A positive argument against abiogenesis

[TagliatelliMonster]

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.

This is the very root of your mistake. You assume all possible environments exist as if they are solitary islands that aren't interconnected. This is obvious hogwash. Take the great oxidation event, for example. This event injected oxygen in just about ALL environments. ALL life had to deal with this.

What happens in environment A, has effect/impact on environment B.

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 have $0, you can't lose anything.

*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)

False analogy. Already addressed.
You're ignoring point 5 again as I said in post #228.

So if the die analogy represent how evolutions works

It doesn't.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

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

I already addressed that.

To adapt to environmental changes, like defenses against the introduction of oxygen or the need for locomotion, organisms require the biological machinery to do so.
First life would not have had such sophisticated machinery.

They necessarily would have had to evolve it.
You don't gain additional subsystems by taking the simplest of the simplest and making it even simpler.


Logic 101.

Suppose you have a computer that only serves as a file server. It needs no screen and thus does not have a graphical output. Suppose it now needs a screen. You can't add a screen by making the computer "simpler". You have to add a graphical output. By definition, that means a rise in complexity.

Now suppose this adaption needs to go fast. So you quickly cobble up something to be able to attach a screen. Afterwards, you can then make it better... you can remove wires that aren't needed for example, or you can re-root a couple of other things to lower energy consumption. This would be the part where it comes simpler - but the end result will still be more complex then the previous stage, where the computer simply didn't have a graphical output.


You see?

First life would have been "naked and fragile". Only really capable of barely staying alive and replicating. It would have required to evolve additional subsystems for just about EVERYTHING.

This is why in the very beginning, a surge in complexity would happen.

This is what I also see in literally every genetic algorithm I have ever worked with, when the "first generation" was as simple as can be.

Usually though, especially in commercial setting, GA's are applied to already existing systems for the purpose of optimization. We don't see this in those examples of course, as those already start out with a fair level of complexity.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

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

It's not semantic games.
It's what YOU said and now you conceded that it is unlikely that life with simplicity on par with first life would have survived.

That ends the argument, as per your OP.
These are your words, not mine.

Yes it´s unlikely that the absolute simplest possible life to be living today

Yes. That's what we are all saying.
It's however not what your OP was saying..................... Your OP actually says the opposite. It's how you tried to support your OP argument, by claiming that such life should exist today.

It's there for all to read.

……………….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.

Since there is no unit to express "complexity" in, this is just a subjective judgement call on your part.
How about Mycoplasma?

Semantic Games

Taking your exact argument and pointing out subsequent contradictory posts, is anything but a "semantic game".

You basically just agreed to our objection to your OP: we don't expect such simple life to survive the many hurdles the world will throw at it over the course of 4 billion years.

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

I supported it. With the very source you posted to supposedly support your OP, which you are now also contradicting yourself. Your backpaddling notwithstanding, off course.

 

[leroy]

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



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".

Things are very simple.

You claim that “simple life” can only evolve / adapt in a “increase complexity direction” and you haven’t done anything to support that assertion. You haven’t provided a single source, and the fact that you are avoiding your burden proof at all cost strongly suggest that you don’t have a source.

My suggestion is, why don’t you adopt a little bit of humility and say something like this:

I don’t know why we don’t have simple life today, that is a good question, maybe* there is something intrinsic in evolution that massively favored complexity over simplicity in the distant past, I don’t know exactly what mechanism was that, but it´seems to be a good hypothesis worthy of consideration and exploring with detail.

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

You believe that unlike today, evolution by natural selection massively favored complexity over simplicity in all the environments and niches….. so yes you belive that evolution worked differently in the past

False analogy. Already addressed.
You're ignoring point 5 again as I said in post #228.

Support your assertion, why is it a false analogy? How does that analogy contradict point 5?
this is related to the 3 sides dice analogy

Suppose you have a computer that only serves as a file server. It needs no screen and thus does not have a graphical output. Suppose it now needs a screen. You can't add a screen by making the computer "simpler". You have to add a graphical output. By definition, that means a rise in complexity.

Yes but your analogy assumes that “alllll computers” would require a screen, (analogous to all life requires to be more complex)…. I would say that in some environments a screen would be useless or even harmful.

In some environments the file filter (simple life) would be just fine and could have evolved / adapted / changed without increasing complexity, (changing color, changing the order of the screws, change shape, change size, change the position of the pieces etc.)

Soon you will have a variety of “simple file filters” that are nearly as simple as the original filter, my suggestion is that at least some of this variants should have survived to this date, because there would always be niches where “not increasing complexity” is not the only solution.

I understand that you would disagree, you claim that “file filters” had no other option but to become more complex, you are asserting as fact that in the distant past natural selection would always favor complexity over simplicity, but you haven’t done anything to support this assertion.

In summery, you claim that simple life had no other path but to become more complex, but you haven’t done anything to support that claim

Simple life means: organisms that where nearly as simple as the “first life” and much much simpler than modern microbes.

Please if you are not going to support your assertion (in red), do not reply to this post.

I woudl also what to know if this text represents your view accuretly:

I don’t know why we don’t have simple life today, that is a good question, maybe* there is something intrinsic in evolution that massively favored complexity over simplicity in the distant past, I don’t know exactly what mechanism was that, but it´seems to be a good hypothesis worthy of consideration and exploring in detail.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

You claim that “simple life” can only evolve / adapt in a “increase complexity direction” and you haven’t done anything to support that assertion.

I claim that the simpler an organism is, the more likely it will be that any new adaption will mean a rise in complexity and I explained at length why that is the case.

The very source your posted to support your bs, agrees with this claim, as I pointed out.

My suggestion is, why don’t you adopt a little bit of humility and say something like this:

I don’t know why we don’t have simple life today, that is a good question, maybe* there is something intrinsic in evolution that massively favored complexity over simplicity in the distant past, I don’t know exactly what mechanism was that, but it´seems to be a good hypothesis worthy of consideration and exploring with detail.

Even after all this time, you still haven't properly understood what is being said.
It has nothing to do with the "distant past" and everything with the extremely simple, the simplest possible, will inevitably experience a surge in complexity as its lineage has to deal with new challenges in an ever-changing environment.

If abiogenesis would occur TODAY, the exact same thing would happen. Although it is far more likely that such "naked and fragile" life would be instantly killed or consumed, as it would lack the necessary equipment to adequately deal with the many many ways this modern and highly evolved world would try to kill it.

You believe that unlike today, evolution by natural selection massively favored complexity over simplicity

Not at all, nore have I ever said any such thing.
That's just you misrepresenting what I actually said again. Not sure if it is done on purpose though.

so yes you belive that evolution worked differently in the past

I do not and explained it multiple times now. How many more times before it will sink in?

I agree the evolutionary process favors simplicity over unnecessary complexity. Key point: unnecessary. This ties in with point 5 again.

Support your assertion, why is it a false analogy? How does that analogy contradict point 5?
this is related to the 3 sides dice analogy

Because your dice analogy considers all 3 outcomes to be equally likely. Point 5 explains how that is not the case.

Consider my computer analogy.
It needs a screen. How is it ever going to gain a graphical output if
1. it doesn't already have one
and
2. it has parts removed instead of a graphical output added.

Yes but your analogy assumes that “alllll computers” would require a screen,

No. Just the one in the example.
In fact, the very premise of the analogy is that such file servers don't require a screen.

(analogous to all life requires to be more complex)….

All life has to deal with an ever changing world and all life is in an arms race with the peers it competes with.

In some environments the file filter (simple life) would be just fine and could have evolved / adapted / changed without increasing complexity, (changing color, changing the order of the screws, change shape, change size, change the position of the pieces etc.)

You are again ignoring that no environment is that isolated.
Take the great oxidation event for a simple example. This pushed oxygen to pretty much all corners of the world. All life had to deal with that. And this is just one example in a 4 billion year history.

Soon you will have a variety of “simple file filters” that are nearly as simple as the original filter, my suggestion is that at least some of this variants should have survived to this date

You have already conceded the very opposite in a previous post.............................................. remember?

, because there would always be niches where “not increasing complexity” is not the only solution.

Not when you are dealing with organisms that are as simple as can be who need to survive in an ever-changing environment that throws one challenge after the other at it.

Point 5. You keep missing it.

I understand that you would disagree, you claim that “file filters” had no other option but to become more complex, you are asserting as fact that in the distant past natural selection would always favor complexity over simplicity, but you haven’t done anything to support this assertion.

I've explained it more times then I can count by now.
Seems like it will never sink in. I get it though.... the religious underpinnings of your "argument" prevent you from properly approaching counters with a shred of intellectual honesty.

In summery, you claim that simple life had no other path but to become more complex, but you haven’t done anything to support that claim

Simple life means: organisms that where nearly as simple as the “first life” and much much simpler than modern microbes.

They wouldn't survive today, due to lacking the complex biological machinery required to deal with all the modern threats of a highly evolved eco-system.

In one ear, out the other.

I woudl also what to know if this text represents your view accuretly:

It doesn't, as I have explained multiple times now.

 

[leroy]

I claim that the simpler an organism is, the more likely it will be that any new adaption will mean a rise in complexity and I explained at length why that is the case.

.

You keep repeating that assertion (in red), and you keep failing in supporting it. Will you ever provide a source?

Yes you have explained multiple times why you personally believe that the assertion is true, but you haven’t done anything to support it.

 

[Subduction Zone]

You keep repeating that assertion (in red), and you keep failing in supporting it. Will you ever provide a source?

Yes you have explained multiple times why you personally believe that the assertion is true, but you haven’t done anything to support it.

You provided a source yourself. That has been pointed out to you several times. And why do you need a source for the obvious?

 

[leroy]

You provided a source yourself. That has been pointed out to you several times. And why do you need a source for the obvious?

Becasue it is no "obvious"
if* "the simpler an organism is, the more likely it will be that any new adaption will mean a rise in complexity" where true We would expect to see that pattern within recent organisms

No to mention that in order for @TagliatelliMonster s model to work the probability of evolving without increasing complexity has to be nearly zero, that is quite a strong claim that requires justification

Honestly why not being a little bit modest and say:

“I don´t know why we don’t have simple life, there a few hypothesis that come to mind that might explain the lack of simple life, but I have no conclusive (or even strong) evidence to show that any of these hypothesis is true?”

 

[Subduction Zone]

Becasue it is no "obvious"
if* "the simpler an organism is, the more likely it will be that any new adaption will mean a rise in complexity" where true We would expect to see that pattern within recent organisms

No to mention that in order for model to work the probability of evolving without increasing complexity has to be nearly zero, that is quite a strong claim that requires justification

Honestly why not being a little bit modest and say:

“I don´t know why we don’t have simple life, there a few hypothesis that come to mind that might explain the lack of simple life, but I have no conclusive (or even strong) evidence to show that any of these hypothesis is true?”

Why do you think that we have not seen it? Of course part of the problem is that you are using terms that you have not properly defined so people cannot give you a satisfactory example. You are in effect trying to play a game of "heads I win tails you lose" when you do that. Define your terms properly and examples will be provided.

 

[leroy]

Why do you think that we have not seen it? Of course part of the problem is that you are using terms that you have not properly defined so people cannot give you a satisfactory example. You are in effect trying to play a game of "heads I win tails you lose" when you do that. Define your terms properly and examples will be provided.

A few Examples is not enough, what you have to show (assuming that you accept @TagliatelliMonster model) is show that un average the simpler you are the more likely is it to gain complexity (rather than becoming simpler or staying the same)………… such that the ancient life (much simpler than modern microbes) had a probability of nearly zero of evolving without gaining complexity.

 

[night912]

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)

Wrong. You're again, ignoring #1 Some lost all their money (analogous they went extinct). You ignored the fact that there was more than one round of dice being tossed.

Since "evolution" didn't just occurred once, it's illogical to conclude: since simple organisms existed in the past due to have survived a(1) past change of environment, they should survive all environmental changes in the past, therefore, there should be simple organisms existing today.

Perhaps if you didn't ignore my point, you'd have a chance to understand why evolution refutes your initial argument.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

You keep repeating that assertion (in red), and you keep failing in supporting it. Will you ever provide a source?

Yes you have explained multiple times why you personally believe that the assertion is true, but you haven’t done anything to support it.

Your own source confirms it.

And as @Subduction Zone says, do you really require additional sources for something this bloody obvious?

Obviously, the simpler something is, the more likely evolution will make it increase in complexity.
The other way round as well... the more complex something is, the more likely evolution will make it simpler.


Not sure what you find so bizar about that.

Anyhow, your own source covers this. Maybe you should read the article you yourself posted.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Becasue it is no "obvious"
if* "the simpler an organism is, the more likely it will be that any new adaption will mean a rise in complexity" where true We would expect to see that pattern within recent organisms

We do. As your own source pointed out.

No to mention that in order for @TagliatelliMonster s model to work the probability of evolving without increasing complexity has to be nearly zero, that is quite a strong claim that requires justification

It's not "my model". It's evolution theory and basic logic.
Evolution with no increase or decrease in complexity more then likely concerns "repurposing of parts", which is quite common in evolution. Here's another example of pointing out the obvious: you can't repurpose a part that does not exist yet.

You'ld first need to acquire parts that can be repurposed. Acquiring those parts would increase complexity.

A decrease in complexity more then likely concerns the loss of parts.
Another instance of pointing out the bloody obvious: you need parts before you can lose them.

So in both the instances of decreasing complexity as well as not changing levels of complexity, you first must increase in complexity.

Derp di derp derp.

Again, if you are as simple as can be, there is only one direction complexity can go, and that is UP.
This means that probability of increasing complexity at that stage is 1 in 1. Decreasing complexity is a chance of 0, because you can't become simpler then the simplest.

Now move up a little tiny bit in complexity.
Now the chance to become simpler is not 0. But it's not exactly high either. The evolutionary pathways that increase complexity still seriously and overwhelmingly outnumber the other direction. So much so that you might as well consider the other direction a probability of 0.

As complexity goes up and up and up, this trend reverses. At some point, it becomes so complex that further increases are no longer more probable then no change or decreases. (ie: the possible evolutionary pathways that result in increase of complexity no longer outnumber the possible evolutionary pathways that result in a decrease or no change).

And there is a point there where it will stabilize. It might go up or then go back down and / or stay the same.

And this is exactly what we see in the biological world. The overwhelming majority of life finds itself on that bacterial level of simplicity. Then there are "peaks" (like us) and "valleys" (like Mycoplasma mycoides).


Furthermore, what you also tend to ignore, is that there are also "points of no return" there.
Hilariously, as I mentioned earlier in the thread, this might actually be the one time that the concept of "irreducible complexity" is actually useful for something.

Behe introduced that as a false argument that it proves evolution false, which is off course nonsense as IC systems can perfectly evolve in multiple steps through, among others, repurposing of parts.

So what happens here is that a certain complex system evolves. Once its up and running, evolution (as it favors simplicity over unecessary complexity) might simplify it. And thereby creating a structure that would be "irreducibly complex". ie: remove a part and it will break down completely.

This would be a "point of no return" for essential subsystems.
Meaning that no matter what happens, that particular susbsystem can't revert to levels of simplicity it used to be before the structure evolved as it has now become "irreducibly complex".


Funny how the cdesign proponentsists propaganda works against you here, isn't it?

Honestly why not being a little bit modest and say:

“I don´t know why we don’t have simple life, there a few hypothesis that come to mind that might explain the lack of simple life, but I have no conclusive (or even strong) evidence to show that any of these hypothesis is true?”

Because we do know why we don't have life as simple as your argument requires.

 

[leroy]

Your own source confirms it.

YOU keep repeating that lie, but you are unable to quote the text frm the source that supports your assertion.

Obviously, the simpler something is, the more likely evolution will make it increase in complexity.
The other way round as well... the more complex something is, the more likely evolution will make it simpler.

So by you logic the human brain (complex) is more likely to become simpler in the future rather than becoming more complex?

No it is not obvious, we don’t see that patter in modern organisms


Are bacteria more likely to become more complex than mammals? (probably not) but you can always correct me and provide a source that suggests otherwise

 

[leroy]

[QUOTE="TagliatelliMonster, post: 7009139, member: 65929" @TagliatelliMonster

Again, if you are as simple as can be, there is only one direction complexity can go, and that is UP.
This means that probability of increasing complexity at that stage is 1 in 1. Decreasing complexity is a chance of 0, because you can't become simpler then the simplest.

[/QUOTE]


Ok granted, you can’t become simpler than the absolute simplest possible life,

We both agree on this point, we both agree that it would be unlikely to find the absolute simplest possible organism in modern days.

Now move up a little tiny bit in complexity.
Now the chance to become simpler is not 0. But it's not exactly high either. The evolutionary pathways that increase complexity still seriously and overwhelmingly outnumber the other direction. So much so that you might as well consider the other direction a probability of 0.

not granted (in red)

Once you are a little bit more complex than the absolute simplest, you can evolve without increasing complexity and there is no reason to think that this scenario is extremely unlikely. (unless you provide a source that suggests otherwise)

For example you can change the position of a protein and change the phenotype without increasing complexity,

As complexity goes up and up and up, this trend reverses. At some point, it becomes so complex that further increases are no longer more probable then no change or decreases. (ie: the possible evolutionary pathways that result in increase of complexity no longer outnumber the possible evolutionary pathways that result in a decrease or no change).

Well the good news is that the assertion is completely testable and falsifiable, based on your model we would predict that complex organism (mammals for example) are less likely to become more complex than simpler organisms (bacteria)

So do you have any source that shows that this is true?

Atleast intuitively and based on the fossil record it seems that mammals (complex) increased their complexity very fast in the last 100M years while bacteria (simpler) stayed the same…………

 

[leroy]

Wrong. You're again, ignoring #1 Some lost all their money (analogous they went extinct). You ignored the fact that there was more than one round of dice being tossed.
.

Ok, In this analogy we have millions of people throw the dice millions of time each……..

after millions throws Some:

1 Will go extinct (they lost their money)

2 Some have a lot of money (analogous of becoming more complex)

3 Some will have 1USD or something close to 1Usd (analogous of staying nearly as complex as in the beginning)

agree?

 

[night912]

Ok, In this analogy we have millions of people throw the dice millions of time each……..

after millions throws Some:

1 Will go extinct (they lost their money)

2 Some have a lot of money (analogous of becoming more complex)

3 Some will have 1USD or something close to 1Usd (analogous of staying nearly as complex as in the beginning)

agree?

Original

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

Sorry, but changing YOUR model of evolution in order to fit your needs, is not how science works. That's pseudoscience.
But thanks for showing us your dishonesty.

It's also a logical fallacy, "begging the question."

Try again. Next time, remove the dishonesty.

 

[leroy]

Original


Sorry, but changing YOUR model of evolution in order to fit your needs, is not how science works. That's pseudoscience.
But thanks for showing us your dishonesty.

It's also a logical fallacy, "begging the question."

Try again. Next time, remove the dishonesty.

I didn’t change anything … why don’t you try to address the argument instead of making false accusations and personal attacks?

 

[night912]

I didn’t change anything … why don’t you try to address the argument instead of making false accusations and personal attacks?

Fine, if you want me to show evidence of your dishonesty that bad, then okay.

You first posted this. Look at #3. Now look closely at what you have written inside the parentheses.

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)

And this is what you posted after I pointed out your error. Now do the same thing, look at #3. Now look closely at what you have written inside the parentheses.

Ok, In this analogy we have millions of people throw the dice millions of time each……..

after millions throws Some:

1 Will go extinct (they lost their money)

2 Some have a lot of money (analogous of becoming more complex)

3 Some will have 1USD or something close to 1Usd (analogous of staying nearly as complex as in the beginning)

agree?

See the difference between my way and your way? I used the scientific method, I make my conclusion from looking at the data and follow it to where it leads me. Whereas for you, you use the pseudoscientific method, you continuously bend, twist, break and remove(ignore) the data in order for your conclusion to somewhat, "work" out in the way you have been arguing for.

So in conclusion, I didn't make a false accusation, I merely stated the fact.

Don't you just love science when it's being used with honesty???

 

[leroy]

Fine, if you want me to show evidence of your dishonesty that bad, then okay.

Jajaja


Ok granted you showed my "error"..... Yes I made a typographical error.

See the difference between my way and your way? I used the scientific method, I make my conclusion from looking at the data and follow it to where it leads me. Whereas for you,

Ok then apply the scientific method and refute the argument in the OP