patrick.net

My stance: Nobody knows, and abiogenesists/materialists are often acting on faith unjustified by observations and inference from the real world.

From the other thread
MisdemeanorRebellionNoCoupForYou says

Automan Empire says

That the microcosm and short duration of the experiment didn't produce base pairs doesn't prove it couldn't have happened in the actual world. It DID prove that SOME of the building blocks of life form abiotically. I notice creationists and AGW skeptics treat science like cancel culture. Because one study didn't produce a grand unifying theory THIS COMPLETELY DEBUNKS THE ENTIRE CLAIM AND PROVES EVERYONE WHO BELIEVED IT IS FULL OF SHIT. Not how it works outside of lay publications.

The Grand Unifying Theory is a straw man. Let's get to demonstrating some information carrying, self-replicating things not dependent on currently existing life + byproducrts first. Don't have to be perfect, just something. The claim that Abiogenesis skeptics are asking for a full up simple cell with RNA/DNA or at least just RNA out of an experiment is a strawman. Of course, with very unstable ribose (not to mention a bunch of other things) being absolutely necessary for any kind of life as we know it existing outside a some kind of membrane to keep the outside out and the inside in. That's one of the big issues: even super simple life ain't all that simple when you get down into the nitty-gritty.

The burden of proof is on the Proffer.

That organic compounds are created given reducing and other conditions is not the creation of life. Pretty much every experiment hailed as "A huge step in proving abiogenesis" involves using enzymes and other byproducts of already ...

Automan Empire says

Let's get to demonstrating some information carrying, self-replicating things not dependent on currently existing life + byproducrts first. Don't have to be perfect, just something.

I agree, there's a lot of inference and assumption between the Miller-Urey experiment and modern life. Many early stages may have been a mixture of local ideal conditions and statistically implausible compounds nonetheless forming against the odds. These stages aren't likely to have left behind evidence to be found today. While the lack of this evidence means I can't make a definitive claim for, it also means there isn't a definitive case against. Kind of like searching every square inch of every Apple store on the planet, finding zero strowger switches in any of them, and on this basis declaring it false that cell phones once evolved from land lines.

We haven't iterated the M-U experiment on a planet size, multi billion year long model, so lack of self-replicating things emerging from it isn't too disappointing for those who suspect life "just happened."

Automan Empire says

I agree, there's a lot of inference and assumption between the Miller-Urey experiment and modern life. Many early stages may have been a mixture of local ideal conditions and statistically implausible compounds nonetheless forming against the odds. These stages aren't likely to have left behind evidence to be found today. While the lack of this evidence means I can't make a definitive claim for, it also means there isn't a definitive case against. Kind of like searching every square inch of every Apple store on the planet, finding zero strowger switches in any of them, and on this basis declaring it false that cell phones once evolved from land lines.

That's true: Absence of Evidence isn't evidence of absence - but it is a necessary condition for "Shit that didn't happen for $200, Alex" ;)

A YEC would say "Just because God hasn't performed a verifiable miracle in the Modern Era doesn't mean it didn't happen in Biblical Times"

MisdemeanorRebellionNoCoupForYou says

but it is a necessary condition for "Shit that didn't happen for $200, Alex" ;)

You're not wrong. Maybe the difference is the way the belief is personally understood or valued, and the individual's capacity to tolerate uncertainty.

I think "just happened" is plausible, and the M-U experiments show one avenue to pursue for evidence. As yet, the evidence from this only affirms the plausibility of it, not the truth value where it concerns more complex molecules that might emerge.

I'm perfectly comfortable with the fact that large areas of my body of knowledge are provisional based on best evidence personally seen so far, with a willing, no make that eagerness for stronger evidence with which to challenge or debunk them. With a lot of people, it seems to come down to an unwillingness to hold uncertain beliefs or theories, so they'll choose a definitive position and end up ego-defending instead of having any willingness toward considering more evidence later.

Automan Empire says

I think "just happened" is plausible, and the M-U experiments show one avenue to pursue for evidence. As yet, the evidence from this only affirms the plausibility of it, not the truth value where it concerns more complex molecules that might emerge.

I think it is implausible based on the available evidence, at this point in time. It would also be an exception to entropy, since life gets more organized and complex over time, particularly the byproducts of an intelligent species when we talk about Dyson Spheres or simply Infrastructure Grids. Life would be a huge exception to that rule (although Evolution might have to be modified with the observations that some creatures - famously the Polar Bear from the Brown Bear - had harmful mutations/information loss that only were beneficial AFTER they switched to a new environment).

Evolution has little to do with Naturalistic OOL, since Evolution includes an extant Mechanism but with Naturalistic OOL, the goal is to explain AND demonstrate (ie not just modeling) how the Mechanism arose to begin with.

I mention that because the two get jumbled together. It's the difference between writing ever more efficient or complex/diverse code, and getting the compiler, semiconductors, I/O systems, etc. in the first place to write the code, hence the tornado in the hangar or monkeys having to get the language, grammar, script, and typewriter in order to begin randomly writing Shakespeare over time.

Automan Empire says

I think "just happened" is plausible, and the M-U experiments show one avenue to pursue for evidence. As yet, the evidence from this only affirms the plausibility of it, not the truth value where it concerns more complex molecules that might emerge.

This doesn't work for me, because combining various compounds in a lab might get you clay, but the existence of clay doesn't prove it can self-replicate and self-organize into bricks, then into walls and foundations, window and door openings, roofs, countertops, etc. etc. all the while carrying on/mutating new fixtures to be made out of clay bricks.

MisdemeanorRebellionNoCoupForYou says

It would also be an exception to entropy, since life gets more organized and complex over time

Something I read in the 90s when Chaos Theory was the buzz. Lifeforms aren't an "exception" to entropy, they are entropy ENGINES that decrease or slow their own entropy by throughputting increased entropy upon the environment. Under this construct, we increase the entropy of forests for shelter to live longer, and increase the entropy of cows and pigs to address the entropy of our own energy stores.

The complexity of the human body, of nature, the design of our universe could only be by creation. It's the most likely explanation, and from study and personal experience, it is a truth I definitely know.

WineHorror1 says (a meme)

I swear I didn't pay them to post that in this thread the week before we actually FALL BACK.

NuttBoxer says

and from study and personal experience

Adam? Is this you?

Automan Empire says

Adam? Is this you?

Haha. Seriously though, I don't believe you think personal experience is the only way to know something right?

Automan Empire says

Lifeforms aren't an "exception" to entropy, they are entropy ENGINES that decrease or slow their own entropy by throughputting increased entropy upon the environment. Under this construct, we increase the entropy of forests for shelter to live longer, and increase the entropy of cows and pigs to address the entropy of our own energy stores.

Life is anti-entropy. The solar radiation from the sun is being spread across the universe and lost forever. However, through photosynthesis, that energy is captured and stored in plant life. Carbon that would be free-floating gas is sequestered and stored in a more orderly form as plant cells, wood, and bark. And from this a whole ecosystem of order comes into being with animals which feed on the plants, fungus which feeds on dead plants, and all the associated structures which the animals construct.
Since there is Life, the entropy of the Universe is delayed and slowed down.

Shaman says

Since there is Life, the entropy of the Universe is delayed and slowed down.

To paraphrase Pink Floyd,
The sun is the same in a relative way but you're older
Shorter of breath, and one day closer to heat death

MisdemeanorRebellionNoCoupForYou says

It would also be an exception to entropy, since life gets more organized and complex over time

It's not a problem as long as more energy keeps coming in.

The relevant law of thermodynamics says that a closed system tends to disorder. But increasing order is entirely possible in a system which has a continuous input of energy.

NuttBoxer says

I don't believe you think personal experience is the only way to know something right?

Of course not, but he literally cited personal experience for his belief in the truth of not only the origins of life but the creation of the universe itself. Twas low hanging fruit.

Patrick says

MisdemeanorRebellionNoCoupForYou says

It would also be an exception to entropy, since life gets more organized and complex over time

It's not a problem as long as more energy keeps coming in.

The relevant law of thermodynamics says that a closed system tends to disorder. But increasing order is entirely possible in a system which has a continuous input of energy.

And there is your answer, the source of energy is the source of life.

Let’s ask a simpler question, peanut butter, was it made or did it just happen?

The physics and mathematics of the universe support life. Perfect systems like this don't just happen.

B.A.C.A.H. says

The physics and mathematics of the universe support life. Perfect systems like this don't just happen.

Not to get into this argument (again, which I've had countless times before), but are you saying an all powerful, omnipotent, omniscient thinking creature "just happened", but this largely lifeless seemingly infinite, non sentient, universe couldn't "just happen"?

The contradiction in thinking is I think obvious. God is the most perfect system conceivable.

The only thing I got out of arguing religion was frustration, and an understanding of logical fallacies. I think this falls under "special pleading".

The vastness of nothing is far greater than everything that is in the Universe. The Universe is not static and is moving through a vast spans of nothing.
This nothingness has enough for room to leave behind everything that ever was, and there is sill room for everything that ever will be.
What made all of that nothing? The universe is minuscule compared to nothing.

One thing that astounds me the most, is all of the marvelous wonders that is the Universe, and the never ending accepted "Theories" that Science is willing to ponder.
They are now almost at the point some are willing to believe that Humans on Earth could have been some Alien experiment, and that is why they believe UFOs still are checking up on us. They will believe that, and possibly big foot, and go on an expedition to find the Loc Ness Monster. But mention God and Jesus or a higher power, otherwise known as a creator. And they just shut the whole conversation down. They wont have any of it.

What if God is just simply the electromagnetic force that permeates everything in the Universe? It has been creating everything for trillions of years.
A time scale the Monks in the 12th century could have never understood when they wrote were scribing the books that became the Bible, so they wrote it only took a week.
Since Earth time is irrelevant in the rest of the Universe in context of measuring the intervals of existence. Even saying it took trillions of years can't be quantifiable.

Life is the Universe saying 'Fuck the Laws of Thermodynamics'. Entropy? I don't tolerate no stinkin' entropy.

Tenpoundbass says

But mention God and Jesus or a higher power, otherwise known as a creator. And they just shut the whole conversation down. They wont have any of it.

When I lived in Indiana, and I was talking to a friend about evolutionary algorithms in front of a secretary, and of course religion came up and I stated "well, I guess I'm an atheist".

The secretary was aghast, and told me that someday I'd "see the light" and "stop being influenced by Satan".

I'm willing to dabble in the possibility of a god, but trust me, many religious people aren't willing to even accept the possibility that what has been dogmatically programmed into their head from childhood, that they've been simply propagandized. I was "evil" to her. My morals and ethics are very similar to anybody's - actually I'd argue superior, but of course, I can't really judge myself.

Atheists are quite often viciously attacked.

If there is a god, I can't believe any one religion has it right. It would be an unfathomable intelligence. Religions that claim they understand god - they're all lying. Some religions are just downright awful - I think evangelicals believe the ONLY thing you need "to be saved" is to believe in Jesus being our lord and savior - they can cheat on their wife, torture small animals, ritually murder children - all they need to do is believe in Jesus. Jack Chick that wrote (a comic book), constantly promoted this idea. It was "believe" only, don't be good, you don't need morals, you just have to believe. That's a cult.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YjwT-NGzns0

That's two atheists commenting on somebody that is "spreading the good word".

Some of the most awful ideas in society, in our society, can be traced back to religion.

I understand that not all religious people are like this, but I've known some pretty horrific people who wore religion on their sleeve. It was a shield for how fucking awful they were. If those fuckers are in the same after life I am, I'd rather not be there.

We don't even know if what is around is a computer simulation or it is real. If it is a simulation, then obviously there is a God or Gods although not of the type what is usually considered.

If what we have around is real, then I have just one issue with evolution: I can't explain how was first life created, even though I am familiar with so-called "prebiotic chemistry" and chemistry of DNA and RNA rather well. After first living bacteria everything is very easy to explain. But it is impossible to explain how very unstable molecules such as (initially) RNA and then DNA were formed and started self-replicating. They rapidly fall apart in lab if you synthesize them and leave them in elements...

Answer to this, at least partially, can be gained if we find that life on other planets has the same genetic makeup as on Earth. If it is the same, we have panspermia and then chances of random creation of life are rather high. If not, then I don't have an answer.

BTW I am not sure if religious people think through their ideas about all of this well. There is no need to take the Bible literally - it has evolved itself, presumably from Zoroastrian early texts. Human evolution is pretty well documented and so is evolution in general. Perhaps assuming that God created Universe and its laws of physics would be sufficient if one would want to reconcile religion and science to some extent.

richwicks says

I understand that not all religious people are like this, but I've known some pretty horrific people who wore religion on their sleeve. It was a shield for how fucking awful they were. If those fuckers are in the same after life I am, I'd rather not be there.

It most definitely is a shield for most. Justifies being immoral because you can be "forgiven" or whatever. Sorry, I'm not going to forgive the guy that fucks a 6 year old kid.

Fine, steal a candy bar and I'll forgive you. But religion is protection for illicit activities and is a tax shield as well. And not ALL people of religion are like this, but it's more than the normal people know about. It's money laundering if you think about it and have heard stories. It's set up for the rich. Donate $50k and you end up building an addition to the church or something. Church pays you to build it, and you get to write it off as a donation washing out your taxable income. You just cleaned 15-20%.

Until the loyal that aren't getting their cut realize what is going on, it will continue forever. The loyal are the ones blindly follow a fictitious book, regardless of faith. The rich are rinsing their money on your dime. Really think about it.

richwicks says

I understand that not all religious people are like this, but I've known some pretty horrific people who wore religion on their sleeve.

Another issue I see with most religions is that in many if not most of them you have to believe that particular religion to be "saved". Seems incredibly narcissistic and self-centered.

Furthermore, I am from the part of Europe that was devastated by Northern Crusades. Read about what happened there and being a Christian does not look so appealing.

richwicks says

B.A.C.A.H. says

The physics and mathematics of the universe support life. Perfect systems like this don't just happen.

Not to get into this argument (again, which I've had countless times before), but are you saying an all powerful, omnipotent, omniscient thinking creature "just happened", but this largely lifeless seemingly infinite, non sentient, universe couldn't "just happen"?

The contradiction in thinking is I think obvious. God is the most perfect system conceivable.

The only thing I got out of arguing religion was frustration, and an understanding of logical fallacies. I think this falls under "special pleading".

It takes Faith to believe either creationism or the Big Bang. How about this...If evolution is real, how is it that nothing ever becomes something else? As in, how come a turtle never turns into an elephant? Evolution is: like morphs into like. It never becomes something entirely different. No?

WineHorror1 says

It takes Faith to believe either creationism or the Big Bang. How about this...If evolution is real, how is it that nothing ever becomes something else? As in, how come a turtle never turns into an elephant? Evolution is: like morphs into like. It never becomes something entirely different. No?

Well, one lifeform won't change into an existing lifeform. You must be aware this is a canard. Evolution doesn't predict a dog can become a cat. It predicts that species will adapt to their environment over time, and there's many solutions for adapting to that environment.

You know what a local minima and maxima in a function is?


So an animal or a plant might be approaching the local maximum. And that's just two dimensions, it could be that are millions of dimensions to fit the very complex curve of survivability.

A dog to become a cat, would have to go through the transition of a local minima - it would be inferior to other dogs, probably wouldn't be able to reproduce as effectively. That minima is a barrier.

But we see convergent evolution all the time. Animals that are from entirely different genetic lines, end up looking very similar. The Tasmanian wolf versus the European wolf or African hyena. They LOOK to be similar animals, but they are completely different, they cannot mate, but they look very similar because they have similar niches in the environment.

Now, drop a bunch of, I dunno, bunnies on a deserted island with edible vegetation, in a million years, if you kept it isolated and untouched, I bet you'd find a bunch of animals that are dog like, cat like, bunny like, etc. At SOME POINT a bunny will realize cannibalism works.. As time goes on you'd expect it's progeny to also learn this and adapt to it.

Bd6r says

If what we have around is real, then I have just one issue with evolution: I can't explain how was first life created, even though I am familiar with so-called "prebiotic chemistry" and chemistry of DNA and RNA rather well. After first living bacteria everything is very easy to explain. But it is impossible to explain how very unstable molecules such as (initially) RNA and then DNA were formed and started self-replicating. They rapidly fall apart in lab if you synthesize them and leave them in elements...

Sure, they have nothing to keep the outside out and the inside in, like a cell membrane.

Theories abound, but ideas are ideas and the mechanisms proposed have missing underpants parts.

richwicks says

Well, one lifeform won't change into an existing lifeform. You must be aware this is a canard. Evolution doesn't predict a dog can become a cat. It predicts that species will adapt to their environment over time, and there's many solutions for adapting to that environment.

The issue is that a multitude of new forms with very little clear relationship to other creatures nearby in space and time.

Where did that information come from?

The horse is all very good, but how did plankton become trilobites in just a few million years? The fossil record is far less adequate than what many of us were tuaght; it's mostly missing, not mostly found as illustrations mislead, and the issues cluster around key periods like the Cambrian Explosion, which Darwin himself identified and is mostly holes still today.

Evolution is gradual change by mutation and 'locked in' by short term utility in survival and repoduction, not a sudden massive explosion of new types of life in just a few million years:

And no, it's not a God of the Gaps argument: The evolution humans from pre-primates being about 10-20MYA; reasonably explained by small changes. The difference between an Australopithecine and Hominid in genetic makeup and form and function is minimal in most systems. Whether there was a species between Afarensis and Luicy isn't of much importance because the form is obvious and almost all of the multitude of interlocking systems are plausibly present already with just a few tweaks between them.

But in the Cambrian we went from plankton to trilobites in about the same period of time, which is an all but entirely new lifeform (among many others). It's also not a period where we don't have fossils aplenty, in many places in the world you could trip over rocks with Cambrian fossils in them, as Darwin and Jefferson and many others personally encountered and wondered about. There's nothing clearly intermediary between early trilobites and simple animals that float around, and it's a project humans have been working on for over a century.

Consider life had already existed for well over a billion years when the Cambrian began,

"Evolutionary Pressure" - that line has also been exhausted, everything from Snowball Earth (lastest possible end date too far in advance to be the pressure) to atmospheric composition (weak evidence). Punctuated Equilibrium is another of the Narrative Defenses deployed to cover the gap.

Just to repeat - I don't dispute the random mutation over time for living things. However there are holes in Evolution, like sudden bursts of new forms worldwide regardless of climate and the absence of any massive condition changes going on simultaneously, with no immediate forms identified previous. It's almost as if they 'pop in' out of seemingly nowhere.

MisdemeanorRebellionNoCoupForYou says

richwicks says

Well, one lifeform won't change into an existing lifeform. You must be aware this is a canard. Evolution doesn't predict a dog can become a cat. It predicts that species will adapt to their environment over time, and there's many solutions for adapting to that environment.

The issue is that a multitude of new forms with very little relationship to other creatures nearby in space and time.

Where did that information come from?

This is why I keep bringing up things like simulated annealing and genetic algorithms. Do you realize that nobody knows how optical character recognition works, and that it was done through an evolutionary algorithm? It works extremely well. Order is a LOWER ENERGY state, not a higher one. Things seem to want to organize on their own. A crappy algorithm will use a lot of power and be crap at what it does, a good one uses far less power and is awesome at what it does.

MisdemeanorRebellionNoCoupForYou says

The horse is all very good, but how did plankton become trilobites?

They didn't. Some ancient ancestor that left no fossil record at all evolved into plankton and trilobites - or that is the thinking. Most organisms have no indication they ever existed. There may have been complex human civilizations 30,000 years ago or 100,000 years ago that have left no trace. You're talking about BILLIONS of years ago.

It could be that life independently started several times on Earth, and there is no common ancestor between plankton and trilobites. There sure seems to be among mammals though.

MisdemeanorRebellionNoCoupForYou says

The fossil record is far from complete as the textbooks say; it's mostly missing, particularly around key periods like the Cambrian Explosion, which Darwin himself identified and is mostly holes still today.

Exactly right - we don't know. We have hypotheses, but we really don't know - that doesn't mean "well, a god must have done it" - we simply don't know, and it might be impossible for us to EVER know.

There's no certainty at all with investigation. We have best guesses. The fact is though that the concept of "evolution" is extremely useful in AI algorithms. They do things that people simply are unable to do in a reasonable time or well. It's so useful in artificial environments, I cannot believe it doesn't happen in natural environments which is where the concept first came from.

We have a fairly reasonable explanation (although imperfect I admit!) about the variety of life. We test it in simulation all the time now, and it works.

To me, evolution is an obvious fact. The origins of life? That's a total mystery. I'd say our knowledge about evolution might go back 100 million years at most - before that, it's a black hole of knowledge. All evidence of it, gone.

We have as much chance of understanding these issues as the ant on the ant hill understands the clouds in the sky.
Or my boot coming down. I feel like in The Grand Scheme we are really not much *smarter* than the ant.

We're getting off into Evolution again - I'm just as guilty.

Naturalistic OOL / Neo-Spontaneous Generation isn't Evolution.

We need the Naturalists-Materialists to demonstrate life self-organizing into existence without using extant life or life products.

Until then, it's like the Multiverse or the Oscillating Universe (the latter being mostly rejected at this point).

richwicks says

Exactly right - we don't know. We have hypotheses, but we really don't know - that doesn't mean "well, a god must have done it" - we simply don't know, and it might be impossible for us to EVER know.

That's right.

It's just as much of a stretch to say "Gaia Did It", when we have no evidence of life emerging from non-life whatsoever.

Organic Compounds ain't life, they've been found on meteorites far from any Earth genesis, pre- or post- biotic conditions.

All we know for sure is that life exists, and how it can change over time to some degree.

MisdemeanorRebellionNoCoupForYou says

Just to repeat - I don't dispute the random mutation over time for living things. However there are holes in Evolution, like sudden bursts of new forms worldwide regardless of climate and the absence of any massive condition changes going on simultaneously, with no immediate forms identified previous. It's almost as if they 'pop in' out of seemingly nowhere.

Hmm, do you know the concept of "catastrophism"? You might enjoy this listening to Graham Hancock, but because youtube is a bunch of fucking assholes, this link won't work:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aDejwCGdUV8

But I have many terabits. You'll find it here:


original link

When it eventually uploads. That may take some time. Here, grab it from this location while it uploads:

https://samoyed.dynu.net/~rebellion/

I'll delete that once it uploads properly to bitchute.

It may be that the Cambrian explosion happened when there was some sort of catastrophe to upset the balance. Who knows?

You can poke holes in the postulates and hypotheses all you want - there's plenty of holes I'm certain - can you come up with a BETTER explanation? "God did it" is not an explanation. HOW did god do it?

For all we know, God is a force of nature itself, why is it believed to be sentient? Just because a bunch of child predators collected a bunch of stories from a bunch of barbarians, and deemed it "the word of god"?

We don't know. I appreciate my ignorance. Took me long enough to get there, but now I realize I'm as fucking stupid as anything. So much I don't know and can never know.

richwicks says

You can poke holes in the postulates and hypotheses all you want - there's plenty of holes I'm certain - can you come up with a BETTER explanation? "God did it" is not an explanation. HOW did god do it?

That's not how science works - the proffer's job is to answer criticism and objections and fill holes. It's the process to review a theory and poke holes in it.


We can shoot down Lamarck without having Darwin to replace it.

richwicks says

It may be that the Cambrian explosion happened when there was some sort of catastrophe to upset the balance. Who knows?

Everything from Snowball Earth (ended long before the period in question) to Asteroid impacts (no evidence) or a sudden increase in volcanism (no ash layers or chem sigs in rocks) have been proposed, and all have been shot down.

richwicks says

For all we know, God is a force of nature itself, why is it believed to be sentient? Just because a bunch of child predators collected a bunch of stories from a bunch of barbarians, and deemed it "the word of god"?

Again, why God? Why not Sheldon from the Year 5000 AD running an Ancestor simulation on his Titan based supercooled computer farm and changing/inserting new data during it?

richwicks says

For all we know, God is a force of nature itself, why is it believed to be sentient? Just because a bunch of child predators collected a bunch of stories from a bunch of barbarians, and deemed it "the word of god"?

Could be, that's pantheism.

The origin of life seems simpler to me than the origin of consciousness. Maybe I'm wrong to think consciousness can be "explained" at all, because it might be some irreducible element.