A positive argument against abiogenesis

[leroy]

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.

From previous comments its obvious that yiu dont understand the argument

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

@Heyo doest care about the "motives" and you shouldn't ether.

Do you agree with the conclusion that I quoted earlier ?

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

yes

 

[Subduction Zone]

From previous comments its obvious that yiu dont understand the argument



@Heyo doest care about the "motives" and you shouldn't ether.

Do you agree with the conclusion that I quoted earlier ?
yes

He should. He does not fully know what you are proposing. You asked why no original life is found. It was explained to you.

@Suave wrote a post that you ignored which shows how wrong you are:

"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."

If and when abiogenesis is well understood it is all but certain that there will be no clear line between "life" and "not life". The example of "first life" given would be too simple to compete with any life that could move or worse yet, ate other life. That is why it is rather naive to believe that if simple life existed at one point that it still should today.

Earlier you conflated "getting simpler" with being simple. You could take your oxygen sensor off of your car and it would still run. It would be "simpler". There might even be certain times that this is desirable. But that does not make it the same as a Model T.

 

[leroy]

He should. He does not fully know what you are proposing. You asked why no original life is found. It was explained to you.

@Suave wrote a post that you ignored which shows how wrong you are:

"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."

If and when abiogenesis is well understood it is all but certain that there will be no clear line between "life" and "not life". The example of "first life" given would be too simple to compete with any life that could move or worse yet, ate other life. That is why it is rather naive to believe that if simple life existed at one point that it still should today.

Earlier you conflated "getting simpler" with being simple. You could take your oxygen sensor off of your car and it would still run. It would be "simpler". There might even be certain times that this is desirable. But that does not make it the same as a Model T.

He should. He does not fully know what you are proposing. You asked why no original life is found. It was explained to you.

@Suave wrote a post that you ignored which shows how wrong you are:

"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."

If and when abiogenesis is well understood it is all but certain that there will be no clear line between "life" and "not life". The example of "first life" given would be too simple to compete with any life that could move or worse yet, ate other life. That is why it is rather naive to believe that if simple life existed at one point that it still should today.

Earlier you conflated "getting simpler" with being simple. You could take your oxygen sensor off of your car and it would still run. It would be "simpler". There might even be certain times that this is desirable. But that does not make it the same as a Model T.

That has been answered

I grant that in some enviroments becomingmore complex would be beneficial and natural selection would select complex stuff over simple stuff.


But there would be other enviroments where stayong simple is good enough

You could take your oxygen sensor off of your car and it would still run. It would be "simpler". There might even be certain times that this is desirable. But that does not make it the same as a Model T

That is a strawman why don't you make an honest effort and try to understand my argument before assuming that it is wrong?


I am not saying that a complex modern car should evolve in to a model T.

I am saying if we started with model T all over the world we would expect to have something as simple as a model T in some enviroments..... Why? Because atleast in some enviroments an increas in complexity wouldn't be selected.(in the long term)

 

[Subduction Zone]

That has been answered

I grant that in some enviroments becomingmore complex would be beneficial and natural selection would select complex stuff over simple stuff.


But there would be other enviroments where stayong simple is good enough

That is not an answer. That is handwaving. And you once again make the error of conflating simpler with simple. They are not the same thing.

That is a strawman why don't you make an honest effort and try to understand my argument before assuming that it is wrong?

Not a strawman. You really need to try to learn what logical fallacies are. It is an example of something simpler but not simple. The error that you constantly make. But just for fun, how is it a strawman? And please, it is a personal attack to declare that others are making assumptions. Your argument was refuted. You refuse to understand why.

I am not saying that a complex modern car should evolve in to a model T.

I am saying if we started with model T all over the world we would expect to have something as simple as a model T in some enviroments..... Why? Because atleast in some enviroments an increas in complexity wouldn't be selected.(in the long term)

Oh my I see that you won't let yourself understand analogies either.

Try again.

 

[leroy]

That is not an answer. That is handwaving. And you once again make the error of conflating simpler with simple. They are not the same thing.



Not a strawman. You really need to try to learn what logical fallacies are. It is an example of something simpler but not simple. The error that you constantly make. But just for fun, how is it a strawman? And please, it is a personal attack to declare that others are making assumptions. Your argument was refuted. You refuse to understand why.


Oh my I see that you won't let yourself understand analogies either.

Try again.

How do you know that my argument has been refuted if you clearly don't understand it?

Your car amalogy is a strawman, I am not saying that complex animals (analogous to complex moden cars) are expected to evolve in to simple life (as simple as the first living things) (analogous to model T cars)
.

 

[Subduction Zone]

How do you know that my argument has been refuted if you clearly don't understand it?

Your car amalogy is a strawman, I am not saying that complex animals (analogous to complex moden cars) are expected to evolve in to simple life (as simple as the first living things) (analogous to model T cars)
.

Again, not a strawman since when life gets simpler it is very analogous to my Model T example. Modern life may lose a little bit of complexity and become "simpler". Simpler is not simple. You did not like it when I pointed out that fact. You misused the "Life can get simpler" fact in your earlier argument.

Your argument was refuted, even though you do not understand it. Like all creationists you could not take into the fact that it is not just variation that drives evolution. Or just natural selection. It is natural selection and variation together that drive evolution. The earliest of life was extremely simple. It had no means of propulsion, no means of defense. All that it could do was to use chemical that already existed. Do you recognize the fact that the line between "life" and "not life" is very fuzzy?

 

[leroy]

Again, not a strawman since when life gets simpler it is very analogous to my Model T example. Modern life may lose a little bit of complexity and become "simpler". Simpler is not simple.

Granted...... So what? Whats your point? How does that refute my argument?

You misused the "Life can get simpler" fact in your earlier argument.

Yes life can get simpler, NS sometimes favors simplicity, sometimes it favors "saying the same" and sometimes it favors becoming more complex

If this is true today why wouldn't it be true 4B years ago?...... If staying simple is beneficial in some enviroments today, why would things be different 4B years ago?...... If you don't explicitly disagree with this particular point, I will asume that you grant it

Your argument was refuted, even though you do not understand it. Like all creationists you could not take into the fact that it is not just variation that drives evolution. Or just natural selection. It is natural selection and variation together that drive evolution.

Yes that stuff in red letters is true so what? How does that refute my argument?

]The earliest of life was extremely simple. It had no means of propulsion, no means of defense. All that it could do was to use chemical that already existed.

And my suggestion is that in some enviroments that simplicity would have been an advantage (or perhaps selectively neutral) agree?

If you don't explicitly disagree with this particular point, I will asume that you grant it

]Do you recognize the fact that the line between "life" and "not life" is very fuzzy?

Granted so what,? how does this refute my argument?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Granted...... So what? Whats your point? How does that refute my argument?





Yes life can get simpler, NS sometimes favors simplicity, sometimes it favors "saying the same" and sometimes it favors becoming more complex

If this is true today why wouldn't it be true 4B years ago?...... If staying simple is beneficial in some enviroments today, why would things be different 4B years ago?...... If you don't explicitly disagree with this particular point, I will asume that you grant it




Yes that stuff in red letters is true so what? How does that refute my argument?



And my suggestion is that in some enviroments that simplicity would have been an advantage (or perhaps selectively neutral) agree?

If you don't explicitly disagree with this particular point, I will asume that you grant it


Granted so what,? how does this refute my argument?

Sigh, back to your failed arguments. Oh well.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

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

There is and the very article you linked to supposedly support the opposite claim, explains exactly that.

A change in the environment (oxidation event or something else) is not an entirely convincing explanation

It's part of it. Changes which make the habitat of an organism more complex, inevitably leads to a rise in complexity. 10 divers threats need more complex defense mechanisms to guard against as opposed to one simple threat.

But is better than the alternatives, panspermia, aliens, god, tornado junk yard, etc

I don't even see how this is an "alternative" to anything.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

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

And we do - "simple" relative to the more complex extant life.

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

Practically all life is as simple as it could be for the specific niches it inhabits. This is the crucial point you continue to miss.

 

[night912]

I am saying if we started with model T all over the world we would expect to have something as simple as a model T in some enviroments.....

Always expect the unexpected.

Why? Because atleast in some enviroments an increas in complexity wouldn't be selected.(in the long term)

Sorry, but special pleading won't evolve your flawed argument into one that is true.

Evolution doesn't recognize complexity and simplicity, that's only a human concept. If organisms failed to evolve and couldn't survive the change of the environment, they go extinct.

 

[leroy]

It's part of it. Changes which make the habitat of an organism more complex, inevitably leads to a rise in complexity.

Not granted, can you provide a source?

 

[leroy]

Practically all life is as simple as it could be for the specific niches it inhabits. This is the crucial point you continue to miss.

Its not that I am missing the point...... Its just that you expect me to accept the assertion just because you say so..... Please provide a source

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

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

Modern organisms already have evolved the complex machinery to deal with various threats and which can be, and are, "repurposed" to deal with new or additional threats.

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

And they necessarily would have acquired that protein in the past for some reason.

So why assuming that things where different in the past?

Because they were different in the past.
First life didn't already have an evolved set of such biological machinery.
They had to acquire it.

Why not? Sometimes being simple is the best defense

"simple" in context of first life is more like "fragile and naked" in terms of defenses.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

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

Complexity hasn't exactly been increasing all that much since the cambrian.
You seem to forget that the cambrian already had multi-cellular eukaryote life. one-cellular life that had already been evolving for some 3 billion years.

The surge in complexity happened way before that.
First life would have gotten relatively complex rather quickly, after which that trend would have slowed down and eventually stabilized somewhat.

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

Not "some". All models do.
I don't know of a single model that doesn't state life is more complex today then it was in the ancient past accross the board. Your unsupported premise notwithstanding (eventhough that's just a claim, not a model ).

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

They actually do. But for some reason you tend to ignore those parts. It's even explained in the very wikipedia article you cited in a failed effort to support your premise, as I pointed out.....

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

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)

That's not what I'm saying.

What I am saying, is that life would have required a minimum of biological machinery to deal with these issues. A minimum that necessarily would have to be more complex then life forms that do not have such machinery, like first life.

I'm not even claiming that the mechanism to defend against oxygen must be "complex" or whatever.
But it is pretty obvious that a simple lifeform WITH the biological machinery that defends against that (however complex or not it might be), will be a more complex organism then one that does NOT have such biological machinery.

First life would not have had such machinery.

It's not rocket science.
Life that has defenses, however simple they might be, is going to be more complex then life that has no defenses..............

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

First of all, it's not necessarily "often".
Secondly, this is true for organisms that are already complex.

The simpler the organism, the less likely it is going to succesfully mount a defense against a new threat by becoming even more simple.

And if you are that simple that you simple don't have the required biological machinery to set up a defense against anything, then you necessarily aren't going to set up a defense unless you acquire such machinery which allows you to do so.

Why? Why is it unreasonable?

I've been trying to explain it to you for several posts now, but it seems it's the same story as usual. In one ear and out the other, followed by a repeat of the question which was just answered and dismissed with but a handwave or just plain ignored.

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

No. I also can't quote a single physicist who found it necessary to write in a report that the idea that hammers will shoot into space when you drop them on earth 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)

Compared to what? See, "simple" and "complex" are rather relative terms. I'm not aware of any "unit" or "standard" to compare it to to give the terms meaning beyond subjective opinion.

So, I will answer this question from the various angles that I think are relevant.

From the perspective a complex multi-cellular eukaryote with the evolved cognitive ability that allows for pondering this question, I'ld say that I think it is quite likely that if we encounter life on another planet, that that life would be simple. Simple in the sense of that it seems likely that that life wouldn't be multi-cellular (using earth as a reference - most life on this planet isn't multi-cellular and for most of earth's history, multi-cellular life didn't exist).

From the perspective of the simplest of "organisms" that one would expect "first life" to look like, I'ld say that life on another planet would almost certainly be complex. If it weren't, I would expect that said life on that other planet was very young and we happened to stumble across right at the moment (*geological time*-moment) that abiogenesis just occurred, give or take a few hundred thousand years.

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

No in terms of complexity, I'ld expect it to be rather comparable to the range of complexity we currently find on this planet in unicellular organisms.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Yes that is my point


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

That's strange, I understood exactly what he meant to say. It's quite clear actually why he disagrees.
It's not "trolling" and it is very much addressing the argument.

To "become simple" is very different then to "become simpler"

Your "argument" requires things to "become simple" or maybe to "return to simple".
But that doesn't happen in the world. What happens is that, at times, certain things become "simpler" - and the end product is still very complex.

This ties into what I have been trying to make clear to you: first simple life, will quickly rise to a certain level of complexity by acquiring all the biological machinery which allows it to be a dynamic, easily adaptable, thing. Once it is that level of complex, evolution will at times raise its complexity and then make it simpler again and on and on.

But it will never make it return to the "simplicity" that it once was, before it acquired all that biological machinery that allows it to be a dynamic easily adaptable organism.

so yeas, that's what @Subduction Zone was saying:
- to become "simple" does not happen.
- to become "simpler" does.
- to become "more complex" also does (off course)

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Not granted, can you provide a source?

My source is logic.

Given is organism A. A is a member of generation 0. It is naked and fragile and has zero defense against oxygen, nore does it have the necessary biological machinery to mount such defenses.

For it to survive a presence of oxygen, it is necessarily going to have to acquire additional traits

Option 1: it acquires these additional traits, survives and becomes more complex in the process
Option 2: it dies.


Predators with locomotion invade the territory. Organism A is now a prey. It requires defenses against these predators.

Several options exist:
- it acquires locomotion, so that it can flee
- it acquires means of camouflage, so that it can't be detected by the predators
- it acquires a deterrent, like for example a chemical it can release, which makes the predator flee or mislead it or whatever
- ...


Each one of these options results in a rise in complexity.
Becoming simpler is not really an option, as all its subsystems are crucial for its survival (metabolism, defense against oxygen and whatnot).


See?

The thing about being the "simplest" lifeform, means that there is only one evolutionary path on the ladder of complexity, and that is: up.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Its not that I am missing the point...... Its just that you expect me to accept the assertion just because you say so..... Please provide a source

Read the article you provided yourself in an attempt to support your premise.
It actually doesn't support it and also explains why.

 

[leroy]

[QUOTE="TagliatelliMonster, post: 6995008, member: 65929"

"simple" in context of first life is more like "fragile and naked" in terms of defenses.[/QUOTE]

@TagliatelliMonster "simple" in context of first life is more like "fragile and naked" in terms of defenses.

Yes but simple also means “small, consumes less energy, flexible, etc.” there are also potential advantages and would be beneficial and selected in some environments