Jimmy Snow claims that he refuted Otangelo's Abiogenesis argument. But did he?
Claim: This new version of the argument has to do with the fact that we have turned dna into code that we can read we have interpreted it that way.
Reply: This claim tries to sneak in the argument that there is not literally such thing as a genetic code. This is a rather worn-out argument, already peddled by atheists for decades, despite the fact that the genetic code is LITERALLY a code, not some analogy or so.
Hubert Yockey, the worlds' foremost biophysicist and foremost authority on biological information contradicts you 100%, Jimmy:
"Information, transcription, translation, code, redundancy, synonymous, messenger, editing, and proofreading are all appropriate terms in biology. They take their meaning from information theory (Shannon, 1948) AND ARE NOT SYNONYMS, METAPHORS, OR ANALOGIES." (Hubert P. Yockey, Information Theory, Evolution, and the Origin of Life, Cambridge University Press, 2005)
"It is important to understand that WE ARE NOT REASONING BY ANALOGY. the sequence hypothesis [that the exact order of symbols records the information] APPLIES DIRECTLY TO THE PROTEIN AND THE GENETIC TEXT AS WELL AS TO WRITTEN LANGUAGE AND THEREFORE THE TREATMENT IS MATHEMATICALLY IDENTICAL."
Yockey continued, "Like all messages, _the life message is NON-MATERIAL_ but has an information content measurable in bits and bytes".
[The genetic language: grammar, semantics, evolution]
The genetic language is a collection of rules and regularities of genetic information coding for genetic texts. It is defined by alphabet, grammar, collection of punctuation marks and regulatory sites, semantics.
We discover that DNA contains a genetic code. But the rules upon which the genetic code operates are PRE - scriptive. The rules are arbitrary. The genetic Code is CONSTRAINT to behave in a certain way. Chemical principles govern specific RNA interactions with amino acids. But principles that govern have to be set by? - yes, precisely what atheists try to avoid at any cost: INTELLIGENCE. There is no physical necessity, that the triple nucleotides forming a Codon CUU ( cytosine, uracil, uracil ) are assigned to the amino acid Leucine. Intelligence assigns and sets rules. For translation, each of these codons requires a tRNA molecule that has an anticodon with which it can stably base pair with the messenger RNA (mRNA) codon, like lock and key. So there is at one side of the tRNA the CUU anticodon sequence, and at the other side of the tRNA molecule, there is a site to insert the assigned amino acid Leucine. And here comes the BIG question: How was that assignment set up? How did it come to be, that tRNA has an assignment of CUU anticodon sequence to Leucine? The two binding sites are distant one from the other, there is no chemical reaction constraining physically that order or relationship. That is a BIG mystery, that science is attempting to explain naturally, but without success. Here we have the CLEAR imprint of an intelligent mind that was necessary to set these rules. That led Eugene Koonin to confess in the paper: "Origin and evolution of the genetic code: the universal enigma" : It seems that the two-pronged fundamental question: “why is the genetic code the way it is and how did it come to be?”, that was asked over 50 years ago, at the dawn of molecular biology, might remain pertinent even in another 50 years. Our consolation is that we cannot think of a more fundamental problem in biology.
In the genetic code, there are 4^3 = 64 possible codons (tri-nucleotide sequences). Atheists also mock and claim that it is not justified to describe the genetic code as a language. But that is also not true. In the standard genetic code, three of these 64 mRNA codons (UAA, UAG and UGA) are stop codons. These terminate translation by binding to release factors rather than tRNA molecules. They instruct the ribosome to either start or stop polymerization of a given amino acid strand. Did unguided natural occurrences suddenly, in vast sequence space of possibilities, find by a lucky accident the necessity that a size of an amino acid polymer forming a protein requires a defined limited size that has to be INSTRUCTED by the genetic instructions, and for that reason, assigned release factors rather than amino acids to a specific codon sequence, in order to be able to instruct the termination of an amino acid string? That makes, frankly, no sense whatsoever.
Claim: despite the fact that the letters that we use for example the letter t isn't literally there but because we are able to interpret and translate and talk about these things in terms of a computer program there are those who insist that it's because it is a computer program and that there was a design programmer now because evolution has already been demonstrated to be a fact which it has
Reply: Once again, Jimmy tries to sneak in evolution, as during my call, in the conversation, entirely dismissing the FACT that the origin of the genetic code is not a problem related to evolution, but abiogenesis. Genes, the genetic code, the information stored in DNA through the genetic code, the transcription, and translation machinery, the signal transduction particle that tags proteins, and signals that direct the proteins to their end destination, all this had to be fully set up, and functioning, before DNA replication would start, and evolution could start to act. So, no, Jimmy, you cannot introduce evolution as a mechanism to explain the origin of the genetic code and the information stored through it. ( Not considering, that you need to explain, what you mean that evolution is a fact ).
Claim: and I swear if any of you leave a comment I thought it was just a theory you need to go and learn what a scientific theory is and especially about evolution as a theory but because it has been demonstrated to be a fact and it is the history of our species
Reply: I have news for you, Jimmy. You are just partially right. But not in regards to the relevant issue, which divides creationists and proponents of evolution:
What is the fact in regards to evolution :
1. Change over time; the history of nature; any sequence of events in nature
2. Changes in the frequencies of alleles in the gene pool of a population
3. Limited common descent: the idea that particular groups of organisms have descended from
a common ancestor.
4. The mechanisms responsible for the change required to produce limited descent with modification; chiefly pre-programmed selection acting on random variations or mutations
5. Natural selection acting up to two random mutations as shown in malaria ( See Behe's Edge of evolution )
What is not fact:
6. Universal common descent: the idea that all organisms have descended from a single common ancestor.
7. Blind watchmaker thesis: the idea that all organisms have descended from common ancestors through unguided, unintelligent, purposeless, material processes such as natural
selection acting on random variations or mutations; the idea that the Darwinian mechanism of natural selection acting on random variation, and other similarly naturalistic mechanisms, completely suffice to explain the origin of novel biological forms and the appearance of design in complex organisms.
Where Do Complex Organisms Come From?
Claim:and how we have gotten here it basically just leaves them in this one spot because we already know how the mechanism by which our DNA and stuff has become so complex and these apparent programs that we are reading that way that we are describing that way that isn't actually prescriptive in that way
Reply:The real mechanisms that explain biodiversity and complex organismal architecture are enormous amounts of data. Instructions, complex codified specifications, INFORMATION. Algorithms encoded in various genetic and epigenetic languages and communication channels and networks. Genes, but as well and especially various epigenetic signaling and bioelectric codes through various signaling networks provide cues to molecules and macromolecule complexes, and scaffold networks interpret and react in a variety of ways upon decoding and data processing of those instructions. Since signaling pathways work in a synergetic integrated manner with the transcriptional regulatory network and complex short and long-range cross-talk between cells, these instructions could not be the result of a random gradual increase of information. These information networks only operate and work in an integrated fashion, and had to be fully set up right from the beginning. Conveying codes, a system of rules to convert information, such as letters and words, into another form, and translation ciphers of one language to another are always sourced back to intelligent set-up. What we see in biochemistry is Complex instructional codified information being stored through the genetic code ( codons) in a storage medium (DNA), encoded ( DNA polymerase), sent (mRNA), and decoded ( Ribosome), as well as epigenetic codes and languages, and several signaling pathways. The morphogenesis of organismal structure and shape is classified into two groups: The various instructional codes and languages using molecules that provide complex instructional cues of action based on information through signaling and secondly by force-generating molecules that are directed through those signals, which are responsible for cell morphogenesis. Blueprints, instructional information, and master plans, which permit the autonomous self-organization and control of complex machines ( molecular machines) and factory parks ( cells) upon these are both always tracked back to an intelligent source which made both for purposeful, specific goals. That brings us unambiguously to intelligent design. To the origin by an intelligent designer.
Claim: you're calling this computer program running we already can demonstrate the biological development of that
Reply: Once again you commit the error to attribute the origin of 1: The DNA molecule, 2. The origin of the genetic code, 3. The origin of the instructional complex codified information to have the first living organism and the machinery to transcribe and translate the information to make proteins to evolution, which is a category error. All those things had to emerge PRIOR to life began, and science is entirely CLUELESS in regards to the origins of all those things. You might watch my videos, where i elucidate the REAL situation.
Abiogenesis? Impossible !!
Chemical evolution of amino acids and proteins? Impossible !!
RNA & DNA: It's prebiotic synthesis: Impossible !! Part 1
RNA & DNA: It's prebiotic synthesis: Impossible !! Part 2
Claim: so the only thing that you have left to go with on this god had to have programmed it and he was an intelligent designer is whatever that first a biogenesis moment is because that is the gap you have left to work in that he apparently programmed that cell but luckily gave it this kind of ability to develop into something much more advanced than it originally was and you don't have any evidence for that we already have plenty of evidence that you can create abiogenesis events via chemical means we just don't have a demonstration of the precise way it happened
Reply: So i actually DID listen carefully to your claims during our interaction, and you repeat again the same claim. NO, Jimmy, science has NO CLUE how chemical reactions on early Earth could have created life. Here a few quotes from respected scientists in the field:
Some of the worlds leading scientists in the field of synthetic chemistry, biochemistry, and computational biology, like James Tour, Graham Cairns-Smith, Eugene Koonin and Steve Benner have stated that solving the mystery of the origin of life is categorically not possible, that science has no clue how to solve the riddle, that abiogenesis research is a failure, and the most difficult problem that faces evolutionary biology and, arguably, biology in general.
Eugene V. Koonin: The Logic of Chance: page 351:
" Despite many interesting results to its credit, when judged by the straightforward criterion of reaching (or even approaching) the ultimate goal, the origin of life field is a failure—we still do not have even a plausible coherent model, let alone a validated scenario, for the emergence of life on Earth.
Steve Benner: Paradoxes in the origin of life
Discussed here is an alternative approach to guide research into the origins of life, one that focuses on “paradoxes”, pairs of statements, both grounded in theory and observation, that (taken
together) suggest that the “origins problem” cannot be solved.
Graham Cairns-Smith: Genetic takeover, page 66:
Now you may say that there are alternative ways of building up nucleotides, and perhaps there was some geochemical way on the early Earth. But what we know of the experimental difficulties in nucleotide synthesis speaks strongly against any such supposition. However it is to be put together, a nucleotide is too complex and metastable a molecule for there to be any reason to expect an easy synthesis.
Garrett: Biochemistry, 6th ed, page 665
Key compounds, such as arginine, lysine, and histidine; the straight-chain fatty acids; porphyrins; and essential coenzymes, have not been convincingly synthesized under simulated prebiotic conditions.
Robert Shapiro: A Replicator Was Not Involved in the Origin of Life
A profound difficulty exists, however, with the idea of RNA, or any other replicator, at the start of life. Existing replicators can serve as templates for the synthesis of additional copies of themselves, but this device cannot be used for the preparation of the very first such molecule, which must arise spontaneously from an unorganized mixture. The formation of an information-bearing homopolymer through undirected chemical synthesis appears very improbable.
Claim: on this planet but since nothing seems to escape this natural production we don't have a good reason to believe that abiogenesis didn't either however I'm not going to sit here and say the abiogenesis event was a b or c until we have adequate evidence so there you see what I actually said
Reply: What does that even mean: " Nothing seems to escape this natural production ". Atoms and molecules are just as happy to be as they are. They don't NEED schooling, don't need Families. Higher levels of structures for SURVIVAL are never needed. Atoms never need DNA programming to function. They don't need Molecular machinery to exist. Life is not even supposed to be here. There is no NEED for it to exist. It is not natural, and would of itself with high probability never came about. So you think life was due to physical necessity? Let me quote what actual scientists have to say in this regards:
The Asphalt Paradox
Systems, given energy and left to themselves, DEVOLVE to give uselessly complex mixtures, “asphalts”. the literature reports (to our knowledge) exactly ZERO CONFIRMED OBSERVATIONS where “replication involving replicable imperfections” (RIRI) evolution emerged spontaneously from a devolving chemical system. it is IMPOSSIBLE for any non-living chemical system to escape devolution to enter into the Darwinian world of the “living”. Such statements of impossibility apply even to macromolecules not assumed to be necessary for RIRI evolution.
Steven A. Benner https://sci-hub.tw/https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25608919
Claim: and in fact i'm very clear that i don't claim to know the specific event that happened them only thing as i've already stated during this episode is thatit appears to be likely a chemical by chemical means some kind of chemical reaction
Reply: NO chemist who actually understands this stuff would agree with you, Jimmy.
It is clear, chemists and biologists are clueless. I wrote, “Those who think scientists understand the issues of prebiotic chemistry are wholly misinformed. Nobody understands them. Maybe one day we will. But that day is far from today. It would be far more helpful (and hopeful) to expose students to the massive gaps in our understanding. They may find a firmer—and possibly a radically different—scientific theory. The basis upon which we as scientists are relying is so shaky that we must openly state the situation for what it is: it is a mystery.”
Claim: though i can remember being a theist myself and using the argument did you know that atheists think that like lightning hit a stick a bunch of times and that's how life started uh and yeah or i guess i would have thought a rock because a stick would if there was already a stick life would have already begun that's the nature of sticks but yes that was the sort of way i would summarize it as a theist it's almost like the theistic based arguments against science are all nonsense
Response: Norman Geisler:
The creation-evolution debate is not religion versus science or the Bible versus science, it's about good science versus bad science. Likewise, it's not faith versus reason, it's about reasonable faith, versus unreasonable faith.
The deepest intellectual battle is not between science and religion, but between naturalism and theism—two broad philosophical (or metaphysical) ways of looking at the world. Neither view is a scientific view; neither view is based on or inferable from empirical data. So the issue of naturalism versus theism must be decided on philosophical grounds
Claim: that'd be weird though so anyway the conversation develops and it gets to the question that i actually find very interesting and an answer that keeps coming up that's actually nonsense so at one point during the call as well as in the comments which he leaves a ton of them that are just copy and pasted from his scripts he talks about the improbability of the development of life and the development of uh the arrangement of nucleotides and and he talks about how it is so improbable that it is ignorant to say that it happened or that it would happen by chance and so this is one of those moments the chance to have a minimal genome of one three million nucleotides would would be one to tens to the seven hundred thousands of power so it's at most irrational to believe that such complexity could come up by random chance all right see ya so the interesting thing we see there is the fact that otangelo had been trying to hold my feet to the fire for claiming i knew something about the abiogenesis event which i had never claimed despite the fact that there he is claiming that the that the abiogenesis event resulted in that monumentally improbable arrangement of nucleotides and that that is what the first cell would have resembled even though we don't know that to be a fact. this is a person claiming knowledge about what the abiogenesis event was when no such knowledge is cur has currently been obtained by science
Reply: chemist Wilhelm Huck, professor at Radboud University Nijmegen
A working cell is more than the sum of its parts. "A functioning cell must be entirely correct at once, in all its complexity
Chemistry and the Missing Era of Evolution: A. Graham Cairns-Smith
We can see that at the time of the common ancestor, this system must already have been fixed in its essentials, probably through a critical interdependence of subsystems. (Roughly speaking in a domain in which everything has come to depend on everything else nothing can be easily changed, and our central biochemistry is very much like that.
Claim: or by anybody at least anybody i know of i guess for all i know somebody in a basement somewhere has figured it out but we currently don't know so we have to talk about this argument in two ways one will grant him those monumental odds and say that that was the abiogenesis event but then two we'll talk about what the actual odds of an abiogenesis event on the earth would be so in granting him that argument about the odds that that is what it is it's still not an impressive argument because anything that happens on a cosmic scale is monumentally improbable so for example right now somewhere in the world a piece of space debris of some kind or a small asteroid or something is falling to the earth and will make contact with the earth and you figure if you go pick up that rock and you go what are the odds of it landing here
Reply: This is a strawman objection. It is as to claim that every sequence is just as improbable as another.
Answer: It's true that any particular equal-length sequence is just as improbable as any other. But if the goal is to have a sequence, a particular string starting at 1, then 2,3,4,5,6 ............ 500, then intuitively you know there sequence has a specific order. The relevant point to be outlined here is: The sequence 1,2,3,4 .......... 500, exhibits a specification or particular pattern. What must be explained, is the origin not of any kind of sequence, but a particular, specific sequence.
Suppose you see a blueprint to make a car engine with 100 horsepowers to drive a BMW 5X. Not any blueprint will produce this particular car engine with the right size and fit and power. Only a blueprint with the precise, specific, complex arrangement of orders that is understood by the common pre-established agreement between the engineer, and the manufacturer, will permit to be encoded, transmitted, decoded and transformed in an equivalent artifact that has the specific, recognizable function which meets the pre-established goal. The information for that particular car engine can be encoded in Bits. Let's suppose its the size of a CD, 600mb. What has to be calculated, are the odds to get that specific sequence of instructions, which permit to give rise to that particular car engine. Not any sequence will do.
Claim: well with everything we know now the odds are actually 100 because the event happened however
Reply: The classic argument is given in response that one shouldn't be surprised to find the right nucleotide sequence because if it were not so, we wouldn't exist, but eventually, something else. Therefore, the fact that a life giving sequence exist means that such odds should only be expected by the mere fact of our own existence - not at all surprising. This is obviously a response begging the question. This argument is like a situation where a man is standing before a firing squad of 10000 men with rifles who take aim and fire - - but they all miss him. According to the above logic, this man should not be at all surprised to still be alive because, if they hadn't missed him, he wouldn't be alive. The nonsense of this line of reasoning is obvious. Surprise at the extreme fine-tuning of the universe, given the hypothesis of a mindless origin, is only to be expected - in the extreme.
Claim: if anybody gives you a number on what the odds of an abiogenesis event are they are full of shit because nobody knows.
Reply: If the odds are superior to one to 10^50, then we can consider the event as too unlikely, that it eventually ever occurred. But even to get ONE of the thousands of proteins required on earth randomly, the odds are beyond what is possible. An example: Helicase is a class of enzymes vital to all living organisms. Their main function is to unpackage an organism's genes, and they are essential for DNA replication, and evolution to be able to occur. They require 1000 left-handed amino acids in the right specified sequence. Each of the 1000 amino acids must be the right amongst 20 to chose from. How did they emerge by natural processes? The chance to get them by random chemical reactions is 1 to 20^1000..... there are 10^80 atoms in the universe.
Not to mention, that even to have the set of 20 amino acids to have polymerization, the question of how that set was selected is an open question, because there was NO SELECTION PROCESS to select the ones used in life to kick-start life. Supposedly, there were about 500 different amino acids on the early earth.
Chemical evolution of amino acids and proteins ? Impossible !!
Claim: without knowing for sure what event either did happen or perhaps other ways it could happen because for all we know life has multiple ways of starting
Reply: We do not know if life has multiple ways of starting naturally if science has no clue how it could have happened even once. But besides the problem of having the right informational sequence, another striking problem plagues abiogenesis research. The basic molecules to kick-start life are complex, and no route of any of them has been successfully demonstrated to be possible to occur on the early earth. The problems and open questions are monstrous. Following, I am listing 27 open questions in regards to the origin of RNA and DNA on the early earth, 14 unsolved problems in regards to the origin of amino acids on the early earth, 12 in regards of phospholipid synthesis, and also unsolved problems in regards of carbohydrate production. The open problems are in reality far greater. This is just a small list.
I have listed them here:
Open questions in prebiotic chemistry to explain the origin of the four basic building blocks of life
Claim: but until we know at least one of them we can't even begin to calculate the odds we don't even know whether or not we have life in this solar system other than on earth that started in other places, in fact, our closest neighbor that we actually have a presence on we haven't ruled it out for mars yet
Response: We know more, Jimmy, than you think.
Life on other planets, a real possibility?
The data demonstrate that the probability of finding even one planet with the capacity to support extraterrestrial intelligence ( Peti ) falls short of one chance in 10^122 (that number is 1 followed by 122 zeros).
THE LOG LOG PRIOR FOR THE FREQUENCY OF EXTRATERRESTRIAL INTELLIGENCES September 21, 2016
This log log prior can handle a very wide range of PETI values, from 1 to 1010^122 while remaining responsive to evidence about extraterrestrial societies.
Claim: there could be there's a potential for silicon-based life for example uh that would have a different set of parameters
Reply: The fact that silicon oxidizes to a solid is one basic reason as to why it cannot support life. Silicon doesn't form many compounds having handedness. Thus, it would be difficult for a silicon-based life-form to achieve all of the wonderful regulating and recognition functions that carbon-based enzymes perform for us. Despite years of work--and despite all the reagents available to the modern alchemist--many silicon analogs of carbon compounds just cannot be formed. Thermodynamic data confirm these analogs are often too unstable or too reactive.
Claim: this is just a new version of the watchmaker argument and it is this concept that because complex functions happen something must have given the organism that complex function
Reply: This is my argument Jimmy: Blueprints, machines, and factories come only from Intelligence
1. The origin of blueprints containing the information to fabricate complex machines and interlinked factories which produce goods for specific purposes are both always the result of intelligent setup.
2. Living Cells store very complex genetic and epigenetic information through the genetic code, and over twenty epigenetic languages, translation systems, and signaling networks. These information systems instruct the making and operation of cells and multicellular organisms. Each cell hosts millions of interconnected molecular machines, production lines and factories analogous to factories made by man. They are of unparalleled gigantic complexity, able to process constantly a stream of data from the outside world through signaling networks. Cells operate robot-like, autonomously. They adapt the production and recycle molecules on demand. The process of self-replication is the epitome of manufacturing advance and sophistication.
3. Therefore, the origin of biological information and self-replicating cell factories is best explained by the action of an intelligent designer, who created a life for his own purposes.
Claim: despite the fact that evolution has no problem accounting for that complexity
Reply: Evolution by mutations and natural selection do not explain the origin of life since evolution depends on DNA replication. The only alternative to design are random unguided lucky events.
Claim: in the events complexity that we see now compared to the past and how if you look at the fossil record life becomes simpler
Reply: At the time of the Cambrian Explosion, nearly every animal phyla (=the major taxonomic group of animals and plants) on Earth (more than 70) suddenly appeared).
Last not least, Jimmy. In the title of your video, you called dishonest.
One thing that I really can't stand is to be called intellectually dishonest, or when I am explicitly out called as a liar, but my opponent uses that tactic just to hide his incompetence to deal with the issues raised in a grown-up manner, as an adult. If my opponent feels I lied, he should first quote the sentence where he feels i was dishonest, and then clearly outline why he felt it was a lie. Unless he does this, i call such accusations coward and anti-intellectual.
NOTHING of what i said during my call, or here, is dishonest. You, on the other hand, Jimmy, have exposed a lack of real understanding of scientific principles, once again, mixed evolution with abiogenesis, made tons of unfounded pseudoscientific claims. And worse than that. You are an influencer. You are a blind, leading the blind.
I wish you sincerely that you evaluate the information I have provided above, and your entire worldview, which is, upon my understanding, deceptive, irrational, illogical, and not plausible. But there is hope for you. God loves you, and you have still time to repent and return back to the Lord, who gave his life for you on the cross. God will judge you unless you repent. Revelation 21. Those who are victorious will inherit all this, and I will be their God and they will be my children. 8 But the cowardly, the unbelieving, the vile, the murderers, the sexually immoral, those who practice magic arts, the idolaters AND ALL LIARS—they will be consigned to the fiery lake of burning sulfur. This is the second death.”
How you can get Saved!
The doctrine of hell
Last edited by Admin on Mon Aug 31, 2020 9:50 am; edited 3 times in total