My abiogenesis challenge

[Kylie]

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.

Scientists have been grappling with that question for decades at least, and longer. Why do you expect me to have a definitive answer?

Honestly, I don't think there's going to be any clear cut definition that applies to all life and doesn't apply to non-life.

 

[Kylie]

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.

Are you kidding? The source I provided showed how to make a mousetrap out of a single piece. Is your argument to be, "Irreducible complexity exists because if you have one p[art and take it away you end up with no parts"?

 

[AV1611VET]

Honestly, I don't think there's going to be any clear cut definition that applies to all life and doesn't apply to non-life.

One poster here gave this definition of life:

At the level of chemistry & physics it's just a complex redox reaction sequence that extends the approach to thermal equilibrium by using low entropy energy sources.

 

[AV1611VET]

The source I provided showed how to make a mousetrap out of a single piece.

Then that mousetrap, made out of a single piece, is irreducibly complex, isn't it?

 

[Kylie]

Then that mousetrap, made out of a single piece, is irreducibly complex, isn't it?

No, because you can take that one piece and use it for something else.

 

[AV1611VET]

No, because you can take that one piece and use it for something else.

I could stick a penny in my fuse box, but that doesn't mean the penny was made to take the place of fuses.

 

[Kylie]

I could stick a penny in my fuse box, but that doesn't mean the penny was made to take the place of fuses.

But you can take the metal from fuses and use them to make coins. That's what evolution does. It takes things, changes them, and uses them for completely new things.

 

[Mountainmike]

Scientists have been grappling with that question for decades at least, and longer. Why do you expect me to have a definitive answer?

Honestly, I don't think there's going to be any clear cut definition that applies to all life and doesn't apply to non-life.

Until you define “life” you cannot define “ abiogenesis” because all definitions of abiogenesis use the word “ life”.

I can only note you were willing to dispute whether some enzyme combinations are “live” so you clearly have preconceived notions. How so if you cannot define it?

 

[Mountainmike]

That was previously answered by @SelfSim


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

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.

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.

Back to facts on your speculation of abiogenesis.

What. When. How. Where , are all undetermined.
It cannot be repeated and does not repeat naturally.
As for the other approach of science : arguing from the model not evidence: No structure is defined for the first living cell. There is no pathway defined to it, or pathway defined from it.


If you would like to specify ONE of those it would be a start. You can’t.

So it is not even a valid hypothesis since no experiment is possible. All the experiments so far conducted are non-living to non-living or living-living so largely irrelevant. Abiogenesis is non-living to living.

Neither can NASA. Their belief in abiogenesis and their faith in the false philosophy of scientific realism runs way beyond the evidence or science. All they have is speculation and bits of plausibility for small parts of a process.

There are also big problems. Why does it not continue? Why is a similar genome part of every living cell, when random chance divergence would expect multiple forms of varying levels of sophistication.

A perfect comparison:

If I were to say to you “ such a phenomenon happened” and I could not tell you where it happened, what happened, when it happened, it did not repeat, I could not repeat it. There were no witnesses, I could not tell you what happened immediately before or after the event.
You would rightly question whether it happened, or doubt my scientific credentials for raising it.

I am rightly levelling the same criticism at you for your support for abiogenesis. You believe it in absence of evidence, but then want to give it the imprimatur of science or “ natural” . When you have no idea!


As for your belief in shaman “cures” : Produce forensic or medical evidence and I might consider it. I doubt any of it it has the scrutiny of Lourdes cures. It is also way off topic. It has nothing to do with origin of cells.

This thread must not become a discussion of EM they are off topic here, I refer here only to show the evidence gap. For abiogenesis there is absolutely no direct evidence.

For EM there are pathology and forensic reports including dna / MtDNA and a pathologist - whose expert testimony would be accepted in any criminal court - willing to state they are compelling evidence of creation of cells. Multiple places . Multiple independent pathology teams, same pathology noted.

 

[Bradskii]

Until you define “life” you cannot define “ abiogenesis” because all definitions of abiogenesis use the word “ life”.

I just might try again...

Abiogenesis has obviously occured. I don't know how it ocurred. Do you? If you do, then you might produce some evidence so we can discuss it. If you don't then please say so.

 

[Mountainmike]

I just might try again...

Abiogenesis has obviously occured. I don't know how it ocurred. Do you? If you do, then you might produce some evidence so we can discuss it. If you don't then please say so.

Life has occurred.
Science has a default nul hypothesis.
So No idea is the verdict of science on how.

All the rest is belief.
You are welcome to yours.

if you believe in life as a random chance chemical event, ( the normal view of abiogenesis) please state when, where, and what happened, a postulated structure for the first cell, the pathway to it , and from it to the incredibly complex minimum cell.

I have been studying OOL research for 50 years since the first ideas for protocells were published by Ganti - and popularised in new scientist ever heard of him? The progress since is appalling considering the volume of money thrown at it.

Just by way of comparison study the forensic , pathology and dna reports in “ cronica de um milagro eucharistico” ( castarnon) for the tixtla event. What. Where. When. The science all known. Tissue sections. SEM pictures. DNA profiles. It supports creation of recently living heart tissue. It has the advantage over pathology evidence for your concept of abiogenesis, because In the case of EM there IS some scientific evidence.

 

[Kylie]

Until you define “life” you cannot define “ abiogenesis” because all definitions of abiogenesis use the word “ life”.

I can only note you were willing to dispute whether some enzyme combinations are “live” so you clearly have preconceived notions. How so if you cannot define it?

Actually, I was pointing out that some enzyme could be considered to be alive based on the definition provided by you in post 1. I personally wouldn't consider an enzyme to be alive, yet you would have to accept it as such based on the definition you provided in post 1 and the description of such an enzyme in post 178.

At no point have I ever tried to define life, and as I clearly stated in post 201, I don't think I could. Even those people who are the most educated on the topic are unable to provide a clear and specific definition of life.

I suspect that while we can clearly state what is alive (plants, animals, etc) and what is non-life (rocks, water, etc), the dividing line between them is not a clear one. I suspect that there's no clear boundary, just non-life that displays some life-like aspects, such as my enzyme example.

 

[Mountainmike]

Actually, I was pointing out that some enzyme could be considered to be alive based on the definition provided by you in post 1. I personally wouldn't consider an enzyme to be alive, yet you would have to accept it as such based on the definition you provided in post 1 and the description of such an enzyme in post 178.

At no point have I ever tried to define life, and as I clearly stated in post 201, I don't think I could. Even those people who are the most educated on the topic are unable to provide a clear and specific definition of life.

I suspect that while we can clearly state what is alive (plants, animals, etc) and what is non-life (rocks, water, etc), the dividing line between them is not a clear one. I suspect that there's no clear boundary, just non-life that displays some life-like aspects, such as my enzyme example.

But there is the issue.

In terms of our modern world, there would be very little dispute on what is live. In as far as there is a blur it is only in structures that hijack the functions of another organism for either replication or evolution. Take a virus.

The category of “ questionable” ( take your suggestion of auto catalytic error prone enzyme) is very small, largely theoretical, and mostly pointed at only by those hoping to find a link to what is generally accepted as live

All the organisms thought of as live are incredibly complex. The thought of a cell as a blob of jelly is now long discarded. The minimum cells we know are almost all self evolving self replicating , self repairing chemical factories of many thousands of chemicals. The complexity is mind boggling.

The gulf between what we mostly consider living and non living is vast, and the space between living and non living is almost an empty void.

In as far as the space is inhabited by parasitic and saprophytic organisms that steal function from fully living cells, like virus, it is reasonable to suppose that they are later breakaways in the chain of life: they cannot have crossed the void without the ability to replicate / evolve and provide support eg energy systems

As I have said I have been studying OOL for 50 years since the first protocell ideas were formed. The reality of progress since is very little and overhyped.

So in my view the definitional problem is largely caused by wishful thinking of those who hope there was a gradual slide into life on earth.

My scientific view: If there was a slide into life, it wasn’t on earth by chemical process .The dividing line is too stark here. The commonality of genetic structure too similar, and there is an absence of intermediates or ongoing process.

 

[Bradskii]

So No idea is the verdict of science on how.

I know what the answer is from science. I'll clarify it so that there's no misunderstanding.

Me: 'Abiogenesis has occured. How did it happen?'
Science: 'We don't know'.

Now I'll ask you for the third time: Do you know how it happened?

If you do, let's see the evidence you have so we can discuss it.

 

[Mountainmike]

I know what the answer is from science. I'll clarify it so that there's no misunderstanding.

Me: 'Abiogenesis has occured. How did it happen?'
Science: 'We don't know'.

Now I'll ask you for the third time: Do you know how it happened?

If you do, let's see the evidence you have so we can discuss it.

Science does not know how it happened , so neither do you. If you
“ think you know the answer from science”
you don’t understand science.
You believe. You are welcome to your belief.

 

[Bradskii]

Science does not know how it happened , so neither do you. If you
“ think you know the answer from science”
you don’t understand science.

I just took some time clarifying exactly that. Science doesn't know how abiogenesis ocurred. And, obviously, neither do I. So that's clear enough. Crystal clear.

So now I'll ask you yet again...

Do you know how it ocurred? If not, then we're all in agreement that it's an unknown. If so, then please present the evidence you have that allows you to say so.

 

[Bungle_Bear]

Life has occurred.
Science has a default nul hypothesis.
So No idea is the verdict of science on how.

All the rest is belief.
You are welcome to yours.

if you believe in life as a random chance chemical event, ( the normal view of abiogenesis) please state when, where, and what happened, a postulated structure for the first cell, the pathway to it , and from it to the incredibly complex minimum cell.

I have been studying OOL research for 50 years since the first ideas for protocells were published by Ganti - and popularised in new scientist ever heard of him? The progress since is appalling considering the volume of money thrown at it.

Just by way of comparison study the forensic , pathology and dna reports in “ cronica de um milagro eucharistico” ( castarnon) for the tixtla event. What. Where. When. The science all known. Tissue sections. SEM pictures. DNA profiles. It supports creation of recently living heart tissue. It has the advantage over pathology evidence for your concept of abiogenesis, because In the case of EM there IS some scientific evidence.

OK, I had a skim through your miracle article. I can find parts where it says there was human blood on the wafer. I can find parts where it says there are cells which appear to have been adipose (body fat), but they had deteriorated. I can find parts where it says there appeared to be muscle fibres, but they couldn't be identified. I can find parts where it says the blood contains substances typically found in umbilical blood.

What I cannot find is anything other than an assertion from your pathologist in support of your claims of "recently living heart tissue". None of the evidence presented supports that claim, much of it contradicts that claim. Where is his evidence? Are you trying to pull a fast one by hoping nobody takes time to read your article?

 

[Kylie]

But there is the issue.

In terms of our modern world, there would be very little dispute on what is live. In as far as there is a blur it is only in structures that hijack the functions of another organism for either replication or evolution. Take a virus.

The category of “ questionable” ( take your suggestion of auto catalytic error prone enzyme) is very small, largely theoretical, and mostly pointed at only by those hoping to find a link to what is generally accepted as live

All the organisms thought of as live are incredibly complex. The thought of a cell as a blob of jelly is now long discarded. The minimum cells we know are almost all self evolving self replicating , self repairing chemical factories of many thousands of chemicals. The complexity is mind boggling.

The gulf between what we mostly consider living and non living is vast, and the space between living and non living is almost an empty void.

In as far as the space is inhabited by parasitic and saprophytic organisms that steal function from fully living cells, like virus, it is reasonable to suppose that they are later breakaways in the chain of life: they cannot have crossed the void without the ability to replicate / evolve and provide support eg energy systems

As I have said I have been studying OOL for 50 years since the first protocell ideas were formed. The reality of progress since is very little and overhyped.

So in my view the definitional problem is largely caused by wishful thinking of those who hope there was a gradual slide into life on earth.

My scientific view: If there was a slide into life, it wasn’t on earth by chemical process .The dividing line is too stark here. The commonality of genetic structure too similar, and there is an absence of intermediates or ongoing process.

However, there is still considerable debate on whether viruses are alive. And this also does not negate the fact that the hypothetical enzyme I proposed is well within the realm of not only possibility but plausibility.

 

[Mountainmike]

OK, I had a skim through your miracle article. I can find parts where it says there was human blood on the wafer. I can find parts where it says there are cells which appear to have been adipose (body fat), but they had deteriorated. I can find parts where it says there appeared to be muscle fibres, but they couldn't be identified. I can find parts where it says the blood contains substances typically found in umbilical blood.

What I cannot find is anything other than an assertion from your pathologist in support of your claims of "recently living heart tissue". None of the evidence presented supports that claim, much of it contradicts that claim. Where is his evidence? Are you trying to pull a fast one by hoping nobody takes time to read your article?

Bravo for finally addressing a science issue.
If you want to start a thread on EM , I’ll happily contribute , but this is not it .

Suffice to say for the example of potentially “ created life” it doesn’t matter what type of cell. The fact they are human , recently or actually living, and cannot have been deposited on the sample as a fraud , and fail to yield DNA identity is enough.

As regards tixtla itself the Cells are of similar morphology to heart, and if you follow the story m a later cardiologist Anaya in 2014 stated in his opinion they are exactly what you would see as a result of serious infarction or trauma causing necrosis. . Even more interesting a later examination showed still active leucocytes many years on in vitro. Ie live. That cannot happen in normal pathology. The leucocytes dissolve post mortem or in vitro rapidly after death. These didn’t.

The detail of tissue type is hardly an issue , since Buenos Aires, sokolka, legnica and even age old lanciano have been positively identified as cardiac tissue via nuclear pyknosis and intercalated disks. Various cardiac specialists involved.

So tixtla is just one more in a pattern of independent events, independently analysed but similar conclusion

My point is there is far more evidence for abiogenesis as created life in EM than there is for ancient life from chemical soup, for which in objective terms there is none.
Not how, when, what, structure , process any of it.
But EM were observed. And analysed. So however weak or strong you think that evidence is, it trumps abiogenesis as evidence of origin of cells.

The state of OOL research is way overhyped. In objective terms it is barely off first base.

 

[Bungle_Bear]

The detail of tissue type is hardly an issue , since Buenos Aires, sokolka, legnica and even age old lanciano have been positively identified as cardiac tissue via nuclear pyknosis and intercalated disks. Various cardiac specialists involved.

I assume you mean the intercalated discs which the report specifically says they couldn't find?

...que recuerda las fibras musculares estriades cardiacas, sin embargo, no se observaron discos intercalares ni estraciones transversales

I suggest you read your own sources before making up these claims.