This is not my belief. Instead, I believe the question of Abiogenesis is answerable by science. I do not expect a definitive answer for what actually happened in the past, but rather a set of plausible, testable circumstances that lead to life like our own. There are some difficult questions yet to be resolved, but I see no questions that are scientifically unanswerable.
A hypothesis is a testable question. A theory may be a body of knowledge, a set of tested hypotheses, or sometimes both.
That is not a statistical point of view. What you have is a bit of arithmetic that doesnât mean what you think it means. Itâs sloppy math that only passes because most people do not understand the math.
Calculations of this sort are generally not feasible, and not at all without more definitions and very carefully stated assumptions.
Please be serious. I asked for evidence from the primary literature on OoL research that says abiogenesis is a theory, not some random website. If you canât find any just drop that silly claim of abiogenesis being a theory.
Um - that spontaneous generation claimed that some extant life comes from non-living (but mostly formerly-living) material says absolutely nothing about the origins of the life forms that werenât thought to arise by spontaneous generation.
Your comment has the same âlogicâ as claiming that because the Nissan catalogue says that some cars are manufactured in Japan, all non-Nissan cars must be begotten by other cars.
Being naturally skeptical of such glib statements, I checked.
The top five results in my Google search for âabiogenesisâ were these:
Britannica
This refers to (i) the theory of spontaneous generation, and (ii) Oparin-Haldane theory. Describes abiogenesis as an âideaâ, not a theory.
Wikipedia
This refers to spontaneous generation, heterogenesis, deep sea vent, iron-sulfur world and zinc-world, âprimordial soupâ, Goldâs deep-hot biosphere, volcanic ash, dissipative structuring, lipid world, thermodynamic dissipation, hypercycle, fluctuating salinity, TCR and protein amyloids as theories; talks about the necessary features of any successful theory of abiogenesis; and refers in passing to solar nebular theory and the stochastic theory of the origin of the genetic code. But while the Wikipedia page refers to lots of theories about abiogenesis, it never once refers to abiogenesis itself as a theory.
Emergence of life in an inflationary universe
Mentions eternal inflation theory and a grand unified theory of particle physics. Does not use the word âtheoryâ in relation to abiogenesis.
The origin of life
Refers to Darwinâs theory and a general theory of evolution. Does not use the word âtheoryâ in relation to abiogenesis.
Biology online dictionary
Defines abiogenesis as âThe theory postulating that primitive life originated from nonliving matterâ. Also refers to the spontaneous generation, biogenesis and RNA world theories.
Thatâs of 1 out of 5 links that state that abiogenesis is a theory, not your claimed âevery single provided link in a Google searchâ. Further, the link that matches your description is a dictionary, not a technical article. The rest of the first page of Google hits shows a similar result.
So either you didnât just search for âabiogenesisâ, or you have misrepresented the results. Either way, your âfactâ is not a fact, your claim is refuted, and your credibility drops.
The mathematical formula that youâre calling sloppy math is actually from your fellow brethren in that it is from a naturalist and materialist but he is an atheist not a agnostic. He is arguing against the formulas used by creationists and saying that the modus operandi that they employ is not accurate. Although he like yourself still admits that statistically is more likely yet still an astronomically high number.
I donât care who wrote it, itâs wrong, in whole or in part. That sort of calculation addresses a single point in probability space at best, not the greater question (in this case "generating carboxypeptidase by chanceâ).
The basic error is this: The probability of a specific chain of random events leading to carboxypeptidase IS LESS THAN the probability of any chain of events (some of which may not be random) leading to carboxypeptidase.
This assumes that any calculation for the probability of carboxypeptidase is feasible in the first place, and it often is not. In such arguments the information needed to do the correct calculation generally isnât given or is not available. People who donât understand the math wave around âimpossibly smallâ numbers as a straw man, not understanding what it really means. I know you said youâve done your homework, but I donât think you are taken the time to really understand. If you want some better homework, try applying this method of calculation to any series of everyday random events, and I think you will begin to understand why this doesnât work. (Ex: The probability of a chain of random events leading to a person spilling some milk while eating Kelloggâs Corn Flakes for breakfast at 7 AM Monday morning while still wearing their pajamas.)
No one with even a rudimentary understanding of either biochemistry or statistics would ever be so foolish as to present the âmathâ youâve provided. Unless they were being intentionally obtuse, Ă la Doug Axe.
Idea is the same as theory so that wouldnât be one out of 5. In addition all the other ones none of them say itâs a fact which 1 says itâs a fact?
And youâre incorrect the 3rd link down in a Google search is actually Miriam Webster dictionary which also classifies it as a theory now weâre at 4 out of 5
Iâm not sure if youâre not looking at it correctly or just trying to hide the fact that the 4th link down on a Google search also States that itâs a theory and itâs from biology online.
the origin of life from nonliving matterspecifically a theory in the evolution of early life on earth: organic molecules and subsequent simple life forms first originated from inorganic substancesAccording to the conventional hypothesis, the earliest living cells emerged as a result of chemical evolution on our planet billions of years ago in a process called abiogenesis.â David Warmflash et al."
âAbiogenesis is one of the modern evolutionary theories on how life originated. It used to refer to the now-discredited hypothesis of spontaneous generation . It was once believed that complex living organisms such as mice, maggots, etc. could arise spontaneously from nonliving matter. This notion used to be popular that it was long held by early thinkers for many years until experiments by Louis Pasteur and others proved it to be false. Now, this theory is superseded by biogenesis , which asserts that living things can only be produced by another living thing, and not by a non-living thing. The modern hypothesis of abiogenesis is now restricted in the presumption that the relatively simpler, earliest forms of life arose from nonliving matter, such as organic compounds, and the process that eventually led to this transition was gradual, not a single event, and estimated to have taken place for over millions of years.â
I think I do understand what youâre saying itâs highly probabilistic and not deterministic. Either way at the end of the day no one can argue against the fact that the statistical mathematical probability of any of these complex reactions occurring is still very low.
Therefore why are we only relying on that which can be quantified and that which is empirically verified through sensory data input? If that will not yield the results that weâre looking for? Or if it canât yield the results weâre looking for? What if what weâre looking for cannot be measured or empirically verified? Does that mean it is not scientifically real? But does that preclude its actuality or its possible existence all together?
Which is why Iâm careful to note the need for very careful assumptions and definitions!
No. The point is that the probability of ANYTHING calculated by this method is impossibly low, even the probability of someone having cornflakes for breakfast. TRY IT - Just keep adding random events to the sequence and you will get ever smaller numbers, ALWAYS. This method is useless and wrong for determining the probability of an event occurring, excepting very carefully defined questions, which this is not.
There is good reason this sort of calculation does not commonly appear in scientific journals - itâs wrong. The exceptions are carefully defined calculations, and I suspect some of these are wrong too.
What else would you have us rely on, if not our senses?
Looking for the result you want is not a scientific approach. If you âwantâ to test a hypothesis, you make a prediction then see if observation backs the prediction, or if the prediction fails.
You canât say something is ârealâ, and then claim it exhibits none of the properties of any other real objects, and canât ever be examined or analyzed empirically. Thatâs pretty much a good definition of ânot realâ.
â PZ Myers
Excepting concepts, as noted in the other thread, which are immaterial yet may have real power to influence people.
Dr. Ian Musgrave with Univeristy of Adeliede Australia BTW HE IS ANTI CREATIONIST AND AN ATHEIST
"Dr Ian Musgrave is a molecular pharmacologist/toxicologist who works at the University of Adelaide, Australia. He has a broad interest in the understanding of how surface receptors can modulate neuronal function and survival, as well as interests in natural product pharmacology and drug design. As well he is interested in evolutionary biology, science communication (committee member of SA Science Communicators) and an avid amateur astronomer.
He did postdoctoral work in the Institute of Pharmacology at the Free University of Berlin in 1991-1994, returning to Australia in 1994. He has collaborated with Professor John Carver, Dr. Scot Smid and Professor Colin Barrow on using natural products to attack the neurodegeneration process in Alzheimerâs Disease. He was recently elected as convenor of the Toxicology Special Interest Group of the Australasian Society for Pharmacology and Toxicology . He is collaborating with Professor Roger Byard on the forensic implications of herbal medicines. He has held ARC funding and currently holds NH&MRC funding."
Now you are relying on a linguistic quirk of the English language. In English the word life (and living) has a very broad semantic rangeâsuch that both biological life and a great many non-living things/idea can both be described as being alive (i.e., living, having life, being alive.) Here are some examples of that English-language characteristic of using the same words for very different ideas:
(1) âI know that the frog is still alive because I saw it hop across my yard just a moment ago.â
(2) âThe music of Mozart lives on.â (or even âThe spirit of Mozart remains alive today.â)
(3) âI went on the Internet so that I could view a live videocast of the Old Faithful Geyser in Yellowstone Park.â
(4) âCapitalism is alive and well even in many countries which have had fervantly communistic histories.â
(5) âIâm not alive at all until I have my coffee in the morning.â
I could give many more examples. English uses ONE word (or one family of words: life/live/alive) for very different concepts which are identified by very different words in the languages of the Bible (i.e., Hebrew, Aramaic, Greek.) Iâve provided detailed examples in past Peaceful Science posts, such as:
Thus, @LogosOfLogic cannot simply assume that biological life and âthe ever living oneâ are the same idea and thereby âeither way its life from life.â No, that is imposing a English language semantic âinterpretationâ to ancient theological concepts written in other languages.
I will say it again: The fact that a modern-day English speaker may say, âAll biological life came from prior life: the living God himself.â in no way upends abiogenesis, the idea that biological life came from non-living, non-biological ingredients from the earthâs crust and air.
Perhaps I can identify the differences in semantic ranges this way. I will take the statement of @LogosOfLogic:
â. . . so either way itâs life from life.â
and âmapâ it into the key words this way:
â. . . so either way itâs X from X.â
Yet, if I âmappedâ those key words to convene a Biblical Greek rendering (for example), the statement would look like this:
â. . . so either way itâs X from Yâ
In other words, what LogosofLogic regards as the same thing are considered two very different things in Biblical Greek (based on the different words chosen by the Greek-speaker.)
Indeed, when I used to work with a lot of first year seminary students, they would be reading the Greek New Testament for the first time and excitedly remark: âI just realized that when Jesus talked about having eternal life, he used an entirely different word from the one which meant biological-life!â This is why theologians and pastors are trained to do their work from the original languages of the Bible instead of relying solely upon English translations (where one can entirely miss important distinctions.)
If we are going to talk about The Bible we shouldnât really talk about Greek at all because thatâs not even a semitic language such as Aramaic Hebrew and Amharic and Arabic. Greek is indo European with a completely different lexicon and origin and family group.
EL Chai in Hebrew or Al Hayy in Arabic stem from the same semitic root word for life. The one God is the only everliving one.
Newsflash: The Greek New Testament is part of the Bible.
Irrelevant.
Very true and also irrelevant.
I agree that âthe only everliving oneâ is a reasonable way to translate the concept into English.
Meanwhile, you entirely ignore the fact that Biblical Hebrew distinguishes between the NEPHESH life of biological creatures and the CHAI life of YHWH (God). YHWH is never described as NEPHESH because he is not âbiological-life that breathes.â
Nothing in the Genesis text states that a NEPHESH God somhow passed along NEPHESH-life to Adam. No, it states that HAADAM (âthe manâ) became a NEPHESH (biologically living thing.) A CHAI God created NEPHESH biological creatures. (Notice the distinction?)
I suppose I should thank you for making my point even more clear. Whether you realize it or not, you are still stuck on trying to apply English language semantics (and those of many other modern languages) to the ancient tongues of the Bible. [I provided examples in NT Greek because there are New Testament passages which make these same points and distinctions and also in order to tie these concepts together with my past PS posts on these semantic topics.]
There is nothing wrong with emphasizing the Bibleâs point that neither God nor humans nor other NEPHESH creatures are âinanimateâ. (I put that word in quotation marks because even here Iâm risking imposing English meanings on an ancient language.) Nevertheless, to confuse the distinction between NEPHESH and CHAI as you make increasingly futile arguments against the realities of abiogenesis just doesnât make sense.
