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?

[Neatras]

[Replying to post 198 by For_The_Kingdom]

Why bother to ask questions if you are just going to dismiss the answer as babble instead of trying to understand it? It doesn't seem fair to me.

Accusations of "Bio-babble" are the laziest responses imaginable in a scientific discussion. We shouldn't expect anything else of him.

[Neatras]

In fact, compared to the more technical posts I've made about mechanisms of evolutionary theory and abiogenesis, my explanation for divergent evolution was incredibly tame. If For_the_kingdom isn't willing to even try to comprehend the simplest explanation imaginable, perhaps we should stop dumbing down our posts, and simply have discourse at a level that prevents the laziest of people from interrupting?

[benchwarmer]

The infamous "if apes evolved to man, then why are apes still here?" question is brewing.

Well, let's see if we can stop the brew Does the following make sense?

If your parents evolved into you and your siblings, then why are your siblings still here?

That is what you are brewing to ask taken at one generation of evolution.

Makes no sense.

I feel like there should be fireworks and cake. Agreement at last

[benchwarmer]

[Replying to post 197 by Neatras]

Your answer was bio-babble. In other words, according to the theory of evolution, (insert your post).

Fine...well, according to the Christian theism (insert my post).

All seems fair to me.

It may seem fair to you, but we expect verifiable evidence to be presented, not religious dogma. If all you have is <insert favorite religious ideas> then you will not be successful swaying any opinions in this sub forum.

What you posit would be the same as me wandering into the Holy Huddle group and posting peer reviewed research instead of Bible quotes. It would be ignored the same as religious dogma is ignored here.

[For_The_Kingdom]

That would require that INDIVIDUAL molecules be sentient. Bust Nak just said that they aren't, and that sentience is a result of the configuration of the molecules into a working brain.

First off, you are talking as if JUST because the contention is that "it is a configuration of molecules instead of individual molecules", that this somehow negates the philosophical problem you have with trying to explain the concept of physical molecules manifesting non-physical mental images.

I asked him, and I will ask you the same question; when you are sad, "who" exactly is sad??....there is no individuality with the brain...the brain can't say "I am sad"...there is no individuality with the molecules...an individual molecule can't say "I am sad", nor can the molecules join forces and together say in unison "we are sad".

Yet, someone in this case is clearly "sad"..and the question is, "who"...now, either you will have to admit that there is an un-accounted for "person" in there that the emotion of sadness directly corresponds to, or you will have to, as Bust Nak did, absurdly contend that "I am the molecules / the molecules are me".

One is clearly absurd, and the other one is the only game left in town if you choose not to accept the absurd option.

Either way, it is not looking good for naturalism.

Are you in the habit of ignoring the answers that you are responding to?

No, I am in the habit of accepting what makes sense and has evidence for it, and rejecting what doesn't.

That is a hard habit to break, being the rational person that I am.

[For_The_Kingdom]

Bust Nak just said that individual molecules don't have a color. Are you in the habit of ignoring the answer that you are responding to?

Then the question would apply to the molecules COLLECTIVELY, wouldn't it?

[For_The_Kingdom]

Why bother to ask questions if you are just going to dismiss the answer as babble instead of trying to understand it? It doesn't seem fair to me.

So are you suggesting that I have to accept whatever answer is given to me? It isn't about understanding...it is about accepting. I don't accept the rationale of the evidence/theory of evolution.

And I am quite sure most naturalists feel the same way about Christianity, you know, MY religion.

[For_The_Kingdom]

Accusations of "Bio-babble" are the laziest responses imaginable in a scientific discussion.

I call it how I see it.

[For_The_Kingdom]

In fact, compared to the more technical posts I've made about mechanisms of evolutionary theory and abiogenesis, my explanation for divergent evolution was incredibly tame. If For_the_kingdom isn't willing to even try to comprehend the simplest explanation imaginable, perhaps we should stop dumbing down our posts, and simply have discourse at a level that prevents the laziest of people from interrupting?

Here is the dumb down version of naturalism: Long ago, the universe popped in to being, uncaused, out of nothing (big bang theory)...at which all space, time, energy, and matter came into existence for apparently no reason whatseover....and all of the dead, inanimate matter was floating around in this newly founded space. After billions of years, for reasons unbeknown to science and nature, this dead matter suddenly and/or gradually "came to life" (abiogenesis). And not only did it come to life, oh no...it came to life and began to think (consciousness), talk, and have sex.

Here is the dumb down version of evolution: Long ago, when no one was CONVENIENTLY around to see it....animals were doing stuff that the animals of today have NEVER been observed to do....former land dwelling animals somehow/someway began to migrate to the water (not to mention the massive endocrine changes that would have had to take place for this to occur)....former wingless animals began to evolve wings (for an unbeknown scientific reason).

Now, in both cases, you can use whatever bio-babble you'd like to use to describe HOW that stuff could have taken place...but when you take away the fluff and feathers, that is what you've got.

SMH.

[Bust Nak]

That's right, I don't have a problem accepting scientific evidence/interpretation, as long as it is in light with what I see and it has explanatory value.

I argue that neither abiogenesis nor macroevolution fit the criterion.

Then argue for that, saying "according to the theory" doesn't advance your case.

Its called humor...which is why I like guys like Deadpool...can make light of any situation no matter how dire it is.

Deadpool isn't exactly a role model for debate.

There is a lot that can be said on why some scientists intepret certain stuff the way that they do.

Say it then.

Right.

So you shouldn't have any problem accepting evolution because it is the scientific evidence/interpretation.

I quote a good 90% of everything you've said and responded accordingly.

You seem to have a vastly different standard of what "accordingly" means. "Lol," "SMH" and "you are drowning, kid" aren't what I would call appropriate in a debate.

I don't know, besides the fact that computer programs were designed by intelligent human beings. That is really all that is relevant to the discussion.

Well since not all computer programs were designed by intelligent human beings you have no case.

Is there any computer program out there that owes its existence to the laws to the laws of nature without intelligent design?

Yes, there are.

You are generalizing...I need specifics.

Start from the top - Lanski's long-term evolutionary experiment.

True, but then again, I don't even see any indirect evidence or observations.

That's odd, given such evidence have already been presented in threads that you have participated in.

You just don't get it, do you kid? LOL.

LOL just stop it, will ya?

LOL stop it, will ya!!!

Apparently that amounts to "responded accordingly." Deadpool would be proud of you.

How?

By counter-example.

Running? Who said it had to run? I am talking about the ontology of its existence...and as long as it is sitting on a disc, it doesn't need a CPU to existence and is therefore independent of the CPU.

But not independent form hardware.

The brain is a physical chunk of matter that has nothing to do with the image that is inside it.

What made you think that? The brain is a physical chunk of matter that has everything to do with the image that is inside it.

"My answers regarding mind/body have all been speculative". Gotcha.

Based on empirical evidence. I've already called you out for trying to downplay the evidence before, quit it.

Which tells me nothing about the manifestation of the image, though.
Sure, it lights up, but what does that have to do with the image of an apple?

It tells you the interaction of molecules is related to the image of an apple, obviously.

That is not correlation...it does not follow that just because two things correlate, that one begat the other.

It is correlation when changing one changes the other.

"I don't know the details, but I do know that it occurs in the way that I say that it does".

Exactly. Deal with it.

So I am going to copy and paste the word "apple" 7 times.

Apple
Apple
Apple
Apple
Apple
Apple
Apple

So, after copying the word 7 times, I still don't see an image of an apple. Strange. That may sound foolish, but that is the logic that is being applied here.

The fact that it sounds foolish is enough to prove that is NOT the logic that is being applied, but a strawman fallacy, and an appeal to ridicule fallacy.

Which is all based on artificial intelligence...which presupposes human intelligence.

No, it doesn't. It presupposes variation, inheritance and selection.

Show me artificial intelligence without design and I will show you a real life footage of a lion having a beer with a zebra.

How about I show you software that has no programmers instead?

*sigh* intelligent design is needed to "program" anything, sir.

Incorrect, intelligent design is not needed for evolutionary algorithms.

Obviously because I am not the one on here assuming that consciousness IS an emergent proprety of the brain, you are. So since I am not assuming such a thing, then the question is left open, where did it come from?

It's an emergent property of the brain.

That is "why I would ask" where consciousness came from.

But you granted me that it's an emergent property of the brain when you asked me where it came from, remember? You asked if consciousness is an emergent property of the brain then where did it come from. That's what lead me to question if you knew what "emergent" meant. More to follow...

Yes you do...the brains that the morgue are 100% there (those that are)...

No they are not.

I didn't know technology is needed...and besides, nature didn't have technology either, and it gets it done, right?

Yes.

I know what emergent property means, which is why I keep asking you where you'd get the consciousness from if you shaped/molded a brain.

This is exactly what I was talking about above. If you knew what emergent property means, you wouldn't be asking me where you'd get the consciousness from if I shaped a brain. It would already be there as an emergent property.

You basically stated the consciousness would come from an interaction of molecules without explaining where the molecules would come from and where the manifestation of mental images would come from.

The interaction of the molecules IS where the manifestation of mental images would come from.

So you are giving answers without providing evidence for the answers, which is science of the gaps. It is all speculative...faith based. No scientificu support whatsoever.

No it isn't. There is empirical support for my claims. Again I point to the brain scans.

Sure, a billion years for something that didn't know what it was doing...I would think that if you knew what you were doing, it would take a lot less time than that, wouldn't it?

Of course.

You are speculating...and you already admitted that you didn't know how to scientifically prove it...so what exactly are you arguing for, again?

That the consciousness is not in principle beyond naturalism to explain.

The mind is still unidentified. You are drowning, kid...and I would love to help you, but I don't think you want to be helped.

I don't think you are in any position to offer help.

Obviously not now, but it once was....see, you also have a entropy problem. SMH.

What's this entropy problem supposed to be then? I am guessing the typical "order doesn't come from chaos" argument?

My case has more explanatory value than yours.

Oh? Lets see you do anything useful with it then. Can you in principle, create/recreate consciousness, according to your thesis?

^Empty statement with no scientific evidence supporting it.

Incorrect, again I point to brain scans.

It is impossible to manually "plug" in a specific thought or image (apple) into someones brain. It is not humanly possible to do so.

What made you say that? It's entirely circular reasoning: You know it is impossible for human because it is magic, you know it is magic because it is impossible for human.

You can not give me any circumstance, scenario, or situation where it COULD be possible.

Incorrect - I gave you exactly what you asked for - copy a human brain molecule by molecule and you would manually "plug" in a specific thought or image (apple) into someones brain.

If a brain scan won't manifest the thought of an apple when I think of an apple, then using brain scans as evidence for what I am asking for is an epic failure.

That made no sense. Scans are passive, why would you expect scanning something would cause a change in anything?

Sure, the answer is simple when you are just pulling them out of the air and hoping to catch something. The answer becomes difficult when you are asked HOW such a thing naturally occurs.

Don't know, we've only begun exploring our brains. We aren't afraid to saying we don't know. You really should have caught onto that by now. Asking questions that we have no answer for yet, doesn't harm my case one bit. Finding out is what makes science fun.

Irrelevant...the Batman logo, in general, depends on something outside itself for its existence...that aint the point...the point is, how can you scientifically explain why the image would be patterned inside of a bowl with eggs/pepper.

You can't explain it with intelligent design, yet, there the logo is plain as day inside of the bowl.

By further study of the brain, working out what exactly is so special about specific interaction of the molecules that causes the manifestation of non-physical mental images.

*sigh* what does the molecules have to do with the image, is the question.

The image. What does the IMAGE of a specific physical object have to do with the physical interactions inside of your brain?

The interaction of these molecules causes said images obviously. That's quite a big deal, don't you think?

There is no intrinsic relationship between the two...so how can one be about the other?

What made you think there is no intrinsic relationship between the molecules of the brain and the mental images it contains?

Just like in the Batman example above, there is nothing about the eggs/pepper that is in any way, shape, or form related to Batman...yet, there is the Batman logo...a completely separate, independent thing.

What seems to be the problem here? The Batman logo is completely dependent on the eggs/pepper.

Go in a lab and explain how mental images of independent objects are manifested inside of one's brain...and then you can make as many statements like above that you'd like.

Why not before?

I don't recall.

Then quit saying it!

So the molecules are sentient?

Collectively, yes.

Can one molecule say to the other "hey buddy, how are ya?"

No, individually they are not sentient.

So again, are you implying that the molecules inside your brain are sentient in the sense that they can become sad?

Collectively, yes.

The molecule can say "I am sad". So the molecules are persons?

No, just me.

So when you are sad, all of the molecules are sad, collectively. So they all can say "we are sad"?

Collectively, yes.

^The worse case of naturalism I've ever seen. SMH.

I'll take that as a compliment.

What I cannot process is how molecules inside my brain can be about something that has absolutely nothing to do with it.

So how do we go about fixing that? Give me something to work with.

Haven't gotten an adequate scientific answer to that yet. I've gotten a lot of unscientific speculation, tho. Enough of that to go around the world a few dozen times.

The least you could do is affirm that it makes sense in the context of naturalism, then we can go from there, or is that too much to ask for?

Yeah, that is hard to understand. What color are molecules, and whatever color you give, how is it that the x colored molecules are able to think of red and green apples?

Color is an analogy. Tell me you got that much at least?

Any scientific explanation? Or more scientific speculation?

For colors? Sure. For consciousness, still working for it.

Give me a self-designed or nature designed computer with hardware and software included?

I've already gave you that - look up evolutionary hardware/circuit boards.

Just save yourself some time and simply acknowledge that no matter how far we advance in technology, there will always be a facet of intelligent design...computers began with intelligent design, and it will end with intelligent design.

I think I will stick to giving you examples of computers that are not intelligent designed instead.

It is a problem for naturalism and the theory of evolution. If you can't prove definitively that sentient life came from nonlife (on naturalism), then you don't have a viable theory for evolution or mind/body naturalism.

Depends on what you mean by viable. I am perfectly willing to acknowledge that we have very little idea of how life came from nonlife, and how sentient life came from non-sentient life. But I've already debunked the claim that sentient life cannot be explained in principle on naturalism.

Keyword: Artificial

Artificial: 1.made or produced by human beings rather than occurring naturally, typically as a copy of something natural.

Human being: a man, woman, or child of the species Homo sapiens, distinguished from other animals by superior mental development, power of articulate speech, and upright stance.

Conclusion: Intelligent design.

Of course an artificial brain requires intelligence, that's why I said "an artificial brain that is created in lab by copying an existent brain would be the work of an intelligent designer." You think you've raised a point by repeating what I said?

More like "science is incapable of explaining the origin of the brain AND consciousness...and since science fails, theology takes over the reins".

That's unscientific. It's the kind of thinking that lead people to think lightning and earthquakes are acts of god.

It isn't that science can, but just havent yet...it is science hasn't yet, because it can't.

So what? We are working on it.

But, God can, and did.

Text book God of the gap fallacy.