My abiogenesis challenge

[Mountainmike]

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.

Read the thread.
You will find the argument.

three proofs.
Bottom up. Top down, and from entropy.

And if your reasoning is as bad as above, you won’t understand it.
Critical thinkers only.

 

[Mountainmike]

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.

The clever people on the thread already accept my logic is true.
If you can refute it , then please refute it.
The logic is simple enough.

The significance of the fact is of course arguable .

 

[Yttrium]

Read the thread.
You will find the argument.

three proofs.
Bottom up. Top down, and from entropy.

And if your reasoning is as bad as above, you won’t understand it.
Critical thinkers only.

Your "critical thinking" can best be summed up as putting your fingers in your ears and shouting "LALALA I CAN"T HEAR YOU."

That's not the type of critical thinking that works out for me.

 

[Mountainmike]

Your "critical thinking" can best be summed up as putting your fingers in your ears and shouting "LALALA I CAN"T HEAR YOU."

That's not the type of critical thinking that works out for me.

This thread is for logic not insults.

Here is a summary of the arguments."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."

Refute it, or agree.
I will not respond to another insult, particularly from someone whose non sequiturs are as bad as your post 58.

 

[Bradskii]

Because the first cell...

We might need a definition of this. And I've a nasty feeling that your definition will not be much more than 'it's X, which must contain certain components and if you remove any components it's then not X'.

Going back to the city/life analogy, it's like defining exactly all the components that comprise a city (which is not possible) and then saying that if you remove one component then it's not then a city.

Nonsensical.

 

[AV1611VET]

Going back to the city/life analogy, it's like defining exactly all the components that comprise a city (which is not possible) and then saying that if you remove one component then it's not then a city.

In that sense, a city is not irreducibly complex.

But I submit a mousetrap is.

 

[Hans Blaster]

Because the first cell must be irreducibly complex.

I think I see the problem in your argument...

What make you think there was such a thing as a "first cell". I don't think the separation on the development path between "cell" and "not cell" is quite as sharp as you seem to think. It is a lot like the difference between "human" and "not human" on the development path. There isn't such a thing as "The First Human". Same thing.

 

[Bungle_Bear]

The clever people on the thread already accept my logic is true.
If you can refute it , then please refute it.
The logic is simple enough.

The significance of the fact is of course arguable .

I haven't seen anyone agree with you. That's because your logic is faulty and, as I keep saying and you keep refusing to acknowledge, you rely on assertions and unsupported premises. I suggest you read the thread and try to understand the objections many posters have presented which you have ignored.

 

[Bradskii]

In that sense, a city is not irreducibly complex.

In that sense, neither is life. But I don't think that you understand the moustrap analogy in any case.

 

[driewerf]

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

Wrong. Science is first of all about data. Gathering data through observation, measurements, experiments. Then this data is analysed and a pattern or regularity is sought to see if any laws, hypotheses or theories can be derived from it. If this succeeds then these laws, hypotheses or theories are checked against new data, again gathered through observation, measurements, experiments. This whole data gathering is severely lacking from your description. If - as you pretend in another post you ” […] have seen the inside of academia”, it wasn’t the inside of any science department. Or it must has been as a pizza delivery boy.
Or you must be a typical creationist who believes that scientific theories are just pipe dreams, and that you hence can replace good solid evidence based science with your (real) pipe dreams.
Definitions.

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

Strange.
Strange 1 : no link or direct quote is given. How peculiar, a science denier who leans on the authories of NASA and Harvard, but doesn’t link to their material. We have definitely never seen such a dirty trick.
Strange 2: quite a few biology textbooks – university level textbooks – indicate that life is very hard to define, and give rather a list of features that all living organisms have in common.
Biologists define “living things” as all the diverse organisms descended from a single-celled ancestor that evolved almost 4 billion years ago.Because of their common ancestry, living organisms share many characteristics that are not found in the nonliving world. Living organisms:
• consist of one or more cells
• contain genetic information
• use genetic information to reproduce themselves
• are genetically related and have evolved
• can convert molecules obtained from their environment into new biological molecules
• can extract energy from the environment and use it to do biological work
• can regulate their internal environment
(“Life, the science of Biology”, 9th Edition, Sadava, Hillis, Heller & Hacker, Life: The Science of Biology, 9th Edition - PDF Drive). This is much more elaborated, nuanced and sophisticated than the “definition” you gave and tried to attribute to NASA and Harvard.

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

We can all argue with definitions ,

As so many creationists do. Because once the empirical evidence is put on the table, they lose. Worse, they are lost. Because they don’t even understand what evidence is. And let evidence be the most compelling argument in a scientific debate: empirical evidence. That’s why creationists love to rely on “logic and definitions” instead of evidence. Because they don’t have any.
Logic is a powerful tool to analyse data, but you need to have data in the first place? Consider a production line in a factory. Raw materials go in and finished product come out. If you let the production line run without any raw material, you will consume a lot of energy, produce a lot of noise, but no useful end product. It’s the same with logic. Fact free, data free reasoning like creationists like to do is only good at producing a lot of noise, but no useful knowledge.

I know many who argue abiogenesis was more of a blur than an event.

I don’t know such people. Not using this terminology. I wonder in what company you spend your leisure time. Surely not people with a biology education.

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,

At this stage I would rather call it a research project. It is indeed assumed that a whole series of physical and chemical steps gave rise to life, but our knowledge at this point is too limited to make state certainty. I can only say that until now, a lot of phenomenons that were thought to be supernatural, turned out to be very well explainable by physics and chemistry. There is still too much to be investigated on the origin of life, but the fact that scientists are working on it is a sign that a natural explanation can not be excluded.

but there is no blur in the definition of life,

Yes there is. At least when we take a list of defining features, as proposed by professional biologists. They list 7 features, but what is an organism has only 6? Or 5? Or are there must-be features and optional ones?

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.

What about organisms that can only replicate under very specific circumstances? What about “entities” that do evolve but don’t replicate on their own (viruses)? What about entities that do replicate but need a huge amount of assistance (plants that need pollinators, tapeworms)? What about plant that clone themselves?
But let us stick with abiogenesis. RNA is capable of replicating and evolves, with the help of self coded proteins. Would you call RNA alive?
The RNA World: molecular cooperation at the origins of life | Nature Reviews Genetics
Evolutionary transition from a single RNA replicator to a multiple replicator network | Nature Communications

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).

1) What are the so called self contradictions in Justice Overtones verdict
2) You refer to an example. An example is a real life instance. I haven’t seen any so far. Let us see what the post will bring.

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 the one without the unnecessary part. Repeat until irreducible..

So no real example yet, unlike it was announced.
The error you make is based on the assumption that the transition from “life” to non kife is a discrete step and not a big fading over. As Bradskii explains in his city analogy, a lot of categories are much more vague than it seems at first.

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.

Yes, so what? Why is this relevant? What does this prove. What is actually the point you want to prove?

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

Actually not. Random strings of RNA has been shown to have (limited) catalytic effects. See links above.

I rest my case your honour.

A case that is an empty box, after close examination.

Do we all agree?

No.

 

[Mountainmike]

I think I see the problem in your argument...

What make you think there was such a thing as a "first cell". I don't think the separation on the development path between "cell" and "not cell" is quite as sharp as you seem to think. It is a lot like the difference between "human" and "not human" on the development path. There isn't such a thing as "The First Human". Same thing.

The problem is not in the argument.

As I acknowledged the definitions of abiogenesis and life “create” the problem.

As I pointed out the definition of life is functional not structural.
The definition of aniogenesis presumes a transition to a state called life from non life. It creates the sharp boundary. The definition of life as a multiple function then creates the irreducible complexity.


So structural issues (eg) with or without cell membrane, or regarding the “ unit” that undergoes abiogenesis , which could be viewed as an entire ecosystem is irrelevant. By definition it either is or isn’t live. But neither does increasing the complexity of the unit to an ecosystem help with irreducibility. . It makes the unit even more complex.

I accept, it’s an academic game.

But it also proves that definitions matter, in axiomatic logic. So the conclusions of science ( whose model is axiomatic) and logical derivations/ predictions rely on precision of definition.

 

[Bradskii]

The definition of aniogenesis presumes a transition to a state called life from non life. It creates the sharp boundary.

You seem to think that maybe on 3:23pm on Tuesday 3.7 billion years ago there was no life. And then at 3:24pm there was. Completely and utterly wrong. There was no sharp boundary.

You need to rethink that.

You also think that all genetic changes are detrimental and reduce any given poulation. Completely wrong again.

You need to rethink that as well.

And you also think that there can be no increase in genetic information. Woefully wrong.

You have a lot of rethinking to do.

 

[AV1611VET]

In that sense, neither is life. But I don't think that you understand the moustrap analogy in any case.

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.

 

[driewerf]

You seem to think that maybe on 3:23pm on Tuesday 3.7 billion years ago there was no life. And then at 3:24pm there was. Completely and utterly wrong. There was no sharp boundary.

You need to rethink that.

You also think that all genetic changes are detrimental and reduce any given poulation. Completely wrong again.

You need to rethink that as well.

And you also think that there can be no increase in genetic information. Woefully wrong.

You have a lot of rethinking to do.

I would rather have used the word "study" than "thinking". For the problem with evolution-deniers is that they believe that just sitting in their armchair and "think" whatever they want forms a rebuttal. If they want to formulate a valid critique of the ToE (or any other scientific theory) they need to study. Study what the theory they rant against says, study the evidence gathered in favour of said theory, look for flaws either in the gathering or in the analysis. This requires a deep, deep intense technical knowledge of the subject. Not just superficially read a Wikipedia article or two, but year long study.

 

[Frank Robert]

As I pointed out the definition of life is functional not structural.
The definition of aniogenesis presumes a transition to a state called life from non life. It creates the sharp boundary. The definition of life as a multiple function then creates the irreducible complexity

You are making assumption for IC. NO ONE has demonstrated irreducible complexity and proponents for IC have steadfastly steered clear of investigating IC.

Behe's book "Darwin's Black Box" was published in 1996. If you search PubMed for irreducible complexity today, 26 years later, you’ll get 19 hits Most of which are commentaries on the Intelligent Design (ID) movement itself or attempts to “reduce” irreducible complexity. A few are totally irrelevant. For comparison a PubMed search for "self-replicating molecules" resulted in 221 hits.

Albert Einstein believed that science without religion was lame, and religion without science was blind. Creationist have a valid points that science does not have enough evidence for certainty of life origins and that IC/ID could be a alternative but until ID/creationists take science seriously their challenges will remain one of religious belief vs science.

 

[Mountainmike]

You seem to think that maybe on 3:23pm on Tuesday 3.7 billion years ago there was no life. And then at 3:24pm there was. Completely and utterly wrong. There was no sharp boundary.

You need to rethink that.

You also think that all genetic changes are detrimental and reduce any given poulation. Completely wrong again.

You need to rethink that as well.

And you also think that there can be no increase in genetic information. Woefully wrong.

You have a lot of rethinking to do.

I don’t need to rethink anything.
I have a logical conclusion from pure definition of abiogenesis and life. Ask nasa and Harvard to redefine them. Then a conclusion may be different.
Don’t blame me for a conclusion you don’t like!

what definitions would you use?

The problem is the functional definition of life is eminently sensible.
If it doesn’t replicate or evolve, it cannot become life as we know it. Stillborn.

Abiogenesis defines the moment of that became true.

The only way out of the paradox an agency that does the evolving or replicating before “self” took over. Eg self catalyse might help with replicate but not evolve.

Or an event so unlikely chemistry would never support the jump to life.
Choose one of them.

 

[Frank Robert]

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.

The definition of IC is that the argument that certain biological systems cannot have evolved by successive small modifications to pre-existing functional systems through natural selection because no less complex system would function. What Miller has demonstrated with the tie clip is that the individual parts of the the mouse trap provided other functions thus making the part(s) independently available for natural selection.

 

[Mountainmike]

The definition of IC is that the argument that certain biological systems cannot have evolved by successive small modifications to pre-existing functional systems through natural selection because no less complex system would function. What Miller has demonstrated with the tie clip is that the individual parts of the the mouse trap provided other functions thus making the part(s) independently available for natural selection.

Refute my logic, or agree.

The miller argument was always sophistry, and is utterly futile when you reduce to the basic functions of life.
Self evolve. Self replicate.
The minimum structure that can do that is irreducibly complex.

The two concepts of ID and IC got entangled In an unhelpful way.

ID cannot be proven in most cases - but neither can it be disproven either , so it should have been a no score draw. There are plenty of man made objects That are designed in which the act of design does not leave an indelible mark.

Abiogenesis is the hill BEHE should have chosen to fight on , because he would have won, moreover it would have become evident with this that the judges remarks were nonsense. There is a clear non sequitur - read the judgement.

A court was never a place to decide a matter of science.

 

[driewerf]

Refute my logic, or agree.

Your logic has been shown invalid as it is fact free, unencumbered by data.

 

[AV1611VET]

The miller argument was always sophistry, and is utterly futile when you reduce to the basic functions of life.

Indeed.

The Miller-Urey experiment also had strategically designed traps to remove the products from the radiation before they could be destroyed. On a primitive earth, any amino acids formed in the atmosphere would be destroyed long before they could be removed. Even the ocean would not protect them, because UV penetrates several metres of liquid water—you can even sunburn under water. This indicates that the conditions on the early earth could never have been favourable for abiogenesis.

SOURCE