An evolutionary dilemma!!!!

originally posted by: Phantom423

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: Phantom423
a reply to: chr0naut

Because of the current diversity of life and the differences in transcription between different domains, it is rational to assume that there must have been multiple, unconnected, abiogenetic events.

How do you draw that conclusions when diversity is a result of evolution? You made a point of saying that abiogenesis and evolution are unrelated. But diversity didn't arise from abiogenesis. If it did, we would see different fundamental building blocks for some organisms and we don't. Diversity is a direct result of evolution and speciation.

But they are all also made of atoms. The idea that the common building block = common universal ancestor is unsupported by science or reason. Consider that the Australian Aboriginals painted with ochre as did the Neandethals in France. It would be insanity to assume an artistic connection or influence between them. The same building block merely indicates that the material is superior to all others for the task, not that there is a connection. Ditto for evolution.

Multiple unrelated abiogenetic events are most likely to produce a diversity but would favour certain materials, scenarios and processes because they simply happen to be better suited.

Several have suggested that multiple abiogenetic events are only theoretical. A single abiogenetic event is also theoretical, and far less reasonable.

I am not arguing that evolution is a source of biological diversity, it is, but suggesting that is is the ONLY source is preposterous.

Totally illogical and unproven. If you were an explorer on another planet and you determined that all organisms utilized the same four base pairs as their fundamental genetic building blocks, what would be your first conclusion? You're so far off the mark it isn't even funny any more. And yes, they have atoms in common as well - not that it has anything to do with the logic of the event itself.

A scientist would assume the most likely event given the evidence. Yes, anything is possible - one life-forming event or multiple events. But the logic of a single event along with the evidence of common components at the very least says that all life has common building blocks. Whether it happened once, twice or a million times with the same components is irrelevant - although I still think that multiple events is thermodynamically inefficient.

Diversity comes from evolution. There's no evidence that multiple life-forming events is partially or in whole responsible for diversity. And none of the citations you posted endorse that position with evidence. It's simply speculation.

You previously asked what another form of life would look like here: www.abovetopsecret.com...

I answered here: www.abovetopsecret.com...

You would have to demonstrate that there are organisms on this planet that don't conform to common ancestry. The organism's genetic structure (if it had one that was detectable) would be sufficiently unlike anything else on the planet that we could say it was unrelated to any other known life form. For instance, if an organism was identified that utilized nucleotides similar to d5SICS and dNaM (these are artificial nucleotides that don't occur in nature), then we could say that there's at least one organism that must have been formed by a unique event. However, to date, no organism has been identified that could clearly be labeled as unique and totally unrelated to other life forms on this planet. As explained previously, common ancestry is based on the observation that all life on this planet utilizes the same set of nucleotides to evolve its own life form. Nature goes through a trial and error process, but there's no reason to believe that it's redunant. That would be thermodynamically inefficient and a waste of energy. Actually, I take paragraph 2 back to a certain extent - I recall that there is a sea creature that was discovered a few years ago that has a very different genetic structure - doesn't use the same set of nucleotides (I think). I'll see if I can find the article. That could be an example of a new life form from a unique event.

You never responded or challenged what I described. So what is your response?

Well, you never supplied a single specific example or any links to papers or similar academic writings supportive of your viewpoint, I obviously didn't think your response was an answer at all.

You see, to refute the idea that there were multiple abiogenetic events, you'd have to prove that there was one, and one only. No-one has done that.

... and you have to adequately refute findings such as this: Giant Sulphur Bacteria - Census of Marine Life.

World's oldest fossils show Sulfur-based microbes lived 3.4 billion years ago, presenting a new target for Astrobiology

Surely a single solid example of an alternate biochemistry such as this is all that is required to refute the notion that there was only a single abiogenetic event?

originally posted by: Noinden
a reply to: chr0naut

And do they support your ideas? Or are you just quoting them? Because I would bet they do not support you

I was not suggesting that all those papers relate specifically to a 'many abiogenetic events' likelihood. The list was compiled some time ago and relates to abiogenesis generally.

The papers do refute the idea that abiogenesis must be extremely rare (on the order of only giving only one chance of arising in 4.5 billion years).

a reply to: chr0naut

You see, to refute the idea that there were multiple abiogenetic events, you'd have to prove that there was one, and one only. No-one has done that.

Poor logic as usual. The fact that you're sitting there writing on your computer says that at some place and some time there was a life-forming event. What the exact details were is not known. How many times do I have to say it? The logic is that unless you can demonstrate that other life forms exist with exotic genetic profiles very unlike the organisms on this planet, then the current conclusion has to be that the event was unique unto itself.

Proving that there was an abiogenetic event is a no-brainer. Just look in the mirror. Whether the event occurred on Earth, on Mars or some unknown place in our universe and landed on Earth via a meteor will (probably) never be known. So what's your point? We do research on what we have. Your position is still pure speculation and unsubstantiated by any research documentation.

Scientists base their conclusions on the evidence. There isn't a single research paper that says definitively, without a doubt, that proves absolutely that life occurred once and only once and that it happened on Earth. What we do know is that all life on this planet has a commonality which cannot be ignored.

You and others simply do not understand how science works. We don't write bibles. We don't write absolute laws. We don't close doors. The evidence is the evidence. Limited evidence produces limited results. In the case of abiogenesis, the evidence is limited because it cannot be reproduced in the lab (not yet anyway). Your position is pure speculation with absolutely no evidence. There isn't a single paper that you posted that endorses your position.

The common characteristics of life on Earth is acknowledged by anyone who has ever examined the evidence. Where it came from, how it happened, why it happened is speculative.

I'm tired of your "gotcha" responses. If you can argue the topic within the context of current known science - not just citations from other people which you adopt as your own without ever reading the papers and understanding them - then please do so. Otherwise, stand down and admit that you know jack sh*((^^^t about it and can't continue an intelligent discussion.

Hey all

Is it safe to say abiogenesis on earth is just a theory?



Coomba98

originally posted by: coomba98
Hey all

Is it safe to say abiogenesis on earth is just a theory?

Coomba98

Yes, but you have to whisper it.

a reply to: chr0naut

chr0naut,

'Whispers: I believe in abiogenesis in general shhhhh.
Whether of earth or panspermia. Shhhh.'

But to not 100% know and still push an argument for it would be an ignorance fallacy.

Still i believe it to be the most logical theory..... just look in the mirror and you see evolved life looking back at you. Lol

Coomba98..... shhhh

originally posted by: Phantom423
a reply to: chr0naut

You see, to refute the idea that there were multiple abiogenetic events, you'd have to prove that there was one, and one only. No-one has done that.

Poor logic as usual. The fact that you're sitting there writing on your computer says that at some place and some time there was a life-forming event. What the exact details were is not known. How many times do I have to say it? The logic is that unless you can demonstrate that other life forms exist with exotic genetic profiles very unlike the organisms on this planet, then the current conclusion has to be that the event was unique unto itself.

Proving that there was an abiogenetic event is a no-brainer. Just look in the mirror. Whether the event occurred on Earth, on Mars or some unknown place in our universe and landed on Earth via a meteor will (probably) never be known. So what's your point? We do research on what we have. Your position is still pure speculation and unsubstantiated by any research documentation.

Scientists base their conclusions on the evidence. There isn't a single research paper that says definitively, without a doubt, that proves absolutely that life occurred once and only once and that it happened on Earth. What we do know is that all life on this planet has a commonality which cannot be ignored.

You and others simply do not understand how science works. We don't write bibles. We don't write absolute laws. We don't close doors. The evidence is the evidence. Limited evidence produces limited results. In the case of abiogenesis, the evidence is limited because it cannot be reproduced in the lab (not yet anyway). Your position is pure speculation with absolutely no evidence. There isn't a single paper that you posted that endorses your position.

The common characteristics of life on Earth is acknowledged by anyone who has ever examined the evidence. Where it came from, how it happened, why it happened is speculative.

I'm tired of your "gotcha" responses. If you can argue the topic within the context of current known science - not just citations from other people which you adopt as your own without ever reading the papers and understanding them - then please do so. Otherwise, stand down and admit that you know jack sh*((^^^t about it and can't continue an intelligent discussion.

I am not denying that there must have been at least one 'start' to life.

I have provided links to supportive papers and articles.

Since you really don't know me, or what I do and don't know, it is fairly obvious that that your repeated insistence that I don't know what I'm talking about, is empty ad-hominem.

Also, please note that nearly all of the articles about abiogenesis in the list that I provided made mention of astrobiology.

You may not be aware of this but there are several modules of astrobiology and chemistry involved in completing degrees in astronomy, space sciences and astrophysics. I am, therefore, qualified to speak on the topic of abiogenesis, even though I do not have a specific degree in the biological sciences or chemistry.

So, the issue is that I am arguing for multiple abiogenetic events. You are arguing for a single one. Neither of us are arguing against abiogenesis.

Therefore, please provide evidence supportive of your refutation of the possibility of multiple abiogenetic ocurrences. That is how you should debate the science, not with groundless personal attacks.

originally posted by: coomba98
a reply to: chr0naut

chr0naut,

'Whispers: I believe in abiogenesis in general shhhhh.
Whether of earth or panspermia. Shhhh.'

But to not 100% know and still push an argument for it would be an ignorance fallacy.

Still i believe it to be the most logical theory..... just look in the mirror and you see evolved life looking back at you. Lol

Coomba98..... shhhh

Ah, but then the Socratic paradox kicks in.

How could we learn something unless the framework of knowledge already is in place to allow cognition of the information to be learned?

We have to already know stuff, so we can learn about it.

a reply to: chr0naut

So, the issue is that I am arguing for multiple abiogenetic events. You are arguing for a single one. Neither of us are arguing against abiogenesis.

That statement demonstrates that you don't know how science works. I have not advocated for a single event. If you read what I wrote on multiple occasions you would understand that we do not know and may never know if there were one or more life-forming events. There is no reproducible evidence that supports one scenario over the other. That said - and which I have also said multiple times - we go with what we have. We know that it happened at least once so we work from that premise until we elucidate more information.

You're advocating for multiple events. But you have not given a single iota of evidence to support that position. The papers you posted may make reference to abiogenesis and speculate on multiple events, but that's it - it's still speculation.

As I said, we know that it happened once. How, when, where and why remains an open question. It makes no sense to even dwell on multiple events when we can't prove the complete dynamics of a single event!

You work with what you've got. You design experiments around data that you can accumulate and analyze. Conclusions are drawn from experimental data, not speculation. The discussion portion of research papers deals with speculation if the scientist chooses to do so. But it doesn't qualify as experimental data. It remains speculation.

a reply to: Phantom423

Phantom423

You say chr0naut doesnt know science yet his given his science credentials!

Although i agree with you in general, prove abiogenesis as a fact! Not a theory.

And if it can happen once, why not twice or an infinite amount of times.

Hell, read up on the latest studies. The more we know the more we come up with the conclusion that abiogenesis is proficient within the universe. Theoretically speaking.

We just gotta fine that proof.

Coomba98

a reply to: Phantom423

Phantom423

If you cant prove abiogenesis as a fact, then thats an ignorance fallacy digger.

And you dont understand science!

What qualifications do you have in science?

Coomba98

originally posted by: coomba98
a reply to: Phantom423

Phantom423

You say chr0naut doesnt know science yet his given his science credentials!

Although i agree with you in general, prove abiogenesis as a fact! Not a theory.

And if it can happen once, why not twice or an infinite amount of times.

Hell, read up on the latest studies. The more we know the more we come up with the conclusion that abiogenesis is proficient within the universe. Theoretically speaking.

We just gotta fine that proof.

Coomba98

Yes. You need evidence. We know it happened at least once - or we wouldn't be her. It's a self-evident fact. Read my posts.

And no, I don't care what credentials he says he has. He doesn't understand the process. If he did, he would understand the difference between data which was accumulated and analyzed and speculation. It's a no-brainer.

originally posted by: coomba98
a reply to: Phantom423

Phantom423

If you cant prove abiogenesis as a fact, then thats an ignorance fallacy digger.

And you dont understand science!

What qualifications do you have in science?

Coomba98

I have enough paper on the wall, letters after my name and publications that at the very least I can say that I understand the process. How about you?

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: Phantom423
a reply to: chr0naut

Because of the current diversity of life and the differences in transcription between different domains, it is rational to assume that there must have been multiple, unconnected, abiogenetic events.

How do you draw that conclusions when diversity is a result of evolution? You made a point of saying that abiogenesis and evolution are unrelated. But diversity didn't arise from abiogenesis. If it did, we would see different fundamental building blocks for some organisms and we don't. Diversity is a direct result of evolution and speciation.

But they are all also made of atoms. The idea that the common building block = common universal ancestor is unsupported by science or reason. Consider that the Australian Aboriginals painted with ochre as did the Neandethals in France. It would be insanity to assume an artistic connection or influence between them. The same building block merely indicates that the material is superior to all others for the task, not that there is a connection. Ditto for evolution.

Multiple unrelated abiogenetic events are most likely to produce a diversity but would favour certain materials, scenarios and processes because they simply happen to be better suited.

Several have suggested that multiple abiogenetic events are only theoretical. A single abiogenetic event is also theoretical, and far less reasonable.

I am not arguing that evolution is a source of biological diversity, it is, but suggesting that is is the ONLY source is preposterous.

do you have others sources to propose? you make a good case for multiple abiogenetic events but you dont mention an alternative mechanism for biodiversity other than to suggest that there is one. care to elaborate?

originally posted by: coomba98
Hey all

Is it safe to say abiogenesis on earth is just a theory?

Coomba98

No, it's not safe to refer to abiogenesis (or any other proteogenic events like panspermia for example) as anything other than a hypothesis. They do not meet the burden of proof for a Scientific Theory.

originally posted by: peter vlar

originally posted by: coomba98
Hey all

Is it safe to say abiogenesis on earth is just a theory?

Coomba98

No, it's not safe to refer to abiogenesis (or any other proteogenic events like panspermia for example) as anything other than a hypothesis. They do not meet the burden of proof for a Scientific Theory.

interesting. far be it from me to make insinuations, but it seems to me that conflating abiogenesis with modern evolutionary synthesis might be a strategy for confusing hypothesis with theory in order to make theory appear less sound by association. ...nah, that would be too transparent a ploy. forgive me my silly notions.

originally posted by: TzarChasm

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: Phantom423
a reply to: chr0naut

Because of the current diversity of life and the differences in transcription between different domains, it is rational to assume that there must have been multiple, unconnected, abiogenetic events.

How do you draw that conclusions when diversity is a result of evolution? You made a point of saying that abiogenesis and evolution are unrelated. But diversity didn't arise from abiogenesis. If it did, we would see different fundamental building blocks for some organisms and we don't. Diversity is a direct result of evolution and speciation.

But they are all also made of atoms. The idea that the common building block = common universal ancestor is unsupported by science or reason. Consider that the Australian Aboriginals painted with ochre as did the Neandethals in France. It would be insanity to assume an artistic connection or influence between them. The same building block merely indicates that the material is superior to all others for the task, not that there is a connection. Ditto for evolution.

Multiple unrelated abiogenetic events are most likely to produce a diversity but would favour certain materials, scenarios and processes because they simply happen to be better suited.

Several have suggested that multiple abiogenetic events are only theoretical. A single abiogenetic event is also theoretical, and far less reasonable.

I am not arguing that evolution is a source of biological diversity, it is, but suggesting that is is the ONLY source is preposterous.

do you have others sources to propose? you make a good case for multiple abiogenetic events but you dont mention an alternative mechanism for biodiversity other than to suggest that there is one. care to elaborate?

How can it be a good case for multiple abiogenetic events when all organisms on this planet develop via essentially the same building blocks? We can assume that one event did occur because life exists on this planet. Other than that, what do you really know? It's speculative at best. In addition, we know next to nothing about that event except that some life-forming event occurred. We don't even know if it happened on this planet. It's all guesswork - no lab work.

originally posted by: TzarChasm

originally posted by: peter vlar

originally posted by: coomba98
Hey all

Is it safe to say abiogenesis on earth is just a theory?

Coomba98

No, it's not safe to refer to abiogenesis (or any other proteogenic events like panspermia for example) as anything other than a hypothesis. They do not meet the burden of proof for a Scientific Theory.

interesting. far be it from me to make insinuations, but it seems to me that conflating abiogenesis with modern evolutionary synthesis might be a strategy for confusing hypothesis with theory in order to make theory appear less sound by association. ...nah, that would be too transparent a ploy. forgive me my silly notions.

Evolution can be observed. Abiogenesis cannot. Hypothesis is an idea. Theory has some evidence. There's a world of difference.

originally posted by: Phantom423

originally posted by: TzarChasm

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: Phantom423
a reply to: chr0naut

Because of the current diversity of life and the differences in transcription between different domains, it is rational to assume that there must have been multiple, unconnected, abiogenetic events.

How do you draw that conclusions when diversity is a result of evolution? You made a point of saying that abiogenesis and evolution are unrelated. But diversity didn't arise from abiogenesis. If it did, we would see different fundamental building blocks for some organisms and we don't. Diversity is a direct result of evolution and speciation.

But they are all also made of atoms. The idea that the common building block = common universal ancestor is unsupported by science or reason. Consider that the Australian Aboriginals painted with ochre as did the Neandethals in France. It would be insanity to assume an artistic connection or influence between them. The same building block merely indicates that the material is superior to all others for the task, not that there is a connection. Ditto for evolution.

Multiple unrelated abiogenetic events are most likely to produce a diversity but would favour certain materials, scenarios and processes because they simply happen to be better suited.

Several have suggested that multiple abiogenetic events are only theoretical. A single abiogenetic event is also theoretical, and far less reasonable.

I am not arguing that evolution is a source of biological diversity, it is, but suggesting that is is the ONLY source is preposterous.

do you have others sources to propose? you make a good case for multiple abiogenetic events but you dont mention an alternative mechanism for biodiversity other than to suggest that there is one. care to elaborate?

How can it be a good case for multiple abiogenetic events when all organisms on this planet develop via essentially the same building blocks? We can assume that one event did occur because life exists on this planet. Other than that, what do you really know? It's speculative at best. In addition, we know next to nothing about that event except that some life-forming event occurred. We don't even know if it happened on this planet. It's all guesswork - no lab work.

if it can happen once, it can happen several times. that is the nature of possibility. we know something happened to generate life at a fundamental level, which says that something could occur more than once. delving further relies heavily on speculation, as you said. abiogenesis is a hypothesis at the moment, and still being explored rigorously by our most qualified researchers and their cutting edge tools and techniques. we will have to be satisfied with that for now. there is nothing conclusive except that life happened, evolution proceeded, and we are the result.

originally posted by: Phantom423

originally posted by: TzarChasm

originally posted by: peter vlar

originally posted by: coomba98
Hey all

Is it safe to say abiogenesis on earth is just a theory?

Coomba98

No, it's not safe to refer to abiogenesis (or any other proteogenic events like panspermia for example) as anything other than a hypothesis. They do not meet the burden of proof for a Scientific Theory.

interesting. far be it from me to make insinuations, but it seems to me that conflating abiogenesis with modern evolutionary synthesis might be a strategy for confusing hypothesis with theory in order to make theory appear less sound by association. ...nah, that would be too transparent a ploy. forgive me my silly notions.

Evolution can be observed. Abiogenesis cannot. Hypothesis is an idea. Theory has some evidence. There's a world of difference.

that wont stop some parties from attempting to discredit a solid framework by inserting flawed ideas into it.

originally posted by: coomba98
Hey all

Is it safe to say abiogenesis on earth is just a theory?

Coomba98

Is it safe to say germ theory on earth is "just a theory?"
Yes I would, minus the " just."
But abiogenenesis does not have enough evidence to upgrade it as a scientific theory.. Yet.