Kylie's Pool Challenge

[Mountainmike]

I’m a scientist thanks.
and I use other people’s definitions, eg NASA
“self-sustaining chemical system capable of Darwinian evolution”

I find it strange that a group of atheists here want to disavow that/ redefine it to avoid the obvious problem of irreducible complexity , by pretending it is some kind of a blur, to hide the fact they have no idea how the transition to life occurred.
I also prefer evidence to overstatement of the progress of abiogenesis research.

Quoting a part of one definition ( self evolving?? Source? Did you make that up)
is hardly, you know, definitive. In the event, its not really a definition
but a partial description.
There are self replicating molecules that have been created in a lab.

" those who want to disavow it" ( your imaginary criteria)
would only be like the world scientific community, where its
known that its impossible at this time to fully define life.

We' ve noticed that creationists do claim to know more than any
scientist on earth, and many are also tele- psychiatrists and know all
about their motives in life too!

Fortunately for us creationists are very rare here. Maybe not so
fortunate for the west.

There wont be any angels, with or without a flaming sword that
turns this way and that, to guard the gates to your trailervparks.

 

[Astrid]

I’m a scientist thanks.
and I use other people’s definitions, eg NASA
“self-sustaining chemical system capable of Darwinian evolution”

I find it strange that a group of atheists here want to disavow that/ redefine it to avoid the obvious problem of irreducible complexity , by pretending it is some kind of a blur, to hide the fact they have no idea how the transition to life occurred.
I also prefer evidence to overstatement of the progress of abiogenesis research.

For personal reasons I had to drop the program
one year into my Master's.
But I've been around a lot of scientists and IF you
are one in some sense you certainly are, ah, unique.

 

[AV1611VET]

For personal reasons I had to drop the program one year into my Master's.

Don't worry -- we're trying to get you a new One.

 

[Mountainmike]

You live in an echo chamber too much here.

You need to study more and see the wide range of views. There are many scientists querying a lot of aspects of evolution, and even more thinking that the more we know about the cell, the more complex it becomes, and the harder it is to think it is a product of random chemistry.

But just to prove the CF sceptics echo chamber does not seem to know where it is at:

Here is a definition Harvard has used
“living organisms: replicating….. growing, evolving”

Or go with NASA
“self-sustaining chemical system capable of Darwinian evolution”

mine was “ self replicating, self evolving”, so I am in good company.

Harvard and NASA are two big funders of origin of life research. If they do not know what they mean by life? they are wasting all their money!

Will you argue with them as well as me?
All I write on here is qualified opinions of people who should know!

For personal reasons I had to drop the program
one year into my Master's.
But I've been around a lot of scientists and IF you
are one in some sense you certainly are, ah, unique.

 

[AV1611VET]

Will you argue with them as well as me?

Yes, they will.

Harvard (and Cal Tech) believe something they don't: cosmic evolution.

 

[Astrid]

You live in an echo chamber too much here.

You need to study more and see the wide range of views. There are many scientists querying a lot of aspects of evolution, and even more thinking that the more we know about the cell, the more complex it becomes, and the harder it is to think it is a product of random chemistry.

But just to prove the CF sceptics echo chamber does not seem to know where it is at:

Here is a definition Harvard has used
“living organisms: replicating….. growing, evolving”

Or go with NASA
“self-sustaining chemical system capable of Darwinian evolution”

mine was “ self replicating, self evolving”, so I am in good company.

Harvard and NASA are two big funders of origin of life research. If they do not know what they mean by life? they are wasting all their money!

Will you argue with them as well as me?
All I write on here is qualified opinions of people who should know!

You live in an echo chamber too much here.

You need to study more and see the wide range of views. There are many scientists querying a lot of aspects of evolution, and even more thinking that the more we know about the cell, the more complex it becomes, and the harder it is to think it is a product of random chemistry.

But just to prove the CF sceptics echo chamber does not seem to know where it is at:

Here is a definition Harvard has used
“living organisms: replicating….. growing, evolving”

Or go with NASA
“self-sustaining chemical system capable of Darwinian evolution”

mine was “ self replicating, self evolving”, so I am in good company.

Harvard and NASA are two big funders of origin of life research. If they do not know what they mean by life? they are wasting all their money!

Will you argue with them as well as me?
All I write on here is qualified opinions of people who should know!

Various definitions none of which address the fuzzy boundary.
Those schooled in biology would notice that.

They also be a ware that differences of opinion about
some details of evolution is not denying it occurs at all.

No person of professional integrity would claim
something for which has no data, after all.

 

[Mountainmike]

Various definitions none of which address the fuzzy boundary.
Those schooled in biology would notice that.

They also be a ware that differences of opinion about
some details of evolution is not denying it occurs at all.

No person of professional integrity would claim
something for which has no data, after all.

Are you saying that Harvard and NASA are wrong and you are right?
That’s some hubris.

As for claiming something for which there is no data, just count up the number claiming that abiogenesis from soup has evidence, rather than just conjecture.

 

[SelfSim]

As for claiming something for which there is no data, just count up the number claiming that abiogenesis from soup has evidence, rather than just conjecture.

You really need to move on from the concept originally and informally termed 'primordial soup'. Its an irrelevant straw-man, created by you, in this discussion.

 

[Yttrium]

Do you:

A: Eat some berries.
B: Trust the sign.

I'd want to read some of those peer-reviewed books first, then see how others who have eaten the berries are doing. If everything looks good to go, I'd try some of the berries.

 

[Mountainmike]

You really need to move on from the concept originally and informally termed 'primordial soup'. Its an irrelevant straw-man, created by you, in this discussion.

It’s not my phrase.
But it is also one of the voids:
In addition to abiogenesis NOT being observed to repeat,
There is NO model for it.
There is NO means to repeat it.

There is also NO environment defined in which it took place either. No list of extant biochemicals or how they came to be.

So I stand corrected and call your version selfsim soup: whatever your opinion is of it. Since that’s all you have which is an opinion. NO evidence .
So what is selfsim soup? I’m curious?

And much as you conjecture intermediates, lesser cells and so on.

There are NONE of them either.
NO sign the process ever still happens,
Maybe the intermediates autocatalysed out of existence? Maybe the newts eat them. It’s as good a conjecture as any. There we are I helped solve it.

In short ALL you have is conjecture. A few plausibility ideas. Dots you cannot be sure are part of the picture , and you can’t draw a line through them either,

My analogy on walking from the U.K. to California is spot on.
Just showing viability for part of the journey , like walking across Greenland, is not evidence the whole journey is possible, only a plausibility argument. A dot in what needs to be a complete path. A path that you don’t even know where it started, or whether it was raining acid , methane or otherwise at the time.

I keep repeating my position on this which is that of a proper sceptic.

Abiogenesis from self sim soup ( you can define it, since you don’t like primordial )remains pure conjecture.

don’t get me wrong , I’m happy to see it proved. Like time travel. I am sceptic either ever will be solved. But the challenge of abiogenesis is bigger than any of the advocates ever seem to want to admit.

Many are like dawkins. They hold it to be true, for the sole faith based reason they apriori dislike the implied alternative!
That is the impression I get here.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Are you saying that Harvard and NASA are wrong and you are right?
That’s some hubris.

Life definitions are contextual - NASA's definition is intended for astrobiology; IOW, for extraterrestrial life. It has already been criticised for its focus on Darwinian evolution because intelligent technological creatures at human level or above might, via genetic modification, cease Darwinian evolution and change to preemptive evolution, e.g. skip the natural selection (sometimes called 'supra-Darwinian evolution'). It's conceivable that this could be a human future. Creatures with more advanced technology might individually customize clones, and so-on.

But, whatever. The fact remains that there is some debate even within terrestrial biology about the most appropriate or suitable definitions.

For example, Krauker et al. define life as:

“...the union of two crucial energetic and informatic processes producing an autonomous system that can metabolically extract and encode information from the environment of adaptive/survival value and propagate it forward through time” The Multiple Paths to Multiple Life (nih.gov)​

Paul Churchland defines it as:

“Any semi-closed physical system that exploits the internal order it already possesses, and the energy flux passing through it, in such a way to maintain and/or increase its internal order.” Churchland, P.(’Matter and Consciousness’, p.271)​

Erwin Schrodinger said, "Life is something that goes on doing something much longer than you would expect it to" which sounds intentionally flippant, but hides a deeper truth (living things can put off the approach to thermal equilibrium for a long time by using low entropy energy sources).

 

[SelfSim]

There is NO model for it.
There is NO means to repeat it.
There is also NO environment defined in which it took place either.

Oh yeah? What do you call this then?:
Origin of Life - Hot Springs

Since that’s all you have which is an opinion. NO evidence .

What do you call the above linked thread then?

And much as you conjecture intermediates, lesser cells and so on.
There are NONE of them either.
NO sign the process ever still happens,
Maybe the intermediates autocatalysed out of existence?
Maybe the newts eat them. maybe aliens stole them
It’s as good a conjecture as any. There we are I helped.

You helped in demonstrating your ignorance there .. that's what you did!

In short ALL you have is conjecture. A few plausibility ideas. Dots you cannot be sure are part of the picture , and you can’t draw a line through them either,

I gave an example there of a perfectly testable hypothesis. I make no claim beyond that, as it being only that.
You keep making up some other story about what you imagine it as being.
Like a stuck record, you are!

My analogy on walking from the U.K. to California is spot on.
Just showing viability for part of the journey , like waking across Greenland, is not evidence the whole journey is possible, only a plausibility argument. A dot in what needs to be a complete path.

You mean like the geological evidence of the continents once being connected? Or like the development of ships whose decks can be walked? Or human powered light aircraft?
As you should see, your sarcasm is only effective when you assume a contextual basis, which may not be shared in a given conversation .. like hypothetical abiogenesis conversations.

I keep repeating my position which is that of a proper sceptic.

Your position is one of maintaining your own ignorance of a consistent context.

Abiogenesis from self sim soup ( you can define it, since you don’t like primordial )remains pure conjecture.

Only in your contextually truncated thinking.
...

Many are like dawkins. They hold it to be true, for the sole faith based reason they apriori dislike the implied alternative! That is the impression I get here.

Then let go of your straw-man position and fixed irrelevant context! Its that simple .. Abiogenesis hypotheses .. are hypotheticals!

 

[Mountainmike]

Oh yeah? What do you call this then?:

It is called conjecture.
And since the conjecture always had an interest in volcanic vents, I’d say nothing much has changed. But repeating conjecture 10000 times, does not upgrade it to other than conjecture.

 

[SelfSim]

It is called conjecture.
And since the conjecture always had an interest in volcanic vents, I’d say nothing much has changed. But repeating conjecture 10000 times, does not upgrade it to other than conjecture.

You don't seem to be capable of distinguishing between a testable hypothesis, and a conjecture.
Like a stuck record, you continue to be!

 

[SelfSim]

It is called conjecture.
And since the conjecture always had an interest in volcanic vents, I’d say nothing much has changed. But repeating conjecture 10000 times, does not upgrade it to other than conjecture.

So as my attempt at helping you to relieve yourself of your misconceptions about hypotheses and conjectures, specifically when it comes to the interplay between the two in the Abiogenesis area, I suggest you have a read of this, for starters:

Conjecture and hypothesis: The importance of reality checks

The word conjecture is defined as an opinion based on incomplete information. The word can be taken to be slightly pejorative, but given that conjecture also involves imagination and creative effort, I will argue here that in scientific research there is a natural progression from conjecture to hypothesis to consensus.

Scientific consensus then plays a role:

Conjecture is an idea, hypothesis is a conjecture that can be tested by experiment or observation, and consensus emerges when other interested colleagues agree that evidence supports a hypothesis that has explanatory value. This approach is clearly relevant to origins of life research which is still at a stage where multiple conjectures abound yet vast gaps in knowledge and understanding remain, mostly due to lack of significant funding for research in this area.

He ends up listing conditions,

.. which can be tested by observation, by theoretical analysis or in laboratory simulations. If any one of the predictions fails experimentally or is shown to be impossible, for instance by being inconsistent with thermodynamic principles, that alternative can be considered to be falsified. As evidence accumulates, we will be able to judge the relative plausibility and explanatory power of the competing ideas. Continued testing of the alternative hypotheses is essential, because neither has yet reached the level of consensus. In both cases, laboratory simulations will ideally be extended to a second important step, which is to visit the alternative sites and demonstrate that what happens in the laboratory can also occur in the actual conditions of hydrothermal vents or fields.

The testable conditions listed are:

1. There must be a source of organic compounds relevant to biological processes, such as amino acids, nucleobases, simple sugars and phosphate.
   
2. The organic solutes are likely to be present as very dilute solutions, so there should be a process by which they can be sufficiently concentrated to undergo chemical reactions relevant to cellular life.
   
3. Energy sources must be present in the environment to drive a primitive metabolism and polymerization.
   
4. Products of reactions should accumulate within the site rather than dispersing into the bulk phase environment.
   
5. Biologically relevant polymers are synthesized with chain lengths sufficient to act as catalysts or incorporate genetic information.
   
6. If amphiphilic compounds are present in the mixture, the conditions will allow them to assemble into membranous compartments.
   
7. A plausible physical mechanism can produce encapsulated polymers in the form of protocells and subject them to combinatorial selection.

There .. now you have been illuminated for a restart .. I suggest you move onwards from that new understanding.

 

[Subduction Zone]

It is called conjecture.
And since the conjecture always had an interest in volcanic vents, I’d say nothing much has changed. But repeating conjecture 10000 times, does not upgrade it to other than conjecture.

A hypothetical idea often starts as conjecture. But the key to being a hypothesis is that it must be testable. Once a concept has been tested and passed those tests it is no longer conjecture. It is a concept that is supported by evidence. And even worse for you, the fact that it is supported by evidence puts the burden of proof upon deniers. Abiogenesis is rather well supported by evidence. The entire route from non-life to life is not mapped out yet, but there is good evidence for many of the steps. You appear to believe in magic and there is no evidence that I am aware of for that. A true skeptic follows the evidence wherever it goes. Even if it goes against cherished beliefs. Until one demonstrates evidence for one's own beliefs calling oneself a "sceptic" does not appear to be appropriate at all.

 

[Mountainmike]

I am not minded to continue this.
You have no idea what I know, but you are happy to insult regardless.
So do not expect a further reply.

The entire argument is:
Could, maybe , might be , could , possibly. There are also fundamental barriers in the argument, for which “dont know” is the only honest answer. The lack of any evidence the same process still continues weighs heavily against the presumption it ever did. Geothermal vents , pools and cracks are still here , with new ones being created. Verifiable protocells are not. Let me know if that changes, I’m fascinated.

Perhaps you should study more: I recollect someone called Ganti was the first , or one of the first , that conjectured some features of a protocell , and it was MOST of my lifetime ago. I was interested to read his ideas. I had to look his name up, it was so long ago. I saw it in new scientist as a kid. I’ve been interested ever since.

The difference between us is you NEED it to be true from your faith based persective on how life started. I don’t, so I take a more objective view of what is there, not a rose tinted believers view of evidence like you do.

Your hypothesis at best a test of a few plausibility steps in a very long journey.

The conclusion that arises from such experiments. is only that the small step might have happened in such a way. You are testing conjecture , and whether a piece of conjecture can be falsified. So the outcome validates conjecture only. The conjecture is still conjecture. It has no greater status other than lack of falsification.

It does not validate abiogenesis as an origin of life, or the appearance of what you call a protocell, only that some part of the pathway might have happened. It cannot say whether it happened like that, or whether a full process can be constructed that includes the conjectured step. It’s a non falsified maybe.

Abiogenesis from selfsim soup itself, is still not a valid hypothesis. You have no test for the appearance of protocell by random chance without a human design agency trying to create one ( actually playing Frankenstein).

When you test the appearance of an actual protocell without a human designer agent involved so from random chance chemistry of known non living antecedents let me know. That’s the critical step. The one that causes problems for irreducible complexity. It has to be complex to evolve. It has to be simple to be a product of random chance chemistry meeting.

I mention Ganti for another reason.
It is fascinating that I was also attacked by @Estrid for using essentially the same definition of life that nasa and Harvard do. I am happy to tell @Estrid that Ganti also agrees with me. But I think he added metabolism too. And he had the honesty to admit what you will not. It was indeed pure conjecture.

I am used to getting attacked by atheists for simply reminding them of science.

And all of your blather will not change a word of the fact I have actual forensic evidence of human tissue appearing in Eucharistic miracles and on the statue of Cochabamba that is not explainable as a forgery by any known means, and did not arise from progressive small change. A non religious pathologist - one of many involved stated it “ is compelling evidence of creation “.

Since they appeared in nature , they are natural whether or not science can explain them. They are also abiogenesis in the true meaning of the word. Life from non living antecedents, and it didn’t take billions of years. It took hours or weeks.. It is Life from selfsim soup that is supernatural. It is beyond science to explain and there is no smoking gun it ever happened.


Life from Creation 5. Life from selfsim soup 0
is the score on actual forensics so far.
Let me know if that changes.

I keep telling you , I am not against it. More power to the elbow of whoever shows proper evidence of random chance appearance of an actual evolving protocell. I personally don’t think they will, but as a scientist I’m happy if it’s demonstrated.

Maybe life is both/and, not either/or.

So as my attempt at helping you to relieve yourself of your misconceptions about hypotheses and conjectures, specifically when it comes to the interplay between the two in the Abiogenesis area, I suggest you have a read of this, for starters:

Conjecture and hypothesis: The importance of reality checks

Scientific consensus then plays a role:
He ends up listing conditions, The testable conditions listed are:There .. now you have been illuminated for a restart .. I suggest you move onwards from that new understanding.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I am not minded to continue this.
You have no idea what I know, but you are happy to insult regardless.
So do not expect a further reply.

The entire argument is:
Could, maybe , might be , could , possibly. There are also fundamental barriers in the argument, for which “dont know” is the only honest answer. The lack of any evidence the same process still continues weighs heavily against the presumption it ever did. Geothermal vents , pools and cracks are still here , with new ones being created. Verifiable protocells are not. Let me know if that changes, I’m fascinated.

Perhaps you should study more: I recollect someone called Ganti was the first , or one of the first , that conjectured some features of a protocell , and it was MOST of my lifetime ago. I was interested to read his ideas. I had to look his name up, it was so long ago. I saw it in new scientist as a kid. I’ve been interested ever since.

The difference between us is you NEED it to be true from your faith based persective on how life started. I don’t, so I take a more objective view of what is there, not a rose tinted believers view of evidence like you do.

Your hypothesis at best a test of a few plausibility steps in a very long journey.

The conclusion that arises from such experiments. is only that the small step might have happened in such a way. You are testing conjecture , and whether a piece of conjecture can be falsified. So the outcome validates conjecture only. The conjecture is still conjecture. It has no greater status other than lack of falsification.

It does not validate abiogenesis as an origin of life, or the appearance of what you call a protocell, only that some part of the pathway might have happened. It cannot say whether it happened like that, or whether a full process can be constructed that includes the conjectured step. It’s a non falsified maybe.

Abiogenesis from selfsim soup itself, is still not a valid hypothesis. You have no test for the appearance of protocell by random chance without a human design agency trying to create one ( actually playing Frankenstein).

When you test the appearance of an actual protocell without a human designer agent involved so from random chance chemistry of known non living antecedents let me know. That’s the critical step. The one that causes problems for irreducible complexity. It has to be complex to evolve. It has to be simple to be a product of random chance chemistry meeting.

I mention Ganti for another reason.
It is fascinating that I was also attacked by @Estrid for using essentially the same definition of life that nasa and Harvard do. I am happy to tell @Estrid that Ganti also agrees with me. But I think he added metabolism too. And he had the honesty to admit what you will not. It was indeed pure conjecture.

I am used to getting attacked by atheists for simply reminding them of science.

And all of your blather will not change a word of the fact I have actual forensic evidence of human tissue appearing in Eucharistic miracles and on the statue of Cochabamba that is not explainable as a forgery by any known means, and did not arise from progressive small change. A non religious pathologist - one of many involved stated it “ is compelling evidence of creation “.

Since they appeared in nature , they are natural whether or not science can explain them. They are also abiogenesis in the true meaning of the word. Life from non living antecedents, and it didn’t take billions of years. It took hours or weeks.. It is Life from selfsim soup that is supernatural. It is beyond science to explain and there is no smoking gun it ever happened.


Life from Creation 5. Life from selfsim soup 0
is the score on actual forensics so far.
Let me know if that changes.

I keep telling you , I am not against it. More power to the elbow of whoever shows proper evidence of random chance appearance of an actual evolving protocell. I personally don’t think they will, but as a scientist I’m happy if it’s demonstrated.

Maybe life is both/and, not either/or.

You keep claiming to be a scientist and a skeptic. Tell us what the evidence is for creation. I am unaware of any scientific evidence at all. You keep deriding "conjecture" but you do not seem to even have that supporting your beliefs.

 

[Astrid]

Life definitions are contextual - NASA's definition is intended for astrobiology; IOW, for extraterrestrial life. It has already been criticised for its focus on Darwinian evolution because intelligent technological creatures at human level or above might, via genetic modification, cease Darwinian evolution and change to preemptive evolution, e.g. skip the natural selection (sometimes called 'supra-Darwinian evolution'). It's conceivable that this could be a human future. Creatures with more advanced technology might individually customize clones, and so-on.

But, whatever. The fact remains that there is some debate even within terrestrial biology about the most appropriate or suitable definitions.

For example, Krauker et al. define life as:

“...the union of two crucial energetic and informatic processes producing an autonomous system that can metabolically extract and encode information from the environment of adaptive/survival value and propagate it forward through time” The Multiple Paths to Multiple Life (nih.gov)​

Paul Churchland defines it as:

“Any semi-closed physical system that exploits the internal order it already possesses, and the energy flux passing through it, in such a way to maintain and/or increase its internal order.” Churchland, P.(’Matter and Consciousness’, p.271)​

Erwin Schrodinger said, "Life is something that goes on doing something much longer than you would expect it to" which sounds intentionally flippant, but hides a deeper truth (living things can put off the approach to thermal equilibrium for a long time by using low entropy energy sources).

Nothing on the fuzzy boundary that is the reason
these various definitions are being quoted?

 

[SelfSim]

The lack of any evidence the same process still continues weighs heavily against the presumption it ever did. Geothermal vents , pools and cracks are still here , with new ones being created. Verifiable protocells are not. Let me know if that changes, I’m fascinated.

Again.. your 'stuck record' claim strikes again! As already posted in the other Science forum thread here:

Further evidence that such simple protocell structures account for the earliest lifeforms thus far discovered from fossilized remains:
Oldest fossils of methane-cycling microbes expand frontiers of habitability on early Earth

A team of international researchers, led by the University of Bologna, has discovered the fossilized remains of methane-cycling microbes that lived in a hydrothermal system beneath the seafloor 3.42 billion years ago.
...
Morphology overlap with protocell models:
The microfossils have a carbon-rich outer sheath and a chemically and structurally distinct core, consistent with a cell wall or membrane around intracellular or cytoplasmic matter.

The difference between us is you NEED it to be true from your faith based persective on how life started. I don’t, so I take a more objective view of what is there, not a rose tinted believers view of evidence like you do.

Don't tell me what what I need or don't need .. especially when what follows has already been demonstrated as being a false assumption you've made about me, (ie: in my prior posts about Conjectures vs Hypotheses and Protocell discoveries), and is now being confirmed by your action as being an outright and deceitful LIE by repetition!

It does not validate abiogenesis as an origin of life, or the appearance of what you call a protocell, only that some part of the pathway might have happened. It cannot say whether it happened like that, or whether a full process can be constructed that includes the conjectured step.

.. and I haven't said it happened that way.
You have though .. in your made-up strawman argument.
Do you ever read/listen to anything posted by others?

Abiogenesis from selfsim soup itself, is still not a valid hypothesis. You have no test for the appearance of protocell by random chance without a human design agency trying to create one ( actually playing Frankenstein).

Again .. for the umpteenth time .. legitimate mainstream Abiogenesis Hypotheses are testable hypotheticals! They are testable for instance, by the evidence of in-situ, remote interplanetary probes capable of detecting long chain bio-polymer organic molecules (and even metabolisms)!
'Protocells' cited in those hypotheses are not the same concept you have stuck in your mind. Get over it for goodness sake!

When you test the appearance of an actual protocell without a human designer agent involved so from random chance chemistry of known non living antecedents let me know.

Already done and repeated again in the references and links posted above.

I am used to getting attacked by atheists for simply reminding them of science.

Then start listening and stop repeating your fixed strawmen.

.. but as a scientist I’m happy if it’s demonstrated.

You are no scientist and I couldn't care less about your claims of your academic background .. its irrelevant!