[_ Old Earth _] Abiogenisis

[Ashua]

Well, I searched through that thread, and I found one by you that mentioned the firmament, and a bunch of other wild speculations with no evidential basis other than a desire to try to reconcile observable evidence with Biblical stories. I don't know how else to respond to other than to point out that it was what it was.

Was that also the one which talks about the sun and moon being created after God said: "Let there be light?"

 

[Ashua]

Who ever said anything like that? It never happens that independent groups evolve into the exact same species.



The short answer is -- because man already exists. Evolution works to fill niches. When species fit the same niche too closely, they compete directly and one wins, the other looses.



How do I reconcile this? The "arrogant" one was mistaken.

The guy was arrogant. I couldn't do it justice how arrogant he was. I am thick skinned, so don't think I am exaggerating or crying over nothing. He personally attacked me and the other atheist defended me. Basically I was intellectually stupid in the most extreme sense of the word because I believed in a 6-7 year old Earth.

The "good" atheist said I was using science to defend my claims and that he thought I was open minded. The arrogant one said he would never agree with me on -ANY-issue no matter how universal (I am not even talking about religious or science) because he despised people like me who "wasted intelligence" This came up because I said something bipartisan on another topic and he caught himself mid sentence along the lines of: "Now, I agree with you th---- well..Let me take that back, I'd NEVER agree with someone like you, but blah blah blah so on continuing the topic." (This was a voice chat client so I could actually hear his tone.) The other guy contended with him more and said he thought I might "come around" sooner or later. It is immensely arrogant to say someone is incapable of intelligence on one basic declaration of faith.

 

[caseagainstfaith]

The guy was arrogant. I couldn't do it justice how arrogant he was. I am thick skinned, so don't think I am exaggerating or crying over nothing. He personally attacked me and the other atheist defended me. Basically I was intellectually stupid in the most extreme sense of the word because I believed in a 6-7 year old Earth.

6-7 years old? So, I'm older than earth by a factor of > 5?

I wondering if maybe I'm that arrogant atheist guy you were talking to?

Nah, but, truth be told, I can be pretty arrogant. One of the reason's I'm here is to practice some restraint. If you were on my turf, say, AtheistForums, well, let's say it would be easy for me to ridicule you. I can't do that here, or at least not for very long before getting banned. So, I have to meter my words, and in the end, I may get banned anyway.

But, in actually, believing the earth is only 6k years old may not be "stupid" per se, may be more like intentional self deception.

 

[lordkalvan]

Saying that somehow some population at corner A of the globe and some population at corner D of the globe evolved from erectus into homo sapien independently of each other, so that they both evolved into the same exact species is like saying:

Some population in corner A of the globe evolved the French language and that some population at corner D of the world also evolved the exact same French language.

I have no idea how this relates to the example of postulating a 'first' speaker of French being a poor analogy for the biological evolution of new species. Regardless of this, however, this isn't what is being proposed. Did you actually read the article you linked to and note where it spoke about genetic flow between the postulated various separate (but not isolated) populations of Homo erectus?

Why hasn't any other life form evolved to the likeness of humanity? Why are all animals still stuck in that "animalistic" simplicity for lack of a better term? Why is man of all the animals and primates especially former homnids which conveniently couldnt make it despite lesser life forms doing fine... the only one to breech the natural domain?

Define 'likeness'. I would suggest that if you arrived on Earth for the first time as an alien from Betelgeuse, you would immediately conclude that all the primates were very much 'like' each other. And, of course, Homo sapiens is not the only species of tool-using primate to have emerged, it has simply proven to be the most successful.

Also, Several months ago I had a chat discussion with two atheists. One was the most arrogant conceited person I ever talked to. The other was pleasant and I believe was an anthropology professional.

Anyways, the arrogant one confessed that the one thing which he believes threatens abiogenesis ---evolution theories is that he isn't so sure that the Earth itself is old enough for those processes to have had enough time to arrive where we are today. He was concerned with the time table from abiogenesis to the first complex organsims --well before the dinosaurs. How do you reconcile with this?

First catch your rabbit. Why wasn't he 'sure'? How old did he think Earth was, then? What led him to this conclusion? What did he regard as 'enough' time, then? What 'time table from abiogenesis to the first complex organisms' (which were?) was he talking about? What is it that you expect me to 'reconcile' from this anecdote? Here's one reconciliation: his opinion was wrong; 1.3 billion years for life to emerge and 900 million years for more complex forms to evolve seems like quite long enough to me.

 

[Ashua]

How come we have various trees and plants native in the Americas, and also in the "old world"?

 

[jasoncran]

add the orange tree, and here in florida, the pomegranate and also the banana tree thriving in afghanistan at one time,

 

[Ashua]

add the orange tree, and here in florida, the pomegranate and also the banana tree thriving in afghanistan at one time,

"banana" is actually an African word, I recently learned. :O

 

[jasoncran]

"banana" is actually an African word, I recently learned. :O

interesting also i think that we breed them to where they dont produce any seeds, the wild ones here in florida dont have seeds and also we have the cooking bananas and the sweet one we all know. the wild ones are tween the two.

 

[abrown9]

I'm kind of swinging back to the original topic, but there were a few points that I thought I wanted to address.

The main problem with abiogenesis seems to me to center on the level of complexity that needs to arise randomly for life to begin. Like Ashua said, metabolism is an immensely complicated process that indeed would be extremely difficult to create and maintain.

The hypothesis that seems more reasonable to me is an RNA world scenario where the earliest life forms where basically just small, self-replicating RNA molecules (this might not be called life, but it certainly would be a good segue to recognizable life. RNA is able to perform a wide range of catalytic (ribozymes, riboswitches etc.) and therefore would not require any proteins or other macromolecules.

Finally just a little bit of my own philosophy about abiogenesis. We may or may not have scientific evidence for abiogenesis (depending on who you are and what you consider evidence) but we definitely have no evidence for a supernatural creation. A natural explanation, however, can be applied to all other facets of life, so it seems to me the overwhelming probability is that a natural explanation can be applied to abiogenesis as well.

 

[Ashua]

I'm kind of swinging back to the original topic, but there were a few points that I thought I wanted to address.

The main problem with abiogenesis seems to me to center on the level of complexity that needs to arise randomly for life to begin. Like Ashua said, metabolism is an immensely complicated process that indeed would be extremely difficult to create and maintain.

The hypothesis that seems more reasonable to me is an RNA world scenario where the earliest life forms where basically just small, self-replicating RNA molecules (this might not be called life, but it certainly would be a good segue to recognizable life. RNA is able to perform a wide range of catalytic (ribozymes, riboswitches etc.) and therefore would not require any proteins or other macromolecules.

Finally just a little bit of my own philosophy about abiogenesis. We may or may not have scientific evidence for abiogenesis (depending on who you are and what you consider evidence) but we definitely have no evidence for a supernatural creation. A natural explanation, however, can be applied to all other facets of life, so it seems to me the overwhelming probability is that a natural explanation can be applied to abiogenesis as well.

Going to keep this very general. I can't afford to get into long detailed debates anymore because this semester is brutal... Way too many research papers... Anyways...

Abiogenesis can in no way possibly be tested, observed, demonstrated, or replicated; which means it is believed on without being seen and isn't “believing without seeing” the text-book definition of faith? Science can treat glorified spontaneous generation for what it is: a theory, until it withstands legitimate scrutiny. Whats more is the unresolved issue of a very serious "chicken and egg" problem, namely the genesis of time, space, and matter. What came first, the "big bang" or the elements necessary to compose such a “magical” explosion in the first place?

There isn't a whole lot of difference between theists and atheists. They both receive their revelation from men in white cloaks who profess special knowledge of origins. Neither can supply undeniable evidence for their cause.
As I said before, if you cannot test, observe, demonstrate or replicate it; it isn't science. Wherefore then is there partiality? Until these questions are sufficiently answered, the "God theory" is no more fantastic or “blindly believed on” than the secular alternatives. Both theories trace back to a common problematic square root-- The origin of the material universe, succeeded by the origin of life. There is no evolution (change over time) without basic building blocks in which to work from. How did those rudimentary “proto-”blocks breech the state of “oblivion?”

It isn't intellectually honest for scientists to entertain the theory of abiogenesis and scoff at the notion of special creation in the same breath on the grounds that we "definitely have no evidence" for it. We have no evidence for either one. There should be no bias in the pursuit of hypotheses. Just because there is no satisfying sum of evidence to support one, doesn't mean the other unsubstantiated theory is any more probable. There should be no favoritism in an evidential stalemate; for if there is, modern science has become no better than the catholic church in the days of Galileo.

 

[abrown9]

It isn't intellectually honest for scientists to entertain the theory of abiogenesis and scoff at the notion of special creation in the same breath on the grounds that we "definitely have no evidence" for it. We have no evidence for either one. There should be no bias in the pursuit of hypotheses. Just because there is no satisfying sum of evidence to support one, doesn't mean the other unsubstantiated theory is any more probable. There should be no favoritism in an evidential stalemate; for if there is, modern science has become no better than the catholic church in the days of Galileo.

You are correct in the regard that we cannot observe, recreate, or somehow "prove" any concept of abiogenesis. What we can do, however, is develop hypotheses and test some aspects of their validity to give us a framework to go with. Even if these are not provable, I feel that they have more validity than a supernatural creation hypothesis.

It is a "god of the gaps" scenario where we shouldn't give equal or greater weight to a supernatural origin of life than a natural origin just because we have not discovered the answer yet (if we ever do). Humanity ascribed the supernatural to everything that they didn't understand (the gaps) and that amount has slowly dwindled as we acquire a better understanding of the natural world around us. There is no reason to not assume there is a natural explanation for genesis just because we haven't found one yet.

Imagine you are eating at a cafeteria every morning for a year. You get up on time 355 days out of the year and each day they serve waffles. Nothing else, just waffles. Just because you slept in and didn't find out what they served for the other 10 days, there is no reason to assume that it was pancakes. The safe bet is waffles, just like the safe bet for genesis is a natural origin.

As for the origin of the universe... obviously we have no real answer, but I'd bet again on the natural origin (although probably a natural origin beyond our current comprehension).

 

[Ashua]

You are correct in the regard that we cannot observe, recreate, or somehow "prove" any concept of abiogenesis. What we can do, however, is develop hypotheses and test some aspects of their validity to give us a framework to go with. Even if these are not provable, I feel that they have more validity than a supernatural creation hypothesis.

It is a "god of the gaps" scenario where we shouldn't give equal or greater weight to a supernatural origin of life than a natural origin just because we have not discovered the answer yet (if we ever do). Humanity ascribed the supernatural to everything that they didn't understand (the gaps) and that amount has slowly dwindled as we acquire a better understanding of the natural world around us. There is no reason to not assume there is a natural explanation for genesis just because we haven't found one yet.

Imagine you are eating at a cafeteria every morning for a year. You get up on time 355 days out of the year and each day they serve waffles. Nothing else, just waffles. Just because you slept in and didn't find out what they served for the other 10 days, there is no reason to assume that it was pancakes. The safe bet is waffles, just like the safe bet for genesis is a natural origin.

As for the origin of the universe... obviously we have no real answer, but I'd bet again on the natural origin (although probably a natural origin beyond our current comprehension).

All bets are off with the word "natural" when it comes to the origin of the cosmos. If there was an infinitely massive period of true oblivion and then one "day" (for lack of a better relativism) everything magically and unprovoked manifests within the absolute vacuum of anti-existence... This cannot be called 'natural'. The very fact that there is anything at all rather than nothing is in itself a supernatural "miracle." Furthermore, the very notion seems to fly right in the face of the law of Uniformitarianism; that the material universe would somehow spontaneously generate. (And I use the term without pejorative intent.)

I see what you are saying, but I am unconvinced that a so called 'supernatural' originator is any less probable than a so called 'natural' one. (basically the difference would be an intelligent, directing, active catalyst vs. an inanimate, random, passive catalyst.) In respects to your point that we can test other "related" things which could somehow add credence to the likelihood of an 'abiogenetic,' 'natural' origin by virtue of evidential "cross-referencing".... I respectfully differ again... Just because something is found to be compatible with something, doesn't mean that is how it happened to played out.

I am in North America. If in one month from now I told you I was in Europe, someone could infer that I flew to account for how my being in Europe "originated." While aircraft is certainly compatible or consistent with my drastic change of position, I could have just as easily sailed on a ship. Using evidence to give leverage to one idea is moot when that evidence is not mutually exclusive to the conclusion or able to rule the other out of also operating within a similar mechanical faculty. Cross-referencing and inferring how I crossed the ocean is actually an impotent means to effect anyone's hypothesis on how I journeyed with the statement that "I was there and now I am here" as the only 'given.' All of that common evidence can still lead back to either one of the possibilities without a problem. In the case of the origin of the universe, the only "given" we have is "that it came into being," as I hypothetically "came into being" in Europe.

***For all semantic purposes, when I use the word "universe" I mean all that there is in any tangible fashion anywhere at any time. Some people play on theories of "multiple universes". All of these and more are included under the simple phrase "universe" when I use it. All material existence.****

 

[abrown9]

All bets are off with the word "natural" when it comes to the origin of the cosmos. If there was an infinitely massive period of true oblivion and then one "day" (for lack of a better relativism) everything magically and unprovoked manifests within the absolute vacuum of anti-existence... This cannot be called 'natural'. The very fact that there is anything rather than nothing is in itself a supernatural "miracle."

I see what you are saying, but I am unconvinced that a so called 'super natural' originator is any less probably than a so called 'natural' one. (basically the difference would be an intelligent, directing catalyst vs. an inanimate, random catalyst.) In respects to your point that we can test other "related" things which could somehow add credence to the likelihood of an 'abiogenetic,' 'natural' origin.... I respectfully differ again... Just because something is found to be compatible with something, doesn't mean that is how it is.

I am in North America. If in one month from now I told you I was in Europe, someone could infer that air flight is how my being in Europe "originated." While aircraft is certainly compatible or consistent with my drastic change of position, I could have just as easily sailed on a ship. Using evidence to give leverage to one idea is moot when that evidence is not mutually exclusive to the conclusion or able to rule the other out of also operating within a similar mechanical faculty.

I get what you are saying as well, I would only add that when deciding on a natural vs. supernatural origin of life (I'm going to step back from the origin of material) one must deal with probabilities.

To twist your Europe analogy - the majority of people (in fact the overwhelming majority) go to Europe by air. It seems like a safe bet to assume you went there by air. This is analogous to a natural origin. A supernatural origin, on the other hand, would be something that we have never observed before. Perhaps going to Europe via paddleboat would be a good analogy for this scenario. So while it is possible you went you Europe by plane (but not absolute) and possible you went by paddleboat, it seems a lot more likely that you would have flown, does it not?

In terms of the "evidence" compiled for abiogenesis, I confess all of the evidence I have seen for various explanations is "after-the-fact" evidence that shows how a very small life form could become increasingly more complex. It does not require a natural genesis. Instead, I base my arguments against supernatural (or, more properly, for the natural) creation on the probabilities.

 

[Ashua]

I get what you are saying as well, I would only add that when deciding on a natural vs. supernatural origin of life (I'm going to step back from the origin of material) one must deal with probabilities.

To twist your Europe analogy - the majority of people (in fact the overwhelming majority) go to Europe by air. It seems like a safe bet to assume you went there by air. This is analogous to a natural origin. A supernatural origin, on the other hand, would be something that we have never observed before. Perhaps going to Europe via paddleboat would be a good analogy for this scenario. So while it is possible you went you Europe by plane (but not absolute) and possible you went by paddleboat, it seems a lot more likely that you would have flown, does it not?

In terms of the "evidence" compiled for abiogenesis, I confess all of the evidence I have seen for various explanations is "after-the-fact" evidence that shows how a very small life form could become increasingly more complex. It does not require a natural genesis. Instead, I base my arguments against supernatural (or, more properly, for the natural) creation on the probabilities.

Only there are no figures for you to base your probability on.

People go to and fro via plane all the time. This is clearly observable.

Universes aren't being made out of thin air all the time. (actually, thin air didn't exist either.)

We have a SINGLE empirical event which was obviously never observed by man. Because there is no frequency in order to establish a pattern or statistical baseline upon.... You cannot say it is mathematically more probable. There just isn't any data to base that on. --A one time event.

I can play the lottery one time in my entirely life and if I just so happen to win that one and only time, is there any 'real' probability I'm going to go 2 and 0 if I should decide to "play my odds" based off of my empirical result? (people who never win the lottery are symbolic of other possibilities which you deem possible, but less likely such as creation.)

Without bias, there is 1:1 odds that the universe is the product of special creation and 1:1 odds that it just happened somehow. This is a strictly mathematical statement based off of the (lack of) evidence we can confirm.

You just lean to the one side of the fence and I lean to the other. There isn't anything logical about it. That is just how the chips fall; winner take all.