Abiogenesis not probable but inevitable, says physicist

vasaga

Oh I don't know...Cannabis making people violent? Games making people violent? Vaccines being completely safe? That genes control the cell? Need I go on?

This post is so monumentally, stupendously, staggeringly, and unforgettably ignorant.....do you write for the daily mail?

flyingfish
reply to post by vasaga

 

Your attempt to assassinate the character of your opponent rather than making any kind of relevant comment regarding his argument still has no bearing on the subject of this thread.

Excuse me sir, but, didn't you say that if we subscribed to my thinkint the earth would still be flat, the god's created the elements and we would still be sacrificing chickens? If you want me to stop assassinating the character of my 'opponent', you should stop doing the same.

flyingfish
Apparently my rather simple arguments slipped right past you, and you descended once again into meaningless nonsense taken out of context.

Really? Where exactly did they go right past me? If I don't understand something you say, it's your job to explain it better.

flyingfish
What you posted, instead of having anything even remotely to do with the actual topic I was referring to, was a feeble attempt to restore face through appealing to semantic irrelevancies.

Restore face? My face is and always was in good shape. I work on it to make it better. Do you do the same?

flyingfish
You might find that you need to make fewer accusations of strawman arguments if you make your arguments more clearly in the first place, but I suppose that would be asking a lot from the likes of you.

I'll take the advice in consideration, although on first glance I don't see how it applies. Care to elaborate?

Prezbo369

vasaga

Oh I don't know...Cannabis making people violent? Games making people violent? Vaccines being completely safe? That genes control the cell? Need I go on?

This post is so monumentally, stupendously, staggeringly, and unforgettably ignorant.....do you write for the daily mail?

edit on 11-3-2014 by Prezbo369 because: (no reason given)

No. I do not write the daily mail. If this post is so monumentally, stupendously, staggeringly, and unforgettably ignorant, care to share your knowledge then?

Krazysh0t
reply to post by vasaga

 

What does the length a hypothesis remains a hypothesis have to do anything? There could be a load of different reasons we haven't upgraded abiogenesis from a hypothesis to a theory yet. Lack the sufficient technology to throughly test it, leaves too many holes in the explanation, fails to predict things it should predict due to lack of information, not enough peer review having been done to upgrade it to a theory, and yes even it could be wrong. Also, it is a hypothesis, NOT a theory. At this point it is still just an idea to explain how life started not an accepted fact. Actually the fact that you insinuated that there should be a time limit to how long a hypothesis remains as such suggests that we should rush science. We don't rush science, we take our time with it. When you rush science, you end up with nonsense like YEC.

It's not about the time. It's about what has been gathered already. We are not in a rush, but, we can see double standards. Let's go through your points, shall we...

Lack the sufficient technology to throughly test it - Ok. Sure. But, we've been here before. They had no trouble bashing cold fusion at the time, while now even NASA is investigating it further. Why did the bashing happen with cold fusion, and not with abiogenesis? Really. Tell me.

leaves too many holes in the explanation - See answer above, + too many holes = invalid hypothesis.

fails to predict things it should predict due to lack of information - See 1st answer + failure to predict = invalid hypothesis. New information = new hypothesis

not enough peer review having been done to upgrade it to a theory - This assumes there are enough papers available that cover the basics of the hypothesis, in which case, this is correct. In case of abiogenesis, there are not enough papers available to cover the basics of the hypothesis.

I do like that you said that it's just an idea, but, if it's just an idea, why are so many people propagandizing it as if it's an already confirmed truth?

reply to post by vasaga


I just read through all your posts in this thread. Not one of them addresses the topic. When you're not spewing antisicientific nonsense, you're picking fights with the other posters.

Don't you have anything to say on the subject apart from 'abiogenesis old hat bleat bleat blah blah'? This — as has been pointed out more or less kindly by several posters — is not a theory of abiogenesis. It is a hypothesis concerning the probability of abiogenesis occurring.

Do you have any discussable views on the hypothesis, or are you just here to make trouble?

reply to post by Astyanax


Want me to address the topic? Ok.. There's this:
"the emergence of life from non-living matter is not just statistically probable, but more or less inevitable."
Explain to me, how exactly 'more or less' is a scientific statement. Oh yeah, that's right. There's no room for 'more or less' in science. That alone right there, tells me the whole thing is a mind manipulation statement. And by the way, it's highly likely that the emergence of life from non-living matter is NOT statistically probable, but IS statistically possible. If you have any data indicating it's statistically probable, I'll gladly look into it. The probability factor is generally a mind game. I'll just leave this here...



FYI, I'm not here to cause trouble or pick fights. But whenever I speak my mind, all you people want to do is censor me. A lot of times people here have the nerve to say a bunch of offensive stuff and answer with scorn, and when I say something about it, I'm the one picking fights, I'm the one that's spreading disinformation or whatever.. Maybe you should adapt your approach rather than expect me to bend down or roll over to your biased ingrained fascistic beliefs that you pretend are scientific.

You're saying I'm not addressing the topic, but why don't you say the same thing to other people in here who are not addressing the topic or not even talking about the topic? You say I'm talking anti-scientific nonsense, but what exactly does that mean in the first place? You people throw words around that have no meaning. There's science, and there's things that are not science. Not science does not mean it's anti-science. Secondly, just because something does not fit the ingrained mainstream propaganda that has been crammed into your mind by society, does not mean it's nonsense or non-scientific, pseudo-scientific, anti-science, or whatever term you want to use.

Scientism is the religion of the modern world, and is often masquerading as science, rivaled only by statism.

reply to post by vasaga

Explain to me, how exactly 'more or less inevitable' is a scientific statement.

It means that the probability referred to is very high, almost one hundred percent. It is scientifically correct precisely because of that 'more or less', which acknowledges the fact that there is no such thing as a hundred percent probability. Even tomorrow's sunrise is not a certainty. You may take the statement to mean that the emergence of life from inanimate matter is about as probable, given enough time, as tomorrow's sunrise.

Your post adequately answers my question: clearly, you are here to make trouble. I shall now return to my usual practice of ignoring you. I made an exception this time since, as the thread starter, I felt some responsibility to read every post and reply to at least the more active posters. That responsibility is now sufficiently discharged, so I wish you a very good day.

reply to post by Astyanax


If 'causing trouble' means being skeptic and challenging conventional ideas, even when you people don't like it, then yes, I'm here to cause trouble.

Also, based on your reply, you're falling for wordplay being used. And you did not watch the video, or, you discarded it on whim rather than logic.
Given infinite time, statistically speaking everything WILL happen since all probabilities become 100%. However we do not have infinite time. According to our own theories, we do not exist in a universe that has no beginning nor end, thus it does not have infinite time. That means, the probability increase is limited by the amount of time we have here, and no probability is high enough to be considered practically possible for life to pop up out of inanimate matter.

If your precious hypothesis turns out to be right, great. I can guarantee you with 99.9% certainty that that will not be the case.

reply to post by vasaga

If 'causing trouble' means being skeptic and challenging conventional ideas, even when you people don't like it, then yes, I'm here to cause trouble.

Unless you have something specific — some domain knowledge, some point of fact or logic on which to base your challenge, you contribute nothing to this discussion beyond your disbelief. 'Causing trouble' means 'picking a fight', and that is what you have been doing on this thread, apparently for no better reason than that you don't want to believe England's thesis and don't like evolutionists.

And now, I have given you far more attention than you deserve. You shan't be receiving any more.

reply to post by Astyanax


It's not about not wanting to believe. It's about waiting to believe, rather than believing without waiting. And it's true that in general, I do not like evolutionists, since most of their replies are usually ridiculing and with scorn, rather than with actual substance. Lots of them have become a cult in and of itself, pretending to be just as scientific as scientists, while they have more in common with religion than science. I'm talking generally here. Not directly to you, just fyi.

I'm not trying to pick fights. It's unfortunate that you see it that way. Thanks for responding anyway. See you around then.

A 31 year old published yet another theory on the mystery of where LIFE on earth came from.
Just another theory- nothing there to get excited about, nothing that explains how we have not and cannot yet create 'life' from" non living matter".
Life is not "non life" nor will it ever be.
That this man and many other scientists see matter such as rocks as "not part of life /not conscious" is a mistake.
The one life includes all.

reply to post by BDBinc


I'm open to the idea that the rocks are conscious, but until it can be demonstrated to me using very good and testable evidence I do not believe that the rocks are conscious.

vasaga
And you did not watch the video, or, you discarded it on whim rather than logic.

The video is irrelevant as anyone who has taken a statistics course knows that once an event has occurred it becomes pointless to discuss the odds against it. Probabilities are intended to discuss events before they occur. Once they occur, the probability is one and therefore not particularly relevant.

reply to post by vasaga


Take a deck of 52 cards. Shuffle it. Now draw them one by one. The odds of that sequence of cards being draw is about 1 in 80,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000.

By your reasoning, it must have been the work of God because those odds could never come up by chance!

AugustusMasonicus

vasaga
And you did not watch the video, or, you discarded it on whim rather than logic.

The video is irrelevant as anyone who has taken a statistics course knows that once an event has occurred it becomes pointless to discuss the odds against it. Probabilities are intended to discuss events before they occur. Once they occur, the probability is one and therefore not particularly relevant.

You are begging the question, by assuming that it has already happened that way. And even if it wasn't, if I roll a 6 on a dice, it's pointless to discuss the chances of rolling a 6? I really don't get why that would be the case. And replies like these are the ones that get stars... This place baffles me. It's good for the laughs.

GetHyped
reply to post by vasaga

 

Take a deck of 52 cards. Shuffle it. Now draw them one by one. The odds of that sequence of cards being draw is about 1 in 80,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000.

By your reasoning, it must have been the work of God because those odds could never come up by chance!

edit on 22-3-2014 by GetHyped because: (no reason given)

I don't see the relevance of your argument.

First of all, I did not say anything about God.

Secondly, that sequence of cards is not special in any way, since it does not contain anything that sets it apart from all the other sequences. Of course, if you say that that card sequence somehow figured out how to keep producing that same sequence on their own over and over for millions of years, that's another story... Oh... Does that somehow ring a bell? I sure hope so.


This theory in the opening thread is nothing new. It's more than obviously based on the infinite monkey theorem.

vasaga
You are begging the question, by assuming that it has already happened that way.

Assuming what happened what way? What I am saying is that calculating the odds of an already occurred event are statistically meaningless. It does not matter if the person in the video gave the odds at 1:2 or 1:100^1,000,000,000, they happened, therefore they are 1:1. Trying to backtrack at that point and determine what you think the odds should be is the one who is operating under the begging the question fallacy as it presupposes that the person calculating the odds was privy to all the circumstances and influences of the event which they are trying to calculate.

And even if it wasn't, if I roll a 6 on a dice, it's pointless to discuss the chances of rolling a 6? I really don't get why that would be the case.

It is pointless to discuss, after the fact, the chances of you rolling that specific six.

And replies like these are the ones that get stars... This place baffles me. It's good for the laughs.

Since you like logical fallacies you can stick with argumentum ad ignorantiam for your above statements.

vasaga

Krazysh0t
reply to post by vasaga

 

What does the length a hypothesis remains a hypothesis have to do anything? There could be a load of different reasons we haven't upgraded abiogenesis from a hypothesis to a theory yet. Lack the sufficient technology to throughly test it, leaves too many holes in the explanation, fails to predict things it should predict due to lack of information, not enough peer review having been done to upgrade it to a theory, and yes even it could be wrong. Also, it is a hypothesis, NOT a theory. At this point it is still just an idea to explain how life started not an accepted fact. Actually the fact that you insinuated that there should be a time limit to how long a hypothesis remains as such suggests that we should rush science. We don't rush science, we take our time with it. When you rush science, you end up with nonsense like YEC.

It's not about the time. It's about what has been gathered already. We are not in a rush, but, we can see double standards. Let's go through your points, shall we...

Lack the sufficient technology to throughly test it - Ok. Sure. But, we've been here before. They had no trouble bashing cold fusion at the time, while now even NASA is investigating it further. Why did the bashing happen with cold fusion, and not with abiogenesis? Really. Tell me.

Humans are humans. Everyone has biases and pet beliefs, its just part of being human. It's not science's fault that scientists didn't want to pursue an idea at the time. Good thing that science is open enough that when scientists do come around to studying the idea that they can do so.

leaves too many holes in the explanation - See answer above, + too many holes = invalid hypothesis.

No, an invalid hypothesis is one that has been proven wrong many times through many different situations so much so that it cannot be modified to make everything work out. All having too many holes in it means is that it remains a hypothesis. It needs to be fleshed out more.

fails to predict things it should predict due to lack of information - See 1st answer + failure to predict = invalid hypothesis. New information = new hypothesis

Again, failing to predict something due to lack of information doesn't make it invalid, just not developed enough. There may be more information that needs to be talked about for certain situations to make it better predict certain things. You have an overinflated idea of what a hypothesis is. You don't need an idea to be fully fleshed out to make a hypothesis about it.

not enough peer review having been done to upgrade it to a theory - This assumes there are enough papers available that cover the basics of the hypothesis, in which case, this is correct. In case of abiogenesis, there are not enough papers available to cover the basics of the hypothesis.

Just needs to be studied more throughly then.

I do like that you said that it's just an idea, but, if it's just an idea, why are so many people propagandizing it as if it's an already confirmed truth?

I don't know, I'm not "many people", but if I were to guess I'd say it's because they are also putting too much weight on what a hypothesis is as well. But one thing can be certain, as more and more testing is being done, this particular hypothesis seems to be panning out well. So one can make a good argument for it being probably true. But keep in mind, there are different levels of probability, just because I or someone else says that it is probably true, doesn't mean we think the probability is as high as say evolution. Abiogenesis is only a hypothesis, so for that I'd give it a 60% chance of being likely; while evolution, being a theory, I give a 90% chance of being likely.

AugustusMasonicus

vasaga
You are begging the question, by assuming that it has already happened that way.

Assuming what happened what way? What I am saying is that calculating the odds of an already occurred event are statistically meaningless.

My god you really are lost in your thoughts aren't you? You're begging the question right there because you assume that the hypothesis is already true, in order to say that its probability is irrelevant. It has not been proven true yet, so, there's nothing wrong with arguing its probability. In fact, it's actually necessary. You're assuming it's true to conclude that it's true, to make questioning not acceptable. Ironically, this is the same thing as the religious people you highly likely hate so much. They come up with arguments that disallow further investigation. You've already made up your mind. You're not arguing rationally or from an unbiased perspective, but simply want to conclude that the hypothesis is already true. Yeah... Have fun with that. Keep your ingrained beliefs then.

AugustusMasonicus
It does not matter if the person in the video gave the odds at 1:2 or 1:100^1,000,000,000, they happened, therefore they are 1:1. Trying to backtrack at that point and determine what you think the odds should be is the one who is operating under the begging the question fallacy as it presupposes that the person calculating the odds was privy to all the circumstances and influences of the event which they are trying to calculate.

Again, you're already assuming the hypothesis is 100% fact. This is what gets on my nerves when arguing with you people. There really is no honesty. It's all about deceit.

And what circumstances and influences are you talking about? You're putting words in people's mouths so you can have some kind of grip on the situation. There are a few basic things that are required for life. If you take only those into account, its already beyond what's realistically possible. Until it has been demonstrated to be the case, I have no reason to support it.

AugustusMasonicus

And replies like these are the ones that get stars... This place baffles me. It's good for the laughs.

Since you like logical fallacies you can stick with argumentum ad ignorantiam for your above statements.

I like pointing fallacies out. Especially to the ones that are blind to their own BS. It's not an appeal to ignorance when we're talking about a hypothesis. I'm not saying the hypothesis is wrong. I'm saying there's no reason to believe it as long as it's not confirmed. Like Wikipedia puts it, "there is insufficient investigation and therefore insufficient information to prove the proposition satisfactorily to be either true or false". Isn't that the view all you people take regarding a bunch of other topics? Why should I just submit to your beliefs now that the tables are turned? Oh? You didn't see it that way did you? You're already assuming it's true aren't you? Oh oh... Is someone guilty of the fallacy they were trying to put on me..? What a shocker.


reply to post by Krazysh0t


Fair enough.

vasaga
My god you really are lost in your thoughts aren't you? You're begging the question right there because you assume that the hypothesis is already true, in order to say that its probability is irrelevant. It has not been proven true yet, so, there's nothing wrong with arguing its probability. In fact, it's actually necessary. You're assuming it's true to conclude that it's true, to make questioning not acceptable.

What hypothesis am I saying is true? Where have I said any hypothesis is true? Provide the quotes. What I am saying, and you are not understanding, is any reliance on statistics to prove or disprove a past event occurred are meaningless as the odds are 1:1 since it positively happened. Saying that the odds of life 'randomly' occurring on earth are 1:100^1,000,000 are worthless. Life occurred, so the odds of life occurring on the earth, regardless of the reason, are 1:1.

Ironically, this is the same thing as the religious people you highly likely hate so much.

Do you always put words in other people's mouths?

They come up with arguments that disallow further investigation. You've already made up your mind. You're not arguing rationally or from an unbiased perspective, but simply want to conclude that the hypothesis is already true. Yeah... Have fun with that. Keep your ingrained beliefs then.

What is my mind made up about? Show me some quotes that outline my position, again, argumentum ad ignorantiam.

Again, you're already assuming the hypothesis is 100% fact. This is what gets on my nerves when arguing with you people. There really is no honesty. It's all about deceit.

What hypothesis am I claiming is fact? Show me. I am pointing out using statistics for past events is useless to either prove or disprove a theory or hypothesis.

And what circumstances and influences are you talking about? You're putting words in people's mouths so you can have some kind of grip on the situation. There are a few basic things that are required for life. If you take only those into account, its already beyond what's realistically possible. Until it has been demonstrated to be the case, I have no reason to support it.

What does this have to do with calculating past events with erroneous figures based on partial information as was done in the video you linked?

I like pointing fallacies out. Especially to the ones that are blind to their own BS. It's not an appeal to ignorance when we're talking about a hypothesis.

No, it is an appeal to ignorance because you do not even understand simple statistics and their real world applications and cry foul when someone points out that they are irrelevant to any argument.

You're already assuming it's true aren't you? Oh oh... Is someone guilty of the fallacy they were trying to put on me..? What a shocker.

No, you are assuming that I assumed anything because as soon as someone criticizes the submission of what you believe to be facts (the useless statistics) you feel that it is agenda driven and then lash out irrationally.


What you are seriously failing to grasp is that I would point out to anyone, creation-supporter or abiogenesis-supporter, that using statistics for past events is meaningless. The odd things is that abiogenesis supporters know this and do not try to buttress their arguments with garbage data like statistics of past events.

AugustusMasonicus

vasaga
My god you really are lost in your thoughts aren't you? You're begging the question right there because you assume that the hypothesis is already true, in order to say that its probability is irrelevant. It has not been proven true yet, so, there's nothing wrong with arguing its probability. In fact, it's actually necessary. You're assuming it's true to conclude that it's true, to make questioning not acceptable.

What hypothesis am I saying is true? Where have I said any hypothesis is true? Provide the quotes.

Oh I don't know, the one presented in the opening post maybe..?

AugustusMasonicus
What I am saying, and you are not understanding, is any reliance on statistics to prove or disprove a past event occurred are meaningless as the odds are 1:1 since it positively happened. Saying that the odds of life 'randomly' occurring on earth are 1:100^1,000,000 are worthless. Life occurred, so the odds of life occurring on the earth, regardless of the reason, are 1:1.

Yes. Life is here. I can agree with that. The odds being 1:1 is not true though. That would be saying that life was always here and will always be here. But I'm not debating whether life is here or not. I'm debating the method as to how life got here... Odds of life occurring randomly are still relevant. You only want to look at life being here and ignore the why. Again, you're trying to hamper investigation.

AugustusMasonicus

Ironically, this is the same thing as the religious people you highly likely hate so much.

Do you always put words in other people's mouths?

No But If I'm wrong feel free to say so, and I'll apologize for it.

AugustusMasonicus

They come up with arguments that disallow further investigation. You've already made up your mind. You're not arguing rationally or from an unbiased perspective, but simply want to conclude that the hypothesis is already true. Yeah... Have fun with that. Keep your ingrained beliefs then.

What is my mind made up about? Show me some quotes that outline my position, again, argumentum ad ignorantiam.

See above.

AugustusMasonicus

Again, you're already assuming the hypothesis is 100% fact. This is what gets on my nerves when arguing with you people. There really is no honesty. It's all about deceit.

What hypothesis am I claiming is fact? Show me. I am pointing out using statistics for past events is useless to either prove or disprove a theory or hypothesis.

Uh... That's false. Statistics can disprove a hypothesis.

AugustusMasonicus

And what circumstances and influences are you talking about? You're putting words in people's mouths so you can have some kind of grip on the situation. There are a few basic things that are required for life. If you take only those into account, its already beyond what's realistically possible. Until it has been demonstrated to be the case, I have no reason to support it.

What does this have to do with calculating past events with erroneous figures based on partial information as was done in the video you linked?

Read the opening post.

AugustusMasonicus

I like pointing fallacies out. Especially to the ones that are blind to their own BS. It's not an appeal to ignorance when we're talking about a hypothesis.

No, it is an appeal to ignorance because you do not even understand simple statistics and their real world applications and cry foul when someone points out that they are irrelevant to any argument.

Except they aren't. If that was the case why do we have statistics in the first place? It's funny that you claim I don't understand statistics btw...

AugustusMasonicus

You're already assuming it's true aren't you? Oh oh... Is someone guilty of the fallacy they were trying to put on me..? What a shocker.

No, you are assuming that I assumed anything because as soon as someone criticizes the submission of what you believe to be facts (the useless statistics) you feel that it is agenda driven and then lash out irrationally.

So you're actually saying you did not make ANY assumption whatsoever?

AugustusMasonicus
What you are seriously failing to grasp is that I would point out to anyone, creation-supporter or abiogenesis-supporter, that using statistics for past events is meaningless. The odd things is that abiogenesis supporters know this and do not try to buttress their arguments with garbage data like statistics of past events.

Uh... Again... You're categorizing the hypothesis as an event... You're saying hypothesis = what happened. Then you claim you're not... *sigh* Whatever dude. You're right, I'm wrong. This exchange is over.

reply to post by AugustusMasonicus


Props are due for AugustusMasonicus, astute, relentless vivisection that never becomes personally offensive-first class replies.

★ APPLAUSE ★