Originally posted by FZ+
But you see, the subjectivity inevitable come in when you define your "sufficiently". How well does a theory has to work? How well does a theory in development has to work? IMHO, and that is very humble, sufficient in science means better than other theories. If we have another scientific theory (Defined by Popper as one which is falsifiable), then chemogenesis would be compared to it and may well fail. But as of now, it's the best we have got. Back in the 18th century, should we have dumped Newton, because Relativity may replace it?
That was a pretty good post FZ (even if it's wrong ) which I, the only person more humble than you, am about to demonstrate.
First, what Fliption said is my main objection. When I see a TV special on evolution begin with the phrase "life
most likely began in the chemical soup of Earth's early ocean when the right chemical/physical conditions spontaneously self-organized themselves into the first living system" . . . THAT is where I have a problem. It is the "most likely" which is not justified by the evidence.
Just because you claim it is the best evidence you have doesn't mean you can ignore a critical flaw in a theory; and I don't think it is even accurate to say it’s the best theory, but rather it is the best theory materialists have. In my (humble) opinion it is every bit as hole-ly as creationism in this respect.
Chemogenesis is based on an a priori assumption that existence is material -- that is what makes someone say the only possible explanation for the life phenomenon must be material. If one doesn't proceed on that assumption, I say one would be more conservative in suggesting chemogenesis than most materialists are.
Originally posted by FZ+
Second objection to system follows: contravenes classic law of debate the argument, not the arguer. If you make the presumption of the other's "corruption", you lay yourself open to big bias, and blind yourself to rational discussion. I raised God, because I thought it was the only open alternative. But if it was anything else, it still falls to the same problems - it isn't testable, and hence is not scientific, and hence cannot be shown one way or the other. Of course, if you have one that is, don't hide it from me! As yet, ironically enough, chemogenesis is the only scientific theory, because it is the only one we can prove FALSE. It's the only path we can make progress on, even if it is proving it false.
My observation isn’t an ad hominem argument, it is derived from analyzing the evidence supporting the chemogenesis hypothesis and then observing how much scientism advocates express confidence in it. What other reason would explain their exaggerated certainty if not from already assuming only a material explanation is possible for the origin of life?
By the way, you don’t know whether you can prove chemogenesis false yet. If it can never be demonstrated, there is still is the possibility the right combination of conditions that causes it just have never been recreated. As of now, it is a theory that is not very testable because no one is making real progress on it. There’s been nothing very significant since the decades-old Urey and Miller demonstration, and even then all that did was show that the potential for life’s chemistry is present on Earth.
You say, “For the time being, the fact it still remain the only theory we can solve, that we can check for problems . . . [and that] makes it one to have confidence in.” Well, you haven’t shown it can be solved, and the biggest problem of all with it scientism proponents seem in denial about, so I cannot see a realistic basis for your confidence.
Originally posted by FZ+
. . . the fact the real environment changes! Creativity emerges out of unexpected factors! If we left life in a static environment, free from influences, then it too stagnates. Remove the physical prompts to change, the entrance of mutations etc, and what do we have? A highly repetitive series of binary fissions, resulting in bacteria... and more bacteria... and more bacteria... Early life was very boring . . . How can we get development? How do we get these systems? This is because of the direct input of originality from the environment and from physicality - this is what they forget. Life isn't creative - it feeds on the creativity, the potential wells of the world around it. Is that glaringly obvious?
You've avoided addressing the real flaw in the chemogenesis theory with the sort of argument chemogenesis proponents use all the time. The argument is one where you move on into life processes, show how extensively life is embedded in materiality, and then conclude it is strong evidence that life is materially generated.
I do not dispute the role of the environment in shaping life forms' character. But that molding by natural selection is taking place on something, something even as simple as prokaryote life, which has a potential far different from ordinary matter.
Then you pointed to the ability of matter to self-organize saying, “. . . chemical crystal self-organization are certainly not alive . . . a certain chemical reaction that does generate rhythmic pulses of colour etc etc . . . the book is called spontaneous order, because it does so by itself.”
I’ve agreed matter can self-organize, but we both know it can only do it for a few steps. If you think crystal self-organization is a proper example, and it is the environment that transforms the few steps of normal self-organizing matter into perpetual system-building matter, then let’s put a bunch of crystals in any environment you choose, change it anyway you like, and let’s see if you get those crystals to move past repetitive change and start evolving.
In other words, show the minimum necessary to indicate an evolutive change principle present in the potentials of matter. If you can’t even establish how something so basic "works," then how can reason convince you to be confident in chemogenesis?
