Discussing the Origin of Life

[Milton Platt]

Well, technically we haven't, but we have two probes that are technically considered to have left the solar system ( Outside the heliosphere )

Maybe " rare " isn't the best term to use. In between the Kardashev scale and the Fermi paradox there are quite a few possible scenarios

My own belief is that humans or humanoids at various evolutionary stages are possibly common in the universe, but perhaps very limited in contact with each other due to constraints of physics

In such, many " earths " could have come and gone, countless civilizations unaware of the existence of others, but still wondering

*shrugs*

It very well could be rare. I'm not saying that isn't a possibility, given both the complexity and the underlying requirements for life to arise. I'm just saying we don't have enough information to speculate on how much life may or may not be out there. The shear number of possible planets in the universe makes it extremely probable.....how frequent is another thing.

 

[leroy]

And such experiments have been done, reproducing different possible environments, Each generated organic molecules, components of life, self generating structures, &c. The experiments support the theory.
Just because a few early experiments didn't generate complex, living, reproducing life isn't evidence the theory's wrong.

Recent experiments have failed to produce life too…. So what is your point?.. why isn’t your claim “life can come from none life” as invalid as the claim “you can get gold from Lead + chemical reactions, as ancient alchemists used to claim?

This is an unsupported assertion, and evidence militates against it

Well show me your evidence, where is your evidence that life can come from none life through chemical reactions?......... explain how is that evidence testable and falsifiable

Chemistry has no bias at all, yet it does what it does all unintended and undirected

.

Granted, and creating life from non life or creating gold from lead, happened to be exambples of things that chemistry cant do…….. perhaps in another universe with different laws things would be different, but here, it seems to be the case that life cant come from none life through chemical reactions.

The life permitting patterns are, themselves, self generating and self reproducing. The ones that aren't don't persist, they aren't selected for.

Ok, so how do you get a self-reproducing “thing” from an organic soup + chemical reactions?

I start with the testable observation that life exists where once it did not. I see two possible explanations: It occurred naturally, by ordinary forces like chemistry and physics, or it was seeded from elsewhere -- which only moves the venue.

Well that is very telling, you are not even considering ID as an explanation…….why not considering ALLLLLL the possible explanations a priori and then see which is the best one? Why rejecting ID by default?

However it is still a fact that you are starting with the conclusion………… you “know” a priori that life had a natural origin….. it is ironic that you are guilty of the same fallacy that YEC

50% / 50% chance? How did you get that?

It is not a claim it is a suggestion……. Why can’t we start with “agnosticism” perhaps there is a designer perhaps not (50%-50% chance)

. Medical technology? Genetic technology?

Ok can you give an example of medical or genetic technology that wordks under the assumption that life can come from non life? (such that this technology would be impossible without this assumption)

How does entropy prevent it? It seems unlikely, inasmuch as we can see it. Why do actual chemists and physicists, who understand entropy, not agree with you?

All chemists agree with me, there are entropy problems, they are all working very hard to solve this problem, because that would give them a Nobel price……..(I am talking about entropy as it relates to statistical mechanics)……… just to quote a simple example, you need homochirality in the building blocks of life, while statistical mechanics favors a mixture of 50% left hand and 50% right hand.

But natural selection does just that -- easily.

You can’t have natural selection if you don’t have life.

Eg: I take 1000 dice and roll them. Statistically, one in six will probably be sixes. I take these and set them aside, and roll the remaining ~834. I set the sixes aside again and repeat with ~695....
You see where this is going. It's only going to take a comparatively few generations to have all sixes.
That's why they call it natural selection.

Yes, once you have life (or self-replicating molecules) you can do that……… but how do you get life (or self-replicating molecules ) in the first place?

An intelligent designer can also pick all the sixes in a set of dices…. And given that there was no “natural selection” before life (or self replicating molecules) design seems to be the only alternative……. Feel free to provide a better alternative

* And equally possible that it was designed by interdimentional mice, or engineering-faeries. Why God?

Granted, it doesn’t have to be God, any intelligent designer that predates life in this planet could be the intelligent designer…..




*

4.6B years ago the physics, chemistry, natural laws and constants were already in place. They didn't need the God to generate life at that point.

Sure, if you could show that there is a natural mechanism that can create life from none life, then God (or any other designer) would be unnecessary and unparsimonious.


---------

So in short

1 The existence of a designer is at least possible (unless you provide conclusive evidence against a designer)

2 If a designer existed before life in this planet, he could have create life , if he wills it.

3 There are no naturalistic altenratives…..

1,2, and 3 seem uncontrovertailly true for me, but feel free to disprove any of these 3 points.

But I´ll tell you what…… you tell me what is your best hypothesis on how life started, and then explain why is that hypothesis better than design.

 

[metis]

Ok, so how do you get a self-reproducing “thing” from an organic soup + chemical reactions?

One theory that could possibly explain this is because of "replicating molecules", namely molecules that tend to split along certain lines, like with crystals. Did that really happen and did it involve them? I haven't a clue.

 

[Valjean]

Recent experiments have failed to produce life too…. So what is your point?.. why isn’t your claim “life can come from none life” as invalid as the claim “you can get gold from Lead + chemical reactions, as ancient alchemists used to claim?

"Life comes from life" doesn't refer to abiogenesis, never did. You misunderstand it.
"Life comes from life" violates the Christian doctrine of magic poofing.
So because science has not yet created life the whole idea is impossible? Couldn't the same have been said a week before every scientific discovery?

Well show me your evidence, where is your evidence that life can come from none life through chemical reactions?......... explain how is that evidence testable and falsifiable

Everything we've ever looked into has been found to have a natural explanation. No evidence of a God, or magic, has ever been found.
"God" is an extraordinary claim, without need or evidence. Apparently made up from whole cloth for psychological reasons.
I'd say yours is the claim needing validation.

Granted, and creating life from non life or creating gold from lead, happened to be exambples of things that chemistry cant do…….. perhaps in another universe with different laws things would be different, but here, it seems to be the case that life cant come from none life through chemical reactions.

Why do you say chemistry can't do this? Just because it's not yet been observed? Give me a concrete reason.

You expect science to demonstrate hypothetical processes on demand?
Some process take time, some take cutting edge technology. Few processes worked the first times they were tried. How many tries did Edison go through before he made a usable incandescent light bulb?

Ok, so how do you get a self-reproducing “thing” from an organic soup + chemical reactions?

We've gone over this before; provided simple explanations, links and videos. Did you miss all this?
If this is a serious question it's easy to research online, but don't dismiss it as impossible if the science is too complex for you.
Google Chemical Evolution or Abiogenesis.

Well that is very telling, you are not even considering ID as an explanation…….why not considering ALLLLLL the possible explanations a priori and then see which is the best one? Why rejecting ID by default?

ID is not an explanation. It doesn't even pretend to be. It's an assertion of agency. It proposes no explanation of mechanism, unless it be magic.
ID is not considered because asserts things and events that violate everything we know or have observed; things that would require a magical suspension of the laws of physics, things no-one's ever seen and that wouldn't be believed were they reported in today's paper, things that are already explainable by familiar, observable mechanisms.

We don't consider a magical, invisible God for the same reason we don't consider elves or space mice or invisible unicorns. There's no reason or need to consider them.

 

[Valjean]

It is not a claim it is a suggestion……. Why can’t we start with “agnosticism” perhaps there is a designer perhaps not (50%-50% chance)

Scientists are agnostic. They're always ready to change their minds if evidence suggests a new perspective. But some lines of research are currently not worth pursuing, especially if there is no way to research the hypothesis or detect the hypothetical creator.
There are many very promising avenues of research. Why pursue an unevidenced one that promises no useful new data?

"50%--50%?" For something so massively improbable, something that's left no indication that there's even anything to research? Keep in mind that pandimentional space mice, Cthulu, the Flying Spaghetti Monster or a million other as yet unevidenced creators are equally probable?

Ok can you give an example of medical or genetic technology that wordks under the assumption that life can come from non life? (such that this technology would be impossible without this assumption)

Medical and genetic technology requires an intact metabolism or genetics use. We do use the mechanisms of genetics and evolution, but medical or genetic technology requires an intact metabolism and genetics.

All chemists agree with me, there are entropy problems, they are all working very hard to solve this problem, because that would give them a Nobel price……..(I am talking about entropy as it relates to statistical mechanics)……… just to quote a simple example, you need homochirality in the building blocks of life, while statistical mechanics favors a mixture of 50% left hand and 50% right hand.

I'm skeptical, and so, I believe, are most scientists.
Homochirality? Why? Some organic chemicals are L-chiral, some R-chiral, what's your point? You've lost me.

You can’t have natural selection if you don’t have life.

My dice analogy was an analogy, not an example of actual, biological natural selection.

Yes, once you have life (or self-replicating molecules) you can do that……… but how do you get life (or self-replicating molecules ) in the first place?

You keep asking this, but seem uninterested in actually researching it or reading links.

An intelligent designer can also pick all the sixes in a set of dices…. And given that there was no “natural selection” before life (or self replicating molecules) design seems to be the only alternative……. Feel free to provide a better alternative

An intelligent designer wouldn't need multiple throws. He could roll all sixes every time, but we don't see this actually occurring in Nature.
The better alternative would be ordinary chemical evolution.
Chemistry can create all sorts of things, if the right atoms and molecules are put together under the right conditions. Magic poofing, on the other hand, is an entirely unknown and never observed process.

Granted, it doesn’t have to be God, any intelligent designer that predates life in this planet could be the intelligent designer…..

Could be, but there's no evidence for one, no reason to look for one and, 'theoretically' no way to test and measure one should it be found.
Then there is the question of mechanism...

Sure, if you could show that there is a natural mechanism that can create life from none life, then God (or any other designer) would be unnecessary and unparsimonious.

It's an active field of research. Be patient, but remember, lack of success is not evidence of intentional, magical creation

1 The existence of a designer is at least possible (unless you provide conclusive evidence against a designer)

Exactly as possible as trolls, faeries or the FSM; that is, highly unlikely. There is no reason to seriously entertain this possibility.

2 If a designer existed before life in this planet, he could have create life , if he wills it.

So could a swarm of garden faeries.
Why are you so wedded to magic, when a natural alternative is so much more probable?

3 There are no naturalistic altenratives…..

WHAT! The entire scientific community is delusional and just wasting its time? It should be researching magic?

But I´ll tell you what…… you tell me what is your best hypothesis on how life started, and then explain why is that hypothesis better than design.

Abiogenesis FAQs: The Origins of Life
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenesis[/quote]

 

[metis]

The simple fact remains that we simply do not know what was the first life form now how it started out as such in regards to causation. Abiogenesis is a scientific hypothesis, whereas divine creation is not. The reason is that there has to be some supporting evidence that A could possibly cause B in order to be a scientific hypothesis, but in the case of divine creation, we can't establish that A (a deity or deities) actually exist(s).

 

[leroy]

50%--50%?" For something so massively improbable, something that's left no indication that there's even anything to research? Keep in mind that pandimentional space mice, Cthulu, the Flying Spaghetti Monster or a million other as yet unevidenced creators are equally probable?

I WILL answer to the rest of your comments, but first I would like some clarification……….¿under what basis do you affirm that the existence of an intelligent designer (of any kind) that predates life in this planet is soooo massively improbable? How do you measure probabilities? …. What is so improbable about the existence of a non human intelligence (Alien Or God or something else) that lived 4.6B years ago?........... there would be a day where human designers will be capable of creating life (or self-replicating molecules) so what is so improbable about the idea that some other intelligence did it a few billion years ago?

Do you have a good positive and conclusive argument against the existence of a designer if not, then why not adopting agnosticism and an initial probability of 50% 50%

 

[sayak83]

Much of the evolution and creation debate devolves into "what about the origin of life" question despite the fact that evolutionary biology only explains the diversification of life once it has gained a foothold on earth. The field of natural origin of life (abiogenesis) is still in its infancy and there have been some good threads on it already. Here I would present a bit of an overview kind of discussion on where science is on this and what advances and challenges remain.
The basic concept of abiogenesis can be summarized using the figure below (book: the emergence of life 2nd ed.)
View attachment 42119

1) We initially have a stage if chemical evolution, when simple organic molecules present in early earth increased in complexity through chemical evolution to the prebiotic building blocks of life (bases, sugars, amino acids etc.) The fact that this can happen on early earth has been plausibly demonstrated by lots of research into chemical evolution. They have been covered in my earlier thread. LINK
2) The next phase goes into what is called molecular evolution where the building blocks of the eventually complex nucleic acids, bases, sugars, lipids etc. come together (maybe in proto cellular compartments) and engage in molecular evolution to create the complex macromolecules that enter into self-sustaining reactions that kick start life. Here we need to have the emergence of metabolic networks (reaction networks that interconnect and generate these macromolecules cyclically), the genetic code and the compartments that keep the important components of the reaction network together. This part has proven more difficult and I will focus more here, in this 2nd crucial phase to the transition to life.

One question that often comes up here is how can complexity spontaneously arises from simplicity when that would mean that the entropy of the system decreases? Of course, it happens all the time...for example during winter, the frozen ice crystals are much more complex in their structure than the liquid water it comes from. It is important to know that the science of thermodynamics does not say that entropy (S) cannot decrease in a spontaneous natural process. In thermodynamics we use a term called free energy (G) and what thermodynamics actually says is that: For any spontaneous process, the free energy of a system must decrease from its initial value at the beginning of that process. One defines free energy as:
Free Energy (G) = Thermal Energy (H) - Temperature*Entropy(S).
Clearly, if other terms remain constant and the entropy rises, then the Free Energy will fall making the process spontaneous. But note that entropy can decrease (system becomes more complex and ordered) and still the free energy can decrease if the decrease in thermal energy (H) is greater than the fall in entropy. This is precisely what happens when liquid water freezes, it releases a lot of heat into the surrounding leading to a fall in its thermal energy. This is just one of many many ways that the laws of thermodynamics will allow a system to decrease its entropy in a spontaneous fashion. Thus, from physical law point of view, we have no concern. It is understanding the molecular processes that led to the emergence of life like systems from the bio-molecular building blocks that will concern us. More on this in the next post.

Comments, thoughts? Welcome!

One phenomena that is increasingly thought to be central to the development of complex polymeric chains of early RNA and amino acids is wet-dry cycles. Imagine a volcanic island where small pools of water collect and repeatedly evaporate away only to be filled again by rainfall, or influx of sea water. These may be very small pool, a few droplets only on rock crannies. The important thing is that the early organic molecules accumulated in the water has a chance to concentrate during the drying cycle while once again becoming free to migrate to other places during the wetting cycle. This process has been shown to enhance polymerization in the labs, with the formation of the kinds of 20-40 chain length polymers that are considered to be able to begin the RNA/peptide based catalytic cycles essential to the origin of first living things.

A paper is linked as reference
Wet-dry cycles enable the parallel origin of canonical and non-canonical nucleosides by continuous synthesis | Nature Communications

Herein, we report a robust synthetic pathway, which is purely based on fluctuations of physicochemical parameters such as pH, concentration, and temperature, driven by wet–dry cycles. These fluctuations enable the direct enrichment or purification of all reaction intermediates that are directly used for the next synthetic steps. As such, a continuous synthesis is established. Our results show that RNA building blocks can indeed be formed in a prebiotically plausible geochemical environment without sophisticated isolation and purification procedures. The chemical scenario presented here supports the hypothesis that life may have originated in a hydrothermal milieu on land rather than in a deep sea environment.

The formation of protein precursors, the polypeptides are also accelerated by wet dry cycles. This can be seen in the article below,
Finding the origins of life in a drying puddle

Research reported July 15 in the journal Angewandte Chemie International Edition demonstrates that important molecules of contemporary life, known as polypeptides, can be formed simply by mixing amino and hydroxy acids -- which are believed to have existed together on the early Earth -- then subjecting them to cycles of wet and dry conditions. This simple process, which could have taken place in a puddle drying out in the sun and then reforming with the next rain, works because chemical bonds formed by one compound make bonds easier to form with the other.

Thus we see that it is indeed possible for large biomolecules to form in natural environments in early earth and hydrothermal systems on land where organic rich puddles undergo repeated wet and dry cycles is an ideal place where both the initial building blocks and the later macromolecules can form.

One last question is what ensures that only those proteins and peptides form that are found in living things today and not the many many other types. The experiments were done by heating and drying a water solution containing both biological and other types of amino acids blocks and it was found that biological peptides formed over other peptides far more frequently, seven times more frequetly in fact. This the hot dry and cold wet cycles are able to naturally explain why life molecules only have 20 amino acid blocks and not the 50-60 other types.
All Life on Earth is Made up of the Same 20 Amino Acids. Scientist Now Think They Know Why

In short, the experiment suggests that the kinds of amino acids used in proteins are more likely to link up together because they react together more efficiently and have few inefficient side reactions. It also lends additional credibility to the theory that most biological polymers formed in wet and dry cycles, which is something that CCT researchers have been arguing for years.

 

[Valjean]

I WILL answer to the rest of your comments, but first I would like some clarification……….¿under what basis do you affirm that the existence of an intelligent designer (of any kind) that predates life in this planet is soooo massively improbable? How do you measure probabilities? …. What is so improbable about the existence of a non human intelligence (Alien Or God or something else) that lived 4.6B years ago?........... there would be a day where human designers will be capable of creating life (or self-replicating molecules) so what is so improbable about the idea that some other intelligence did it a few billion years ago?

Do you have a good positive and conclusive argument against the existence of a designer if not, then why not adopting agnosticism and an initial probability of 50% 50%

The God hypothesis answers no questions. It clarifies nothing. It is an unneeded cog or a diversion. It's a fantasy that may have social or psychological utility, but which contributes nothing to the actual question of cosmogeny. "Goddidit" is an entirely unneeded hypotheses just pulled out of someone's hat.

Why is there a 50-50 chance? -- that's the real question. Why was the hypothesis dreamed up at all? What questions does it answer? What knowledge gap does it fill?

If there's a 50-50 chance for God, wouldn't there be a 50-50 chance for any extraneous hypothesis? Human cultures have dreamed up thousands of folkloric hypotheses about all sorts of phenomena. Do they all have a 50-50 chance of being right -- even when they're pure speculation and based on no evidence whatever?

There is a hierarchy of "possible." Some 'possibilities' clarify things, they answer questions or fill gaps in knowledge, but if these are based on pure speculation, with no evidentiary backing I'd assign them a probability way below 50-50.

Science investigates probability. It examines the evidence backing up various hypotheses. It finds no evidence backing up the God hypothesis, so assigns it a very low probability.

 

[leroy]

The God hypothesis answers no questions. It clarifies nothing. It is an unneeded cog or a diversion. It's a fantasy that may have social or psychological utility, but which contributes nothing to the actual question of cosmogeny. "Goddidit" is an entirely unneeded hypotheses just pulled out of someone's hat.

Why is there a 50-50 chance? -- that's the real question. Why was the hypothesis dreamed up at all? What questions does it answer? What knowledge gap does it fill?

If there's a 50-50 chance for God, wouldn't there be a 50-50 chance for any extraneous hypothesis? Human cultures have dreamed up thousands of folkloric hypotheses about all sorts of phenomena. Do they all have a 50-50 chance of being right -- even when they're pure speculation and based on no evidence whatever?

There is a hierarchy of "possible." Some 'possibilities' clarify things, they answer questions or fill gaps in knowledge, but if these are based on pure speculation, with no evidentiary backing I'd assign them a probability way below 50-50.

Science investigates probability. It examines the evidence backing up various hypotheses. It finds no evidence backing up the God hypothesis, so assigns it a very low probability.

I dont think you answered to my question....... Why is the idea of a designer of any kond (God Alien or something else) so massively improbable?

If there's a 50-50 chance for God, wouldn't there be a 50-50 chance for any extraneous hypothesis?

The 50% is just the intrinsic probability........ If you have 2 hypothesis and nobody presents evidende for or agains any of these hypothesis then the "a priori" probability for each will be 50-50

If you present arguments for or agaist a hypothesis then the probabilities will shift.

In this case the hypothesis are
1 there is/was an inteligent designer (s) that predates life in this planet (ether god aliens or something else)

2 there where no such designers

So unless you present good arguments against "1" or in favor of "2" the intrinsic probability should be 50 50 for each

Given that you are aserting thst "1" is sooooo masivivley improbable you most have good and conclusive arguments against "1".... So do you have such arguments?

 

[leroy]

Medical and genetic technology requires an intact metabolism or genetics use. We do use the mechanisms of genetics and evolution, but medical or genetic technology requires an intact metabolism and genetics.

That is very interesting, but you didnt answer the question....... Can you give an example of technology that works under the asumtion that life can come from non life?


.

Homochirality? Why? Some organic chemicals are L-chiral, some R-chiral, what's your point?

That life requires homochirality and chenestry favors entropy (a 50-50%mixture of left and right handed building blocks)

Chemistry can create all sorts of things, if the right atoms and molecules are put together under the right conditions. Magic poofing, on the other hand, is an entirely unknown and never observed process.

You dont need magic to create life, soon scientists will create life in the lab without "magic".... All you neeed to create life is to organize the building blocks in the correct pattern and order (pretty much like arming a puzzle)

1 We know that inteligent designers can pick and organize things in any order that they whant

2 and the existance of a non human designer that predates life in this planet is atleast possible.

So why is ID so hard to accept?

In the other hand, based on ehat we know, chemestry doesn't organize stuff in the correct order..... If you put the building blocks + energy+ chemical reactions you wont have life (self replicating molecule)

For the same reason you wont have an airplain from a junk yard...... Chemicsl reactions dont favor the drsired order and pattern.

Then there is the question of mechanism...
It's an active field of research. Be patient

Be patient, some day scientists will disvover a way by which all humans descended from a single couple 6,000 years ago (adam en eve)...... If a YEC makes that claim..... Would you accept that as a valid answer? (i assume no) so why should i accept your answer of "we dont know but some day science will find an answer that confirms my own personal world view" ?


,

So could a swarm of garden faeries.
Why are you so wedded to magic, when a natural alternative is so much more probable?

How do you measure probabilities? Why is nature more probable?

Abiogenesis FAQs: The Origins of Life
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenesis[/quote]

Stop quoting random and irrelevant links and answer to my request...... Provide the best naturalistic explanation for the origin of life, and explsin why is it better than inteligent design

 

[tayla]

One question that often comes up here is how can complexity spontaneously arises from simplicity when that would mean that the entropy of the system decreases?

When I drop my dog's leash into the box on the floor, it all-too-often is tangled when I take it out the next time. Weird. Is there an intelligent designer doing this? Why would he care about designing such stupid structures as knots in dog leashes?

 

[shunyadragon]

That is very interesting, but you didn't answer the question....... Can you give an example of technology that works under the assumtion that life can come from non life?

The scientific evidence for life's origins from non-life is based on the basics of organic chemistry, and the evidence the existence of the basic organic chemicals existing in nature apart from life, and the intermediate products between no life complex organic chemicals existing in nature. I have a thread devoted to the evidence for natural abiogenesis.

The technology of being able to make life's organic chemistry from non-life chemicals by developing natural conditions which life can form demonstrates the possibility of life from non-life chemicals

That life requires homochirality and chemistry favors entropy (a 50-50%mixture of left and right handed building blocks)

It has been demonstrated that homochiriality can form naturally. Several scientific articles that demonstrate this have been posted in the abiogenesis support this. There is more than enough energy in the natural environments for homochurality to form and entropy is not a problem.

You dont need magic to create life, soon scientists will create life in the lab without "magic".... All you need to create life is to organize the building blocks in the correct pattern and order (pretty much like arming a puzzle) .

Scientists model natural environments that are known to occur it demonstrate life to develop from non-life. They do not 'intentionally put the pieces together in the correct pattern.

1 We know that intelligent designers can pick and organize things in any order that they want.

Yes humans do it all the time.

2 and the existence of a non human designer that predates life in this planet is at least possible.

Yes, it is possible.

So why is ID so hard to accept?

. . . because there is no scientific hypothesis nor objective evidence for ID that cannot be explianed to be the result of natural processes.

In the other hand, based on what we know, chemestry doesn't organize stuff in the correct order..... If you put the building blocks + energy+ chemical reactions you wont have life (self replicating molecule)

We do not know that.

For the same reason you wont have an airplane from a junk yard...... Chemical reactions don't favor the desired order and pattern. [/quote]

It has been demonstrated that chemical reactions do noturally organize into the basic life molecules found throughout our solar system, one earth and form under natural processes in the lab.

Be patient, some day scientists will discover a way by which all humans descended from a single couple 6,000 years ago (adam en eve)...... If a YEC makes that claim..... Would you accept that as a valid answer? (i assume no) so why should i accept your answer of "we dont know but some day science will find an answer that confirms my own personal world view" ?

Wishful thinking with no evidence from a speculative religious agenda.

How do you measure probabilities? Why is nature more probable?

. . . because natural laws and natural processes are the only scientific explanation based on the objective verifiable evidence.

Stop quoting random and irrelevant links and answer to my request...... Provide the best naturalistic explanation for the origin of life, and explanation why is it better than intelligent design

Devoted a whole thread maybe two to answer your request. There are no falsifiably hypothesis not evidence that could support ID.

 

[leroy]

. . . because natural laws and natural processes are the only scientific explanation based on the objective verifiable evidence..

That comment presupposes that there is a scientific explanation for the origin of life……….care to explain what explanation is that?

Devoted a whole thread maybe two to answer your request. There are no falsifiably hypothesis not evidence that could support ID

Sure ID is falsifiable

Premise 1 Specified complexity can only come from a mind

Premise 2 Life has the artribute of specified complexity (talking about the first living thing )

Therefore Life came from a mind

*
With life I simply mean any self-replicating organic thing (even if it is not life in the strict sense of the word)



Each of the premises is testable and falsifiable (at least in principle) perhaps we don’t have enough technology today to test them with 100% accuracy, but there is nothing unfalsifiable about this argument, all you have to do is show that any of the premises is wrong.

Now........ how can your “nature did it” hypothesis be falsified……….please provide your premises...... the conclusion “nature did it” most follow from your prmises..

 

[shunyadragon]

That comment presupposes that there is a scientific explanation for the origin of life……….care to explain what explanation is that?

Go to school. you have absolutely no background in science.

Your true ID agenda has come out in spades. You do not accept the natural science of evolution.

Sure ID is falsifiable

Premise 1 Specified complexity can only come from a mind

Premise 2 Life has the artribute of specified complexity (talking about the first living thing )

Therefore Life came from a mind

This does not represent a falsifiable hypothesis. Specified complexity has not been demonstrated to not come about naturally. In fact all the examples proposed by the Discovery Institute have been shown to be able to come about by natural processes as well as the steps of the process are found in nature.

The falsifiable hypothesis would have to demonstrate that specified complexity could not come about naturally.

*
With life I simply mean any self-replicating organic thing (even if it is not life in the strict sense of the word)

Each of the premises is testable and falsifiable (at least in principle) perhaps we don’t have enough technology today to test them with 100% accuracy, but there is nothing unfalsifiable about this argument, all you have to do is show that any of the premises is wrong.

The premises are wrong because they cannot falsify that specified complexity could not come about naturally. If what you say is so easy please cite peer reviewed specific research that presents a hypothesis to support ID. The scientists at the Discovery Institute have at present failed to present a falsifiable case.

As usual still waiting.

Now........ how can your “nature did it” hypothesis be falsified……….please provide your premises...... the conclusion “nature did it” most follow from your prmises..

Tens of thousands of peer reviewed research articles over recent history that have falsified the consistency and predictability of the objective verifiable to support science of evolution.

You have presented nothing, but vague arguing from ignorance with no evidence.

 

[leroy]

Go to school. you have absolutely no background in science.

Your true ID agenda has come out in spades. You do not accept the natural science of evolution.

Avoiding answers and making personal attacks…. Is this some sort of tactic to “win” a debate or is this simply the way you are?

This does not represent a falsifiable hypothesis. Specified complexity has not been demonstrated to not come about naturally. In fact all the examples proposed by the Discovery Institute have been shown to be able to come about by natural processes as well as the steps of the process are found in nature.

So which one is it?

1 the hypothesis is not falsifiable

2 the hypothesis has been falsified

Tens of thousands of peer reviewed research articles over recent history that have falsified the consistency and predictability of the objective verifiable to support science of evolution.

You have presented nothing, but vague arguing from ignorance with no evidence.

Once again, what would falsify your “nature did it” claim?

 

[shunyadragon]

Avoiding answers and making personal attacks…. Is this some sort of tactic to “win” a debate or is this simply the way you are?

IT is a fact you lack the minimal education to even address the subject of the science of evolution.

So which one is it?

1 the hypothesis is not falsifiable

2 the hypothesis has been falsified

The hypothesis for Intelligent Design is not falsifiable. All the publications of the Discovery Institute failed to present a falsifiable hypothesis.

Once again, what would falsify your “nature did it” claim?

150 years+ of scientific research and tens of thousands of peer reviewed academic publications that have demonstrated the predictability and consistency of the objective verifiable evidence.

 

[leroy]

IT is a fact you lack the minimal education to even address the subject of the science of evolution.

Even if true, that is not a good excuse for not answering a question.

The hypothesis for Intelligent Design is not falsifiable. All the publications of the Discovery Institute failed to present a falsifiable hypothesis.

Well I presented a falsifiable argument. All you have to do to falsify the argument is ether;

1 Show an example of something that has the attribute of Specified Complexity and that was not caused by a designer

2 Show that life doesn’t have the attribute of SC (talking about the first living thing)

I would accept that today we don’t have the technology to test and falsify any of these 2 pints, but in principle these are falsifiable………..any disagreement from your part?

150 years+ of scientific research and tens of thousands of peer reviewed academic publications that have demonstrated the predictability and consistency of the objective verifiable evidence.

Ok, sooooooooooo what would falsify your nature did it claim? I am not asking you if the claim is supported by research or not, I am asking you what would falsify your “nature did it” claim.

For example I woudl say that the best expalnation for this cave in Antartica is "natrue did it"
But I have a clear idea on what would convince me that the “nature did it” is wrong….so my nature did it claim is falsifiable ……. So What would falsify your Nature did it claim?

 

[shunyadragon]

Even if true, that is not a good excuse for not answering a question.

Answered all meaningful questions the relate to the science of evolution

Well I presented a falsifiable argument. All you have to do to falsify the argument is ether;

1 Show an example of something that has the attribute of Specified Complexity and that was not caused by a designer

2 Show that life doesn’t have the attribute of SC (talking about the first living thing)

I would accept that today we don’t have the technology to test and falsify any of these 2 pints, but in principle these are falsifiable………..any disagreement from your part?

No you did not present a falsifiable hypothesis based on Methodological Naturalism. All the examples of specified complexity provided by the Discovery Institute have been demonstrated to form by natural processes.

Ok, sooooooooooo what would falsify your nature did it claim? I am not asking you if the claim is supported by research or not, I am asking you what would falsify your “nature did it” claim.

The objective verifiable physical evidence that is consistent and predictable, and confirms the predictions of the hypothesis.

For example I would say that the best explanation for this cave in Antartica is "natrue did it"
But I have a clear idea on what would convince me that the “nature did it” is wrong….so my nature did it claim is falsifiable ……. So What would falsify your Nature did it claim?

Not a meaningful coherent example. You have not presented a falsifiable hypothesis based on objective verifiable evidence that has a 'positive claim' concerning Intelligent Design, and conclude that a natural explanation is not possible.

What specific positive 'objective verifiable physical evidence' do you have to offer?

 

[leroy]

Answered all meaningful questions the relate to the science of evolution

Which is appreciated, but given that this thread is not about evolution but rather about the origin of life..... It would be even more appreciated if you also answer to questions related to the origin of life..

No you did not present a falsifiable hypothesis based on Methodological Naturalism

.
Well justify your asertion...... Why not?

The objective verifiable physical evidence that is consistent and predictable, and confirms the predictions of the hypothesis

.
Again what would falsify your nature did it claim


.

You have not presented a falsifiable hypothesis based on objective verifiable evidence that has a 'positive claim' concerning Intelligent Design, and conclude that a natural explanation is not possible.

Yes that is exactly what i did, (or atleast tried to do)


Premise 1 Specified complexity can only come from a mind

Premise 2 Life has the artribute of specified complexity (talking about the first living thing )

Therefore Life came from a mind

If you what to afirm that the premises are not falsifiable then you have to justify your claim

What specific positive 'objective verifiable physical evidence' do you have to offer?

Once you agree that the argument above is logically coherent and falsifiable, we can move on and talk about the specific evidence.