My abiogenesis challenge

ruthiesea · Aug 23, 2022

AV1611VET said:
How many mice has he caught with it?

Every part of a mouse trap could be used in different devices. So the mousetrap can be reduced to usable parts for other devices. For example, if you take out the parts that make up the trigger it can still be used to hold something.

Irreducible complexity implies that the individual parts developed solely in order to make the finished product.

Mountainmike · Aug 23, 2022

AV1611VET said:
It's not beneath academia to:

relabel something -- Nebraska Man

rig a vote in their favor -- Pluto

change the definition in the dictionary -- Pluto

move the decimal place as needed -- deep time

maintain a backlog of conflicting hypotheses -- how we got our moon

deny things on principle -- existence of soul and spirit

throw the baby out with the bathwater -- Christian claims

demand equal airtime for things they deem don't exist -- Thor, Ahura Mazda, Quetzalcoatl

jettison conflicting hypotheses -- moondust, ocean saline content, strength of magnetosphere

make up scientific terms for things that shouldn't exist but do -- monotremes, cryptids, chimeras

pass the buck -- Thalidomide, LSD, Challenger

Anything and everything to keep their lab coats unstained.

I have seen the inside of academia, and indeed they are not all paragons of virtue, certainly when the creed is attacked.

Credo.
Life is just a biochemical accident..
Consciousness is just a chemical process…
There is but one God. It’s name is Science.
Om mane padme om.

But As you, me ( and science philosophy ) knows. Science is just a tool. A spanner. Useful for some things, not so for others. If the world normally does something , it’s likely it will do it again . Till it doesn’t, which is the annoying bit. Best laid plans and all that.

I’ve every respect for it. It Earned me some dollars along the way,
I just find it strange that they worship a spanner,
Just as they find it strange that I worship a creator.
I Tend to keep the spanner in the box till when and where it’s needed.

Mountainmike · Aug 23, 2022

ruthiesea said:
Every part of a mouse trap could be used in different devices. So the mousetrap can be reduced to usable parts for other devices. For example, if you take out the parts that make up the trigger it can still be used to hold something.

Irreducible complexity implies that the individual parts developed solely in order to make the finished product.

Please tackle the specific issue in hand.

This is not a re run of behe. The mousetrap is an irrelevance here.

A single element cannot “ self evolve, self replicate”
because it isn’t complex enough. The smallest living thing needs multiple molecule(s). So there is a minimum irreducible complexity. A genome carries information needed to replicate and evolve . Entropy quantifies information and defines a minimum complexity.

Irreducible complexity is a logical consequence of the two definitions
“ life” and “ abiogenesis”.
Refute it if you can.

SelfSim · Aug 23, 2022

Mountainmike said:
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) The first is a circular argument and is therefore refuted as being fallacious.
ii) The second 'argument' is irrelevant since autocatalysis does not require a 'minimum complexity cell' as a logical imperative for progression.

Done .. end of story.

Hans Blaster · Aug 23, 2022

Mountainmike said:
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!

What is "Behe law"? I am unaware that Behe has accomplished anything of significance to get labeled a "law".

The IbanezerScrooge · Aug 23, 2022

Mountainmike said:
Please tackle the specific issue in hand.

This is not a re run of behe. The mousetrap is an irrelevance here.

A single element cannot “ self evolve, self replicate”
because it isn’t complex enough. The smallest living thing needs multiple molecule(s). So there is a minimum irreducible complexity. A genome carries information needed to replicate and evolve . Entropy quantifies information and defines a minimum complexity.

Irreducible complexity is a logical consequence of the two definitions
“ life” and “ abiogenesis”.
Refute it if you can.

My statement is the first Live entity from abiogenesis is irreducibly complex. So life is irreducibly complex.

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.

DialecticSkeptic · Aug 24, 2022

Hans Blaster said:
What is "Behe law"?

He referred to a "Behe law case," or in proper English, "legal case." He was probably referring to Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District (2005).

Mountainmike · Aug 24, 2022

The IbanezerScrooge said:
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.

driewerf · Aug 24, 2022

Mountainmike said:
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.

Well, since that is your statement it is your job to provide evidence for it. Not our job to prove you wrong. Just saying "prove me wrong" might sound great in the types of company you use to socialize, in a well educated, scientific literate company you will see just a few smiles and then people going on with important subjects.

Mountainmike · Aug 24, 2022

driewerf said:
Well, since that is your statement it is your job to provide evidence for it. Not our job to prove you wrong. Just saying prove me wrong might sound might sound great in the types of company you use to socialize, in a well educated, scientific literate company you will see just a few smiles and then people going on with important subjects.

No evidence needed. The sketch of proof as I showed in the post is a logical truism based on definition (as another has confirmed.)

I gave three logical arguments from
- top down
- bottom up
- state entropy
All of which lead to the same conclusion.

It’s a test of your IQ to find faults in It. .I assure you can’t.
Irreducible complexity is easy to show.

But if you cared to Read my later post I solve the logical paradox implied by the definition. But it doesn’t solve the essence - life is irreducibly complex.

As a scientist ( and as a guy with high IQ) I dislike it when science has dogma it cannot defend. The supposed refutation of irreducible complexity , (or that life from abiogenesis is a done deal) , is just such dogma.

Reduced to the simplest essence and based merely on definitions life is indeed irreducibly complex. But Blame those who defined life and abiogenesis for that. NASA and Harvard came up with similar definitions.

Either refute it or agree with it. Simple Contradiction has no logical standing.

The IbanezerScrooge · Aug 24, 2022

Mountainmike said:
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.

Here is where we part ways. You have to show evidence of this "external agency." There are certainly external factors that are just part of physics that facilitated the beginning of life, but to claim agency, i.e. conscious intent, to do so is the "leap" to which you refer and it is not of an intellectual nature.

You really need to go study the literature I provided. Once you do that I don't think you'll view it as such a "massive intellectual leap." Everything needed is there. We're just working out how it all came together. And we are working it out. The people studying this stuff aren't just making things up and speculating. They are running experiments and making observations. It's in the literature. Go read it.

Mountainmike said:
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).

I really don't think it is. At all. It's purely definitional.

Mountainmike said:
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".

No one is teaching this as "fact." It is an hypothesis with a whole lot of support. It's the best explanation so far that we have. It's only ever been taught as such in any context I've ever seen. If you want to say it was something else, you need to present evidence of that something else. And, no, a logical simile is not enough. You need to show the agency. You need to show this consciousness or whatever it is you think is controlling it all. There's nothing in our observations that shows it. The only speculations are coming from that idea, not from the science.

Frank Robert · Aug 24, 2022

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

So silence is seemingly consent.

Logic does not demonstrate irreducible complexity. Can something be irreducible of course something can be irreducible no one has demonstrated IC. I am not faulting your logic.

Not only has IC not been demonstrated no ID or IC proponents have ventured to answer the obvious cookie cutter questions:

- when and how did a designing intelligence intervene in life's history?
- By creating the first DNA?
- The first cell?
- The first human?
-Was every species designed, or just a few early ones?

An omni deity (if one exists) could easily have designed an IC LUCA. Assuming that there was an intelligent designer who designed the LUCA how would that change the existing evidence for evolution from:

ancient organism remains,
fossil layers,
similarities among organisms alive today,
similarities in DNA,
and similarities of embryos?

In other words, the consilience of evidence for evolution from: anatomy, molecular biology, biogeography, fossils, direct observation and the other unrelated scientific field.

Mountainmike · Aug 24, 2022

The IbanezerScrooge said:
Here is where we part ways. You have to show evidence of this "external agency." There are certainly external factors that are just part of physics that facilitated the beginning of life, but to claim agency, i.e. conscious intent, to do so is the "leap" to which you refer and it is not of an intellectual nature.

You really need to go study the literature I provided. Once you do that I don't think you'll view it as such a "massive intellectual leap." Everything needed is there. We're just working out how it all came together. And we are working it out. The people studying this stuff aren't just making things up and speculating. They are running experiments and making observations. It's in the literature. Go read it.

I really don't think it is. At all. It's purely definitional.

No one is teaching this as "fact." It is an hypothesis with a whole lot of support. It's the best explanation so far that we have. It's only ever been taught as such in any context I've ever seen. If you want to say it was something else, you need to present evidence of that something else. And, no, a logical simile is not enough. You need to show the agency. You need to show this consciousness or whatever it is you think is controlling it all. There's nothing in our observations that shows it. The only speculations are coming from that idea, not from the science.

I agree it is definitional . It is also true. The definitions are hard to argue.

So precursors cannot be “ self evolving”. I pointed out that removing “ self” can help with the paradox. And I illustrate that by a star can act as the agency for hydrogen to “ evolve “ to more complex.

Agency does not offend science. Darwinian evolution suggests “ survival of fittest” as agency for evolution - indeed it only addresses agency not mechanism. Genetics was for the main part in the future.

I have not referred to conscious control, you did that, (although I note People were the agency for much animal and plant evolution with selective breeding)

I just noted the need for SOME agency prior to life to solve the paradox that life is indeed irreducibly complexity.

As for your point “It is an hypothesis with a whole lot of support.”
I like rigorous definition.
So No it not a “ hypothesis” Until science determines a hypothetical structure for the first cell it cannot comment on the process. So Until it has a structure it is not a hypothesis because the abiogenesis stage is only the last. So there is nothing to test. So not a hypothesis yet.

I will grant there is some interesting conjecture about possible parts of an unknown process. Eg autocalytic process. That’s a far cry from a “ hypothesis with lots of support”

Many scientists do have a faith - that is belief in absence of sufficient evidence. That life occurred from unguided chemical process to abiogenesis is just such. A faith.

For me , the jury is still not sitting. The plaintiff for “ abiogenesis happened” has yet to assemble a case worthy of trial.

I have no problem accepting it but the case is not that good as yet.

Mountainmike · Aug 24, 2022

Frank Robert said:
Logic does not demonstrate irreducible complexity.

I just did.
It is an inevitable logical consequence of definition.

As @The IbanezerScrooge has agreed.

You can argue with the definitions or the logic of the deduction.( but you will not succeed)

You might argue with a conclusion from it, but that is not this logic puzzle . Life is indeed irreducibly complex on the basis of definitions.

Your answer is an irrelevance to a puzzle in pure logic.

So Either refute it , agree with it, or stay out.

let’s make it simple just for you.
The logical consequence of life not being irreducibly complex, is the simplest structure must be alive.
The simplest structure - an atom, of the simplest element hydrogen , or a molecule of the same element is not live .
QED.
Therefore The simplest live structure is more complex than the simplest known structure. So life has a minimum complexity, so life is irreducibly complex.
Therefore you cannot reduce beyond it and still have a live structure.

Its simple logic. Do you do logic?
As is the argument from information theory.
Information theory doesn’t tell me what the simplest structure is. But has a minimum complexity for the information conveyed. As experts on data compression ( including me) will tell you , ( or indeed crypto miners) knowing an answer exists and finding it are two different things

The IbanezerScrooge · Aug 24, 2022

Mountainmike said:
I agree it is definitional . It is also true. The definitions are hard to argue.

So precursors cannot be “ self evolving”. I pointed out that removing “ self” can help with the paradox. And I illustrate that by a star can act as the agency for hydrogen to “ evolve “ to more complex.

Agency does not offend science. Darwinian evolution suggests “ survival of fittest” as agency for evolution - indeed it only addresses agency not mechanism. Genetics was for the main part in the future.

I have not referred to conscious control, you did that, (although I note People were the agency for much animal and plant evolution with selective breeding)

I just noted the need for SOME agency prior to life to solve the paradox that life is indeed irreducibly complexity.

I don't think you're using "agency" correctly. Agency implies conscious intent. If you just mean external factors devoid of conscious intent, I don't think agency is the correct word to use. Maybe I'm wrong about what you're trying to imply using that word.

Mountainmike said:
As for your point “It is an hypothesis with a whole lot of support.”
I like rigorous definition.
So No it not a “ hypothesis” Until science determines a hypothetical structure for the first cell it cannot comment on the process. So Until it has a structure it is not a hypothesis because the abiogenesis stage is only the last. So there is nothing to test. So not a hypothesis yet.

I will grant there is some interesting conjecture about possible parts of an unknown process. Eg autocalytic process. That’s a far cry from a “ hypothesis with lots of support”

Many scientists do have a faith - that is belief in absence of sufficient evidence. That life occurred from unguided chemical process to abiogenesis is just such. A faith.

For me , the jury is still not sitting. The plaintiff for “ abiogenesis happened” has yet to assemble a case worthy of trial.

I have no problem accepting it but the case is not that good as yet.

Everything you're saying here is just not correct. You need to read the literature I linked.

Hans Blaster · Aug 24, 2022

DialecticSkeptic said:
He referred to a "Behe law case," or in proper English, "legal case." He was probably referring to Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District (2005).

It never occurred to me that anyone would refer to a legal case by the name of a witness. Sigh.

Hans Blaster · Aug 24, 2022

Mountainmike said:
As a scientist ( and as a guy with high IQ) I dislike it when science has dogma it cannot defend. The supposed refutation of irreducible complexity , (or that life from abiogenesis is a done deal) , is just such dogma.

OK then Math Modeler Mike from Mensa, but I think there is a word choice problem around dogma (and probably not the one you are thinking of). Instead of "when science has dogma", you should instead be concerned "that science has dogma". Of course, the biggest problem for your hating on scientific dogmas is that the "dogmas of science" are fundamental (or irreducible if you like ) 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...

Observation:

1. Organic life is a natural phenomenon.
2. Past states of the Earth/Universe would not have permitted organic life to exist.

Conclusion:

3. Life on Earth/ in the Universe had to "start" at some point in the finite past.

Scientific inference:

4. Given that organic life had a beginning in the past and is a natural phenomenon, therefore organic life had a natural origin.

See it's a very straightforward conclusion using simple scientific principles (natural phenomena have natural explanations, we can acquire knowledge of the past through observation), data (past universe states too hot for organic life, geological measurements of Earth surface conditions likewise, etc.), and logic we must reach the scientific conclusion that life had a natural origin.

Abiogenesis is not a dogma of science, but an inevitable conclusion built on basic observations and the irreducible methods of science.

If you want an alternative to natural abiogenesis of organic life, the only option is an extra-scientific explanation based on extra-natural phenomena, but you're never going to get science to prove that because it is definitionally outside its realm.

Larniavc · Aug 24, 2022

Mountainmike said:
My statement is the first Live entity from abiogenesis is irreducibly complex. So life is irreducibly complex.

Just checking in: has this been established yet?

Frank Robert · Aug 24, 2022

Mountainmike said:
I just did.
It is an inevitable logical consequence of definition.

What you have done is assign IC to the LUCA and then made assumptions that may or may not be true.

It is impossible to reconstruct the 3.5 billion year old LUCA and it is likely that there were multiple attempts for the LUCA. Horizontal gene transfer appears to have been common among early life forms so if there were multiple LUCA pretenders with gene transfer between them how do you demonstrate what was then or is now IC.

expos4ever · Aug 24, 2022

Mountainmike said:
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 2

Why must I do one of the 2?

Suppose I assert that the moon is made of green cheese. Can I reasonably demand that you accept this unless you can prove it is not made of green cheese?

Of course not - it is up to the claimant to make the case - you bear the burden of proof.

In this post, I am not addressing the merits of your argument. I am merely pointing out that we are not forced to choose between the 2 positions you identify in your post.

My abiogenesis challenge

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

A non "-ist"

I march with Sherman

I can't believe what I'm hearing...

Reformed

Well-Known Member

a day at the Zoo

Well-Known Member

I can't believe what I'm hearing...

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

I can't believe what I'm hearing...

I march with Sherman

I march with Sherman

"Larniavc sir, how are you so smart?"

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency