Why Abiogenesis separated from Evolution is a false Dichotomy.

reply to post by chocise

Originally posted by chocise

Originally posted by madnessinmysoulHow am I incorrect? Please show me anywhere in scientific literature where it is posited that we went from nothing to something and that is the end of it.

Incorrect because in your previous post you off-handedly dismissed any notion of relating two very important & inter-linked questions mankind has been seeking the answers to since creation itself; ie the origins of species and that of our known universe.

How are they interlinked? The origin of life would be the same no matter how the universe itself originated. The universe would originate the same way it originated no matter how life originated.

I didn't off-handedly dismiss it, I dismissed it with a rational basis. If the universe formed because some divine being thought "Hey, lemme try something new!" and formed a universe and then sort of went "Ok, I'll see what happens" or if it arose through purely natural causes...well...what's the difference?

Both are inexplicably linked, whether you like it or not.

And yet you cannot demonstrate how they are.

Why do you think all the great minds are searching for the one, binding, Theory of Everything in an attempt to rationally explain our own existence.

All of them? Some astrophysicists are. Some think that there isn't actually a theory of everything. The idea of a theory of everything isn't even something that explains everything, it's a way to reconcile the three different sets of physical laws we have.

[quote[

I'm sorry, but how am I being arrogant in accepting a self-testing system that regularly updates its knowledge base with new evidence and arranges its ideas to fit with the evidence rather than arranging the evidence to fit with the ideas?

Ahhh, your self-testing belief system.


How is it a belief system?

One which works fine for Newton's world of mechanics, but gets misty when we start poking around at the quantum level.

Newton? Did you miss the memo? Einstein defeated that a while ago. Didn't even take him all that long to overturn a paradigm that was cemented for a few hundred years.

And 'misty'? Are you sure you understand what quantum mechanics is? It's actually a set of physical laws that are testable. Sure, things are a bit odd to beings that are a billion times the size of the scale at which quantum mechanics operates, but they're far from 'misty'. Things are actually predictable and testable.

What you consistently fail to acknowledge is that of all those billions of stars, the matter we can account for makes up only 5% of what's out there.

Clarification and citation needed. What do you mean by "what's out there"? Are you saying that space is only filled with 5% matter? Well, I'm awfully happy for the extra leg room, aren't you?

When you finally grasp that

I grasped that before I went into kindergarten...it's what happens when your dad is a physicist with a passion for astronomy and Sagan.

you'll realize your understanding of our Grand Science is indeed very arrogant, as we know only an
infinitesimally small fraction of what is, infact, knowable.

How is it arrogant? The majority of knowledge in the universe would pertain to the position and velocity of particles. The laws of physics themselves would only make up a ridiculously tiny fraction of total knowledge, yet they're far and away some of the most important pieces of data we could have. Hell, 100 episodes of the Simpsons has more data packed into it than the whole of our total knowledge of physics.

Most of what is in fact knowable isn't actually useful.

In that sense our own science, and your perception of it, is very crude indeed.

Except that you threw out a random number, a misunderstanding of data, and a laughable idea that a lack of full understanding somehow demeans the only means by which we've actually achieved meaningful understanding of the universe.

Even if the universe was only 5% matter, so what? The empty space? It's space, all we have to know is how it operates. Dark matter? Well, it's detectable by gravity...but we don't really see any other interaction with the physical world. In fact, the crazy thing is that science doesn't stop asking questions. It doesn't stop testing itself.

That is why science is so incredible. It's not a thing. It's not a body of knowledge. Science is the method by which we've attained that body of knowledge and that method applies to everything.

And to put it up there on some kind of intellectual pedestal is arrogance in itself.

I'm sorry, but I'll keep the scientific method on any damn pedestal I please until you can show me exactly how it is limited.

So...I'm arrogant. Yet you're making an unsupported assertion, I dispute it, you say I'm incorrect and arrogant...How am I arrogant again?

See above.

All I see is a continuance of unsupported assertions and accusations of arrogance.

No faith needed. You can test science. You can demonstrate how scientific principles work.

It is a faith or belief system

Yet another unsupported assertion. If I pull out my phone and test the GPS on it to see my exact coordinates I'm testing Einstein's theories of relativity (the time dilation effects due to the higher rate of speed at which the satellites are moving changes the passage of time...yes, they're moving alongside the Earth, but it's like swinging a stick, the end of the stick is always the fastest bit of it). If I want to check the boiling point of water and how it's effected by atmospheric pressure I need only go to a spot of known altitude and boil water.

How is something testable a faith or belief system? Science is a method.

and your attempt to warp the semantics is testament to your absolute belief in it.

Where are my semantics? I don't seem to be arguing from the definition of any word. I've not gone to etymology nor have I bothered to pull out a dictionary. I'm sorry, but are you aware of what the word 'semantics' means?

Mathematical modeling is central to the our endeavours in pushing back the boundaries of modern science, and although a beautiful language initself, much is still Theoretical, there are no Newtonian, repeatable experiments here, just plain math itself.

Again with Newton? I can test relativity dammit. I can test quantum physics too...well, if I had the equipment. I could repeat the slit experiment. And some of that 'plain math' is actually being tested now at CERN. The problem isn't that we can't test some of this mathematical modelling, it's that it's really damn expensive to do so.

If you're about to cite advances in 'modern medicine' as another example of how brilliant our science is, don't, ... it isn't... it's still very crude.

Yes, it's so crude that we come up with new vaccines every year based upon the mutation rate of various strains of viruses. It's crude that we can see inside of the body without cutting it open. It's crude that we can perform surgical procedures with miniature machines to repair small scale damage. It's crude that we can manipulate all sorts of chemical compounds to increase quality of life...some compounds having different benefits to different people (just look at Viagra, some people actually take it to keep them alive). It's crude that we can target risk factors for specific illness by checking DNA...

I'm sorry, how is modern medicine crude?

We also still burn fossil fuels to drive turbines, that's pretty crude too...

I happen to actually have photovoltaic cells on my roof. There are also hydroelectric dams, nuclear fission power plants, and wind turbines.

The problem is that fossil fuels are efficient. They have a high energy yield per mass. It's not crude...it just gets the job done.

so in many respects, your absolute science is still living in the Steam Age.

Steam has its uses. I'm not going to be able to serve up a cappuccino without it...or should I rely on fusion reactions to do that?

We know bugger all really, m8 ... so please don't try and pretend we do.

We know quite a bit, so please don't use your personal ignorance as a contradiction of that. Just because we don't know everything doesn't mean we don't know anything.

reply to post by edmc^2


...my question is pertinent to the title. I'm asking for a situation which shows that abiogenesis cannot be separated from evolution. I'm asking for a situation where the polar opposite of abiogenesis would prove evolution false. If the polar opposite of abiogenesis proved evolution false then abiogenesis cannot be separated from evolution.

Now, please show me how evolution would be proven false if abiogenesis were false. You keep saying that evolution requires abiogenesis...but you're just using false analogies.

reply to post by Blue_Jay33

They are just hypotheses. I scientific guess, at around the level that people of science once thought that the earth was flat.

Umm... No. Actually scholars knew the Earth was round for centuries, it was laypeople who continued to believe it was flat, until Magellan's Circumnavigation of course. Your attempt to conflate modern scientific hypothesis with an ancient non-scientific hypothesis is pretty sad.

Any science based hypothesis is better than magic. You do not get to shoehorn the supernatural in merely because of your own incredulity and the desire to fill a gap in knowledge and you most certainly do not get to tear down Evolution because some aspects of abiogenesis are as yet unexplained.

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/d664364ee707.jpg[/atsimg]

By their very definition, it's evident that they don't require eachother to be valid.

Evolution can't exist without abiogenesis? This is the growing sentiment here?

Back to the house analogy, a house can't exist unless we have a concrete and absolute understanding of the origin of carbon.

Originally posted by MrXYZ
By their very definition, it's evident that they don't require eachother to be valid.

Do your really believe that MrXYZ?

Wowee!!

So how did evolution got it's start then (just to repeat the question)?

ciao,
edmc2

reply to post by edmc^2

So how did evolution got it's start then (just to repeat the question)?

Maybe it was started by God. You can believe that if you want. How exactly does it make evolution invalid? Ever heard of theistic evolution?

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
reply to post by edmc^2

 

...my question is pertinent to the title. I'm asking for a situation which shows that abiogenesis cannot be separated from evolution. I'm asking for a situation where the polar opposite of abiogenesis would prove evolution false. If the polar opposite of abiogenesis proved evolution false then abiogenesis cannot be separated from evolution.

Now, please show me how evolution would be proven false if abiogenesis were false. You keep saying that evolution requires abiogenesis...but you're just using false analogies.

edit on 27/1/11 by madnessinmysoul because: Added request at end.

madness - do you agree with me that time and "chance" or I should say "unguided process" is the biggest if not the prime ingredient/motivator of abiogenesis/organic evolution?

Without it life cannot and will not exist - per theory of "abiogevo" - (new word coined)? Correct?

just askin.


ty,
edmc2

reply to post by edmc^2
Just to be clear, what exactly is Creationism. Unless its an idea revolving around perpetual and infinite life, how is abiogenesis not synonymous with Creationism?

Originally posted by Maslo
reply to post by edmc^2

 

So how did evolution got it's start then (just to repeat the question)?

Maybe it was started by God. You can believe that if you want. How exactly does it make evolution invalid? Ever heard of theistic evolution?

Again, let me use uva's analogy:

"Back to the house analogy, a house can't exist unless we have a concrete and absolute understanding of the origin of carbon."

So what is the foundation of organic evolution?

It's a very simple question, and the answer is so obvious - but for the life of me why can't you see it?

As for "theistic evolution" - of course I'm very aware of that - Dr. Ken Miller (who is a Catholic) is one of the proponents of this theory - which I totally reject (for it makes a mockery of the Creator - as if he is incapable of creating a perfect being).

So to repeat: what is the foundation of organic evolution?


ty,
edmc2

Originally posted by edmc^2

Originally posted by MrXYZ
By their very definition, it's evident that they don't require eachother to be valid.

Do your really believe that MrXYZ?

Wowee!!

So how did evolution got it's start then (just to repeat the question)?

ciao,
edmc2

Honest answer: We don't know for sure.

Not that this would invalidate the theory of evolution in any way

reply to post by edmc^2

As for "theistic evolution" - of course I'm very aware of that - Dr. Ken Miller (who is a Catholic) is one of the proponents of this theory - which I totally reject (for it makes a mockery of the Creator - as if he is incapable of creating a perfect being).

So to repeat: what is the foundation of organic evolution?

Than you should really hate the Bible because God's creation in the Bible is anything but perfect (Adam and Eve, Lucifer, the Tower of Babel, etc etc, time and time again God loses control of his imperfect creation). Obviously God is incapable of creating something that is perfect or at the very least its a hit and miss process. You clearly wouldn't argue that nature is perfect currently would you?

As for the "foundation of organic evolution" I'm curious if you've ever heard of something called DNA and genetics because those are the foundations of organic evolution.

Than you should really hate the Bible because God's creation in the Bible is anything but perfect (Adam and Eve, Lucifer, the Tower of Babel, etc etc, time and time again God loses control of his imperfect creation). Obviously God is incapable of creating something that is perfect or at the very least its a hit and miss process. You clearly wouldn't argue that nature is perfect currently would you?

Why should I hate the Bible? - there's no reason for it.

As for the conditions of the world and us - that is, why things the way they are, you hit the nail on the head. The key word in understanding - why, is on this word "CURRENTLY". I would like to explain but that's derailing the topic and don't want to do that to the op. Besides it belongs to a different forum or thread (which I will be creating soon)

As for the "foundation of organic evolution" I'm curious if you've ever heard of something called DNA and genetics because those are the foundations of organic evolution.

edit on 27-1-2011 by Titen-Sxull because: (no reason given)

Now you and MrXYZ are so close in linking the two theory, just a little bit more. And on that let me please help you:

Do you agree that the "organic evolution theory" is founded on the "abiogensis theory"? That is - they are link together, one cannot exist without the other?

Yes/No?

ciao,
edmc2

Originally posted by edmc^2
So to repeat: what is the foundation of organic evolution?

Quoting Brock Biology of Microorganisms (this is called Subsurface Origin Hypothesis, imo most likely explanation so far):

An alternative hypothesis is that life originated at hydrothermal springs on the ocean floor, well below Earth's surface, where conditions would have been much less hostile and more stable. A steady and abundant supply of energy in the form of reduced inorganic compounds, for example, H2 and H2S, may have been available at these spring sites. When this very warm (90-100 C), alkaline, hydrothermal water flowed up through the crust and mixed with the cooler, slightly acidic, iron-containing, more oxidized oceanic waters, precipitates of colloidal pyrite (FeS), silicates, carbonates, and magnesium-containing montmorillonite clays formed. These precipitates built up into structured mounds of gel-like adsorptive surfaces containing pore-filled semipermeable enclosures. The surfaces and pores were rich in minerals such as Fe, and Ni sulfides, which catalyzed formation of amino acids, simple peptides, sugars and nitrogenous bases and trapped and concentrated these compounds. With phosphate from seawater, nucleotides such as AMP and ATP were formed, with their polymerization into RNA catalyzed by montmorillonite clay, which has been shown to catalyze various chemical reactions. The flow of reduced inorganic compounds from the crust provided steady sources of electrons for this prebiotic chemistry, which was fed from ocean water by carbon dioxide, phosphate, iron, and other minerals. It was powered by redox and pH gradients developed across the semipermeable FeS membrane-like surfaces, providing a prebiotic proton motive force.

That set the stage for RNA World, for which we see a lot of evidence in all life even today.


What goes for origin of eukaryotes and the nucleus. The nucleus came about most likely via autogenesis (meaning a cell generated it). There's a bacterial phylum called planctomycetes. It might be the deepest branching of all bacterial phyla. All so far discovered planctomycetes have compartmentalized cell structure (like eukaryotes) and some species have pretty much exactly what we call a nucleus, where as other species have much more simple intracytoplasmic membranes. Also some planctomycetes have ether-linked lipids in their cell walls, something that was not long ago thought to occur only in archaea.

ps. You didn't ask this:

Do you agree that the "organic evolution theory" is founded on the "abiogensis theory"? That is - they are link together, one cannot exist without the other?

Yes/No?

from me. But the answer is that they can exist without the other. For example a single cell could have popped into our Universe from a parallel Universe and then evolution took over.

reply to post by rhinoceros


That's just one version of the "abiogenesis theory"

Here's some more if you're interested.

The deep sea vent theory
Fox's experiments.
Eigen's hypothesis
Hoffmann's contributions
Wächtershäuser's hypothesis
Radioactive beach hypothesis

Bottom line - The Organic Evolution Theory is founded on the Abiogenesis Theory - do you agree?

Unless - you believe that it's founded on the "Exogenesis Theory"? Which just kicks bucket on to another location - space and time that is.

ciao,
edmc2

Originally posted by edmc^2

Bottom line - The Organic Evolution Theory is founded on the Abiogenesis Theory - do you agree?

No, I still do not agree. Evolution is what happens when you've got living things. It makes no difference to this phenomenon how the living thing(s) came about in the first place. It's like if you've got an object 10 m off the ground. It'll fall. It doesn't matter how the object got there in the first place.

reply to post by edmc^2

Originally posted by edmc^2
madness - do you agree with me that time and "chance" or I should say "unguided process" is the biggest if not the prime ingredient/motivator of abiogenesis/organic evolution?

You cannot equate abiogenesis and evolution like that. And no, chance is not the primary motivator of evolution. It is really only a minor part of it. Chance dictates mutation and mutation alone in evolution, the rest is a non-random process of natural and sexual selection. Time merely allows for more complexity to arise.

As for abiogenesis, the primary factor there would be the ingredients and the reactive properties of thsoe chemical ingredients. Time and the quantities of those ingredients increase the probability of it happening, but it isn't founded in chance.

Without it life cannot and will not exist - per theory of "abiogevo" - (new word coined)? Correct?

Um...no, not a new word. And no.

reply to post by edmc^2


That was a non-sequitur. Your conclusion didn't come from your premises. How is evolution founded in abiogenesis? You keep saying it's the 'bottom line' but you've not demonstrated how it is founded in abiogenesis. In fact, evolutionary theory came about prior to abiogenesis. Hell, it preceded genetics.

And my challenge still stands: Please demonstrate how a supernatural cause for the origin of life would show that evolution is false.

Originally posted by edmc^2
reply to post by rhinoceros

 

Bottom line - The Organic Evolution Theory is founded on the Abiogenesis Theory - do you agree?

Not sure I even understand the statement, or what you are trying to get it. If you are trying to suggest without life originating, there would be no life to evolve, therefore a theory of evolution would have never been created, then that is simplistic to the point of being absurd. But no where in in the history of evolutionary theory has it been expressed that evolution is contingent on abiogenesis, two entirely different branches of science.

Evolution relies on the fact that organisms have a drive to reproduce and grow exponentially in ideal conditions, but ultimately all organisms are constrained to how they relate to one another, as well as how they relate to the environment. Hence survival of the fittest, and shifting of a population's gene pool based on how these different factors interact.

Abiogenesis at no point enters into the equation

reply to post by uva3021


I know and pretty much everyone know as you stated that

“Evolution relies on the fact that organisms have a drive to reproduce and grow…”.

But my going back to my q, it’s a very simple question – 'just want to know where or what was the organic evolution theory was founded on? What’s so hard about this specific question? I’m not asking if it’s contingent here/there.

If it’s not abiogenesis then so be it. If nothing then so be it. If it has no beginning, that is, it just came to be then so be it. If the theory has no foundation then so be it. If the theory is exclusive then so be it. That’s all I want to know.

But if it is – then at least explain how did it come to be? This new mystery:

Organic Evolution without a foundation – how did it happen?

And if you’re really convince that the Organic Evolution Theory has no foundation then please let me know if the video below made by the late Dr. Carl Sagan is all wet. That he got it ALL WRONG – specifically/especially the beginning of the video. This way, I can inform the evolution expert who confirmed its accuracy that he and Dr. Sagan are both wet – no idea of what they talking about. And maybe not use it in future per your expert advice.



BTW, I also verified the accuracy of video against the statements made by other evolutionist and it also matches the statements made in Wiki quoted in the OP.

Anyway so as not to confuse you more – let me rephrase the question:

All I want to know is: what was there before organic evolution took over?

I hope these clear things up further – if not please let me know and I’ll use pictures next time. OK?

Ciao,
edmc2

Originally posted by Blue_Jay33
reply to post by Maslo

 

Just how many scientific "theories" are we going to stack together and use them for a basis of reality?

This quote indicates your misunderstanding of the term 'theory' in a scientific context. In colloquial speech a theory is basically a guess; however, in the scientific community a theory is an explanation of the world based on testable hypotheses. Evolution is a theory in the same way as germ theory and gravitation theory.

It should also be noted here that it's also incorrect to say that evolution isn't fact. In a scientific context a fact is defined as a "verified empirical observation" and in a colloquial context a fact is defined as anything with overwhelming evidence. Therefore, evolution can be classified as a 'fact' in both senses of the term. In scientific context it can be called a 'fact' for the same reason gravity can; because it's an observable process. In colloquial context it could be called a 'fact' due to the theory's well established nature.

Finally you should note that it is incorrect to say the theory is 'unproven' as proof is only possible in formal sciences, such as math. In natural sciences 'validated' or 'corroborated' are the correct terms, so in this sense evolutionary theory is proven.