Abiogenesis

And your support for this assertion is?

---

Just a monkey in a long line of kings.
If "elitist" just means "not the dumbest motherfucker in the room", I'll be an elitist!
*not an actual doctor

DrJones:The very same assumptions that my opponents have for their assertion that it is not. ps. I just noticed... 'not an actual doctor'.
You honor me sir...

I accept your correction.

my point is valid, though.the theory of abiogenesis (or rather, the attempt to get one), as with all theories in science, seeks to explain how something happened.just like panspermia, saying that an intelligent agent did it only shifts the question. except it's shifted to:
"how did the intelligent agent do it".looks like my statement is resting on more solid ground than yours.
(here's a hint: ToE is not an attempt to remove an "intelligent agent". it is an attempt to explain what we see happening, even if it's an "intelligent agent" doing it)

which are?

---

Just a monkey in a long line of kings.
If "elitist" just means "not the dumbest motherfucker in the room", I'll be an elitist!
*not an actual doctor

Kuresu:As for your last statement in parenthesis... I disagree. That is what 'the intelligent design movement' is doing. They make a distinction between natural selection and evolution. Not everything is intelligently designed. Much of our world is designed by human imagination. And you and I suffer the consequences.But since you recognize that intelligent design is a possibility, I wish to remind you that under that paradigm, the important question is not 'how' but 'why'.You already admitted that 'life was once not here, but now is', so what is learning every last detail of the 'how' going to achieve for us mortals? What is the motive?It is not the Goddidit argument that shifts the question, because we would all like to know 'how'. Rather it is the naturalist who shifts the question away from the 'what' and the 'why', by imposing a strictly emperical dogma and seperating altogether, the physical world from the metaphysical. How can that be? We may not understand the quantum, but it is relevant.It would be like me in a discussion about the earth, trying to argue that we are not in outer space, when space clearly transcends the earth. How can we understand the earth, without understanding the space inwhich it sits? I am using a purely material/material analogy to illustrate a material/immaterial analogy.That is the proper rebuttal to your commments though meandering to the point of danger to myself. And that is why severe topic restrictions are detrimental to any meaningful and comprehensive dialog.Within the confines of the status quo here at EVC, such responses are typically not admissable. How convenient...

DrJones:The different sides of the moral implications.

There is no restriction on you to bring up motivations. You just can't bring them up as red herrings in all the threads you participate in.If you really want to focus discussion on motivations please write an OP to that effect. Meanwhile we all invite you to keep it out of other topics since you have never shown how it invalidates anything at all.

which are?

---

Just a monkey in a long line of kings.
If "elitist" just means "not the dumbest motherfucker in the room", I'll be an elitist!
*not an actual doctor

Yes we are getting off topic.The moral implications may be handled in another thread. NOT HERE!ABE
Closing the thread while everyone thinks about the topic.Edited by AdminNosy, : No reason given.

So after this restful respite we can stir the primordial soup once again.Abiogenesis is most probably a purely chemical process. Although some metaphysical poofery cannot be said to be impossible (since we cannot prove a negative) there are approximately 0 data points in its favor. There are entire sets of disciplines from chemistry through Quantum physics with thousands of data points all pointing to a naturalistic, undirected, random-combination, chemical abiogenesis.We do not know with precision how this would have happened. There are numerous hypotheses on probable vectors from RNA World, Metabolism-First, PNA/TNA/PAH, Cairns-Smith, in primordial soup pools, deep sea vents, shallow evaporating ponds, etc., all with their plusses and minuses. As is usual with these things one would not be surprised to learn that some combination of the above together with something as yet unknown were the real thing.Some cite incredibly small probability within a linear mindset as opposition to a naturalistic abiogenesis. Given the known points of a pre-biotic atmosphere, the self-organization of aminos, organic compounds and fatty-acid limpid membranes, an abundance of water everywhere where literally billions of chance combinations occur each minute of every day for millions of years, it is indeed incredible to think that nothing would arise.Keep in mind the only requirement of abiogenesis is a simple, short-chain chemical replicator. The process does not require, nor should it be expected to require, a complex chain, a complex mechanism or a complete code set, let alone the most disingenuous claim of opponents, a complete functional cell. Abiogenesis only requires a sustaining replicator of the most minimal function. Some contention in this thread that a completed set of digital genetic codes would be necessary for abiogenesis to occur, I think refers to the later stages of the process. Something we may not define as “living” but could sustain its replication over many thousands of generations could probably be achieved from a simple genetic code. Evolution would create the complexity of a more robust code over the millennia to come, resulting in the first pre-proto-cell and beyond.There has also been expressed in this thread the thought that abiogenesis occurred once on this planet. By what reason do we assume the process occurred only once? On such a pristine planet with all the materials, all the time, why should we assume it happened once? Is it reasonable to speculate the process could have happened a few times, maybe a dozen, a hundred, a million? Could the first few hundred-thousand times some abiogenic process got started, it cycled out after a few minutes, hours, days, years? With our knowledge of the pre-biotic Earth and the mechanisms of chemistry involved we cannot reasonably limit the robustness of such a process, whatever it was, to just once.By the same token, I submit, it is unreasonable to limit the process to just a pre-biotic Earth. This planet today is a more saturated bio-chemical soup than ever. The workings of chemistry have not changed. If an abiogenic event occurred 200k years ago or 50k years ago or last Thursday at 4:18am Phoenix time what is to be expected? Should we expect some one-eyed, half-green half-pink, sea monster to suddenly arise from the deep? No. An abiogenic process may, and probably has many times, reoccurred. But in a world already full of life, expecting such a process to cycle un-eaten through the millennia it takes to develop the most moderate complexity is not just unreasonable it is ludicrous.

Then how do you know we can't? Basically, it is a negative: X cannot be said to be impossible. Insert "proof of a negative" in for X, and you disprove the premise of the argument. Disappears in a puff of logic. Not to mention it may not resemble the organics we look for in what we call 'life', so we may not be looking for the right things.

---

Help inform the masses - contribute to the EvoWiki today! Contributors needed in the following fields: Physical Anthropology, Invertebrate Biology (esp. Lepidopterology), Biochemistry, Population Genetics, Scientific Illustration, Scientific History, Philosophy of Science, Logic and others. Researchers also wanted to source creationist literature references. Register here!

HMhttp://EvC Forum: The Age of Rocks? -->EvC Forum: The Age of Rocks?

This seems to be both off topic and a fairly contentless way of whining about your treatment. If you think you are being treated unfairly by an Admin then please bring it up in the relevant thread 'Topic Proposal Issues'.TTFN,AW

Not whining at all, I have come to expect this. Just want to make sure it isn't missed even if it is not promoted. I trust Hoot Mon's ability to think for himself. Thanks for your concern, but such things don't 'wound' me now as much as they might have in the past.