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?
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?
Last edited: