Evolution: Is There Any Good Reason To Reject The Abiogenesis Hypothesis?

[rossum]

The new evidence, from scientists at the University of St Andrews, suggests that some modern day animals may have evolved instead by becoming less complex.

Great news. buffalo has discovered eyeless cave fish!

Yes, random mutations can decrease complexity as well as increase it.

You do realise that this is hardly news, buffalo?

 

[Aloysium]

the research is saying that the first animal cells were more like embryonic cells than they were like lung cells, so the argument from irreducible complexity is all the weaker.

Those embryonic-stem-cell-like precursors to the diversity that we see today and in the fossil record would exhibit precisely the irreducible complexity that is proposed. These types of cell possess an organization of genomic material that allows for great variation, including lung, heart, bowel, skin, bone, and brain cells. Along with all that information, we find very specific cellular factors that allow for the progressive diverification of cells into the various different types as they reproduce and relate to one another in their environment. This is perfectly compatable with a creationist perspective and their presence cannot be explained by the concepts of random mutation and natural selection.

 

[buffalo]

but they don’t need to have a goal per se

Survival is a goal.

 

[Gorgias]

OK. You think abiogenesis is supernatural. And that’s because (correct me if I’m wrong here) we didn’t see it happen, we have no examples of it happening elsewhere and we have no evidence of the actual process.

No. But close!

I’m saying that, if we can’t demonstrate what a natural process of abiogenesis is, then the statement “abiogenesis is natural, not supernatural” isn’t one that has any proof behind it – and, as we look at the question of life on other worlds, then we can’t use this “proof” as the basis for extrapolation. At best, it’s a statement of faith, not science…!

In any case, we just don’t know. So, if you want to believe it’s a natural process, that’s a belief you can claim.

As to my lack of belief in the supernatural, that’s because I have seen no examples of it.

I’ve seen no examples of your existence; does that mean I should disbelieve you exist?

Abiogenesis is, by the definition of supernatural that you have given, a supernatural event.

Cute. Wrong, but cute.

One assumes that if you consider it to be a supernatural act, we can stop looking for a natural answer. Would that be correct?

Keep looking for a natural explanation. Quit asserting it’s not supernatural if you can’t explain it naturally. (By the same token, that’s not a “proof” (sorry if the quotes scare you!) that it’s supernatural; but, that should just merely tell us that we can’t say what it was… until we know for sure.)

 

[buffalo]

There at the beginning of divergence of multicellular animals from single-celled living creatures

“The findings disprove a long-standing idea: that multi-celled animals evolved from a single-celled ancestor resembling a modern sponge cell known as a choanocyte.”
"’

 

[Ghosty1981]

“The findings disprove a long-standing idea: that multi-celled animals evolved from a single-celled ancestor resembling a modern sponge cell known as a choanocyte.”
"’

Yes, this is what I said. As another part of the article points out:

“We’ve found that the first multicellular animals probably weren’t like the modern-day sponge cells, but were more like a collection of convertible cells,” Professor Degnan said.

"The great-great-great-grandmother of all cells in the animal kingdom, so to speak, was probably quite similar to a stem cell."

 

[Ghosty1981]

Those embryonic-stem-cell-like precursors to the diversity that we see today and in the fossil record would exhibit precisely the irreducible complexity that is proposed. These types of cell possess an organization of genomic material that allows for great variation, including lung, heart, bowel, skin, bone, and brain cells. Along with all that information, we find very specific cellular factors that allow for the progressive diverification of cells into the various different types as they reproduce and relate to one another in their environment.

This is not irreducible complexity at all. As defined by Michael Behe, the man who coined the term:

Irreducible complexity is just a fancy phrase I use to mean a single system which is composed of several interacting parts, and where the removal of any one of the parts causes the system to cease functioning.

A stem cell that can develop into multiple different types of cells is the very opposite of irreducible complexity; it is pluripotent simplicity. The collection of genetic material as a whole (the stem cell) will not cease functioning if any one part is removed.

Peace and God bless!

 

[Ghosty1981]

Is the fact that the image of the future organism it written in digital code ,in the base 4 , inside the cell together with the mechanisms to decode it and execute it. Even more, you cant change the code by simply putting proteins in it, the right combinations must be put in the right place otherwise the organism does not grow.

You are taking the end product and assuming a teleological trajectory for the genetic material; this is a philosophical argument, and a weak one in my eyes, and it does not suffice to undermine scientific discoveries.

You are assuming that the primordial stem cell is directed towards becoming a cat, but this assumption isn’t warranted by scientific investigation; it can just as easily be that the cat arose over a long period of successive generations, from the primordial stem cell to the placental mammal to the cat, based on successful iterations of genetic material surviving to pass down their general configuration to the next. If this new research is correct the likelyhood that random mutation could lead to the diversity of life on Earth is significantly higher than under the previous model, because the genetic toolkit was already prone to diversity and capable of differentiating itself to meet the needs of the environment.

The primordial stem cell may indeed be directed towards becoming a cat (and I obviously believe that it was), but there is no way to determine this through scientific investigation.

Peace and God bless!

 

[Wozza]

Wozza:

OK. You think abiogenesis is supernatural. And that’s because (correct me if I’m wrong here) we didn’t see it happen, we have no examples of it happening elsewhere and we have no evidence of the actual process.

No. But close!

I’m saying that, if we can’t demonstrate what a natural process of abiogenesis is, then the statement “abiogenesis is natural, not supernatural” isn’t one that has any proof behind it – and, as we look at the question of life on other worlds, then we can’t use this “proof” as the basis for extrapolation. At best, it’s a statement of faith, not science…!

In any case, we just don’t know. So, if you want to believe it’s a natural process, that’s a belief you can claim.

As to my lack of belief in the supernatural, that’s because I have seen no examples of it.

I’ve seen no examples of your existence; does that mean I should disbelieve you exist?

Abiogenesis is, by the definition of supernatural that you have given, a supernatural event.

Cute. Wrong, but cute.

One assumes that if you consider it to be a supernatural act, we can stop looking for a natural answer. Would that be correct?

Keep looking for a natural explanation. Quit asserting it’s not supernatural if you can’t explain it naturally. (By the same token, that’s not a “proof” (sorry if the quotes scare you!) that it’s supernatural; but, that should just merely tell us that we can’t say what it was… until we know for sure.)

Still waiting for your definition that will allow us to differentiate between the two. This can’t be hard, surely. But if you don’t have one then please say so.

 

[rossum]

“The findings disprove a long-standing idea: that multi-celled animals evolved from a single-celled ancestor resembling a modern sponge cell known as a choanocyte.”

Instead these findings prove that multi-celled animals evolved from a different single-celled ancestor, not a choanocyte but a different type of protozoan.

The paper does not say what you seem to want it to say.

 

[thistle]

Actually, I have read from private revelations that UFOs are a demonic deception.

I don’t know which private revelation you have read which states that but it is complete nonsense.

 

[Gorgias]

Still waiting for your definition that will allow us to differentiate between the two.

That’s my whole point, Wozza! If we cannot say with reasonable certainty which of the two happened, at the point life entered the universe, then we can’t posit a natural solution just because we want to! (By the same token, we can’t posit divine intervention just because we want to, either!)

 

[Techno2000]

Techno2000:

Actually, I have read from private revelations that UFOs are a demonic deception.

I don’t know which private revelation you have read which states that but it is complete nonsense.

Maybe so, do you believe in Aliens from another planet ?

 

[rossum]

That’s my whole point, Wozza! If we cannot say with reasonable certainty which of the two happened, at the point life entered the universe, then we can’t posit a natural solution just because we want to! (By the same token, we can’t posit divine intervention just because we want to, either!)

From the point of view of science, Occam’s razor points at a materialist solution, since an infinitely complex immaterial entity is more complex than any purely material solution. Given a range of possible solutions science will go for the simplest solution that explains the evidence, at least until more evidence emerges.

As and when evidence emerges to show that Vishnu created the universe then science will change to incorporate the new evidence.

Science is aware that it does not have all the evidence to hand, so all scientific conclusions are provisional.

 

[Gorgias]

From the point of view of science, Occam’s razor points at a materialist solution, since an infinitely complex immaterial entity is more complex than any purely material solution. Given a range of possible solutions science will go for the simplest solution that explains the evidence, at least until more evidence emerges.

Which is fair. Still, the Razor is, by its very nature, constrained to scientific explanations, wouldn’t you say?

Science is aware that it does not have all the evidence to hand, so all scientific conclusions are provisional.

Not all realize this. For many (most?), if a scientist says it, then it’s Rock Solid Incontrovertible Truth.

 

[thistle]

Maybe so, do you believe in Aliens from another planet ?

You still haven’t stated which private revelation you read this nonsense about aliens.

Do I believe life exists elsewhere in the universe? Probably.

Do I believe aliens have visited earth and ufo sightings are alien crafts. Absolutely not. That is utter rubbish.

 

[buffalo]

Instead these findings prove that multi-celled animals evolved from a different single-celled ancestor, not a choanocyte but a different type of protozoan.

The paper does not say what you seem to want it to say.

“The great-great-great-grandmother of all cells in the animal kingdom, so to speak, was probably quite similar to a stem cell.”

Loading…

www.sciencedaily.com

 

[Wozza]

Wozza:

Still waiting for your definition that will allow us to differentiate between the two.

That’s my whole point, Wozza! If we cannot say with reasonable certainty which of the two happened, at the point life entered the universe, then we can’t posit a natural solution just because we want to! (By the same token, we can’t posit divine intervention just because we want to, either!)

I’m not asking if you think abiogenesis was natural or supernatural. I am asking how you tell the difference between the two.

If we have a scientific explanation for an event, then it follows that the event exhibited processes that we understand and we term that event natural.

All we have from you thus far is that if we don’t have an exact explanation, then we can’t say it’s NOT supernatural.

Is it then your position that you have no definition of a supernatural event? Because if you do, and you agree with my definition of a natural event, then we have what we’re after.

So what’s your definition of a supernatural event?

 

[rossum]

“The great-great-great-grandmother of all cells in the animal kingdom, so to speak, was probably quite similar to a stem cell.”

Which is talking about evolution and the type of single celled organism that metazoans evolved from.

That is evolution, buffalo. Not ID, not IDvolution, not devolution. Evolution.

You seem to be reading more into the paper than is actually there. See here for a different look at the paper. Hint: headlines can sometimes be misleading.

 

[buffalo]

Which is talking about evolution and the type of single celled organism that metazoans evolved from.

That is evolution, buffalo. Not ID, not IDvolution, not devolution. Evolution.

You seem to be reading more into the paper than is actually there. See here for a different look at the paper. Hint: headlines can sometimes be misleading.

Let me rephrase - “The great-great-great-grandmother of all cells in the animal kingdom, so to speak, was probably quite similar to a stem cell.” With programmed complexity built right in, primordial, there in the beginning.