BilliardsBall
Veteran Member
How about you tell me what you see as the biggest reason why we cannot recreate abiogenesis in the lab, or why it seems implausible? You asking me is begging the question. It's junk science.
-
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!
The Certainty of Improbability
- Thread starter Debater Slayer
- Start date
How about you tell me what you see as the biggest reason why we cannot recreate abiogenesis in the lab, or why it seems implausible? You asking me is begging the question. It's junk science.
Life came about in far far more expansive circumstances
than we can re-create in a lab. Earth had many millions
of years over millions of square miles of varied chemistries.
Still, limited experiments have so far yielded surprisingly
suggestive results, eg, organic molecules that are essential
to life (as we know it).
Note that even if life were created in a lab, it wouldn't prove
abiogenesis. It would only be evidence of the possibility.
1st, question begging doesn't work that way.
Begging the Question Fallacy — Definition and Examples - Fallacy In Logic
(My inner pedant needed to get that out of the way. I feel better now.)
2nd, it isn't "junk science" just because
a theory hasn't been extensively verified.
(There has been some verification, ie,
creating precursors to life.)
"Junk science" would be mis-applying the 2nd
Law Of Thermodynamics to claim abiogenesis
is impossible. Or making a probabilistic argument
without quantifying or even considering all the
necessary factors.
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
Why don't you try to avoid strawman arguments? Unfortunately you do not know enough to spot the strawman that you just used. And yes, your strawman argument implied an abuse of the Second Law of Thermodynamics. You were caught making an error. Perhaps you should smoke a joint. I do not partake in marijuana, but I have heard that it makes people less uptight.
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
LOL! You are in a very weak position to make any demands when you will not own up to your own errors.
Okay. Prove that abiogenesis is junk science. I want to see this.
setarcos
The hopeful or the hopeless?
I'm not sure how you would quantify the possibility of nothing ever existing. Seems that should be an option though. However it also seems that since by how we define existence something does exist and by existing, non-existence was never an option.
Anyways, I think your fundamentally misapplying probability theory to the question of a proof of God.
The probability of the universe we find ourselves in and its incredible "fine tuning" to the suitability of our and its own existence isn't proof of God nor should it be touted as proof of God. What it is though is evidence. Evidence of directed manipulation of existent things to suit a purpose.
As in all of science it is evidence of probability. The higher the probability the more likely its reflection of reality. And the fine tuning of the universe deals with very large probabilities indeed.
Nix the "must have been" element but as I've said...its evidence. Its evidence assessed just like every other piece of evidence presented for consideration in science.
Tell me, why should we continue to behave in our lives as if gravity will effect us the way it always has? Well why not, it is a law right? Well as with all the discovered and defined "laws" of nature they are not proven, they are fundamentally probabilistic. This means that it would be possible for me or you to jump off a very high building and find that instead of falling we are floating. However the probability of gravitational laws changing at that precise moment is so unlikely that I don't think any sane person would take that bet.
setarcos
The hopeful or the hopeless?
Depends on how you define junk science.
All presented theories in the 19th century were thoroughly disproven. None presented since then can offer any supporting evidence nor demonstrable success.
No evidence it happened in the past. No evidence it happens in uncontrolled circumstances in our present. No evidence that it will happen in the future.
The only impetus for pursuit of such things seems to be to prove undirected happenstance in nature since, well, the alternative is unthinkable for some reason.
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
There no theories in the 19th century, there were no theories presented in the 20th century. You apparently have not clue. There was still no theory presented in this century. You do not appear to know what a theory is and you also clearly do not know what evidence is.
Abiogenesis is a hypothesis or actually right now a series of hypotheses of how life started. There is evidence for the various hypotheses, but the reason that it is still in the theory stage is because some of the major questions have as of yet to have a sufficient answer. The first successful experiment in abiogenesis was the Miller Urey experiment. But I doubt if you even knew what the goal of that experiment was.
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
The "fine tuning" argument is another failed one. It has a huge unjustified assumption in it. What do you think that it is? If you cannot answer then you are just spouting creationist talking points with no understanding o them at all. And "Anyways" what are we? Twelve?
setarcos
The hopeful or the hopeless?
I've noticed 2 main groups of people on these forums - Those who think they are right but don't insist on it and those who know they are right because being wrong would be unthinkably unacceptable. They often use insult and innuendo as their main argument rather than respectful discourse about facts and proposals. I'm pretty sure I know which group you belong to.
Sometimes I wonder why I bother on here. Those that are rude and arrogant make it so much less interesting and educational. Let alone fun.
Perhaps my post came off to you as insulting in some manner and you were simply responding in kind? If so it wasn't meant to be.
First off...I'm not alone in considering Abiogenesis a theory, here's a few online examples...
Abiogenesis is a scientific theory which states that life arose on Earth via spontaneous natural means due to conditions present at the time. In other words, life came from non-living matter. From study.com
Abiogenesis Theory
Abiogenesis theory is the theory that all life started from inorganic molecules, which recombined in different ways due to energy input. These different forms eventually formed a self-replicating molecule, which may have used the other molecules produced by abiogenesis to start creating the basic structures of life, such as the cell.
From biologydictionary.net
Theory of Abiogenesis – Planetary Sciences, Inc.
Abiogenesis or biopoiesis is the natural process of life arising from non-living matter such as simple organic compounds.
https://planetary-science.org/
[FONT=Helvetica, sans-serif]Second, the word was apparently, as you know I'm sure, coined in the late 19th century by biologist Thomas Henry Huxley. The idea goes back to the ancient Greeks at least. Aristotle for one developed a theory of abiogenesis which said that flies formed directly from decaying material and logs gave rise to crocodiles but I started with the 19th century because of the coinage.[/FONT]
Now, given the sometimes fickle relationship between the words theory and hypothesis that some people use let us consider in my opinion...
Abiogenesis is an idea used as a title to a theory of the origin of life with several differing versions incorporating hypotheses like....1)simple beginnings 2) RNA world 3) Chilly start 4) Deep-Sea vents 5) Community Clay (6 Electric Spark 7) spontaneous generation etc. comparable to theories of the origins of the universe such as the big bang theory, or the steady state theory, or the pulsating theory each considering their own comparable hypotheses.
So, Is Abiogenesis a theory or why can it be defined as a theory?
Aside from the glaring -admission? or perhaps you simply mistyped?- above in which you state that it is still in the theory stage, whatever that means, let me present to you why I think it is a theory and not a hypothesis...
A theory is governed by observations and facts without itself being proven a fact or being a direct observation.
Hypotheses on the other hand are derived from direct observation and can be proven through positive experimentation which gives us the data to formulate a theory. Interestingly though hypotheses can give us false positives from misidentification of correlative evidence.
Without delving too deeply into the semantics of the scientific process this is how I see Abiogenesis as a theory...
[FONT=Helvetica, sans-serif]Early in its development (Spontaneous generation) Aristotle to about 16th or 17th century?...
Pre modern scientific method, poorly executed and deeply flawed.
Observation....flies are always found on rotting flesh. [/FONT]
Hypothesis...rotting meat creates flies spontaneously.
Experiment...periodically observe rotting meat in a room where no flies were previously observed.
Result...flies are eventually observed on the rotting meat.
Conclusion...rotting meat spontaneously generates flies...
Theory...Spontaneous Generation...Life spontaneously generates from substances found in dead things.
[FONT=Helvetica, sans-serif]Modern version....synopsis due to complexities of its evolution.
Observation...Life exists on an earth with a limited lifespan(earth sciences) therefore life did not always exist on earth but primordial elements/chemicals did.
Hypothesis...organic molecules necessary for making life first arose from a lightning strike on a primordial "soup" of chemicals.
Experiment....See if these molecules can be created from electricity applied to chemical combinations in a lab.
Results...they can
Proposed Theory....Abiogenesis which theorizes that all life on earth came from this first process.
Why is Abiogenesis a theory? Because it describes a process that cannot nor has not been observed and is derived from hypotheses made with corresponding experiments which themselves were derived from observations of life on earth causing speculative ideas.
I'm familiar with the Urey/Miller experiment. I believe the goal was to show that the primordial earth could have, in principle, generated amino acids describing "a mechanistic pathway to life from simple chemical compounds."
If by success you mean, it reached its goal I'd have to say that is questionable. Consider....
[/FONT]
In May 2003 origin-of-life researchers Jeffrey Bada and Antonio Lazcano, long-time associates of Miller, wrote an essay for Science (May 2, 2003, pp. 745-746) commemorating the 50-year anniversary of the publication of Miller’s initial results. They pointed out that the Miller-Urey experiment has historical significance, but not scientific importance in contemporary origin-of-life thought.
Bada and Lazcano wrote: "Is the “prebiotic soup” theory a reasonable explanation for the emergence of life? Contemporary geoscientists tend to doubt that the primitive atmosphere had the highly reducing composition used by Miller in 1953."
Origin-of-life researcher Noam Lahav passes similar judgment: "The prebiotic conditions assumed by Miller and Urey were essentially those of a reducing atmosphere. Under slightly reducing conditions, the Miller-Urey reaction does not produce amino acids, nor does it produce the chemicals that may serve as the predecessors of other important biopolymer building blocks. Thus, by challenging the assumption of a reducing atmosphere, we challenge the very existence of the “prebiotic soup”, with its richness of biologically important organic compounds.
"Today, the Miller-Urey experiment is considered to be irrelevant to the origin-of-life question. Current understanding of the composition of early Earth’s atmosphere differs significantly from the gas mix used by Miller. Most planetary scientists now think that the Earth’s primeval atmosphere consisted of carbon dioxide, nitrogen, and water vapor. Laboratory experiments indicate that this gas mixture is incapable of yielding organic materials in Miller-Urey-type experiments."
setarcos
The hopeful or the hopeless?
This ought to be rich. I suppose your gonna spout some atheistic cliché response which you're oh so positive will wrap up this discussion in a pretty bow.
Well, how about we see. You tell me what particular atheistic version of an unjustified assumption the apparent fine tuning of this universe is making and we can see if I can understand what it is and how to respond.
Creationist talking points? Atheists don't have talking points? Okay I'll bite
, How in the world does my discussion have any relevance to age?I did notice in your post though that you actually addressed nothing of what I said instead disguising your -ignorance?- behind an inconsequential question.
Do you even know how to have a civil debate? Geeze.
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
This is such a tedious defense of your error. I used the generally accepted scientific definition of hypothesis and theory in my statement. In the sciences a theory is as high as it gets.
For example a theory never becomes a law. A law is merely a statement that under certain conditions event A will end with conclusion B. It does not have an explanation. It often does not make an predictions. Where a theory has to have that plus an explanation and it needs to make testable predictions as well. For example Newton's Universal Law of Gravitation (which actually many will argue qualifies as a theory) was supplanted by Einstein's General Relativity. Einstein's work did not make Newton's work suddenly wrong. It correctly answered questions that Newton's law got wrong when applied to them. Newton's law was still accurate enough, and much easier to use than Einstein's work , so that it was what was used when we went to the Moon. On the other hand if you have a GPS that is totally reliant on Einstein's work which corrects Newton's inability to deal with relativistic effects in gravity.
So, sources:
1.6: Hypothesis, Theories, and Laws
"What is a Hypothesis?
One of the most common terms used in science classes is a "hypothesis". The word can have many different definitions, depending on the context in which it is being used:
- An educated guess: a scientific hypothesis provides a suggested solution based on evidence.
- Prediction: if you have ever carried out a science experiment, you probably made this type of hypothesis when you predicted the outcome of your experiment.
- Tentative or proposed explanation: hypotheses can be suggestions about why something is observed. In order for it to be scientific, however, a scientist must be able to test the explanation to see if it works and if it is able to correctly predict what will happen in a situation. For example, "if my hypothesis is correct, we should see ___ result when we perform ___ test."
This is the stage that abiogenesis is in. The reason is that though many of the questions have been answered there are still important unanswered question.
On the other hand evolution is a theory. Which is something that is as close to a solid fact as possible. The theory of gravity explains the fact of gravity, the theory of evolution explains the fact of evolution:
"What is a Theory?
The United States National Academy of Sciences describes what a theory is as follows:
"Some scientific explanations are so well established that no new evidence is likely to alter them. The explanation becomes a scientific theory. In everyday language a theory means a hunch or speculation. Not so in science. In science, the word theory refers to a comprehensive explanation of an important feature of nature supported by facts gathered over time. Theories also allow scientists to make predictions about as yet unobserved phenomena."
"A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world, based on a body of facts that have been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experimentation. Such fact-supported theories are not "guesses" but reliable accounts of the real world. The theory of biological evolution is more than "just a theory." It is as factual an explanation of the universe as the atomic theory of matter (stating that everything is made of atoms) or the germ theory of disease (which states that many diseases are caused by germs). Our understanding of gravity is still a work in progress. But the phenomenon of gravity, like evolution, is an accepted fact.
Note some key features of theories that are important to understand from this description:
- Theories are explanations of natural phenomena. They aren't predictions (although we may use theories to make predictions). They are explanations as to why we observe something.
- Theories aren't likely to change. They have a large amount of support and are able to satisfactorily explain numerous observations. Theories can, indeed, be facts. Theories can change, but it is a long and difficult process. In order for a theory to change, there must be many observations or pieces of evidence that the theory cannot explain.
- Theories are not guesses. The phrase "just a theory" has no room in science. To be a scientific theory carries a lot of weight; it is not just one person's idea about something
I would change the last sentence to "Theories aren't likely to change significantly".
You were using the colloquial definitions of those words in your defense. You also appear to have at times conflated abiogenesis and spontaneous generation. The two ideas are rather different.
Plus your source on attempting to refute the Miller Urey experiment was far from the best. There was no one single "early Earth atmosphere" It varied at times. Yes, there were times when it would have the composition that they claimed. There were also times when it was more reducing in nature. One thing nice about Wikipedia is that it is constantly edited and the best supported claims are those that are left in. In the article on the Miller Urey Experiment it has this to say about the early Earth atmosphere:
Miller–Urey experiment - Wikipedia
"Some evidence suggests that Earth's original atmosphere might have contained fewer of the reducing molecules than was thought at the time of the Miller–Urey experiment. There is abundant evidence of major volcanic eruptions 4 billion years ago, which would have released carbon dioxide, nitrogen, hydrogen sulfide (H2S), and sulfur dioxide (SO2) into the atmosphere.[20] Experiments using these gases in addition to the ones in the original Miller–Urey experiment have produced more diverse molecules. The experiment created a mixture that was racemic (containing both L and D enantiomers) and experiments since have shown that "in the lab the two versions are equally likely to appear";[21] however, in nature, L amino acids dominate. Later experiments have confirmed disproportionate amounts of L or D oriented enantiomers are possible.[22]
Originally it was thought that the primitive secondary atmosphere contained mostly ammonia and methane. However, it is likely that most of the atmospheric carbon was CO2, with perhaps some CO and the nitrogen mostly N2. In practice gas mixtures containing CO, CO2, N2, etc. give much the same products as those containing CH4 and NH3 so long as there is no O2. The hydrogen atoms come mostly from water vapor. In fact, in order to generate aromatic amino acids under primitive Earth conditions it is necessary to use less hydrogen-rich gaseous mixtures. Most of the natural amino acids, hydroxyacids, purines, pyrimidines, and sugars have been made in variants of the Miller experiment.[7][23]
More recent results may question these conclusions. The University of Waterloo and University of Colorado conducted simulations in 2005 that indicated that the early atmosphere of Earth could have contained up to 40 percent hydrogen—implying a much more hospitable environment for the formation of prebiotic organic molecules. The escape of hydrogen from Earth's atmosphere into space may have occurred at only one percent of the rate previously believed based on revised estimates of the upper atmosphere's temperature.[24] One of the authors, Owen Toon notes: "In this new scenario, organics can be produced efficiently in the early atmosphere, leading us back to the organic-rich soup-in-the-ocean concept... I think this study makes the experiments by Miller and others relevant again." Outgassing calculations using a chondritic model for the early Earth complement the Waterloo/Colorado results in re-establishing the importance of the Miller–Urey experiment.[25]
In contrast to the general notion of early Earth's reducing atmosphere, researchers at the Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute in New York reported the possibility of oxygen available around 4.3 billion years ago. Their study reported in 2011 on the assessment of Hadean zircons from the Earth's interior (magma) indicated the presence of oxygen traces similar to modern-day lavas.[26] This study suggests that oxygen could have been released in the earth's atmosphere earlier than generally believed.[27]
In November 2020, a team of international scientists reported their study on oxidation of the magma around 4.5 billion years ago suggesting that the original atmosphere of the Earth contained little amount of oxygen and no methane or ammonia as presumed in the Miller–Urey experiment.[28] CO2 was likely the most abundant component, with nitrogen and water as additional constituents.[29] However, methane and ammonia could have appeared a little later as the atmosphere became more reducing. These gases being unstable were gradually destroyed by solar radiation (photolysis) and lasted about ten million years before they were eventually replaced by hydrogen and CO2.[30]"
Your one cherry picked source does not refute the general consensus that the Miller Urey experiment still applies.
Also please note, I only stated that it was the first successful experiment in abiogenesis. If you assumed that it meant that abiogenesis was proved by it you read things into my statement that were not even implied. At the time it was thought that the natural formation of amino acids was impossible. Miller Urey demonstrated that that was not the case. It only removed one of the stumbling blocks to abiogenesis, it did not "prove" it and I did not say that it did, I did not imply that it did, I only stated that it is evidence for the concept of abiogenesis and that is still correct.
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
'
Wow! You are rather rude. Why not ask questions when you do not understand? And no, I was going to refer to the debate between Sean Carroll and William Lane Craig. Sean Carroll is an astrophysicist and an expert in the field. WLC is merely professional liar for Jesus, or wait, a Christian Apologist (same thing really). Carroll explained how wrong that WLC was in his argument. Are you interested?
Well, how about we see. You tell me what particular atheistic version of an unjustified assumption the apparent fine tuning of this universe is making and we can see if I can understand what it is and how to respond.
First off you appear to be assuming that the values could be different. We really do not even know if that is the case. There are still unanswered questions in physics. Why those values hold those particular values is one of them. It is an error to assume that they could have been any different. It is a possibility, but the fine tuning argument treats that possibility as a fact. And that is only the beginning.
Okay I'll bite
I did notice in your post though that you actually addressed nothing of what I said instead disguising your -ignorance?- behind an inconsequential question.
Do you even know how to have a civil debate? Geeze.
Certain examples of poor English are rather irritating to me. I will grant that your poor use of the English language has nothing to do with the arguments, but your responses demonstrate that you do not know what you are talking about at all. You are accusing others of your faults quite often here.
You were wrong in your use of "theory" and "hypothesis" you appear to have mixed up abiogenesis and spontaneous generation at times, and of course you cherry picked one paper when it came to the Miller Urey experiment instead of looking at the work as a whole.
setarcos
The hopeful or the hopeless?
Arrogance is no explanation. What error? Its common debate curtesy to define what error and then explain why it is an error. In a discussion/debate/argument your opposition shouldn't have to wade through an insult to find out the what and why.
I'd say in science, as concerns truth, a fact is as high as it gets.
Can science prove facts?
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
What "arrogance"? You posted nonsense and I was tired of it. And all of your errors were explained to you. Okay, it was a long post, it had to be to respond to you, but seriously was that all that you got from it.Arrogance is no explanation. What error? Its common debate curtesy to define what error and then explain why it is an error. In a discussion/debate/argument your opposition shouldn't have to wade through an insult to find out the what and why.
I'd say in science, as concerns truth, a fact is as high as it gets.
Can science prove facts?
There was no insult, there was no need of "wading". After the observation of how tedious your post was I got to work refuting it.
If you did not like a long response then do not make such long posts. Make a point, and support it.
In a nutshell you used a wrong definition for theory and hypothesis. I used the scientific one. You tried to support your claim by using colloquial definitions. Those do not work in a scientific debate.
And your last sentence tells us that you really do have no clue. People who spout about "the truth" usually cannot recognize it. If that is the goal then the scientific method is the best way to find it. But there is never any way to be absolutely sure that one has found "the truth" That is why ideas in the sciences are always accepted to be provisionally true, even when supported by massive evidence. If you accept the fact of gravity then by the same standard you would need to accept the fact of evolution. Right now it is as close to "the truth" as you are going to get.