My abiogenesis challenge

[Mountainmike]

It never occurred to me that anyone would refer to a legal case by the name of a witness. Sigh.

Popular media did.
Behe case. Behe vs Darwin case. Etc etc.
The Case of Behe vs. Darwin

 

[Mountainmike]

I don't think you're using "agency" correctly. Agency implies conscious intent. If you just mean external factors devoid of conscious intent, I don't think agency is the correct word to use. Maybe I'm wrong about what you're trying to imply using that word.



Everything you're saying here is just not correct. You need to read the literature I linked.

one of the meanings of agency is
“action or intervention producing a particular effect.
canals carved by the agency of running water"
Running water is not conscious!

Darwin describes evolution by agency ie consequence of survival of fittest + small change . Not enough was known of genetics to describe it by mechanism of change.

 

[Mountainmike]

What you have done is assign IC to the LUCA and then made assumptions that may or may not be true.

It is impossible to reconstruct the 3.5 billion year old LUCA and it is likely that there were multiple attempts for the LUCA. Horizontal gene transfer appears to have been common among early life forms so if there were multiple LUCA pretenders with gene transfer between them how do you demonstrate what was then or is now IC.

For the last time, that is
All irrelevant.

There are no assumptions, just systematic logic applied to definitions.
You can dispute whether the definitions are right. The rest is critical thinking.

Just like the axiomatic model of science - this exercise is taking place in the world of abstract definition and logic.

By analogy the permeability of free space is 4 Pi x 10-7 . I don’t have to measure anything, the answer arises from the definitions of magnetic fields.

And so is irreducible complexity a logical consequence of the definition of life.
Which definition is of course is a debatable question.


The “ usefulness” of that conclusion in the “ real world “ or deductions from that is something else.

 

[Mountainmike]

Why must I do one of the 2?

Suppose I assert that the moon is made of green cheese. Can I reasonably demand that you accept this unless you can prove it is not made of green cheese?

Of course not - it is up to the claimant to make the case - you bear the burden of proof.

In this post, I am not addressing the merits of your argument. I am merely pointing out that we are not forced to choose between the 2 positions you identify in your post.

I did give a proof.
It’s my thread , I can decide what answers I will accept.
Either refute it, or agree ( or by default stay silent)

I did not want the thread clogged with the usual atheist prejudice against irreducible complexity or the arguments from a previous law case which are irrelevant here.

This thread is about the logical argument in this specific case based on specific definitions.
I’ve highlighted why the paradox can be broken in practice , by assuming all development up to the step abiogenesis was not “self” evolving. Ie other agency involved.

My thread. My rules. It’s a logical challenge.

 

[expos4ever]

It’s my thread , I can decide what answers I will accept.

Not if you want to be taken seriously.

You cannot define your own rules of what constitutes legitimate debate.

You presented a false either/ or choice

 

[The IbanezerScrooge]

one of the meanings of agency is
“action or intervention producing a particular effect.
canals carved by the agency of running water"
Running water is not conscious!

Darwin describes evolution by agency ie consequence of survival of fittest + small change . Not enough was known of genetics to describe it by mechanism of change.

Gotcha. Okay. I have no issue with that.

 

[SelfSim]

This thread is about the logical argument in this specific case based on specific definitions.
I’ve highlighted why the paradox can be broken in practice , by assuming all development up to the step abiogenesis was not “self” evolving. Ie other agency involved.

My thread. My rules. It’s a logical challenge.

So the purpose of this thread is simply to highlight that logic does not establish truths? We already know that.

Science uses evidence to establish truth.

The other way to do it, is to simply believe in some truth or other .. (as you have continually demonstrated in your 'miracles' threads).

 

[Bradskii]

A single element cannot “ self evolve, self replicate”
because it isn’t complex enough. The smallest living thing needs multiple molecule(s). So there is a minimum irreducible complexity.

I might regret this, but...see if you can get your iq around this.

Consider one person. A single element. Now consider a city. Gee, lots of elements. One person cannot make a city. But hey, here's another person. Now we have two elements, working together - because that's more beneficial than one on its own. Is it a city? No.

But together they are able to create a dwelling. Which is an entirely natural process. But is it a city? No, it isn't.

And hey, here are some other elements! And they seem to have an affinity to the others. And wow, they build more dwellings. But still no city yet.

And yet more combinations of elements, or at least those that survive long enough to join up with the others, gradually develop (in an entirely natural process), more elements of what might be considered a group. They start to work together, which seems to benefit the whole group. Whereas others who seem to have no affinity to the collective we now have seem to die off.

Are we a city yet? Nope. Not yet. But we're close. But I guess it depends on your definition.

And some elements leave. Another natural result of the process. But if you now have a village, does it stop being a village if someone leaves? Of course not. The village is a complex unit but you can reduce the elements and it will still be a village

But when are we going to get to the city stage? Well, as we all know, that's simply a definition that will change depending on who you ask. But is what we have complex? Yes. Will it be even more complex when it attains what we'd all agree to be city status? Yes. Will it stop being a city if you remove a lot of the elements that make it such? Almost certainly not. In some cases it might, but it's not a given. Because all the various elements contribute different things and removing any one of them doesn't collapse the whole edifice.

Does that actually happen? That removing a part will dismantle the whole? Oh, yes. Undoubtedly. But you're claiming that life - oops, I mean cities, could never evolve by combining various elements in a beneficial way.

Which is nonsensical.

 

[Frank Robert]

For the last time, that is
All irrelevant.

It would be irrelevant if there were no HGT during the LUCA epoch. You have overlooked the likely role of horizontal gene transfer HGT. @Bradskii provided an excellent analogy as to how HGT helped produce the LUCA.

See: Horizontal Gene Transfer and Its Part in the Reorganisation of Genetics during the LUCA Epoch

Conclusions

HGT is a ubiquitous process occurring in nature, via one of the discussed mechanisms or a combination of them. It is highly probably that “RNA-organisms” and/or LUCA entities were exchanging MGEs on an extensive scale, thereby bringing about the reorganisation of genetics which underpins all living organisms today.​

 

[expos4ever]

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.

I think your wording is not ideal, but I think I get your point - even if abiogenesis is a "process" composed of many steps, there is a "last" step at which the transition from "non-living" to "living" is realized. Fair enough - no objection.

My statement is the first Live entity from abiogenesis is irreducibly complex. So life is irreducibly complex.

You are simply presenting a claim here - no argument yet to support it.

My challenge is Disprove it. Or agree with it. You must do one of the two.

Per my earlier post, this is not a legitimate statement - the fact that someone has yet to disprove your claim does not make your claim truthful. This is really obvious - let's say I claim there is are daisies growing on a planet in the Andromeda galaxy. Clearly, no one can disprove my claim. But that certainly does not make my claim true.

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..

I find this unclear - please clarify your argument. It is not clear to me which cell you are referring to at certain points in this.

 

[expos4ever]

The logical consequence of NO irreducible complexity is that the simplest structure, a single molecule would Self evolve and replicate. It doesn’t. QED.

What is the logic here? Suppose there is, in fact, no irreducible complexity until we get to the "molecule" level. No one, I think, is claiming that the first molecule is alive (self-evolution and replication are part of the definition of life).

How do you know that, through perfectly natural processes, some of those first molecules did not "get together" with more and more other molecules until the resulting structure met the criteria of being (a) self-evolving; and (b) capable of replicating?

 

[Mountainmike]

OK then Math Modeler Mike from Mensa, but I think there is a word choice problem around dogma (and probably not the one you are thinking of). Instead of "when science has dogma", you should instead be concerned "that science has dogma". Of course, the biggest problem for your hating on scientific dogmas is that the "dogmas of science" are fundamental (or irreducible if you like ) to its practice, such as that science works on natural explanations to natural phenomena. This is no different than logic or math. (For example, provide a proof to the logical doctrine [or law] of non-contradiction. There is none. It is a base assumption that allows the system of formal logic to be constructed.) Abiogenesis is *not* a dogma of science, but it is implied by them. Let's take a look...

Observation:

1. Organic life is a natural phenomenon.
2. Past states of the Earth/Universe would not have permitted organic life to exist.

Conclusion:

3. Life on Earth/ in the Universe had to "start" at some point in the finite past.

Scientific inference:

4. Given that organic life had a beginning in the past and is a natural phenomenon, therefore organic life had a natural origin.

See it's a very straightforward conclusion using simple scientific principles (natural phenomena have natural explanations, we can acquire knowledge of the past through observation), data (past universe states too hot for organic life, geological measurements of Earth surface conditions likewise, etc.), and logic we must reach the scientific conclusion that life had a natural origin.

Abiogenesis is not a dogma of science, but an inevitable conclusion built on basic observations and the irreducible methods of science.

If you want an alternative to natural abiogenesis of organic life, the only option is an extra-scientific explanation based on extra-natural phenomena, but you're never going to get science to prove that because it is definitionally outside its realm.

Several observations.
1/ Science is happy with a nul hypothesis. It does not have to have a model. It does not have to default to assumption. Don't know is a viable answer.

2/ But to make progress on this we have to define precisely the most overused word that there is
"natural" - all the rest of your logic stems from there.

And it is the originof many of the arguments. What is natural, unnnatural, supernatural etc etc

If I look in the dictionary one common thread for natural is "existing in or derived from nature; not made or caused by humankind."

On the first part "existing in or derived from nature".
We do not know what exists in nature, we only know what it is observed to do. All of our models and abstract concepts of such as "mass" start from patterns in interactions and then relationships between them, that seem to fit the observations.
The only viable meaning of the first part then, is "natural is what nature is observed to do, and derivations from the models we have of the interactions".

We do not have any reverse engineered model of abiogenesis or indeed the steps from there to the simplest life we do observe. It is all up in the air.
We can speculate on a model of it, but that is all it is. Till then it is all conjecture.
It is also worthwhile, but it cannot be stated as more than conjecture.

The second part illustrates the problem defining agency.

Just excluding humankind, excludes most of the animals and plants we see on a daily basis (which most certainly were a product of humankind, it excludes all the manufactured items including pharmaceuticals. So our world is mostly "unnatural". I am not sure the "definer" meant to allow that. On the other hand it does include as natural the involvement of other conscious beings , from Green Men to a deity.

That is not as discountable as it sounds. It is a perfectly good piece of conjecture. Leaving aside religious overtones - a purely scientific argument notes the common genome form of all life forms we know.That is a problem for the baseline assumptions.

If abiogenesis happened here on earth there is no reason to suppose either that it is not continuing to this day (but we cannot find a trace of it) but it is also reasonable to assume multiple independent starts to life which by random chance have no reason to favour one genome type over another. Whatever works. So how did all life end so similar?

So there is a good argument to be made that "all life came from elsewhere" by import of a primitive organism. Thats why they have similar genome.. We were paranoid about bringing back spacerock,for fear of bringing back nasty forms of life, which could just as easily be left by other green men who visited the moon or earth. Since we have been to those places, it would be arrogant to assume others have not.

The problem is for the definition of "natural" is "green men" by the above definition is contained in "natural". The definition only excludes human.

I doubt if you accept THAT definition.

Abiogenesis - if indeed it happened as random chance chemistry- is simply unexplained, it is also so complex I personally doubt it will be, at least in our life times.. Whether that makes it "supernatural" "unnatural" simply relies on your definitons of natural and supernatural.

The model of science changes. Does that make an unexplained event "natural" "unnatural" or "supernatural". Or simply unclassified. Until it becomes natural.

It is a fact . There are observations that cannot be explained in the context of the model of science. To me the observation is what makes it natural, regardless of whether it fits the model or not. Is that natural, unnatural or supernatural? is that depending on how absurd the observation seems? Is extra terrestrial life (if any) natural or supernatural? Does the conjectured involvement of other intelligent beings make it scientific or not?

Some of the unexplained observations are a whole level better defined than Abiogenesis (eg those leading to dark matter hypotheses). Is dark matter natural?
Where abiogenesis speculation does not even derive from an observation. At best it is an assumption of fabulous complexity on which some hypotheses are based. Even the hypotheses for the present around the precursors, not around the abiogenesis event itself. It is mostly speculation.

So How is abiogenesis "natural"

So you define natural for me.
It is such an abused word.

 

[Yttrium]

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..

By that argument, no molecule can exist. Even a simple molecule like table salt. NaCl. Remove any part of the molecule, and it ceases to have the properties of salt. Irreducibly complex? Sodium and chlorine combine regularly in nature.

Much more complex molecules form regularly in nature. Apply heat to molecules and they can join together in all sorts of interesting ways. You just need the molecules to join together in the right way to come up with something self-replicating. If it's self-replicating, it will evolve, because errors in the replication process are inevitable.

You're using an argument from incredulity fallacy. You can't figure out how it could happen, therefore it couldn't happen. But we don't know enough about the earliest organism. We might yet find a way it could have happened. For now, abiogenesis certainly shouldn't be taught as fact, because it's still a hypothesis. Maybe the first form of life really was irreducibly complex. But with all those churning complex molecules in the early days, one shouldn't rule out abiogenesis.

 

[Bungle_Bear]

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 is not logic, if is simple assertions based on unsupported premises. So what if "life" is irreducibly complex (meaning that if we take away a single part it no longer counts as "life")? If there is a single step to go from "non-life" to "life" all that means is that there is a potentially surmountable difference between "non-life" and "life". What you have failed to demonstrate is that there is no way to add the required additional feature to "non-life" in order to make "life".

Self-replicating molecules exist, and they replicate with errors. That meets your definition of "life" but I don't think anyone would seriously argue they are "life".

 

[Mountainmike]

By that argument, no molecule can exist. Even a simple molecule like table salt. NaCl. Remove any part of the molecule, and it ceases to have the properties of salt. Irreducibly complex? Sodium and chlorine combine regularly in nature.

Much more complex molecules form regularly in nature. Apply heat to molecules and they can join together in all sorts of interesting ways. You just need the molecules to join together in the right way to come up with something self-replicating. If it's self-replicating, it will evolve, because errors in the replication process are inevitable.

You're using an argument from incredulity fallacy. You can't figure out how it could happen, therefore it couldn't happen. But we don't know enough about the earliest organism. We might yet find a way it could have happened. For now, abiogenesis certainly shouldn't be taught as fact, because it's still a hypothesis. Maybe the first form of life really was irreducibly complex. But with all those churning complex molecules in the early days, one shouldn't rule out abiogenesis.

Irreducible complexity does not rule out the possibility of occurrence , although increasing complexity makes it far more unlikey.

I am not using any argument about it, other than definitions leading to the paradox in how it can happen. Since the happening relies on evolving and replicating, and life is irreducibly complex

I am arguing that it is far from a done deal, whether, when, where or how it happened. Yet ask a kid about origin of life and that is what they will tell you.

You also state one of the pseudoscientific memes “ swirling pools of complex molecules” . An assumption presented as fact. Where are they, in the context of how complex they would need to be?

You are right in assuming that irreducible complexity leads to a staggering unlikelihood of abiogenesis in reaction theoretical terms, and at very least there needs to be a pool of “nearly cell” bits (and because of lack of guidance)also complex bits that can’t make cells. .
It should also be carrying on somewhere even now.

Yet there is no evidence that such things exist or ever existed.
And The gap in complexity between the biggest known naturally occurring ( non life produced) bio molecule and the simplest known cell is staggering. So there are no swirling pools of “nearly cells” even if proteins exist.


All my thread served to prove was that life is logically irreducibly complex. And provably so.

So the “ gradual slide into life” - abiogenesis is as yet pure speculation. It will be so until a candidate structure for the simplest living cell is elucidated and some pathway to it is hypothesised.

until then, kids should not be taught it as other than a possibility, not even a probability. “ don’t know” is the only honest scientific answer to the start of life. Dawkins and Darwin both said it. But that’s not the message getting through - which is swirling pools of nearly cells slid gradually into life, then evolution did the rest.

Irreducible complexity makes that a hard problem ( only resolvable by removing the word “ self” from evolution and replication, so a long way short of being a hypothesis.

 

[Mountainmike]

Your argument is not logic, if is simple assertions based on unsupported premises. So what if "life" is irreducibly complex (meaning that if we take away a single part it no longer counts as "life")? If there is a single step to go from "non-life" to "life" all that means is that there is a potentially surmountable difference between "non-life" and "life". What you have failed to demonstrate is that there is no way to add the required additional feature to "non-life" in order to make "life".

Self-replicating molecules exist, and they replicate with errors. That meets your definition of "life" but I don't think anyone would seriously argue they are "life".

Then you don’t understand logic.
The argument is logically sound.
Life is irreducibly complex.

 

[SelfSim]

Then you don’t understand logic.
The argument is logically sound.
Life is irreducibly complex.

This is such a daft argument .. and such a pointless thread.
At one stage, the universe was 'irreducibly complex' .. yet it evolved and still exists.
So what?
Logic, alone, does not establish truths.
Science uses evidence to establish useful truths. That's science's purpose.
Life is whatever we make of it.

 

[Yttrium]

Then you don’t understand logic.
The argument is logically sound.
Life is irreducibly complex.

I understand logic fine. List your axioms. List your logical steps that follow the axioms.

Axioms:
The sky is green.
Everything that is green is broccoli.
I can eat broccoli.

Logic:
Since the sky is green, the sky must be broccoli.
Since the sky is broccoli, I must be able to eat it.
Therefore, I can eat the sky.

Of course, keep in mind that even perfect logic may not have a very useful conclusion if at least one of your axioms is flawed in the first place.

 

[Bungle_Bear]

Then you don’t understand logic.
The argument is logically sound.

While it's true one of us appears to struggle with logic, it's not me. Your argument is not logically sound since it is nothing more than an assertion based on unsupported premises.

Life is irreducibly complex.

That really sums up your "logic", doesn't it? A bold assertion with nothing underpinning it except further assertions and assumptions.

 

[Bungle_Bear]

All my thread served to prove was that life is logically irreducibly complex. And provably so.

No, it really hasn't. It has shown that you know how to make assertions; it has shown that you refuse to support your assertions. It has not demonstrated logically (and nowhere near offered proof) that life is irreducibly complex.