Chemical evolution:

[Write4U]

Edit:

Can you explain what about the observed existence of living things is speculative?

Unless there is a theory that Life must have evolved from Life, there is nothing speculative about the fact that Life exists and therefore must have evolved from non-life.

Is that not called an axiom?

 

[iceaura]

Unless there is a theory that Life must have evolved from Life, there is nothing speculative about the fact that Life exists and therefore must have evolved from non-life.

The term "evolved" in there is both vague and speculative.

Illustration: Several researchers have speculated, as a work-around for the inability of anyone (so far) to come up with a plausible chain of events in the environment of the early planet, that life was seeded onto the planet from elsewhere in the solar system. Now that of course - at first - merely off-shored the root issue - somewhere a living being had to have emerged where there were no living beings. But upon second thoughts another possibility swims into view: that the seed was not a living being but a complex of stuff that when mashed up with a complement on the planet formed a stable replicator capable of Darwinian evolution.

That is: from two sources of nonliving complexity, each alone far from being alive and in their original environments not able to evolve further, a living complexity (or close enough, and capable of evolution in earth's environment) could be formed in one step.

That would not be a variation subject to selection, but a new and different entity - a "hopeful monster" not produced by Darwinian evolution as normally conceived but by chance (a chance which may have been quite likely, an event of high probability given all circumstances, but not a click in a Darwinian ratchet).

This is of course mere speculation, blowing smoke, spitballing - but so are the alternatives, in our current state of ignorance. One might - I do - consider straightforward Darwinian evolution acting on a planet's worth of lifeless chemicals with the right properties a more plausible or likely speculation, all things considered. But that invocation of Darwinian theory is itself not a theory - it is a spitball. Its value lies in its apparent sufficiency - that sufficiency being dramatic and enlightening in itself, as one can see in the reactions to it here and elsewhere.

 

[Yazata]

So those claiming that Abiogenesis is the only scientific process are labouring under a delusion that the standard naturalistic assumption that natural processes were obviously responsible for the emergence of life [Abiogenesis] should not be, or is not a theory, because?

Well, because it's a philosophical assumption, not a scientific theory. A scientific theory needs to be informative in scientific terms. Those claiming that "abiogenesis is the only scientific process" need to be able to specify the process. Otherwise the word is empty and isn't informative.

I get the impression that you are playing a little slight-of-hand card-trick with the phrase 'standard naturalistic assumption'. I don't think that you are being intentionally disingenuous, instead I suspect that you are confusing yourself.

If "standard naturalistic assumption" refers to methodological naturalism, and if we accept that as part of its definition 'natural science' incorporates methodological naturalism as a heuristic principle, then all that it's really telling us is that any scientific explanation of life's origin will necessarily be naturalistic. That doesn't exclude the possibility that life had an origin that wasn't naturalistic and that explaining life's origin might be entirely outside the scope of natural science. So methodological naturalism doesn't seem to be suitable for your rhetorical purposes.

And if "standard naturalistic assumption" means metaphysical naturalism, the idea that the boundaries of reality itself are co-extensive with the scope of natural science, then we are introducing a very strong metaphysical assumption that by its nature seems to go far beyond any possible evidence. So this one is basically just an expression of scientistic faith, and like creationism it leads to circular reasoning where one covertly introduces one's beliefs as premises and then triumphantly pull them out again as conclusions. So I don't think that this kind of naturalism serves your rhetorical purposes either.

I get the impression that your argument revolves around blurring that distinction. Start by assuming methodological naturalism, the idea that any scientific explanation of life's origins will be naturalistic (otherwise the explanation wouldn't be a scientific explanation). Then slippy-slide over to the idea that any true and correct account of life's origins must necessarily be scientific and hence naturalistic (metaphysical naturalism) and you seem to think that the evil ID'ers are defeated.

Which I suspect is your goal in all this. I don't think that it's working.

 

[Write4U]

The term "evolved" in there is both vague and speculative.

I used the term in it's most general sense. Darwinian evolution is a special form of evolution by natural selection for survival and pertains mainly to the gradual change (an occasional mutation) in living organisms.

Perhaps a better term to use in context of Abiogenesis is "chemical evolution", which is not so much oriented to the survival of an organism as it is to the self-organization of more complex animate chemical forms from simpler inanimate chemical forms, even if unrelated as in the case of Abiogenesis possibly occurring from combining unrelated chemical molecules and polymers.

That is: from two sources of nonliving complexity, each alone far from being alive and in their original environments not able to evolve further, a living complexity (or close enough, and capable of evolution in earth's environment) could be formed in one step.

I agree, although I prefer the concept of a non-living inanimate chemical self-organizing into an animate non-living chemical and then further evolving into a fully animate "living" organism.

I believe that people often overlook the fact that inanimate chemicals can often perform animated processes, such as in continual chemically reactive processes. A perfect example of that was found in the depletion of the ozone layer, where a single chlorine molecule is able to "eat" hundreds of ozone molecules, each time releasing a new chlorine molecule which then can destroy another ozone molecule. This is why it took 20 years to restore the hole in the ozone layer.

https://theozonehole.com/ozonedestruction.htm

IMO, this is tantamount to an inanimate chemical molecule eating another inanimate chemical!

Another example found in the flagella motor being driven by the circular flow of protons causing the assembly to rotate and afford the ability for motion (the assembly also acquires a chemical "memory" function) which makes it possible to change direction from forward to backward or sideways motion. That's pretty neat for a non-living chemical structure. (Incorrectly used by Behe to prove "irreducible complexity)

A flagellum (/fləˈdʒɛləm/; plural: flagella) is a lash-like appendage that protrudes from the cell body of certain bacteria and eukaryotic cells termed as flagellates. A flagellate can have one or several flagella. The primary function of a flagellum is that of locomotion, but it also often functions as a sensory organelle, being sensitive to chemicals and temperatures outside the cell.[1][2][3][4] The similar structure in the archaea functions in the same way but is structurally different and has been termed the archaellum.[5]

Flagella are organelles defined by function rather than structure. Flagella vary greatly. Both prokaryotic and eukaryotic flagella can be used for swimming but they differ greatly in protein composition, structure, and mechanism of propulsion. The word flagellum in Latin means whip.

https://www.wikiwand.com/en/Flagellum

While the flagellum is used by single celled living organisms, the flagella itself is actually purely chemical in nature and evolved from completely different functions of it's individual parts.

Is a virus alive ? Is there an exact demarcation between life and non-life? This is why it is so difficult to fashion a definitive theory of Abiogenesis. There are perhaps hundreds of possible "evolutionary variations on a theme"?

 

[Write4U]

Otherwise the word is empty and isn't informative.

Is an "axiom" informative?

 

[paddoboy]

Well, because it's a philosophical assumption, not a scientific theory.

Science is what we know: Philosophy is what we don't know. We know that at one time there was no life...then there was. Abiogenesis is the only scientific explanation, sorry.

Those claiming that "abiogenesis is the only scientific process" need to be able to specify the process. Otherwise the word is empty and isn't informative.
I get the impression that you are playing a little slight-of-hand card-trick I suspect that you are confusing yourself.

Not at all. It is fact. Once there was no life: Then there was. Abiogenesis is the only scientific explanation.

That doesn't exclude the possibility that life had an origin that wasn't naturalistic and that explaining life's origin might be entirely outside the scope of natural science.

That actually appears to be a sleight-of-hand trick, to legitimise ID. It doesn't.

So methodological naturalism doesn't seem to be suitable for your rhetorical purposes.

My claims are more scientific naturalism, rather then your own philosophical rhetoric...evolution of spacetime...Superforce...phase transitions and first fundamentals...atomic nucleii....first elements H and He...stars ...heavier elements...more stars and planets...Life.

Then slippy-slide over to the idea that any true and correct account of life's origins must necessarily be scientific and hence naturalistic (metaphysical naturalism) and you seem to think that the evil ID'ers are defeated.

Actually, that's back to front. It's us poor deniers of ID and creationism, that generally and are labelled as "evil Atheists"
In essence your apparent fence sitting, has your legs obviously dangling over one particular side.

Which I suspect is your goal in all this. I don't think that it's working.

I havn't a goal actually. What you believe is your problem. I'm simply stating the fact that Abiogenesis is the only scientific explanation of life, and that any possibility of non scientific nonsense, requires a belief in ghosts, goblins supernatural and paranormal activity, which is all unproven and unscientific.
And of course any ID or creator need by definition to defy science and logic explanation, with such unscientific properties/qualities, as omnipotence, all powerful, and the rest of the nonsense that such non science explanations require.

 

[Write4U]

ID'ers profess that ignorance is bliss. I agree, and it also stops evolving human intellectual enlightenment, which is metaphorically told in scripture as eating the fruit from the tree of "knowledge" and thereby earning eternal damnation........

Go figure.

 

[Write4U]

Correction: post #344 should say "free chlorine atom", "ozone molecule" and "chlorine monoxide molecule"

 

[Q-reeus]

ID'ers profess that ignorance is bliss....

Having made that fool assertion, please link to chapter and verse in a published online article or book, where any IDer - that can include young Earthers - actually professes that 'ignorance is bliss'. All IDers will confess that no-one can know how God created life. But that obvious position is far from what you claimed.

 

[Michael 345]

evolved

I prefer arose

 

[paddoboy]

All IDers will confess that no-one can know how God created life. But that obvious position is far from what you claimed.

I'm more concerned with the question, "who, what created God, and how any entity could be all powerful and existing forever.
I see the prospect of a Universe from nothing, [redefined as the pre BB quantum foam] and quantum mechanics telling us that "nothing" is unstable, plus chemical evolution and Abiogenesis, [while admitting gaps there] as far more likely and certainly scientific then the need for a creator or IDer. Thankfully, that is also the view of the vast majority of scientists.

 

[paddoboy]

I prefer arose

A rose by any other name.........

Sorry, couldn't help myself!! * gives self uppercut*

 

[Write4U]

Having made that fool assertion, please link to chapter and verse in a published online article or book, where any IDer - that can include young Earthers - actually professes that 'ignorance is bliss'. All IDers will confess that no-one can know how God created life. But that obvious position is far from what you claimed.

Any response would be off topic.
Therefore I have posted it under religion "Is science a religion"

 

[Write4U]

A rose by any other name.........

Sorry, couldn't help myself!! * gives self uppercut*

Don't forget to turn the other cheek!

 

[Q-reeus]

I'm more concerned with the question, "who, what created God, and how any entity could be all powerful and existing forever.
I see the prospect of a Universe from nothing, [redefined as the pre BB quantum foam] and quantum mechanics telling us that "nothing" is unstable, plus chemical evolution and Abiogenesis, [while admitting gaps there] as far more likely and certainly scientific then the need for a creator or IDer. Thankfully, that is also the view of the vast majority of scientists.

To be truly self-consistent, there has to be an unending succession of universes stretching into the infinite past. Multiverse theories fail there because they involve branching structures which inexorably finishes at a finite time in the past with a single trunk - the initial BB. One or more cyclic models consistent with our universe apparently undergoing exponential expansion may offer a solution. Those who opt for an infinite universe (perfectly spatially flat), currently the majority opinion among cosmologists, have to live with it necessarily containing an infinite amount of information. Always just there.
Why is that any less of an issue than an eternal God? You and other atheists here need to recognize that denying the possibility of an eternal God is simply an argument from incredulity.

 

[Michael 345]

Don't forget to turn the other cheek!

Stuff that. As many uppercuts as you can. On the ground, kick in gonads

 

[paddoboy]

To be truly self-consistent, there has to be an unending succession of universes stretching into the infinite past. Multiverse theories fail there because they involve branching structures which inexorably finishes at a finite time in the past with a single trunk - the initial BB. One or more cyclic models consistent with our universe apparently undergoing exponential expansion may offer a solution. Those who opt for an infinite universe (perfectly spatially flat), currently the majority opinion among cosmologists, have to live with it necessarily containing an infinite amount of information. Always just there.
Why is that any less of an issue than an eternal God? You and other atheists here need to recognize that denying the possibility of an eternal God is simply an argument from incredulity.

Incredulity?/ I'm pretty sure it is far far less incredible speculating a nothing that actually is the quantum foam [or as nothing as it is possible to get] and as such, has existed for eternity, rather then some omnipotent all knowing, all powerful magical deity/creator, that has absolutely no basis in science whatsoever...particularly as science has continually over the centuries, pushed any such necessity, back to near oblivion. Makes a heap of sense for that pushing to continue as science progresses.

 

[Michael 345]

a nothing that actually is the quantum foam

Arrrh Quantum Foam when you really need a nothing

I'm guessing those who postulate some sort of god - ID'er - Higher Being etc etc do so really only because they detect DESIGN within the Universe

I am curious as to would religion exist IF say as some examples

• kids don't resemble parents ie can pop out any colour, features, eye colour, etc etc
• same for species
• no prediction could be made about something as fundimental as a planets orbit
• stuff just occurred at random moments
• no cause / explanation found
• yes apples fall up OR down and no-one knows why and no matter how many measurements or observations or stats collected no pattern emerges

For me that would eliminate any form of Intelligence

Any speculation what religion could / would replace god with?

Any candidates?

 

[Write4U]

For me that would eliminate any form of Intelligence

I agree, but that does not eliminate some form of quasi-intelligence, such as the logical processing of relational values by means of mathematical processes, which needs not be sentient, nor motivated, just functional.

 

[Michael 345]

I agree, but that does not eliminate some form of quasi-intelligence, such as the logical processing of relational values by means of mathematical processes.

One more quasi ANYTHING to me and CLICK

OK