My abiogenesis challenge

[SelfSim]

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.

You ARE attempting to 'make the rules' because you are using invalid and out-of-date definitions. The problem with basing any valid science on some dictionary sourced life definition has been well understood known for a long time (except, evidently, in your case). From the NASA viewpoint, in order to make use of the idea of abiogenesis in forming testable hypotheses, another approach is used. From the NASA 2015 Astrobiology Strategic Roadmap (page #144):

What is Life?
First, comprehending life is a conundrum. Clearly, we need to develop a working concept of the entity whose origins and cosmic distribution we seek to determine. This will help to identify the “services” that an environment must provide in order to sustain life, and it helps to identify and interpret any signatures that might indicate its presence. This, in turn, will help to identify past or present planetary environments as promising candidates for exploration. However, without at least a second known, independent example of life it is probably not possible to determine with great certainty the characteristics that are unique to terrestrial life and those that are truly universal for all life. We have little choice but to begin by identifying attributes of life that are universal among living systems as we know them and that are relatively less likely to reflect adaptations specific to the historical trajectory of habitable environments on Earth.

Reorienting the approach, in order to escape the obvious conundrum and turning the origin of life topic into a useful, testable hypothesis, of practical applicability:

Recent studies (e.g., Baross et al., 2007) have proposed the following necessary set of universal attributes of life: (1) life must exploit thermodynamic disequilibrium in the environment in order to perpetuate its own disequilibrium state; (2) life most probably consists of interacting sets of covalently bonded molecules that include a diversity of heteroatoms (e.g., N, O, P, S, etc. as in Earth-based life) that promote chemical reactivity; (3) life requires a liquid solvent that supports these molecular interactions; and (4) life employs a molecular system capable of Darwinian evolution.

Those physio-chemical functions only imply (logically) universal life functions, based on our already known-to-be singular the Earth-life case. The approach is all about avoiding specifically what you are doing via your beating-everyone-over-their-heads approach .. please desist with this and acknowledge the reality of the more modern approach(!?):

These attributes imply the following basic universal functions: (1) life harvests energy from its environment and converts it to forms of chemical energy that directly sustain its other functions, and thus, life requires useable sources of energy; (2) life sustains “metabolism,” namely a network of chemical reactions that synthesize all of the key chemical compounds that are required for maintenance, growth, and self-replication, and, thus, life needs chemical “building blocks” and an appropriate solvent to host these reactions; and (3) life sustains an “automaton,” a multi- component system that is essential for self-replication and self-perpetuation (Von Neumann, 1966), and, thus, life needs information-rich chemical compounds and favorable environmental conditions in order to sustain this complex machinery.

The above thoughts might be just a starting point in our pursuit of a universal concept of life. Clearly we must identify and pursue a path that leads from our Earth-centric thoughts ultimately to a concept that is truly universal.

All you have demonstrated in your posts throughout this entire thread, is the complete uselessness of going down the so-called Irreducible Complexity avenue of a rabbit-hole enquiry, which is based purely on the philosophically based obsession with the belief that logic alone, can establish a so-called 'Truth' about the origin of Earth-based life.

Meanwhile actual science marches on with practical investigations capable of producing tanglble progress on questions about life origins.

 

[Mountainmike]

You ARE attempting to 'make the rules' because you are using invalid and out-of-date definitions. The problem with basing any valid science on some dictionary sourced life definition has been well understood known for a long time (except, evidently, in your case). From the NASA viewpoint, in order to make use of the idea of abiogenesis in forming testable hypotheses, another approach is used. From the NASA 2015 Astrobiology Strategic Roadmap (page #144):
Reorienting the approach, in order to escape the obvious conundrum and turning the origin of life topic into a useful, testable hypothesis, of practical applicability:
Those physio-chemical functions only imply (logically) universal life functions, based on our already known-to-be singular the Earth-life case. The approach is all about avoiding specifically what you are doing via your beating-everyone-over-their-heads approach .. please desist with this and acknowledge the reality of the more modern approach(!?):
All you have demonstrated in your posts throughout this entire thread, is the complete uselessness of going down the so-called Irreducible Complexity avenue of a rabbit-hole enquiry, which is based purely on the philosophically based obsession with the belief that logic alone, can establish a so-called 'Truth' about the origin of Earth-based life.

Meanwhile actual science marches on with practical investigations capable of producing tanglble progress on questions about life origins.

You do love waffle - meanwhile quote the horses mouth

“The NASA definition of life, “Life is a self-sustaining chemical system capable of Darwinian evolution”
NASA Astrobiology

Nowhere do they change that - it’s hard to see how you can -
life needs self evolving, self reproducing without which it cannot get to our form of life. Harvard say much the same.

They argue about what it might mean structurally , the sorts of things you refer, or how life in two places may differ. That’s fascinating in itself. But Self sustain means self reproduce unless you grant Immortality. And self evolve in Darwinian context relies on reproduction not self adaptation.

But that’s all irrelevant to the simple observation: the two definitions indeed simple logic says it must be irreducible complexity.
The implication is up for debate, but this thread is just noting the fact. I’m not beating anyone round the head.

If we had all agreed..
1/ that the deduction it’s true
2/ the definitions are arguable
3/ it doesn’t help much to progress the idea of abiogenesis , which needs more focus on practical matters.

The thread would have lasted 10 posts max.
But if people continue to say it’s not true, I will repeat the proof.
Because people think IR is disproven. It certainly is true and provable.

the simple fact is true: Hydrogen isn’t life because it’s too simple. Got it? Easy, if you leave the high sounding but ultimately irrelevant scientific sounding smokescreen aside. Life IS irreducibly complex by definition . And that makes the concept of a “ drift into life” conceptually difficult.

Start your own thread on how you think it happened. If you want to discuss aspect of it.

 

[AV1611VET]

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.

God uses His instant creation as an example of His mighty power and works.

I highly doubt that, even though you're right, He could have used any method He chose, that He would have gone the way of theistic evolution.

In fact, I think He "jumbled" the order of creation up, so it wouldn't look anything like evolution did it.

 

[Hans Blaster]

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.

Well that makes it rather pointless in a scientific discussion.

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.

Huh? Designed things seem *pretty* obvious. Not sure what you think your point is.

Most animals , plants and objects you see ARE designed. Eg by selective breeding! But no indelible mark is generally left of intelligent design.

Most animals are insects, almost none of them are selectively bred. (I assume that some bees are, but I can't think of anything else.) So that's your argument for design, some low level (below speciation level) directed by people.

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.

Wow, that must be some argument. No wait -- it isn't.

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

Only if you don't understand the current thoughts about the gradual development of "life".

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.

I'm not sure that you have read it (I did a long time ago) or just don't understand how "proof" relates to science, but the Kitzmiller case was about whether ID is a scientific idea or crypto-religion. It is crypto-religious and *NOT PERMITTED* in public schools.

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

High-larry-us. HS science classes are so far back from the leading edge of science that there is *NO WAY* that they are "out past" current evidence.

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.

We've talked about this before. They can do far more than speculate, but you don't seem interested in the actual OOL science.

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 "other viewpoint" is inherently religious. If you want to teach it fund a religious school. It has no place in a government school. (See "establishment clause")

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.

If you'd read it, you'd know it wasn't about *disproving* ID. It was an "establishment clause" case.

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.

I see the bulb in your projector is still working.

 

[Bungle_Bear]

You do love waffle - meanwhile quote the horses mouth

“The NASA definition of life, “Life is a self-sustaining chemical system capable of Darwinian evolution”
NASA Astrobiology

That's not the same as "self-reproducing, self-evolving". Do you have any idea what you're talking about?

If we had all agreed..
1/ that the deduction it’s true
2/ the definitions are arguable

If the definitions are arguable the deduction is not true.

Life IS irreducibly complex by definition . And that makes the concept of a “ drift into life” conceptually difficult.

You keep asserting this, but you haven't once provided any supporting evidence.

 

[Bradskii]

When the mousetrap analogy becomes a tie clip analogy, I challenge you to catch mice with a tie clip and see how that works.

Go ahead.

Employ your useless myopic sterile scientific method and test it yourself.

Let me know the results.

Let's see if you do understand it. If something has become irreducibly complex, what does that mean in regard to possible design?

 

[Mountainmike]

Let's see if you do understand it. If something has become irreducibly complex, what does that mean in regard to possible design?

The two are unrelated. ID is impossible to prove or DISPROVE.
It was a mistake for Behe to conflate them. Behe tried to use IR as a defence of ID. He failed on IR using the wrong example.

 

[Mountainmike]

Well that makes it rather pointless in a scientific discussion.



Huh? Designed things seem *pretty* obvious. Not sure what you think your point is.



Most animals are insects, almost none of them are selectively bred. (I assume that some bees are, but I can't think of anything else.) So that's your argument for design, some low level (below speciation level) directed by people.



Wow, that must be some argument. No wait -- it isn't.



Only if you don't understand the current thoughts about the gradual development of "life".



I'm not sure that you have read it (I did a long time ago) or just don't understand how "proof" relates to science, but the Kitzmiller case was about whether ID is a scientific idea or crypto-religion. It is crypto-religious and *NOT PERMITTED* in public schools.



High-larry-us. HS science classes are so far back from the leading edge of science that there is *NO WAY* that they are "out past" current evidence.



We've talked about this before. They can do far more than speculate, but you don't seem interested in the actual OOL science.



The "other viewpoint" is inherently religious. If you want to teach it fund a religious school. It has no place in a government school. (See "establishment clause")



If you'd read it, you'd know it wasn't about *disproving* ID. It was an "establishment clause" case.



I see the bulb in your projector is still working.

It’s time to wind this down.

1/ I just thought it fascinating that the definitions used of life and abiogenesis led inexorably to IR. Whether or not that is a problem is a separate argument
. I don’t actually think it is… because abiogenesis is horrendously complex problem regardless . All this does is highlight that,

2/ you cannot distinguish ID either way.
Using an example from life - a genetically engineered organism is indistinguishable from a natural one. Eg The origin of COVID is hotly disputed. A Frankenstein organism by ventner is ID in action. If you didn’t catch him in the act you would never know. Much simpler examples too. A crystal can be natural or designed.

3/ abiogenesis is pure speculation. I remind you :
nobody knows how , where , when or what happened, it has not been observed and cannot be repeated. So even whether it happened is not demonstrated. You have no structure for the first cell. No Pathway to it. No Pathway from it.

So schools must NOT teach abiogenesis as a fact. It isn’t scientific.
The origin of life is “ don’t know” ask Dawkins or Darwin. And despite all the money thrown at OOL it is still “ don’t know”

That is what should be taught.

4/ Life could be from elsewhere origin unknown.
Some would not dispute that.


5/ There is actual laboratory evidence of actual heart cells deemed “ compelling evidence of creation “ by a non religious pathologist”( multiple instances)
Whilst that is not “ proof” it is a lot more evidence than any cell came from your kind of abiogenesis for which you have no evidence at all. Only disconnected plausibility arguments parts of a process might have happened. Not very compelling Is it? As alternative there is real heart and other tissue that defies explanation of its present state.

Score on actual evidence. . Creation 4 , abiogenesis big fat 0

 

[Frank Robert]

Score on actual evidence. . Creation 4 , abiogenesis big fat 0

Now all you need to do is to get all the philosophers and the scientists of the world to agree with you. Or perhaps the majority. Well maybe a few. And then you can start on the courts.

Good luck.

 

[Mountainmike]

Now all you need to do is to get all the philosophers and the scientists of the world to agree with you. Or perhaps the majority. Well maybe a few. And then you can start on the courts.

Good luck.

All I can say is Truth is not a democracy!
What is true IS true regardless of how many believe or disbelieve it.

A.. As for courts: they are not a useful arbiter of fundamental scientific argument.
But forensic science is accepted as strong expert witness.
All the evidence of so called Eucharist miracles is forensic science by those whose day job is criminology. study it.

B.. There is no evidence at all of when, where, or how abiogenesis happened. It doesn’t repeat and can’t be repeated. No specific structure Is defined for the first cell, the possible pathway to it from non living chemicals and pathway from it to present life. So whether it happened at all is debatable. In short it is just speculation.

You can argue how strong the evidence of A is.

But it’s a lot stronger than B because there is actual evidence of recent events at Known locations.

That said , the juries out.

I’m open to persuasion on B . I’m happy if evidence is found or not. If a potential structure is shown to be possible.
I’m open minded. I can be , I’m prepared to believe either based on evidence.

The same cannot be said of atheists regarding A.

They object to A and assume B essentially on the basis of faith ( which means belief in absence of complete evidence)

What I object to is scientists promoting B way beyond the state of the scientific case because they are forced by world view to believe it happened. They refuse to even study A on the basis they don’t believe it could be true.
They then teach belief B to kids as a done deal. It’s not.

This was not a thread on abiogenesis per se.
It was about an interesting conclusion based on definitions.
IC is undoubtedly true. How useful that conclusion is is debatable,

The thread has also run it’s course.

 

[AV1611VET]

Now all you need to do is to get all the philosophers and the scientists of the world to agree with you. Or perhaps the majority. Well maybe a few. And then you can start on the courts.

Good luck.

450 [prophets] to 1?

 

[Hans Blaster]

All I can say is Truth is not a democracy!
What is true IS true regardless of how many believe or disbelieve it.

And neither is science, but the whole claim is irrelevant.

A.. As for courts: they are not a useful arbiter of fundamental scientific argument.
But forensic science is accepted as strong expert witness.
All the evidence of so called Eucharist miracles is forensic science by those whose day job is criminology. study it.

You seem determined not to understand the Kitzmiller case.

That case was about whether the pseudoscience of ID was cryptoreligion (spoiler: it is). To prove their case the plaintiffs (Kitzmiller et al.) the plaintiffs demonstrated that the ID project (particularly by the D.I.) was a covert attempt to smuggle religion into a science class under the guise of science. The defendant's best argument would be to show that ID was science, so the plaintiffs cut that argument off by demonstrating the ID was pseudoscience. They did this by showing that ID didn't have the characteristics of science and the court agreed with that assessment.

B.. There is no evidence at all of when, where, or how abiogenesis happened. It doesn’t repeat and can’t be repeated. No specific structure Is defined for the first cell, the possible pathway to it from non living chemicals and pathway from it to present life. So whether it happened at all is debatable. In short it is just speculation.

You can argue how strong the evidence of A is.

But it’s a lot stronger than B because there is actual evidence of recent events at Known locations.

Learning about abiogenesis and OOL research would do you a world of good. At least you would stop making these poor arguments.

That said , the juries out.

I thought this wasn't a court issue. Pick a lane.

I’m open to persuasion on B . I’m happy if evidence is found or not. If a potential structure is shown to be possible.
I’m open minded. I can be , I’m prepared to believe either based on evidence.

The same cannot be said of atheists regarding A.

This has nothing to do with atheists.

They object to A and assume B essentially on the basis of faith ( which means belief in absence of complete evidence)

What I object to is scientists promoting B way beyond the state of the scientific case because they are forced by world view to believe it happened. They refuse to even study A on the basis they don’t believe it could be true.
They then teach belief B to kids as a done deal. It’s not.

You either don't understand the words "faith" and "belief" or understand scientists' motivations. Color me not surprised.

This was not a thread on abiogenesis per se.
It was about an interesting conclusion based on definitions.
IC is undoubtedly true. How useful that conclusion is is debatable,

You should tell that to the poster who wrote the title then.

The thread has also run it’s course.

Somewhere before the end of post #1.

 

[Frank Robert]

450 [prophets] to 1?

I have no problem with your belief in profits.

 

[Hans Blaster]

It’s time to wind this down.

1/ I just thought it fascinating that the definitions used of life and abiogenesis led inexorably to IR. Whether or not that is a problem is a separate argument
. I don’t actually think it is… because abiogenesis is horrendously complex problem regardless . All this does is highlight that,

If you think you've sorted out a difficult scientific problem with a definition-based "logical" argument, you haven't.

2/ you cannot distinguish ID either way.
Using an example from life - a genetically engineered organism is indistinguishable from a natural one. Eg The origin of COVID is hotly disputed. A Frankenstein organism by ventner is ID in action. If you didn’t catch him in the act you would never know. Much simpler examples too. A crystal can be natural or designed.

This paragraph is all over the place and largely incoherent given the general lack of context. (COVID origins are only "hotly disputed" in the fever swamps of online message boards and social media sites. Actual virologists know it came from bats and most likely from direct exposure of humans to infected bats.)

3/ abiogenesis is pure speculation. I remind you :
nobody knows how , where , when or what happened, it has not been observed and cannot be repeated. So even whether it happened is not demonstrated. You have no structure for the first cell. No Pathway to it. No Pathway from it.

If you and the rest of you creationists would just bother to understand what is actually going on in OOL research (or biology, paleontology, and related sciences) it really would avoid making such embarrassing claims.

So schools must NOT teach abiogenesis as a fact. It isn’t scientific.
The origin of life is “ don’t know” ask Dawkins or Darwin. And despite all the money thrown at OOL it is still “ don’t know”

That is what should be taught.

You offer no proof that abiogenesis is taught "as fact". Just empty claims.

4/ Life could be from elsewhere origin unknown.
Some would not dispute that.

No one has here. It is also irrelevant.

5/ There is actual laboratory evidence of actual heart cells deemed “ compelling evidence of creation “ by a non religious pathologist”( multiple instances)
Whilst that is not “ proof” it is a lot more evidence than any cell came from your kind of abiogenesis for which you have no evidence at all. Only disconnected plausibility arguments parts of a process might have happened. Not very compelling Is it? As alternative there is real heart and other tissue that defies explanation of its present state.

Wrong thread, wrong topic.

Score on actual evidence. . Creation 4 , abiogenesis big fat 0

Creationism has a lifetime score of 0 in all arguments.

 

[Larniavc]

The clever people on the thread already accept my logic is true.

How odd that everyone on this thread has pointed out your unsubstantiated claims of irreducible complexity and not one agrees with you.

Is everyone else wrong but you?

 

[Larniavc]

Because the first cell must be irreducibly complex.

You have not shown this to be accurate.

 

[Larniavc]

But I submit a mousetrap is.

Remove the spring and it has a function as a paperweight. So it’s not an example of IC.

 

[Hans Blaster]

How odd that everyone on this thread has pointed out your unsubstantiated claims of irreducible complexity and not one agrees with you.

Is everyone else wrong but you?

Even the other creationists don't want to play Mike's game or back him up.

 

[Larniavc]

lading

You have a habit of teaching me new and interesting words.

 

[Frank Robert]

All I can say is Truth is not a democracy!
What is true IS true regardless of how many believe or disbelieve it.

I have not claimed truth you on other hand have. What I implied above is that besides scientists not ALL philosophers agree with you claim is true.

A.. As for courts: they are not a useful arbiter of fundamental scientific argument.
But forensic science is accepted as strong expert witness.

In one of your posts you claimed that the Behe used the wrong approach in court.

All the evidence of so called Eucharist miracles is forensic science by those whose day job is criminology. study it.

I am not objecting to belief in miracles.

B.. There is no evidence at all of when, where, or how abiogenesis happened. It doesn’t repeat and can’t be repeated. No specific structure Is defined for the first cell, the possible pathway to it from non living chemicals and pathway from it to present life. So whether it happened at all is debatable. In short it is just speculation.

I disagree but as I stated elsewhere the origins of life are irrelevant to the ToE so it is not something I am concerned with.

This was not a thread on abiogenesis per se.

good to hear.