In the strictest sense your statement is correct. The first thing that could be considered living would be irreducible in the sense in that, presumably, taking away any trait, reducing it, would likely result in a non-living thing. I'm sure that happened a lot with some of the self-replicated organisms who were "born" broken and, therefore, not alive. Just a collection of non-replicating chemicals and molecules.
So, what's next? Curious to see where you want to go. I think I have an idea, but I'll let you continue.
Someone suggested I start a thread on abiogenesis, so I did.
First it is a quiz. A logical paradox.
I agree it is hard to dispute the conclusion based on the definitions.
It is also hard to disagree with the definitions.
- A thing that cannot self replicate lasts only one generation before being consigned to the dustbin of history.
- A thing that cannot evolve cannot explain present life as a product of evolution.
So the definition of life IS a minimum. You could also add "energy source" to the mix.
But I agree with NASA and Harvard, its complex enough. Energy source is implicit in the other two.
What it does say is irreducible complexity of life is real.
And even the minimum life is complex.
Which then leaves us with a paradox. Because to get to life needed the constituents to in some sense evolve or develop to become a precursors to life. And for them to be around to be constituents they must in some sense replicate. So the precurors are living which defeats the concept of first living thing.
So within the constraints of the definitions the only way out of alogical prison is to change definition to get rid of the word "self"
Something other agency replicates or evolves them. And before you cry foul, there is a hint of a start point in science too. I can state a for example a star takes hydrogen and makes heavy elements. The hydrogen is not "self evolving" the star pressures and temperature "evolves" small elements to large. So something in a sense "evolves them".
So The presumption of life is it must rely on outside agency to the point of self evolving.
But the existence of a "not yet self evolving, not yet self replicating" external factory of cell components is a massive intellectual leap. Also the more complex the minimum structure is (we dont know, but it is big) the sheer unlikelihood of it occuring as random chemistry becomes near impossible. Which also brings another paradox.
The sheer unlikelihood of the last step requires all previous steps to be likely to give the last one even a chance of happening once.
And since that process is deemed unguided, there ought to be a conveyor belt of failed experiments and nearly cell bits, and unless conditions have changed massively the conveyor belt should still exist somewhere. If it can happen thermodynamically, it should still be favourable and still happening unless we envisage massive change. We should be able to find the nearly but did not cells. We cant.
The easiest way is to push the problem somewhere else, so that what came to the earth had the type of genome we now see. But that is a copout, that moves the problem somewhere else. It does not solve it. It does not alter the fact that the irreducible complexity of a self evolving , self replicating entity is still very complex. Just a minimal list of structures involved is large.
If I have a point it is to say the idea that
1/ Irreducible complexity is a real problem. Much as it featured in the BEHE case in separate context it is not disproven in the case that really matters. The first cell(s).
And
2/ That abiogenesis is some kind of done deal in which there is a known process bar details for gradual slide into life from non living components is very far fetched, so my point is it should not be now taught as a "fact".
Tomes of ideas and conjecture are a massive distance from knowing how, when, what and where it happened. Dawkins said "we have no idea" as did Darwin a century before. And that is the state of play. Apart from ideas and conjecture for bits of the process.
Science should be honest about how little it knows for sure.
) to its practice, such as that science works on natural explanations to natural phenomena. This is no different than logic or math. (For example, provide a proof to the logical doctrine [or law] of non-contradiction. There is none. It is a base assumption that allows the system of formal logic to be constructed.) Abiogenesis is *not* a dogma of science, but it is implied by them. Let's take a look...
