Philosophy Discussion Forums | A Humans-Only Philosophy Club

[Dr Jonathan Osterman PhD]

Understanding the origins of life through the lens of abiogenesis is not just a scientific endeavor but also a profound philosophical journey. The idea that life emerged from non-living matter on the early Earth may seem improbable at first glance, but when we consider the vast timescales and chemical diversity of our planet, it becomes a plausible natural process. The randomness in this context isn't mere chance; rather, it's about the natural variability and potential inherent within the laws of physics and chemistry. This perspective doesn't undermine the complexity of life but instead celebrates it as a remarkable outcome of these natural processes.

From a scientific standpoint, the intricacies of even the simplest life forms hint at a gradual evolution from simpler precursors. The RNA world hypothesis, for instance, offers a compelling narrative about how RNA molecules could have been the stepping stones to more complex, DNA-based life forms. This complexity, emerging from simpler building blocks, is a testament to the natural world's ability to generate intricate systems.

Philosophically, considering life as a product of natural processes allows us to appreciate the elegance and wonder of the universe. It doesn't require us to invoke supernatural explanations but rather invites us to explore our place in the natural world. The scientific theories of evolution, supported by a wealth of evidence from various fields, provide a coherent and testable framework for understanding the diversity of life. At the same time, they offer a philosophical perspective that emphasizes our connection to the universe and the natural processes that govern it.

In essence, supporting naturalistic theories of evolution and abiogenesis isn't just about accepting scientific explanations; it's about recognizing the beauty and complexity of life as an integral part of the natural order of the universe. It's a view that respects the power of nature to create and diversify life, underscoring our ongoing quest to understand the origins and evolution of life in our vast and wondrous universe.

Dear Friends,

As per the above beautiful, smooth, and flawless philosophical explanation,
there is no problem.

It all must have happened naturally, obviously! What else?

Well, to be completely honest with you, I have no doubt
that abiogenesis had happened completely naturally.

However, it all depends on what we would allow "naturally" to possibly be,
to possibly include, to possibly encompass, and to possibly be capable of.

Sure, everything is natural. But what does it even mean to you?
It means that everything is the way we see it, when we look around.
As long as we don't hallucinate on LSD, everything is natural and well.

Do we really already know absolutely everything about reality?
Is the Theory of Everything even possible?
Not according to Kurt Godel :

www. quantumantigravity.wordpress. com/up/

I highly recommend the following short 24 minutes video (Aug 24, 2023), where Dr. James Tour, by asking his 5 essential questions, gives us a basic scientific idea of what is really involved in the natural process of abiogenesis. God didn't do it, but the Devil is in the details.


Prof. JAMES M. TOUR, Ph.D., www. drjamestour. com
W. F. Chao Professor of Chemistry,
Professor of Computer Science,
Professor of Materials Science and NanoEngineering,
Rice University Smalley-Curl Institute and the NanoCarbon Center.


A 24 minutes short video :

Can Scientists Answer These 5 Questions ?
RNA, Abiogenesis, Chemical Natural Selection & more:
www. youtube. com/watch?v=MmykRoelTzU

[Sy Borg]

It's very unlikely that anything could survive the dryness and radiation on the lunar surface. Still, finding life on the Moon, maybe deep in a crater or lava tube - would be ironic and amusing after sending signals to other star systems and sending probes billions of kms out into void.

Sy Borg, do you think that primitive life on Mars could still thrive
in some nooks and crannies, or at its two polar ice caps ?

My guess it's one of the more likely places in the solar system to harbour life. There is water under the surface. It probably depends on whether there could be a heat source. Sometimes radioactive minerals underground can create warm spots in the Earth, so that's one potential heat source.

Enceladus and Europa are the other decent possibilities. Maybe Titan. In fact, maybe even Neptune's Moon Triton or Pluto. In each, there are signs of planetary activity that reshapes the surface. Pluto's case in interesting. As far as I know, the orbit between Pluto and Charon is pretty regular, so that would not provide tidal heating. Then again, the binary may have formed via collision, and Pluto still retains residual heat.

I don't hold much hope for Venus. Too dry. Mercury has water ice at the bottom of some deep, sheltered craters but the radiation levels would be off the scale, which doesn't augur well for the complex molecules of life.

[chewybrian]

It seems that you are swimming against the tide of commonly accepted
scientific belief, so the burden should be on you to show why and how.

There is no point in debating commonly accepted scientific beliefs.

That's a ridiculous strawman. I didn't say that nobody should challenge the work in progress assumptions of science. That's exactly what science requires! Do you find it easier to refute something you falsely ascribe to me than what I actually said? If, for example, I tried to say that gravity is bunk, then why would the burden not be on me to show how and why this was so? This does not imply that I have no right to do so, and I'm certain there would be a Nobel prize waiting for me if I could make the case.

You are in much the same spot if you wish to challenge natural selection or genetic mutation. I asked if there was some other aspect of Darwinism that I left out, but you did not bother to respond to my question. Instead...

You simply deeply believe in Darwinian Random Creation Myth,
and no amount of scientific evidence will ever change your mind.
And you are not going to change my mind either,
because I know more than enough.

You told me what you assumed I thought (but did not write). I don't have to believe in everything in which Darwin believed in order to believe in anything in which he believed. I don't make any finding about whether life began from some series of lightning strikes in a puddle of goop or in some other way. I simply don't know and I don't believe anyone does.

So for me .. Darwinian Random Creation Myth is dead. Long live INTELLIGENT DESIGN !!!

It does not follow that intelligent design is proven true because natural selection is not yet proven. It's possible that the remnants of the bridge from the warm pond to single celled organisms have all gone extinct. It's possible that new attempts to form the would-be bridges are happening all the time, yet they are gobbled up by simple forms of life before they can evolve over thousands of years. Maybe life formed while earth's conditions were still hostile to all the life we know now. Maybe life arrived on a meteor or was left as a kind of contamination from an alien visitor.

To sum up, if this was a horse race, the warm puddle theory would be the favorite. I like to play the horses, so I know the favorite doesn't always win. Many times I bet against the favorite, but I need to have a reason. In this race, I would say the favorite is the most likely winner, but neither the favorite nor the longshots warrant a wager. It would be interesting to learn the outcome of this 'race'. However, I doubt we'll be on firm ground in my lifetime and we may never know.

[chewybrian]

I meant to say; "It does not follow that intelligent design is proven true because the theory of spontaneous creation of life is not yet proven"

[Dr Jonathan Osterman PhD]

My guess Mars is one of the more likely places in the solar system to harbour life. There is water under the surface. It probably depends on whether there could be a heat source. Sometimes radioactive minerals underground can create warm spots in the Earth, so that's one potential heat source.

Enceladus and Europa are the other decent possibilities. Maybe Titan. In fact, maybe even Neptune's Moon Triton or Pluto. In each, there are signs of planetary activity that reshapes the surface. Pluto's case in interesting. As far as I know, the orbit between Pluto and Charon is pretty regular, so that would not provide tidal heating. Then again, the binary may have formed via collision, and Pluto still retains residual heat.

I don't hold much hope for Venus. Too dry. Mercury has water ice at the bottom of some deep, sheltered craters but the radiation levels would be off the scale, which doesn't augur well for the complex molecules of life.

Hey Sy Borg, it's been a while, and I completely forgot
about all the celestial bodies you mentioned above.

The moon Europa's ocean has been a prime candidate for a place
harbouring rich diversity of life in our Solar System, almost for decades.

And I am particularly fascinated by your optimism in respect to
life possibly existing on Pluto. It has never crossed my mind!

I've also forgotten to take into consideration the Goldilock Zone factor.

And speaking of the Goldilock Zone, I am sure you know the old news about other solar systems in our Galaxy which have more than just one planet in their Goldilock Zone with oceans. This raises the issue of highly Intelligent Life in our Galaxy. UFOs and Aliens.

You haven't mentioned one important moon in our Solar System, second only to Europa, and in my humble opinion even more promising than Europa for one very important reason that Europa seems to lack, if I am correct.

Sy Borg, do you know what I am talking about, my friend?

Anybody, please?

[Dr Jonathan Osterman PhD]

To sum up, if this was a horse race, the warm puddle theory would be the favorite. I like to play the horses, so I know the favorite doesn't always win. Many times I bet against the favorite, but I need to have a reason. In this race, I would say the favorite is the most likely winner, but neither the favorite nor the longshots warrant a wager. It would be interesting to learn the outcome of this 'race'. However, I doubt we'll be on firm ground in my lifetime and we may never know.

It does not follow that intelligent design is proven true because natural selection is not yet proven.

Hey Brian,

Welcome to the topic, my friend.

It does not follow from the scientific theory of Intelligent Design that Biblical God Yahweh did it. To me, Yahweh sounds too dumb and uneducated to be an experimental PhD scientist. Clearly, Yahweh has a long way to go, to resolve his serious anger issues, as Dr. Richard Dawkins has aptly pointed it out.

It does not follow from the unproven Darwinian hypothesis that the unproven scientific theory of Intelligent Design must be obviously wrong.

Because we all have our favourite lovely little pet-theories,
we could all decide to be a bit more open-minded,
for the sake of free scientific inquiry.


" However, I doubt we'll be on firm ground in my lifetime, and we may never know."

I do completely agree with you, Brian


BTW, what exactly is it that has been proven thus far
in respect to the origins and evolution of life?

That life started (not necessarily originated) on Earth,
and that it has since been evolving.

[Dr Jonathan Osterman PhD]

There is no point in debating commonly accepted scientific beliefs.

That's a ridiculous strawman!

Brian, the way I see it, debating commonly accepted scientific beliefs
is exactly like debating commonly accepted religious beliefs.

As far as I am concerned, there is nothing wrong with having strong intuitive beliefs.
One aspect of human nature is to believe in something, anything,
like for example believing that science will eventually answer
all our questions, so we will not have to believe in anything anymore.

Beliefs, religious and scientific, may be best shared with others,
when there is a right place and time for it, and when there is interest
and openness to them, as long as they are not offensive to the unbelievers.

Someone has said that the truth is like a person's ass — everyone has one's own.

There is a carrot-and-stick method of converting others to our favourite beliefs.

Will I go to Hell, if I don't believe in the unproven Darwinian random evolution?

What are the benefits of joining the Church of Darwinian random evolution?

I much prefer to debate scientific evidence and philosophical argumentation.

[Dr Jonathan Osterman PhD]

I asked if there was some other aspect of Darwinism that I left out,
but you did not bother to respond to my question.

Brian, just as an aside, to be honest with you, I am very sorry to inform you, but I am simply not interested in challenging or debating Darwinism at all whatsoever, my friend. No offence was intended.

For me, subjectively speaking, challenging or debating Darwinism
is akin to so-called "feeding the troll".

Please, do pardon me, Brian, but subjectively, I find the scientific theory of Intelligent Design to be much more interesting to explore and discuss, and not because I need the proof of my personal favourite Creator God's existence. BTW, my religion is Buddhism, and in Buddhism, the idea of a Creator God or gods, is considered to be particularly silly, absurd, and ridicules, to say the least. The following is my new topic about Buddhism:

viewtopic.php?f=4&t=19194&p=451445#p451445

However, not to lightly dismiss your above kind offer,
I do, in fact, have two questions for you, Brian.

My two questions are :

1.
When exactly was it the last time that one specie evolved into another specie?

2.
Don't you find it a bit concerning that in the entire history of Western science we have never observed in nature a single case of one specie having been evolved into another specie, not even in a Lab with fruit flies or bacteria?

My two above questions are merely an expression of my natural and scientific skepticism only, and certainly not a crude attempt at disproving or invalidating the Charles Darwin's honourable scientific hypothesis of Natural Evolution of Life, my dear friend Brian.

[Dr Jonathan Osterman PhD]

I meant to say; "It does not follow that intelligent design is proven true because the theory of spontaneous creation of life is not yet proven"

With all due respect, Brian, but It seems to me that abiogenesis is a clear and perfect instance of intelligent design, much more intelligent than what we can imagine with our little chemical soup-brains, because, so far, we haven't been even close to creating Life in a Lab.

[LuckyR]

I meant to say; "It does not follow that intelligent design is proven true because the theory of spontaneous creation of life is not yet proven"

With all due respect, Brian, but It seems to me that abiogenesis is a clear and perfect instance of intelligent design, much more intelligent than what we can imagine with our little chemical soup-brains, because, so far, we haven't been even close to creating Life in a Lab.

So your argument dissolves away when we can?

[Dr Jonathan Osterman PhD]

So your argument dissolves away when we can ?

Yes, my argument will instantly dissolve and completely disappear the very moment this Lab-made cell will divide (replicate) only once, for the very first time.

Not only that, but I will also publicly inflict a severe punishment on myself, while loudly proclaiming all the reasons for it, at the great Saint Peter's public square in the Vatican, and then I will perform the formal act of Apostasy and publicly declare myself a proud Atheist-Materialist.

Anything else you would like me to do, you Lucky Rascal ?

[Dr Jonathan Osterman PhD]

So your argument dissolves away when we can?

When ?


Your above bluff is well-know as : The Future Science of the Gaps,
because tomorrow never dies, like your vain hope, you Lucky Rascal.

[Sculptor1]

If so-called Dr Jonathan Osterman PhD (LOL)

Cannot answer a simple question, then it's pointless playing his silly games.
he has not presented any ideas, and seem to think that he is a MARVEL character. This makes if very difficult to take him seriously.
And so ends my discussion with him/her

[Dr Jonathan Osterman PhD]

If so-called Dr Jonathan Osterman PhD (LOL) cannot answer
a simple question, then it's pointless playing his silly games.

He has not presented any ideas, and seem to think
that he is a MARVEL character. This makes if very difficult
to take him seriously. And so ends my discussion with him/her.

From now on, you may call me Doctor MANHATTAN, pal.

[chewybrian]

My two questions are :

1.
When exactly was it the last time that one specie evolved into another specie?

2.
Don't you find it a bit concerning that in the entire history of Western science we have never observed in nature a single case of one specie having been evolved into another specie, not even in a Lab with fruit flies or bacteria?

My two above questions are merely an expression of my natural and scientific skepticism only, and certainly not a crude attempt at disproving or invalidating the Charles Darwin's honourable scientific hypothesis of Natural Evolution of Life, my dear friend Brian.

This is like saying that the Grand Canyon could not have evolved naturally because we did not see it happen or see anything like it happen. We can observe microevolutions but not macroevolutions, just as we can show water eroding rock, but the Grand Canyon experiment is beyond our scope.

I'll toss it right back:

1-When was the last time we saw a new species spontaneously pop into existence without mutation or natural selection (just discovering a new one doesn't count; surely we can admit the Galapagos species were there before we found them there)?

2-Don't you find it concerning that we have never seen a species pop up, as we know of species that exist now which clearly did not exist in the past (like us)?

The quote below is from an article in the Harvard Gazette called "Evolution in Real Time", about an experiment with bacteria, which seems (to me) to be an example of the Polaroid version of evolution you seek:

After 30,000 generations, researchers noticed something strange. One population had evolved the ability to use a different carbon-based molecule in the solution, called citrate, as a power source.

Researchers wondered whether it was the result of a rare, single mutation, or a more complex change involving a series of mutations over generations. To find out, one of Lenski’s postdocs, Zachary Blount, took some of the frozen cells and grew them in a culture lacking glucose, with citrate as the only potential food source.

After testing 10 trillion ancestral cells from early generations, he got no growth. But when he tested cells from the 20,000th generation on, he began to get results, eventually finding 19 mutants that could use citrate as a power source. The results showed that the citrate-eating mutation was most likely not the result of a single mutation, but one enabled by multiple changes over 20,000 generations.

In further testing to determine if the new bacteria were different enough to qualify as a new species, Lenski’s researchers found that beyond changes to the genes responsible for glucose and citrate consumption, other changes had occurred in the organism that had made it less fit to survive in a glucose-only environment,

“We find they are getting less fit in the ancestral niche over time,” Lenski said. “I would argue that citrate users are — or are becoming — a new species.”