A positive argument against abiogenesis

[night912]

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?

No, because you are missing the one that I, along with others in here, already pointed out but you've been ignoring. That is, those organisms could have become extinct due to not being able to evolve and survive the change in environment. This means that those that "stay the same" didn't adapt to the changing environment, therefore couldn't survive in the new environment.

 

[leroy]

No, because you are missing the one that I, along with others in here, already pointed out but you've been ignoring. That is, those organisms could have become extinct due to not being able to evolve and survive the change in environment. This means that those that "stay the same" didn't adapt to the changing environment, therefore couldn't survive in the new environment.

Yes but you can evolve by becoming more simple, or by changing horizontally (without increasing complexity) or perhaps the environment didn’t change much , or perhaps they where unfacted by the changes in the environment.

We observe this wide range of possibilities within modern organisms and with ancient organisms (as far back as we can see in the fossil record)………….you are arbitrarily assuming that things where different I the very ancient past, without any justification

along with others in here, already pointed out but you've been ignoring.

I am not ignoring it, it is just that I don’t grant your assertion and you haven’t done anything to support it

 

[Traverse]

"Becoming simpler" is not what's actually observed in the fossil record (e.g., the suture lines of Ammonites having become more intricate/complex over time); neither is it what's actually observed microbially, as microbes have a definite tendency to acquire & incorporate/store-up genetic info which they come across (in their environment) that originated from other organisms, thereby lengthening their own genomes (i.e., increasing in complexity, info-content-wise). "Horizontal" evolution I'm unfamiliar with, but would certainly welcome an example.

 

[night912]

Yes but you can evolve by becoming more simple, or by changing horizontally (without increasing complexity) or perhaps the environment didn’t change much , or perhaps they where unfacted by the changes in the environment.

We observe this wide range of possibilities within modern organisms and with ancient organisms (as far back as we can see in the fossil record)………….you are arbitrarily assuming that things where different I the very ancient past, without any justification

I am not ignoring it, it is just that I don’t grant your assertion and you haven’t done anything to support it

So just because your argument falls apart when someone told you how the theory of evolution works by explaining the mechanism of natural selection, you resort to special pleading. It's illogical to cherry pick parts of the theory and accept it as true, but the part that will demolish your argument, you dismiss it as an assertion.

Explain why you think it's only my assumption that organisms can go extinct when we have so many fossils of organisms from the past that no longer exist today, as evidence.

Sorry but that's not how it works. Because you are using the same theory as mine to support your argument, you need to show evidence to support your assertion that it's not possible for organisms that couldn't/didn't evolve and unable to adapt to the changing environment, to go extinct.

So show me the evidence to support your assertion that what I said is impossible. Present the evidence to support your assertion that it's impossible for organisms to go extinct if they weren't able to evolve and adapt to the changing environment.

I wait for your evidence or your failure, it's up to you.

 

[Traverse]

Maybe by "horizontal evolution" he actually means a change of proteome (i.e., expressing different genes) in response to an environmental change?

Adaptation can be seen either as a change in proteome (esp. in response to a short-term environmental change), or as a change in genome over a longer (evolutionary) period.

 

[leroy]

So just because your argument falls apart when someone told you how the theory of evolution works by explaining the mechanism of natural selection, you resort to special pleading. It's illogical to cherry pick parts of the theory and accept it as true, but the part that will demolish your argument, you dismiss it as an assertion.

Explain why you think it's only my assumption that organisms can go extinct when we have so many fossils of organisms from the past that no longer exist today, as evidence.

Sorry but that's not how it works. Because you are using the same theory as mine to support your argument, you need to show evidence to support your assertion that it's not possible for organisms that couldn't/didn't evolve and unable to adapt to the changing environment, to go extinct.

So show me the evidence to support your assertion that what I said is impossible. Present the evidence to support your assertion that it's impossible for organisms to go extinct if they weren't able to evolve and adapt to the changing environment.

I wait for your evidence or your failure, it's up to you.

Present the evidence to support your assertion that it's impossible for organisms to go extinct

thats a strawman..... I never said that organisms can't go extinct.

So just because your argument falls apart when someone told you how the theory of evolution works by explaining the mechanism of natural selection

this is how evolution works
1 sometimes organisms go extint

2 sometimes they change and adapt by evolving complex traits

3 sometimes the change and adapt by lossing traits (becoming more simple)

4 sometimes they say moreless the same

agree?

 

[night912]

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.

Actually, it can be shown what the motive is. Leroy can't accept that the fossils we've found are fossils of extinct organisms from the ancient past. The reason for this is because his argument fails if he accept that it's possible for "simple" lifeform to go extinct. It's only logical to accept that it's possible that one of the reasons why there are no "simple" lifeforms today is because they couldn't survive and went extinct, just like we don't see any living dinosaurs that are the same ones as the fossils.

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.

No, that's not his argument. Leroy is arguing that the reason why there's no "simple" lifeforms today is because no "simple" lifeforms ever existed, but if it did, there must be some that survived to this today. This is being argued in an attempt to support his initial argument/premise. Cherry picking and only accepting parts of information while ignoring the rest is illogical and is being dishonest. The information that is being ignored is what refutes his initial argument. Using inaccurate information is not evidence. And no evidence means that it's just a claim. So a claim use to support another claim is not evidence. A claim that has no evidence to support it, does not deserve a serious rebuttal.

 

[Traverse]

3 sometimes the change and adapt by lossing traits (becoming more simple)

Do you mean something like lumbering quadrupeds having gone back into the ocean to become the cetacea (whales, etc.), and having lost their bodyweight-supporting legs in the process?

 

[night912]

thats a strawman..... I never said that organisms can't go extinct.

So you accused me of using a strawman by strawmaning me. I did not say, organisms in general, I specifically referred to the simple organisms that you were talking about. Is that what you called critical thinking?

You said that you don't accept and ignored what I said, which is, one possible reason for no simple lifeform survived to exist today was because they went extinct. And you dismissed that as being just an assertion.

this is how evolution works
1 sometimes organisms go extint

2 sometimes they change and adapt by evolving complex traits

3 sometimes the change and adapt by lossing traits (becoming more simple)

4 sometimes they say moreless the same

agree?

Agreed. And the reason why there is no extinct organisms today is because of..........#1. So why are you claiming that those organisms MUST exist today eventhough they went extinct. If an organism can go extinct, then why MUST that organism still exist today. That's a contradiction, therefore it's illogical.

Thanks for clearing this up and refute your own argument.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

thats a strawman..... I never said that organisms can't go extinct.




this is how evolution works
1 sometimes organisms go extint

2 sometimes they change and adapt by evolving complex traits

3 sometimes the change and adapt by lossing traits (becoming more simple)

4 sometimes they say moreless the same

agree?

Extinction happens when the extinction mechanism exceeds adaptation.

 

[Heyo]

Actually, it can be shown what the motive is. Leroy can't accept that the fossils we've found are fossils of extinct organisms from the ancient past. The reason for this is because his argument fails if he accept that it's possible for "simple" lifeform to go extinct. It's only logical to accept that it's possible that one of the reasons why there are no "simple" lifeforms today is because they couldn't survive and went extinct, just like we don't see any living dinosaurs that are the same ones as the fossils.

You should listen more carefully. In this thread, @leroy doesn't argue against species becoming extinct. His argument is against the whole class of species of low complexity becoming extinct and no species going back to lower complexity.

No, that's not his argument.

I've come to an agreement with leroy because I understand his argument. For me, that ended the discussion.

If you want to understand his argument, focus on the model he's proposing in the OP. Classify organisms by their complexity (by any definition of complexity). Assume that organisms can evolve to become more complex or less complex. Ask yourself why there are no species of very low complexity today.

 

[leroy]

Do you mean something like lumbering quadrupeds having gone back into the ocean to become the cetacea (whales, etc.), and having lost their bodyweight-supporting legs in the process?

I am thinking about simpller stuff, like when bacteria lose a protein and become resistant to antibiotics

 

[leroy]

So you accused me of using a strawman by strawmaning me. I did not say, organisms in general, I specifically referred to the simple organisms that you were talking about. Is that what you called critical thinking?

You said that you don't accept and ignored what I said, which is, one possible reason for no simple lifeform survived to exist today was because they went extinct. And you dismissed that as being just an assertion.


Agreed. And the reason why there is no extinct organisms today is because of..........#1. So why are you claiming that those organisms MUST exist today eventhough they went extinct. If an organism can go extinct, then why MUST that organism still exist today. That's a contradiction, therefore it's illogical.

Thanks for clearing this up and refute your own argument.

we are taking about millions of organisms living in millions of different environments.

1 some would have gone extinct

2 some would have evolced and become more complex

3 some would have evolve but without increasing complexity (tjey say nearly as simple as ancient life)


agree?.


you don't seem to understand that I am not talking about a particular organism...... I am talking about a wide range of organisms...... statistically speacking some should have survived

 

[Traverse]

I am thinking about simpller stuff, like when bacteria lose a protein and become resistant to antibiotics

I'd thought/assumed that antibiotic-resistance would've involved the gaining of a useful gene (to be expressed as a new/additional protein), either by point-mutation/s in its own genome, or by picking-up & incorporating a gene from the local environment (e.g., perhaps one released by a brother/sister bacterium trying to help out his/her colonial buddies).

 

[Hockeycowboy]

A little study on how RNA and DNA and how proteins came about....

A study in "what could have happened"..... Nothing but suppositions.

 

[Hockeycowboy]

Wow!
(Some) atheists do have faith, after all!

 

[night912]

You should listen more carefully. In this thread, @leroy doesn't argue against species becoming extinct. His argument is against the whole class of species of low complexity becoming extinct and no species going back to lower complexity.

I've come to an agreement with leroy because I understand his argument. For me, that ended the discussion.

If you want to understand his argument, focus on the model he's proposing in the OP. Classify organisms by their complexity (by any definition of complexity). Assume that organisms can evolve to become more complex or less complex. Ask yourself why there are no species of very low complexity today.

He's not arguing that organisms can't go extinct, but is dismissing it in order for his initial argument to work. It's possible for organisms to evolve into low/higher complex, not evolve, or evolve "horizontally. So since organisms can go extinct, and there's no low complexity organisms today, then what's another possibility besides there being no low complex organisms ever existing? The organisms that couldn't adapt to the changing environment went extinct.

You're also missing my point, that one reason for no low complex organisms today is because they went extinct.

 

[night912]

we are taking about millions of organisms living in millions of different environments.

1 some would have gone extinct

2 some would have evolced and become more complex

3 some would have evolve but without increasing complexity (tjey say nearly as simple as ancient life)


agree?.


you don't seem to understand that I am not talking about a particular organism...... I am talking about a wide range of organisms...... statistically speacking some should have survived

I do understand your argument, it is you, who's constantly ignoring what I said.

It's possible for organisms to evolve into low/higher complex, not evolve, or evolve "horizontally. So since organisms can go extinct, and there's no low complexity organisms today, then what's another possibility besides there being no low complex organisms ever existing? The organisms that couldn't adapt to the changing environment went extinct.

You're also missing my point, that one reason for no low complex organisms today is because they went extinct.

And what you said in bold is pure speculation, you can't show how you were able to calculate your statistics. You're also not considering that the environment can/did changed more than once. Just because an organism evolved into a less complex form in order to survive the change in environment once, doesn't mean that the "new" lower complex organism will survive the next change in environment. And your argument is contingent on the necessity of organisms evolving and/or surviving.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

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

What do you mean "conveniently?"

Are you suggesting that we should expect organisms with hard, fossilizable parts before we have complex life?

 

[night912]

You should listen more carefully. In this thread, @leroy doesn't argue against species becoming extinct.

If you want to understand his argument, focus on the model he's proposing in the OP. Classify organisms by their complexity (by any definition of complexity). Assume that organisms can evolve to become more complex or less complex. Ask yourself why there are no species of very low complexity today.

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.

Can a specie be simple life? Leroy's model of evolution predicts that species can evolve into a simple life. Leroy's model of evolution also predicts that species can go extinct. So if a species can go extinct and that species is a simple life, then that would mean that a model of evolution does predict that a simple life can go extinct and/or disappear.

Agree?

Species that go extinct and/or disappear does not exist today.

Agree?

So Leroy is either arguing that simple life species cannot go extinct or he is ignoring that simple life species can go extinct. This is the only possible way that Leroy's OP argument is able to work.

Agree? Or is it just going to be ignored and continue with repetition?