A positive argument against abiogenesis

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Not written like that, no. You're omitting a whole bunch of stuff and thereby misrepresenting it.
The last part "in some environments..." is also misleading, because it gives the impression that dropping any organism in such an environment would lead to a decrease of its complexity, which off course is simply not true.

What it actually means by saying that it favors simplicity over complexity, is more something like favoring efficiency.

For example, suppose some organism over time evolved complex defense mechanism X to deal with threat A.
As long as A is an active threat, natural selection will favor the presence of X, or improvement thereof.
Now imagine A goes away for whatever reason. Now, there no longer is a pressure to keep X working and intact. Instead, it will turn around and it will favor removing it entirely. It no longer gives the host an advantage and instead it just sucks away energy and resources for a system that no longer serves a survival purpose.

Another example is for example moles. They used to live above ground. Eyes are important there.
Now they live underground. Eyes no longer matter. Eyes have even become a hazard, as dirt can get in (especially underground) and cause infections, which might end up being lethal.

So the eyes are now hidden behind a thick layer of skin. Eyelids on steroids that are grown shut and can't be opened anymore. The eyes themselves also no longer work. So even cutting the skin open, wouldn't result in a mole with sight. One can imagine them eyeballs completely evolving away over time, as they no longer serve a purpose and instead just suck up energy and resources for nothing.



The point is, that evolution doesn't look for "complex solutions". Evolution rather looks of efficiency / efficient solutions. So at all times, it will always try and go for the simplest solution. The simplest solution, can still be a rise in complexity. There simply is no internal drive towards complexity. There is an internal drive towards simplicity. But there is an external drive towards complexity... The very nature of the problems, especially with life forms that already are simple, will almost always demand solutions that will end up in more complexity.

If you have NO defense against oxygen, acquiring such a defense will require a rise in complexity.
The need for defense mechanisms against an increasing variation of threats from competing populations, or environmental conditions, will also require a rise in complexity to evolve all those various defense mechanisms.

First life had NO defense mechanisms.
It is utterly unreasonable that life with simplicity on par with first life, would survive and thrive for 4 billion years.

@leroy is right in the sense that the overall trend of evolution is to less complexity. Track any moderately complex species over time and its descendant species are more likely to be less complex than the original.

Stephen Jay Gould gets into this a lot in his book Full House: the Spread of Excellence from Plato to Darwin.

If you plot out all species on a histogram of complexity, you also see from the skew that, in general, evolution favours less complex life.

Now... none of this suggests that complex life couldn't have evolved, just that the history of life is almost entirely about bacteria, and we humans are off in the tail of the distribution.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

@leroy is right in the sense that the overall trend of evolution is to less complexity. Track any moderately complex species over time and its descendant species are more likely to be less complex than the original.

Stephen Jay Gould gets into this a lot in his book Full House: the Spread of Excellence from Plato to Darwin.

If you plot out all species on a histogram of complexity, you also see from the skew that, in general, evolution favours less complex life.

Now... none of this suggests that complex life couldn't have evolved, just that the history of life is almost entirely about bacteria, and we humans are off in the tail of the distribution.

Sure.

But I'm actually writing from the perspective of bacteria and "simple" life (simple as compared to the complexity of multi-cellular organisms like plants and animals).

The very own source he linked to supposedly to support his premise, directly contradicts his premise, as it states that to a certain extent, the environment / habitat itself will drive a certain level of complexity.
It's the whole evolutionary arms-race thing.

The simplest of parasite is still going to require relatively complex systems to "fool" the complex immune system from its host.
First life didn't have to deal with with such things - or far less anyway.

Every new threat, requires an evolutionary answer if the lineage is going to survive said threat.
So to assume that first life is going to survive and thrive for 4 billion years while staying "as simple" as the original, without loading up with such required defense mechanisms to respond to an ever-more divers (and thus more complex) environment... is just absurd.

There is off course a reason why the great oxidation event (for example) triggered such mass extinction.... Simply because a lot of species did NOT load up on defense mechanisms to protect against that new threat. And evolving such a mechanism would inevitably lead to higher complexity. Those that didn't, didn't make it.

 

[Heyo]

The wiki article doesn't actually support his argument.

We'll have to agree to disagree on that one as I'm too lazy to go through it with you word for word. And it would serve no purpose as it only touches on a tangent of @leroy's argument.
And I don't even defend his argument, I just want it treated with rigour.

What actually says that eventhough a rise in complexity is no intrinsic part of evolution and that evolution as a process will even favor simplicity (barring all other factors), the trend towards more complex nevertheless occur(s)(ed).

Which his model doesn't deny.

This, because the environment gets more complex. As other species evolve, and as environments change, any given population needs to "update" its defenses to deal with new threats all the time, threat's that themselves also evolve into more complex threats, which in turn then need more complex defenses.

So it's not evolution itself that trends towards complexity.... it's the environment that does.

Agreed. But that alone doesn't explain the existence of archaea and drosophila at this time - but not something less complex than archaea and bacteria.

 

[leroy]

As I said and you have heard in the PBS Eons episode, there were no such things as disconnected niches on Earth 2 billion years ago. And as you know from fluid dynamics, fluids of similar composition (water with oxygen and water without oxygen) mix very well so that oxygen got everywhere. And Oxygen is a very small molecule, it even dissipated through rock. But I grant that it is possible though not probable that there may be small pockets where Oxygen didn't reach.
But that may have nothing to do with your documentary. The way you said it, it doesn't say that oxygen didn't reach the anaerobic bacteria, it says that those bacteria don't use oxygen - but may have (or their ancestors may have had) mechanism to protect against oxygen.

According to the documentary that I saw, anaerobic bacteria could still live happily in the deep ocean receiving energy from thermal vent. (oxygen didn’t reached those environments)……. I am aware of the fact that documentaries are not the best source but do you have a better source that suggest otherwise?

Oxygen is, as I said, a chemical radical. It breaks chemical bonds. There are multiple ways to deal with that. Eukaryots hide their DNA in the nucleus, there are substances, like vitamin C, that capture radicals and some cells have complex DNA repair mechanisms (which not only helps against oxygen). But all these methods require more complexity, not less. A cell has to protect its DNA against oxygen.

Ok granted for the sake of this thread “the only way to defend against oxygen is by becoming more complex”

The GOE is an example of how a lower boundary for complexity can be established, and one that is well documented. There could be hundreds of other events with the same result but they are more speculative. We don't know the exact composition of the early Earth's oceans but each sustained change in the environment is a potential sustained change in the lower bound for complexity.

Ok but that lower boundary would be “simple life + a trait that protects them from oxigen” ……………this would be a little bit more complex that the first life but still much, much simpler than modern bacteria

Presumably you don’t need to get as complex as modern bacteria in order to survive oxygen (does this claim sound reasonable to you)?

I don't say that it must have been as I have hypothesised, just that it is a possible, if not probable, explanation. We just don't know - yet.

Possible yes……….probable? not sure

 

[Heyo]

According to the documentary that I saw, anaerobic bacteria could still live happily in the deep ocean receiving energy from thermal vent. (oxygen didn’t reached those environments)……. I am aware of the fact that documentaries are not the best source but do you have a better source that suggest otherwise?

"The dark, cold waters of much of the deep sea have adequate oxygen. This is because cold water can dissolve more oxygen than warm water, and the deepest waters generally originate from shallow polar seas. In certain places in the northern and southern seas, oxygen-rich waters cool off so much that they become dense enough to sink to the bottom of the sea. These so-called thermohaline currents can travel at depth around the globe, and oxygen remains sufficient for life because there is not enough biomass to use it all up. However, there are also oxygen-poor environments in intermediate zones, wherever there is no oxygen made by photosynthesis and there are no thermohaline currents. These areas, called oxygen minimum zones, usually lie at depths between 500 – 1,000 m in temperate and tropical regions. Here, animals as well as bacteria that feed on decaying food particles descending through the water column use oxygen, which can consequently drop to near zero in some areas. Biologists are still investigating how animals survive under such conditions." - The Deep Sea ~ MarineBio Conservation Society

Ok granted for the sake of this thread “the only way to defend against oxygen is by becoming more complex”

Ok but that lower boundary would be “simple life + a trait that protects them from oxigen” ……………this would be a little bit more complex that the first life but still much, much simpler than modern bacteria

Presumably you don’t need to get as complex as modern bacteria in order to survive oxygen (does this claim sound reasonable to you)?

Yes. But oxygen isn't the only environmental change, just the best one as we have excellent evidence. The others are more speculative.

Possible yes……….probable? not sure

Given the alternatives (spontaneous assembly of a rather complex cell (tornado in a junk yard) and panspermia) I think it is the most probable.

 

[leroy]

"
Yes. But oxygen isn't the only environmental change, just the best one as we have excellent evidence. The others are more speculative.

But to say that allllllll environmental changes favored complexity over simplicity sounds a little bit too combinient..... Catastrophic events usually favor simplicity over complexity the oxidation event seems to be a rare exception.

Given the alternatives (spontaneous assembly of a rather complex cell (tornado in a junk yard) and panspermia) I think it is the most probable.

Granted, so can we conclude like this:

There is no clear nor obvious explanation for why we dont have simple life today

A change in the environment (oxidation event or something else) is not an entirely convincing explanation. But is better than the alternatives, panspermia, aliens, god, tornado junk yard, etc

If anyone whants to afirm any of the alternatives, he most present additional evidence, such evidence if its good enough could trump "change in the environment" as the best explanation

 

[Heyo]

But to say that allllllll environmental changes favored complexity over simplicity sounds a little bit too combinient..... Catastrophic events usually favor simplicity over complexity the oxidation event seems to be a rare exception.



Granted, so can we conclude like this:

There is no clear nor obvious explanation for why we dont have simple life today

A change in the environment (oxidation event or something else) is not an entirely convincing explanation. But is better than the alternatives, panspermia, aliens, god, tornado junk yard, etc

If anyone whants to afirm any of the alternatives, he most present additional evidence, such evidence if its good enough could trump "change in the environment" as the best explanation

That seems to me a perfect conclusion to wrap this OP up.

 

[leroy]

Again. So what?

If being simple is often selectively possitive... Then it follows that we should have simple life today

With simple I mean "nearly as simple as life could be"

 

[leroy]

Not

The need for defense mechanisms against an increasing variation of threats from competing populations, or environmental conditions, will also require a rise in complexity to evolve all those various defense mechanisms.

Why? Modern organism often deal with threads without increasing complexity.

For example bacteria become resistant to antibiotics by loosing a protein.

So why assuming that things where different in the past?

First life had NO defense mechanisms.
It is utterly unreasonable that life with simplicity on par with first life, would survive and thrive for 4 billion years.

Why not? Sometimes being simple is the best defense

 

[leroy]

@leroy is right in the sense that the overall trend of evolution is to less complexity. Track any moderately complex species over time and its descendant species are more likely to be less complex than the original.

Stephen Jay Gould gets into this a lot in his book Full House: the Spread of Excellence from Plato to Darwin.

If you plot out all species on a histogram of complexity, you also see from the skew that, in general, evolution favours less complex life.

Now... none of this suggests that complex life couldn't have evolved, just that the history of life is almost entirely about bacteria, and we humans are off in the tail of the distribution.

No disagreement from my part

 

[leroy]

That
As the fossil record clearly shows, it wasn't true in the past, as there we see life becoming increasingly complex over time.

Maybe, but we still have "simple animals today" say as simple as in the Cambrian

The article also flat out states the opposite of your premise:

Genome complexity has generally increased since the beginning of the life on Earth.[17][18]


Seems like you just read the first few lines where it says that it's a misunderstanding that the process of evolution includes an active factor towards increase of complexity and then didn't bother to read on. The article doesn't say what you seem to think it is saying.............

Ok granted some models suggest that complexity on average has increased.

But none of these nodels explains the lack of simple life in modern days.

 

[leroy]

The oxidation event is just one of MANY obstacles organisms have to deal with.
Another is extreme competition.

My problem is thst you are assuming that all these obstacles would favor complex life over simple life. (i dont grant this assumption and you haven't support it)

When the fact is that often the best way to deal with obstacles is by becoming simpler

It is simply not reasonable to think that life would stay as simple as first life for 4 billion years.

Why? Why is it unreasonable?

Not a single scientist working in relevant fields expects it to be the case. Why do you?

Can you quote a single scientist who claims thatvthe idea that simple life survived for 4B years is ridiculous?


Honestly if we ever find life in other planets, would you say that it would be unlikely that life would be simple in that planet ? (assuming life is 4B years old)

Would you say that it would be very unlikely to find something much simpler than a nodern microbe?

 

[leroy]

No. Once you have competition, you get into an arms race. Very few of these arms races are won by removing features. Simplification is only a strategy for organisms retreating to a niche that few others occupy.

No becoming simple is very common,

.

In fact, the loss of genes seems to have helped many groups of organisms split away from their ancestors and triumph over new environmental challenges.

 

[Subduction Zone]

If being simple is often selectively possitive... Then it follows that we should have simple life today

With simple I mean "nearly as simple as life could be"

No, that is a non sequitur on your part that has been refuted by several posters here. There is no need to do it again.

 

[Subduction Zone]

No becoming simple is very common,

.

No, becoming simpler is common. Becoming "simple" does not appear to occur. You should not conflate the two.

 

[Suave]

Some Definitions
.......
In the context of this thread, with abiogenesis I mean the idea that primitive life formed in a primordial soup (or some other environment) by natural mechanisms.

With primitive life, I mean relatively simple self-replicating molecules (much simpler than modern microbes)

I will use to “primodial soup” as a generic term to refer to all of the enviroments that have been proposed by researches (even if these are not literally primordial soups)

With 1s I mean simple self replicating molecules (simply enogh to have formed in a primodial soup)
.....

My argument against abiogenesis

Premise 1: Complex organism could have not been formed in a primordial soup

Premise 2: Life has always been complex

* With complex I mean " nearly as complex as a modern microbe or more"

Therefore Life could have not formed in a primordial soup

........
Supporting premise 1 and premise 2:

Premise 1: is not controversial, the junk yard tornado analogy shows that the premise is true, and no atheist to my knowledge believes that modern-like organisms formed in the primordial soup.

Premise 2: Is supported by the fact that natural selection doesn’t aims at complexity, (the average complexity doesn’t increases) sometimes becoming simpler or staying the same Is better for the organism source at the end of this post.1

This leads to the conclusion that atleast some simple organisms should be livign today.

Consider this scenario.

Let’s assume for the sake of simplicity that we can measure complexity in a scale from 1 -10 where 10 is something as complex as a human 5 is something as complex as a modern microbe and 1 would be a simple self-replicating molecule, simple enough to have formed in a primordial soup.

1 Supposedly all life started with “1” all life was simple in the past.

2 After a few million years any population of organisms could have evolved from 1 to 2 or stay as 1 (depending on the selective pressure)

3 Once you have some “2s” this organism would ether evolve in to 3, stay as 2 of evolve back to 1 (this is because sometimes losing complexity is good for the organism and therefore would be favored by natural selection)…………(let’s assume that each possibility has a 33% probability)

3.1 Once you have 3s they can ether evovle in to 4 stay as 3 or evovle in to 2 ((let’s assume that each possibility has a 33% probability)

3,2 once you have 4 you can evovle to 5 stay as 4 or evovle in to 3 ...((let’s assume that each possibility has a 33% probability)

etc. etc.

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)

….

Given that premise 1 and 2 are probably true it follows that probably abiogenesis is wrong
+

Basically evolution doesnt explain the abcense of 1s living today, so ether evolution is wrong or abiogenesis is wrong...........given that evolution is better supported than abiogenesis we most reject abiogenesis.


...............
source 1

Evolution of biological complexity - Wikipedia.

The earliest single-celled living organism might have been formed by the enclosure of naturally occurring self-replicating R.N.A.strands and associated organic molecules within a naturally self-assembling membrane consisting of lipids.

 

[leroy]

No, becoming simpler is common. Becoming "simple" does not appear to occur. You should not conflate the two.

Yes that is my point


You are just trolling.... You dont even know why you disagree...... You obviously don't understand the argument.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Yes that is my point


You are just trolling.... You dont even know why you disagree...... You obviously don't understand the argument.

No, I am not. Your argument was refuted. I don't know how to explain it to you any better. And apparently no one else does either. It is too bad that you did not understand the corrections in that post. It was dead serious.

 

[leroy]

No, I am not. Your argument was refuted. I don't know how to explain it to you any better. And apparently no one else does either. It is too bad that you did not understand the corrections in that post. It was dead serious.

How do you know that the argument was refuted if you clearly don't understand it?

Heyo and I reached a conclusion that we both agree on......... Is the conclusion good enough for you. Or do you have anything to add?

That seems to me a perfect conclusion to wrap this OP up.

 

[Subduction Zone]

How do you know that the argument was refuted if you clearly don't understand it?

Heyo and I reached a conclusion that we both agree on......... Is the conclusion good enough for you. Or do you have anything to add?

Trying to twist the words of others is not honest. It appears that you are trolling when you do that. I did not say that I do not understand it, I said I don't know how to make YOU understand.

Heyo may not know you well enough or your motives. Others do.

Now do you really want to know why your argument fails?