of whether it constitutes life, or that it has been observed to self-replicate according to an internal code of some type that can evolve.

http://serc.carleton.edu/microbelife/topics/nanobes/index.html

I might update this thread later on if I find any new revelations.

 

[spidergoat]

There are several reasonable theories that don't involve a designing agent. One would first have to dismiss all plausible naturalistic theories as impossible before any supernatural source for life could be seriously considered.

 

[Pete]

Yes, but I havent seen any good evidence of that yet. The replicating peptide link provided only one paragraph of very murky info. I'd like to see a diagram of what it looks like...verification of replication by other scientists, and so on.

So look it up. There's plenty of references on the TalkOrigins page.

 

[Carcano]

There's plenty of references on the TalkOrigins page.

Yes, but they are merely inconclusive theories as I explained.

Note: "The question "How do simple organic molecules form a protocell?" is largely unanswered but there are many hypotheses."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Origin_of_life#From_organic_molecules_to_protocells

 

[Pete]

They're certainly inconclusive in that no one knows precisely how life began.

But they are conclusive in that fairly simple self-replicating polymers are understood quite well.

 

[iceaura]

I'm perfectly happy to accept that very simple coded organisms exist...if they do.

They would hardly exist any more. At some point you have to make a judgment call based on the evidence.

Meanwhile, there is no necessity that the early steps on the evolutionary stair were taken by "coded organisms" at all. Quite a bit of evolved complexity is available without them.