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. TagliatelliMonster

    TagliatelliMonster Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 8, 2019
    Messages:
    8,349
    Ratings:
    +6,587
    Religion:
    Atheist
    I disagree.

    Not a single abiogenesis researcher or evolutionary biologist expects such life to be around today. In fact, the little I saw experts say about this, is rather that if such life would be introduced today, it would almost instantly be consumed / overtaken by modern life.
    His premise therefor is not based on science or any kind of data or scientific evidence.

    That raises the question for why he makes that argument.
    And it seems to me to be painfully obvious that the answer to that is: his religious beliefs, which are incompatible with the idea of a natural abiogenesis event.
    His posting history supports that conclusion.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  2. Heyo

    Heyo Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 1, 2019
    Messages:
    5,390
    Ratings:
    +4,412
    Religion:
    none
    Yep. But his idea of ranking species by complexity, the transition probability towards higher or lower complexity being equal and the resulting conclusion that we must, under those premises, have low complexity life, were valid. You can't hold his ignorance against him in this case. You have to point out why his premises were not sound.
    Yep. I had a run-in or two with @leroy that nearly granted him a place on my ignore list.
    But this is a new argument and it is dangerously convincing. We can't brush it off as the usual ID nonsense. I felt the need to seriously address it. Not that I think I can convince @leroy but to explain to the general audience where his argument fails. It takes a little knowledge and a little maths to debunk it and others may be able to use it when they encounter the argument elsewhere.
     
  3. HonestJoe

    HonestJoe Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 16, 2010
    Messages:
    4,212
    Ratings:
    +2,496
    Religion:
    None
    I think there is still a fundamental point being missed here. Exactly what kind of simple organisms are you asserting existed in the past but don't exist anywhere today?

    There are loads of very simple organisms that exist today (and probably loads we're not entirely aware of in extreme and isolated environments) so I don't think the idea that everything developed in to more complex forms is valid in the first place.
     
  4. TagliatelliMonster

    TagliatelliMonster Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 8, 2019
    Messages:
    8,349
    Ratings:
    +6,587
    Religion:
    Atheist
    I get what you're saying.

    However, I feel like it was adequately addressed. All it takes is pointing out that his premise is unsupported and there is no reason to think that species with that level of simplicity would survive and thrive for 4 billion years. In fact, the opposite is true. There is much reason to think such species would NOT survive.
    And even IF we would assume that some isolated pocket of "ancient" life remained in this simple state somewhere, then still the argument wouldn't work. Because us not knowing about such an isolated population would simply mean that we haven't discovered it yet.
    And in fact, discovering it would, according to the actual professionals of these fields, instantly kill it as it would expose them to populations (and environments) that would almost instantly consume and overtake them.


    The fact is, as someone else in this thread already mentioned, early life grew on an earth that didn't contain oxygen. Oxygen was lethal to early life. To survive the Great Oxidation event, species would have been required to evolve systems that can protect them against it. Those would necessarily require a certain level of complexity. A certain level of complexity that had to endure, because unlike other extinction events (like the meteor impact some 70 million years ago ), earth did not return to its previous state. The oxygen didn't go away.
     
    • Like Like x 1
    • Winner Winner x 1
  5. Subduction Zone

    Subduction Zone Veteran Member

    Joined:
    Nov 7, 2017
    Messages:
    35,946
    Ratings:
    +21,247
    Religion:
    Atheist
    Even the simplest of life today is still rather complex. The first life was all but guaranteed to be barely alive by today's standards and would have limped along. Why did it survive? A big part of the answer that is no competition.
     
  6. Heyo

    Heyo Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 1, 2019
    Messages:
    5,390
    Ratings:
    +4,412
    Religion:
    none
    I know of no environments that are 2 billion years old and contain life but it will be interesting once we research closed of aquifers beneath the sahara and Antarctica.
    That was me, attempting to seriously address the claim.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  7. 9-10ths_Penguin

    9-10ths_Penguin 1/10 Subway Stalinist
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Jul 19, 2007
    Messages:
    59,007
    Ratings:
    +16,872
    Religion:
    None (atheist)
    That's often the case. The general trend is that evolution usually favours less complex life.

    Read "Full House" by Stephen Jay Gould if you want a deep dive on this.
     
  8. YoursTrue

    YoursTrue "We know gravity by happenstance."

    Joined:
    Nov 27, 2017
    Messages:
    5,540
    Ratings:
    +895
    Religion:
    Christian
    I'm thinking there are conjectures in many areas some give real credence to, and no real proof.
     
  9. leroy

    leroy Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 15, 2018
    Messages:
    3,244
    Ratings:
    +258
    Religion:
    christian
    Ok, but if sometimes simpler is better than complex, then what prevented “simple life” to survive to this date?

    Your car analogy is valid and granted, in an environment where “speed” is important for survivor then any organism with complex traits that allow him to move faster would trump simple organisms that lack these traits………….but my point is no all environments favor “speed”……..therefore the slow simple life is expected to survive and flourish in at least some enviroments.
     
  10. leroy

    leroy Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 15, 2018
    Messages:
    3,244
    Ratings:
    +258
    Religion:
    christian
    Granted, and sometimes “being simpler” allows organisms to be more efficient in getting those limited resources. Agree?
     
  11. leroy

    leroy Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 15, 2018
    Messages:
    3,244
    Ratings:
    +258
    Religion:
    christian
    Search for the answers provided by @Heyo …….he is honestly approaching the problem and providing good and tough replies.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  12. Clara Tea

    Clara Tea Active Member

    Joined:
    Sep 21, 2020
    Messages:
    367
    Ratings:
    +105

    It is unlikely that some of the simplest organisms would still be alive today. Almost all would have mutated to some degree.

    We have the choice of believing that organisms came into existence from chemicals (and maybe a lightning strike), or believe that God made organisms. Then we have the conundrum of wondering how God was created (and what created the thing that created God). We could argue that God always existed, but we could always argue that organisms always existed.

    You have asserted that life has always been complex, but you have no proof of that.

    You have assumed (without proof) that complexity doesn't increase. Yet, there is DNA proof that organisms are related to each other. We can see evidence in their DNA that some have evolved to more complex beings. So, there is proof that your assumption is wrong.

    Some people puzzle over the question "which came first, the chicken or the egg?" Yet the answer is quite obvious. The egg came first. Because a dinosaur could lay an egg with mutations (a chicken egg), but it is unlikely that every cell in the dinosaur could simultaneously mutate into a chicken.

    When the Chicxulub meteor hit earth, it caused mass extinction. This meant that animals had fewer sex partners. This meant that there was more inbreeding (cousins mating with cousins). This caused more mutations. Most mutations were bad (maybe born blind). Some mutations were good, because instead of adapting to the earth before the sun was blotted out by the dust, these mutations were adapted to better survival after the dust blotted out the sun. By natural selection, those mutations survived better. As you can see from the fossil record of 66 million years ago (at the time of the Chicxulub impact), there was mass extinction, but there was also punctuated equilibrium (this means that there was a sudden diversity in number of species). So, the logic matches the reality.

    You made the mistake of assigning equal probabilities to mutation survival. You can see that as conditions change (sun blocked out), some mutations do better than others.
     
  13. Subduction Zone

    Subduction Zone Veteran Member

    Joined:
    Nov 7, 2017
    Messages:
    35,946
    Ratings:
    +21,247
    Religion:
    Atheist
    Sometimes, yes. Sometimes a simpler vehicle can win a race. But again, this is limited simplicity. You keep dodging a very relative question: How would a 1920's car do in the Indy 500? Heck, even worse how would one from 1900 do?

    One thing about environments is that they cannot be totally isolated. Competition for limited resources is the factor that you keep pretending that does not exist.
     
  14. Subduction Zone

    Subduction Zone Veteran Member

    Joined:
    Nov 7, 2017
    Messages:
    35,946
    Ratings:
    +21,247
    Religion:
    Atheist
    Only under specific circumstances. Never to the point of first life. Once again like your terrible argument about expansion caused by surrounding masses (they cancel out in case you forgot) this one of yours ignores the fact of limited resources and competition.
     
  15. leroy

    leroy Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 15, 2018
    Messages:
    3,244
    Ratings:
    +258
    Religion:
    christian
    Genetic fallacy, my personal motivations are irrelevant



    Well then deal with the reasons that I provided and explain why aren’t this good reasons to accept the premises.

    Ohh wait you are an atheist , you don’t support your claims



    I don’t know……….do you? I haven find any papers that suggest that they should have gone extinct ether , this is one of the reasons I presented this argument in this forum just hoping to find peer reviewed information that would ether support or refute the argument.
     
  16. leroy

    leroy Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 15, 2018
    Messages:
    3,244
    Ratings:
    +258
    Religion:
    christian
    Just to let you know that I am aware of your reply , haven’t have time to see your sources and the video
     
    • Like Like x 1
  17. Subduction Zone

    Subduction Zone Veteran Member

    Joined:
    Nov 7, 2017
    Messages:
    35,946
    Ratings:
    +21,247
    Religion:
    Atheist
    You do not seem to realize that you already lost the debate. He is not merely trying to analyze your motives. So no, this is not a genetic fallacy.

    As usual your arguments have been dealt with and explained to you. As usual you ignored or did not understand the arguments.

    Technically they did not "go extinct". You are alive aren't you? Evolution is a process that occurs whether you want it to or not. There is always competition, why do you keep ignoring this? Is it because you have no response to it. Variation also will always occur. There is no need to write in papers that life in its original form is no longer here in scientific papers. Why do you think that it should be there?
     
  18. leroy

    leroy Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 15, 2018
    Messages:
    3,244
    Ratings:
    +258
    Religion:
    christian
    Again if someone times “simple” does well in the competition and sometimes “simple” even trumps complex, why is it that we don’t have “simple life” today?

    In an environment where “moving slow” and “save gasoline” is beneficial, then a 1920 would overcome a modern car.

    *Well I don’t know much about cars , maybe 1920 cars waste more gas, but hopefully you see my point.
     
  19. leroy

    leroy Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 15, 2018
    Messages:
    3,244
    Ratings:
    +258
    Religion:
    christian
    I am not ignoring it, yes there is always competition, but sometimes being “simple” helps you win the competition ……. You already agreed with this point.

    SO why don’t we have simple life today?
     
  20. Subduction Zone

    Subduction Zone Veteran Member

    Joined:
    Nov 7, 2017
    Messages:
    35,946
    Ratings:
    +21,247
    Religion:
    Atheist
    Oh look! Its a Dodge Dart. That was not the question. You are once again ignoring the effect of competition.

    Yes you are. That is the problem. You are also ignoring the fact that life will evolve. There is no way to prevent change. Mutations happen.
     
Loading...