Abiogenesis

Post Reply New Topic

Si tu contrarium potes intelligere, igiturne verba mea non potes?

Thank you for giving us a good example of not participating in the discussion but instead only looking for some quote to twist to mean something else and then to leach off that. Your really am telling those darn IDots aren't you? Dawkins would be proud.

You called me creationist. That whole line is just an inversion of your own line? Whatever objection you want to bring against it, the same applies to your line. Whatever problem you think you have with my inversion of your line, I have the same and maybe more with your line.

Personally, I find in most cases both preaching (YE) creationists and preaching atheist (like Dawkins) very disturbing... they are just ignoring evidence when it doesn't further their own ideology. It seems to me that people really become what they hate.

The same rule that you now apply to objects should also apply to processes. Strangely you don't do that and seem to accept without any evidence very strange processes.

Last edited by Meta on 16 Dec 2009, 8:07 am, edited 3 times in total.

It was the introduction of a scenario intended to make clear a logical point. The art of reasoning seems to have pasted you by? Replace it with "consider" like iamnotaparakeet wrote.

No, if you or anyone can show me how any unintelligent strictly natural or stochastic process can create a functional system with a hierarchal modular organization I would be refuted.

Anyone?

What if I just said that based on available evidence I can come to no other conclusion then that strictly natural processes could not have generated life. I can offer no alternative, I conclude nothing else. Just that abiogenesis trough strictly natural processes is implausible, maybe impossible.

And if the answer is we don't know yet but we are looking, why isn't that an alternative?

No, I meant to say that it's you who's incorrect in saying that that article is in any way evidence against the idea that the first life could of come from mutation and selection processes. I was not disputing the results of the experiment. If not then alternatively organic compounds required for the first life including the fatty acids required for the cell membrane could have formed first which would then provide the right environment for RNA to assemble within the membrane. The first life could of been simple enough that it could well of come from such natural selection processes and continued to evolve that way for a time. Eventually, they will alter the environment in such a way so that the algorithm is no longer trivial.



First of all, I don't object to the study on the basis that it's a simplified model because on the contrary, you can learn something about particular effects from without having to discern them from the effects of other required restraints. Those results do show that they evolve before you reach the plateau. It's the evolution of more complex organisms that require non-trivial algorithms. Secondly, what said above has nothing to do with how with how life originally arose. If the proto-cells continue to evolve according to how fast they reproduce, the most successful ones will continue to divide at exponential rates, likely faster than the number of cells that die. eventually there will come a time when they have compete for space and resources. Each cell is overwhelmed by other cells in that the other cells can use the available resources first preventing that cell from dividing. Therefore the required traits from the new fitness function should give either give the cells advantages over the other cells or lead to symbiotic relationships where they mutually benefit. This could lead to a situation where the cell would communicate and/or interact, and perhaps rapidly evolving into prokaryotic cells.



I never said that it should trivial overall.



I don't remember saying that evolution was simple.



It doesn't have to be a simple mutation-selection process. Have you e-mailed them to ask if they think it's plausible?

Last edited by Jono on 16 Dec 2009, 2:52 pm, edited 3 times in total.

Alternative: common ancestry. The modular design appears in nature because each "module" originated from a single kind of organism. The process of natural selection can result in a creature speciating into more than one other kind of organism, leaving them with some common features. Also note that because the different species may have to evolve according to different environments, the original function of that specific feature can adapt to perform a different purpose. Explaining why there would be the same structures across species designed for different tasks. Note that the most complex similar structures indicate that those species have a recent common ancestor. Those complex structures can be broken up into simpler parts which are common amongst a more diversity of life and are the result of a more distant common ancestor etc.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c7lnLCatp64[/youtube]

Please tell me you're just kidding.

Similar structure because of a common designer only makes sense if the structure is equally functional in each instance it is used. Otherwise you just have an incompetent designer. The human mesentery attaches at the spine, as it does for other animals. This makes perfect sense for quadrupeds, but for us bipeds it would be nice if it attached at the ribs instead- we'd have fewer injuries that way. Common descent has a suitable explanation: our body plan is a modified form of what came before and is held within certain constraints, so parts of our body are really better suited for quadrupeds. Similar flaws in our basic skeletal structure are responsible for the prevalence of ailments like arthritis in old age. The creationist must look at this evidence (and countless similar examples) and conclude that God is either incompetent or a complete dick. I refuse to believe either of those claims.

I'm somewhat surprised by this video. I thought creationists had already learned their lesson about arguing with bananas? It never ends well for them. In any case, Sarfarti has done an excellent job of demonstrating his complete ignorance of basic biology. He's a smart guy, but he's way out of his field here.

It would be an alternative if it was done transparently and to consider all options, including strictly artificial origins.

It could be an alternative, but only if there where no restrictions on the kind of alternatives one may research. No hidden metaphysical restrictions on where one may or may not look for answers, or which results one may or may not publish. It would not be a true alternative if scientists either are prevented from publishing results which conflict with a strictly naturalistic answer or are discriminated against because they did publish such results.



Note that I did not say that every researcher needs to research every approach, what I mean is that ever researcher should have the freedom to choose their own research and to have their results be examined based on scientific merit, not metaphysical implications or considerations.

It would be very helpful if everyone would clearly label and separate the actual data and facts from any speculation about the (possible) implications of these results. For example, put any speculations about possible implications only after the conclusion?

[I've read already too many papers which where 99% speculation and contained almost no real research data. Note that its often hard to recognize speculation when it corresponds to your own metaphysical preferences?]

The further and accelerated development op open science would be helpful in this regard. (See also: Open Notebook, Open data, Open access)

Whenever you start talking about conspiracies of an entire discipline to suppress valid thinking I lose interest in your proposals.

How would that work? All cells contain the same genetic codes! Besides the point was that it was a hierarchy of modular organization: DNA, RNA, enzymes; cell organelles; many different cells; cells form tissues; tissues form organs; several organs need to work together to form bodies and bodies sometimes form colonies. Every layer is defined on genetic level, and expression of the genetic code.

If the fusion happened in genetic level (merging of genomes) then we have missing pieces. There is a lot of regulatory code in the DNA used during initial development of an individual: Where did this come from?

It should be possible to do experimental research in this regard? What would falsify this hypotheses?

Indeed. Lions and Tigers for example.

Maybe? It's hard to find an objective example.

We're going here offtopic, but not to disappoint: Reuse could be an explanation. What if we would take a existing individual and then edit its genetic makeup to create a new species. Another would be the use of compilers: programs which are very different on source end up containing large nearly identical parts in the object code (when statically linked).

Last edited by Meta on 16 Dec 2009, 8:33 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Please note that I'm not talking about conspiracies. I'm taking about scientist being humans. Any human endeavor will have to face up to this fact. Do you really think that science is totally free of political games, financial incentives, conflict of interests, metaphysical and ideological preferences, philosophical traditions, appeals to authority and seniority, etc? Don't be ridiculous.

A scientist needs to have a lot of courage to publish a paper which goes against a strictly naturalistic interpretation. She would have every incentive to hide any results which conflict with a strictly naturalistic interpretation. To pretend she never did the research, never tested the theory, or to convince herself that she must have messed up the experiment because of the unexpected results. It's easy to justify being selective in a hostile environment.

The quote from Feynman is about academic honesty and about preventing the degeneration of science into a cargo cult which only looks like science. Not by conspiracy or the actual intention to mislead, but by the development of an environment which is hostile towards transparent, open and honest research. Natural selection will then do the rest: The scientists will either adapt or leave. Either way, science will loose.

I appreciate that there are difficulties. But there are also great rewards. The theory of continental drift took a long time to be accepted but real evidence existed and it made other things clear. The concept of life as an artificial construct has nothing like the evidence needed to have serious consideration. The proposal that nothing else fits (to your viewpoint) is insufficient.

In general strictly natural processes/forces don't do things which are non-trivial on a macroscopic level. So to require a strictly natural process does imply for a large part that is is trivial to do. Otherwise the plausibility goes down really fast.
I did not say that you did; I said it was way more complicated and a lot less straight forward then you seemed to imply. Not only is it not simple, it's really difficult, fragile and not at all clear.

One other general point. When scientific research reveals something more or less revolutionary it makes the universe a bit less mysterious. The introduction of alien intellect as a major force in the operation of the universe, if anything, makes the universe vastly more mysterious.

Plenty of such research has been done, and we have a relatively good idea of how the whole DNA->RNA->Protein->etc pathways work and developed, at least in principle (the interconnection in most of the interesting real-world examples is more difficult to sort through). To get more detailed answers, I would suggest first reading any standard undergraduate genetics textbook. I used Genetics: A Conceptual Approach, 3rd edition, by Pierce, and it answers many of the problems you've been raising. Doubtless there are other good texts out there that can summarize the general information. Also, the concept of emergent properties is important to keep in mind for many of the more complex biological traits. Things often are more than the sum of their parts.