Science Law - Life Comes From Life

[Sparhafoc]

Re: Mindboggling result of Ribosomal RNA sequence analysis

again, the law applies to all known living things. if you what to argue that life in the past was inmune to this law, feel free to provide your evidence.

Again, laws are not prescriptive.

If you wish to keep making this mistake, the answer will always remain the same.

Go learn what a scientific law is then try to have a discussion about it.

Given the fact that you've been spoon-fed the information, and have now admitted you don't even read sources, then you can just remain wrong if that's your desire.

On a side note to address your error - is anyone claiming that the precursors of living organisms are still present today? No, so your statement falls at the first logical hurdle.

the burden of proof is ALWAYS on the affirmative.

granted, the burden proof is on both sides those who affirm that life came from none life naturally and those who claim that it happened by design have the burden proof.

No, you also need to learn how debates work.

A contention is made, then the contender must substantiate that contention.

There is no onus on those refusing to accept that contention to substantiate their position, only on the contender to make it compelling.

If you are incapable of supporting your contention, then we can consider your contention wrong and it is invalid to continue employing that contention.

the law of biogenesis is simply the second law of thermodynamics with a costume,

Utter hogwash.

Life is a system with low entropy that came from a system with high entropy, and we know that designers can create low entropy form high entropy.

Even your own declaration is self-refuting where it's not a non-sequitur.

an intelligent designer (not necessarily God) can in theory manipulate a disordered system of amino acids order it, and create life.................natural laws and mechanisms, as far as we know cant do this.

An intelligent design with the power to do unlimited magic can do anything, LEROY - that's not really a point being disputed.

The valid question is if there is any reason to believe that such a designer exists.

There is no valid reason to posit the unknown, unknowable, and vastly more complex when there is an equally compelling explanation that is not unknown, not unknowable, and doesn't posit an entity which is more complex.

As far as we know, natural mechanisms can indeed account for chemical abiogenesis, that's why it's the preferred explanation for the origin of life.

Welcome to Occam's Razor - I can pretty much guarantee you will never want to use it because it offers your arguments no sanctuary.

 

[Sparhafoc]

LEROY - read this so that you stop making a fool of yourself

LEROY - I cited this article to you before, and you clearly didn't read it.

Why don't you read anything people link for your education?

You have a fundamental misapprehension of the term 'law' in science. It is nothing like the word law you use in non-scientific parlance. Nothing like it at all. As such, the notion you keep expressing of laws not being violated is absolute horseshit and underscores how you know nothing about science or scientific method.

You can continue to be not even wrong, or you can learn - your call.


https://www.livescience.com/21457-what-is-a-law-in-science-definition-of-scientific-law.html

In general, a scientific law is the description of an observed phenomenon.

...

Laws are descriptions — often mathematical descriptions — of natural phenomenon; for example, Newton's Law of Gravity or Mendel's Law of Independent Assortment. These laws simply describe the observation. Not how or why they work...

...

The difference between scientific laws and scientific facts is a bit harder to define, though the definition is important. Facts are simple, basic observations that have been shown to be true. Laws are generalized observations about a relationship between two or more things in the natural world.

...

For example, "There are five trees in my yard" is considered a fact because it is a simple statement that can be proven. "The apples fall down from the tree in my back yard and not up" is a law because it describes how two things in nature behave that has been observed in a certain circumstance. If the circumstance changes, then the law would change. For example, in the vacuum of space, the apple may float upward from the tree instead of downward.

...

The use of the word "law" by laymen and scientists differ. When most people talk about a law, they mean something that is absolute. A scientific law is much more flexible. It can have exceptions, be proven wrong or evolve over time,

Acknowledging the above would make your confused contention disappear.

Why don't you seek to kill bad ideas, LEROY?

Why must you work so hard to preserve ignorance?

 

[leroy]

Re: Mindboggling result of Ribosomal RNA sequence analysis

Bollocks. These are two prongs of a single dilemma, and the affirmative is the one that asserts the existence of a designer.

and the guy who affirms that life came form none life naturally doesn't have a burden proof?

 

[Sparhafoc]

Re: Mindboggling result of Ribosomal RNA sequence analysis

and the guy who affirms that life came form none life naturally doesn't have a burden proof?

Evidence has already been cited meeting that burden.

http://leagueofreason.org.uk/posting.php?mode=quote&f=8&p=182077

Now, as for evidence, we have to go back to the shell game.

This thread had to be split off of a discussion thread based on studies in chemical abiogenesis because LEROY couldn't stay on topic.

As such, some of the evidence was presented in that very thread this one was split from.

So shall we play the Shell Game boys and girls?

http://leagueofreason.org.uk/viewtopic.php?p=177121#p177121

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25500179
The ribosome as a missing link in the evolution of life


https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26953650
The ribosome as a missing link in prebiotic evolution II: Ribosomes encode ribosomal proteins that bind to common regions of their own mRNAs and rRNAs.


https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26088142
Functional Class I and II Amino Acid-activating Enzymes Can Be Coded by Opposite Strands of the Same Gene.


And there's evidence.

Are you going to address that evidence, LEROY?

Or are you going to try to obfuscate for 4 or 5 pages, then pretend that no one cited that evidence, LEROY?

If you refuse to read that evidence, you are disallowed from claiming that evidence hasn't been cited.

 

[Sparhafoc]

So yeah...

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25500179

Ribosomal RNA, in short, is not just a structural scaffold for proteins, but the vestigial remnant of a primordial genome that may have encoded a self-organizing, self-replicating, auto-catalytic intermediary between macromolecules and cellular life.

 

[Deleted member 619]

Re: Mindboggling result of Ribosomal RNA sequence analysis

Bollocks. These are two prongs of a single dilemma, and the affirmative is the one that asserts the existence of a designer.

and the guy who affirms that life came form none life naturally doesn't have a burden proof?

Life came from non-life. That's a fact, and shows that your precious 'law of biogenesis', insofar as it's true at all, has a limited domain of applicability.

Beyond that, we have evidence that life is nothing more than chemistry writ large, that it's a behaviour that matter behaves in under certain conditions. Precisely how it came to be is an open question, albeit an open question that's closing fast, but there's no good reason to suppose that it DIDN't arise naturally, not least because natural explanations have been sufficient to explain every single phenomenon ever elucidated by science with no exceptions.

On the other hand, your affirmative, for which you haven't even the tiniest scrap of supporting evidence and which fails the most basic feature of abductive reasoning, which is the kind of reasoning by which hypotheses are classified, IS an affirmative, because it affirms the existence of something which hasn't even been demonstrated to be possible, let alone extant.

 

[leroy]

Re: Mindboggling result of Ribosomal RNA sequence analysis

and the guy who affirms that life came form none life naturally doesn't have a burden proof?

Evidence has already been cited meeting that burden.

http://leagueofreason.org.uk/posting.php?mode=quote&f=8&p=182077

Now, as for evidence, we have to go back to the shell game.

This thread had to be split off of a discussion thread based on studies in chemical abiogenesis because LEROY couldn't stay on topic.

As such, some of the evidence was presented in that very thread this one was split from.

So shall we play the Shell Game boys and girls?

http://leagueofreason.org.uk/viewtopic.php?p=177121#p177121

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25500179
The ribosome as a missing link in the evolution of life


https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26953650
The ribosome as a missing link in prebiotic evolution II: Ribosomes encode ribosomal proteins that bind to common regions of their own mRNAs and rRNAs.


https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26088142
Functional Class I and II Amino Acid-activating Enzymes Can Be Coded by Opposite Strands of the Same Gene.


And there's evidence.

Are you going to address that evidence, LEROY?

Or are you going to try to obfuscate for 4 or 5 pages, then pretend that no one cited that evidence, LEROY?

If you refuse to read that evidence, you are disallowed from claiming that evidence hasn't been cited.

evidence? what evidence? even if I grant the hypothesis presented in the papers, at most we would know what happened, but not how it happened.

for the purpose of this discussion, we can assume that before cells there where just ribosomes as the papers suggest.....lets simply grant their hypothesis at face value.


we both agree that at some point in the past organic molecules (amino acids maybe) organized and arrange themselves in such a way that they become what we would call life (something organic that can reproduce)



the point of disagreement comes when trying to explain, why did these molecules organices in such an order.........


I say design

you (presumably) say a natural mechanism


so where is the evidence that indicates that such an event took place due to a natural mechanism? are you willing to have a conversation where we both adopt an affirmative position and we both share burden proof?

 

[leroy]

Re: Mindboggling result of Ribosomal RNA sequence analysis

and the guy who affirms that life came form none life naturally doesn't have a burden proof?

Life came from non-life. That's a fact, and shows that your precious 'law of biogenesis', insofar as it's true at all, has a limited domain of applicability.

Beyond that, we have evidence that life is nothing more than chemistry writ large, that it's a behaviour that matter behaves in under certain conditions. Precisely how it came to be is an open question, albeit an open question that's closing fast, but there's no good reason to suppose that it DIDN't arise naturally, not least because natural explanations have been sufficient to explain every single phenomenon ever elucidated by science with no exceptions.

On the other hand, your affirmative, for which you haven't even the tiniest scrap of supporting evidence and which fails the most basic feature of abductive reasoning, which is the kind of reasoning by which hypotheses are classified, IS an affirmbecause it affirms the existence of something which hasn't even been demonstrated to be possible, let alone extant.

ative,

1 Note how you did not answer my question
Does the guy who affirms that life came form none life naturally has a burden proof?

Life came from non-life. That's a fact

only if you grant premise 2 in the KCA. of you reject this premise, then every event in the universe, including the origin of life would have had to occurred an infinite amount of time ago.

Beyond that, we have evidence that life is nothing more than chemistry writ large, that it's a behaviour that matter behaves in under certain conditions

sure, but what you have to do is show that there are conditions in which matter will behave in such a way where it will organice itself in to something that we would call life.

and then you have to show that these conditions where available 4B years ago.

Precisely how it came to be is an open question, albeit an open question that's closing fast

under what basis do you affirm that the door is closing fast?

it affirms the existence of something which hasn't even been demonstrated to be possible, let alone extant

I would say that everybody in this forum would agree that the existence of a designer is at least possible, few if any atheists affirm that the existence of a God is impossible, they simply say that it unlikely for it to exist.

and a designer doesn't even has to be a God, it could be for example an Alien.



so unless you affirm that the existence of any God or any intelligent Alien is impossible, you are granting that the existence of a designer is at least possible.

 

[Deleted member 619]

Re: Mindboggling result of Ribosomal RNA sequence analysis

1 Note how you did not answer my question
Does the guy who affirms that life came form none life naturally has a burden proof?

Who affirms such a position?

only if you grant premise 2 in the KCA. of you reject this premise, then every event in the universe, including the origin of life would have had to occurred an infinite amount of time ago.

Absolute ignorant drivel. I reject premise two in the Kalam Fallacy, yet there was a time when our expanse was unable to support life, which couldn't come about before stellar synthesis of elements heavier than beryllium.

sure, but what you have to do is show that there are conditions in which matter will behave in such a way where it will organice itself in to something that we would call life.

Look in the mirror and consider it shown. Life demonstrably occurs.

and then you have to show that these conditions where available 4B years ago.

http://www.ucl.ac.uk/news/news-articles/0217/010317-Worlds-oldest-fossils-unearthed

under what basis do you affirm that the door is closing fast?

Under the basis that pretty much every step in the process has been elucidated and demonstrated to work. There are very few questions left to be answered.

I would say that everybody in this forum would agree that the existence of a designer is at least possible, few if any atheists affirm that the existence of a God is impossible, they simply say that it unlikely for it to exist.

I would say that, even if this were true - it isn't - it wouldn't make a dent in the problem of showing that it's possible. You seem to be making the all-too-common mistake of thinking that anything that hasn't been shown to be impossible is possible, which is asinine in the extreme. If something hasn't been shown to be impossible, the most that can be said about it is that it hasn't been shown to be impossible. It lends no credence to the notion that it's possible. The proper statement is 'possibility status unknown'.

and a designer doesn't even has to be a God, it could be for example an Alien.

That would solve precisely zero problems, it would only push abiogenesis back a step.

so unless you affirm that the existence of any God or any intelligent Alien is impossible, you are granting that the existence of a designer is at least possible.

Not remotely, and once again you show that you don't know how this shit works. See above.

 

[leroy]

leroy wrote:
1 Note how you did not answer my question
Does the guy who affirms that life came form none life naturally has a burden proof?

hackenslash
Who affirms such a position?

aren't you affirming that position?

 

[leroy]

Re: Mindboggling result of Ribosomal RNA sequence analysis

[

only if you grant premise 2 in the KCA. of you reject this premise, then every event in the universe, including the origin of life would have had to occurred an infinite amount of time ago.

Absolute ignorant drivel. I reject premise two in the Kalam Fallacy, yet there was a time when our expanse was unable to support life, which couldn't come about before stellar synthesis of elements heavier than beryllium.

so what? that is not my argument, I am not claiming that life would have survived before heavy elements where synthesize.

my argument is that if you take seriously the absurdity of an eternal universe that has excised from past infinity then any event within the universe necessarily, would have had taken place an infinite amount of time ago.

P1 if a cause took place an infinite amount of time ago, any following effect would also have to take palace an infinite amount of time ago

P2 the origin o life, the origin of the sun, your birthday, yesterday etc. are following effects

therefore the origin o life, the origin of the sun, your birthday, yesterday etc. took place an infinite amount of time ago.


if you what to deny premise 2 in the KCA, you have to deal with the fact that your worldview is absurd,


the fact that at least some effects took place a finite amount of time ago, proves that there is not an infinite regress of cause and effects.

 

[Deleted member 619]

aren't you affirming that position?

No.

 

[Deleted member 619]

Re: Mindboggling result of Ribosomal RNA sequence analysis

my argument is that if you take seriously the absurdity of an eternal universe that has excised from past infinity then any event within the universe necessarily, would have had taken place an infinite amount of time ago.

This is complete twaddle, and indicates nothing other than the fact that you really should shut up about topics you have no grasp of. Every single word you've ever uttered on this forum concerning infinity, where it hasn't been catastrophically wrong, has been 'not even wrong'. The words don't exist to express the utter asininity of this notion. It's exactly like saying that there are no points on a line.

P1 if a cause took place an infinite amount of time ago, any following effect would also have to take palace an infinite amount of time ago

That's not a premise, it's a blind assertion rooted in not understanding the first thing about infinity and transfinite mathematics.

if you what to deny premise 2 in the KCA, you have to deal with the fact that your worldview is absurd,

I don't deny the premise, I reject it as unsupported.

the fact that at least some effects took place a finite amount of time ago, proves that there is not an infinite regress of cause and effects.

It proves no such thing. Your sophomoric attempts to grapple with logic resemble nothing so much as a teenage boy fumbling at his first attempt at undoing a bra, although with considerably less competence.

 

[Sparhafoc]

Re: Mindboggling result of Ribosomal RNA sequence analysis

evidence? what evidence? even if I grant the hypothesis presented in the papers, at most we would know what happened, but not how it happened.

Oh fuck me, LEROY's now the supreme fucking leader in Chemistry too.

I can't be bothered to speak to someone whose head is so firmly planted up their own arse.

Want to wallow in self-inflicted ignorance: be my guest.

 

[Sparhafoc]

aren't you affirming that position?

No.

AHA!

But aren't you affirming that you're not affirming that position!!


LEROY seems to think the whole idea is to get the other side to affirm a position. It's like he realizes he's got nothing worth listening to.

 

[leroy]

LEROY seems to think the whole idea is to get the other side to affirm a position. It's like he realizes he's got nothing worth listening to.

yes, LEROY´S plan is to get to a point where the 2 sides adopt and affirm position, and where the 2 sides present evidence in support of their position. and evidence against their opponents.

Shame on ME, that is a very malicious and dishonest tactic.

 

[surreptitious57]

First comes physics. Then comes chemistry. Then comes biology. That is the natural order required for the existence of life
So the transition from non life to life is from chemistry to biology. There is nothing special about this. As It is merely another
stage in the evolution of the Universe. And one which can be entirely explained by science. So no God hypothesis required

 

[Sparhafoc]

LEROY seems to think the whole idea is to get the other side to affirm a position. It's like he realizes he's got nothing worth listening to.

yes, LEROY´S plan is to get to a point where the 2 sides adopt and affirm position, and where the 2 sides present evidence in support of their position. and evidence against their opponents.

Shame on ME, that is a very malicious and dishonest tactic.

It's crackpottery as I've explained to you several dozen times.

If you can't substantiate your own position, trying to get others to jump your hoops is always going to make you look like a complete fucking arse.

 

[Dragan Glas]

Greetings,

New computational model of chemical building blocks may help explain the origins of life.

Kindest regards,

James

 

[leroy]

Greetings,

New computational model of chemical building blocks may help explain the origins of life.

Kindest regards,

James

interesting, but that doesn't solve the main problem that abiogenesis has.

the problem is not whether if long chains can be formed or not, I have no problem in granting that long chains can be created naturally.

the problem that abiogenesis has to solve is how did a bunch of amino acids organized themselves in the specific order and pattern required to produce what we would call life. we have an example of low entropy coming from high entropy and no known principle that would favor the low entropy condition over the high entropy condition.


design is a good explanation, because designers don't have to worry about statistical improbability,