Refined hypothesis
iaoua iaoua
first we had a hypothesis 'life originated from natural processes'.
This was an ambiguous hypothesis because of the ambiguous nature of
the word natural. We discovered together that if we define natural as
what we can reproduce then many phenomena we consider natural but are
unable to reproduce are excluded. This would make it difficult to
promote abiogenesis.
Then we could consider defining the boundary of natural as what we
understand and not necessarily as what we can reproduce. However, we
do not fully understand all possible chemical processes. This would
make it difficult to promote abiogenesis.
So then we could define natural as what we feel we have good reason to
believe we may one day understand. But then this starts to get messy
and ambiguous again.
So why don't we just come out and say what it is we are so desperately
trying and yet failing to precisely define? The real hypothesis is
this 'Ain't no Gawd that done it'.
I have a suggestion to make. Why don't we just leave God out of it?
JC
Darwin123
> So why don't we just come out and say what it is we are so desperately
> trying and yet failing to precisely define? The real hypothesis is
> this 'Ain't no Gawd that done it'.
I would generalize it. Natural here means no intelligence was
involved. This way, you can exclude panspermia models where
intelligent ETs seed the earth with life. We can also exclude models
where minor spirits Create life. We can also exclude processes like
scientists in time machines seeding the early earth with life. We can
also exclude models where human souls in a prebirth condition create
the world, then jump into manufactured bodies to live as human beings.
There are a lot of unnatural processes that don't involve a God
as worshiped by the major religions. I think we want to exclude a
process that requires an intelligence.
>
> I have a suggestion to make. Why don't we just leave God out of it?
Okay. Here "natural" means with no intelligence guiding it. Life
was made by natural processes.
Life here includes the first intelligent entity. If there was a
first intelligent entity, it must have been made by a natural process.
Because there was no intelligent entity to make the first intelligent
entity. Unless we reconsider the time machine idea.
Mark Buchanan
>
> first we had a hypothesis 'life originated from natural processes'.
The above hypothesis is the only one science can deal with. The origin
of life might have been an act of God or the flying spaghetti monster
but science can't test either.
That's what science does (sounds like the natural thing to do).
> JC
Mike Dworetsky
Add the accident with a contraceptive plus a time machine, and you get close
to the autobiography of Zaphod Beeblebrox.
--
Mike Dworetsky
(Remove pants sp*mbl*ck to reply)
Arkalen
> Hi all,
>
> first we had a hypothesis 'life originated from natural processes'.
> This was an ambiguous hypothesis because of the ambiguous nature of
> the word natural.
Nope. The word "natural" is ill-defined, but there is no meaning of the
word that could apply to "life originated from natural processes" which
isn't MUCH TOO VAGUE to make the hypothesis testable.
In other words it isn't the word's ambiguity that's the problem; it's
its vagueness. And that's not a problem that can be defined away. There
is simply no way you can make that hypothesis testable without changing
it to make it specific.
> We discovered together that if we define natural as
> what we can reproduce then many phenomena we consider natural but are
> unable to reproduce are excluded.
"We discovered together" ? You're the one who had the strange idea that
"what we can reproduce" was a useful definition of "natural". It was
obvious to everyone (including you apparently) from the get-go that this
definition was problematic.
> This would make it difficult to
> promote abiogenesis.
What would "promoting abiogenesis" have to do with "life originated
through natural processes" being a workable scientific theory ?
Remember, "isn't a workable scientific theory" IS VERY DIFFERENT FROM
"is false".
Anyway, abiogenesis research looks at hypotheses such as "there are ways
metabolic pathways similar to those found in the simplest chemosynthetic
bacteria could arise spontaneously next to hydrothermal vents", or "clay
crystals can catalyse metabolic reactions and result in replicators" or
"simple molecules in solution zapped with electricity will spontaneously
form organic molecules" (that hypothesis was confirmed), or "simple
molecules in solution zapped with electricity will spontaneously form
DNA" (that hypothesis was falsified)...
See how *specific* those actual, testable, scientific hypotheses are
compared to the one you're proposing ?
>
> Then we could consider defining the boundary of natural as what we
> understand and not necessarily as what we can reproduce. However, we
> do not fully understand all possible chemical processes. This would
> make it difficult to promote abiogenesis.
What *do* you mean by "promote abiogenesis" anyway ? Assert that it's
been scientifically proven ? Because nobody does that, because it hasn't.
>
> So then we could define natural as what we feel we have good reason to
> believe we may one day understand. But then this starts to get messy
> and ambiguous again.
>
> So why don't we just come out and say what it is we are so desperately
> trying and yet failing to precisely define? The real hypothesis is
> this 'Ain't no Gawd that done it'.
That's even less testable. It isn't a working scientific hypothesis
either. Why don't you stick to the science ?
>
> I have a suggestion to make. Why don't we just leave God out of it?
Why, that *is* what current abiogenesis research is doing actually, so
it looks as if all's well !
alextangent
I've got a better idea. Why don't we just leave you behind?
iaoua iaoua
What I mean by 'promote abiogenesis' is the kind of hair splitting
that's going on that revolves around what is and is not an acceptable
scientific hypothesis seems to have a strong bias around this ulterior
motive. That's why we have to keep redefining natural to only exclude
the bits we don't like.
JC
Frank J
That's the best idea I have heard yet. He'll evade questions, start
new threads, and throw tantrums about being "expelled" no matter what
we do. If any readers need a "fix" of incredulity arguments, they can
go to any of these anti-evolution sites:
http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/other-links.html#creationism
Arkalen
Why would you think that ? All of the hair splitting has been on your
side; the responses to you have been consistent, almost unanimous in
fact, in saying that "life originated from natural processes" is NOT a
workable scientific hypothesis.
How exactly does thinking it isn't a workable scientific hypothesis show
a "strong bias" around "promoting abiogenesis"? Wouldn't it work just as
well the other way around?
Boikat
It's not to "exclude the bits we don't like", it's to "exclude the
bits with no supporting evidence".
Boikat
Virgil
<iaoua-b5cb5ac5-9ac1-4...@bl1g2000vbb.googlegroups.com
>,
iaoua iaoua <iaoua...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> first we had a hypothesis 'life originated from natural processes'.
> This was an ambiguous hypothesis because of the ambiguous nature of
> the word natural. We discovered together that if we define natural as
> what we can reproduce then many phenomena we consider natural but are
> unable to reproduce are excluded. This would make it difficult to
> promote abiogenesis.
Or we could define "natural" as anything occurring without the obvious
help of anything supernatural, which would include everything that has
happened or will.
--
iaoua iaoua
At last. You are venturing out of the naught corner. However, your
statement is inaccurate. For example there are many phenomena we
believe to be natural yet we do not fully understand them nor are we
able to reproduce them. We thus lack sufficient supporting evidence to
classify them as natural while excluding other phenomenon.
JC
iaoua iaoua
> In article
> <iaoua-b5cb5ac5-9ac1-472a-891a-c85d16cbc...@bl1g2000vbb.googlegroups.com>,
>
> iaoua iaoua <iaoua.ia...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Hi all,
>
> > first we had a hypothesis 'life originated from natural processes'.
> > This was an ambiguous hypothesis because of the ambiguous nature of
> > the word natural. We discovered together that if we define natural as
> > what we can reproduce then many phenomena we consider natural but are
> > unable to reproduce are excluded. This would make it difficult to
> > promote abiogenesis.
>
> Or we could define "natural" as anything occurring without the obvious
> help of anything supernatural, which would include everything that has
> happened or will.
> --
But this definition just complicates things further because we have no
precise definition of supernatural without first having a good
understanding of natural. And so your proposed definition becomes
circular.
JC
Johnny Bgoode
and produces observable effects on reality, is it not then simply
natural?
If the supernatural produces non-measurable effects, then isn't that
the same as *not existing*?
How the hell do you suggest that anyone tests a supernatural
hypothesis, when science deals with all things observable and natural.
Boikat
No, it's accurate. Your understanding of science is where the
inaccuracy lies. You stated that science has a bias, due to some
"ulterior motive", of excluding the 'bits we don't like". The only
"motive" of science is to understand nature, and the part obout "don't
like" is simply wrong.
> For example there are many phenomena we
> believe to be natural yet we do not fully understand them nor are we
> able to reproduce them. We thus lack sufficient supporting evidence to
> classify them as natural while excluding other phenomenon.
More to the point, there is no logical reason to *include* those
"other phenomenon" without evidence that those "other phenomena"
exist.
Boikat
iaoua iaoua
> On Jul 10, 3:49 am,iaouaiaoua<iaoua.ia...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jul 10, 12:24 am, Boikat <boi...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
You are clearly wrong. If you were right, you would be open to more
interpretations of the data.
JC
Boikat
You are clearly ignorant. I'm completely open to different
interpretations, as long as the different interpretation is
scientifically valid. Asserting un-evidenced entities, be they gods
or aliens, are not scientifically valid, since there is no evidence
that either exist.
Boikat
iaoua iaoua
Let's take that last sentence you made and apply similar logic to
theories you accept.
Asserting un-evidenced reactions, be they direct or a chain of
reactions, are not scientifically valid, since there is no evidence
that such reactions are feasible.
I'm hoping you are starting to see how your logic is inconsistent with
itself. This is what we call 'bias'. Largely considered to be bad
scientific form.
JC
Boikat
What "un-evidenced' reactions have I asserted? Be specific.
>
> I'm hoping you are starting to see how your logic is inconsistent with
> itself. This is what we call 'bias'. Largely considered to be bad
> scientific form.
All I see is that you are an ignorant twit.
Boikat
David Hare-Scott
Boikat
> --------------- � Gotcha! �I think. ---------------
Needs context for the full "giggle factor" effect...
> > > > For example there are many phenomena we
> > > > believe to be natural yet we do not fully understand
> > > > them nor are we able to reproduce them. We thus
> > > > lack sufficient supporting evidence to classify them
> > > > as natural while excluding other phenomenon.
> > > More to the point, there is no logical reason to *include*
> > > those "other phenomenon" without evidence that those
> > > "other phenomena" exist.
> > You are clearly wrong. If you were right, you would be open to more
> > interpretations of the data.
>
Boikat
Mark Isaak
> [snip blathergab]
>
> I have a suggestion to make. Why don't we just leave God out of it?
Because if we did, then iaoua would get all pouty and cry.
--
Mark Isaak eciton (at) earthlink (dot) net
"It is certain, from experience, that the smallest grain of natural
honesty and benevolence has more effect on men's conduct, than the most
pompous views suggested by theological theories and systems." - D. Hume
iaoua iaoua
I think I've finally gotten a little bit closer to a hypothesis which
avoids spurious language and is falsifiable. I've tried to avoid using
ambiguous language like 'natural'. So here goes.
Hypothesis: Life could not have come about as the result of a chemical
or physical process which conforms to patterns of behaviour observable
or reproducible here in the now
This hypothesis makes no assumptions of the religious kind, like an
intervening intelligent entity. On the other hand nor does it make
spurious arbitrary decisions about what is natural or is not natural
and therefore eliminates all assumptions about what could not have
caused life. Furthermore, the hypothesis is falsifiable. It would take
only one counter example to eliminate the hypothesis.
Finally, evolutionists should not fear the hypothesis in any way as
inability to falsify the hypothesis does not automatically logically
the existence of an intelligent agent or the intervention of such.
Should the hypothesis never be falsified the possibility remains that
once the physical behaviour of the Universe was different.
JC
SortingItOut
So what do you see as the future for this hypothesis? I mean, is it
the type of hypothesis that one tries to find evidence to support? Or
does it just lay there until it is falsified?
Also, if we create a second hypothesis where we replace "could not" in
your hypothesis with "could" to create a second hypothesis, then what
is the value in creating this pair of hypotheses?
RAM
This is just brilliant; as I'm sure you will undoubtedly agree.
Scientist everywhere will be so awed by this. The specificity is
remarkable. The theory it is derived from is exceptionally robust.
Your notion of falsification by counterexample is exactly how science
works. The young Popper would be proud of this innovative effort.
Bill
Still far too vague to generate experiments. At least, so it seems to
me. If your hypothesis immediately suggest some specific experiment to
you, please tell us what it is.
And it differs little from the hypothesis "we'll never figure out how
life got started," a hypothesis which, like yours, could be falsified
by a single counterexample.
Arkalen
> Hi all,
>
> I think I've finally gotten a little bit closer to a hypothesis which
> avoids spurious language and is falsifiable. I've tried to avoid using
> ambiguous language like 'natural'. So here goes.
>
> Hypothesis: Life could not have come about as the result of a chemical
> or physical process which conforms to patterns of behaviour observable
> or reproducible here in the now
>
> This hypothesis makes no assumptions of the religious kind, like an
> intervening intelligent entity. On the other hand nor does it make
> spurious arbitrary decisions about what is natural or is not natural
> and therefore eliminates all assumptions about what could not have
> caused life. Furthermore, the hypothesis is falsifiable. It would take
> only one counter example to eliminate the hypothesis.
But it's not testable in practice. "It hasn't been falsified yet" is
only a test if one would very much expect it to be falsified if it were
false; this may be the case on the day where we have a comprehensive
understanding of all chemical and physical processes we can reproduce
right now. But this isn't that day.
Steven L.
"Bill" <broger...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1c3808ce-ba56-4f86...@d8g2000prf.googlegroups.com:
> On Jul 14, 5:59 am, iaoua iaoua <iaoua.ia...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Hi all,
> >
> > I think I've finally gotten a little bit closer to a hypothesis which
> > avoids spurious language and is falsifiable. I've tried to avoid using
> > ambiguous language like 'natural'. So here goes.
> >
> > Hypothesis: Life could not have come about as the result of a chemical
> > or physical process which conforms to patterns of behaviour observable
> > or reproducible here in the now
This is probably more general than you want it to be (but I don't
mind!), in that you haven't specified the type of life you care about.
It leaves open the possibility that a physical or chemical process could
be shown to lead to some type of life, even if that type of life appears
*different* from what is believed to be the earliest Earth life. If
scientists created some self-reproducing molecule in a test tube, that
would refute your hypothesis--even if that self-reproducing molecule is
NOTHING like what we suspect the first life forms on Earth to have been!
For example, would you consider the following to be a refutation of your
hypothesis:
Led by Craig Venter of the J. Craig Venter Institute (JCVI), the team of
scientists combined two existing techniques to transplant synthetic DNA
into a bacteria. First they *chemically synthesized* a bacterial genome,
then they used well-known nuclear transfer techniques (used in IVF) to
transplant the genome into a bacteria. And apparently the bacteria
replicated itself, too, thus creating a second generation of the
synthetic DNA. The process is being hailed as revolutionary.
Researchers created a synthetic genome by copying an existing one -
Mycoplasma mycoides - and transplanting it into Mycoplasma capricolum.
How can we be sure that the M. mycoides is synthetic? When recreating
it, the team added a number of non-functional "watermarks" to the
genome, making it distinct from the wild version. Once implanted, the M.
mycoides genome "booted up" the recipient cells, deleting or disrupting
14 genes. The bacteria went on to function normally, meaning the
transplant worked.
"This is the first synthetic cell that's been made, and we call it
synthetic because the cell is totally derived from a synthetic
chromosome, made with four bottles of chemicals on a chemical
synthesizer, starting with information in a computer," said Venter.
"This becomes a very powerful tool for trying to design what we want
biology to do. We have a wide range of applications [in mind]."
If you do want to rule out this sort of thing, then you want to say
"The types of life forms believed to have been the first to appear on
Earth could not have come about as the result of...."
-- Steven L.
Bob Casanova
appeared in talk.origins, posted by iaoua iaoua
<iaoua...@gmail.com>:
>Hi all,
>
>I think I've finally gotten a little bit closer to a hypothesis which
>avoids spurious language and is falsifiable. I've tried to avoid using
>ambiguous language like 'natural'. So here goes.
>
>Hypothesis: Life could not have come about as the result of a chemical
>or physical process which conforms to patterns of behaviour observable
>or reproducible here in the now
OK. Now define a method by which it can be tested. Shall all
possible chemical and physical processes be tried, one by
one, each over all possible ranges of ambient conditions?
Can you think why this is a poor hypothesis, in the nature
of "I hypothesize that no alien lifeforms (or for than
matter, "deities") exist.", and for exactly the same reason?
It's this sort of thing which is so persuasive as evidence
for a "no" response when the question of whether you
understand science occurs, as it does in response to nearly
every post you make,
<snip irrelevantia>
--
Bob C.
"Evidence confirming an observation is
evidence that the observation is wrong."
- McNameless
iaoua iaoua
> On Jul 13, 5:59 pm, iaoua iaoua <iaoua.ia...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > Hi all,
>
> > I think I've finally gotten a little bit closer to a hypothesis which
> > avoids spurious language and is falsifiable. I've tried to avoid using
> > ambiguous language like 'natural'. So here goes.
>
> > Hypothesis: Life could not have come about as the result of a chemical
> > or physical process which conforms to patterns of behaviour observable
> > or reproducible here in the now
>
> > This hypothesis makes no assumptions of the religious kind, like an
> > intervening intelligent entity. On the other hand nor does it make
> > spurious arbitrary decisions about what is natural or is not natural
> > and therefore eliminates all assumptions about what could not have
> > caused life. Furthermore, the hypothesis is falsifiable. It would take
> > only one counter example to eliminate the hypothesis.
>
> > Finally, evolutionists should not fear the hypothesis in any way as
> > inability to falsify the hypothesis does not automatically logically
> > the existence of an intelligent agent or the intervention of such.
> > Should the hypothesis never be falsified the possibility remains that
> > once the physical behaviour of the Universe was different.
>
> > JC
>
> So what do you see as the future for this hypothesis? I mean, is it
> the type of hypothesis that one tries to find evidence to support? Or
> does it just lay there until it is falsified?
>
And just how do you think Newtons laws of physics or the laws of
chemical thermodynamics came to be accepted?
> Also, if we create a second hypothesis where we replace "could not" in
> your hypothesis with "could" to create a second hypothesis, then what
> is the value in creating this pair of hypotheses?
The first is testable in the case that it is wrong. The second is
testable in the case that it is right.
JC
Kleuskes & Moos
Well... First off it explained a lot of things that were allready
observed, and it made nice, testable predictions such as what happens
if you throw a ball. People found out Newtons laws were quite accurate
and hence thought he was absolutely right.
Today, of course, we know he's only _mostly_ right, that is in non-
relativistic circumstances because we have this german chap called
"Einstein" making (counterintuitive) predictions which turn out to be
highly accurate.
In short, people tried to falsify Newton and Einstein but failed
miserably.
<snip>
Arkalen
Those could be tested. "Falsification" didn't require passively waiting
until something we can't control comes and proves it false... or never
does in which case we don't know if it's because the hypothesis was
correct or because that something hasn't come yet. With Newton's laws
and the laws of thermodynamics people would set up situations where they
didn't know what would happen, and see if things happened according to
those laws or not.
So SortingItOut's question is pertinent. How can your hypothesis be
tested in practice, by today's humans ?
Bob Casanova
in talk.origins, posted by Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off>:
>On Wed, 13 Jul 2011 15:59:08 -0700 (PDT), the following
>appeared in talk.origins, posted by iaoua iaoua
><iaoua...@gmail.com>:
>
>>Hi all,
>>
>>I think I've finally gotten a little bit closer to a hypothesis which
>>avoids spurious language and is falsifiable. I've tried to avoid using
>>ambiguous language like 'natural'. So here goes.
>>
>>Hypothesis: Life could not have come about as the result of a chemical
>>or physical process which conforms to patterns of behaviour observable
>>or reproducible here in the now
>
>OK. Now define a method by which it can be tested.
[Crickets...]
Shall I assume you can't think of a practical one? OK,
neither can I.
iaoua iaoua
> On Thu, 14 Jul 2011 15:12:55 -0700, the following appeared
> in talk.origins, posted by Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off>:
>
> >On Wed, 13 Jul 2011 15:59:08 -0700 (PDT), the following
> >appeared in talk.origins, posted byiaouaiaoua
Try and do it. Come back after a lifetime of wasted work and admit to
me that it cannot be done.
JC
SortingItOut
What assumptions is that statement based on?
Bill
So, as I thought, all your "refined hypothesis" comes down to is "I
bet you'll never figure out how abiogenesis happened."
>
> JC- Sembunyikan teks kutipan -
>
> - Perlihatkan teks kutipan -
Tim Anderson
Nominated for POTM.
Bob Casanova
appeared in talk.origins, posted by iaoua iaoua
>Try and do it. Come back after a lifetime of wasted work and admit to
>me that it cannot be done.
Ummm... Perhaps you should re-read the above exchange; it's
brief enough that you shouldn't be in danger of losing
track. You seem to have forgotten that it was *your* claim
that you had a valid hypothesis. And it's up to you, not me,
to devise a way to test that hypothesis; that's why *you*
need to provide a test methodology.
But on the off chance that you actually meant "Try to create
life using only natural processes", you should be made aware
that inability (mine or anyone else's) to do so, especially
to your schedule, is not evidence that it didn't happen, and
that only demonstration of the existence of a supernatural
agency is evidence that such an agency exists; arguments
from incredulity and/or ignorance won't do it.
Steven L.
"iaoua iaoua" <iaoua...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:iaoua-3dad91cc-fa52-4...@fv14g2000vbb.googlegroups.com:
All that would mean, is that *he* couldn't do it.
A lot of things have taken more than one lifetime to accomplish. So
even if we don't solve something in one lifetime, that doesn't make it
false. Many times, one person will succeed after many others have
failed.
For example, the fact that the planets move in elliptical orbits.
Kepler was first to discover it. But it wasn't till Newton that these
orbits were shown to be consequences of relatively simple laws of motion
and gravity. Newton was born after Kepler had already passed away.
-- Steven L.
arise...@gmail.com
joecu...@serv4.ams1.giganews.com
>in have need more more hypothesis so kindly make its sure beasuese its another way to learn of B,ED class and other activates
?
Have fun,
Joe Cummings
Ron O
> On Mon, 14 Aug 2017 22:25:24 -0700 (PDT), arise...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> >in have need more more hypothesis so kindly make its sure beasuese its another way to learn of B,ED class and other activates
>
>
> Well, of course.
>
>
> ?
>
Ron Okimoto
>
> Have fun,
>
>
> Joe Cummings
Bob Casanova
appeared in talk.origins, posted by arise...@gmail.com:
>in have need more more hypothesis so kindly make its sure beasuese its another way to learn of B,ED class and other activates
--
Bob C.
"The most exciting phrase to hear in science,
the one that heralds new discoveries, is not
'Eureka!' but 'That's funny...'"
- Isaac Asimov
Kalkidas
> in have need more more hypothesis so kindly make its sure beasuese its another way to learn of B,ED class and other activates
>
horses add entire suffer. How one dull get busy dare far. At principle
perfectly by sweetness do. As mr started arrival subject by believe.
Strictly numerous outlived kindness whatever on we no on addition.
*Hemidactylus*
> On Mon, 14 Aug 2017 22:25:24 -0700 (PDT), the following
> appeared in talk.origins, posted by arise...@gmail.com:
>
>> in have need more more hypothesis so kindly make its sure beasuese its
>> another way to learn of B,ED class and other activates
>
> Yeah, and how 'bout them Mets?
the Ukrainian underworld worked out for him.
*Hemidactylus*
Bob Casanova
in talk.origins, posted by Kalkidas <e...@joes.pub>: