Article <uv66v4$10i32$1@dont-email.me>

Deutsch English Français Italiano
<uv66v4$10i32$1@dont-email.me>

View for Bookmarking (what is this?)
Look up another Usenet article
Path: ...!weretis.net!feeder8.news.weretis.net!newsfeed.xs3.de!nntp-feed.chiark.greenend.org.uk!ewrotcd!news.eyrie.org!beagle.ediacara.org!.POSTED.beagle.ediacara.org!not-for-mail
From: JTEM <jtem01@gmail.com>
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Life: Turn it upside down!
Date: Wed, 10 Apr 2024 10:16:01 -0400
Organization: Eek
Lines: 114
Sender: to%beagle.ediacara.org
Approved: moderator@beagle.ediacara.org
Message-ID: <uv66v4$10i32$1@dont-email.me>
References: <uv3bk0$79c9$1@dont-email.me> <uv3dk7$7pdd$1@dont-email.me>
 <uv3sco$bgum$1@dont-email.me> <uv40ng$ciks$1@dont-email.me>
 <uv41nl$cmhr$1@dont-email.me> <uv42pm$d3fb$1@dont-email.me>
 <uv45e1$dit8$1@dont-email.me> <uv5cv6$q7hs$1@dont-email.me>
Reply-To: jtem01@gmail.com
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Info: beagle.ediacara.org; posting-host="beagle.ediacara.org:3.132.105.89";
	logging-data="18404"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@beagle.ediacara.org"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
To: talk-origins@moderators.isc.org
Cancel-Lock: sha1:FYxtWmgKwz/FbgREA3Bab4E30O8=
In-Reply-To: <uv5cv6$q7hs$1@dont-email.me>
Content-Language: en-US
Bytes: 6305

  Arkalen wrote:

> Sorry; your reply of "it's Faith-based" was to the following:
> 
> "The alkaline hydrothermal vent hypothesis doesn't involve modern 
> alkaline hydrothermal vents

So, nothing that exists.

> in fact it relies on the assumption

Faith based.

> I thought the "faith" you were referring to was "our partial knowledge 
> of the conditions of early Earth" but I take it you just meant the 
> hypothesis overall?

The faith begins with the belief that abiogenesis even happened.

Panspermia is equally as valid.

There's also creationism, yes.

It's also possible that abiogenesis did occur, on Mars or even
in another solar system, only for life to be deposited on Earth
via some cross contamination...

It's a variation on Panspermia, I know, but classical Panspermia
has life forming as a consequence of the Big Bang.

> That seems to assume the only possible abiogenesis experiment is "making 
> a cell from scratch" but that's never how science or experiments work. 
> Experiments are always about testing some testable aspect of a 
> hypothesis. That would be like saying we never tested the theory of 
> relativity until we put GPS satellites into orbit or something.

A hypothesis explains the evidence/observations AND serves as the
basis of predictions. These predictions, in turn, lend themselves
to scientific testing -- experimentation, observation. This testing,
if failed, falsifies the hypothesis. There was less than
compelling confirmation of an Einstein prediction almost right
away, but it did take a few years before the first solid
scientific test confirmed a prediction.

However...

'Tis the nature of "Evidence" to support more than one conclusion.
A positive test result of a prediction IS CONSISTENT WITH a
hypothesis, but in almost all cases is also consistent with other
explanations. So scientifically confirming a prediction of an
abiogenesis hypothesis isn't as convincing as some might believe.

Ideas are really only good or bad in comparison to other ideas,
not themselves.

>> Oh, dude; I was woafully under performing there!  We're talking
>> a HUGE spectrum, from the most basic forms of matter to the
>> most complex examples of non-living structures... onto the very
>> simplest forms of life...

> And I'm telling you most of that spectrum is empty, shows a huge gulf.

That would be more convincing if either one of us could point to
such a spectrum -- mapped out, scientifically. But we can't. So
you are arguing... what?

My point from the beginning is that we need this spectrum laid out.
The work has to be done. BECAUSE it hasn't been.

The spectrum isn't empty, it's ignored.

> I'll give you that I could add some things to your list, most notably 
> dissipative systems like tornadoes. But if you think the spectrum is 
> full then you should have no trouble at all populating it better than 
> you did there.

My point is that people are approaching this all wrong. That, nobody
has done this basic work.

Did you know homosexuality was originally classified as a mental
illness, a disorder? Do you know why they stopped? Because someone
got the idea to look for gay men who were NOT being treated for
mental health issues. Turns out that if the only gay men you ever
look at are the ones in therapy, you get the idea that all gay men
suffer from mental health issues!

What you are NOT looking at is important. Sometimes it's more
important than what you are looking at.

> I mean, obviously every element of that spectrum has to have been 
> realized at some point, or abiogenesis couldn't have happened. 

We're back to being faith-based. Abiogenesis is not the only
game in town. And even if it did happen somewhere on the
surface of a planet, this may not have been that planet! It
may literally be impossible to identify any environment that
had ever existed on this Earth which might've resulted in
abiogenesis... if it ever happened anywhere.

So switch the focus. Study things that are real, that actually
exist.

> But you 
> seem focused on only looking at things that exist now, so.

That's me, focused on what I can see instead of what doesn't
exist!




-- 
https://jtem.tumblr.com/tagged/The%20Book%20of%20JTEM/page/5