• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

A positive argument against abiogenesis

leroy

Well-Known Member
That is not given at all since it's very likely that first life arose in very specific environments (maybe a single hot spring type environment) where the abiogenetic reactions progressed upto the point where proto cells with genetic reproductions could occur. Life likely became robust only AFTER natural selection created more complex and adaptive cells.

Well lets say that

1 abiogenesis occurred in a small lake somewhere in the planet

2 After a few generations, simple life (self-replicating molecules) started to populate the lake

3 soon we have different populations each in a different environment, (some lived in the coast, others at the bottom of the lake, others in the mood around, others inside a rock , some lived in the air, etc.)

4 after millions of years their descendants started to populate other parts of the planet, (other lakes, the ocean, mood, air, soil etc.

5 This point some evolution took place, but they are still simple organisms (almost as simple as the original ones)

6 Then in some of these environments more complex organism evolved (2s)

My point is that given 1-6 at least in some environments 1s would be ok ether because they where isolated, or because the coexisted with 2s fine or because 1s did better in some environments…………also there would have been some environments where 2s would have devolved on to 1s simple because “simpler” is better in some environments.
 

A Vestigial Mote

Well-Known Member
My point is that given 1-6 at least in some environments 1s would be ok ether because they where isolated, or because the coexisted with 2s fine or because 1s did better in some environments…………also there would have been some environments where 2s would have devolved on to 1s simple because “simpler” is better in some environments.
The problem being that we have a huge number of examples of organisms of various types and complexities having become extinct as time marched on and conditions no longer supported their lives. Like a great many dinosaurs that ever existed (barring potential descendants via evolutionary processes) and any number of plant species that existed prior to certain eras. And along with that, would a "fossil" of a "1" even be detectable, or recognizeable as a fossil? Could they have even been wiped out early enough that there is no fossil evidence (e.g. the Earth has "churned" somewhat since then, through all ongoing geological processes and demolished the evidence)? If the conditions that supported the moments of initial development of "1s" had passed, and they became extinct, then you would potentially never see another "1" on into the future.
 

sayak83

Veteran Member
Staff member
Premium Member
Well lets say that

1 abiogenesis occurred in a small lake somewhere in the planet

2 After a few generations, simple life (self-replicating molecules) started to populate the lake

3 soon we have different populations each in a different environment, (some lived in the coast, others at the bottom of the lake, others in the mood around, others inside a rock , some lived in the air, etc.)

4 after millions of years their descendants started to populate other parts of the planet, (other lakes, the ocean, mood, air, soil etc.

5 This point some evolution took place, but they are still simple organisms (almost as simple as the original ones)

6 Then in some of these environments more complex organism evolved (2s)

My point is that given 1-6 at least in some environments 1s would be ok ether because they where isolated, or because the coexisted with 2s fine or because 1s did better in some environments…………also there would have been some environments where 2s would have devolved on to 1s simple because “simpler” is better in some environments.
I would say simple life became complex first through evolution and outcompeted the original abiogenetic simple life forms before it moved to other parts of the lake.
Without evolution and the associated increase in complexity, the original life forms were neither fit nor robust enough to adapt to other parts of the lake.
 

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
I am not arguing that life needs* to be complex, I am arguing that if simple life (1s 2s 3s etc ) ever existed we should still have simple life today.

That is a very bad assumption. Early life would have been much less efficient than modern life. That is why life is complex. Simple life would have gone extinct. In the human world look at how cars have "evolved". How would a car from the 1920's do in a race against a car from today?



I don’t grant that claim (in red) at least in some environments being simple is ok and in some cases being simple is even better than being complex.

So at least in some environments simple life should have survived.


That is only because you have not studied this subject and do not seem to want to learn. You are merely looking for excuses to believe in a myth. It is a matter of efficiency. Early life did not need to be efficient at all. Modern life has to be. Competition is the driving force.
 

leroy

Well-Known Member
That is a very bad assumption. Early life would have been much less efficient than modern life.

The problem is that “efficient” is context dependent, son some environments a given complex trait might be beneficial, in other environments it might be neutral and in other environments it might be negative.

All I am saying in that in some environments “simple” is good enough and in some cases even better than complex, this is not even controversial we know that this is true based on what we see with modern organism, and based on what we see with ancient organisms (as far back as we can see in the fossil record)………. You are arbitrarily assuming that things were different exactly in the points of history that we cant observe………..please let me know if you agree with the comment in red letters (above)




That is why life is complex. Simple life would have gone extinct. In the human world look at how cars have "evolved". How would a car from the 1920's do in a race against a car from today?



Granted in an environment where “moving fast” is selectively beneficial, then any organism with complex traits that allow “fast movement” would trump simple organisms that lack this trait………….but my point is that not all environments are like that , there would be some environments where organisms flourish even if they can’t move fast.

I am not making any speculation, this is how evolution works my only “assumption” is that evolution worked the same way in the distant past. (woudl you reject this assumtion)



That is only because you have not studied this subject and do not seem to want to learn. You are merely looking for excuses to believe in a myth. It is a matter of efficiency. Early life did not need to be efficient at all. Modern life has to be. Competition is the driving force.

Well I don’t grant you assumption that you seem to be making … “more complex”= “more efficient”…. At least in some cases simpler = more efficient (agree?)
 

leroy

Well-Known Member
The problem being that we have a huge number of examples of organisms of various types and complexities having become extinct as time marched on and conditions no longer supported their lives. Like a great many dinosaurs that ever existed (barring potential descendants via evolutionary processes) and any number of plant species that existed prior to certain eras. And along with that, would a "fossil" of a "1" even be detectable, or recognizeable as a fossil? Could they have even been wiped out early enough that there is no fossil evidence (e.g. the Earth has "churned" somewhat since then, through all ongoing geological processes and demolished the evidence)? If the conditions that supported the moments of initial development of "1s" had passed, and they became extinct, then you would potentially never see another "1" on into the future.

My point is that 1s would represent a wide range of organisms each living in a different environment, (perhaps even in a different continent) ………. It’s hard to even imagine a catastrophe that would kill all the 1s of the world
 

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
The problem is that “efficient” is context dependent, son some environments a given complex trait might be beneficial, in other environments it might be neutral and in other environments it might be negative.

All I am saying in that in some environments “simple” is good enough and in some cases even better than complex, this is not even controversial we know that this is true based on what we see with modern organism, and based on what we see with ancient organisms (as far back as we can see in the fossil record)………. You are arbitrarily assuming that things were different exactly in the points of history that we cant observe………..please let me know if you agree with the comment in red letters (above)

Reading comprehension should tell you what it means. In this case "efficient" would mean acquiring and using resources with less waste. "Good" is a relative term. What is "poor" now would have been amazingly efficient in the past. And no, I am not assuming that things were different. I am assuming that the laws of physics and chemistry were the same. This is not a difficult concept. The original life would have been the first reproducing cell. It need not be terribly efficient since it was not facing any competition. It did not remain that way for terribly long.

Granted in an environment where “moving fast” is selectively beneficial, then any organism with complex traits that allow “fast movement” would trump simple organisms that lack this trait………….but my point is that not all environments are like that , there would be some environments where organisms flourish even if they can’t move fast.

I am not making any speculation, this is how evolution works my only “assumption” is that evolution worked the same way in the distant past. (woudl you reject this assumtion)

Yes, all environments are different. What you fail to recognize is that organisms evolve for the environments that they live in. And since evolution would have worked the same way in the past organisms evolved to handle their particular environment. The original versions are "still here" in that sense. What you will not find is an example that did not evolve. Not evolving leads to replacement by those organisms that evolved for that particular environment.

Well I don’t grant you assumption that you seem to be making … “more complex”= “more efficient”…. At least in some cases simpler = more efficient (agree?)

But that is demonstrably the case. Unfortunately you would need a deeper understanding to see this and I am not the one to educate you in this. You should realize that there is an evolutionary advantage to all of the complex systems that you see in life. They are not needed. If there was no competition one could strip out endless traits. Of course if you did that particular life could not compete with existing life. Don't accuse others of making assumptions. That is a no no in the sciences. One cannot just assume. That is what creationists do.
 

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
My point is that 1s would represent a wide range of organisms each living in a different environment, (perhaps even in a different continent) ………. It’s hard to even imagine a catastrophe that would kill all the 1s of the world
No catastrophe needed. You are specifying that the life could not have changed. For any environment there are better and more efficient possible life forms. The ones that changed so they could use more of the resources in an area would out compete those that did not change.
 

leroy

Well-Known Member
Reading comprehension should tell you what it means. In this case "efficient" would mean acquiring and using resources with less waste. "Good" is a relative term. What is "poor" now would have been amazingly efficient in the past. And no, I am not assuming that things were different. I am assuming that the laws of physics and chemistry were the same. This is not a difficult concept. The original life would have been the first reproducing cell. It need not be terribly efficient since it was not facing any competition. It did not remain that way for terribly long.



Yes, all environments are different. What you fail to recognize is that organisms evolve for the environments that they live in. And since evolution would have worked the same way in the past organisms evolved to handle their particular environment. The original versions are "still here" in that sense. What you will not find is an example that did not evolve. Not evolving leads to replacement by those organisms that evolved for that particular environment.



But that is demonstrably the case. Unfortunately you would need a deeper understanding to see this and I am not the one to educate you in this. You should realize that there is an evolutionary advantage to all of the complex systems that you see in life. They are not needed. If there was no competition one could strip out endless traits. Of course if you did that particular life could not compete with existing life. Don't accuse others of making assumptions. That is a no no in the sciences. One cannot just assume. That is what creationists do.

As usual instead of answering my questions or addressing the actual argument, you decided to make a bunch of interesting but irrelevant claims.

1 Sometimes, being simple is good enough, sometimes becoming more complex doesnt represent a clear selective benefit.

2 Sometimes being simpler is even selectively better than being more complex

Do you agree with these statements?
 

leroy

Well-Known Member
No catastrophe needed. You are specifying that the life could not have changed
For any environment there are better and more efficient possible life forms
.
Sure. But better and more efficient doesn’t necessarily mean more complex …..agree?.



. The ones that changed so they could use more of the resources in an area would out compete those that did not change.
AJa but…

Change doesn’t necessarily mean “becoming more complex” you can change without increasing complexity, and you can change by becoming simpler.

So basically you are attacking a stawman, you changed “complex” for “more efficient” in my argument and attacking your stawman version of my argument rather than the actual argument.
 

leroy

Well-Known Member
The Great Oxidation is special in extinction events as Earth never returned to the prior state. There is no niche in which anaerobe 1s could have survived. (We have anaerobe environments now but they haven't been stable for 2 billion years and they are still not the same as those before the GOE.)
If a certain level of complexity is needed to survive in an aerobe environment, the transition probability from 2 to 1 becomes 0.
For the possibility to lose a function and still survive, the function must be superfluous, i.e. the function must be provided by the environment.
The science of abiogenesis works from both ends. Iirc it was Craig Venter who built a microbe with a minimal genome of a few hundred base pairs. That might be a way to reconstruct a lost 1 and see in which environment it is able to survive.
What about all the 1s that liven in the deep ocean, or underground, or inside rocks, …..where they also killed by oxygen? Is that what you are suggesting?

Oxygen was poisonous for all 1s ? this are honest questions, I don’t want to misrepresent your view
 

Heyo

Veteran Member
What about all the 1s that liven in the deep ocean, or underground, or inside rocks, …..where they also killed by oxygen? Is that what you are suggesting?

Oxygen was poisonous for all 1s ? this are honest questions, I don’t want to misrepresent your view
Yes, that is what I'm saying. Oxygen is a chemical radical and leads to Oxidative stress - Wikipedia. This requires all cells to evolve complex mechanisms to deal with oxygen, protecting and/or repairing DNA and other vital components.

Oxygen is easily soluble in Water (and combines to H2O2 under UV light, an even more radical substance). All life was in the ocean (and there was only one) so that oxygen was inescapable.

Here is a short (5:43 min) overview from the great channel PBS Eons:
 

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
As usual instead of answering my questions or addressing the actual argument, you decided to make a bunch of interesting but irrelevant claims.

1 Sometimes, being simple is good enough, sometimes becoming more complex doesnt represent a clear selective benefit.

2 Sometimes being simpler is even selectively better than being more complex

Do you agree with these statements?

Let's make it clear. Sometimes is the answer to number one. But not always. A care from 1920 is not going to win the Indianapolis 500. In life complexity often does give a significant advantage. The first life would have less chance of surviving today than a car from 1920 would have of winning Indy. You keep forgetting that there are limited resources in any enviornment.

And yes, number two is true too. That still does not help you.
 

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
Sure. But better and more efficient doesn’t necessarily mean more complex …..agree?.

Whoosh!! Points continually going over your head.

AJa but…

Change doesn’t necessarily mean “becoming more complex” you can change without increasing complexity, and you can change by becoming simpler.

So basically you are attacking a stawman, you changed “complex” for “more efficient” in my argument and attacking your stawman version of my argument rather than the actual argument.
Come on. You can do better than this. It is time to admit your error.

Resources are limited in any environment. Early on, when there is little competition, anything can survive. Efficiency becomes a factor when competition sets in.

Once again. A car from 1920 is very very simple. How would it do in a modern racing circuit?
 

YoursTrue

Faith-confidence in what we hope for (Hebrews 11)
Some Definitions
.......
In the context of this thread, with abiogenesis I mean the idea that primitive life formed in a primordial soup (or some other environment) by natural mechanisms.

With primitive life, I mean relatively simple self-replicating molecules (much simpler than modern microbes)

I will use to “primodial soup” as a generic term to refer to all of the enviroments that have been proposed by researches (even if these are not literally primordial soups)

With 1s I mean simple self replicating molecules (simply enogh to have formed in a primodial soup)
.....

My argument against abiogenesis

Premise 1: Complex organism could have not been formed in a primordial soup

Premise 2: Life has always been complex

* With complex I mean " nearly as complex as a modern microbe or more"

Therefore Life could have not formed in a primordial soup

........
Supporting premise 1 and premise 2:

Premise 1: is not controversial, the junk yard tornado analogy shows that the premise is true, and no atheist to my knowledge believes that modern-like organisms formed in the primordial soup.

Premise 2: Is supported by the fact that natural selection doesn’t aims at complexity, (the average complexity doesn’t increases) sometimes becoming simpler or staying the same Is better for the organism source at the end of this post.1

This leads to the conclusion that atleast some simple organisms should be livign today.

Consider this scenario.

Let’s assume for the sake of simplicity that we can measure complexity in a scale from 1 -10 where 10 is something as complex as a human 5 is something as complex as a modern microbe and 1 would be a simple self-replicating molecule, simple enough to have formed in a primordial soup.

1 Supposedly all life started with “1” all life was simple in the past.

2 After a few million years any population of organisms could have evolved from 1 to 2 or stay as 1 (depending on the selective pressure)

3 Once you have some “2s” this organism would ether evolve in to 3, stay as 2 of evolve back to 1 (this is because sometimes losing complexity is good for the organism and therefore would be favored by natural selection)…………(let’s assume that each possibility has a 33% probability)

3.1 Once you have 3s they can ether evovle in to 4 stay as 3 or evovle in to 2 ((let’s assume that each possibility has a 33% probability)

3,2 once you have 4 you can evovle to 5 stay as 4 or evovle in to 3 ...((let’s assume that each possibility has a 33% probability)

etc. etc.


4 If you follow this algorithm, eventually you will get small minorities of “10” (something as complex as a human) … but you should still have 1s (and 2s and 3s and 4s)

5 Given that we don’t have 1s currently living today and given that there is no reason for why would then disappear, it follows that maybe 1s have never existed. (the same goes to 2,3 and 4)

Or to put it this way, given what we know about how organisms evolve, at least some of the simplest organisms that have ever lived (or something similar) should still be living today, implying that the simplest organisms that have ever lived are as complex as modern organisms (say as complex as modern microbes)

….

Given that premise 1 and 2 are probably true it follows that probably abiogenesis is wrong
+

Basically evolution doesnt explain the abcense of 1s living today, so ether evolution is wrong or abiogenesis is wrong...........given that evolution is better supported than abiogenesis we most reject abiogenesis.


...............
source 1

Evolution of biological complexity - Wikipedia.
I'll be looking for the answers to your points. :)
 

YoursTrue

Faith-confidence in what we hope for (Hebrews 11)
Since this is what you are trying to prove, it's pretty absurd to make it your first premise. The "logic" fails on that point alone. And especially because, first, you don't know that it's true -- you merely assume it, almost as an axiom.
Wait a minute. You mean to say no one (or is it only the OP) knows if abiogenesis is true? What?
 

TagliatelliMonster

Veteran Member
I am not arguing that life needs* to be complex, I am arguing that if simple life (1s 2s 3s etc ) ever existed we should still have simple life today.

And the ONLY reason you argue this, is just so you can accommodate for your premises to make your argument "work". Not because you have actual scientific, data driven, reasons to assume such. Your ONLY motivation here is to make your argument "work".

And the ONLY reason for you to make this argument, is because you have religious beliefs that aren't compatible with it, so you have a priori interest in abiogenesis being wrong. You want it to be wrong. You need it to be wrong.

But let's not kid ourselves, you don't have valid reasons for this premise - nore for this argument.

Tell me, how many working abiogenesis researchers, or evolutionary biologists, believe/expect as you do, that the "first" populations of life that existed at least 3.8 billion years ago, should still be around today?

Is there even a single working scientist in those fields that actually even remotely agrees to this?
I don't think there is.

It's just you and your "argument".

I don’t grant that claim (in red) at least in some environments being simple is ok and in some cases being simple is even better than being complex.

So at least in some environments simple life should have survived.

Give me a single scientific citation that supports this, instead of your own belief / religious want or need / bare assertion that such is the case.

Show me a paper from evolutionary biology or abiogenesis that states that "first life" species should still be around today, virtually unchanged after some 4 billion years of evolution, having survived The Great Oxidation and all other mass extinctions etc.

:rolleyes:
 

TagliatelliMonster

Veteran Member
Wait a minute. You mean to say no one (or is it only the OP) knows if abiogenesis is true? What?

The process is unknow. ie, which specific steps lead to the appearance of living things.

That abiogenesis occurred, is pretty much a given off course. At one point there was no life and then there was. So necessarily there was a "first" life which did not come from previous life. That's abiogenesis by definition.

How that process works (a specific chemical reaction? a series of specific chemical reactions? an extra-dimensional unicorn that bio-engineered it? A god that said abracadabra and poof - there it was?) is what is unknown.

Although it would also be dishonest to say that "we don't have a clue". We know quite a lot already about early life and there are a couple of promising hypothesis. There just isn't a conclusive answer yet.

Note also that it would be close to impossible to figure out exactly how it occurred on earth. Chances are huge that there are multiple possible paths to life. Discovering one such path in the lab, wouldn't necessarily mean that that is also how it happened on earth.
 

Heyo

Veteran Member
And the ONLY reason you argue this, is just so you can accommodate for your premises to make your argument "work". Not because you have actual scientific, data driven, reasons to assume such. Your ONLY motivation here is to make your argument "work".

And the ONLY reason for you to make this argument, is because you have religious beliefs that aren't compatible with it, so you have a priori interest in abiogenesis being wrong. You want it to be wrong. You need it to be wrong.

But let's not kid ourselves, you don't have valid reasons for this premise - nore for this argument.

Tell me, how many working abiogenesis researchers, or evolutionary biologists, believe/expect as you do, that the "first" populations of life that existed at least 3.8 billion years ago, should still be around today?

Is there even a single working scientist in those fields that actually even remotely agrees to this?
I don't think there is.

It's just you and your "argument".



Give me a single scientific citation that supports this, instead of your own belief / religious want or need / bare assertion that such is the case.

Show me a paper from evolutionary biology or abiogenesis that states that "first life" species should still be around today, virtually unchanged after some 4 billion years of evolution, having survived The Great Oxidation and all other mass extinctions etc.

:rolleyes:
You're being unfair here.
1. You assume a motive you can't prove. (There is evidence for it but that doesn't disqualify the argument.) - It is basically an ad hominem.
2. You misrepresent @leroy's argument, building a straw man.
He doesn't argue that the same primitive species should have survived, just that we should have primitive species on par with first life. His argument is that a loss of function is as possible as a gain in function and he cites a Wikipedia article that supports his argument.
I think he made a serious claim that deserves a serious rebuttal.
 
Top