Freethought & Rationalism Archive

lpetrich · 09-24-2002, 01:31 PM

Let's see if Vanderzyden is willing to explain how crystals can come from non-crystals, since crystals have more order than non-crystals, and since that order must come from somewhere.

O Vanderzyden, where does the order of crystals come from?

Quote:

Originally posted by Vanderzyden:

The point is that we DON'T KNOW HOW life arose. With the scarcity of plausible arguments or evidence, why not entertain the possibility of non-natural agency?

Or such agencies as time-traveling extraterrestrial visitors. Vanderzyden, why not consider the possibility that that is the case?

DNAunion · 09-24-2002, 02:53 PM

Quote:

Jamie_L: It seems to me that we have evidence that at one time there was no life on earth. Now, there is life on earth. Therefore, we KNOW that abiogenisis occurred.

DNAunion: That conclusion does not necessarily follow from the premises.

At one point in time my closet had no clothes in it - later, it did. Therefore we know that clothes formed spontaneously in my closet? No, the clothes came from somewhere else.

That Earth had no life at one point in time and then had life at a later point does not necessarily mean that life arose spontaneously here on Earth: panspermia (directed or otherwise) would also fit those two facts.

******************

And about the "primitive clay life" that others mentioned in this thread, how exactly is that supposed to explain the origin of an RNA World? (PS: just saying "genetic takeover" don't cut it).

To put a bit more context on this...

Quote:

DNAunion: Cairns-Smith�s belief is irrelevant; it reduces to the standard origin of life theories based on mineral catalysts.
The �information� that would be contained in the imperfections of a crystal that allowed it to spread through �cumulative selection� (because it was a better dam builder, or whatever) would be totally incompatible with the information needed for RNA to self-replicate (It would kind of be like taking the English instructions for building a car and throwing them into a non-English-speaking Japanese assembly plant and expecting them to produce a car from only those instructions � it wouldn�t work). Meaningful �self-replicating� information transfer would not occur between the �Self-replicating� clays and the RNA.

What we are left with is the same thing that the mainstream origin of life theories based on on "clays". Inorganic minerals/clays � such as montmorillonite � would have adsorbed monomers from the aqueous phase, thereby concentrating them, and would have oriented them properly to accelerate their combining, and would have helped shield the formed molecules from degradation, etc.

Neither version based on clays explains where the specific information required for RNA to self-replicate comes from. It can explain where �information� comes from: imperfections in the mineral surfaces � but it is vastly improbable that that type of random and meaningless �information� is sufficient to produce a self-replicating RNA.
All theories of the origin of life that I am aware of still rely upon CHANCE to produce a proper sequences of monomers in order to get the first self-replicator (just as Dawkins has said).

*NOTE: The term �self-replicator�, as used in origin of life discussions, usually implies that it is organic, and that it can evolve via (proto-)natural selection.
(http://iidb.org/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=58&t=001170&p=4)

[ September 24, 2002: Message edited by: DNAunion ]

Doubting Didymus · 09-24-2002, 03:41 PM

Quote:

And about the "primitive clay life" that others mentioned in this thread, how exactly is that supposed to explain the origin of an RNA World?

This is something I have never got my head around either. That barrier (between clay crystals and replicating molecules) is the main reason that I don't find the clay crystal hypothesis very convincing.

What the clay crystals do prove is that simple replicating, mutating things can come about through chance, and they can grow to encode information. I do not think clay crystals are likely to have been the abiogenesis thing. There are other theories that are more probable, which others here have referenced, but when we are talking about the theoretical possibility of abiogenesis, a simple easy and fun theory is the best one to talk about, as long as we point out that it is probably not the most likely hypothesis.

Quote:

DNAunion: That conclusion does not necessarily follow from the premises.

At one point in time my closet had no clothes in it - later, it did. Therefore we know that clothes formed spontaneously in my closet? No, the clothes came from somewhere else.

No, even with panspermia thrown in, that life still has to come from something. Panspermia just locates abiogenesis elsewhere.

Even though your clothes came from elsewhere, it still must be true that at some point, somewhere, clothes came from no-clothes. Therefore at some point, life must have come from no-life. The question is only 'how'.

Everyone technically admits the possibility of god's intervention, but the question of evidence puts 'Him' on the same probablistic standing as 'Her'. (the invisible pink unicorn)

Vanderzyden · 09-24-2002, 03:47 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Camaban:
As for abiogenesis, I see evidence that it happened all around me, right down to being evidence myself.

This is particularly interesting, since origin-of-life researchers are intensely frustrated at the lack of a natural explanation for supposed abiogenesis.

Please take a moment to explain the conclusive evidence that demonstrates that life comes from non-life.

Vanderzyden

Doubting Didymus · 09-24-2002, 04:05 PM

Quote:

origin-of-life researchers are intensely frustrated at the lack of a natural explanation for supposed abiogenesis.

And I suppose you have the quotes to prove it, just like you have proven that phylogeneticists can't agree on an accurate tree.

At some point, life must have come from non-life. Alternatively, life may have always existed. These are the only two logical possibilities.

Think about it: If god is 'alive', and life comes from god, then god (being alive, and having no beginning) has always existed.

Alternatively, if god is not life, and life comes from god, then life has come from non-life.

DNAunion · 09-24-2002, 04:58 PM

Quote:

DNAunion: That conclusion does not necessarily follow from the premises.
At one point in time my closet had no clothes in it - later, it did. Therefore we know that clothes formed spontaneously in my closet? No, the clothes came from somewhere else.

Quote:

Doubting Epididymus: No, even with panspermia thrown in, that life still has to come from something.

DNAunion: But that does not maintain the premises-conclusion the original person used.

He/she used the idea that there was no life on Earth at time T, then at thime T + x, there was life on Earth: therefore, abiogenesis occurred. Sticking to Earth throughoutt the premises and drawing the conclusion from those premises indicates abiogenesis occurred on Earth.

If he/she was talking about abiogenesis anywhere in the Universe, then he/she stated the argument wrong. Then, the correct premises would have been, "At one time, there was no life in the Universe: now there is life in the Universe. Therefore, abiogenesis occurred." Had that been the argument actually used, I would not have replied, since that argument does not suffer from the defect I noted.

[ September 24, 2002: Message edited by: DNAunion ]

Jesus Tap-Dancin' Christ · 09-24-2002, 05:18 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Vanderzyden:

Please take a moment to explain the conclusive evidence that demonstrates that life comes from non-life.

Vanderzyden[/QB]

At one point in time, there was no life. Do you dispute this? Even the bible is quite clear that at some point, there was no life.

There is life today.

Therefore, at SOME POINT, abiogenesis MUST have occured. How is not yet known, but it MUST have occured, else there would still be no life.

Doubting Didymus · 09-24-2002, 05:23 PM

Quote:

Had that been the argument actually used, I would not have replied, since that argument does not suffer from the defect I noted.

A thousand pardons.

Jesus Tap-Dancin' Christ · 09-24-2002, 05:26 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Vanderzyden:

What is the probability that your computer monitor will levitate during the entire time you have it in possession?

0. Newton's laws and the law of gravity pretty much set that at zero.

Quote:

No doubt, you will say the probability of such an event is effectively zero, since you have sufficient experience with the workings of our world and you know that things don't "just happen". As such, if anyone makes an assertion to the contrary, you would rightly say they are talking nonsense.

Yup, that's the point.

Quote:

Nonsense.

Consider that word for a moment. It is a very suitable response from the creationist to the materialist who asserts any of the following:

1. Life can originate from non-life.
2. Mind can originate from non-mind.
3. Something can originate from nothing.

One equivalence in these statements is that they are nonsensical.

Um, no. They are not nonsensical, just like Two can originate from not-two.

Quote:

They do not make sense, either in general or when we consider particulars like the natural world, necessary causal relationships, information, and agency.

Um, they do make sense.

Quote:

Come back to the levitating monitor example. We don't know how it could be done, but we are certain of the very low probability that it would happen at all.

Well, since we know a heck of a lot as to why it can't be done, we don't need to have any knowledge of how it COULD be done.

Quote:

The same may be said concerning life. We don't know how, but we know that life is not non-life. To say that one comes from the other by accident is nonsense.

Well, you see, it isn't nonsense, since it at some point simply had to have happened, no matter what theory of material origin you subscribe to. Well, unless you call God alive--in which case, God must at some point die. Permanately, BTW. And, well, the whole point of God is that he, um, can't. So God is not alive.

Camaban · 09-24-2002, 05:36 PM

Quote:

This is particularly interesting, since origin-of-life researchers are intensely frustrated at the lack of a natural explanation for supposed abiogenesis.

Please take a moment to explain the conclusive evidence that demonstrates that life comes from non-life.

Vanderzyden

I don't know

But your line here is "We don't know how it happened, we don't have any evidence of how it happened, therefore goddidit"

Which is a rather bad line to take, seeing as it encourages laziness in finding how it actually happened. (Imagine if we just stayed with the assumption that God made the sun rotate around the earth, for example)

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.