Abiogenesis Is Not Working, So What's Next? Panspermia.

[Runewolf1973]

Abiogenesis fails. Panspermia fails. God fails. The only logical conclusion in my opinion is that life does not exist. It is merely a label or categorization we give to certain highly interactive forms of matter. All matter is interactive via the Fundamental Forces of nature. Some forms over time just began to interact differently. There is no "life", there is only different degrees of ordinary interactive matter. We are not living, matter does not "live". We are merely interacting with our environment in a complex manner. The only thing that arose in that primordial soup billions of years ago is complexity brought about by change, not life. Life is an illusion, nothing more.

 

[McBell]

So you're either saying you're a dimwit who can't understand complex issues --in which case your opinion is invalid -- or you're deliberately dodging the facts.
Pick one.

Of those two I would say deliberately dodging the facts.

Though I would word it "Ignoring Inconvenient Truths"

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

I'm saying the poster can't explain squat.

What were you expecting me to explain to you? I rebutted your claim that "Abiogenesis hasn't gone much further since the Miller-Urey experiment in 1952." First, I merely told you that you were incorrect without supporting that claim because I didn't think you cared about evidence, but offered to provide it if to you wanted to see it. You answered, "Sure, why not? Whatcha got?"

I provided a sample of the research on abiogenesis done since 1952, asked you to read the titles, and you responded that that was too much effort for you make. Now you're saying that I "can't explain squat."

We each did our part reenacting the timeless classic of the creationist pretending that he cares about evidence, somebody providing it to him, and rather that looking at it or expressing any gratitude for someone making the effort for him at his request, then just rejects it out of hand and criticizing the poster that tried to help him.

We each demonstrated how we make decisions about what is true, and what our values and character are.

I'm happy with my performance. How about you?

 

[Runewolf1973]

Life is not a matter of creation, it is a matter of complexity. Complexity exists, life is an illusion. Abioism is the way of the future.

 

[james bond]

What were you expecting me to explain to you? I rebutted your claim that "Abiogenesis hasn't gone much further since the Miller-Urey experiment in 1952." First, I merely told you that you were incorrect without supporting that claim because I didn't think you cared about evidence, but offered to provide it if to you wanted to see it. You answered, "Sure, why not? Whatcha got?"

I provided a sample of the research on abiogenesis done since 1952, asked you to read the titles, and you responded that that was too much effort for you make. Now you're saying that I "can't explain squat."

We each did our part reenacting the timeless classic of the creationist pretending that he cares about evidence, somebody providing it to him, and rather that looking at it or expressing any gratitude for someone making the effort for him at his request, then just rejects it out of hand and criticizing the poster that tried to help him.

We each demonstrated how we make decisions about what is true, and what our values and character are.

I'm happy with my performance. How about you?

You haven't explained it in a few your own words.

It doesn't matter.

Abiogenesis was disproved by experiment in the 1800s.

 

[McBell]

Abiogenesis was disproved by experiment in the 1800s.

Source please.

 

[McBell]

You haven't explained it in a few your own words..

You really need to stop moving the goal posts.
Makes you look bad.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Life is not a matter of creation, it is a matter of complexity. Complexity exists, life is an illusion. Abioism is the way of the future.

This argument is a variation on the continuum fallacy, closely related to the sorities paradox. It says roughly that because we cannot draw a clear line of demarcation where a certain condition or process becomes another, the latter cannot exist. Here is an example of red slowly becoming blue.

At what point does red become blue? Nowhere. So does blue not exist? Arguing that it doesn't is like arguing that life doesn't exist because there is no clear line of demarcation between living and nonliving.

Is a water molecule wet? You'd probably say no. Is a bowl of them at room temperature wet? You'd probably say yes. How many molecules does it take for wetness to emerge?

When did the first human being evolve? Same problem unless we want to say that some first person had non-human parents.

 

[Runewolf1973]

This argument is a variation on the continuum fallacy, closely related to the sorities paradox. It says roughly that because we cannot draw a clear line of demarcation where a certain condition or process becomes another, the latter cannot exist. Here is an example of red slowly becoming blue.

At what point does red become blue? Nowhere. So does blue not exist? Arguing that it doesn't is like arguing that life doesn't exist because there is no clear line of demarcation between living and nonliving.

Is a water molecule wet? You'd probably say no. Is a bowl of them at room temperature wet? You'd probably say yes. How many molecules does it take for wetness to emerge?

When did the first human being evolve? Same problem unless we want to say that some first person had non-human parents.

Red and blue exists in our minds just as in our minds life exists...all just labels. What does exist is frequencies and complexity. This frequency of light we call red and that frequency we call blue. This simple arrangement of non-living chemicals we call "inanimate" and that complex arrangement of non-living chemicals we call "living". At what point does red become blue? When the frequency of light changes and we slap a label to it. At what point does non-living become living? When the complexity changes and we slap yet another label to it. It's all in how we percieve it. We just oh so love our labels.

 

[Valjean]

I'm saying the poster can't explain squat.

Yet when explanations are posted/linked you ignore them. That makes your opinions invalid.

 

[Valjean]

Of those two I would say deliberately dodging the facts.
Though I would word it "Ignoring Inconvenient Truths"

Yes -- much more politic.

You haven't explained it in a few your own words.
It doesn't matter.
Abiogenesis was disproved by experiment in the 1800s.

So you contend that life always existed, that it was not created?

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Abiogenesis was disproved by experiment in the 1800s.

That is incorrect.

What Redi and Pasteur demonstrated is that multicellular life like maggots and mice doesn't arise spontaneously over days in rotting meat and the like, not that a proto-cell couldn't self-organize over millions or possibly even thousands of years in the sea. Their work had no bearing on possibility of the latter process.

All you need to do to see that you are incorrect is to look at all of the resources being dedicated to unraveling the mystery of abiogenesis. Things that have been disproven like phlogiston and the ether get no research dollars. Likewise with perpetual motion. Intelligent design, which hasn't been disproven, but has been rejected by science, only gets funding from creationists with a political agenda. Science ignores it.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Red and blue exists in our minds just as in our minds life exists...all just labels. What does exist is frequencies and complexity. This frequency of light we call red and that frequency we call blue. This simple arrangement of non-living chemicals we call "inanimate" and that complex arrangement of non-living chemicals we call "living". At what point does red become blue? When the frequency of light changes and we slap a label to it. At what point does non-living become living? When the complexity changes and we slap yet another label to it. It's all in how we percieve it. We just oh so love our labels.

What utility do you see in claiming that the process that we call life shouldn't have a name? In what way does this idea forward understanding?

If you think that eliminating the concept of life is useful because it's just a label for a certain type and degree of complexity, why shouldn't we apply this type of thinking to everything? Why have names like piano and screwdriver for the arrangement of bosons, quarks and leptons that commonly go by those names? They're just collections subatomic particle like everything else, right, so why call them anything else?

There's a reason we love our labels: Their utility in communicating.

 

[Runewolf1973]

What utility do you see in claiming that the process that we call life shouldn't have a name? In what way does this idea forward understanding?

If you think that eliminating the concept of life is useful because it's just a label for a certain type and degree of complexity, why shouldn't we apply this type of thinking to everything? Why have names like piano and screwdriver for the arrangement of bosons, quarks and leptons that commonly go by those names? They're just collections subatomic particle like everything else, right, so why call them anything else?

There's a reason we love our labels: Their utility in communicating.

There is nothing wrong with naming things or labelling things such as life. My point is that there is no "magical spark" that separates the two. It is just a matter of complexity and how we percieve that complexity. I see nothing so mysterious about what we call life. Interesting yes. Sometimes labels can create artificial barriers which in turn limit our understanding of things.

 

[Runewolf1973]

So you contend that life always existed, that it was not created?

Personally, I would contend that all matter is and was always interactive via the Fundamental Forces of nature. Some of that matter over time and given just the right conditions merely became a little more interactive and complex than all the rest. That is life. Therefore, although what we define as life hasn't always existed, the building blocks for life was there since the beginning.

 

[Darkstorn]

The only logical conclusion in my opinion is that life does not exist. It is merely a label or categorization we give to certain highly interactive forms of matter. All matter is interactive via the Fundamental Forces of nature. Some forms over time just began to interact differently. There is no "life", there is only different degrees of ordinary interactive matter. We are not living, matter does not "live". We are merely interacting with our environment in a complex manner. The only thing that arose in that primordial soup billions of years ago is complexity brought about by change, not life. Life is an illusion, nothing more.

I think this guy gets it. I think this is the rational stance.

 

[Runewolf1973]

I think this guy gets it. I think this is the rational stance.

Well thanks. Most people think it's overly simplistic, but I have yet to meet a single person who can give me a rational argument against it.

 

[gnostic]

Argument from Improbability can't be used to dismiss abiogenesis or panspermia.
Natural Selection can't be used to dismiss abiogenesis or panspermia either.

That's because Natural Selection (NS) doesn't approach Abiogenesis or Panspermia.

NS only focused on the mechanism of biodiversity due to changes in the environment (such as climates, terrains, availability or scarcity of food and water, etc), and not to the origin of (first) life.

NS doesn't dismiss Abiogenesis or Panspermia; no, they are simply outside of its scope of NS's inquiry.

 

[Ponder This]

Well thanks. Most people think it's overly simplistic, but I have yet to meet a single person who can give me a rational argument against it.

It's almost perfect except...

"I do not believe a hydrogen atom is alive." - Alfred Rogers
This is the fundamental error... allowing beliefs to cloud his view. The hydrogen atom is actually more complex than we originally thought.

Ergo, by argument of complexity...
The universe is alive to begin with
Bioism is the way of the future!

(also, it means we get to apply the theory of evolution to atoms). Bonus Point!

Rational Minds always win!

 

[Runewolf1973]

It's almost perfect except...

"I do not believe a hydrogen atom is alive." - Alfred Rogers
This is the fundamental error... allowing beliefs to cloud his view. The hydrogen atom is actually more complex than we originally thought.

Ergo, by argument of complexity...
The universe is alive to begin with
Bioism is the way of the future!

(also, it means we get to apply the theory of evolution to atoms). Bonus Point!

Rational Minds always win!

Well hey, I'm an animist after all. So that could potentially work! But I kinda prefer the word "interactive" because that is what everything does anyways whether we think of it as alive or not, even atoms...they interact. Technically you could say that the entire universe is animated (like animate in a way) via the Fundamental Forces aka Fundamental Interactions.