My abiogenesis challenge

[Mountainmike]

Your logic has been shown invalid as it is fact free, unencumbered by data.

A load of waffle from you , does not alter the obvious fact that using the accepted definitions of abiogenesis and life , then life is irreducibly complex.

You have not even attempted a refutation.

The CLEVER people on here accept that conclusion, then question the definition in essence that makes the conclusion true.

There are three proofs.
Top down
Bottom up
Entropy
All agree.

I am not repeating them all again.
Reductio absurdum ( bottom up ) says it is true.
The simplest structure known is a hydrogen atom or molecule.
It is not live. It does not self replicate and self evolve.
No other element or elementary particle does it either.


mindgame .
Even if you could identify a structure of two elements that was live
( you can’t) Then it would be irreducible since removing one removes the functions of life, since the single element left clearly does not replicate.
QED it’s a Simple question of logic.

How useful the conclusion is , is of course debatable.
The fact of it is not.

 

[expos4ever]

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 the one without the unnecessary part. Repeat until irreducible..

Let's take this step-by-step. Here is the standard definition of "irreducible complexity": Irreducible complexity (IC) is the argument that certain biological systems cannot have evolved by successive small modifications to pre-existing functional systems through natural selection, because no less complex system would function.

Ok, a clear, meaningful concept. Now let's deal with your argument. You posit the existence of a "first cell". So far, so good. You then imagine removing any part from that first cell. The cell that results is a "precursor" cell to use your terminology. You then point out that if this precursor cell were able to "replicate and evolve", it would meet the criteria of being alive. Which, of course, would mean that we have just shown that that the above-mentioned "first cell" is not, in fact, the first living cell - the precursor is, unless the same argument about removing an arbitrary part were to be applied to the precursor yielding yet another "living" precursor. And so on.

Well, so what? How, exactly, does this line of reasoning show that the "first cell", or any conceivable structure for that matter, must be irreducibly complex?

You appear to be arguing, although I find your reasoning hard to follow, that you can draw a conclusions about how life originated based simply on the definitions of concepts. But that is obviously not the case - even if certain definitions or concepts are not well put-together, or create logical problems, reality does not care. While the path to the first living cell is presently mysterious, there is no evidence, nor even any conceptual reason for that matter, why that pathway cannot be explained by "natural" processes.

 

[expos4ever]

Even if you could identify a structure of two elements that was live
( you can’t) Then it would be irreducible since removing one removes the functions of life. QED it’s a Simple question of logic.

I think I see the problem. You appear to believe that the theory of evolution applies "all the way down". It does not, as I understand things. The theory of evolution has its starting point, I believe, the assumption of the existence of the first "living thing" - something that can, as you say "self-replicate" and "self-evolve".

The theory of evolution is, I believe entirely silent on the matter of how that first living thing came to be. But you appear to be applying evolutionary arguments to the stage that preceded the "kickoff" of evolution. And you think you have uncovered some kind of logical problem.

However, you cannot, legitimately anyway, apply the principles of evolution outside the bounds it purports to address.

Perhaps I do not understand your argument - I find it difficult to follow.

 

[Hans Blaster]

The problem is not in the argument.

As I acknowledged the definitions of abiogenesis and life “create” the problem.

As I pointed out the definition of life is functional not structural.
The definition of aniogenesis presumes a transition to a state called life from non life. It creates the sharp boundary. The definition of life as a multiple function then creates the irreducible complexity.


So structural issues (eg) with or without cell membrane, or regarding the “ unit” that undergoes abiogenesis , which could be viewed as an entire ecosystem is irrelevant. By definition it either is or isn’t live. But neither does increasing the complexity of the unit to an ecosystem help with irreducibility. . It makes the unit even more complex.

As others have pointed out, the line is NOT as sharp as you claim it is. There are things referred to as "proto-life" and "proto-cells" and "prebiotic chemistry", etc.

I accept, it’s an academic game.

But it also proves that definitions matter, in axiomatic logic. So the conclusions of science ( whose model is axiomatic) and logical derivations/ predictions rely on precision of definition.

It is a "game" you seem ill-equipped to play then. This is made clear by your thought that "axiomatic logic" is central to science. It is data and observations that are at the center of science.

 

[Mountainmike]

As others have pointed out, the line is NOT as sharp as you claim it is. There are things referred to as "proto-life" and "proto-cells" and "prebiotic chemistry", etc.




It is a "game" you seem ill-equipped to play then. This is made clear by your thought that "axiomatic logic" is central to science. It is data and observations that are at the center of science.

it’s not me making the line sharp. The definitions do that.
The rest is simple logic that question the usefulness of the definitions.

 

[Mountainmike]

I think I see the problem. You appear to believe that the theory of evolution applies "all the way down". It does not, as I understand things. The theory of evolution has its starting point, I believe, the assumption of the existence of the first "living thing" - something that can, as you say "self-replicate" and "self-evolve".

The theory of evolution is, I believe entirely silent on the matter of how that first living thing came to be. But you appear to be applying evolutionary arguments to the stage that preceded the "kickoff" of evolution. And you think you have uncovered some kind of logical problem.

However, you cannot, legitimately anyway, apply the principles of evolution outside the bounds it purports to address.

Perhaps I do not understand your argument - I find it difficult to follow.

It’s nothing to do with what I believe.

it is all in the definitions.

The Harvard / nasa definition of “life” IS self “evolving”
Ergo “evolving” must apply to the first “ living” cell.
Abiogenesis by definition created that first “living” cell.
Ergo abiogenesis created the first “evolving” cell.

ie it applies all the way down by definition.
Note the critical word is “ self evolving” self Is important too.
As it is in “ self replicating”
A virus by that definition is not live. It hijacks another organism to replicate it. It cannot self replicate. That makes the sometimes used expression of “ live virus” a contradiction in terms.


I did not make those rules, I only play by them!
I’m a mathematician by training. Professionally I lived on the border of where maths and physics intersect.
It’s all about axiomatic definition and extrapolating from them by deductive logic.

if the answer derived is crazy, it’s because the question or definitions were!

 

[Hans Blaster]

it’s not me making the line sharp. The definitions do that.
The rest is simple logic that question the usefulness of the definitions.

Apparently you didn't read this part of post #70:

"quite a few biology textbooks – university level textbooks – indicate that life is very hard to define,"

 

[Mountainmike]

Indeed.


SOURCE

If ever some uses Miller Urey , there are other arguments to be used.

Try using this as well…

Sure life involves such as amino acids. Maybe you know how they were formed , maybe you don’t. It is irrelevant.

By analogy with houses they are bricks or roof tiles.

So anyone using miller Urey ( or any other component) as evidence of how life formed, is guilty of exactly the same falasy as someone who uses a pile of bricks or tiles on a building site

as evidence of “self designing, self building, self replicating, self evolving houses “

In pure logic their argument is utterly absurd.



So bricks may be evidence of houses. It is not evidence of self building. Tell them to sit by a pile of bricks and record the moment the house self design and self builds!

Bricks may also be evidence of demolition! They certainly have nothing to say about self design!. I’ve yet to see a self replicating house!

 

[Mountainmike]

Apparently you didn't read this part of post #70:

"quite a few biology textbooks – university level textbooks – indicate that life is very hard to define,"

I read it. I might even agree.
But I’m using the definition used by nasa and Harvard in OOL

If you don’t agree give an alternative definition of life or abiogenesis?
I’m genuinely curious!

If The definition of life is precise, so must be the definition of the moment of abiogenesis. How do you blur a definition of life?

I don’t make the rules.

I just thought it curious that the definitions they do use , leads inevitably to irreducible complexity. It’s called the law of unintended consequences!

btw - notice that for example a “self replicating” polymer by autocatalysis Is not by definition living. So the definition does not prevent some complex precursors.

 

[Hans Blaster]

I read it. I might even agree.
But I’m using the definition used by nasa and Harvard in OOL

I'm not sure why you are using these sources and especially why the alleged definitions from these sources is not linked. NASA and Harvard (I assume) University are large organizations and not known primarily for "biology". For NASA I think of rockets, astronauts, and space astronomy. For Harvard - social elitism and overpriced lawyers.

If you don’t agree give an alternative definition of life or abiogenesis?
I’m genuinely curious!

Others have in this thread. I'm not a biologist anymore than you are.

If The definition of life is precise, so must be the definition of the moment of abiogenesis. How do you blur a definition of life?

I thought the point of the other definitions given (not sure what definitions you are using) is that it *wasn't* precise.

I don’t make the rules.

This is your thread, and you certainly asserted that you do make it's rules.

I just thought it curious that the definitions they do use , leads inevitably to irreducible complexity. It’s called the law of unintended consequences!

btw - notice that for example a “self replicating” polymer by autocatalysis Is not by definition living. So the definition does not prevent some complex precursors.

And if you go on a path from self-replicating polymers to a cell with a membrane, genetic system, and proteins you have life on one end, non-life on the other and in between a slow, fuzzy transition.

 

[AV1611VET]

So anyone using miller Urey (or any other component) as evidence of how life formed, is guilty of exactly the same falacy as someone who uses a pile of bricks or tiles on a building site.

Those who think life "formed" are lading themselves with an unnecessary burden: that of explaining how it happened.

It's a lie of the Devil.

 

[Frank Robert]

Abiogenesis is the hill BEHE should have chosen to fight on

You are ignoring that I agreed with you. There is nothing preventing Behe and others from going back to the basics that may or may not establish that IC and ID is legitimate science.

because he would have won, moreover it would have become evident with this that the judges remarks were nonsense.

That is an opinion. If you want to discuss the case with an actual attorney who written quite a bit about it you do so creating a topic at Peaceful Science. The attorney goes by the name of Puck_Mendelssohn.

A court was never a place to decide a matter of science.

The court did not rule on the science it ruled the DI was not science.

Still, I agree with you, but it is up to Behe and organizations like DI that raise millions perhaps tens of millions per year and employee many scientists. Its the apologists who are making the claims, it is up to them to sponsor, i.e pay for the scientific research to investigate THEIR claims. To restate a gambling phase "Let the cards fall where they may." Or are you afraid?

 

[Frank Robert]

Indeed.


SOURCE

Ken Miller refutes the irreducible complexity of mousetraps

 

[Bungle_Bear]

btw - notice that for example a “self replicating” polymer by autocatalysis Is not by definition living. So the definition does not prevent some complex precursors.

Lol. Here you have blown your whole "logically proven" argument to pieces. I pointed that out a while back, it's just taken you a while to finally accept it.

Congratulations.

 

[Hans Blaster]

Abiogenesis is the hill BEHE should have chosen to fight on , because he would have won, moreover it would have become evident with this that the judges remarks were nonsense. There is a clear non sequitur - read the judgement.

Behe can die on what ever hill he chooses. Though, the IrrCo argument in essence *is* an argument about abiogenesis, but from backwards in time. It is a claim that there is a cell of irreducibly complex structures that just couldn't have arisen through any sequence of gradual changes. While the simplest possible (IrrCo) cells wouldn't need a flagellar motor that item is just a more accessible item of the same class of IrrCo cellular components. This is true especially since the simplest cells do not seem to exist anymore.

A court was never a place to decide a matter of science.

A court *was* the place to determine whether a particular claimed science fit the legal definition for teaching it in a publicly funded mandatory school, or if it was (and it was) some other thing not scientific and not permitted in such schools. (In this case it was religious doctrine which is not permitted for instruction.)

 

[Frank Robert]

deleted

 

[AV1611VET]

Ken Miller refutes the irreducible complexity of mousetraps

From Wikipedia:

Miller, who is Roman Catholic, is opposed to creationism, including the intelligent design (ID) movement.

So what's his beef with creationism?

I wish he would post here.

I'd eat him for breakfast.

 

[Mountainmike]

Behe can die on what ever hill he chooses. Though, the IrrCo argument in essence *is* an argument about abiogenesis, but from backwards in time. It is a claim that there is a cell of irreducibly complex structures that just couldn't have arisen through any sequence of gradual changes. While the simplest possible (IrrCo) cells wouldn't need a flagellar motor that item is just a more accessible item of the same class of IrrCo cellular components. This is true especially since the simplest cells do not seem to exist anymore.



A court *was* the place to determine whether a particular claimed science fit the legal definition for teaching it in a publicly funded mandatory school, or if it was (and it was) some other thing not scientific and not permitted in such schools. (In this case it was religious doctrine which is not permitted for instruction.)

The behe argument was not in essence about IR at all.

That’s why it is irrelevant here.

It was about intelligent design ID
Behe wrongly tried to use IR to prove ID
But he could never prove ID because it cannot be Dione.
And he even failed to prove IR.

But there’s the issue ID can never be proven EITHER way.
It’s a no score draw.
It is possible to produce many objects that are the product of an intelligent designer, ( human) because design generally leaves no indelible evidence of ID. QED. Most animals , plants and objects you see ARE designed. Eg by selective breeding! But no indelible mark is generally left of intelligent design.

Behe could have proven IR as a matter of definition with the right example as I did, In a far more important context - origin of life.

With Darwin and others later saying they had no idea how life started it was a far better place for an argument anyway.

But the judges decision was utterly crass regardless , read it. He stated that he had no axe to grind on the wider issues but that schools should only teach what can be proven ie science.

There of course is the problem. Schools go way past that.

Whatever the thoughts on evolution, Science can only speculate on the origin of life as well. It will only ever be able to speculate, unless it reoccurs ( although it can certainly get better evidence. Like a hypothetical detailed first cell design would be good) As it is abiogenesis is pure speculation now, whether, where, how and when are all unknown , as his how the first cell evolved to present minimum cells, or why the process is failing to continue - it is all speculation now, it was even more speculation then.

So NEITHER case for origin of life is proven. Both can be candidate.
Both therefore can be - and should be - taught as opposing viewpoints.

The case did not disprove ID ( you cannot) or disprove IR- It simply failed to prove IR by using the wrong example.

So like many legal judgements it was crass. It is a self defeating verdict. Read it.

I am wholly against scientific overreach. Scientists can believe in abiogenesis . They may even be right. But where they are speculating and only commenting from faith they should say so.

 

[Mountainmike]

Lol. Here you have blown your whole "logically proven" argument to pieces. I pointed that out a while back, it's just taken you a while to finally accept it.

Congratulations.

You didn’t disprove anything - is your logic really that bad?

Self replicating molecules may even exist with errors.
Whether they are live is moot.
A matter of definition. not mine. Ask NASA.
But that is irrelevant.

As for the proof it still succeeds.
They are not irreducibly complex.
Hydrogen does not self evolve or self reproduce. Or “reproduce with errors”
So reducing the complexity of your molecule indefinitely must result in losing “ reproduction or errors”

IR is alive and well and “ bungled logic “ proof.
So try again…

IR of life is an axiomatic truism, because of definitions.
As I said you can argue with definitions, they are not mine.
How useful or relevant IR is is still up for debate.
But the proof is indeed a proof.

 

[Frank Robert]

From Wikipedia:
So what's his beef with creationism?

I wish he would post here.

I'd eat him for breakfast.

I have been following Ken Miller for several years. From what he says it appears that he believes in theistic evolution that God creates through laws of nature. One way to think about it is that God created the laws of nature to do the grunt work of nature. I think you would admit that God could have done it either way and from my perspective the laws of nature are more organized and efficient.