Is Abiogenesis a fact?

quote:

---

Quantum Mechanics is an essential part of modern physics. Quantum mechanics is not deterministic. Ergo modern physics presents a non deterministic view of the universe. It's that simple Take this post as a model for what you should be trying to do to get rid of the non sequitur ghost in your posts. We are getting dangerously off topic in this thread. I foresee a red banner in our future.

---

Quantum mechanics is still predictable in the classical motion sense. Yes, there is an element of randomness involved but there a bounds within the behaviour of an electron. This gives physicists a good idea to the behaviour of an electron and the path can be predicted quite well. The problem is that physicists cannot account for the interference during an event which affects the path of an electron hence the Heisenberg Uncertainty principle. If physicists could account for the interference, then the path of the electron can be determined with greater accuracy. Not forgetting systemic uncertainties which affect measuring equipment and ultimately the measurments. And anyway, moving up the scale the random aspects associated with the path of an electron are very much negligible.And how is discussing the mechanics of the universe off topic? I personally think it is relevant since it addresses the fundamental issues, mainly, physical. Our current understanding of mass and energy tells us that inanimate matter bouncing off inanimate matter will result in inanimate matter because of behavioural limits imposed by the laws of physics. I know I am repeating myself but you do not seem to understand this point. You keep waving the ”non-sequitur’ flag but you have shown nothing to the contrary. Edited by Lex_Luthor, : No reason given.Edited by Lex_Luthor, : No reason given.Edited by Lex_Luthor, : No reason given.

Non deterministic does not mean that nothing can be determined (That would be crazy). But it means that not everything is determinable. What I was quiblig with was your choice of words to describe the nature of physical science because, in fact, modern physics is non deterministic. If you are going to hang an argument in the nature of science, you better get your facts right, otherwise people will not give you any credit for your conclusions since your whole logic seems to start from a faulty assumption.That doesn't seem to matter to the point you are trying to make, though. So I propose that we drop the deterministic vs non-deterministic discussion which is badly off topic here and try to concentrate in the point to the topic that you were trying to make to begin with. Well, of course it is relevant. But in these fora the administration expect us to keep a close watch to the topic as described in the opening post. This is important because the thread is not here just for our own enjoyment (To tell you the truth I enjoy talking about quantum mechanics much better then abiogenesis).This threads are read by other members and visitors, and if people do not stick to the topics as stated in the opening, it gets really hard to follow lines of reasoning. How is anybody supposed to know that we are talking about Quantum Mechanics when the thread tile clearly states abiogenesis? There are other threads where discussions about Quantum Mechanics would be on topic. The non-sequitur flag is not a proof that your final conclusion is wrong. You might even be right. But you have not proven it to be so. As it stands, it's just your own opinion. You are expected to back your statements in these fora with facts and logical reasoning. That's why I'm not required to show anything that counters your position. All I'm doing here is to point out that your statement has not been properly backed up with logical reasoningAs a final point, I should say that by calling the non-determinism of modern physics a "Heisenberg principle card" you give the impression that you think that we are playing a game where whoever plays better his own cards wins at the end. Though sometimes this turns out to be the case, ideally the facts and logical reasoning should speak for themselves, independently of whoever is making the points.

quote:

---

Non deterministic does not mean that nothing can be determined (That would be crazy). But it means that not everything is determinable.

---

Like what? The path of an electron in a wave-particle cannot be determined? I just told you what the purpose of the Heisenberg uncertainty principle. Physicists cannot account for all aspects of interference during a specified event and this constitutes uncertainty. If physicists knew of all the variables in an event then the path of the electron can be predicted with accuracy. I also mentioned systematic uncertainties and how this affects our measurements.

quote:

---

What I was quiblig with was your choice of words to describe the nature of physical science because, in fact, modern physics is non deterministic.

---

So modern physics disregards older physics?

quote:

---

If you are going to hang an argument in the nature of science, you better get your facts right, otherwise people will not give you any credit for your conclusions since your whole logic seems to start from a faulty assumption.

---

Get my facts right? I think you are the one that needs to do a little learning around here. I have yet to read any scientific material from you that challenge my points. Where are your facts? You want to read my facts again?” The universal constants set the mechanics of the universe and impose behavioural limits to all matter in the universe.
” If all variables of an event are known the the event in question is completely deterministic and predictable.
” Systemic uncertainties affect scientific measurements and contribute to a factor of uncertainty.
” All matter in the universe is deterministic including wave particle motion on the condition if all variable of an event are known and calculated for.Which of the above do you disagree with? Perhaps this time you can back your point with some substance?

quote:

---

That doesn't seem to matter to the point you are trying to make, though. So I propose that we drop the deterministic vs non-deterministic discussion which is badly off topic here and try to concentrate in the point to the topic that you were trying to make to begin with.

---

I’m afraid you have completely missed the point. We shouldn’t drop the deterministic Vs. non-deterministic point because it is the most fundamental point of them all. You still do not seem to understand that the relationship between mass and energy is subservient to the laws of physics and this renders a deterministic universe with ramifications that are glaringly obvious.

quote:

---

Well, of course it is relevant. But in these fora the administration expect us to keep a close watch to the topic as described in the opening post. This is important because the thread is not here just for our own enjoyment (To tell you the truth I enjoy talking about quantum mechanics much better then abiogenesis).

---

Make your mind up. First you want to drop the deterministic Vs non-deterministic but now the topic is relevant?

quote:

---

This threads are read by other members and visitors, and if people do not stick to the topics as stated in the opening, it gets really hard to follow lines of reasoning. How is anybody supposed to know that we are talking about Quantum Mechanics when the thread tile clearly states abiogenesis? There are other threads where discussions about Quantum Mechanics would be on topic.

---

Oh dear. So what you are telling me is that the Abiogenesists decided to give physics a skip whilst working on the abiogenisis conundrum? Physics have everything to do with it, it’s the fundamental aspect of the problem. For abiogenesis to have occurred inanimate matter must transform into life. First of all, the Abiogenesists are no where near of completing the picture. Secondly, the physics of the process must be identified. By the way, I didn’t include quantum mechanics in our discussion, you did. It was you attempt to counter my point by demonstrating that the universe was not-deterministic.

quote:

---

The non-sequitur flag is not a proof that your final conclusion is wrong. You might even be right. But you have not proven it to be so. As it stands, it's just your own opinion. You are expected to back your statements in these fora with facts and logical reasoning.

---

This must be a joke; I've cited two articles that substantiate my point. Would you like more?

quote:

---

That's why I'm not required to show anything that counters your position. All I'm doing here is to point out that your statement has not been properly backed up with logical reasoning

---

I think it is obvious that you have nothing to offer. So please, save the “I am not required to show you anything” line since it’s a clear sign of desperation. My conclusion is based on empirical data and sound logic. If you do not think so, then either quit the whining or put your money where your mouth is and show me why my conclusion is illogical.

quote:

---

As a final point, I should say that by calling the non-determinism of modern physics a "Heisenberg principle card" you give the impression that you think that we are playing a game where whoever plays better his own cards wins at the end..

---

This is not a game. It was pretty obvious that you were going to play the Heisenberg card to back you non-deterministic point of view because that’s the only card you have when it comes to uncertainty at the physical level. It’s this principle that keeps you leaning towards the non-deterministic side of things so of course you had to mention this point, right?

quote:

---

Though sometimes this turns out to be the case, ideally the facts and logical reasoning should speak for themselves, independently of whoever is making the points.

---

Yes, and I’m still waiting for your facts logical reasoning.To sum up my point, abiogenisis is not fact but far from it due to the deterministic properties of the univsere. The physics of the problem are indeed relevant to the abiogenesis.Edited by Lex_Luthor, : No reason given.Edited by Lex_Luthor, : No reason given.

And since no one seems to be able to stick to the topic this thread is closed for few hours.Edited by AdminNosy, : Change author

Thank you for sticking to the topic. Individual suspensions next time.

I don't know. How is the topic of universal determinism [physics] irrelevant? Should we exclude the laws of physics and the point of behavioural limits imposed upon matter?. Every abiogenesis hypothesis’ requires a percussive assumption however the first step of abiogenesis is the transformation of inanimate matter into life. Unless science can figure out how life can break the mechanics of the universe the quest for abiogenesis is fruitless.Physics is the foundation of all science including chemistry and biology. It’s relevant to abiogenesis as is the meta-physical ridden pridormnial soup.

Not in this thread. Read the opening post. As you can see, in this thread, "poof" is considered a valid mechanism for abiogenesis. If you really want to discuss your loopy theory, why don`t you post a new topic? If it gets promoted, I will be willing to post on it (as long as my real life constraints allow)

There is no loopy theory. It is fact derived through the relationship between mass and energy. However, judging by your response I have no intention of debating the physics of abiogenesis with you since you are prepared to deny that simple fact that universal constants impose behavioural limits to matter; a point which you’ve cunningly avoided. This is why abiogenisis is not fact and no mechanisim responsible for the process of abiogenesis has been found. Go ahead and be my guest; why not falsify the relationship between mass and energy and state your facts? You can take as much time as you need.Oh by the way, there is no such thing as proof in science [only in mathematics]. Science works on evidence hence falsification. But judging by your knowledge of physics I guess you already knew that.Edited by Lex_Luthor, : No reason given.

Who said anything about proof? Go back to my post and you will see that the word I used was "poof". You might want to read the opening post to the thread too. (Always a good idea)

I did read the OP. Can abiogenesis be considered fact? No, because the physics of the transformation is the biggest problem faced by abiogenisists because our knowledge of physics leads to the firm conclusion that inanimate matter bouncing off inanimate matter will result in inanimate matter.I’m still waiting for your facts; where are they? Edited by Lex_Luthor, : No reason given.

That's not evident in what you post. The physics is not relevant to the question raised in the OP.

Question in the OP : My question is can we consider Abiogenesis a fact?My answer : No, we can't given the problems of physics with the transformation of inanimate matter into life. Edited by Lex_Luthor, : No reason given.Edited by Lex_Luthor, : No reason given.Edited by Lex_Luthor, : No reason given.

Are you asserting that the Genesis account is wrong on account of the physics?Are you asserting panspermia (that life arrived on earth from elsewhere in outer space)?Or maybe you failed to understand the OP.

It's nothing to do with Theism. Maybe you have failed to understand that whether life was seeded from outer space or not, the problems with the physics of an abiogenesis transformation remain identical. It’s the fundamental aspect which cannot be ignored. Edited by Lex_Luthor, : No reason given.

Okay, I get it.You are claiming that life does not exist on earth at all, because the physics precludes it