The origin of biology

[truth_seeker]

Hello everyone

Hope you're having a great day!


There is currently no evidence-based scientific explanation for the origin of life. There is, however, a few potential speculations (e.g. RNA world theory, clay hypothesis, self-replication, etc).

Since there is no conclusive evidence for its origin, wouldn't the statement that ("life is only a natural phenomenon") be simply a belief?

How can an atheist claim that their world-view is based on evidence?

Doesn't this, at the very least, makes it simply equally possible for life to be either a natural or a super-natural phenomenon?

Now if someone chooses to reject the possibility of the super-natural because they don't like the idea of a super-natural being, then that's fine. But that can't be called evidence.

[Esquilax]

There is currently no evidence-based scientific explanation for the origin of life. There is, however, a few potential speculations (e.g. RNA world theory, clay hypothesis, self-replication, etc).

Since there is no conclusive evidence for its origin, wouldn't the statement that ("life is only a natural phenomenon") be simply a belief?

It's a probabilistic conclusion based on all of the available evidence. We have no evidence at all that suggests that the supernatural is even possible, much less involved in the creation and existence of life, and all of the evidence we do have supports the idea that life is a natural phenomenon, so... what, exactly, is supposed to lead us to conclude that life isn't only a natural phenomenon? Why ignore the evidence in favor of a proposition that we can't even establish as real, merely because a bunch of religiously motivated ideologues would really like it if we did?

How can an atheist claim that their world-view is based on evidence?

... Because it is what the evidence supports?

That's not to say, by the way, that a naturalistic theory of the origins of life is an atheist position, because it's not. Atheism stops at not believing in gods. Natural life is an evidence based position, but there's nothing in atheism that obligates one to accept that position.

Doesn't this, at the very least, makes it simply equally possible for life to be either a natural or a super-natural phenomenon?

No! No, not in the slightest!

Just because a proposition isn't one-hundred percent proven with certainty doesn't mean that every other proposition is equally possible! In fact, in the case of the supernatural, we'd need to demonstrate that such a thing even is possible before we can start determining if it's "equally possible"! Based on the evidence we have right now, a natural explanation might not be at 100%, but a supernatural explanation remains at 0% until such time as someone can establish the existence of the supernatural. A lack of certainty in one thing does not elevate all other assertions to "equally likely" status. Jeez...

[brewer]

Just because I/we don't know yet from a scientific view, I/we believe science will provide the answer. This does not mean that, in the mean time-while experimenting and exploring, we need to give any credence to a make believe fantasy that performs magic. Ya know that whole dust and rib thing. TA-DAA

You're free to believe in the most destructive man made fantasy ever imagined. I choose not to.

[TheRealJoeFish]

...
There is currently no evidence-based scientific explanation for the origin of life. There is, however, a few potential speculations (e.g. RNA world theory, clay hypothesis, self-replication, etc).

Since there is no conclusive evidence for its origin, wouldn't the statement that ("life is only a natural phenomenon") be simply a belief?

How can an atheist claim that their world-view is based on evidence?

Doesn't this, at the very least, makes it simply equally possible for life to be either a natural or a super-natural phenomenon?
...

To answer the final question there, no, it does not.  And here's what I hope is a straightforward explanation of why:

There's a big group of things out there, call it "things that we know happened."

There's a subset of "things that we know happened", called "things that we know happened, and we also know why it happened."

The subset "things that we know happened, and we also know why it happened" can be split into two subsets: 1) "things that we know happened, and we also know why it happened, and it happened for a natural reason" and 2) "things that we know happened, and we also know why it happened, and it happened for a supernatural reason".

The first of those two sets is, whaddya know, identical to its parent set.

The second of those two sets... is empty.

What your question is essentially asking is, "isn't it equally possible that [this particular thing we know occurred] is [in the set of things that includes every single thing we know the reason for] as it is [in a set that describes something we haven't found even a single example of]".  And, clearly, the answer is "no, that's not equally possible."

[truth_seeker]

It's a probabilistic conclusion based on all of the available evidence. We have no evidence at all that suggests that the supernatural is even possible ....

The presence of free will suggests a possibility of the presence of supernatural phenomena, you can't deny that. Even if you oppose this view, you must allow at least a small percentage (maybe 20%? - just an arbitrary number) for its likelihood.

Therefore, there does exist the possibility of supernatural phenomena.

Just because a proposition isn't one-hundred percent proven with certainty doesn't mean that every other proposition is equally possible! In fact, in the case of the supernatural, we'd need to demonstrate that such a thing even is possible before we can start determining if it's "equally possible"! ...

likelihood is not the same as possibility.

If A has a 90% likelihood and B has a 10% likelihood, they are both possible.

[downbeatplumb]

Hello everyone

Hope you're having a great day!


There is currently no evidence-based scientific explanation for the origin of life. There is, however, a few potential speculations (e.g. RNA world theory, clay hypothesis, self-replication, etc).

Since there is no conclusive evidence for its origin, wouldn't the statement that ("life is only a natural phenomenon") be simply a belief?

How can an atheist claim that their world-view is based on evidence?

Doesn't this, at the very least, makes it simply equally possible for life to be either a natural or a super-natural phenomenon?

Now if someone chooses to reject the possibility of the super-natural because they don't like the idea of a super-natural being, then that's fine. But that can't be called evidence.

No, Until the supernatural has been proved to be a thing at all it can be discounted as an explanation for anything.

[Alex K]

Does anyone in the sciences claim to really know how abiogenesis happened?

[RozKek]

Everything we've found points to evolution. None points to intelligent design.

[Alex K]

Doesn't this, at the very least, makes it simply equally possible for life to be either a natural or a super-natural phenomenon?

No, that's not how probability works.

[Simon Moon]

Hello everyone

Hope you're having a great day!


There is currently no evidence-based scientific explanation for the origin of life. There is, however, a few potential speculations (e.g. RNA world theory, clay hypothesis, self-replication, etc).

Sure there is evidence based explanations. Just not one specific one.

Atoms and molecules only can interact with each other in a limited number of ways. Whether we are talking about the clay hypothesis or RNA world, etc, the steps from non-living to biology can be shown.

But, there is nothing in the origin of biology that requires magical input.

Since there is no conclusive evidence for its origin, wouldn't the statement that ("life is only a natural phenomenon") be simply a belief?

The chemistry that could lead to life is pretty well understood. The fact that we do not yet have the exact steps that occurred on the early earth, does not mean that life being of purely natural sources then becomes a faith based belief.

Again, there is no step in what is now known, that requires a wizard's input. 

How can an atheist claim that their world-view is based on evidence?

Because there is growing evidence to show who life could have started, and none for supernatural.

Doesn't this, at the very least, makes it simply equally possible for life to be either a natural or a super-natural phenomenon?

NO!

The fact that there are only 2 possibilities (natural or supernatural) does not make them a 50/50 proposition. This is a major logic 101 failure.

I am either going to win the lottery or I won't. WOW! I have a 50/50 chance! I'm already spending the money.

To calculate the odds of a proposition, multiple data points are necessary.

To figure out the odds of a natural origin of life, vs a supernatural one, you would need to compare the number of planets where life started naturally against the number of planets where life started supernaturally (data points). The greater number you compare, the more accurate your odds calculations become. 

How many have you compared? 

Now if someone chooses to reject the possibility of the super-natural because they don't like the idea of a super-natural being, then that's fine. But that can't be called evidence.

The supernatural is not rejected as an explanation because people don't like it. It is rejected because there is insufficient evidence to support it as an explanation in the first place.