Page 1 of 4 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 36

Thread: Abiogenesis split from Death thread

  1. #1
    tWebber shunyadragon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Hillsborough, NC
    Faith
    Agnostic
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    10,957
    Amen (Given)
    886
    Amen (Received)
    623

    Abiogenesis split from Death thread

    Quote Originally Posted by tabibito View Post
    To date, I haven't seen any scientific papers referring to abiogenesis as a theory. The most they say is hypothesis.
    Source: http://www.universetoday.com/41024/abiogenesis/



    How did life on Earth arise? Scientific efforts to answer that question are called abiogenesis. More formally, abiogenesis is a theory, or set of theories, concerning how life on Earth began (but excluding panspermia).

    Note that while abiogenesis and evolution are related, they are distinct (evolution says nothing about how life began; abiogenesis says nothing about how life evolves).

    Intensive study of the Earth’s rocks has turned up lots and lots of evidence that some kinds of prokaryotes lived happily on Earth about 3.5 billion years ago (and there’re also pointers to the existence of life on Earth in the oldest rocks). So, if life arose on Earth, it did so from the chemicals in the water, air, and rocks of the early Earth … and in no more than a few hundred million years.

    Because there are no sedimentary rocks older than about 3.7 billion years (and no metamorphic ones older than about 3.9 billion years), and because the oldest such rocks already contain evidence that there was life on Earth then, testing abiogenesis theories must be done by means other than geological.

    © Copyright Original Source

    Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
    Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
    But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:

    go with the flow the river knows . . .

    Frank

    I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.

  2. #2
    tWebber shunyadragon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Hillsborough, NC
    Faith
    Agnostic
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    10,957
    Amen (Given)
    886
    Amen (Received)
    623
    The science of abiogenesis is in reality young, because without the detailed knowledge of the genetics of life, like the details of DNA and RNA, that is known now, all that was done were crude experiments of the possible source from primal non-life slime. It was after the science of Genetics provided the ground work for possible mechanisms and sources of the building blocks that the possible theories and related hypothesis could be developed and tested.
    Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
    Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
    But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:

    go with the flow the river knows . . .

    Frank

    I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.

  3. #3
    tWebber tabibito's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    DownUnder
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    2,630
    Amen (Given)
    79
    Amen (Received)
    286
    Quote Originally Posted by shunyadragon View Post
    The science of abiogenesis is in reality young, because without the detailed knowledge of the genetics of life, like the details of DNA and RNA, that is known now, all that was done were crude experiments of the possible source from primal non-life slime. It was after the science of Genetics provided the ground work for possible mechanisms and sources of the building blocks that the possible theories and related hypothesis could be developed and tested.
    The article you linked to uses "theory" in what sense? It is not a scientific article, and it links to an article that makes mention of three competing hypotheses, none of which has any hard evidence to support it. All the article can point to is plausible scenarios.

    And even this atheist site doesn't go so far as to claim that abiogenesis is a theory. The site does point out, quite rightly, that origin of life and evolution are not the same subject, for all that they have association.

    While Greg Laden disagrees with the claim that abiogenesis and evolution are a single subject, he also states that while abiogenesis is necessary, the processes are not understood.

    And From Quarks to Quasars, another site that uses "theory" in the generally accepted sense rather than the scientific, list seven hypotheses for origin of life as abiogenesis. The site also declares that abiogenesis is simply inevitable. From Quarks to Quasars is generally a good place to start for basic information presented in simple terms.

    So - we have no theory (by scientific definition of the term) in place. Only the claim that abiogenesis is the only viable explanation for the origin of life - with nothing more than hypothesising about how it happened by way of evidence in support of the claim.
    και εκζητησατε με και ευρησετε με οτι ζητησετε με εν ολη καρδία υμων

  4. #4
    tWebber shunyadragon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Hillsborough, NC
    Faith
    Agnostic
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    10,957
    Amen (Given)
    886
    Amen (Received)
    623
    Quote Originally Posted by tabibito View Post
    The article you linked to uses "theory" in what sense? It is not a scientific article, and it links to an article that makes mention of three competing hypotheses, none of which has any hard evidence to support it. All the article can point to is plausible scenarios.

    And even this atheist site doesn't go so far as to claim that abiogenesis is a theory. The site does point out, quite rightly, that origin of life and evolution are not the same subject, for all that they have association.

    While Greg Laden disagrees with the claim that abiogenesis and evolution are a single subject, he also states that while abiogenesis is necessary, the processes are not understood.

    And From Quarks to Quasars, another site that uses "theory" in the generally accepted sense rather than the scientific, list seven hypotheses for origin of life as abiogenesis. The site also declares that abiogenesis is simply inevitable. From Quarks to Quasars is generally a good place to start for basic information presented in simple terms.

    So - we have no theory (by scientific definition of the term) in place. Only the claim that abiogenesis is the only viable explanation for the origin of life - with nothing more than hypothesising about how it happened by way of evidence in support of the claim.
    I can provide more references, and I probably will. Yes, Abiogenesis is separated from the science of evolution, but yes there are a number of theories that propose that non-life evolved into life forms. Actually, abiogenesis is a continuum of evolution of non-life forms into the first life forms.

    more to follow . . .
    Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
    Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
    But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:

    go with the flow the river knows . . .

    Frank

    I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.

  5. #5
    tWebber shunyadragon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Hillsborough, NC
    Faith
    Agnostic
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    10,957
    Amen (Given)
    886
    Amen (Received)
    623
    This reference describes only one of theories concerning Abiogenesis.


    Source: https://www.quantamagazine.org/20140122-a-new-physics-theory-of-life/



    A New Physics Theory of Life

    Jeremy England, a 31-year-old physicist at MIT, thinks he has found the underlying physics driving the origin and evolution of life.

    By: Natalie Wolchover


    Why does life exist?

    Popular hypotheses credit a primordial soup, a bolt of lightning and a colossal stroke of luck. But if a provocative new theory is correct, luck may have little to do with it. Instead, according to the physicist proposing the idea, the origin and subsequent evolution of life follow from the fundamental laws of nature and “should be as unsurprising as rocks rolling downhill.”

    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.

    © Copyright Original Source



    https://www.quantamagazine.org/20140...heory-of-life/
    Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
    Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
    But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:

    go with the flow the river knows . . .

    Frank

    I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.

  6. #6
    tWebber Tassman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Sydney/Phuket
    Faith
    Atheist
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    4,572
    Amen (Given)
    1129
    Amen (Received)
    571
    Quote Originally Posted by tabibito View Post
    Perhaps you should read what I posted, Tassman - or do you and I have different interpretations of what constitutes reasonable, perhaps.
    What you erroneously claimed was that “a hypothesis to be fact is a faith”. But no one is claiming that a hypothesis is fact that one must believe in.

    "Hypotheses are proposed explanations for a fairly narrow set of phenomena. These reasoned explanations are not guesses — of the wild or educated variety. When scientists formulate new hypotheses, they are usually based on prior experience, scientific background knowledge, preliminary observations, and logic.

    They’re not fact but they're much more than mere "faith" statements.
    “He felt that his whole life was a kind of dream and he sometimes wondered whose it was and whether they were enjoying it.” - Douglas Adams.

  7. #7
    tWebber tabibito's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    DownUnder
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    2,630
    Amen (Given)
    79
    Amen (Received)
    286
    Quote Originally Posted by Tassman View Post
    What you erroneously claimed was that “a hypothesis to be fact is a faith”. But no one is claiming that a hypothesis is fact that one must believe in.

    "Hypotheses are proposed explanations for a fairly narrow set of phenomena. These reasoned explanations are not guesses — of the wild or educated variety. When scientists formulate new hypotheses, they are usually based on prior experience, scientific background knowledge, preliminary observations, and logic.

    They’re not fact but they're much more than mere "faith" statements.
    Merriam Webster Dictionary: FAITH

    : strong belief or trust in someone or something

    Merriam Webster: expanded explanation

    belief, faith, credence, credit mean assent to the truth of something offered for acceptance. belief may or may not imply certitude in the believer <my belief that I had caught all the errors>. faith almost always implies certitude even where there is no evidence or proof.



    The relevant subdefinition only - Faith can also refer to trustworthiness or loyalty.

    Hypotheses are (usually) derived from logical deduction based on observations, but they frequently fall apart under rigorous testing. Theories are derived from observation that rigorous testing has confirmed the hypothesis.

    Abiogenesis? Even allowing that it is a hypothesis rather than a guess, has not been successfully tested and found true. Until hypotheses have passed into the realm of theory, any assertion that they are accurate is based on faith.
    και εκζητησατε με και ευρησετε με οτι ζητησετε με εν ολη καρδία υμων

  8. #8
    tWebber Tassman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Sydney/Phuket
    Faith
    Atheist
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    4,572
    Amen (Given)
    1129
    Amen (Received)
    571
    Quote Originally Posted by tabibito View Post
    Merriam Webster Dictionary: FAITH

    : strong belief or trust in someone or something

    Merriam Webster: expanded explanation

    belief, faith, credence, credit mean assent to the truth of something offered for acceptance. belief may or may not imply certitude in the believer <my belief that I had caught all the errors>. faith almost always implies certitude even where there is no evidence or proof.



    The relevant subdefinition only - Faith can also refer to trustworthiness or loyalty.

    Hypotheses are (usually) derived from logical deduction based on observations, but they frequently fall apart under rigorous testing. Theories are derived from observation that rigorous testing has confirmed the hypothesis.

    Abiogenesis? Even allowing that it is a hypothesis rather than a guess, has not been successfully tested and found true. Until hypotheses have passed into the realm of theory, any assertion that they are accurate is based on faith.
    No, you're misrepresenting what 'hypotheses' are in science. Abiogenesis is not based upon “faith” it is a hypothesis which is subject to testing in just the same way that the Higgs boson remained a hypothesis for 50 years before it was actually shown to exist. But no-one argued that the Higgs boson was a faith-statement; there was good reason to predict it's existence.

    Once again:

    “Hypotheses are proposed explanations for a fairly narrow set of phenomena. These reasoned explanations are not guesses — of the wild or educated variety. When scientists formulate new hypotheses, they are usually based on prior experience, scientific background knowledge, preliminary observations, and logic. For example, scientists observed that alpine butterflies exhibit characteristics intermediate between two species that live at lower elevations. Based on these observations and their understanding of speciation, the scientists hypothesized that this species of alpine butterfly evolved as the result of hybridization between the two other species living at lower elevations”.

    http://undsci.berkeley.edu/article/0...cienceworks_19
    “He felt that his whole life was a kind of dream and he sometimes wondered whose it was and whether they were enjoying it.” - Douglas Adams.

  9. #9
    tWebber tabibito's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    DownUnder
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    2,630
    Amen (Given)
    79
    Amen (Received)
    286
    Quote Originally Posted by Tassman View Post
    No, you're misrepresenting what 'hypotheses' are in science. Abiogenesis is not based upon “faith” it is a hypothesis which is subject to testing in just the same way that the Higgs boson remained a hypothesis for 50 years before it was actually shown to exist. But no-one argued that the Higgs boson was a faith-statement; there was good reason to predict it's existence.

    Once again:

    “Hypotheses are proposed explanations for a fairly narrow set of phenomena. These reasoned explanations are not guesses — of the wild or educated variety. When scientists formulate new hypotheses, they are usually based on prior experience, scientific background knowledge, preliminary observations, and logic. For example, scientists observed that alpine butterflies exhibit characteristics intermediate between two species that live at lower elevations. Based on these observations and their understanding of speciation, the scientists hypothesized that this species of alpine butterfly evolved as the result of hybridization between the two other species living at lower elevations”.

    http://undsci.berkeley.edu/article/0...cienceworks_19
    We agree on what hypotheses are - you fail to grasp the meaning (in the relevant sub-definition) of faith. It is a subjective assurance of the truth: whether grounded in empirical truth, pure speculation, or something between the extremes is irrelevant.
    Hypothoses have not been established as empirical truths - they are reasonable and logical extrapolations supported by evaluation of observed phenomena.
    When you assert that a hypothesis is an established truth, you are relying on logical extrapolations and interpretations for making the claim.
    και εκζητησατε με και ευρησετε με οτι ζητησετε με εν ολη καρδία υμων

  10. #10
    tWebber shunyadragon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Hillsborough, NC
    Faith
    Agnostic
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    10,957
    Amen (Given)
    886
    Amen (Received)
    623
    Quote Originally Posted by tabibito View Post
    We agree on what hypotheses are - you fail to grasp the meaning (in the relevant sub-definition) of faith. It is a subjective assurance of the truth: whether grounded in empirical truth, pure speculation, or something between the extremes is irrelevant.
    Hypothoses have not been established as empirical truths - they are reasonable and logical extrapolations supported by evaluation of observed phenomena.
    When you assert that a hypothesis is an established truth, you are relying on logical extrapolations and interpretations for making the claim.
    I do not think either Tassman nor I agree with you concerning your understanding of hypothesis. Your sub- definition of faith does not apply either. Tassman did not assert that a hypothesis is an established truth. A hypothesis is a supposition or proposed explanation made on the basis of evidence as a starting point for further investigation based on scientific methods of falsification. It is no a subjective assurance of truth. Abiogenesis is an objective evidence based hypothesis of the chemical origins of life. At present it is a young rapidly evolving science, and any judgement as to what can nor cannot be falsified is speculation especially when the agenda is theological.
    Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
    Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
    But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:

    go with the flow the river knows . . .

    Frank

    I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •