Chemical evolution:

[James R]

Write4U:

As I said, I believe you are committing a category error.

What categories am I confusing, according to you? Explain.

Paddo can confirm if I understand the thrust of his argument.

Whatever.

Do you understand my argument? That is the question.

Once there was only chemistry. Then life evolved (emerged) from chemistry.

How do you know?

The actual process of how is a different story.

Is there, or is there not, currently a complete theory of abiogenesis? A simple "yes" or "no" from you will suffice.

Which of the sciences are having a disagreement about abiogenesis?

Biology, chemistry, geology I guess. There are many different hypotheses in play.

There may be disagreement about time and place, but AFAIK, there is no dispute about the definition of abiogenesis itself.

I have never claimed there is a dispute about the definition of abiogenesis, so we're apparently in agreement on that.

The only dispute is between Theism (creation) and Science (evolution) As I said, its a philosophical dispute.

Not just a philosophical dispute. Also a scientific one.

Natural Evolution or Intelligent Design, that's it. There is no third category.

Apparently you didn't read the post where I provided a list of 10 alternatives to paddoboy, above. Oh well.

 

[Write4U]

Write4U:
What categories am I confusing, according to you? Explain.

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.

Do you understand my argument? That is the question.

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?

How do you know?

Unless you are religious there is no other theory other than Evolution (another category)

Is there, or is there not, currently a complete theory of abiogenesis? A simple "yes" or "no" from you will suffice.

IMO, that is the wrong question.
It should be: "is there a definition of the term Abiogenesis"?
The answer to that is yes.

the original evolution of life or living organisms from inorganic or inanimate substances

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".

Biology, chemistry, geology I guess. There are many different hypotheses in play.

I agree, but whatever physical paths or process, they all resulted in Abiogenesis, i.e. life from non-life.

I have never claimed there is a dispute about the definition of abiogenesis, so we're apparently in agreement on that.

Of course you knew the definition. It is the process that defines the theory.

Not just a philosophical dispute. Also a scientific one.

IMO, it is only scientific (physics)

Apparently you didn't read the post where I provided a list of 10 alternatives to paddoboy, above. Oh well.

I read everything you post very carefully. I respect your scientific integrity......

But IMO, this is an Either/Or question. There are no alternate options that I am aware of.

 

[James R]

See post #721. I'll wait.

 

[Q-reeus]

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.

 

[Write4U]

See post #721. I'll wait.

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.

 

[Write4U]

From #669: "Additionally, explain how an integral cellular membrane arose without invoking mysterious Teleological direction."

Science needs not explain the rising of "integral cellular membranes" Those are terms that indicate "irreducible complexity" and are your inventions.

Teleology in biology

Teleology in biology is the use of the language of goal-directedness in accounts of evolutionary adaptation, which some biologists and philosophers of science find problematic. The term teleonomy has also been proposed. Before Darwin, organisms were seen as existing because God had designed and created them; their features such as eyes were taken by natural theology to have been made to enable them to carry out their functions, such as seeing. Evolutionary biologists often use similar teleological formulations that invoke purpose, but these imply natural selection rather than actual goals, whether conscious or not.

Dissenting biologists and religious thinkers held that evolution itself was somehow goal-directed (orthogenesis), and in vitalist versions, driven by a purposeful life force. Since such views are now discredited, with evolution working by natural selection acting on inherited variation, the use of teleology in biology has attracted criticism, and attempts have been made to teach students to avoid teleological language.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Teleology_in_biology

The recent wordy response - obfuscation and denigration. Sad that an honest 'don't have a clue' is too much to expect.

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.

 

[Q-reeus]

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.

 

[Write4U]

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.

 

[iceaura]

From #669: "Additionally, explain how an integral cellular membrane arose without invoking mysterious Teleological direction."
The recent wordy response - obfuscation and denigration.

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.

 

[James R]

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?

 

[Q-reeus]

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

 

[Write4U]

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?

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

American Images Inc/Getty

Evolution and evolutionary theory are already confusing enough. Yet, it becomes more complicated when creationists promulgate the mistaken idea that evolution is the same as abiogenesis.

Abiogenesis is the theory that life stems from inorganic or inanimate matter — forms that do not have life. This argument that it is identical to evolution is one way that creationism is touted as being a superior theory to evolution.

Origin of Life Isn't in Evolution

The origin of life is certainly an interesting topic, but it is not a part of evolutionary theory. The study of the naturalistic origins of life is called abiogenesis. While scientists have not developed a clear explanation of how life might have developed from non-living material, that has no impact on evolution.

The important thing to remember is that evolutionary theory is a scientific theory about how life evolved. It begins with the premise that life already exists. Yet, it makes no claims as to how that life got here.

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. Whatever the cause, evolutionary explanations begin to apply once life appears and begins to reproduce.

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?

 

[James R]

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.

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.

 

[James R]

"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.

 

[Write4U]

"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."

Aliens are not alive? How did aliens become alive?
Divine power, or Abiogenesis. There are only two competing possibilities. Only one is scientifically justifiable.

All those "could have"s show that the author doesn't know how life started. And neither do you.

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.

 

[Write4U]

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."

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

From what was explained in the previous paragraph, it can undoubtedly be considered as a classic experiment to demonstrate abiogenesis. For those who are not conversant with the term, abiogenesis is the process responsible for the development of living beings from non-living or abiotic matter. It is thought to have taken place on the Earth about 3.8 to 4 billion years ago

...more......

Though later studies have indicated that the reducing atmosphere as replicated by Miller and Urey could not have prevailed on primitive Earth, still, the experiment remains to be a milestone in synthesizing the building blocks of life under abiotic conditions and not from living beings themselves.

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!

 

[Q-reeus]

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.

 

[Write4U]

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!

Replace ? with Self-Referential dynamics.

What do you get? a) cyclical polymers, b) autocatalytic networks c) RNA molecules.

start viewing @ 20:00

Carnegie Science

Earth's 4.5 billion year history is a complex tale of deterministic physical and chemical processes, as well as "frozen accidents". Most models of life's origins also invoke chance and necessity. Recent research adds two important insights to this discussion.

First, chance versus necessity is an inherently false dichotomy--a range of probabilities exists for many natural events.

Second, given the astonishing combinatorial chemical richness of early Earth, events that are extremely rare may, nevertheless, be deterministic on time scales of a billion years

. Robert Hazen, Geophysical Laboratory, Carnegie Institution for Science

Life is just another expression of natural dynamical self-referential processes.

 

[Michael 345]

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

 

[Write4U]

Not even sure the reactions and products found are rungs

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.