My abiogenesis challenge

[Frank Robert]

Your post 12: "It has been REFUTED over and over!!!!!!" (refuted means disproven)

Claims of IR such as the eye have been refuted, ie. dismissed. Science does not claim proof.

All your arguments have been refuted and there simply never was an irreducible complexity demonstrated.

You play a lot with synonyms, but keep in mind that not everyone is on the same page as to what synonym

I am USING the defintion OF abiogenesis and life to PROVE IR
with Axiomatic logic.

The problem IS the combined definitions of life and abiogenesis when combined describe a sharp transition and irreducible complexity.

You need to disprove abiogenesis for your conclusion to be true.

 

[Mountainmike]

Claims of IR such as the eye have been refuted, ie. dismissed.

I did not mention the eye.
I raise it SPECIFICALLY in the context of first life.
So your "refutation" fails every time.

And clearly your logic is not up to it.
It is the definition of abiogenesis and life that combine to IR.

The cleverer folk on here have already agreed that.
The question is what significance it has. Whether definitions need changing.

 

[Hans Blaster]

Than we have such as Hans Blaster. Who seeing the obvious problem tries to "blur definitions" which are indeed sharp.

The notion that "life" has a sharp definition is not well founded as has been pointed out by other posters in this thread.

If you think the definition of life is sharp and build your argument from it then you have erred.

 

[Frank Robert]

I did not mention the eye.
I raise it SPECIFICALLY in the context of first life.
So your "refutation" fails every time.

The example of the eye is just one example of many that show IC to be incorrect.

And clearly your logic is not up to it.
It is the definition of abiogenesis and life that combine to IR.

The cleverer folk on here have already agreed that.
The question is what significance it has. Whether definitions need changing.

It is not my logic. My claim is that not all philosophies or philosophers will not agree with you that IR has been proven. This appears to be a case where something can be logically valid but empirically false.

 

[AV1611VET]

The notion that "life" has a sharp definition is not well founded as has been pointed out by other posters in this thread.

If you think the definition of life is sharp and build your argument from it then you have erred.

Science is myopic.

 

[Bungle_Bear]

The cleverer folk on here have already agreed that.

Link please.

 

[Bradskii]

I did not state it or hint at it in the original post.

Bulldust. You said it was a 'sacred cow of evolutionists'. It isn't. It never has been. It never will be. You were wrong.

 

[Mountainmike]

Bulldust. You said it was a 'sacred cow of evolutionists'. It isn't. It never has been. It never will be. You were wrong.

Correct. Enter any mass discussion and some evolutionists bring it up, as did frank Robets. You said evolutionary scientists. I didn’t.

The notion that "life" has a sharp definition is not well founded as has been pointed out by other posters in this thread.

If you think the definition of life is sharp and build your argument from it then you have erred.

Then challenge the definitions not me.

Don’t shoot the messenger.
“ self evolving, self replicating ” is not mushy at all.
It is very specific and testable.

 

[Bradskii]

...so called evolutionary advocates who claime the imprimateur of scince in stating evolution and creation are a dichtotomy.

Creation is theology. It doesn't have anything whatsoever to do with science. With science in general or evolution specifically. They aren't two opposing ideas. They are simply not connected in any way. It's like saying astrology and astronomy are dichotomous. It's a risible comment.

 

[Mountainmike]

Creation is theology. It doesn't have anything whatsoever to do with science. With science in general or evolution specifically. They aren't two opposing ideas. They are simply not connected in any way. It's like saying astrology and astronomy are dichotomous. It's a risible comment.

So the Big Bang is theology? I thought it was science too!
Creation is “ the action or process of bringing into existence”

 

[Bradskii]

Correct. Enter any mass discussion and some evolutionists bring it up, as did frank Robets. You said evolutionary scientists.

Bulldust again. You were stating it as if it was a given in evolution. 'Evolutionists'...what a nonsensical term in itself. As if we have 'evolutionists' on one side and 'creationists' on the other. Like 'astrologists' and 'astronominsts'. It's been a farcical attempt by those with a fundamental reading of certain scriptural passages to try to enter the arena of scientific discussion for years.

All it does is flag the person using it as someone who probably thinks that evolution and creation are some kind of dichotomy.

 

[Bradskii]

So the Big Bang is theology? I thought it was science too!
Creation is “ the action or process of bringing into existence”

Please don't insult my intelligence.

 

[AV1611VET]

Creation is theology.

Either that, or it's history.

 

[Mountainmike]

Please don't insult my intelligence.

Ditto.

 

[driewerf]

Science is myopic.

Myopic science sees still much more than blind faith.

 

[AV1611VET]

Myopic science sees still much more than blind faith.

That's a matter of opinion.

Myopic science sees Jews going to Israel as a result of diplomacy.

"Blind faith" ... as you called it ... sees the Jews going home in fulfillment of prophecy.

 

[Hans Blaster]

Then challenge the definitions not me.

Don’t shoot the messenger.
“ self evolving, self replicating ” is not mushy at all.
It is very specific and testable.

Literally all you gave for the definition is "self replicating and self evolving" which seems a rather thin definition. I've seen computer programs that fit this definition.

You claimed it came from "Harvard" and "NASA" but have never given a link so we can see their definitions for ourselves.

 

[Bungle_Bear]

Literally all you gave for the definition is "self replicating and self evolving" which seems a rather thin definition. I've seen computer programs that fit this definition.

You claimed it came from "Harvard" and "NASA" but have never given a link so we can see their definitions for ourselves.

He did provide a link in this post and also quoted the definition. Funny enough, the actual definition is not "self replicating, self sustaining". From the link:

The NASA definition of life, “Life is a self-sustaining chemical system capable of Darwinian evolution” and considered the specific features of the one life we know —Terran life.

 

[Hans Blaster]

He did provide a link in this post and also quoted the definition. Funny enough, the actual definition is not "self replicating, self sustaining". From the link:

The NASA definition of life, “Life is a self-sustaining chemical system capable of Darwinian evolution” and considered the specific features of the one life we know —Terran life.

Three days and a hundred posts later, sigh. And of course the definition didn't match.

 

[Mountainmike]

Three days and a hundred posts later, sigh. And of course the definition didn't match.

I despair of the intellectual deficit on this forum:the lack of research, or critical thinking.

There have been a number of academic papers on this subject alone - noting the myriad of defintions. Have you ever read any of them?. I have. It is a subject that should interest ANYONE who professes interest in or belief in abiogenesis.

For simplicity I reduced the NASA/Harvard definitions to a core subset.
Analyse it. The NASA definition is more onerous than I presented not more lax.
Not least it demands an energy source.

Suffice to say the requirement for darwinian evolution demands self replication and self evolution - the requirement for self sustaining determines both. Capable of darwinian evolution is a sharp boundary just as I presented it.

So why did they not use my phraseology? To avoid the problems in (such as) questions as to whether a single rabbit was live! on the basis that two were needed for reproduction so two rabbits are needed for a live unit. (yes seriously, read the papers) So they avoid using the word "self" . But that makes life even MORE complicated. The need for mating pairs.

That doess not alter one iota the need for - a genome that can pass information, self replication to pass it on, and self evolving to allow mechanism for defect and passing it on.
(self in the sense of ruling out reliance on another organism to do so - ie "self" sustaining - are virus live? Mostly the view is not. They hijack another cells replication system.)

It also outlaws the idea simply of errors in some autocatalytic process (because errors are not necessarily passed on whereas the genome must be passed on for evolution) but also the fact the errors must yield advantage which can then be selected by survival of fittest.

So I reduced it to a simpler essence and core.
The requirement for actual life is even more complex. And it is still irreducible.
It needs multiple mechanisms for darwinian evolution. In the minimum life form, remove any part and one of the mechanisms is lost.

Hydrogen is not "live" because it is not complex enough.

And we come back to the basic issues.
1/ Life is irreduciby complex by the NASA definion. My argument was indeed true.

2/ The NASA definition is sharp. Capable of self sustaining darwinian evolution. It either is or it is not.


3/ Abiogenesis is pure speculation. What. Why . How . Where are unknown. It cannot be repeated. It does not repeat. There is no known structure for a minimum cell. No pathway to it. No pathway from it to present cells which are staggeringly complex.

If ever some evidence appears that it happened, the structure of the first "live cell" , or a postulated process then I might even start to believe it.

You are welcome to what you belief. So long as it is stated as belief, and not given an imprimateur of science it does not have.