My abiogenesis challenge

[Mountainmike]

Logical deduction , and supposedly science is all about precise definition of concepts and therefore relationships.

Definitions.

Life is defined as a function by NASA and Harvard. "self replicating and self evolving"

Abiogenesis is defined as the process or step from non living to living.

We can all argue with definitions , I know many who argue abiogenesis was more of a blur than an event. Christians (and some out of body researchers, including well esteemend medical men ) would argue whether consciousness is solely a function of or confined to the brain, so is there more to life than chemistry?. We must all let the objections pass. We can only argue abiogenesis in the context of a specific definition.

So abiogenesis is called a process rather than a step, but there is no blur in the definition of life, an entity either does or does not self evolve and self replicate , so abiogenesis may have been described as a "process" but it was also a single step event, because no precursor till the very last step in that process can have been living.

My challenge is a rerun of Behe law case in another context. But this time without a judge whose judgement self contradicted, and choosing a far better exampe!

Take Abiogenesis, the very first living cell (picture it as you will, eg with or without membrane, provided it meets the definition).

My statement is the first Live entity from abiogenesis is irreducibly complex. So life is irreducibly complex.
My challenge is Disprove it. Or agree with it. You must do one of the two.


Why? I can argue top down process, bottom up process, or information theoretic status. All agree.

Because the first cell must be irreducibly complex. Remove any part and it will cease to replicate or evolve. If it did not cease to replicate and evolve, then the precursor without the part would ALSO be live by definition, so that the cell under consideration would not be the cell from abiogenesis, which is theone without the unnecessary part. Repeat until irreducible..

But arguing from the other direction. Since no known element is "live" by the definition of NASA and Harvard, then any minimum cell must be a combination of elements, so there is a minimum complexity at which a cell becomes live.

I could also argue that from information theory. A genome must carry information which has a minimum entropy therefore complexity.

I rest my case your honour.
Do we all agree?

 

[AV1611VET]

Take Abiogenesis, the very first living cell (picture it as you will, eg with or without membrane, provided it meets the definition).

The first living cell was grass.

 

[Hans Blaster]

The first living cell was grass.

Grass is not a cell, it is a multicellular organism.

 

[Frank Robert]

Because the first cell must be irreducibly complex

All your arguments have been refuted and there simply never was an irreducible complexity demonstrated.

 

[Mountainmike]

All your arguments have been refuted and there simply never was an irreducible complexity demonstrated.

You do love cookie cutter responses.
This has not been refuted. If you disagree - refute it. That was the challenge.

The behe case was subtly different - if that’s what you think is relevant - it isn’t. (and it was a very bad hill for Behe to choose to fight on, he should have picked this hill. He would have won)

on this…
Find the logical flaw. Denial is not refutation.
My argument is the logical consequence of definitions.

The logical consequence of NO irreducible complexity is that the simplest structure, a single molecule would Self evolve and replicate. It doesn’t. QED.

The definitions are arguable, but they are not my definitions. Argue with Harvard and NASA not me. But my conclusions are the consequence of the definitions.

 

[The IbanezerScrooge]

I note you have no links to any actual scientific research on the topic. Thought I might provide a few. This is a post I made on this topic a couple of years ago. All still relevant and there's likely even more in the scientific literature now.

Why do creationists redefine and/or make up words out-of-context?

 

[Mountainmike]

I note you have no links to any actual scientific research on the topic. Thought I might provide a few. This is a post I made on this topic a couple of years ago. All still relevant and there's likely even more in the scientific literature now.

Why do creationists redefine and/or make up words out-of-context?

A simple refutation will suffice. Or an admission you cannot refute it.

Wy do evolutionists love a good smokescreen - we alrwsdy established they don’t really know what they mean by either evolution or the theory of evolution.( my last challenge) It is a haze.


But This is neither creationist nor evolutionist.
This is self standing logic.
I am simply taking two definitions of “ life” and “ abiogenesis” and deriving a logical consequence.
Refute it - if your logic is good enough, if indeed it can be refuted,

 

[AV1611VET]

Grass is not a cell, it is a multicellular organism.

Bingo!

There never was a time the Earth had only a few living cells -- (except the first three days of the Creation Week, when cells didn't even exist).

One day, not a living cell around; the next day, fields of grass!

 

[AV1611VET]

All your arguments have been refuted and there simply never was an irreducible complexity demonstrated.

What about the mousetrap?

 

[Larniavc]

A simple refutation will suffice. Or an admission you cannot refute it.

First you need to provide evidence for your assertion. Then we can attempt to refute it.

 

[The IbanezerScrooge]

A simple refutation will suffice. Or an admission you cannot refute it.

Wy do evolutionists love a good smokescreen - we alrwsdy established they don’t really know what they mean by either evolution or the theory of evolution.( my last challenge) It is a haze.

I disagree. I don't think you've established that at all. Definitions and explanations in that thread were pretty clear and concise. There's not confusion about what evolution is or much about what the theory says even if there are debates over very specific mechanisms and their consequences.

But This is neither creationist nor evolutionist.
This is self standing logic.
I am simply taking two definitions of “ life” and “ abiogenesis” and deriving a logical consequence.
Refute it - if your logic is good enough, if indeed it can be refuted,

Several of the links in the comment I linked address the mechanisms involved in your definitions. Replication, evolution (chemical evolution in this case) and the process and/or step where a collection of chemical processes would/could transform from "non-living" to "living."

I think the issue in both of these threads is that you're really only concerned with the philosophy behind all of this and not the actual scientific data and observations that we've actually made that lead us to these conclusions. I think that's because you are ill-prepared to actually deal with any of that. It's all just a "smokescreen" to you.

Bottom line, you can't properly discuss any of this without first dealing with and understanding the knowledge about the topic we've already amassed. You haven't done that.

 

[Frank Robert]

You do love cookie cutter responses.
This has not been refuted. If you disagree - refute it. That was the challenge.

It has been refuted over and over and over. How often do creationist cookie cutter objections to the vast trove of evidence for the ToE?

The behe case was subtly different - if that’s what you think is relevant - it isn’t. (and it was a very bad hill for Behe to choose to fight on, he should have picked this hill. He would have won)

Behe lost because of the vast trove of evidence presented against irreducible complexity especially by Dr. Miller.
Ken Miller on Intelligent Design And The Kitzmiller-Dover Trial

on this…
Find the logical flaw. Denial is not refutation.
My argument is the logical consequence of definitions.

The logical consequence of NO irreducible complexity is that the simplest structure, a single molecule would Self evolve and replicate. It doesn’t. QED.

Abiogeneis is irrelevant to evolution. You see cookie cutter responses because a different response is not needed every time the same objection comes up regardless on how many times the objection has been adequately answered.

"Creationists sometimes try to invalidate all of evolution by pointing to science's current inability to explain the origin of life. But even if life on Earth turned out to have a nonevolutionary origin (for instance, if aliens introduced the first cells billions of years ago), evolution since then would be robustly confirmed by countless microevolutionary and macroevolutionary studies"
(15 Answers to Creationist Nonsense)​

 

[Frank Robert]

What about the mousetrap?

Ken Miller made a tie clip from a part of the mousetrap that put irrecducability to bed.

 

[Mountainmike]

Ken Miller made a tie clip from a part of the mousetrap that put irrecducability to bed.

Now answer my question of pure logic if you can , or butt out of my thread. Your beliefs are not welcome here , only your logic. You are way off topic with this. Behe addressed a different problem, unrelated to the one I propose.

if you can refute it, refute it.

You will notice the “ usual suspects” who are well qualified to enter this game of logic have so far declined to answer.

It is a logical challenge not an evolutionary science challenge, even though that is where the problem is found.

My challenge reduces the question of irreducible complexity to its irreducible essence.

Fools rush in ( with irrelevant tie pins) where angels fear to tread.

 

[AV1611VET]

Ken Miller made a tie clip from a part of the mousetrap that put irrecducability to bed.

How many mice has he caught with it?

 

[Mountainmike]

How many mice has he caught with it?

Please? Don’t let him derail this.

It is a pure game of logic that gives abiogeneticists a serious problem.
There is only one way out of their logical prison which is to rewrite the rules of the game.

 

[lsume]

Logical deduction , and supposedly science is all about precise definition of concepts and therefore relationships.

Definitions.

Life is defined as a function by NASA and Harvard. "self replicating and self evolving"

Abiogenesis is defined as the process or step from non living to living.

We can all argue with definitions , I know many who argue abiogenesis was more of a blur than an event. Christians (and some out of body researchers, including well esteemend medical men ) would argue whether consciousness is solely a function of or confined to the brain, so is there more to life than chemistry?. We must all let the objections pass. We can only argue abiogenesis in the context of a specific definition.

So abiogenesis is called a process rather than a step, but there is no blur in the definition of life, an entity either does or does not self evolve and self replicate , so abiogenesis may have been described as a "process" but it was also a single step event, because no precursor till the very last step in that process can have been living.

My challenge is a rerun of Behe law case in another context. But this time without a judge whose judgement self contradicted, and choosing a far better exampe!

Take Abiogenesis, the very first living cell (picture it as you will, eg with or without membrane, provided it meets the definition).

My statement is the first Live entity from abiogenesis is irreducibly complex. So life is irreducibly complex.
My challenge is Disprove it. Or agree with it. You must do one of the two.


Why? I can argue top down process, bottom up process, or information theoretic status. All agree.

Because the first cell must be irreducibly complex. Remove any part and it will cease to replicate or evolve. If it did not cease to replicate and evolve, then the precursor without the part would ALSO be live by definition, so that the cell under consideration would not be the cell from abiogenesis, which is theone without the unnecessary part. Repeat until irreducible..

But arguing from the other direction. Since no known element is "live" by the definition of NASA and Harvard, then any minimum cell must be a combination of elements, so there is a minimum complexity at which a cell becomes live.

I could also argue that from information theory. A genome must carry information which has a minimum entropy therefore complexity.

I rest my case your honour.
Do we all agree?

2Tim.3 Verses 7 to 9

1. 
   [7] Ever learning, and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth.
   [8] Now as Jannes and Jambres withstood Moses, so do these also resist the truth: men of corrupt minds, reprobate concerning the faith.
   [9] But they shall proceed no further: for their folly shall be manifest unto all men, as theirs also was.

 

[Frank Robert]

Now answer my question of pure logic if you can , or butt out of my thread. Your beliefs are not welcome here , only your logic. You are way off topic with this. Behe addressed a different problem, unrelated to the one I propose.

I wasn't aware that people owned threads or being off topic was not allowed. Still regardless of the logic if irreducible complexity has not been demonstrated it doesn't leave much to discuss about it. Have fun.

 

[AV1611VET]

There is only one way out of their logical prison which is to rewrite the rules of the game.

It's not beneath academia to:

1. relabel something -- Nebraska Man
   
2. rig a vote in their favor -- Pluto
   
3. change the definition in the dictionary -- Pluto
   
4. move the decimal place as needed -- deep time
   
5. maintain a backlog of conflicting hypotheses -- how we got our moon
   
6. deny things on principle -- existence of soul and spirit
   
7. throw the baby out with the bathwater -- Christian claims
   
8. demand equal airtime for things they deem don't exist -- Thor, Ahura Mazda, Quetzalcoatl
   
9. jettison conflicting hypotheses -- moondust, ocean saline content, strength of magnetosphere
   
10. make up scientific terms for things that shouldn't exist but do -- monotremes, cryptids, chimeras
11. pass the buck -- Thalidomide, LSD, Challenger

Anything and everything to keep their lab coats unstained.

 

[Mountainmike]

I wasn't aware that people owned threads or being off topic was not allowed. Still regardless of the logic if irreducible complexity has not been demonstrated it doesn't leave much to discuss about it. Have fun.

I presented the argument.
Nobody else has seen fit to challenge it on logic.

So silence is seemingly consent.