Total Posts:143|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Abiogenesis: Scientific theory or hypothesis?

Welfare-Worker
Posts: 1,175
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/10/2016 12:14:53 AM
Posted: 3 weeks ago
In my research I was surprised to see many scientifically respectable sources claim Abiogenesis is a Scientific theory.

Any Scientific theory has to meet certain criteria, as part of the Scientific Method.
Compared to the SM I learned fifty years ago, criteria and requirements are rather mushy in the current version of SM. Still, there are certain requirements.

I expected to find that Abiogenesis was an hypothesis.
I did find that, probably as often as I found it called a Scientific theory. Maybe more, I didn't keep track.
Here is one example:
"Some scientists support the RNA world hypothesis, which suggests that the first life was self-replicating RNA. Others favor the metabolism-first hypothesis, placing metabolic networks before DNA or RNA."

As most of us know, there is a hierarchy of Scientific ideas, and an hypothesis is distinctly below a Scientific theory.
A Scientific theory is no longer an hypothesis, and an hypothesis lacks the evidence required of a Scientific theory.

Maybe the structure of the SM has changed, yet again, so I welcome correction, but may request substantiation.

So, which is it, hypothesis, or Scientific theory?

I realise that it may be a Scientific theory in a broad sense, with various hypothesis' on the details. No place I read mentioned this, but I suppose it is possible.

Opinions are always welcome, but of course substantiation may be helpful to any serious discussion.
MagicAintReal
Posts: 591
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/10/2016 2:24:34 AM
Posted: 3 weeks ago
At 11/10/2016 12:14:53 AM, Welfare-Worker wrote:
In my research I was surprised to see many scientifically respectable sources claim Abiogenesis is a Scientific theory.

Surprise!

Any Scientific theory has to meet certain criteria, as part of the Scientific Method.
Compared to the SM I learned fifty years ago, criteria and requirements are rather mushy in the current version of SM. Still, there are certain requirements.

The requirements are not mushy.
Is it demonstrable, replicable, and able to be used to make accurate predictions again and again?
We've got ourselves a sound theory.

I expected to find that Abiogenesis was an hypothesis.

Sometimes our expectations are off.

I did find that, probably as often as I found it called a Scientific theory. Maybe more, I didn't keep track.

Keeping track of crap you're making up is tough...

Here is one example:

Ok.

As most of us know, there is a hierarchy of Scientific ideas, and an hypothesis is distinctly below a Scientific theory.

There's not this hierarchy you're making science out to be.
It's like you're saying, first comes a hypothesis, it then graduates and becomes a theory, and then the theory graduates and becomes a law.

This i just not how it goes.
If one makes a hypothesis, the default position is to accept the null, that is to say that the hypothesis is not so.
Once it has been demonstrated, replicated and used to make accurate predictions, one can build a theory that explains the mechanism behind said demonstrations and replications, and this theory can be used to explain laws.

Yeah.
There's not some hierarchy of hypothesis and theory and law, it all works together.

A Scientific theory is no longer an hypothesis, and an hypothesis lacks the evidence required of a Scientific theory.

An hypothesis can be demonstrable and there could be no theory that explains the mechanism.

It's not about a lack of evidence or certainty between hypothesis, theory, and law.

Maybe the structure of the SM has changed, yet again, so I welcome correction, but may request substantiation.

Nope.
You're just misrepresenting the science that's out there.

So, which is it, hypothesis, or Scientific theory?

Abiogenesis is the best explanation for the origins of life on a prebiotic earth, it has replicable, demonstrable evidence, and is a theory used to help understand the origins of the first living cell.

I realise that it may be a Scientific theory in a broad sense.

So then there's your answer.
keithprosser
Posts: 1,975
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/10/2016 5:29:33 AM
Posted: 3 weeks ago
At 11/10/2016 2:24:34 AM, MagicAintReal wrote:
Abiogenesis is the best explanation for the origins of life on a prebiotic earth, it has replicable, demonstrable evidence, and is a theory used to help understand the origins of the first living cell.

Well... I'd say 'abiogenesis' is the proposition that life came from non-life. As such, it is neither a hypothesis nor a theory. Some thing like the 'RNA world' is a specific proposed mechanism of abiogenesis and in its barest form is a hypothesis, but it moves towards becoming a theory as it gains support from experiment.

I don't think any abiogenetic hypothesis qualifies as a fully fledged theory yet - we are still in the evidence gathering phase. You can't really put numbers on this sort of thing, but I'd say the evidence that RNA world model is limited to showing a few things necessary for life can be produced abiotically, but it is not up to demonstrating it works for producing a working cell ab initio.
Welfare-Worker
Posts: 1,175
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/10/2016 11:54:21 AM
Posted: 3 weeks ago
At 11/10/2016 2:24:34 AM, MagicAintReal wrote:
At 11/10/2016 12:14:53 AM, Welfare-Worker wrote:
In my research I was surprised to see many scientifically respectable sources claim Abiogenesis is a Scientific theory.

Surprise!

Any Scientific theory has to meet certain criteria, as part of the Scientific Method.
Compared to the SM I learned fifty years ago, criteria and requirements are rather mushy in the current version of SM. Still, there are certain requirements.

The requirements are not mushy.
Is it demonstrable, replicable, and able to be used to make accurate predictions again and again?
We've got ourselves a sound theory.

I compare the SM of 1966 to what exists today and say by comparison today it is mushy.
You deny this, which is crap on two counts.
First, it tells me you do not know what the SM was like in 1966. Now in itself that is fine. You do not need to know the history of the field you claim to be an expert in, unless you make claims about that history, so that is a problem for you.
Second, it tells you are not aware of the controversy surrounding the SM as it exists today.

Is there a scientific method? If "method" means "a single method, used in the same way by all scientists at all times," the answer is NO. Some details of methods change with time and culture, and vary from one area of science to another, so there is nothing that could be called The Scientific Method. But some scientific methods are commonly used by scientists.
http://www.asa3.org...
Looking at the SM today there is a deficiency of peer review, due in part to the sheer volume of work produced.
There is also a credibility gap in the calculation department. When experiments yield numbers different than expected, it is assumed the experiments were flawed, but the expectations were not. The data is not changed based on real world experiments, the calculations are accepted instead.
It is also common today to accept computer models as experiments, which in many cases amounts to thought experiments, a method that was discarded from science over 100 years ago. Computers are calculators, processors of information, they are not hands on experiments that were required by the SM in 1966.

I did find that, probably as often as I found it called a Scientific theory. Maybe more, I didn't keep track.

Keeping track of crap you're making up is tough...

Making up?
Here is one example:

Ok.

OK what?
You say I am making it up, I provide an actual example, and you say "Ok".
You are disingenuous at best.

As most of us know, there is a hierarchy of Scientific ideas, and an hypothesis is distinctly below a Scientific theory.

There's not this hierarchy you're making science out to be.
It's like you're saying, first comes a hypothesis, it then graduates and becomes a theory, and then the theory graduates and becomes a law.

This i just not how it goes.
If one makes a hypothesis, the default position is to accept the null, that is to say that the hypothesis is not so.
Once it has been demonstrated, replicated and used to make accurate predictions, one can build a theory that explains the mechanism behind said demonstrations and replications, and this theory can be used to explain laws.

Yeah.
There's not some hierarchy of hypothesis and theory and law, it all works together.

Well, if there is not a hierarchy, than a hypothesis is equal to a Scientific theory, and they are both equal to a Scientific law.
And yet, you explain a process when an idea starts as an hypothesis, and develops into a Scientific theory. And then there are this magical laws, that theories explain, but where do these laws com from? Well, not from Scientific theories, if there is no hierarchy. I guess they just appeared magically.
So, how is it that there is no hierarchy, and yet you seem to explain that an idea become a hypotheses, then that becomes a Scientific theory, that may become a Scientific law?
You consider yourself an expert in the field of Science?

A Scientific theory is no longer an hypothesis, and an hypothesis lacks the evidence required of a Scientific theory.

An hypothesis can be demonstrable and there could be no theory that explains the mechanism.

It's not about a lack of evidence or certainty between hypothesis, theory, and law.

Well then, what is it???
What distinguishes a hypothesis from a Scientific theory, from a Scientific Law?
If there is no distinction, they are equivalent.

Maybe the structure of the SM has changed, yet again, so I welcome correction, but may request substantiation.

Nope.
You're just misrepresenting the science that's out there.

So, which is it, hypothesis, or Scientific theory?

Abiogenesis is the best explanation for the origins of life on a prebiotic earth, it has replicable, demonstrable evidence, and is a theory used to help understand the origins of the first living cell.

You know, I am bothered by you use of "theory", and your lack of use of "Scientific theory".
A Scientific theory is a special kind of theory, with special requirements.
You seem to be, disingenuous, or worse. If you want to claim that abiogenesis is a theory, but not a Scientific theory, I will readily agree with you, because that is true.

I realise that it may be a Scientific theory in a broad sense.

So then there's your answer.
Abiogenesis is the belief that life on earth started by inorganic matter on the earth.
Panspermia is the belief that life on earth started by the introduction of organic matter from an outside source, including but not limited to as asteroid or comet.
It is not possible that both abiogenesis and panspermia are explanations for the beginning of life on earth.

The idea that organic molecules might have traveled to Earth on meteorites may sound like science fiction, but it's supported by reasonable evidence. For example, scientists have found that organic molecules can be produced from simple chemical precursors present in space, under conditions that could exist in space (high UV irradiation and low temperature). We also know that some organic compounds are found in space and in other star systems.
Most importantly, various meteorites have turned out to contain organic compounds (derived from space, not from Earth). One meteorite, ALH84001, came from Mars and contained organic molecules with multiple ring structures. Another meteorite, the Murchison meteorite, carried nitrogenous bases (like those found in DNA and RNA), as well as a wide variety of amino acids.
One meteorite that fell in 2000 in Canada contained tiny organic structures dubbed "organic globules." NASA scientists think this type of meteorite might have fallen to Earth often during the planet's early history, seeding it with organic compounds.
How life originated on our planet is both a fascinating and incredibly complex question. We know roughly when life began, but how remains a mystery.
"Miller, Urey, and others showed that simple inorganic molecules could combine to form the organic building blocks required for life as we know it.
"Once formed, these building blocks could have come together to form polymers such as proteins or RNA.
"Many scientists favor the RNA world hypothesis, in which RNA, not DNA, was the first genetic molecule of life on Earth. Other ideas include the pre-RNA world hypothesis and the metabolism-first hypothesis.
"Organic compounds could have been delivered to early Earth by meteorites and other celestial objects.
These are not the only scientific ideas about how life might have originated, nor are any of them conclusive. Keep your ears (and your mind) open as new information becomes available and new scientific ideas are proposed concerning life's origins.

https://www.khanacademy.org...
v3nesl
Posts: 4,479
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/10/2016 1:32:40 PM
Posted: 3 weeks ago
At 11/10/2016 5:29:33 AM, keithprosser wrote:
At 11/10/2016 2:24:34 AM, MagicAintReal wrote:
Abiogenesis is the best explanation for the origins of life on a prebiotic earth, it has replicable, demonstrable evidence, and is a theory used to help understand the origins of the first living cell.

Well... I'd say 'abiogenesis' is the proposition that life came from non-life. As such, it is neither a hypothesis nor a theory. Some thing like the 'RNA world' is a specific proposed mechanism of abiogenesis and in its barest form is a hypothesis, but it moves towards becoming a theory as it gains support from experiment.

I don't think any abiogenetic hypothesis qualifies as a fully fledged theory yet - we are still in the evidence gathering phase.

While, of course, discarding the evidence pointing to design. Evidence like finding code as the foundation of life.
This space for rent.
FaustianJustice
Posts: 6,210
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/10/2016 2:25:05 PM
Posted: 3 weeks ago
At 11/10/2016 1:32:40 PM, v3nesl wrote:
At 11/10/2016 5:29:33 AM, keithprosser wrote:
At 11/10/2016 2:24:34 AM, MagicAintReal wrote:
Abiogenesis is the best explanation for the origins of life on a prebiotic earth, it has replicable, demonstrable evidence, and is a theory used to help understand the origins of the first living cell.

Well... I'd say 'abiogenesis' is the proposition that life came from non-life. As such, it is neither a hypothesis nor a theory. Some thing like the 'RNA world' is a specific proposed mechanism of abiogenesis and in its barest form is a hypothesis, but it moves towards becoming a theory as it gains support from experiment.

I don't think any abiogenetic hypothesis qualifies as a fully fledged theory yet - we are still in the evidence gathering phase.

While, of course, discarding the evidence pointing to design. Evidence like finding code as the foundation of life.

What in existence is not "designed", then?
Here we have an advocate for Islamic arranged marriages demonstrating that children can consent to sex.
http://www.debate.org...
MagicAintReal
Posts: 591
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/10/2016 3:46:06 PM
Posted: 3 weeks ago
I compare the SM of 1966 to what exists today and say by comparison today it is mushy.

You're misrepresenting what the scientific method is all about.
It's just a filtering out of ideas that don't work...that's it.

You deny this, which is crap on two counts.

Oh is it?

First, it tells me you do not know what the SM was like in 1966. Now in itself that is fine. You do not need to know the history of the field you claim to be an expert in, unless you make claims about that history, so that is a problem for you.

I don't care what the scientific method was in your view from 1966, what an irrelevant thing.
The scientific method is just being very strict with evidence and the acquisition thereof.

Second, it tells you are not aware of the controversy surrounding the SM as it exists today.

That's because no one has brought forth any reason to doubt the filtering out of ideas that don't work.

Is there a scientific method? If "method" means "a single method, used in the same way by all scientists at all times," the answer is NO. Some details of methods change with time and culture, and vary from one area of science to another, so there is nothing that could be called The Scientific Method. But some scientific methods are commonly used by scientists.

Yeah this sound more correct than your over-fixation on calling it this fixed referential manual of science or something.

It just means that we filter out bad evidence with much scrutiny.

Looking at the SM today there is a deficiency of peer review, due in part to the sheer volume of work produced.

Ok, so then you should assess things based on their peer review, not some straw man of what the scientific method should be.

There is also a credibility gap in the calculation department. When experiments yield numbers different than expected, it is assumed the experiments were flawed, but the expectations were not.

Example?

The data is not changed based on real world experiments, the calculations are accepted instead.

Sounds like a straw man again...example?

It is also common today to accept computer models as experiments, which in many cases amounts to thought experiments, a method that was discarded from science over 100 years ago. Computers are calculators, processors of information, they are not hands on experiments that were required by the SM in 1966.

Are you trying to scare away crows?

OK what?

I was using OK as a conversation mover, not a dismissal.

You say I am making it up, I provide an actual example, and you say "Ok".
You are disingenuous at best.

I meant it as a convo mover.

Well, if there is not a hierarchy, than a hypothesis is equal to a Scientific theory, and they are both equal to a Scientific law.

Nope.
And you ignored everything I wrote.
Hypotheses, theories, and laws are all used together to best explain observed phenomena.
A hypothesis could be demonstrable, but we may lack an explanation or theory for its mechanism...this is not hierarchical it's cooperative.

Laws, like gravity often use theories to explain their mechanism, so there's no hierarchical difference there either.
It's not a graduation from hypothesis to theory, stop saying that.

And yet, you explain a process when an idea starts as an hypothesis, and develops into a Scientific theory.

WRONG!
I explained how a hypothesis could be accepted from demonstrable evidence and when we can explain the mechanism behind said demonstration, we can build a theory.
The hypothesis is not now a theory, the theory just explains how the hypothesis is demonstrable...they are not hierarchically related.

And then there are this magical laws, that theories explain, but where do these laws com from?

A law just means something that is obvious, like that things fall to the ground.
This is a law of gravity here on earth.
The theory of gravity would be the explanation of how mass distorts space and creates this gravity.
See, theory and law are used together just like an hypothesis and a theory.

Well, not from Scientific theories, if there is no hierarchy. I guess they just appeared magically.

The sheer idiocy of this statement...
Laws don't come from theories.
Instead, laws, theories, and hypotheses are used together.
Is a pitcher hierarchically above a catcher?
No, they work together.

So, how is it that there is no hierarchy, and yet you seem to explain that an idea become a hypotheses, then that becomes a Scientific theory, that may become a Scientific law?

I never said this.
I said that once we demonstrate a hypothesis we can build a theory that explains the mechanism, not that the hypothesis transforms into a theory...your fundamental misunderstanding of this is shocking...you're just so off here.

There is no hierarchy with the terms you're claiming.

You consider yourself an expert in the field of Science?

My employer certainly does.

Well then, what is it???

Hypotheses, theories, and laws are used TOGETHER to explain phenomena, period.

What distinguishes a hypothesis from a Scientific theory, from a Scientific Law?

An hypothesis is put to the test.
If it passes, we develop an explanation or theory for its mechanism.

A law is an obvious occurrence.
We use theories to explain the mechanism of such obvious occurrences.

If there is no distinction, they are equivalent.

Well I've shown you the differences...

You know, I am bothered by you use of "theory", and your lack of use of "Scientific theory".

They are the same to me.
If you are using "theory" like "I have a theory that they're dating" in conversation, then yest this is not a scientific theory, but when we're talking about science, using the word "theory" implies "scientific theory" IT DOESN'T MEAN THEORETICAL like it would in a regular convo.

A Scientific theory is a special kind of theory, with special requirements.

It's just a predictive explanation of the mechanism behind observed phenomena.

You seem to be, disingenuous, or worse. If you want to claim that abiogenesis is a theory, but not a Scientific theory, I will readily agree with you, because that is true.

When I say theory, I mean scientific theory.

Abiogenesis is the belief that life on earth started by inorganic matter on the earth.

It's not a belief, it's a theory that explains inorganic-->organic reactions of a prebiotic earth.

Panspermia is the belief that life on earth started by the introduction of organic matter from an outside source, including but not limited to as asteroid or comet.

Of this I'm aware.

It is not possible that both abiogenesis and panspermia are explanations for the beginning of life on earth.

I'll agree.

The idea that organic molecules might have traveled to Earth on meteorites may sound like science fiction, but it's supported by reasonable evidence.

I agree with that too, but without evidence of the particular planet or atmosphere from which these organic compounds arose, we have to assume such a venue, then we have to assume a vehicle, which is too many assumptions.
v3nesl
Posts: 4,479
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/10/2016 3:54:12 PM
Posted: 3 weeks ago
At 11/10/2016 2:25:05 PM, FaustianJustice wrote:
At 11/10/2016 1:32:40 PM, v3nesl wrote:
At 11/10/2016 5:29:33 AM, keithprosser wrote:
At 11/10/2016 2:24:34 AM, MagicAintReal wrote:
Abiogenesis is the best explanation for the origins of life on a prebiotic earth, it has replicable, demonstrable evidence, and is a theory used to help understand the origins of the first living cell.

Well... I'd say 'abiogenesis' is the proposition that life came from non-life. As such, it is neither a hypothesis nor a theory. Some thing like the 'RNA world' is a specific proposed mechanism of abiogenesis and in its barest form is a hypothesis, but it moves towards becoming a theory as it gains support from experiment.

I don't think any abiogenetic hypothesis qualifies as a fully fledged theory yet - we are still in the evidence gathering phase.

While, of course, discarding the evidence pointing to design. Evidence like finding code as the foundation of life.

What in existence is not "designed", then?

What in existence isn't composed of matter?

This is a nonsense argument, and it's fascinating how someone like you clings to it after it's been answered many times on this very forum.
This space for rent.
v3nesl
Posts: 4,479
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/10/2016 3:56:26 PM
Posted: 3 weeks ago
At 11/10/2016 3:46:06 PM, MagicAintReal wrote:
I compare the SM of 1966 to what exists today and say by comparison today it is mushy.

You're misrepresenting what the scientific method is all about.
It's just a filtering out of ideas that don't work...that's it.

You deny this, which is crap on two counts.

Oh is it?

First, it tells me you do not know what the SM was like in 1966. Now in itself that is fine. You do not need to know the history of the field you claim to be an expert in, unless you make claims about that history, so that is a problem for you.

I don't care what the scientific method was in your view from 1966, what an irrelevant thing.
The scientific method is just being very strict with evidence and the acquisition thereof.


No, sorry, but that is just SO profoundly wrong. This is the participation trophy version of science, where you get points if you're careful. The real world does not unlock it's secrets on such terms.
This space for rent.
MagicAintReal
Posts: 591
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/10/2016 4:04:57 PM
Posted: 3 weeks ago
No, sorry, but that is just SO profoundly wrong. This is the participation trophy version of science, where you get points if you're careful. The real world does not unlock it's secrets on such terms.

Your assessment is weak, unfounded, and annoying...you suck for these reasons.
Geodesic
Posts: 28
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/10/2016 4:21:19 PM
Posted: 3 weeks ago
At 11/10/2016 12:14:53 AM, Welfare-Worker wrote:
So, which is it, hypothesis, or Scientific theory?
:
I realise that it may be a Scientific theory in a broad sense, with various hypothesis' on the details. No place I read mentioned this, but I suppose it is possible.

Opinions are always welcome, but of course substantiation may be helpful to any serious discussion.

It is a useful hypothesis in that it does at least provide some possible explanations of life originating from non-life. To be a hypothesis, it need not be especially convincing; but it does need to be better than a guess or irrational belief. That is, there must at least be some evidence to support the hypothesis and some means of testing that evidence. Even if it is not corroborated by empirical investigation, it gives us something to go on instead of blindly grasping at straws.
MagicAintReal
Posts: 591
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/10/2016 4:31:34 PM
Posted: 3 weeks ago
Well... I'd say 'abiogenesis' is the proposition that life came from non-life. As such, it is neither a hypothesis nor a theory.

Wrong.
Abiogenesis is a theory that explains the mechanism behind inorganic-->organic reactions of a prebiotic earth...it's most definitely a scientific theory.

Some thing like the 'RNA world' is a specific proposed mechanism of abiogenesis and in its barest form is a hypothesis, but it moves towards becoming a theory as it gains support from experiment.

Abiogenesis explains the mechanism, so it's a theory.

I don't think any abiogenetic hypothesis qualifies as a fully fledged theory yet

You're misusing theory and it's obvious.
Theories explain mechanisms, and the evidence indicates over and over again...check my debate on the matter.

we are still in the evidence gathering phase.

We're always in the evidence gathering phase...that's science.

You can't really put numbers on this sort of thing, but I'd say the evidence that RNA world model is limited to showing a few things necessary for life can be produced abiotically, but it is not up to demonstrating it works for producing a working cell ab initio.

They most certainly have, you have ignored the studies...you should actually, without a bias, research the science behind it...it's fascinatingly explanatory.
FaustianJustice
Posts: 6,210
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/10/2016 4:32:09 PM
Posted: 3 weeks ago
At 11/10/2016 3:54:12 PM, v3nesl wrote:
At 11/10/2016 2:25:05 PM, FaustianJustice wrote:
At 11/10/2016 1:32:40 PM, v3nesl wrote:
At 11/10/2016 5:29:33 AM, keithprosser wrote:
At 11/10/2016 2:24:34 AM, MagicAintReal wrote:
Abiogenesis is the best explanation for the origins of life on a prebiotic earth, it has replicable, demonstrable evidence, and is a theory used to help understand the origins of the first living cell.

Well... I'd say 'abiogenesis' is the proposition that life came from non-life. As such, it is neither a hypothesis nor a theory. Some thing like the 'RNA world' is a specific proposed mechanism of abiogenesis and in its barest form is a hypothesis, but it moves towards becoming a theory as it gains support from experiment.

I don't think any abiogenetic hypothesis qualifies as a fully fledged theory yet - we are still in the evidence gathering phase.

While, of course, discarding the evidence pointing to design. Evidence like finding code as the foundation of life.

What in existence is not "designed", then?

What in existence isn't composed of matter?

This is a nonsense argument, and it's fascinating how someone like you clings to it after it's been answered many times on this very forum.

It wasn't "answered", Ves. We can tell life from non life. Can you tell design from non-design? If not, there cannot be a basis for comparison.
Here we have an advocate for Islamic arranged marriages demonstrating that children can consent to sex.
http://www.debate.org...
Geodesic
Posts: 28
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/10/2016 4:50:54 PM
Posted: 3 weeks ago
At 11/10/2016 4:31:34 PM, MagicAintReal wrote:

Abiogenesis is a theory that explains the mechanism behind inorganic-->organic reactions of a prebiotic earth...it's most definitely a scientific theory.

Abiogenesis explains the mechanism, so it's a theory.


In terms of the actual mechanism for abiogenesis, there are many possible explanations but none have been corroborated by empirical investigation.
If you know of one distinct mechanism that explains the origin of life from non-life, that is better than all the others, I would be interested in knowing what that is, with a link.
chui
Posts: 507
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/10/2016 5:01:36 PM
Posted: 3 weeks ago
At 11/10/2016 12:14:53 AM, Welfare-Worker wrote:
In my research I was surprised to see many scientifically respectable sources claim Abiogenesis is a Scientific theory.

Any Scientific theory has to meet certain criteria, as part of the Scientific Method.
Compared to the SM I learned fifty years ago, criteria and requirements are rather mushy in the current version of SM. Still, there are certain requirements.

I expected to find that Abiogenesis was an hypothesis.
I did find that, probably as often as I found it called a Scientific theory. Maybe more, I didn't keep track.
Here is one example:
"Some scientists support the RNA world hypothesis, which suggests that the first life was self-replicating RNA. Others favor the metabolism-first hypothesis, placing metabolic networks before DNA or RNA."

As most of us know, there is a hierarchy of Scientific ideas, and an hypothesis is distinctly below a Scientific theory.
A Scientific theory is no longer an hypothesis, and an hypothesis lacks the evidence required of a Scientific theory.

Maybe the structure of the SM has changed, yet again, so I welcome correction, but may request substantiation.

So, which is it, hypothesis, or Scientific theory?

I realise that it may be a Scientific theory in a broad sense, with various hypothesis' on the details. No place I read mentioned this, but I suppose it is possible.

Opinions are always welcome, but of course substantiation may be helpful to any serious discussion.

Abiogenesis has obviously happened because life exists. We do not need to hypothesise whether life exists we know it does.

Who decides what is theory, law , principle, axiom, hypothesis, assumption, rule, corollary etc. ? Does it really matter to those involved in the science? If you work in this field you will know who has more support for their ideas.
Welfare-Worker
Posts: 1,175
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/10/2016 5:04:33 PM
Posted: 3 weeks ago
At 11/10/2016 4:21:19 PM, Geodesic wrote:
At 11/10/2016 12:14:53 AM, Welfare-Worker wrote:
So, which is it, hypothesis, or Scientific theory?
:
I realise that it may be a Scientific theory in a broad sense, with various hypothesis' on the details. No place I read mentioned this, but I suppose it is possible.

Opinions are always welcome, but of course substantiation may be helpful to any serious discussion.

It is a useful hypothesis in that it does at least provide some possible explanations of life originating from non-life. To be a hypothesis, it need not be especially convincing; but it does need to be better than a guess or irrational belief. That is, there must at least be some evidence to support the hypothesis and some means of testing that evidence. Even if it is not corroborated by empirical investigation, it gives us something to go on instead of blindly grasping at straws.

Well, apparently you haven't read the posts from the self appointed expert.
He says it is a scientific theory.

As far as it being a useful hypothesis, I agree.
At this point, so is panspermia.
Welfare-Worker
Posts: 1,175
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/10/2016 5:13:15 PM
Posted: 3 weeks ago
At 11/10/2016 3:46:06 PM, MagicAintReal wrote:

Well, you are just off the charts.
I have been reading that the SM is nearly in shambles, and you certainly provide evidence for that.

I will just point out that I provided a substantial amount of documentation to support my position, and you provided zero, zilch, nada.
At least one of those with a science based belief system spoke up to point out your errors, and I appreciate that.

You have a very perverted sense of logic.
It may be that you are typical of those "professionals" in the scientific community.
I will take their silence as support for your position, and see how things go.

I will not bother to respond to your drivel.
Your credibility is going into the negative zone.
Geodesic
Posts: 28
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/10/2016 5:16:36 PM
Posted: 3 weeks ago
At 11/10/2016 5:04:33 PM, Welfare-Worker wrote:
Well, apparently you haven't read the posts from the self appointed expert.
He says it is a scientific theory.

As far as it being a useful hypothesis, I agree.
At this point, so is panspermia.

I don't think it matters a great deal whether it is called a theory or a hypothesis. I consider that hair splitting. To each his own, although personally I prefer to call it a hypothesis.

Yes, panspermia is also a useful hypothesis and I would classify it as a subset of abiogenesis on Earth. The problem with this hypothesis is that it does not explain abiogenesis in the Universe.
Welfare-Worker
Posts: 1,175
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/10/2016 5:17:21 PM
Posted: 3 weeks ago
At 11/10/2016 5:01:36 PM, chui wrote:
At 11/10/2016 12:14:53 AM, Welfare-Worker wrote:
In my research I was surprised to see many scientifically respectable sources claim Abiogenesis is a Scientific theory.

Any Scientific theory has to meet certain criteria, as part of the Scientific Method.
Compared to the SM I learned fifty years ago, criteria and requirements are rather mushy in the current version of SM. Still, there are certain requirements.

I expected to find that Abiogenesis was an hypothesis.
I did find that, probably as often as I found it called a Scientific theory. Maybe more, I didn't keep track.
Here is one example:
"Some scientists support the RNA world hypothesis, which suggests that the first life was self-replicating RNA. Others favor the metabolism-first hypothesis, placing metabolic networks before DNA or RNA."

As most of us know, there is a hierarchy of Scientific ideas, and an hypothesis is distinctly below a Scientific theory.
A Scientific theory is no longer an hypothesis, and an hypothesis lacks the evidence required of a Scientific theory.

Maybe the structure of the SM has changed, yet again, so I welcome correction, but may request substantiation.

So, which is it, hypothesis, or Scientific theory?

I realise that it may be a Scientific theory in a broad sense, with various hypothesis' on the details. No place I read mentioned this, but I suppose it is possible.

Opinions are always welcome, but of course substantiation may be helpful to any serious discussion.

Abiogenesis has obviously happened because life exists. We do not need to hypothesise whether life exists we know it does.

So, you have proof panspermia is not the cause of life on earth.
You need to present your evidence and get published.
You are missing a wonderful opportunity here.

Who decides what is theory, law , principle, axiom, hypothesis, assumption, rule, corollary etc. ? Does it really matter to those involved in the science? If you work in this field you will know who has more support for their ideas.

So, peer review means nothing in Science.
Another key ingredient of the SM chucked to the wind.
No scientist cares what his peers think.
Marvelous.
Welfare-Worker
Posts: 1,175
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/10/2016 5:25:09 PM
Posted: 3 weeks ago
At 11/10/2016 5:16:36 PM, Geodesic wrote:
At 11/10/2016 5:04:33 PM, Welfare-Worker wrote:
Well, apparently you haven't read the posts from the self appointed expert.
He says it is a scientific theory.

As far as it being a useful hypothesis, I agree.
At this point, so is panspermia.

I don't think it matters a great deal whether it is called a theory or a hypothesis. I consider that hair splitting. To each his own, although personally I prefer to call it a hypothesis.

Well, there was a time when the term "scientific theory" had some weight, good as gold, as they say.

Yes, panspermia is also a useful hypothesis and I would classify it as a subset of abiogenesis on Earth. The problem with this hypothesis is that it does not explain abiogenesis in the Universe.

One says organic life came from inorganic material.
The other says organic life came from organic material.
And you consider one a subset of the other?????
Pray tell, which is larger, and which is the subset.
Let me guess, the inconvenient one is the subset.
How convenient.
Welfare-Worker
Posts: 1,175
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/10/2016 5:32:20 PM
Posted: 3 weeks ago
A scientific theory is a specific type of theory used in the scientific method. The term "theory" can mean something different, depending on whom you ask.

"The way that scientists use the word 'theory' is a little different than how it is commonly used in the lay public," said Jaime Tanner, a professor of biology at Marlboro College. "Most people use the word 'theory' to mean an idea or hunch that someone has, but in science the word 'theory' refers to the way that we interpret facts."
Every scientific theory starts as a hypothesis. According to the Merriam-Webster Dictionary, a hypothesis is an idea that hasn't been proven yet. If enough evidence accumulates to support a hypothesis, it moves to the next step " known as a theory " in the scientific method and becomes accepted as a valid explanation of a phenomenon.

http://www.livescience.com...

Hey, what do they know, they only teach Scoience
v3nesl
Posts: 4,479
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/10/2016 5:50:57 PM
Posted: 3 weeks ago
At 11/10/2016 4:32:09 PM, FaustianJustice wrote:
At 11/10/2016 3:54:12 PM, v3nesl wrote:
At 11/10/2016 2:25:05 PM, FaustianJustice wrote:
At 11/10/2016 1:32:40 PM, v3nesl wrote:
At 11/10/2016 5:29:33 AM, keithprosser wrote:
At 11/10/2016 2:24:34 AM, MagicAintReal wrote:
Abiogenesis is the best explanation for the origins of life on a prebiotic earth, it has replicable, demonstrable evidence, and is a theory used to help understand the origins of the first living cell.

Well... I'd say 'abiogenesis' is the proposition that life came from non-life. As such, it is neither a hypothesis nor a theory. Some thing like the 'RNA world' is a specific proposed mechanism of abiogenesis and in its barest form is a hypothesis, but it moves towards becoming a theory as it gains support from experiment.

I don't think any abiogenetic hypothesis qualifies as a fully fledged theory yet - we are still in the evidence gathering phase.

While, of course, discarding the evidence pointing to design. Evidence like finding code as the foundation of life.

What in existence is not "designed", then?

What in existence isn't composed of matter?

This is a nonsense argument, and it's fascinating how someone like you clings to it after it's been answered many times on this very forum.


It wasn't "answered", Ves. We can tell life from non life. Can you tell design from non-design? If not, there cannot be a basis for comparison.

I can tell design from non-design, of course. We all do so every day. But that's not logically necessary. Have you ever been somewhere that didn't occupy space? So obviously we don't need non-space in order to grasp the concept of space. It's just a bogus, sophomoric objection, man. Do yourself the favor of taking whatever time you need to see how silly it is.
This space for rent.
MagicAintReal
Posts: 591
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/10/2016 5:55:47 PM
Posted: 3 weeks ago
At 11/10/2016 5:13:15 PM, Welfare-Worker wrote:
At 11/10/2016 3:46:06 PM, MagicAintReal wrote:

Well, you are just off the charts.
I have been reading that the SM is nearly in shambles, and you certainly provide evidence for that.

I will just point out that I provided a substantial amount of documentation to support my position, and you provided zero, zilch, nada.
At least one of those with a science based belief system spoke up to point out your errors, and I appreciate that.

You have a very perverted sense of logic.
It may be that you are typical of those "professionals" in the scientific community.
I will take their silence as support for your position, and see how things go.

I will not bother to respond to your drivel.
Your credibility is going into the negative zone.

Yeah, I also throw a bunch of ad hominems at my opponent and run away from arguments when they aren't going my way...no wait, I'm not a p*ssy.
FaustianJustice
Posts: 6,210
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/10/2016 6:21:30 PM
Posted: 3 weeks ago
Abiogenesis is the best explanation for the origins of life on a prebiotic earth, it has replicable, demonstrable evidence, and is a theory used to help understand the origins of the first living cell.

Well... I'd say 'abiogenesis' is the proposition that life came from non-life. As such, it is neither a hypothesis nor a theory. Some thing like the 'RNA world' is a specific proposed mechanism of abiogenesis and in its barest form is a hypothesis, but it moves towards becoming a theory as it gains support from experiment.

I don't think any abiogenetic hypothesis qualifies as a fully fledged theory yet - we are still in the evidence gathering phase.

While, of course, discarding the evidence pointing to design. Evidence like finding code as the foundation of life.

What in existence is not "designed", then?

What in existence isn't composed of matter?

This is a nonsense argument, and it's fascinating how someone like you clings to it after it's been answered many times on this very forum.


It wasn't "answered", Ves. We can tell life from non life. Can you tell design from non-design? If not, there cannot be a basis for comparison.

I can tell design from non-design, of course. We all do so every day.

That shifts the scope of the conversation, some what, so let me re focus it for you. Is there any life that is NOT designed? Is there anything in existence (on the whole) that is not designed? Could you provide an example of non-design without making use of pre-designed materials? Previously (in a conversation a while back) you indicated that in dropping a pile of matches, the outcome is non designed, to which I disagree, the example on the whole was -designed-, the dropped matches wouldn't be there were an example not asked for.

But that's not logically necessary. Have you ever been somewhere that didn't occupy space?

That is an incoherent question. I can understand there being NO space, and I can understand space being available, and the reason why I can understand those things is based on their contrast.

So obviously we don't need non-space in order to grasp the concept of space. It's just a bogus, sophomoric objection, man.

??? That is exactly what we are drawing a comparison from! The location we discuss (or as you ask me to occupy) is being compared to having -nothing in it-. We are making the distinction of null to occupied.

If I hand you a bag of marbles, and ask you to find the marble that I find "pretty", what is your next follow up, and why? Obviously, you need the ability to make a distinction between the group, with out that distinction, any marble is just like any other marble.

So, if I understand things correctly, to you, existence and life is designed, is that correct? It would be impossible to find examples of "non-design" on a cellular level, and impossible to find examples of "non-design" when it comes to something existing, is that correct?
Here we have an advocate for Islamic arranged marriages demonstrating that children can consent to sex.
http://www.debate.org...
MagicAintReal
Posts: 591
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/10/2016 6:26:53 PM
Posted: 3 weeks ago
In terms of the actual mechanism for abiogenesis, there are many possible explanations but none have been corroborated by empirical investigation.
If you know of one distinct mechanism that explains the origin of life from non-life, that is better than all the others, I would be interested in knowing what that is, with a link.

Read my round 2 of my abiogenesis debate.
http://www.debate.org...
Geodesic
Posts: 28
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/10/2016 6:31:11 PM
Posted: 3 weeks ago
At 11/10/2016 5:25:09 PM, Welfare-Worker wrote:
At 11/10/2016 5:16:36 PM, Geodesic wrote:

Yes, panspermia is also a useful hypothesis and I would classify it as a subset of abiogenesis on Earth. The problem with this hypothesis is that it does not explain abiogenesis in the Universe.

One says organic life came from inorganic material.
The other says organic life came from organic material.
And you consider one a subset of the other?????
Pray tell, which is larger, and which is the subset.
Let me guess, the inconvenient one is the subset.
How convenient.

As I understand it, panspermia comes in several different varieties, so we need to be careful that we are not talking about two entirely different ideas, as so often happens in this type of discussion.

In one form, panspermia is based on the idea that life on the earth originated from primitive (or maybe not so primitive) microorganisms that somehow arrived on earth from another place, perhaps carried by a comet. In this form, there is no attempt to explain the possible origins of these life forms, only that they are of extraterrestrial origin. This is apparently what you are referring to and I agree this is not a subset of abiogenesis.

The form of panspermia that I do consider a subset of abiogenesis involves primitive organic compounds that have been found to exist in space.
A better explanation comes from the link below:

The Prebiotic Interstellar Molecular Survey

A team of scientists using highly sensitive radio telescopes has discovered the first complex organic chiral molecule in interstellar space. The molecule, propylene oxide (CH3CHOCH2), was found near the center of our Galaxy in an enormous star-forming cloud of dust and gas known as Sagittarius B2 (Sgr B2).
"This is the first molecule detected in interstellar space that has the property of chirality, making it a pioneering leap forward in our understanding of how prebiotic molecules are made in the Universe and the effects they may have on the origins of life," said Brett McGuire, a chemist and Jansky Postdoctoral Fellow with the National Radio Astronomy Observatory (NRAO) in Charlottesville, Virginia.


Link:
https://public.nrao.edu...
Geodesic
Posts: 28
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/10/2016 6:35:33 PM
Posted: 3 weeks ago
At 11/10/2016 5:32:20 PM, Welfare-Worker wrote:
A scientific theory is a specific type of theory used in the scientific method. The term "theory" can mean something different, depending on whom you ask.

"The way that scientists use the word 'theory' is a little different than how it is commonly used in the lay public," said Jaime Tanner, a professor of biology at Marlboro College. "Most people use the word 'theory' to mean an idea or hunch that someone has, but in science the word 'theory' refers to the way that we interpret facts."
Every scientific theory starts as a hypothesis. According to the Merriam-Webster Dictionary, a hypothesis is an idea that hasn't been proven yet. If enough evidence accumulates to support a hypothesis, it moves to the next step " known as a theory " in the scientific method and becomes accepted as a valid explanation of a phenomenon.

http://www.livescience.com...

Hey, what do they know, they only teach Scoience

This definition has a fatal flaw where it says that Quote a hypothesis is an idea that hasn't been proven yet Unquote

A theory is also an idea that has not been proven yet, so that is not a valid distinction. In fact, there is very little in all of science that has been proven yet!


I would not place too much weight on dictionary definitions in these matters.
Geodesic
Posts: 28
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/10/2016 6:42:29 PM
Posted: 3 weeks ago
At 11/10/2016 6:26:53 PM, MagicAintReal wrote:
In terms of the actual mechanism for abiogenesis, there are many possible explanations but none have been corroborated by empirical investigation.
If you know of one distinct mechanism that explains the origin of life from non-life, that is better than all the others, I would be interested in knowing what that is, with a link.

Read my round 2 of my abiogenesis debate.
http://www.debate.org...

Do you think I am arguing that abiogenesis isn't sound?

What you posted here was this:
Abiogenesis explains the mechanism, so it's a theory.



I am asking you to tell me what is THE mechanism that abiogenesis explains.

As I said, there are many such possible mechanisms that have been proposed but none of them have achieved universal acceptance over all the others.
MagicAintReal
Posts: 591
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/10/2016 6:54:48 PM
Posted: 3 weeks ago
I am asking you to tell me what is THE mechanism that abiogenesis explains.

Inorganic compounds can react and become organic compounds and the resulting catalytic network of amino acids allows for the emergence of genetic polymers and RNA.

As I said, there are many such possible mechanisms that have been proposed but none of them have achieved universal acceptance over all the others.

Check my debate please.