The Definition of Real Science

[Mikeuk]

Sure but the evidence can be direct or indirect. Not every field of science has be ability to make direct observations.


I agree.


If the evidence shows that a scientific hypothesis/theory/model is incorrect, then obviously it needs to be modified or discarded.


As I said, I am not here to prove or disprove evolution, but I am keen to hear the ideas of others.


As I said earlier, I think as Christians, we need to make sure we are reading the Bible correctly as well as science.
Making unsubstantiated claims does not honour God and makes Christianity look foolish.


I completely agree.


Do you think science can prove creation?

On a philosophical point - no science makes “direct observation.”
All our perception of anything else is not of the thing “ itself” but of what it radiates , what it reflects, or what it obscures, or how things React to it. We classify it by what it is observed to “do“ not what it “is“ All our experience is indirect, as numerous philosophers have pointed out. Kants noumena. Aristotles shadow world. We do not know what anything “ is”, or what is there that does not normally interact. Also In the world of the small it is now demonstrated that the universe is not even objective - your world and mine are different.

Also One of the points I also tried to make is that evidence can be verified that either runs counter to the scientific model , or simply cannot repeat or does not repeat Science has nothing to say. In those cases all we have is evidence.
The lack of hypothesis or theory ( and therefore model) does not render the evidence invalid. The evidence is the core reality, the scientific model is just that a limited model.

In essence all Our observation of the world or even of equipment is by conscious experience .
Unless it repeats or can be repeated science cannot analyse it. let me give an example.
In a veridical near death experience a victim of a road accident was brought to a hospital facility.
He had a cardiac arrest. On becoming fully conscious he describes the content of the room above the ressucitation room which was a training facility and so unusual he cannot have guessed or made it up. It was off.I it’s and unknown to all but emergency staff.
so that experience was validated by the description of something he cannot have observed if consciousness was confined to the brain.

Materealists then jump in with scientism stating that unless it can be repeated with hypothesis for how it was done it is ergo not scientific, and therefore discountable. But the lack of theory on how is irrelevant. There is a huge mass of verified evidence as recorded conscious experience that is not repeatable. Evidencr is the key. The model is secondary.


As for creation, Like ” abiogenesis “ proof relies on a precise definition. It is not as simple as it sounds.
What is “ creation” . Sorry to be so arcane.
Do you mean “ created by God”.
If the scientific model contains an apple and pear, then science can conclude which an object is.
if only an apple is in the model science cannot prove a pear.

Since God is not in the scientific model because, the model is manmade , and man has not put him in, then no
Science cannot conclude God.

If you mean “ created “ in the sense of produced by intelligent design of an intelligent agency , yes .
Take gallium arsenide does not exist naturally, but crystals now exist man made them.

But if you mean created as a substance appeared in defiance of the existence of constituent parts.
yes, that too.
In Eucharistic miracles cardiac tissue appeared with no precursors.
It points at or becAuze only in the bible does bread become flesh.
but it cannot prove the agency of God , only the existence of cardiac tissue by no natural means.

 

[Gus Bovona]

On the first point.
"nobody has any hypothesis"

As a scientist, I can state without fear of contradiction , that science relies on accurate definitions. The entire scientific model interrelates them.
I can say nothing about "electric field density" or " wave function collapse" or "particle wave duality" without a lot of precise definitions.
I cannot relate them or have hypotheses or theories for them, without precise definitions for them.

So the definition of abiogenesis is the step from "non living to living". OOL researchersdefine life as "self sustatining, capable of darwinian evolution" (and similar...)

No chemical process from "non living to non living" is therefore abiogenesis.
No process from "living to living" is abiogenesis.
Life is defined by such as Harvard as "self sustaining , capable of darwinian evolution".
So the precursors to abiogenesis by definition were non living, either not capable of darwinian evolution , or not cabable of self sustaining.

So you say "any part of abiogenesis" if you mean the non living steps before, (eg self catalyzing polymers or enzymes) then whether or not they are valid hypotheses they are not part of abiogenesis
Nor was how the first living thing becoming the second a hypothesis for part of abiogenesis, PROVIDED only that the first living thing can do so, which is needed for evidence of darwinian evolution.

So the idea of "part of abiogenesis" is a misleading phrase.

There is only one step that matters. The structure of the first living thing. And how it assembled from non living precursors.
That step is the part that is abiogenesis. And only hypotheses for that are hypotheses for "part of abiogenesis"
(That step has serious problems with irreducible complexity but let that pass)

On the second point.
Since nobody knows when where or how it happened, there is no process defined or speculated it does not repeat, it is therefore pure conjecture whether it did happen AT ALL.

By way of comparison - If I said to you a miracle happened, I cannot tell you when where or how it happened, or even what happened. Your first statement to me would be to question whether it happened at all. Rightlty so. And so it is with abiogenesis (in the form materialist atheists assume)

On the third point
Since here is no structure for it, no evidence of when where or how it happened, nobody can repeat it, it does not repeat naturally. No process even speculated. Without those - none of the entry points for a scientific hypothesis exist. Hypotheses rely on the ability to test. With no first cell structure defined, nor evidence of what , how or where it happend, and no abililty to repeat it, there is nothing to test.

So by defintion of abiogenesis there can be no hypothesis for it since there is nothing to test starting non living ending living.
And without a hypothesis tested nor can you have a theory.

Let me ask you a question. What was the structure of the first living thing? What genome did it have? ( which is clearly needed for the definition of life as "capable of darwinian evolution". Nobody can answer. What you can say for certain it was not RNA since RNA does not exist naturally and in any event is far too complex to appear by accident from non living chemicals. If abiogenesis happened at all, the first cell structure had to be far simpler than our present cells.
Since nobody can say what the first living thing was made of, nobody can describe the precursors, so without that nobody can talk about the "building blocks of life" either. They do not know what they were.

A pile of bricks is not evidence of self designing, self building houses! Much as Miller Urey and seemingly every OOL researcher since would have us believe it. It is remarkable they still have to mention miller urey. That so little has been achieved in the last half century they refer to an experiment way back then!

Abiogenesis is pure faith. Whether, how what or when it happened!

Let me be clear here.
If anyone comes up with a plausible structure and can confirm how it could have happened, I might start to believe it to.
But I dont, because there is no evidence or process for it. It is pure speculation.

On the first point.
"nobody has any hypothesis"

As a scientist, I can state without fear of contradiction , that science relies on accurate definitions. The entire scientific model interrelates them.
I can say nothing about "electric field density" or " wave function collapse" or "particle wave duality" without a lot of precise definitions.
I cannot relate them or have hypotheses or theories for them, without precise definitions for them.

So the definition of abiogenesis is the step from "non living to living". OOL researchersdefine life as "self sustatining, capable of darwinian evolution" (and similar...)

No chemical process from "non living to non living" is therefore abiogenesis.
No process from "living to living" is abiogenesis.
Life is defined by such as Harvard as "self sustaining , capable of darwinian evolution".
So the precursors to abiogenesis by definition were non living, either not capable of darwinian evolution , or not cabable of self sustaining.

So you say "any part of abiogenesis" if you mean the non living steps before, (eg self catalyzing polymers or enzymes) then whether or not they are valid hypotheses they are not part of abiogenesis
Nor was how the first living thing becoming the second a hypothesis for part of abiogenesis, PROVIDED only that the first living thing can do so, which is needed for evidence of darwinian evolution.

So the idea of "part of abiogenesis" is a misleading phrase.

There is only one step that matters. The structure of the first living thing. And how it assembled from non living precursors.
That step is the part that is abiogenesis. And only hypotheses for that are hypotheses for "part of abiogenesis"
(That step has serious problems with irreducible complexity but let that pass)

On the second point.
Since nobody knows when where or how it happened, there is no process defined or speculated it does not repeat, it is therefore pure conjecture whether it did happen AT ALL.

By way of comparison - If I said to you a miracle happened, I cannot tell you when where or how it happened, or even what happened. Your first statement to me would be to question whether it happened at all. Rightlty so. And so it is with abiogenesis (in the form materialist atheists assume)

On the third point
Since here is no structure for it, no evidence of when where or how it happened, nobody can repeat it, it does not repeat naturally. No process even speculated. Without those - none of the entry points for a scientific hypothesis exist. Hypotheses rely on the ability to test. With no first cell structure defined, nor evidence of what , how or where it happend, and no abililty to repeat it, there is nothing to test.

So by defintion of abiogenesis there can be no hypothesis for it since there is nothing to test starting non living ending living.
And without a hypothesis tested nor can you have a theory.

Let me ask you a question. What was the structure of the first living thing? What genome did it have? ( which is clearly needed for the definition of life as "capable of darwinian evolution". Nobody can answer. What you can say for certain it was not RNA since RNA does not exist naturally and in any event is far too complex to appear by accident from non living chemicals. If abiogenesis happened at all, the first cell structure had to be far simpler than our present cells.
Since nobody can say what the first living thing was made of, nobody can describe the precursors, so without that nobody can talk about the "building blocks of life" either. They do not know what they were.

A pile of bricks is not evidence of self designing, self building houses! Much as Miller Urey and seemingly every OOL researcher since would have us believe it. It is remarkable they still have to mention miller urey. That so little has been achieved in the last half century they refer to an experiment way back then!

Abiogenesis is pure faith. Whether, how what or when it happened!

Let me be clear here.
If anyone comes up with a plausible structure and can confirm how it could have happened, I might start to believe it to.
But I dont, because there is no evidence or process for it. It is pure speculation.

I'm going to reply to this as soon as I can.

 

[Gus Bovona]

On the first point.
"nobody has any hypothesis"

As a scientist, I can state without fear of contradiction , that science relies on accurate definitions. The entire scientific model interrelates them.
I can say nothing about "electric field density" or " wave function collapse" or "particle wave duality" without a lot of precise definitions.
I cannot relate them or have hypotheses or theories for them, without precise definitions for them.

So the definition of abiogenesis is the step from "non living to living". OOL researchersdefine life as "self sustatining, capable of darwinian evolution" (and similar...)

No chemical process from "non living to non living" is therefore abiogenesis.
No process from "living to living" is abiogenesis.
Life is defined by such as Harvard as "self sustaining , capable of darwinian evolution".
So the precursors to abiogenesis by definition were non living, either not capable of darwinian evolution , or not cabable of self sustaining.

So you say "any part of abiogenesis" if you mean the non living steps before, (eg self catalyzing polymers or enzymes) then whether or not they are valid hypotheses they are not part of abiogenesis
Nor was how the first living thing becoming the second a hypothesis for part of abiogenesis, PROVIDED only that the first living thing can do so, which is needed for evidence of darwinian evolution.

So the idea of "part of abiogenesis" is a misleading phrase.

There is only one step that matters. The structure of the first living thing. And how it assembled from non living precursors.
That step is the part that is abiogenesis. And only hypotheses for that are hypotheses for "part of abiogenesis"
(That step has serious problems with irreducible complexity but let that pass)

On the second point.
Since nobody knows when where or how it happened, there is no process defined or speculated it does not repeat, it is therefore pure conjecture whether it did happen AT ALL.

By way of comparison - If I said to you a miracle happened, I cannot tell you when where or how it happened, or even what happened. Your first statement to me would be to question whether it happened at all. Rightlty so. And so it is with abiogenesis (in the form materialist atheists assume)

On the third point
Since here is no structure for it, no evidence of when where or how it happened, nobody can repeat it, it does not repeat naturally. No process even speculated. Without those - none of the entry points for a scientific hypothesis exist. Hypotheses rely on the ability to test. With no first cell structure defined, nor evidence of what , how or where it happend, and no abililty to repeat it, there is nothing to test.

So by defintion of abiogenesis there can be no hypothesis for it since there is nothing to test starting non living ending living.
And without a hypothesis tested nor can you have a theory.

Let me ask you a question. What was the structure of the first living thing? What genome did it have? ( which is clearly needed for the definition of life as "capable of darwinian evolution". Nobody can answer. What you can say for certain it was not RNA since RNA does not exist naturally and in any event is far too complex to appear by accident from non living chemicals. If abiogenesis happened at all, the first cell structure had to be far simpler than our present cells.
Since nobody can say what the first living thing was made of, nobody can describe the precursors, so without that nobody can talk about the "building blocks of life" either. They do not know what they were.

A pile of bricks is not evidence of self designing, self building houses! Much as Miller Urey and seemingly every OOL researcher since would have us believe it. It is remarkable they still have to mention miller urey. That so little has been achieved in the last half century they refer to an experiment way back then!

Abiogenesis is pure faith. Whether, how what or when it happened!

Let me be clear here.
If anyone comes up with a plausible structure and can confirm how it could have happened, I might start to believe it to.
But I dont, because there is no evidence or process for it. It is pure speculation.

This article includes a hypothesis (see Figure 1, graph c, and text below) that defines various steps along the way. Does that fulfill your criteria?

 

[Frank Robert]

On the first point.
"nobody has any hypothesis"

As a scientist, I can state without fear of contradiction , that science relies on accurate definitions. The entire scientific model interrelates them.
I can say nothing about "electric field density" or " wave function collapse" or "particle wave duality" without a lot of precise definitions.
I cannot relate them or have hypotheses or theories for them, without precise definitions for them.

So the definition of abiogenesis is the step from "non living to living". OOL researchersdefine life as "self sustatining, capable of darwinian evolution" (and similar...)

No chemical process from "non living to non living" is therefore abiogenesis.
No process from "living to living" is abiogenesis.
Life is defined by such as Harvard as "self sustaining , capable of darwinian evolution".
So the precursors to abiogenesis by definition were non living, either not capable of darwinian evolution , or not cabable of self sustaining.

So you say "any part of abiogenesis" if you mean the non living steps before, (eg self catalyzing polymers or enzymes) then whether or not they are valid hypotheses they are not part of abiogenesis
Nor was how the first living thing becoming the second a hypothesis for part of abiogenesis, PROVIDED only that the first living thing can do so, which is needed for evidence of darwinian evolution.

So the idea of "part of abiogenesis" is a misleading phrase.

There is only one step that matters. The structure of the first living thing. And how it assembled from non living precursors.
That step is the part that is abiogenesis. And only hypotheses for that are hypotheses for "part of abiogenesis"
(That step has serious problems with irreducible complexity but let that pass)

On the second point.
Since nobody knows when where or how it happened, there is no process defined or speculated it does not repeat, it is therefore pure conjecture whether it did happen AT ALL.

By way of comparison - If I said to you a miracle happened, I cannot tell you when where or how it happened, or even what happened. Your first statement to me would be to question whether it happened at all. Rightlty so. And so it is with abiogenesis (in the form materialist atheists assume)

On the third point
Since here is no structure for it, no evidence of when where or how it happened, nobody can repeat it, it does not repeat naturally. No process even speculated. Without those - none of the entry points for a scientific hypothesis exist. Hypotheses rely on the ability to test. With no first cell structure defined, nor evidence of what , how or where it happend, and no abililty to repeat it, there is nothing to test.

So by defintion of abiogenesis there can be no hypothesis for it since there is nothing to test starting non living ending living.
And without a hypothesis tested nor can you have a theory.

Let me ask you a question. What was the structure of the first living thing? What genome did it have? ( which is clearly needed for the definition of life as "capable of darwinian evolution". Nobody can answer. What you can say for certain it was not RNA since RNA does not exist naturally and in any event is far too complex to appear by accident from non living chemicals. If abiogenesis happened at all, the first cell structure had to be far simpler than our present cells.
Since nobody can say what the first living thing was made of, nobody can describe the precursors, so without that nobody can talk about the "building blocks of life" either. They do not know what they were.

A pile of bricks is not evidence of self designing, self building houses! Much as Miller Urey and seemingly every OOL researcher since would have us believe it. It is remarkable they still have to mention miller urey. That so little has been achieved in the last half century they refer to an experiment way back then!

Abiogenesis is pure faith. Whether, how what or when it happened!

Let me be clear here.
If anyone comes up with a plausible structure and can confirm how it could have happened, I might start to believe it to.
But I dont, because there is no evidence or process for it. It is pure speculation.

I don't think it's accurate to say that there can be no hypothesis for abiogenesis.

While it is true that abiogenesis cannot be directly observed or tested in the same way that we can test hypotheses in experimental sciences, scientists can still formulate hypotheses and theories based on indirect evidence, experimentation, and observations.

One of the most important pieces of evidence for abiogenesis is the fact that the Earth's early atmosphere was rich in organic molecules, the building blocks of life. These molecules could have been formed by chemical reactions in the atmosphere, or they could have come from space. In addition, scientists have been able to create organic molecules in the laboratory under conditions that are thought to have existed on early Earth.

Another piece of evidence for abiogenesis is the fact that there is evidence of life on Earth that is more than 3.5 billion years old. This suggests that life arose very early in Earth's history, when conditions were very different from what they are today.

Granted, we do not have all the answers yet the evidence we have suggests that abiogenesis is a plausible explanation for the origin of life on Earth. As we continue to learn more about the early Earth and the conditions that were present, we will likely develop a better understanding of how life first arose.

 

[Mikeuk]

I don't think it's accurate to say that there can be no hypothesis for abiogenesis.

While it is true that abiogenesis cannot be directly observed or tested in the same way that we can test hypotheses in experimental sciences, scientists can still formulate hypotheses and theories based on indirect evidence, experimentation, and observations.

One of the most important pieces of evidence for abiogenesis is the fact that the Earth's early atmosphere was rich in organic molecules, the building blocks of life. These molecules could have been formed by chemical reactions in the atmosphere, or they could have come from space. In addition, scientists have been able to create organic molecules in the laboratory under conditions that are thought to have existed on early Earth.

Another piece of evidence for abiogenesis is the fact that there is evidence of life on Earth that is more than 3.5 billion years old. This suggests that life arose very early in Earth's history, when conditions were very different from what they are today.

Granted, we do not have all the answers yet the evidence we have suggests that abiogenesis is a plausible explanation for the origin of life on Earth. As we continue to learn more about the early Earth and the conditions that were present, we will likely develop a better understanding of how life first arose.

I didn’t say “ can be no hypothesis”
I said “there is no hypothesis” which is factually true.
The only other entry point, other than actual evidence, needed for scientific process is a detailed conjectured process that can be tested. There is none.

The existence of organic molecules is a complete irrelevance to abiogenesis. Miller Urey totally irrelevant
Those molecules are formedwith non life to non life process.

The only step that is abiogenesis is the step non life to life.
unless you have observed it, or Have a detailed conjectured structure for first life , and a process for it., you cannot test it, without which you can have no hypothesis. So you don’t have one,

That is the process of science.

Nor can you say what the building blocks are , until you have a process or structure , so nobody has any idea of what they are.

You have no idea of what first life structure is, nor any intermediate step to cellular present complexity.
nor can you backward engineer it. The attempt fails even at high complexity.
So you have no hypothesus of cell evolution either because at the base level it is a cellular process for which you have neither evidence or structure of any intermediates. So there Is nothing more than conjecture . Nothing to test. . No theory . No hypothesus .

Your statement on different conditions is false. It too is wishful thinking.
Many Proteins denature at little over body temperature, and in even mildly acidic conditions.
Cells burst when freezing, so the range of conditions of life is narrow, the need for liquid water forces that,

What permeates media Is abiogenesis / evolution wish believe

Wishful thinking of materialists repeated so often it gained the status of fact, but it is all wishful thinking.

 

[Frank Robert]

I didn’t say “ can be no hypothesis”
I said “there is no hypothesis” which is factually true.
The only other entry point, other than actual evidence, needed for scientific process is a detailed conjectured process that can be tested. There is none.

I agree that in the sense that in science, a hypothesis cannot be "factually true" or proven beyond any doubt. But that doesn't invalidate hypotheses for abiogeneis.

The existence of organic molecules is a complete irrelevance to abiogenesis. Miller Urey totally irrelevant
Those molecules are formedwith non life to non life process.

No, the existence of organic molecules is not a complete irrelevance to abiogenesis. In fact, the formation of organic molecules is a crucial aspect of understanding how life could have originated from non-living matter. Organic molecules are the building blocks of life and are essential for the formation of complex biomolecules such as proteins, nucleic acids (DNA, RNA), carbohydrates, and lipids.

The only step that is abiogenesis is the step non life to life.

The step from non-life to life is indeed a critical aspect of abiogenesis, but it is not the only step involved. Abiogenesis encompasses the entire process by which life may have originated from non-living matter, including the formation of organic molecules, the emergence of self-replicating systems, the development of early cells or protocells, and the evolution of more complex biological systems.

unless you have observed it, or Have a detailed conjectured structure for first life , and a process for it., you cannot test it, without which you can have no hypothesis. So you don’t have one,

That is the process of science.

I agree that direct observation of the origin of life is not possible due to its occurrence billions of years ago but it does not prevent scientists to put forth hypotheses based on available evidence, make predictions, and test them through experimentation and observation. The study of abiogenesis is complex and involves a combination of theoretical models, laboratory experiments, and observational evidence from various scientific disciplines.

Nor can you say what the building blocks are , until you have a process or structure , so nobody has any idea of what they are.

I disagree, scientists have a very good understanding of the basic building blocks of life. Organic molecules such as amino acids, nucleotides, sugars, and fatty acids are widely recognized as the fundamental components necessary for life. These molecules are found in all known living organisms and play crucial roles in biological processes.

You have no idea of what first life structure is, nor any intermediate step to cellular present complexity.
nor can you backward engineer it. The attempt fails even at high complexity.
So you have no hypothesus of cell evolution either because at the base level it is a cellular process for which you have neither evidence or structure of any intermediates. So there Is nothing more than conjecture . Nothing to test. . No theory . No hypothesus .

I agree, the exact structure and characteristics of the first life forms and the specific intermediates in the evolution of cellular complexity are still the subject of ongoing scientific investigation.

Still, scientists have made significant progress in understanding various aspects of abiogenesis and the evolution of cellular complexity. While the precise details may not be fully elucidated, hypotheses and models have been proposed based on available evidence and scientific knowledge.

Your statement on different conditions is false. It too is wishful thinking.
Many Proteins denature at little over body temperature, and in even mildly acidic conditions.
Cells burst when freezing, so the range of conditions of life is narrow, the need for liquid water forces that,

I understand your point about the narrow range of conditions that life can exist in. It is true that proteins denature at little over body temperature, and that cells burst when freezing. However, I would argue that this does not necessarily mean that abiogenesis is impossible. It is possible that life arose in conditions that were very different from those that exist on Earth today. For example, the early Earth may have been much hotter and more acidic than it is today. Additionally, it is possible that life could exist in forms that we do not yet know about, and that do not require liquid water. I believe that the narrow range of conditions that life can exist in does not necessarily rule out abiogenesis.

What permeates media Is abiogenesis / evolution wish believe

Wishful thinking of materialists repeated so often it gained the status of fact, but it is all wishful thinking.

Your final comment has zero to do with science.

 

[Gus Bovona]

I didn’t say “ can be no hypothesis”
I said “there is no hypothesis” which is factually true.
The only other entry point, other than actual evidence, needed for scientific process is a detailed conjectured process that can be tested. There is none.

The existence of organic molecules is a complete irrelevance to abiogenesis. Miller Urey totally irrelevant
Those molecules are formedwith non life to non life process.

The only step that is abiogenesis is the step non life to life.
unless you have observed it, or Have a detailed conjectured structure for first life , and a process for it., you cannot test it, without which you can have no hypothesis. So you don’t have one,

That is the process of science.

Nor can you say what the building blocks are , until you have a process or structure , so nobody has any idea of what they are.

You have no idea of what first life structure is, nor any intermediate step to cellular present complexity.
nor can you backward engineer it. The attempt fails even at high complexity.
So you have no hypothesus of cell evolution either because at the base level it is a cellular process for which you have neither evidence or structure of any intermediates. So there Is nothing more than conjecture . Nothing to test. . No theory . No hypothesus .

Your statement on different conditions is false. It too is wishful thinking.
Many Proteins denature at little over body temperature, and in even mildly acidic conditions.
Cells burst when freezing, so the range of conditions of life is narrow, the need for liquid water forces that,

What permeates media Is abiogenesis / evolution wish believe

Wishful thinking of materialists repeated so often it gained the status of fact, but it is all wishful thinking.

The hypothesis of abiogensis *can* be falsified. If it could be shown that organic molecules could not form in an early earth environment, then that would be a really problem for abiogenesis.

 

[Mikeuk]

The hypothesis of abiogensis *can* be falsified. If it could be shown that organic molecules could not form in an early earth environment, then that would be a really problem for abiogenesis.

there is no hypothesis of abiogenesis,
so organic chemicals are an irrelevance.

Apart from which - high temperature serpinitization of mineral magnesium silicates in presence of water and carbon dioxide can yield methane. So what?

 

[Mikeuk]

I agree that in the sense that in science, a hypothesis cannot be "factually true" or proven beyond any doubt. But that doesn't invalidate hypotheses for abiogeneis.

No, the existence of organic molecules is not a complete irrelevance to abiogenesis. In fact, the formation of organic molecules is a crucial aspect of understanding how life could have originated from non-living matter. Organic molecules are the building blocks of life and are essential for the formation of complex biomolecules such as proteins, nucleic acids (DNA, RNA), carbohydrates, and lipids.

The step from non-life to life is indeed a critical aspect of abiogenesis, but it is not the only step involved. Abiogenesis encompasses the entire process by which life may have originated from non-living matter, including the formation of organic molecules, the emergence of self-replicating systems, the development of early cells or protocells, and the evolution of more complex biological systems.

I agree that direct observation of the origin of life is not possible due to its occurrence billions of years ago but it does not prevent scientists to put forth hypotheses based on available evidence, make predictions, and test them through experimentation and observation. The study of abiogenesis is complex and involves a combination of theoretical models, laboratory experiments, and observational evidence from various scientific disciplines.

I disagree, scientists have a very good understanding of the basic building blocks of life. Organic molecules such as amino acids, nucleotides, sugars, and fatty acids are widely recognized as the fundamental components necessary for life. These molecules are found in all known living organisms and play crucial roles in biological processes.

I agree, the exact structure and characteristics of the first life forms and the specific intermediates in the evolution of cellular complexity are still the subject of ongoing scientific investigation.

Still, scientists have made significant progress in understanding various aspects of abiogenesis and the evolution of cellular complexity. While the precise details may not be fully elucidated, hypotheses and models have been proposed based on available evidence and scientific knowledge.

I understand your point about the narrow range of conditions that life can exist in. It is true that proteins denature at little over body temperature, and that cells burst when freezing. However, I would argue that this does not necessarily mean that abiogenesis is impossible. It is possible that life arose in conditions that were very different from those that exist on Earth today. For example, the early Earth may have been much hotter and more acidic than it is today. Additionally, it is possible that life could exist in forms that we do not yet know about, and that do not require liquid water. I believe that the narrow range of conditions that life can exist in does not necessarily rule out abiogenesis.

Your final comment has zero to do with science.

Thete is no study of abiogenesis. Hypothesis of abiogenesis. Process for abiogenesis . Structure of first cell. Evidenve of what when or where it happened. Abiogenesis is not “ a step” it is ONLY the step from no life to life by definition.

There is no evidence of building blocks since nobody knows or has conjectured a structure for the first life , so nobody knows what non living bricks it was made of. Once you have a proposed structure you can consider how it formed , and then you might have a hypothesis but not before.

indeed from the first cell you cannot define, nobody has any idea of the process from there to a modern cell.
so you have no idea of evolution either, So the origin of life is a complete blank.

There is no hypothesis or theory.
All the rest is wishful thinking by those who believe, drowning out the true status in science : a void of evidence , structure or process.

 

[Frank Robert]

there is no hypothesis of abiogenesis,
so organic chemicals are an irrelevance.

Apart from which - high temperature serpinitization of mineral magnesium silicates in presence of water and carbon dioxide can yield methane. So what?

Your comment is an example of the argument from ignorance fallacy. This fallacy occurs when someone argues that something is not true because there is no evidence for it. However, the absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Just because scientists have not found evidence of the first cell or the process by which it formed does not mean that they did not exist.

Argumentum ad Ignorantiam: The Argument from Ignorance

The ad ignorantiam (the argument from ignorance) is characterized and shown to be sometimes persuasive but normally fallacious.

philosophy.lander.edu

The argument from ignorance fallacy is a common mistake that people make. It is important to be aware of this fallacy so that you can avoid making it. Ask yourself if you have any evidence for your claim. If not, you can safely conclude that their argument is invalid.

In the case of abiogenesis, there is a lot of evidence that suggests that life may have arisen from non-living matter on early Earth. For example, the Miller-Urey experiment showed that organic molecules, the building blocks of life, could be formed from inorganic materials under conditions that were similar to those thought to have existed on early Earth. This evidence suggests that the first cell or the process by which it formed may have existed, even if we have not found any direct evidence of it yet.

It's important to remember that science is a process of discovery. We are constantly learning new things about the universe, and our understanding of abiogenesis is no exception. As we continue to study this topic, we may one day find direct evidence of the first cell or the process by which it formed. Until then, we should not dismiss the possibility that they existed simply because we have not found any evidence of them yet.

 

[Mikeuk]

Your comment is an example of the argument from ignorance fallacy. This fallacy occurs when someone argues that something is not true because there is no evidence for it. However, the absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Just because scientists have not found evidence of the first cell or the process by which it formed does not mean that they did not exist.

Argumentum ad Ignorantiam: The Argument from Ignorance

The ad ignorantiam (the argument from ignorance) is characterized and shown to be sometimes persuasive but normally fallacious.

philosophy.lander.edu

The argument from ignorance fallacy is a common mistake that people make. It is important to be aware of this fallacy so that you can avoid making it. Ask yourself if you have any evidence for your claim. If not, you can safely conclude that their argument is invalid.

In the case of abiogenesis, there is a lot of evidence that suggests that life may have arisen from non-living matter on early Earth. For example, the Miller-Urey experiment showed that organic molecules, the building blocks of life, could be formed from inorganic materials under conditions that were similar to those thought to have existed on early Earth. This evidence suggests that the first cell or the process by which it formed may have existed, even if we have not found any direct evidence of it yet.

It's important to remember that science is a process of discovery. We are constantly learning new things about the universe, and our understanding of abiogenesis is no exception. As we continue to study this topic, we may one day find direct evidence of the first cell or the process by which it formed. Until then, we should not dismiss the possibility that they existed simply because we have not found any evidence of them yet.

Spare me your pseudoscience.

There is no hypothesis for abiogenesis.
That is the view of scientific Process.
You need evidence OR a specific structure and process For non Living to living , to test, in order to have an experiment on abiogenesis . That is what is needed for hypothesis On Abiogenesis
You have neither.

All the rest is smokescreen. Organic chemicals are neither here nor there.

As I point out there is a mineral process for an organic chemical - methane.
So what? It isn’t living. Organic doesn’t mean living. It describes the nature of the type of chemical bonding, that is all..

I know chemistry .do you?

abiogenesis is only non living to living.
look it up in the definition. That’s what it means.

I despair of those of the abiogenesis faith, muddying scientific waters to hide their lack of evidence!

 

[Frank Robert]

Spare me your pseudoscience.

Its pseudoscience because you say so. Got it.

When you have evidence for your claims let us know. We won't hold our breaths.

 

[Mikeuk]

Its pseudoscience because you say so. Got it.

View attachment 35

Indeed .
I could say “Abiogenesis is asserted without evidence, and so can be dismissed without evidence.”
but even your last statement is pseudoscience.

Because You can enter the scientific process without evidence if you have a potential structure and process to test.
but you don’t have that either. You have nothing, so no hypothesis or theory.

And that I do not need to dismiss. You have nothing to dismiss.
At cellular level origin of life from abiogenesis to present cell is a complete void.

 

[Mikeuk]

This

This article includes a hypothesis (see Figure 1, graph c, and text below) that defines various steps along the way. Does that fulfill your criteria?

article includes a hypothesis (see Figure 1, graph c, and text below) that defines various steps along the way. Does that fulfill your criteria?

I suggest you read it.

It has nothing to say about Abiogenesis. No structure.
It considers whether RNA preceded DNA and what base set might have existed. ( as everyone does)
It accepts that there must have been a precursor genome , but confirms there is no detail or consensus On what it might have been.
Without a first genome defined there can be no first living structure defined , so there is nothing to test or any hypothesus.

It confirms what I said. There is not only no postulated structure for first living things, there is also no agreed pathway from there to present.

There is neither a valid hypothesis for abiogenesis , nor any defined intermediates on the evoultion path to present cells.

After all the billions spent, the progress is pitiful.
I have been studying this for 50 years since first postulatin of protocells. Little has developed since.
in the other direction stripping down cells below hundreds of genes has also failed.
So backward engineering doesn’t work either.

I hate to tell our atheist materialist friends, but irreducible complexity is a serious problem for them.

 

[Frank Robert]

Indeed .
I could say “Abiogenesis is asserted without evidence, and so can be dismissed without evidence.”

You can say that but it's just another fallacy from ignorance.

but even your last statement is pseudoscience.

Another claim w/o evidence. If it were pseudoscience you would be able to find multiple studies in legitimate scientific journals. My guess is that you are regurgitating apologetics from one of the creationists sites which have a lot sciencey sounding words but never do any legitimate science.

Because You can enter the scientific process without evidence if you have a potential structure and process to test.
but you don’t have that either. You have nothing, so no hypothesis or theory.

So you say. You do have a knack for fallacies.

And that I do not need to dismiss. You have nothing to dismiss.
At cellular level origin of life from abiogenesis to present cell is a complete void .

You argue that there is no hypothesis or theory of abiogenesis because there is no potential structure or process to test.

However, it's just another claim w/o evidence or support. Additionally, you claim that the origin of life from abiogenesis to present cell is a complete void, but again, you do not provide any evidence to support your claim. Your argument is based on the assumption that a hypothesis or theory must have a potential structure or process to test, but this is not always the case. For example, the theory of evolution does not have a potential structure or process to test. Instead, it is based on the evidence of fossils, DNA, and other data.

The study of abiogenesis is a rapidly evolving scientific field with new discoveries being made all the time. Your claim that there is no hypothesis or theory of abiogenesis, or that the origin of life from abiogenesis to present cell is a complete void, is a fallacy from ignorance (argumentum ad ignorantiam or appeal to ignorance). This fallacy occurs when someone argues that something is not true because there is no evidence for it. However, the absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Just because we have not found evidence of something does not mean that it does not exist.

In the case of abiogenesis, there is a lot of evidence that suggests that life may have arisen from non-living matter on early Earth. For example, the Miller-Urey experiment showed that organic molecules, the building blocks of life, could be formed from inorganic materials under conditions that were similar to those thought to have existed on early Earth. This evidence suggests that the first cell or the process by which it formed may have existed, even if we have not found any direct evidence of it yet.

You also fail to realize that science is a process of discovery. Scientists are constantly learning new things about the universe, and our understanding of abiogenesis is no exception.

 

[Mikeuk]

You can say that but it's just another fallacy from ignorance.

Another claim w/o evidence. If it were pseudoscience you would be able to find multiple studies in legitimate scientific journals. My guess is that you are regurgitating apologetics from one of the creationists sites which have a lot sciencey sounding words but never do any legitimate science.

So you say. You do have a knack for fallacies.

You argue that there is no hypothesis or theory of abiogenesis because there is no potential structure or process to test.

However, it's just and claim w/o evidence or support. Additionally, you claim that the origin of life from abiogenesis to present cell is a complete void, but again, you do not provide any evidence to support this claim. Your argument is based on the assumption that a hypothesis or theory must have a potential structure or process to test, but this is not always the case. For example, the theory of evolution does not have a potential structure or process to test. Instead, it is based on the evidence of fossils, DNA, and other data.

The study of abiogenesis is a rapidly evolving scientific field with new discoveries being made all the time. Your claim that there is no hypothesis or theory of abiogenesis, or that the origin of life from abiogenesis to present cell is a complete void, is a fallacy from ignorance (argumentum ad ignorantiam or appeal to ignorance). This fallacy occurs when someone argues that something is not true because there is no evidence for it. However, the absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Just because we have not found evidence of something does not mean that it does not exist.

In the case of abiogenesis, there is a lot of evidence that suggests that life may have arisen from non-living matter on early Earth. For example, the Miller-Urey experiment showed that organic molecules, the building blocks of life, could be formed from inorganic materials under conditions that were similar to those thought to have existed on early Earth. This evidence suggests that the first cell or the process by which it formed may have existed, even if we have not found any direct evidence of it yet.

You also fail to realize that science is a process of discovery. Scientists are constantly learning new things about the universe, and our understanding of abiogenesis is no exception.

Please stop filling a science thread with nonsense.
It may sound good to your untrained eye , but it is logical nonsense nonetheless.
You bought into materialist scientism not science,

The bottom line.
YOU are the one making the claim of abiogenesis
so YOU are the one who must provide evidence . It’s not up to me - I don’t even believe it.
YOU have none, nor any process or structure so YOU have nothing on which to base a hypothesis. So you cannot enter the scientific process. Nor does anyone else Have a process.
It’s not up to me to disprove it, that’s not how science works, and you have no hypothesis to disprove.

All you have is faith It happened And smokescreen for how little you Know.
So Post it on the abiogenesis faith thread, not on a science thread.

Stop derailing my posts.

 

[Frank Robert]

Please stop filling a science thread with nonsense.
It may sound good to your untrained eye , but it is logical nonsense nonetheless.
You bought into materialist scientism not science,

Thanks for the best laugh I had in a week.

YOU are the one making the claim of abiogenesis
so YOU are the one who must provide evidence . It’s not up to me - I don’t even believe it.
YOU have none, nor any process or structure so YOU have nothing on which to base a hypothesis. So you cannot enter the scientific process. Nor does anyone else.

I have provided the evidence for abiogenesis in several comments and you just deny that it is evidence. You have made the claim several times that abiogenesis is not a hypothesis without any evidence. The burden of evidence is on the person making the claim.

All you have is faith. And smokescreen.

I have the evidence on my side which is what you do not have.

Post it on the abiogenesis faith thread, not on a science thread.

I would be happy to do so as soon as you provide a link for the (non-existent) abiogenesis faith thread.

Stop derailing my post .

If asking that you support your abiogenesis claims is derailing your post then I am guilty. However, you made several claims about abiogenesis. Here are a few from your posts:

• nobody has any hypothesis
• we can conclude that abiogenesis is neither a valid theory nor even a valid hypothesis.
• Abiognesis is not ony not a valid theory, it is not even a valid hypothesis.
• So why are schoolkids taught the wish beliebe abiogenesis faith instead of science?"
• any who believe in abiogenesis, have a faith, not a scientific justification for it!!!
• Abiogenesis is pure faith.

You have not provided any evidence for any of your claims.

I disagreed with you. Life on Earth is not definitive proof of abiogenesis, but it is strong evidence that it is possible. The fact that life exists on Earth suggests that the conditions necessary for life to arise are not unique to our planet.

• The Miller-Urey experiment showed that organic molecules, the building blocks of life, can be formed from inorganic materials under conditions that were similar to those thought to have existed on early Earth. This suggests that the ingredients for life were present on Earth early in its history.
• The discovery of hydrothermal vents provides a possible environment where life could have arisen. Hydrothermal vents are underwater openings in the Earth's crust where hot water and chemicals from inside the Earth rise to the surface. These vents provide a source of energy and nutrients that could have been essential for the early development of life.
• The discovery of fossilized microbe-like structures is the oldest known evidence of life on Earth. These structures are 3.7 billion years old, which suggests that life arose on Earth very early in its history.

Whether you agree or not, the evidence for abiogenesis is strong, but it is not yet conclusive.

 

[Mikeuk]

Thanks for the best laugh I had in a week.

I have provided the evidence for abiogenesis in several comments and you just deny that it is evidence. You have made the claim several times that abiogenesis is not a hypothesis without any evidence. The burden of evidence is on the person making the claim.

I have the evidence on my side which is what you do not have.

I would be happy to do so as soon as you provide a link for the (non-existent) abiogenesis faith thread.

If asking that you support your abiogenesis claims is derailing your post then I am guilty. However, you made several claims about abiogenesis. Here are a few from your posts:

• nobody has any hypothesis
• we can conclude that abiogenesis is neither a valid theory nor even a valid hypothesis.
• Abiognesis is not ony not a valid theory, it is not even a valid hypothesis.
• So why are schoolkids taught the wish beliebe abiogenesis faith instead of science?"
• any who believe in abiogenesis, have a faith, not a scientific justification for it!!!
• Abiogenesis is pure faith.

You have not provided any evidence for any of your claims.

I disagreed with you. Life on Earth is not definitive proof of abiogenesis, but it is strong evidence that it is possible. The fact that life exists on Earth suggests that the conditions necessary for life to arise are not unique to our planet.

• The Miller-Urey experiment showed that organic molecules, the building blocks of life, can be formed from inorganic materials under conditions that were similar to those thought to have existed on early Earth. This suggests that the ingredients for life were present on Earth early in its history.
• The discovery of hydrothermal vents provides a possible environment where life could have arisen. Hydrothermal vents are underwater openings in the Earth's crust where hot water and chemicals from inside the Earth rise to the surface. These vents provide a source of energy and nutrients that could have been essential for the early development of life.
• The discovery of fossilized microbe-like structures is the oldest known evidence of life on Earth. These structures are 3.7 billion years old, which suggests that life arose on Earth very early in its history.

Whether you agree or not, the evidence for abiogenesis is strong, but it is not yet conclusive.

There is no evidence at all of abiogenesis .there is no process or structure , it is not even weak it is nothing,

You clearly don’t understand basics Yet you radiate misinformation.
An organic chemical says nothing whatsoever about life , it is a description of the type of chemical bonding!
I noted a well known mineral reaction that produces that type of bond- methane. Nothing to do with life.


The fact that the best you can quote after 50 years is the irrelevant miller Urey shows how little is known .
show me new abiogenesis around the many well researched hydrothermal vents , and I’ll believe it. you can’t.
So you have no Idea if they were involved or not, in your pure conjecture. I repeat . You do not know when where or how it happened.

Many so called scientists have lost all objectivity on abiogenesis.
They are not acting as scientists when they do.
But even dawkins doesn’t push his myths so far as pretending he has any idea of how life started. Listen to your high priest!
Sadly the atheist faith is so strong, it has to invent a reason for life, and invented an entire smokescreen around its lack of progress.

I don’t blame the untrained like you for Falling for any of it,and failing to even understand what organic chemicals are but stop radiating falsehoods further. if you must do it at all, start a faith thread For it.

Back to science.

Repeat there is no evidence When where or how life first happened.
no process for the step from no life to life.
No detailed structure for first life.
Nothing to test. so No hypothesis.
so nobody knows what the first life was made from, so nobody knows what the building blocks were, so nobody knows whether they are abundant or non existent.

And that is All you know.
Nada, Nothing. Zip. Zilch. Rien. Got the picture?

What I can say is that as part of your wish believe
, both abiogenesis and , evolution believers are special pleading.

Because for example Common descent ( another unevidenced guess) is special pleading.
Since if you presume life s just a chemical reaction probable enough to happen, then the overwhelmiing probability is life has many starts not one. Worse than that - Since the need for liquid water and onky moderate temperatures and pH are needed for much life biochemistry , nothing has changed enough to give it as reasin it still not happening today . So it is special pleading to invent a mythology of why it is not


But there is no evidence, it either is happening or it did Happen.
Because I am a scientist, when there is evidence or process , I will get interested, but not before.
I’ve studied this area for 50 years. There is a massive book on molecular cell biology and chemical pathways next to my desk.
It is huge because the cell is so complex. I understand complex chemistry, you Don’t!

it is because you do not understand any of it, you think it can hapoen by chemical accident!
It is because atheist scientists cannot countenance the alternative, they have to believe it did without evidence or process.

Now stop derailing a science thread .

 

[Frank Robert]

There is no evidence at all of abiogenesis .there is no process or structure , it is not even weak it is nothing,

You clearly don’t understand basics Yet you radiate misinformation.
An organic chemical says nothing whatsoever about life , it is a description of the type of chemical bonding!
I noted a well known mineral reaction that produces that type of bond- methane. Nothing to do with life.


The fact that the best you can quote after 50 years is the irrelevant miller Urey shows how little is known .
show me new abiogenesis around the many well researched hydrothermal vents , and I’ll believe it. you can’t.
So you have no Idea if they were involved or not, in your pure conjecture. I repeat . You do not know when where or how it happened.

Many so called scientists have lost all objectivity on abiogenesis.
They are not acting as scientists when they do.
But even dawkins doesn’t push his myths so far as pretending he has any idea of how life started. Listen to your high priest!
Sadly the atheist faith is so strong, it has to invent a reason for life, and invented an entire smokescreen around its lack of progress.

I don’t blame the untrained like you for Falling for any of it,and failing to even understand what organic chemicals are but stop radiating falsehoods further. if you must do it at all, start a faith thread For it.

Back to science.

Repeat there is no evidence When where or how life first happened.
no process for the step from no life to life.
No detailed structure for first life.
Nothing to test. so No hypothesis.
so nobody knows what the first life was made from, so nobody knows what the building blocks were, so nobody knows whether they are abundant or non existent.

And that is All you know.
Nada, Nothing. Zip. Zilch. Rien. Got the picture?

What I can say is that as part of your wish believe
, both abiogenesis and , evolution believers are special pleading.

Because for example Common descent ( another unevidenced guess) is special pleading.
Since if you presume life s just a chemical reaction probable enough to happen, then the overwhelmiing probability is life has many starts not one. Worse than that - Since the need for liquid water and onky moderate temperatures and pH are needed for much life biochemistry , nothing has changed enough to give it as reasin it still not happening today . So it is special pleading to invent a mythology of why it is not


But there is no evidence, it either is happening or it did Happen.
Because I am a scientist, when there is evidence or process , I will get interested, but not before.
I’ve studied this area for 50 years. There is a massive book on molecular cell biology and chemical pathways next to my desk.
It is huge because the cell is so complex. I understand complex chemistry, you Don’t!

it is because you do not understand any of it, you think it can hapoen by chemical accident!
It is because atheist scientists cannot countenance the alternative, they have to believe it did without evidence or process.

Now stop derailing a science thread .

It seems we have different views on the relationship between science and religion. I apologize for getting too passionate in my defense of science, and I think it would be best if we put our passions aside and agree to disagree.

 

[Mikeuk]

It seems we have different views on the relationship between science and religion. I apologize for getting too passionate in my defense of science, and I think it would be best if we put our passions aside and agree to disagree.

You are not defending Science.

You are defending your unevidenced faith in abiogenesis , but your science is too weak to notice,

Lets demolish another piece of misleading wish believe echoed by you .
you say old “ bacteria discovered” . There is no definitive evidence they were.

But let that pass -let’s even assume they were - the simplest known bacteria have 500 plus genes..
It is so complex that a simulation of mycoplasma genitalia - have you even heard of it? it took a hundred computers many hours to do a very inadequate simulation of it, albeit some years ago.

And the furthest they got in stripping it down was knocking a mere 25 genes out, before it became unstable and failed.
It is still mind boggling complex.

It is orders of magnitude more complex than any human built chemical factory,

The simplest books showing chemical pathways of cell structure are still very thick books,
So it is not in any sense simple life.

For abiogenesis to be even considered possibl, the first living thing must have been many orders of magnitude simpler .
Nobody has any concept of the structure of it, genome of it, or what it was made of, or what combined to form it. A blank.

So no, we don’t agree to disagree.
You are wrong - there is no evidence whatsoever of abiogenesis, no process ot , no structure or concept of what combined to for it.
There is also no concept of an evolution pathway to present cells.
At a cellular level both abiogenesus and evoLuton to present structure are a complete unknown.
That is the true status in science.

You are of course welcome to believe it as a matter of faith.

In other fields too I have seen university professors who spent an entire career chasing something they believed for which they never found evidence or process.

There is no shame in that. So long as they do not confuse a belief with what they know from evidence or process. Dreaming big is how some discoveries are made. It is not all incremental.

but I have also seen university professors like Dawkins and such as Sagan wilfully misleading the public to misrepresent their faith as science, and abuse their positions in doing so. I draw the line at them.