Modularity, A distinguishing property of life

Aren't you relying on the same kind of faith the religious rely on? Abiogenesis has never been witnessed, experimentally replicated or proven in any way, just like God. What's the difference between your faith and theirs? Edited by Hyroglyphx, : No reason given.

---

"The problem with Socialism is you eventually run out of other people's money." --Margaret Thatcher--

Either nothing created everything, or nothing created God and God created everything. What more can be deduced? You still have that age old chicken-egg problem. Which came first?

---

"The problem with Socialism is you eventually run out of other people's money." --Margaret Thatcher--

I'm sorry but this flies in the face of all scientific inquiry, Mr. Jack.Let me paraphrase what you just said:No life was on the Earth a really time ago, but now there is life. So therefore life just popped into existence all by itself, regardless of whether or not it's been scientifically demonstrated. There is nothing else to surmise because there couldn't possibly be any other explanation I'm willing to entertain. It goes against my deepest philosophical views. The end.There is nothing beyond speculation pointing to abiogenesis. If you reduce life and matter down fraction by fraction, eventually you run in to nothing creating something. Everything we know, empirically, is that such a notion is an absurdity. There is no truth beyond the theoretical stage. I'm sure you're gonna tell me all about the Miller-Urey experiment, and we'll go back and forth for several rounds until I'm bored with repeating myself.Is it impossible for me to believe? No, not necessarily. Could there be any other explanation besides things just popping in to existence besides something supernatural? Sure, why not.My issue is the certainty you are speaking with. You don't know what happened, least of all empirically. Nobody does at this point. This is ALL speculation from the scientific community. Good for them for trying to figure out, I hardily commend that. That doesn't mean that abiogenesis is a FACT, as you assert, because it is anything but a fact. At some point you still have the timeless chicken/egg problem.The most honest answer is, we're not exactly sure, so don't sell me a philosophical agenda when science, true unbiased science, has no agendaEdited by Hyroglyphx, : No reason given.Edited by Hyroglyphx, : No reason given.

---

"The problem with Socialism is you eventually run out of other people's money." --Margaret Thatcher--

Expansion of the universe strongly implies a beginning, otherwise where is it expanding from? A ripple in the water or a tidal wave traveling thousands of miles first had an epicenter. If space-time had a beginning, then matter has a beginning. One has to logically assume the other. You can't have matter without first having space to contain the matter. If you agree with the predominant scientific community that the Bib Bang occurred, then knowing what we know about physics would lead you to a more inescapable conclusion, not just a hunch. RNA-first DNA-first hypothesizers have one thing in common, they hypothesize. There is one thing certain here: That is abiogenesis is no where near fact with the necessary amount of scientific rigor for people to tell me that I'm wrong. I'm not the one wrong here. I'm not saying it didn't happen, I'm saying it has never been proven, so what is the difference a person who believes God did it versus a person who believes nothing did it? It's still faith no matter how you slice it.You believe it happened, the burden therefore lies on you to prove to me that abiogenesis happened. I think you should know before you start on your trek that even the Dictionary is at odds with you.

---

"The problem with Socialism is you eventually run out of other people's money." --Margaret Thatcher--

For clarification, I was calling in to question his professed certainty on the subject, none of which he knows empirically. He was using a post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy. That's not science. He was relying on faith. What then is the difference between his faith and creationists faith?It's disingenuous to speak with certainty on the subject of abiogenesis, especially when it has long been scientifically demonstrated to be false thus far.

---

"The problem with Socialism is you eventually run out of other people's money." --Margaret Thatcher--

How can it be a fact when you don't even know how it happened?Consider this: It is a fact that human beings exist. That's true. We don't know how we came in to being with 100% certainty, but we nonetheless know we exist.Well, we already know matter exists. So abiogenesis IS attempting to answer the "how" question... And that much is NOT a fact. It's a speculation. It basically boils down to a question of the philosophy of science rather than science itself.The only philosophical deduction you are willing to make, since you rule out anything else to the contrary a priori, is that inorganic matter had to have created organic matter. That's not science. That's drawing your own conclusions. No, that does not constitute a fact. That is a logical fallacy. You are relying on speculation and creating your own false dilemma, another logical fallacy. Think about this objectively. You basically can't conceive that anything other than inorganic matter could have produced organic matter. You assume that is true and then hide behind the fact that you don't know how it happened. If you don't know the how part, then you can't claim that is science, as sciences' only goal is to answer the how question.Was gravity not around before Newton? Obviously so. Everybody understood what gravity would do. What he answered was why and how it happened. That's science. Gravity, not nothing. No, because abiogenesis specifically means spontaneous generation. In other words, shit inexplicably happened. Relying on the "God did it" account is stupid, obviously. Because whether or not God ultimately has dominion over all physical affairs doesn't negate any field of science. We already know that is an absurd conclusions. What I'm trying to get people to realize is that their anti-religious, pro-science stance is often not too far off the mark than what they are against. This cannot be if they want to be objective scientists. Edited by Hyroglyphx, : No reason given.

---

"The problem with Socialism is you eventually run out of other people's money." --Margaret Thatcher--

Yes, but only because it is a non-answer. Science can only answer physical questions, right? How then can it answer superphysical questions? Science doesn't say God exists or doesn't... It just doesn't care either way.Suppose God or whatever has ultimate dominion over everything. Does God cause the rain clouds to rain over New Zealand or does meteorology have a more useful way of explaining things? No, not exactly. Following the order of things, it is hypothesized that inorganic matter preceded organic matter. That being the case, it is theorized that non-living matter gave rise to living matter.

---

"The problem with Socialism is you eventually run out of other people's money." --Margaret Thatcher--

It was a fact that what goes up must come down long before Newton. I already know where you are going with this and will answer that question when I get to it. You are conflating that with abiogensis. Abiogenesis is the specific study of how inorganic matter spawned organic matter. Anything else is irrelevant.In a previous post I said,

quote:

---

No, because abiogenesis specifically means spontaneous generation.

---

You replied, It does though. If we are going over Louis Pasteur's experiment (or that one Italian scientist with the meat and flies experiment) then, no, they don't correlate. But what else are we talking about other than spontaneous generation? Life coming from non-life, spontaneously! Right, which spontaneously occurred somewhere in that chain of
events. It could also be something like conception. In a single moment, when spermatozoa meets ovum, a reaction occurs where a new being has been procreated. But a human as we know it is a slower process. It may be like that, as you allude, but we don't really know anything for certain. And I'm not really sure that it matters. It's all just a way to satisfy our curiosity. Nothing wrong with that, just an observation. How so?

---

"The problem with Socialism is you eventually run out of other people's money." --Margaret Thatcher--

Life happens spontaneously, you'd have to agree with that. The processes that lead up to that ultimate creation may be slow, but there is a moment in time when something was non-living then became living within the theory. No way of getting around that inescapable conclusion. It may lessen the blow to talk about the developing mechanisms over a long period of time, but it is hard to get around the spontaneity of its ultimate and immediate cause. I know it's not used in the modern-day vernacular because it is embarrassing. The term abiogenesis is an antiquated theory disproven a long, long time ago. Your meaning may be something totally different. My usage of the word, however, is accurate. I am aware that you often can't pinpoint the second something happened. That doesn't, however, negate the point that at some finite point in time that it would logically have had to have happened in that manner. I just mean the people who refuse to think there is any way other than their own. I am referring to staunch evolutionists/creationists ruling out possibilities beforehand that philosophically conflict with their beliefs. Edited by Hyroglyphx, : No reason given.

---

"The problem with Socialism is you eventually run out of other people's money." --Margaret Thatcher--

Because every reproductive instance is immediate cause and effect, as in every action has opposite and equal reaction. It's never been demonstrated to do anything other than that. No, I think you misunderstand. A law of physics doesn't have to prove why it doesn't ever break its own law. The fact that it doesn't break is what makes it a law in the first place. If you think it differently, then it is up to you to prove that. Bad analogy. When a living thing is created, does it take aeons to form? No, it takes hundredths of a second. What takes a long time to form are different species through successive gradations. But that has nothing to do with abiogenesis.True or not true: The shift from non-living to the first prokaryote was instantaneous? It's embarrassment for many evolutionists since creationists incessantly refer to abiogenesis being impossible. It's one of their small victories. Click on the link I embedded in that very paragraph. Then do we agree on the latin root words meanings?

A = a negative; no; not

Bio = Life; live; living

Genesis = Creation, beginning

​

Non + living + creation

​

And again, you have absolutely no objective evidence to support that. The current evidence shows that you are wrong, though.

​

Life has never happened in any other way! Why would it be up to me to provide evidence to refute something you are alleging that is contrary to everything we know? The ONLY reason life happens is a reaction due to an action taken by one or more living things.

​

Never, ever, ever has it been demonstrated that non-livings become living things. Even now and under pristine and ideal laboratory conditions! So how is it up to me to demonstrate why that isn't true as opposed to you proving to me why it is!?!?

​

I direct you to RAZD's thread.

​

That's fantastic. I once read a lot about the subject and came away as empty-handed on answers as when I began. Not only is it incredibly dry subject material, but it is a lot of empty words and empty meanings. I know about the theoretical side. If they can demonstrate that life comes from non-life, I'll be the first to concede the point. I literally have no problem with it. In the meantime, don't tell me that I'm wrong when there is zero, zilch, nil evidence supporting that life either came from non-life in the past when it can't even be demonstrated now! That seems like a reasonable request to me, but maybe I'm biased.

​

In science and matters of fact, there is no pre-philosophical position that one needs to hold to to get the right answers, the evidence points to what the evidence points to, period.

​

Sadly there is, though. Think about it. The genesis of time has all sorts of philosophical underpinnings that may cloud the judgment of many, if not most, scientists.

​

What "staunch" evolutionist? What does that even mean? That they accept the theory? Are there any "staunch" gravityist?

​

Now you're throwing in words like "evolutionist" in a discussion about abiogenesis? I think your true colors are starting to come out, Hydro.

​

I'm talking about the ones who, just like creationists, refuse to even entertain a thought that slightly differs with their own ideologies. I'm talking about the assholes out there. ALL creationists have an agenda. Every single last one of them, which means they've lost all ability to objectively study science with any integrity. Not all evolutionists do this, but many, many, many of them do. That's a problem.

​

If you can't tell from my first post, I am calling in to question one's right to bash "faith" when all they have to do is examine their own beliefs a little more closely to see that they are hypocrites.

​

Does that shed a little more light on the subject?

​

---

"Fix reason firmly in her seat, and call to her tribunal every fact, every opinion. Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason, than that of blindfolded fear." Thomas Jefferson

Any cellular organism is by definition a living organism. That's a quick and easy way to determine living from non-living. Undetermined, but thus far discredited. It is a theoretical field of study. Not exclusively, but commonly, yes. Yes, life has come in to existence. That's a beautiful thing! But why then are some people here claiming that is true? Definitions are all we have to understand one another. I already provided the definition. My definition seems to be far more common than the one you hold to.Use abiogenesis in a Sentence
—noun Biology.
the now discredited theory that living organisms can arise spontaneously from inanimate matter; spontaneous generation.

---

"Fix reason firmly in her seat, and call to her tribunal every fact, every opinion. Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason, than that of blindfolded fear." Thomas Jefferson

Earlier, I stated

quote:

---

True or not true: The shift from non-living to the first prokaryote was instantaneous?

---

So then there is a transitional period where something is half living and half non-living... Kinda like a zombie! Cells versus no cells. That seems simple. No need to over-complicate it. One can reproduce the other cannot. Simple. Yes, there is a sharp line. One is alive and the other is not. Not a whole lot of gray area there.

---

"Fix reason firmly in her seat, and call to her tribunal every fact, every opinion. Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason, than that of blindfolded fear." Thomas Jefferson

Life coming in to existence doesn't equal abiogenesis. That's not my equivocation, it's yours.You do know what the word abiogenesis means, right? It doesn't mean life coming in to existence. It means living matter coming in to existence specifically by non-living matter. Huge difference.

---

"Fix reason firmly in her seat, and call to her tribunal every fact, every opinion. Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason, than that of blindfolded fear." Thomas Jefferson

You are creating a false dilemma via a non sequitor. You say I'm using two different definitions. Do you hold the same when we speak of evolution?Consider this: You ask a creationist if he believes in evolution.What will his answer be?He can say both yes and no through the semantics you've created.Evolution is a field of study, but in the broader context it is a physical process.Do you believe in evolution?Yes, I believe there is such a field devoted to studying the process of evolution.(Same question worded exactly the same with a different response)Do you believe in evolution?No I don't. I don't think such a physical process is possible.So, do I believe there is a field of study devoted to studying the process of living matter coming from non-living matter? Yes. Do I believe that life comes from non-living matter? No, it has never been empirically demonstrated.

---

"Fix reason firmly in her seat, and call to her tribunal every fact, every opinion. Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason, than that of blindfolded fear." Thomas Jefferson

It's not a matter of where I draw the line, but where science does. Only organisms have cells, would you agree? Anything cellular and can reproduce is living. That is a classical, no nonsense definition of what constitutes life or living matter. Molecules are non-living. All matter is made of molecules, so that really isn't a qualifier. Replication is not the same as reproduction, I'm sure you would agree. I glanced at it. It looks very involved, so I will peruse it at greater length at a later date. Looks like some good work, though. Sure, but before I do, I would also like you to do the same, for if you are able to critique my definition with integrity, you must also have a definition in mind of what constitutes life. I also will require a source from you, especially if one is able to define abiogenesis as life coming from non-life, then one has to reasonably distinguish between the two."... biological sciences are sharply marked off from the abiological, or those which treat of the phenomena manifested by not-living matter, in so far as the properties of living matter distinguish it absolutely from all other kinds of things, and as the present state of knowledge furnishes us with no link between the living and the not-living...The Properties of Living MatterThese distinctive properties of living matter are 1. Its chemical composition -- containing, as it invariably does, one or more forms of a complex compound of carbon, hydrogen, oxygen, and nitrogen, the so-called protein (which has never yet been obtained except as a product of living bodies) united with a large proportion of water, and forming the chief constituent of a substance which, in its primary unmodified state, is known as protoplasm.

​

2. Its universal disintegration and waste by oxidation; and its concomitant reintegration by the intus-susception of new matter.

​

A process of waste resulting from the decomposition of the molecules of the protoplasm, in virtue of which they break up into more highly oxidated products, which cease to form any part of the living body, is a constant concomitant of life. There is reason to believe that carbonic acid is always one of these waste products, while the others contain the remains of the carbon, the nitrogen, the hydrogen, and the other elements which may enter into the composition of the protoplasm. The new matter taken in to make good this constant loss is either a ready-formed protoplasmic material, supplied by some other living being, or it consists of the elements of protoplasm, united together in simpler combinations, which consequently have to be built up into protoplasm by the agency of the living matter itself. In either case, the addition of molecules to those which already existed takes place, not at the surface of the living mass, but by interposition between the existing molecules of the latter. If the processes of disintegration and of reconstruction which characterize life balance one another, the size of the mass of living matter remains stationary, while, if the reconstructive process is the more rapid, the living body grows. But the increase of size which constitutes growth is the result of a process of molecular intus-susception, and therefore differs altogether from the process of growth by accretion, which may be observed in crystals and is effected purely by the external addition of new matter so that, in the well-known aphorism of Linnaeus, the word "grow," as applied to stones, signifies a totally different process from what is called "growth" in plants and animals

​

3. Its tendency to undergo cyclical changes.

​

In the ordinal course of nature, all living matter proceeds from pre-existing living matter, a portion of the latter being detached and acquiring an independent existence. The new form takes on the characters of that from which it arose; exhibits the same power of propagating itself by means of an offshoot; and, sooner or later, like its predecessor, ceases to live, and is resolved into more highly oxidated compounds of its elements.

​

Thus an individual living body is not only constantly changing its substance, but its size and form are undergoing continual modifications, the end of which is the death and decay of that individual; the continuation of the kind being secured by the detachment of portions which tend to run through the same cycle of forms as the parent. No forms of matter which are either not living, or have not been derived from living matter, exhibit these three properties, nor any approach to the remarkable phenomena defined under the second and third heads. But in addition to these distinctive characters, living matter has some other peculiarities, the chief of which are the dependence of all its activities upon moisture and upon heat, within a limited range of temperature, and the fact that it usually possesses a certain structure, or organization.

​

As has been said, a large proportion of water enters into the composition of all living matter; a certain amount of drying arrests vital activity, and the complete abstraction of this water is absolutely incompatible with either actual or potential life. But many of the simpler forms of life may undergo desiccation to such an extent as to arrest their vital manifestations and convert them into the semblance of not-living matter, and yet remain potentially alive. That is to say, on being duly moistened they return to life again. And this revivification may take place after months, or even years, of arrested life. -SOURCESo a quick recap:

Contains cells

Growth, as opposed to grows

Capable of reproducing

Capable of changing its state, as in death or decay

​

Inorganic material can do none of these things and are therefore distinguished from simple compounds.

​

Hope that clarifies my position.

​

---

"Fix reason firmly in her seat, and call to her tribunal every fact, every opinion. Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason, than that of blindfolded fear." Thomas Jefferson