A positive argument against abiogenesis

[Heyo]

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?

Yes.

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

Agree?

Yes.

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?

No.
You are victim of a category error. @leroy doesn't talk about species, you do. Leroy is talking about classes of complexity, not about single species. The thing isn't that single species of lowest complexity have gone extinct. All species of lowest complexity have gone extinct, over all domains. And none have ever gone back to lowest complexity. Also, we have no fossils of lowest complexity species.

 

[night912]

No.
You are victim of a category error. @leroy doesn't talk about species, you do. Leroy is talking about classes of complexity, not about single species.

Which model of evolution, including Leroy's, said that ONLY single species can go extinct?

The thing isn't that single species of lowest complexity have gone extinct. All species of lowest complexity have gone extinct, over all domains.

Which model of evolution, including Leroy's, said that ONLY single species can go extinct?

And none have ever gone back to lowest complexity.

Because none were required to evolve back to the lowest complexity. According to Leroy's model of evolution, organisms COULD evolve, not MUST/REQUIRED/ALWAYS evolved.

Also, we have no fossils of lowest complexity species.

Do all organisms that ever existed(every single one), fossilized?

So, some of the first ever lowest complex organisms ever evolved into a more complex organisms, and those that didn't went extinct. Those lowest organisms didn't get fossilized. And none of the more complex organisms didn't evolve back into the lowest complex organisms because it's not required for organisms to evolve back into lower complex organisms. With that possible scenario, according to Leroy's model of evolution, there would be no lowest complex organisms existing today nor would there be any fossils of them.

Basically what this means is that Leroy's own model of evolution debunked his OP argument, unless if he ignores his own model of evolution or is arguing that organisms can't go extinct. So the motive for ignoring this? It's the only way his OP argument will work.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

All I am saying is that each of this scenarios is possible and probable

I have explained to you how it's not on multiple occasions now.
I can't help it if you don't care for learning and correcting your mistakes.

If you are hellbend on repeating you bs ad nauseum, then I can't stop you.

, 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?

Because it doesn't work that way, as you have been explained already.

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

Says the guy who makes empty assertion after empty assertion and ignores every counterpoint.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

but you cant quote a single model, right?

No, I can't quote a single model that includes an explicit list of all the things that it does not expect.
Just like I can't quote anyone in the field where it explicitly says that theories of gravity do not expect to find graviton fairies.

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

I explained the rationale.
I don't grant your bare assertions, for which there is no rationale.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

The problem seems to be that you are focusing in that absolute simplest possible organism

As your OP required.

Let me remind you of your own words:

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)

So, it seems that you have now yourself admitted that your "argument" in the OP does not stand to reason.
If "my problem" is that I focus to much on the "simplest" organisms (= the "1s" in YOUR OP), then it follows that that is also a problem in your OP.

It seems you are conceding.

, (sure I grant that such an organism is not likely to have survived to this day)

Then you have just conceded your own argument, as claiming that such organisms should have survived, is exactly how you tried to support your premises.

So by conceding this, you have just undercut your very own argument.



I rest my case. And won't care for your backpaddling.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

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)

X not existing today is by no means evidence that it didn't exist in the past.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

"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.

It's already been pointed out to him on several occasions by several different people that he is conflating "becoming simpler" with "becoming simple". They are, off course, not the same thing.

He likes to pretend they are though.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

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?

Sure, but you miss a point, which is kind of crucial:

5. the simpler the organism, the higher the chance that any adaption to environmental changes means a rise in complexity, little chance that there is no change in complexity and very little chance of becoming simpler - to the point of that chance being 0.


You like to ignore point 5, even though plenty of people have already pointed it out to you.
Point 5 is the reason your OP argument fails. Point 5 is the reason why nobody expects to find living things with a simplicity on par of "first life", after 4 billion years of evolution.

In fact... finding such would raise far more question then it would answer. To the point that scientists would be more likely to assume that abiogenesis recently occurred to produce said discovered population then to think it is a lineage that is the result of 4 billion years of evolution.


This is more and more starting to look like your run-of-the-mill creationists stereotype..... they think they have a clever argument against some scientific theory, but instead, the "missing evidence" they are pointing out that they feel should exist for the theory to be accurate... would actually pose more problems to the theory if that evidence would actually exist.

It would be hilarious if it wasn't so depressing.

 

[leroy]

What do you mean "conveniently?"

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

What do you mean "conveniently?"

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

No, I am saying that it is quite conveniently to assume that evolution worked differently in the past , in a period of time where we can´t look to verify

 

[leroy]

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.

So my argument would be that based on how evolution works and based on what we know about organisms that we can observe, it would be very, very unlikely for all simple organisms to have gone extint.

This is supported by

1 supposedly there where millions and millions of species of “simple life” living in millions of different environments.

2 there is no tendency in natural selection against simple life

So the fact that all simply life went extent would have had to be a happy accident and not a consequence of natural selection and evolution

then what's another possibility besides there being no low complex organisms ever existing?

Yes, that is my point, “simple life” has never existed in this planent

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

No, I am saying that it is quite conveniently to assume that evolution worked differently in the past , in a period of time where we can´t look to verify

Who do you think is arguing that evolution worked differently in the past?

 

[leroy]

Sure, but you miss a point, which is kind of crucial:

5. the simpler the organism, the higher the chance that any adaption to environmental changes means a rise in complexity, little chance that there is no change in complexity and very little chance of becoming simpler - to the point of that chance being 0.


You like to ignore point 5, even though plenty of people have already pointed it out to you.
Point 5 is the reason your OP argument fails. Point 5 is the reason why nobody expects to find living things with a simplicity on par of "first life", after 4 billion years of evolution.

In fact... finding such would raise far more question then it would answer. To the point that scientists would be more likely to assume that abiogenesis recently occurred to produce said discovered population then to think it is a lineage that is the result of 4 billion years of evolution.


To the point that scientists would be more likely to assume that abiogenesis recently occurred to produce said discovered population then to think it is a lineage that is the result of 4 billion years of evolution.. they think they have a clever argument against some scientific theory, but instead, the "missing evidence" they are pointing out that they feel should exist for the theory to be accurate... would actually pose more problems to the theory if that evidence would actually exist.

It would be hilarious if it wasn't so depressing.

I am not ignoring point “5” it is just that you haven’t done anything to support the assertion ……

To the point that scientists would be more likely to assume that abiogenesis recently occurred to produce said discovered population then to think it is a lineage that is the result of 4 billion years of evolution.

but you wont support the assertion right?

 

[leroy]

Who do you think is arguing that evolution worked differently in the past?

@TagliatelliMonster for example

He accepts that currently and in the past (as far back as we can look in the fossil record) organisms are likely to adapt without increasing complexity

But arbitrary he assumes that things were different in the distant past, he would argue that in the past for some reason it’s very unlikely (close to 0% probability) for organisms to adapt without increasing complexity.

 

[leroy]

C

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?

Sure some ancient organisms went extent, some became more complex and some remaind nearly as simple as they where in the past.

What’s so hard to understand? What’s so controversial?

 

[leroy]

Because none were required to evolve back to the lowest complexity. According to Leroy's model of evolution, organisms COULD evolve, not MUST/REQUIRED/ALWAYS evolved.

We are talking about millions of organisms living g in different environments, this means that all possible scenarios are expected to have occurred every once in a while.

Some would go extint

Some would evolve and become more complex

Some would evolve without becoming more comple.

As an analogy, imagine that you have $1usd and a die with 3 sides

1 If you role 1 you will lose 0.10usd

2 if you role 2 nothing happens

3 if you role 3 you will win 0.10usd

*If you lose all your money you go extinct.

So if you and millions of other individuals role the die for millions of years you would expect:

1 Some lost all their money (analogous they went extinct)

2 some became very ve,ry rich (analogous to becoming more complex)

3 some would have 1USD or something close to 1usd (analogous to stayed nearly as simple as in the beginning)

So if the die analogy represent how evolutions works, then we would expect to have simple life today (analogous to peole with $1USD or something close to 1usd)

 

[leroy]

No, I can't quote a single model that includes an explicit list of all the things that it does not expect.
Just like I can't quote anyone in the field where it explicitly says that theories of gravity do not expect to find graviton fairies.
le.

No, what you are expected to do is quote a model that shows that “very simple life” is much more likely to adapt by becoming more complex, as oppose to adapt without increasing complexity

 

[leroy]

As your OP required.

Let me remind you of your own words:



So, it seems that you have now yourself admitted that your "argument" in the OP does not stand to reason.
If "my problem" is that I focus to much on the "simplest" organisms (= the "1s" in YOUR OP), then it follows that that is also a problem in your OP.

It seems you are conceding.



Then you have just conceded your own argument, as claiming that such organisms should have survived, is exactly how you tried to support your premises.

So by conceding this, you have just undercut your very own argument.



I rest my case. And won't care for your backpaddling.

Really? That’s the best you can do? Play semantic games and try to refute the argument with rhetoric?


Yes it´s unlikely that the absolute simplest possible life to be living today……………….but we would expect to have organisms that are nearly as simple as that “simplest possible life” these organisms would be a little bit more complex that the simplest possible life, but much ,much simpler than modern microbes.

I rest my case. And won't care for your backpaddling

Yea sure

Semantic Games + not supporting your assertions ……..good job in promoting the negative stereotype that internet atheist have.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

I am not ignoring point “5”

Yes you are.

it is just that you haven’t done anything to support the assertion ……

The very source YOU posted to supposedly support YOUR claims in the OP, actually supports this point.
As I have pointed out and explained in detail.

but you wont support the assertion right?

You won't acknowledge that that already occurred in multiple posts, right?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

@TagliatelliMonster for example

I have not once claimed that.
That's just you misrepresenting what is being said again.

The evolutionary process is the evolutionary process and it worked in the past exactly like it worked today.

It's the same process.

He accepts that currently and in the past (as far back as we can look in the fossil record) organisms are likely to adapt without increasing complexity

But arbitrary he assumes that things were different in the distant past, he would argue that in the past for some reason it’s very unlikely (close to 0% probability) for organisms to adapt without increasing complexity.

Not arbitrary. All this has been explained.
Even only with the simple statement: if you already are as simple as can be, then the only way complexity can go is UP.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

and some remaind nearly as simple as they where in the past.

Which one are you talking about and how far back into the past?

What’s so hard to understand? What’s so controversial?

Your inability to understand simple things like "when you are as simple as can be, complexity can only go up" and how "becoming simpler" is not the same as "becoming simple".