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?

[H.sapiens]

Only if you want to grant that the designer was incompetent, incapable of blank paper design, and decided to saddle itself with starting criteria that was contrary to the final desired outcome. If that's a description of your god ... good luck to you, you're going to need it.

What if the designer made the design according to what he desired it to be? And isn't how good/bad a design is...isn't that kind of thing subjective? And not only that, but a bad design is still a design, isn't it?

Wait, wait! What if the designer had two wheels? It would be a bicycle ... right? See how foolish an argument that is? It is known as a non sequitur.

[theStudent]

Only if you want to grant that the designer was incompetent, incapable of blank paper design, and decided to saddle itself with starting criteria that was contrary to the final desired outcome. If that's a description of your god ... good luck to you, you're going to need it.

What if the designer made the design according to what he desired it to be? And isn't how good/bad a design is...isn't that kind of thing subjective? And not only that, but a bad design is still a design, isn't it?

I would not give them that at all.
There are just assuming as usual about what they think they know.

• They don't know why things are as they are
• They don't know how things were supposed to be

How could they not understand more than half the things about life or the universe, and expect to know the above.

They usually appeal to that one in order to avoid explaining what they can't explain.

With man's hands involve, anything bad is expected.
A baby with a hole in it's heart or half of a brain, can't possible be blamed on the one who designed life.
http://www.webmd.com/baby/smoking-during-pregnancy#1
And this is just one area where man's destruction to himself and others is evident

The point is not if things have a defect, but if there work as designed to - with purpose. Also how they came to be functioning.
Abiogenesis does not account for it. That is the issue.

[H.sapiens]

Only if you want to grant that the designer was incompetent, incapable of blank paper design, and decided to saddle itself with starting criteria that was contrary to the final desired outcome. If that's a description of your god ... good luck to you, you're going to need it.

What if the designer made the design according to what he desired it to be? And isn't how good/bad a design is...isn't that kind of thing subjective? And not only that, but a bad design is still a design, isn't it?

The classic examples are: eyes and the recurrent laryngeal nerve

You're just making another form of the argument from ignorance and god of the gaps.

I would not give them that at all.
There are just assuming as usual about what they think they know.

• They don't know why things are as they are
• They don't know how things were supposed to be

How could they not understand more than half the things about life or the universe, and expect to know the above.

They usually appeal to that one in order to avoid explaining what they can't explain.

With man's hands involve, anything bad is expected.
A baby with a hole in it's heart or half of a brain, can't possible be blamed on the one who designed life.
http://www.webmd.com/baby/smoking-during-pregnancy#1
And this is just one area where man's destruction to himself and others is evident

The point is not if things have a defect, but if there work as designed to - with purpose. Also how they came to be functioning.
Abiogenesis does not account for it. That is the issue.

I'm not talking about aberrant defects, I'm talking about bad design (e.g., reversed retina, inefficiently routed nerves due to the fish gill bar layout of even the mammalian body plan.

[theStudent]

[Replying to post 143 by H.sapiens]

I'm not talking about aberrant defects, I'm talking about bad design (e.g., reversed retina, inefficiently routed nerves due to the fish gill bar layout of even the mammalian body plan.

Help me.
Can you give a specific example we can work with, and explain why it's bad? Otherwise, I don't know what you are referring to.

[FinalEnigma]

[Replying to post 143 by H.sapiens]

I'm not talking about aberrant defects, I'm talking about bad design (e.g., reversed retina, inefficiently routed nerves due to the fish gill bar layout of even the mammalian body plan.

Help me.
Can you give a specific example we can work with, and explain why it's bad? Otherwise, I don't know what you are referring to.

There's quite a few. The ones I was most immediately aware of before googling were our inability to synthesize vitamins, and the fact that our sinuses drain from the top, which causes congestion and infections.


But here's a link with several more: http://io9.gizmodo.com/the-most-unfortu ... 1518242787

[Bust Nak]

Science: things change over time.


Speculation: "There is so much change over time, that a reptile can/will eventually evolve wings and begin to fly".

That's science for ya.

Your speculation has absolutely nothing to do with observation, or experiment.

Incorrect. The "speculation" you are referring to, is the direct result of observation and experiments.

You are linking your speculation to the science.

That's because they are linked.

I base that speculation upon what I feel to be good circumstantial evidence.

Where as I based my speculation on empirical evidence.

My problem is when you (evolutionists) pass evolution off as a 100% brute fact. That is a problem, in my opinion.

A strange accusation, given how evolution is clearly labelled as a theory. There are lots of articles that explains this, just google "evolution is both a theory and a fact."

Ok, so how would the Microsoft software get onto your hard drive without an intelligent designer implementing it?

With evolutionary algorithms.

Even if you were to imagine a computer self-assembling itself, where would you get the software from?? Huh?

Comes with the self-assembling hard drive presumably?

Ultimately, it comes right back to life from life. The process itself is still ultimately life from life. The fact that pregnancy can even come to pass is to assume reproduction, which is to assume DNA, which is to assume chemical fine-tuning.

The point is, there is no magic involved - just molecules doing what molecules naturally do.

The question is, if you go back far enough in time, you will get to a point where there was no chemicals, DNA, life...how do you get from lack of, to lots of?

No DNA and life sure, but no chemical? You are now moving off biology and into cosmology.

If it happens naturally, then I'd like the naturalists to scientifically confirm/explain it...again, that is what science is supposed to be all about.

Working on it.

Then you've left science and appealed to voodoo.

Incorrect. I am appealing to science and only science. Ironic that you bring voodoo up, let me remind you that you are the one who believes in the supernatural.

Sure, but can you conduct an experiment that will get you the results in question? Nope.

Working on it.

Theories backed up by evidence, or speculation?

Evidence, obviously, I am talking about science after all.

[For_The_Kingdom]

The classic examples are: eyes and the recurrent laryngeal nerve

You're just making another form of the argument from ignorance and god of the gaps.

Not at all. A bad design is still a design, regardless...and I say that without even granting that it the human body IS a bad design.

Again, it is all subjective, anyway.

I'm not talking about aberrant defects, I'm talking about bad design (e.g., reversed retina, inefficiently routed nerves due to the fish gill bar layout of even the mammalian body plan.

What criteria are you using to decide what is "good" and what is "bad"? What is the standard, and where are you getting it from?

[For_The_Kingdom]

Incorrect. The "speculation" you are referring to, is the direct result of observation and experiments.

Well, I don't see any observations which leads me to the same conclusion as you.

That's because they are linked.

Sure, according to the theory..yup.

Where as I based my speculation on empirical evidence.

So is mines.

A strange accusation, given how evolution is clearly labelled as a theory. There are lots of articles that explains this, just google "evolution is both a theory and a fact."

So are you admitting that it is possible that evolution could be false?

With evolutionary algorithms.

Speculation.

Comes with the self-assembling hard drive presumably?

Nonsense. The software has to come from an independent source. If you build a functional computer from scratch, Microsoft Word doesn't come with it by default.

Same thing with the brain...you can shape and mold a material brain however you like, but those "thoughts" aren't just lying around, waiting for you to pick up and place into the brain.

Something else is required.

The point is, there is no magic involved - just molecules doing what molecules naturally do.

But the molecules are not the thoughts, and the thoughts are not the molecules.

No DNA and life sure, but no chemical? You are now moving off biology and into cosmology.

That is kinda the point, you have to be able to scientifically explain it ALL...not just one aspect of it...and once you really get in depth, you will find yourself leaving one branch of science and veering off to another one.

The problem is, no single one can explain everything...yet, everything needs to be explained.

The God hypothesis has the most explanatory value to explain EVERYTHING.

Working on it.

Mad props.

Incorrect. I am appealing to science and only science. Ironic that you bring voodoo up, let me remind you that you are the one who believes in the supernatural.

Hey, when the magician pulls the rabbit out of the hat, at least we can say that the magician caused the rabbit to appear, as crazy as it may seem.

But your view is apparently that the rabbit was self assembled by this mystical/magicial force...a force that has no vision, or mind....just assembled the rabbit..giving it life, vision, consciousness, etc. Actually, that kind of a concept is worse than magic/voodoo...I just don't know the right word to describe it.

Evidence, obviously, I am talking about science after all.

LOL.

[Bust Nak]

Well, I don't see any observations which leads me to the same conclusion as you.

Not my problem since you've already conceded that the observation was enough to lead scientists to the same conclusion as me. Or as you kept saying "Sure, according to the theory..yup."

So is mines.

No it isn't, it's based on theology.

So are you admitting that it is possible that evolution could be false?

Have I or have I not stated explicitly, that all scientific theories are only to be accepted as tentatively true? Of course it is possible for evolution to be false. It's just not likely.

Speculation.

Incorrect, evolutionary algorithms are already a thing and not speculation.

Nonsense. The software has to come from an independent source. If you build a functional computer from scratch, Microsoft Word doesn't come with it by default.

Incorrect. The relationship between hardware and software is well understood. You CAN build a computer transistor by transistor with Microsoft Word and Windows already installed. What do you think ROM's are, if not a circuit boards with software built in by default?

Same thing with the brain...

Exactly.

But the molecules are not the thoughts, and the thoughts are not the molecules.

Right, thoughts are the interaction of molecules, just as programs are not molecules on your hard disk, but the interaction there of.

That is kinda the point, you have to be able to scientifically explain it ALL...not just one aspect of it...and once you really get in depth, you will find yourself leaving one branch of science and veering off to another one.

Well, it's time to correct that expectation. Science will never be able to explain it ALL, there will always be something new to explore, that's what makes science so exciting.

The problem is, no single one can explain everything...yet, everything needs to be explained.

That's not a problem, it's a feature.

The God hypothesis has the most explanatory value to explain EVERYTHING.

God did it is not very useful explanation now, is it? It has zero explanatory value even if it can explain everything.

Hey, when the magician pulls the rabbit out of the hat, at least we can say that the magician caused the rabbit to appear, as crazy as it may seem.

But your view is apparently that the rabbit was self assembled by this mystical/magicial force...a force that has no vision, or mind....just assembled the rabbit..giving it life, vision, consciousness, etc. Actually, that kind of a concept is worse than magic/voodoo...I just don't know the right word to describe it.

How about the word "strawman?" There is nothing mystical or magical about abiogenesis or evolution.

[For_The_Kingdom]

Not my problem since you've already conceded that the observation was enough to lead scientists to the same conclusion as me. Or as you kept saying "Sure, according to the theory..yup."

Right, but I am NOT conceding that the interpretation of the observation is the correct one. It could be false.

No it isn't, it's based on theology.

Theology is the end result after all naturalistic options have been exhausted.

Have I or have I not stated explicitly, that all scientific theories are only to be accepted as tentatively true?

Tentatively = a lot of room for speculation.

Of course it is possible for evolution to be false. It's just not likely.

So, what would be the ratio? 80pos/20neg?

70/30?

60/40?

Incorrect, evolutionary algorithms are already a thing and not speculation.

Any abiogenesis algorithms? Nope. And besides, the change involved in evolutionary algorithms ain't exactly the macro kind of changes that you believed occured hundreds of billions of years ago.

Incorrect. The relationship between hardware and software is well understood.

Um, we are not talking about relationships and correlation here, sparky. We are talking about the hardware and software, each as individual ENTITIES, first....BEFORE they are joined together to make a "computer with Microsoft hardware installed".

Before they join together they are separate entities. The software could very well exist without the hardware, and the hardware can very well exist without the software.

Of course, the existence of each one presupposes intelligent design, but we need not mention that problem for you at the moment lol.

You CAN build a computer transistor by transistor with Microsoft Word and Windows already installed.

Which would be parallel to you saying "you can shape and mold a human brain with human consciousness already installed".

A statement that is unproven, unscientific, and humanly impossible to do.

What do you think ROM's are, if not a circuit boards with software built in by default?

Sure, you can obviously build the software into the computer and relative to the person that is purchasing it at the store, to the person, the software came with the computer by "default".

But the software isn't an emergent property of the computer, is it? No, it isn't.

Right, thoughts are the interaction of molecules

So how does the interaction of molecules form an independent image of a physical object...an object that is completely separate and independent from the molecules?

We understand and can scientifically explain how mirrors work with light and reflection and all of that...but if you were to stand in front of a wall with no mirror reflection...yet you are seeing a reflection of yourself...how is it that the reflection on the wall represents an independent physical object (yourself).

That kind of "directiveness" or "about-ness"....how can the the reflection on the wall be about an actual "thing", a physical object that is completely independent of it.

The same situation with consciousness....how can the mental object of an apple (thought) be inside my brain...there is nothing about the molecules that says "apple", yet, the mental picture of this independent object is in my brain.

Not only that, but who is thinking of the apple? Me? Me who? My brain? My brain is thinking of the object, but the object isn't "me". Yet, "I" am thinking.

just as programs are not molecules on your hard disk, but the interaction there of.

It can't be "just as" programs/hard disks, when programs/hard disks can be scientifically explained and mind/body dualism cannot be.

Well, it's time to correct that expectation. Science will never be able to explain it ALL, there will always be something new to explore, that's what makes science so exciting.

Still..

That's not a problem, it's a feature.

It is a problem...if something cannot be scientifically explained then it is time to look beyond science.

God did it is not very useful explanation now, is it? It has zero explanatory value even if it can explain everything.

What would be the criteria to judge whether something is "useful" to explain a phenomena?

How about the word "strawman?" There is nothing mystical or magical about abiogenesis or evolution.

Can you scientifically prove that life can come from inanimate matter? No, you can't. So apparently, there is nothing natural about it, either.