Biogenesis

Ok, so let's test abiogenesis. It's someting "most likely happening"?, or "will happen" and "in so happeniong will affect some changes in the world"? I don't see it doing any of those things. In fact, it doesn't seem rational at all. If abioogenesis occurs, why would it occur only once?

Who says it occured only once? It would be unlikely to occur, at any appreciable level do to the changes that have occured in the earth in the last 3.8 billion years.

1. Change in the Atmosphere - too much oxygen.
2. any formed nutrients, amino acids, purines, pyrimidines etc. would be "swallowed" by viruses, bacteria etc.
3. The ozone layer limiting the ultraviolet rays which act as the energy source to the formation of the nutrients.

---

There is no better love between 2 people than mutual respect for each other WT Young, 2002

Who gave anyone the authority to call me an authority on anything. WT Young, 1969

CS writes: Did you even click on the link to the thread that I provided in Message 38? ABE: Here is was this thread.

I looked at this thread. The link from the OP is dead. I read two pages worth and still saw no evidence. I got bored after that. If you want to cite something worth while, I will be glad to read it.

Rahvin writes: If you believe the "law of biogenesis" falsifies abiogenesis, immediately produce the objective evidence that falsifies any possibility of life arising from non-life. Remember that a lack of evidence is not falsification - you need a positive observation that directly contradicts the concept of life in any form ever arising from non-living substances.

I think you have this backwards. First, to be a scientific hypothesis the hypothesis must be falsifiable. Abiogenesis is unfalsifiable, because it's foundation is philosophical faith, and not objective evidence. I do not have to falsify abiogenesis, it doesn't even qualify as a hypothesis. It is up to you to falsify biogenesis which is well established and has tons of objective evidence. Now there are very limited hypotheses underneath abiogenesis like Miller Urey which are falsifiable. These are fine. But the hypothesis of this gradual process that everyone is talking about is unfalsifiable, because the gradual process is unknown and undefined. It is only imagination. So there is nothing to falsify.

Rahvin writes: But abiogenesis has not been falsified, and you have failed to show that it has. Provide direct evidence that refutes abiogenesis or concede, AlphaOmegakid. Note that if you bring up your tired argument that "since we've never seen it happen, it's impossible even given wildly different conditions" again, I'll stop being poilte and will openly mock you.

Are you a "raven" or a "mockingbird"? :laugh: Abiogenesis in the form as has been stated in this forum doesn't need to be falsified, because it isn't even a valid hypothesis. I don't need to provide direct evidence to refute you imagination or anyone elses. If you want to clearly make a hypothesis and can show a source for one, then I will work with that.

Again I will state clearly that the law of biogenesis doen't make anything necessarily impossible. That's a continuing strawman argument. However, if there is a valid abiogenesis hypothesis, then it must falsify/alter the LoB.

AlphaOmega,

Can you please provide a modern day reliable scientific resource that shows that "The Law of Biogenesis" is what you say it is?

Quoting Huxley doesn't count. I want a statement from modern day biologists.

Since when was "agent of death" included in the definition of life? Does that mean all predators aren't actually living?

You know that viruses reproduce, can evolve, and have DNA/RNA, right?

I assume you may believe in Dawinian evolution which supposedly started with one common ancestor some 3.8 or so billion years ago. Since that suposed time, we have seen evidence all over the world that life begets life. There has been no evidenc of life since that suposed time that has gradually arisen from non-living chemicals. That's 3.8 billion years worth of evidence, and countless demonstrations in the labs.

And none of that evidence suggests that abiogenesis is impossible.

Now to the contrary, present evidence that life can gradually arise from non- living chemical. Go ahead, let's see what you have.

You haven't presented any evidence that it can't yet....

And I can tell by your sarcasm that you're going to be one of those people where the presented evidence just isn't "enough".

And I've already linked to a thread here (twice) that discusses some evidence for abiogenesis. Plus, you can just google for evidence for it. Here is the first page that comes up:

http://www.iscid.org/encyclopedia/Abiogenesis

AOkid writes: I will be travelling out of the states for a week or so. I will try to get online some, but it may be difficult.

Have fun while you're gone.

AOkid writes: Big deal, abiogenesis is still falsified. And it will stay that way until such time that there is any evidence that indicates otherwise.

This is just wrong: what you're saying is the exact equivalent of "guilty until proven innocent." Something isn't automatically wrong until you find evidence for it, it's considered a possible hypothesis that shouldn't be ruled out until you find directly contradicting evidence. By this logic, abiogenesis is still a viable alternative.

Note here: I apologize for misleading you a bit with my choice of words. When I contrasted biogenesis with abiogenesis here, I was referring to the two hypotheses as they pertain to origins. You would be correct in saying that biogenesis in the sense Rahvin provided earlier is a verified and accepted theory of science, but you would not be correct in saying that origins biogenesis is a verified and accepted theory of science. I have also been somewhat inconsistent with other terminology in this thread: please forgive that as well. I will try to be more consistent in future usage.

AOkid writes: Imagination is not evidence. Hypotheses are not facts. Natural laws are.

(1) We're all still waiting for you to show us what "natural laws" origins abiogenesis would violate. So far, you've got "Huxley says biogenesis is a scientific law." And, with that evidence, all you can prove is "Huxley thought biogenesis is a scientific law."

(2) As far as I can tell from your quotes, Huxley was not actively supporting or rejecting either biogenesis or abiogenesis as a mechanism of origins: he, in fact, is rather reserved and non-commital either way, so I don’t see where you’re getting that idea that he has definitively stated on the basis of evidence that biogenesis is a well-established mechanism of origins.

(3) The word "law" in science refers to the exact same thing as the word "theory," and neither refers to the same thing that scientists refer to as “facts” (although there is disagreement on this “facts” terminology as I use it): back a hundred years ago and more, science liked the word "law," but we've now rather gone back on that and decided instead to use the word "theory."

AOkid writes: Just because an opposing hypothesis comes along, it doesn't unprove well established scientific theories or laws.

You're absolutely right. However, I don't see origins abiogenesis violating any well-established theories of science: I only see it violating a historical scientist's opinion. I can scrawl out a dozen names of scientists whose opinions were that spontaneous generation, Lamarckism, mutationism, orthogenesis, geocentrism, phlogiston and/or other long-discredited theories are "established laws of science": yet, none of these things is considered a scientific law or theory by any scientist today.

---

Time for another analogy. Consider this:

Let's go to a (fictional) primitive tribe of people somewhere in the ancient historical world, among whom lives a young man named Dingi. All of Dingi's tribe (about 50 people) have the same skin color, hair color and eye color. The neighboring tribes with whom his tribe trades every once in a while also have the same skin color, hair color and eye color, because they are all of the same ethnic group. None of these other tribes has ever met a person with different pigmentation, either. Having never seen any reason to believe that other pigmentations exist, does Dingi have enough evidence to say his tribe’s pattern of pigmentation is a law of human pigmentation?

This is not a red herring: you have asserted that our inability to find direct evidence for abiogenesis among life-forms today is evidence that abiogenesis could never occur. This is the same logic that Dingi used to determine that there is only one pigmentation: all evidencehe could find among the set of dat he had available to him say people have this one pigmentation.

All we have to work with in science is a single set of data: the organisms that live today. We also have fragmentary data about organisms of the past. There is vast evidence that today’s organisms arise from other organisms of their own kind, and the organisms of the past didn’t seem all that much different from organisms today. This could easily have led Pasteur and his peers to believe that this was a law of nature, just as John Dalton thought that his inability to break open an atom meant that atoms were unbreakable.

What would happen if Dingi heard a story about people with darker skin or blue eyes? Would that call into question his belief that his pigmentation is a “law” of nature? Certainly, it doesn’t falsify it, but it does cast a reasonable doubt, right? If Dingi got to see a lock of different-colored hair, this would be even more reason to doubt his pigmentation theory.

That’s exactly what we’ve got in science today: geologists have discovered that the very old rocks on Earth show signs of vastly different atmospheric and oceanic chemistry around the time when life first arose. Since you know about Miller-Urey, I’ll assume you knew this, too. In fact, the kind of atmospheric and oceanic chemistry evidenced by these rocks seems likely to favor the processes required to create the molecules of life and keep them intact long enough to interact reticulately with each other. In light of that evidence, why shouldn’t we take back our former conviction that it couldn’t happen? We don’t actually know enough about the ancient atmosphere to know exactly what it was capable of, so any statement that rules out any even tentatively possible idea is not verified or acceptable as a scientific theory.

---

Darwin loves you.

I'mmmmmm Baaaack!

CS writes: And none of that evidence suggests that abiogenesis is impossible.

Well, I don't wish to argue all these red herrings, but there is substantial evidence statistically showing the impossibility of homochirality forming naturally. Statistically this is impossible. Yockey was one such thinker.

CS writes: And I can tell by your sarcasm that you're going to be one of those people where the presented evidence just isn't "enough". And I've already linked to a thread here (twice) that discusses some evidence for abiogenesis. Plus, you can just google for evidence for it. Here is the first page that comes up: http://www.iscid.org/encyclopedia/Abiogenesis

I don't know what you mean. I love science, and I love evidence. I am a skeptic about the interpretation of evidence however. You've seen CSI Miami? Forensics is science and it produces evidence about what happened in the past. However, in the legal system, this evidence is challanged by the defense. Often in circumstantial cases, the plaitiff is freed because there is "reasonable doubt".

The evidence was the same for the plaitiff and the defense. But the interpretations vary widely. If the jury sides with the reasoning of the defence, then the person is not guilty regarding the evidence presented. In science this proceedure is called peer review. But some say that that system has been corrupted.

Now to your citation. This is excellent "evidence" for my OP. Not once on this page is abiogenesis called a theory or hypothesis. Instead it is referred to as a "proposal". The site is entitled, ISCID Encyclopedia of Science and Philosophy .

I have no problem with you having the philosophy of abiogenesis. Just don't teach your philosophy in state supported education. You may have a problem if I wanted my philosophies taught.

Well, I don't wish to argue all these red herrings, but there is substantial evidence statistically showing the impossibility of homochirality forming naturally. Statistically this is impossible. Yockey was one such thinker.

This doesn't follow, that Yockey thought something does not constitute evidence. The derivation of a probability calculation is only as good as its assumptions. So why not provide some of the evidence rather than simply appealing to Yockey?

TTFN,

WK

This doesn't follow, that Yockey thought something does not constitute evidence. The derivation of a probability calculation is only as good as its assumptions. So why not provide some of the evidence rather than simply appealing to Yockey?

Please read post 30. It is a strawman argument to suggest that for some reason I am obligated to show the impossibility of abiogenesis. There is statistical evidence and chemical evidence that it is very improbable, but these topics are substantially away from the OP, so I have chosen not to argue them in this thread.

Arguing the impossibility of abiogenesis would be the logical fallacy of agumentum ad ignorantiam. Therefore, I have chosen not to use this argument. There is no evidence for abiogenesis. That I will argue. The lack of evidence does not prove that it is impossible. However, the lack of evidence does make it non-scientific which is the topic of the OP. Abiogenesis is a matter of philosophical faith. That should be kept out of schools IMO. That is the OP.

Please read post 30. It is a strawman argument to suggest that for some reason I am obligated to show the impossibility of abiogenesis. There is statistical evidence and chemical evidence that it is very improbable, but these topics are substantially away from the OP, so I have chosen not to argue them in this thread.

It is your topic after all so I suppose you can pick what is on and not on topic.

However, you brought the calculations up. Therefore the only intellectually honest thing to do is support you claim when asked to. Another thread or here depending on how focused you want to keep this would be fine.

You are, btw, misusing the term strawman here.

There is no evidence for abiogenesis.

Debating in admin mode a tiny bit :). There was a time on this planet when there was, with a very, very high degree of certainty, no life. There is now. This is very strong evidence for abiogenesis. It occurred! Now then, we discuss how it may have occurred.

Arguing the impossibility of abiogenesis would be the logical fallacy of agumentum ad ignorantiam. Therefore, I have chosen not to use this argument.

Excellent decision.

There is no evidence for abiogenesis. That I will argue.

Are you saying there is no life on earth? Curious argument.

Enjoy.

Edited by RAZD, : fix

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

---

• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

AdminNosy writes: It is your topic after all so I suppose you can pick what is on and not on topic. However, you brought the calculations up. Therefore the only intellectually honest thing to do is support you claim when asked to. Another thread or here depending on how focused you want to keep this would be fine. You are, btw, misusing the term strawman here.

OK, I will be "intellectually honest" and submit documentation from the site that Catholic Scientist listed...

http://www.iscid.org/pcid/2002/1/4/mullan_primitive_cell.php

There is a 47 page pdf file of a probability study on the assembly of the "simplest form" of life. The author minimizes the complexity of life in favor of the abiogenesis. He concludes with this statement...

With all of these assumptions, we find that the probability of assembling the RNA required for even the most primitive (12-14) cell by random processes in the time available is no more than one in 10^ 79 .

In statistical terms, that probability is 0. That means it is impossible.

Now having been "honest", I really don't want to argue this paper unless others are "honest" enough to read it and digest it. I also think that it would be wise for them to show some evidence that abiogenesis is probable.

And finally, I think it is a strawman to suggest that I am arguing that abiogenesis is impossible. My argument is that abiogenesis has no supportive evidence. It is a philosophy. I have only mentioned Yockey and listed the above citation, because others have argued that abiogenesis is impossible, and they have presented evidence of such.

AdminNosy writes: There was a time on this planet when there was, with a very, very high degree of certainty, no life. There is now. This is very strong evidence for abiogenesis. It occurred! Now then, we discuss how it may have occurred.

Now we come to the crux of the OP. You have a historical record of the past. That record is rocks and fossils upon which you apply your interpretive logic. Those rocks and fossils show evidence that life was once not on this earth, and of course now it is. Life also appears according to this record to be some where around 3.8 billion year ago.

However, there is NO physical observable evidence of abiogenesis. Evidence that life gradually arose from chemical processses. That is some people's choice of explanation of life arising.

Now compare that to a creationist's explanation. They have a book which is a historical record. The book claims that God created life among other things. People apply their own interpretive logic on this book. Some say life appeared 6000 years ago and some say 3.8 billion years ago. However, there is NO physical observable evidence of that creation event or the creator. All there is is the same rocks and fossils that must be interpreted in different ways. The biblical creation is a matter of philosophical faith.

So is abiogenesis. So would be the theory of an unkown intelligent designer. So would be panspermia. So would be ad infinitum.

There are many possible explanations of how life occured. All are philosophical faith.

RAZD writes: Are you saying there is no life on earth?

No, I am saying that there is no evidence that suggests that life gradually arose from some series of chemical reactions.

Blujay writes: Have fun while you're gone.

Thanks, I did.

Bluejay writes: This is just wrong: what you're saying is the exact equivalent of "guilty until proven innocent." Something isn't automatically wrong until you find evidence for it, it's considered a possible hypothesis that shouldn't be ruled out until you find directly contradicting evidence. By this logic, abiogenesis is still a viable alternative.

I think you may misunderstand the term fasify in science. I will cite from wiki...

Falsifiability (or refutability or testability) is the logical possibility that an assertion can be shown false by an observation or a physical experiment. That something is "falsifiable" does not mean it is false; rather, that if it is false, then this can be shown by observation or experiment.

Abiogenesis has been falsified by observation and experiment. That doesn't mean that it is false or impossible.

Bluejay writes: You would be correct in saying that biogenesis in the sense Rahvin provided earlier is a verified and accepted theory of science, but you would not be correct in saying that origins biogenesis is a verified and accepted theory of science.

I'm not sure what you are saying about "origins biogenesis". The law of biogenesis is silent about origins.

Bluejay writes: (1) We're all still waiting for you to show us what "natural laws" origins abiogenesis would violate. So far, you've got "Huxley says biogenesis is a scientific law." And, with that evidence, all you can prove is "Huxley thought biogenesis is a scientific law."

Well origins abiogenesis would violate the law of biogenesis. That's plain and simple. If you don't like this "law', then it would violate the well know and established Cell Theory. The cell theory states that...

1. All known living things are made up of cells.
2. Some organisms are unicellular, made up of only one cell.
3. The cell is the fundamental unit of structure and function in living things.
4. All cells come from pre-existing cells by division.

All of the above statements are a rewording of the law of biogenesis. Origins abiogenesis would indeed violate this theory.

Bluejay writes: (2) As far as I can tell from your quotes, Huxley was not actively supporting or rejecting either biogenesis or abiogenesis as a mechanism of origins: he, in fact, is rather reserved and non-commital either way, so I don’t see where you’re getting that idea that he has definitively stated on the basis of evidence that biogenesis is a well-established mechanism of origins.

Again, I'm not saying that the law of biogenesis says anything about origins. It is silent on the matter.

Bluejay writes: (3) The word "law" in science refers to the exact same thing as the word "theory," and neither refers to the same thing that scientists refer to as “facts” (although there is disagreement on this “facts” terminology as I use it): back a hundred years ago and more, science liked the word "law," but we've now rather gone back on that and decided instead to use the word "theory."

Well I've never heard anyone refer to the 1st and 2nd "theories" of thermodynamics. Or the "theory" of conservation of energy. I think it is very common to refer to theories that have shown universal application as "laws". Biogenesis fits that category.

Bluejay writes: Time for another analogy. Consider this:(snipped)

Your Dingi analogy would apply if all known people on this world had the same skin, eye, and hair color. And there was no known genetic mechanism to create another allele. Dingi would be correct in assesing that all people look like this. That still wouldn't make the philosopy that somewhere in the distant unobservable past people may have had different skin, hair and eye color impossible. But it would make it falsified.

No, I am saying that there is no evidence that suggests that life gradually arose from some series of chemical reactions.

So you are saying that life has always existed, even before the planet existed? Curious argument.

Enjoy.

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

---

• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •