My abiogenesis challenge

[expos4ever]

The idea that one can establish the truth of irreducible complexity as "a matter of definition":

Behe could have proven IR as a matter of definition with the right example as I did,

....seems to be the height of absurdity. To even argue the point gives the impression that there is actually something to debate.

As others have repeatedly pointed out, the whole "definitional" question is almost certainly a diversion - how is it not manifestly obvious that what matters is what it is the case in nature, not the philosophical manipulation / unpacking of definitions?

Yes, I believe there is still a mystery. And, since it is still a mystery, it is conceivable, that fully naturalistic explanations will never suffice for an explanation of how life arose.

But this whole idea that the matter can be settled by playing around with definitions seems ridiculous. Perhaps this is not what is being claimed - if so, I am more than happy to be set straight on the matter.

 

[Mountainmike]

If you think you've sorted out a difficult scientific problem with a definition-based "logical" argument, you haven't.

I didn’t state it was sorted.
I made it quite clear that IR is a consequence of definition that makes the definitions questionable. I didn’t attach greater significance to it.

Abiogenesis process from simple molecules is and was an extremely hard problem before and after my conclusion.

I related the previous court case only to say that whether or not IR was rejected there, has no consequence for this instance: some seem to think the case disproved IR generically. ( see frank roberts posts) Behe wrongly used it as a stepping stone to try to prove ID , which as I have pointed out is not possible so is futile.

There was a lot of discussion as to whether COVID had been modified in a lab. I think it was probably natural from caves but for all that escaped from that lab.
Pathogens have escaped , most notably smallpox from Birmingham in the late seventies.

That there is a genuine question as to whether it was modified Is demonstration that the fact of design does not leave an indelible mark, which is also demonstrable in the many genetically engineered organisms and viruses involved in pharma production and many biologics.

Unless you knew the sequences were tampered you could never determine it by test. More simply many crystals are not natural. That is why provenance is needed in the gem market. Etc etc.

 

[Mountainmike]

The idea that one can establish the truth of irreducible complexity as "a matter of definition":



....seems to be the height of absurdity. To even argue the point gives the impression that there is actually something to debate.

As others have repeatedly pointed out, the whole "definitional" question is almost certainly a diversion - how is it not manifestly obvious that what matters is what it is the case in nature, not the philosophical manipulation / unpacking of definitions?

Yes, I believe there is still a mystery. And, since it is still a mystery, it is conceivable, that fully naturalistic explanations will never suffice for an explanation of how life arose.

But this whole idea that the matter can be settled by playing around with definitions seems ridiculous. Perhaps this is not what is being claimed - if so, I am more than happy to be set straight on the matter.

I didn’t say it could be settled this way.

It questions the definitions. Which considering a *fortune* of public money is being pumped into OOL research, defining the goal is clearly important!

Axiomatic logic is extremely important in science. The entire model of science is based on it. It cannot be dismissed as detail. The review of concepts and definitions is as important as the study of the conformance of the universe with the model so generated. The two go hand in hand.

I also thought it important to demolish logical sacred cows - myths repeated so often they become facts. IR is alive and well in many contexts, as here. A court did not disprove it. It simply failed to prove it in one particular case.

The study of entropy in information theory is in essence a measure of irreducible complexity. So structures that pass information such as genomes are irreducibly complex from minimum form. Real world complexity is generally far greater than entropy. Few structures are efficient. So even more complex than they need to be.

I thought some might find that interesting.

 

[Hans Blaster]

These things are utterly off topic to this thread (and sub-forum frankly), but I will reply to them since you think they show hallmarks of design, or rather the non-detectability of design. Any further discussion should be taken elsewhere.

There was a lot of discussion as to whether COVID had been modified in a lab. I think it was probably natural from caves but for all that escaped from that lab.
Pathogens have escaped , most notably smallpox from Birmingham in the late seventies.

That there is a genuine question as to whether it was modified Is demonstration that the fact of design does not leave an indelible mark, which is also demonstrable in the many genetically engineered organisms and viruses involved in pharma production and many biologics.

Unless you knew the sequences were tampered you could never determine it by test.

There are 4 basic scenarios put for for the origins of SARS-CoV-2. All but one have at least some potential for "conspiracy."

1. Wild exposure of wild-type virus: This is by far the leading idea. In this version, one or more infected wild animals expose one or more humans in the wild animal trade. Probably in the Wuhan wet market from caged bats. In this scenario, no one who gets infected realizes it was from a bat, nor did they think it was a potential problem.

2. Lab exposure of wild-type virus: (A) Infected lab animals (including newly captured ones) infect lab worker, or expedition to caves exposes researcher. They then transfer the virus to other humans unknowingly. This is basically the wet market scenario, but in a lab. (B) Wild-type virus is cultured in lab (in animals or dishes) and an accidental exposure of lab worker caries the virus out of the lab. (There are no records or samples that match 2B, so for it to happen we are already dealing with cover-ups.)

3. Lab exposure of modified virus: Lab cultured virus with modifications is accidentally exposed to a person who spreads it outside the lab. There are *two* problems with this: no record reported of such a virus [conspiracy time] and no evidence in the genetic sequence for modifications.

4. Deliberate exposure of modified virus: This is the full blown bio-weapons conspiracy deep in tin-foil hat land. As before, no evidence of modification, and using a easily spread pathogen as a bio-weapon is a *really* dumb idea.

While neither of us are virologists, the people who are say without reservations that there are no signs of modification. I can think of two: A) from my recollection, some gene editing tools leave behind markers; and B) if I were modifying a bat coronavirus to be a human disease, I'd probably replace one of the proteins (like the spike protein) that attaches to bat cells and replace it with one from a human coronavirus (like SARS-1, or MERS). Nothing like that is the case.

Scenario 1 is by far the most likely.
Scenario 2 is possible particularly 2A. 2B would require a coverup. Overall scenario 2 is probably at least 10x less likely than #1.
Scenario 3 is extremely unlikely and a full blown conspiracy theory.
Scenario 4 is also extremely unlikely and a very weird bio-terror or bio-warfare attack with no claimants.

More simply many crystals are not natural. That is why provenance is needed in the gem market. Etc etc.

Here I thought you were talking about crystals that didn't exist in nature, rather than ones that formed/didn't form in nature. This isn't about detecting design at all, just method of manufacture.

If what you care about is that the gem is pretty, then there is no difference. (Like a van Gogh print.)

If what you care about is that it is rare and others don't have such gems (Like an original van Gogh), then I suggest that you have a sick mind.

"Natural" gems often have really bad moral records (conflict diamonds, bad labor practices, backing of odious regimes, etc.) but if you want to discuss the *morality* of mined versus manufactured gems try the Ethics & Morality sub-forum.

 

[expos4ever]

I confess that I do not understand the logic of the OP. Not sure whether his argument is unclear, or I am not sharp enough to get it, or whether terminology is the problem.

I think that I understand the basic mechanism of evolution and I think that evolution pre-supposes the existence of a basic "living" entity as its starting point. From that point, random mutations combined with natural selection drive advances in complexity. Fine.

Let's talk about how we get to that first living entity. I will guess that no expert is saying that "mutations + natural selection" get us to that first living entity. Because if that were what's going on, then the theory of evolution explains that first living entity rather than assuming it. Again, fine.

So how would that first living cell come to be? Well, I see no reason why any definition of irreducible complexity would rule out the possibility that entirely natural forces are at work - random collisions of molecules, random inputs of energy, and other fortuitous circumstances. The fact that the "first cell" did not arise by "mutation" + "natural selection" does not rule out these other mechanisms by which complexity is built up.

I would ask that someone other than MountainMike can explain what MountainMike's basic argument is since I just don't his explanation.

 

[Hans Blaster]

I would ask that someone other than MountainMike can explain what MountainMike's basic argument is since I just don't his explanation.

The OP reduces to this:

"Sure, some people, claim that abiogensis is a process that took time, but I insist that the line between life and non-life is very sharp and clear, therefore abiogenesis can't happen."

Or "the claim I made proves the claim I made".

 

[expos4ever]

The OP reduces to this:

"Sure, some people, claim that abiogensis is a process that took time, but I insist that the line between life and non-life is very sharp and clear, therefore abiogenesis can't happen.".

Ok, thanks. But what is the argument that if that line were "sharp", abiogenesis cannot happen?

I am missing something.

 

[Hans Blaster]

Ok, thanks. But what is the argument that if that line were "sharp", abiogenesis cannot happen?

I am missing something.

So is Mike.

 

[Mountainmike]

I see no reason why any definition of irreducible complexity would rule out the possibility that entirely natural forces are at work - random collisions of molecules, random inputs of energy, and other fortuitous circumstances.

I did not say it did rule out "natural" forces, within the context of wondering what "natural" actually means. However, it is true that the greater complexity of the "final leap" to life, the less likely it is in chemistry terms, which in general constrains it to a progression of simple steps. If the precursors are not self evolving or not self reproducing the need for simple steps is a logical conundrum.

The explanation is just a simple logical statement. It is not a big logical leap. It has no greater significance or consequences but it might tempt some to reconsider the definitions of life, abiogenesis or both. It also kills a sacred cow of evolutionists , that "life" is not irreducibly complex. It clearly is on the basis of defintions.

I shoud paraphrase that. Because we are ALL evolutionists at SOME level.
But the ones who think life was solely the product of a chemical accident are only a subset of evolutionists. Creation vs evolution is an often presented false dichotomy.


( as background, you should consider that Science must involve itself in arcane definitions.
It does adapt them from time to time.The entire scientific model is axiomatic and based on definitions and so modifying definitions has consequences.

As a simple exampleOriginally (for example) the metre was defined as a geographic measurement. Ultimately in 1983 they redefined the metre as the distance travelled in a time. It forced speed of light to be a preset constant but then made distance a measured concept. Before that measurements of the speed of light varied. Not by much but there was variation)

 

[Mountainmike]

The OP reduces to this:

"Sure, some people, claim that abiogensis is a process that took time, but I insist that the line between life and non-life is very sharp and clear, therefore abiogenesis can't happen."

Or "the claim I made proves the claim I made".

Which is a thoroughly dishonest misrepresentation. And you know it.

The definitions make it sharp, I did not. I am questioning the definitions because of the logical conclusion.
I did not conclude abiogenesis "cannot happen".

Real scientists accept holes being picked in their favourite ideas. I am certain you do in your day job.

The status is that abiogenesis remains to be proven or even evidenced. What. When. How. Where. All undetermined, no structure postulated. So it is not yet a hypothesis it is conjecture .
But Abiogenesis IS an often repeated tenet of atheist belief. You are welcome to beliefs provided you accept them as such.

 

[Mountainmike]

Ok, thanks. But what is the argument that if that line were "sharp", abiogenesis cannot happen?

I am missing something.

Hans argument is wilfully misleading, and even he knows that.
For abiogenesis to be "Mushy" the definition of life must be "mushy".
I am simply noting that the NASA and Harvard definition is not mushy.

Life as Self evolving, Self replicating, is definitive and testable.
It either does or does not.
Abiogenesis is deemed as a process from non life to life. But if life is sharp, so is non life. (everything that is not life) therefore the transition is sharp.

I did not make it that way. I just wondered if the more logical people amongst us had noticed the problem with the definitions.
Not hans, seemingly.

 

[Mountainmike]

These things are utterly off topic to this thread (and sub-forum frankly), but I will reply to them since you think they show hallmarks of design, or rather the non-detectability of design. Any further discussion should be taken elsewhere.



There are 4 basic scenarios put for for the origins of SARS-CoV-2. All but one have at least some potential for "conspiracy."

1. Wild exposure of wild-type virus: This is by far the leading idea. In this version, one or more infected wild animals expose one or more humans in the wild animal trade. Probably in the Wuhan wet market from caged bats. In this scenario, no one who gets infected realizes it was from a bat, nor did they think it was a potential problem.

2. Lab exposure of wild-type virus: (A) Infected lab animals (including newly captured ones) infect lab worker, or expedition to caves exposes researcher. They then transfer the virus to other humans unknowingly. This is basically the wet market scenario, but in a lab. (B) Wild-type virus is cultured in lab (in animals or dishes) and an accidental exposure of lab worker caries the virus out of the lab. (There are no records or samples that match 2B, so for it to happen we are already dealing with cover-ups.)

3. Lab exposure of modified virus: Lab cultured virus with modifications is accidentally exposed to a person who spreads it outside the lab. There are *two* problems with this: no record reported of such a virus [conspiracy time] and no evidence in the genetic sequence for modifications.

4. Deliberate exposure of modified virus: This is the full blown bio-weapons conspiracy deep in tin-foil hat land. As before, no evidence of modification, and using a easily spread pathogen as a bio-weapon is a *really* dumb idea.

While neither of us are virologists, the people who are say without reservations that there are no signs of modification. I can think of two: A) from my recollection, some gene editing tools leave behind markers; and B) if I were modifying a bat coronavirus to be a human disease, I'd probably replace one of the proteins (like the spike protein) that attaches to bat cells and replace it with one from a human coronavirus (like SARS-1, or MERS). Nothing like that is the case.

Scenario 1 is by far the most likely.
Scenario 2 is possible particularly 2A. 2B would require a coverup. Overall scenario 2 is probably at least 10x less likely than #1.
Scenario 3 is extremely unlikely and a full blown conspiracy theory.
Scenario 4 is also extremely unlikely and a very weird bio-terror or bio-warfare attack with no claimants.



Here I thought you were talking about crystals that didn't exist in nature, rather than ones that formed/didn't form in nature. This isn't about detecting design at all, just method of manufacture.

If what you care about is that the gem is pretty, then there is no difference. (Like a van Gogh print.)

If what you care about is that it is rare and others don't have such gems (Like an original van Gogh), then I suggest that you have a sick mind.

"Natural" gems often have really bad moral records (conflict diamonds, bad labor practices, backing of odious regimes, etc.) but if you want to discuss the *morality* of mined versus manufactured gems try the Ethics & Morality sub-forum.

I just said "crystals" to reduce the simplicity in speaking of "design" from discussing life, I did not specify natural or not, other than I picked a natural example where provenance is needed.
I could equally have picked such as Gallium Arsenide which as far as I am aware is not naturally found but now is abundant. Seeing a crystal lattice or structure nobody can say it whether it is designed or not.

I assure you that with modern techniques that genetic manipulation is not necessarily visible. At simplistic level Selective breeding is "intelligent design".
I may not be a virologist, my other half is a molecular biologist who was in at the beginning of sequencing and spent two decades manipulating virus and microorganisms to assist in bio pharmaceutical and vaccine manufacture. If she says it cannot be detected, then thats my view.

There clearly is a question hanging over COVID. although I think cockup is more likely than conspiracy. Covid has sequences that are found naturally but not in the normal coronas. Much of what my other half does is cut and paste sequences from "elsewhere". My point about that is that the scientific community is not certain it was not tampered!

One aspect that might be used to distinguish a natural organism from a created organism is redundant DNA.
Why would a designer bother? When Craig Ventner tried to reduce mycobacterium he reduced what he thought were redundant genes, indeed succeeding in reducing the number by a few. When he tried to reduce it further , he had reproduction problems so reducibility was an issue.

One thing you might like to consider is that human identification by DNA is ENTIRELY measuring REDUNDANT DNA in many parts of the genome.

The code of the number of repeats of redundant multiplied sequences becomes the "dna identity"

Isnt it interesting in so called Eucharistic Miracles one of the factors that make them both unnatural and extremely hard to fake, is the lack of "identity" code repeats. The DNA passes standard human tests and can be multiplied, but no "identity". So it is a case where redundant DNA was not included!!!! MtDNA haplotypes again show it IS Human DNA.

The DNA was not "natural" as in "Normal" but is it Evidence of design? A non religious forensice pathologist said "compelling evidence of creation". It is clearly evidence.

 

[Hans Blaster]

I just said "crystals" to reduce the simplicity in speaking of "design" from discussing life, I did not specify natural or not, other than I picked a natural example where provenance is needed.
I could equally have picked such as Gallium Arsenide which as far as I am aware is not naturally found but now is abundant. Seeing a crystal lattice or structure nobody can say it whether it is designed or not.

And this would have been a better example to use, but instead you wrote about gems.

Of course this only is useful for distinguishing the natural when non-natural means "man-made". It doesn't do anything for design in nature.

 

[Bradskii]

It also kills a sacred cow of evolutionists , that "life" is not irreducibly complex.

Who says that various aspects of biology are not irreducible? Where does that come from? Take the nucleus from a cell and the cell is destroyed. Remove your lungs and guess what happens?

The observation that some aspects of life ARE irreducible was used to claim that it must have been designed. That it couldn't work from the bottom up. A claim that has easily and frequently been dismissed.

 

[Mountainmike]

Who says that various aspects of biology are not irreducible? Where does that come from? Take the nucleus from a cell and the cell is destroyed. Remove your lungs and guess what happens?

The observation that some aspects of life ARE irreducible was used to claim that it must have been designed. That it couldn't work from the bottom up. A claim that has easily and frequently been dismissed.

I agree. But you will note the assumption made by such as Frank Roberts (and I can tell you it is often repeated) that IR itself was disproven as a principle but it was not.

The often cited law case was indeed aiming to use IR to prove ID which was mistaken on two counts. A woefully bad choice of IR and the impossibility of proving ID - EITHER WAY

Using simple examples.

Elsewhere I cited the case of Gallium Arsenide as a minimum example. As far as I am aware is not found naturally. It was an intelligent design but the structure leaves no trace of the designer. Nor does selective breeding for intelligent selection of animal traits leave any trace of the fact of intelligent design.

The case of the first living structure is the only interesting case of IR.
That the minimum living structure (the minimum cell, call it what you will) is irreducibly complex which is true by a matter of definition. It causes problems for defining a process for abiogenesis.

The singlest biggest problem with all of the deduction is agreement on definitions of "life" "abiogenesis" and as regards process even the meaning of "natural" to determine the mechanism of the process.

I notice nobody commented on my reply to Hans Blaster relating to ID.
Go look it up.

One of the traces of evidence for intelligent design is the lack of redundancy in a structure. Designers are unlikely to put unnecessary redundancy into a genome. Why would they? Craig ventner experimented with removing unnecessary genes from mycobacterium and succeeded to a degree. But he found he could not reduce it further without compromising reproduction.

Most people do not realise Human DNA identification is done ENTIRELY by counts of multiple repeats of redundant DNA sequences in the human genome at various points along it. Your "identity" is the counts of those sequences which are passed on in reproduction. Effectively a bar code. None of it is needed to function as human. You can be "bar code all zero" (so no repeats found) and still function normally. Identification tests would be blank. Human DNA would be present and amplifiable, but no identity would be found.

The following is forensics repeated in multiple independent labs and locations/continents:

Isnt it fascinating that with so called "eucharistic miracles" in which bread progressively changed to a substance identified by pathology as recently living human heart myocardium - that it passed human DNA detection tests but would not yield an "identity". In essence bar code 0.
Is that the mark of a designer?
It was real enough - the cells yielded MtDNA haplogroups so female MtDNA was present.

One pathologist stated it was "compelling evidence of human tissue creation"

 

[Frank Robert]

I agree. But you will note the assumption made by such as Frank Roberts (and I can tell you it is often repeated) that IR itself was disproven as a principle but it was not.

I don't recall claiming IC was disproved only that it has not been demonstrated. My criticism is Behe, other scientists and organizations that are using IC to deny evolution are doing nothing to demonstrate IC.

The case of the first living structure is the only interesting case of IR.
That the minimum living structure (the minimum cell, call it what you will) is irreducibly complex which is true by a matter of definition. It causes problems for defining a process for abiogenesis.

It is a conclusion that not all philosophies or philosophers would agree with. You would need to falsify abiogenesis to conclude IR is true.

 

[Bradskii]

I agree.

Then why state that it's a foundational belief of evolutionary scientists? It isn't and it never has been. And if you knew anything about the evolutionary process then you'd know that. It would be beneficial if you quoted your sources when you make a claim so we can see where you are obtaining this misinformation.

 

[Mountainmike]

Then why state that it's a foundational belief of evolutionary scientists? It isn't and it never has been. And if you knew anything about the evolutionary process then you'd know that. It would be beneficial if you quoted your sources when you make a claim so we can see where you are obtaining this misinformation.

I did not state it or hint at it in the original post. Read it.

I noted that "iR has been disproven" is a myth repeated so often by many it has gained the status of fact amongst those in places like this - so called evolutionary advocates who claime the imprimateur of scince in stating evolution and creation are a dichtotomy.

Try frank roberts post 12. He is the one who needs "educating". He stated it disproven, and repeated the claim. It does not help on threads like this.

Than we have such as Hans Blaster. Who seeing the obvious problem tries to "blur definitions" which are indeed sharp.

It was the definitional issue I was pointing at on this thread.

 

[Mountainmike]

I don't recall claiming IC was disproved only that it has not been demonstrated. My criticism is Behe, other scientists and organizations that are using IC to deny evolution are doing nothing to demonstrate IC.

It is a conclusion that not all philosophies or philosophers would agree with. You would need to falsify abiogenesis to conclude IR is true.

Your post 12: "It has been REFUTED over and over!!!!!!" (refuted means disproven)

Not it has not.
And your last statement here is also false.

I am USING the defintion OF abiogenesis and life to PROVE IR
with Axiomatic logic.

The problem IS the combined definitions of life and abiogenesis when combined describe a sharp transition and irreducible complexity.

I just wondered if anyone had clocked the obvious logical conclusion. So Would they like to revise NASA or Harvard definitions - if so, what to?

 

[Bungle_Bear]

I am USING the defintion OF abiogenesis and life to PROVE IR

Given your reliance on definitions - please define IR and then demonstrate how abiogenesis and life "PROVE IR"