Abiogenesis

[MikeF]

This implies intention. By intention I mean specific purpose. If the materials created inevitably could only produce certain existent matter AND couldn't produce matter that while non-existent could be produced then we could say all evolving matter with specific function had to begin its evolving journey from the Big Bang.

However, since, I'm assuming, you don't believe the Big Bang created anything with intention – even the consequent fundamental material resultant particles and forces - we cannot say anything with specific function evolved from the Big Bang. The Big Bang was an event not an existent entity that evolved.

Exploring further…while the Big Bang may have produced the components of an existent entity it did not determine what if any components would evolve any particular entity.

So what one might say. The originating components all had their origins in the Big Bang. Then what ever evolved afterwards with any of those components ipso facto evolved from the Big Bang.

However evolution by definition takes place on existent entities not events since events don’t change they happen. What of the fundamental resultant particles and forces? What about these components changed I would ask? How did they evolve? A Carbon atom didn’t evolve to eventually produce life. A carbon atom is a carbon atom is a carbon atom…no matter where you find it.

Now, we wouldn't say the evolution of the automobile began with the evolution of steal since the steal had no intention of developing the automobile. The auto may very well never have evolved and certainly not simply from steal. The steal made the auto possible but it was not a part of its evolution.

I mean what changed in steal to evolve the automobile? Unless you equate evolving with being made possible though not inevitable? And if so then we would have to consider the myriads of other components of the automobile as equally responsible for its evolution.

The plastics evolved the auto, the volatile liquids evolved the auto, the lubricants, the electricity, the glass, all evolved the auto individually. So that when we finally have something we consider an automobile we say it evolved from all of these. But then what changed in any of these things to evolve the auto? If anything would have changed then they wouldn’t fulfill their own specificity in making the automobile possible.

But did all the components evolve from each other then? If not then we have multiple lines of evolving going on not simply one evolutionary lineage of the automobile. What then do we mean by the automobile evolved from since we lose linearity in change?

We couldn't say steal since steal didn't evolve the auto without the other components. Likewise the other components. So we say the auto collectively evolved from the various components but only when the various components specifically complement each other to produce the automobile. In other words evolution has not taken place until all components have collectively defined specific change. That is the beginnings of its identifying specificity and its evolution.

That is, whatever we consider the idea of an automobile to be, however primitive, from that point on it begins its evolution - its alteration of, improved efficiency of, or transcendence from that original identifying idea since before this originating specificity nothing has changed. The linearity of evolution has been severed by indeterminacy. Evolution can only begin when change is possible and change can only happen with linear connectivity in existence.



I think this is irrelevant. With no intention, the entity may be made up of specific materials but those materials didn't evolve the entity since the fundamental materials themselves didn't change. The only change was in specificity when those materials complemented each other in such a manner as to formulate a specific function.

It makes no sense to say DNA evolved from particles since it is made of particles.


Again, intention is absent. And since any particular material entity in this universe may be said to not be inevitable, one cannot say any particular fundamentally identified entity evolved from any other fundamentally identified entity. Considering those fundamentals don’t change.

That is the base upon which all of modern science is founded upon. Simply put, once science has established enough evidence to formulate “laws” of nature, it is assumed those laws will hold true again and again and again. Evolution requires change. The fundamental components of the universe do not change. Ergo, the event that cause those fundamental components to exist cannot be said to have evolved into anything. And that includes me…sperm, egg and all.



Beginnings are important. Change can only happen to things when they initially begin to exist. Likewise identifying what is changing and linearly identifying what changed from what. Do we simply say that something evolved from a particular component of a thing even though that thing is composed of many components or do we say the thing evolved from all the components composing that thing giving it specificity? When we have a change in reality causing specificity in existent things without changing those fundamental things that is not evolution. That is an event that had a beginning.

For instance, you wouldn’t say I evolved from parental sex since nothing changed in the sex act. It was an event that happened making possible change, it wasn’t the change itself. Likewise, you wouldn’t say I evolved from the sperm, or from the egg since taken by themselves no amount of change would have produced me. So, I didn’t evolve from sperm or from eggs, but from their collective interaction which taken back far enough, evolved from a beginning which itself did not evolve from preexistent things but began in an event that took place from those preexistent things.

Which leads us back to my original premise. DNA did not evolve from the Big Bang. DNA evolved from components which weren’t themselves evolved but had their beginnings in an event.

I am in agreement with your premise that we cannot consider the evolution of DNA, or I suppose even life for that matter, as having begun at the big bang. In our probabilistic universe, there existed the possibility that, somewhere in the cosmos, condition might occur to form a primordial soup, and that given the existence of those conditions, self-replicating molecules could form, but there was no guarantee that such conditions would ever be met, nor any guarantee that once primordial soup conditions did form, that successful self-replicating molecules would form. Luckily for us, it appears they did did so here on earth.

I would place the start of DNA evolution on earth at the point where the primordial soup contained the right precursor molecules to eventually form self-replicating molecules. It is the self-replicating molecules that represent an evolutionary process. I would not characterize the general expansion and cooling of the cosmos as an evolutionary process.

 

[Subduction Zone]

The fleshing out comes with the discussion. It evolves in the back and forth to a clarification of the specifics. I'm not here to write out every minute step of every minute conclusion all at once. That is not feasible given the limitations on post length etc.
Since you've said some people have terribly ignorant ideas of how proteins form I'm assuming your familiar with the general concepts. So how do you think proteins form? I'm willing to be educated by your thoughts and go from there. Once one identifies the strawman there is no need to do any math to refute the claim.

Fair enough. So lets identify the strawman here. What do you think it is?

You still can't post properly and you do not listen. You only made a bare claim. As it was made one can freely reject it. If you want me to go into more detail. Are you unaware of Hitchens' Razor? Your post about the odds can be rejected on the basis that there was no evidence for it. There was no detail for it. You get angry when people point out that you are posting nonsense, but you just did.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I've actually been asked to do that by some posters to make the ideas clearer. Some people prefer that.

?? I think you splitting hairs as some sort of defense mechanism here? What are you afraid of?
Just respond to the debate. Forget the rest.
Its not feasible at times to respond to a post in its entirety without breaking it up in order to avoid confusion.
My post's usually reflect the length of the posts I'm responding to or the length I feel is needed to get my point across. Nobodies perfect in that regard though.
I don't know why you think I'm in denial? About what?
Is this your modus operandi? To pick at the person instead of discussing their propositions until they give up on having a discussion with you? Would that make you feel better? As if you've won something?

?? My posts have stated my hypothesis...over and over again. Are you reading them at all?

Are you familiar with the rudiments of Logic? Test the hypothesis by testing the logic.

You can do better. Edit your posts to just the essential points. And you have never posted a hypothesis. I do not think that you know what one is. Nor is your "test" valid. So, no hypothesis means no evidence for your beliefs.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

I tried to point out that DNA could not have been an inevitable outcome of the Big Bang "expansion" event. That is important because if DNA were an inevitable outcome of that expansion then Quantum uncertainty would be irrelevant to my argument and consequently DNA could be said to have evolved from that inevitability. Again...the OP proposed DNA evolved from the Big Bang event. I say it couldn't have for the reasons I presented. I simply made a counter argument to the OP's proposal.

I still don't know why you're making this point, why you think this matters in a discussion of abiogenesis, or who you're disagreeing with if anyone, and I don't expect to ever get an answer that explains it. You mostly say what you're NOT doing - not introducing intelligent designers, not making the Hoyle argument, not making a fine-tuning argument - but not what you ARE doing, and one insight I've gleaned fairly recently is that there are posters on RF that I will never connect with in discussion, never develop a conduit through which useful information flows both ways. I often find myself asking other posters what their larger point is as I have with you, and don't recall ever getting satisfaction thereafter.

And those familiar with my posting know that I'm going to try to assign as much meaning to that as the evidence justifies. Why won't he answer me, I wonder aloud? Does he not understand what is being asked of him? Is he unable to articulate his thoughts? Is he deliberately concealing an agenda? I don't know in any given case, and I don't think any of those three apply to you.

You'll have to elaborate on why you think so.

That was in response to, "This kind of calculation was debunked with Hoyle's fallacy." I think I did elaborate on that. The junkyard tornado doesn't adequately represent what happened with abiogenesis and biological evolution. Regarding the tornado, one could make an analogous argument that tornadoes are astronomically unlikely to occur given that countless numbers of air molecules need to all happen to be traveling at the right speed and the right direction in the same place at the same time.

Tornadoes, like living organisms (and hurricanes and the red spot on Jupiter or the polar hexagon on Saturn) but unlike 747s, are dissipative structures - are far from equilibrium structures that would have nearly zero chance of occurring without there being a pressure to have the ingredients come together and function cooperatively as Hoyle-type arguments about living systems ignore. Dissipative structures arise when a system is channeling energy, and is frequently associated with energy (heat) sources like atmospheres and oceans that function as thermal reservoirs:

• "A Dissipative Structure is a thermodynamically open system operating far from thermodynamic equilibrium, that exchanges energy, matter, and information with. the external environment. In this kind of systems, organization can emerge through a spontaneous self-organization process"
• "A thermal reservoir, also thermal energy reservoir or thermal bath, is a thermodynamic system with a heat capacity so large that the temperature of the reservoir changes relatively little when a much more significant amount of heat is added or extracted. As a conceptual simplification, it effectively functions as an infinite pool of thermal energy at a given, constant temperature. Since it can act as a source and sink of heat, it is often also referred to as a heat reservoir or heat bath. Lakes, oceans and rivers often serve as thermal reservoirs in geophysical processes, such as the weather. In atmospheric science, large air masses in the atmosphere often function as thermal reservoirs."

Now consider that in the light of this, which you have already seen. Life is another example of a dissipative structure, a high level of self-organization to a far from equilibrium position that channels energy that it uses to maintain that status. From A New Physics Theory of Life | Quanta Magazine :

• "From the standpoint of physics, there is one essential difference between living things and inanimate clumps of carbon atoms: The former tend to be much better at capturing energy from their environment and dissipating that energy as heat. Jeremy England, a 31-year-old assistant professor at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, has derived a mathematical formula that he believes explains this capacity. The formula, based on established physics, indicates that when a group of atoms is driven by an external source of energy (like the sun or chemical fuel) and surrounded by a heat bath (like the ocean or atmosphere), it will often gradually restructure itself in order to dissipate increasingly more energy. This could mean that under certain conditions, matter inexorably acquires the key physical attribute associated with life. “You start with a random clump of atoms, and if you shine light on it for long enough, it should not be so surprising that you get a plant,” England said."

According to this way of viewing life, life is seen as inevitable whenever the conditions are right for it, just like a tornado or hurricane - not a one-off, 1-in-a-gazillion unlikelihood. Now we understand why these weather phenomena occur more frequently in the summer, and more frequently and more violently as the temperature of the air and water warm. These are structures channeling the energy which causes them to form, which causes them to begin acting in concert with one another.

The point here isn't that complexity arose all at once in a "tornadic" burst of immense improbability.

The argument isn't about how quickly the 747 was assembled by the tornado.

How do we know when something has been biologically (naturally) assembled verses purposefully engineered (unnaturally assembled)?

The materials and their organization. According to Paley, the watch caught the attention of the man walking through the heath. It was visibly different from everything else there. It was made of inorganic materials and contained relatively few parts in relatively simple geometric shapes. Watches can't assemble themselves, but living things do it continuously.

I'm sure, that given the interacting complexities involved a particular gene or protein's generation, while governed by the laws of chemistry are not an inevitable creation of those laws in any particular instance. A particular protein doesn't have to exist because chemistry allows it to exist.

I'm still stumped why I keep reading comments like that one. I don't know why you think it matters whether life or DNA were inevitable from t=0, or whether their eventual appearance were necessary or contingent.

The whole point scientists Like Einstein, Hawking, Feynman, Born, Bohr, Schrodinger, etc. all continued to ask themselves ,even after discovering apparent "laws" of nature, why this universe is the way it is, isn't because their calculations bring them to conclude that it had to be this way but rather its because those calculations show that it probabilistically should have been some other way.

And there it is again.

my original arguments mentioned neither Hoyle, his supposed fallacy, nor fine tuning

No, you didn't use those words, but you did paraphrase the arguments.

Simply because some ID'ers or theists present their ideas unreasonably, many, oh so many, naturalists, atheists, etc. think all ID'ers or theists are morons, something they think their immune to apparently, and simply dismiss their arguments without consideration, even if they have nothing to do with God or intelligent design specifically.

I don't know why this has appeared now. How is that comment relevant? Please connect it to the rest of discussion thus far. Do you think that describes what I'm doing? Do you think I've dismissed your arguments without consideration? I think I've addressed them thoroughly. Or maybe you feel that other posters have treated you like that.

 

[MikeF]

I still don't know why you're making this point, why you think this matters in a discussion of abiogenesis, or who you're disagreeing with if anyone, and I don't expect to ever get an answer that explains it.

I believe it is the OP that first made the association of DNA evolving from a starting point of the Big Bang ...

So DNA first came on the scene 1 billion years after the earth formed. To me that seems like to short of a time frame. So the only thing that would make sense is that the evolution of DNA started at the time of the Big Bang theory. That would make DNA's evolutionary time frame 10 billion years which seems more plausible.

And later, we have this statement that essentially everything has evolved from the big bang:

I disagree. The evolution of everything that exists today began at the Big Bang event. If the material of the universe was not created (as many myths suggest) then there was no actual beginning, rather cycles of the material.

This is my understanding as to why this point of when the evolution of DNA commenced is being addressed.

 

[setarcos]

I still don't know why you're making this point, why you think this matters in a discussion of abiogenesis, or who you're disagreeing with if anyone, and I don't expect to ever get an answer that explains it.

I'm thinking my reply's to the answers you seek are getting lost in the longer posts. I'm going to try to clarify my answers for you by narrowing down the replies to one post per question/reply.

I thought I've answered this one pretty clearly. The OP's original post suggested that DNA evolved or began evolving at the Big Bang event (the initial expansion of the universe). I disagree with the OP's suggestion, so originally I was disagreeing with the OP.
Evolution does not explain Abiogenesis. Evolutionary theory does not include an explanation of life's origins. As I'm sure you know.
Abiogenesis was not originally the focus of this thread. It became a tangential discussion brought up by others simply because of its "middle man" association between the Big Bang and DNA's evolution.
The bold above is your unexpected answer here.
Does that clarify this portion for you?
As soon as we can come to an understanding here then I can move on to your next observation/question in your post.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

I'm thinking my reply's to the answers you seek are getting lost in the longer posts. I'm going to try to clarify my answers for you by narrowing down the replies to one post per question/reply.

I thought I've answered this one pretty clearly. The OP's original post suggested that DNA evolved or began evolving at the Big Bang event (the initial expansion of the universe). I disagree with the OP's suggestion, so originally I was disagreeing with the OP.
Evolution does not explain Abiogenesis. Evolutionary theory does not include an explanation of life's origins. As I'm sure you know.
Abiogenesis was not originally the focus of this thread. It became a tangential discussion brought up by others simply because of its "middle man" association between the Big Bang and DNA's evolution.
The bold above is your unexpected answer here.
Does that clarify this portion for you?
As soon as we can come to an understanding here then I can move on to your next observation/question in your post.

No, that doesn't answer my question, but that's fine. I can live without knowing why you're posting about this.

Is part of the problem here that when you talk about DNA evolving, you mean only biological evolution? It seemed earlier that your argument was that if DNA was not an inevitable outcome of universal expansion that it cannot be said to have evolved from it. Now I wonder if I misunderstood what you meant by evolution. It never occurred to me that the reference in the OP or from you was to biological evolution only, especially given the mention of the evolving from the Big Bang.

Biological evolution is the third phase of the evolution of the universe, which begins with material evolution leading to a cosmic web of galaxies of solar systems cooking then disseminating heavier elements including minerals for rocky planets and lighter elements for oceans, atmospheres, and eventually life. This is followed by chemical evolution (abiogenesis - matter comes alive), then biological evolution (oceanic then atmospheric molecular oxygen including an ozone layer and multicellular life appear), then psychological evolution (animal life awakens), and in the case of man, then cultural evolution (technological civilization appears).

The OP said, "the evolution of DNA started at the time of the Big Bang theory." I agree with that, if we drop the word theory, and understand evolution to be all of the above. Everything evolved from that instant. We have a continuous path from t=0 to today during which DNA appeared, I call that evolution from the Big Bang to DNA and beyond.

 

[setarcos]

You only made a bare claim.

Sigh...okay what exactly do you mean by "bare claim" and what bare claim that I made are you talking about specifically?
I just wanna make sure we're on the same page with the terms and what they are applying to.

If you want me to go into more detail. Are you unaware of Hitchens' Razor? Your post about the odds can be rejected on the basis that there was no evidence for it. There was no detail for it.

No, please don't go into more detail in order to clarify things so that we may come to an agreement here instead of wasting our time mindlessly bantering back and forth.
Are you aware of Hitchens' Razor's fallacy?
Here is his statement: "What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence."
While this statement can be intuitively reasonable it is not logically tenable.
It makes a claim that claims without evidence can be dismissed while itself not offering evidence. If it offers evidence then its claim is no longer valid.
I might also add that while such claims may be dismissed because they can be dismissed it says nothing about whether they should be dismissed. It offers no standard of proof to go by. It also is often mistaken for a proof of the truth or falsity of a claim. It is not.
It offers no standard by which one may consider it reasonable to accept a claim without evidence. What is reasonable or not? Can any claims be reasonably accepted without evidence? Can we reasonably function if not?

Lets say it does offer a standard of proof on which its claim stands. In order to see if a claim fulfills the first half of the statement one has to examine the claim and any evidence offered which might meet that standard. In so doing you've established evidence that the claim either meets the standard or doesn't and so the second half of Hitchens claim doesn't logically meet its own claim.
Hitchens was a brilliant, crafty, and witty scholar. But that doesn't mean simply invoking his name indicates his arguments must be infallible.

Your post about the odds can be rejected on the basis that there was no evidence for it. There was no detail for it.

Good grief....do you not understand that the evidence I presented is based upon the evidence the scientists I quoted have discovered??! The evidence lies in their evidence based conclusions. How you interpret that evidence is a different matter but the evidence was given. Why can't you understand that?
If you disagree then present counterarguments to their evidence...or my logical deductions from their evidence. Or present "evidence" as to why you think their evidence isn't evidence. And no, simply saying that's not evidence is not evidence of your claims truth. THAT ought to be self-evident to you.

There was no detail for it.

If everyone on here gave every detail concerning the references backing up their claims the posts would get untenably enormous. I gave quotes and references and made rudimentary assumptions that whoever was reading my posts would be familiar with the parts of those theories I was referencing or they could look them up and familiarize themselves with them.
That is why we give references. If I've misunderstood those theories and consequently misused them to back up my logic then one should be able to offer counterarguments to that effect.

You get angry when people point out that you are posting nonsense, but you just did.

Again, I get irked when someone says its nonsense without proving the case. Like you did. While I don't like being wrong, I certainly can handle being shown that I am wrong a lot better than being told I am wrong without reason.

you have never posted a hypothesis. I do not think that you know what one is. Nor is your "test" valid. So, no hypothesis means no evidence for your beliefs.

God help me to be patient....lets go to the definitions, I'll list several so we can take an average if you like.

an idea or explanation for something that is based on known facts but has not yet been proved: Cambridge Dictionary

• An educated guess: a scientific hypothesis provides a suggested solution based on evidence. Chem.libretexts.org

A hypothesis or hypothesis statement seeks to explain why something has happened, or what might happen, under certain conditions. It can also be used to understand how different variables relate to each other. Hypotheses are often written as if-then statements; for example, “If this happens, then this will happen.” Harvard Business School

A scientific hypothesis is a proposed explanation for an observable phenomenon. In other words, a hypothesis is an educated guess about the relationship between multiple variables. MasterClass Members of whom includes Neil deGrassseTyson and Dr. Jane Goodall. Hopefully your familiar with the names.

My hypothesis is logically derived from the work of other scientists in the fields of Quantum Electrodynamics, information theory, Biology, and the theory of evolution.

My hypothesis : DNA did not evolve from the Big Bang event. (educated guess)
The observable phenomenon: DNA's evolution; the evident results of the Big Bang event, the characteristics of information and how it is transferred from transmitter to receiver as derived from information theory; Quantum indeterminacy as derived from quantum theories. (the multiple variables)

If your still questioning whether or not what I've said is my hypothesis is actually a hypothesis then see above.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Sigh...okay what exactly do you mean by "bare claim" and what bare claim that I made are you talking about specifically?
I just wanna make sure we're on the same page with the terms and what they are applying to.

You made a claim that was not supported by any evidence.

No, please don't go into more detail in order to clarify things so that we may come to an agreement here instead of wasting our time mindlessly bantering back and forth.
Are you aware of Hitchens' Razor's fallacy?
Here is his statement: "What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence."
While this statement can be intuitively reasonable it is not logically tenable.
It makes a claim that claims without evidence can be dismissed while itself not offering evidence. If it offers evidence then its claim is no longer valid.
I might also add that while such claims may be dismissed because they can be dismissed it says nothing about whether they should be dismissed. It offers no standard of proof to go by. It also is often mistaken for a proof of the truth or falsity of a claim. It is not.
It offers no standard by which one may consider it reasonable to accept a claim without evidence. What is reasonable or not? Can any claims be reasonably accepted without evidence? Can we reasonably function if not?

Oh my, you are a literalist too. No wonder that you have such poor reasoning skills. That is not all that there is to Hitchens' Razor. There is reasoning behind it. It is a shortcut for pointing out that others have not met their burden of proof. This should not be that hard to understand:

Hitchens's razor - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Lets say it does offer a standard of proof on which its claim stands. In order to see if a claim fulfills the first half of the statement one has to examine the claim and any evidence offered which might meet that standard. In so doing you've established evidence that the claim either meets the standard or doesn't and so the second half of Hitchens claim doesn't logically meet its own claim.
Hitchens was a brilliant, crafty, and witty scholar. But that doesn't mean simply invoking his name indicates his arguments must be infallible.

Again, why so much worthless rhetoric to defend your faulty position. Please, if you do not understand something just state it. Do not keep trying to defend the indefensible.

Good grief....do you not understand that the evidence I presented is based upon the evidence the scientists I quoted have discovered??! The evidence lies in their evidence based conclusions. How you interpret that evidence is a different matter but the evidence was given. Why can't you understand that?
If you disagree then present counterarguments to their evidence...or my logical deductions from their evidence. Or present "evidence" as to why you think their evidence isn't evidence. And no, simply saying that's not evidence is not evidence of your claims truth. THAT ought to be self-evident to you.

What "evidence". I do not even think that you understand the concept in this context. Nor have you made any "logical deductions" or at the very least you have not demonstrated any You have only made "bare claims". You have claimed to have accomplished certain goals, but there is no sign of it.

If everyone on here gave every detail concerning the references backing up their claims the posts would get untenably enormous. I gave quotes and references and made rudimentary assumptions that whoever was reading my posts would be familiar with the parts of those theories I was referencing or they could look them up and familiarize themselves with them.
That is why we give references. If I've misunderstood those theories and consequently misused them to back up my logic then one should be able to offer counterarguments to that effect.

Again, I get irked when someone says its nonsense without proving the case. Like you did. While I don't like being wrong, I certainly can handle being shown that I am wrong a lot better than being told I am wrong without reason.

God help me to be patient....lets go to the definitions, I'll list several so we can take an average if you like.

an idea or explanation for something that is based on known facts but has not yet been proved: Cambridge Dictionary

• An educated guess: a scientific hypothesis provides a suggested solution based on evidence. Chem.libretexts.org

A hypothesis or hypothesis statement seeks to explain why something has happened, or what might happen, under certain conditions. It can also be used to understand how different variables relate to each other. Hypotheses are often written as if-then statements; for example, “If this happens, then this will happen.” Harvard Business School

A scientific hypothesis is a proposed explanation for an observable phenomenon. In other words, a hypothesis is an educated guess about the relationship between multiple variables. MasterClass Members of whom includes Neil deGrassseTyson and Dr. Jane Goodall. Hopefully your familiar with the names.


My hypothesis : DNA did not evolve from the Big Bang event. (educated guess)
The observable phenomenon: DNA's evolution; the evident results of the Big Bang event, the characteristics of information and how it is transferred from transmitter to receiver as derived from information theory; Quantum indeterminacy as derived from quantum theories. (the multiple variables)

If your still questioning whether or not what I've said is my hypothesis is actually a hypothesis then see above.

And you just demonstrated that you do not understand what a scientific hypothesis is. And the Harvard Business school? That reeks of desperation. Yes, Harvard itself is very well respected. And when it come to business matters the Harvard business school is tops. but we are discussing science here, not business. And quotes without links are worthless. People often dishonestly quote from sources. it is called "quote mining" Quotes out of context are not valid support.

All of theses sources point out how an absolute must for a scientific hypothesis is that it must be falsifiable:

Scientific hypothesis | Definition, Formulation, & Example

Scientific hypothesis, idea that proposes an explanation for an observed phenomenon or narrow set of phenomena. Two key features of a scientific hypothesis are falsifiability and testability, which are reflected in an ‘If...then’ statement, and the ability to be supported or refuted in...

www.britannica.com

Scientific Hypothesis, Theories and Laws

relate to each other. Definitions are provided and examples are given to help understand these concepts better.

sci.waikato.ac.nz

What Is a Scientific Hypothesis? | Definition of Hypothesis

It's the initial building block in the scientific method.

www.livescience.com

https://berks.psu.edu/sites/berks/files/campus/HypothesisHandout_Final.pdf

Hypothesis - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Scientific method - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

I got tired. There are more. I was just working my way down a Google search, though I switched the first and the second. Otherwise that was in order. None of them skipped the fact that a hypothesis has to be testable. It has to be falsifiable to be a scientific hypothesis. How did you find sources that did not state this?

 

[MikeF]

Biological evolution is the third phase of the evolution of the universe, which begins with material evolution leading to a cosmic web of galaxies of solar systems cooking then disseminating heavier elements including minerals for rocky planets and lighter elements for oceans, atmospheres, and eventually life. This is followed by chemical evolution (abiogenesis - matter comes alive), then biological evolution (oceanic then atmospheric molecular oxygen including an ozone layer and multicellular life appear), then psychological evolution (animal life awakens), and in the case of man, then cultural evolution (technological civilization appears).

The way you have worded this gives me the impression that you are saying for every Big Bang event, the stages you describe *shall* result, similar to describing the life cycle of a star: [roughly] gases condense, pressure and temperature rise, nuclear fusion begins and burns until depleted, then dies.

The issue I have is that unlike the inevitability of the stars life cycle, there is no inevitability that life will result from a big bang event. If your category system of stages is simply to reflect our history, then that's fine, but your wording of "and eventually life" seemed to indicate that you consider life a foregone conclusion and an eventual stage that will be reached for any Big Bang event.

Am I misreading you?

The OP said, "the evolution of DNA started at the time of the Big Bang theory." I agree with that, if we drop the word theory, and understand evolution to be all of the above. Everything evolved from that instant. We have a continuous path from t=0 to today during which DNA appeared, I call that evolution from the Big Bang to DNA and beyond.

Again, I would characterize this differently. The cosmos is not a deterministic system as illustrated by Laplace's demon thought experiment, rather, the cosmos is probabilistic. In other words, we can look back and trace the events of causal history, but the farther back in time one goes the lower the probabilistic capacity someone at that historical point would have to predict current conditions. And by the same token, we can accurately predict the future in a very short time span, but the further one casts into the future, the less ability there is to make an accurate prediction of future events.

The path you describe is continuous to today because it is an historical path, the die have be cast, events and outcomes have occurred. Where things will go into the distant future we have no way to predict with any certainty, depending on the scale and subject under discussion. For example, the motion of large galaxy systems, considered as a unit moving through the cosmos will be easier to predict over the long term because of the limited external forces acting on those systems as a whole.

So, although I fully agree that our Big Bang had to occur to enable everything that followed to occur, in speaking of when the evolution of DNA began, I would think in terms of biological evolution and would choose the existence of pre-cursor molecules in the hypothesized primordial soup, or maybe the first self-replicating molecules that would become DNA.

You may consider my arguments a distinction without a difference, and in reality it doesn't much matter except to emphasis that life did not have to occur. As best we can tell it was a happy accident.

 

[Twilight Hue]

They are entertaining the idea of an ekpyrotic universe. Big Bounce Theory.

What happened before the Big Bang?

The Big Bounce theory was once thought impossible. But two physicists have just resurrected it.

www.livescience.com

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

If your category system of stages is simply to reflect our history

Yes, it was. Those were the five stages of evolution that led to human technological civilization. As to how much of it was inevitable by t=0+, I don't hazard a guess.

You may consider my arguments a distinction without a difference, and in reality it doesn't much matter except to emphasis that life did not have to occur. As best we can tell it was a happy accident.

As best we can tell, everything is a happy accident, beginning with there being something rather than nothing, but that probably isn't correct.

The question of when DNA began evolving, for me, can be connected to the initial symmetry breaking that generated the fundamental particles and forces, but we can start with later dates if one likes. Once the charges, flavors, and masses of the fundamental particles was established, the eventual appearance of life and mind may have been determined but I don't know how we decide that. The moment of inevitability seems undecidable at this time, and unimportant as well. I don't understand why it has gotten so much attention in this thread.

 

[MikeF]

The moment of inevitability seems undecidable at this time, and unimportant as well.

I agree on both counts. We are here.

I don't understand why it has gotten so much attention in this thread.

Like the outcome of a Big Bang event, once an OP gets posted, there is no predicting where it may eventually end up. Comments get made and clarifications sought. Discussions evolve.

 

[Brickjectivity]

The title of the thread is 'Abiogenesis', and the first post attempts to ridicule the concept. Some others seem to think it has to do with the Big Bang. It does not. In truth we could eliminate all ideas about Big Bang, and abiogenesis would still be a concept worth exploring.

What we presume is that life comes from some initial point, because life is a repeating system that changes over time with evidence that it evolves. The physical evidence is strong for increasing complexity of life, and the strongest evidence is the complex tree of life which shows that all creatures are related. The bacteria/carrot/animal is related to the human, and the relation that is first only suspected was confirmed when DNA is discovered and the study of evolutionary history begins. Since that time both the phenomenological and genetic histories of species are under investigation and seem to confirm that complex life is related to and comes from previously simpler life. These (phenomenological and genetic) are what can be called the 'Two witnesses' of evolution, though there may be more. There is also evidence that evolution can cause more complex to produce simpler organisms but that it is guided by survival and by symbiosis, so that hardier species survive better and cause evolution to tend towards complexity rather than towards simplicity.

Is it necessary to research abiogenesis given how obvious evolution is? Well...yes. It is necessary to try to find out how abiogenesis can work or might have worked; and all of chemistry and all of physics is there to help with that. The tools established by Dalton and others are being put to work to try to find out how everything is what it is.

Is necessary to prove that abiogenesis happens in a particular way? No. Evolution is already obvious. The original beginning of life is back there somewhere in the past. That much is obvious. It would be nice to know, however, that life came or did not come from space or from some other planet.

 

[setarcos]

You made a claim that was not supported by any evidence.

We've been over this. Apparently your standard of evidence is different from all the other scientific disciplines I listed.
I'm beginning to think you simply copy what mentions the word as proof of your convictions without understanding what your copying.
This don't even answer my question. Your stuck in the same rut without "seeing" what your reading.
I asked for you to tell me what bare claim. WHAT BARE CLAIM ARE YOU SPEAKING ABOUT THAT I HAVE NO EVIDENCE FOR??

Oh my, you are a literalist too. No wonder that you have such poor reasoning skills.

So now your saying literalists can't reason? Your pretty good at creating logical fallacies here while accusing others of the same.

That is not all that there is to Hitchens' Razor.

Um...yeah, and didn't I point that out for you?
How do you think I'm being literal here? And to such a degree that its interfered with my reasoning skills? Perhaps by quoting what Hitchens literally said?

It is a shortcut for pointing out that others have not met their burden of proof. This should not be that hard to understand:

Omg. You think? A shortcut? I've read the interview from which this statement was made. I've read many of his books. I've observed many of his debates. And read the transcripts. I think I know what he meant. And I've come to the conclusions I have. If you don't understand my critique of his statement that's fine, we can move on. If you do then give me some counterarguments to chew on. GIVE ME SOMETHING TO CHEW ON HERE! Your parroting the same stuff without speaking to what I've said.
CAN YOU ADDRESS MY COMMENTS WITH COUNTERPOINTS OR NOT??
I'm beginning to honestly think you do not understand that when I make a point, repeating what you've already said does not address the point I've made concerning what your repeating.
Listen, if you cannot see from my critique of Hitchens statement that I am not only aware of the meaning you've given it above but I address as much in my critique then you either don't understand what I've said or you don't care and simply want me to be wrong and you right.

Again, why so much worthless rhetoric to defend your faulty position. Please, if you do not understand something just state it. Do not keep trying to defend the indefensible.

Here again is an example. You haven't addressed one single thing of what I actually said to defend your opinion that my "rhetoric" is worthless and faulty. What is indefensible? That I disagree with you on something?
Your pretty quick on the insults but slow on the counterpoints. That's usually the typical ratio. Those with little counterpoints to make resort to higher percentages of insults. So far you've used : nonsense, worthless, faulty, can't post properly, don't listen...etc. and have offered absolutely no counterpoints to my propositions. None, zip, zilch, nil, nada.

What "evidence"

I'm gonna try again here....
In order for one entity to have been said to have evolved from another entity there must be a linear transference of information from the one to the other. The evidence for this is found in how evolutionists define evolving entities.
That linear transference of information is broken with the Last Common Ancestor by Quantum indeterminacy. The evidence for that is found in the theory of Quantum Electrodynamics. Or Quantum mechanics.
The evidence for my hypothesis being true can be found in the logical progression of the evidences from those theories back to the Big Bang event. The same way evolutionists look at evidences for past evolution by logical progression of present evidences from various theoretical fields of inquiry into the past.

I do not even think that you understand the concept in this context. Nor have you made any "logical deductions" or at the very least you have not demonstrated any You have only made "bare claims".

Here again, nothing but accusation without justification. Show your evidence. Address my arguments with counterpoints.
I've made a claim...how am I wrong. SHOW ME. I have faith in you that you might be able to do it. So have faith in yourself and do it! I'm telling you, I HAVE made deductions that I think is logical, that is self evident. So tell me why they are not. Don't just say I haven't. Can you imagine if all I had to do is say you are wrong and don't understand without providing justification for that view in order to be correct. Would you accept that in a debate? Should anyone?

And you just demonstrated that you do not understand what a scientific hypothesis is.

Again, a statement with no substance behind it. Come on!

And the Harvard Business school? That reeks of desperation. Yes, Harvard itself is very well respected. And when it come to business matters the Harvard business school is tops. but we are discussing science here, not business.

Silly wabbit...you drink shallowly. I was intrigued by what the sight had to say. This tells me you've got a woefully incomplete understanding of what it means to be scientific. You should actually read what they have to say about hypotheses and science before you denigrate the schools knowledge on the subject.
Do you not realize that the foundations of any good business model is solidly based in scientific principles? A successful businesses hypotheses are as solidly scientific as an astronomers conjectures on the origins of cosmic rays.

And quotes without links are worthless. People often dishonestly quote from sources. it is called "quote mining" Quotes out of context are not valid support.

I'm sorry I figured you could google the references I gave and get there. Its not like my quotes, for the most part, are so esoteric that they can't be easily located.

None of them skipped the fact that a hypothesis has to be testable. It has to be falsifiable

This goes without saying. We've been over these facts. I've literally stated how my proposition can be falsified and since my conclusions are based on established theory the hypothesis is testable by affiliation.
I thought you may be hung up on the drawing of conclusions based on logical deduction from established theory as somehow being unscientific.
My sources are referenced and from reputable organizations which can be checked. Are you saying Cambridge, Harvard, and Master Class online are wrong in their statements of what a scientific hypothesis is?

Please don't reply unless you actually have counter arguments to what I've proposed. It really is just a waist at this point.

 

[Subduction Zone]

We've been over this. Apparently your standard of evidence is different from all the other scientific disciplines I listed.
I'm beginning to think you simply copy what mentions the word as proof of your convictions without understanding what your copying.
This don't even answer my question. Your stuck in the same rut without "seeing" what your reading.
I asked for you to tell me what bare claim. WHAT BARE CLAIM ARE YOU SPEAKING ABOUT THAT I HAVE NO EVIDENCE FOR??

So now your saying literalists can't reason? Your pretty good at creating logical fallacies here while accusing others of the same.

Um...yeah, and didn't I point that out for you?
How do you think I'm being literal here? And to such a degree that its interfered with my reasoning skills? Perhaps by quoting what Hitchens literally said?

Omg. You think? A shortcut? I've read the interview from which this statement was made. I've read many of his books. I've observed many of his debates. And read the transcripts. I think I know what he meant. And I've come to the conclusions I have. If you don't understand my critique of his statement that's fine, we can move on. If you do then give me some counterarguments to chew on. GIVE ME SOMETHING TO CHEW ON HERE! Your parroting the same stuff without speaking to what I've said.
CAN YOU ADDRESS MY COMMENTS WITH COUNTERPOINTS OR NOT??
I'm beginning to honestly think you do not understand that when I make a point, repeating what you've already said does not address the point I've made concerning what your repeating.
Listen, if you cannot see from my critique of Hitchens statement that I am not only aware of the meaning you've given it above but I address as much in my critique then you either don't understand what I've said or you don't care and simply want me to be wrong and you right.

Here again is an example. You haven't addressed one single thing of what I actually said to defend your opinion that my "rhetoric" is worthless and faulty. What is indefensible? That I disagree with you on something?
Your pretty quick on the insults but slow on the counterpoints. That's usually the typical ratio. Those with little counterpoints to make resort to higher percentages of insults. So far you've used : nonsense, worthless, faulty, can't post properly, don't listen...etc. and have offered absolutely no counterpoints to my propositions. None, zip, zilch, nil, nada.

I'm gonna try again here....
In order for one entity to have been said to have evolved from another entity there must be a linear transference of information from the one to the other. The evidence for this is found in how evolutionists define evolving entities.
That linear transference of information is broken with the Last Common Ancestor by Quantum indeterminacy. The evidence for that is found in the theory of Quantum Electrodynamics. Or Quantum mechanics.
The evidence for my hypothesis being true can be found in the logical progression of the evidences from those theories back to the Big Bang event. The same way evolutionists look at evidences for past evolution by logical progression of present evidences from various theoretical fields of inquiry into the past.

Here again, nothing but accusation without justification. Show your evidence. Address my arguments with counterpoints.
I've made a claim...how am I wrong. SHOW ME. I have faith in you that you might be able to do it. So have faith in yourself and do it! I'm telling you, I HAVE made deductions that I think is logical, that is self evident. So tell me why they are not. Don't just say I haven't. Can you imagine if all I had to do is say you are wrong and don't understand without providing justification for that view in order to be correct. Would you accept that in a debate? Should anyone?

Again, a statement with no substance behind it. Come on!

Silly wabbit...you drink shallowly. I was intrigued by what the sight had to say. This tells me you've got a woefully incomplete understanding of what it means to be scientific. You should actually read what they have to say about hypotheses and science before you denigrate the schools knowledge on the subject.
Do you not realize that the foundations of any good business model is solidly based in scientific principles? A successful businesses hypotheses are as solidly scientific as an astronomers conjectures on the origins of cosmic rays.

I'm sorry I figured you could google the references I gave and get there. Its not like my quotes, for the most part, are so esoteric that they can't be easily located.

This goes without saying. We've been over these facts. I've literally stated how my proposition can be falsified and since my conclusions are based on established theory the hypothesis is testable by affiliation.
I thought you may be hung up on the drawing of conclusions based on logical deduction from established theory as somehow being unscientific.
My sources are referenced and from reputable organizations which can be checked. Are you saying Cambridge, Harvard, and Master Class online are wrong in their statements of what a scientific hypothesis is?

Please don't reply unless you actually have counter arguments to what I've proposed. It really is just a waist at this point.

Oh my God it is like pulling teeth. When a person is wrong they often write a book when totally unnecessary. I explained to you why your definition of evidence was wrong. I showed to you why endless sources, not me, but actual scientists, all use the same definition of evidence.

Let's deal with your problems one at a time. There is no need to excessively break up my post. I showed that you were wrong with links. You only made claims. By the way, unsupported claims is what science deniers tend to use.. They imagine themselves to be experts when they are about as far from it as possible and then when others show what how actual scientists work they try to claim that is only that person's definition. So one more time, this was not my definition. It is the definition used by scientists. Do you have an actual response or just more nonsense?

 

[wellwisher]

Any element that exists in this universe (except hydrogen and helium) up to iron are created in the furnace of suns. Once a sun begins creating iron it is the death of the sun. Creating iron requires more energy than is available. The sun dies, depending on how it dies it creates different heavier elements with the supernova creating the heaviest.

DNA requires the element P or phosphorus; atomic number 15, which is used for the phosphate polymer backbone of DNA and RNA. The first generation stars are currently thought, to have not have synthesized elements that high. DNA and RNA would need to wait for the second generation stars. However, first generation stars could make lower atoms like C,N,O needed for the peptide linkage of proteins; HOCN. The first phase of life from first generation stars, may have been a protein based universe in water since these atoms and molecules would be possible.

Elements higher than iron are endothermic to make, which means it take more energy to make than it gives back. However, since the reaction of hydrogen to helium is very plentiful, and gives off the most energy per unit of mass, creation of higher endothermic atoms would be like an energy sponge, to avoid overheating the star.

One product of fusion is heat, with too much heat product becoming reaction rate limiting. Higher atom formation, by taking away heat, help the base fusion reactions go forward. In chemical processes, where heat is created, you need to figure out ways to remove the heat, to keep the forward reactions going strong.

 

[setarcos]

So one more time, this was not my definition. It is the definition used by scientists. Do you have an actual response or just more nonsense?

I never said it was your definition. I've never disagreed with your understanding of hypothesis needing falsifiability/testability or supporting evidence. What I've done is disagreed with your misapplication of your own understanding of these things as they relate to my argument.
I asked you not to reply without counterarguments. Repeating agreed upon definitions are not counterpoints. Your stuck in the same failed line of reasoning - or lack thereof.
How about, since your tactic isn't getting us anywhere, you try a different approach like the following...
A counterpoint would be showing how my argument fails to satisfy the definitions given. And no, simply repeating the phrase "you've shown no evidence" is not adequate enough to prove your point since it itself is a claim with no evidence presented.
The definitions you've given is data. Data is not evidence until it is used in a supporting argument.
You have to show why using theoretical findings from the theories I've presented is not evidence supporting my logical conclusions.
Your apparently just wanting me to agree with you without you making an effort to show why I should. Wow! The arguments I could win if that's all we need do.
Now can you show that or not?

 

[Subduction Zone]

I never said it was your definition. I've never disagreed with your understanding of hypothesis needing falsifiability/testability or supporting evidence. What I've done is disagreed with your misapplication of your own understanding of these things as they relate to my argument.
I asked you not to reply without counterarguments. Repeating agreed upon definitions are not counterpoints. Your stuck in the same failed line of reasoning - or lack thereof.
How about, since your tactic isn't getting us anywhere, you try a different approach like the following...
A counterpoint would be showing how my argument fails to satisfy the definitions given. And no, simply repeating the phrase "you've shown no evidence" is not adequate enough to prove your point since it itself is a claim with no evidence presented.
The definitions you've given is data. Data is not evidence until it is used in a supporting argument.
You have to show why using theoretical findings from the theories I've presented is not evidence supporting my logical conclusions.
Your apparently just wanting me to agree with you without you making an effort to show why I should. Wow! The arguments I could win if that's all we need do.
Now can you show that or not?

I used the facts in an argument. You appear to have ignored it. The problem is that you are not arguing rationally here. You are guilty of what you accuse others of doing. You claimed to have a rational argument, but in this case to be rational you do need to follow the "rules". You do not seem to like the fact that to have a rational argument in a scientific matter that scientific evidence is needed. That is all.

Can you support your claims with evidence? If not why should anyone give your beliefs any credence?

 

[setarcos]

I used the facts in an argument. You appear to have ignored it.

What argument? You've made no supporting argument. All you have done is make a claim which I address. Over and over and over again. That's not ignoring it. You on the other hand...again have ignored ever request I've made.

The problem is that you are not arguing rationally here.

Okay that's what you claim. Now what's your supporting evidence?

ou are guilty of what you accuse others of doing. You claimed to have a rational argument, but in this case to be rational you do need to follow the "rules".

Okay, more claims. So what is your argument that shows I am not being rational here? What rational "rules" am I breaking?

You do not seem to like the fact that to have a rational argument in a scientific matter that scientific evidence is needed. That is all.

Okay, you've made the claim...again...that I have no scientific evidence. I've make a counterpoint by showing you exactly what the scientific evidence I am using is. You keep repeating the same thing. You need to show me why the evidence I proposed is not scientific.

Can you support your claims with evidence?

I did and told you exactly what that evidence is. Do you have any counterpoints to what I've shown you?

If not why should anyone give your beliefs any credence?

I'm wondering if you've lost the gist of this discussion and what its about? Credence or not is determined in the debate, which usually requires replies to points and counterpoints until an agreement can be made. If you refuse to make counterpoints which support your claims, as I've requested on numerous occasions then I think were at an impasse here and should move on to other things. I gave it a good try.