Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Theres a subtle equivocation here that your argument hinges on. Abiogenesis and plant growth are not really the same idea at all. Yet youve sort of mushed them together into "the creation of life from non life."....Abiogenesis is not just the process where life first came into existence. The creation of life from non-life appears to be a normal part of everyday living.....
I think the idea that there is a "spark of life". Kinda like Frankenstein zapping the monster to life is one that may make people struggle with the idea of getting life from non life even if they think of that first life as being a single celled thing. A cell is extremely complex, so how was that life accomodating structure created before zapping it with the "spark of life?"Like both of you I can imagine a period of 'in-between' where structures come and go and fall into a space somewhere between life and not-life.
As I wrote earlier the target audience is those who struggle (legitimately) to conceive of a transition between life and not life. My main aim was to find a simple illustration of the possibility of non-life becoming life.
Yes .. the real danger there though, is not being 'overly technical' .. its more like when those having big opinions, encounter some new concept and lack the tools for gain the necessary knowledge to understand it, then proceed to attack it, along with its explainers, as being wrong, (which is just a cover-up for their own lack of appreciation of their own capabilities of learning).The danger is in being overly technical. We're not all organic chemists and we all have areas where we're quite legitimately short on knowledge. Assuming people should know stuff because you do inevitably means your arguments will not cut through.
Theres a subtle equivocation here that your argument hinges on. Abiogenesis and plant growth are not really the same idea at all. Yet youve sort of mushed them together into "the creation of life from non life."
The initial materials may differ, as will the process,
Given that we are referring to models whenever we speak of Abiogenesis and Evolution, it makes no scientific sense to completely ignore fundamental distinguishing differences in their respective starting conditions and the behaviours of their fundamental components.I think the idea that there is a "spark of life". Kinda like Frankenstein zapping the monster to life is one that may make people struggle with the idea of getting life from non life even if they think of that first life as being a single celled thing. A cell is extremely complex, so how was that life accomodating structure created before zapping it with the "spark of life?"
As Bradskii pointed out, it is similar to evolution. There is no discrete point of demarcation between a species and it's ancestor species. Same for stages of development, no discrete point between being a child and being an adult. Someone new to the scene can take a look and tell you if it is a child or an adult. But a person with a stop clock staring at it intently cannot stop the clock at the exact point that it became an adult or became a homosapien or became life from non life.
I think the idea that there is a "spark of life". Kinda like Frankenstein zapping the monster to life is one that may make people struggle with the idea of getting life from non life even if they think of that first life as being a single celled thing. A cell is extremely complex, so how was that life accomodating structure created before zapping it with the "spark of life?"
As Bradskii pointed out, it is similar to evolution. There is no discrete point of demarcation between a species and it's ancestor species. Same for stages of development, no discrete point between being a child and being an adult. Someone new to the scene can take a look and tell you if it is a child or an adult. But a person with a stop clock staring at it intently cannot stop the clock at the exact point that it became an adult or became a homosapien or became life from non life.
Given that we are referring to models whenever we speak of Abiogenesis and Evolution, it makes no scientific sense to completely ignore fundamental distinguishing differences in their respective starting conditions and the behaviours of their fundamental components.
Self-replication, which has been shown as being correlated with molecular complexity, represents a conceptually fundamental, physical transition between Abiogenesis and Evolution models.
I didnt mean you were being disingenuous, as you did announce the equivocation. But I dont think the argument survives that move.True and intentional. I also qualified my equivocation in the 2nd last para....
That word "from" is doing some really different kinds of work here. We have:...The whole point of the post was to demonstrate that life from non-life is not the mission impossible it might appear to be. What growth and strict abiogenesis share in common is the conversion of inanimate materials into living matter through a natural process.
Growth is triggered by highly compacted, information dense, modern biologically active molecules. Abiogenesis isn't though.Occams Barber said:What growth and strict abiogenesis share in common is the conversion of inanimate materials into living matter through a natural process.
Earth-life's characteristics are predictably diagnosable.Is there a precise definition of life,
a known bright line distinction between life and non life?
Is there a precise definition of life,
a known bright line distinction between life and non life?
I didnt mean you were being disingenuous, as you did announce the equivocation. But I dont think the argument survives that move.
That word "from" is doing some really different kinds of work here. We have:
1. originating out of without precedent.
2. used as ingredients.
The distinction is so meaningful that I dont see how you can hope to satisfy thoughtful creationists.
This from Wiki (obviously non definitive)Is there a precise definition of life,
a known bright line distinction between life and non life?
One day mankind may work out how life began even find a way to create life. However, I know someone that worked all that out around six thousand years ago.
There is a barrel load of awkward words in the post. I agonised over many but I'm not sure I succeeded in weeding out all the problematical terminology. There's a limit to the amount of qualification you can use in a post without the post becoming long and hard to follow or sounding legalistic or technical.
In the case of 'from' I tried to define what I meant in the next sentence:
"the conversion of inanimate materials into living matter through a natural process"
I'm willing to stick with this definition for now since it contains the three key elements; life (living matter), non-life (inanimate materials) and a 'natural process' (no magic needed).
I grant that I could be trivially wrong here and there. Look at the post as a statement of principle as opposed to a technical treatise.
OB
This from Wiki (obviously non definitive)
Life - Wikipedia
There is currently no consensus regarding the definition of life.
Umm .. might you explain your point there? (I'm not exactly clear on what it is?)
The context is what makes the generally accepted definitions useful for everyday diagnosis.At present there no known bright line distinction between living and non living.
Of course there is no precise definition of life.
IMO there's a continuum with no non arbitrary way to say if something at the margin is alive or not.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?