Synthetic life.

[Adenosis]

(25-03-2013 11:11 AM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  

(25-03-2013 05:46 AM)Starcrash Wrote:  Yes, if God had written his name on the side of the moon thousands of years ago then it probably would have eroded away. Why did you use such an analogy? It reinforces my point.

You claim "we only have evidence of one lineage", and I just gave you a very plausible explanation of that. I know you "just don't buy that" because that would prove you wrong, and you're never going to accept that you could be wrong about this. Others here have presented you with evidence that rebuts your idea of a grand designer, and you're nit-picking it to try to find ways to ignore or deny it. But frankly, if there was a grand designer, then none of this ought to be possible -- tweaking existing life to make our own unique variety, playing with chemicals to make parts of the chain of primitive life -- even if you deny that these are evidence for abiogenesis, they make even less sense from the grand designer viewpoint. Don't you understand that if you're going to posit an alternative theory that you have to make existing evidence fit it? It doesn't become the default theory just because you think the prevailing one is false -- that's the logical fallacy of a false dichotomy.

Starcrash, I don't buy the competition explainantion on why there is just one lineage because it implies that one lineage was fittestest across all environments. There are other explanations. Google ring of life.

Good for you. That's the explanation experts in the field seem to hold. It's perfectly reasonable to say one form of life would have more trouble growing roots if the ground was already occupied by other life.

Fittestest?

Ring of life?

[Heywood Jahblome]

(25-03-2013 08:03 AM)Ghost Wrote:  For abiogenesis, we know what the conditions were like. We're just trying to figure out the precise phenomenon that occurred in those conditions.

The abiogenesis problem is a lot more complex then that. To my knowledge only 2 of the four necleotides of DNA have been synthesized under conditions which could occur naturally. Then there is the chicken-egg conundrum between DNA/RNA/proteins. We are still very far away from having any sort of working theory of abiogenesis. Without a working theory you have no real explaination.

I would agree with you that a complete working theory of abiogenesis would have better explainatory power....but we are a long way from that.

[Heywood Jahblome]

(25-03-2013 11:29 AM)Adenosis Wrote:  

(25-03-2013 11:11 AM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  Starcrash, I don't buy the competition explainantion on why there is just one lineage because it implies that one lineage was fittestest across all environments. There are other explanations. Google ring of life.

Good for you. That's the explanation experts in the field seem to hold. It's perfectly reasonable to say one form of life would have more trouble growing roots if the ground was already occupied by other life.

Fittestest?

Ring of life?

http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/notroc...lex-cells/

The above is specific link to what I am referring too as the ring of life origin
Presumably abiogenesis would happen where ever the conditions are right for abiogenesis. It should have happened multiple times in different places.

So far we only have evidence that it happened once. Now you can come up with hand wavy explanations why we only have evidence that it happened once, but that doesn't change the fact that the evidence we do have suggests it only happened once. Can you name any other natural phenomenon that there is only evidence that it happened once?

[Vosur]

(25-03-2013 08:03 AM)Ghost Wrote:  Yes and no.

Proving the possibility of design does lend some credence to the idea of panspermia and alien engineers; however, the transplanted life and the aliens both have to come from somewhere. So at it's core, for those who don't believe in Theos and the idea that a divine force created life, abiogenesis still needs to occur at some point.

I think the difference that has to this point remained unspoken is that there's actually two questions:
1 - What is the origin of life in the universe?
2 - What is the origin of life on Earth?

Theists can answer those questions: 1 - design and 2 - design, panspermia or alien engineer.
Atheists answer those questions: 1 - abiogenesis and 2 - abiogenesis, panspermia, alien engineer.

When we admit to the existence of two questions, the fundamental difference is clear.

Peace and Love and Empathy,

Matt

I understand where you're coming from and I agree with the point you're trying to make, however, the current discussion is about the second question, not the first one.

[Heywood Jahblome]

(25-03-2013 11:55 AM)Vosur Wrote:  

(25-03-2013 08:03 AM)Ghost Wrote:  Yes and no.

Proving the possibility of design does lend some credence to the idea of panspermia and alien engineers; however, the transplanted life and the aliens both have to come from somewhere. So at it's core, for those who don't believe in Theos and the idea that a divine force created life, abiogenesis still needs to occur at some point.

I think the difference that has to this point remained unspoken is that there's actually two questions:
1 - What is the origin of life in the universe?
2 - What is the origin of life on Earth?

Theists can answer those questions: 1 - design and 2 - design, panspermia or alien engineer.
Atheists answer those questions: 1 - abiogenesis and 2 - abiogenesis, panspermia, alien engineer.

When we admit to the existence of two questions, the fundamental difference is clear.

Peace and Love and Empathy,

Matt

I understand where you're coming from and I agree with the point you're trying to make, however, the current discussion is about the second question, not the first one.

Even if we were to demonstrate abiogenesis in the lab, doing so would prove that intellects originate life via abiogenesis. It would only be ambiguous evidence for the atheistic world view. Unambiguous evidence would be observation of a natural phenomenon occurring in nature....devoid of the influence of any intellect.

[Ghost]

Hey, Vosur.

What I'm also saying is that the Atheist position can have, as the ultimate origin of life, only abiogenesis; regardless of what happened on Earth.

Hey, Wood.

Quote:Even if we were to demonstrate abiogenesis in the lab, doing so would prove that intellects originate life via abiogenesis.

I like you, brother. But that's fucking cockamamie lol.

So if I build an airplane I demonstrate that only human inventions generate lift?

If we re-create, not create, re-create, conditions in the lab and the process occurs on its own, we prove that it occurs in those conditions.

It's proof of a process, not an act.

Also, if you want to get into details, sure it seems harder, but if we get into details, life by engineer has even further to go.

When all is said and done, designed life laboratory-style only tells us that it's possible. Nothing else. At all. Abiogenesis boasts an understanding of actual processes.

You cannot pretend that designing life in the lab negatively impacts the abiogenesis theory in any way.

Neither gets bragging rights until they're proven.

Peace and Love and Empathy,

Matt

[Heywood Jahblome]

(25-03-2013 12:59 PM)Ghost Wrote:  Hey, Vosur.

What I'm also saying is that the Atheist position can have, as the ultimate origin of life, only abiogenesis; regardless of what happened on Earth.

Hey, Wood.

Quote:Even if we were to demonstrate abiogenesis in the lab, doing so would prove that intellects originate life via abiogenesis.

I like you, brother. But that's fucking cockamamie lol.

So if I build an airplane I demonstrate that only human inventions generate lift?

If we re-create, not create, re-create, conditions in the lab and the process occurs on its own, we prove that it occurs in those conditions.

It's proof of a process, not an act.

Also, if you want to get into details, sure it seems harder, but if we get into details, life by engineer has even further to go.

When all is said and done, designed life laboratory-style only tells us that it's possible. Nothing else. At all. Abiogenesis boasts an understanding of actual processes.

You cannot pretend that designing life in the lab negatively impacts the abiogenesis theory in any way.

Neither gets bragging rights until they're proven.

Peace and Love and Empathy,

Matt

The point was that an abiogenetic process can be used by an intellect as a means to originate life.

To prove that abiogenesis happens in nature, wouldn't you have to observe it in nature? When we finally observe abiogenesis in the lab, I suspect we will find it in nature too because we will know where to look.

But what if we don't find it?

[fstratzero]

(23-03-2013 01:51 AM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  What happens if synthetic life is created by humans?

This is interesting. I of course would think about the applications of the microbes to do some useful things. Like make insulin, white blood cells, inactive versions of bacteria and viruses, or even viruses that could wipe out certain diseases etc. The applications of that technology is amazing!

(23-03-2013 01:51 AM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  Well such an event would demonstrate that it is possible life can originate as a construction of intellect. If synthetic life is demonstrated and abiogenesis isn't, doesn't that strengthen the theists position?

This question is malformed. It assumes the conclusion. Playing devils advocate here for a second. Yes it might show that it is possible for life to be created. However the justification for life being created on earth out of the rest of the universe opens up more questions.

The creators would have to know about life, dna, rna, and how all those things work. They'd have to have a motivation to plant life onto planets that makes sense.

(23-03-2013 01:51 AM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  Couldn't a theist claim in an argument that intelligent creation of life is a demonstrated fact, while abiogenesis remains just an assertion?

No.
Excluding the Urey-Miller experiment, there have been multiple newer experiments that have show that natural processes can bring about life with out anything other than natural processes interacting with one another.

(23-03-2013 01:51 AM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  Where would that put atheists like Bearded Dude who maintain you shouldn't believe in something until it is observed?

The same place?

(23-03-2013 01:51 AM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  He would be forced to concede that intelligent creation of life is believable while abiogenesis is only something worthy of research.?

Nope.

No, they are both pretty believable. The problem is that with the immense distances involved with space it makes more sense that life came about naturally. Not to mention that if aliens needed anything they could probably get it from their home star system.

[Chas]

(25-03-2013 12:16 AM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  

(24-03-2013 05:08 PM)Starcrash Wrote:  Who's saying it only occurred 4.5 billion years ago? If primitive life arose now, how would you or I know it was happening? You point out "primordial soup" conditions, and I propose that the most important of those conditions was the lack of competition. If a new form of cellular life were to develop right now, it would be competing with organisms that have had the time to become much better suited to the environment... its chances of survival would be very nearly 0%.

The source that I cited on page 3 of this thread explains a likely probability of abiogenesis, and if it is accurate then we can expect that abiogenesis happens at some random place in the world routinely. But we'd have to be extremely lucky to observe it. In any case, I love the rest of your post and I enjoy the amount of thought put into it.

I always find the competition.explanation on why we only see one lineage of life to be a bit hand wavy. Its like claiming God wrote his name on the side of the moon when he created it but you can't see it now because its been covered with meteor impacts.

Suppose there was a time when conditions on earth were just right for abiogenesis. It should have happened more than once, yet we only have evidence of one lineage. Now to claim that one lineage drove the rest to extinction implies that the one lineages was fittest a cross all the varied environments of the early earth. I just don't buy that.

Your mistake is in the assumption that conditions were "just right". This implies that life would spring up all over the place.

The likelihood is that abiogenesis is extremely unlikely and occurred only once, or only locally.

The DNA evidence supports common ancestry, not multiple ancestries.

[Heywood Jahblome]

(26-03-2013 10:34 AM)Chas Wrote:  

(25-03-2013 12:16 AM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  I always find the competition.explanation on why we only see one lineage of life to be a bit hand wavy. Its like claiming God wrote his name on the side of the moon when he created it but you can't see it now because its been covered with meteor impacts.

Suppose there was a time when conditions on earth were just right for abiogenesis. It should have happened more than once, yet we only have evidence of one lineage. Now to claim that one lineage drove the rest to extinction implies that the one lineages was fittest a cross all the varied environments of the early earth. I just don't buy that.

Your mistake is in the assumption that conditions were "just right". This implies that life would spring up all over the place.

The likelihood is that abiogenesis is extremely unlikely and occurred only once, or only locally.

The DNA evidence supports common ancestry, not multiple ancestries.

It is well know fact of biology that some simple organisms exchange genetic material simply by coming in contact with each other. A loose description of the ring of life view on abiogenesis is that multiple lineages emerge but through the exchange of genetic material all those lineages merged into what appears to be a universal common ancestor.

Unless abiogenesis is ultra contrived, it should occur anywhere the conditions are right. I don't believe your claim that it likely happened only once or in one location is the commonly accepted view.