News Flash Materialists Caught in Denial

  • Thread starter Les Sleeth
  • Start date
  • Tags
    Flash News
In summary, the article argues that chemogenesis cannot be based on chemistry alone, and that the organizational complexity of life is not based on chemical or physical potentials, but rather on spontaneous organizing behavior.
  • #1
Les Sleeth
Gold Member
2,262
2
In a recent article just published (here) scientific materialists are shown to be in major denial about something that affects the very heart of their theory that the origin of life, and all on-going life processes now, can be accounted for by chemistry and physical processes alone (what I will refer to as chemogenesis). This debate began in Nautica’s thread “Religion disproving Evolution and proving Creation through Science?” I will reiterate the main points made there.

My claim is that chemistry cannot be shown to produce the particular sort of organization that is necessary for, and indeed central to, life. To reflect more clearly about the problem, I ask thinkers to separate the two concepts of 1) chemistry and 2) organization.

Regarding chemistry, there is no doubt it is the physical basis of life. Likewise, there is no doubt that the chemistry of life achieves incredible things; even when not technically alive, for instance, one can use cellular constituents in chemically sophisticated ways. Now, humanity has considerable skill with chemistry - - we work with it all the time. Let’s say we get to the stage one day were we can replicate every single bit of chemistry that goes on in life. Will we then have life? No, not quite yet because we need something more.

The “more” we need is for that chemistry to enter into what we might term progressive organization. Progressive organization is characterized by at least four traits:
1. It progresses toward systems. To define “system” (minimally) for this setting, it is: a set of interacting processes that achieve something. That is, it is not just repetitive as in say crystal organization, but instead develops multipart characteristics which are aimed at the second trait, and that is . . .
2. It is adaptive. It progresses in such a way as to help the system adapt to and take advantage of environmental conditions. Progressive system building actually uses resources from the environment to do a third thing, which is . . .
3. It progresses hierarcally. It builds systems on top of more elementary systems, with each new system furthering the adaptability of the overall system aggregate. Finally . . .
4. Progressive organization persists perpetually. This is no small matter because it is that persistence which seems to have forced chemistry into “living” in the first place, and then what kept it going for billions of years through every hostility Earth’s violent ways imposed on it.

Okay, so we have the great potentials of chemistry, and we have the great potentials of organization. We know the two work together well because life demonstrates that. The claim materialists make is that the organizational profundity of life is derived from chemical and other physical potentials. And what is their evidence? Well, chemogenesis advocates routinely cite one marvelous bit of chemical capacity after another as though this answers the question.

They point to the spontaneous organizing behavior of crystals, polymers, or autocatalytic reactions. Some researchers see as more significant the spontaneous formation of organic molecules, such as amino acids or the development of proteinoid microspheres.

Yet all of this fails to explain the organizational issue. No one, not ever, has reproduced in chemistry (or through any other physical means) a spontaneous-launching organizational process of the sort that that will: perpetually develop adaptive systems, build one hierarcally system on top of another, and with each new system support the survivability of the overall system.

So I say that if one cannot get chemistry to kick into progressively organizing gear, then why be so ready to believe chemistry can do it? And I don’t insist one has to achieve life from chemistry either; I mean prove progressive organization (as defined) is possible from chemistry and Earth’s physics. Isn’t that a reasonable request from a man of reason?
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2
Originally posted by FZ+ But I don't get it. These are cases of chemistry progressively organising. In RNA polymerisation, a feedstock of jumbled chemicals organises itself by joining together, forming longer and more complicated chains, which leads to the random assorted data that can then evolve. Amino acid synthesis is based on subjecting basic chemicals to the sort of conditions we find on early earth, and seeing them naturally combine and organise to make the stuff that can then join together, as before, to make life. Lipid globules show the sort of formations we seen with cell membranes, once thought a big barrier to abiogenesis, form out of their own in conditions common to those in certain parts of early earth. Gene triggering shows that slight changes in chemical production that can be easily triggered by random luck causing a further stage of self-organisation - sticking together into multi-cellular lifeforms. In effect, ordinary chemistry, when driven by a constant source like the sun, is self-organising all the time to adapt to its surroundings.

FZ, I hope you don’t mind I moved your comment here, but it offered a good opportunity to make a point. Also, I know when you wrote it you hadn’t read the theme of this thread, and that you might have answered differently if you had (or not at all).

However, none your examples above are progressive organization (and we can eliminate gene triggering right off the bat because you’ve already got life-generated structure in the mix).

This argument you advance is the typical one, and what it does is under-evaluate the quality of organization present in life. It is like saying an invisible, never-seen symphonic orchestra heard in the distance most likely derives from frogs because a symphony is sound, and a frog makes sound.

I fully acknowledge that chemistry can self-organize to some extent, but that is not what has happened to form living chemistry. The organization necessary had to have been far more developed than that, as I listed above.

And if this statement is evidence of chemogenesis, “In effect, ordinary chemistry, when driven by a constant source like the sun, is self-organising all the time to adapt to its surroundings,” then shouldn’t we expect life to be forming from chemistry on a regular basis? Plus, if chemistry is the organizer, then why when life “dies” should its chemistry rather quickly start loosing all it’s organizational capacity? I mean, the chemistry is still there isn’t it?
 
Last edited:
  • #3
Originally posted by LW Sleeth
I fully acknowledge that chemistry can self-organize to some extent, but that is not what has happened to form living chemistry.
I think you have assumed too much on to what you call living chemistry.

I'm sorry, but when I look at the molecular functioning of cells, all i see is simple chemical interactions. There is no progressive orgnaisation like you describe it anywhere. There is just simple chemical organisation ontop of simple chemical organisation placed ontop of simple chemical organisation.

DNA copies because of its base pairing properties. RNA is made because of its base pairing properties. Proteins are made because of RNA's base pairing properties. Proteins interact chemically do do chemically enzymatic things. Lipids form bilayers because that's what they do.

Just because u have an incredibly well refined version of life in front of you doesn't mean that everything that could be considered living has to be like that. Besides, what separates a large scale PCR reaction from a collection of living systems anyway? They are replicating aren't they? They are taking parts of their environment and orgasnising them (in the act of replicating)...what else did you want?

Let me guess: that doesn't count for some reason does it?

I have read over much of the other thread, and it just annoyed me more than anything. I took it seriously. I am not adverse to people questioning things that I believe. In fact, that is what I look for. (not that you would believe me) While I was reading over it, I knew that there was something wrong with it all. Something which I could say that would make it all understanable to you...but I am now pretty certain that there is nothing I can say. As I have found time and time again, this disagreement comes down to a difference in our brain function/Belief structure. No amount of reasoning on my behalf will change your thoughts, same from you for me.

You see, I look at life, i see chemistry in action. You look at life, you see 'life'. No matter how much i describe how there is only chemistry there, you will keep searching for the life element: The thing which separates it from everything else. And no matter how much you tell me that my descriptions of chemistry haven't captured the life element, I will just continue to describe the chemistry (because I don't need a life element). See, I don't think life is different. I think life is another typical human creation, based on the obvious, but not actually representative of truth.

Anyway, end rant.
 
  • #4
PS: If you can find a way to show me what i have missed, which will make me look at the topic your way, then tell me that. Telling me that chemistry can't do it won't work, because I can't see anything but chemistry.

PPS: I don't think the name of this thread is overly conducive to open philsopical discussio , but I'm not overly fussed.
 
  • #5
Originally posted by Another God
PS: If you can find a way to show me what i have missed, which will make me look at the topic your way, then tell me that. Telling me that chemistry can't do it won't work, because I can't see anything but chemistry.

PPS: I don't think the name of this thread is overly conducive to open philsopical discussio , but I'm not overly fussed.

AG, I'll tell you what I think LWSleeth is saying and see if that helps. LWS, If I haven't understood it then let me know.

To use a simple analogy, it seems to me that you are saying that when you look at a skyscraper and pull it apart, you see nothing but brick, glass, steel etc. etc. That's all it takes to make a skyscraper as far as you're concerned. And I hear LWS saying "show me brick, glass and steel that can build itself into a skyscraper." Seems like you aren't answering the exact question he's asking.
 
  • #6
The sub-micro world is incredibly different to our Macro world. This analogy is meaningless.

Electronegativity is very different to gravity. Different forces at work, different considerations.

A more accurate analogy would be : I look at builders building a building and think "Yep, that's builders, taking in resources (Sand, rock, steel etc), and making things out of it, as builders will tend to do"


Builders (humans) act in ways which is typical of their behaviour, while chemicals act in ways which are typical to their behaviour.

I am sure someone will claim that 'Humans think' and that molecules dont: To which I reply: Show me a thinking human, and I will accept your reply
 
  • #7
The sky-scraper of biochemical systems is thought have built by natural selection acting on DNA, mRNA etc, AFAIK
 
  • #8
Les,
One snide remark then I will get to my point. Your title to this thread is redundant. Materialism is denial and rejection!

To my knowledge there has never been found any evolutionary precursurs to life. There is no proto RNA or DNA, no proto cell the is almost alive but not quite.

We see in the cosmic clouds and in nature and the labs all of the building block, amino acids proteins etc, of life but it never takes the next step. It never starts to form more organized self replicating or more complicated molecules that would lead to life.

When faced with this fact most say well it all got ate up by life forms once it got beyound that stage. That may be true but if it autogenesis were the case then it would still be going on and we should be able to detect it happening now in nature or in the lab.

We create a garden of eden in a test tube and all we end up with is a soup of chemicals that never progress beyound a cetain point. The next step toward your progressive organization never happens.

There is no evidence that it ever did or does happen under any conditions. For hundreds of millions of years no life nor evidence of life and no indications of proto-life then life. Fully formed functioning life that immediately sets about terra forming the planet
to support more complex and advanced forms of life.

If any of you doubt that life has done this read Gaia by James Lovelock. You don't have to buy into his hypothesis but the reasons and support for coming to his conclusions is eye opening to say the least.
 
  • #9
And if this statement is evidence of chemogenesis, “In effect, ordinary chemistry, when driven by a constant source like the sun, is self-organising all the time to adapt to its surroundings,” then shouldn’t we expect life to be forming from chemistry on a regular basis?
Because we have not actually said what life is!

Any set of objective criteria we try to set out - like your self-organisation one, inevitably runs into problems, and we always end up with an arbitary set of characteristic made to exclude other possibilities. For example, if we look at the ones listed:

1. It progresses toward systems. To define “system” (minimally) for this setting, it is: a set of interacting processes that achieve something.
A crystal does achieve something - it sends a random mess into a body of high complexity, acheiving a minimalisation of potential.Ice crystals branch to produce snowflakes of infinite complexity. Fire acheives something - it reduces a set of raw materials into smoke and ashes. Everything acheives something, and life is fundamentally a repetitive process of cycles of breeding.

2. It is adaptive. It progresses in such a way as to help the system adapt to and take advantage of environmental conditions.
Chemical REactions are a codification of adaptation. We say this word almost without thinking, but whenever we do mention a reaction, we are talking about adaptation taking place.

3. It progresses hierarcally. It builds systems on top of more elementary systems, with each new system furthering the adaptability of the overall system aggregate.
This is untrue for the vast majority of life forms, which have truned out to be evolutionary dead ends. In any reaction, an initial reaction can be considered by cause and effect to have a whole series of tertiary systems. A fire for example has a central flame, and then a convection effect is evolved, and this causes smoke which exhibit the additional characteristic of turbulence, so on and so forth. By adjusting the scale, anything can be made to be "alive".

4. Progressive organization persists perpetually.
But it isn't. Not more than any form of chemical equilibrium. Life is ultimately driven by the almost eternal input of the sun, and once that goes out, the reaction of life will cease very quickly.

We must note that for each of these attempts to define, there is always a necessary layer of vagueness to allow us to make distinctions. Without removing this vagueness, we cannot attempt to deny the possibility, at least, of chemogenesis.
 
  • #10
Originally posted by FZ+

But it isn't. Not more than any form of chemical equilibrium. Life is ultimately driven by the almost eternal input of the sun, and once that goes out, the reaction of life will cease very quickly.

Life can and does exist on Earth without being driven by the sun. There is abundant life not only in the depths of the oceans floor but in the depths of mineral and oil deposits thousands of feet below ground. Life only needs energy whether from the sun, chemical or geothermal energy. It is lierally everywhere on Earth flourishing in conditions that we previously thought impossible for life to exist. This is my main reason for not accepting autogenesis. Life is so aggressive and invasive that I would think that given the slightest chance to start on its own as in the lab experiments it would do so almost imediately or at the very least begin to take the next steps beyound relatively simple proteins and amino acids.
 
  • #11
Life needs...

Life only needs energy whether from the sun, chemical or geothermal energy

Life also needs a free energy gradient, so it can exploit being an open system.
 
  • #12
Originally posted by Another God
. . . I don't think the name of this thread is overly conducive to open philsopical discussio , but I'm not overly fussed.

The title was meant to stir up things a bit , but no insult intended . I assumed materialists could take a good-natured ribbing as well as anyone.

However, it's true that this thread is meant to taunt those who've assumed a philosophical position and then claim they are considering all the evidence objectively, when in reality they are ignoring relevant evidence (and the lack of it in their own theory), and only looking at that which supports their beliefs. Personally, I think true philosophers should seek the truth rather than wish to have their beliefs confirmed.

Originally posted by Another God
I'm sorry, but when I look at the molecular functioning of cells, all i see is simple chemical interactions. There is no progressive organization like you describe it anywhere. There is just simple chemical organization on top of simple chemical organization placed on top of simple chemical organization.

The question is, why is it you only see chemistry? Let’s put all the chemicals of life in one vat, and a living cell in another. Are you saying you can’t see a difference in what goes on organizationally? A single, simple cell is performing organizational tasks that are a zillion degrees ahead of anything a mere collection of the chemicals can do on their own. You got your chemistry, but you can’t make it spontaneously organize into life, nor can you get chemical organization to behave very progressively without considerable help from conscious manipulations.

Originally posted by Another God DNA copies because of its base pairing properties. RNA is made because of its base pairing properties. Proteins are made because of RNA's base pairing properties. Proteins interact chemically do chemically enzymatic things. Lipids form bilayers because that's what they do. . . . Besides, what separates a large scale PCR reaction from a collection of living systems anyway? They are replicating aren't they? They are taking parts of their environment and orgasnising them (in the act of replicating)...what else did you want?

?? Wow, and you don’t see the logic problem with your examples? Are we talking about chemogenesis or what DNA or PCR can do? So let’s see, you would feel it is logical to claim there is nothing to an automobile except mechanistic processes, right (i.e., and ignore the quality and functionality of it’s organization)? And because of that, you are logically justified in assuming the car most likely built itself through those very mechanistic processes that make it function as a system, right?

To make your case, you pull the car’s carburetor off, or take its engine out, or remove its transmission and then creatively hook them up to other mechanical systems and say, “See how they work 100% mechanistically apart from the car? That proves there is nothing but mechanics!” Now if you did that with a car, most people would suspect you didn’t want to acknowledge the element that organized the many parts which make a car function the way it does.

And if you continued to insist mechanical processes alone had self-organized the raw materials that make up a car, then reasonable people would say, “okay, show us how that occurs.” Maybe you’d say, “Here’s some evidence, look at a tumble weed, it is round and the wind blows it around, and hey, look at those two tumble weeds that got stuck on a stick, and are rolling together, just like an axle!” There you have it, because there are various mechanical processes which do spontaneously occur, it is logical to assume they can organize themselves into a car, right?

Similarly, you want to argue that some of the sophisticated chemistry DNA helps to achieve proves it’s just chemistry. But how did DNA get in that shape? Let’s just see you get chemicals, left on their own in conditions we might expect in Earth’s early life, to form into DNA. No matter what caused that organization, SOMETHING did. And compared to biology, a car would be a breeze to form spontaneously . . . life is thousands-fold more complicated and sophisticated.

Originally posted by Another God You see, I look at life, i see chemistry in action. You look at life, you see 'life'. No matter how much i describe how there is only chemistry there, you will keep searching for the life element: The thing which separates it from everything else. And no matter how much you tell me that my descriptions of chemistry haven't captured the life element, I will just continue to describe the chemistry (because I don't need a life element). See, I don't think life is different. I think life is another typical human creation, based on the obvious, but not actually representative of truth.

I do not see “life,” I see a quality of organization no one can demonstrate chemistry, all by itself, can do. The only reason I don’t accept your explanation is because it is unsupported by proper evidence.

Originally posted by Another God I have read over much of the other thread, and it just annoyed me more than anything. I took it seriously. I am not adverse to people questioning things that I believe. In fact, that is what I look for. (not that you would believe me) While I was reading over it, I knew that there was something wrong with it all. Something which I could say that would make it all understandable to you...but I am now pretty certain that there is nothing I can say. As I have found time and time again, this disagreement comes down to a difference in our brain function/Belief structure. No amount of reasoning on my behalf will change your thoughts, same from you for me.

Well, that seems an ironic thing to say since you are the one who has the belief, not me. What I have is doubt. I doubt the illogical, poorly-supported materialist explanation for how chemistry produced life; as far as I can see, it is materialist propaganda. If I were into blind faith I might close my eyes to the glaring holes and contradictions in the theory, but I just cannot abandon reason like that.

I don’t say it’s God because I don’t know what did it. But you say chemistry can do that to itself. I’ve never seen that, you’ve never seen that, no one has ever seen chemistry, on its own, self-organize like that . . . so why do you believe it so strongly if it isn’t to maintain a predisposed materialist philosophy? At least I am open to any explanation, including chemogenesis, that makes sense and which is supported by evidence.
 
  • #13
Originally posted by LW Sleeth
The question is, why is it you only see chemistry? Let’s put all the chemicals of life in one vat, and a living cell in another. Are you saying you can’t see a difference in what goes on organizationally? A single, simple cell is performing organizational tasks that are a zillion degrees ahead of anything a mere collection of the chemicals can do on their own.

This seems to be a huge non-sequitor. The scientific definition of a cell is (basically) "a mere collection of chemicals". You see, you are (basically) saying "A collection of chemicals is (on its own) performing organizational tasks that are ahead of anything a mere collection of chemicals can do on their own".

You got your chemistry, but you can’t make it spontaneously organize into life, nor can you get chemical organization to behave very progressively without considerable help from conscious manipulations.

Why not? It happened before.

?? Wow, and you don’t see the logic problem with your examples? Are we talking about chemogenesis or what DNA or PCR can do? So let’s see, you would feel it is logical to claim there is nothing to an automobile except mechanistic processes, right (i.e., and ignore the quality and functionality of it’s organization)? And because of that, you are logically justified in assuming the car most likely built itself through those very mechanistic processes that make it function as a system, right?

The "quality and functionality of its organization" are assigned by sentient beings (just like purpose is assigned). It doesn't amount to a hill o' beans as far as a dog (for example) is concerned.

Do you see what I'm saying? A car is a collection of parts that work together (the basic definition of any machine, including the cell), but there is no gestalt from this as far as any other creature is concerened...it is only the sentient creatures, who spend so much time assigning purpose, that believe there is "something more" to it.

To make your case, you pull the car’s carburetor off, or take its engine out, or remove its transmission and then creatively hook them up to other mechanical systems and say, “See how they work 100% mechanistically apart from the car? That proves there is nothing but mechanics!” Now if you did that with a car, most people would suspect you didn’t want to acknowledge the element that organized the many parts which make a car function the way it does.

And if you continued to insist mechanical processes alone had self-organized the raw materials that make up a car, then reasonable people would say, “okay, show us how that occurs.” Maybe you’d say, “Here’s some evidence, look at a tumble weed, it is round and the wind blows it around, and hey, look at those two tumble weeds that got stuck on a stick, and are rolling together, just like an axle!” There you have it, because there are various mechanical processes which do spontaneously occur, it is logical to assume they can organize themselves into a car, right?

First off, a car (or any other man-made machine) is a bad analogy to the workings of a cell. It may be very complex, but there are things that are less complex, that still replicate (like viruses), which can be considered "precursors". Besides, one needn't ever postulate that a whole cell could come into existence, but the chemicals can start coming together (over very long periods of time), and natural selection will maintain only the "good" ones; so, eventually, you will have a functioning cell.

Secondly, there is nothing spontaneous to the abiogenesis of the original cell, it probably took a very long time (as mentioned in the above paragraph).

Lastly, what is the suggested alternative to the picture that scientists have painted? You are pointing out supposed flaws in their argument, but do you have any replacement postulates?

Similarly, you want to argue that some of the sophisticated chemistry DNA helps to achieve proves it’s just chemistry. But how did DNA get in that shape? Let’s just see you get chemicals, left on their own in conditions we might expect in Earth’s early life, to form into DNA. No matter what caused that organization, SOMETHING did. And compared to biology, a car would be a breeze to form spontaneously . . . life is thousands-fold more complicated and sophisticated.

Again, it is complicated, but not in the same way that a car is. This is "proven" (I use the term loosely here) by the fact that cells can multi-task, while cars (which were designed) can only do what they were "made to do".

Anyway, "something" did cause the organization...natural selection.

People like to use the "if you left a million monkeys in a room with a million type-writers, they would never type a Shakespeare sonnet" rebuttal alot, which is what inspired a certain scientist (whose name I forgot) to create a computer program, that simulated the million monkeys with type-writers, typing random nonsense on the keys. The only thing he added was that any "good" result (such as an "a" in the correct part of "Wherefore art thou Romeo?") would be preserved (which is the function of natural selection). The result, he was providing lines from Shakespearean plays of about thirteen symbols apiece, one/90seconds. He composed an entire play in 4 days.

I do not see “life,” I see a quality of organization no one can demonstrate chemistry, all by itself, can do. The only reason I don’t accept your explanation is because it is unsupported by proper evidence.

You exist, don't you? Isn't that evidence enough?

I don’t say it’s God because I don’t know what did it. But you say chemistry can do that to itself. I’ve never seen that, you’ve never seen that, no one has ever seen chemistry, on its own, self-organize like that . . .

Of course no one has. Humanity has only existed for 6,000 years. Conditions on Earth now (abundant in Oxygen) are very bad for abiogenesis, but they were not that way 3 billion years ago, and that's when it's supposed to have happened.

Now, I'm not saying that this is "truth". But it is valid, IMO.
 
  • #14
Originally posted by LW Sleeth


Let’s just see you get chemicals, left on their own in conditions we might expect in Earth’s early life, to form into DNA.

You got to deal!

Now, it took over a billion years while using the entire surface of the Earth as a laboratory for the random elements to combine in an effective replicating way. Since we'll be reducing the size of the sample considerably, to say ... a bathtub, it will take proportionally longer. That would be about a factor of 100 trillion. So, we should expect to see evidence of spontaneous life formation in about 10^23 years in our little experiment.

The fact that it has not been observed is meaningless.

Njorl
 
  • #15
Originally posted by FZ+
Any set of objective criteria we try to set out - like your self-organisation one, inevitably runs into problems, and we always end up with an arbitary set of characteristic made to exclude other possibilities.

I agree, my list of what constitutes "progressive organization" does not perfectly define what I am talking about. I was trying to point to something which spontaneous-acting chemistry and physical processes cannot be shown to do. So when you say . . .

Originally posted by FZ+
A crystal does achieve something - it sends a random mess into a body of high complexity, acheiving a minimalisation of potential.Ice crystals branch to produce snowflakes of infinite complexity. Fire acheives something - it reduces a set of raw materials into smoke and ashes. Everything acheives something, and life is fundamentally a repetitive process of cycles of breeding.[/QUOTE

. . . I was aware such counterexamples could be cited, but I'd hoped you would see that the four traits of progressive organization were to be considered all together or not at all.

Originally posted by FZ+
Chemical REactions are a codification of adaptation. We say this word almost without thinking, but whenever we do mention a reaction, we are talking about adaptation taking place.

Agreed, but no spontaneously occurring REactions can be shown to become the sort of adaptation that continues on to build a self-sustaining system which, for instance, metabolizes, reproduces and continues to evolve for billions of years can it?

Originally posted by FZ+ This is untrue for the vast majority of life forms, which have truned out to be evolutionary dead ends.

Quite so. However, if the avenue for development is open, then life, so far, shows it will continue to evolve.

Originally posted by FZ+ In any reaction, an initial reaction can be considered by cause and effect to have a whole series of tertiary systems. A fire for example has a central flame, and then a convection effect is evolved, and this causes smoke which exhibit the additional characteristic of turbulence, so on and so forth. By adjusting the scale, anything can be made to be "alive".

Nonsense. If you are going to label anything that keeps on changing "life" then what's the point of calling anything biology? Anyway, the point is the quality of the organization in life. Continuing to cite elementary organization and change examples doesn't address that.


Originally posted by FZ+
We must note that for each of these attempts to define, there is always a necessary layer of vagueness to allow us to make distinctions. Without removing this vagueness, we cannot attempt to deny the possibility, at least, of chemogenesis.


But FZ, I am not denying chemogenesis. It might be true, or it might not. I am questioning the degree of faith some people have in it. I also question the dubious logic and evidence given to support the chemogenesis theory. Their faith is so strong that they refuse to consider any explanation for the origin of life except chemogenesis, and try to make a case by exaggerating the potentials of chemistry to self organize spontaneously.

That degree of faith, I say, is the result of having assumed a philosophical position in advance of possessing the evidence a truly objective mind should have to proclaim such faith.
 
  • #16
Originally posted by Royce
We see in the cosmic clouds and in nature and the labs all of the building block, amino acids proteins etc, of life but it never takes the next step. It never starts to form more organized self replicating or more complicated molecules that would lead to life.

When faced with this fact most say well it all got ate up by life forms once it got beyound that stage. That may be true but if it autogenesis were the case then it would still be going on and we should be able to detect it happening now in nature or in the lab.

We create a garden of eden in a test tube and all we end up with is a soup of chemicals that never progress beyound a cetain point. The next step toward your progressive organization never happens.

Exactly. That is why I am at a loss to understand the lack of doubt in chemogenesis theory by the materialist. One would think if they were objective, we'd at least see the same skepticism shown toward any hypothesized process one cannot confirm. What's up with that? Are we getting real science here, or are we being propagandized to?
 
  • #17
Originally posted by LW Sleeth
Exactly. That is why I am at a loss to understand the lack of doubt in chemogenesis theory by the materialist. One would think if they were objective, we'd at least see the same skepticism shown toward any hypothesized process one cannot confirm. What's up with that? Are we getting real science here, or are we being propagandized to?

Actually, LW Sleeth, as you are probably well aware, the theory of Evolution did stir up huge contraversy (and not, as many people think, among the Christians (they just jumped on the bandwagon, for some reason, which I'll never understand), but among the scientists...it persisted for quite some time, that any idea that resembled "Darwinism" was denounced without fair trial; sometimes without trial at all). As it is, there is mounting evidence for it, and scientists are biased towards evidence.
 
  • #18
Originally posted by Fliption
AG, I'll tell you what I think LWSleeth is saying and see if that helps. LWS, If I haven't understood it then let me know.

To use a simple analogy, it seems to me that you are saying that when you look at a skyscraper and pull it apart, you see nothing but brick, glass, steel etc. etc. That's all it takes to make a skyscraper as far as you're concerned. And I hear LWS saying "show me brick, glass and steel that can build itself into a skyscraper." Seems like you aren't answering the exact question he's asking.

Yes, I am saying that. AG makes a minor point that your analogy should be the building process rather than the parts, but in the case of chemistry the process can't be shown by itself to build the parts either from scratch .

In all the (known) universe, there is only one thing that has ever been observed that is capable of progressive organization: consciousness. What does that mean? Well, it could mean progressive organization has some sort of relationship to consciousness. It doesn't have to mean it's God . . . it could be something no one has imagined.

The point I make here is to wonder why materialists don't notice that resemblence, and why they have such faith in a theory they cannot confirm. Is it denial? Is it due to being committed to the materialist explanation over discovering the truth?
 
  • #19
Let me see; Les it taunting, and Royce is making snide remarks….
Excellent ! (now I don’t have to feel so bad when I’m accused of being unfair and insensitive, hehe).

Les,
One snide remark then I will get to my point. Your title to this thread is redundant. Materialism is denial and rejection!
Are you taking this opportunity to mock all of materialism with your snide remark, or simply the genesis of life via chemistry belief? There is more to materialism than meets the eye, you dig?

The title was meant to stir up things a bit , but no insult intended . I assumed materialists could take a good-natured ribbing as well as anyone.
Why should materialists be any less touchy than idealists, when both are human?

However, it's true that this thread is meant to taunt those who've assumed a philosophical position and then claim they are considering all the evidence objectively, when in reality they are ignoring relevant evidence (and the lack of it in their own theory), and only looking at that which supports their beliefs. Personally, I think true philosophers should seek the truth rather than wish to have their beliefs confirmed.
I’m ok with taunting, but I would question the accuracy of the heading chosen for this thread. It would be, for example, nothing particularly special for an idealist to believe an immaterial god imagined the world (causing it to come into physical being) and yet also believe that life was born afterwards through strictly chemical processes. So, what I see being attacked in this thread is not materialism, but chemogenesis, which up until this point has not been able to create what all can agree to as being a living organism.
I would agree that until such time as a creepy-crawly forms from a laboratory experiment that there should remain room for doubt (seeing is believing). But what this means is the hunt for that magical spark of life must continue to go on. What I wouldn’t agree to is that chemogenesis will never be demonstrated to happen at some point in the future solely because it hasn’t happened up until now. Nevertheless, I confess dissapointment that traces of what we call life were not found on Mars, for example. For the time being, Earth seems to be the only known planet in the game, but the search is still in its infancy. For some this may form part of a proof, for others it is only a disappointment prolonging the inevitable.

At any rate, the problem with your consciousness scenario is that nobody has ever seen such a thing to exist independent of matter (is it in fact your belief that it may?). Our conscious mind seems to follow our cranium every place we go, is altered by chemicals (tying it to matter), etc. Materialism, as the theory that only physical entities exist and that so-called mental things are manifestations of an underlying physical reality has not been disproved here simply by the lack of a scientist to successfully produce a life form from ‘scratch’.
 
  • #20
Originally posted by Mentat
This seems to be a huge non-sequitor. The scientific definition of a cell is (basically) "a mere collection of chemicals". You see, you are (basically) saying "A collection of chemicals is (on its own) performing organizational tasks that are ahead of anything a mere collection of chemicals can do on their own".

You are wrong about how a cell is defined. However, you have joined the group who wants to ignore the organizational quality present in a cell.

Originally posted by Mentat
Why not? It happened before.

Talk about arrogating a principle!

Originally posted by Mentat
The "quality and functionality of its organization" are assigned by sentient beings (just like purpose is assigned). It doesn't amount to a hill o' beans as far as a dog (for example) is concerned.

That's because a dog is too stupid to notice. We aren't.

Originally posted by Mentat
Do you see what I'm saying? A car is a collection of parts that work together (the basic definition of any machine, including the cell), but there is no gestalt from this as far as any other creature is concerened...it is only the sentient creatures, who spend so much time assigning purpose, that believe there is "something more" to it.

I didn't say a thing about "purpose." I simply am pointing to how the organizational effectiveness of biology is uncharacteristic of chemistry left on its own. It doesn't take a genius to notice that (fortunately for me).

Originally posted by Mentat
First off, a car (or any other man-made machine) is a bad analogy to the workings of a cell. It may be very complex, but there are things that are less complex, that still replicate (like viruses), which can be considered "precursors".

Viruses do not from chemistry alone . . . they require remnant DNA which was once part of life. No virus has ever been observed spontaneously forming from raw materials.

Originally posted by Mentat
Besides, one needn't ever postulate that a whole cell could come into existence, but the chemicals can start coming together (over very long periods of time), and natural selection will maintain only the "good" ones; so, eventually, you will have a functioning cell.

Okay, demonstrate that. Besides, I don't think a cell needs to come together all at once.

Originally posted by Mentat
Secondly, there is nothing spontaneous to the abiogenesis of the original cell, it probably took a very long time (as mentioned in the above paragraph).

Long time or not, the theory is that is physical conditions and chemical potential started it spontaneously (spontaneous is not the same thing as instantaneous).

Originally posted by Mentat
Lastly, what is the suggested alternative to the picture that scientists have painted? You are pointing out supposed flaws in their argument, but do you have any replacement postulates?

I might have, but right now I am questioning the faith materialists have in the theory. I say the faith we see them exhibit, and that they often recommend that others should have in chemogenesis theory, is exaggerated because they are pre-committed to a philosophical position. It taints their objectivity and makes them diminish or ignore the problems with the theory.

Originally posted by Mentat
Anyway, "something" did cause the organization...natural selection.

Natural selection is how a living animal evolves, it is not how chemogenesis occurred.

Originally posted by Mentat
You exist, don't you? Isn't that evidence enough?

It certainly is. But we aren't debating what is enough, we are discussing if the chemogenesis theory holds water.

Originally posted by Mentat
Humanity has only existed for 6,000 years.

That's a strange thing to say Mentat . . . 6000 years?
 
  • #21
Originally posted by Mentat
Actually, LW Sleeth, as you are probably well aware, the theory of Evolution did stir up huge contraversy (and not, as many people think, among the Christians (they just jumped on the bandwagon, for some reason, which I'll never understand), but among the scientists...it persisted for quite some time, that any idea that resembled "Darwinism" was denounced without fair trial; sometimes without trial at all). As it is, there is mounting evidence for it, and scientists are biased towards evidence.

I don't have any doubts about evolution. What started life is what I question.
 
  • #22
I would say, yes, it is denial; but I am biased the other way. However, it is not just the auto-chemical-genesis of life that they cling to so desperately. It is vertually everything that can support materialism no matter how unlikely, illogicical or tenuous. They, like me only look one way and only accept one explanation and all others are fantacy, delusion and/or illogical. They in there way are just as biased, bigoted, narrow minded and dogmatic and any bible thumping creationist, as I am about my sets of beliefs. I think is is a human condition. And despite their faith in science and objectivity they too are only human.
The weaker a position the more firmly and desperately it must be defended and the higher and stronger must the walls be built until not only can no one see in but no one can see out either. Never can a crack be allowed to appear in the system in fear that it will all come tumbling down around them. Never can a fact or logical point be allowed to cloud the issue. This is not just materialist but any and all dogma.
Those who are strong and secure in their beliefs, the position do not built walls but walk around freely inviting open discourse and scrutenizing every idea, every thought of ther own and others.

Sound great doesn't it. Maybe some day I'll meet someone like that.
 
  • #23
Originally posted by Njorl
You got to deal!

Now, it took over a billion years while using the entire surface of the Earth as a laboratory for the random elements to combine in an effective replicating way. Since we'll be reducing the size of the sample considerably, to say ... a bathtub, it will take proportionally longer. That would be about a factor of 100 trillion. So, we should expect to see evidence of spontaneous life formation in about 10^23 years in our little experiment.

The fact that it has not been observed is meaningless.

Njorl

You assume life took a billion years to get going because you already believe in chemogenesis. For all you know, life could have formed within minutes after Earth's conditions were suitable.

And even if it did take a billion years, and it takes 10^23 years to produce spontaneous life formation in your "little experiment," that still does not excuse you from having to demonstrate the capacity of chemistry to spontaneously produce life before you proclaim to the world it is "most likely" how life began.

When you say, "The fact that it has not been observed is meaningless" . . . who is it meaningless to? To plenty of materialists it is meaningless because they are not open to being swayed by any explanation other than a materialist one. To me, as a man of reason, it extraordinarily meaningful. Why?

Because I want to know the truth, whatever that turns out to be. And when I see so-called "objective" researchers not particularly concerned that they can't get chemistry to even come close to entering into the progressive, self-perpetuating development it needs to in order to produce life, I start thinking I am being fed a bill of goods by materialist propagandists, rather than getting the unbiased opinions I long for from science.
 
  • #24
. . . I was aware such counterexamples could be cited, but I'd hoped you would see that the four traits of progressive organization were to be considered all together or not at all.
But I do mean that for each of these examples, all four characteristic, to an objective degree, are exhibited.

Case study: Crystals.
1. It progresses toward systems. To define “system” (minimally) for this setting, it is: a set of interacting processes that achieve something.
Physically speaking, crystals are not in a state of stasis. Even when the system has ceased to grow, there is a continuous series of virtual particle exchanges, all in perfect balance to maintain the state of the crystal, which is can be considered as acheiving. When the crystal is growing, the formation of systems is self-evident. In the ice crystals, it is obvious that the process is non-repetitive. This is also true for all other crystals. Flaws enter, in the same way mutation occurs in DNA.

2. It is adaptive. It progresses in such a way as to help the system adapt to and take advantage of environmental conditions.
The existence of crystals itself is an adaptation to a change in environmental conditions - ie. super-saturation. Like life, the crystal has some tolerance, but it will change with environment. It can melt, for example. Looking in detail, there is an infinite number of possible adaptations. And these adaptations alter the way in which it "metabolises" component compounds to sustain its growth, allows parts to break off and found new seed colonies, and evolves in being more suited to its conditions.

3. It progresses hierarcally. It builds systems on top of more elementary systems, with each new system furthering the adaptability of the overall system aggregate.
The formation of the crystal neccessarily changes its environment. Its drawing in of components that make itself in generating diffusion gradients is analogous to the cellular machinery a DNA molecule surrounds itself with. From an initial seed crystal, that does not involve this, a higher complexity is built up over time. As we expand the scale, this gets ever more layered.

4. Progressive organization persists perpetually.
Crystals continue to form as long as resources are provided, often very aggressively.

Nonsense. If you are going to label anything that keeps on changing "life" then what's the point of calling anything biology? Anyway, the point is the quality of the organization in life. Continuing to cite elementary organization and change examples doesn't address that.
But why do you find it nonsense? What is this quality, when all objective criterias have been exhausted? I propose that this quality is a values choice, a subjective decision. Much like how in chemistry we devote special mention to "hydrogen bonding", when objectively speaking it is just another case of permanent dipole to dipole attraction. In both cases, other forces of attraction are not exactly like hydrogen bonding, but in order to separate them we must stick in an artificial, subjective choice.

I think that when this choice, this difference of quality cannot be reduced any further than to describe a precise set of phenomena itself and exclude those which do not follow it, we can conclude that this choice is merely arbitary. Bilogy hence only exists because of its usefulness, and commonness in our usual environment.

The next step toward your progressive organization never happens.
But it does. Very slowly, but it does. A test tube is also hardly a garden of eden - most phenomena are not scale invariant. DNA needs room.

And this "we don't see x stage happening is dubious". It is not realistic to expect such a full trajectory, and it does amount to a god of the gaps fallacy if you interpret each unfilled in gap as evidence of failure. We are filling in the gaps. Rather like firing a bullet - we see the bullet hit, and the bullet being fired, and it is perfectly reasonable to assume the bullet went through the intervening space. With molecular evolution, the lack of information comes from the process's slowness and fragility, but the case is the same.

One would think if they were objective, we'd at least see the same skepticism shown toward any hypothesized process one cannot confirm.
The fact that there exists a variety of hypotheses for such chemogenesis shows that the above is not true. Because we are in the process of choosing between them, it is self-evident that skepticism must be given to each and every possibility of chemogenesis. The assumption of the theory is in terms of relative values - once we eliminated all of these, then we have to get rid of abiogenesis. |But as yet, each of these hypotheses offers far greater fecundity for testing than non-material theories can in the forseeable future. We must remember that chemogenesis is incomplete. To continue work, we need to assume it may be worthwhile.
 
  • #25
Originally posted by BoulderHead
Why should materialists be any less touchy than idealists, when both are human?

I’m ok with taunting, but I would question the accuracy of the heading chosen for this thread. It would be, for example, nothing particularly special for an idealist to believe an immaterial god imagined the world (causing it to come into physical being) and yet also believe that life was born afterwards through strictly chemical processes. So, what I see being attacked in this thread is not materialism, but chemogenesis, which up until this point has not been able to create what all can agree to as being a living organism.

I am not attacking chemogenesis, I am criticizing the degree of faith believers have in it. I would be just as critical of idealist or creationist nonsense. What I see is a lot of exaggeration and, yes, denial when it comes to acknowledging the limitations of self-organizing chemistry in their theory.

It is that lack of acknowledgment that has me on their case. It makes me suspect them of propagandizing, and what I want is true objectivity.

Originally posted by BoulderHead
[BI would agree that until such time as a creepy-crawly forms from a laboratory experiment that there should remain room for doubt (seeing is believing). But what this means is the hunt for that magical spark of life must continue to go on. What I wouldn’t agree to is that chemogenesis will never be demonstrated to happen at some point in the future solely because it hasn’t happened up until now. Nevertheless, I confess dissapointment that traces of what we call life were not found on Mars, for example. For the time being, Earth seems to be the only known planet in the game, but the search is still in its infancy. For some this may form part of a proof, for others it is only a disappointment prolonging the inevitable.[/B]

I agree, the search must go on. I also accept that chemogenesis might be demonstrated one day. I think your attitude is pretty balanced on the whole. I wouldn't put you my "denial" list.

Originally posted by BoulderHead
[BIAt any rate, the problem with your consciousness scenario is that nobody has ever seen such a thing to exist independent of matter (is it in fact your belief that it may?). Our conscious mind seems to follow our cranium every place we go, is altered by chemicals (tying it to matter), etc. Materialism, as the theory that only physical entities exist and that so-called mental things are manifestations of an underlying physical reality has not been disproved here simply by the lack of a scientist to successfully produce a life form from ‘scratch’. [/B]

Again, I agree with all that. And yes, I do suspect that consciousness can exist independent of matter. But even if it can, there is no denying that right here, right now we are dependent on matter for our conscious existence. I think all the research to discover exactly how we are linked materially is very valuable.

I also agree that materialism has not been proven wrong, it may indeed be correct. My objections have to do with objectivity, logical theorizing, and the willingness of researchers/theorists to look at all the evidence.
 
  • #26
Originally posted by Another God
The sub-micro world is incredibly different to our Macro world. This analogy is meaningless.


No I don't think it's meaningless. It was not intended to mirror your view of the world. It was intended to demonstrate and try to clarify the disconnect that apparently exists between your view and LWS.


A more accurate analogy would be : I look at builders building a building and think "Yep, that's builders, taking in resources (Sand, rock, steel etc), and making things out of it, as builders will tend to do"

I agree that this is a more accurate reflection of your view.
 
Last edited:
  • #27
Originally posted by Mentat
This seems to be a huge non-sequitor. The scientific definition of a cell is (basically) "a mere collection of chemicals". You see, you are (basically) saying "A collection of chemicals is (on its own) performing organizational tasks that are ahead of anything a mere collection of chemicals can do on their own".

Wow. Mentat you really need to find a way to increase your time online or decrease the number of posts.
 
  • #28
Originally posted by LW Sleeth

When you say, "The fact that it has not been observed is meaningless" . . . who is it meaningless to? To plenty of materialists it is meaningless because they are not open to being swayed by any explanation other than a materialist one. To me, as a man of reason, it extraordinarily meaningful. Why?
[q]
It is meaningful to you because you are not good at math. Would you find it meaningful if you bought many lotto tickets and didn't win ten million dollars with each one? That is the kind of random occurance that you seem to expect to happen.
[/q]

[q]

Because I want to know the truth, whatever that turns out to be. And when I see so-called "objective" researchers not particularly concerned that they can't get chemistry to even come close to entering into the progressive, self-perpetuating development it needs to in order to produce life, I start thinking I am being fed a bill of goods by materialist propagandists, rather than getting the unbiased opinions I long for from science.

This is just patently false. There have been many experiments verifying many of the individual steps of the abiotic generation of life. The complete process is not entirely understood, but the work progresses well. It has been experimentally under way for only 50 years.

1950's Miller and Urey perform experiment verifying Oparin-Haldene theory. They approximate pre-biotic conditions and form all 20 amino acids and other organic molecules (including sugars, lipids and ATP) from simple abundent chemicals.

Recently Fox et al demonstrated formation of polymers from simple organic molecules. The "Primordial soup" formed from the above experiment was applied to clay, and concentrated via evaporation. Spontaneous creation of polymers occurred. These processes formed proteins, polypeptides, more complex lipds, and nucleic acids.

Coacervates have been produced from the above listed molecules, though I don't know if they have been shown to be produced by naturally occurring processes as of yet. They are protobionts that are self-assembling membranous globes of proteins and lipids. They have selectively permeable membranes. When they take in a large enough supply of organic material, the split into two globes, and continue reproduction. They have differing "success" rates dependent upon their chemical composition. More successful compositions outproduce less successful variants, seizing all the best chemicals for themselves.

That's damn near life.

There is a very good slide show at this site.

http://www.ku.edu/~bio152/02/

Njorl
 
  • #29
Originally posted by Njorl
This is just patently false. There have been many experiments verifying many of the individual steps of the abiotic generation of life. The complete process is not entirely understood, but the work progresses well. It has been experimentally under way for only 50 years.
Njorl

I don't think anyone disagrees that the chemicals and basic building blocks necessary for life can be generated in a laboratory. I think the complex oganization of these parts is more the issue. While the results you mentioned are great things, they read as if we almost have it all figured out. Let's try an analogy to put them into perspective. If we're trying to explain the existence of a brick house let's say, then generating amino acids is like showing that a certain mix of chemicals can harden into concrete. BTW, I thought that geologists no longer believed Earth's early atmosphere to resemble the mixture in Miller's flask. I've read that best guesses about the atmosphere are that it was NOT the reducing environment the slides you posted claim. It was most likely a neutral mixture of carbon dioxide and nitrogen. Not a fertile environment for amino acids. But whether chemogenesis happened on Earth or not is not so much an issue with chemogensis itself so I'll move on.

Also, I've read the polypeptides produced in the Fox experiments were superficial compared to the real thing. There are billions and billions of amino acid combinations to form proteins, most of them useless for life. So this would be like showing that sometimes this concrete mixture can accidentally harden into symetrical shapes that may be stackable. Now we have the burden of showing how these stackable shapes stacked themselves into the statistically unlikely way necessary for a house.

All the other things you mentioned simply build on these each with their own caveats. Let me be clear. I am not degrading these efforts. Not at all. I am simply saying that they are merely the highlights in this search and once you look at all the issues, these results aren't enough evidence to suggest that this is definitely the way life happened and that's it's now just a matter of connecting the dots.

I think the dedication to this theory is not based on these merits but rather is more because there is no other idea that science can entertain.
 
Last edited:
  • #30
Originally posted by LW Sleeth
And compared to biology, a car would be a breeze to form spontaneously . . . life is thousands-fold more complicated and sophisticated.

You need to know what separates life from non-living before sucha statement can make its full point. And when you try to define that term, you will probably come to realize that there is no difference between life and non life, and anyu distinction you make, is actually the creation of an arbitrary line, attempting to separate the things which are 'obviously alive' to those things which 'don't seem to be alive.'

Now, just because a car is less complex than life now, life that has been refined over at least 4 billion years, is pointless. Wait a thousand years and compare their version of a car to life. And then you will see how different the evolutionary method is to rational creation. A car has only been in existence for under 100 years, and already it has got as complex as it is (We just introduced a nervous system!)

As I said in my previous post, an analogy between the macro, and the sub-micro is POINTLESS, and as convincing=> neat as these analogies sound, they hold nothing. They are eye candy. The have no logical weight, they have no bearing on reality, and they don't make any point. Chemicals act in certain ways based on electronegativity. Car parts are heavy chunks of metal that do nothing which we don't make them do.

See, for me to pull bits out of a car and make them work: I have to do just that: MAKE them work. But if you mix DNA strands, then they will base pair of their own accord. The difference should be more than apparent between these analogies.
 
  • #31
BTW, I thought that geologists no longer believed Earth's early atmosphere to resemble the mixture in Miller's flask.
Nope. In fact, it's even better. Analysis of early rocks show that the conditions in some areas were even more favourably moderate to life than had been thought, and amino acids have been found in environments as extreme as asteroid. Many things previously thought an impedance to abiogenesis have been found to be in fact aiding the process, at least in the beginning.

If we're trying to explain the existence of a brick house let's say, then generating amino acids is like showing that a certain mix of chemicals can harden into concrete.
You seemed to have missed this one:

Coacervates have been produced from the above listed molecules, though I don't know if they have been shown to be produced by naturally occurring processes as of yet. They are protobionts that are self-assembling membranous globes of proteins and lipids. They have selectively permeable membranes.
This is analogous to saying that the hardened concrete is found to naturally form into the shape of a house. Pretty significant, eh?
 
  • #32
Originally posted by Fliption
I think the dedication to this theory is not based on these merits but rather is more because there is no other idea that science can entertain.

Good point, and one that I should acknowledge.

I think a lot, probably most, people involved in trying to demonstrate chemogenesis do so because they are dedicated to their work. It isn't motivated by denial of more promising approaches.

Yet I still think that dedication at the very least tends to make them be overly enthusiastic about what has been achieved, and minimize what isn't working. This shows up especially when communicating to the public. From textbooks to TV specials we hear the scientific hopeful say, "It is most likely that life began . . . [plug in your favorite chemogenesis explanation]"
 
  • #33
I think the dedication to this theory is not based on these merits but rather is more because there is no other idea that science can entertain.
I think that is misleading. It is more accurate to say that chemogenesis is the only theory we have at the moment. Science depends on theories.

Yet I still think that dedication at the very least tends to make them be overly enthusiastic about what has been achieved, and minimize what isn't working.
Is it realistic any other way?

Science's strength is not in eliminating this sort of bias, because in the real world, that cannot be removed. It's strength is instead in playing this bias off against each other - even as someone says x hypothesis is the best, someone else says y is better. This leads to competition amongst theories and hypotheses, and the best survive.
 
  • #34
Originally posted by Another God
You need to know what separates life from non-living before sucha statement can make its full point. And when you try to define that term, you will probably come to realize that there is no difference between life and non life, and anyu distinction you make, is actually the creation of an arbitrary line, attempting to separate the things which are 'obviously alive' to those things which 'don't seem to be alive.'

AG, biology is not a subject with which I am needing to understand something so basic as the difference between living and non-living. So I cannot see your logic at all in saying ". . . there is no difference between life and non life, and any distinction you make, is actually the creation of an arbitrary line . . ." If you are correct, then why have a term "life" and why have a field known as biology? Why not just refer to it as chemistry and be done with it?

I have a few dozen books on various areas of biology, and not one single one of them is ready to say life is no different from non-life. Please refer me to the experts which say this is how we should look at life, and that the distinctions we make are "arbitrary."

A favorite definition of life of mine is taken from a little book by John Maynard Smith, and Eors Szathmary "The Origins of Life." It says, "[living is] . . . any population of entities possessing those properties that are needed if the population is to evolve by natural selection. That is, entities are alive if they have the properties of multiplication, variation, and heredity (or are descended from such entities . . . ). . . . Why should we regard these three particular properties as defining life? It is because they are necessary if a population is to evolve all the other charateristics that we associate with life."

So a burning fire, which might be cited as an example of metabolism, or a crystal, which might be cited as an example of growth (thank you anyway FZ), cannot included as "living."

As I said in my previous post, an analogy between the macro, and the sub-micro is POINTLESS, and as convincing=> neat as these analogies sound, they hold nothing. They are eye candy. The have no logical weight, they have no bearing on reality, and they don't make any point. Chemicals act in certain ways based on electronegativity. Car parts are heavy chunks of metal that do nothing which we don't make them do
.

All that misses the point. It doesn't matter about macro and submicro, at least to my point. I was talking about the way you are reasoning.

Originally posted by Another God See, for me to pull bits out of a car and make them work: I have to do just that: MAKE them work. But if you mix DNA strands, then they will base pair of their own accord. The difference should be more than apparent between these analogies.

I can't figure out if we are on the same planet. Why do you think it proves anything about chemogenesis if you take something life developed (DNA) and then show me how nicely it behaves organizationally? I am the one who is saying that is exactly what distinguishes the chemistry of life from normal chemistry -- its organizational elegance.
 
  • #35
Originally posted by FZ+
I think that is misleading. It is more accurate to say that chemogenesis is the only theory we have at the moment. Science depends on theories.


Is it realistic any other way?

Science's strength is not in eliminating this sort of bias, because in the real world, that cannot be removed. It's strength is instead in playing this bias off against each other - even as someone says x hypothesis is the best, someone else says y is better. This leads to competition amongst theories and hypotheses, and the best survive.

But look at all the assumptions you have in place. You assume science alone can answer this question, one way or another. What if it can't? You are talking about competition among theories, but you only mean empirical theories. Since you aren't even open to "any other way," what is the point of asking if any of them might be realistic?
 

Similar threads

  • Biology and Medical
Replies
1
Views
1K
Replies
25
Views
4K
Replies
3
Views
3K
  • Sci-Fi Writing and World Building
Replies
11
Views
1K
  • Sci-Fi Writing and World Building
Replies
21
Views
851
Replies
1
Views
724
Replies
4
Views
1K
  • General Discussion
Replies
26
Views
3K
  • Beyond the Standard Models
5
Replies
163
Views
22K
  • STEM Academic Advising
Replies
9
Views
2K
Back
Top