Transition from chemistry to biology

It absolutely does my friend...... I'm afraid that you like many others in this forum and the Biogenesis thread do not understand what a spontaneous natural process is. It is an outright fallacy to declare that abiogenesis is not spontaneous. It is also a fallacy to declare that abiogenesis is not spontaneous generation. Every single chemical reaction and self organizational step along the long and winding millions of years origin of life road is a step that must be spontaneously generated, and each step must obey the 2nd Law of themodynamics. Each step in the abiogenesis hypothesis must be a spontaneous process.Now I can certainly understand why you don't want the word "spontaneous" to be associated with abiogenesis. Spontaneous generation was falsified 150 years ago or so, and so you and others now have to equivocate on terms to justify your position. But fallacies are fallacies, and I would think that you would not have any toleration for fallacies in science.Edited by AlphaOmegakid, : No reason given.

Hello eial and welcome to EVC. You will find out quickly that many in this forum do throw out the law of biogenesis. They don't like it, because it presents problems for their worldview. This is why no current papers or Biology books even make mention of the law of biogenesis.The Cell theory is also a problem, because it says that "the cell is the fundamental unit of structure and function in living things." That means that a cell is the smallest known living thing. People who believe in abiogenesis need "living things" that are much simpler than cells. That's why abiogenesis is a philosophical faith and not good science. IMO

Time has nothing to do with spontaneous chemical reactions and self organizing reactions. That's your category error. They could happen in an instant, or they could take millions of years for the right circumstances.Edited by AlphaOmegakid, : No reason given.

All quotes by onifre.... No, absolutely not. There are a myriad of spontaneous chemical ractions. I would say this is an excellent summary of abiogenesis. I assume you are talking about spontaneous chemical reactions and self organization and not abiogenesis here. Abiogenesis clearly has not been observed. It doesn't matter, that is a strawman argument. It doesn't matter whether it is a single spontaneous chemical reaction or a thousand spontaneous chemical reations all hapenning at the same time. The point is that at one moment those chemical arragements were not alive and the next moment they are alive. The quantity and frequency of the reactions are irrelevant.If that moment is not obsevable, measurable, or quantifiable then this just ain't science, because it is unfalsifiable. If life is not definable, then this ain't science, because it prevents falsifiability based on equivocation. No, absolutely not. This is another strawman. The law of biogenesis has nothing to do with "a single chemical reaction". What we know and observe is that the creation of life (biogenesis) is a myriad of spontaneous chemical reactions happening all in a very short period of time. When a cell divides to create another there are "tons" of chemical reactions. When two gametes come together to create a zygote, there are "tons" of chemical reactions spontaneously occurring. There is nothing in my argument that suggests a single chemical reaction. Yeah, so you posted a definition of abiogenesis and biogenesis. I saw no need to argue with your definitions. They are two different words with two different meanings. So what. So far, you are the only one misusing the definition of abiogenesis to misrepresent what it isas well as biogenesis. Why should I need to respond about Pasteur's results? I know them better than you. I have not rejected sound evidence. You and others in the Biogeneis thread have argued that LoB doesn't even exist. You and others have argued that the abiogenesis of today is different from the abiogenesis during Huxley's day. It isn't. You and others have argued that abiogenesis has nothing to do with biogenesis. But it does.It sounds to me that you are the one rejecting sound evidence,and being "bullheaded and arrogant". But you haven't properly identified any fallacies of mine. However I have properly identified yours. Huh....

Not OK! Why don't you just quote a decent source so we can all agree... Now wasn't that simple! Abiogenesis, as has been stated before, historically, is the search to substantiate the general hypothesis that life can be generated from non-living chemicals. Onifre, this is a strawman argument. No one has said that a single reaction creates life. Infact, I showed that the evidence of life that clearly demonstrates that life is created with a mutltitude of chemical reactions all happening at the same time. I realize this is post life, but that is where all these abiogenesis studies come from. They come from what we already know about existing life. So stop trying to make the argument that I am saying that the creation of life is about a single chemical reaction.I fully understand that all abiogesis hypotheses rely on millions of years of successive chemical reactions. That only makes it plausible to the faithful. It doesn't make it plausible by evidence. But there still will be a moment in time where the predecessor grouping of chemicals is not alive, and then all of a sudden it is alive. If not, then how can it be about the study of the origin of life? There is indeed an origin isn't there? And it evidently only happened once. (one common ancestor) I will have to cut your statements here apart, because they are full of fallacies."A combination of various chemicals, arranged in order, can produce life," Wrong. This is the hypothesis of abiogenesis, but that's all it is. It certainly is no where close to the factual claim that you just made."whether you want to say God had to be there to do this, or you can agree that if left alone these chemicals, given enough time and the proper conditions will do this on their own, it doesn't remove the fact that life is a combination of chemicals."Wrong again. There is no evidence that given enough time (your magic) that if left alone, any chemicals will self organize to create life. And life is not just chemicals. Chemicals are matter. They have mass and they interact with other chemicals. But life requires gravity doesn't it? And gravity is not matter. And it is "invisible." And it effects every chemical reaction and every spontaneous organization event doesn't it? Light also affects life. Almost all life, responds to light and most life requires light. And much of light is "invisible". Even many of the origin of life experiments to create chirality involve light. Yet light is non-material and non-chemical.Now I have just identified two non-material fundamental elements one of which is absolutely esential for life, and the other is probably essential for life. And both affect those chemical reactions all along the way, don't they? Now what prevents the future discovery of an invisible non-material entity other than gravity and light that is absolutely essential for life? That's not so unreasonable given the evidence is it? So put up or shut up onifre. Cite my words exactly and demonstrate where I have used these definitions in the wrong context. Bring forth your evidence or go waddle off in the shame of your false claims. You do not have enough information to declare this. You nor anyone else have broken the LoB. The LoB may very well apply to abiogenesis. Especially if there is indeed an invisible non-material entity that is passed from life to life, but cannot come from chemicals alone. And that is a reasonable scientific hypothesis, since the LoB is so universal, yet abiogenesis still remains a philosophical faith. At least you are faithful.Edited by AlphaOmegakid, : No reason given.

All quotes from onifre... You have stated several times now that.... Now I know that you don't understand what a strawman is, but it is still a strawman argument. Nobody, but you has stated this claim. You are arguing against your own words.Then you do it again after I point this out.... No one has claimed that abiogenesis is looking for a single reaction that creates life. That is your strawman. Now I have identified these three times. Please recognize your fallacious tendency. So what, all I am showing is that it doesn't matter whether it is one chemical reaction or zillions of chemical reactions scattererd thoughout a time period. I don't care. I have not argued that life must created by a single chemical reaction. That is your fallacy. So this is your logic? The successive process of abiogenesis nullifies the LoB? Wrong. LoB states that ALL living matter comes from pre-existing living matter. That happens to be inclusive of the life we have discovered that supposedly existed some 3.8 billion years ago. For life to have a chemical origin, science will have to show exception to the LoB. The LoB will have to be bounded where no boundary can be shown today. You see, the magic of millions of years just won't be sufficient for any theory of abiogenesis. To nulify or bound the LoB, one must show observable repeatable evidence that life can originate from chemical processes. Otherwise you're still are going to be left with just a philosophical mystical story of lifes origins that somehow evolved over millions of years. Then please don't just make assertions. Please provide evidence of scientists claiming that there is evidence that makes abiogenesis plausible. Cite a paper. Please! I wouldn't suspect you would. Yes assertions, please back up your assertions and show anything that I have said about matter, gravity and light that is not scientifically accurate. Citations please! These three sentence are almost unbelievable. First you say that you can't cite my words demonstrating a misunderstanding of abiogenesis or biogenesis. Then you proceed to declare once again that I have a misunderstanding about biogenesis. Then you say "how can I cite words which you have not yet written."This paragraph demostrates how illogical your thought processes really are. Wow, I concede. You clearly won that debate! These are just more non-sensical statements. I hope this is obvious to the moderators. Onifre, with all due respect, this just demonstrates more of your ineptitude with science and logic.... Hypotheses are published in books and peer reviewed magazines like "Science" and "Nature". This is further evidence of your lack of knowledge in the entire field of science.

all quotes from onifre Wow, you got that part right. Abiogenesis is indeed spontaneous generation. First off what Louis Pasteur disproved doesn't "require" anything. Secondly there is no restriction that you or anyone else can legitimately show that requires "a single momentary reaction". I have shown you this multiple times now.Abiogenesis can be a single reaction in a moment, or it can be a gazillion reactions in a moment. The point is not the number of reactions, the point is that there is a distinguishable moment. Sorry to inform you, but that is what abiogenesis is, and in a moment I will prove it to you using your own citation. This is an excellent discription of the whole history of the abiogenesis (spontaneous generation) and the biogenesis (life comes from life) fight. Now I quote the last paragraph in full for you..... Now if you would stop smoking pot (your signature) while you are typing these riddiculous posts, you might read something yourself and learn about it. Abiogenesis is the study / general hypothesis that life can be generated from chemicals. However many chemical reactions, and the length of time that those reactions occurred is irrelevant. Life must still be spontaneously generated at some moment in the past. Abiogenesis is spontaneous generation. Yes, that is what I claim. That's what your citation agrees with. That what all of my previous citations agree with. The only one who doesn't agree is you, because you are the only one who doesn't understand the subject. And it also requires self organization which may or may not be a chemical reation. But each reaction and self organizing event must be spontaneously generated. Nobody said it was. But each accumulating step along this primordial yellow brick road must be spontaneously generated. And your ignorant plees are going unheard. My citations plead with you to understand that abiogenesis is spontaneous generation. Your citations plead with you that abiogenesis is spontaneous generation. The only one not understanding this is you. Onifre, please quote the entire sentence. Yes, Pasteur proved that life does not spontaneously arise in nature from non-life. Life does not spontaneously generate from chemicals. Therefore, you should be able to comprehend that Biogenesis (life comes from life) is the opposite of spontaneous generation (life comes from non-life) and abiogenesis (life comes from non-life). No! Pasteurs whole experiment and purpose was to disprove spontaneous generation and abiogenesis, and he did. He falsified the theory that life can come from non-living chemicals as is well documented in the Huxley address here: Biogenesis and AbiogenesisThis sentence just completely confirms your ignorance on this subject. Biogenesis is the opposite of Abiogenesis. Abiogenesis is synonomous with spontaneous generation. Let me see if I can make this simple so you freshman physics brain can comprehend it.Biogenesis is all living matter comes from pre-existing living matter. Biogenesis is bacteria come from bacteria. Biogenesis is maggots come from flies. Biogenesis is dogs come from dogs. Biogenesis is tulips come from tulip bulbs. Biogenesis is corn comes from corn seeds.Clasical spontaneous generation was life can come from non-living matter. SG was maggots come from dead flesh. SG was mice come from bales of hay. SG was bacteria come from soup......Clasical SG was maggots come from a grouping where all the building blocks of life are present (dead flesh), and somehow they spontaneously self organize into maggots over the next few days. SG was mice come from a grouping where all the building blocks of life are present (a bale of hay) and somehow they spontaneously self organize into mice over the next few weeks. SG was bacteria come from a grouping where many of the building blocks of life are present (soup) and somehow they spontaneously organized into bacteria over the next few hours.Now anyone can see that biogenesis and spontaneous generation are not synonyms. They are opposing ideas.However abiogenesis as you have agreed is life comes from chemical. That is synonomous with the notion of spontaneous generation. The idea is that a successive series of spontaneous chemical reactions produce a "soup" or environment where some of the buiding blocks of life are present. Then those buiding blocks somehow self organize and evolve over millions of years to create "simple life". In ever aspect modern abiogenesis is synonomous with clasical spontaneous generation. The only differences is a few hours, a few days, a few weeks, a few million years or many millions of years. You cannot objectively describe any othe difference that the time frame. Every step must still be spontaneously generated irregardless of the timeframe. Ther is no set of evidence that make any hypothesis of abiogenesis plausible except to those with faith. That's why you haven't and can't produce any citation from a legitimate scientist that claims a plausible pathway for life coming from chemicals. No there isn't any magical juice of life, but there is natural, juice of life everywhere. Every cell is "juicy" or fluid when they are alive. And when those cells divide those juices flow from one into two. Life comes from life. Biogenesis. If you don't believe this just dehydrate yourself and see how long you last.I'll respond to the rest later.

All quotes from onifre: Great ! Come to papa! Great! you took your first step! Halelujah! He took his second step! Mama! He just face planted. Poor thing, now let me help you back to your baby feet. If you had listened to papa, you wouldn't have stumbled over those errant evos cites you read.If this is your argument you make a fatal flaw of understanding history and the scientific method. The Law of Biogenesis was not born with Pasteur's experiment. Spontaneous generation was falsified by Pasteurs experiment.From History, you need to understand that spontaneous generation was "mainstream science". Many scientists believed that life could spontaneously generate from dead organic matter. Hence the theory of abiogenesis that life can come from non-living matter. Redi hypothesised otherwise. He reasoned that all life came from pre existing living matter. That was the theory of Biogenesis. Now the two opposing theories are clearly identified in Huxley's address. The Law of Biogenesis was declared by Huxley 7 years later after countless obsevations and experiments at the microscopic level that confirmed that all life did indeed come from pre-existing life. The LoB was a theory that became a law over time when it was recognized by the scientific community that nature acts according to this theory. There is no observation even today that comes close to falsifying this law and theory. The theory is clearly stated. Abiogenesis says that life can come from non-living matter. Pasteur's and others experiments over time showed that this doesn't happen in nature. They confirmed, as well as every biological experiment since has confirmed, that life comes from pre-existing living matter. Abiogenesis didn't have a leg to stand on. It still doesn't.The Cell Theory is based on the LOB. The ToE is based on the LoB. Germ Theory is based on the LoB. Mendellian inheritance is based on the LoB. I don't care what experiment you are talking about. The LoB is a description, based on observation of how nature works. There is no evidentiary support that nature can act in a different way. This is partially correct, but Pasteur and others didn't stop there. He worked with microscopic life for the rest of his life. He and others confirmed over and over again that all life comes from life. That's why Biogenesis was declared a law of nature seven years later. You just face planted again. uhhh... Pasteur did use chemicals. It's called "Pasteurs soup". And it is applicable when discussing life origins in the field of abiogenesis. These are your words from message 101: You didn't say "law of biogenesis" you said "biogenesis". Either way your statements are opposite of reality. The LoB doesn't have anything to do with one specific experiment. It is a summation of countless experiments. It doesn't matter what abiogenesis experiment is being conducted today. All of them have confirmed the LoB thus far. With this statement, you had better stay on the floor. ROTFL

Welcome back CS. I've missed you I'm not, you are. Is there any other kind of organism? This is not equivocation, this is the definitionof life and organisms. This whole sentence is nothing but illogical purposeful equivocation."Abiogenesis has nothing to do with fully functioning living organisms." This is an outright lie. Abiogenesis is the study of the origin of a fully functioning living organism. If it isn't fully functioning, then it isn't alive."It is about the emergence of life, itself." And what is life itself? It is a fully funtioning living organism that can metabolize, reproduce, and evolve. Anything less, and you don't have life. I'm not the one equivocating, it is obviously you who is. In most cases they were scientists exactly like todays scientists. They were men seeking for naturalistic answers to questions about the world around them. The only difference I see is that they were men of honor, who did not devalue science with equivocating terms like you do.If "life itself" is anything other than a simple living organism, then please bring forth evidence of this or drop this silly argument.

Then point out what I am saying that is dishonest, and quit making these false accusations. Yes these are my exact words and reasoning, and there is nothing dishonest here. No I don't think this, I know this. This is the definition of abiogenesis. Abiogenesis is synonomous with origin of life. There is a beginning to life. There is a starting-point of life. There is an ultimate source, from which life is derived. There is a cause of life. That is what abiogenesis is attempting to discover. Nope. The LOB did not refute SG. Individual experiments did. The LoB was recognized to be a universal truth of nature over many years. It is a descriptive law of how nature works today and in the past, and in the future. All life comes from pre-existing life.The beauty of this is that germ theory relies on the LoB. Evolution relies on the LoB. Every biological process relies on the LoB. If I am wrong then please demonstrate how any single chemical reaction and self organizational event thoughout this supposed emergence process is not spontaneously generated. All of these events are spontaneously generated. There were many forms of spontaneous generation in the past. There are many forms of spontaneous generation in the future. What is the difference? There is none. At the foundation, spontaneous generation and abiogenesis was that life could come from non-living matter. Modern abiogenesis is life can come from non-living matter. There is no distinguishable difference except modern abiogenesis invokes the magic of untestability. The magic of millions of years. At 570 nm wavelength. They are not contiguous. Red is 625-740 nm wavelength. Violet is 380-450nm wavelenth. This is a fallacy of false analogy. The reason is, you forgot one color. Black. Black is the absence of light. Now your analogy can work properly. Black represents non-living chemicals. Red thru violet represents living chemicals. Red thru violet requires a non-material energy carrying fundamental element. Black does not have that non-material energy carying fundamental element. The non-material energy carrying fundamental element is the dividing line between black and all other colors. The LoB suggests that there may indeed be a non-material entity that divides life from non-life.Physics can recognize non-material entities. Why can't Biology? All of the non-material fundamentals of physics are a part of life. What prevents one or two more from being discovered. Maybe we will call it the "spiriton"!

I guess you and the moderators think that the above statements are representative of mature, intellectual, honest discuusion. Onifre previously invoked the "silly goose*" comments. So all I did was go with his metaphor of "baby steps". I think it was quite appropriate. I used no ad hominen attack. But I used his metaphor to destroy his argument.That is effective debating.

And what does this have to do with the price of eggs in China?

CS, these definitions are not problematic. Think about it for a moment. What if some chemical/evolutionary pathway was able to construct a virus, bacteriophage, or any of a number of endosymbionts. They would have a relatively short existance(due to the 2nd law of TD), because these things don't metabolize and reproduce without the higher life form, the host organism. Any obligate parasite, which there are many, cannot be the origin of life. Life must be a higher complexity than these. Parasites must come after life already exists. It is a chicken and the egg problem for abiogenesis. All endosymbionts , and viruses, inside their host organism are indeed alive. All life comes from pre-existing life. They get their life from the host. It is in complete agreement with the LoB.Viruses and obligate endosymbionts are inorganic non-living matter outside their host organisms.Not all endosymbionts are obligate parasites and can live outside of a host organism. They are alive. Then you can't have Biology and organic chemistry. There are good definitions of life. Each Biology book has them. Now admittedly, there are many more attributes of life. But all scientists agree that you must have at least a metabolic stytem and a reproduction system for the chemicals to be alive. That's why you have "metabolism first" hypotheses within abiogenesis and "RNA/DNA first" hypotheses. Origin of life studies know they must have both at a minimum. No Im not, and this exposes how little you actually know about life and this subject. When a single cell divides there are a gazillion chemical reactions and self organizing steps happening in a given moment of time. Before the moment you had one cell. After the moment, you have two cells. No single reaction created the second cell. It was a multitude of reactions and events all taking place at roughly the same time.I suspect, that if abiogenesis is even possible that there will be similar events taking place. Self replication is not just a single chemical reaction. It's many. So is metabolism. But there will be a definable moment in time where at one point there was no metabolism and reproduction, and after that point there is metabolism and reproduction. The number of chemical reactions and self organizing events is irrelevant. The moment is not. Origin is a moment, a definable moment. It is not a strawman that there is a point where life is created. That is substance of my argument. It is the origin of life. It is a strawman, that one single reaction creates that moment. You are dishonest by constructing this strawman. I have never said that abiogenesis was not possible (in any thread). And I do understand these theories rather well. They all use equivocation of terms thoughout. My world view would never invoke magic. However yours does. It invokes millions of untestable millions of years of strong emergence. Scientists have declared that as being magical.

quote:

---

Regarding strong emergence, Mark A. Bedau observes:

​

"Although strong emergence is logically possible, it is uncomfortably like magic. How does an irreducible but supervenient downward causal power arise, since by definition it cannot be due to the aggregation of the micro-level potentialities? Such causal powers would be quite unlike anything within our scientific ken. This not only indicates how they will discomfort reasonable forms of materialism. Their mysteriousness will only heighten the traditional worry that emergence entails illegitimately getting something from nothing."(Bedau 1997)

---

You can't have the study of the origin of life and not have a point at which life is created. Your whole argument is an equivocation on the word "origin." The geological record suggests an origin of life. That is a point or moment. No actually, they do realize this boundary and it is demonstrated in their "metabolism first" and "replication first" models. They know they need both to have life. That does not constitute a "grey area". The "grey area" is just equivocation on the definition of life. This equivocation keeps the funds rolling in. It's called job security. Ribozymes are not alive. No scientist worth his salt would even indicate that this was anywhere close to life. If your goal is to stand on a roof. The origin of completion of that goal is when you place both feet on the roof. When you start clibing the ladder, you are in between the roof and the ground. This "grey area" just means that you aren't on the roof. Every step could be defined as a grey area, but you still haven't reached the goal until both feet are on the roof. To say that each step is "pre-roof stepping" is just riddiculous. So is calling something "pre-life". Not funny. Extremely sad. A travesty of science. The LoB is probably the most easily observable truths that can be demonstrated in any school labratory. So do you think that bacteria from the air growing in a soup aren't spontaneously generating? They are. They just aren't spontaneously generating from the soup. Do you think maggots don't spontaneously generate? They do. They just don't generate from the dead flesh. Do you think that cell division and conception are not spontaneously generated? They are. They just don't come from chemicals. All of these spontaneous generations come fom pre-existing life. The question is where does life come from? The answer is from pre-existing life and not any other chemical arrangement. That was the hypothesis of Biogenesis which became the LoB.It is you and others who equivocate the definition of spontaneous generation. "Spontaneous generation" was not disproved, spontaneous generation from pre-existing chemical arrangements was disproved by many experiments. And that hypothesis was abiogenesis.You stop equivocating.Evolution does rely on fully functioning organisms spontaneously generating. It doesn't rely on them spontaneously generating from anything other than pr-existing life. The LoB. You'll have to tanslate this one for me. If you are trying to say that evolution is not dependant on the origin of life, then fine. I agree. But the origin of life is dependant on evolution.I'll finish the rest later...

I see. So you have chosen not to try and defend your position. Instead you make off topic jokes. Wise decision. You are learning.

---

-AlphaOmegakid-
I am a child of the creator of the beginning and the end