• 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
Complexity hasn't exactly been increasing all that much since the cambrian.
You seem to forget that the cambrian already had multi-cellular eukaryote life. one-cellular life that had already

Ok so as far back as we can see (Cambrian, Precambrian …) organisms stayed as simple as they where even after hundreds of millions of years in some environments.

But things were different in the distant past, conveniently things were different exactly at a point where nobody can “see” nor verify it.




[They actually do. But for some reason you tend to ignore those parts. It's even explained in the very wikipedia article you cited in a failed effort to support your premise, as I pointed out..... :rolleyes:
Yes you pointed out a lot of things, but supported none…….. why don’t you quote the sources and the exact text?


Not "some". All models do.
I don't know of a single model that doesn't state life is more complex today then it was in the ancient past accross the board. Your unsupported premise notwithstanding (eventhough that's just a claim, not a model

Yes some models claim that the complexity that we see today (and not in the Precambrian) is just due to sampling bias, the average complexity has not increased……………

In this hypothesis, any appearance of evolution acting with an intrinsic direction towards increasingly complex organisms is a result of people concentrating on the small number of large, complex organisms that inhabit the right-hand tail of the complexity distribution and ignoring simpler and much more common organisms. This passive model predicts that the majority of species are microscopic prokaryotes, which is supported by estimates of 106 to 109 extant prokaryotes[14] compared to diversity estimates of 106 to 3·106 for eukaryotes.[15][16] Consequently, in this view, microscopic life dominates Earth, and large organisms only appear more diverse due to sampling bias.

But the relevant thing is than no model of evolution predicts that simple life would disappear, except for those models that exist in your imagination and that you are unable to quote.
 
Last edited:

leroy

Well-Known Member
My source is logic.

Given is organism A. A is a member of generation 0. It is naked and fragile and has zero defense against oxygen, nore does it have the necessary biological machinery to mount such defenses.

For it to survive a presence of oxygen, it is necessarily going to have to acquire additional traits

Option 1: it acquires these additional traits, survives and becomes more complex in the process
Option 2: it dies.


Predators with locomotion invade the territory. Organism A is now a prey. It requires defenses against these predators.

Several options exist:
- it acquires locomotion, so that it can flee
- it acquires means of camouflage, so that it can't be detected by the predators
- it acquires a deterrent, like for example a chemical it can release, which makes the predator flee or mislead it or whatever
- ...


Each one of these options results in a rise in complexity.
Becoming simpler is not really an option, as all its subsystems are crucial for its survival (metabolism, defense against oxygen and whatnot).


See?

The thing about being the "simplest" lifeform, means that there is only one evolutionary path on the ladder of complexity, and that is: up.

My source is logic

The problem is that your logic fails with modern organisms and it fails with ancient organisms (as far back as we can see in the fossil record)

Sometiems flying birds evolve in to flightless birds, sometimes creatures with eyes evolve in to blind creatures, sometimes fast animals evolve in to slow animals, etc.

I know that you explain this by invoking a “minimal complexity boundary” or something , you have done anything to support the claim.

But the good news is that we found a clear pint of disagreement, you seem to claim that there is a minimal complexity boundary that all simple animals will try to reach, once you passed that boundary you can become more complex or simpler or say the same but never go below this boundery………………is this a fair representation of your view?
 

TagliatelliMonster

Veteran Member
Yes but simple also means “small, consumes less energy, flexible, etc.”

which won't change anything about it being a sitting duck for literally everything that is thrown at it.

And even if we imagine an impossible world that literally holds no dangers in any way, shape or form, then still the simplest of lifeforms will quickly rise in complexity as they adapt to better suite the habitat they find themselves in.

Because again: when you are the simplest, the only direction complexity can go is up.
 

TagliatelliMonster

Veteran Member
Ok so as far back as we can see (Cambrian, Precambrian …) organisms stayed as simple as they where even after hundreds of millions of years in some environments.

Or rather: as complex as they were.

But things were different in the distant past, conveniently things were different exactly at a point where nobody can “see” nor verify it.

Well yeah, it's the quest of abiogenesis to figure that one out.
The expectations are basically a reverse engineering of evolution. Sort of.

It's a bit like punctuated equilibrium actually. I'm sure you're familiar with that...
In times of stable environments, evolutionary change tends to slow down. Amount of evolutionary change tends to follow environmental change. Abrupt environmental change tends to trigger extinctions. Gradual change tends to trigger increase in evolutionary change. The faster the gradual environmental change, the faster evolution follows - and the more species go extinct during said process.

This idea can also be seen in computer simulations using genetic algoritms. You'ld let a system evolve to fit certain parameters. After a while it will approach a local optimum and will remain in pretty much that form from that point on. A local optimum is when there's no easy evolutionary path left towards gradual improvement for an even better fit.
When at that point you hit the pauze button and drop the system in a different environment, that local optimum shifts. Gradual evolutionary change will quickly be introduced as the system evolves towards its new local optimum.

The same thing would occur with first life. It would suddenly find itself in a brand new environment. Which is to say: it doesn't have a genetic history yet of adaption to said environment. It doesn't find itself in the local optimum. So gradual evolutionary change will quickly be introduced as first life evolves towards its first local optimum.

As local optimums shift around all the time, life will quickly acquire a whole toolset of things and reach a fair level of complexity rather fast.


The think that first life could remain as simple as it was for 4 billion years, or even only 4 million years, is not reasonable. That would be the equivalent of taking the to-evolve model in a genetic algorithm and dropping it in a different environment and then have nothing happening. It just doesn't work that way.


Yes you pointed out a lot of things, but supported none…….. why don’t you quote the sources and the exact text?

I did exactly that in my very first response to your source.


Yes some models claim that the complexity that we see today (and not in the Precambrian) is just due to sampling bias, the average complexity has not increased……………

They are talking about the complexity of multi-cellular life as opposed to unicellular life.
For the context of this discussion, I'm not even thinking about multi-cellular life.
The very source you mentioned to support that statement, also says at the end that life, in general, grew more complex over the course of its history.

And hilariously, you quote the paragraph where this is all apparant as well:

In this hypothesis, any appearance of evolution acting with an intrinsic direction towards increasingly complex organisms is a result of people concentrating on the small number of large, complex organisms that inhabit the right-hand tail of the complexity distribution and ignoring simpler and much more common organisms. This passive model predicts that the majority of species are microscopic prokaryotes, which is supported by estimates of 106 to 109 extant prokaryotes[14] compared to diversity estimates of 106 to 3·106 for eukaryotes.[15][16] Consequently, in this view, microscopic life dominates Earth, and large organisms only appear more diverse due to sampling bias


So they are comparing multi-cellular eukaryotes to unicellular prokaryotes, where the first one is the "complex life" and the latter the "simple" life.

But compared to the "simple" life that was first life, prokaryotes are very complex.

I'm not even talking about eukaryotes. I'm talking about complexity in general - including in prokaryotes. Including in the "simplest" of extant life forms that we know of.

They too, are the result of 4 billion years of evolution. 4 billion years worth of gradually moving from local optimum to local optimum.

But the relevant thing is than no model of evolution predicts that simple life would disappear,

"simple" life in the sense of prokaryotes, agreed.
"simple" life in the sense of "first life", no model expects such to survive. Rather the opposite.

except for those models that exist in your imagination and that you are unable to quote.

It's just how the evolutionary process works.
It's rather easy, I don't see how you can't comprehend it....

1. punctuated equilibrium (shifts of local optimum and evolutionary tendency to "move/change" towards that optimum)
2. if you are the simplest, the only way complexity can go is up. The simpler you are, the more likely it will go up.


If you can't understand the implications and inevitable consequences of these point, then I don't know what to tell you.
 

TagliatelliMonster

Veteran Member
The problem is that your logic fails with modern organisms and it fails with ancient organisms (as far back as we can see in the fossil record)

The logic doesn't apply to modern organisms. :rolleyes:

Did you even read the post you are replying to?

Sometiems flying birds evolve in to flightless birds, sometimes creatures with eyes evolve in to blind creatures, sometimes fast animals evolve in to slow animals, etc.

None of which has anything to do with levels of complexity that relevant here
Also, I don't so how a penguin is "less complex" then a chicken or a pigeon. Not that it matters because the actual point is flying way over your head it seems.

How are you not understanding this?


But the good news is that we found a clear pint of disagreement, you seem to claim that there is a minimal complexity boundary that all simple animals will try to reach, once you passed that boundary you can become more complex or simpler or say the same but never go below this boundery………………is this a fair representation of your view?


I think this is hilariously funny.
I've been thinking about how to best make you comprehend what I'm saying and I think I know how to, eventhough it's not 100% accurate but perhaps close enough.

What I'm saying is that you start with a, by definition, extremely simple "naked" organism that isn't in its "fittest" form for the environment it finds itself in. It has not genetic history of specializing in that environment, because it is generation 0. Right? So it will, inevitably, evolve to fill that niche.

As it evolves systems to deal with its daily challenges, whatever they may be, it will grow in complexity. This is inevitable, because it starts out at its simplest. Any change... any change would make it more complex.

It will evolve biological machinery to "optimize" what it has to do and deal with.
Over time, that machinery will be further perfected and optimized.
And eventually those processes will become - drum roll - irreducibly complex.


Got you there, didn't I? :D
 

TagliatelliMonster

Veteran Member
Well there is our main point of disagreement (in red) can you support your claim with a real source?

Does it really require a source to say that an organism first needs to reach a certain level of complexity before it can become simpler?

Wouldn't you first need to get some apples, before you can loose some apples?

How can you loose apples when you don't have apples?

Likewise, you'ld have to be "simplifyable", before you can be simplified.
 

leroy

Well-Known Member
Because again: when you are the simplest, the only direction complexity can go is up.
Imagine an organism that is a Little bit more complex than the original life, but much simpler than modern microbes,

This organism could

1 become simpler

2 become more complex

3 stay the same

4 change horizontally (without increasing nor decreasing complexity)

All I am saying is that each of this scenarios is possible and probable, given that we are talking about millions of different environments, we have warranty that we would have each of the 4 scenarios multiple times….honestly what’s so controversial about this?...why can’t you grant it?

Your world view is based on the assumption that only “2” is possible, and at this point you haven’t done anything to support that assumtion
 

leroy

Well-Known Member
O
"simple" life in the sense of prokaryotes, agreed.
"simple" life in the sense of "first life", no model expects such to survive. Rather the opposite.

but you cant quote a single model, right?



It's just how the evolutionary process works.
It's rather easy, I don't see how you can't comprehend it..
..
I do comprehend it, it is just that I don’t grant your assertions and you haven’t done anything to support them.


1. punctuated equilibrium (shifts of local optimum and evolutionary tendency to "move/change" towards that optimum)
ok granted

2. if you are the simplest, the only way complexity can go is up. The simpler you are, the more likely it will go up
.
not granted (stuff in red letters)

Besides to explain the lack of simple life in modern days you would have to show that it is “ much more likely” for organisms to become more complex



]If you can't understand the implications and inevitable consequences of these point, then I don't know what to tell you.

I understand the implications, I just dont grant your point (in red letters above)
 

leroy

Well-Known Member
The logic doesn't apply to modern organisms. :rolleyes:

Did you even read the post you are replying to?



None of which has anything to do with levels of complexity that relevant here
Also, I don't so how a penguin is "less complex" then a chicken or a pigeon. Not that it matters because the actual point is flying way over your head it seems.

How are you not understanding this?





I think this is hilariously funny.
I've been thinking about how to best make you comprehend what I'm saying and I think I know how to, eventhough it's not 100% accurate but perhaps close enough.

What I'm saying is that you start with a, by definition, extremely simple "naked" organism that isn't in its "fittest" form for the environment it finds itself in. It has not genetic history of specializing in that environment, because it is generation 0. Right? So it will, inevitably, evolve to fill that niche.

As it evolves systems to deal with its daily challenges, whatever they may be, it will grow in complexity. This is inevitable, because it starts out at its simplest. Any change... any change would make it more complex.

It will evolve biological machinery to "optimize" what it has to do and deal with.
Over time, that machinery will be further perfected and optimized.
And eventually those processes will become - drum roll - irreducibly complex.


Got you there, didn't I? :D

The problem seems to be that you are focusing in that absolute simplest possible organism, (sure I grant that such an organism is not likely to have survived to this day)

But I am talking about organisms that are a little bit more complex that the “absolute simplest possible” but much simpler than modern bacteria.

All I am saying is that this organisms could have ether become simpler, become more complex, stay the same or evolve horizontally…..do you garnt this point? Yes or no?
 

gnostic

The Lost One
@leroy

If you are going to spend much more time, to talk about how some species become increasingly simpler or increasingly complex over times, then thread is really about Evolution, not Abiogenesis.

You haven’t talked much about Abiogenesis, so your thread is either misleading or you are still incapable of distinguishing between Abiogenesis & Evolution.
 

tas8831

Well-Known Member
Logic is hard.
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
What you have there is a non sequitur. Your argument is invalid and unsound.

I suggest you review logic and the use of syllogisms before trying again (though I know I am too late).
 

tas8831

Well-Known Member
Premise 1 is not controversial, all the premise claims is that a complex modern-like cell cannot pop in to existence form a primordial soup. (Presumably something much simpler formed in that primordial soup, and it later evolved in to complex modern like microbes)

The junk yard tornado analogy explains in detail why this premise is true

Junkyard tornado - Wikipedia
Ah, so your foundational premise is a strawman - so much better!
 

leroy

Well-Known Member
Logic is hard.
What you have there is a non sequitur. Your argument is invalid and unsound.

I suggest you review logic and the use of syllogisms before trying again (though I know I am too late).
Like a typical internet atheist,

You arbitrary accuse those that don’t share you view, for committing fallacies and making unsound arguments, but you failed to support your false accusations

You should join the flat earth community , they use the same tactics that you use, I am sure you will fit well with them
 

leroy

Well-Known Member
Ah, so your foundational premise is a strawman - so much better!
You misunderstood the argument and you didn’t made an effort to try to understand it……… again something typical from internet atheist……. Good job in promoting the stereotype.


If you claim that the junk yard tornado argument is a strawman then you are granting premise 1 in my argument.
 

leroy

Well-Known Member
@leroy

If you are going to spend much more time, to talk about how some species become increasingly simpler or increasingly complex over times, then thread is really about Evolution, not Abiogenesis.

You haven’t talked much about Abiogenesis, so your thread is either misleading or you are still incapable of distinguishing between Abiogenesis & Evolution.
Its nor misleading, the evidence is consistent with the claim* that simple life has never existed in this planet, (falsifying primodial soup models of abiogenesis)
 

Terrywoodenpic

Oldest Heretic
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.


There are plenty of primitive organisms around today, and there were probably far more in the past. any ting Bacterium to single cell animals.

To man made life
"The work, published Thursday in Science, describes a self-replicating bacterium invented by Venter and his team that contains just 437 genes, a "genome smaller than that of any autonomously replicating cell found in nature," according to the paper. The work sheds light on the function of the individual genes necessary to have life, and it also shows us just how little we actually know about specific gene functions."
 

Traverse

hostinato rigore
There are plenty of primitive organisms around today, and there were probably far more in the past. any ting Bacterium to single cell animals.

To man made life
"The work, published Thursday in Science, describes a self-replicating bacterium invented by Venter and his team that contains just 437 genes, a "genome smaller than that of any autonomously replicating cell found in nature," according to the paper. The work sheds light on the function of the individual genes necessary to have life, and it also shows us just how little we actually know about specific gene functions."
437 genes still represents a lot of nucleobases (i.e., many more than 437). Paring-back an organism's genome to 'bare-bones' is an interesting approach/result, but it's really just robbing the organism of proteomic potential (i.e., of having a wealth of genomic info in reserve, gathered over the generations while having to exist out in the wild) in order to arrive at a lab-enviro-compatible (i.e., Petri dish growth medium composition-agreeable) strain/type that would now really have to struggle to survive if let loose.

More interesting from an abiogenic perspective is the minimum length of ribonucleobases required to have a ribozymic activity, which is only about fifty-ish.
 

Traverse

hostinato rigore
My argument against abiogenesis

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

Premise 2: Life has always been complex
Point #1 is correct to the extent that no living organism of any kind whatsoever could rationally have arisen from the presumed primordial soup without there having already been an immense amount of prebiotic chemical development (esp. oligomeric permutative & conformational exploration) having occurred 'blindly' & 'senselessly' & 'unguidedly' over a good slice of time. The first recognisable nexus between non-living material & incipient abiogenesis is now thought likely to have been some kind of a pre-RNA, 'upstream' in chemical evolutionary terms of the first ribozyme.

Point #2 is correct to the extent that life-as-we-know-it (incl. ribozymes) has always been, since its origination on emerging from the 'blind' & 'senseless' & 'unguided' processes of prebiotic chemical processes occurring within the primordial soup milieu, has always been amazingly & stunningly complex.
 
Top