Evolution and abiogenesis

[SelfSim]

Some truth posited as existing independently from a mind, for example, is not a testable proposition in science and therefore, can not form part of objective reality.

This statement implies that NOTHING exists as a part of objective reality.

No .. science develops objective reality (by way of it objective testing and its operational process).

There is no truth that exists independently from a mind, because the only observers remarking on those truths are observers possessing minds.

Close ... but no cigar!

Re the underlined text: Science cannot rule out something it cannot test, therefore a scientific thinker cannot rule out some 'truth' existing independently from a mind.
(This is also what distinguishes the approach I'm using from 'Solipism', which does rule such things out). However, those who do advocate the existence of truth independent from a mind, are doing so either from a purely philosophical (belief-based) stance (ie: "Realism"), or they have merely posited the existence of such a thing, even though they cannot conclusively demonstrate the existence of it independently from a mind.
If you don't agree with the latter, then please cite the test which conclusively demonstrates that some truth exists independently of a mind, without using a mind to do it.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

No.

What I know, is that the scientific process produces 'objective reality' on the sole basis of its testing ... and not before that. Predictions are not part of science's objective reality until they have been found as being consistent with the data resulting from its tests.
The outcome of this process then forms the basis for the knowledge of which I think you are referring to above(?)

There are many examples (evidence) for what I say above, from science's history (eg: the Higgs Boson, Black Holes, Newtonian Gravity, etc, etc).

Then how can you conclude we can never know how life originated?

 

[SelfSim]

Then how can you conclude we can never know how life originated?

Did I do that?
(Show me where).

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Did I do that?
(Show me where).

...In this case, they were specifically engineered to perform efficient replication... Technically speaking: 'yes'. But it was engineered from one of life's large, basic, informatically rich, complex building block molecules....As I said (and they more or less concur with at the end of the article): 'engineered'.

My point now is that 'molecular engineering' is only done under human control. In the real testing grounds for the hypothesised 'universal principles of Evolution Theory', (meaning exo-planetary bodies and exo-environments), there are no humans! Therefore, this is not evidence of anything in particular, ...

I asked you, does this mean no experimental evidence will ever be enough?


You throw out a bunch of big words, act like you have some expertise, then instead of a discussion, you play games. Got it.

 

[Perpetual Student]

..., then please cite the test which conclusively demonstrates that some truth exists independently of a mind, without using a mind to do it.

Is this some extreme anthropic principle or merely sophistry? All electrons have a specific charge, that is measurable -- that is a truth, regardless of whether any mind exists to measure it or fathom that fact.
The universe exists and does not care if anyone is around to contemplate it.

 

[jimbob]

The process admits testable hypotheses. That doesn't make 'a more likely explanation in principle', prior to testing them.
In fact, the whole purpose of hypothesing/testing is for figuring that out.



Even a probable outcome, is not a sure thing that 'exists' on its own (independently). So ... test it!
No preconditions.

How do you propose testing for life? What do you think are the combination of features that are unique to living systems?

Where should we look for life? We have finite resources and time so need to prioritise.

 

[SelfSim]

No.

What I know, is that the scientific process produces 'objective reality' on the sole basis of its testing ... and not before that. Predictions are not part of science's objective reality until they have been found as being consistent with the data resulting from its tests.
The outcome of this process then forms the basis for the knowledge of which I think you are referring to above(?)

There are many examples (evidence) for what I say above, from science's history (eg: the Higgs Boson, Black Holes, Newtonian Gravity, etc, etc).

Then how can you conclude we can never know how life originated?

Did I do that?
(Show me where).

...

...In this case, they were specifically engineered to perform efficient replication... Technically speaking: 'yes'. But it was engineered from one of life's large, basic, informatically rich, complex building block molecules....As I said (and they more or less concur with at the end of the article): 'engineered'.

My point now is that 'molecular engineering' is only done under human control. In the real testing grounds for the hypothesised 'universal principles of Evolution Theory', (meaning exo-planetary bodies and exo-environments), there are no humans!
Therefore, this is not evidence of anything in particular, ...

Ok .. I took a 'short-cut' (ie: 'there are no humans'). I can now elaborate. Firstly, lab-engineered lifeforms represent models (or analogues). In this case they were based on Earth-life biochemistry, which then began behaving in accordance with predictions made by 'Evolutionary Principles'. These models (or analogues) may, or may not, bear any resemblance to what we might find in a given exo-environment. Any notion of 'Universal Evolutionary principles' is under test in any given exo-environment (where life may have been found, if it exists there), therefore invoking 'Universal principles' as a means for realising knowledge, in science's Objective Reality prior to its testing, is insufficient because of the incompletion of that testing process in any apparent 'life'-bearing exo-environment. The exo-environmental testing in this instance, is crucial for any claims on 'Universality'. (Eg: Newton's Universal Law of Gravitation needed observational data sourced from other environments beyond Earth, before the term 'Universality' could add any scientific 'weight' (or meaning) to Newtonian Gravitational Theory). The need for this exo-environmental data is also paramount because any new data from that new exo-environment could change the meaning the term 'life' currently has, in science's Objective Reality. Meanings in Objective Reality are always contextual and provisional, hence we need the context from that new, apparently 'life'-bearing exo-environment, (if and where this is found).

The 'exo-planetary bodies' and 'exo-environments' I was referring to above, are those places which have not yet been explored and more importantly, have not yet had any (carbon-based) 'life tests' (or Evolution theory tests) applied there. Until those tests have been applied in those environments, science cannot make statements about the Objective Reality in those environments because these environments have not yet entered its 'perceptions' by way of testing there yet. So, 'yes', science has nothing to say about that except: "We don't know".

I asked you, does this mean no experimental evidence will ever be enough?

I would think the first discovery of something which resembles what science currently already knows from its Objective Reality, as being 'life', (meaning: responds to science's diagnostic life tests), would suffice as an 'exit criteria'.

You throw out a bunch of big words, act like you have some expertise, then instead of a discussion, you play games. Got it.

Your sarcasm won't make this go away .. what is needed, is a precise scientifically based counter-argument (supported by objective evidence).
If you have no interest in producing this, then it won't concern me in the slightest if you choose to bow out of this discussion, or the concepts being presented.

 

[Hlafordlaes]

The process admits testable hypotheses. That doesn't make 'a more likely explanation in principle', prior to testing them.
In fact, the whole purpose of hypothesing/testing is for figuring that out.

Okay! Now, add the fact that humans have accumulated an amazing number of observations, reliable measurements, repeated trials, and have a giganormous spreadsheet full of hard counts; i.e., frequency measures of such phenomenon. With probabilities in hand, science can now prioritize.

Now, I know abiogenesis in this respect is not included; never observed. But the argument you are making above, then, is too broad.

Even a probable outcome, is not a sure thing that 'exists' on its own (independently). So ... test it!
No preconditions.

But I do not, as a scientist, need to worry about any philosophy as to whether something exists on its own. That's for philosophers. A scientist can just do science and it all works out, no extra questions asked.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

...



Ok .. I took a 'short-cut' (ie: 'there are no humans'). I can now elaborate. Firstly, lab-engineered lifeforms represent models (or analogues). In this case they were based on Earth-life biochemistry, which then began behaving in accordance with predictions made by 'Evolutionary Principles'. These models (or analogues) may, or may not, bear any resemblance to what we might find in a given exo-environment. Any notion of 'Universal Evolutionary principles' is under test in any given exo-environment (where life may have been found, if it exists there), therefore invoking 'Universal principles' as a means for realising knowledge, in science's Objective Reality prior to its testing, is insufficient because of the incompletion of that testing process in any apparent 'life'-bearing exo-environment. The exo-environmental testing in this instance, is crucial for any claims on 'Universality'. (Eg: Newton's Universal Law of Gravitation needed observational data sourced from other environments beyond Earth, before the term 'Universality' could add any scientific 'weight' (or meaning) to Newtonian Gravitational Theory). The need for this exo-environmental data is also paramount because any new data from that new exo-environment could change the meaning the term 'life' currently has, in science's Objective Reality. Meanings in Objective Reality are always contextual and provisional, hence we need the context from that new, apparently 'life'-bearing exo-environment, (if and where this is found).

The 'exo-planetary bodies' and 'exo-environments' I was referring to above, are those places which have not yet been explored and more importantly, have not yet had any (carbon-based) 'life tests' (or Evolution theory tests) applied there. Until those tests have been applied in those environments, science cannot make statements about the Objective Reality in those environments because these environments have not yet entered its 'perceptions' by way of testing there yet. So, 'yes', science has nothing to say about that except: "We don't know".



I would think the first discovery of something which resembles what science currently already knows from its Objective Reality, as being 'life', (meaning: responds to science's diagnostic life tests), would suffice as an 'exit criteria'.



Your sarcasm won't make this go away .. what is needed, is a precise scientifically based counter-argument (supported by objective evidence).
If you have no interest in producing this, then it won't concern me in the slightest if you choose to bow out of this discussion, or the concepts being presented.

I wouldn't have been sarcastic it your hadn't been obtuse. If you have your own version of the facts, then you shouldn't have to result to waste of time posts asking if you said something.

So let's summarize this. You have an issue with the conclusions drawn by the current research. I don't. I think the research is advancing rapidly and while there is always room for a whole new hypothesis, the current ones look pretty promising.

I'm content the research is supporting the continuum model I suggested, there is no magical line on the continuum where the processes suddenly changed from organic chemical processes to Darwinian evolution based on random mutation and natural selection pressures.

I am not impressed by your arguments.

 

[Emily's Cat]

Is this some extreme anthropic principle or merely sophistry? All electrons have a specific charge, that is measurable -- that is a truth, regardless of whether any mind exists to measure it or fathom that fact.
The universe exists and does not care if anyone is around to contemplate it.

The highlighted is my opinion.

 

[Hlafordlaes]

All electrons have a specific charge, that is measurable -- that is a truth, regardless of whether any mind exists to measure it or fathom that fact.
The universe exists and does not care if anyone is around to contemplate it.

No question that any time you make the measure using the same method you get the same or close enough result. Also no question that the certainty you speak of is regarding the reliability and validity of results, i.e., information.

The mind independence of any datum, or existence itself is, in any case, irrelevant. Anything mind-independent is not available to the mind, by definition, so it does not enter science. Science is a body of knowledge that is informed by the reliable and valid information derived from its methods, and is most definitely mind-dependent. This does not impinge upon science dealing successfully with objective reality, and questions none of its confirmed results. Because of that, the distinctions in this sort of debate are of interest only when exploring the limits of claims in ways more appropriate to philosophy than to science.

 

[Perpetual Student]

...

The mind independence of any datum, or existence itself is, in any case, irrelevant. Anything mind-independent is not available to the mind, by definition, so it does not enter science.

...

Rubbish! The andromeda galaxy exists and has existed regardless of any mind. The electromagnetic radiation we see as the andromeda galaxy originated 2.5 million years ago. That is a scientific fact that is amply demonstrated. Whether there have been any minds to fathom that over the last 2.5 million years is not known and quite irrelevant.

 

[Hlafordlaes]

Rubbish! The andromeda galaxy exists and has existed regardless of any mind. The electromagnetic radiation we see as the andromeda galaxy originated 2.5 million years ago. That is a scientific fact that is amply demonstrated. Whether there have been any minds to fathom that over the last 2.5 million years is not known and quite irrelevant.

I think we'll need to either ask for a thread split or consider creating one. For the time being, I find any description or statement using the mind to be mind-dependent. An observation, given its implicit classifications and ceteris paribus restrictions, is mind dependent, and of course is derived from the verb observe, an action of an agent.

Be forewarned: I merely enjoy this topic, but do not consider it crucial to agree. There is merely a chance that one misses out on the caveats that apply when one is more direct about the fact of dealing with models, but at any rate, any question as to discrepancies in interpretation of reality is moot. (In fact, in broader terms, this view of truth statements is one of empirical yet provisional, and not absolute, grounds, as science would prefer.)

In short, I am a proponent of scientific realism, only I am aware of its alternates and enjoy debating them. But the topic tends to explode and perhaps needs to move off the abiogenesis threads.

I don't have anything for sale, in shortest short.

 

[jimbob]

SelfSim, I still don't know what you are advocating other than something is not right with the current approach. I don't recall seeing you propose any alternative.

I am not even clear whether you accept that life would have to have an analog of respiration and would grow and reproduce in the right conditions.

 

[SelfSim]

So, I suggest that we now come back to the original topic, with the added benefit of having now glimpsed at the thus far uncountered, (by way of citing objective evidence), rationale underpinning the views I presented waayy back on Evolution and Abiogenesis.

So, I just made a similar post to this on the 'Evolution on other Planets' thread. I think a similar post should be made here, this time addressing the query of whether a discernable distinction can be drawn between Evolution and Abiogenesis.

The main issue to be revisited, is whether retrospective predictions ('post-dictions'), made from the principles of Evolution Theory, (context = Earth and 'Earth-life'), carry 'weight' when considering generalised, complex, pre-biotic' molecular behaviours. We should note that such 'post-dictions' are as yet, untested outside of their 'natural' physical and environmental contextual bases, (which produced them), ie: Earth and Earth-life. (Meaning exo-planetary bodies).

Theory and observation are intertwined in Evolution theory and we have empirical definitions that are operational and objective and do not change, but we also have a theoretical understanding of how these things, like self replicating organisms, should behave, and that is part of how we understand what these things are. However, it's that latter part, the theoretical understanding, that typically changes in science, (eg: just look at how our theoretical understanding of time, space, electrons, etc has changed over our lifetimes). This does not mean these concepts are not scientific concepts, it means they are, like everything in science, contextual, provisional, and subject to revision so I say, we should make the same allowance in the case of Evolution theory and permit it to examine, and maybe revise, its original, singular natural contextual basis, (aka: Earth and 'Earth-life'). This may, or may not, present a reason for revising Evolution's theoretical 'post-dictions' made about Abiogenesis, but we should at least, consider that it might, before dismissing, outright, any possible distinctions between Abiogenesis and Evolution.

 

[Reality Check]

...whether retrospective predictions ('post-dictions'), made from the principles of Evolution Theory, (context = Earth and 'Earth-life'), carry 'weight' when considering generalised, complex, pre-biotic' molecular behaviours.

The scientific theory of evolution ("Evolution Theory") starts off with life existing so the obviously answer is no, SelfSim.
The scientific theory of evolution does not include pre-biotic molecules. Applying the term "Evolution Theory" to the chemistry of pre-biotic molecules does not make this theory the theory of evolution.

 

[JeanTate]

So, I suggest that we now come back to the original topic, with the added benefit of having now glimpsed at the thus far uncountered, (by way of citing objective evidence), rationale underpinning the views I presented waayy back on Evolution and Abiogenesis.

So, I just made a similar post to this on the 'Evolution on other Planets' thread. I think a similar post should be made here, this time addressing the query of whether a discernable distinction can be drawn between Evolution and Abiogenesis.

The main issue to be revisited, is whether retrospective predictions ('post-dictions'), made from the principles of Evolution Theory, (context = Earth and 'Earth-life'), carry 'weight' when considering generalised, complex, pre-biotic' molecular behaviours. We should note that such 'post-dictions' are as yet, untested outside of their 'natural' physical and environmental contextual bases, (which produced them), ie: Earth and Earth-life. (Meaning exo-planetary bodies).

Theory and observation are intertwined in Evolution theory and we have empirical definitions that are operational and objective and do not change, but we also have a theoretical understanding of how these things, like self replicating organisms, should behave, and that is part of how we understand what these things are. However, it's that latter part, the theoretical understanding, that typically changes in science, (eg: just look at how our theoretical understanding of time, space, electrons, etc has changed over our lifetimes). This does not mean these concepts are not scientific concepts, it means they are, like everything in science, contextual, provisional, and subject to revision so I say, we should make the same allowance in the case of Evolution theory and permit it to examine, and maybe revise, its original, singular natural contextual basis, (aka: Earth and 'Earth-life'). This may, or may not, present a reason for revising Evolution's theoretical 'post-dictions' made about Abiogenesis, but we should at least, consider that it might, before dismissing, outright, any possible distinctions between Abiogenesis and Evolution.

I'm really struggling here, SS; I hope you can help, by clarifying.

What's special about Abiogenesis and Evolution (other than that's what this thread is about)?

I mean, substitute "gas" and "liquid" (and the appropriate contexts), say; does anything you wrote need revising?

To get concrete, here's a draft version of what the substitution would look like (strike-outs and hilites to show deltas):

The main issue to be revisited, is whether retrospective predictions ('post-dictions'), made from the principles of the theory of gases, (context = the atmosphere and lab experiments), carry 'weight' when considering generalised, complex, pre-biotic' molecular behaviours. We should note that such 'post-dictions' are as yet, untested outside of their 'natural' physical and environmental contextual bases, (which produced them), ie: the atmosphere and lab experiments. (Meaning exo-planetary bodies).

Theory and observation are intertwined in the theory of gases and we have empirical definitions that are operational and objective and do not change, but we also have a theoretical understanding of how these things, like self replicating organisms gas mixtures, should behave, and that is part of how we understand what these things are. However, it's that latter part, the theoretical understanding, that typically changes in science, (eg: just look at how our theoretical understanding of time, space, electrons, etc has changed over our lifetimes). This does not mean these concepts are not scientific concepts, it means they are, like everything in science, contextual, provisional, and subject to revision so I say, we should make the same allowance in the case of the theory of gases and permit it to examine, and maybe revise, its original, singular natural contextual basis, (aka: the atmosphere and lab experiments). This may, or may not, present a reason for revising the theory of gases's theoretical 'post-dictions' made about (the theory of) liquids, but we should at least, consider that it might, before dismissing, outright, any possible distinctions between (the theory of) liquids and the theory of gases.

 

[Perpetual Student]

At the core of the theory of evolution are the concepts of imperfect self replication and natural selection. Unless abiogenesis can be shown to involve those same two mechanisms, it must be considered to be a distinct process.

 

[marplots]

At the core of the theory of evolution are the concepts of imperfect self replication and natural selection. Unless abiogenesis can be shown to involve those same two mechanisms, it must be considered to be a distinct process.

I don't think those bars are very high at all. A crystal forming in an imperfect environment (or a forest fire) would meet the first, and depending on what you take natural selection to mean, the second as well.

Can I then claim that every time lightning starts a forest fire we are watching abiogenesis in action, followed by evolution and (hopefully) extinction?

What I have in my head is traditional evolution a subset of a grander picture about complexity arising far from equilibrium, anchored not in "life," but in plain old chemistry, reaction rates and products. Which means principles applicable across the spectrum.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

I don't think those bars are very high at all. A crystal forming in an imperfect environment (or a forest fire) would meet the first, and depending on what you take natural selection to mean, the second as well.

Can I then claim that every time lightning starts a forest fire we are watching abiogenesis in action, followed by evolution and (hopefully) extinction?

What I have in my head is traditional evolution a subset of a grander picture about complexity arising far from equilibrium, anchored not in "life," but in plain old chemistry, reaction rates and products. Which means principles applicable across the spectrum.

At some point, had that crystal evolved into the first lifeforms, it would be hard to draw the line where the process changed from random chemistry with selection pressures to random mutation of evolution theory. But if the imperfect crystals are not destined to continue accumulating changes, then it does not meet the definition of evolution.

The scientific theory of evolution ("Evolution Theory") starts off with life existing so the obviously answer is no, SelfSim.
The scientific theory of evolution does not include pre-biotic molecules. Applying the term "Evolution Theory" to the chemistry of pre-biotic molecules does not make this theory the theory of evolution.

Just keep in mind the caveat, evolution theory might be fine without the abiogenesis component, but that doesn't mean the abiogenesis component can't turn out to be an extension of the continuum.

At the core of the theory of evolution are the concepts of imperfect self replication and natural selection. Unless abiogenesis can be shown to involve those same two mechanisms, it must be considered to be a distinct process.

But why start with the non-evidenced hypothesis that those mechanisms had an abrupt onset?