I need you to attack this argument
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
31-10-2013, 09:57 AM
RE: I need you to attack this argument
(30-10-2013 01:09 AM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  
(29-10-2013 06:16 PM)ridethespiral Wrote:  ..but if you put the right chemicals (found in abundance on old earth) in a flask and apply enough energy you get the kinds of organic molecules with the potential to become life. All it takes is one successful little bacteria to get the ball rolling and with millions of years and 300 foot tides it starts to look more inevitable than 'irreducibly complex'

I have long thought that abiogenesis is much more likely to occur in a double planet system like our earth/moon then say a single planet system like Venus precisely because of the tides.

(30-10-2013 01:41 AM)Revenant77x Wrote:  
(30-10-2013 01:09 AM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  I have long thought that abiogenesis is much more likely to occur in a double planet system like our earth/moon then say a single planet system like Venus precisely because of the tides.

The rotational stability that having a binary planet system provides is what causes our seasonal and predictable weather. Mars for example has a much less stable rotation (it's poles can and do end up where it's equator should be and vise-versa) This stability in weather patterns most likely did have an impact on the evolution of life but we still do not know if Mars ever had bacterial life (a strong possibility back when it had liquid water and an atmosphere) so to say that Abiogenesis is affected by it may be over stating.

(30-10-2013 02:05 AM)Revenant77x Wrote:  
(30-10-2013 01:44 AM)Stevil Wrote:  Possibly something pre RNA. Something that would be more non life than life but would still blur the lines.

BTW we don't know that Abiogenesis isn't happening today, even if it is only for a brief moment before it is devoured. We don't know all the conditions that it can happen it.

Well Scientists have had Amino Acids form under Early earth conditions in a lab. Those are the basic building blocks of life but the conditions required are very exact. Lots of free floating material and an abundant energy source. The one exception to this may be those volcanic chimney vents in the Pacific Ocean. They turn on and off at random (based on the shifting Pacific plate) and each is so isolated that it sports a unique ecosystem. Perhaps (and this is just speculation) there is some amount of abiogenesis happening there when they first become active.

(30-10-2013 02:21 AM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  
(30-10-2013 01:41 AM)Revenant77x Wrote:  The rotational stability that having a binary planet system provides is what causes our seasonal and predictable weather. Mars for example has a much less stable rotation (it's poles can and do end up where it's equator should be and vise-versa) This stability in weather patterns most likely did have an impact on the evolution of life but we still do not know if Mars ever had bacterial life (a strong possibility back when it had liquid water and an atmosphere) so to say that Abiogenesis is affected by it may be over stating.

I was referring to huge tides(created by a moon 5000 miles aways as opposed to 250000 miles away today) rolling deep inland creating tremendous amounts of tidal pools. As these pools evaporate in the sunlight they concentrate the chemicals they contain which would increase the chance of a chemical reaction occurring.

Rotational stability is going to have a bigger impact on evolution then it does on abiogenesis....methinks.

Yeah the moon used to be way, way, way closer to the earth...

Saw some Nat Geo/Science Channel thing in which the researcher likened Earth - 3.5 B to be "a planet sized centrifuge" full of organic material constantly being struck by lightening, still very hot, etc.

We take the moon for granted but without it we would have 6 hour days, a much thinner atmosphere...You wife could go on the rag at any moment, etc. Tongue

Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
31-10-2013, 12:29 PM
RE: I need you to attack this argument
(31-10-2013 12:43 AM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  
(30-10-2013 11:59 AM)Stevil Wrote:  
(30-10-2013 02:05 AM)Revenant77x Wrote:  Well Scientists have had Amino Acids form under Early earth conditions in a lab. Those are the basic building blocks of life but the conditions required are very exact.
Are you talking about the Miller–Urey experiment?
I heard that scientists consider that the early Earth conditions where not as this experiment assumed.

I heard this as well. But in other experiments at least 2 necleobases in DNA have been shown to emerge in conditions which may have been found on early earth. That's more significant IMO.
So we know of at least two conditions where something resembling Abiogenesis can happen. It seems conditions don't have to be very exact.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
31-10-2013, 10:46 PM
RE: I need you to attack this argument
(31-10-2013 06:40 AM)black_squirrel Wrote:  
(31-10-2013 01:12 AM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  Many natural phenomena have elements of randomness yet of all the natural phenomena that exist/have existed, abiogenesis is the only one that happened once? That's just too much of a stretch for me to believe.

The only other natural phenomena that I can think of that happened once was the big bang....and I don't count that because its kinda a special case. If abiogenesis happened on this planet, its much more likely it happened many...many...times.

I don't understand your argument. If you win the lottery once, can you conclude
that you must win the lottery many times?

The lotto example that Chippy provided is a bad example of his argument because every couple of weeks it gets hit.....in a different place. Abiogenesis would still get hit every so often too in a different place even if it were such an exceedingly rare occurrence like matching the number drawn in a lottery like power ball.

Now it is possible that you could design a lottery which is conducted bi-weekly and it is only likely to be hit once in the 4.54 billion years the earth has been in existence. It is possible that abiogenesis is like that hypothetical lottery. I doubt it though because then it would be conspicuously distinguished it from all other natural phenomena which occur over and over and over and over and over and over again.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
31-10-2013, 11:02 PM
RE: I need you to attack this argument
(31-10-2013 12:29 PM)Stevil Wrote:  
(31-10-2013 12:43 AM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  I heard this as well. But in other experiments at least 2 necleobases in DNA have been shown to emerge in conditions which may have been found on early earth. That's more significant IMO.
So we know of at least two conditions where something resembling Abiogenesis can happen. It seems conditions don't have to be very exact.

You cannot say the process by which these 2 necleobases form resembles the abiogenesis process until you discover the abiogenesis process.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
01-11-2013, 12:38 AM
RE: I need you to attack this argument
(31-10-2013 10:46 PM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  
(31-10-2013 06:40 AM)black_squirrel Wrote:  I don't understand your argument. If you win the lottery once, can you conclude
that you must win the lottery many times?

The lotto example that Chippy provided is a bad example of his argument because every couple of weeks it gets hit.....in a different place. Abiogenesis would still get hit every so often too in a different place even if it were such an exceedingly rare occurrence like matching the number drawn in a lottery like power ball.

Now it is possible that you could design a lottery which is conducted bi-weekly and it is only likely to be hit once in the 4.54 billion years the earth has been in existence. It is possible that abiogenesis is like that hypothetical lottery. I doubt it though because then it would be conspicuously distinguished it from all other natural phenomena which occur over and over and over and over and over and over again.

Abiogenesis may no longer be possible under our current conditions. Also, even if it were to occur, what chance would it have to proliferate in an environment filled with other highly evolved life competing for the same resources? Natural selection would destroy anything that abiogenesis managed to assemble on our planet now.

[Image: GrumpyCat_01.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
01-11-2013, 02:17 AM
RE: I need you to attack this argument
(01-11-2013 12:38 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  
(31-10-2013 10:46 PM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  The lotto example that Chippy provided is a bad example of his argument because every couple of weeks it gets hit.....in a different place. Abiogenesis would still get hit every so often too in a different place even if it were such an exceedingly rare occurrence like matching the number drawn in a lottery like power ball.

Now it is possible that you could design a lottery which is conducted bi-weekly and it is only likely to be hit once in the 4.54 billion years the earth has been in existence. It is possible that abiogenesis is like that hypothetical lottery. I doubt it though because then it would be conspicuously distinguished it from all other natural phenomena which occur over and over and over and over and over and over again.

Abiogenesis may no longer be possible under our current conditions. Also, even if it were to occur, what chance would it have to proliferate in an environment filled with other highly evolved life competing for the same resources? Natural selection would destroy anything that abiogenesis managed to assemble on our planet now.

I'd guess that abiogenesis(if it happened at all) stopped after the first Great Oxidation Event(google it if you don't know what I am talking about). But that leaves at least a billion years during which time life wasn't all that evolved for multiple instances of abiogenesis to happen.

Further just because something is more complex doesn't mean it is more fit. Mammals are more complex than insects, yet we don't wipe out the insects. Insects are more complex than bacteria, yet they don't wipe out bacteria. Bacteria are more complex that viruses, yet they don't wipe out viruses.

It is just too much of a stretch to think that if abiogenesis did happen, it happened only once. It is just too much of a stretch for me to think that if abiogenesis did happen on multiple occasions, one lineage was so fit, it eradicated all other lineages.

If I wasn't a theists, I would be hanging my hat on something like panspermia, or looking into snowball earth(which would create similar conditions everywhere on the planet and thus allow a condition whereby on lineage was fitter than everywhere else.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Heywood Jahblome's post
01-11-2013, 02:41 AM
RE: I need you to attack this argument
(31-10-2013 10:46 PM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  The lotto example that Chippy provided is a bad example of his argument because every couple of weeks it gets hit.....in a different place. Abiogenesis would still get hit every so often too in a different place even if it were such an exceedingly rare occurrence like matching the number drawn in a lottery like power ball.

Abiogenesis is less probable than winning the first prize in a lottery. I wasn't suggesting that the odds are the same only that your expectations of a random process are not entirely realistic.

Quote:Now it is possible that you could design a lottery which is conducted bi-weekly and it is only likely to be hit once in the 4.54 billion years the earth has been in existence. It is possible that abiogenesis is like that hypothetical lottery.

No, I don't think it is that improbable.

Quote:I doubt it though because then it would be conspicuously distinguished it from all other natural phenomena which occur over and over and over and over and over and over again.

Yes but not all natural phenomena share equally in their degree of randomness and some are deterministic. Just because the probability of monozygotic twins is 1 in 285 (or whatever it actually is) it doesn't entail that all other random natural phenomena will occur at around that rate also. Your background assumptions seem ad hoc.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
01-11-2013, 02:42 AM
RE: I need you to attack this argument
(01-11-2013 02:17 AM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  
(01-11-2013 12:38 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  Abiogenesis may no longer be possible under our current conditions. Also, even if it were to occur, what chance would it have to proliferate in an environment filled with other highly evolved life competing for the same resources? Natural selection would destroy anything that abiogenesis managed to assemble on our planet now.

I'd guess that abiogenesis(if it happened at all) stopped after the first Great Oxidation Event(google it if you don't know what I am talking about). But that leaves at least a billion years during which time life wasn't all that evolved for multiple instances of abiogenesis to happen.

Further just because something is more complex doesn't mean it is more fit. Mammals are more complex than insects, yet we don't wipe out the insects. Insects are more complex than bacteria, yet they don't wipe out bacteria. Bacteria are more complex that viruses, yet they don't wipe out viruses.

It is just too much of a stretch to think that if abiogenesis did happen, it happened only once. It is just too much of a stretch for me to think that if abiogenesis did happen on multiple occasions, one lineage was so fit, it eradicated all other lineages.

If I wasn't a theists, I would be hanging my hat on something like panspermia, or looking into snowball earth(which would create similar conditions everywhere on the planet and thus allow a condition whereby on lineage was fitter than everywhere else.

Of course complexity doesn't directly correlate to fitness, at least when you're comparing different animals that don't directly compete with one another. But in the earliest stages of the post-biotic Earth, when everything was competing under the same conditions for the same resources? If a life-form created through an abiogenetic event is directly competing for the same resources as an established prokaryotic organism? Good money goes on the more evolved and better adapted prokaryote winning that fight. It's very possible that prokaryotes were an important plateau, the point of no return for abiogenesis. Once life reached that point in those conditions, anything as simple and under-equipped as early protocells would simply lose against the better adapted and established prokaryotes.


So abiogenesis probably did happen many times over the course of millions of years, but even a 5 million year chunk of time is relatively small on our planet's lifetime. However they may have all resulted in very similar (if not identical) forms. There may be only one self replicating form that could have been created out of the available materials and conditions, and thus all abiogenetic events would have produced similar outcomes. Until enough had been created or proliferated until they reached a critical mass and were able to really start diversifying, competing, and affecting their own environment. If I remember correctly, it's thought that the earliest and simplest life did a lot of horizontal gene swapping, and there was no real differentiation or sexual reproduction.


I guess I don't get caught up on only having one abiogenetic event, or having many. I can see both as potential explanations. I think multiple occurrences as being more likely, and I don't see multiple occurrences as being any hindrance to our current understanding and models.

[Image: GrumpyCat_01.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
01-11-2013, 11:11 AM
RE: I need you to attack this argument
I'll bite.
Whether or not life is improbable, it does exist, but it doesn't mean it requires the specific explanation you would like. In order for a creator to create the universe, that creator needs to exist before the creation.
Since there is no time before time actually exists, and that can't exist without the other space dimensions in our current universe, your specific god can't possibly exist within the universe.

IF that specific god existed, with the qualities given to it by the Bible, then free will can't possibly exist. That specific god being excluded from interfering with the universe once it was created. Therefore, no amount of praying or worshiping can do anything to influence your current life. No amount of praying or worshiping can influence your life after death either since you were pre-programmed from the start of the universe to end up either in Heaven or Hell.
That, of course, is provided either can even exist. Because no, even if the universe was created, and by that specific god, still doesn't prove souls or afterlife exist.
If the god is a consequence of the creation of the universe and thus time, even if it is immortal (and not eternal in that case), even if it is all knowing, then by definition it can not be the creator since it's a creation itself, thus a creature that occurred according to the laws of physics and that eventually can be proven and/or re-created given enough time, knowledge and energy. As such, it's no more worthy of worshiping than I may be to my intestinal flora. That's even if it created human beings, because for all we know, since it's a natural creature, we might be byproducts of that creature sneezing.

In either case, that's a much smaller god than what you're aiming for. So small in fact it might as well not exist and nobody would notice a difference.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
01-11-2013, 09:27 PM
RE: I need you to attack this argument
(01-11-2013 02:41 AM)Chippy Wrote:  Yes but not all natural phenomena share equally in their degree of randomness and some are deterministic. Just because the probability of monozygotic twins is 1 in 285 (or whatever it actually is) it doesn't entail that all other random natural phenomena will occur at around that rate also. Your background assumptions seem ad hoc.

I do make an ad hoc assumption that natural phenomena happen again and again and again and again. Now I know this assumption isn't necessarily true. It conceivable a natural phenomena could have only happened once. But the assumption is so generally true that when I see a natural phenomena that has apparently only happened once, I begin to question if it is indeed natural.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: