Abiogenesis

[liamconnor]

Again, I rarely wander over to the sciences and more rarely set up an argument. Not my forte.

But I recall reading that a famous atheist became a theist (not a Christian) because of the problem of abiogenesis.

Now, as I understand the term, it refers to the theory that life can come from non-life.

In simplistic terms, a rock can, over time, produce (on its own, nothing added to it; the development happens "within") cells.


Question:

Do I understand the term "abiogenesis"?


Based on my (or your corrected version's) definition, has it been reproduced by scientists?

[DrNoGods]

[Replying to post 508 by For_The_Kingdom]

False, Consciousness is not produced by the brain. Consciousness correlates with the brain, just like a remote control correlates with a tv..but the remote doesn't produce the tv, nor does the tv produce the remote.

There is a chicken and egg problem with the brain and consciousness, a problem that the naturalist is unable to resolve.

This is not a problem at all, or a chicken and egg situation. Brains exist at varying levels of complexity in animals that have them (from small and simple brains in worms to large and very complex brains in humans). Consciousness is only possessed by animals with brains, and neuronal activity in the brain is what allows these animals to have awareness and realize this thing called consciousness. Without a sufficiently advanced brain, the animal cannot experience consciousness, and we know this from observation, just like we know that plants are not conscious, or rocks, or waterfalls.

So of the animals that do have consciousness, all have brains. And furthermore, the more advanced the brain the more functions related to "consciousness" exist (eg. ability for symbolic thought, empathy, altruism, etc.). So I agree that consciousness correlates with having a brain, but this is not at all like the TV remote analogy. Brain activity is what allows us to be conscious ... neuronal activity that works with sensory inputs and memory to create awareness. Without a brain carrying out these functions, there would be no consciousness.

A TV remote sends near IR pulses of light to a detector built into the TV that interprets those pulses, and based on the program executing in the microcontroller running the TV and processing the detector signal the volume is increased, the channel changed, etc. It is not a case of the TV "producing the remote" or vice versa. The remote's signal is analogous to light bouncing into your eyes via reflection off of everything around you. Then your brain processes this signal (analogous to the microcontroller running the TV), and takes some action based on the brain's response to the image it has formed from the visual input.

Consciousness is more like (in a crude analogy) the program running in the microcontroller that interprets the remote's light pulses. Except that in a real animal there are many external inputs coming in at once, and varying in time and intensity, etc. The brain gets all of this input and responds depending on its capabilities. In worms with a small and relatively simple brain, the ability to process inputs and formulate responses is limited. In humans these capabilities are orders of magnitude greater. But the ability to be aware and conscious of one's surroundings is purely a function of a working brain that is processing sensory inputs, storing information, recalling information, and piecing it all together to create what we call thoughts, emotions, etc.

Exactly. It is impossible for consciousness to be produced by the brain...at least three problems with the idea that consciousness is produced by brain activity.

1. Chicken/egg problem
2. Intentionality problem
3. Argument from identity

Old and worn out ... more ontological argument type stuff that could be debated forever because it is purely philosophical.

The origin of consciousness is truly a miracle, bruh.

Ah .... resorting to the miracle explanation. Always the easy out.

The consciousness is a separate entity from the brain. They are not the same thing.

Right ... they are not the same thing. One (consciousness) is the result of normal operation of the other (brain). Consciousness is not separate from the brain ... it is a direct result of its operation.

I deem this all irrelevant now. I mean, after all, it is only June 19, 2016..and sentient life has yet to be proven to come from nonliving material. So, if that is the case, what happened in 1952 becomes quite irrelevant, doesn't it?

You are the one who brought up the Miller experiment initially, then claimed repeatedly that its purpose was to create life (demonstrably not true) and so was a failure. So I'll take the above comment as a win on that point at least.

[Clownboat]

Actually, I believe I got the right interpretation of what you said.

Notice readers that For the Kingdom cannot describe a mechanism that MUST be in place in order for small changes to not lead up to large changes.

This is equivalent to believing in seconds, but not hours.

He also does not have a full understanding of evolution because he still thinks it is a process that is being driven to some end goal.
- For the Kingdom said: "So what drove reptiles to evolve into birds? The need to fly? The need to peck? What?"
And: "I asked will a human evolve wings"
And: "what is the mechanism that stops a human from evolving wings?"

There are many here that are trying to get For the Kingdom to have a better understanding of evolution.
For example, McCulloch offered this to which it seems FtK ingnored:
"But there is strong evidence that at one time, long ago, there were fish but no dogs. Fifteen hundred years ago, there were no speakers of English. But both common sense and observation show that everyone who speaks English learned it from someone else who speaks English. Similarly other languages. Greek speakers beget Greek speakers; Latin speakers beget Latin speakers; Hebrew speakers beget Hebrew speakers. No one gets up and says, "I'm going to speak a language that no one else speaks." How does a new language emerge? When everyone speaks a language indistinguishable from whatever language they were taught, how can a new language arise? Was there ever a first person to speak English? Answer those questions and you will understand evolution better."

And his rebuttal to this was...
"The origin of language, in general, is a problem for the naturalist."

(Cut/paste for still being relevant)
Evolution is a fact. We have a theory that explains this fact. You, like anyone else is free to offer up a better theory, but it must be testable and falsifiable.

Do you have a better theory that explains the diversity of life we see now and in the fossil record?
If you don't, perhaps you can complain about the currently accepted and tested theory that has made predictions that have been shown to be true.

[For_The_Kingdom]

This is not a problem at all, or a chicken and egg situation.

Then enlighten me on what comes first, the brain, or the consciousness?

Brains exist at varying levels of complexity in animals that have them (from small and simple brains in worms to large and very complex brains in humans).

Thanks for telling me that, Captain Obvious.

Consciousness is only possessed by animals with brains, and neuronal activity in the brain is what allows these animals to have awareness and realize this thing called consciousness.

And?

Without a sufficiently advanced brain, the animal cannot experience consciousness, and we know this from observation, just like we know that plants are not conscious, or rocks, or waterfalls.

I am talking about the ORIGIN of consciousness.

So of the animals that do have consciousness, all have brains. And furthermore, the more advanced the brain the more functions related to "consciousness" exist (eg. ability for symbolic thought, empathy, altruism, etc.).

And?

So I agree that consciousness correlates with having a brain, but this is not at all like the TV remote analogy.

It is, because my contention is that the remote is not a byproduct of the tv, and vice versa..yet, they still correlate. You are saying that consciousness is a byproduct (emergent property) of the brain, and I say that this is impossible.

Brain activity is what allows us to be conscious
neuronal activity that works with sensory inputs and memory to create awareness. Without a brain carrying out these functions, there would be no consciousness.

You have a problem of identity here. You say "sensory inputs and memory to create awareness"...ok, so when you are aware, who exactly is aware? Your brain isn't aware...your brain isn't happy, your brain isn't sad. Those sensors and neurons aren't happy, sad, or aware. Yet, you are happy, sad, or aware.

Who is the "you" that these emotions correspond to, if the "who" isn't the things that are causing "you" to experience these options (which answers the question, actually), then it is obvious that there is a unidentified you that is unaccounted for in the equation.

Now, this is obvious and inescapable, so the question becomes, "Who is it?". The Christian theist will argue that this unidentified entity is your immaterial spirit. On naturalism, there is no answer, yet, the problem remains.

A TV remote sends near IR pulses of light to a detector built into the TV that interprets those pulses, and based on the program executing in the microcontroller running the TV and processing the detector signal the volume is increased, the channel changed, etc. It is not a case of the TV "producing the remote" or vice versa. The remote's signal is analogous to light bouncing into your eyes via reflection off of everything around you. Then your brain processes this signal (analogous to the microcontroller running the TV), and takes some action based on the brain's response to the image it has formed from the visual input.

You are continuously missing the entire point with the tv/remote thing, aren't you. The point of it was to show how things can correlate without one being an emergent property (byproduct) or the other. Nothing more, nothing less.

Consciousness is more like (in a crude analogy) the program running in the microcontroller that interprets the remote's light pulses. Except that in a real animal there are many external inputs coming in at once, and varying in time and intensity, etc. The brain gets all of this input and responds depending on its capabilities. In worms with a small and relatively simple brain, the ability to process inputs and formulate responses is limited. In humans these capabilities are orders of magnitude greater. But the ability to be aware and conscious of one's surroundings is purely a function of a working brain that is processing sensory inputs, storing information, recalling information, and piecing it all together to create what we call thoughts, emotions, etc.

Again, I am talking about the origin of consciousness, not what happens once consciousness gets here. In other words, there is this thing called "consciousness"..where did this thing come from, how did it emerge?

Old and worn out ... more ontological argument type stuff that could be debated forever because it is purely philosophical.

Well, if you could scientifically explain the origin of consciousness, then it would all be a dead issue, wouldn't it be?

Ah .... resorting to the miracle explanation. Always the easy out.

Not really, it is just the accepting the harsh reality (harsh to you) that some things lie beyond the the scope of science and nature...and we (those that wish to accept/embrace this reality) have ever right to appeal to whatever explanation that has the most explanatory power to explain and or produce the effect, in this case, mind/body dualism.

Right ... they are not the same thing. One (consciousness) is the result of normal operation of the other (brain). Consciousness is not separate from the brain ... it is a direct result of its operation.

Chicken/egg problem. If the brain came first, then what was it doing for all of that time before the consciousness came along? Sitting there, waiting to be possessed? Where would the consciousness come strutting along in the first place?

If the consciousness came first, then you know what that would imply. Either way, you can't answer either question because you are limited, as science is limited.

You are the one who brought up the Miller experiment initially, then claimed repeatedly that its purpose was to create life (demonstrably not true) and so was a failure. So I'll take the above comment as a win on that point at least.

"The Miller-Urey experiment, conducted by chemists Stanley Miller and Harold Urey in 1953, is the classic experiment on the origin of life."

Read more at: https://phys.org/news/2009-09-scientist ... e.html#jCp

You won what, exactly? Do you see that, "is the CLASSIC EXPERIMENT ON THE ORIGIN OF LIFE", in other words, it was an experiment on ABIOGENESIS...life from nonliving material, as I originally stated.

Here, hold this L...

[For_The_Kingdom]

Notice readers that For the Kingdom cannot describe a mechanism that MUST be in place in order for small changes to not lead up to large changes.

Notice readers that Clownboat cannot describe a mechanism that MUST be in place in order for the dogs of today to become nondogs a hundred-million years from now.

This is equivalent to believing in seconds, but not hours.

Actually, my contention is even bolder than that, because I am saying it didn't happen at ALL. So the distinction between suddenly and gradually is irrelevant.

He also does not have a full understanding of evolution because he still thinks it is a process that is being driven to some end goal.

Funny, because I thought the end goal was "survival". Remember, whatever it takes to survive, right? Isn't that the goal? SMH.

- For the Kingdom said: "So what drove reptiles to evolve into birds? The need to fly? The need to peck? What?"
And: "I asked will a human evolve wings"
And: "what is the mechanism that stops a human from evolving wings?"

This is coming from the same person who had previously challenged me to give the mechanism that will STOP these kind of changes to occur. If reptiles can evolve wings and beaks, then what in the hell will stop a human from evolving wings? I am simply asking what is the mechanism in place that will prevent this sort of thing. You were the one claiming that there IS no mechanism in place.

So you are being disingenuous by mocking my questions as if they are absurd, when you are the one who implied that nothing can stop such changes, because after all, "there are no mechanisms in place that would stop these changes from occurring".

That was YOUR contention, not mines. And if you think my questions are so absurd involving the flight of human beings with the evolution of wings, then you agree with me that there are limits to these changes.

Actually, it is coming across as a red herring. Yup, red herring.

There are many here that are trying to get For the Kingdom to have a better understanding of evolution.

Never fails. Whenever someone states that they are not on the evolution bandwagon and begin to explain why, they always get accused of misunderstanding the theory..

"Thats not what evolution states"
"Thats not how it works"
"You just don't understand evolution"

As if they are so smart, and we are so stupid. We don't believe in evolution, not based upon what we don't know about the theory, but based on what we DO know about the theory.

You believe that a reptile evolved into a bird. I just simply don't believe it. Kind of similar to you not believing that a man died on the cross for your sins? Sounds absurd, right? Well, it sounds just as absurd to me, the idea that a reptile evolved into a bird or that life came from nonliving material. I don't see any evidence for it, so I have no reasons to believe that it occurred.

For example, McCulloch offered this to which it seems FtK ingnored:
"But there is strong evidence that at one time, long ago, there were fish but no dogs.

And even longer before that, there was no life, PERIOD. So how did we get from literally no life whatsoever, to life, period. Remember, this thread is about ABIOGENESIS...so instead of conveniently moving the conversation to how life evolved over time, how about trying to address the more serious problem for naturalists, which is how did life here in the first place.

I understand that since you don't have a CLUE as to how such a thing occurred, you'd like to conveniently shift gears to a topic that you think have more evidence supporting it (evolution), which is a text book example of putting the cart before the horse. But no, if you can't prove that life came from nonlife, then there is no evolution, is there?

Fifteen hundred years ago, there were no speakers of English. But both common sense and observation show that everyone who speaks English learned it from someone else who speaks English. Similarly other languages. Greek speakers beget Greek speakers; Latin speakers beget Latin speakers; Hebrew speakers beget Hebrew speakers. No one gets up and says, "I'm going to speak a language that no one else speaks." How does a new language emerge? When everyone speaks a language indistinguishable from whatever language they were taught, how can a new language arise? Was there ever a first person to speak English? Answer those questions and you will understand evolution better."

And his rebuttal to this was...
"The origin of language, in general, is a problem for the naturalist."

Notice that this is again the cart before the horse. My question is about the ORIGINS of life, the universe, consciousness, and language. Since the naturalist cannot give a scientific explanation to address these questions (of origins), the only thing they can do is put the cart before the horse.

Instead of addressing the origins of these things, they want to instead talk about what happened AFTER these things originated...which is exactly what Clownboat is doing as he quotes someone addressing the language thing...but notice the person isn't addressing the origin of language. He is talking about stuff that happened after language originated.

My question is about how did language originate and this was simply not addressed..which is why he correctly quoted me by saying "The origin of language, in general, is a problem for the naturalist"....which is was my attempt to get the topic back to ORIGINS, not what happened after it got here.

Evolution is a fact. We have a theory that explains this fact. You, like anyone else is free to offer up a better theory, but it must be testable and falsifiable.

Do you have a better theory that explains the diversity of life we see now and in the fossil record?

See Genesis 1

If you don't, perhaps you can complain about the currently accepted and tested theory that has made predictions that have been shown to be true.

Predictions like what?

[DrNoGods]

[Replying to post 511 by For_The_Kingdom]

Then enlighten me on what comes first, the brain, or the consciousness?

No brainer ... the brain, since consciousness is purely a manifestation of brain activity.

I am talking about the ORIGIN of consciousness.

Consciousness originated when a brain developed the necessary complexity to carry out the functions of managing sensory inputs (sight, sound, feel, etc.), storing and retreiving information (memory and recall), and organizing these entities into thoughts and the other functions we associate with consciousness. Before brains had developed to this point there was no consciousness, and when brains did reach this level of development ... viola ... consciousness.

You are saying that consciousness is a byproduct (emergent property) of the brain, and I say that this is impossible.

Impossible based on what? Do you not agree that the only animals (humans also being in that category) capable of consciousness are the ones with a sufficiently developed brain? And that the brain is the "seat of mind"? What could possibly create consciousness in an animal if not the brain? The heart (as used to be believed)? The eyes?

You have a problem of identity here. You say "sensory inputs and memory to create awareness"...ok, so when you are aware, who exactly is aware? Your brain isn't aware...your brain isn't happy, your brain isn't sad. Those sensors and neurons aren't happy, sad, or aware. Yet, you are happy, sad, or aware.

My brain itself isn't aware in terms of its constituent atoms and molecules, but when it is operating as an integrated system (back to sensory inputs, memory, etc.) the capacity for awareness, emotions, etc. becomes available. There are many examples of components which themselves do nothing, but when integrated into an appropriate system very complicated functions can be carried out. The brain is no different ... this thing we call consciousness is a result of the brain system working as an integrated unit.

Now, this is obvious and inescapable, so the question becomes, "Who is it?". The Christian theist will argue that this unidentified entity is your immaterial spirit. On naturalism, there is no answer, yet, the problem remains.

Naturalism would say that there is no problem ... the "who" inside anyone's head is a manifestation of brain activity that creates the concept of self, theory of mind, awareness, etc. The brain is capable of forming such thoughts and concepts in humans far beyond simple awareness (like might be the case with a worm) so we have sentience, but naturalism would argue that this is just an advanced use of the same sensory inputs, memory, etc. ... it is a matter of degree and not of kind. Our brains are far more complex in structure and orders of magnitude larger in size than the brain of a worm, so we have the capability of far greater functionality. But it is still sensory input being processed, neurons firing, memory working, etc. that creates consciousness and sentience.

You are continuously missing the entire point with the tv/remote thing, aren't you. The point of it was to show how things can correlate without one being an emergent property (byproduct) or the other. Nothing more, nothing less.

I'm not missing the point, but trying to point out that the analogy is not a correct one. You disagree with my point on that and believe that consciousness and the "who" inside my head is some supernatural, magical thing that cannot be explained as the result of normal brain activity. If you did believe that consciousness was the result of normal brain activity, then you'd see that the TV remote analogy is not correct.

Not really, it is just the accepting the harsh reality (harsh to you) that some things lie beyond the the scope of science and nature...and we (those that wish to accept/embrace this reality) have ever right to appeal to whatever explanation that has the most explanatory power to explain and or produce the effect, in this case, mind/body dualism.

This might have been the best explanation in Descartes time, but not now.

"The Miller-Urey experiment, conducted by chemists Stanley Miller and Harold Urey in 1953, is the classic experiment on the origin of life."

Another 3rd party reference and "in other words" statement. The original paper speaks for itself ... no need to keep beating this dead horse.

[DrNoGods]

[Replying to post 512 by For_The_Kingdom]

But no, if you can't prove that life came from nonlife, then there is no evolution, is there?

Evolution does not care how life originated. It only concerns itself with what happened after that event (or those events). Life could have come about from a supernatural creator, an abiogenesis event, a panspermia event, etc. and this would have zero influence on the theory of evolution, which is completely unrelated to how life originated.

[benchwarmer]

[Replying to post 512 by For_The_Kingdom]

But no, if you can't prove that life came from nonlife, then there is no evolution, is there?

Evolution does not care how life originated. It only concerns itself with what happened after that event (or those events). Life could have come about from a supernatural creator, an abiogenesis event, a panspermia event, etc. and this would have zero influence on the theory of evolution, which is completely unrelated to how life originated.

I like how this point is constantly ignored regardless of how many times it is explained to the same poster. It seems the mere recognition of evolution somehow destroys their invisible god concept. When they finally admit (due to the overwhelming evidence) that evolution is a real thing, then they try to artificially limit it (micro/macro) so as to again avoid somehow showing their favorite god creature doesn't exist. It's quite amusing to watch.

The existence or non-existence of gods has absolutely nothing to do with the observed process of evolution.

[DrNoGods]

[Replying to post 515 by benchwarmer]

I like how this point is constantly ignored regardless of how many times it is explained to the same poster.

Yes ... it is the old straw man of redefining evolution such that it is required to explain the origin of life, then claiming that because evolution does not explain the origin of life it is therefore invalid. Too many anti-evolutionists just don't seem to make an effort to understand the actual theory, then attack it with various arguments based purely on personal incredulity.

[For_The_Kingdom]

Evolution does not care how life originated. It only concerns itself with what happened after that event (or those events).

Ok.

Life could have come about from a supernatural creator

Which would be a defeater of atheism, wouldn't it?

, an abiogenesis event

Which the scientific evidence doesn't support.

, a panspermia event

The universe began to exist, sir. Any physical event that occur(s) only occurred AFTER the universe began to exist. So how/why the universe began to exist at some point in the finite past would still be an open question.

, etc. and this would have zero influence on the theory of evolution, which is completely unrelated to how life originated.

Even if one was to postulate a god who used evolution as a means of creation, I still don't see the evidence for it. It certainly wouldn't be the creation God that I worship.

People are entitled to believe what they want, but as far as I am concerned, the evidence that has been presented to me isn't adequate enough to jump on the bandwagon.

[For_The_Kingdom]

I like how this point is constantly ignored regardless of how many times it is explained to the same poster. It seems the mere recognition of evolution somehow destroys their invisible god concept. When they finally admit (due to the overwhelming evidence) that evolution is a real thing, then they try to artificially limit it (micro/macro) so as to again avoid somehow showing their favorite god creature doesn't exist. It's quite amusing to watch.

The existence or non-existence of gods has absolutely nothing to do with the observed process of evolution.

This is still the cart before the horse fallacy. If you can't prove that abiogenesis is true, then you can't prove evolution to be true (macroevolution), on naturalism. If abiogenesis is false, then there is no way in hell evolution could possibly be true, because if life can't get to the point of ORIGINATING, then it can't get to the point of EVOLVING.

It is at that point at which the only way evolution COULD occur would be for an intelligent designer to cause it to occur, which any believer would admit is possible, if that is the way the designer chose to do it. However, there isn't any evidence for it and if it did occur, it is still a defeater of atheism/naturalism, which is most of you people's position on here.

I will debate with a Christian evolutionist in the same way I will debate with unbelievers who believe in evolution. I am just not convinced that the Christian God orchestrated the process in stated way.