My abiogenesis challenge

[Kylie]

Has it been tested?

Yes, if you'd read it you would have seen the bit where he says he's made one.

 

[Mountainmike]

Not any more. After the 2019 redefinition of the SI units, vacuum permeability is no longer a defined quantity, but a combination of defined constants and a measured one.

But defined, or measured the numerical value is a human choice and only true for a specific unit or unit system.

So vacuum permeability was 4pi x 10^{-7} *only* because it was agreed to and written down on a paper describing a system of units.

The point is it is axiomatic. Based on definition and units.

The more interesting flip in definitions is to make c constant and allow distance to vary,
( presumably someone was a bit embarrassed that measurements of c were a bit too variable for their liking - do you know what reason was cited? )
but equally it is axiomatic.

 

[Mountainmike]

Your argument fails because something can be self replicating and self evolving (whatever those mean) and yet NOT be alive.

An enzyme can take Chemical A and Chemical B and join them together to form the new Chemical C more efficiently than if A and B were just drifting around randomly. But what if Chemical C was the enzyme itself? Then the enzyme is self replicating.

And what if there was a slight error in the way that it put A and B together, and as a result, the new version of the enzyme was even MORE efficient at putting A and B together? Now it has evolved. And yet it's still just an enzyme. We wouldn't call it alive.

Any example needs treating on its own merits ( in that case depending on the possibility of evolving further - self catalysing processes need to show inheritance of defect, but also in most peoples view of what evolution is , potential survival advantage for some of the defect varieties. It’s why NASA qualify “evolving” with “ Darwinian” because as I pointed out on another thread “ evolving” has variant definitions too)

But You illustrate the problem with definitions.
Criticising a definition is the easy part:
If you don’t like that definition- what definition of life would YOU use?

What is the minimum function set in your view that makes an entity live?
This was the conversation I expected on this thread.

 

[AV1611VET]

Yes, if you'd read it you would have seen the bit where he says he's made one.

Let me get this straight then.

The mousetrap is not irreducibly complex, because you can remove a part from it and still have a mousetrap?

Um ... it's still a mousetrap, right?

Eventually you get to the point where you can't remove any part and still catch mice.

Thus the mousetrap is irreducibly complex.

 

[Frank Robert]

I suggest you start reading what they write.

I did read it and it is obvious that you totally ignored the purpose of the paper.

Many of them confuse their atheist faith with science, hence promoting abiogenesis to a level way beyond the status , that it is not even a valid hypothesis yet. It is pure speculation.

Creationists love their projections. You are the one projecting your religious beliefs in a literal reading of genesis as your primary motivation. You don't appear to understand that such a reading is not much different than a hypothesis.

But Dawkins believes! He is not ashamed to say it.

Good for Dawkins. But you appear to believe all or most scientists believe in same way as Dawkins. Did you forget the synonyms that I previously posted for believing?

But When. Where. How. What. All undetermined. It does not repeat. They cannot repeat it. No structure is postulated. No pathway to it. No pathway from it. Zilch.
Except s few possible plausibility arguments for what bits of a process might have been. But they believe….

Again you demonstrate your lack of knowledge scientific curiosity. The paper is a challenge for astrobiology. It is laying out the difficulties of the challenge along with providing encouragement.

Any paper that refers to “prebiotic chemistry” , presumes it exists, so should first state that whether it happened is unknown. Not what happened. But whether.
Many refer to the premise as fact. The detail unknown. Which presumes belief in the unknown. I have no problem with that providing it is stated as belief.
Nul hypothesis is the only valid scientific conclusion at present. Don’t know.

I am not going to argue the minutia of definitions and synonyms, which appear to be your sole mode of argument, with you because you have not made a valid argument against the scientific study of origins.

 

[Mountainmike]

I did read it and it is obvious that you totally ignored the purpose of the paper.



Creationists love their projections. You are the one projecting your religious beliefs in a literal reading of genesis as your primary motivation. You don't appear to understand that such a reading is not much different than a hypothesis.

Good for Dawkins. But you appear to believe all or most scientists believe in same way as Dawkins. Did you forget the synonyms that I previously posted for believing?

Again you demonstrate your lack of knowledge scientific curiosity. The paper is a challenge for astrobiology. It is laying out the difficulties of the challenge along with providing encouragement.

I am not going to argue the minutia of definitions and synonyms, which appear to be your sole mode of argument, with you because you have not made a valid argument against the scientific study of origins.

"it"? Ive no idea to what you refer. But the "it" i refer is everywhere.
Here is what Harvard has to say of OOL research.

"Chemists and chemical biologists consider the simple molecules on primitive planets and focus on the route to assembling complex self-replicating molecules"

Notice the emphasis. "the route" not "whether there is a route" or "was a route". It is an assumption repeated so often it became a fact.

And yet it is all unknown. what, when , where, how , a structure for the first cell, a route to it, a route from it. It cannot be repeated. It does not repeat. There is nothing.

So ANY scientist acting from EVIDENCE (not belief) would say "whether" it happened is pure speculation. But They believe!

It is all part of the modern day atheist faith in scientific realism. It must have happened that way in their opinion. They worship a toolkit, a spanner called "science" around which their world revolves. They are welcome to that belief, so long as they separate what they know from science from what they believe in spite of it.

belief an acceptance that something exists or is true, without complete evidence.

faith used of a philsophical system
Trust or confidence in someone or something.
Buddhism has no God. Scientific realism has a God called science which is presumed to have the answer to all existence. It doesnt. It never will. The philosophers say it cannot. They are right. Even Hawking realised what science was in the end, when he recognised "Model dependent realism" in place of a "universal theory of everything"

You are the one projecting.

I do not believe in a literal interpretation of Genesis. So you are not scientist material, you let your assumptions about me and things superimpose on your analysis.

I do believe some of the eucharistic (and some other) miracles and the forensic science backs me up. There is far more scientific evidence for these and other miracles than for abiogenesis.

I am also inclined to believe some of the evidence for out of body consciousness. It is almost impossible to discount as coincidence. And if consciousness can exist out of body, the "evolutionary " answer to all of life is dead. It also proves the limits of science. Science has no mechansim deal with one off non repeatable things. They are left as evidence unexplained by the model.

I am happy to believe in abiogenesis from chemical soup ifand when there is ever some evidence for it or a process for it. As yet there is nothing but supposition for bits of a process.

 

[Bradskii]

I am happy to believe in abiogenesis from chemical soup ifand when there is ever some evidence for it or a process for it. As yet there is nothing but supposition for bits of a process.

Well, there ya go. If someone asks you how abiogenesis ocurred (it obviously did), then you can say 'I don't know'.

That's what I do.

 

[Frank Robert]

So ANY scientist acting from EVIDENCE (not belief) would say "whether" it happened is pure speculation. But They believe!

Again you want to argue the minutia of definitions and synonyms. You are referring to belief as in "religious belief." I don't think you will find many scientists that believe, i.e. hold to a natural route or progression, as a faith based belief.

There are two potential routes to origins of life, natural and supernatural. Why do scientists investigate a natural route rather a supernatural route? Perhaps they can to investigate the natural for evidence but there is no way to investigate the supernatural, there is only religious belief.

You have made several references to miraculous cures, but miraculous cures are not evidence for the supernatural. From my own experiences with the relaxation response, I have witnessed what could labeled as miraculous cures and also from knowledge of others. There are many reports of miraculous cures with shamans from all over the world. One of my mentors from grad school, Marie Coleman Nelson (former managing editor of Psychoanalytic Review) spent her retirement working with shamans in Africa. There are things we will never have answers for but we don't need to assign them to the supernatural.

 

[Mountainmike]

Again you want to argue the minutia of definitions and synonyms. You are referring to belief as in "religious belief." I don't think their are many scientists that believe, i.e. hold to a natural route, i.e. progression, as a faith based belief.

There are two potential routes to origins of life, natural and supernatural. Why do scientists investigate a natural route rather a supernatural route? Perhaps they can to investigate the natural for evidence but there is no way to investigate the supernatural, there is only belief.

You have made several references to miraculous cures, but miraculous cures are not evidence for the supernatural. From my own experiences with the relaxation response, I have witnessed what could labeled as miraculous cures and also from knowledge of others. There are many reports of miraculous cures with shamans from all over the world. One of my mentors from grad school, Marie Coleman Nelson (former managing editor of Psychoanalytic Review) spent her retirement working with shamans in Africa. There are things we will never have answers for but we don't need to assign them to the supernatural.

Yet again you fail to understand definitions.
“Natural” is what happens in the universe.
Which is only indirectly and incompletely observable.
If God is in the universe He is natural.

You falsely use natural as a synonym for “is part of the present scientific model.” That’s unnatural. The model is a man made creation. A game played out on computers , paper and in peoples minds. It’s not a bad model. Indeed the similarity clouds the fact it is just a model not nature.

The is clearly evidence for things that happen, which are not capable of being modelled within the present paradigm . The evidence wins on what is natural. Not the model. If it happens it is natural - Including miracles.

By philosophical analogy you prefer the computer game flight simulator behaviour as the barometer of natural, to the behaviour of an actual aeroplane where the two differ. How bizarre!

Study philosophy please.

 

[Frank Robert]

Yet again you fail to understand definitions.
“Natural” is what happens in the universe.
Which is only indirectly and incompletely observable.
If God is in the universe He is natural.

I don't disagree. But you still appear dead set on arguing definitions and synonyms. Even if God is in the universes he does not leave evidence that can be examined.

You falsely use natural as a synonym for “is part of the present scientific model.” That’s unnatural. The model is a man made creation. A game played out on computers , paper and in peoples minds. It’s not a bad model. Indeed the similarity clouds the fact it is just a model not nature.

You continue to demonstrate that your sole argument is in the minutia of definitions and synonyms.The scientific method was developed to investigate the natural world. Your opinion is that because the scientific model is man made it is not natural does not change how science is conducted.

The is clearly evidence for things that happen, which are not capable of being modelled within the present paradigm . The evidence wins on what is natural. Not the model. If it happens it is natural - Including miracles.

If you are arguing that origins of life can not be scientifically investigated then your argument is not with me or others on here but with the scientists investigating origins. You might want to do a google search to learn who they are and what they are doing.

By philosophical analogy you prefer the computer game flight simulator behaviour as the barometer of natural, to the behaviour of an actual aeroplane where the two differ. How bizarre!

Now you are flying in the twilight zone.

 

[Bradskii]

If it happens it is natural - Including miracles.

The supernatural has ceased to exist? Why wasn't I told..?

 

[AV1611VET]

The supernatural has ceased to exist? Why wasn't I told..?

Would you believe it, if you were told?

 

[Mountainmike]

argument is in the minutia of definition.

Welcome to science.
You clearly still don’t understand it.

Eg until you define abiogenesis and life, you can test neither.

If you are arguing that origins of life can not be scientifically investigated.

No I didn’t . I only argued they are not off first base.

For the last time.
So far. When. What . How. When . Whether, all undetermined. Nor does postulated structure. Postulated Pathway to it . Postulated Pathway from it. It can’t be replicated and doesn’t replicate.
The last five are where science normally starts. So abiogenesis is not even a valid hypothesis. Pure speculation.
Even if they succeed it can only be indirect, if it doesn’t happen naturally. It can only conclude What might have happened not what did.

So Called Eucharistic miracles on the other hand left actual forensic evidence documented by multiple pathologists all who confirmed the same factors , one allowed his name to be used saying “ compelling evidence of created heart tissue”

god doesn’t leave any evidence .

So Yes He did.
Of many kinds.
(At level of belief, The universe is one. Life is another.)

But Just In this case of EM the forensic /scientific evidence score is
Creation. 4 abiogenesis 0

Abiogenesis may have happened.
But the scientific evidence is slight to non existent.

But because it is the only possibility for atheists…. They all believe it.

If all tgey have is a hammer, everything to them is a nail.

 

[AV1611VET]

Eg until you define abiogenesis ...

Siege in a sob.

 

[Frank Robert]

Welcome to science.
You clearly still don’t understand it.

Eg until you define abiogenesis and life, you can test neither.

You tried to define abiogenesis by philosophy and I pointed out that not all philosophies such as empiricism agree your conclusions. At the vary least you need to demonstrate irreducible complexity which no one has been able to do. However weak you believe the plausible paths from the NASA paper to the LUCA might be there are plausible paths.

Frank Robert said: ↑
If you are arguing that origins of life can not be scientifically investigated.

No I didn’t . I only argued they are not off first base.

You do know what personal opinions are worth don't you?

The NASA paper which you linked to was about the astrobiology challenges which is what science is about but you appear to be unaware of that.

For the last time.
So far. When. What . How. When . Whether, all undetermined. Nor does postulated structure. Postulated Pathway to it . Postulated Pathway from it. It can’t be replicated and doesn’t replicate.
The last five are where science normally starts. So abiogenesis is not even a valid hypothesis. Pure speculation.
Even if they succeed it can only be indirect, if it doesn’t happen naturally. It can only conclude What might have happened not what did.

The NASA did claim it was not going to be easy.

So Called Eucharistic miracles on the other hand left actual forensic evidence documented by multiple pathologists all who confirmed the same factors , one allowed his name to be used saying “ compelling evidence of created heart tissue”

As I said previous seemingly miraculous cures are not unusual.

So Yes He did.
Of many kinds.
(At level of belief, The universe is one. Life is another.)

But Just In this case of EM the forensic /scientific evidence score is
Creation. 4 abiogenesis 0

Here is 1 one for the Shamans:
Shamanic Healing, Human Evolution, and the Origin of Religion

Abiogenesis may have happened.
But the scientific evidence is slight to non existent.

But because it is the only possibility for atheists…. They all believe it.

If all tgey have is a hammer, everything to them is a nail.

Once again your bias is brightly flashing. See:
Theism Meets Atheism in the Case of Abiogenesis | Journal of Religion and Society (2021)

 

[Mountainmike]

You tried to define abiogenesis by philosophy and I pointed out that not all philosophies such as empiric

I didn’t “ try “ to define abiogenesis. Or life. I used accepted definitions of both and drew an inevitable logical conclusion. Nothing to do with philosophy.

You don’t “ get “ science or philosophy of science, or the status of the model.
My comment on the scientific status of abiogenesis was spot on.

The forensic evidence I spoke of exists backed by many pathologists.
That’s why I believe it. Science. Actual evidence.

I am interested in scientific discussion with people who understand science , alas your posts don’t qualify.

 

[Frank Robert]

I didn’t “ try “ to define abiogenesis. Or life. I used accepted definitions of both and drew an inevitable logical conclusion. Nothing to do with philosophy.

That was previously answered by @SelfSim

All you have demonstrated in your posts throughout this entire thread, is the complete uselessness of going down the so-called Irreducible Complexity avenue of a rabbit-hole enquiry, which is based purely on the philosophically based obsession with the belief that logic alone, can establish a so-called 'Truth' about the origin of Earth-based life.

You don’t “ get “ science or philosophy of science, or the status of the model.
My comment on the scientific status of abiogenesis was spot on.

READ the NASA paper, it does not agree with your personal opinion.

The forensic evidence I spoke of exists backed by many pathologists.
That’s why I believe it. Science. Science. Actual evidence..

No one here has appears to have any idea of what your are claiming. Provide the links to the actual science. I believe the best you can do is to find that science can not explain the cures, just as science can not explain the shaman cures. As I said before, I do not doubt explainable cures and that we may never know how they came about.

I am interested in scientific discussion with people who understand science , alas your posts don’t qualify.

You haven't discussed the science. All you have provided is your personal opinion that that ID/IR, which has never been documented, is evidence for the supernatural.

 

[Bradskii]

Abiogenesis may have happened.
But the scientific evidence is slight to non existent.

This is not credible.

Abiogenesis has obviously happened. The only question is how. And if you want to take it to two basic options - and this is a Christian forum so we'll go with whether it happened with or without supernatural help.

Now how about you lay your cards on the table. Do you know how it happened?

If you do then please tell us. If not then admit that you don't know. And join the rest of us in saying so. Everything else is just so much smoke and mirrors.

 

[Hans Blaster]

I didn’t “ try “ to define abiogenesis. Or life. I used accepted definitions of both and drew an inevitable logical conclusion. Nothing to do with philosophy.

Sounds more like exegesis. That's not the way we roll in science. Science is all about the data. If you think science is all about arguing about definitions, then you've completely misunderstood the things you've seen from the outside.

 

[AV1611VET]

If you think science is all about arguing about definitions, then you've completely misunderstood the things you've seen from the outside.

Like Pluto? where, after some arguing about definitions, the definition got changed?

Don't believe me?

Look it up in your Funk & Wagnalls.