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:
    3,244
    Ratings:
    +258
    Religion:
    christian
    Well lets say that

    1 abiogenesis occurred in a small lake somewhere in the planet

    2 After a few generations, simple life (self-replicating molecules) started to populate the lake

    3 soon we have different populations each in a different environment, (some lived in the coast, others at the bottom of the lake, others in the mood around, others inside a rock , some lived in the air, etc.)

    4 after millions of years their descendants started to populate other parts of the planet, (other lakes, the ocean, mood, air, soil etc.

    5 This point some evolution took place, but they are still simple organisms (almost as simple as the original ones)

    6 Then in some of these environments more complex organism evolved (2s)

    My point is that given 1-6 at least in some environments 1s would be ok ether because they where isolated, or because the coexisted with 2s fine or because 1s did better in some environments…………also there would have been some environments where 2s would have devolved on to 1s simple because “simpler” is better in some environments.
     
  2. A Vestigial Mote

    A Vestigial Mote Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 23, 2015
    Messages:
    5,865
    Ratings:
    +3,852
    Religion:
    ?
    The problem being that we have a huge number of examples of organisms of various types and complexities having become extinct as time marched on and conditions no longer supported their lives. Like a great many dinosaurs that ever existed (barring potential descendants via evolutionary processes) and any number of plant species that existed prior to certain eras. And along with that, would a "fossil" of a "1" even be detectable, or recognizeable as a fossil? Could they have even been wiped out early enough that there is no fossil evidence (e.g. the Earth has "churned" somewhat since then, through all ongoing geological processes and demolished the evidence)? If the conditions that supported the moments of initial development of "1s" had passed, and they became extinct, then you would potentially never see another "1" on into the future.
     
  3. sayak83

    sayak83 Well-Known Member
    Staff Member Premium Member

    Joined:
    May 7, 2012
    Messages:
    8,910
    Ratings:
    +8,436
    Religion:
    Pluralist Hindu
    I would say simple life became complex first through evolution and outcompeted the original abiogenetic simple life forms before it moved to other parts of the lake.
    Without evolution and the associated increase in complexity, the original life forms were neither fit nor robust enough to adapt to other parts of the lake.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  4. Shadow Wolf

    Shadow Wolf Rival's Wife

    Joined:
    Apr 11, 2005
    Messages:
    69,404
    Ratings:
    +26,087
    Religion:
    God is in the Rain
    In your gut is one such place.
     
    • Like Like x 1
    • Informative Informative x 1
  5. Subduction Zone

    Subduction Zone Veteran Member

    Joined:
    Nov 7, 2017
    Messages:
    35,946
    Ratings:
    +21,247
    Religion:
    Atheist
    That is a very bad assumption. Early life would have been much less efficient than modern life. That is why life is complex. Simple life would have gone extinct. In the human world look at how cars have "evolved". How would a car from the 1920's do in a race against a car from today?




    That is only because you have not studied this subject and do not seem to want to learn. You are merely looking for excuses to believe in a myth. It is a matter of efficiency. Early life did not need to be efficient at all. Modern life has to be. Competition is the driving force.
     
    • Like Like x 3
  6. leroy

    leroy Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 15, 2018
    Messages:
    3,244
    Ratings:
    +258
    Religion:
    christian
    The problem is that “efficient” is context dependent, son some environments a given complex trait might be beneficial, in other environments it might be neutral and in other environments it might be negative.

    All I am saying in that in some environments “simple” is good enough and in some cases even better than complex, this is not even controversial we know that this is true based on what we see with modern organism, and based on what we see with ancient organisms (as far back as we can see in the fossil record)………. You are arbitrarily assuming that things were different exactly in the points of history that we cant observe………..please let me know if you agree with the comment in red letters (above)






    Granted in an environment where “moving fast” is selectively beneficial, then any organism with complex traits that allow “fast movement” would trump simple organisms that lack this trait………….but my point is that not all environments are like that , there would be some environments where organisms flourish even if they can’t move fast.

    I am not making any speculation, this is how evolution works my only “assumption” is that evolution worked the same way in the distant past. (woudl you reject this assumtion)



    Well I don’t grant you assumption that you seem to be making … “more complex”= “more efficient”…. At least in some cases simpler = more efficient (agree?)
     
  7. leroy

    leroy Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 15, 2018
    Messages:
    3,244
    Ratings:
    +258
    Religion:
    christian
    My point is that 1s would represent a wide range of organisms each living in a different environment, (perhaps even in a different continent) ………. It’s hard to even imagine a catastrophe that would kill all the 1s of the world
     
  8. Subduction Zone

    Subduction Zone Veteran Member

    Joined:
    Nov 7, 2017
    Messages:
    35,946
    Ratings:
    +21,247
    Religion:
    Atheist
    Reading comprehension should tell you what it means. In this case "efficient" would mean acquiring and using resources with less waste. "Good" is a relative term. What is "poor" now would have been amazingly efficient in the past. And no, I am not assuming that things were different. I am assuming that the laws of physics and chemistry were the same. This is not a difficult concept. The original life would have been the first reproducing cell. It need not be terribly efficient since it was not facing any competition. It did not remain that way for terribly long.

    Yes, all environments are different. What you fail to recognize is that organisms evolve for the environments that they live in. And since evolution would have worked the same way in the past organisms evolved to handle their particular environment. The original versions are "still here" in that sense. What you will not find is an example that did not evolve. Not evolving leads to replacement by those organisms that evolved for that particular environment.

    But that is demonstrably the case. Unfortunately you would need a deeper understanding to see this and I am not the one to educate you in this. You should realize that there is an evolutionary advantage to all of the complex systems that you see in life. They are not needed. If there was no competition one could strip out endless traits. Of course if you did that particular life could not compete with existing life. Don't accuse others of making assumptions. That is a no no in the sciences. One cannot just assume. That is what creationists do.
     
  9. Subduction Zone

    Subduction Zone Veteran Member

    Joined:
    Nov 7, 2017
    Messages:
    35,946
    Ratings:
    +21,247
    Religion:
    Atheist
    No catastrophe needed. You are specifying that the life could not have changed. For any environment there are better and more efficient possible life forms. The ones that changed so they could use more of the resources in an area would out compete those that did not change.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  10. leroy

    leroy Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 15, 2018
    Messages:
    3,244
    Ratings:
    +258
    Religion:
    christian
    As usual instead of answering my questions or addressing the actual argument, you decided to make a bunch of interesting but irrelevant claims.

    1 Sometimes, being simple is good enough, sometimes becoming more complex doesnt represent a clear selective benefit.

    2 Sometimes being simpler is even selectively better than being more complex

    Do you agree with these statements?
     
  11. leroy

    leroy Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 15, 2018
    Messages:
    3,244
    Ratings:
    +258
    Religion:
    christian
    Sure. But better and more efficient doesn’t necessarily mean more complex …..agree?.



    AJa but…

    Change doesn’t necessarily mean “becoming more complex” you can change without increasing complexity, and you can change by becoming simpler.

    So basically you are attacking a stawman, you changed “complex” for “more efficient” in my argument and attacking your stawman version of my argument rather than the actual argument.
     
  12. leroy

    leroy Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 15, 2018
    Messages:
    3,244
    Ratings:
    +258
    Religion:
    christian
    What about all the 1s that liven in the deep ocean, or underground, or inside rocks, …..where they also killed by oxygen? Is that what you are suggesting?

    Oxygen was poisonous for all 1s ? this are honest questions, I don’t want to misrepresent your view
     
    • Useful Useful x 1
  13. Heyo

    Heyo Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 1, 2019
    Messages:
    5,390
    Ratings:
    +4,412
    Religion:
    none
    Yes, that is what I'm saying. Oxygen is a chemical radical and leads to Oxidative stress - Wikipedia. This requires all cells to evolve complex mechanisms to deal with oxygen, protecting and/or repairing DNA and other vital components.

    Oxygen is easily soluble in Water (and combines to H2O2 under UV light, an even more radical substance). All life was in the ocean (and there was only one) so that oxygen was inescapable.

    Here is a short (5:43 min) overview from the great channel PBS Eons:
     
    • Like Like x 2
  14. Subduction Zone

    Subduction Zone Veteran Member

    Joined:
    Nov 7, 2017
    Messages:
    35,946
    Ratings:
    +21,247
    Religion:
    Atheist
    Let's make it clear. Sometimes is the answer to number one. But not always. A care from 1920 is not going to win the Indianapolis 500. In life complexity often does give a significant advantage. The first life would have less chance of surviving today than a car from 1920 would have of winning Indy. You keep forgetting that there are limited resources in any enviornment.

    And yes, number two is true too. That still does not help you.
     
  15. Subduction Zone

    Subduction Zone Veteran Member

    Joined:
    Nov 7, 2017
    Messages:
    35,946
    Ratings:
    +21,247
    Religion:
    Atheist
    Whoosh!! Points continually going over your head.

    Come on. You can do better than this. It is time to admit your error.

    Resources are limited in any environment. Early on, when there is little competition, anything can survive. Efficiency becomes a factor when competition sets in.

    Once again. A car from 1920 is very very simple. How would it do in a modern racing circuit?
     
  16. YoursTrue

    YoursTrue "We know gravity by happenstance."

    Joined:
    Nov 27, 2017
    Messages:
    5,540
    Ratings:
    +895
    Religion:
    Christian
    I'll be looking for the answers to your points. :)
     
  17. YoursTrue

    YoursTrue "We know gravity by happenstance."

    Joined:
    Nov 27, 2017
    Messages:
    5,540
    Ratings:
    +895
    Religion:
    Christian
    Wait a minute. You mean to say no one (or is it only the OP) knows if abiogenesis is true? What?
     
  18. TagliatelliMonster

    TagliatelliMonster Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 8, 2019
    Messages:
    8,349
    Ratings:
    +6,587
    Religion:
    Atheist
    And the ONLY reason you argue this, is just so you can accommodate for your premises to make your argument "work". Not because you have actual scientific, data driven, reasons to assume such. Your ONLY motivation here is to make your argument "work".

    And the ONLY reason for you to make this argument, is because you have religious beliefs that aren't compatible with it, so you have a priori interest in abiogenesis being wrong. You want it to be wrong. You need it to be wrong.

    But let's not kid ourselves, you don't have valid reasons for this premise - nore for this argument.

    Tell me, how many working abiogenesis researchers, or evolutionary biologists, believe/expect as you do, that the "first" populations of life that existed at least 3.8 billion years ago, should still be around today?

    Is there even a single working scientist in those fields that actually even remotely agrees to this?
    I don't think there is.

    It's just you and your "argument".

    Give me a single scientific citation that supports this, instead of your own belief / religious want or need / bare assertion that such is the case.

    Show me a paper from evolutionary biology or abiogenesis that states that "first life" species should still be around today, virtually unchanged after some 4 billion years of evolution, having survived The Great Oxidation and all other mass extinctions etc.

    :rolleyes:
     
    • Like Like x 1
    • Winner Winner x 1
  19. TagliatelliMonster

    TagliatelliMonster Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 8, 2019
    Messages:
    8,349
    Ratings:
    +6,587
    Religion:
    Atheist
    The process is unknow. ie, which specific steps lead to the appearance of living things.

    That abiogenesis occurred, is pretty much a given off course. At one point there was no life and then there was. So necessarily there was a "first" life which did not come from previous life. That's abiogenesis by definition.

    How that process works (a specific chemical reaction? a series of specific chemical reactions? an extra-dimensional unicorn that bio-engineered it? A god that said abracadabra and poof - there it was?) is what is unknown.

    Although it would also be dishonest to say that "we don't have a clue". We know quite a lot already about early life and there are a couple of promising hypothesis. There just isn't a conclusive answer yet.

    Note also that it would be close to impossible to figure out exactly how it occurred on earth. Chances are huge that there are multiple possible paths to life. Discovering one such path in the lab, wouldn't necessarily mean that that is also how it happened on earth.
     
    • Like Like x 3
  20. Heyo

    Heyo Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 1, 2019
    Messages:
    5,390
    Ratings:
    +4,412
    Religion:
    none
    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.
    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.
     
    • Like Like x 1
Loading...