Loopholes In Origin of Life Theories - Science vs Evolution

posted on June 18th, 2012, 2:38 am

Adm. Zaxxon I think you arnt fully grasping what Dominus is trying to say here. Thing is no one here likey has done any real in depth research on this topic, and while yes we can debate it, where does it get us? Lets take the example Dom gave, yes sure I man not be an electrician but youre right, I may just try to wire my house on my own. Well you say if someone doesnt do any research theyre argument should be easy to dismiss correct? Well if I wire up my house and ask someone to come look at it who also has no idea how to wire a house, what are they gonna say? They dont know what they are doing either! So where does this leave us? Yeah maybe I can wire up a single light easy enough, but to wire an entire house with no knowlege, is likely going to end very badly. And while I agree there is some things here that are dealing in philosophy which I dont mind arguing, what the origial post was about wasnt really a philosophical question.

My point is, yes we can debate this all day, but in the end what does it really mean? None of us are scientists and youre never gonna get everyone to agree on a topic like this. There are people who study this topic their entire lives and THEY cant agree on this so I doubt our forum is gonna solve one of lifes great mysteries in a couple days of posting here. All that happens is what you see here, people arguing over it and no one really knowing what they are talking about, and I mean REALLY knowing like the type of knowing that comes with years of study. Which goes back to my original post on why bring such a topic up here? Its just one of those topics that never goes anywhere and ends up causing aggravation.

posted on June 18th, 2012, 4:19 am

I could probably resolve this topic in one post.

Not the OP, just the part about epistemology, and who says what with what level of value. And how meaningful any ensuing discussions might be.

Even the OP part though, basically look up ontology.

Not getting into it too deeply, but regardless of evolution, it doesn't really explain life.

Emergentism. Science with a physicalist perspective is a pathetic view. Like, not the person who holds it, the actual view itself. Using that as your ontological basis that everything is reduced to physical existence is unfortunately a widely held view and I would think a pretty unintelligent one. I picture the most lazy person, who wants a very dull (or secludedly safe) outlook on the universe with very few complications, and he settles with, "well I guess it's all just a bunch of 'stuff'?" shrugs and gives up. "OH!, and make it dead stuff, nothing living, and there's no such thing as free will too!, because golly gee if there was, I'd be pretty terrified and have to complicate my views a whole lot to accommodate for that sort of level of uncertainty... in principle". Such a joke.

If you believe that at one point in the universe's history there was no life, and just dead matter, and that somehow evolution just 'created' life from matter (combined elements -not alive- with some electricity -not alive-), you are quite the creationist then, aren't you?

It doesn't matter if that view of creation is concentrated over millions of years, or a blink of a few millennia. Either way, it's creation from dead matter (or powerful snap of some guys' fingers).

To say at one point there was no life. Then there was life. Creation. And it's problematic for science moreso, because more spiritual views relay that actually, there was never a point in the universe's history where there was no life, either there was a creator, or life just simply always was.

In anycase, that wasn't the post to resolve any real issues. About discussions or life.

God, can you guys imagine reading my post on that one? I don't even want to write it.

Quick Edit:

At best, a person might argue that dead matter, although not living had the potential for living things. So never really dead matter, let's just say inactive matter and then it just needed a sort of activation combo.

Er wait, perhaps you see the problem with that argument.

posted on June 18th, 2012, 10:45 am

TCR, to repeat my previous point, the failing of the Miller experiments does not show any kind of failing in Evolution theory.

The Miller experiments tested ONE possible way that life could be created from non-life. ONE. An electrical spark. ONE way. Not ALL possible ways. It's failure proves nothing more than "It wasn't an electrical spark.", and as such is far from being "an inescapable loophole in Evolution theory."

posted on June 18th, 2012, 2:04 pm

Adm. Zaxxon I think you arnt fully grasping what Dominus is trying to say here. Thing is no one here likey has done any real in depth research on this topic, and while yes we can debate it, where does it get us? Lets take the example Dom gave, yes sure I man not be an electrician but youre right, I may just try to wire my house on my own. Well you say if someone doesnt do any research theyre argument should be easy to dismiss correct? Well if I wire up my house and ask someone to come look at it who also has no idea how to wire a house, what are they gonna say? They dont know what they are doing either! So where does this leave us? Yeah maybe I can wire up a single light easy enough, but to wire an entire house with no knowlege, is likely going to end very badly. And while I agree there is some things here that are dealing in philosophy which I dont mind arguing, what the origial post was about wasnt really a philosophical question.

My point is, yes we can debate this all day, but in the end what does it really mean? None of us are scientists and youre never gonna get everyone to agree on a topic like this. There are people who study this topic their entire lives and THEY cant agree on this so I doubt our forum is gonna solve one of lifes great mysteries in a couple days of posting here. All that happens is what you see here, people arguing over it and no one really knowing what they are talking about, and I mean REALLY knowing like the type of knowing that comes with years of study. Which goes back to my original post on why bring such a topic up here? Its just one of those topics that never goes anywhere and ends up causing aggravation.

Heh, well, If your point is that these threads aren't productive then I would have to agree. I don't think I have ever seen anyone change their opinion in the years I've been here. This is, after all, a Star Trek Gaming website.

But that doesn't stop people from debating. What you say is certainly true, but you miss my point. It is not that you can correctly wire your house without knowing what to do first, but it is that there is no reason why you cant try. Sure there are consiquences, but that doesn't mean you should dismiss that kind of thing out of hand. Just as in this thread, TCR may or may not have studied the topic indepth. Do you know? I would make my own assumptions, and if that is the case, don't post! Don't post and say things like "The devs should close this thread because nobody is qualified to talk about the matter." Seriously? If you think they aren't qualified, let them have their discussion and just stay out of it. Stand back and chuckle to your self, I don't know. But please, just don't try to insult and stifle intellectual conversation. Maybe you are right and nobody has done any research. Enlighten them! Don't tell them to stay away from the topic, try to teach them! That is, after all the whole purpose of the thread. You don't have to have done any research to ask questions, or to question.

TCR, to repeat my previous point, the failing of the Miller experiments does not show any kind of failing in Evolution theory.

The Miller experiments tested ONE possible way that life could be created from non-life. ONE. An electrical spark. ONE way. Not ALL possible ways. It's failure proves nothing more than "It wasn't an electrical spark.", and as such is far from being "an inescapable loophole in Evolution theory."

I agree with this. Evolution and this origin of life theory are barely related. I don't think that because we know it is highly unlikely that an electrical spark began life, it means that life didn't begin in a similar matter. But it also doesn't mean it did. The problem is, it assumes, just as Evolution, that all life began from the same genetic pool of single-celled organisms. So, if scientists already believe this, all experiments conducted around how life began will have to come to the same conclusion, because they already 'know' the result. It is a biased way of to conduct scientific experiments, and it usually produces inaccurate results. They are not simply testing abiogenesis, the creation of life from none, but rather the start of Evolution. That is not to say that if they somehow created multi-celled organisms fro the start, they wouldn't refine their theories, but it does mean they aren't looking for that as the possible beginnings of life.

posted on June 18th, 2012, 4:06 pm

Atlantis: Okay, but what about the experiment that put all of the protein and genetic structures (the complex structures that make up life) in a lifeless environment? That experiment didn't produce life either. My point is, that every approach taken to create life without any preexisting life has failed. So why would that not be a problem?

---

Adm. Zaxxon: Who said anyone has to change their opinion? I was under the impression that one changing the others opinion was irrelevant as long as both sides learn from the debate (or discussion) and understand the other sides position.

You have made some good points. And just to let you know, I have done studies in the origins debate. It's primarily two groups claiming to use real scientific research to support their points and making opposite claims about that research. Leaving the layman to chose which side to believe.

And I'm starting to regret making this thread. It did not have the results that I intended.

posted on June 18th, 2012, 5:37 pm

And I'm starting to regret making this thread. It did not have the results that I intended.

Words of "true wisdom", even if the intent is shady at best. But that's just my 2 cents.

I could go on "elaborating" the limitations of the human mind (education, culture, etc etc etc), we do not even know how that organ works, yet still we are playing "God" more and more since the last 100 years or so, some of the results are cloning, A-bomb, and so on, some good things, and some less good things ... But hey I'm just an idiot so don't mind me. I'm just posting for the sake of posting.

Maybe, just maybe this might be a solution to your so called "debate" :
all you "kids" out there, please do yourself a favor, go find a job in a so called "poor country", work 120 hours a week, maybe 16-18-20 hours in a row, you'll soon see that these questions are not life threatening, they don't fill the refrigerator, nor do they pay the bills.

Oh and if you still have to much free time, find a girlfriend, or boyfriend it's the 21th century after all - or both >:D -, go help out the homeless, or become a lawyer and cheat other people out of there money, become a serial killer, there are millions and millions of options.

Think of them as "scientific tests" if everything else fails. Do that for ... let's say 80-90 years ... just to make sure you tested all possible possibilities of all possibilities ... ah no I just remembered not even 90 years will be sufficient time to do all the tests ... hmmm He sure works in mysterious ways ...

P.S: I colored some words for the mentally challenged like me, just to be on the "safe side"

posted on June 18th, 2012, 8:06 pm

Been a while since someone referred to me as a "kid"

posted on June 18th, 2012, 8:29 pm

Atlantis: Okay, but what about the experiment that put all of the protein and genetic structures (the complex structures that make up life) in a lifeless environment? That experiment didn't produce life either. My point is, that every approach taken to create life without any preexisting life has failed. So why would that not be a problem?

It's not a problem, because they haven't tried EVERY possibility. They have only tried a small number. You've mentioned two at most...

Just because two possibilities fail, does not invalidate the entire procedure. There are limitless possible methods, a massive surface area (the entire planet), and a massive time scale (this thing could have happened at any point during the scope of billions of years)... Just how is it possible to reproduce all three of those things in a small scale lab test?

"To prove the existence of the '1 + n = 54574758425 Theory', I have tried experimenting using n = 2. It failed to produce 54574758425. Therefore, 1 + n does not = 54574758425 ."

See the problem? You have to try every possibility until you find that n = 54574758424...

The so-called "evidence" you are reeling off from your "source" website is nothing more than propaganda, only looking at the details that fit it's agenda, and blatantly ignoring the rest. It's very eloquently written, to try and disguise this, but I'm not going to accept these distortions. If you are truly interested in the truth, I would suggest reading proper scientific studies, instead of being taken in by this drivel.

posted on June 18th, 2012, 10:08 pm

So what you are saying is that even though putting all of the structures (ATP, DNA, Membrane, Nucleus, etc) for life in a lifeless environment and not being able to produce life is not a problem for evolution? Simply because it's "too few attempts." Putting all of the structures that exist in a life form in a lifeless environment is as generous as one can possibly get. Yet the structures do not assemble into a life form. The results of all of these experiments are very conclusive. They have all failed to produce life, we know why they fail, and we know why future experiments that try to produce life will also fail.

One does not have to experiment to see what n is for "1 + n = 54,574,758,425." Working the equation in reverse will give you the answer. 54,574,758,425 - 1 = n. Therefore, n = 54,574,758,424. I'm not as stupid as you make me out to be. And anyone who knows math will do the problem in reverse to find the answer to that equation instead of pondering it for decades never getting the correct result.

Don't even bring up the topic of propaganda. (1) Because it would be hypocritical to do so. (2) Because I can bring up a MUCH longer list than you can. (3) Doing so means you are either passing on lies, or are lying yourself. (4) I think this has already crossed the threshold for locking the thread, if not, then putting out lists certainly will.

Yes, I am interested in the truth. I've read dozens of "proper science" papers (which is also hypocritical for you to complain about). I've also read critiques of what goes on behind the scenes of these "proper science" papers. It's a publish or parish game that is used as a political weapon which itself is coming under increasing fire from all directions.

EDIT NOTE: Blue text is added by me.

posted on June 19th, 2012, 12:34 am

Let me just say that it takes as much faith to believe that we and everything else just happened as it does to believe that someone or something created it all. Both sides of the argument aren't really scientific as there is no known way to travel back in time to observe to process and we cannon recreate it for purposes of experimentation. And while there is a book that details what happened that is something that you have to believe on faith as well so it isnt really relevant to the discussion.

posted on June 19th, 2012, 1:49 am

Normally, I stay away from any kind of forum activity, never mind discussions such as these. This one appeared different from other examples until a couple of posts prior.. then the discussion started to devolve (pardon the pun ). I read though the replies with a silly grin on my face seeing as most of the less serious responses are lighthearted and harmless. The few serious replies are eloquently written and are a pleasure to read. I think, for what its worth, this thread is doing ok (until a couple of posts prior )

I hope that none of the serious responders hold it against those that want to fool around a bit. I take it that most people come by to unwind and relax when they sit down to catch up on the latest in Armada modding This is the "small talk" section after all

In my opinion, the reason that these discussions have such a hard time staying on topic and within civil limits is not that they touch on people's beliefs, but that the subject is so amazingly broad and wide and deep. Kind of like "the universe in a topic". No one can fully substantiate their opinions on the main subject, so discussion has to split into many pieces:

- did life begin from inanimate matter
- does evolution really work in producing new species
- can we experimentally verify or disprove current theories
- etc..*

Unless someone wants to publish a book on the forums, these become fodder between posters; one person claims life can't start from stones and water and lighting, another says that evolution is actually working in a petri dish. Oi, then the next person starts pulling out their hair!!

Having a more focused discussion on any one of these might help matters. Perhaps by attempting to leave out the creationism part of the larger discussion on creationism vs. evolution is what helped this thread. Even so, the serious posts began to look like essays, which few people would find the persistence to read thoroughly, much less reply in equal fashion.

The other difficulty is that the topic is often stated as a duel between two universes. A match of wit and craft. Today, we have on the right creationism (cheers) facing evolution (more cheers) in a fight to the death! ok, ok, this topic is different It wasn't stated as a debate at all, but rather; a discussion of "weaknesses" in the theory of evolution. Oi, ok, don't have to make a pinata out of it

Anyhow, I don't want to make this too long, but I want to put down one other thought. I certainly think that reading scientific papers is great for this discussion. However, to accept the conclusions of any scientific publication, one has to trust the scientific process and, more importantly, trust those that have undertaken the scientific process to produce the paper. Not all papers are equal in quality and insight, and many will have errata in their methods or deductions, but I sincerely hope that such problems are not used to the discredit of science. Errors in scientific papers can be corrected only through further scientific study. (ok, I've used up my quota of usage of the word scientific )

Personally, I recommend reading well sourced books on subjects that are too broad to grasp all at once. Papers are great, but usually cover something like "Formation of Protein P6G220-quack-9 in Chicken Noodle Soup". Go figure how that ties in with evolution... Of course, if you wish to prepare for a good debate, you would read books from all perspectives on the issue. Books summarize things well enough for re-use at a cocktail party and fleetops forums discussions

I hope no one minds me barging in on the discussion. I've been in the shadows mostly
Cheers

* Not really recommending that anyone open up a thread for each of these.

posted on June 19th, 2012, 3:29 am

Yeah, I'm not sure how my last post came off (without direct replies).

I might have written the one paragraph in an almost mocking like fashion, but it was merely to make a point.

We all have beliefs that serve as narratives for how we perceive our lives. These narratives serve as the grounds for our experiences. They are also created, and recreated from experiences, old and new. In taking something like science, or the scientific method as a fundamental part of that I believe we may, in actuality, be doing ourselves a great disservice.

Science categorizes, defines, looks at the appearance of things. But what can it actually tell us about a thing-in-itself? The great 'why' s . Any intellectually honest answer will equate to 'not very much'. Look up theory of mind (consciousness).

Science can't build itself up on observable data collection, and from that, insert subjectivity, with a sound explanation. Attempts to explain that subjectivity, life, and so forth in terms of set physical notions is often very misleading, in that it attempts to diminish the raw natural power of such a great thing to a mere figment or epiphenomenon. But you get scientists who seriously believe in a physicalist universe, and you then have those who trust them and adopt the same views, but I feel it is often without understanding there real implications.

The science can always shrug this ladder step aside, and say 'oh and while we ourselves can't explain this presently, we are confident in the future, science will give us an answer'. Despite a whole new world of quantum physics that raises just as many issues when it conflicts with classical physics. Now, with giving science, the scientific method such a great scapegoat, science is never truly responsible ultimately for any of our daily life decisions moment to moment. (They can always just tell us future generations will work out the finer details that seem problematic now, but really, in time will be worked out... )

You want to know what life actually is? The miracles of creation, feeling, thought, subjective free will truly are? The very idea of a 'miracle' as an actual event is almost laughable with science's aim to explain and define all things under the sun, that you never experience an event in the wondrous way where you actually believe that a sequence of events is miraculous. Our culture is more likely to point out, miracles can be explained. And just like that, spiritual dehydration saps away at you, and what are you left with? It all slips right through your fingers when you live your life according to some systemized mechanistic viewpoint that trivializes the idea as either absurd, or for a future age to describe. Maybe your great grandchildren will have an answer. But you, literally, YOU, have to experience that with your own private being. When you give up your relation to that experience, your interaction of that constant present reality to the dictates of science and the authority society as, in my view, mistakenly so heavily placed upon it you do so at a great cost.

There is private and public life. Science is a very public way of life. You want to explain, publicly, for all to understand an experiment and what it means. When that is established, meaning is then assigned. This study proved this hypothesis therefore, we determine we had achieved meaningful knowledge.

In the meantime, while it may seem like the nature of the universe is a vast topic, subjectively, an individual can do wonders on their own simply through a life lived well. Morals. Wisdom. Love. Sharing and Giving.

The simplest idea like 'try being a little kinder, and you will make the entire world a better place one person at a time', is a conclusion you can reach in seconds as an individual. And as an individual you will understand that. Maybe you hear a song, watch movie, or experience an event that makes it so clear to you. Try giving that thought over to science, and see how long it takes them to run up the experiments and procedures to prove that kindness and love actually make the world a better place.

How does science measure love again these days?

posted on June 19th, 2012, 7:59 am

One does not have to experiment to see what n is for "1 + n = 54,574,758,425." Working the equation in reverse will give you the answer. 54,574,758,425 - 1 = n. Therefore, n = 54,574,758,424. I'm not as stupid as you make me out to be. And anyone who knows math will do the problem in reverse to find the answer to that equation instead of pondering it for decades never getting the correct result.

Can I just add, here, that we are not dealing with mathematics. We are dealing with living organisms existing in the physical universe rather than abstract concepts. I'll grant you that that would be how I would solve the equation.

We can't simply take one away from life, can we? n is a complete unknown until we find it.

What you're doing is mixing disciplines. Atlantis - if I may expand on his point. Apologies if I got this wrong - was using an analogy to show that we have an end point, and a likely starting point, but we do not have the process that connects them; and what you are doing is using one idea that failed to produce the expected results - out of all of those not yet tried or even dreamed - to refute the entire theory. Perhaps a better analogy may be found in literary studies:

We have an academic article, perhaps in the formalist school but that doesn't really matter, that has somehow had it's references to the title and author of the book removed. The quotations are sparse, vague, and someone has lost the bibliography. We have every book ever written, or ever to be written, available to us.

We try Northanger Abbey, it doesn't fit. We try Tamburlaine the Great, it doesn't fit. We try Finnegan's Wake, it doesn't fit.

Your answer to evolution, when applied to this hypothetical, would cause us to proclaim that the article is fake; that the whole field is nonsense. Why? Because three specific things we tried did not fit an established pattern.

Can you see the issue here?

Short Version: Biology is not mathematics. When was the last time you saw a mathematician use a microscope to look into an equation? Or a biologist use Pythagoras' Theorem to analyse DNA?

In reply to the gist of your post, no - I don't think it is a problem. The experiments use what we understand to be the basic structures of life in a lifeless environment. Firstly, there's a difference between 'lifeless' and 'vacuum' - we can't even begin to account for environmental factors. What if it was in a crater in Devon or something with an unusual mineral? Secondly, for all we know there exists some form of proto-DNA, or proto-membrane, that reacts in such environments.

You cannot make conclusions from one set of data, unless referring specifically to that set of data. It's poor practice, and - to be honest - it does colour your posts. You could say that 'the experiments conducted so far seem to reject those possibilities for the origin of life'; but you can't say 'The experiments conducted so far means that the entire theory is wrong!'. Well, unless you're a character in Socratic dialogue. Strawmen are usually constructed like that.

posted on June 19th, 2012, 1:56 pm

Well, we do have some predictions to go on based on these experiments. (1) All attempts to create life via natural processes (without any preexisting life) will fail. (2) All attempts to create proteins via natural processes (without a life form or machine designed to build a protein) will fail. (3) Even granting fully assembled protein and genetic structures in a lifeless environment, life will not develop. (4) Any experiment that does create life without preexisting life will be the result of machinery designed specifically to create life, not a simulation of a natural environment.

First, we had:

Observation - Life is abundant on earth.
Hypothesis - Life should form easily given the right environmental conditions.
Experiment - Simulations of various environmental conditions failed to produce life, or even all of the basic chemical structures for life.
Conclusion - The origin of life is a deeper mystery than we first thought.

Next, we had:

Observation - Protein structures do not form in natural environments, but are rather destroyed in them.
Hypothesis - Even if all of the structures for life are pre-assembled and put into a lifeless environment, these structures will not create a life form.
Experiment - The pre-assembled structures did not create a life form.
Conclusion - Natural environments, even if they did create all of the basic chemical structures required and assembled them into the required complex structures for life, would not produce a life form.

posted on June 19th, 2012, 4:04 pm

TCR:

So you took my mathematically-based analogy literally? Wow. *rolls eyes* If you can't see past the literal, than far from being "not as stupid as" I think you are, I was in fact giving you too much credit.

Evolution is far more complex than a simple addition problem, of course. I was merely pointing out that trying only one possible solution, and then when that fails, giving up on the whole thing, is stupid, and is precisely what you are saying by saying "The Miller experiment failed, therefore evolution is impossible."

Do you understand now? It's a metaphor.

So, to repeat my previous point yet again, no, that situation you described does not pose a problem for evolution, because the Miller experiment only tried ONE METHOD of sparking it off. The failure only invalidates that one method. There are countless others. I can't believe I've had to repeat that point a third time. Yet another example of someone ignoring things that don't go along with their narrow-minded view.

And I did bring up the topic of propaganda, so don't tell me not to, just deal with it. Perhaps you would like to explain WHY it is hypocritical? It IS propaganda, plain and simple, and I have explained why it is propaganda too: because it polishes facts that favours it, and ignores ones that don't. Just like you are doing by targetting perceived "flaws" in others' posts, and ignoring the actual content. Ignorance is bliss, eh?

How am I "passing on lies, or lying [my]self"? This, from the guy who's posting tripe from that website on here, claiming it to be fact? THAT, sir, is hypocritical.

I am not arguing for or against evolution. All I am stating is that you can not claim to have used scientific method to find loopholes in evolution. Because you haven't. And to claim this thread is "Science vs Evolution" is entirely incorrect.

EDIT: Whatever. Think what you want, you shouldn't have posted this here anyway.