My abiogenesis challenge

[Mountainmike]

There's your problem. You assert these things happened with zero credible evidence, you can't repeat them, you don't know how they happened, yet you declare that, because you want the evidence to be credible, it must be credible. Anyone who attempts to disagree is shouted down and objections are handwaved away.

I point out that we know where, when ,and what happened , it repeated so
Pathologists can analyse it and they did.
They do not think it is “ zero credible”, I prefer their opinion thanks.

However strong or weak the evidence , with abiogenesis NONE of that is available.

 

[Bungle_Bear]

I point out that we know where, when ,and what happened , it repeated

None of that is true. You believe it happened where and when it is claimed based 100% on biased eye-witness testimony. As to what happened, again you have no idea, just an end state which leads you to conclusions about the chain of events. And no, none of your claimed miracles have ever been repeated.

However strong or weak the evidence , with abiogenesis NONE of that is available.

You keep repeating this as if somebody has claimed that evidence of abiogenesis is available. Why?

 

[Hans Blaster]

Lets not dwell here on the specifics of them but suffice to say there are many types of observations you will not accept because they don’t fit your model or preconceptions of what should be in it, and they never will.

Are you talking about things that are contrary to all well supported scientific data and theories for which the one-off occurrences have weak or non-existent provenance and the analysis making the claim can be parsimoniously explained by motivated reasoning? You're right, I have no reason to accept those "observations".

 

[Hans Blaster]

If I conjectured the first life came in on the boots of extraterrestrials or was put here by them, you have no basis to disagree, because the case for natural abiogenesis is no stronger than “ came from elsewhere”.
Don’t know “ but I believe ABC” is the only honest answer. You could argue extraterrestrials don’t exist, but it’s arguing one weak case against another. A matter of belief.

I cannot exclude extraterrestrial origin for life on Earth, but the aliens are an unneeded hypothesis. Aliens bringing life to Earth would actually be "abiogenesis" but rather a contamination (how NASA biosecurity would view our carrying of life to a life-less planet today) of this planet by alien life. It would not explain how that life came to be, only how it came to be on Earth.

 

[Mountainmike]

I cannot exclude extraterrestrial origin for life on Earth, but the aliens are an unneeded hypothesis. Aliens bringing life to Earth would actually be "abiogenesis" but rather a contamination (how NASA biosecurity would view our carrying of life to a life-less planet today) of this planet by alien life. It would not explain how that life came to be, only how it came to be on Earth.

It’s a personal opinion, but the lack of diversity of genome type , and the lack of any evidence of ongoing abiogenesis or the production line of intermediates which must have been in flux , makes it more likely life came from elsewhere.

After all - a truly unguided but process sufficiently likely to happen, should have had multiple starts of life not just one, all diverging. ( even Darwin mentions multiple starts somewhere) So there is no obvious reason for the genome similarity.

 

[Hans Blaster]

It’s a personal opinion, but the lack of diversity of genome type , and the lack of any evidence of ongoing abiogenesis or the production line of intermediates which must have been in flux , makes it more likely life came from elsewhere.

Not sure what you mean about genomic diversity, could you clarify. There is all kinds of diversity in the genomes of living things.

Proto-cellular life and pre-biotic chemicals look to modern living things like one thing: food. The modern organisms are so much more advanced and after billions years of optimization would certainly be much more competitive for resources.

After all - a truly unguided but process sufficiently likely to happen, should have had multiple starts of life not just one, all diverging. ( even Darwin mentions multiple starts somewhere) So there is no obvious reason for the genome similarity.

There may have been multiple starts. Perhaps one group out competed the other, or perhaps two different kinds of proto-life systems combined and suddenly had a huge advantage.

 

[Mountainmike]

Not sure what you mean about genomic diversity, could you clarify. There is all kinds of diversity in the genomes of living things.

Proto-cellular life and pre-biotic chemicals look to modern living things like one thing: food. The modern organisms are so much more advanced and after billions years of optimization would certainly be much more competitive for resources.



There may have been multiple starts. Perhaps one group out competed the other, or perhaps two different kinds of proto-life systems combined and suddenly had a huge advantage.

I forget the stats but am sure you are aware that over half ( is it?) of genes are common between bananas, people and flies. Those that deal with functions such as replicating. So there many outcomes from similar genetic structures.

I am not convinced by the narrative of “out compete” to explain absence of others.

Many lower forms of life are gobbled up by higher forms like plankton, but the higher forms starve if the population of lower forms dwindle. There is an equilibrium.

And - as Darwin noted - there are many separate locations which have diverged. Since the premise of early life is of organisms that cannot travel far, and there is presumed no guiding hand in development i would expect massive differences in remote separate populations. But they all have similar structure.

The main problem is : if life were sufficiently probable to happen there is no reason to assume it is no longer probable so there should be a production line of intermediate forms. But there isn’t. The ladder has seemingly been pulled up

Its just my opinion.
It is yet another big puzzle for believers in abiogenesis on earth to solve.

 

[Bradskii]

The main problem is : if life were sufficiently probable to happen there is no reason to assume it is no longer probable so there should be a production line of intermediate forms.

You've heard of the food chain?

 

[Bungle_Bear]

The main problem is : if life were sufficiently probable to happen there is no reason to assume it is no longer probable so there should be a production line of intermediate forms. But there isn’t. The ladder has seemingly been pulled up

Of course, the current environment is exactly the same as the one on earth 4 billion years ago. And life wouldn't eat proto-life.

Its just my opinion.
It is yet another big puzzle for believers in abiogenesis on earth to solve.

Puzzle solved. How hard was that?

 

[Mountainmike]

Of course, the current environment is exactly the same as the one on earth 4 billion years ago. And life wouldn't eat proto-life.

Puzzle solved. How hard was that?

It wasn’t solved.

You just added one more piece of pure speculation to an argument based on pure speculation. Since you can’t say, when , where , how many times abiogenesis happened or how or what happened , neither can you say the conditions under which it happened or whether or how any of the conditions have changed to inhibit early life forms either.

At least abiogenesis is consistent… consistently void of any actual evidence!

At least I note where I express pure opinion. You don’t.
That the consistency of human genes as regards replicating housekeeping to both bananas and fruit flies in my opinion makes it unlikely the supposed multiple starts of life happened on earth.
Our ecosystem has massive variation in sophistication of organism. The sophisticated don’t wipe out the primitive , they live in a food chain, where destruction of lower levels impacts the higher levels. You cannot default to the assumption that later forms wiped all the most primitive out.

Meanwhile the volcanic vents and pools which are often pointed at as potential locations ,fail to yield evidence of being such, and volcanic vents are still volcanic vents. The volcanic process is the same. RNA world and Protein denaturing is much the same as DNA world and denaturing for limits of temperature etc. For the earth to have water , so life, limits the environmental changes.

Plus ca change.

 

[Bungle_Bear]

It wasn’t solved.

You just added one more piece of pure speculation to an argument based on pure speculation. Since you can’t say, when , where , how many times abiogenesis happened or how or what happened , neither can you say the conditions under which it happened or whether or how any of the conditions have changed either.

At least abiogenesis is consistent… consistently void of any actual evidence!

At least I note where I express pure opinion. You don’t.
That the consistency of human genes as regards replicating housekeeping to both bananas and fruit flies in my opinion makes it unlikely the supposed multiple starts of life happened on earth.
Our ecosystem has massive variation in sophistication of organism. The sophisticated don’t wipe out the primitive , they live in a food chain, where destruction of lower levels impacts the higher levels. You cannot default to the assumption that later forms wiped all the most primitive out.

Meanwhile the volcanic vents and pools which are often pointed at as potential locations ,fail to yield evidence of being such, and volcanic vents are still volcanic vents. The volcanic process is the same. RNA world and Protein denaturing is much the same as DNA world and denaturing for limits of temperature etc. For the earth to have water , so life, limits the environmental changes.

Plus ca change.

You have no idea what the claim I responded to was, do you?

 

[Frank Robert]

At least abiogenesis is consistent… consistently void of any actual evidence!

Same for Intelligent design. The difference is that scientists have strategies for investigating abiogenesis while Intelligent design has religious apologists doing their best to deny the science.

 

[Mountainmike]

Same for Intelligent design. The difference is that scientists have strategies for investigating abiogenesis while Intelligent design has religious apologists doing their best to deny the science.

I have openly stated that I do not think ID leaves traces so it cannot be demonstrated.

That said, I can point at plenty of things that were designed ( including for example selectively bred animals, or the RNA polymerase you mentioned ) , so neither can the involvement of ID be disproven.

ID demonstration is a no score draw.

I certainly do not think IR can demonstrate ID, and other than in the context of reduction to minimum life, where information theoretic entropy DEMANDS a minimum complexity to self evolving entities, I do not think IR can be demonstrated in any generic way. Behe should have used the minimum cell as his example, taking the fight to the opposition to prove the unprovable.

So do not challenge me for arguments others use.

 

[Hans Blaster]

Meanwhile the volcanic vents and pools which are often pointed at as potential locations ,fail to yield evidence of being such, and volcanic vents are still volcanic vents. The volcanic process is the same. RNA world and Protein denaturing is much the same as DNA world and denaturing for limits of temperature etc. For the earth to have water , so life, limits the environmental changes.

From my review of OOL research back a bit, it seems like shallow tidal pools are more widely favored over volcanic vents. Modern tidal pools are teeming with advanced life (from bacteria to larger organisms) so there is no reason to think the conditions of 4 Gya should obtain today.

 

[Mountainmike]

From my review of OOL research back a bit, it seems like shallow tidal pools are more widely favored over volcanic vents. Modern tidal pools are teeming with advanced life (from bacteria to larger organisms) so there is no reason to think the conditions of 4 Gya should obtain today.

There is no reason to think they don’t either.

A water based planet is limited in how far anything can shift and still keep the water! Shallow pools are vulnerable to even moderate climate change.

I only point out that postulating the idea of a change that wiped out earlier forms is as much of an unevidenced assumption as the process that is supposed to have created them in the first place. It’s one more unanswered question in a maze of unanswered questions.

Perhaps you know more than I do on this. But The one major supposed shift is the increase of oxygen levels? But I assume that Is a conclusion of model regression propagation not actual geochemical evidence?

 

[Bungle_Bear]

There is no reason to think they don’t either.

A water based planet is limited in how far anything can shift and still keep the water! Shallow pools are vulnerable to even moderate climate change.

I only point out that postulating the idea of a change that wiped out earlier forms is as much of an unevidenced assumption as the process that is supposed to have created them in the first place. It’s one more unanswered question in a maze of unanswered questions.

Perhaps you know more than I do on this. But The one major supposed shift is the increase of oxygen levels? But I assume that Is a conclusion of model regression propagation not actual geochemical evidence?

You make a lot of assumptions. A quick (5 second) search would point you to a number of papers documenting geochemical evidence for increases in oxygen levels. As somebody here likes to tell others - read the science.

 

[Frank Robert]

I have openly stated that I do not think ID leaves traces so it cannot be demonstrated.

That said, I can point at plenty of things that were designed ( including for example selectively bred animals, or the RNA polymerase you mentioned ) , so neither can the involvement of ID be disproven.

ID demonstration is a no score draw.

I certainly do not think IR can demonstrate ID, and other than in the context of reduction to minimum life, where information theoretic entropy DEMANDS a minimum complexity to self evolving entities, I do not think IR can be demonstrated in any generic way.

It appears we are in agreement that intelligent design is not science.

Behe should have used the minimum cell as his example, taking the fight to the opposition to prove the unprofitable.

Opinions, opinions and more opinions.

Besides being a scientist are you a lawyer also?

 

[Mountainmike]

You make a lot of assumptions. A quick (5 second) search would point you to a number of papers documenting geochemical evidence for increases in oxygen levels. As somebody here likes to tell others - read the science.

It is precisely because I DO read the science I knew about potential oxygen levels .
I do not have time or inclination to read everything about everything.

I wondered what else the specific poster knew about conditions (or indeed how far back that knowledge goes). It is a far cry from demonstrating there either WAS a simpler form of life or whether conditions were then adverse to it. There are big limits to how the atmosphere can have changed for water and ponds to survive! Most of abiogenesis argument is pure supposition including that.

It would be a change if mr Bungle read ANYTHING about the matters he comments on!
Have you read serafinis book on a cardiologists analysis of eucharistic miracles yet? Or do you just prefer to comment on them?

 

[Mountainmike]

It appears we are in agreement that intelligent design is not science.
Opinions, opinions and more opinions.

Besides being a scientist are you a lawyer also?

"intelligent design is not science"
Is just as true as "an apple is not a banana".
It may be true, It is hardly useful.

So I presume you mean "intelligent design cannot be proven by science"
I would add to that "intelligent design cannot be DISPROVEN by science either"

It is a no score draw in determining the origin of the universe, life or everything!.

Not sure what point you are trying to make about law...

But Maths is logic. Axiomatic physics is logic. Philosophy is logic. My arguments are logic. All axiomatic physics and chemistry rely on precise definition.

Law is in essence logic and supposedly the same process applied to statute and common law EXCEPT ( just as Tom Cruise noted in a few good men) trials are won by lawyers, not the law.
Because the choice of arguments used and presentation of them (and stupidity of juries on occasion) determines an outcome in law! Behe pick the wrong hill to fight on. The judges ruling was also crass. You could find the fatal flaw in it! Behe lost the technical argument. But the ruling was also false.

But yes - I have won a fair few legal arguments throughout my chequered history too. I never enter a legal fight I cannot win.

 

[Bradskii]

I must say that this is a thread that has great entertainment value.