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?

[For_The_Kingdom]

Whales were land dwelling animals.

Sure, according to the theory of evolution, whales were land dwelling animals....and according to Christianity, Jesus rose from the dead.

There you go. You told me your religious faith, and I told you mines.

They found continuum of skeletons in a single bay that documented the evolution.
There is a continuum of skeletons of man from ape.

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

You can deny it - but you still avoid my point like a land-mine.
You want proof of one animal evolving in front of your eyes.
You see it when a caterpillar becomes a butterfly, and only SCIENCE tells you it is not evolution.

A butterfly is an adult caterpillar..nothing more, nothing less.

[Neatras]

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

This one's so easy that even dragging out its corpse is unsightly.

Homo sapiens were one branch that resulted from primate ancestors. All other modern apes represent the other branches.

Not only are our ancestors NOT the same modern ape species as what exists today (they would be a species geographically and chronologically distinct), they are also not present in modern earth; the apes we see today are descendants, nothing more. They had their own environments, their own groups and packs, and developed in a unique way. So did we.

[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.

[For_The_Kingdom]

Yes that is right. You say you don't have a problem accepting the scientific interpretation of the evidence as scientific, yet you do not accept reptile-bird evolution, a scientific interpretation of the evidence, as scientific. Consistent is not the word I would use here.

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.

Yet again with the "LOL." And you wanted me to believe you were serious in wanting to debate.

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

Well that's on you. Scientists have been observing and experimenting and making prediction on the "reptile-bird stuff."

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

What's more, you've went as far as to affirm that it is indeed the scientific consensus in a previous post, even though you don't believe it was the truth.

Right.

Well that's no good, it's a mere assertion with nothing to back it up with. Contrast that with the support I have offered in my posts, you don't even need to look beyond the few points above in this very post.

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

Sorry, it doesn't tell me that either. But you still have not answered my question, what is a "macro change" in the context of computer programs?

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.

Your continue failure to answer me, is giving me the impression that you didn't know what you were talking about when you threw out the remark that evolutionary algorithms aren't macro.

Is there any computer program out there that owes its existence to the laws to the laws of nature without intelligent design? If/since the answer to that question is an obviously NO, then you are giving me the impression that this evolutionary algorithm nonsense is just a red herring smoke screen to take away from fact that you realize you cant appeal to anything related to a computer without presupposing intelligent design.

Not directly, but indirectly. We have also directly observed other examples of macroevolution both in the lab and in the wild.

You are generalizing...I need specifics.

Which is why it makes no sense to expect a direct observation of "reptile-bird transformation."

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

Well no, again I point out evolutionary algorithms and circuit boards.

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

No, not always. As I keep pointing out the existence of evolutionary hardware and software.

LOL just stop it, will ya?

It points out that intelligent human beings aren't always required for creating computers.

How?

Microsoft Word is not independent of the hardware, it could be sitting on a disc, but sure, a running Microsoft Word is absolutely dependent of the CPU.

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.

The brain.

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

No can do - don't have one yet.

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

That's sunk too, given the intelligent is not required for computer hardware/software.

LOL stop it, will ya!!!

We have done that - as I pointed out before, we can see which area of your brain lights up when you visualised objects - that's why we know the mind and brain is tied together.

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? Absolutely nothing.

Not to mention that even before advances in technology in brain scanning, we can still observe that every instances of consciousness is associated with a brain, and correspondingly changes in the brain affect consciousness.

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

The interaction of molecules that I kept referring to, obviously. I can't give you anything more explicit because we've only started exploring the brain.

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

By copying exactly molecules by molecules, a human brain that is thinking of an apple. I told you that already.

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.

Again with the handwaving. Look up evolvable hardware if you want to find out more.

Which is all based on artificial intelligence...which presupposes human intelligence. Show me artificial intelligence without design and I will show you a real life footage of a lion having a beer with a zebra.

It aint happen'n.

What made you think that? How on Earth can you maintain such a claim in the face of evolutionary algorithms?

*sigh* intelligent design is needed to "program" anything, sir. Please, don't make this any more difficult than it already is for your side of things.

If you knew what emergent property mean, then why would you ask where consciousness comes from?

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?

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

Well I need a 100% brain

Yes you do...the brains that the morgue are 100% there (those that are)...it is only the consciousness that is missing. Just like a house can exist with no furniture inside...the brain can exist with no consciousness inside.

and we don't have the technology of turning a 50% brain from a morgue into a 100% one.

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

It comes with the brain, you don't need to get it from anything because it would already be there. That's what emergent property means.

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.

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.

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.

She had a head start of a few billion years, but sure, we should be able to do it much quicker than mother nature.

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?

They would already be there, again emergent property.

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?

It's the mind within said brain.

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.

No, it's not like that, because you are forgetting that it's not all random.

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

Not yet I can't. But you were making a far stronger claim. You were saying there can never be a bridge between inanimate matter and living matter, never be a bridge between unconsciousness and consciousness, even in principle. Pointing out that we don't have a bridge yet doesn't help your case one bit.

My case has more explanatory value than yours.

Again, a matter of technology. When we can build a brain we would have automatically also build a consciousness.

^Empty statement with no scientific evidence supporting it.

Well, you tried. Again, pointing out that we have no natural explanation yet, does not support your claim that we will never have an natural explanation.

It is impossible to manually "plug" in a specific thought or image (apple) into someones brain. It is not humanly possible to do so. You can not give me any circumstance, scenario, or situation where it COULD be possible.

You cannot give any thought experiment, analogy...or any kind of 3D visual simulation of how this can occur...or how you THINK it occurs.

You've got nothing.

Incorrect. I've already pointed out brain scans.

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.

The answer is simple, when "molecules" in your brain interact in such a way that will be generate an image that is totally dependent on the brain.

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.

Right, but that's moot since the Batman logo is entirely depend on eggs/pepper.

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.

The molecules inside my brain is the direct source of the image that I am thinking, that's what.

*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?

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

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.

I mean the molecules can hardly have anything less to do with the image you are thinking of.

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.

So why the hell did you say it was a problem?!

I don't recall.

Individually they aren't, together, in the configuration of a working brain, they absolutely are thinking.

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

What made you think the collection of molecules that makes up my brain isn't sad?

So again, are you implying that the molecules inside your brain are sentient in the sense that they can become sad? The molecule can say "I am sad". So the molecules are persons?

SMH.

No, not individually. Collectively they make up the entity that is me, and I have feelings and emotion.

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

Together they absolutely are sentient. I am made up of those molecules. A collection of molecules. Together they make up me, Bust Nak.

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

Only because you cannot seem to be able process the fact that a thinking person is made up of molecules. [/quote]

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

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.

Here is another analogy, individual molecules does not have a color, but a collection of molecules does have a color. Is that really so hard to understand? [/quote]

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?

Any scientific explanation? Or more scientific speculation?

Incorrect, I will continue to defend the position that I do hold. Namely the position that software/hardware is no different in principle to mind/brain.

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

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.

Which is what exactly? You just told me that not having a working explanation is "not a problem."

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.

But an intelligent designer is not required. An artificial brain..

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.

Please...just...stop.

Incorrect. I am explicitly ruling out intelligent design because one is not required.

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.

One is an fallacy where as what I said isn't. Was that not obvious? Tell me you see the difference between: "Science cannot explain the brain yet therefore God did it" and "in due time, science will figure it out;" tell me you see the difference between: "in due time, science will figure it out" and "God cannot explain the brain therefore mother nature did it."

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

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

But, God can, and did.

[For_The_Kingdom]

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.

[For_The_Kingdom]

Homo sapiens were one branch that resulted from primate ancestors.

Human beings were created in the image of God. You told me your religious theory, and I told you mines.

All other modern apes represent the other branches.

All humans, whether ancient or modern, were created by one God. You told me your religious theory, and I told you mines.

Not only are our ancestors NOT the same modern ape species as what exists today (they would be a species geographically and chronologically distinct), they are also not present in modern earth; the apes we see today are descendants, nothing more. They had their own environments, their own groups and packs, and developed in a unique way. So did we.

All humans are descendants of Adam, the first human being...and Eve, his wife. You told me your religion, and I told you mines.

[Neatras]

Homo sapiens were one branch that resulted from primate ancestors.

Human beings were created in the image of God. You told me your religious theory, and I told you mines.

All other modern apes represent the other branches.

All humans, whether ancient or modern, were created by one God. You told me your religious theory, and I told you mines.

Not only are our ancestors NOT the same modern ape species as what exists today (they would be a species geographically and chronologically distinct), they are also not present in modern earth; the apes we see today are descendants, nothing more. They had their own environments, their own groups and packs, and developed in a unique way. So did we.

All humans are descendants of Adam, the first human being...and Eve, his wife. You told me your religion, and I told you mines.

Red herring. You posited the ridiculous question of "if man evolved from monkeys, why are there still monkeys" and then attempt to entirely avoid my explanation for why that question is worthless. You don't get to brush me off that easily, because I will gladly call attention to bad debating practices like that.

[For_The_Kingdom]

[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.

[help3434]

Individually they aren't, together, in the configuration of a working brain, they absolutely are thinking.

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

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

What made you think the collection of molecules that makes up my brain isn't sad?

So again, are you implying that the molecules inside your brain are sentient in the sense that they can become sad? The molecule can say "I am sad". So the molecules are persons?

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

No, not individually. Collectively they make up the entity that is me, and I have feelings and emotion.

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

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

Here is another analogy, individual molecules does not have a color, but a collection of molecules does have a color. Is that really so hard to understand?

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?

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?

[help3434]

[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.