My abiogenesis challenge

[Bradskii]

It is a subject that should interest ANYONE who professes interest in or belief in abiogenesis.

Anyone who believes in abiogenesis? There is and never will be anyone who doesnt realise (it's really not possible to use the term 'believe') that life started in some way. Your flimsy attempt to say nothing more than 'it can't have been natural' has run its course.

Thanks for your input.

 

[Mountainmike]

Anyone who believes in abiogenesis? There is and never will be anyone who doesnt realise (it's really not possible to use the term 'believe') that life started in some way. Your flimsy attempt to say nothing more than 'it can't have been natural' has run its course.

Thanks for your input.

The phrase is generally used in context of random chance biochemistry process that is presumed to have yielded the first cells.

It is that, that you believe.

Science supports only “ no idea” on When. Where. How. What.
Nul hypothesis. There is no hypothesis on abiogenesis. Nothing to test of the critical event(s)

You do love inventing dialogue of others. Nowhere did I say “cannot have been natural ”, nor is it what I thin. But until you define “ natural” your statement is meaningless.

Try critical thinking instead.

And as for evidence for cells appearing otherwise.
There is evidence that a forensic pathologist called
“ compelling evidence of creation” .

So the forensic evidence case is far stronger for creation as A process, which could have been one of multiple processes: abiogenesis as a conclusion of a chemical process has no evidence at all: of what when , where or how. A blank.

 

[Bungle_Bear]

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

You keep asserting this, and I keep asking you to support the assertion. You continued avoidance indicates you cannot do so. I'm not surprised, but I'll give you one last chance. Otherwise let's all just accept you have nothing.

As a first step I suggest you learn the difference between "irreducible" and "irreducibly complex".

 

[Mountainmike]

You keep asserting this, and I keep asking you to support the assertion. You continued avoidance indicates you cannot do so. I'm not surprised, but I'll give you one last chance. Otherwise let's all just accept you have nothing.

As a first step I suggest you learn the difference between "irreducible" and "irreducibly complex".

In the entire dialogue with you on this forum, I have never seen a hint of scientific knowledge, or argument, only contradiction mixed with ad hominems. That’s why I have stopped responding.

I suggest you study the meaning of words like entropy in an information theoretic context, and then apply it to a genome that must pass information. Then you will discover the meaning of irreducibly complex. Then we can discuss it on basis of science.

Entropy is one of three proofs. You still haven’t contested a single one with critical thinking. When I see you address a scientific argument with a scientific or logical argument then we can have a discussion based on science not your opinions. Last chance.

 

[Bradskii]

And as for evidence for cells appearing otherwise.
There is evidence that a forensic pathologist called
“ compelling evidence of creation”.

Gee, is that what you've been on about? We never knew...

 

[Bungle_Bear]

In the entire dialogue with you on this forum, I have never seen a hint of scientific knowledge, or argument, only contradiction mixed with ad hominems. That’s why I have stopped responding.

I suggest you study the meaning of words like entropy in an information theoretic context, and then apply it to a genome that must pass information. Then you will discover the meaning of irreducibly complex. Then we can discuss it on basis of science.

Entropy is one of three proofs. You still haven’t contested a single one with critical thinking. When I see you address a scientific argument with a scientific or logical argument then we can have a discussion based on science not your opinions. Last chance.

Just more avoidance. You clearly have nothing.

 

[Mountainmike]

Just more avoidance. You clearly have nothing.

Au contraire.

I have several proofs that by the definitions used for life and abiogenesis - which are at the root of the problem - life is indeed irreducibly complex: so what preceded that stage is made an even harder problem.

For those who care to study it, it’s a fascinating subject.

Such as the question of what constitutes a minimum unit of life.
Do you need two rabbits to have one live entity? It’s a philosophical question NASA tackled along the way which led to the definition of life they settled on.

Try studying it.
You clearly have nothing in the way of contesting argument, other than more contradiction.
So here endeth the discussion.

 

[Bungle_Bear]

Au contraire.

I have several proofs that by the definitions used for life and abiogenesis - which are at the root of the problem - life is indeed irreducibly complex: so what preceded that stage is made an even harder problem.

Understood. You have nothing other than cherry picked definitions of life. No support for your assertions, no definition of irreducible complexity, no science........ nothing. Hence your continual avoidance of presenting anything other than unsupported assertions.

Bye bye.

 

[Mountainmike]

Understood. You have nothing other than cherry picked definitions of life. No support for your assertions, no definition of irreducible complexity, no science........ nothing. Hence your continual avoidance of presenting anything other than unsupported assertions.

Bye bye.

Wake up call.
Entropy. Is . Science.
The genome is information.
It’s Just not in grade 8 books.

I “ cherry pick” the accepted definitions of life, then strip it down to even more basic.

This is grown up science and philosophy that demonstrates the problem of “life” is *hard* ,
so that the idea preached to 8th grade on, that it was just successive small change from basic chemicals and survival of fittest did the rest is missing the lot. The How. The When. The Where. The What. All of them are missing in close up analysis.

Its an assumption repeated so often it became a fact without the slightest shred of evidence of what actually happened. That’s why atheists / agnostics like to blur the definition of life to attempt to avoid the difficulties / logical leap inherent in it.

It all starts with the definition of life.
That’s why the thread is important
( to anyone actually interested in abiogenesis, rather than just expressing a priori faith in it)

So do you think a single rabbit is live? Since it is incapable by itself of Darwinian evolution? It’s a problem NASA grappled with. Indeed is a virus live ? since it needs to hijack the replication mechanisms of a host to reproduce , so is not “ self sustaining”

 

[driewerf]

Entropy. Is . Science.

Entropy is science?
What is this madness?
Shall we rebrand the AAAs as American Associtaion for the Advancement of Entropy?
Does the NCSE redesign it’s logo to National Center for Entropy Education?
Do we need to refer to STEM subjects as Entropy, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics?

Entropy is a physical property (thermodynamics) of a system under consideration that relates to the level of “disorder” – rather: homogenisation – and the quality of the energy present in that system.

 

[Frank Robert]

The phrase is generally used in context of random chance biochemistry process that is presumed to have yielded the first cells.

It is that, that you believe.

I pointed out to you once before that not everyone is on the same page with synonyms but it obviously did not make an impression. Not everyone who uses the word belief uses it as being a "religious belief." Here a few of the synonyms of belief used informally in ordinary conversation:

accept
admit
conclude
consider
have
hold
regard
suppose
​

See: Stop writing “scientists believe”

 

[driewerf]

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.

LOL.
A point for point refutation from the Openings Post is just “a load of waffle”. Labelling it a load of waffle without adressing any of the points made is then what – the epitome of critical thinking?

You have not even attempted a refutation.

Except of course a point for point refutation of the Openings post in post #70.

The CLEVER people on here accept that conclusion,

Quite a collection of studpid people are posting here then, because nobody -N.O.B.O.D.Y - has agreed with you.

then question the definition in essence that makes the conclusion true.

Done, in post # 70.

There are three proofs.
Top down
Bottom up
Entropy

Which weren’t proves at all. At no point do you refer to empirical data, to existing literature, to published research. Which shows that these “proves” are just brain farts.

 

[AV1611VET]

Stop writing “scientists believe”

Ya, Mike.

Stop writing "scientists believe."

Scientists nowadays can [accept, admit, conclude, consider, have, hold, regard, suppose] things, without believing it.

 

[Frank Robert]

Ya, Mike.

Stop writing "scientists believe."

Scientists nowadays can [accept, admit, conclude, consider, have, hold, regard, suppose] things, without believing it.

You missed the difference between ordinary, informal use of the word belief that does not have the connotations of certainty and truth that "religious belief" does. Nothing in science is sacred.

 

[Mountainmike]

LOL.
A point for point refutation from the Openings Post is just “a load of waffle”. Labelling it a load of waffle without adressing any of the points made is then what – the epitome of critical thinking?


Except of course a point for point refutation of the Openings post in post #70.


Quite a collection of studpid people are posting here then, because nobody -N.O.B.O.D.Y - has agreed with you.



Done, in post # 70.


Which weren’t proves at all. At no point do you refer to empirical data, to existing literature, to published research. Which shows that these “proves” are just brain farts.

Post 70 is a load of sophist waffle by someone who misunderstands the twin facets science.

101 science for non scientists , written by a scientist. Me.

1/ science is two things - an axiomatic model derived from observations , and a process for determining it .

2/ but the axioms of the model must be SELF CONSISTENT so from the axioms derived logical equivalences and consequences can be determined.

3/ so ( for example) maxwells equations and the exact value of permeability of free space are determinable simply as derivations of time variant vector fields, just from the definitions of the fields. Nothing else. First year physics undergrad stuff. We all did it.. Nothing except definitions and logic involved. The model and “laws” are just a model, not the universe. The model must be self consistent.
Much of science is played out in Internal extrapolation of the model.

4/ the determination of irreducible complexity is entirely determined from logical extrapolation and self consistency of the two definitions of “life” and “ abiogenesis”. Nothing else is needed. This is about definitions and logical consequence of them.


This has nothing to do with empirical data - it is just logic for those who understand formal logic.

2+2=4 , or permeability= 4pi 10-7 whether or not a paper says it.

in real science if the empirical data does not line up with logical extension of the axiomatic model it causes questions about definitions , it does not invalidate the logic. That’s why I questioned the definitions.

It’s sad how pitiful the knowledge of science is on what purports to be a scientific forum - your post 70 is irrelevant waffle in this context.

 

[Mountainmike]

You missed the difference between ordinary, informal use of the word belief that does not have the connotations of certainty and truth that "religious belief" does. Nothing in science is sacred.

I suggest you start reading what they write.
Many of them confuse their atheist faith with science, hence promoting abiogenesis to a level way beyond the status , that it is not even a valid hypothesis yet. It is pure speculation. But Dawkins believes! He is not ashamed to say it.

But When. Where. How. What. All undetermined. It does not repeat. They cannot repeat it. No structure is postulated. No pathway to it. No pathway from it. Zilch.
Except s few possible plausibility arguments for what bits of a process might have been. But they believe….

Im not against Dawkins ( and many others ) believing his a priori philosophy in scientific realism ( which is a false philosophy) he can believe what he likes. But as someone invokved in publuc understanding of science he should state where he goes beyond evidence into belief, which he frequently does.


Any paper that refers to “prebiotic chemistry” , presumes it exists, so should first state that whether it happened is unknown. Not what happened. But whether.
Many refer to the premise as fact. The detail unknown. Which presumes belief in the unknown. I have no problem with that providing it is stated as belief.
Nul hypothesis is the only valid scientific conclusion at present. Don’t know.

I remain to be convinced.
But I take the scientific view it is not even a valid hypothesis yet.

 

[Hans Blaster]

permeability= 4pi 10-7 whether or not a paper says it.

Not any more. After the 2019 redefinition of the SI units, vacuum permeability is no longer a defined quantity, but a combination of defined constants and a measured one.

But defined, or measured the numerical value is a human choice and only true for a specific unit or unit system.

So vacuum permeability was 4pi x 10^{-7} *only* because it was agreed to and written down on a paper describing a system of units.

 

[Kylie]

Logical deduction , and supposedly science is all about precise definition of concepts and therefore relationships.

Definitions.

Life is defined as a function by NASA and Harvard. "self replicating and self evolving"

Abiogenesis is defined as the process or step from non living to living.

We can all argue with definitions , I know many who argue abiogenesis was more of a blur than an event. Christians (and some out of body researchers, including well esteemend medical men ) would argue whether consciousness is solely a function of or confined to the brain, so is there more to life than chemistry?. We must all let the objections pass. We can only argue abiogenesis in the context of a specific definition.

So abiogenesis is called a process rather than a step, but there is no blur in the definition of life, an entity either does or does not self evolve and self replicate , so abiogenesis may have been described as a "process" but it was also a single step event, because no precursor till the very last step in that process can have been living.

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!

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 two.


Why? I can argue top down process, bottom up process, or information theoretic status. All agree.

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 could also argue that from information theory. A genome must carry information which has a minimum entropy therefore complexity.

I rest my case your honour.
Do we all agree?

Your argument fails because something can be self replicating and self evolving (whatever those mean) and yet NOT be alive.

An enzyme can take Chemical A and Chemical B and join them together to form the new Chemical C more efficiently than if A and B were just drifting around randomly. But what if Chemical C was the enzyme itself? Then the enzyme is self replicating.

And what if there was a slight error in the way that it put A and B together, and as a result, the new version of the enzyme was even MORE efficient at putting A and B together? Now it has evolved. And yet it's still just an enzyme. We wouldn't call it alive.

 

[Kylie]

What about the mousetrap?

Mouse traps are NOT irreducibly complex. A reducibly complex mousetrap

 

[AV1611VET]

Mouse traps are NOT irreducibly complex. A reducibly complex mousetrap

Has it been tested?