Write4U: What categories am I confusing, according to you? Explain. Whatever. Do you understand my argument? That is the question. How do you know? Is there, or is there not, currently a complete theory of abiogenesis? A simple "yes" or "no" from you will suffice. Biology, chemistry, geology I guess. There are many different hypotheses in play. I have never claimed there is a dispute about the definition of abiogenesis, so we're apparently in agreement on that. Not just a philosophical dispute. Also a scientific one. Apparently you didn't read the post where I provided a list of 10 alternatives to paddoboy, above. Oh well.
Abiogenesis is not a defined process, other than life from non-life. It is a category, like Quantum Mechanics or General Relativity. Each category has sub-categories which explain detailed processes. In the case of Abiogenesis , there is not yet a proven detailed process, but there are several hypotheses, as I listed above. Yes, and it is a valid argument, but not against the concept of Abiogenesis., unless you wish to persist in a Intelligent Design argument, which btw also does not explain creation as a detailed process or theory. I don't think you wish to cite the bible as describing a detailed process or theory? Unless you are religious there is no other theory other than Evolution (another category) IMO, that is the wrong question. It should be: "is there a definition of the term Abiogenesis"? The answer to that is yes. i.e. a category. To the question "is there a full evolutionary theory of abiogenesis", i.e. a specific process? The answer to that specific process is "not yet". I agree, but whatever physical paths or process, they all resulted in Abiogenesis, i.e. life from non-life. Of course you knew the definition. It is the process that defines the theory. IMO, it is only scientific (physics) I read everything you post very carefully. I respect your scientific integrity......Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! But IMO, this is an Either/Or question. There are no alternate options that I am aware of.
From #669: "Additionally, explain how an integral cellular membrane arose without invoking mysterious Teleological direction." The recent wordy response - obfuscation and denigration. Sad that an honest 'don't have a clue' is too much to expect.
I see a category error. Paddy sees Abiogenesis as a category, as do I. You see Abiogenesis as a process. (theory). To me this is exactly like the difference between "Evolution" as a defined general category, and "Darwinian Evolution by Natural Selection" as a proven process (theory). Neither is conceptually wrong.
Science needs not explain the rising of "integral cellular membranes" Those are terms that indicate "irreducible complexity" and are your inventions. Teleology in biology https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Teleology_in_biology Wrong question. Evolution needs to explain how an "integral cellular membrane" arose. All we need to explain is how a "cellular membrane" arose and we have. The integral part came later in the evolutionary process. 6 day creation of "irreducible complexity" is your concept, don't confuse it with evolution. Evolution works with billions of years and multiple trillions of chemical interactions. Evolution works in small discreet steps with an occasional "mutation" which usually is detrimental and does not survive. Occasionally a mutation is beneficial and that may bring about a larger step in the evolutionary process, and create an evolutionary leap.
More non-answers from someone who doesn't understand the severity of the problem. Not a clue. But manages a lie easily enough: "6 day creation of "irreducible complexity" is your concept". Totally wrong.
Have you suggested otherwise than biblical? There is no severity of problem. It is a triumph of Nature and natural evolutionary processes.
You do understand that such questions are both already answered (we are ignorant of a great deal of the world four billion years ago) and completely irrelevant (we have no idea how an integral cellular membrane arose with teleological direction either - worse, we have no idea how teleological direction could possibly have worked, or even existed). At least with Darwinian theory we know that it exists and operates and is sufficient, what its likely consequences and output patterns are and how well they match the observations we can make of the known we can observe (they match perfectly), and some idea of what to look for among the vast time and space of the unknown. "Teleological direction" is in comparison meaningless and useless - without a shred of evidence or guidance toward what we might expect in any aspect of abiogenesis.
Write4U: Two strikes. I asked you to summarise, in your own words, what my objection is to paddoboy's position, so that I can confirm that you understand my point. So far, you have been unable to do that. Do you intend to try, or are you intending to continue to make false assumptions?
Amazing that after my position has been made clear many times, one member here still thinks I have adopted 'a biblical perspective' re origins of life etc. Another member manages to twist the clear meaning of '...without invoking mysterious Teleological direction.' to imply I actually believe in 'mysterious teleological direction'. Sigh. 'mysterious' was added for a reason. At least some OOL Darwinists or neo-Darwinists are honest when it comes to the issue of how a functioning integral cell membrane could naturally arise. Last sentence here: https://www.cliffsnotes.com/study-g...-origin-and-evolution-of-life/origin-of-cells
Your objection is misplaced, due to a axiomatic error between both you and paddo. From what I have read your argument is the same as proposing that Abiogenesis is a theory which has not been fully proven, which is true. Paddo argues that Abiogenesis is an axiom, which needs no proof, because it is self-evident, which is also true. Difference Between Axiom and Theorem Summary: 1. An axiom is a statement that is assumed to be true without any proof, while a theory is subject to be proven before it is considered to be true or false. 2. An axiom is often self-evident, while a theory will often need other statements, such as other theories and axioms, to become valid. 3. Theorems are naturally challenged more than axioms. 4. Basically, theorems are derived from axioms and a set of logical connectives. 5. Axioms are the basic building blocks of logical or mathematical statements, as they serve as the starting points of theorems. 6. Axioms can be categorized as logical or non-logical. 7. The two components of the theorem’s proof are called the hypothesis and the conclusion. http://www.differencebetween.net/science/difference-between-axiom-and-theorem/ Abiogenesis and Evolution By Austin Cline, Updated June 25, 2019 Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! American Images Inc/Getty Origin of Life Isn't in Evolution https://www.learnreligions.com/abiogenesis-and-evolution-249875 All I am saying is that Abiogenesis is not a Theorem, it is an Axiom, that needs no theory to explain it. It is self-evident. I believe that is how Paddo sees it also. I believe you see it differently. Am I wrong?
No. That's not my argument. As I have explained previously, a scientific theory is a well-established explanation with predictive power, supported by extensive amounts of evidence. There are many competing hypotheses about abiogenesis and no well-established single theory. There is not a theory with predictive power that goes along the lines of "If you start with chemicals X,Y and Z in environment containing A,B,C [i.e. an environment available on Earth in its early years], then via processes P,Q and R [specific steps provided, of course] you will be able to produce lifeforms F,G and H." If you want to say that "abiogenesis" is an axiom that requires no proof or evidence in support, which is what paddoboy appears to want as well, then you are (both) making a huge unwarranted assumption. The fact that neither of you can present a process of scientific abiogenesis, supported by evidence, shows clearly that neither of you can support your empty claim that there is a scientific theory of abiogenesis.
"In evolutionary theory, life could have developed naturally through abiogenesis. It could have been started by divine power. It could have been started by aliens." All those "could have"s show that the author doesn't know how life started. And neither do you.
Aliens are not alive? How did aliens become alive? Divine power, or Abiogenesis. There are only two competing possibilities. Only one is scientifically justifiable. I do not need to know "how", just that it did. And we do know that life started. And in the absence of a competing theory, the assumption that life started as Abiogenesis should be held as the prevailing explanation, regardless who spread life around, cosmic winds, comets, warm ponds, chemical reactions. No one can provide evidence as to what came before life, other than the Table of Elements.
Oh yes, there is. Urey-Miller experiment clearly proved that bio-molecules and polymers can emerge from chemical combinations many years ago. They may not be lifeforms F,G and H, but "x " is inevitable according to the evidence that life does exist and was preceded by chemicals. The Miller-Urey Experiment In Support Of Abiogenesis ...more...... https://www.sciencefacts.net/miller-urey-experiment.html AFAIK, there is NO competing axiomatic hypothesis. Even Panspermia does not invalidate Abiogenesis. As Paddo observed; "Once there was no life, but there were chemicals. Then there was life made up from chemicals." (loosely translated) Conclusion: Life came from chemicals. i.e. Abiogenesis. Proof: There is no chemical difference between a living beetle and a dead beetle. None!
It's already been touched on earlier this thread, but to repeat, Darwinian evolution now encompasses naturalistic abiogenesis/OOL as 'a unified theory' in mainstream thinking: https://jsystchem.springeropen.com/articles/10.1186/1759-2208-2-1 It's adoption is far from complete though.
Great link! Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Replace ? with Self-Referential dynamics. What do you get? a) cyclical polymers, b) autocatalytic networks c) RNA molecules. start viewing @ 20:00 Carnegie Science Life is just another expression of natural dynamical self-referential processes.
More about The Miller–Urey experiment[1] (or Miller experiment)[2] was a chemical experiment that simulated the conditions thought at the time (1952) to be present on the early Earth and tested the chemical origin of life under those conditions. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miller–Urey_experiment This certainly does not show the process up the ladder from rung A to the top rung Z with life sitting there Not even sure the reactions and products found are rungs I'm guessing (why not) perform a few thousand experiments like these with frequent changes of ingredients. Remove numerous samples as experiment progresses As soon as a appears you have a section of the ladder check for further sections Put all the sections of the presumed ladder together as separate experiment, observe if a full ladder appears Analyse the whole ladder. Attempt to assemble whole ladder with the experiment which made the bits of ladder Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Laboratory experiments did prove that cellular enclosures are quite easy to self-organize. They added some reactive chemicals together and exposed them to heat for a a couple of hours and ended up with some chemical goo consisting of polymers. When they put some of the goo in water, it formed transparent cellular shells the size of cells, filled with water . Trap a few self-duplicating polymers inside the shell during formation and we get a bio-chemical complexity, if not an organism. Watch the video, its all there. Hazen remarked that even if these were not the actual cells formed in the abiogenetic evolutionary process, it is proof that cells are very easy to form from simple chemicals given the right ingredients and a dynamic environment and that such a probability has a high degree of emerging over time. And it is clear that the initial formation of durable cellular enclosures are a vital rung on the evolutionary ladder.
