Abiogenesis

[SkyWriting]

I am willing to learn about concepts that I actually feel are worth learning about. If you present hokum to me and expect me to want to learn it, then you're squat out of luck.

And I'm on Planet Earth.

Like a fish complaining about the water.

 

[muichimotsu]

So you went from definitely, to probably, to probably; but I can't express the probability?

Is this science?

You realize not all science works on the same level of observation and direct confirmation, right?

Our inability to directly observe the evolution and speciation of ancient carnivores to felines, canines, etc, does not mean we don't have evidence to support it by consideration of things like the fossil record, DNA, etc

And abiogenesis works on a similar principle, albeit it's regarding biochemistry and such as I recall, rather than evolutionary biology speaking on biological diversity with regards to biological entities and common ancestry

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Like a fish complaining about the water.

What's that supposed to mean?

 

[SkyWriting]

What's that supposed to mean?

Complaining about the forum you are posting in.
A fish complaining about the water.

 

[muichimotsu]

I agree. There is a margin of error in any statistic. 100% is close enough considering the size of Cosmos......at the time I wrote this.

No, you're dishonestly rounding up based on a consideration that, if we're being technical, inanimate objects don't really replicate, or it's not really replication in the vein of how organic entities do by reproduction, etc. I don't think any sane person claims rocks replicate or other inorganic things we observe, but clearly plants replicate, insects replicate, etc, it's a pretty simple category distinction

 

[HARK!]

The fact that there are problems does not give credence to a supernatural explanation that's unfalsifiable by nature. That's literally appeal to ignorance: not being able to prove a claim to your satisfaction doesn't mean it isn't able to be supported by evidence

Maybe aliens did it. Maybe it was Captain Kirk. Maybe sasquatch came back from the future.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Complaining about the forum you are posting in.
A fish complaining about the water.

No, I'm not complaining about the forum. No where did I complain about the forum. What I said I said and what I said I meant. If I want to learn something, I have to first see it as something worthwhile to learn.

 

[Larniavc]

What's difficult is that I'm asked to accept that an event took place, without any solid proof that it took place; and in the absence of even any quantifiable probability that it happened.

Life exists on Earth now. At some point it did not. So at some point life began to exist. That is abiogenesis. If it had not happened we would not be alive here to talk about it.

That’s as ELI5 as I can put it.

 

[muichimotsu]

What's difficult is that I'm asked to accept that an event took place, without any solid proof that it took place; and in the absence of even any quantifiable probability that it happened.

Oh, but you're willing to just accept that some entity that's outside of the universe just made the universe and tweaked things from outside like they're playing The Sims? And you have the gall to demand "proof" from us when your answer, if I'm remotely accurate in characterizing it, is beyond proof in the first place

 

[VirOptimus]

Maybe aliens did it. Maybe it was Captain Kirk. Maybe sasquatch came back from the future.

Using magic as an answer in an science debate is an auto-loss.

 

[SkyWriting]

No, you're dishonestly rounding up based on a consideration that, if we're being technical, inanimate objects don't really replicate, or it's not really replication in the vein of how organic entities do by reproduction, etc. I don't think any sane person claims rocks replicate or other inorganic things we observe, but clearly plants replicate, insects replicate, etc, it's a pretty simple category distinction

They already claimed that crystals replicate.....so making any kind of point
to prove me wrong that 100% of the cosmos does not reproduce.
And I admit the number might be a fraction off. I don't know
the number....but it's small. I could fill a page with zero's and likely still be too big.

 

[muichimotsu]

Maybe aliens did it. Maybe it was Captain Kirk. Maybe sasquatch came back from the future.

And those natural explanations are still more plausible than whatever supernatural nonsense can be parroted. But invoking fictional characters and cryptids borders on being disingenuous, when aliens in the general concept of extraterrestrials makes more sense and would have remote evidence to support it should we be visited by galactic neighbors and they offer such substantiation.

God doesn't remotely fit into such a notion and that's why creationism and intelligent design have been consistently rejected as anything resembling science in their methodology, to say nothing of lack of any substantive evidence to support their own claims, but just try to tear down what they think evolutionary science claims with demonstrable strawmen

 

[HARK!]

And now you know how some of us feel when people like you go on and on about accepting certain Biblical events that have left zero evidence as truth.

I don't think that I do. I think that it actually takes more faith to believe in abiogenesis.

 

[klutedavid]

The probability of abiogenesis on earth is 1:1.

I disagree strongly.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

I don't think that I do. I think that it actually takes more faith to believe in abiogenesis.

You're really not helping your case.

 

[VirOptimus]

I disagree strongly.

why?

 

[muichimotsu]

They already claimed that crystals replicate.....so making any kind of point
to prove me wrong that 100% of the cosmos does not reproduce.
And I admit the number might be a fraction off. I don't know
the number....but it's small.

Someone else claimed it, I might grant it, but I'm not that knowledgeable. The point is that you're stacking the deck, that's dishonest in the same way we could spin statistics to make something seem larger than it is, but we're not talking about things that demonstrably don't replicate and also not in regards to most inorganic things, which RNA/DNA/etc don't fall into.

If we agree that probably, 80% of the cosmos' matter doesn't reproduce but just change form or such, that would allow a simplistic rounding up to 100% and ignoring the 20% that does, making an entirely inaccurate representation to support a specious notion of "design"

 

[HARK!]

Using magic as an answer in an science debate is an auto-loss.

I'm glad you understand the irony.

 

[muichimotsu]

Using magic as an answer in an science debate is an auto-loss.

I mean..are any of those technically magical? Fictional in Captain Kirk's case and cryptozoology in sasquatch and even aliens, sure, but they're not working on some fundamentally different rules of physics and such

 

[muichimotsu]

I don't think that I do. I think that it actually takes more faith to believe in abiogenesis.

Well, if you dishonestly skew faith to mean something different than what it means in regards to confidence in scientific hypotheses and theories, then sure, you can claim that, but Ray Comfort called, he wants you to stop copying him