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

reply to post by Barcs


Experimentation by Pasteur (and others) have eliminated abiogenesis. The other experiments, with sources provided and referenced by you and others, contain words such as "could," "might," " possible," and "suggests." In addition, there is doubt any type of replication has been performed as any follow up (not surprising, since the result itself was inconclusive. Why try to replicate an inconclusive result?)

The experiments I refer to stand on their own merit and are conclusive with zero ambiguity.

In the meantime, the original two questions remain. However, I will reduce it to just one.

1) What papers provided by squidz are contradictory to his stated position?

reply to post by radix


Of course, the impetus for a fertilized egg growing to an adult is the fertilization. Further, the expenditure of the cock in the fertilization of the hen, results in a "coffin nail," for the cock; the laying of the egg by the hen results in a "coffin nail," for the hen, and the breaking of the egg shell results in a "coffin nail," for the chick.

And again, your argument of a fertilized egg is bringing a variable of existing life into the field of abiogenesis, which is the concept of:

NO LIFE to LIFE.

The example is incorrect. Now, if you can provide an example of what, why, and how anything lifeless resulted in something full of life, then we have something.

So, back to the question. Entropy, which is

the thermodynamic property toward equilibrium/average/homogenization/dissipation

.

Further, most measurements and results, even in current abiogenesis experimentation, are taken at a steady-state. Is the universe an example of a steady-state system?

reply to post by totallackey

Of course, the impetus for a fertilized egg growing to an adult is the fertilization.

I see. So if you have an impetus, thermodynamics no longer apply? How does that work and how long does the impetus last after the fertilization? Can you get an impetus any other way than by fertilization?

reply to post by radix


As far as I am aware, the only known way (i.e., impetus) an egg can grow to a full adult is fertilization. I do not know of any other way. The whole reply explains it within the context of entropy. Without further energy being introduced, the system or entity degrades.

Besides, you have introduced an example of life from life into a discussion centered on life from non-life.

Let us stay on topic. The topic is abiogenesis. Argumentation assuming intelligent design has been decried as being fallacious because it assumes facts not in evidence. Well, one thing agreed upon by all (as far as I know) is at one point there was no life. Any argumentation based on any example where life was pre-existent would be fallacious.

reply to post by totallackey

Experimentation by Pasteur (and others) have eliminated abiogenesis. The other experiments, with sources provided and referenced by you and others, contain words such as "could," "might," " possible," and "suggests." In addition, there is doubt any type of replication has been performed as any follow up (not surprising, since the result itself was inconclusive. Why try to replicate an inconclusive result?)

The experiments I refer to stand on their own merit and are conclusive with zero ambiguity.

Oh dear. This was your evidence that science has conclusively eliminated abiogenesis? No wonder getting you to present it was like pulling teeth. It all makes sense now.

The experiments by Redi, Spallanzano and Pasteur were performed to expel an ancient superstition that fully formed bugs, maggots and even mice could simply appear out of nowhere if you left food or dirty linen lying around. The suggestion that this constitutes proof against abiogenesis is one of the most tired creationist canards in circulation. If you ever need an example of a straw man argument, this would serve as an almost overpowering illustration. By claiming that the abiogenesis hypotheses proposed are equivalent to aristotelian spontaneous generation you're insulting the scientists in the field and embarrassing yourself.

reply to post by totallackey

As far as I am aware, the only known way (i.e., impetus) an egg can grow to a full adult is fertilization. I do not know of any other way. The whole reply explains it within the context of entropy. Without further energy being introduced, the system or entity degrades.

I think you may be on to something here.

reply to post by radix

By claiming that the abiogenesis hypotheses proposed are equivalent to aristotelian spontaneous generation you're insulting the scientists in the field and embarrassing yourself.

While I appreciate your response, it must be stated I have no reason to believe any current view of abiogenesis differs substantially from that proposed by Aristotle. I have yet to read anything suggesting the concept in any other form, whether it is in some ancient manuscript or modern scientific journal. If this makes me ignorant, then so be it. It will not be the first time I have been ignorant and being proved ignorant does not cause me embarrassment. Never has and never will.

Further, it is not my intent to insult anyone. I apologize to all persons I have insulted. I am done with that.

Originally posted by totallackey
Experimentation by Pasteur (and others) have eliminated abiogenesis.

So show me this instead of babbling about it! I've been asking you for 7+ pages to post the experiments and conclusions that agree with you. Thus far you haven't. Show me the experiments that have conclusively ruled it out. It can't be that difficult if what you say is true. An inconclusive experiment is not the same as a conclusive one, which you are claiming has been produced that rules out abiogenesis. Why are you so scared to actually do some research. I'm just trying to keep people honest, but I swear they take it personally.

Good post, Radix! I'm glad you were aware of that argument already, you saved me some of time looking up and figuring out what this guy is talking about. Correct, that organisms spawning out of nothing has been ruled out. Abiogenesis is about studying the chemical reactions to learn how life could have formed out of the basic building blocks of life.

reply to post by Barcs


I am not babbling about it. Pasteur's experimentation has conclusively demonstrated life cannot arise from non-life.

Pasteur set up two flasks with S-Tubes at the top. Boiled the contents to sterilization point. Broke the top off one, left the top on the other. The one with the broken top experienced microbial formation, while the sterile one (which must have, at one time, been the state of the Earth; i.e., no life) remained lifeless and sterile.

In addition, it is posited simultaneous demonstration may be able to clear up the picture. Well, waiting for the multiple experiments to take place. Let us get on with it...what is the hold up?

1. Cannot agree on the conditions.
2.....

That is right...there is no 2, 3, 4, etc...there is only the one hurdle. And that is, no one can understand or even begin to state what the conditions are to be at the commencement of the experiment. Only conjecture.

Further, I see we are arguing semantics. I apologize. Huxley invented a new word because he needed it.

Originally posted by totallackey

I am not babbling about it. Pasteur's experimentation has conclusively demonstrated life cannot arise from non-life.

So Pasteur demonstrated that any future scientific knowledge in any relevant area that could point to abiogenesis as having any possibility, was wrong? Taking in all conceivable variables, forces or processes (many that were unknown) in the history of our planet? Some experiment that! Wonder why so many scientists are wasting their time?

Either that, or it's misleading creationist horse sh...

I thought it showed that modern life forms (bacteria etc) don't "spontaneously generate". Which seems to have disproved at least one form of creationism.

We know now that these organisms/creatures have a life cycle. I for one am glad that it has been disproved that mice spontaneously generate from wheat, would have been wondering about that for sure.

Unless you can show how it is not only directly relevant to modern abiogenesis research/hypotheses, but conclusively disproves them, it is simply another creationist claim ie. hot air.

Still nothing to show why abiogenesis should be dropped, other than wishful thinking. It's very difficult to prove a negative like this. Even more so when the available facts seem to indicate the likelihood. Fact one - Life on this planet began at some point. Fact two - Neither god, nor any other similar creator, has ever been shown to exist...

reply to post by Cogito, Ergo Sum


So now it is an issue of modern versus old fashioned?

reply to post by totallackey

So now it is an issue of modern versus old fashioned?

No, it's an issue of fully formed insects and rodents just popping into existance versus testable chemical reactions between organic compounds.

It's going to be very hard to take you seriously if you're going to insist that they're one and the same. That's tantamount to accusing an entire field of science of engaging in medieval superstition.

Originally posted by totallackey
reply to post by Cogito, Ergo Sum

 

So now it is an issue of modern versus old fashioned?

No, it's an issue of you being intentionally ignorant of how science works. Spontaneous generation is not the same thing as abiogenesis. This was clearly explained to you but again your dishonesty shines through. Stop trolling. It's pretty obvious.

reply to post by radix

reply to post by Barcs


Any takers on the entropy issue? Again, without bringing steady-state measurements and evolution material into the argument? We are not discussing evolution, neither is the universe a steady-state system.

reply to post by Barcs


Are humans the only things we know of that posses intelligence? And there for the ability to design intelligently?
or are there other animals that can be said to posses intelligence and subsequently create intelligent designs? ( a spider making a spider web, and a beaver making a dam, comes to mind).,,.,..

I have taken the time to examine Barcs participation in this thread. I have some interesting statements made by Barcs that give rise to further questions. Readers and participants can draw their own conclusions.

...while abiogenesis is trying to understand how the FIRST LIFE got here.

This quote should lend credence to the fact I do understand what abiogenesis is and have the definition correct, when I stated here
NO LIFE to LIFE
So your latest ad hom was unnecessary.

Abiogenesis is a work in progress.

Not wanting to assume anything, are you referring to the study of abiogenesis?

Information scientists, really? You do realize that information science DOES NOT play a role in genetics & biology, right? Count the rings of Saturn and the width of each one. That is information...

Probably one of the most difficult statements to interpret. Plus, you contradict your own statement when you write:

The cells REPLICATE IT, they do not ENCODE it like a computer language.

Statement #1 is the only one that holds any weight.

Funny, they call the process you describe as translation:

At the ribosomes, the mRNA is used as a template for assembling a protein molecule from its building blocks (amino acids). This process is called translation.

You see, the cells do the interpreting and the translating. You fail to understand. Your analogy of the rings of Saturn was highly dubious. The rings of Saturn are indeed there, as is DNA; however, the existence of Saturn's rings do not serve as a fundamental basis for more complicated processes or forms (plus the rings pass no information on to other matter), whereas DNA does serve as a fundamental basis for more complicated forms. Since you understand cells continue to replicate the information contained in DNA, and that is the process by which more complicated forms arise, what serves as a basis for you to make such a claim that information science does not belong in the arena of biology or abiogenesis? How can you demonstrate any type of information is passed from one mote of dust in Saturn's rings to another mote of dust in Saturn's rings?

You keep trying to suggest that information theory applies when it does not in any tangible way. It isn't objective.

It seems information can be observed and interpreted objectively. You are not trying to claim a cell would state to the DNA instruction set, "Is that sarcasm?" Are you stating there is no objective when a cell replicates? Besides, science believes otherwise as to whether information theory is a legitimate avenue, as demonstrated here

Information theory is a branch of applied mathematics, electrical engineering, and computer science involving the quantification of information. Information theory was developed by Claude E. Shannon to find fundamental limits on signal processing operations such as compressing data and on reliably storing and communicating data. Since its inception it has broadened to find applications in many other areas, including statistical inference, natural language processing, cryptography generally, networks other than communication networks—as in neurobiology,[1] the evolution[2] and function[3] of molecular codes, model selection[4] in ecology, thermal physics,[5] quantum computing, plagiarism detection[6] and other forms of data analysis.[7]

At least abiogenesis has a few experiments that duplicate parts of the process.

You were asked several times in the thread to provide any research performed conclusively demonstrating the validity of this statement. You have yet to post a single link to any research. The only link I have found in any of your posts is a link to a video here

You should never use absolute terms like "never" and "impossible" when trying to describing what science doesn't yet understand.

You can continue to make attacks about my intelligence and my willingness to discuss this. I am still here.

reply to post by Barcs

No, it's an issue of you being intentionally ignorant of how science works. Spontaneous generation is not the same thing as abiogenesis. This was clearly explained to you but again your dishonesty shines through. Stop trolling. It's pretty obvious.

It appears what is obvious, you do not wish to engage in any questioning or clarification of what are not clearly defined or otherwise ambiguous statements. I have been relatively clear in my statements from the beginning. You have anything to offer to this thread regarding the issue of entropy? Again, please keep in mind the topic is abiogenesis. Argumentation framing the concept/measurements of entropy within a steady-state (which the universe is not) and as applied to evolutionary theory (not within the realm of abiogenesis) are disallowed.

Originally posted by totallackey
It appears what is obvious, you do not wish to engage in any questioning or clarification of what are not clearly defined or otherwise ambiguous statements. I have been relatively clear in my statements from the beginning. You have anything to offer to this thread regarding the issue of entropy? Again, please keep in mind the topic is abiogenesis. Argumentation framing the concept/measurements of entropy within a steady-state (which the universe is not) and as applied to evolutionary theory (not within the realm of abiogenesis) are disallowed.

You can keep talking around the truth but it will get you nowhere.

FACT: Abiogenesis is NOT spontaneous generation
FACT: You said that abiogenesis has been conclusively ruled out, but failed to prove it
FACT: Entropy has nothing to do with abiogenesis

The topic of this thread is abiogenesis, A SCIENTIFIC HYPOTHESIS. You are doing nothing but diverting from it, but you came out in one of your very first posts in this thread saying it was conclusively ruled out. I love to engage these discussions but when people start falsely attacking something with no knowledge about it I call them out. Funny how you took a few isolated sentences amongst paragraphs completely out of context. Well done.

I'll address it later, but reading the first few parts of it shows you didn't understand what I saying.

I haven't once attacked you personally, so please drop that. I've only attacked your false claims. If this insults you, that's too bad, because I'm only trying to defend science and I'm going to call a cat a cat, a dog a dog, and lie a lie. "Abiogenesis has been conclusively ruled out" = a lie.

...while abiogenesis is trying to understand how the FIRST LIFE got here.

First quote from me is half of a sentence, from one month ago, before he even posted in the thread. Edmc was arguing that reproduction was evidence that life could only come from life.

Lackey's response:
"THis quote should lend credence to the fact I do understand what abiogenesis is and have the definition correct, when I stated here"

So explain how my quote shows that YOU understand abiogenesis? Your link goes to a fresh response, you may want to fix that.

Abiogenesis is a work in progress.

Quote #2. I've said this multiple times in the thread so I don't know exactly where this one is from, but it was in a paragraph explaining what a hypothesis is.

Lackey's response to this one?
"Not wanting to assume anything, are you referring to the study of abiogenesis?"

As I clearly stated in the paragraph you took that from, it is a hypothesis. Read about it.

Information scientists, really? You do realize that information science DOES NOT play a role in genetics & biology, right? Count the rings of Saturn and the width of each one. That is information...

Yes, this was arguing that information theory doesn't apply to physical DNA. As intelligent beings, we gather information from all over the place. This information is what information theory applies to, not the physical object that is studied.

Lackey says:
"Probably one of the most difficult statements to interpret. Plus, you contradict your own statement when you write:"

The cells REPLICATE IT, they do not ENCODE it like a computer language.

Statement #1 is the only one that holds any weight.

Ah yes, out of my 5 paragraph essay that I wrote about Squiz's silly "inference". He finds 1 line which refers to Squiz's first statement which says "1. DNA contains a code". I acknowledged that statement as true, however, that is not even close to the same thing as a computer program that uses algorithms and advanced calculations to manipulate digital information. Plus the rest of his inference is pure assumption. You don't look at a DNA molecule through a microscope and see letters of the alphabet. DNA containing a code does not counter cell replication.

Funny, they call the process you describe as translation:

At the ribosomes, the mRNA is used as a template for assembling a protein molecule from its building blocks (amino acids). This process is called translation.

You see, the cells do the interpreting and the translating. You fail to understand.

The process is called translation. That doesn't mean it is a computer program that encodes or translates a digital language. Clearly you are the one not understanding as you are citing sources and using the fallacy of equivocation when describing this.

Your analogy of the rings of Saturn was highly dubious. The rings of Saturn are indeed there, as is DNA; however, the existence of Saturn's rings do not serve as a fundamental basis for more complicated processes or forms (plus the rings pass no information on to other matter)

Saturn's rings would be the by product of the moons, which act like cattle herders rounding up all the loose debris and keeping them in lines based on the type and size of the respective debris. The moons themselves serve as the fundamental basis for more complicated processes, ie the formation and designing of 5 separate rings. The moons and rings also affect gravity and weather on Saturn. Just because the information isn't relevant to you, doesn't mean it's not there. When you analyze DNA you can't read language and code, and you do not see alphabet letters. Those letters / code are assigned to them by us, humans. That is as far as it goes. Similarly with Saturn's rings we can look at each ring and the type of debris contained within. This becomes our information, not the rings themselves.

It seems information can be observed and interpreted objectively. You are not trying to claim a cell would state to the DNA instruction set, "Is that sarcasm?" Are you stating there is no objective when a cell replicates? Besides, science believes otherwise as to whether information theory is a legitimate avenue, as demonstrated

By "objective" evidence, I'm talking about physic tangible evidence; not that it has an objective to complete. Information theory applies to MAN MADE INFORMATION. I'm not saying that it isn't legit. I'm saying it doesn't apply to physical matter like DNA. Yes it can be helpful in organizing the code, but there’s no reason to assume that DNA is non physical.

Now for the funny part. I'm running out of room, so I'll expand to the next post. I tried to keep it in but couldn't.

At least abiogenesis has a few experiments that duplicate parts of the process.

You were asked several times in the thread to provide any research performed conclusively demonstrating the validity of this statement. You have yet to post a single link to any research. The only link I have found in any of your posts is a link to a video here

Another link to nowhere. You really need to work on that.

I haven't been asked to back that up once. The experiments have been posted in here already, if not by me, by one of the other people that knows what they're talking about. Even your hero, Squiz, acknowledged them.

www.wired.com...

Here's an article that references one of them. They were able to get ribonucleotides to spawn from the basic components. Again, I'm not saying this proves abiogenesis, it's just one step in what probably is a long and complicated process to go from primordial soup to RNA and eventually to modern day DNA.

If you wish to counter this, please counter it with science, not semantics about life and non life. Abiogenesis is a hypothesis that is trying to explain how this could happen.

You should never use absolute terms like "never" and "impossible" when trying to describing what science doesn't yet understand.

Was I describing what science doesn't yet understand? You've never heard the phrase, "never say never"? You're getting pretty desperate considering you had to go through many of my posts just to dig up that gem. It really speaks volumes about your intentions here. Look I put a good amount of time into this, so please so me the same respect. If you go back to your original argument and "devolve" this conversation further, I'm not going to bother anymore, but if you are genuinely interested in this, I don't mind discussing it, but it must progress instead of going backwards. ID is red herring in this thread and I've given it more energy than it deserves. Lets stick with science.