Knowledge and subjectivity. Origin of life

Discussion in 'Biology & Genetics' started by mjs, Mar 17, 2014.

  1. chinglu Valued Senior Member

    Yes, but your two examples can be verified scientifically.

    So, we can accept these as very strong. However, given there is no scientific verification of the emergence of life from chemicals, it should be classified as a weak theory and subject to repeated challenge.

    The science community should welcome challenges to abiogenesis because there is absolutely no evidence that it is true.

    I personally cannot offer scientific alternatives. I only understand the factual state of affairs.
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  3. zgmc Registered Senior Member

    WHat challenges to abiogenesis would you propose? What kind of evidence would it take for you to accept that it is a reasonable theory?
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  5. wellwisher Banned Banned

    Abiogenesis is the theory of life arising out of inanimate matter. One way to show an example of this in action is to begin with dehydrated yeast. Without water, the yeast becomes a lifeless mass of organic and inorganic materials, which exhibits non of the parameters associated with life.

    To make this inanimate and lifeless mass of dehydrated yeast come alive, all we need to do is add water. What the water does is help to integrate and animate all the chemicals that make up the inanimate yeast, so life can appear. Now the definition of life is satisfied.

    We can't just add any solvent as a replacement for water. This has been tried again and again with the best solvents only able to animate a small fraction of materials, which is not enough to define life. This tells us that life, as we know it, evolved in water with the water defining the parameters (hydrogen bonding) used by the organics, so water is able to interface everything and give life to otherwise inanimate chemicals.

    The question becomes what is there about water that makes life possible?
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  7. chinglu Valued Senior Member

    The only challenge I propose exists in the real external world. There is no case of abiogenesis provable in the real universe. It is not occurring at this time yet it is supposed to be a natural condition of the universe.

    Before I believe in such concepts, they must be scientifically provable..
  8. chinglu Valued Senior Member

    Nope, this is not how abiogenesis works. Abiogenesis claims non-living material emerges into life naturally.

    Yeast is based on eukaryotic cells and is therefore a life form.
  9. Dinosaur Rational Skeptic Valued Senior Member

    Do those arguing against abiogenesis have an alternative theory about the origin of life?

    Perhaps it was generated as a byproduct of Big Bang activity. This is one variation on various I do not know how it happened statements.
    Somebody from an alternatie universe brought it here.
    Some superanatural entity created it.​

    I am willing to go along with
  10. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    And yet we are here.
    That is proof enough.
    There are many assumptions in science based on logic and common sense, and the fact that there exists no other possible solution.
    Our YEC's friends and their closet supporters naturally then ignore the "logic and common sense" aspect, rather insidiously, leaving the door open for their mythical deity claims.
    Along with the common sense and logic, we have enough knowledge based on observations, to claim near certainty for both Evolution and Abiogenesis.

    Those arguing against it, do so to shoe-horn into the debate, the non scientific mythical deity claim.

    That would still be life from non life would it not?
    It would still be a form of Abiogenesis.
    Everything we see actually arose from the space and time that evolved from the BB.

    Interesting. But isn't that just pushing Abiogenesis back further?

    That's outside the realms of science. In fact it contradicts science.
  11. chinglu Valued Senior Member

    I'm sorry, but this is not a proof that life naturally emerges from chemicals.

    The way humans work with logic is modus ponens and recursion. So, we start with a base case (chemicals) and produce for any n, the n+1 state.

    Any other argument is not scientific but is opinion. So, for example, we start with the 0 base case of chemicals and we know how to logically proceed to the next state 1. Then, at 1 we know how to proceed to 2 and so on.

    This is science and this is the standard I adhere to.

    In reality, science should be saying at this time, it does not know the answer. Why not be honest in science?
  12. paddoboy Valued Senior Member


    Be sorry all you like. When there is no other scientific answer, then according to logic, common sense, and the evidence we do have, life certainly did [had to have] emerged from non life.
    There is no other scientific answer.

    That's a lie. You have never adhered to science, as is evidenced in stubbornly refusing to accept the observationlly verified time dilation, length contraction in SR.
    You insidiously and dishonestly "use" extracts of science that are still being researched, to attempt discredit of all continually insidiously ask for proof when you know [or should know] that science theories to not deal in 100% proofs, and then use that perceived "achilles heel" of science, to claim they do not know.
    In fact what you perceive as its achilles heel, is why it is so successful, and why you need to realise, that if it were not for science, you would still be swinging in the trees.

    You would naturally think that so that you and other creationists, can shoe-horn in your unscientific alternative of some mythical crap.
    As far as Evolution and Abiogenesis goes, they are accepted as fact, because of irrefutable evidence in the case of evolution, and common sense and logical assumptions in the case of Abiogenesis.
  13. river Valued Senior Member

    But what chemicals produce life without a supercharge , such as lighting ?
  14. Fraggle Rocker Staff Member

    Please be more precise and careful with your use of scientific terminology.

    Evolution is a theory of science--not a "fact" as you mistakenly call it. It is, in fact, a canonical theory, because it is supported by evidence in two unrelated scientific disciplines: paleontology and genetics. The odds of this theory ever being falsified are so small as to be unmeasurable. However, it may very well be elaborated by future discoveries, just as Newton's laws of motion were elaborated by Einstein's discoveries.

    In science, facts are easily-reaffirmed observations that are used to develop and prove theories. A theory is considerably more complex and elaborated and must be proven true beyond a reasonable doubt by use of the scientific method: empirical observation of evidence; formulation, testing and correction of hypotheses; logical reasoning; and peer review.

    A theory is as high as an assertion can go.

    Which leads us to abiogenesis. This is still only a hypothesis. "Common sense" plays a role in the scientific method (because without it we are left with crackpottery), but "logical assumptions" don't carry much weight.

    Abiogenesis will only become a theory when it has been proven true beyond a reasonable doubt--and that has not happened yet. Of course we treat it as though it is probably correct, simply because there are no competing hypotheses worthy of respect. The divine creation hypothesis raises more questions than it answers and cannot be taken seriously by anyone who respects science and the rules of logic. (1. The "universe" is "everything that exists." 2. God exists. 3. Therefore, God is part of the universe. 4. Therefore, God created himself. * * * 5. Logical Fallacy Alert!!! * * *)

    But abiogenesis is neither a "fact" nor a "theory." It is a working hypothesis.
  15. Dywyddyr Penguinaciously duckalicious. Valued Senior Member

    Evolution is an observed fact.
    The "theory" part is about the details of how it happens - we know that it actually does do so.

    You got it yourself here:
    Theory is over-arching explanation of the observed facts.
    Last edited: Aug 16, 2014
  16. paddoboy Valued Senior Member


    I do know what a scientific theory is, and I also know that over the course of time, and continued success, they do become more and more certain and more and more validated. Even, as you have put it, "beyond a reasonable doubt".

    Agreed.....and reason enough for scientists in that field to view them as fact, although I being slightly more critical, prefer to call them "near fact"

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    When something is the only answer or solution available, and taking into account the standard cosmological picture of the Universe since the BB, I see no problem accepting Abiogenesis as "near fact".......Even if Panspermia was shown to be how life evolved on Earth, the fact of Universal Abiogenesis would still be blindingly apparent.

    I also disagree with your statement that "logical assumptions" not carrying much weight.
    Science is full of logical common sense assumptions, Homogenity and Isotropy being just two.
  17. chinglu Valued Senior Member

    OK, so show me the logical pathway from chemicals to what is known as life. Then, your statements are true. Otherwise, they are false.

    And I am not a creationist atheist. I simple require that science adhere to the rules of logic.

    I do not believe in phantom/ghost emergence models in which there is nothing and suddenly there is matter in the universe. I suppose all religions have their creation myths.
  18. chinglu Valued Senior Member

    I agree with FR, it is a theory and not even in the sense of mathematical logic.

    So, in reality, it is an opinion. First, there is the problem of natural emergence of chemicals into life. This has not been proven.

    Next, there are experiments that do not fit under random mutation/natural selection for changes in offspring.

    With this experiment, the mice would need to alter the dna of their eggs or sperm based on external stimuli to produce the proven outcome.

    That is certainly not under the domain of the theory of evolution.

    In fact, I do not know what this would be under.
  19. Dywyddyr Penguinaciously duckalicious. Valued Senior Member

    Uh, why quote my comment about evolution when you're disputing abiogenesis?
    And why bother mentioning the mathematical logic definition of theory when the discussion is about the definition as used in science?
  20. chinglu Valued Senior Member

    No, you have my post wrong.

    1) I refuted that TOE is an actual theory under the definition of mathematical logic. I suppose science is based on logic no?
    2) Evolution is based on the natural operation of chemicals. Abiogenesis is under this definition though TOE has now run in terror from this position.
    3) I provided a current experiment that shows offspring change is not necessarily a function of random mutation and natural selection as claimed by TOE.

    Now, I believe there is evolution. I simply have proven that is not all there is.
  21. Dywyddyr Penguinaciously duckalicious. Valued Senior Member


    So what?
    I can prove a banana isn't a sheep under the definition of fish.
    Science and mathematical logic are different disciplines. (You should know that without needing to be told).
    And you didn't refute it. You merely claimed it's not.

    Oh look, back to abiogenesis. Tell me again how this relates to my post.

    Like I stated quite clearly.
    Evolution is fact.
    The "theory" part is about how it happens. Whether or not that theory manages to cover everything at the current moment is largely irrelevant.
    It's still an explanation based on what we know.You are aware that theories get modified? Altered? Aren't claimed to be the last final incontrovertible word?
    That new findings can change them?
    (Oh, and since I can't access the particular document that you referenced perhaps you could quote the relevant parts that make the current theory "not a theory").

    And again: so what?
    It alters neither evolution being a fact nor "theory" being an explanation based on facts.
    In other words: bugger all to do with what I posted.
  22. Aqueous Id flat Earth skeptic Valued Senior Member

    Wrong. It is a scientific proof invalidating Victorian era (and modern-day fundamentalist) creationism (catastrophism), to account for the newly emerged creatures at Galapagos, an archipelago that emerged from the ocean long after the ancestral species had established breeding grounds in South America. More importantly, as far as science is concerned, it is the ultimate theory for explaining the origin of all species. It is that and more because it has now been amended and updated to include more recent data to account for other mechanisms discovered recently.
    You are making the same mistake here that dywyddyr noted above. You're conflating fact, theory, theorem and proof. The evolution of the Darwin's finches on the Galapagos is a fact. The explanation that each of the dozen or more species evolved from a common ancestor as a matter of descent with modification is a theory (explanation). The initial pillar of that theory, natural selection, is also a fact, as is random mutation. A few pillars have been added since then which increase the range of causes of evolutionary change. They merely supplement the theory.

    And of course you are conflating abiogenesis with evolution.

    Here you are conflating natural selection with mutation. You think this is an argument against natural selection but it purports to be an argument against random mutation. After you correct your arguments, by turning them backwards and upside down, you are left with nothing more than adding another pillar to the theory of evolution. Darwin was correct that natural selection acts on mutations. That much is a fact. But he was not aware that all mutations are not necessarily random. That's exciting news but it doesn't detract from the theory one iota.

    Yes it is. Epigenetics is one of those newer pillars discovered after Darwin's death.

    You don't know because you have no actual interest in the science of evolution. You need to take a course in evolutionary biology to begin to understand what you are talking about. Epigenetics will be one of the topics covered.

    So far you haven't discredited the science at all. You have only displayed your ignorance about the content of the curriculum in evolutionary biology.
  23. wellwisher Banned Banned

    The point many people are making, is the evolutionists and abiogenesis speak the language of science, but does not have the smoking gun of proof that can overcome all doubt. This will not occur until life is formed in the lab and shows signs of self change. You don't see religion arguing about gravity because this has proof that anyone can see in their own life. It does not requiring an elaborate filter of the mind, based on education, to see. An extensive education in religion will allow one to see God in life just as well. That is why direct proof is so important; it helps to factor out the filter of education glasses.

    As an analogy, say we infer that a human male can high jump 9 feet. This has never happened before, but based on the materials and the structures of the human body and the dynamics of motion and momentum this should be possible. Yet nobody has done it, to settle this as being real. I faithfully have used the science of materials and logic to infer this but still there is no proof. If one denies this is possible, based on the lack of hard data, this group will be called a names to discredit them, so the rest can perpetuate the rational fantasy, easier.

    With biology, the logical processed is made weaker, by the extensive use of random do-all variables, where the logic gets thin. If we can't figure how we go from A to B, boom we add a mutation to bridge the gap in logic. That needed mutation is not reproducible data, as defined by the scientific method, but it is used anyway. This logic methods, uses a logic filler to help bridge the gap in discontinuous logic; random allows one to skip unknown steps.

    For example, on paper our subject should jump 9 feet, but it is not happening in the lab, like we have inferred, based on known materials and dynamics. We need a lottery jack pot day, where all conditions are just right, to bridge the logic gap. The religious people will use God to help bridge these same logic gaps; If God wants he can help him jump 9 feet. But this is not acceptable, since only the god Chaos and chance is allowed to bridge the logic gaps.

    From my POV, if you leave out the weight of a main variable, like water, your logic has to default to selective logic, which is more of an art than a science. This has to make use of political science where the debate is not settled in the lab of proof, but in arena of mudslinging and rhetoric.This is another tell. You will not see chemistry using politics to convince religion or even religions fighting back about atoms, because this has the proof and logic. Religion is a good sniff dog for broken logic that depends on politics and blind man's prophesy to fill in the gaps, when proof does not appear when needed.

    If you look at the places of science where religions challenge, and do not challenge, there is a litmus test trend that is connected to broken logic and random filler. The random filler is where you can easily asset God into the equation as easy as Chaos. The difference between this two divine variables is God is about logic and sequence and Chaos has no sense of direction, to help with broken logic.

Share This Page