abioGenesis hypothesis: scientific or just a silly idea? What say you?

Originally posted by edmc^2
Once again I invoke your evolution "high priest" erm I mean Prof. Pz Myers.

Life is chemistry Category: Evolution • Science Posted on: January 27, 2006 11:46 AM, by PZ Myers

Sometimes creationists say things like, "Evolution doesn't explain the origins of life!" The common reply is that that's the domain of abiogenesis, not evolution, with the implied suggestion that the creationist should go away and quit bugging us.

That's a cop-out. I'm going to be somewhat heretical, and suggest that abiogenesis as the study of chemical evolution is a natural subset of evolutionary theory, and that we should own up to it. It's natural processes all the way back, baby, no miracles required.

Did you not read the very last line? It's natural processes all the way back, no miracles required. He's basically saying that abiogenesis has come far enough that it will soon be considered part of the theory of evolution. Again, it's still a hypothesis, but has evidence behind it, it just needs to do a little more. It has evolved beyond a silly idea. Originally it seemed that way, but more experiments are being done to confirm it.

Originally posted by edmc^2
reply to post by HappyBunny

 

To say "I don't know" is the ONLY logical answer. It's not a circular argument. "

Of course it's circular argument because it's already been proven time and time again and again experiment after experiment that you can only produce life from existing life.

No it hasn't been proven. It hasn't been disproven, either. Where did you ever get that idea?

The opposite is also proven true that you can't produce life from inanimate things.

Negative proof.

One or the other has to be true.

By saying "I don't know" is the ONLY logical answer." - is ignoring the established and well recognized scientific fact!

No, it's not. The reason you think that way is because you are an extremist--everything must be one extreme or the other. You can't understand how anyone could admit they don't know something, or take anything but a polarizing position. It's your nature to think that way and you project that onto everyone else.

Even if you remove God from the equation and just stick with science - the truth remains that life will only come from life and that you can never produce life from dead - non living inanimate matter!

Nope, this has not been proven.

And logic dictates that when someone keeps doing the same thing over and over again expecting a different result is NOT only STUPIDITY but INSANITY. You're spinning your wheel in circular motion in the hopes that a different answer will present itself.

Wrong again. This is why a theory can NEVER be proven to be positively true with 100% certainty: because all it takes is ONE experiment to prove it wrong. As Einstein said, "No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right; a single experiment can prove me wrong."


Here's another you said:

False dichotomy and god of the gaps (appeal to ignorance). First, even if abiogensis is false (unlikely) doesn't automatically mean creationism is true. Second, just because we don't know for sure doesn't mean you can use that as evidence for the existence of God.

So you think that its "likely" abiogensis is true thus automatically making "creationism" false?

Is that what I said? No, it isn't. You're creating another false dichotomy and trying to set up a strawman in the process. A false dichotomy is when you consider only two options, and say that one must be true and one must be false. If one is false, the other one must automatically be true.

Yet you admit "You don't know if life can arise from non-life.

And at the same time admit that "you don't know if life comes only from life"

So which one is it then in your circular argument?

If abiogenesis is "UNLIKELY FALSE" - can life arise from non-life then?

What say in your circular argument?[j/quote]

You need to look up the following definitions, because you don't have a damned clue how to argue:

False dichotomy--this is the third one you're presented just in this post
God of the gaps
Strawman
Circular argument

What's circular is you posting Bible quotes and using that as "evidence", which it is not.

How's that a circular argument when I merely stated the fact that the universe had a beginning both scientifically and scripturally?

Your proposition that the Bible is true doesn't meet the requirement of proving the statement. You can't use the Bible as evidence for your conclusion, in other words.

Why, do you not also believe that the universe had a beginning or is this also another "IDON'TKNOW"?

Maybe it didn't. Did ever consider that possibility?

Originally posted by squiz
1) DNA contains prescriptive information.

2) The only known source for this type of information stems from a mind.

3) Therefore DNA has been encrypted by a mind.

You do realize that's a logical fallacy, right? You are taking what science does not know and connecting it via philosophy aka YOUR PERSONAL OPINION. Statement #2 and therefor #3 are pure guesses. Just because we don't know exactly WHERE it came from, doesn't mean it automatically came from an intelligent mind, or that it started out as complex as it is. You are making multiple assumptions by making this statement, none of which is actually based on science.

It's simple logic. The burden of proof rests on the materialists to show how natural forces can develop a language otherwise it's just a belief or opinion.

And what exactly do you think the hypothesis of abiogenesis is? Science is trying to find the answers. You seem angry because they haven't definitively answered it yet, but again, you are essentially using god of the gaps. Science doesn't know exactly how DNA formed, YET. Therefor it had to be intelligence. Please stop it. DNA is not computer code or code that is organized in any form resembling a language. It looks like random generated numbers, not indicative at all of an intelligent language. Sorry. We interpret it as a code because it's easier to analyze, but the "code" itself is nothing more than paired atoms.

it simply seems apparent that consciousness needs to be put into the picture. This is a problem for materialism and one that can't be resolved in that framework I believe.

How is it a problem for naturalistic explanations? How can you assume that consciousness is not a function of the brain, which has been slowly evolving over millions of years? Again, you can't go back to ID without making a multitude of assumptions, this being a big one of them. It is nothing more than god of the gaps. "You can't explain consciousness, so we must have been designed." It's illogical to assume that.

reply to post by squiz


Fair enough squiz. Thanks for the video.

The way I see it science is simply saying, we know that life evolved and understand quite a bit about the process, but we don't know how it began. So there is a barrier there whether we like it or not.

I think Dawkins gets a bit of a bad wrap sometimes. I don't always agree with his methods, but I don't mind him. It looks at times like the fundamentalists might have affected him, possibly sent him a bit rabid. There should never be a problem raising genuine objection or questioning science, or thinking outside of the box, it should be encouraged. Though dismissing or trying to discredit it simply with a motive of bolstering some unfounded archaic religious belief is a different thing IMO. Especially when these beliefs are taught to young people as truth. In this much I agree with Dawkins.

I also agree that to understand the hard problem of consciousness might require a different approach. There does seem a point where physical explanations aren't enough. Some of the blogs and articles I have read about it look promising, even if most of it is philosophy based. I have confidence science will adapt to overcome this and one day will understand a lot more about both consciousness and the origins of life. Possibly with some great surprises along the way.

Perhaps we will find intelligence of sorts is inherent in the universe, or in matter itself (or at least potentially so). Though I don't really know. Even if this were possible, I still think it will be something that refines science and furthers our understanding rather than makes it obsolete. A natural force or process, rather than a supernatural deity that makes bizarre rules, rewards and punishes people etc (IMO).

Perhaps there will be to biological science, what Einsteins theories were to a new understanding of physics. Perhaps none of this will happen. I guess we'll see. Though if we sit back and say god did it, we have no hope of ever knowing.

Originally posted by Barcs

Originally posted by edmc^2
Once again I invoke your evolution "high priest" erm I mean Prof. Pz Myers.

Life is chemistry Category: Evolution • Science Posted on: January 27, 2006 11:46 AM, by PZ Myers

Sometimes creationists say things like, "Evolution doesn't explain the origins of life!" The common reply is that that's the domain of abiogenesis, not evolution, with the implied suggestion that the creationist should go away and quit bugging us.

That's a cop-out. I'm going to be somewhat heretical, and suggest that abiogenesis as the study of chemical evolution is a natural subset of evolutionary theory, and that we should own up to it. It's natural processes all the way back, baby, no miracles required.

Did you not read the very last line? It's natural processes all the way back, no miracles required. He's basically saying that abiogenesis has come far enough that it will soon be considered part of the theory of evolution. Again, it's still a hypothesis, but has evidence behind it, it just needs to do a little more. It has evolved beyond a silly idea. Originally it seemed that way, but more experiments are being done to confirm it.

edit on 25-6-2012 by Barcs because: (no reason given)

Of course I read it and is basically my point - abiogenesis is part or as Prof. Myers said "subset of evolutionary theory" - it's a continuation of the theory.

That's all I'm getting at. I don't separate the two just like Prof. Myers said:

That's a cop-out. I'm going to be somewhat heretical, and suggest that abiogenesis as the study of chemical evolution is a natural subset of evolutionary theory, and that we should own up to it. It's natural processes all the way back, baby, no miracles required.

You agree?

reply to post by Cogito, Ergo Sum

The point of contention is with the inference that the theory evolution is false, because we don't know how life began. That isn't true.

No - it's NOT all false because there are aspects of the theory that are naturally occurring - like adaptivity.

Since the theory incorporated this one aspect of Nature thus I can't say it's false.

What I believe to be FALSE is the claim that:

Life arose from non-living materials by chance events, without guidance and that beyond all probabilities certain types of chemicals somehow got together and formed the first living cell, then somehow replicated itself to form other parts of the cells and construct it's own membrane and body and then have the ability to change its allele through mutations so that natural selection will commence. Then come up somehow with the ability to produce both sexes - male and female in order to propagate life while at the same time continue the evolution process - on and on.

Yet ignoring or glossing the fact that the Origin Of Life is still an unproven hypothesis.

And that's exactly my point - you see I'm of the logical mindset that if a structure, a building has a weak foundation or no foundation at all that structure is intrinsically flawed and is doomed to fail. It will collapse on itself.

The same principle applies to any theory. In fact to me - it's more insidious to build a theory without a solid foundation because it is open to wild imaginations, manipulations, misinterpretations of the data in order to make it conform to the theory.

It's analogous to forming a theory on what a movie is all about after missing two thirds of the film.

Like you said:

No doubt they are related, common sense tells us life could not have evolved if it didn't first begin. Yet it also couldn't have begun if the planet didn't exist, if the solar system didn't form, if there was no universe to begin with and so on.

The theory of evolution doesn't explain these preceding events either. That is what the various respective hypotheses and theories concerning accretion, big bang, cosmology etc attempt to do. What the abiogenesis hypothesis also attempts to do, explain a related and preceding event ie. how life formed.

Without knowing the most important aspect of the theory - its very foundation, the origin of life - the theory is just pure speculation and interpretation masquerading as science.

And no it's not:

The same way that our knowledge in medicine, neuroscience etc ...

Because "our knowledge in medicine, neuroscience etc" are well established and have solid foundations while abioGenesis is just a hypothesis - based on very flawed philosophy and sadly a perpetual I DON'T KNOW pov.

And since evolution theory is intrinsically related to abiogenesis hypothesis, thus to me the theory is foundationless - might as well say the theory itself is an "adult fairy tail" the same way as most evolutionist view God - the Creator of Life.

But to me - an Intelligent Creator - Special Creation is the obvious explanation to the Origin Of Life.

For it can easily explain things that are beyond the reach of science and does NOT violate scientific principles like:

Life from life
"Big Bang Theory"
Intelligent Design of Nature
Information present in Nature
Order in the Universe / Fine Tuned Universe
Purposeful Design in the Universe
Most of ALL - CONSCIOUSNESS - why we are what we are

And many other phenomena beyond the realms of materialistic sciences.

But like I said - if you're comfortable and satisfied with the theory of evolution then more power to you because to me it takes more faith to accept what "YOU don't know".

ciao.

reply to post by Cogito, Ergo Sum


Just wanted to thank you for your attitude, it's very refreshing to see over the empty rants. It is an argument that affects people like no other that's certain. When people start casting science the way they see it or want it to say, it becomes a weapon of ignorance.
Some humility is required I think as well. Thanks.

Evidence of design, the chicken and the egg? It CO-EVOLVED!

A new study proposes that proteins evolved much earlier than previously suspected, casting doubt on the hypothesis of ribosomal origins.


Since the 1970s, biologists have believed that ribosomes—the molecular machinery responsible for protein synthesis—evolved from primitive RNA structures. In this RNA world hypothesis, proteins and DNA developed after the ribosome’s RNA components.

But now, a new paper published March 12 in PLoS ONE by scientists at the University of Illinois and Lund University in Sweden is challenging this view. In the study, researchers found evidence that proteins co-evolved with each ribosomal subunit as the modern ribosome developed.

www.biotechniques.com...


Not random, No natural selection, It didn't exist before the first replicating cell. The only possible way for irriducably complex systems to come about is by co-evolving! . A win for the ID argument.

The answer to your query has been established already! Cyberneticist and geneticist are cloning via culture the perfect brain cell for use in robots that have already shown the capacity to evolve and their evolution includes the non living robotic structures the brain cells are controlling. These realities are still publicly available for review, but I see censorship starting to occur in the more advanced projects.

reply to post by squiz
Yes, we all know simultaneous molecular interactions imply Intelligent Design, rather than the laws of chemistry.

Evolution has been debunked!!!

reply to post by edmc^2


You can say it didn't happen.....yet here we are..... The product an evolutionary process, the theory of which seems so well supported at this stage that there is really no other option open to us. So much so, it is considered a common fact. All that we do know directly, pointing to life arising naturally, no real reason to suppose any deities have ever existed.

Using your analogy, construction work is yet to begin on the foundations of your building.

I don't agree that any of your points necessitate a creator. At best they can only assume a creator, yet one that has no known existence.

Though I think your last one has the possibility of being stranger than we can imagine. Once we really begin to understand it. The fact that matter can arrange itself to become conscious, self aware, cognizant etc. to the point of even being able to understand its own origins, is a mysterious thing. This opens the possibility IMO of some force or process that we don't yet know about. I know there are people working on this from the pov of dualism, even though this seems the more unlikely scenario. Whatever is found this way will no doubt stand or fall on its own merits.

I am open to possibilities, though only if they can be substantiated. Without really knowing, I have doubts that we will ever find anything that exists outside of nature, yet able to suspend the natural order on a whim. As in the god of myth. If there is a god, it will be a version of Spinoza's god IMO. Something within nature we haven't understood yet.

reply to post by LaEuro


Whoa! Sounds interesting any links?

As for the other comment.
It's more than molecular interactions, as in cybernetics its an information exchange system, Information is non physical. The origin of life is more than chemistry, it is cybernetic and it is about the origin of information.

reply to post by uva3021


Also the odds of creating a simple protein under a random search function have been tested, the number is astronomically high beyond reason.. Now we have to accept that RNA emerged simultaneously.

Proof is a strong word I shouldn't have used though. The study it's just looking at possible timelines. But it's no surprise here. Certainly should be surprising in a blind and purposeless unexplained process, there's no natural selection until you get the first replicating cell and you just may need about least 80 to 250 genes to get to the first cell. This is way beyond the capabililty for random process. A functional protein is beyond it's reach.

Don't forget what this is about. Nano technology we can only aspire to. I've no idea how anyone can believe this was by chance. But each to thier own. Nice chatting.

Originally posted by squiz
reply to post by LaEuro

 

Whoa! Sounds interesting any links?

As for the other comment.
It's more than molecular interactions, as in cybernetics its an information exchange system, Information is non physical. The origin of life is more than chemistry, it is cybernetic and it is about the origin of information.

How can you claim that genetic information is not physical? What is DNA made out of? All physical components, even the "code" itself is pairs of physical atoms. People keep trying to apply information theory to DNA, when it's not a computer code and doesn't even remotely resemble one.

Originally posted by Cogito, Ergo Sum
reply to post by edmc^2

 

You can say it didn't happen.....yet here we are.....

I think this is THE hardest thing for creationists to grasp, that "statistically improbable" does not equal "impossible." Seemingly statistically impossible things happen every second of every day. My favorite example is a license plate. There are 47 million registered vehicles in the US. What are the odds that at any given moment, or even in a single day, you'd see a license plate that read "PA ABC 1234". It's astronomical...yet it happened.

If they insist that life arising by chance is impossible due to statistical improbability, then they have to admit that a Creator is at least as unlikely.

I'm waiting for one of them to trot out Hoyle's Fallacy...

Originally posted by squiz
Evidence of design, the chicken and the egg? It CO-EVOLVED!

A new study proposes that proteins evolved much earlier than previously suspected, casting doubt on the hypothesis of ribosomal origins.


Since the 1970s, biologists have believed that ribosomes—the molecular machinery responsible for protein synthesis—evolved from primitive RNA structures. In this RNA world hypothesis, proteins and DNA developed after the ribosome’s RNA components.

But now, a new paper published March 12 in PLoS ONE by scientists at the University of Illinois and Lund University in Sweden is challenging this view. In the study, researchers found evidence that proteins co-evolved with each ribosomal subunit as the modern ribosome developed.

www.biotechniques.com...


Not random, No natural selection, It didn't exist before the first replicating cell. The only possible way for irriducably complex systems to come about is by co-evolving! . A win for the ID argument.

There's no such thing as irreducibly complex. A loss for the ID argument--it hasn't held up in peer review and it hasn't held up in the courts.

Please do yourself a favor and stop reading Behe.

reply to post by HappyBunny


Actually that's not true.

One lone judge dictates science now is that how it works?

You can read the transcriptions from the court case, A microbiologist testified that genetic knockout tests show the flagellum to be by defintition to be irriducably complex.

Do you want to see it?

The judge ignored experimental evidence in favour of ken millers "story" how the TSIII system was a predecessor.

There's many problems with this.

1) it' since been proven not true! it's not a predecessor.
2) it's a subsystem that has nothing to do with the mobility system.
3) even if it were, it's one tiny step in what must contain many many steps. No need because of the above.

This is another lie, the DNA, RNA, Protein problem IS a irriducably complex arrangement! that's why it's called a chicken and egg problem. There a hundreds of these types of things. From molecular, to the systems of the human body to the eco system itself.

It's not been refuted in any scientific way at all. In fact many don't seem too really get the argument to well. Surgeons generally do.

Originally posted by Barcs
How can you claim that genetic information is not physical? What is DNA made out of? All physical components, even the "code" itself is pairs of physical atoms. People keep trying to apply information theory to DNA, when it's not a computer code and doesn't even remotely resemble one.

There are different types of information, it's a science onto itself. The "people" that keep trying to apply it are information scientists. Stanley Krick has commented on this, Jack Szostak has commented. It's a fact not an idea.

Watch the video above, and listen to the terminology they use "This is where the genetic information becomes flesh and blood". What was it before? it was encoded. Prescriptive information is encoded into matter it is not the matter itself.

"One mutation, one part knock out, it can't swim. Put that single gene back in we restore motility. Same thing over here. We put, knock out one part, put a good copy of the gene back in, and they can swim. By definition the system is irreducibly complex. We've done that with all 35 components of the flagellum, and we get the same effect." (Scott Minnich Testimony, Day 20, pm session, pg. 107-108.)

Originally posted by squiz
"One mutation, one part knock out, it can't swim. Put that single gene back in we restore motility. Same thing over here. We put, knock out one part, put a good copy of the gene back in, and they can swim. By definition the system is irreducibly complex. We've done that with all 35 components of the flagellum, and we get the same effect." (Scott Minnich Testimony, Day 20, pm session, pg. 107-108.)

Response:

"Professor Behe’s concept of irreducible complexity depends on ignoring ways in which evolution is known to occur. Although Professor Behe is adamant in his definition of irreducible complexity when he says a precursor 'missing a part is by definition nonfunctional,' what he obviously means is that it will not function in the same way the system functions when all the parts are present. For example in the case of the bacterial flagellum, removal of a part may prevent it from acting as a rotary motor. However, Professor Behe excludes, by definition, the possibility that a precursor to the bacterial flagellum functioned not as a rotary motor, but in some other way, for example as a secretory system."

Jones ruling, page 74

Another example of this is feathers on birds. They weren't originally used for flight. They were used for thermoregulation.

Irreducible complexity is at best a negative argument against evolution. Even if it were true (which it isn't), it STILL wouldn't be proof of creation, something that even Minnich concedes. Minnich says that in order to ID to become a valid scientific discipline, we'd have to make room for supernatural explanations.