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.