Thread: abiogenesis -- clays in vesicules theory

Originally Posted by GTCethos

Well this process of abiogenesis wasn't happening here on Earth but somewhere else where there is a virtually unlimited supply of the precursors.

That is great that you believe abiogenesis happened away from any scientific scrutiny. Just believing is not science, I believe in a all powerful God, but I do not claim that belief is conventional science. Now your belief can guide your understanding of empirical evidence as it does mine. But a belief in the absence of evidence is foolish.

Organic molecules have been found in space. The Murchison Meteorite convinced me that there are places richer in organics than the Earth.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murchison_meteorite

The Murchison meteorite is named after Murchison, Victoria, in Australia. It is one of the most studied meteorites due to its large mass (>100 kg), the fact that it was an observed fall, and that it belongs to a group of meteorites rich in organic compounds.

Nucleobases[edit]

Further information: Nucleobase
Measured purine and pyrimidine compounds are indigenous components of the Murchison meteorite. Carbonisotope ratios for uracil and xanthine of δ¹³C = +44.5‰ and +37.7‰, respectively, indicate a non-terrestrial origin for these compounds. These results demonstrate that many organic compounds which are components of life on Earth, were already present in the early Solar System and may have played a key role in life's origin.^[18]

@GTCethos
The first life doesn't need all the advance stuff you see in modern cells.
You are making the fallacy of "irreducibly complexity".
Evolution is a proven fact! You can't discuss abiogenesis with out that as a fact.
From the fact of evolution, we logically deduce, that cell's are not irreducibly complex.
Irreducible complexity doesn't exist in advanced organisms, so we extrapolate that fact in to abiogenesis.

When you assume that cells must be as complicated as today’s cells, you have essentially rigged the question.
It's basally impossible for the first cells to be as complex as today’s cells.

Intermediate forms exist in the fossil record.
That's a fact, we extrapolate that fact in to the past of cells.

The details are not elucidated. But here you are making a second fallacy.
The accuracy vs precision fallacy. You can be accurate and imprecise.
We have exactly that here. They are sciences that are not exact, abiogenesis falls in this category.
Accuracy and precision - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

In theory, the model of clays in vesicles is capable enough of evolving. Why you don't discuss that?
It can be assembled spontaneously, it has some simple heredity and has high error tolerance that let's it survive despite it's very poor quality.
The heredity doesn't need to be very precise, because it can tolerate a lot of errors, in contrast with modern cells.
With heredity you can have natural selection.
All the complicated, precise, "irreducibly complex" molecular machinery it self can evolve incrementally.
Of course you need to consider evolution as a fact here. .... But you are not....
You can't sepparate evolution from abiogenesis. You need to be able to see that the first cell is capable of evolving.

Originally Posted by Quantum immortal

It can be assembled spontaneously, it has some simple heredity and has high error tolerance that let's it survive despite it's very poor quality.

Moderator Comment: You have been very tolerant of a blatant high jacking of your post to discuss creationist ideas. Do you wish me to attempt to extract those posts into a separate thread, so that this one may focus on your hypothesis?

Originally Posted by John Galt

Originally Posted by Quantum immortal

It can be assembled spontaneously, it has some simple heredity and has high error tolerance that let's it survive despite it's very poor quality.

Moderator Comment: You have been very tolerant of a blatant high jacking of your post to discuss creationist ideas. Do you wish me to attempt to extract those posts into a separate thread, so that this one may focus on your hypothesis?

.... Yea, i guess that would be beater.

Originally Posted by John Galt

Originally Posted by Quantum immortal

It can be assembled spontaneously, it has some simple heredity and has high error tolerance that let's it survive despite it's very poor quality.

Moderator Comment: You have been very tolerant of a blatant high jacking of your post to discuss creationist ideas. Do you wish me to attempt to extract those posts into a separate thread, so that this one may focus on your hypothesis?

John G there might be some value in doing that. Although the argument about why creationism (including ID) is not science is a fairly hackneyed one for most of us, GTC seems to be one of the more polite and thoughtful debaters among the creationist visitors we have had, so there seems to be a sporting chance of a dialogue without immediate descent into acrimony. I suppose if you do this it would have to go into Religion, Philosophy (or Pseudoscience, though he or she might find that offensive).

OK, it may take some care to sort the two strands out. Could I ask all participants not to post anything more in relation to the creationism discussion until I've got that done. I'm having a lazy Sunday, so it may take a while to fire up the motivation.

Originally Posted by GTCethos

A moment's thought illustrates that as soon as "God did it" is admitted as an explanation, we are back to mediaeval miracles and all further attempts to explain according to natural patterns and laws comes to a stop. The notion is a science-stopper. Whereas, the experience of applying the scientific method to the natural word has been served us well. It works. It is in fact a triumph of human civilisation over the last 300 years. For this reason, science simply is not interested, at all, in an "explanation" that involves abandoning the search for a natural pattern.

You just landed a Sagan, I will counter with a Dembski.

I would think myself a fool to believe that I could prove supernatural intervention. If I could prove supernatural intervention, it would not be supernatural.

But the nature of science is that it is observable, testable, reproducible, and potentially falsifiable.

Given the following philosophical argument, as a premise, I can pose an objection to the materialistic explanation as being falsifiable.

Noting: life has been initiated by intelligent intervention. In the laboratory unique life has been initiated (I hope you can accept that fact). I can maintain that intelligence can produce life, that statement is scientific and legitimate as being a observation.

I think we can all agree on the following logic:

1. Life is present (a empirical fact).
2. Life has three possible origins: a.) Life is a necessity of chemistry and physics. b.) Life is a product of random chance. c.) Life is a product of intelligent intervention (observable fact).
3. Life did not arise by necessity or random chance (arguable by materialistic science).
4. Life could arise by intelligent intervention.

The burden is on you to show 2( a and b). Because proposition 4 is observable.

So you believe that aliens created us...he, just joking

One question, if you believe in intelligent intervention (now I mean god), until what point do you take science into account and where does the intelligent intervention start? Because intelligent intervention theories also changed throughout the history... concidentally with science improvements..


bye

Ups, sorry, didn´t see that last comment. I only got to the last page. Please, erase my comment because I have no idea how to do it.

Bye!

One question, if you believe in intelligent intervention (now I mean god), until what point do you take science into account and where does the intelligent intervention start? Because intelligent intervention theories also changed throughout the history... concidentally with science improvements..

I have limited my response to 2a and 2b and the issuing argument in 3.
Out of respect for the initiator of this thread (who I believe included abiogenesis).

No problem. Some other time