1. 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!

Featured A positive argument against abiogenesis

Discussion in 'Evolution Vs. Creationism' started by leroy, Jan 11, 2021.

  1. leroy

    leroy Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 15, 2018
    Messages:
    3,226
    Ratings:
    +256
    Religion:
    christian
    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.
     
    • Like Like x 2
    • Useful Useful x 1
    • Creative Creative x 1
  2. Subduction Zone

    Subduction Zone Veteran Member

    Joined:
    Nov 7, 2017
    Messages:
    35,826
    Ratings:
    +21,158
    Religion:
    Atheist
    This is not even a proper premise. It is really your conclusion and is totally unsupported. I therefore reject it.

    Sigh, I wish that all arguments were so easy to refute.
     
    • Winner Winner x 5
    • Like Like x 1
  3. Shadow Wolf

    Shadow Wolf Rival's Wife

    Joined:
    Apr 11, 2005
    Messages:
    69,274
    Ratings:
    +25,972
    Religion:
    God is in the Rain
    Your logical is flawed as the conclusion basically restates the first premises.
    Circular reasoning - Wikipedia.
    It's also flawed because life beginning as as simple organisms doesn't mean it started there as complex.
     
    • Like Like x 3
  4. A Vestigial Mote

    A Vestigial Mote Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 23, 2015
    Messages:
    5,832
    Ratings:
    +3,830
    Religion:
    ?
    It is pretty sound thinking along the general lines. However, there's something pretty simple that shoots it down, so, back into the "we just don't know for sure... yet" category of ideas/possibilities.

    And the "thing" that casts doubt is this:

    Perhaps the development of "1s" is an extremely rare process, which takes not only the elements/compounds present in a particular "primordial soup," but also particular infusion of energy or heat to induce some further and required reaction. This rarity would mean that once some "1s" had formed, and then after some time, went on to evolve/change into "2s" and "3s" over their generations, it is extremely possible (and probably likely) that "1s", as simple as they are, could not defend themselves against "2s" or "3s" and, lacking the means to stop or stymie the dinner plans of "2s", "3s", etc. would be gobbled up to extinction. And then the rare event that creates "1s" may either not happen again for some great length of time, or can't happen again due to a change in conditions of more modern eras, or does continue to happen, but the "1s" are all gobbled up (again by "2s" or "3s", etc.") as soon as they come into being - therefore making the witnessing of one of them a most improbable endeavor.
     
    • Like Like x 3
    • Friendly Friendly x 1
  5. leroy

    leroy Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 15, 2018
    Messages:
    3,226
    Ratings:
    +256
    Religion:
    christian
    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
     
  6. leroy

    leroy Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 15, 2018
    Messages:
    3,226
    Ratings:
    +256
    Religion:
    christian
    It’s not circular reasoning , you can accept premise 1 and reject the conclusion…………………you can argue for example that life was simpler in the past. That way you can accept premise 1 and reject the conclusion
     
  7. Revoltingest

    Revoltingest I have the kavorka
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Mar 25, 2010
    Messages:
    178,082
    Ratings:
    +58,443
    Religion:
    Bokononism & Atheism
    The premises are unverifiable.
     
  8. ChristineM

    ChristineM "Be strong" I whispered to my coffee.
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Mar 3, 2017
    Messages:
    28,847
    Ratings:
    +23,272
    Religion:
    None
    Not clever. What you appear say there is we don't know and we don't want to know.

    Well maybe you wish to remain ignorant of how life came about but i would really love to know... For two reasons, first, its nice to know these things, second, it fills in another god gap.
     
    • Like Like x 2
  9. Shadow Wolf

    Shadow Wolf Rival's Wife

    Joined:
    Apr 11, 2005
    Messages:
    69,274
    Ratings:
    +25,972
    Religion:
    God is in the Rain
    That is illogical.
    And it is circular because the conclusion basically paraphrases the premeses.
    That is the very definition of circular reasoning.
    The conclusion doesn't even necessarily follow the premeses either.

    P1 and p2 are both flawed, the conclusion is p1, thus the entire argument must be rejected.
     
    • Winner Winner x 5
  10. ChristineM

    ChristineM "Be strong" I whispered to my coffee.
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Mar 3, 2017
    Messages:
    28,847
    Ratings:
    +23,272
    Religion:
    None
    You know this how?
    Given conditions at the time it more likely that life formed is fresh, clean water.

    Has it? I always understood DNA (the root of life) was made up of just 4 chemicals. There is a lot of it but you shouldn't confuse quantity with complexity.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  11. ADigitalArtist

    ADigitalArtist Well-Known Member
    Staff Member Premium Member

    Joined:
    Feb 1, 2015
    Messages:
    8,043
    Ratings:
    +11,068
    Religion:
    Irreligious Agnostic Atheistic Apatheist
    This is wrong. Simple self-replicators are not considered biologically complex.
    This is also not correct. There are entire basal lines of modern groups that no longer exist. Evolution does not always increase complexity, but that doesn't mean that more basal versions will survive. If the environment that produced and sustained simple-self-replicators is gone, it's sensible to conclude they didn't survive the change until evidence shows otherwise. There might be tiny localized environments where they could be trapped, but we haven't found any.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  12. Shadow Wolf

    Shadow Wolf Rival's Wife

    Joined:
    Apr 11, 2005
    Messages:
    69,274
    Ratings:
    +25,972
    Religion:
    God is in the Rain
    P1: It is dark and overcast today.
    P2: There are puddles of water on the road.
    Conclusion: It rained today.
    Not necessarily true (it could just be cloudy and I'm seeing water from sprinklers), but that has a conclusion that necessarily follows from the premises.
    P1: I could not have sunburned easily if it was a cold day.
    P2: I worked up a big sweat.
    Conclusion: It's not a cold day because I sunburned easily and worked up a big sweat.
    That is circular, and looks more like the OP.
     
  13. leroy

    leroy Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 15, 2018
    Messages:
    3,226
    Ratings:
    +256
    Religion:
    christian
    I honestly and sincerely appreciate that fact that you actually read the argument (written in my bad English) and that you actually made an effort and tried to understand it.

    That certainly is a possibility, but seems unlikely to me, there would have been presumably millions of different populations of 1s each living in a different environment, so while it is possible that in some environments the 2s and the 3s would have eaten or killed the 1s, there would have been other environments where 1s where completely isolated, other enviroments where 1s and 2s coexisted happily in the same niche, and even some environments where the 1s outperformed the 2s (sometimes being simpler is an avantage)………

    This is entirely consistent with what we see today and with what we see in the fossil record………… for example the evolution of complex eyes didn’t caused the extinction of “simple eyes” we still have creature with simple eyes, and there are some environments where simple eyes are better than complex eyes………the point that I am trying to make is that the idea that complex organisms will always outperform simple organisms seems wrong based on the data that we have today.

    Sure you can argue that maybe* things were different in the distant past, but that would be special pleading.

    Based on what we see today and based and as far back as we can see in the fossil record, it seems obvious that sometimes simplicity outperforms complexity, sometimes they both do well, and sometimes complexity outperforms simplicity.

    Also keep in mind that some 2s would evolve in the 1s (sometimes becoming simple is good)……….so we would have a constant flow of 1s…………..making unexplainable (or at least hard to explain) why is it that we don’t have any 1s today



    ...
    I wouldn’t say that this is a knock down argument against abiogenesis, but it is a good probability argument
     
    #13 leroy, Jan 11, 2021
    Last edited: Jan 11, 2021
  14. Jaiket

    Jaiket Well-Known Member
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Jul 2, 2004
    Messages:
    8,640
    Ratings:
    +2,193
    Religion:
    Something else
    Hi again, Leroy.

    You said, "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)..."

    So maybe P2 already contains the conclusion that you were attempting to argue for. Which would be an issue of circularity unconnected to the posts above.

    Also, I'm wondering why the source you cited as evidence of P2 suggests to you life has always been complex?

    Anyway, thanks for putting something up for people to evaluate.
     
  15. leroy

    leroy Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 15, 2018
    Messages:
    3,226
    Ratings:
    +256
    Religion:
    christian
    Sure, if you can show that these simple self replicators excited my argument would collapse.



    Sometimes “basal versions” survive “sometimes they don’t” and sometimes they outperform more complex versions. ……….. any disagreement form your part?... this is not controversial this is what we see today with modern organisms, and this is what we observe as far back as we can see in the fossil record………….so why assuming that things where different 4.3B years ago?


    The problem is that we are talking about millions of different environments where “simple self-replicators lived” …… so statistically speaking in at least some of this environments these simple organisms should have survived ether because they were isolated, or because they coexisted happily with more complex life forms or because they outperformed complex life sometimes being simpler is better)
     
  16. Twilight Hue

    Twilight Hue The gentle embrace of twilight has become my guide

    Joined:
    Mar 7, 2009
    Messages:
    31,853
    Ratings:
    +12,856
    Religion:
    Philosophical Buddhism
    A little study on how RNA and DNA and how proteins came about along with how atoms form and bond into molecules should solve that confusion adequately.
     
    • Like Like x 1
    • Optimistic Optimistic x 1
  17. ADigitalArtist

    ADigitalArtist Well-Known Member
    Staff Member Premium Member

    Joined:
    Feb 1, 2015
    Messages:
    8,043
    Ratings:
    +11,068
    Religion:
    Irreligious Agnostic Atheistic Apatheist
    I don't need to. Your premise is based on strawmanning the other side.
    Who said this?
     
  18. shunyadragon

    shunyadragon shunyadragon
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Mar 23, 2017
    Messages:
    16,541
    Ratings:
    +7,858
    Religion:
    Baha'i Faith
    No as Subduction zone described it is a conclusion without evidence. Besides a negative hypothesis cannot be falsified.

    This is a 'Junk yard tornado' trash argument.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  19. Subduction Zone

    Subduction Zone Veteran Member

    Joined:
    Nov 7, 2017
    Messages:
    35,826
    Ratings:
    +21,158
    Religion:
    Atheist
    I was a bit hasty in that post. But an even bigger problem is premise two. I was a bit to quick there. I missed the "complex" in your premise one. For premise two you take on a gigantic burden of proof. You would need to prove that live needs to be complex. Modern life needs to be complex because it is competing with other modern life that has billions of years of evolution behind it. The original life, with no competition to speak of, did not need to be complex.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  20. Evangelicalhumanist

    Evangelicalhumanist "Truth" isn't a thing...
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Aug 29, 2013
    Messages:
    8,366
    Ratings:
    +8,652
    Religion:
    None, a humanist who doesn't even worship humans
    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.
     
    • Like Like x 1
Loading...