Total Posts:75|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Abiogenesis

matt8800
Posts: 2,077
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/20/2016 3:29:56 AM
Posted: 4 months ago
I have said before that I suspected that Self Organization may explain some possible mechanisms responsible for abiogenesis.

Self Organization Theory - https://en.wikipedia.org...

I found a paper today postulating that very thing. In case anyone is interested, here it is: http://www.earth-syst-dynam.net...

Comments?
matt8800
Posts: 2,077
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/20/2016 3:33:34 AM
Posted: 4 months ago
If this is true, life is inevitable given the right conditions. Similar to the inevitability of a crystal forming in precipitating freezing water.
PetersSmith
Posts: 5,819
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/20/2016 3:51:02 AM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 7/20/2016 3:29:56 AM, matt8800 wrote:
I have said before that I suspected that Self Organization may explain some possible mechanisms responsible for abiogenesis.

Self Organization Theory - https://en.wikipedia.org...

I found a paper today postulating that very thing. In case anyone is interested, here it is: http://www.earth-syst-dynam.net...

Comments?

I usually go with Panspermia, RNA world hypothesis, or the Deep sea vent hypothesis. Your proposal doesn't seem...origin(?) enough (meaning it seems to imply there's already "things", things possible of becoming life through self-organizing, but where did those things come from?). Maybe it could pass for origin of the Universe, but then it'd be too close to "Creation from Chaos".
Empress of DDO (also Poll and Forum "Maintenance" Moderator)

"The two most important days in your life is the day you were born, and the day you find out why."
~Mark Twain

"Wow"
-Doge

"Don't believe everything you read on the internet just because there's a picture with a quote next to it."
~Abraham Lincoln

Guide to the Polls Section: http://www.debate.org...
matt8800
Posts: 2,077
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/20/2016 4:03:03 AM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 7/20/2016 3:51:02 AM, PetersSmith wrote:
At 7/20/2016 3:29:56 AM, matt8800 wrote:
I have said before that I suspected that Self Organization may explain some possible mechanisms responsible for abiogenesis.

Self Organization Theory - https://en.wikipedia.org...

I found a paper today postulating that very thing. In case anyone is interested, here it is: http://www.earth-syst-dynam.net...

Comments?

I usually go with Panspermia, RNA world hypothesis, or the Deep sea vent hypothesis. Your proposal doesn't seem...origin(?) enough (meaning it seems to imply there's already "things", things possible of becoming life through self-organizing, but where did those things come from?). Maybe it could pass for origin of the Universe, but then it'd be too close to "Creation from Chaos".

The paper I posted explained the proposed mechanism to fuel the RNA World hypothesis or the DSV hypothesis.

Personally, I think Occams Razor alone would suggest Panspermia isn't the best contender. It doesn't seem to really answer anything and simply makes it more complicated. Q - Where did come from? A - Somewhere else. Then you have to add in the variable of how it lasted potentially billions of years adrift in space without deterioration.

Self organization from chaos to complexity is an observed phenomenon. Crystals are a perfect example.
PetersSmith
Posts: 5,819
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/20/2016 4:04:10 AM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 7/20/2016 4:03:03 AM, matt8800 wrote:
At 7/20/2016 3:51:02 AM, PetersSmith wrote:
At 7/20/2016 3:29:56 AM, matt8800 wrote:
I have said before that I suspected that Self Organization may explain some possible mechanisms responsible for abiogenesis.

Self Organization Theory - https://en.wikipedia.org...

I found a paper today postulating that very thing. In case anyone is interested, here it is: http://www.earth-syst-dynam.net...

Comments?

I usually go with Panspermia, RNA world hypothesis, or the Deep sea vent hypothesis. Your proposal doesn't seem...origin(?) enough (meaning it seems to imply there's already "things", things possible of becoming life through self-organizing, but where did those things come from?). Maybe it could pass for origin of the Universe, but then it'd be too close to "Creation from Chaos".

The paper I posted explained the proposed mechanism to fuel the RNA World hypothesis or the DSV hypothesis.

Personally, I think Occams Razor alone would suggest Panspermia isn't the best contender. It doesn't seem to really answer anything and simply makes it more complicated. Q - Where did come from? A - Somewhere else. Then you have to add in the variable of how it lasted potentially billions of years adrift in space without deterioration.

Self organization from chaos to complexity is an observed phenomenon. Crystals are a perfect example.

Fair enough I guess, this isn't my specialty. Congrats on your 1,400 post, btw.
Empress of DDO (also Poll and Forum "Maintenance" Moderator)

"The two most important days in your life is the day you were born, and the day you find out why."
~Mark Twain

"Wow"
-Doge

"Don't believe everything you read on the internet just because there's a picture with a quote next to it."
~Abraham Lincoln

Guide to the Polls Section: http://www.debate.org...
matt8800
Posts: 2,077
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/20/2016 4:06:40 AM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 7/20/2016 4:04:10 AM, PetersSmith wrote:
At 7/20/2016 4:03:03 AM, matt8800 wrote:
At 7/20/2016 3:51:02 AM, PetersSmith wrote:
At 7/20/2016 3:29:56 AM, matt8800 wrote:
I have said before that I suspected that Self Organization may explain some possible mechanisms responsible for abiogenesis.

Self Organization Theory - https://en.wikipedia.org...

I found a paper today postulating that very thing. In case anyone is interested, here it is: http://www.earth-syst-dynam.net...

Comments?

I usually go with Panspermia, RNA world hypothesis, or the Deep sea vent hypothesis. Your proposal doesn't seem...origin(?) enough (meaning it seems to imply there's already "things", things possible of becoming life through self-organizing, but where did those things come from?). Maybe it could pass for origin of the Universe, but then it'd be too close to "Creation from Chaos".

The paper I posted explained the proposed mechanism to fuel the RNA World hypothesis or the DSV hypothesis.

Personally, I think Occams Razor alone would suggest Panspermia isn't the best contender. It doesn't seem to really answer anything and simply makes it more complicated. Q - Where did come from? A - Somewhere else. Then you have to add in the variable of how it lasted potentially billions of years adrift in space without deterioration.

Self organization from chaos to complexity is an observed phenomenon. Crystals are a perfect example.

Fair enough I guess, this isn't my specialty. Congrats on your 1,400 post, btw.

thanks :)
Riwaaz_Ras
Posts: 1,046
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/20/2016 6:31:46 AM
Posted: 4 months ago
Self organization theory is one of the best arguments for creator God.
(This is not a goodbye message. I may or may not come back after ten years.)
Looncall
Posts: 444
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/20/2016 3:13:16 PM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 7/20/2016 6:31:46 AM, Riwaaz_Ras wrote:
Self organization theory is one of the best arguments for creator God.

How so? Please provide details.
The metaphysicist has no laboratory.
matt8800
Posts: 2,077
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/20/2016 3:20:57 PM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 7/20/2016 6:31:46 AM, Riwaaz_Ras wrote:
Self organization theory is one of the best arguments for creator God.

That may be true, but not necessarily an interventionist god. The mechanism seems to be on autopilot, which would seem to deny direct intervention from a god-like force.
Biodome
Posts: 138
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/20/2016 3:21:24 PM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 7/20/2016 3:33:34 AM, matt8800 wrote:
If this is true, life is inevitable given the right conditions. Similar to the inevitability of a crystal forming in precipitating freezing water.

It's not a good analogy. Even if you apply self-organization to the issue of abiogenesis, it in no way necessitates it. I would still think that it requires huge amounts of luck. In a huge galaxy with trillions of planets, you might only get a few cases of abiogenesis, despite the fact that many of them are habitable.
matt8800
Posts: 2,077
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/20/2016 3:27:45 PM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 7/20/2016 3:21:24 PM, Biodome wrote:
At 7/20/2016 3:33:34 AM, matt8800 wrote:
If this is true, life is inevitable given the right conditions. Similar to the inevitability of a crystal forming in precipitating freezing water.

It's not a good analogy. Even if you apply self-organization to the issue of abiogenesis, it in no way necessitates it. I would still think that it requires huge amounts of luck. In a huge galaxy with trillions of planets, you might only get a few cases of abiogenesis, despite the fact that many of them are habitable.

Couldn't you make the same argument for a highly complex, perfectly symmetrical crystal? Without Self Organization, they are statistically highly improbable to the point of almost being impossible.
Biodome
Posts: 138
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/20/2016 3:34:14 PM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 7/20/2016 3:27:45 PM, matt8800 wrote:
At 7/20/2016 3:21:24 PM, Biodome wrote:
At 7/20/2016 3:33:34 AM, matt8800 wrote:
If this is true, life is inevitable given the right conditions. Similar to the inevitability of a crystal forming in precipitating freezing water.

It's not a good analogy. Even if you apply self-organization to the issue of abiogenesis, it in no way necessitates it. I would still think that it requires huge amounts of luck. In a huge galaxy with trillions of planets, you might only get a few cases of abiogenesis, despite the fact that many of them are habitable.

Couldn't you make the same argument for a highly complex, perfectly symmetrical crystal? Without Self Organization, they are statistically highly improbable to the point of almost being impossible.

Crystals are not analogous to living systems. The former seems simpler to me. You could technically explain how or why a crystal forms. With abiogenesis, we simply don't know yet. We don't know if the hypothesis is true, and even if it's true, we do not know how to explain it - there are many competing hypothesis (e.g. the RNA World, which I subscribe to), but there is no consensus, which makes abiogenesis different from crystal formation.

What you are suggesting is highly speculative. You have no hard evidence, only shaky analogies with crystals. That's not going to convince anyone. Not in the scientific community, at least. They're skeptical as hell.
matt8800
Posts: 2,077
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/20/2016 4:24:24 PM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 7/20/2016 3:34:14 PM, Biodome wrote:
At 7/20/2016 3:27:45 PM, matt8800 wrote:
At 7/20/2016 3:21:24 PM, Biodome wrote:
At 7/20/2016 3:33:34 AM, matt8800 wrote:
If this is true, life is inevitable given the right conditions. Similar to the inevitability of a crystal forming in precipitating freezing water.

It's not a good analogy. Even if you apply self-organization to the issue of abiogenesis, it in no way necessitates it. I would still think that it requires huge amounts of luck. In a huge galaxy with trillions of planets, you might only get a few cases of abiogenesis, despite the fact that many of them are habitable.

Couldn't you make the same argument for a highly complex, perfectly symmetrical crystal? Without Self Organization, they are statistically highly improbable to the point of almost being impossible.

Crystals are not analogous to living systems. The former seems simpler to me. You could technically explain how or why a crystal forms. With abiogenesis, we simply don't know yet. We don't know if the hypothesis is true, and even if it's true, we do not know how to explain it - there are many competing hypothesis (e.g. the RNA World, which I subscribe to), but there is no consensus, which makes abiogenesis different from crystal formation.

What you are suggesting is highly speculative. You have no hard evidence, only shaky analogies with crystals. That's not going to convince anyone. Not in the scientific community, at least. They're skeptical as hell.

Did you read the paper that I linked to? That is exactly what scientist are proposing. If you have any specific issues with it, I'm open to discussing them. Here it is again http://www.earth-syst-dynam.net...

The paper isn't a competing idea to the RNA World theory. It explains the mechanism which they propose created the RNA in the first place.

Thermodynamic dissipation is what fuels both the formation of crystals and the proposed theory that I linked. Both life and crystals are emergent complexity from chaos.

Entropy's role in Self Organization - https://en.wikipedia.org...
Biodome
Posts: 138
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/20/2016 7:23:11 PM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 7/20/2016 4:24:24 PM, matt8800 wrote:
At 7/20/2016 3:34:14 PM, Biodome wrote:
At 7/20/2016 3:27:45 PM, matt8800 wrote:
At 7/20/2016 3:21:24 PM, Biodome wrote:
At 7/20/2016 3:33:34 AM, matt8800 wrote:
If this is true, life is inevitable given the right conditions. Similar to the inevitability of a crystal forming in precipitating freezing water.

It's not a good analogy. Even if you apply self-organization to the issue of abiogenesis, it in no way necessitates it. I would still think that it requires huge amounts of luck. In a huge galaxy with trillions of planets, you might only get a few cases of abiogenesis, despite the fact that many of them are habitable.

Couldn't you make the same argument for a highly complex, perfectly symmetrical crystal? Without Self Organization, they are statistically highly improbable to the point of almost being impossible.

Crystals are not analogous to living systems. The former seems simpler to me. You could technically explain how or why a crystal forms. With abiogenesis, we simply don't know yet. We don't know if the hypothesis is true, and even if it's true, we do not know how to explain it - there are many competing hypothesis (e.g. the RNA World, which I subscribe to), but there is no consensus, which makes abiogenesis different from crystal formation.

What you are suggesting is highly speculative. You have no hard evidence, only shaky analogies with crystals. That's not going to convince anyone. Not in the scientific community, at least. They're skeptical as hell.

Did you read the paper that I linked to? That is exactly what scientist are proposing. If you have any specific issues with it, I'm open to discussing them. Here it is again http://www.earth-syst-dynam.net...

The paper isn't a competing idea to the RNA World theory. It explains the mechanism which they propose created the RNA in the first place.

Thermodynamic dissipation is what fuels both the formation of crystals and the proposed theory that I linked. Both life and crystals are emergent complexity from chaos.

Entropy's role in Self Organization - https://en.wikipedia.org...

It's quite a long article and I don't have time to delve into it. I'll certainly bookmark it as something to read in the future, although it is 5 years old, so there might have been some more recent opinions in the field.

Are they making the claim that life will inevitably form, as long as certain conditions are met? That was the point which you made, which I had problems with.
matt8800
Posts: 2,077
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/20/2016 7:46:08 PM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 7/20/2016 7:23:11 PM, Biodome wrote:
At 7/20/2016 4:24:24 PM, matt8800 wrote:
At 7/20/2016 3:34:14 PM, Biodome wrote:
At 7/20/2016 3:27:45 PM, matt8800 wrote:
At 7/20/2016 3:21:24 PM, Biodome wrote:
At 7/20/2016 3:33:34 AM, matt8800 wrote:
If this is true, life is inevitable given the right conditions. Similar to the inevitability of a crystal forming in precipitating freezing water.

It's not a good analogy. Even if you apply self-organization to the issue of abiogenesis, it in no way necessitates it. I would still think that it requires huge amounts of luck. In a huge galaxy with trillions of planets, you might only get a few cases of abiogenesis, despite the fact that many of them are habitable.

Couldn't you make the same argument for a highly complex, perfectly symmetrical crystal? Without Self Organization, they are statistically highly improbable to the point of almost being impossible.

Crystals are not analogous to living systems. The former seems simpler to me. You could technically explain how or why a crystal forms. With abiogenesis, we simply don't know yet. We don't know if the hypothesis is true, and even if it's true, we do not know how to explain it - there are many competing hypothesis (e.g. the RNA World, which I subscribe to), but there is no consensus, which makes abiogenesis different from crystal formation.

What you are suggesting is highly speculative. You have no hard evidence, only shaky analogies with crystals. That's not going to convince anyone. Not in the scientific community, at least. They're skeptical as hell.

Did you read the paper that I linked to? That is exactly what scientist are proposing. If you have any specific issues with it, I'm open to discussing them. Here it is again http://www.earth-syst-dynam.net...

The paper isn't a competing idea to the RNA World theory. It explains the mechanism which they propose created the RNA in the first place.

Thermodynamic dissipation is what fuels both the formation of crystals and the proposed theory that I linked. Both life and crystals are emergent complexity from chaos.

Entropy's role in Self Organization - https://en.wikipedia.org...

It's quite a long article and I don't have time to delve into it. I'll certainly bookmark it as something to read in the future, although it is 5 years old, so there might have been some more recent opinions in the field.

It is not uncommon for theories to gain more traction 50 years after they are proposed so I don't see 5 years as a problem.

Are they making the claim that life will inevitably form, as long as certain conditions are met? That was the point which you made, which I had problems with.

They did not make that claim but do you see any reasons why crystals would not form in places other than earth under the right conditions?

If the mechanism that fuels crystal formation is the same as the mechanism that fuels abiogenesis, why would you not suspect it was inevitable under the same conditions? It sounds more like an argument from incredulity.

Are you aware of another theory that describes how inorganic compounds form simple life? If so, I would be interested in comparing them.
Biodome
Posts: 138
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/20/2016 7:57:33 PM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 7/20/2016 7:46:08 PM, matt8800 wrote:
At 7/20/2016 7:23:11 PM, Biodome wrote:
It's quite a long article and I don't have time to delve into it. I'll certainly bookmark it as something to read in the future, although it is 5 years old, so there might have been some more recent opinions in the field.

It is not uncommon for theories to gain more traction 50 years after they are proposed so I don't see 5 years as a problem.

It depends on the field. In biology, especially microbiology, a lot of opinions could change in 5 years, as new discoveries are made practically daily.

Are they making the claim that life will inevitably form, as long as certain conditions are met? That was the point which you made, which I had problems with.

They did not make that claim

Then you cannot use that article as evidence for that claim.

but do you see any reasons why crystals would not form in places other than earth under the right conditions?

No. But, again, life isn't crystals.

If the mechanism that fuels crystal formation is the same as the mechanism that fuels abiogenesis, why would you not suspect it was inevitable under the same conditions? It sounds more like an argument from incredulity.

Because, as I have said, the formation of crystals is more predictable than the formation of life. We can repeatedly form crystals in laboratories, and we can objectively define the right conditions. However, we have no such research on the formation of living organisms. To date, all of our attempts to create spontaneously emerging life in the laboratory have failed, and we only know that it happened once, on Earth. We have no other points of data. You are being too speculative by going towards unsupported conclusions. The onus is on you to prove that life is inevitable, not on me to prove that it is not inevitable.

Are you aware of another theory that describes how inorganic compounds form simple life? If so, I would be interested in comparing them.

I don't argue against self-organization. I see that as a reasonable thing to apply to biology. But it doesn't offer all the answers to how or why life forms. Self-organization is a general, entropy-based process. The specifics differ, and here we do not know the specifics.
matt8800
Posts: 2,077
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/20/2016 8:25:18 PM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 7/20/2016 7:57:33 PM, Biodome wrote:
At 7/20/2016 7:46:08 PM, matt8800 wrote:
At 7/20/2016 7:23:11 PM, Biodome wrote:
It's quite a long article and I don't have time to delve into it. I'll certainly bookmark it as something to read in the future, although it is 5 years old, so there might have been some more recent opinions in the field.

It is not uncommon for theories to gain more traction 50 years after they are proposed so I don't see 5 years as a problem.

It depends on the field. In biology, especially microbiology, a lot of opinions could change in 5 years, as new discoveries are made practically daily.

Ok, I'm open to any other competing theories I'm not aware of if you provide them.

Are they making the claim that life will inevitably form, as long as certain conditions are met? That was the point which you made, which I had problems with.

They did not make that claim

Then you cannot use that article as evidence for that claim.

I can use the article to claim that the same mechanism that fuels crystal formation also fuels abiogenesis. I propose that it is reasonable to assert that crystals form on other planets. If those two conjectures are true, it is reasonable to suggest that life forms on other planets similarly.

but do you see any reasons why crystals would not form in places other than earth under the right conditions?

No. But, again, life isn't crystals.

No, and thermal convection patterns in fluids (self organization) are different, and much simpler, than crystal formation but what is the significance of that?

If the mechanism that fuels crystal formation is the same as the mechanism that fuels abiogenesis, why would you not suspect it was inevitable under the same conditions? It sounds more like an argument from incredulity.

Because, as I have said, the formation of crystals is more predictable than the formation of life.

Thermal convection patterns in fluid are more simple than crystal formation. I don't see how simplicity is a determining factor other than requiring more time and more specific conditions, affecting its reproducibility.

We can repeatedly form crystals in laboratories, and we can objectively define the right conditions. However, we have no such research on the formation of living organisms. To date, all of our attempts to create spontaneously emerging life in the laboratory have failed, and we only know that it happened once, on Earth. We have no other points of data. You are being too speculative by going towards unsupported conclusions. The onus is on you to prove that life is inevitable, not on me to prove that it is not inevitable.

If my communication was interpreted as an absolute statement requiring proof before it's entertained, I miscommunicated. I think it is a reasonable conjecture IF the theory presented is true. Regardless, you cannot reasonably assert that I am wrong if you don't read the paper and I cannot reasonably argue that my conjecture is reasonable if you don't read the paper.


Are you aware of another theory that describes how inorganic compounds form simple life? If so, I would be interested in comparing them.

I don't argue against self-organization. I see that as a reasonable thing to apply to biology. But it doesn't offer all the answers to how or why life forms. Self-organization is a general, entropy-based process. The specifics differ, and here we do not know the specifics.

Actually, the paper is precisely stating that self organization through entropy is how and why life forms.
Biodome
Posts: 138
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/20/2016 9:53:40 PM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 7/20/2016 8:25:18 PM, matt8800 wrote:
Actually, the paper is precisely stating that self organization through entropy is how and why life forms.

I agree with that claim, but everything else you have said about the inevitability of life is pure speculation.

You cannot take the fairly general process of self-organization, run it through premises involving crystals, and then somehow conclude that life is inevitable. There are too many ifs, there are too many non-sequiturs. What you're claiming is speculative, and I simply wanted you to recognize that fact.

While you are free to entertain the idea of life being inevitable, you must realize that you are dealing with zero evidence. To put it in another way, you, me, and the scientific community is practically clueless about how life formed. We don't know the specifics, we don't know whether merely setting the right conditions is enough. We don't even know what the right conditions are.

You can talk about thermodynamic processes and entropy all you want, you can apply self-organization principles, but there is nothing in your argument that shows that life is inevitable. That requires experimentation, while your logical or philosophical reasoning is not convincing and scientific enough. We have the scientific method for a reason, and it is precisely there so that science wouldn't turn into a chain of ifs.

Your confidence in your self-organization argument makes me want to do a "Given the right conditions, Life is inevitable" debate. Not sure if you'd be up for that or not.
matt8800
Posts: 2,077
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/20/2016 10:38:44 PM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 7/20/2016 9:53:40 PM, Biodome wrote:
At 7/20/2016 8:25:18 PM, matt8800 wrote:
Actually, the paper is precisely stating that self organization through entropy is how and why life forms.

I agree with that claim, but everything else you have said about the inevitability of life is pure speculation.

You cannot take the fairly general process of self-organization, run it through premises involving crystals, and then somehow conclude that life is inevitable. There are too many ifs, there are too many non-sequiturs. What you're claiming is speculative, and I simply wanted you to recognize that fact.

Yes, it is speculative. I thought I made that clear in my previous posts. With that said, I think it is a reasonable speculation. Furthermore, I qualified my speculation as an if-then.

While you are free to entertain the idea of life being inevitable, you must realize that you are dealing with zero evidence. To put it in another way, you, me, and the scientific community is practically clueless about how life formed. We don't know the specifics, we don't know whether merely setting the right conditions is enough. We don't even know what the right conditions are.

You can talk about thermodynamic processes and entropy all you want, you can apply self-organization principles, but there is nothing in your argument that shows that life is inevitable. That requires experimentation, while your logical or philosophical reasoning is not convincing and scientific enough. We have the scientific method for a reason, and it is precisely there so that science wouldn't turn into a chain of ifs.


Your confidence in your self-organization argument makes me want to do a "Given the right conditions, Life is inevitable" debate. Not sure if you'd be up for that or not.

1. IF the paper postulating that life arises from self organization powered by entropy is correct, AND,
2. IF crystal formation is powered by the same self organization principals, AND,
3. IF crystals form inevitably in exactly the same way in alien environments that are similar to earth environments,
4. Then it is reasonable to suspect that life may be inevitable in alien environments with suitable conditions given enough time.

Do you agree with the above statements? If not, which point do you take issue with and why?
Biodome
Posts: 138
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/21/2016 11:06:55 AM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 7/20/2016 10:38:44 PM, matt8800 wrote:
1. IF the paper postulating that life arises from self organization powered by entropy is correct, AND,
2. IF crystal formation is powered by the same self organization principals, AND,
3. IF crystals form inevitably in exactly the same way in alien environments that are similar to earth environments,
4. Then it is reasonable to suspect that life may be inevitable in alien environments with suitable conditions given enough time.

Do you agree with the above statements? If not, which point do you take issue with and why?

(2) and (3) do not imply (4). Self-organization can manifest itself in a variety of ways. It's not a theory, it's not something that works in the same manner for all things and situations. It's an idea that complex structures arise from simple components, guided by the directionality of entropy, but it doesn't say anything about inevitability. The fact that crystals form inevitably doesn't have any relation to whether or not life would form inevitably.

Logically, here is what is wrong with your reasoning:
P1: Life and crystal formation is governed by self-organization
P2: Crystal formation, given the right conditions, is inevitable
C1: Therefore, Life formation, given the right conditions, is inevitable.

C1 is a non-sequitur, because inevitability of life is not implied by either P1 or P2. It requires a separate premise that has to be proven, preferably by experimentation.
Fkkize
Posts: 2,149
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/21/2016 12:49:40 PM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 7/20/2016 3:29:56 AM, matt8800 wrote:
I have said before that I suspected that Self Organization may explain some possible mechanisms responsible for abiogenesis.

Self Organization Theory - https://en.wikipedia.org...

I found a paper today postulating that very thing. In case anyone is interested, here it is: http://www.earth-syst-dynam.net...

Comments?

Been on my list of papers to read for several months now. I'm going to read it and maybe present it once my tests are over.
: At 7/2/2016 3:05:07 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
:
: space contradicts logic
matt8800
Posts: 2,077
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/21/2016 2:33:54 PM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 7/21/2016 11:06:55 AM, Biodome wrote:
At 7/20/2016 10:38:44 PM, matt8800 wrote:
1. IF the paper postulating that life arises from self organization powered by entropy is correct, AND,
2. IF crystal formation is powered by the same self organization principals, AND,
3. IF crystals form inevitably in exactly the same way in alien environments that are similar to earth environments,
4. Then it is reasonable to suspect that life may be inevitable in alien environments with suitable conditions given enough time.

Do you agree with the above statements? If not, which point do you take issue with and why?

(2) and (3) do not imply (4). Self-organization can manifest itself in a variety of ways. It's not a theory, it's not something that works in the same manner for all things and situations. It's an idea that complex structures arise from simple components, guided by the directionality of entropy, but it doesn't say anything about inevitability. The fact that crystals form inevitably doesn't have any relation to whether or not life would form inevitably.

Logically, here is what is wrong with your reasoning:
P1: Life and crystal formation is governed by self-organization
P2: Crystal formation, given the right conditions, is inevitable
C1: Therefore, Life formation, given the right conditions, is inevitable.

C1 is a non-sequitur, because inevitability of life is not implied by either P1 or P2. It requires a separate premise that has to be proven, preferably by experimentation.

That is why I used 'reasonable to suspect that life may'...
Biodome
Posts: 138
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/21/2016 3:12:13 PM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 7/21/2016 2:33:54 PM, matt8800 wrote:
At 7/21/2016 11:06:55 AM, Biodome wrote:
At 7/20/2016 10:38:44 PM, matt8800 wrote:
1. IF the paper postulating that life arises from self organization powered by entropy is correct, AND,
2. IF crystal formation is powered by the same self organization principals, AND,
3. IF crystals form inevitably in exactly the same way in alien environments that are similar to earth environments,
4. Then it is reasonable to suspect that life may be inevitable in alien environments with suitable conditions given enough time.

Do you agree with the above statements? If not, which point do you take issue with and why?

(2) and (3) do not imply (4). Self-organization can manifest itself in a variety of ways. It's not a theory, it's not something that works in the same manner for all things and situations. It's an idea that complex structures arise from simple components, guided by the directionality of entropy, but it doesn't say anything about inevitability. The fact that crystals form inevitably doesn't have any relation to whether or not life would form inevitably.

Logically, here is what is wrong with your reasoning:
P1: Life and crystal formation is governed by self-organization
P2: Crystal formation, given the right conditions, is inevitable
C1: Therefore, Life formation, given the right conditions, is inevitable.

C1 is a non-sequitur, because inevitability of life is not implied by either P1 or P2. It requires a separate premise that has to be proven, preferably by experimentation.

That is why I used 'reasonable to suspect that life may'...

Fair enough. Your original post on this didn't exhibit the same level of uncertainty, which is why I started this discussion in the first place. On the other hand, if you make it clear that what you are saying is speculation (i.e. conjectures without evidence), then I don't have any problems with it. After all, speculations are what drives science forward, but caution must be taken lest it becomes pseudoscience.
matt8800
Posts: 2,077
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/21/2016 4:15:19 PM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 7/21/2016 3:14:43 PM, MagicAintReal wrote:
Comments?

Yeah, check out my debate on abiogenesis, mainly round 2, and you can ask me questions about mechanisms if need be.

http://www.debate.org...

I took a cursory look and it appears that the paper I linked to provided the mechanism that fuels the processes you described.

For example, one of the common arguments by creationists is the statistical probability of organic cells forming. The paper I referenced answers that very well in describing Self Organization's role. One could argue that the statistical probability of a complex, perfectly symmetrical crystal forming is nearly impossible. Self Organization fueled by entropy creates complexity out of chaos and addresses that problem.

In that way, crystal formation could be analogous to abiogenesis, albeit less complex therefore more common.

Do you agree that self organization through thermal dissipation of chemical reactions could have played a role in abiogenesis?

I realize the paper I linked to is 15 pages and a bit tedious in parts but its interesting nonetheless.
matt8800
Posts: 2,077
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/21/2016 4:20:20 PM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 7/20/2016 3:21:24 PM, Biodome wrote:
At 7/20/2016 3:33:34 AM, matt8800 wrote:
If this is true, life is inevitable given the right conditions. Similar to the inevitability of a crystal forming in precipitating freezing water.

It's not a good analogy. Even if you apply self-organization to the issue of abiogenesis, it in no way necessitates it. I would still think that it requires huge amounts of luck. In a huge galaxy with trillions of planets, you might only get a few cases of abiogenesis, despite the fact that many of them are habitable.

I wanted to address one of your earlier comments. Self Organization theory through thermal dissipation negates the need for luck.
keithprosser
Posts: 1,933
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/21/2016 4:54:27 PM
Posted: 4 months ago
I should be a little more specific....
It grossly reduces the need for luck :)


Hmm... on page 47 of the paper we read:

"The present theory suggests that life as we know
it may be less universal than prevailing ideas might indicate,
since, besides the requirements of liquid water, a concentration
of appropriate chemical constituents, and a free energy
source, the theory also imposes stringent requirements on the
evolution of the external boundary and initial conditions; an
atmospheric window allowing a high UV flux to reach the
surface, temperatures descending gradually below the melting
temperature of RNA/DNA, temperature cycling, and a
water cycle."

My emphasis.

I'd like to think life was easy to get started, but it may be rare. Of course in a universe of such unfathomable size even rare combinations of suitable conditions will occur thousands and mllions of times... just not necessarily anywhere very close to us.
v3nesl
Posts: 4,463
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/21/2016 5:44:06 PM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 7/21/2016 4:54:27 PM, keithprosser wrote:
I should be a little more specific....
It grossly reduces the need for luck :)


Hmm... on page 47 of the paper we read:

"The present theory suggests that life as we know
it may be less universal than prevailing ideas might indicate,
since, besides the requirements of liquid water, a concentration
of appropriate chemical constituents, and a free energy
source, the theory also imposes stringent requirements on the
evolution of the external boundary and initial conditions; an
atmospheric window allowing a high UV flux to reach the
surface, temperatures descending gradually below the melting
temperature of RNA/DNA, temperature cycling, and a
water cycle."

My emphasis.

I'd like to think life was easy to get started, but it may be rare. Of course in a universe of such unfathomable size even rare combinations of suitable conditions will occur thousands and mllions of times... just not necessarily anywhere very close to us.

I don't know - with all the stars out there, not a one of them seems to be square (cubic). And it really is not a whit more scientific to think life will emerge spontaneously just because there are a lot of stars.
This space for rent.
MagicAintReal
Posts: 591
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/21/2016 5:46:49 PM
Posted: 4 months ago
Do you agree that self organization through thermal dissipation of chemical reactions could have played a role in abiogenesis?

Yeah, sure, I see no reason why not.