Let’s look at how life supposedly came about without design and by natural processes only:

1. Can anyone identify the process by which the first lifeform, presumeably a proto-bacteria, came into being? No. I’m going to say this alot, but abiogenesis doesn’t require the generation of anything as complex as a proto-bacteria. A simple self-catalyzing molecule will do.
2. Can anyone identify the process by which the precursors to the DNA which were needed to create the first proto-bacteria came into being? no. Point already nullified.
3. Can anyone identify the precursors themselves? No. Point already nullfied
4. Can anyone reproduce this event, or something remotely close to it, in controlled conditions? No. That I have to disagree with; experiments have been run that do produce organics from inorganics, and autocatalysts from organics. They don’t paint anything like a complete picture, but to ignore them would be folly.

OK. So far, we admit that we only have speculation concerning how abiogenesis occurred, with what processes, and with what materials.

Well, speculation isn’t science. Now, if people want to infer abiogenesis for lack of any other theory, then OK. But, let’s admit that there is no scientific evidence.

Actually, science starts with speculation. Research and experimentation are then done to refine the speculation - to add more detail or fully revise it - until we have a workable hypothesis which after more research, peer review, and location of physical evidence, can be developed into a theory. Yes, abiogenesis work moves slowly. No, that’s not an excuse to inject a supernatural daemon (a designer would be a daemon - an entity working unseen - of supernatural origin).

Without any known process, we are left to infer RANDOM interactions of just the right materials in just the right way for just the right amount of time. And we don’t know the materials, way, nor time.

We are not left to infer randomness if there is no evidence. Randomness is a known state; we simply don’t know at this venture, and cannot infer randomness. We can’t yet infer anything.

So, randomness it is, but first assuming that a natural process is capable. By the way, scientifically speaking, you cannot assume a natural process is capable, since no one has witnessed it, been able to reproduce it, or otherwise obtain direct evidence that it actually happened. But, no matter. Let’s assume for now.

In science you MUST assume a natural process is capable of producing a result; you can’t assume which one or the character of it, but as there have been many observed natural processes and no observed supernatural processes, you must assume a natural process, then seek to define it.

Let conservatively assume that this first lifeform had a cell with 300 proteins. This is indeed conservative as the simplest known cell today, Mycoplasma hominis H39, has about 600 different proteins. This is actually a bad assumption as the theory of evolution stipulates that lifeforms do NOT have to increase in complexity as it evolves.

Ok, this is where Jimmy’s really gone onto a tangent. For one, a protocell wouldn’t necessarily contain even 300 proteins. For two, abiogenesis does not require the creation of a protocell - only a promiscuous and imperfect self-catalyzing organic molecule. Once self-catalysis occurrs, natural selection follows. Third, the smallest self-catalyzing molecule known to man is the prion (PrP^Sc), a single protein containing 209 aminos and one disulfide bond. Lastly, evolution stipulates that lifeforms don’t have to increase in complexity - but that they do tend to over time.

But, assuming 300 proteins assuages the evolutionist who says that the first proto-bacteria COULD have been simpler. Here come the numbers…

This proto-bacteria’s copy mechanism, which must have been created in working condition (could not have existed non-functional then evolved into something that worked), needs all amino acids to be left-handed and all the nucleic acids to be right-handed. This is so in order to make all the pairing molecules line up on the same side of the chain.

Jimmy’s proto-bacteria’s copy mechanism need not be in working condition; it only needs to be working well enough to copy a significant percentage of itself. A perfect copy mechanism would fail to variate.

This MUST be the case. Now, some people will mention how the DNA replication sequence might have been different (i.e. simpler) or used RNA instead of DNA. This is just a pure guess based not on science but on personal desire in order to make the numbers easier to swallow.

Actually, abiogenesis hypotheses are pure guesses unbased in evidence, but with much support by scientific knowledge. There are virii that replicate via RNA, so it’s not implausible that life began using it. Truth be told, you’re still speaking still far beyond abiogenesis; neither RNA nor DNA could be formed at random, so it would more than likely be the result of a very early natural selection process involving simpler self-catalyzers.

Don’t think so? Then show me the scientific evidence that existing life forms can reproduce using something other than the present DNA system.

First, there are known non-lifeforms that can reproduce without DNA. Second, you’re asking for the results of ongoing research; if you want to add to the conversation, that’s cool - but you’re rushing a result. Abiogenesis is something that we know must have happened, but we haven’t figured out how it happened yet. That’s no reason to insist upon a designer, unless you have an irrational bias towards the supernatural.

If the molecule does not have constant stereochemistry (constant left or right-handedness), then it does not fold properly. Why do the numbers start going against abiogenesis? Because the percentage of left and right-handed nucleotides is always essentially 50%.

Let’s look at a small protein length of just 100 units. The chance of getting constant left or right-handedness is 50% (left v. right) ^ (# of proteins x protein length) x 2 sides.

That is, with numbers, (1/2)^(300*100)*2=~1/10^9031.

THAT’S 0.0000000000000000000000000000000(+9000 more zeroes)1 %.

Fallacy. If a molecule doesn’t have constant stereochemistry, it doesn’t form a helix - but it does fold. One of the abiogenesis hypotheses even provides for a crystalline matrix upon which the appropriate protein structures can aggregate. Anyway, this statistical model in general is fallacious; in order to even form one, you have to have a model of how the event happened. Since we don’t, forming a statistical model is based entirely on assumptions.

Essentially: We know that the universe was not created with life; we know that life exists; we know that evolution by variation and natural selection provides a mechanism for any self-replicator to complexify; we know the conditions of the pre-life earth; we know around when life started; as a result, we know that a self-replicator and a self-catalyzer are only differentiated by level of complexity; we know that at an approximately known point in history, a self-catalyzer - or many - were formed.

What we don’t know is how that self-catalyzer was formed. That’s all.

Anyway, the rest of this is speculative math that only serves to ask the question, “what was the organizing factor to form the first self-catalyzer?” I’ll let it run it here and finish my thoughts at the bottom.

Now, that seems like essentially zero. But, let’s talk about how many chemical reactions could have been taking place at the time. There must have been a lot of chances for this to occur.

How much time has elapsed since the Big Bang is thought to have occurred? (I know that abiogenesis is estimated to have occurred only 2-4 billion years ago. But, let’s give abiogenesis some better odds in case the 2-4 billion number is in error.)

15 billion years * 360 days/year * 24 hours/day * 60 minutes/hour * 60 seconds/minutes = 466,560,000,000,000,000 seconds. That is 4.6656^17.

How many TOTAL atoms were thought to be in existence at the time? (Forget the fact that most atoms couldn’t interact with other atoms, and forget the fact that it took very specific atoms interacting in very specific ways for even the precursors to life to form.)

Let’s say 10^83 total atoms. We’ll forget the whole amino acid and precursor thing for now.

So, 10^83 atoms interacting with each other for 4.6656^17 seconds until NOW. That gives us about 4.6656*10^100 or so chances for abiogenesis to occur. Pretty good chances…until you remember that 1/10^9031 chance that the DNA left/right-handedness chance.

What you’re arguing here is what’s termed a crystal fallacy. In short: the chances of every atom in a crystal being in exactly the place required for the crystal to form are astronomical - but of course, crystals don’t form by chance. They form with respect to interatomic forces.  There’s every reason to believe that abiogenesis only requires appropriate conditions to be met, at which point chemistry takes over.

And this assumes each atom is interacting PERFECTLY with each other atom. Now, we know that it takes amino acids, not atoms, to form
proteins for the first proto-bacteria. Also, let’s now throw into the equation how every amino acids will NOT interact perfectly with other amino acids.

Good gracious. Look at the numbers. You have a 10^100 chance saying that abiogenesis happened versus a 10^9031 chance that it didn’t.

And that’s just the left/right-handedness requirement. We haven’t touched how such a DNA-creating mechanism itself (and with all of its precursors) came about.

So, apparently, Jimmy has no evidence against evolution, nor does he present anything that could be construed as evidence for Intelligent Design or creationism. He does have a statement and specious criticism of what is being actively being researched in abiogenesis theory - but nothing that could be referred to as “compelling”. Standard God of Gaps stuff.

Essentially, he’s provided a nonargument. Always fun to play, though.