A positive argument against abiogenesis

[leroy]

Oh look! Its a Dodge Dart. That was not the question. You are once again ignoring the effect of competition.

And my reply is that “simple” sometimes win the competition………. You already greed with this …

Yes you are. That is the problem. You are also ignoring the fact that life will evolve. There is no way to prevent change. Mutations happen.

Starwman, nobody is denying that evolution occurs, nor that change happens, nor that there is competition.

My only claims are

1 Sometimes simplicity is selected over complexity (which you agreed)

2 this leads to the conclusion that simple life should be exiting today (which has been supported by me and ignored by you)

 

[Subduction Zone]

And my reply is that “simple” sometimes win the competition………. You already greed with this …

No, I said that "sometimes" and stated under specific situations. Let's not rely on strawman arguments. That is simply admitting that you are wrong. And you continue to dodge the question that illustrates your loss. Running away is also the same as admitting a loss.

Starwman, nobody is denying that evolution occurs, nor that change happens, nor that there is competition.

My only claims are

1 Sometimes simplicity is selected over complexity (which you agreed)

2 this leads to the conclusion that simple life should be exiting today (which has been supported by me and ignored by you)

LOL! Sorry, you do not get to claim strawman. Try again.

 

[leroy]

No, I said that "sometimes" and stated under specific situations. .

yes,,,,,,,,,, so what is your point...................we both agree that sometiems "simple" is good enough to win the competition.


if we both agree then can you help me find our point of disagreement?

 

[Subduction Zone]

yes,,,,,,,,,, so what is your point...................we both agree that sometiems "simple" is good enough to win the competition.


if we both agree then can you help me find our point of disagreement?

Try again.

 

[Heyo]

We have the choice of believing that organisms came into existence from chemicals (and maybe a lightning strike), or believe that God made organisms.

There is a third option, at least for life on earth. It could have come from space. Since @leroy hasn't stated in this thread which option he prefers, he could, with the same arguments, be supposing the panspermia hypothesis.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

And my reply is that “simple” sometimes win the competition………. You already greed with this …



Starwman, nobody is denying that evolution occurs, nor that change happens, nor that there is competition.

My only claims are

1 Sometimes simplicity is selected over complexity (which you agreed)

2 this leads to the conclusion that simple life should be exiting today (which has been supported by me and ignored by you)

What sort of simple life do you think should exist but doesn't?

 

[leroy]

What sort of simple life do you think should exist but doesn't?

Self-replicating molecules, like those that formed in the primordial soup.

My point is that if life started simple…………..and if sometimes evolution favors simplicity …….we would have simple life today.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Self-replicating molecules, like those that formed in the primordial soup.

My point is that if life started simple…………..and if sometimes evolution favors simplicity …….we would have simple life today.

We have prokaryotic bacteria, we have archaea... both are nearly as simple as "life" can be.

We also have viruses: relatively simple self-replicating things that aren't considered to meet the criteria to be "life."

... so it seems to me that we have what you're asking for, unless I'm not understanding what you're asking for.

 

[leroy]

There is a third option, at least for life on earth. It could have come from space. Since @leroy hasn't stated in this thread which option he prefers, he could, with the same arguments, be supposing the panspermia hypothesis.

There is a wide range of options.

1 Maybe something killed all the simple life (like oxygen as you claim)

2 Maybe Life started complex by a natural mechanism

3 maybe life was designed complex

4 maybe life came form space

5 maybe our understanding of evolution is incomplete (maybe there is somethign other than natural selection that causes a trend towards complexity)

This argument by itlself is far from being an argument for ID or any other option,

 

[leroy]

We have prokaryotic bacteria, we have archaea... both are nearly as simple as "life" can be.

Yes, granted,

The point is that something as complex as a modern prokaryote could have not formed in a primordial soup (nor in any other environment suggested by abiogenesis researchers)

would you agree with this point?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Yes, granted,

The point is that something as complex as a modern prokaryote could have not formed in a primordial soup (nor in any other environment suggested by abiogenesis researchers)

would you agree with this point?

Are you talking about RNA-based life?

 

[leroy]

Are you talking about RNA-based life?

Are you talking about RNA-based life?

I am talking about the simple life that supposedly existed billions of years ago…..(ether RNA based or something else)

Scientists in general agree that something as complex as a modern like bacteria could have not formed in the soup………….so presumably (they would say) that something simpler formed and later evolved in to modern like bacteria.

All I am saying is that if those simple life forms ever existed we would expect to have some organisms that are nearly as simple as them.

 

[exchemist]

We have prokaryotic bacteria, we have archaea... both are nearly as simple as "life" can be.

We also have viruses: relatively simple self-replicating things that aren't considered to meet the criteria to be "life."

... so it seems to me that we have what you're asking for, unless I'm not understanding what you're asking for.

We also have prions, which are even simpler and replicate without any distinct genetic material at all.

 

[exchemist]

I am talking about the simple life that supposedly existed billions of years ago…..(ether RNA based or something else)

Scientists in general agree that something as complex as a modern like bacteria could have not formed in the soup………….so presumably (they would say) that something simpler formed and later evolved in to modern like bacteria.

All I am saying is that if those simple life forms ever existed we would expect to have some organisms that are nearly as simple as them.

For one thing they would be a food source for anything more sophisticated. For another, they would have fewer defences, both against being consumed and against disruption by the environment.

 

[leroy]

For one thing they would be a food source for anything more sophisticated. For another, they would have fewer defences, both against being consumed and against disruption by the environment.

Yes probbaly in some environments they were eaten by more complex life, but there would have been other environments where they were completely isolated, environments where they coexisted with complex life fine, environments where they trumped complex life (simple is sometimes better)

This is what we see today and what we observe as far back as we can see in the fossil record, sometimes complex life trumps simple life, sometimes it doesn’t. …. Why assuming that things where different billions of years ago?

 

[exchemist]

Yes probbaly in some environments they were eaten by more complex life, but there would have been other environments where they were completely isolated, environments where they coexisted with complex life fine, environments where they trumped complex life (simple is sometimes better)

This is what we see today and what we observe as far back as we can see in the fossil record, sometimes complex life trumps simple life, sometimes it doesn’t. …. Why assuming that things where different billions of years ago?

Why do you assume "there would have been other environments where they were completely isolated"?

 

[exchemist]

I am not ignoring it, yes there is always competition, but sometimes being “simple” helps you win the competition ……. You already agreed with this point.

SO why don’t we have simple life today?

Why don't we have trilobites? Extinctions happen all the time.

 

[leroy]

Why do you assume "there would have been other environments where they were completely isolated"?

Because supposedly simple life, populated and dominated the world for billions of years, they where all over the planet many living underground, inside rocks, or in distant ponds where complex life never saw them.

 

[exchemist]

Because supposedly simple life, populated and dominated the world for billions of years, they where all over the planet many living underground, inside rocks, or in distant ponds where complex life never saw them.

Why do you assume all that? Says who? What evidence of it do you have? The first widespread life we have fossil evidence of was already quite complex.

 

[leroy]

Why don't we have trilobites? Extinctions happen all the time.

Granted we don’t have trilobites, but we do have “simple” arthropods today, we have modern animals that are as simple as animals from the Cambrian.

That is my point while complex life forms evolved from simpler organisms, that doesn’t mean that everybody evolved in to more complex life forms, some organisms stayed “simple” because in some environments being simple is good.

Just to be clear, my point is that not everybody evolves in to more complex life forms, some stay the same and some become simpler (sometimes becoming simpler is an advantage) ………….do you agree with this point?