Is intelligent design scientifically superior to abiogenesis? [Archive] - Page 2

Wowbagger

19th May 2006, 04:41 PM

Heisenberg proves you wrong.
Ah, now there's a good point! You can also toss in thermodynamics if you want to: As time marches on and on, the evidence of what was in the past disintegrates more and more.

However, to defend my point, I will alter my statement by saying: In principal, you can always re-construct anything broken down, to the best of our ability, utilizing scientific investigation - although we might not always have the necessary technology on hand. And, more often than not, this ought to be good enough for most cases.

Your track record with biochemical life does not appear promising for future efforts either.
What is that supposed to mean?

Strawmen are fun to destroy, huh?
Perhaps my last ID rant was oversimplified.
I.D. is looking for elements of life that are "irreducibly complex", implying science will never resolve them. This, of course, is a joke. How dare these unimaginative fools say what science can and can not discover!
As a result, I.D. is declaring gaps in our evolutionary trees that they think will never be crossed. While the actual hunt for gaps may involve scientific investigation, it would be foolhardy to announce that you actually found any permanent ones. That is one reason I.D. is pathetic.
If a real scientist finds such gap he can not cross, he will state that further investigation is needed. He won't scream out to everyone that he just found God.

Originally Posted by rocketdodger:
My point is that because we don't know, the claim that atomic numbers are completely discrete cannot be proven.

No more can the the law of conservation of mass-energy, or the laws of gravity, or for that matter that the sun will rise tomorrow be proven.

I think its worth adding here, that for the purposes of chemistry (and, for that matter, our sanity), atomic numbers can be "proven discrete", as long as that proof stays within the realm of chemistry. Which is why the periodic table remains a useful model. But, like all useful models, it is also going to be inaccurate at certain levels. The Periodic Table breaks down the further down into quantum mechanics you go. And the Periodic Table certainly can’t help us predict factors in the world economy all by itself. But, as for chemistry, it’s all good!

Even I know it doesn't pay to be a greedy reductionist.

A classic example: you can make the Earth the center of the solar system if you are willing to do more complex orbital equations. Does the complexity of the geocentric model make it false, or just less useful? Does the simplicity of the heliocentric model make it true, or just more useful?

Some may disagree, but I say "less useful" to the first question, and "more useful" to the second. Both models are "true". Discuss...

athon

19th May 2006, 06:29 PM

That's where the ID/probability/network theory comes in. Just because you can get from point A to point B doesn't mean that you're likely to, and just because every organisms have intermediaries doesn't mean that all intermediaries are created equal.

I can't disagree with that.

*snip* In the evolutionary network of life, she (and her species) was a main nexus point. As an intermediary, she was much more critical than (for example) any of her great-grand-children, because by that time there was demonstrably a breeding population of monkeys established in the New World.

I don't understand your line of thinking. Maybe you misunderstood (or I mistated) my position. There is still an intermediatory, even if she was a single nexus point. Assumedly she could breed with her immediate ancestors and her immediate descendents. Therefore the speciation line is geographical, not genetic.

In hindsight, there could be some physiological exceptions, where physical changes to the organism mechanically prevented sexually reproducing with ancestors but allowed reproduction with siblings with compatible physiology. Although rare, this could create a sharp special distiniction. Although much rarer (I can't even think of any off the top of my head for any sexual species), point mutations shared by siblings that genetically prevented successful fertilisation might also create a sharp line.

Of course, if we wanted to look for nexus points, continent- or island-hopping events are good places to start. But how about speciation events that don't happen in conjunction with island hopping? Humans and chimpanzees are not (currently) believed to have been separated by vast seas, and the recent genetic data suggests that the speciation took quite some time. So we're not looking at a single individual, but at a small group. How small? Can we construct a similar nexus between humans and chimps using the evolutionary probabilities? How about going further back in time and seeing the split between rodents and rabbits? Etc.

That's my point, which makes me wonder if we're arguing the same thing (wouldn't be the first time I've done that). Speciation is blurred, something we as humans use to distinuguish groups however isn't reflected clearly in nature.

Athon

Mojo

19th May 2006, 06:34 PM

Hardly. The atomic numer is simply the number of protons in the nucleus of an atom. We've got ample evidence that protons are conceptually discrete dating back to the 19th century, and we've got a pretty good lineup of supporting evidence that the objects "comprising" protons -- quarks -- are also conceptually discrete and only stable enough to form atoms in particular discrete combinations.

We can't prove that there's not a really wierd atomic nucleus out there made up of a strange collection of ninety-four and a half quarks, but we have enough evidence that quarks themselves don't come in halves, and that quarks don't form up in collections of ninety-four, that no one would take such a theory at all seriously absent some major evidence.I'll go along with this (as an ex-chemist). All the evidence points to the fact that an atomic nucleus has a round number of protons: they don't get divided. Quite apart from anything else, the atomic number of an element is defined as the number of protons in its nucleus.

hammegk

19th May 2006, 06:58 PM

... to defend my point, I will alter my statement by saying: In principal, you can always re-construct anything broken down, to the best of our ability, utilizing scientific investigation - although we might not always have the necessary technology on hand. And, more often than not, this ought to be good enough for most cases.
Where Heisenberg or thermodynamic decay is not a problem, and when the thing undergoing reductionism is not life, I'd agree.

It may be a while before we start deconstructing/reconstructing, say, planetary orbits. ;)

Perhaps my last ID rant was oversimplified.
I.D. is looking for elements of life that are "irreducibly complex", implying science will never resolve them. This, of course, is a joke. How dare these unimaginative fools say what science can and can not discover!
I've pointed out elsewhere elsewhen the problem science can never solve by deconstructing (to cold absolute death) life and then re-constructing it -- let's talk about the tiniest bit of rna/dna we would agree is life.

If it revives, you will never know if you forced life to occur, or if you just provided a suitable structure that life chose to animate. Technology being what it is, some attempts are doomed to fail in any case.

See the problem?

As a result, I.D. is declaring gaps in our evolutionary trees that they think will never be crossed. While the actual hunt for gaps may involve scientific investigation, it would be foolhardy to announce that you actually found any permanent ones. That is one reason I.D. is pathetic.
If a real scientist finds such gap he can not cross, he will state that further investigation is needed. He won't scream out to everyone that he just found God.
I don't postulate any god. Why do you? And why would any scientist stop investigating, although I suggest my proviso above will always be there.

I think its worth adding here, that for the purposes of chemistry (and, for that matter, our sanity), atomic numbers can be "proven discrete", as long as that proof stays within the realm of chemistry. Which is why the periodic table remains a useful model. But, like all useful models, it is also going to be inaccurate at certain levels. The Periodic Table breaks down the further down into quantum mechanics you go.
Are you suggesting other quark/lepton configurations,or what?

Paraphrasing Some Big Name physicist ... if it's not specifically ruled out it must occur.

Yet, certain configurations -- like those in the chart of elements -- maintain stability for eons, at least.

And the Periodic Table certainly can’t help us predict factors in the world economy all by itself. But, as for chemistry, it’s all good!
Proper understanding might help one pick the next Amgen at a buck a share. :D

Wowbagger

19th May 2006, 10:05 PM

Where Heisenberg or thermodynamic decay is not a problem, and when the thing undergoing reductionism is not life, I'd agree.

What is the fundamental difference between something that is alive, and something that is not? Why to you presume science will never be capable of deconstruction and reconstruction of it?
Now, I doubt we'll have the capabilities any time soon. But, it is, at least in principal, within the concepts of science that such things could possibly be done. But, then again, who know? This is the sort of arguing that will never find a conclusion, until we answer the first question conclusively.

I don't postulate any god. Why do you? And why would any scientist stop investigating, although I suggest my proviso above will always be there.

Okay, I.D. doesn't postulate any god. It postulates an intelligent designer. Same difference...

And no scientist would stop investigating. That is why the most ardent of creation "scientists" are not really scientists - they would have science stopped, if they could.

Are you suggesting other quark/lepton configurations,or what?

Paraphrasing Some Big Name physicist ... if it's not specifically ruled out it must occur.

Yet, certain configurations -- like those in the chart of elements -- maintain stability for eons, at least.

Yep: quarks, gluons, gravitons, and all those other particles they got tied up with super strings.

And, yes, certain configurations do maintain stability: That is why I would never dismiss the Periodic Chart (I can't even think anyone who would, except some complete whackos, perhaps.) All I was pointing out is that the chart becomes less accurate and useful as you "navigate" the various levels of existence. Can anyone argue with that?

Proper understanding might help one pick the next Amgen at a buck a share. :D
Now, that's really being a greedy reductionist! :D

I'm going to sleep. Big day in NYC in the morning.

drkitten

22nd May 2006, 01:19 PM

I don't understand your line of thinking. Maybe you misunderstood (or I mistated) my position. There is still an intermediatory, even if she was a single nexus point.

Well, that's certainly a conclusion from modern science.

But the concept of 'nexus point' as I defined it is not a traditional part of modern biological science (although it could be). To the best of my knowledge, no one is bothering to look for such nexus points except in certain very specialized cases, and they're not doing it under any sort of formal, intelligible framework.

Let's chase this notion of 'nexus point' a little further. I can define this single breeding population of one individual as a nexus piont "of order one." I can generalize this -- if the breeding population that connects group A to group B achieves a minimum of K individuals, we can put a nexus "of order K" in between them. Now, the empirical question is whether we can relate the number K to biological, biochemical, or information-theoretic properties of the individuals and populations in question? And in particular, is there any relationship between the various K's and the various high-order taxonomic groups? Can we refine our traditional notions of taxonomic groups in light of the nexus structure as defined above?

To the best of my knowledge, no one is investigating such question.

And I think it's fairly evident that this could be useful science.

But the connection to "intelligent design" is fairly obvious if you think about it. The central ID claim is that there is a nexus point of order 0 somewhere in the web-of-life and that it can be proven to exist by examination of "biological, biochemical, or information-theoretic properties." And a genuine attempt to answer the ID question would as a matter of necessity lay the groundwork for the broader, more scientific questions of the paragraphs above.

I don't think such a "nexus point of order 0" exists, either. But I do think that an honest creationist could do useful work by looking for one instead of lying about one.

blutoski

22nd May 2006, 01:40 PM

Can we refine our traditional notions of taxonomic groups in light of the nexus structure as defined above?

To the best of my knowledge, no one is investigating such question.

And I think it's fairly evident that this could be useful science.

My impression is that modern taxonomic analysis is paying attention to this, and that it's part of the shift away from bifurcated models (trees) / binomial nomenclature toward dendogram models / clade nomenclature.

drkitten

22nd May 2006, 01:43 PM

My impression is that modern taxonomic analysis is paying attention to this, and that it's part of the shift away from bifurcated models (trees) / binomial nomenclature toward dendogram models / clade nomenclature.

I think you're mistaken. Not that modern taxonomy is not moving towards dendrogram models, but that this has much to do with the nexus points and their sizes as I defined above.

Part of the problem of "inventing" new fields of science is that one has to "invent" simultaneously a new terminology to describe it, with attendant possiblities of confusion.

athon

23rd May 2006, 01:57 AM

But the concept of 'nexus point' as I defined it is not a traditional part of modern biological science (although it could be). To the best of my knowledge, no one is bothering to look for such nexus points except in certain very specialized cases, and they're not doing it under any sort of formal, intelligible framework.

From what I was taught (although my formal education in molecular biology is a few years ago now...man, does everybody feel old when the stuff they learned at uni becomes 'what we used to think...'?), whenever genetic bottlenecks arise, there is an attempt to define the 'when' and 'who' - when did it occur, and who was related to the event. As far as I can tell, this would be the same as a 'nexus point'.

Let's chase this notion of 'nexus point' a little further. I can define this single breeding population of one individual as a nexus piont "of order one." I can generalize this -- if the breeding population that connects group A to group B achieves a minimum of K individuals, we can put a nexus "of order K" in between them. Now, the empirical question is whether we can relate the number K to biological, biochemical, or information-theoretic properties of the individuals and populations in question? And in particular, is there any relationship between the various K's and the various high-order taxonomic groups? Can we refine our traditional notions of taxonomic groups in light of the nexus structure as defined above?

Again, I'm still not seeing your query. This is all bottlenecking, something very much studied in population and molecular genetics.

To the best of my knowledge, no one is investigating such question.

If there is a reason to suspect that a gene pool was constricted in the past, people study it. At present there is a great fear that while whale populations are increasing in numbers, they are not out of danger considering the bottlenecking that has occured. Genetic variation is far too small for subsequent populations to be described as fit.

But the connection to "intelligent design" is fairly obvious if you think about it. The central ID claim is that there is a nexus point of order 0 somewhere in the web-of-life and that it can be proven to exist by examination of "biological, biochemical, or information-theoretic properties." And a genuine attempt to answer the ID question would as a matter of necessity lay the groundwork for the broader, more scientific questions of the paragraphs above.

Hm, interesting connection. Could ID describe a bottleneck event at time '0'? I don't think so, as there is no statement proposing the genetic variation of first generation biology. If there was, we could use bottleneck mapping to explore it.

I don't think such a "nexus point of order 0" exists, either. But I do think that an honest creationist could do useful work by looking for one instead of lying about one.

I think the fact that ID makes no such statements, it is impossible to look for such a '0 order nexus'.

Athon

greyfeather75

23rd May 2006, 02:14 PM

It's great how creationists keep giving up ground to science - everytime science explains another point in their arguments they move on and say "well god was needed for this to happen because I'm not creative or knowledgable enough to propose a natural process"

eventually all they'll have left is the big bang...if that

Why is it so difficult for people to understand that just because you can't explain something doesn't mean you have to rely on some supernatural force to explain it....

a book of anecdotes from the mentally ill does not count as proof of anything other than that humans have a tendency to believe almost anything if it's packaged right - even the ravings of a schizophrenic prophet who heard the "voice" of god

hammegk

23rd May 2006, 02:48 PM

Why is it so difficult for people to understand that just because you can't explain something doesn't mean you have to rely on some supernatural force to explain it....

Why is it so difficult for others to understand that supernatural is a meaningless word used only by physicalists to denigrate ~physicalists, and dualists who don't know any better.

greyfeather75

23rd May 2006, 04:00 PM

I wouldn't say supernatural is a "meaningless" word - I knew exactly what I "mean"t when I used it ;)

hammegk

24th May 2006, 06:05 AM

I suspect you will have difficulty fitting your definition into "if it effects or affects Reality, it's part of reality". :)

rocketdodger

24th May 2006, 11:44 AM

Show me some evidence in favor of your "could be" and we can re-discuss.

..Snip..

No, but since there's no evidence that such continuous components exist at all, I'm entitled to be exactly as dismissive of that idea as I am of the idea that faeries cause bread to rise. More dismissive, in fact, since I've seen photographs and drawings of faeries.

Ok, how about the fact that the entire material world around us is composed of reducible parts, that every time we think we have found a truely discrete entity we eventually manage to decompose it further, that our entire mathematical system is based on the notion of continuity?

Is that enough evidence? The difference between my "could-be" and your's is that our entire experience points to mine being an "is." If we knew that fire-breathing dragons and faeries were responsible for everything else, THEN IT WOULD BE VALID TO ASSUME THEY MADE BREAD RISE. We KNOW that everything is composed of smaller parts -- at least everything we have encountered in the real universe -- and that should be more than enough, by your own standards.

Hellbound

24th May 2006, 12:01 PM

. We KNOW that everything is composed of smaller parts -- at least everything we have encountered in the real universe -- and that should be more than enough, by your own standards.

No, we don't.

We know that quarks aren't. Nor leptons (I believe, the group that include electrons).

We also know that quarks don't exist individually. They have to form a hadron (again, if I have my groups correct).

So, we have pretty conclusive proof that there can't be half a proton. We've tried to create them, we've looked for them, the theories all contra-indicate them, and there's absolutely no evidence that they could exist, even in theory.

rocketdodger

24th May 2006, 03:15 PM

No, we don't.

We know that quarks aren't. Nor leptons (I believe, the group that include electrons).

We also know that quarks don't exist individually. They have to form a hadron (again, if I have my groups correct).

So, we have pretty conclusive proof that there can't be half a proton. We've tried to create them, we've looked for them, the theories all contra-indicate them, and there's absolutely no evidence that they could exist, even in theory.

We don't KNOW these things, we simply have no evidence for them yet -- except the fact that the concept of a fully discrete entity in reality is completely foreign to us.

I agree, half a proton is probably nonsense. But I challenge you to completely define what "a proton" means.

Give me the same argument in 200 years and maybe then you could convince me.

TobiasTheViking

24th May 2006, 03:29 PM

We don't KNOW these things, we simply have no evidence for them yet -- except the fact that the concept of a fully discrete entity in reality is completely foreign to us.

I agree, half a proton is probably nonsense. But I challenge you to completely define what "a proton" means.

Give me the same argument in 200 years and maybe then you could convince me.
A proton is an up quark + an up quark + a down quark.

drkitten

24th May 2006, 03:37 PM

Ok, how about the fact that the entire material world around us is composed of reducible parts

That's not a "fact." In fact, it's specifically contrary to what we have as "facts.".

As far as we can tell, electrons are irreducible, as are quarks.

that every time we think we have found a truely discrete entity we eventually manage to decompose it further

This is suggestive, but hardly evidence.

, that our entire mathematical system is based on the notion of continuity?

And this is simply wrong out-of-the-box. (Our entire mathematical system is actually based on the fundamental notions of discreteness. Look up the ZFC and Peano axioms, and then see how the notion of "continuity" is a fairly high-level concept built up by the equivalence classes of infinite extension of finite discrete sequences.) I don't know where you got this idea, but I'd send it back.

Is that enough evidence?

Er, no. It's no evidence at all.

hammegk

25th May 2006, 05:56 AM

As far as we can tell, electrons are irreducible, as are quarks.

Assigned a very small epsilon, anyway. :)

It's a fact the subject is being discussed, and seems more scientific than worrying about angels dancing on pins and their numbers.

rocketdodger

25th May 2006, 07:27 AM

As far as we can tell, electrons are irreducible, as are quarks.

As I said, try giving me this argument in 200 years and maybe then I will be convinced.

This is suggestive, but hardly evidence.

It is as much evidential as any of the other arguments self proclaimed "skeptics" such as yourself require.

And this is simply wrong out-of-the-box. (Our entire mathematical system is actually based on the fundamental notions of discreteness. Look up the ZFC and Peano axioms, and then see how the notion of "continuity" is a fairly high-level concept built up by the equivalence classes of infinite extension of finite discrete sequences.) I don't know where you got this idea, but I'd send it back.

Yeah you got me there. I suppose I should have said "working" mathematics or "applied" mathematics.

Er, no. It's no evidence at all.

I disagree. Frankly I am surprised that you actually believe we have finally stumbled upon an entity that cannot be decomposed any further. I rather think we just don't know how to decompose it yet.

cbish

25th May 2006, 03:22 PM

As I said, try giving me this argument in 200 years and maybe then I will be convinced.

It is as much evidential as any of the other arguments self proclaimed "skeptics" such as yourself require.

I disagree. Frankly I am surprised that you actually believe we have finally stumbled upon an entity that cannot be decomposed any further. I rather think we just don't know how to decompose it yet.So, are we just speaking philosophically here or do you have any specific thoughts on what we're going to find?

rocketdodger

26th May 2006, 08:30 AM

So, are we just speaking philosophically here or do you have any specific thoughts on what we're going to find?

No I am speaking completely philosophically right now. I haven't had time to get as far into quantum physics as I want yet, on account of my major being CS lol.

The fact is, I can't get my brain around the idea of a non-reducible entity existing in reality.

drkitten

26th May 2006, 08:38 AM

The fact is, I can't get my brain around the idea of a non-reducible entity existing in reality.

Ah, yes, good old argument from incredulity.

I'm afraid that fact says more about your brain than it does about reality.

rocketdodger

26th May 2006, 09:24 AM

Ah, yes, good old argument from incredulity.

I'm afraid that fact says more about your brain than it does about reality.

Hey, I didn't take any personal shots at you, why did you start?

And how is that an argument? Did I ever make the claim that the evidence in favor of non-reducible entities is my inability to think of one? No, I didn't. I merely made a statement in the interest of letting cbish know where I stand.

It is possible, Dr. Kitten, that you would rather shoot people down with your infinite knowledge than possibly teach them something -- for some people, tearing others down is much more rewarding than building them up. I didn't think you would be like that, considering how (apparently) intelligent you are, and I still don't, but if you continue with the personal attacks I will have to change my view -- based entirely on evidence, of course.

I am sure that if I read as many books as you have I could fight back, but that is not my desire -- right now I am just trying to think about what it would mean for a non-reducible entity to exist. You can fire off all the theorems and ideas from the books you have read but it doesn't matter to me because 1) It doesn't show me that you are any smarter than a housewife who reads Daniel Steele all day and 2) I would rather hear YOU explain to me what YOU think.

nescafe

26th May 2006, 10:30 AM

Ok, how about the fact that the entire material world around us is composed of reducible parts, that every time we think we have found a truely discrete entity we eventually manage to decompose it further, that our entire mathematical system is based on the notion of continuity?

(Several branches) of our mathematics may be based on the notion of continuity, but that does not mean the the Universe is. Indeed, the fact that (according to currently known laws of physics) we have a maximum meaningful speed and that we can derive minimum meaningful units of time, length, and electric charge from the fundamental constants strongly suggest that the universe is more discrete than continuous in nature.

Hellbound

26th May 2006, 10:37 AM

(Several branches) of our mathematics may be based on the notion of continuity, but that does not mean the the Universe is. Indeed, the fact that (according to currently known laws of physics) we have a maximum meaningful speed and that we can derive minimum meaningful units of time, length, and electric charge from the fundamental constants strongly suggest that the universe is more discrete than continuous in nature.

Just thought I'd second this. It's a good point...the entire idea of quantum mechanics rests on there being "minimum, irreducible units" to pretty much everything.

And quantum mechanics has the distinction of being the single most-tested (and most-supported) theory in the history of physics (IIRC GR is in second place).

hammegk

26th May 2006, 12:11 PM

Originally Posted by rocketdodger :
The fact is, I can't get my brain around the idea of a non-reducible entity existing in reality.

Ah, yes, good old argument from incredulity.

I'm afraid that fact says more about your brain than it does about reality.
So you concur with Democritus even though he's always been proven wrong?

Just thought I'd second this. It's a good point...the entire idea of quantum mechanics rests on there being "minimum, irreducible units" to pretty much everything.

And quantum mechanics has the distinction of being the single most-tested (and most-supported) theory in the history of physics (IIRC GR is in second place).
Yup. And GR requires spacetime to be infinitely divisible. ;)

Hellbound

26th May 2006, 12:18 PM

Yup. And GR requires spacetime to be infinitely divisible. ;)

No, it assumes it is so. And it's well known the theory fails at high gravity/small distance.

Before QM, we could describe fields in a continuous manner, as well. But not completely and the theory failed in certain situations. Once the quantum fomulation was worked out, the problems went away.

No one's formulated a quantum description of gravity yet, although there are several promising avenues. But what you're implying here (heaven forbid you ever actually make a statement) is that a theory which is known to be incomplete should trump a theory that is a replacement for earlier theories, that were incomplete in the same way?

Yet another area you remain willfully ignorant in...or just dishonest. I leave that choice as an exercise for the reader.

rocketdodger

26th May 2006, 03:59 PM

(Several branches) of our mathematics may be based on the notion of continuity, but that does not mean the the Universe is. Indeed, the fact that (according to currently known laws of physics) we have a maximum meaningful speed and that we can derive minimum meaningful units of time, length, and electric charge from the fundamental constants strongly suggest that the universe is more discrete than continuous in nature.

Ok forget the whole continuous versus discrete debate, I don't know enough physics yet to even be able to weigh in.

My argument had nothing to do with continuity versus discreteness, it had to do with reducible versus irreducible entities. I don't really know why I brought up continuity in the first place.

So can we please continue along the lines of the original question -- how can something be irreducible?

hammegk

26th May 2006, 04:52 PM

No, it assumes it is so. And it's well known the theory fails at high gravity/small distance.
Why yes, it does, just like QM fails in specific "particle" analysis.

Before QM, we could describe fields in a continuous manner, as well. But not completely and the theory failed in certain situations. Once the quantum fomulation was worked out, the problems went away.
Some problems did.

No one's formulated a quantum description of gravity yet, although there are several promising avenues. But what you're implying here (heaven forbid you ever actually make a statement) is that a theory which is known to be incomplete should trump a theory that is a replacement for earlier theories, that were incomplete in the same way?
Sorry, I did not imply that.

Yet another area you remain willfully ignorant in...or just dishonest. I leave that choice as an exercise for the reader.
Fallacy of excluded middle, anyone?

nescafe

26th May 2006, 07:15 PM

Ok forget the whole continuous versus discrete debate, I don't know enough physics yet to even be able to weigh in.

My argument had nothing to do with continuity versus discreteness, it had to do with reducible versus irreducible entities. I don't really know why I brought up continuity in the first place.

So can we please continue along the lines of the original question -- how can something be irreducible?

Well, otherwise it is just turtles all the way down. ;)

Seriously, though, discretness requires that at some point there is a thing (or set thereof) which cannot meaningfully be described in terms of simpler things (or thought of as an aggregate of those simpler things). Right now those things are the various particles and fields of the Standard Model, and the Standard Model of QM is scarily accurate. Given said scary accuracy, I see no need to throw it away (although I will happily accept a better model when it comes along, preferably one that also explains General Relativity and gives some sort of explanation of why the fundamental constants are the value they are). After all, we still use good old Newtonian mechanics for just about everything in modern life, and it serves us well.

Tisthammerw

5th July 2006, 08:22 AM

You assert that because scientists can make DNA, the idea that DNA is designed is plausible. But there wouldn't be any scientists without DNA! If the known possible mechanism for DNA requires the previous existance of DNA, then it doesn't count as a possible mechanism.

So far this is the only real argument I have seen that successfully shoots down tisthammer.

In my opinion this snippet closes the debate. It just goes to show that alot of smart people (all of us) can totally miss the tiny simple point that wins the argument.

Here's an example of another tiny simple point: maybe (as I said repeatedly before) the designer is a type of life form radically unlike our own, e.g. one that doesn’t use DNA. We actually have machinery that can automate the process of DNA construction--and these machines do not require pre-existing DNA to create it.

As an analogy, just because a race of robots can artificially create other robots using machinery, that doesn’t imply that only robots can create robots any more than only humans can use machinery to create DNA.

Only Yahzi saw it.... but, at least we can all use this argument to debate against ID proponents from now on.

*cheers Yahzi*

The cheer seems premature, by as you said, even smart people can miss simple points like the one I mentioned.

Lamuella

5th July 2006, 08:32 AM

Tisthammerw

5th July 2006, 08:33 AM

Yes, ID is falsifiable as I have shown before.

but you haven't shown it. At all.

Answer me this: if it was shown that life could occur without intervention from an intelligent agent, how would this rule out the possibility that an intelligent agent created life?.

Please read the first post where I define the terms. ID is the theory that intelligent causes are necessary to create life on Earth. This particular theory is falsifiable, since if it were shown that life could occur without intervention from an intelligent agent, the theory would be disproved as much as any scientific theory could be (barring those that are logically impossible).

Lamuella

5th July 2006, 08:35 AM

Tisthammerw

5th July 2006, 08:36 AM

hey, Tist, good to see you again. Let me ask you this again:

"Tisthammerw, let me ask you a question: are you of the opinion that life can occur without intelligent input? I'm not talking about life on earth, I'm talking about life of any kind whatsoever anywhere in the universe."

If you're talking about life of any kind in the universe, I suspect not, but I can't be sure because such a belief is even more non-falsifiable than abiogenesis (because there could be forms of life we haven't even thought of).

Lamuella

5th July 2006, 08:38 AM

If you're talking about life of any kind in the universe, I suspect not, but I can't be sure because such a belief is even more non-falsifiable than abiogenesis (because there could be forms of life we haven't even thought of).

so if, as you suspect, life of no kind can occur in the universe without intelligent input, where did the first life form come from?

Tisthammerw

5th July 2006, 08:39 AM

Please read the first post where I define the terms. ID is the theory that intelligent causes are necessary to create life on Earth.

so in other words, your definition of ID is different from the definition of every other member of the intelligent design community. Gotcha.

It's not that different. From this Dembski web page (http://www.arn.org/docs/dembski/wd_idmovement.htm), "Within biology, Intelligent Design is a theory of biological origins and development. Its fundamental claim is that intelligent causes are necessary [emphasis mine] to explain the complex, information-rich structures of biology, and that these causes are empirically detectable."

CFLarsen

5th July 2006, 08:39 AM

Tisthammerw,

Good to see you are back. If I may repost the questions put to you from TobiasTheCommie, lamuella and Mojo:

You have stated many many many times that ID has a solution for making RNA and DNA, but you haven't shown that solution. Please show it.

You have stated many many many times that ID has a theory, but you haven't shown that theory. Please show it.

You have stated many many many times that ID can be falsified, but you haven't shown a way to falsify it. Please show it.

You have stated many many many times that ID is the only way that human life on earth can have originated, but you haven't shown why we are different or more complex than, for instance,turtles. Please show it.

Are you of the opinion that life can occur without intelligent input? I'm not talking about life on earth, I'm talking about life of any kind whatsoever anywhere in the universe.

What is this kind of "naturally occurring complexity" that results in life? Define it for us. Show it exists and is different from the life we know.

What other sort of life is there, beside life found on Earth?

If it was shown that life could occur without intervention from an intelligent agent, how would this rule out the possibility that an intelligent agent created life?

Have you made any progress with your mechanism for the spontaneous appearence of intelligence in the absence of life? Provide details of your mechanism for this and I'll let you know which "theory" appears to have more in the way of a credible mechanism.

ETA: Ah, I see you are in the process of answering them.

Tisthammerw

5th July 2006, 08:45 AM

so if, as you suspect, life of no kind can occur in the universe without intelligent input, where did the first life form come from?

I'm a theist, and I think God is the most likely explanation. But please note this a deity creating life is not part of intelligent design as I described in the first post. Do not confuse my other beliefs with intelligent design. An alien designer that came about via undirected natural processes is also compatible with intelligent design. It's just that I personally suspect (I don't claim to know for certain) that no kind of other life can be formed naturally.

BTW, why do you believe abiogenesis is scientifically superior to intelligent design? I have noticed that this question is often avoided (or if it is answered, the info I give in my previous posts seems to be avoided).

Lamuella

5th July 2006, 08:51 AM

this is why I believe abiogenesis is scientifically superior to ID:

1. Abiogenesis examines natural causes. It does not invoke the supernatural or out of context suppositions such as space aliens.
2. Abiogenesis is precise. It models scenarios by which replication, and thus life, could have started. By contrast, Intelligent design is deliberately vague on the nature of the designer.
3. Abiogenesis is a positive hypothesis. It tries to establish what did happen from the evidence. By contrast, Intelligent Design is a negative hypothesis (and I use that term guardedly). It tries to establish why abiogenesis could not have happened.
4. Abiogenesis is evidentiary, starting with the evidence and creating a theory. Intelligent design is idealistic, starting with a theory and hunting for evidence.

Tisthammerw

5th July 2006, 08:56 AM

Tisthammerw,

Good to see you are back. If I may repost the questions put to you from TobiasTheCommie, lamuella and Mojo:

[LIST]
You have stated many many many times that ID has a solution for making RNA and DNA, but you haven't shown that solution. Please show it.

One possible mechanism is the same one we scientists use to create RNA and DNA (we even have machinery that does it for us).

You have stated many many many times that ID has a theory, but you haven't shown that theory. Please show it.

I have already done so. Please see the first post where I define the theory.

You have stated many many many times that ID can be falsified, but you haven't shown a way to falsify it. Please show it.

I have done so. See post #142 (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=1636029&postcount=142) where I described a conceivable experiment that would falsify ID.

You have stated many many many times that ID is the only way that human life on earth can have originated, but you haven't shown why we are different or more complex than, for instance,turtles. Please show it.

Huh? You seem a bit confused. I'm talking about Earth-life in general, as in single-celled organisms. I'm talking about ID vs. abiogenesis, not ID vs. evolution. So, we could imagine that ID was needed to create the first single-celled organisms but evolution took off from there and eventually evolved humans. It's not evolution I dispute so much as abiogenesis (that undirected chemical reactions could produce life from non-life).

Are you of the opinion that life can occur without intelligent input? I'm not talking about life on earth, I'm talking about life of any kind whatsoever anywhere in the universe.

Answered in post #295.

What is this kind of "naturally occurring complexity" that results in life?

I'm not sure what you're talking about.

What other sort of life is there, beside life found on Earth?

None that I know of. There could be types of life radically different from our own--or there might not be. I don't think we're in a position to definitively answer that question yet.

If it was shown that life could occur without intervention from an intelligent agent, how would this rule out the possibility that an intelligent agent created life?

See post #293.

Have you made any progress with your mechanism for the spontaneous appearence of intelligence in the absence of life?

I don't believe such a thing ever happened (though such an event is perfectly consistent with intelligent design).

Lamuella

5th July 2006, 08:59 AM

Tisthammerw

5th July 2006, 09:31 AM

this is why I believe abiogenesis is scientifically superior to ID:

1. Abiogenesis examines natural causes. It does not invoke the supernatural or out of context suppositions such as space aliens.

Why would this matter? Is the concept of an outside agency (as an alien) creating life inherently unscientific?

2. Abiogenesis is precise. It models scenarios by which replication, and thus life, could have started. By contrast, Intelligent design is deliberately vague on the nature of the designer.

ID can be just as specific--and more so--than abiogenesis. When it comes to a known mechanism for RNA and DNA, ID has a very specific possible mechanism (the same way we synthesize it) whereas abiogenesis does not. Abiogenesis may be specific at lower levels (as in getting amino acids) but is terribly vague at the higher levels and pales in comparison to intelligent design.

3. Abiogenesis is a positive hypothesis. It tries to establish what did happen from the evidence. By contrast, Intelligent Design is a negative hypothesis (and I use that term guardedly). It tries to establish why abiogenesis could not have happened.

True, finding serious and significant obstacles for abiogenesis is something that intelligent design predicts. But when it comes to a known possible mechanism (the core prediction of abiogenesis that makes it "specific"), it can be every bit as "postive" as abiogenesis (and even more so--see above).

4. Abiogenesis is evidentiary, starting with the evidence and creating a theory. Intelligent design is idealistic, starting with a theory and hunting for evidence.

There are a number of problems with this. For one thing, is what you described about abiogenesis even true? Or is it that scientists simply expanded the already existing paradigm (natural origins of life) before any experimental evidence was even found? Belief in abiogenesis existed well before the Urey-Miller experiment. Also, evidence for abiogenesis seems essentially nonexistent. Abiogenesis predicts the existence of a possible mechanism to create life, but this mechanism isn't even close to being found and instead it runs into a number of serious obstacles (e.g. in getting RNA and DNA). And apart from this, what evidence for abiogenesis is there?

A brief digression so you can see my point of view, here's what it looks like to me:

Me: "This single celled organism has incredibly vast organized complexity--high density digital information storage memory banks and decoding systems, complex mechanisms to duplicate that data, error-correcting mechanisms, automatic regulation of assembling components etc. How did this all originate?"
Abiogenesis adherent: "Undirected chemical reactions."
Me: "How could that possibly have happened?"
Abiogenesis adherent: "We don't know. But trust me it happened."

Call me skeptical, but I am not inclined to share such trust. The type of complexity of what I described strikes me as very machine-like, as a high-tech factory using a unique sort of nanotech beyond our technological ability to create. At first blush, the type of complexity makes it look designed just as an automobile does. "But the complex biochemical machinery of life only looks designed" some might say. I can accept that, really--if there's evidence. If we have experimental evidence demonstrating that this could happen (finding a possible mechanism) I could accept it as plausible. But we just don't have that. We don’t even have a known plausible mechanism to create the macromolecules used to store and transfer the digital information (RNA and DNA). So to me, abiogenesis looks more like wishful thinking based on almost no evidence; and that intelligent design is avoided chiefly because of tenacity (scientists have a history of fierce loyalty to their theories) and philosophical preferences.

Back to the matter at hand: Third, there is no known rigorous logical procedure to infer explanatory theories from the data. Theories are the result of creativity and invention, and the origin of the theory is irrelevant anyway (confer the genetic fallacy). So starting with the theory and searching for evidence is true of virtually any scientific theory (including abiogenesis) anyway.

Anacoluthon64

5th July 2006, 09:42 AM

this is why I believe abiogenesis is scientifically superior to ID:

...snip...and

5. Abiogenesis can shed light on what is required for life to arise in the first place, what sorts of life are even possible and why. Thus a satisfactory theory of abiogenesis is fruitful in allowing us to explore the entire gamut of what is possible, and thereby become fully informed intelligent designers ourselves. In contrast, without a complete specification of the ostensibly extant intelligent designer, no such benefit accrues to us.

'Luthon64

Tisthammerw

5th July 2006, 09:43 AM

Perhaps it's good to remind people that, if they wish to reply to me, they should see post #142 (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=1636029&postcount=142) where I answer many objections. For instance,

Tisthammerw: Ok, please, just drop the entire abiogenesis thing. You obviously don't understand it, and it is, in any case, TOTALLY IRRELEVANT.

Even if abiogenesis is proven to be false(not likely) that doesn't make ID(even as defined by you) a viable solution.

It is not likely abiogenesis to be proven false because abiogenesis is not a falsifiable theory (as I mentioned in post #142). There is no conceivable experiment that would falsify it, whereas this is not true for ID.

ID(Even as defined by you in the first post) is NOT scientific because it does not have.
1) A hypothesis
2) A theory
3) A testable prediction
4) ANY PREDCTIONS
5) Any way of being falsified

All of these items are false. See post #142 (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=1636029&postcount=142).

This thread has gotten quite long, so I apologize if this has been said earlier.

The reason why abiogenesis can be called a scientific hypothesis is that it fits well within our current understanding of the physical universe, and offers testable predictions.

In contrast, intelligent design makes no predictions, apparently contravenes physical laws…

See post #142 (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=1636029&postcount=142). The prediction abiogenesis makes (a mechanism) is extremely limited, and ID beats out abiogenesis when it comes to having a mechanism. Also, the aspects of ID described are false.

Tisthammerw

5th July 2006, 09:55 AM

5. Abiogenesis can shed light on what is required for life to arise in the first place

Assuming we're talking about life on Earth, how does it do that? At least, how does it do this any better than intelligent design? Both theories (and biology in general) try to answer the question what is required for life to arise.

But perhaps you're talking about life in general. One thing makes some sense: if abiogenesis is true (and if there is no other life in the universe) abiogenesis offers a more complete explanation as to the ultimate origin of all life, whereas ID leaves an entity of unknown and perhaps unknowable (scientifically speaking) origin--since the designer could itself be a life form possessing a different kind of complexity.

Even this has limits however. Abiogenesis by natural processes is not complete, for it fails to explain the origin of natural processes. And if one tries to explain that processes's origin by another entity via the Big bang (or anything else) we have the exact same problem with that explanation.

what sorts of life are even possible and why.

How does it do that? There are versions of intelligent design that purport to answer this question, but how does abiogenesis (the belief that life spontaneously arose from non-living matter) do this? At least, how does it do this more than intelligent design theory?

Lamuella

5th July 2006, 09:57 AM

Why would this matter? Is the concept of an outside agency (as an alien) creating life inherently unscientific?

when unspecified, yes. Saying "god or aliens did it" is deeply unsceintific. When you are invoking a cause you have to be able to explain the mechanism of that cause. Otherwise saying "invisible unicorns did it" would be acceptable.

ID can be just as specific--and more so--than abiogenesis. When it comes to a known mechanism for RNA and DNA, ID has a very specific possible mechanism (the same way we synthesize it) whereas abiogenesis does not. Abiogenesis may be specific at lower levels (as in getting amino acids) but is terribly vague at the higher levels and pales in comparison to intelligent design.

Nonsense. Intelligent Design refuses to specify a designer or anything about the nature of the designer. Saying "they synthesize RNA and DNA the way we do" is nothing more than aping actual science. The scientists researching abiogenesis are looking at two things: what they can see DID happen, and what they know could have happened. Invoking an outside designer without giving any more information about what the designer is doing and why is bad science.

True, finding serious and significant obstacles for abiogenesis is something that intelligent design predicts. But when it comes to a known possible mechanism (the core prediction of abiogenesis that makes it "specific"), it can be every bit as "postive" as abiogenesis (and even more so--see above).

um... what? What has Intelligent Design predicted or described in a positive way? The only statement you seem to have made is "the designers made synthesize DNA like we synthesize DNA" which does nothing except move the question back a step. At some point you have to either give a mechanism for how the DESIGNER came into being that does not involve another designer, or say that the designer was created supernaturally. If you give a method of coming into being that does not invoke a designer, then you have merely given an abiogenesis scenario by one or two removes. If you say the designer was created supernaturally, then you have stopped talking about science.

(snip blathering nonsense comparing organisms to automobiles and misrepresentations of the position of abiogenesis scientists)

Tisthammerw

5th July 2006, 09:59 AM

I have already done so. Please see the first post where I define the theory.

Do you know what a theory actually is? I'm talking about the word "Theory" in the scientific sense here, we are after all talking about the supposed scientific superiority of intelligent design.

I know what a theory is, but as I have noticed people often have different definitions as to what constitutes a "scientific theory" (especially in debates like these). What is your definition of a "scientific theory"? And what aspect of it (if any) does intelligent design fail to meet?

Lamuella

5th July 2006, 09:59 AM

By the way, Tisthammerw, you didn't answer my question:

Do you know what a scientific theory is?

Lamuella

5th July 2006, 10:14 AM

I know what a theory is, but as I have noticed people often have different definitions as to what constitutes a "scientific theory" (especially in debates like these). What is your definition of a "scientific theory"? And what aspect of it (if any) does intelligent design fail to meet?

Please explain to me what a scientific theory is, and how it differs from a "theory" as used in regular parlance.

Anacoluthon64

5th July 2006, 10:22 AM

Assuming we're talking about life on Earth, how does it do that? At least, how does it do this any better than intelligent design? Both theories (and biology in general) try to answer the question what is required for life to arise.The principles underpinning formation of life on Earth (or elsewhere) are made clear through abiogenesis. The situation is akin to weighing up the merits of positing a gravity god (GG) versus spacetime curvature, as described by General Relativity (GR). Through GR we know and can exploit, e.g., the subtleties of a gravity lens. The GG leaves us in the dark about such matters.

Even this has limits however. Abiogenesis by natural processes is not complete, for it fails to explain the origin of natural processes. And if one tries to explain that processes's origin by another entity via the Big bang (or anything else) we have the exact same problem with that explanation.Ah, so you extend the scope of your initial question (origin of life) to now include "origin of natural processes." Isn't that shifting the goalposts when you find them inconvenient? By the same token, you would then need to explain the origin of all intelligent designers.

How does it do that? There are versions of intelligent design that purport to answer this question, but how does abiogenesis (the belief that life spontaneously arose from non-living matter) do this? At least, how does it do this more than intelligent design theory?Here your definition of abiogenesis is misleading. A satisfactory theory would include the necessary ingredients, physical processes, environment, etc. If you exclude them, your definition of abiogenesis (as "life spontaneously [arising] from non-living matter" - bolding mine) is, apart from the invoked level of complexity, indistinguishable from intelligent design. Both assume a process we haven't got a proper handle on.

'Luthon64

Tisthammerw

5th July 2006, 10:22 AM

Is the concept of an outside agency (as an alien) creating life inherently unscientific?

when unspecified, yes.

Let's apply this to other cases. Is the concept of an unspecified intelligent designer inherently unscientific when it comes to e.g. a stainless steel replica of Stonehenge on Mars or other artifacts we might find elsewhere? Or is it only inherently unscientific when it comes to life on Earth?

ID can be just as specific--and more so--than abiogenesis. When it comes to a known mechanism for RNA and DNA, ID has a very specific possible mechanism (the same way we synthesize it) whereas abiogenesis does not. Abiogenesis may be specific at lower levels (as in getting amino acids) but is terribly vague at the higher levels and pales in comparison to intelligent design.

Nonsense. Intelligent Design refuses to specify a designer or anything about the nature of the designer.

Well, the nature of the designer, yes. But when it comes to the possible mechanism, ID is far more specific than abiogenesis.

What are you saying exactly? Not having the specifications of the designer makes ID inherently unscientific? If so, then what about the Martian Stonehenge replica scenario I described above?

The problem I have with objections like these (including "Invoking an outside designer without giving any more information about what the designer is doing and why is bad science") is that there too "all-purpose." If such objections were actually sufficient reason to reject ID in life, then it would also imply rejecting ID in many other circumstances where ID would clearly be the best explanation. After all, we don't wouldn't know the origins, motives, or anything about the designer of the stainless steel Stonehenge replica. But none of this seems to make the ID explanation inherently unscientific. Thus, the objection that we don't know the designers origins, motives, nature etc. does not seem to be any rational reason to render it "inherently unscientific."

True, finding serious and significant obstacles for abiogenesis is something that intelligent design predicts. But when it comes to a known possible mechanism (the core prediction of abiogenesis that makes it "specific"), it can be every bit as "postive" as abiogenesis (and even more so--see above).

um... what? What has Intelligent Design predicted or described in a positive way?

I was talking about a known mechanism; it describes it in a "positive way" (more so than abiogenesis).

ID predicts the existence of obstacles for naturalistic formation of life, but you could call this a "negative prediction."

Perhaps you think abiogenesis is better because of its "positive prediction" (it predicts the existence of a mechanism that could create life from non-life) but exactly how does this make it better than intelligent design? The prediction has shown extremely limited success--we're not even close to finding a way how it could have happened. Also, when it comes to having a known mechanism, ID beats out abiogenesis. Hence the title of this thread.

The only statement you seem to have made is "the designers made synthesize DNA like we synthesize DNA" which does nothing except move the question back a step. At some point you have to either give a mechanism for how the DESIGNER came into being that does not involve another designer, or say that the designer was created supernaturally.

But (as I said earlier) ID does not purport to be a complete explanation of all life, just life on Earth.

There is one thing that makes some sense methinks. Abiogenesis could in principle be an explanation of all life, but this is not so with intelligent design theory. This is one advantage it has over ID.

Still, this one advantage doesn't seem sufficient reason to make abiogenesis scientifically superior to intelligent design.

(snip blathering nonsense comparing organisms to automobiles and misrepresentations of the position of abiogenesis scientists)

Please tell me what position I have misrepresented, how I did so, and what the correct position is.

Tisthammerw

5th July 2006, 10:24 AM

Please explain to me what a scientific theory is, and how it differs from a "theory" as used in regular parlance.

Quid pro quo, please answer my questions first.

I know what a theory is (and I believe I know what a scientific theory is--though like "life" it is difficult to define precisely), but as I have noticed people often have different definitions as to what constitutes a "scientific theory" (especially in debates like these). What is your definition of a "scientific theory"? And what aspect of it (if any) does intelligent design fail to meet?

Lamuella

5th July 2006, 10:32 AM

ID does not purport to be a complete explanation of all life, just life on Earth.

You are the ONLY ID proponent I have ever encountered who holds this opinion.

Lamuella

5th July 2006, 10:33 AM

Quid pro quo, please answer my questions first.

No. I wasked you if you knew what a scientific theory was before you asked anything of me.

If you KNOW what a scientific theory is, then kindly EXPLAIN what a scientific theory is.

To give this proper context, when asked for the scientific theory of intelligent design, you pointed people back to your first post, where you defined Intelligent Design (incorrectly in most people's eyes) as "the belief that intelligent causes are necessary for the creation of life on Earth."

Tisthammerw

5th July 2006, 10:34 AM

Assuming we're talking about life on Earth, how does it do that? At least, how does it do this any better than intelligent design? Both theories (and biology in general) try to answer the question what is required for life to arise.

The principles underpinning formation of life on Earth (or elsewhere) are made clear through abiogenesis.

A possible mechanism for abiogenesis is vastly unclear, far more so than ID. But perhaps I'm missing something. What "principles underpinning formation of life on Earth" are you referring to?

Even this has limits however. Abiogenesis by natural processes is not complete, for it fails to explain the origin of natural processes. And if one tries to explain that processes's origin by another entity via the Big bang (or anything else) we have the exact same problem with that explanation.

Ah, so you extend the scope of your initial question (origin of life) to now include "origin of natural processes." Isn't that shifting the goalposts when you find them inconvenient?

No, I am not shifting goalposts (you may have however, since ID purports to explain the kind of life we see on Earth--not the ultimate origin of all life). I'm just saying that abiogenesis as a "complete" explanation has its limits. Abiogenesis also includes entities that it does not itself explain.

How does it do that? There are versions of intelligent design that purport to answer this question, but how does abiogenesis (the belief that life spontaneously arose from non-living matter) do this? At least, how does it do this more than intelligent design theory?

Here your definition of abiogenesis is misleading. A satisfactory theory would include the necessary ingredients, physical processes, environment, etc.

In other words, precisely the sort of prediction I described earlier (the existence of a possible mechanism) from the definition of abiogenesis I am using. What you are describing is the fulfillment of that prediction and the details thereof.

Now we get back to the question the quote referred to (which was left unanswered). It was said, "Abiogenesis can shed light on...what sorts of life are even possible and why." How does it do that? There are versions of intelligent design that purport to answer this question, but how does abiogenesis do this? At least, how does it do this more than intelligent design theory?

Tisthammerw

5th July 2006, 10:37 AM

No. I wasked you if you knew what a scientific theory was before you asked anything of me.

And I answered that question. Then I asked these questions:

I know what a theory is (and I believe I know what a scientific theory is--though like "life" it is difficult to define precisely), but as I have noticed people often have different definitions as to what constitutes a "scientific theory" (especially in debates like these). What is your definition of a "scientific theory"? And what aspect of it (if any) does intelligent design fail to meet?

How about we go in order? You asked first, and I answered. Now please answer my questions.

Tisthammerw

5th July 2006, 10:42 AM

You are the ONLY ID proponent I have ever encountered who holds this opinion.

Am I really the only ID proponent you have ever encountered that does not claim ID to explain the ultimate origins of all life? This does not seem logical, since ID does not explain the origin of the designer (and if the designer is a life form, ID does not explain its origin and thus cannot be an explanation for the ultimate origins of all life).

Lamuella

5th July 2006, 10:47 AM

And I answered that question. Then I asked these questions:

How about we go in order? You asked first, and I answered. Now please answer my questions.

your answer was incomplete.

If someone asked you "do you know what time it is?" would you answer "yes", or would you tell them what time it was?

Tisthammerw

5th July 2006, 11:01 AM

your answer was incomplete.

You asked a yes or no question. You asked me if I knew what a scientific theory was. I answered "yes." Now please answer my questions.

I know what a theory is (and I believe I know what a scientific theory is--though like "life" it is difficult to define precisely), but as I have noticed people often have different definitions as to what constitutes a "scientific theory" (especially in debates like these). What is your definition of a "scientific theory"? And what aspect of it (if any) does intelligent design fail to meet?

It seems neither of us wants to go first on this subject. Perhaps we can make a deal. I will answer your follow-up question (what a scientific theory is) first IF you promise to answer the above questions in your next post.

Deal?

Anacoluthon64

5th July 2006, 11:08 AM

A possible mechanism for abiogenesis is vastly unclear, far more so than ID.I doubt that many biophysicists or biochemists would second this subjective appraisal, and they're the ones closest to the problem.

No, I am not shifting goalposts (you may have however, since ID purports to explain the kind of life we see on Earth--not the ultimate origin of all life).If ID only explains Earth-bound life, while abiogenesis manages to elucidate "the ultimate origin of all life," the question posed in your OP is answered.

I'm just saying that abiogenesis as a "complete" explanation has its limits. Abiogenesis also includes entities that it does not itself explain.Why, so does every other scientific theory.

What you are describing is the fulfillment of that prediction and the details thereof.And scientific theories deal with exactly what in your estimation?

Now we get back to the question the quote referred to (which was left unanswered).I have answered it. Adequately, and with sufficient clarity, I think. If you choose to ignore or misrepresent what I say, any entitlement you believe you have to further clarification will come to an unceremonious end.

'Luthon64

Tisthammerw

5th July 2006, 11:51 AM

A possible mechanism for abiogenesis is vastly unclear, far more so than ID.

I doubt that many biophysicists or biochemists would second this subjective appraisal

Then please find one that has published (in a peer reviewed scientific journal) a detailed and realistic scenario whereby undirected chemical could have created RNA and DNA.

No, I am not shifting goalposts (you may have however, since ID purports to explain the kind of life we see on Earth--not the ultimate origin of all life).

If ID only explains Earth-bound life, while abiogenesis manages to elucidate "the ultimate origin of all life," the question posed in your OP is answered.

I am unfamiliar with the OP abbreviation. What is "OP" and what questiona re you referring to?

BTW, I am only saying that abiogenesis could in principle explain the ultimate origin of all life; e.g. if life on Earth are the only life forms in existence. Problem is it's difficult to test that.

I'm just saying that abiogenesis as a "complete" explanation has its limits. Abiogenesis also includes entities that it does not itself explain.

Why, so does every other scientific theory.

My point exactly! ID has an entity it does not itself explain (the designer), yet somehow abiogenesis having unexplained entities is okay?

What you are describing is the fulfillment of that prediction and the details thereof.

And scientific theories deal with exactly what in your estimation?

Well, stuff like I just described. I never said abiogenesis wasn't a legitimate scientific theory. Note however that the prediction in question has had extremely limited success. We're not even close to finding a mechanism how abiogenesis could have happened.

Now we get back to the question the quote referred to (which was left unanswered).

I have answered it. Adequately, and with sufficient clarity, I think.

To recap the question:

It was said, "Abiogenesis can shed light on...what sorts of life are even possible and why." How does it do that? There are versions of intelligent design that purport to answer this question, but how does abiogenesis do this? At least, how does it do this more than intelligent design theory?

You apparently claim to have answered these questions (answers that are sufficiently clear). I'm not sure you did, though it's possible I missed something. May I ask exactly what these clear answers are? If you have given clear answers to these questions in a post, can you quote the text that clearly answers these questions (as well as a post number where I can verify your claim)?

Lamuella

5th July 2006, 12:10 PM

You asked a yes or no question. You asked me if I knew what a scientific theory was. I answered "yes." Now please answer my questions.

It seems neither of us wants to go first on this subject. Perhaps we can make a deal. I will answer your follow-up question (what a scientific theory is) first IF you promise to answer the above questions in your next post.

Deal?

how about this: you tell me what a scientific theory is, and I will tell you why the "intelligent design theory" you gave in your first post is not a scientific theory. After all, you didn't just say that "intelligent design" was a theory, what you said was that the theory of intelligent design could be found in your first post. For reference, this is what you have given as your theory of intelligent design.

Intelligent design: the belief that intelligent causes are necessary for the creation of life on Earth.

Do we have a deal now?

Hellbound

5th July 2006, 12:45 PM

Just want to point something out here...

Abiogenesis is not a scientific theory.

Abiogenesis is a name for a certain type of event.

Now, there are theories of abiogensis, supported to one degree or another...such as chemical evolution, clay crystal theory, and others.

And because it's wasted a whole page, here's the scientific usage of the word theory (from Wiki, which has a pretty good definition):

In science, a theory is a proposed description, explanation, or model of the manner of interaction of a set of natural phenomena, capable of predicting future occurrences or observations of the same kind, and capable of being tested through experiment or otherwise falsified through empirical observation.

Each of the varied theories of abiogensis is falsifiable. It's only when one fallaciously lumps them all together that it appears unfalsifiable. What Tisth is doing would be similar to saying that theories of gravity are unfalsifiable, because if Newton's Laws don't work you just replace it with Relativity, and if that doesn't work we'll find something else.

Of course, that also denies that abiogenesis is falsifiable by proving some other method, such as intelligent design.

Intelligent design is not a theory, because there is no "description, explanation, or model of the manner of interaction of a set of natural phenomena" for two reasons: a supernatural designer is not natural (and aliens simply push the question back one level), and "Somebody did it" is not an adequate description, model, or explanation. It can, in principle, be falsified by proving abiogenesis, but ID in itself cannot be tested. I also am struggling to see how it could predict any future events (abiogenesis offers a chance to predict the outcome of experiments desinged to create life, at least in principle).

Tisth's formulation of intelligent design is even less a theory, with little positive evidence. So far, the "evidence" for ID is completely negative, which is insufficient. ID isn't proved right simply by something else being proved wrong, it should stand on its own evidence. Likewsie, abiogensis should stand on its own.

Positive evidence for ID:
**sound of crickets**

Positive evidence for abiogenesis (various theories):
Evolution
Creation of organic compunds from non-organic materials
Discovery of abundant organics in extraterrestrial bodies (comets, moons, planets)
Discovery of self-replicable chemicals (RNA, IIRC)
And probably some more that I've forgotten.

That should get off to a good start, and get a few things on track (one hopes) and clear up a few fallacious arguments.

The discussion should not properly be about ID vs. abiogenesis, but about ID vs. Tisth's ID vs. Behe's ID vs. chemical evolution vs. clay crystal theory vs. whatever other theories are out there I haven't heard about.

Lamuella

5th July 2006, 01:28 PM

I wholeheartedly agree with Huntsman's definition of a scientific theory.

tist, your statement that "intelligent causes are necessary for the creation of life on Earth" is not a theory. It's not even a hypothesis. It in fact fails every part of the definition of a scientific theory. It's not a description, explanation, or model of the interaction of natural phenomena. It's not predictive (in the sense that you couldn't say "if life is intelligently designed, we will find this particular phenomenon or feature). It can't be falsified through observation.

It's also not scientifically useful. Abiogenesis theories are scientifically useful in that if you are able to model how life occurred in the first place you gain insight into why it is the way it is today, just as modelling stellar evolution gives insight into modern cosmology. Your single-line assertion adds nothing to science.

If you are really eager to provide evidence for intelligent design, then I urge you to do so. I urge you to do research into the subject that does more than just bash evolution and abiogenesis theories. I urge you to search this information out. However, I will warn you that it will be a lonely struggle. All the large Intelligent Design advocacy groups spend missions upon press and nothing upon actual research.

Dr Adequate

5th July 2006, 02:00 PM

Ashles

5th July 2006, 02:14 PM

Unfortunately, the same isn't true of biologically functioning proteins, RNA and DNA (abiogenesis runs into chemical problems)--whereas ID does have known mechanisms for those.
Eh? I am confused by this.

Is the claim that, because scientists can replicate this then that is a known mechanism for ID to work?

Doesn't this skip over the implied requirement of an intelligent designer that is created by abiogenesis? Or an intelligent designer who just somehow exists without abiogenesis?

It creates its own insurmountable problem - it requires an assumption that either requires abiogenesis or a totally unscientific assumption (a creator who just exists outside of any known scientific framework).

Thus ID without abiogenesis is unscientific.

QED

Lamuella

5th July 2006, 02:19 PM

Eh? I am confused by this.

Is the claim that, because scientists can replicate this then that is a known mechanism for ID to work?

Doesn't this skip over the implied requirement of an intelligent designer that is created by abiogenesis? Or an intelligent designer who just somehow exists without abiogenesis?

It creates its own insurmountable problem - it requires an assumption that either requires abiogenesis or a totally unscientific assumption (a creator who just exists outside of any known scientific framework).

Thus ID without abiogenesis is unscientific.

QED

shh, you're not supposed to notice when he invokes the supernatural as a designer for the designer.

Tisthammerw

5th July 2006, 03:12 PM

how about this: you tell me what a scientific theory is, and I will tell you why the "intelligent design theory" you gave in your first post is not a scientific theory.

Only if you agree to provide your own definition of a "scientific theory" in addition to explaining why you believe ID is not a scientific theory (which was part of my original deal).

Deal?

Lamuella

5th July 2006, 03:15 PM

I already provided my own definition by agreeing with the one Huntsman posted from Wikipedia. I already showed why the "theory" you gave in your first post is not a scientific theory. Your turn.

Ashles

5th July 2006, 03:24 PM

Only if you agree to provide your own definition of a "scientific theory" in addition to explaining why you believe ID is not a scientific theory (which was part of my original deal).

Deal?
How can ID be a scientific theory?

Does it not, by definition, involve a designer who exists in a way not explained by science?

Lamuella

5th July 2006, 03:26 PM

How can ID be a scientific theory?

Does it not, by definition, involve a designer who exists in a way not explained by science?

his particular and odd definition does not. His definition for some reason only refers to Earth, not life in the rest of the universe. It's not a very good or useful definition.

Ashles

5th July 2006, 03:34 PM

his particular and odd definition does not. His definition for some reason only refers to Earth, not life in the rest of the universe. It's not a very good or useful definition.
Sorry I only just noticed how many pages were in this thread.

So is Tisthammerw arguing for ID or panspermia or alien invasion or what?

Because ID means something pretty specific.

I asume Wiki has already been quoted extensively but this sums it up well:

Absent observable, measurable evidence, the very question "what designed the designer?" leads to an infinite regression (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turtles_all_the_way_down) from which intelligent design proponents can only escape by resorting to religious creationism or logical contradiction.

In what way is Tisthammerw trying to circumvent this?

Tisthammerw

5th July 2006, 03:34 PM

In science, a theory is a proposed description, explanation, or model of the manner of interaction of a set of natural phenomena, capable of predicting future occurrences or observations of the same kind, and capable of being tested through experiment or otherwise falsified through empirical observation.

Both ID and abiogenesis (in addition to evolution) can then be called theories, since they both explain a set of natural phenomena (namely, the existence of life on Earth) and both make predictions (see post #142 (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=1636029&postcount=142)).

Each of the varied theories of abiogensis is falsifiable. It's only when one fallaciously lumps them all together that it appears unfalsifiable.

Well, if you prefer, the paradigm of abiogenesis is non-falsifiable, whereas the paradigm of intelligent design is falsifiable (the two terms as defined in the first post).

Of course, that also denies that abiogenesis is falsifiable by proving some other method, such as intelligent design.

Yes, but theories cannot be proven in science. Intelligent design is no exception.

It [intelligent design] can, in principle, be falsified by proving abiogenesis, but ID in itself cannot be tested.

See post #142 (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=1636029&postcount=142) for ID's second prediction (the existence of serious obstacles). ID makes two testable predictions, abiogenesis makes essentially one. (Specific versions of abiogenesis may be more testable though.)

Tisth's formulation of intelligent design is even less a theory, with little positive evidence.

It predicts the existence of serious obstacles for the naturalistic formation of life. Now you may say that this prediction is "negative." Granted, this testable empirical prediction is simultaneously problematic for abiogenesis. But why is that bad for intelligent design? It seems to be a rather strange philosophical principle, "If a theory's prediction is harmful to one of its opponents, then it's not a good prediction." Such a philosophical principle seems questionable, if not downright arbitrary.

It would be more accurate to say there is almost no evidence for abiogenesis. Its prediction has had extremely little success.

Positive evidence for abiogenesis (various theories):
Evolution

Evolving pre-existing reproducing biochemical machines is a bit different from getting the highly complex machinery out of basic chemicals in the first place. I don't see how evolution itself is evidence for abiogenesis. Abiogenesis and evolution together are more "elegant" if both do not involve intelligent agency, but such a philosophical principle does not quite count as evidence in my book.

Creation of organic compunds from non-organic materials
Discovery of abundant organics in extraterrestrial bodies (comets, moons, planets)

In other words, a known possible mechanism. But when it comes to having a known possible means to get the job done, ID beats out abiogenesis. So again we come to the question of what makes abiogenesis better than intelligent design?

Discovery of self-replicable chemicals (RNA, IIRC)

RNA can self-replicate in some circumstances, but we still have the major problem of how abiogenesis can get RNA in the first place. And even if we get one of the information-storage molecules, we still have a long way to go. There aren't even any known natural means for abiogenesis to create viruses (though there is a known means for intelligent design) much less assembling all the necessary components for a single-celled organism.

Tisthammerw

5th July 2006, 03:37 PM

Sorry I only just noticed how many pages were in this thread.

So is Tisthammerw arguing for ID or panspermia or alien invasion or what?

See post #142 (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=1636029&postcount=142) to get answers to questions like these.

Is the claim that, because scientists can replicate this then that is a known mechanism for ID to work?

Yes. This way we have a means how an intelligent designer could have created e.g. RNA and DNA. In contrast, this is not true for abiogenesis (instead it runs into serious chemical problems).

Doesn't this skip over the implied requirement of an intelligent designer that is created by abiogenesis? Or an intelligent designer who just somehow exists without abiogenesis?

Well, here's the thing. Some kinds of complexity require a designer (e.g. robots), others do not (e.g. snowflakes). I believe that the kind of life we see on Earth requires a designer. I believe that life like that of Earth has the sort of complexity that requires a designer. However, this does not rule out the possibility of other kinds of life that we've never even imagined, kinds of life that could arise naturally. Intelligent design (and abiogenesis) as I defined in post #142 (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=1636029&postcount=142) simply deals with the type of life we see on Earth.

Could other forms of like radically unlike our own arise naturally? Maybe. At this point such a theory seems untestable.

Tisthammerw

5th July 2006, 04:08 PM

I wholeheartedly agree with Huntsman's definition of a scientific theory.

tist, your statement that "intelligent causes are necessary for the creation of life on Earth" is not a theory....It can't be falsified through observation.

Please read post #142 (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=1636029&postcount=142). It explains (among other things) how an observation can falsify intelligent design.

If you're too lazy, I can tell you right now (though you should still read the post anyway methinks). To falsify the first prediction, simply create a realistic and plausible starting point (as conditions resembling the primordial Earth) then step back and let undirected chemical reactions take their course. If they produce life, this would show that intelligent causes are not necessary, since we will have shown that undirected chemical reactions can do the trick. Such an observation would falsify the theory of intelligent design. I've pointed this out so many times I'm surprised people in this thread still make the erroneous claim "Intelligent design is not falsifiable."

It's also not scientifically useful. Abiogenesis theories are scientifically useful in that if you are able to model how life occurred in the first place you gain insight into why it is the way it is today

Two problems. One, the same “gaining insight” thing could be said for intelligent design (it explains facets of organisms that abiogenesis does not explain). Two, we do not have an abiogenesis model of how life occurred in the first place, or even life’s data storage molecules like DNA. There is no known experimentally demonstrated scenario (i.e. creating a plausible starting point, keeping one's hands off) that can create life from non-life. Heck, even creating a single-celled organism artificially is currently beyond our technological capabilities (though we can create viruses).

I already provided my own definition by agreeing with the one Huntsman posted from Wikipedia. I already showed why the "theory" you gave in your first post is not a scientific theory.

Because it's not falsifiable? Well, it is falsifiable, as I mentioned earlier. What about the rest? Let's go through them.

"It in fact fails every part of the definition of a scientific theory. It's not a description, explanation, or model of the interaction of natural phenomena."

It explains a set of natural phenomena: the existence of life on Earth (evolution explains the existence of life, hence it too is a scientific theory).

"It's not predictive"

Please read post #142 (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=1636029&postcount=142). I mention two predictions it makes. We expect to find some particular features: serious obstacles to the naturalistic formation of life. And this is a feature we see in life (you may think these obstacles will eventually be overcome, but for now they remain).

What is my definition of a scientific theory? It more or less matches the one Huntsman provided. A scientific theory is a description, explanation, or model of the manner of interaction of a set of natural phenomena and scientific data that is also empirically testable in some suitable way (as in making empirically testable predictions, and of course the existence of a conceivable observation that would falsify the theory is good too). Relevant theories of origins would be included because they explain e.g. the existence of life for abiogenesis, intelligent design, and evolution.

This definition still isn’t quite perfect (I don’t know of one that is) but seems reasonably adequate for now.

JimTheBrit

5th July 2006, 04:54 PM

I've just jumped into this thread so 'scuse me if this has been pointed out but ...

To falsify the first prediction, simply create a realistic and plausible starting point (as conditions resembling the primordial Earth) then step back and let undirected chemical reactions take their course. If they produce life, this would show that intelligent causes are not necessary, since we will have shown that undirected chemical reactions can do the trick. Such an observation would falsify the theory of intelligent design.

... you've just described a process by which an intelligent designer (us) creates conditions under which life begins. This doesn't falsify intelligent design. Or have I missed something?

Eos of the Eons

5th July 2006, 05:01 PM

Tisthammerw

5th July 2006, 05:30 PM

... you've just described a process by which an intelligent designer (us) creates conditions under which life begins. This doesn't falsify intelligent design. Or have I missed something?

You missed something. If the experiment in question has initial conditions that plausibly portray some naturally existing set of circumstances (such as a warm little pond of the primeval Earth) and the experimenter keeps her hands off (letting undirected chemical reactions take their course), and if the undirected chemical reactions create life, then this experiment demonstrates a possible means how life could be created from non-life without artificial intervention.

Creating realistic initial conditions + sit back and watch + experiment yields life = falsifying intelligent design theory.

athon

5th July 2006, 05:38 PM

There is no way at all that ID can be called "natural" in any sense of the word. Evolution, on the other hand, is 100% a natural process without ID inteference.

Show me the designer, and I'll figure it's worth discussing further. Can't believe this is so many pages long.

I agree.

I've seen something interesting with these extensive threads; often, all arguments are pretty much covered within the first few pages. For instance, each of Tisthammerw's points have been addressed, covering everything from falsification to how 'abiogenesis' is a misleading term... all of which he has conveniently ignored in order to keep his pet ideas alive.

People get bored of having their counter arguments ignored and leave, new people come in to address them again... and so on.

It makes for an interesting psychological analysis. I think there's a psych' thesis in it somewhere.

Athon

athon

5th July 2006, 05:43 PM

You missed something. If the experiment in question has initial conditions that plausibly portray some naturally existing set of circumstances (such as a warm little pond of the primeval Earth) and the experimenter keeps her hands off (letting undirected chemical reactions take their course), and if the undirected chemical reactions create life, then this experiment demonstrates a possible means how life could be created from non-life without artificial intervention.

Creating realistic initial conditions + sit back and watch + experiment yields life = falsifying intelligent design theory.

No. It doesn't. You've been told that, shown that, and if you continue to think it you are being deliberately ignorant.

You have been told why this sort of experimentation is impractical and misleading, and why not matter what, it will never offer any satisfaction to Creationists, as it can always be argued that some form of intelligence contributed to it.

You have deliberately ignored how abiogenesis is a misleading term, how potential development of life from a range of organic chemicals could arise from relatively simple chemical reactions, and show a complete disregard for how science works.

Each page this goes on, you demonstrate more and more ignorance, instead of learning something new.

Athon

Ashles

5th July 2006, 06:48 PM

I believe that the kind of life we see on Earth requires a designer. I believe that life like that of Earth has the sort of complexity that requires a designer.
Aaaaaaaahhhhh.

Well there we go then.

The argument boiled down to the salient point.

Human life is complex enough to have required a designer because you believe it is.

Just out of interest, could you point out where you believe the dividing line between non-ID requiring complexity (e.g. snowflakes) and ID-requiring complexity (e.g. humans).

I'm assuming it is roughly somewhere between amino acids and RNA, but I could be mistaken.

Tisthammerw

5th July 2006, 06:58 PM

Then please find one that has published (in a peer reviewed scientific journal) a detailed and realistic scenario whereby undirected chemical could have created RNA and DNA.

Mixing Q-beta replicase and amino acids results, eventually, in the production of RNA fragments which evolve into Spiegelman's monster.

The problem with these sorts of "just-so" stories is that they gloss over problems and obstacles that abiogenesis would face in the real world. That's why I asked for an experiment published in a peer-reviewed scientific journal. In an actual experiment, the laws of chemistry won’t let you get away with glossing over the obstacles.

One of the reasons I stress experimentation is because it puts the money where the mouth is. Sure it's easy to speak of amino acids eventually becoming proteins (replicase is a type of protein called an enzyme) and of organic molecules coming together to create an RNA strand (note: Spiegelman's monster is just a strand of RNA of a particular sequence), but it's another to experimentally demonstrate this.

One obstacle is the water problem. Chemically joining each amino acid together on the way to get a protein requires the removal of a water molecule. Simultaneously, the presence of water powerfully impedes protein formation. How to get around this? Well, how about having the amino acids in the ocean wash up to a high-temperature surface, like the edge of a volcano. There the water boils off. Problem is, experimentation shows that heating amino acids produces smelly brown goo, but evidently no proteins. Additionally, merely getting a protein molecule isn’t enough. You need to get the right sequence of amino acids to get replicase.

Overcoming the obstacles to get replicase via a plausible naturalistic scenario might be possible, but I think you'll have trouble doing an experiment to demonstrate this. And while finding a realistic means for the primeval Earth to get replicase (and demonstrating this experimentally) is extremely difficult, the obstacles are actually far more serious in trying to get an RNA strand via undirected chemical reactions. Again, an intelligent designer has a known mechanism here, but abiogenesis does not. If you think you know of a way your scenario could happen in a realistic manner on the primordial Earth, by all means do the experiment and submit it to a peer-reviewed scientific journal.

Tisthammerw

5th July 2006, 07:12 PM

I've seen something interesting with these extensive threads; often, all arguments are pretty much covered within the first few pages. For instance, each of Tisthammerw's points have been addressed....all of which he has conveniently ignored in order to keep his pet ideas alive.

Not at all. I've made rejoinders to each rebuttal (as far as I know). If you can think of a point I have not addressed, please show it to me.

You missed something. If the experiment in question has initial conditions that plausibly portray some naturally existing set of circumstances (such as a warm little pond of the primeval Earth) and the experimenter keeps her hands off (letting undirected chemical reactions take their course), and if the undirected chemical reactions create life, then this experiment demonstrates a possible means how life could be created from non-life without artificial intervention.

Creating realistic initial conditions + sit back and watch + experiment yields life = falsifying intelligent design theory.

No. It doesn't. You've been told that, shown that, and if you continue to think it you are being deliberately ignorant.

I don't suppose you could bring up a rebuttal that I haven't addressed?

The experiment falsifies ID reasonably close enough given the limitations of science. You see, if the theory is not logically impossible, rigorous proof of a theory's falsehood is in practice impossible. For instance, to disprove the theory that the Earth is flat just fly around in a spaceship and you'll see the Earth is round. But it is logically possible that an unknown and powerful alien entity is manipulating people's senses in this experiment to make us believe the Earth is round.

But apart from things like that, and using standard background assumptions, the experiment I described earlier would indeed falsify intelligent design theory. This is about as close to falsification as science can get. Experimentally demonstrate a possible means of undirected chemical reactions creating life (e.g. scientists find a naturally occurring primordial ooze in a rainforest, and watch as bacteria are formed) and you show that artificial intervention is not necessary to create life.

For all practical purposes, ID would be falsified, just as the flat-Earth theory is.

Tisthammerw

5th July 2006, 07:14 PM

Aaaaaaaahhhhh.

Well there we go then.

The argument boiled down to the salient point.

Human life is complex enough to have required a designer because you believe it is.

No.

And remember, I’m not talking about human life. I’m talking about the kind of life we see on Earth in general (e.g. single-celled organisms; I don’t believe abiogenesis has the means to produce them).

athon

5th July 2006, 07:17 PM

The problem with these sorts of "just-so" stories is that they gloss over problems and obstacles that abiogenesis would face in the real world. That's why I asked for an experiment published in a peer-reviewed scientific journal. In an actual experiment, the laws of chemistry won’t let you get away with glossing over the obstacles.

One of the reasons I stress experimentation is because it puts the money where the mouth is. Sure it's easy to speak of amino acids eventually becoming proteins (replicase is a type of protein called an enzyme) and of organic molecules coming together to create an RNA strand (note: Spiegelman's monster is just a strand of RNA of a particular sequence), but it's another to experimentally demonstrate this.

One obstacle is the water problem. Chemically joining each amino acid together on the way to get a protein requires the removal of a water molecule. Simultaneously, the presence of water powerfully impedes protein formation. How to get around this? Well, how about having the amino acids in the ocean wash up to a high-temperature surface, like the edge of a volcano. There the water boils off. Problem is, experimentation shows that heating amino acids produces smelly brown goo, but evidently no proteins. Additionally, merely getting a protein molecule isn’t enough. You need to get the right sequence of amino acids to get replicase.

Overcoming the obstacles to get replicase via a plausible naturalistic scenario might be possible, but I think you'll have trouble doing an experiment to demonstrate this. And while finding a realistic means for the primeval Earth to get replicase (and demonstrating this experimentally) is extremely difficult, the obstacles are actually far more serious in trying to get an RNA strand via undirected chemical reactions. Again, an intelligent designer has a known mechanism here, but abiogenesis does not. If you think you know of a way your scenario could happen in a realistic manner on the primordial Earth, by all means do the experiment and submit it to a peer-reviewed scientific journal.

I can't believe I'm even attempting to suggest this...I don't see it making a difference, but...

You do realise that enzymes only facilitate a reaction that can occur spontaneously anyway? An enzyme lowers the energy needed and reduces the proximity of the substrates, increases the chance of reaction. This does not remove the possibility that amino acids can form into polymers without an enzyme; ligation can and does occur without it, if only at a much lower rate. If it were to occur in a lab, we would wait a very long time to see much of interest happen.

Again, this has been pointed out to you before, that laboratory experimentation would require reducing the time needed for observation, which requires intelligent intervention, which screws up the very point behind your experiment.

Athon

The Painter

5th July 2006, 07:19 PM

athon

5th July 2006, 07:29 PM

I don't suppose you could bring up a rebuttal that I haven't addressed?

The experiment falsifies ID reasonably close enough given the limitations of science. You see, if the theory is not logically impossible, rigorous proof of a theory's falsehood is in practice impossible. For instance, to disprove the theory that the Earth is flat just fly around in a spaceship and you'll see the Earth is round. But it is logically possible that an unknown and powerful alien entity is manipulating people's senses in this experiment to make us believe the Earth is round.

But apart from things like that, and using standard background assumptions, the experiment I described earlier would indeed falsify intelligent design theory. This is about as close to falsification as science can get. Experimentally demonstrate a possible means of undirected chemical reactions creating life (e.g. scientists find a naturally occurring primordial ooze in a rainforest, and watch as bacteria are formed) and you show that artificial intervention is not necessary to create life.

For all practical purposes, ID would be falsified, just as the flat-Earth theory is.

Mate, there's nine pages explaining why your line of thinking is nonsense. And you're still pursuing it.

Firstly, demanding that falsification is the only form of evidence you will accept is naive. Sure, it's useful, however it is not the be-all to everything. There is ample evidence suggesting that life arose from complex chemical reactions; when compared with a non-theory such as 'an intelligent entity did it', the former has evidence where the latter has none.

That has been said already.

Secondly, falsification cannot be done as a laboratory experiment in this case, as the time required for complex chemical reactions to evolve into a cellular life form is prohibitory. It would demand manipulation of variables, which does nothing to address intelligent intervention.

Lastly, there is no line drawn between 'living' and 'not living'. Therefore abiogenesis is misleading. Life, at its most fundamental, is a series of replicating chemical reactions. At a basic level, this can be accomplished in the lab. Given regulation of a temperature and substrate components, nucleic acid strands can (ineffectively, but still fundamentally) replicate without the need for enzymes. It depends on where you want to move the goal-posts for 'life'.

Your vague descriptions do you no service. It's easy to hide in misleading descriptions and stubborn reliance on unachievable evidence. It's like you're suggesting a pink unicorn stole your kitten because nobody can tell you conclusively how it disappeared.

Athon

athon

5th July 2006, 07:31 PM

I’m a little late to this party. This may have already been brought up. I think mankind isn’t that far away from creating life in a laboratory. Would this new life have been created by intelligent design (us, mankind), or would it evolution because it’s part of man’s evolution to create life? If you answer ID, would that make us a God?

We can manipulate the components we already have for living things to create it 'artificially'. For instance, we can nearly design bacteria from scratch. And viruses we've been making for ages. However, this is done by starting with the components we already know work and simply building them up.

Tis' is suggesting something else entirely.

Athon

The Painter

5th July 2006, 07:34 PM

We can manipulate the components we already have for living things to create it 'artificially'. For instance, we can nearly design bacteria from scratch. And viruses we've been making for ages. However, this is done by starting with the components we already know work and simply building them up.

Tis' is suggesting something else entirely.

Athon

Maybe, but you didn't answer my question.

athon

5th July 2006, 07:42 PM

Maybe, but you didn't answer my question.

Sorry, I didn't.

This is a purely ontological proposition. If 'God' existed, would He subscribe to a set of laws, too? If yes, could He change those laws? Again, if yes, they are not laws. If no, then He is a natural phenomena.

Hence, it depends on what you mean by 'God'. It becomes an impossible debate.

In my opinion, to answer your question directly, it would be evolution, as we would be a stress deciding the fate of the gene line of that bacteria.

Athon

Tisthammerw

5th July 2006, 07:44 PM

I can't believe I'm even attempting to suggest this...I don't see it making a difference, but...

You do realise that enzymes only facilitate a reaction that can occur spontaneously anyway? An enzyme lowers the energy needed and reduces the proximity of the substrates, increases the chance of reaction.

Often times, yes. But there are also enzymes that perform different functions (e.g. enzymes that zip and unzip DNA macromolecules, and enzymes that act as proofreaders) rather than merely being catalysts for chemical reactions.

The purpose of replicase IIRC is to facilitate the replication of RNA molecule. Now there are certain RNA molecules that can catalyze their own replication, but the vast majority of such RNA molecules do not have this capability. So not only would you need a near-miracle to get RNA at all, you have the obstacle of getting one of the relatively few correctly coded sequences.

This does not remove the possibility that amino acids can form into polymers without an enzyme

Great, now conduct an experiment demonstrating a realistic scenario (e.g. choosing a plausible starting point, then stepping back and let natural processes take their course) whereby amino acids join together to get proteins via undirected chemical reactions. But I doubt you can do that, because I suspect you don't really have a solution to the problem at all.

And besides, none of this is relevant to the biggest problem of the scenario: getting RNA.

which requires intelligent intervention, which screws up the very point behind your experiment.

Not if the experiment involves choosing a realistic starting point, and not if the experimenter steps back and watches as undirected chemical reactions take their course.

Tisthammerw

5th July 2006, 08:00 PM

Mate, there's nine pages explaining why your line of thinking is nonsense.

By all means, show me one point I haven't yet addressed.

Firstly, demanding that falsification is the only form of evidence you will accept is naive.

Except I'm making no such demand. I'm just demonstrating that ID is falsifiable, and that there exists a conceivable experiment that would falsify ID.

There is ample evidence suggesting that life arose from complex chemical reactions; when compared with a non-theory such as 'an intelligent entity did it', the former has evidence where the latter has none.

Really? Then please tell me exactly what this evidence is that makes abiogenesis better than intelligent design. So far the only thing I've seen is abiogenesis having a mechanism--but this prediction has had extremely limited success (e.g. amino acids but no RNA) and when it comes to having a known possible mechanism ID is superior to abiogenesis (e.g. intelligent design has a known possible mechanism to create RNA).

So what evidence for abiogenesis do you have that makes it better than ID?

Secondly, falsification cannot be done as a laboratory experiment in this case, as the time required for complex chemical reactions to evolve into a cellular life form is prohibitory.

I don't think you understand what it means for a theory to be falsifiable in the philosophy of science sense. For instance, that we'll never find a human skull in undisturbed pre-Cambrian rock is a falsifiable belief. Will we ever find such a thing? That might not be possible in the sense that no such thing exists. But this is a conceivable observation that would disprove the belief. Similarly, what I described is a conceivable observation that would disprove intelligent design. We both believe we'll never disprove intelligent design in practice, but for different reasons (I believe it's because ID is true, you believe it's because the mysterious, undiscovered and unknown set of chemical reactions that could create life would operate too slowly to be observed).

Lastly, there is no line drawn between 'living' and 'not living'. Therefore abiogenesis is misleading.

It's true we don't have a rigorous definition of life, but that doesn't mean my definition of the theory is misleading. After all, there is no rigorous definition of energy in physics, but that doesn't imply that the conservation of energy is misleading.

Eos of the Eons

5th July 2006, 08:02 PM

This ingenious, yet simple, experiment demonstrated that organic molecules could be spontaneously created under conditions thought to be similar to those of early earth. http://www.bscs.org/page.asp?pageid=0%7C31%7C53%7C461%7C463&id=0%7Cfrontiers_-_microbes_and_the_origin_of_life

Our understanding of the range of extreme environments suitable for microbial colonization has expanded substantially over the past few decades. Today, scientists realize that the conditions of some of earth’s extreme environments may exist elsewhere in the solar system. Recent insights into microbial diversity are informing the search for life elsewhere in the universe. Perhaps one day soon we will have to make room in our taxonomy for extraterrestrial microbes.

http://www.bscs.org/page.asp?pageid=0|31|53|461|464&id=0|frontiers_-_microbes_and_the_extreme_environments

Chemicals and electricity exist naturally. There's no reason to exclude them in experiments. RNA is a chemical compound.

RandFan

5th July 2006, 08:05 PM

For example, my friend's undergraduate thesis was "Jesus' sacrifice and the backhand" (she's referring to a tennis backhand swing).I don't know about Jesus but Joseph served in Pharaoh's court. --Genesis 14:4

athon

5th July 2006, 08:08 PM

Often times, yes. But there are also enzymes that perform different functions (e.g. enzymes that zip and unzip DNA macromolecules, and enzymes that act as proofreaders) rather than merely being catalysts for chemical reactions.

Dude, an enzyme is a biological catalyst. Full stop! That's its definition, so there is no exception to that. Yes, there are many different types, but all of them speed up something that would otherwise take too long to be of use, or require energy that prohibits other reactions.

Your biochemistry is lacking.

The purpose of replicase IIRC is to facilitate the replication of RNA molecule. Now there are certain RNA molecules that can catalyze their own replication, but the vast majority of such RNA molecules do not have this capability. So not only would you need a near-miracle to get RNA at all, you have the obstacle of getting one of the relatively few correctly coded sequences.

RNA can replicate on its own with extreme inefficiency. To sit and wait for it in a lab, you would have a very low equilibrium that is more or less useless for any application. However, it does happen in very small quantities. Enzymes were an evolutionary feature which accelerated the process and made it stable.

Great, now conduct an experiment demonstrating a realistic scenario (e.g. choosing a plausible starting point, then stepping back and let natural processes take their course) whereby amino acids join together to get proteins via undirected chemical reactions. But I doubt you can do that, because I suspect you don't really have a solution to the problem at all.

Have you read anything above? At all? Why this is a ludicrous proposition? It's been covered over and over again.

Here, demonstrate that you understand our position by paraphrasing it. If you can, I'm happy to recognize that you're actually reading what people have to say, and I'll continue. If you cannot rephrase our position, than it's obvious you're being deliberately ignorant.

Not if the experiment involves choosing a realistic starting point, and not if the experimenter steps back and watches as undirected chemical reactions take their course.

You're not listening at all.

Athon

Eos of the Eons

5th July 2006, 08:14 PM

During the Precambrian and after cooling down and forming a solid earth crust, the earth was surrounded by a reduced atmosphere consisting mainly of ammonia, methane, hydrogen, steam, and later most likely also of carbon dioxide, carbon monoxide, and nitrogen. Gases like hydrogen sulphide and nitrogen oxides may have been present in trace amounts...

...under abiotic conditions and after exposure to UV radiation, cyanides condense to purines like adenine and guanine. Moreover, amino groups incorporated into carbon hydroxides (like organic acids), thus leading to numerous further amino acids.

http://www.biologie.uni-hamburg.de/b-online/e41/41.htm

Tisthammerw

5th July 2006, 08:22 PM

Chemicals and electricity exist naturally. There's no reason to exclude them in experiments. RNA is a chemical compound.

Problem is, there are serious obstacles for abiogenesis to get RNA, and there is no known realistic scenario whereby abiogenesis could create an RNA molecule.

The web page also leaves out the geochemical evidence NASA learned about from the 1980s onward that suggests that Earth's atmosphere was composed chiefly of water vapor, carbon dioxide and nitrogen; rather than methane, ammonia and hydrogen. The conditions in Miller's experiment simply did not match what the early Earth's atmosphere was like.*

*Source: Cells: Building Blocks of Life 3rd ed. (Prentice-Hall: 1997), p. 14

athon

5th July 2006, 08:32 PM

Except I'm making no such demand. I'm just demonstrating that ID is falsifiable, and that there exists a conceivable experiment that would falsify ID.

It's been explained why it wouldn't. You've ignored it.

Really? Then please tell me exactly what this evidence is that makes abiogenesis better than intelligent design. So far the only thing I've seen is abiogenesis having a mechanism--but this prediction has had extremely limited success (e.g. amino acids but no RNA) and when it comes to having a known possible mechanism ID is superior to abiogenesis (e.g. intelligent design has a known possible mechanism to create RNA).

God did it? That's no different to 'I don't understand why my cake is gone, so a fairy must have taken it'. Go back and read why ID is not a theory. There are numerous reasons in this thread. Find the word 'turtles' for a start.

I don't understand where your focus on RNA comes from. Way back earlier in the thread I already linked to evidence that types of nucleic acid could be found naturally, and they can form short lived, simple polymers that are capable of replicating. If you ignored it, then that's your problem.

So what evidence for abiogenesis do you have that makes it better than ID?

Simple. ID isn't a theory. It isn't anything, other than a cop-out. That's been covered.

Complex, replicating chemistry happens. There's not even an argument there. Amino acid and nucleic acid polymers can and do form naturally. Again, no argument. Describing the precise order and nature of the interactions that lead from those to complex life forms is undefined, but not impossible. Speculation is not concluded by evidence, although possibilities exist.

That is far more than ID has.

I don't think you understand what it means for a theory to be falsifiable in the philosophy of science sense. For instance, that we'll never find a human skull in undisturbed pre-Cambrian rock is a falsifiable belief. Will we ever find such a thing? That might not be possible in the sense that no such thing exists. But this is a conceivable observation that would disprove the belief.

No. In practical terms, it isn't. Therefore, we rely on other forms of evidence to lend support.

That's what I mean when I refer to your overeliance on falsification to drop the whole ID concept.

Similarly, what I described is a conceivable observation that would disprove intelligent design.

Conceivable is not the same as practical. It's conceivable that I could win lottery. It's not practical for me to wait until I win to get money to pay for tuition.

We both believe we'll never disprove intelligent design in practice, but for different reasons (I believe it's because ID is true, you believe it's because the mysterious, undiscovered and unknown set of chemical reactions that could create life would operate too slowly to be observed).

Mysterious...unknown...undiscovered...

Three words referring to an intelligence. Not to chemical reactions that are known to exist in nature.

It's true we don't have a rigorous definition of life, but that doesn't mean my definition of the theory is misleading. After all, there is no rigorous definition of energy in physics, but that doesn't imply that the conservation of energy is misleading.

Non sequitor analogy. We can get complex reactions in a test tube. At what point would you be satisfied that they would be considered living?

Athon

Tisthammerw

5th July 2006, 08:39 PM

Dude, an enzyme is a biological catalyst. Full stop! That's its definition, so there is no exception to that. Yes, there are many different types, but all of them speed up something that would otherwise take too long to be of use, or require energy that prohibits other reactions.

Your biochemistry is lacking.

Mine is? If you think that the kind of DNA replication life does (neatly zipping and unzipping, and proofreading) is inevitable--that all it takes is enough time and enough energy--you are sorely mistaken. Time and raw energy do not neatly zip, unzip, and proofread the replication process.

Enzymes were an evolutionary feature which accelerated the process and made it stable.

Again, how did these enzymes get created? And how did RNA get created?

Great, now conduct an experiment demonstrating a realistic scenario (e.g. choosing a plausible starting point, then stepping back and let natural processes take their course) whereby amino acids join together to get proteins via undirected chemical reactions. But I doubt you can do that, because I suspect you don't really have a solution to the problem at all.

Have you read anything above? At all? Why this is a ludicrous proposition? It's been covered over and over again.

Yes, you claim the mysterious, unknown and undiscovered chemical reactions that could allegedly create proteins out of amino acids operate too slowly to be observed. Thus, any solid proof of such a mechanism for abiogenesis will forever be lacking, and we'll never see any possible solution to overcoming the obstacles abiogenesis faces. Because not only is such a process completely unknown and undiscovered, somehow you know that this unknown set of processes operates too slowly that we can never verify its existence by experimentally demonstrating it in action.

athon

5th July 2006, 08:49 PM

Mine is? If you think that the kind of DNA replication life does (neatly zipping and unzipping, and proofreading) is inevitable--that all it takes is enough time and enough energy--you are sorely mistaken. Time and raw energy do not neatly zip, unzip, and proofread the replication process.

You're being obtuse. Deliberately or not, it doesn't do your argument any justice.

Enzymes are the only means to reduce the energy and time needed to coordinate and localise such reactions for any degree of complexity. On a simple level, DNA can unzip, zip, ligate and lyse without enzymes.

Again, how did these enzymes get created? And how did RNA get created?

Simple enzymes could form as a result of selection, which is a natural chemical phenomena. RNA, the same.

http://cas.bellarmine.edu/tietjen/Ecology/chemical_etiology_of_nucleic_aci.htm

Check out this site. I've already posted it before.

Yes, you claim the mysterious, unknown and undiscovered chemical reactions that could allegedly create proteins out of amino acids operate too slowly to be observed. Thus, any solid proof of such a mechanism for abiogenesis will forever be lacking,

Proof is a mathematical term. Don't use it. 'Evidence' strongly suggests this is a valid mechanism.

and we'll never see any possible solution to overcoming the obstacles abiogenesis faces. Because not only is such a process completely unknown and undiscovered, somehow you know that this unknown set of processes operates too slowly that we can never verify its existence by experimentally demonstrating it in action.

We can demonstrate aspects of it, and have done. Observing them in a sequence that results in modern life is prohibited by the variable of time.

We've gone over this.

Athon

Eos of the Eons

5th July 2006, 09:04 PM

Problem is, there are serious obstacles for abiogenesis to get RNA, and there is no known realistic scenario whereby abiogenesis could create an RNA molecule.

The web page also leaves out the geochemical evidence NASA learned about from the 1980s onward that suggests that Earth's atmosphere was composed chiefly of water vapor, carbon dioxide and nitrogen; rather than methane, ammonia and hydrogen. The conditions in Miller's experiment simply did not match what the early Earth's atmosphere was like.*

*Source: Cells: Building Blocks of Life 3rd ed. (Prentice-Hall: 1997), p. 14

It did match what Earth's atmosphere was like and says so. Why claim otherwise? And you even confirm it! Not only that, it is a very realistic scenario. So why just keep chirping on when you agree?

consisting mainly of ammonia, methane, hydrogen, steam, and later most likely also of carbon dioxide, carbon monoxide, and nitrogen

Oh I see, you're parroting misquotes by other creationist sites:

http://www.sjchurchofchrist.org/amino.shtml

So go ahead, listen to the lies and continue sticking your head in the sand.

Or go ahead and read on:

Themes that are probably common to life everywhere extend beyond the building blocks. Energy transformation is a critical issue. The processes of life require the capture of adequate energy, from physical or chemical processes, to conduct the chemical transformations requisite for life. Based on thermodynamics there are only two such energy-capturing processes that can support "primary productivity," the synthesis of biological materials from inorganic carbon dioxide. One process, termed lithotrophy, involves the oxidation and concomitant reduction of geochemical compounds. For instance, methanogenic organisms gain energy for growth by the use of hydrogen (H2) as a source of high-energy electrons, which are transferred to carbon dioxide (CO2), forming methane (CH4). Other microbes might use hydrogen sulfide (H2S) as an energy source, respiring with oxygen (O2), to produce sulfuric acid (H2SO4). It is thought that the earliest life on Earth relied on lithotrophic metabolism.

http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/full/98/3/805

There is more than one way to get life via natural processes.

Wowbagger

5th July 2006, 09:21 PM

Tisthammerw,
To answer your question "On what grounds can we say abiogenesis is scientifically superior?" as curtly and concisely as possible, I offer this: Science never gives up. Intelligent Design does. To find out what I mean, please read on.

(apologies if some of this stuff was covered in other posts.)

For the moment, let's pretend that ID sweeps the world, and is taught in every science class. Okay, then what? How would that be useful? What important innovations can come out of it? It would very quickly appear as though the whole ID argument would be a waste of time. Thankfully, humankind has discovered evolution by natural selection. Otherwise, we'd never have developed treatments for cancer or AIDS, or many other diseases; among other advantages.

ID insists on stopping the investigation of life, at one point or another*. Science, with tools such as the Theory of Evolution, march on, in the creationist's face.
(*Note that, historically, ID has always had to push back their "boundaries of study", because that annoying study of evolution keeps finding how things evolved!)

Historically, every single time, without fail, that someone claims to have found an exception to evolutionary process, evolution eventually figures it out.

It was long thought (though not by many) that it was impossible for the flagellum of a paramecium to have evolved. But, insights into cooption (in this case, of a gullet), and bacterial symbiosis (many parts could have been free bacteria, now permanently riding along the host cell, because it happens to be a safe place) are unraveling the mystery.

You focus on abiogenesis as something you claim to be inferior to ID. Part of your problem is that your definition is a "straw man" argument.

Definitions (for this post)
Abiogenesis: the belief that life on Earth spontaneously arose from non-living matter (as through undirected chemical reactions)
The words "for this post" don't cut it, as far as science is concerned. Replace the word "spontaneously" with "gradually" in your definition, and you will be closer to what science has determined. By proving the "spontaneous" false, you are only knocking down the straw man. You are not hitting science in the gut.

Please read Darwin's Dangerous Idea, by Daniel C. Dennett for more information on this.

As for testability/falsifiability, you claim thus:

(1) We will never find a means for undirected chemical reactions to create life from non-life, because artificial intervention is necessary (note: if this prediction is falsified, ID is falsified)
(2) Because artificial intervention is necessary, we should find serious and significant obstacles to the naturalistic formation of life.
For 1: Science never says "never". Only people who lack imagination say so. This demonstrates, to me, that ID is intent on stopping the study of life. Science would never do that.
For 2: We have not discovered any "significant obstacles", yet. True, we have not answered all mysteries regarding the formation of life. But, so far, there has been nothing to prevent us from marching further and further and further into those mysteries.

To falsify the first prediction, simply create a realistic and plausible starting point (as conditions resembling the primordial Earth) then step back and let undirected chemical reactions take their course.
I am sure science will get to that, eventually. If we stop the study now, we never will. But, then again, that wouldn't prove ID. That would only mean we stopped the study.

The problem is that the success of this prediction has been very sharply limited. It is true that we can find a way to get amino acids (components of proteins) and components of RNA and DNA, but trying to get functional proteins, RNA and DNA run into serious obstacles. (In this way, note that the second ID prediction has been confirmed.) Then of course there is also the matter of assembling the molecules to form a complex biochemical machine we call a single-celled organism (to me this barrier seems insurmountable) but for now the three things I listed above should do.
Emphasis mine. The second part I bolded is called "Argument from Personal Incredulity". Just because you think it's insurmountable does not mean a scientist does. Remember, some people felt science would never figure out how the flagellum of a paramecium evolved. Now, we do know (at least most of it).

The first part I bolded is flatly not true. There are no "serious" obstacles. Scientists are working on this, as we speak. (If we did things the ID way, they would just give up. That, again, is not what science does.)

I would like to add one more point, here, which is very important, so I will make it bold:

Your idea of ID is limited to "life on Earth". Abiogenesis is superior because it is not.
If you want to argue "that's not my point", then you are not doing science. You are coming up with excuses to not do science. My next responses will repeat the point.

Another problem is when it comes to having a known mechanism, ID beats out abiogenesis. Scientists have machinery that can synthesize RNA and DNA—thus we have a rigorously known means how it could have happened. But a known mechanism for these two molecules is simply not the case for abiogenesis.
If you argue outside-Earth intelligence, you are responsible for identifying that entity, and how that entity would synthesize RNA and DNA. Without evidence for such an entity, you are shooting blanks, as far as science is concerned.

When we discover ancient arrow heads, we know they were created by intelligent beings, mostly because we have evidence such beings (in this case, early humans) existed. You have no evidence for the presence of an intelligent designer.

Intelligent design is an illegitimate explanation, because it doesn't explain the origin of the designer

But this doesn't seem like a reasonable grounds to reject the theory.

...(snip)...

Also note that ID doesn’t purport to explain the ultimate origin of all life, just the kind of biochemical machinery we see on Earth (see below).
It would be reasonable to assume that if we never found evidence of early humans, those arrow heads must have formed naturally. In fact, I seem to recall some weird looking stones once thought to have been artificial were found to be naturally carved. (I'll post the link when I find this info again.)

If ID does not purport to explain the ultimate origin of life, then it is weaker than abiogenesis, because it is PART of an answer that can.

You seem to want the study of life to end, somewhere, by favoring such weak arguments. Why?

I think evolution in general (and abiogenesis as part of it), wins the argument. It wins on grounds that it has all of these properties that ID does not:

Testability (we've done lots of tests. Evolution shines through. ID can not be tested. It can only be partly "proven" by complete failures of tests. But even then, ID is not really proven. We can still run more tests to demonstrate other aspects of abiogenesis. Without evidence of a Designer, we can not do the same for ID.)

Evidential support (lots for Evolution and abiogenesis. None for ID.)(Empirical evidence, that is, not ontological.)

Precision ("survival of the fittest" can work to every level, down even below the biochemical one. Your ID is limited in scope.)

Consistency (all evidence converges on evolution)

Repeatability (we've seen it happen over and over, very reliably)

Universality (abiogenesis can happen anywhere. It could even be the origin of your Intelligent Designer, itself. Your ID argument is limited in scope.)

Progressiveness (the study of this biological stuff is useful. ID is not. The study of biological science never gives up. ID flat out does.)

Independence of cultural milieu (any culture on Earth that does not develop the idea of a god-like entity, probably won't develop ID. But, they can still find evidence to support evolution, if they can figure out how to look for it.)

And so on. What say you, now?

Eos of the Eons

5th July 2006, 09:27 PM

Tisthammerw

5th July 2006, 09:33 PM

Except I'm making no such demand. I'm just demonstrating that ID is falsifiable, and that there exists a conceivable experiment that would falsify ID.

It's been explained why it wouldn't. You've ignored it.

I haven't ignored these explanations, I've responded to them. If you can think of a point I haven't yet addressed, please point it out to me. So far you haven't done that.

Really? Then please tell me exactly what this evidence is that makes abiogenesis better than intelligent design. So far the only thing I've seen is abiogenesis having a mechanism--but this prediction has had extremely limited success (e.g. amino acids but no RNA) and when it comes to having a known possible mechanism ID is superior to abiogenesis (e.g. intelligent design has a known possible mechanism to create RNA).

God did it?

No, we humans are not God. Nor is God a set of laboratory equipment.

As I pointed out earlier, scientists have a rigorously known mechanism to artificially create RNA, and we have laboratory equipment to help us. Abiogenesis does not have any known mechanism to work with here.

I don't understand where your focus on RNA comes from. Way back earlier in the thread I already linked to evidence that types of nucleic acid could be found naturally

Yes, but there is no realistic scenario whereby undirected chemical reactions can create RNA. If you think you have found such a scenario on a website, a paper written by a monkey, a bowl of alphabet soup, or anywhere else; verify it with an experiment and submit it to a peer-reviewed scientific journal.

You may have found a website that makes all sorts of nice claims that you would like to believe, but that is not the same thing as an experiment published in a peer-reviewed scientific journal.

So what evidence for abiogenesis do you have that makes it better than ID?

Simple. ID isn't a theory.

Ah, so you don't have any actual empirical evidence that makes abiogenesis better than ID?

You say ID isn't a theory. How so? A theory is an analysis of a set of facts in their relation to one another. ID's analysis of the data? Artificial intervention is necessary.

Please explain what your definition of a "theory" is and exactly why ID does not fit this definition.

Amino acid and nucleic acid polymers can and do form naturally. Again, no argument.

If you think undirected chemical reactions create RNA, we have an argument. There is no experiment to demonstrate this.

I don't think you understand what it means for a theory to be falsifiable in the philosophy of science sense. For instance, that we'll never find a human skull in undisturbed pre-Cambrian rock is a falsifiable belief. Will we ever find such a thing? That might not be possible in the sense that no such thing exists. But this is a conceivable observation that would disprove the belief.

No.

Uh, yes. This is a conceivable observation. Are you saying such a set of empirical data that would disprove ID (or the belief described above) is logically impossible? I think you'll have a tough time proving that.

I'm not saying that falsifiability is sufficient evidence for ID, just saying that's one thing that ID has and that abiogenesis doesn't.

We both believe we'll never disprove intelligent design in practice, but for different reasons (I believe it's because ID is true, you believe it's because the mysterious, undiscovered and unknown set of chemical reactions that could create life would operate too slowly to be observed).

Mysterious...unknown...undiscovered...

Three words referring to an intelligence. Not to chemical reactions that are known to exist in nature.

There are not any chemical reactions known to exist in nature that can create life from non-life without artificial intervention.

We can get complex reactions in a test tube. At what point would you be satisfied that they would be considered living?

When we get bacteria. I would be satisfied then.

You're being obtuse. Deliberately or not, it doesn't do your argument any justice.

Enzymes are the only means to reduce the energy and time needed to coordinate and localise such reactions for any degree of complexity. On a simple level, DNA can unzip, zip, ligate and lyse without enzymes.

If you think DNA can self-replicate and do all the proofreading stuff that goes on in a living cell all without enzymes, please verify your scenario with an experiment and submit it to a peer-reviewed scientific journal. As it currently stands, there is no known way for this to happen without enzymes (it's been a notorious chicken-and-egg type problem in biochemistry, since "DNA, after all, requires enzymes to replicate, but enzymes are themselves proteins whose generation depends on ‘instructions’ contained in DNA code." from http://www.hhmi.org/bulletin/june2002/rna/rna2.html -- a pro-abiogenesis site). It's almost as if you simply assumed DNA could do it without enzymes because you read somewhere that enzymes are catalysts, and also that catalysts lower activation energy and/or make chemical reactions happen more quickly.

Simple enzymes could form as a result of selection, which is a natural chemical phenomena. RNA, the same.

That's far too vague an explanation. Selection of what? Starting with what initial conditions and molecules? If you know the details of a realistic scenario to get the enzymes and RNA, by all means verify it with an experiment and submit it to a peer-reviewed scientific journal.

http://cas.bellarmine.edu/tietjen/Ecology/chemical_etiology_of_nucleic_aci.htm

Check out this site. I've already posted it before.

You think by posting a big website will convince me? I've read the web page, and I can find nothing useful that would help your argument. How about next time you quote something from the web page rather than just vaguely pointing to some 6,000+ word-length text?

Yes, you claim the mysterious, unknown and undiscovered chemical reactions that could allegedly create proteins out of amino acids operate too slowly to be observed. Thus, any solid proof of such a mechanism for abiogenesis will forever be lacking,

Proof is a mathematical term. Don't use it.

Fine, I'll rephrase.

Yes, you claim the mysterious, unknown and undiscovered chemical reactions that could allegedly create proteins out of amino acids operate too slowly to be observed. Thus, any solid evidence of such a mechanism for abiogenesis will forever be lacking, and we'll never see any possible solution to overcoming the obstacles abiogenesis faces. Because not only is such a process completely unknown and undiscovered, somehow you know that this unknown set of processes operates too slowly that we can never verify its existence by experimentally demonstrating it in action.

and we'll never see any possible solution to overcoming the obstacles abiogenesis faces. Because not only is such a process completely unknown and undiscovered, somehow you know that this unknown set of processes operates too slowly that we can never verify its existence by experimentally demonstrating it in action.

We can demonstrate aspects of it, and have done.

Amino acids? Sure, but not RNA and not DNA. There is no known set of chemical reactions that constitutes a realistic scenario for undirected chemical processes to create them.

Tisthammerw

5th July 2006, 09:36 PM

It did match what Earth's atmosphere was like and says so.

Um, no that source does not say so.

Oh I see, you're parroting misquotes by other creationist sites:

It's a misquote? Then please gives us the “real” quote.

There is more than one way to get life via natural processes.

Perhaps, but there is still no known means for to get life via undirected natural processes.

Wowbagger

5th July 2006, 09:46 PM

Great post Wowbagger, but our subject is just a parrot. He won't learn, he's just spouting creationist arguments over and over and over again. It's like he's spewing that creationist site all over this thread.
I like parrots. They are real fun to play with.

Don't worry. If you other posters get tired, I can take him on for a while. I am Wowbagger, afterall. I have infinite patience.

Besides, posting to threads like this help me hone my arguments for the future. If more "great" posts are achieved early in a thread, the argument could possibly end sooner. (But, maybe not when lifegazer is involved.)

Dr Adequate

5th July 2006, 09:57 PM

Problem is, there are serious obstacles for abiogenesis to get RNA, and there is no known realistic scenario whereby abiogenesis could create an RNA molecule. Er ... it's happened.

I told you about it.

Mixing Q-beta replicase and amino acids results, eventually, in the production of RNA fragments which evolve into Spiegelman's monster. And you tell us that there is "no realistic scenario" for something which has been observed and replicated many times.

athon

5th July 2006, 10:23 PM

If you think DNA can self-replicate and do all the proofreading stuff that goes on in a living cell all without enzymes, please verify your scenario with an experiment and submit it to a peer-reviewed scientific journal.

Now you're being dishonest. Man, you really are battling hard here.

That's not what I said at all. My post stands for those who wish to review and compare.

It's almost as if you simply assumed DNA could do it without enzymes because you read somewhere that enzymes are catalysts, and also that catalysts lower activation energy and/or make chemical reactions happen more quickly.

It is almost as if I assumed it. Funny thing, it's no assumption.

You think by posting a big website will convince me? I've read the web page, and I can find nothing useful that would help your argument. How about next time you quote something from the web page rather than just vaguely pointing to some 6,000+ word-length text?

It's a rather simple text, really, and from a reputable source. I'm not here to spoon feed you; the source more or less demonstrates a supported possibility of how modern RNA can form.

Accept it or don't. But refusing to read it and then continuing to claim there is no way modern RNA can form from naturally occuring descendents means you're wanting to remain ignorant.

Amino acids? Sure, but not RNA and not DNA. There is no known set of chemical reactions that constitutes a realistic scenario for undirected chemical processes to create them.

Yes. There is. You just want me to chew the information up and spoon feed it to you.

Ok, here;

What the page is about...
The quest is to uncover the criteria by which nature arrived at this choice [modern RNA]; comprehending these criteria in chemical terms would constitute a central element of any theory on the origin of the particular kind of chemical life known today...Basic to this research is the supposition that the RNA structure originated through a process that was combinatorial in nature with respect to the assembly and functional selection of an informational system within the domain of sugar-based oligonucleotides. The investigation can be viewed as an attempt to mimic the selectional part of such a hypothetical natural process by chemical means. In principle, the study has no bias with regard to the question of whether RNA first appeared in an abiotic or a biotic environment

Essentially, an experiment doing what what you're suggesting.

What they conclude...
...a chemical etiology of nucleic acid structure has to reckon with the possibility that the RNA structure might have originated as a consequence of synthetic contingency, not as a result of synthetic variation and functional selection. It is conceivable that circumstances could have favored the selective formation of the RNA structure in preference to alternatives, be it in an abiotic or a biotic environment (61). This would imply a synthetic rather than a functional selection as the primary determinant in RNA's emergence.

In other words, RNA could have formed and been synthesised by the conditions, however replication would require assistance. Hence why at this point, amino acid assistance is the preferred sequence.

Whereas there is a consensus on the notion that the building blocks of RNA (sugars, purines, and pyrimidines) potentially are of prebiotic origin (51, 58) and whereas the broad chemical contours of an assembly of the RNA structure from such building blocks seem clear, convincing experimental evidence that such a process can in fact occur under potentially natural conditions is still lacking (3, 59); this is particularly true with regard to such crucial steps as nucleotide formation and phosphate activation.

Again, natural replication is unsupported to be the seed of modern RNA polymer synthesis, however its existance in nucleotide form suggests the materials were available. Again, this is evidence supporting the fact that amino acid interaction was involved.

So, to summarise, prebiotic RNA existed, although there is nothing indicating how it might have successfully self-replicated efficiently enough to survive a selection process. As amino acids seqences are known to interact with RNA polymers, the evidence leads to a speculation that amino acids preceded RNA.

The study concedes more research is needed.

So, you can now abandon the 'RNA is post biotic' stance. Successful replication to sustain selection pressue might require amino acid stabilisation, but that again is not beyond possibility.

Athon

Tisthammerw

5th July 2006, 10:26 PM

Thankfully, humankind has discovered evolution by natural selection. Otherwise, we'd never have developed treatments for cancer or AIDS, or many other diseases; among other advantages.

Why is this so? If people accepted intelligent design (as I defined it), why would this prevent scientists from searching for treatments for cancer and AIDS?

Historically, every single time, without fail, that someone claims to have found an exception to evolutionary process, evolution eventually figures it out.

First, this thread is about abiogenesis--not evolution.

The words "for this post" don't cut it, as far as science is concerned. Replace the word "spontaneously" with "gradually" in your definition, and you will be closer to what science has determined. By proving the "spontaneous" false, you are only knocking down the straw man. You are not hitting science in the gut.

How is this a straw man? Are you claiming that abiogenesis involves human labor to create life?

Methinks you're just not grasping the meaning of the word "spontaneous" in the context I used it in post #142 (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=1636029&postcount=142).

As for testability/falsifiability, you claim thus:

(1) We will never find a means for undirected chemical reactions to create life from non-life, because artificial intervention is necessary (note: if this prediction is falsified, ID is falsified)
(2) Because artificial intervention is necessary, we should find serious and significant obstacles to the naturalistic formation of life.

For 1: Science never says "never".

There are a number of scientific theories do say never. For instance, the law of conservation of mass-energy says that we'll never see a violation of this law.

For 2: We have not discovered any "significant obstacles", yet.

Uh, yes we have. One of them is the chemical incompatibility of the RNA components. Scientists can get RNA by e.g. synthesizing, purifying, and mixing the components, but undirected chemical reactions yield undesired results. Think about it. Why is it that scientists can create RNA but from but abiogenesis does not have a known means? It's because there are obstacles that intelligent direction overcomes but abiogenesis does not. Undirected, the chemical reactions just don't produce the desired results.

Maybe abiogenesis will find a way to overcome these obstacles, maybe not. I'm inclined to think the latter.

The second part I bolded is called "Argument from Personal Incredulity". Just because you think it's insurmountable does not mean a scientist does.

I agree, but I never said my own personal skepticism was an intellectual argument of any kind. However, the obstacles to getting RNA and DNA do constitute evidence.

Your idea of ID is limited to "life on Earth". Abiogenesis is superior because it is not.

True, ID only claims that the kind of life we see on Earth requires artificial intervention, without making claims as to other kinds of life.

Could abiogenesis be an ultimate explanation of all life? Maybe, but it's a bit difficult to provide any evidential basis that abiogenesis is the basis of all life in the universe. In fact it's downright premature.

Another problem is when it comes to having a known mechanism, ID beats out abiogenesis. Scientists have machinery that can synthesize RNA and DNA—thus we have a rigorously known means how it could have happened. But a known mechanism for these two molecules is simply not the case for abiogenesis.

If you argue outside-Earth intelligence, you are responsible for identifying that entity, and how that entity would synthesize RNA and DNA.

First, I disagree. Second, you are missing the point. The point is this: what makes abiogenesis better than intelligent design? One answer is that abiogenesis has a known mechanism (e.g. amino acids). One problem is when it comes to having a known mechanism, ID beats out abiogenesis. So this doesn't appear to be a good reason to favor abiogenesis over intelligent design.

When we discover ancient arrow heads, we know they were created by intelligent beings, mostly because we have evidence such beings (in this case, early humans) existed.

But we don't need any independent evidence to infer design. For instance, if we found a stainless steel replica of Stonehenge, we would infer design even if we have no other evidence for the designer, and even if we cannot identify the designer, or know its movies and origins.

If ID does not purport to explain the ultimate origin of life, then it is weaker than abiogenesis, because it is PART of an answer that can.

True, ID contains an entity it does not itself explain. But so does abiogenesis. It does not explain the origin of natural processes that created life. And any attempt to explain that by the Big bang theory (or anything else) will face the exact same problem with the origin of that process.

I'll stick with the abiogenesis part, since that what this thread is discussing:

Testability (we've done lots of tests. Evolution shines through. ID can not be tested.

It makes empirically testable predictions. See post #142 (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=1636029&postcount=142) for a couple examples.

Evidential support (lots for Evolution and abiogenesis. None for ID.

Let's suppose the confirmed empirical predictions give no evidence for ID. What evidence is there for abiogenesis? A known mechanism? Well, as I said ID beats out abiogenesis in this regard. So again, what evidence for abiogenesis makes it better than intelligent design?

Precision ("survival of the fittest" can work to every level

Not when it comes to getting RNA and DNA. When it comes to mechanisms, ID is a lot more precise than abiogenesis. ID has a rigorously known possible mechanism, abiogenesis does not.

Consistency (all evidence converges on evolution)

May be so, but not for abiogenesis.

Repeatability (we've seen it happen over and over, very reliably)

We've never seen abiogenesis happen in the laboratory, ever.

Universality (abiogenesis can happen anywhere.

So can intelligent design. So what?

Progressiveness (the study of this biological stuff is useful. ID is not. The study of biological science never gives up.

Science occasionally does give up on theories that don't produce results. Abiogenesis has consistently failed to find a mechanism to produce RNA, for instance. If abiogenesis retains global disciplinary failure as to finding any possible way it could have happened for another fifty years, should we still stick with it? Even when the serious obstacles remain present? Even when there is an alternative theory that predicts all this?

Independence of cultural milieu (any culture on Earth that does not develop the idea of a god-like entity, probably won't develop ID.

That remains to be seen. I predict ID will be accepted within the next few centuries if abiogenesis continues its failure to provide a known possible mechanism.

Eos of the Eons

5th July 2006, 10:29 PM

The new models for the early earth atmosphere shows even more promise for the beginning of life:

The new study indicates up to 40 percent of the early atmosphere was hydrogen, implying a more favorable climate for the production of pre-biotic organic compounds like amino acids, and ultimately, life...

...In 1953, University of Chicago graduate student Stanley Miller sent an electrical current through a chamber containing methane, ammonia, hydrogen and water, yielding amino acids, considered to be the building blocks of life. "I think this study makes the experiments by Miller and others relevant again," Toon said. "In this new scenario, organics can be produced efficiently in the early atmosphere, leading us back to the organic-rich soup-in-the-ocean concept."
http://www.colorado.edu/news/releases/2005/156.html

So the old textbook the creationist site is touting is the same as creationists using piltdown man as evidence that evolution must be bunk. Focussing on trying to find only the negative enables them to ignore the evidence that favors something they don't like. Sorry, but using a flawed textbook that favors the creationist viewpoint does not negate current knowledge. Using that textbook is a misquote in lieu of new information that shows Miller was not far off the mark.

Tisthammerw

5th July 2006, 10:31 PM

Er ... it's happened.

I told you about it.

And you tell us that there is "no realistic scenario" for something which has been observed and replicated many times.

Please point to me a published paper in a peer-reviewed scientific journal of a realistic scenario where undirected chemical reactions create RNA. You haven't done that, nor have you described any means to overcome the obstacles I mentioned.

athon

5th July 2006, 10:34 PM

Please point to me a published paper in a peer-reviewed scientific journal of a realistic scenario where undirected chemical reactions create RNA. You haven't done that, nor have you described any means to overcome the obstacles I mentioned.

I did that. You chose not to read it with the excuse that it was too difficult.

RNA can indeed arise in prebiotic conditions. RNA polymers might not without assistance.

Take it from there.

Athon

Eos of the Eons

5th July 2006, 10:34 PM

Please point to me a published paper in a peer-reviewed scientific journal of a realistic scenario where undirected chemical reactions create RNA. You haven't done that, nor have you described any means to overcome the obstacles I mentioned.

If you would dare to find information on actual scientific sites with recent experiments and information, then you'd find them, like I did in the post above yours.

But that's okay. You won't believe it anyway because your creationist sites won't include these, and you won't believe it unless the creationist tunnel vision site concedes, which it won't. They will never update their information with positive findings.

Tisthammerw

5th July 2006, 10:51 PM

If you think DNA can self-replicate and do all the proofreading stuff that goes on in a living cell all without enzymes, please verify your scenario with an experiment and submit it to a peer-reviewed scientific journal.

Now you're being dishonest.

Huh?

That's not what I said at all.

Let's recap. I told you that enzymes were necessary for the directed reactions of zipping, unzipping, proofreading and duplicating DNA. You said in response:

Enzymes are the only means to reduce the energy and time needed to coordinate and localise such reactions for any degree of complexity. On a simple level, DNA can unzip, zip, ligate and lyse without enzymes.

You seemed to suggest that DNA could do what I described without the need for enzymes. I'm sorry if I misunderstood you, but that was the impression you gave me. Do you acknowledge then the need for enzymes for DNA replication? Do you acknowledge the chicken-egg problem of DNA and enzymes?

Essentially, an experiment doing what what you're suggesting.

Once we have self-replicating oligonucleotides, of course selection can take place. I didn't deny that. The problem is, how to get the RNA to begin with? There are no experiments demonstrating a realistic scenario for undirected chemical reactions to create RNA.

In other words, RNA could have formed and been synthesised by the conditions

What conditions? The article does not quite say, nor does it describe any experiment of the sort I'm talking about. Again, please point to a published paper in a peer-reviewed scientific journal that describes an experimental demonstration of how undirected chemical reactions could have created RNA.

Whereas there is a consensus on the notion that the building blocks of RNA (sugars, purines, and pyrimidines) potentially are of prebiotic origin (51, 58) and whereas the broad chemical contours of an assembly of the RNA structure from such building blocks seem clear, convincing experimental evidence that such a process can in fact occur under potentially natural conditions is still lacking (3, 59); this is particularly true with regard to such crucial steps as nucleotide formation and phosphate activation.

Again, natural replication is unsupported to be the seed of modern RNA polymer synthesis, however its existance in nucleotide form suggests the materials were available. Again, this is evidence supporting the fact that amino acid interaction was involved.

Which has relevance to...what? Remember, my claim is that there does not exist a known mechanism for abiogenesis to create RNA. That's what we were talking about, and the paper does not contain anything useful here that says otherwise. That's why I made the comment I did about the utility of the web link.

Please point to me a published paper in a peer-reviewed scientific journal of a realistic scenario where undirected chemical reactions create RNA. You haven't done that, nor have you described any means to overcome the obstacles I mentioned.

I did that.

You did not. I read the web page and found nothing of the sort.

Tisthammerw

5th July 2006, 10:57 PM

The new models for the early earth atmosphere shows even more promise for the beginning of life:

Hm, 2005 is more recent than the 1997 textbook. It seems I must concede the point regarding the hydrogen level.

Using that textbook is a misquote in lieu of new information that shows Miller was not far off the mark.

Using the textbook was using an outdated source, but how did I misquote it? Can you tell me what the real quote is and how it differs from what I said?

athon

5th July 2006, 11:04 PM

You seemed to suggest that DNA could do what I described without the need for enzymes. I'm sorry if I misunderstood you, but that was the impression you gave me. Do you acknowledge then the need for enzymes for DNA replication? Do you acknowledge the chicken-egg problem of DNA and enzymes?

No. Double stranded DNA can zip and unzip as a result of temperature variation. It is used in PCR. There are enzymes which make this much more efficient. Enzymes facilitate accurate lining up of complimentary nucelotides for replication; without them, the process would take an exceedingly long amount of time, and equilibrium would not allow the process to become efficient enough to sustain an evolutionary process. This is less a problem if amino acid structures are present to serve as some form of template.

The precise nature of such templates is not yet described, nor is their exact place in the process. Science goes on...

Once we have self-replicating oligonucleotides, of course selection can take place. I didn't deny that. The problem is, how to get the RNA to begin with? There are no experiments demonstrating a realistic scenario for undirected chemical reactions to create RNA.

You keep barking up this tree, and it is wrong. In fact, you're entire argument seems to rest on the fact that you assume RNA cannot form naturally. Self-replicating RNA polymers have no been shown to exist in nature; I've already said that. However, there is nothing suggesting they need to be isolated, and we know amino acid structures exist which can assist in the process.

No need to bring intelligence into it to bridge the gaps in our knowledge when we still have possibilities to explore.

Which has relevance to...what? Remember, my claim is that there does not exist a known mechanism for abiogenesis to create RNA. That's what we were talking about, and the paper does not contain anything useful here that says otherwise. That's why I made the comment I did about the utility of the web link.

It is conceivable that circumstances could have favored the selective formation of the RNA structure in preference to alternatives, be it in an abiotic or a biotic environment (61)

RNA could arise abiotically.

Athon

Eos of the Eons

5th July 2006, 11:15 PM

Hm, 2005 is more recent than the 1997 textbook. It seems I must concede the point regarding the hydrogen level.

Oh hey, a light at the end of the tunnel. Thank you for reading and conceding.
Using the textbook was using an outdated source, but how did I misquote it? Can you tell me what the real quote is and how it differs from what I said?
It's not you that misquoted. Those sites that quote it are at fault. I concede that the textbook may say that, since I'd have to get a hold of a copy to see otherwise (try getting a copy that is 10 years outdated). I feel the site is at fault for quoting a text that is clearly now faulty or may not even state that about Miller.

Just know it is misleading to use old quotes from old books and ignoring new information that blows that old information out of the water. They are only using it because it supports their point of view, it's cherry picking.

Lamuella

6th July 2006, 07:35 AM

Because it's not falsifiable?

no. Lack of falsifiability is only one small reason why the "theory" you gave in your first post is not a theory.

Here's the major one.

What you posted is not a theory because it's a single line of text.

It's at most a supposition, and really just an assertion. You have provided no evidence of your supposed theory. You have performed no research into your supposed theory. You have not, in fact, tested your theory in any way. You have only asserted it.

Thus it's not a theory, it's an assertion.

Anacoluthon64

6th July 2006, 08:46 AM

Tisthammerw

6th July 2006, 01:25 PM

Once we have self-replicating oligonucleotides, of course selection can take place. I didn't deny that. The problem is, how to get the RNA to begin with? There are no experiments demonstrating a realistic scenario for undirected chemical reactions to create RNA.

You keep barking up this tree, and it is wrong. In fact, you're entire argument seems to rest on the fact that you assume RNA cannot form naturally. Self-replicating RNA polymers have no been shown to exist in nature; I've already said that.

You don't seem to be understanding me, so I'll try an analogy. Computer viruses can self-replicate on their own without any further artificial intervention (and sometimes in spite of it). But how did the original “forefather” computer virus get created? Artificial intervention, a computer programmer.

Similarly, RNA may be able to self-replicate. But how did the original RNA "forefather" come about? How did we get from the initial primordial chemicals (e.g. no pre-existing RNA) to RNA? RNA is a macromolecule built from smaller molecular components. A major obstacle is that the processes that form these components are not chemically compatible. A chemist can create, purify and mix the components together under controlled conditions (thanks to laboratory equipment) but undirected chemical reactions fail to produce the desired product. An intelligent designer overcomes the obstacles that abiogenesis faces. That's why some scientists have called it the "prebiotic chemist's nightmare."

I admit the possibility that my info is outdated (that has apparently been the case with the hydrogen level on Earth) but I need evidence, since I have always believed this obstacle to be far more serious. Now, do we have a paper published in a peer-reviewed journal experimentally demonstrating a realistic scenario how abiogenesis could overcome the known obstacles while going from the starting chemicals (e.g. no pre-existing RNA) to RNA?

So far you have not done so, and the website you gave to me does not quite fit the bill here. Some guy's website may claim that RNA can arise prebiotically, but where are the experiments demonstrating this in a peer-reviewed scientific journal? So far, none.

P.S. Here's something that may help explain the misunderstanding we had earlier regarding DNA and enzymes. In post #346, you said:

You do realise [sic] that enzymes only facilitate a reaction that can occur spontaneously anyway?

Which is not quite true of course, because there is no known way for DNA to spontaneously self-replicate without the help of the appropriate enzymes. You never conceded you were mistaken in this matter, so I had erroneously believed you adhered to it.

Tisthammerw

6th July 2006, 01:38 PM

Because it's not falsifiable?

no. Lack of falsifiability is only one small reason why the "theory" you gave in your first post is not a theory.

Did you read my post? I gave you a conceivable observation that would falsify the theory of intelligent design! Under standard principles of philosophy of science, this makes it falsifiable. I’m pretty sure even the great Karl Popper would agree with me on this.

What you posted is not a theory because it's a single line of text.

The theory of gravity can be described in a single line of text, as can many physical laws. Do you believe those theories are not legitimately scientific?

It's at most a supposition, and really just an assertion. You have provided no evidence of your supposed theory.

Suppose we pretend that the confirmed empirical predictions ID makes do not evidence. Even if this were true, this is irrelevant (perhaps you should read a little more about the philosophy of science). The caloric theory of heat is a scientific theory, but it has since been rejected and has no (as far as I'm aware) evidence to support it. The theory is now a discredited one, but it still fits the category of being "scientific." A theory in the scientific sense has nothing to do with whether it is popular, unpopular, supported by evidence, well-researched etc. rather it has to do with the structure and the way it functions. To give you an example, the theory of evolution was a scientific theory even before it became popular and well-researched in the scientific community. Evolution is a theory of life on Earth (a relevant subject area in science) it explains scientific data etc. The discovery or undiscovery of the evidence did not change the fact that evolution was a scientific theory. Agreed?

BTW, what "evidence" does abiogenesis have that makes it a better scientific theory? A known mechanism? As I pointed out, ID beats out abiogenesis there (e.g. in having a rigorously known mechanism to create DNA). So it seems all we have left are non-empirical philosophical preferences (e.g. ID has an unidentified designer, which is "inherently unscientific").

Darat

6th July 2006, 01:46 PM

Did you read my post? I gave you a conceivable observation that would falsify the theory of intelligent design! Under standard principles of philosophy of science, this makes it falsifiable. I’m pretty sure even the great Karl Popper would agree with me on this.

...snip...

I read your post (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=1636029&postcount=142) that you state you describe an observation that would falsify ID however you didn't.

Tisthammerw

6th July 2006, 01:48 PM

Tisthammerw, I suspect that shades of meaning are being smuggled into and out of "abiogenesis" and "intelligent design" when nobody's watching. So here's an allegorical question for you that may help clarify matters:

For lovers of Coca-Cola, if given the choice, would knowing the exact recipe for making that beverage be of greater utility than knowing the exact location of all the Coca-Cola factories?

Okay, I'll play along. I suppose the having the exact recipe,

Why?

Because then I can make it myself--maybe (if I have the proper equipment).

To clarify matters (I clarified this earlier, but some people seem to forget what I say; thus a reminder seems prudent), abiogenesis as defined in this thread is about undirected chemical reactions creating the type of life we see on Earth.

As an analogy, it makes no difference whether undirected natural processes created a car on Earth or on Mars (two competing views of the origins of cars: natural-origins v. artificial-origins). A natural-origins theory would still have to be in harmony with the laws of physics and chemistry and the theory be about the car, and not about snowflakes. Likewise, the artificial-origins theory here would still be only about the car, and not about snowflakes. The point? Let's not lose our focus. The type of life we see on Earth may require artificial intervention (regardless of its location; Earth, Mars, or whatever) but that does not imply there might be other sorts of life radically different from our own that could arise naturally. Personally, I don't pretend to know if such life forms could exist. Right now, it seems difficult to empirically test one way or the other.

Tisthammerw

6th July 2006, 01:57 PM

I read your post (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=1636029&postcount=142) that you state you describe an observation that would falsify ID however you didn't.

This is beginning to get a little annoying. I have repeatedly described a conceivable observation that would falsify intelligent design (reminder: intelligent design is the theory that intelligent causes are needed to create the kind of life we see on Earth) and yet people in this thread still continue the “intelligent design is not falsifiable” objection. But perhaps you haven’t been a “long-time” member of this thread and simply missed it. I'll quote from the post:

That said, it is easy to conceive of an experiment that would falsify intelligent design. Notably, the same is not true for abiogenesis. ID (intelligent design) also has testable predictions:

(1) We will never find a means for undirected chemical reactions to create life from non-life, because artificial intervention is necessary (note: if this prediction is falsified, ID is falsified)

(2) Because artificial intervention is necessary, we should find serious and significant obstacles to the naturalistic formation of life.

To falsify the first prediction, simply create a realistic and plausible starting point (as conditions resembling the primordial Earth) then step back and let undirected chemical reactions take their course. If they produce life, this would show that intelligent causes are not necessary, since we will have shown that undirected chemical reactions can do the trick. This prediction may not sound like much, but it is empirically testable and makes the theory falsifiable. (Whereas there is no conceivable experiment that could falsify abiogenesis).

To go to the extreme, another scenario that would falsify ID is if we found a naturally occurring primordial ooze, and out of this ooze undirected chemical reactions create life.

And there you have it, a conceivable observation that would falsify intelligent design! Experimentally demonstrate that artificial intervention is not necessary, and the theory is disproved. It's about as close as we can get to falsification in science.

Lamuella

6th July 2006, 02:43 PM

The theory of gravity can be described in a single line of text, as can many physical laws. Do you believe those theories are not legitimately scientific?

many physical laws can be summarized in a single line of text. However, the work behind them is massively more extensive.

Just to make sure we're still talking about the same thing, your "theory" of intelligent design is "intelligent causes are necessary for the creation of life on Earth.", correct?

Ashles

6th July 2006, 02:48 PM

Lamuella

6th July 2006, 02:50 PM

No it wouldn't do anything of the sort. It would merely demonstrate an alternate method by which it might have happened.

If I bend a spoon by trickery does that automatically falsify Uri Geller's claims?

What you have provided is absolutely not a scenario that would falsify ID.

Maybe an intelligent designer created a universe in which abiogenesis was possible?

you have to remember, he is fixated on his own terrible definition of ID. He doesn't care that it contradicts every other definition of ID available. He's insisting we play along with him and call a spade a rake.

In his definition of ID: "intelligent causes are necessary for the creation of life on Earth", he asserts that showing life on earth formed not by intelligent causes would falsify ID.

It's very silly indeed, I know.

Hawk one

6th July 2006, 02:54 PM

And let's not forget, he's managed to get the discussion right where he wants it: Into a track where he doesn't have to provide any actual evidence of the existance of the designer.

Until such evidence is forthcoming, ID, no matter what definition, is in no way a real theory. It's hardly even a hypothesis.

So, where is the direct, positive evidence for the designer, tisthammerw? And don't evade by claiming the old standby "we're too complex", because that's still just the old argument by ignorance that the ID crowd thrives on.

Give us direct and positive evidence of the existance of a designer. Alien, God, your choice. Just come up with the real evidence here.

Tisthammerw

6th July 2006, 03:01 PM

many physical laws can be summarized in a single line of text.

Not only that, but they can be stated in these nifty little equations.

Just to make sure we're still talking about the same thing, your "theory" of intelligent design is "intelligent causes are necessary for the creation of life on Earth.", correct?

Yes. Perhaps we could call the theories “paradigms” if you wish—since whatever you want to call it abiogenesis is what scientists (most of them anyway) adhere to, despite the specific variations that have existed over time.

you have to remember, he is fixated on his own terrible definition of ID. He doesn't care that it contradicts every other definition of ID available.

It seems I must make a reminder again.

From Dembski (a prominent ID adherent):

Within biology, Intelligent Design is a theory of biological origins and development. Its fundamental claim is that intelligent causes are necessary to explain the complex, information-rich structures of biology [emphasis mine], and that these causes are empirically detectable [confer his explanatory filter, which attempts to empirically detect design by "ruling out" law and chance].

From http://www.arn.org/docs/dembski/wd_idmovement.htm

My definition isn't all that different from what the mainstream ID community believes.

CFLarsen

6th July 2006, 03:01 PM

Nice deconstruction. Especially from you, lamuella.

Tisthammerw

6th July 2006, 03:12 PM

And there you have it, a conceivable observation that would falsify intelligent design! Experimentally demonstrate that artificial intervention is not necessary, and the theory is disproved. It's about as close as we can get to falsification in science.

No it wouldn't do anything of the sort. It would merely demonstrate an alternate method by which it might have happened.

Which...would falsify ID. Apparently you missed one or more crucial parts of the post. So I'll try again.

Here's the version of intelligent design the post is using (please read post #142 (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=1636029&postcount=142), since it contains relevant information that seems to be so often missed). Intelligent design: the theory that intelligent causes are necessary for the creation of the type of life we see on Earth. Please remember this definition. It is very important.

How to disprove this theory? By experimentally demonstrating that artificial intervention is not needed (like the examples I illustrated in #142 (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=1636029&postcount=142)), that undirected chemical reactions are capable of producing life.

If I bend a spoon by trickery does that automatically falsify Uri Geller's claims?

If he claims to be the only person who can do it, then yes.

Tisthammerw

6th July 2006, 03:20 PM

And let's not forget, he's managed to get the discussion right where he wants it: Into a track where he doesn't have to provide any actual evidence of the existance of the designer.

I sometimes feel the same way about abiogenesis.

What is the evidence for ID? It's the confirmed empirical predictions I mentioned in post #142 (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=1636029&postcount=142). Now you may think that those predictions do not constitute sufficient evidence. Okay. But then how is abiogenesis better? What evidence does it have? So far the only empirical evidence I've seen is a known possible mechanism (e.g. in getting amino acids). But the success with this prediction is extremely limited, and when it comes to having a known mechanism ID beats out abiogenesis (e.g. RNA and DNA--scientists have created machinery to synthesize those molecules, but abiogenesis has no known mechanism to work with). So, what evidence do you have?

Apart from the "known mechanism" thing, essentially the only reasons I’ve seen here are non-empirical philosophical principles (e.g. having an unidentified designer in a theory is “inherently unscientific”).

Until such evidence is forthcoming, ID, no matter what definition, is in no way a real theory.

The caloric theory of heat is not a theory? If a scientific theory is discarded, it isn't merely an incorrect theory it stops being a theory at all?

Lamuella

6th July 2006, 03:48 PM

Yes. Perhaps we could call the theories “paradigms” if you wish—since whatever you want to call it abiogenesis is what scientists (most of them anyway) adhere to, despite the specific variations that have existed over time.

If you think that the words "theory" and "paradigm" are interchangeable, you clearly haven't understood what either of them mean.

Scientific theories tend to be stated in large form Yes, you can give Newton's Law of Universal Gravitation in a single equation, but without the whole of the Mathematical Principles of Natural Philosophy (and without a mountain of evidence) this law would be little more than an assertion. Even then, Newton was working with particle physics, an area in which it is possible to make broad, mathematical statements that can be rendered in short form. You are talking about life sciences, specifically biology, an area that lends itself to much greater complexity (to put it this way, particle physics talks about very small things, biology talks about incredibly vast collections of very small things). If Darwin had laid down evolutionary theory as "the variety of life occurred by descent through reproduction, variation and selection, from a single organism" and left it at that, he would have been laughed out of the Royal Society.

Here is how you establish a theory in the scientific field:

1) you examine the evidence and draw a conclusion. You formulate this conclusion into a hypothesis.
2) you find a way to test the hypothesis, finding things that will falsify the hypothesis and things that the hypothesis predicts.
3) you test the hypothesis. You publish the results of your findings.
4) If your hypothesis is falsified or its predictions fail to come true, you return to step 1
5) If your hypothesis is not falsified and its predictions come true, you return to step 2 and ask others who have read your published findings to independently repeat your steps 2 and 3
6) when the evidence behind your hypothesis is such that it would be obtuse to maintain that it is incorrect, you have a theory.

This is a drastic, horrible simplification, but I'm trying to give you an idea of what scientists actually mean when they talk about a theory. They aren't just sitting around and spitballing ideas. By theory they don't mean a hunch or a guess or a supposition. They mean a huge, tested, researched, ironclad scientific model for the way the universe behaves when you poke it with a stick. Your pet idea does not cut the mustard.

Lamuella

6th July 2006, 03:49 PM

Nice deconstruction. Especially from you, lamuella.

thank you.

Wowbagger

6th July 2006, 03:51 PM

From Dembski (a prominent ID adherent):

Within biology, Intelligent Design is a theory of biological origins and development. Its fundamental claim is that intelligent causes are necessary to explain the complex, information-rich structures of biology [emphasis mine], and that these causes are empirically detectable [confer his explanatory filter, which attempts to empirically detect design by "ruling out" law and chance].

I just want to add, here, that Dembski's arguments have long known to be flawed. He rules out "chance" as what can cause life, but then again, so does science. What Dembski is missing is the mathematics behind cumulative evolution which renders all the structures of life actually quite plausible.

The old example I alluded to earlier: The chances of a bio-chemically complex flagellum popping out of a paramecium are, as Dembski points out, quite implausible. However, the chances of such a thing occurring, in gradual, cumulative steps, (though cooption of parts, and symbiosis with other life forms), are very good.

Dembski thinks he knows his math, but he doesn't know what he ought to know.

It might also be worth noting that his idea that ID represents the "best" explanation for life is also quite bonkers. How can a dismissal that life owes itself to a "higher intelligence" be "better" than a real-world evolutionary process?

You are going to have to quote a better proponent. (If you can find one.)

Tisthammerw

6th July 2006, 05:01 PM

Perhaps we could call the theories “paradigms” if you wish—since whatever you want to call it abiogenesis is what scientists (most of them anyway) adhere to, despite the specific variations that have existed over time.

If you think that the words "theory" and "paradigm" are interchangeable, you clearly haven't understood what either of them mean.

I do not think they are interchangable, at least not perfectly. But since you seem highly reluctant to call this commonly shared scientific belief among scientists (that life arose from non-life via undirected natural processes) a "theory," I proposed a term that perhaps we could all agree to use.

Yes, you can give Newton's Law of Universal Gravitation in a single equation, but without the whole of the Mathematical Principles of Natural Philosophy (and without a mountain of evidence) this law would be little more than an assertion.

Nonetheless, the law (a scientific theory) can be stated concisely. That's all I was pointing out here.

[snipped old-style view of "the scientific method"]

In the philosophy of science, the term "scientific theory" has a broader meaning than the old hypothesis->theory->law view; and the "scientific theory" status also more independent of human actions and beliefs (a form of conceptual objectivism, so to speak) than you seem to believe. A couple of examples: the caloric theory of heat still fits the category of being a "scientific" theory even though it is one that is now rejected, discredited, and has little (if any) evidence to support it. Also, the theory of evolution was a scientific theory even before Darwin collected his observations and published his famous book.

The belief that a theory is scientific only if it has lots and lots of experimentally verified evidence behind it and is accepted by most scientists is not quite correct.

Tisthammerw

6th July 2006, 05:12 PM

I just want to add, here, that Dembski's arguments have long known to be flawed.

Suppose Dembski is a crazy irrational bastard. It's not relevant to the point I was making: that the definition of "intelligent design" I use in this thread isn't far off the mark. Crazy or not, Dembski is a bigwig of the intelligent design movement. And what Dembski calls "the fundamental claim" of intelligent design matches pretty darn closely with the definition I'm using in this thread. I hope we can keep this in mind before somebody accuses me of using a defintion of ID that "contradicts every other definition of ID available."

Wowbagger

6th July 2006, 05:41 PM

Why is this so? If people accepted intelligent design (as I defined it), why would this prevent scientists from searching for treatments for cancer and AIDS?
I am glad you asked this question!

The short answer: The study of biological diseases requires the most accurate, carefully assessed studies of biological systems. The process of evolution is such an ingrained part in the study of disease, today, that it is often taken for granted.

First of all, AIDs has long been known to have a high level of variability. The HIV virus has been known to evolve "spontaneously*", right in the scientist's microscope. If we are going to cure and/or treat AIDS, we better damn well start reading up on our evolution!
(*my use of "spontaneously" here is merely to remark on the relative time scale. In reality the process is very gradual.)

Like all diseases, many aspects of cancer also evolve, albeit much slower. This is true, even if cancer is not caused by viruses or bacterium or anything like that.
In fact, cancer grows in a way much akin to evolution. Over the course of its expansion, it faces many selection pressures, and not all cancer cells survive each one. But, unfortunately, the ones that do, thrive.

If you'd like to know more, I got a few friends in the cancer research industry who might help you out.
Or you could search "evolution of cancer" in Google, (which is what one lazy friend already told me to do).

Many viruses and bacterial agents parasite our bodies with RNA or DNA of their own. With further studies into how RNA develops and works, we can fight these diseases more effectively.

If the Intelligent Design community had things their way, none of this helpful information would ever come out.

First, this thread is about abiogenesis--not evolution.
Six of one, half-dozen of the other.
Abiogenesis is just one facet of evolutionary theory. They are essentially the same process, but with different media: Cellular evolution occurs most often through alterations of its DNA. RNA and DNA could have evolved through alterations of amino acids, maybe with the help of clays and silicates for "scaffolding".

But, I digress. I will try to keep my comments more on the topic of abiogenesis.

How is this a straw man? Are you claiming that abiogenesis involves human labor to create life?
That's preposterous!
This may sound like an argument from semantics, so I will keep it short:
By using the word "spontaneous" you are implying an argument that is not superior to ID. By beating that argument, you are not beating science. Modern science understands the process was gradual. The development from non-organic to organic to RNA to DNA was accomplished in very small steps.

There are a number of scientific theories do say never. For instance, the law of conservation of mass-energy says that we'll never see a violation of this law.
And such theories are limited in scope. The Law of Conservation does not take quantum mechanics into account. Although, the "borrowed" energy allowed in quantum mech. is very small, and lasts only a very small amount of time.

At the very least, I can easily argue that Science does not give up trying! Science, for example, will never stop studying how RNA could have developed, until they figure it out. And, they are determined figure it all out, whether you think it's insurmountable or not!
And when they do, it will strengthen evolution and abiogenesis and all that stuff.

Uh, yes we have. One of them is the chemical incompatibility of the RNA components. Scientists can get RNA by e.g. synthesizing, purifying, and mixing the components, but undirected chemical reactions yield undesired results. Think about it. Why is it that scientists can create RNA but from but abiogenesis does not have a known means? It's because there are obstacles that intelligent direction overcomes but abiogenesis does not. Undirected, the chemical reactions just don't produce the desired results.
Emphasis mine. Responding to bolded part:

Okay, you're such a smart fellow. You explain to me how your intelligent director overcame the problem. There are a lot of people here who would love to know some insights into these superior processes.

Part of the responsibility of establishing an ID, is identifying the process they used. In the arrowhead example, we can figure out the process early humans used to carve them. If you can not establish the process your ID used, you are just making excuses and dismissals from doing any real scientific work.

However, the obstacles to getting RNA and DNA do constitute evidence.
Only in your mind. To scientists, it just means they have to work harder.
Also, didn't Dr. Adequate and others already provide links to the progress being made, already?

Could abiogenesis be an ultimate explanation of all life? Maybe, but it's a bit difficult to provide any evidential basis that abiogenesis is the basis of all life in the universe. In fact it's downright premature.
I'll tell you what is premature: Claiming that the "failures" of abiogenesis MUST mean that life is the product of a higher intelligence.

There are other theories, that do not involve an intelligence that can 'explain' the origins of life, that can equally be "proven" by such "failures": Lampert's Blob Theory, where sentience arrived spontaneously from bubbles in the fabric of the otherwise holistic universe, is one such idea. (of course, there is no science backing up Blob Theory, it is merely a philosophical musing.)

The point is this: what makes abiogenesis better than intelligent design? One answer is that abiogenesis has a known mechanism (e.g. amino acids). One problem is when it comes to having a known mechanism, ID beats out abiogenesis. So this doesn't appear to be a good reason to favor abiogenesis over intelligent design.
Humans can also create beaches by sending dump trucks filled with sands to a chosen shoreline. That doesn't mean all of our beaches were created by a higher intelligence using little dump truck of their own.

ID has no known mechanism, other than to "borrow" what humans did.

It makes empirically testable predictions. See post #142 (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=1636029&postcount=142) for a couple examples.
I saw those "examples". So far, those predictions are failing.

So again, what evidence for abiogenesis makes it better than intelligent design?
Dr. Adequate already answered that. You only refuse to accept it.

Not when it comes to getting RNA and DNA. When it comes to mechanisms, ID is a lot more precise than abiogenesis. ID has a rigorously known possible mechanism, abiogenesis does not.
Abiogenesis can be very precise. ID is extremely vague. We have no clue as to the identity of this Designer, nor its exact mechanisms for creating RNA, other than "dump trucks" built by humans. (see above for explanation of analogy)

We've never seen abiogenesis happen in the laboratory, ever.
A lot of scientists who have studied these issues a lot more than you or me seem to disagree.

Examples:
* The Miller-Urey experiment demonstrating the plausibility of primordial soup, and
* Dr. Alexander Graham Cairns-Smith's theory of clay helping along the formation of DNA.

Science occasionally does give up on theories that don't produce results. Abiogenesis has consistently failed to find a mechanism to produce RNA, for instance. If abiogenesis retains global disciplinary failure as to finding any possible way it could have happened for another fifty years, should we still stick with it? Even when the serious obstacles remain present? Even when there is an alternative theory that predicts all this?
First of all, abiogenesis has not failed. As a model, it is still a heck of a lot more useful to science than shoving our knowledge under the carpet of Intelligent Design.

Remember also: ID is purely ontological in form. It is all made up in the mind. Abiogenesis has empirical evidence to back it up. Evidence such as those experiments I alluded to earlier, as well as others. Evidence in that we have seen RNA and DNA naturally develop and evolve within viruses. Evidence in research of other diseases.

Now, please answer this question of mine: Why are you so intent on having science stop in its tracks?

Dr Adequate

6th July 2006, 05:42 PM

Dr Adequate

6th July 2006, 05:50 PM

Since 1974.

HELLO?

"Incredible though Spiegelman's results were, an even bigger surprise lay in store. In 1974, Manfred Eigen and his colleagues also experimented with a chemical broth containing Qb replication enzyme and salts, and an energized form of the four bases that make up the building blocks of RNA. They tried varying the quantity of viral RNA initially added to the mixture. As the amount of input RNA was progressively reduced, the experimenters found that, with little competition, it enjoyed untrammeled exponential growth. Even a single RNA molecule added to the broth was enough to trigger a population explosion. But then something truly amazing was discovered. Replicating strands of RNA were still produced even when
not a single molecule of viral RNA was added! To return to my architectural analogy, it was rather like throwing a pile of bricks into a giant mixer and producing, if not a house, then at least a garage. At first Eigen found the results hard to believe, and checked to see whether accidental contamination had occurred. Soon the experimenters convinced themselves that they were witnessing for the first time the spontaneous synthesis of RNA strands from their basic building blocks.

Eos of the Eons

6th July 2006, 06:47 PM

HELLO, EARTH TO TISTHAMMERW, DO YOU HEAR US?

Not really. He wants you to hear him. Something may trickle into his reasoning, but not enough to convince him that the misinformation he has digested previously from creationist sites/sources of misinformation isn't steak, but straw. I will leave room for some hope that he reads your posts, and the other great ones here, and that will get him thinking. Thank you for all you've attempted already.

Afterall, it took me $20,000.00 in two years of education to understand that the creationist claim that evolution is just a claim about us coming from modern day monkeys is completely not the story of evolution.

athon

6th July 2006, 06:48 PM

Similarly, RNA may be able to self-replicate. But how did the original RNA "forefather" come about? How did we get from the initial primordial chemicals (e.g. no pre-existing RNA) to RNA? RNA is a macromolecule built from smaller molecular components.

You're also one of those people who love to still quote 'what came first, the chicken or the egg?', aren't you?

Well, what gave birth to the egg was not necessarily a chicken. Same with RNA. Chemical reactions can change and evolve. There is a selection process that goes on in any competing reaction; if two reactions occur, and one is more efficient than the other, the more efficient process will make more product.

So how did we get to RNA? Well, as has already been demonstrated again and again, RNA-like compounds occur naturally. Arriving at RNA itself has been demonstrated in a lab to be capable of occuring in natural conditions. RNA polymerisation can occur naturally. DNA is a further alteration to RNA. The replication of these polymers needs to run against an equilibrium, which requires chemical assistance. This assistance is efficiently achieved through enzymes, however simpler structures (most likley made from amino acids) could do the work, if a lot more slowly.

A major obstacle is that the processes that form these components are not chemically compatible. A chemist can create, purify and mix the components together under controlled conditions (thanks to laboratory equipment) but undirected chemical reactions fail to produce the desired product. An intelligent designer overcomes the obstacles that abiogenesis faces. That's why some scientists have called it the "prebiotic chemist's nightmare."

This is called 'the God of gaps'. I'm sure you've heard of it. It's been used throughout history to describe the undiscovered. Only, once it's discovered, it's no longer attributed to the 'mystery of God'.

Explain why you don't think you are committing the God of Gaps fallacy.

I admit the possibility that my info is outdated (that has apparently been the case with the hydrogen level on Earth) but I need evidence, since I have always believed this obstacle to be far more serious. Now, do we have a paper published in a peer-reviewed journal experimentally demonstrating a realistic scenario how abiogenesis could overcome the known obstacles while going from the starting chemicals (e.g. no pre-existing RNA) to RNA?

So far you have not done so, and the website you gave to me does not quite fit the bill here. Some guy's website may claim that RNA can arise prebiotically, but where are the experiments demonstrating this in a peer-reviewed scientific journal? So far, none.

WTF??? Look down the bottom. See that big list? They are called 'references'. Every statement he makes has a little number. That matches a reference, which describes where he gets his information from.

Jesus, are you in high school or something? That's not me being facetious; I'm seriously wondering now.

P.S. Here's something that may help explain the misunderstanding we had earlier regarding DNA and enzymes. In post #346, you said:

Originally Posted by athon:
You do realise [sic] that enzymes only facilitate a reaction that can occur spontaneously anyway?

Which is not quite true of course, because there is no known way for DNA to spontaneously self-replicate without the help of the appropriate enzymes. You never conceded you were mistaken in this matter, so I had erroneously believed you adhered to it.

*groan*

Ok, let's break this down.

DNA replication consists of nucleic acid monomers lining up with a complimentary monomer in a template strand and forming a complimentary polymer to that template. The forces that hold base to base are hydrogen bonding; this can occur spontaneously without the need for an enzyme. The ligation of the ribophospate backbone is also a chemical reaction that requires only proximity and the right energy.

So, where do enzymes come into it?

Base-pair matching exists in equilibrium. As free monomers briefly interact with a complimentary template monomer, they remain in position only for a short amount of time. And enzyme holds this free monomer in place long enough for another complimentary free monomer to join it, while reducing the energy required for ligation to occur between the two ribophosphates within the nucleic acid compounds.

Equilibrium and energy levels, therefore, prohibit effective replication. Stabilising compounds are required to prolong the process and reduce the energy required. These do not need to be enzymes, necessarily, although the exact, pre-enzymatic compounds which may have existed which could assist this role have yet to be determined. There are contenders (hence why there is a lot of argument that proteins preceded RNA polymers), however nothing has yet been demonstrated.

Yet being the key word.

Oh, BTW, nice touch with the 'sic' in my quote. Here, look up a dictionary and understand that there are variations in English spelling.

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/realise

You're making a habit of embarrassing yourself.

Athon

athon

6th July 2006, 07:00 PM

What the heck are you talking about?

It has been experimentally demonstrated. Frequently. Replicably. The results have been published in many peer-reviewed scientific journals. This is not a "just so story". It has happened many times while scientists watched.

HELLO, EARTH TO TISTHAMMERW, DO YOU HEAR US?

No, it's too inconvenient. His entire argument rests on the fact that he can't see the leap between naturally occuring chemical reactions and an amoeba.

He doesn't understand the blurred line of between prebiotic and biotic, nor does he grasp that RNA-like chemicals can occur naturally that perform the same as RNA. Nor can he see how RNA could replicate without the need for modern enzymes in their present, complex forms.

That's not a crime.

What is maddening is that he has been shown the information he seeks over and over, but refuses to even look at it. Because then, he would have to embarrassingly take another stance to support his position.

So, here's my question: What is wrong with the evidence (all from peer evaluated papers in respectable journals) presented?

Athon

Tisthammerw

6th July 2006, 07:42 PM

What the heck are you talking about?

It has been experimentally demonstrated. Frequently. Replicably. The results have been published in many peer-reviewed scientific journals.

Then why is it you continue refusing to give me even one specific example?

Please point to a specific example regarding an experiment demonstration (published in a peer-reviewed and reputable scientific journal) of a realistic scenario whereby undirected chemical reactions create RNA from the basic primordial chemicals.

Eos of the Eons

6th July 2006, 07:58 PM

So, here's my question: What is wrong with the evidence (all from peer evaluated papers in respectable journals) presented?

Athon
What is wrong with the evidence (all from peer evaluated papers in respectable journals) already presented?

athon

6th July 2006, 08:40 PM

Here's an interesting abstract I found:

Synthesis of RNA oligomers on heterogeneous templates. (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=retrieve&db=pubmed&list_uids=8538788&dopt=Abstract)

Basically explaining that in a prebiotic environment, there can be a series of steps that form templates for heterogeneous compounds.

Again, what made the chicken didn't need to be a chicken itself.

So, what's wrong with this paper, then? Hm? Nature is a rather good journal, so I hear.

Athon

Tisthammerw

6th July 2006, 09:20 PM

I am glad you asked this question!

The short answer: The study of biological diseases requires the most accurate, carefully assessed studies of biological systems. The process of evolution is such an ingrained part in the study of disease, today, that it is often taken for granted.

First of all, AIDs has long been known to have a high level of variability. The HIV virus has been known to evolve "spontaneously*", right in the scientist's microscope.

Fine, but intelligent design (as defined in post #142 (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=1636029&postcount=142) denies none of this. Remember, I'm not talking about ID versus evolution, my real beef is intelligent design versus abiogenesis.

If the Intelligent Design community had things their way, none of this helpful information would ever come out.

Why? The intelligent design community and even hardcore creationists accept microevolution.

First, this thread is about abiogenesis--not evolution.

Six of one, half-dozen of the other.
Abiogenesis is just one facet of evolutionary theory.

A number of evolutionists would disagree with you. Besides, one can reject abiogenesis and still accept the rest of evolution. Evolution of pre-existing life is one thing. The biochemical machinery is already there. But getting the biochemical machinery via undirected chemical reactions? That's another thing entirely.

How is this a straw man? Are you claiming that abiogenesis involves human labor to create life?

That's preposterous!....Modern science understands the process was gradual.

Okay, it looks like you're just not understanding what the word "spontaneous" means in the context of the definition. By "spontaneous" I mean "without the help of human labor" i.e. not contrived or manipulated by an outside agency (as a designer).

At the very least, I can easily argue that Science does not give up trying! Science, for example, will never stop studying how RNA could have developed

I agree, but the problem isn't merely that you think "science should never give up" it's "science should never give up on my theory" i.e. tenacity. Intelligent design predicts the existence of obstacles that we see for abiogenesis. I'm actually not saying we should give up on abiogenesis yet. I think it's prudent to give the current theory more time, but eventually if this global disciplinary failure continues (in finding any possible way abiogenesis could have happened) I think it's wise to switch to a theory that not only explains the existence of those obstacles but also predicts their existence.

For the moment--even if intelligent design shouldn't be immediately accepted yet--intelligent design seems to be the best explanation. It's more falsifiable, predicts the existence of obstacles that are problematic to abiogenesis, and has more of a known mechanism than abiogenesis. Pretty much the only reasons I've seen so far to favor abiogenesis are dubious non-empirical philosophical principles (e.g. an unidentified designer is "inherently unscientific").

Okay, you're such a smart fellow. You explain to me how your intelligent director overcame the problem.

One way it could have happened is using the same sort of processes scientists use. Chemists can create DNA and RNA through a process of creating, purifying, and mixing the components under controlled laboratory conditions. Unfortunately for abiogenesis, undirected chemical reactions of those components fail to produce the desired results.

However, the obstacles to getting RNA and DNA do constitute evidence.

Only in your mind. To scientists, it just means they have to work harder.

Then let them do so. But if after another half a century the obstacles continue to remain, what then? What if they continue for another hundred years? Or should we stick with your theory no matter what?

Also, didn't Dr. Adequate and others already provide links to the progress being made, already?

Self-replicating RNA has been observed in the laboratory, but we still have the problem of getting the original RNA molecule to begin with. Some scientists have called it "the prebiotic chemist's nightmare." I have requested a paper in a peer-reviewed scientific journal of a realistic scenario--verified by experimentation--of undirected chemical reactions creating RNA from the basic primordial chemicals. So far, no one here has done that and the obstacles remain.

I'll tell you what is premature: Claiming that the "failures" of abiogenesis MUST mean that life is the product of a higher intelligence.

I agree. It's not proof. But again, intelligent design predicts we'd find such obstacles. Still, perhaps we should wait a while, give another chance for abiogenesis to solve its problems. But if the obstacles continue, and there continues to be global disciplinary failure, what then? Or are you willing to stick to your favorite theory no matter what?

There are other theories, that do not involve an intelligence that can 'explain' the origins of life, that can equally be "proven" by such "failures": Lampert's Blob Theory, where sentience arrived spontaneously from bubbles in the fabric of the otherwise holistic universe

This just sounds like another variant of abiogenesis (recall the definition I’m using in #142 (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=1636029&postcount=142)).

The point is this: what makes abiogenesis better than intelligent design? One answer is that abiogenesis has a known mechanism (e.g. amino acids). One problem is when it comes to having a known mechanism, ID beats out abiogenesis. So this doesn't appear to be a good reason to favor abiogenesis over intelligent design.

Humans can also create beaches by sending dump trucks filled with sands to a chosen shoreline. That doesn't mean all of our beaches were created by a higher intelligence using little dump truck of their own.

True, but consider. Suppose criminal X is the only known cause for a certain set of fingerprints. Thus, a detective might conclude that criminal X is the cause of the fingerprints. Similarly, intelligent design has a known mechanism where abiogenesis does not. My question: so why favor abiogenesis over intelligent design? It has to be more than the existence of a possible mechanism, because intelligent design is superior in that regard. So there has to be something else. My guess? Tenacity and non-empirical philosophical principles. Intelligent design is not viewed as an inferior scientific theory but rather something akin to scientific heresy.

It makes empirically testable predictions. See post #142 (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=1636029&postcount=142) for a couple examples.

I saw those "examples". So far, those predictions are failing.

Then why is it we humans have found a mechanism for an intelligent designer to create RNA but not for abiogenesis?

So again, what evidence for abiogenesis makes it better than intelligent design?

Dr. Adequate already answered that.

So far all I've seen when it comes to empirical evidence is a known possible mechanism, but ID is superior to abiogenesis in that regard. So again, what evidence abiogenesis makes it better than intelligent design?

Not when it comes to getting RNA and DNA. When it comes to mechanisms, ID is a lot more precise than abiogenesis. ID has a rigorously known possible mechanism, abiogenesis does not.

Abiogenesis can be very precise. ID is extremely vague.

Please read the context of the quote. ID has a rigorously known possible mechanism, abiogenesis does not.

We've never seen abiogenesis happen in the laboratory, ever.

A lot of scientists who have studied these issues a lot more than you or me seem to disagree.

Really? Please give me one specific example of undirected chemical reactions creating life. (I am assuming you remember the definition of abiogenesis I am using in this thread.)

Examples:
* The Miller-Urey experiment demonstrating the plausibility of primordial soup

Got amino acids, but no life forms, DNA, or even proteins.

* Dr. Alexander Graham Cairns-Smith's theory of clay helping along the formation of DNA.

Nice theory, but no experimental evidence demonstrating undirected chemical reactions producing life in this way or any other. There have been no clay-based organisms found in fossils nor in the living world, nor has there been any experiment to create such organisms in the laboratory.

Science occasionally does give up on theories that don't produce results. Abiogenesis has consistently failed to find a mechanism to produce RNA, for instance. If abiogenesis retains global disciplinary failure as to finding any possible way it could have happened for another fifty years, should we still stick with it? Even when the serious obstacles remain present? Even when there is an alternative theory that predicts all this?

First of all, abiogenesis has not failed.

Really? (I assume you're still sticking to the context of the quote.) Please point me to a paper published in a peer-reviewed scientific journal of an experimental demonstration of a realistic scenario whereby undirected chemical reactions create RNA from the basic primordial chemicals.

Now, please answer this question of mine: Why are you so intent on having science stop in its tracks?

I'm not. (Note what I said above regarding tenacity and abiogenesis.)

Tisthammerw

6th July 2006, 09:53 PM

So how did we get to RNA? Well, as has already been demonstrated again and again, RNA-like compounds occur naturally. Arriving at RNA itself has been demonstrated in a lab to be capable of occuring in natural conditions.

If by natural you mean non-supernatural, then yes. RNA is built up of smaller molecular components. Scientists have been able to create RNA and DNA through a process of creating, purifying, and mixing the components under controlled laboratory conditions. But undirected chemical reactions of those components fail to create either RNA or DNA.

Please explain this quote to me from Darwin’s Black Box:

Gerald Joyce and Leslie Orgel-two scientists who have worked long and hard on the origin of life problem-call RNA "the prebiotic chemist's nightmare”

Now if Joyce and Orgel are an outdated source, can you provide a paper published in a peer-reviewed scientific journal of a realistic scenario--verified by experiment simulating the said scenario--of undirected chemical reactions forming RNA from the basic primordial chemicals?

Here's an interesting abstract I found:

Synthesis of RNA oligomers on heterogeneous templates. (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=retrieve&db=pubmed&list_uids=8538788&dopt=Abstract)

Basically explaining that in a prebiotic environment, there can be a series of steps that form templates for heterogeneous compounds.

Unfortunately, after reading the abstract myself, I see that it doesn't quite match what I asked for (see above).

A major obstacle is that the processes that form these components are not chemically compatible. A chemist can create, purify and mix the components together under controlled conditions (thanks to laboratory equipment) but undirected chemical reactions fail to produce the desired product. An intelligent designer overcomes the obstacles that abiogenesis faces. That's why some scientists have called it the "prebiotic chemist's nightmare."

This is called 'the God of gaps'. I'm sure you've heard of it....Explain why you don't think you are committing the God of Gaps fallacy.

For one, I'm not inferring a deity, just a designer.

Let me put this way. You tell me that the Rosetta Stone was artificially created. I accuse you of the "designer of the gaps" fallacy. You're using a designer to plug in a gap in the fabric of natural causation. Just because we haven't found a natural mechanism to create it doesn't mean we never will. How would you respond?

By calling it a fallacy to infer another theory, we're being on intellectually shaky ground. It's a bit risky calling any obstacles for abiogenesis reason for inferring design "god of the gaps" because then abiogenesis can never be falsified. A major chemical problem? Well that's okay, because any other theory that offers an explanation is using a "god of the gaps" fallacy--an alternate explanation filling in gaps abiogenesis can't fill yet.

The objection is just not very logical. If there are no gaps of natural causation, then appealing to design will get us off track. But if there are such gaps, failing to recognize them on principle will get us off track as well. We already know there are such gaps (e.g. the Rosetta Stone) so saying that appealing to design in biology is inherently a fallacy seems little more than special pleading.

I admit the possibility that my info is outdated (that has apparently been the case with the hydrogen level on Earth) but I need evidence, since I have always believed this obstacle to be far more serious. Now, do we have a paper published in a peer-reviewed journal experimentally demonstrating a realistic scenario how abiogenesis could overcome the known obstacles while going from the starting chemicals (e.g. no pre-existing RNA) to RNA?

So far you have not done so, and the website you gave to me does not quite fit the bill here. Some guy's website may claim that RNA can arise prebiotically, but where are the experiments demonstrating this in a peer-reviewed scientific journal? So far, none.

WTF??? Look down the bottom. See that big list? They are called 'references'.

Unless one of those references is to a published experiment of the sort I described, I see no reason for your "WTF" exclamation.

Oh, BTW, nice touch with the 'sic' in my quote. Here, look up a dictionary and understand that there are variations in English spelling.

I know that, but spelling "realize" as "realise" is uncommon where I live. There is no such variant in the Merriam-Webster Dictionary (http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/realize), for instance.

thaiboxerken

6th July 2006, 09:56 PM

For one, I'm not inferring a deity, just a designer.

Same thing.

Tisthammerw

6th July 2006, 09:57 PM

What is wrong with the evidence (all from peer evaluated papers in respectable journals) already presented?

Be specific: what evidence?

Again, so far the only empirical evidence I've found is that abiogenesis has a known possible mechanism (e.g. getting amino acids). But the success of this prediction (the existence of a possible mechanism) is extremely limited, and also when it comes to having a known possible mechanism ID beats out abiogenesis.

Tisthammerw

6th July 2006, 10:00 PM

For one, I'm not inferring a deity, just a designer.

Same thing.

If you found a stainless steel replica of Stonehenge on Mars, would you believe the designer to be a deity?

Obviously not. They are not the same thing.

thaiboxerken

6th July 2006, 10:01 PM

athon

7th July 2006, 12:22 AM

Tisthammerw

7th July 2006, 12:45 AM

If you found a stainless steel replica of Stonehenge on Mars, would you believe the designer to be a deity?

Obviously not. They are not the same thing.

In this case, they are because you're talking about origin of life and not stainless steal replica's of man-made objects.

A clarification: remember we're talking about the type of life we see on Earth.

Why must artificially creating life imply godhood? If we humans create a single-celled organism, would that make us deities? If ten thousand years from now we were to be responsible for a predestination paradox--planting life billions of years ago via time travel--would that make us deities?

Atheists would immediately reject this sort of argument (and rightfully so) if intelligent design were to become accepted by mainstream scientists. Atheists would quickly point to other logical possibilities, e.g. maybe the designer is a life form radically unlike our own, possessing a type of complexity that could arise naturally (we already know that some forms of complexity require a designer and others do not).

Darat

7th July 2006, 01:14 AM

Darat

7th July 2006, 01:30 AM

A clarification: remember we're talking about the type of life we see on Earth.

Why must artificially creating life imply godhood? If we humans create a single-celled organism, would that make us deities? If ten thousand years from now we were to be responsible for a predestination paradox--planting life billions of years ago via time travel--would that make us deities?

Atheists would immediately reject this sort of argument (and rightfully so) if intelligent design were to become accepted by mainstream scientists. Atheists would quickly point to other logical possibilities, e.g. maybe the designer is a life form radically unlike our own, possessing a type of complexity that could arise naturally (we already know that some forms of complexity require a designer and others do not).

And again you get back to "it's turtles all the way down", you've tried to side step this by trying to focus only on "life on Earth" but as soon as you widen it (as you have done in the above) we again see the primary logical fallacy of all ID "theories".

Mojo

7th July 2006, 01:32 AM

Please point to a specific example regarding an experiment demonstration (published in a peer-reviewed and reputable scientific journal) of a realistic scenario whereby undirected chemical reactions create RNA from the basic primordial chemicals.Please point to a specific example regarding an experimental demonstration (published in a peer-reviewed and reputable scientific journal) of a realistic scenario whereby life has been designed and created without the intervention of living (within the definition of life as it exists on Earth) scientists.

blutoski

7th July 2006, 01:43 AM

And again you get back to "it's turtles all the way down", you've tried to side step this by trying to focus only on "life on Earth" but as soon as you widen it (as you have done in the above) we again see the primary logical fallacy of all ID "theories".

Mm. This is relevant. Most serious work on abiogenesis in recent years has been under the umbrella of NASA. I'm thinking of the work of Joan Oro.

Also: the resurrected (in yet another thread) assertion that scientific recreation of abiogenesis in a lab supports ID by showing how intelligent designers could have created early life... three problems.

1) the experiments are designed to recreate the conditions on the sterile earth. if the designer followed the same method, he created an earth where life forms spontaneously. This *contradicts* ID theory.

2) Secondly, since the intention is to recreate original conditions, it is indistinguishable from a demonstration of what would happen in a natural (non-designed) environment. Ockham's razor tells us to cut out the unnecessary add-on, which in this case is a designer.

3) The whole premise is ridiculous. I like to use the CSI analogy when discussing historical sciences (geology, astronomy, evolutionary biology). If the detectives could reproduce the murder environment and hypothesized actions and are able to reproduce the results, it does not only prove that detectives could have murdered the victim. We have supported a hypothesis about the actual murder.

Mojo

7th July 2006, 02:52 AM

...when it comes to having a known possible mechanism ID beats out abiogenesis.No it doesn't. Your "mechanism" for ID requires the existence of a non-living (within the definition of life as it exists on Earth) intelligent designer. You have no evidence that it ever existed. You don't even have an idea of what your hypothetical designer might have been like.

Without a designer, you have no mechanism for ID.

wollery

7th July 2006, 03:02 AM

Mojo

7th July 2006, 03:13 AM

But it still requires a designer, and he hasn't provided any evidence whatsoever that one existed.

I don't think he does irony

athon

7th July 2006, 03:53 AM

Mojo, you're missing the beauty of Tisthammerw's version of ID. Because the design in his theory is limited to Earthly life he can have the designer evolve on another planet and then create life on Earth. It completely negates the argument that ID is creationism in disguise, because it doesn't require a creator, only a designer that evolved naturally.

Of course, he totally misses the stunning irony of his argument.

Here's the thing; let's propose that the 'intelligence' is an extra-terrestrial life form. By the logic of the argument Tis' proposes here, it would have to possess radically different biochemistry to ours, otherwise it is so blatantly turtle that it would be laughable. That biochemistry would have to be easily observed to have arisen from the planet's natural chemistry in a process of evolution. Thereby 'ID' is a terrestrial process, while abiogenesis of some sort must be possible somewhere in the universe.

It would still need to involve a complicated chemical process, only involve compounds which are significantly unlike those of our own biology. I know of no contenders for this, and it adds only a further complication.

Once contenders are found, I'll pay closer attention. Until then, the speculation is a dead end.

Athon

Darat

7th July 2006, 04:04 AM

...snip...

Once contenders are found, I'll pay closer attention. Until then, the speculation is a dead end.

Athon

Can't quite agree with that, after all speculation does have its place in science, however it is a dead-end as far as any possible verification (at least at the moment).

(Oh and a few great since fiction writers have used the speculation as a springboard for their work - Hal Clement and Robert L Forward spring to mind.)

athon

7th July 2006, 04:11 AM

Can't quite agree with that, after all speculation does have its place in science, however it is a dead-end as far as any possible verification (at least at the moment).

(Oh and a few great since fiction writers have used the speculation as a springboard for their work - Hal Clement and Robert L Forward spring to mind.)

Indeed, I have no problem with speculation. I'd even say it's essential for science to effective. But speculation is a short, dead end path unless it gets paved with something more substantial than airy musings.

Athon

steenkh

7th July 2006, 05:02 AM

steenkh

7th July 2006, 05:12 AM

But it still requires a designer, and he hasn't provided any evidence whatsoever that one existed.
His hypothesis assumes that one exists, and he proposes the designer could be an alien. Contrary to what some have said here, he does not assume that the alien has a radically different chemistry from ours. In fact, he does not hypothesize any attributes for the designer, except for intelligence, and extraterrestrial origin.

Accepted scientific theories sometimes do the same thing, like when the existence of "dark matter" is theorized. However, subsequently, all sorts of angles are explored in order to study this dark matter, and today we have quite a good grip on it, except that we still do not know its nature.

Tist has, in effect, put himself in the boat with the UFOlogists who believe that aliens exist, but who has never been able to produce a shred of evidence to support their theory.

Mojo

7th July 2006, 05:25 AM

His hypothesis assumes that one exists, and he proposes the designer could be an alien. Contrary to what some have said here, he does not assume that the alien has a radically different chemistry from ours. Actually, he does. His hypothesis is based on the proposition that our biochemistry is too complex to have arisen without intelligent intervention, but that the biochemistry of the "designer" is not too complex to have arisen spontaneously.

And his claim that ID has a better established mechanism than spontaneous abiogenesis (the actual topic of the thread) requires evidence that a designer existed. He doesn't have any.

steenkh

7th July 2006, 06:44 AM

Lamuella

7th July 2006, 07:04 AM

Lamuella

7th July 2006, 07:19 AM

Let me put this way. You tell me that the Rosetta Stone was artificially created. I accuse you of the "designer of the gaps" fallacy. You're using a designer to plug in a gap in the fabric of natural causation. Just because we haven't found a natural mechanism to create it doesn't mean we never will. How would you respond?

Easy:

1) I would show you an object similar to the Rosetta stone that was verifiably created by human beings, showing that people can create objects similar to this.
2) I would show you objects verifiably created by human beings that predated the Rosetta stone, showing that objects such as this were being created at the point where the Rosetta stone was being created.
3) I would show you the concordance between the writings on the Rosetta stone and known human alphabets, showing that the informational content of the Rosetta stone was human information
4) I would show you older human writings than the Rosetta stone, showing that the information in the Rosetta stone was information we already knew how to encode.

THus I would have show you not just evidence of design and evidence of information, but more importantly evidence of who the designer was and how the information was encoded.

We already know what human design looks like. Archaeologists are able to recognize it because they know how humans act and what humans do to things. What you are asking us to do is to recognize the design of a deliberately vague and undefined designer. That's not going to fly.

Tisthammerw

7th July 2006, 10:34 AM

If by natural you mean non-supernatural, then yes. RNA is built up of smaller molecular components. Scientists have been able to create RNA and DNA through a process of creating, purifying, and mixing the components under controlled laboratory conditions. But undirected chemical reactions of those components fail to create either RNA or DNA.

So, where are the goal-posts?

Again, a paper published in a peer-reviewed scientific journal of a realistic scenario--verified by experiment simulating the said scenario--of undirected chemical reactions forming RNA from the basic primordial chemicals.

I noticed in your last post you have put up (intentionally or unintentionally) red herrings. An example below:

Unfortunately, after reading the abstract myself, I see that it doesn't quite match what I asked for (see above).

No, I wouldn't imagine you would. Is it the lack of pretty pictures or the fact it isn't written in your local dialect that makes it a problem?

This kind of response insinuates that it did match what I asked for and I was just too dimwitted to see it. What did I ask for? A paper published in a peer-reviewed scientific journal of a realistic scenario--verified by experiment simulating the said scenario--of undirected chemical reactions forming RNA from the basic primordial chemicals. That simply wasn’t in the web page.

It demonstrates that you don't need RNA origins to produce RNA polymers. In other words, you could have a range of polymers of different types acting as templates. It presents a range of options that could form prebiotic replication.

The problem is, the web page didn't produce a rigorously detailed scenario of how abiogenesis could do this that was verified by experimental demonstration of the said scenario. Vague ideas of how abiogenesis could have produced the first RNA molecule are one thing (and even there the web page really didn't have much), actually putting where your mouth is via experimental demonstration is quite another.

For one, I'm not inferring a deity, just a designer.

It doesn't matter. We can call him Mr. X; you still have no evidence that it even exists.

Let's go back to our Rosetta Stone story, since I think it might explain where I'm coming from. I state, "You have no evidence that the designer exists."

Let me put this way. You tell me that the Rosetta Stone was artificially created. I accuse you of the "designer of the gaps" fallacy. You're using a designer to plug in a gap in the fabric of natural causation. Just because we haven't found a natural mechanism to create it doesn't mean we never will. How would you respond?

This is where you don't understand how science works, and it's blindingly obvious to all but yourself.

We have two propositions here; the artifact is a) a direct natural phenomena, or b) created via the behaviour of a seperate natural phenomena (i.e., intelligent intention). Using Occham's Razor, we have evidence supporting the latter, but not the former, therefore the latter is the more likely source of the artifact.

I say (playing devil’s advocate) you have no evidence whatsoever for this. You are instead merely using a "designer of the gaps" fallacy--plugging a hole in the fabric of natural causation.

There are no known non-intellegently crafted stone tablets.

There are no known ways of creating RNA or DNA outside of a living cell (apart from intelligent design). Beginning to see where I’m going?

Because of the tenacity for abiogenesis, for all practical purposes no evidence is good enough. Pointing out obstacles for abiogenesis? That’s okay, because even if they seem insurmountable to me and other scientists there is a way and we just haven’t discovered it yet—and thinking another theory’s mechanism is the answer is just using a “god of the gaps” fallacy.

We know that people who construct similar examples are known to have existed from other pieces of evidence, however.

This part doesn't matter much. Suppose for instance we found the same tablet on Mars, or suppose we found a stainless steel replica of Stonehenge on Mars--with no other evidence of anybody living there. Wouldn’t you still infer design?

If you infer design, I say you are using a "designer-of-the-gaps" fallacy. Presumably you would say there's "evidence" for a design inference here. Well, what is this evidence?

The only piece of 'evidence' you have is that you can't understand how we can go from a range of prebiotic chemicals to a replicating process.

No, it is the known obstacles that we've discovered for abiogenesis to get RNA and DNA (I already mentioned the chemical incompatibility problem). Even getting proteins is difficult for a primordial Earth (though not nearly as difficult as getting RNA and DNA). Joining each amino acid to get a protein requires removing a water molecule. Simultaneously, the presence of water powerfully impedes protein formation. How to get around this problem? One idea is that amino acids in the ocean washed up on a high-temperature surface, as the edge of a volcano. Experimentation has shown that heating amino acids produces brown goo, but evidently no proteins. One ID adherent likens the problem of abiogenesis to a groundhog crossing a thousand lane highway. The obstacle (the busy highway) is overwhelming.

By calling it a fallacy to infer another theory, we're being on intellectually shaky ground. It's a bit risky calling any obstacles for abiogenesis reason for inferring design "god of the gaps" because then abiogenesis can never be falsified. A major chemical problem? Well that's okay, because any other theory that offers an explanation is using a "god of the gaps" fallacy--an alternate explanation filling in gaps abiogenesis can't fill yet.

You don't understand what a theory is. That's already been said.

It's been said, but has it been explained? Please tell me how my definition of a theory is flawed. I suspect I know a good deal more about the philosophy of science than you do.

If a conjecture gains evidential support demonstrating how prebiotic processes achieved self-sustained replication, then it becomes robust. It might even become a theory, if it can be used to predict.

ID does not do this. It has no evidence at all. None. It has offered no predictions,

Hold on there. I pointed out a couple predictions in post #142 (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=1636029&postcount=142). You may think those confirmed empirical predictions do not constitute sufficient evidence, or that the second prediction has not been empirically confirmed enough (e.g. the obstacles aren’t “serious” enough) but please don't pretend they don't exist. Anti-ID adherents misconstruing the opposition is one of the reasons the debate is as unfruitful as it has been.

Again, what evidence does abiogenesis have that makes it better than intelligent design? So far all I've seen is that abiogenesis has a known possible mechanism (e.g. in getting amino acids). But (again) when it comes to having a known possible mechanism, ID beats out abiogenesis, i.e. we have a rigorously known means how a designer could create e.g. RNA and DNA, whereas abiogenesis does not.

and is unsupported by anything other than wishful thinking and naivity. Given a choice between a theory that continues to gain evidence, and a speculation that has nothing to support it other than a shrug of the shoulders, then I'll happily put my money on the former.

Me too, which is why I accept intelligent design. It predicts the existence of obstacles, and it provides a mechanism for e.g. RNA and DNA, whereas abiogenesis shrugs its shoulders.

Unless one of those references is to a published experiment of the sort I described, I see no reason for your "WTF" exclamation.

You claimed "Some guy's website may claim that RNA can arise prebiotically, but where are the experiments demonstrating this in a peer-reviewed scientific journal?". I responded. He indeed claims that RNA could arise prebiotically, and his conjecture is supported by peer reviewed references.

You just did not look very hard.

Here's the second red herring. Here you insinuate that one of the references does point to a published experiment of the sort I described, and that I "just did not look very hard." The reality I suspect is that there is no such reference pointing to the sort of experiment I described. What is this experiment I described? A paper published in a peer-reviewed scientific journal of a realistic scenario--verified by experiment simulating the said scenario--of undirected chemical reactions forming RNA from the basic primordial chemicals. You haven’t provided me with this.

Tisthammerw

7th July 2006, 10:52 AM

This is beginning to get a little annoying. I have repeatedly described a conceivable observation that would falsify intelligent design (reminder: intelligent design is the theory that intelligent causes are needed to create the kind of life we see on Earth) and yet people in this thread still continue the “intelligent design is not falsifiable” objection. But perhaps you haven’t been a “long-time” member of this thread and simply missed it. I'll quote from the post:

And there you have it, a conceivable observation that would falsify intelligent design! Experimentally demonstrate that artificial intervention is not necessary, and the theory is disproved. It's about as close as we can get to falsification in science.

That would not "falsify" ID, all if would do is lend more evidence to a hypothesis that states life has a non-interventionist origin.

This is getting frustrating. If you are not doing this on purpose, and if your behavior is typical of mainstream scientists, I am beginning to see how scientists reject the form of intelligent design theory I presented: they completely miss what's happening.

I see when you quoted me you left out the very important details, i.e. the definition of intelligent design and the experiment that would falsify it. I'll try this again:

Intelligent design: the theory that intelligent causes are necessary for the creation of the type of life we see on Earth.

Again, please remember that definition. It is very important. This theory states that intelligent causes are necessary, so that if we show that intelligent causes are not necessary, we will have disproved the theory. Are you with me so far? (Please answer this question, since you seemed to have missed this very important detail.)

Now, here's an experiment that would falsify the design hypothesis: simply demonstrate a means (via experiment) how undirected chemical reactions could create life without artificial intervention (e.g. setting up a plausible and realistic starting point--as conditions resembling the early Earth--then step back and watch what happens). This would show that intelligent causes are not necessary, and would thus falsify the theory that "intelligent causes are necessary."

A clarification: remember we're talking about the type of life we see on Earth.

Why must artificially creating life imply godhood? If we humans create a single-celled organism, would that make us deities? If ten thousand years from now we were to be responsible for a predestination paradox--planting life billions of years ago via time travel--would that make us deities?

Atheists would immediately reject this sort of argument (and rightfully so) if intelligent design were to become accepted by mainstream scientists. Atheists would quickly point to other logical possibilities, e.g. maybe the designer is a life form radically unlike our own, possessing a type of complexity that could arise naturally (we already know that some forms of complexity require a designer and others do not).

And again you get back to "it's turtles all the way down", you've tried to side step this by trying to focus only on "life on Earth" but as soon as you widen it (as you have done in the above) we again see the primary logical fallacy of all ID "theories".

I'm afraid I'm not sure what this turtles metaphor is. Could you explain it? (I suspect--from previous posts in this thread--it's about the infinite regression of designers, but I'm uncertain. If so, please remember the counterexample I proposed demonstrating that the ID theory would not imply such a regression.) And just what "primary logical fallacy" of this ID theory are you talking about?

Tisthammerw

7th July 2006, 11:02 AM

Suppose Dembski is a crazy irrational bastard. It's not relevant to the point I was making: that the definition of "intelligent design" I use in this thread isn't far off the mark.

But your definition is quite off the mark versus people like Dembski: You omit the little word "development" from his definition! Dembski is setting up ID against evolution, but you are only targetting abiogenesis!

Well, yes. I did limit the scope to abiogenesis. So? I'm still using the bread-and-butter "fundamental claim" of intelligent design he mentioned.

This sets your "Intelligent Design" quite apart from all other "Intelligent Designs", and it might be a good idea to find another name for your hypothesis than ID.

It isn't that apart since pretty much all I did was take the same basic principle shared by mainstream ID adherents (that intelligent causes are necessary) and limit it to a particular biological origins (the first sort of life wee on Earth).

What about "Intelligent Synthesis"?

Evolution has a wide variety of variations--some very different from each other--that still fit within the umbrella of evolution. Since all I did was take the same principle and apply it to a particular origins biology subject, I think "intelligent design" will do for now.

Your hypothesis seem to have a definition that is made specifically in order to be falsifiable, but it might not necessarily be so. In reality, you are just hypothesing that aliens made have created us (although you probably do not exclude gods), and in order to make it falsifiable, you formulate it so that it necessarily has to be so.

Not only that, but it's now able to make predictions. So what if I formulate it in such a way that is falsifiable and empirically testable? It seems to me that's the way to go if I'm to desire a scientific theory.

True, I could come up with other variations of intelligent design that are not falsifiable and make no predictions (same with abiogenesis and evolution), but these don't seem to be of much use.

If somebody actually pulls out a peer-reviewed journal that shows that abiogenesis can be simulated in the lab, would you consider your alien hypothesis busted?

If you're referring to the theory I described in post #142 (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=1636029&postcount=142), then yes. I would consider it busted.

And if the said experiment has initial conditions that evidently match those of the early Earth, I would concede that abiogenesis is most likely true.

Why? I am not a fundamentalist Christian, or a Biblical literalist. But is seems highly implausible to me that the sort of complexity we see on Earth-bound life forms could be formed via undirected natural processes. We're talking about incredibly vast organized complexity of high density digital information storage memory banks and decoding systems, complex mechanisms to duplicate that data with error-correcting mechanisms, automatic regulation of assembling components etc. Even if the materials are different, the system seems very machine-like in the type of complexity it has. Accepting abiogenesis to me is like someone saying that undirected natural processes could create an automobile. I'm not going to believe it until I have some hard evidence (e.g. an experimentally demonstrated means how natural processes could possibly create it). And when you throw in the known barriers we've discovered, well, hopefully you can see my point of view.

Lamuella

7th July 2006, 11:02 AM

Again, a paper published in a peer-reviewed scientific journal of a realistic scenario--verified by experiment simulating the said scenario--of undirected chemical reactions forming RNA from the basic primordial chemicals.

That's a little bit like an evolution denier saying he won't accept evolution unless someone shows him an amoeba becoming an elephant in one generation.

Several people have recommended that you read The Fifth Miracle by Paul Davies. You should do so. Dr Adequate quoted from it before and I will do so again now:

"Incredible though Spiegelman's results were, an even bigger surprise lay in store. In 1974, Manfred Eigen and his colleagues also experimented with a chemical broth containing Qb replication enzyme and salts, and an energized form of the four bases that make up the building blocks of RNA. They tried varying the quantity of viral RNA initially added to the mixture. As the amount of input RNA was progressively reduced, the experimenters found that, with little competition, it enjoyed untrammeled exponential growth. Even a single RNA molecule added to the broth was enough to trigger a population explosion. But then something truly amazing was discovered. Replicating strands of RNA were still produced even when not a single molecule of viral RNA was added! To return to my architectural analogy, it was rather like throwing a pile of bricks into a giant mixer and producing, if not a house, then at least a garage. At first Eigen found the results hard to believe, and checked to see whether accidental contamination had occurred. Soon the experimenters convinced themselves that they were witnessing for the first time the spontaneous synthesis of RNA strands from their basic building blocks.

Dr Adequate

7th July 2006, 12:15 PM

Then why is it you continue refusing to give me even one specific example?

Please point to a specific example regarding an experiment demonstration (published in a peer-reviewed and reputable scientific journal) of a realistic scenario whereby undirected chemical reactions create RNA from the basic primordial chemicals. On the nature of spontaneous RNA synthesis by Q beta replicase (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=1719219)

Images of evolution: origin of spontaneous RNA replication waves (http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/picrender.fcgi?artid=46472&blobtype=pdf)

Template-free RNA synthesis by Q beta replicase (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=2422560)

Product analysis of RNA generated de novo by Q beta replicase (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=7310872)

Kinetic analysis of template-instructed and de novo RNA synthesis by Q beta replicase (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=6273581)

Do you have some horrible handicap that prevents you from using google, or are you just a lazy twat who thinks that other people should do his homework for him?

Dr Adequate

7th July 2006, 12:22 PM

There are no known ways of creating RNA or DNA outside of a living cell (apart from intelligent design). Beginning to see where I’m going? Yes.

You are repeatedly lying in the face of the evidence you've been presented with.

I see where you're going.

You're going to tell lies all your life rather than face the truth.

No, it is the known obstacles that we've discovered for abiogenesis to get RNA and DNA. Which has been observed again and again in the laboratory.

We've told you this.

STOP LYING TO US

Me too, which is why I accept intelligent design. It predicts the existence of obstacles, and it provides a mechanism for e.g. RNA and DNAPlease describe this "mechanism".

... whereas abiogenesis shrugs its shoulders. If you could stop lying for a moment, that sentence should finish "... whereas abiogenesis has been demonstrated again and again in the lab".

A paper published in a peer-reviewed scientific journal of a realistic scenario--verified by experiment simulating the said scenario--of undirected chemical reactions forming RNA from the basic primordial chemicals. You haven’t provided me with this. No, dear me, we just told you who performed the experiment, and when, and what it involved --- and you were either too lazy or too afraid of the truth to do your own homework.

CFLarsen

7th July 2006, 12:26 PM

This is getting frustrating. If you are not doing this on purpose, and if your behavior is typical of mainstream scientists, I am beginning to see how scientists reject the form of intelligent design theory I presented: they completely miss what's happening.

If nobody else gets what you are saying, do you think it could be your fault?

Tisthammerw

7th July 2006, 12:27 PM

In the philosophy of science, the term "scientific theory" has a broader meaning than the old hypothesis->theory->law view; and the "scientific theory" status also more independent of human actions and beliefs (a form of conceptual objectivism, so to speak) than you seem to believe. A couple of examples: the caloric theory of heat still fits the category of being a "scientific" theory even though it is one that is now rejected, discredited, and has little (if any) evidence to support it. Also, the theory of evolution was a scientific theory even before Darwin collected his observations and published his famous book.

The belief that a theory is scientific only if it has lots and lots of experimentally verified evidence behind it and is accepted by most scientists is not quite correct.

I really don't see what you're arguing with that reference to the caloric theory of heat.

My point (as I said earlier) is that the belief that a theory is scientific only if it has lots and lots of experimentally verified evidence behind it and is accepted by most scientists is not quite correct.

Intelligent design seems to fit the profile of a scientific theory. Among other things, it is falsifiable, it makes empirically testable predictions, and it has to do with a relevant matter in biology (the origin of life on Earth). The fact (if it were so) that intelligent design is not buttressed by a wealth of experimental evidence does not change the fact that the theory falls into the category of "scientific." The caloric theory of heat does not have evidence, but is still a scientific theory.

By the way, when you talk about "the theory of evolution", which of the several conflicting descriptions of the origin of species coined in the nineteenth century are you referring to? Darwin was the first scientist to postulate a theory of descent by reproduction, variation, and selection.

I don't think Darwin was the first one (IIRC his grandfather also adhered to such a theory) but for the moment let's pretend he was. Darwin's theory of evolution fits the category of being a scientific theory long before it became popular. As I mentioned earlier, whether a theory is a "scientific" theory is independent of human behavior and accomplishments (a sort of conceptual objectivism, you might say). Darwin's theory is still empirically testable in some suitable way, it covers a relevant area of biology etc.

Let me put this way. You tell me that the Rosetta Stone was artificially created. I accuse you of the "designer of the gaps" fallacy. You're using a designer to plug in a gap in the fabric of natural causation. Just because we haven't found a natural mechanism to create it doesn't mean we never will. How would you respond?

Easy:

1) I would show you an object similar to the Rosetta stone that was verifiably created by human beings, showing that people can create objects similar to this.

But we have also shown that designers can create RNA and DNA. We know that designers can create molecules exactly of this sort, but we haven’t seen the same for abiogenesis (but there’s that good old optimism that abiogenesis will eventually find a means).

2) I would show you objects verifiably created by human beings that predated the Rosetta stone, showing that objects such as this were being created at the point where the Rosetta stone was being created.

A number of problems: how would you know that these other objects were also created? I could bring up the "god of the gaps" objection there also.

Additionally, a number of these responses don't apply at all to other scenarios in which design would be a rational inference.

We already know what human design looks like. Archaeologists are able to recognize it because they know how humans act and what humans do to things. What you are asking us to do is to recognize the design of a deliberately vague and undefined designer. That's not going to fly.

Really? Then let's try this hypothetical scenario.

Suppose for instance 16th century people found an automobile, similar in technological level to a 1991 Dodge Intrepid. They have no idea how it got there, whether it be by aliens or otherwise. They've never seen anything quite like it, and humans weren't able to reproduce one until centuries later. Would it be rational for the 16th century people to infer design? Would it be rational for us 21st century people to infer design now that the "design" theory has a known possible mechanism to work with?

If you were to infer design, how would you respond to my "designer of the gaps" objection? If you claim there would be evidence for design here, what exactly would this evidence be?

That's a little bit like an evolution denier saying he won't accept evolution unless someone shows him an amoeba becoming an elephant in one generation.

In this thread, I never said evolution was false.

Again, a paper published in a peer-reviewed scientific journal of a realistic scenario--verified by experiment simulating the said scenario--of undirected chemical reactions forming RNA from the basic primordial chemicals.

….

Several people have recommended that you read The Fifth Miracle by Paul Davies. You should do so. Dr Adequate quoted from it before and I will do so again now:

This scenario doesn't match what I've described. They created the broth under controlled laboratory conditions and started with RNA to begin with. It wasn't an instance of starting with the basic primordial chemicals and keeping one's hands off. For crying out loud they introduced the Qb replication enzyme as part of their initial conditions!

Tisthammerw

7th July 2006, 12:33 PM

Eigen

What's wrong with you, can't you read?

Images of evolution: origin of spontaneous RNA replication waves (http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=46472)

Template-free RNA synthesis by Q beta replicase (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=2422560)

I can read. Can you? I asked you for a specific paper in a peer-reviewed scientific journal that matches my description (so I only checked the last link--let's do this one at a time). The latter link does not contain the type of experiment I described, i.e. basic primordial chemicals (and enzymes are not one of them) via undirected chemical reactions producing RNA.

Me too, which is why I accept intelligent design. It predicts the existence of obstacles, and it provides a mechanism for e.g. RNA and DNA

Please describe this "mechanism".

I have: it's the same one human scientists use (with the help of laboratory equipment) to create RNA. That is a means an intelligent designer could create RNA.

Dr Adequate

7th July 2006, 12:38 PM

I can read. Can you? I asked you for a specific paper in a peer-reviewed scientific journal that matches my description They do.

The latter link does not contain the type of experiment I described, i.e. basic primordial chemicals (and enzymes are not one of them) :dl:

via undirected chemical reactions producing RNA. Done. The reactions are not "directed".

Dr Adequate

7th July 2006, 12:45 PM

I have: it's the same one human scientists use (with the help of laboratory equipment) to create RNA. That is a means an intelligent designer could create RNA. Explain where the intelligent designer came from.

Was he alive? How did he come about?

Abiogenesis? Intelligent design?

Oh, and when you say "the same one human scientists use ... to create RNA", do you mean he just mixed up some amino acids and Q b replicase and stood well back?

In what way would that be "intelligent design"?

Lamuella

7th July 2006, 12:52 PM

My point (as I said earlier) is that the belief that a theory is scientific only if it has lots and lots of experimentally verified evidence behind it and is accepted by most scientists is not quite correct.

Intelligent design seems to fit the profile of a scientific theory. Among other things, it is falsifiable, it makes empirically testable predictions, and it has to do with a relevant matter in biology (the origin of life on Earth). The fact (if it were so) that intelligent design is not buttressed by a wealth of experimental evidence does not change the fact that the theory falls into the category of "scientific." The caloric theory of heat does not have evidence, but is still a scientific theory.

so you're saying it's possible for something to be a scientific theory and to be both entirely incorrect and provably wrong?

You really don't have a clue what a theory is, do you?

Dr Adequate

7th July 2006, 01:12 PM

Yes, but there is no realistic scenario whereby undirected chemical reactions can create RNA. Wrong.

If you think undirected chemical reactions create RNA, we have an argument. There is no experiment to demonstrate this.Wrong.

There are not any chemical reactions known to exist in nature that can create life from non-life without artificial intervention. Wrong.

Amino acids? Sure, but not RNA and not DNA. There is no known set of chemical reactions that constitutes a realistic scenario for undirected chemical processes to create them.Wrong.

Which has relevance to...what? Remember, my claim is that there does not exist a known mechanism for abiogenesis to create RNA. Wrong.

Some guy's website may claim that RNA can arise prebiotically, but where are the experiments demonstrating this in a peer-reviewed scientific journal? So far, none. Wrong.

So now let's watch him move the goalpoasts.

Ashles

7th July 2006, 01:13 PM

Oh my goodness, this really is getting ludicrous isn't it.

Tisthammerw is creating his own definition of ID which is ridiculous, closing his eyes and going "Lalalala I can't hear you" when presented with the evidence he asks for, then displays that he can't even create an example of a falsifiable scenario.

Let's make this simple.

Tisthammerw, ID involves, by its very definition, the involvement of a 'designer' outside the realm of science. Thus it is unscientific.
Unless you can scientifically explain a 'designer' who created life without naturally coming into existence themselves.

If you have a different definition of ID (as you appear to) then it is not ID you are talking about. You may call it something else but not ID as you are not referring to ID any more than you are referring to a highlighter pen.

Lamuella

7th July 2006, 01:14 PM

In this thread, I never said evolution was false.

*sigh* please learn how analogies work.

you asking for an experiment that shows a spontaneous and abrupt leap from "primordial chemicals" to RNA.

This is analagous to an evolution-denier asking for evidence of a spontaneous and abrupt leap from single celled life to gorillas.

You are looking for evidence that something that happened spontaneously and gradually happened spontaneously and abruptly abruptly. Manfred Eigen demonstrated that RNA can form spontaneously from less sophisticated building blocks. Urey and Miller showed that proteins and amino acids can form from much simpler chemicals in environments that simulate primordial Earth. At each stage, science has shown that more complicated organic forms can come about from less complicated origins.. The thing is, though, it happens over long periods of time and in very large volumes of matter the first replicators had the whole of the planet to work with. That's a lot of molecules, a lot of mass. In addition, they had millions of years when conditions on the planet did not change very much or very fast. In all probability the change from inorganic molecules to organic molecules to amino acids to proteins to higher organic structures happened very very slowly. You're asking researchers to reproduce these millions of years anduntold amounts of mass in laboratories, and then crowing about the failure of abiogenesis when they are able to show only parts of the larger scenario.

In the meantime, what important research into the origins of life is the Intelligent Design movement doing? Where are the Discovery Institute's labs?

Lamuella

7th July 2006, 01:19 PM

OK, let's try a different tack.

tist, can you put together an example of an experiment intelligent design advocates could perform that would provide evidence for intelligent design? Don't leave the pro-abiogenesis scientists to do all your running for you. The burden of proof is on your theory. How are you going to prove that life was designed?

I could easily prove that the rosetta stone was or could have been designed by making another one. I could provide evidence towards who designed it by examining the stone and drawing conclusions about the tools used to make it and the information encoded within it.

How are you going to provide evidence that life was designed? Design a test, perform it, and publish your results, please.

athon

7th July 2006, 06:35 PM

Again, a paper published in a peer-reviewed scientific journal of a realistic scenario--verified by experiment simulating the said scenario--of undirected chemical reactions forming RNA from the basic primordial chemicals.

This is where you're being dishonest, blind or plain lying. Personally, I was originally tempted to think your ignorance was the result of never having done an inch of biochem' in your life and you might have problems understanding the basics. Now, while I still think you don't understand the basics, it's apparent you're making no effort to even begin to understand.

The family of compounds that RNA belongs to exists naturally in nature. You can go out and find them; we know they are of non-biological origin, because they are different to the nucleic acids living things use. The compounds which make up RNA exist in nature, including a whole range of bases.

The process leading precisely to RNA synthesis in nature is undescribed, however there are possible scenarios described in that article. Demanding that this is replicated without altering variables in a laboratory in a convenient time frame is where you don't understand how science operates.

This kind of response insinuates that it did match what I asked for and I was just too dimwitted to see it.

Well spotted. If the shoe fits...

What did I ask for? A paper published in a peer-reviewed scientific journal of a realistic scenario--verified by experiment simulating the said scenario--of undirected chemical reactions forming RNA from the basic primordial chemicals. That simply wasn’t in the web page.

It proposed a potential scenario of RNA selection with experimental references, that is true. Dr. A has already posted other experiments which also demonstrate how RNA synthesis can occur in vitro. The exact experiment you are looking for does not exist and is unlikely to ever exist because that's not how science works. It is an inefficient way to answer the question.

Your entire argument at this point breaks down to one, single conjecture; RNA is too complex to have arisen in nature without intelligent design. Other nucleic acids similar to RNA have been demonstrated to exist in nature, some more complicated than RNA. How they form, we're not sure at this stage. But they exist. And they aren't biological, therefore aren't created by any alleged 'intelligence'.

Something closer to RNA itself might exist, however cannot be demonstrated on account of two things; 1), anything found in nature could be biological in origin, and 2) RNA polymerase is one of the most stable enzymes known and pretty much chews up any RNA polymer on site.

The problem is, the web page didn't produce a rigorously detailed scenario of how abiogenesis could do this that was verified by experimental demonstration of the said scenario. Vague ideas of how abiogenesis could have produced the first RNA molecule are one thing (and even there the web page really didn't have much), actually putting where your mouth is via experimental demonstration is quite another.

You've made it very obvious that you either didn't read it, didn't understand it, or decided against even considering what it was saying. That demonstrates you have no wish to look at any alternative argument. Why are you here if that's the case?

Let's go back to our Rosetta Stone story, since I think it might explain where I'm coming from. I state, "You have no evidence that the designer exists."

I say (playing devil’s advocate) you have no evidence whatsoever for this. You are instead merely using a "designer of the gaps" fallacy--plugging a hole in the fabric of natural causation.

There are no known ways of creating RNA or DNA outside of a living cell (apart from intelligent design). Beginning to see where I’m going?

Because of the tenacity for abiogenesis, for all practical purposes no evidence is good enough. Pointing out obstacles for abiogenesis? That’s okay, because even if they seem insurmountable to me and other scientists there is a way and we just haven’t discovered it yet—and thinking another theory’s mechanism is the answer is just using a “god of the gaps” fallacy.

Forget the Rosetta Stone analogy. It doesn't work. We have ample evidence of an intelligence that could have created it. There is no evidence of an intellignece that could have designed DNA.

This part doesn't matter much. Suppose for instance we found the same tablet on Mars, or suppose we found a stainless steel replica of Stonehenge on Mars--with no other evidence of anybody living there. Wouldn’t you still infer design?

You did not read my reasoning. There is no known natural phenomena that creates such patterning as those as on the Rosetta Stone. Neither is there one for arranging stones in a pattern per 'Stone Henge'.

There are natural phenomena which create organic compounds, and nucleic acids. We know that because we find them in nature, and many of them can be created in the laboratory.

If you infer design, I say you are using a "designer-of-the-gaps" fallacy. Presumably you would say there's "evidence" for a design inference here. Well, what is this evidence?

Archaeology. A whole motherload of artifacts which can be linked to modern and ancient intelligences.

You do not have that for your intelligence. Produce it or drop the analogy, because it's been shot to pieces.

No, it is the known obstacles that we've discovered for abiogenesis to get RNA and DNA (I already mentioned the chemical incompatibility problem). Even getting proteins is difficult for a primordial Earth (though not nearly as difficult as getting RNA and DNA). Joining each amino acid to get a protein requires removing a water molecule. Simultaneously, the presence of water powerfully impedes protein formation. How to get around this problem? One idea is that amino acids in the ocean washed up on a high-temperature surface, as the edge of a volcano. Experimentation has shown that heating amino acids produces brown goo, but evidently no proteins. One ID adherent likens the problem of abiogenesis to a groundhog crossing a thousand lane highway. The obstacle (the busy highway) is overwhelming.

Are all your texts that old?

Experiments have come a long way in past decades, you know. It's already been shown that this is less of an issue that previously thought, and relies on ionic concentrations in the solution.

The combination of salt induced peptide formation reaction and clay catalysis: a way to higher peptides under primitive earth conditions.
(http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=10465717&dopt=Citation)

If I referred to stone age text books, I guess I could also argue against plate tectonics being real.

It's been said, but has it been explained? Please tell me how my definition of a theory is flawed. I suspect I know a good deal more about the philosophy of science than you do.

No. It's obvious you don't. Very obvious. I still have my ten cents on you being a high school student who has found an old text book and now feels they can play scientist. Fortunately, a lot of my students know a theory from a conjecture. Which you clearly do not.

A theory requires substantial evidence to support it. It requires the insinuation of a mechanism, and to be considered robust needs to predict phenomena. ID has none of those things. And your simply saying so does not make it true, no matter how much you repeat it.

Hold on there. I pointed out a couple predictions in post #142 (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=1636029&postcount=142). You may think those confirmed empirical predictions do not constitute sufficient evidence, or that the second prediction has not been empirically confirmed enough (e.g. the obstacles aren’t “serious” enough) but please don't pretend they don't exist. Anti-ID adherents misconstruing the opposition is one of the reasons the debate is as unfruitful as it has been.

Are you you serious? They are not predictions. 'We will never find A' can contribute nothing to making a speculation into a theory.

I lost my puppy when I was a kid. I think a dinosaur ate it. If a dinosaur did eat it, I'll never find it again. Therefore, for as long as I don't find my puppy, a dinosaur could have eaten it.

See the ludicrous application of predicting a negative?

My god, I can't believe you still hold onto that as support for your theory. A prediction needs to come true, hence a prediction of the negative cannot be used as support.

As for the second, it is the same line of reasoning. It is not a valid prediction.

Again, what evidence does abiogenesis have that makes it better than intelligent design? So far all I've seen is that abiogenesis has a known possible mechanism (e.g. in getting amino acids). But (again) when it comes to having a known possible mechanism, ID beats out abiogenesis, i.e. we have a rigorously known means how a designer could create e.g. RNA and DNA, whereas abiogenesis does not.

Same track. It's been addressed. Move on.

Me too, which is why I accept intelligent design. It predicts the existence of obstacles, and it provides a mechanism for e.g. RNA and DNA, whereas abiogenesis shrugs its shoulders.

Eleven pages of rambling, and you still cover the same nonsense, sticking your fingers in your ears and whispering to yourself 'it's true, it's true' does not constitute science.

Here's the second red herring. Here you insinuate that one of the references does point to a published experiment of the sort I described, and that I "just did not look very hard." The reality I suspect is that there is no such reference pointing to the sort of experiment I described. What is this experiment I described? A paper published in a peer-reviewed scientific journal of a realistic scenario--verified by experiment simulating the said scenario--of undirected chemical reactions forming RNA from the basic primordial chemicals. You haven’t provided me with this.

I assumed you might have some idea on how science works. That you could read experimental results and see their application.

I was obviously wrong and will endeavour to explain it in simpler terms in the future. My apologies for making that mistake.

Athon

Wowbagger

7th July 2006, 06:49 PM

Why? The intelligent design community and even hardcore creationists accept microevolution.
That's funny. A lot of hardcore creationists don't. Michael Behe for one, at least his "Black Box" book doesn't. But, perhaps you are not in that company? Well, that's a start.

Besides, one can reject abiogenesis and still accept the rest of evolution. Evolution of pre-existing life is one thing. The biochemical machinery is already there. But getting the biochemical machinery via undirected chemical reactions? That's another thing entirely.
It is true that undirected development of bio. machinery is "another thing". But, to reject that idea and still accept the rest of evolution is not being a scientist.

As a human, you are allowed to hold any personal beliefs you want. But, unless your beliefs are backed up by empirical evidence, you can not call it science. Such ideas would only be philosophical.

Now, if you are going to claim that your thoughts that ID is superior are only philosophical in nature, I won't argue any more. However, if you claim it is scientifically superior, then we'll never end this fight, until you accept the principals of science, which means dropping the Designer ideal.
Because, I will tell you right now, scientists will not accept that idea, (not unless someone happens to find real evidence to support it, which seems rather unlikely).

Intelligent Design is a purely ontological idea. It is formulated entirely in the mind. I think you will agree we can't find any evidence of the Designer: no identity, no means to create life described, no street address, no fax number, no nothing.

Supporting ID is like sweeping the problem under the rug. It does not solve the issues. It merely pretends they are not there. It is an utter dismissal of the scientific process. That is one reason why scientists do not accept the argument.

When scientists develop experiments and theorize how RNA and other biochemical components could arise from non-organic material, they are building models that are useful to scientists. Even if some flaws are discovered in those models, at least they are discovered via empirical evidence: not just a bunch of philosophers 'round a table.

Remember, all models are inaccurate. Some are merely more useful than others.

Abiogenesis is superior, because it provides the most scientifically useful model.

On the other hand, when someone claims "God did it", how is that useful?

Anyway, if it is experimental evidence you are looking for, I suggest you examine Dr. Adequate's post #436 (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=1752697&postcount=436) very carefully. His examples are better than my own, at the moment.

Okay, it looks like you're just not understanding what the word "spontaneous" means in the context of the definition. By "spontaneous" I mean "without the help of human labor" i.e. not contrived or manipulated by an outside agency (as a designer).
Ah, well. Looks like I've actually underestimated at least one small aspect of your brain, for once. Your abiogenesis may not have been the straw I thought it was.

I agree, but the problem isn't merely that you think "science should never give up" it's "science should never give up on my theory" i.e. tenacity. Intelligent design predicts the existence of obstacles that we see for abiogenesis. I'm actually not saying we should give up on abiogenesis yet. I think it's prudent to give the current theory more time, but eventually if this global disciplinary failure continues (in finding any possible way abiogenesis could have happened) I think it's wise to switch to a theory that not only explains the existence of those obstacles but also predicts their existence.
We can almost agree on this. Except, I predict we'll never have to stoop to the level of ID. Science is already finding methods of undirected abiogenesis. The idea is hardly a failure.

This just sounds like another variant of abiogenesis (recall the definition I’m using in #142 (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=1636029&postcount=142)).
Actually, the purely philosophical idea of Blob "Theory" indicates RNA and DNA are merely illusions. But, I won't get into it. It's not science. Just another idea that works off of the same "failures" that fuel ID. (It makes the same predictions as your ID, but, without an Intelligence involved.)

My question: so why favor abiogenesis over intelligent design? It has to be more than the existence of a possible mechanism, because intelligent design is superior in that regard. So there has to be something else. My guess? Tenacity and non-empirical philosophical principles. Intelligent design is not viewed as an inferior scientific theory but rather something akin to scientific heresy.
Emphasis mine. In response to the part I bolded: EXACTLY!!!

But, technically, ID does not have a "superior" possible mechanism, either.
Let's just say, for argument sake, that a DNA lab happened to pop into existence, randomly, out of misc. stuff floating in space. You still need a Designer to operate it. By what means did that Designer come about? Was it yet another Designer? If so, where does the circular argument end?

Mojo

7th July 2006, 06:55 PM

Actually, he does. His hypothesis is based on the proposition that our biochemistry is too complex to have arisen without intelligent intervention, but that the biochemistry of the "designer" is not too complex to have arisen spontaneously.Is that so? I do not remember having seen anything from his side about the origin of the designer.

We must be careful not to fight strawmen here. I have carefully been reading through his posts in this thread, and I have not seen him claim any particular design - simple or complex, biological or non-biological - for his designer. He has argumented for robots, but I saw that as an argument that DNA was not a necessary element in a designer.I don't think it is a strawman. In this post (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=1635409#post1635409), for example, he responds to the objection that if life is too complex to have arisen spontaneously and therefore must have been designed, then its designer must also have been too complex to have arisen spontaneously by suggesting that it may only be the forms of life we see on Earth that require a designer. Implicit in this is the suggestion that his "designer" is a form of life that is different in its biochemistry from life as we know it in such a way that, although life on Earth cannot arise spontaneously, the designer's form of life can.

OK, he doesn't make any suggestion at all about what the designer might be like (a major problem for his claim that ID has a known mechanism), but he implies that it could be a form of life very different from those we see on Earth.

Wowbagger

7th July 2006, 07:33 PM

OK, he doesn't make any suggestion at all about what the designer might be like (a major problem for his claim that ID has a known mechanism), but he implies that it could be a form of life very different from those we see on Earth.
And, I'd just love to know how a "very different" form of life could arise!

Any ideas? Anyone, anyone? Beuller?

athon

7th July 2006, 07:57 PM

And, I'd just love to know how a "very different" form of life could arise!

Any ideas? Anyone, anyone? Beuller?

Not just very different, but simpler. While still being intelligent enough to come up with a variation on a form of chemistry prevalent on Earth already.

It makes the search for an aetiology for modern RNA look like child's play.

Athon

delphi_ote

7th July 2006, 08:05 PM

What if you did an experiment, took a beaker and added the primordial ooze, waited awhile, and found life in there?

Which would this validate?

Intelligent Design or Abiogenisis?
No. Delphi knows. Abiogenesis. That's what the word means. Unfortunately, I don't have a precise idea what life means, so we'd have a lot to argue about after this experiment was finished.

We couldn't prove that all the life we know evolved from a common ancestor which was generated by a similar process, of course. All evidence we have right now points to such an origin, but it's going to take us a lot of time to figure out precisely how it happened.

Intelligent Design is meaningless nonsense. Nothing they talk about has anything close to a precise technical definition. They can't even define what they mean by "designed." They tell us a rock is obviously not designed, while a watch or mouse trap clearly is... but they also tell us that everything in the universe was designed. If they could point to anything in the universe and detect that it was not designed, they might have a place to start.

Tisthammerw

8th July 2006, 12:37 AM

The latter link does not contain the type of experiment I described, i.e. basic primordial chemicals (and enzymes are not one of them)

:dl:

I do not perceive this to be an intelligent response to the point I brought up. The enzyme's existence needs to be accounted for.

Borrowing (sort of) an analogy from a prominent ID adherent, suppose a chef says undirected natural processes can produce a chocolate cake. He buys flour, sugar, etc. from the store, mixes the relevant ingredients together, and puts it in the oven. Once in the oven, he says, "See? I'm keeping my hands off and the cake is being made. I am not now directing the process." It’s the same sort of thing here.

Remember what I asked for: an experimental demonstration (published in a peer-reviewed and reputable scientific journal) of a realistic scenario whereby undirected chemical reactions create RNA from the basic primordial chemicals. A pretty big step was skipped when you introduce a pre-existing enzyme as part of the initial conditions.

Perhaps an example is in order to describe a sort of experiment I'm talking about.

Suppose we go back to the Urey-Miller scenario, the electrical sparks simulating lightning, the methane, hydrogen etc. atmosphere, and the like. Let's also suppose that the experiment produces not only amino acids but also all the components of RNA nucleotides; nitrogen bases, the sugars, etc.

There's an obstacle though: how to filter out the desired products (in this case, the RNA nucleotide components) from the unwanted ones? Chemists of course can solve that problem with the use of laboratory equipment. But the process of synthesizing, purifying, and mixing the components together under controlled laboratory conditions is only proof that an intelligent designer can synthesize RNA, not abiogenesis.

But let's suppose scientists discover gas mixture X--a naturally occurring mixture of gases that existed on the primordial Earth under the oceans. Bubbles come and gas mixture X collects the RNA subcomponents (leaving the unwanted parts alone), and though subsequent reactions gas mixture X assembles them together to create RNA. This scenario is then demonstrated experimentally--bubbles of gas mixture X rising in the liquid that mimics the primordial Earth's oceans (in this case, amino acids, sugars, etc.)--and we see RNA come about.

I don't think there's anything like gas mixture X, but you get the point. We start from the basics and work our way up. The Q b replicase scenario skips some steps--most obvious of which is how they got the Q b replicase enzyme in the first place. First there is the water problem of getting proteins I told you about earlier, then there's the sequencing problem. The amino acids have to be in a specific sequence for that enzyme to exist. Do you have a mechanism for all that? I suspect not.

via undirected chemical reactions producing RNA.

Done. The reactions are not "directed".

Oh? Where did they get enzyme Q b replicase from? Did they work with purified amounts of a specific group of amino acids (there are more than just the twenty modern life forms use)? You need to find a realistic scenario to get all the players together. You haven’t done that. You can’t just fly groundhogs to lane 999, watch a few cross, and then claim success for proving that a groundhog can cross a busy thousand lane highway.

Explain where the intelligent designer came from.

Where did the natural processes abiogenesis uses come from?

There are always going to be entities that a theory itself does not explain.

Tisthammerw

8th July 2006, 01:03 AM

so you're saying it's possible for something to be a scientific theory and to be both entirely incorrect and provably wrong?

Yes. The history of science is fraught with examples. The caloric theory of heat is one of them.

You really don't have a clue what a theory is, do you?

By all means, please explain. What was wrong with the definition of the term "scientific theory"?

Urey and Miller showed that proteins and amino acids can form from much simpler chemicals in environments that simulate primordial Earth.

Really? I'd be most interested in how he got around the water problem. I was aware he showed how amino acids could be created, but how did he assemble the amino acids to get proteins merely by simulating the environment of the primordial Earth?

This is analagous to an evolution-denier asking for evidence of a spontaneous and abrupt leap from single celled life to gorillas.

Now let's think about this. What are the set of chemical reactions that create RNA from its basic primordial components, and how long do they take? Is it that the laws of chemistry somehow move faster when a human is watching them (e.g. when creating RNA)? I mean, if we can show that abiogenesis can do all the intermediate steps, why can't we show abiogenesis doing them all in one grand stroke?

It's because of human intervention overcoming the obstacles that abiogenesis would face in the real world. The bottom line is that while there is no absolute barrier, the obstacles are like a groundhog crossing a thousand lane highway (borrowing an analogy from a prominent ID adherent). When scientists make RNA or attempt to provide support for abiogenesis by "showing" how it could be made by e.g. introducing a pre-existing enzyme they artificially created (with little or no explanation how abiogenesis could have made it), they fly the groundhogs to lane 700 and watch as few make it across to 701. That's why I asked for an experiment showing how it could possibly happen from the "ground up"--to see if abiogenesis could really breach those obstacles. Then we'd have some real objective evidence for abiogenesis rather than a lot of wishful thinking, flying groundhogs to lane 700 while saying "well, a groundhog could have made it to lane 699 somehow, trust me." Sorry, but such a procedure does not leave me convinced.

tist, can you put together an example of an experiment intelligent design advocates could perform that would provide evidence for intelligent design?

I'll answer that question, but first I'd like you to answer mine: what evidence makes abiogenesis superior to intelligent design? All I've heard so far is a known mechanism. But ID beats out abiogenesis there. Do you have anything else? Anything at all? That's a question I would like answered. So far it seems like all you have are non-empirical philosophical principles (like an unidentified designer being “inherently unscientific”).

I could easily prove that the rosetta stone was or could have been designed by making another one.

Scientists have made DNA. Does that prove it too was designed?

Still I see your point. If I wanted to do a research project on ID, the kind of experiments I'd do would be to see how life and its basic components can be made artificially (note: I'm answering your question above). Just like trying to build a car, we would see firsthand the difficulties of how to produce the desired products given the relevant chemistry facts that are involved. In doing so, I'm confident we'd get a better understanding of the obstacles the natural-origins theory would encounter, and thus (and perhaps more importantly) why intelligent causes are necessary to create the kind of biochemical machinery we see on Earth.

Luckily, such research is going on anyway.

Tisthammerw

8th July 2006, 01:15 AM

Tisthammerw is creating his own definition of ID which is ridiculous

Are you saying my definition of ID is ridiculous? Remember, my definition is that "intelligent causes are necessary to create the kind of life we see on Earth." And let me remind you that Dembski (a very prominent ID adherent) said, "Its fundamental claim is that intelligent causes are necessary to explain the complex, information-rich structures of biology" so my definition really isn't far off the mark, even if in this thread I am focusing on a very specific part of ID (the origins of life).

Tisthammerw, ID involves, by its very definition, the involvement of a 'designer' outside the realm of science. Thus it is unscientific.

This is the kind of non-empirical philosophical principles I have been talking about. A designer is outside of science "by definition [an apparently unexplained definition]", and apparently is "by definition" unscientific.

There seems to be no real [i]evidence to favor abiogenesis over intelligent design theory. At least, none that has been presented here. There's the matter of a known possible mechanism (i.e. a means how it could have happened) but again, ID beats out abiogenesis there. One possible means a designer could have done it is use the same sort of machinery we use to create DNA. Abiogenesis has no known possible mechanism to work with.

If you have a different definition of ID (as you appear to) then it is not ID you are talking about.

Tell that to Dembski (see above).

The idea that "intelligent causes are necessary" is the cornerstone behind many ID arguments, i.e. that's a belief they're trying to support.

Tisthammerw

8th July 2006, 02:00 AM

This is where you're being dishonest, blind or plain lying.

I could just as easily say the same thing to you. You've introduced (intentionally or unintentionally--I suspect the latter) at least one more red herring.

For instance,

This kind of response insinuates that it did match what I asked for and I was just too dimwitted to see it.

Well spotted. If the shoe fits...

But you should know as well as I do that it did not match what I asked for at all. By your own admission, "The exact experiment you are looking for does not exist"!

You may ask, why am I asking for that exact experiment? Read on:

The exact experiment you are looking for does not exist and is unlikely to ever exist because that's not how science works. It is an inefficient way to answer the question.

Inefficient? In what way? It would cost a lot of money? It would take too much time?

Think about this. What are the set of chemical reactions that create RNA from its basic primordial components, and how long do they take? Is it that the laws of chemistry somehow move faster when a human is watching them (e.g. when creating RNA)? I mean, if we can show that abiogenesis can do all the intermediate steps, why can't we show abiogenesis doing them all in one grand stroke?

It's because of human intervention overcoming the obstacles that abiogenesis would face in the real world. The bottom line is that while there is no absolute barrier, the obstacles are like a groundhog crossing a thousand lane highway (borrowing an analogy from a prominent ID adherent). When scientists make RNA or attempt to provide support for abiogenesis by "showing" how it could be made by e.g. introducing a pre-existing enzyme they artificially created (with little or no explanation how abiogenesis could have made it), they fly the groundhogs to lane 700 and watch as few make it across to 701. That's why I asked for an experiment showing how it could possibly happen from the "ground up"--to see if abiogenesis could really breach those obstacles. Then we'd have some real objective evidence for abiogenesis rather than a lot of wishful thinking, flying groundhogs to lane 700 while saying "well, a groundhog could have made it to lane 699 somehow, trust me." Sorry, but such a procedure does not leave me convinced.

The experiment I described would be hard evidence for abiogenesis' capabilities to produce RNA. Such an experiment does not exist.

Your entire argument at this point breaks down to one, single conjecture; RNA is too complex to have arisen in nature without intelligent design.

No. Mere complexity has nothing to do with it; it is chemistry. From what I've read, there are serious obstacles for getting RNA purely through undirected chemical reactions (starting from the basic primordial chemicals). That while a scientist can make RNA through a process of synthesizing, purifying, and mixing the molecular components to get RNA, undirected chemical reactions regarding those same starting components fail to produce the desired results.

My hypothesis: outside of the biochemical machinery of a living cell, RNA requires a designer to overcome the known obstacles of chemistry. (Note: I am not as confident about this hypothesis as the design theory in general; RNA after all is just an information-storage component, and life is much more than just a single RNA molecule.) This hypothesis--right or wrong--is falsifiable. The experiment I described would falsify it (the reasons why I wanted this exact experiment can be found above) but apparently there is no such experiment.

The problem is, the web page didn't produce a rigorously detailed scenario of how abiogenesis could do this that was verified by experimental demonstration of the said scenario. Vague ideas of how abiogenesis could have produced the first RNA molecule are one thing (and even there the web page really didn't have much), actually putting where your mouth is via experimental demonstration is quite another.

You've made it very obvious that you either didn't read it, didn't understand it, or decided against even considering what it was saying.

Another possible red herring. The web page did not contain the experiment I was looking for. That's all I was saying here. Don't insinuate it was anything different.

Let's go back to our Rosetta Stone story, since I think it might explain where I'm coming from. I state, "You have no evidence that the designer exists."

I say (playing devil’s advocate) you have no evidence whatsoever for this. You are instead merely using a "designer of the gaps" fallacy--plugging a hole in the fabric of natural causation.

There are no known ways of creating RNA or DNA outside of a living cell (apart from intelligent design). Beginning to see where I’m going?

Because of the tenacity for abiogenesis, for all practical purposes no evidence is good enough. Pointing out obstacles for abiogenesis? That’s okay, because even if they seem insurmountable to me and other scientists there is a way and we just haven’t discovered it yet—and thinking another theory’s mechanism is the answer is just using a “god of the gaps” fallacy.

Forget the Rosetta Stone analogy. It doesn't work. We have ample evidence of an intelligence that could have created it.

But this is my point. What "evidence" is there? Or think back to my other analogies (e.g. a stainless steel replica on Mars) where the designer is unidentified. What "evidence" is there?

So far it seems no evidence is good enough for a design inference if it counts against a theory held dear to you. I want to see if your principles are consistent (because I suspect they're not) by focusing on these analogies.

This part doesn't matter much. Suppose for instance we found the same tablet on Mars, or suppose we found a stainless steel replica of Stonehenge on Mars--with no other evidence of anybody living there. Wouldn’t you still infer design?

You did not read my reasoning. There is no known natural phenomena that creates such patterning as those as on the Rosetta Stone. Neither is there one for arranging stones in a pattern per 'Stone Henge'.

Are you being consistent? There's no known natural phenomena that creates e.g. RNA and DNA (outside of the biochemical machinery of a living cell) without the aid of artificial intervention. Remember, you yourself admitted as much regarding RNA. There is no known way to make the experiment I described to get RNA.

If you infer design, I say you are using a "designer-of-the-gaps" fallacy. Presumably you would say there's "evidence" for a design inference here. Well, what is this evidence?

Archaeology. A whole motherload of artifacts which can be linked to modern and ancient intelligences.

All of which can be dismissed as the "designer-of-the-gaps" fallacy. So again, what "evidence" do you have?

Experiments have come a long way in past decades, you know. It's already been shown that this is less of an issue that previously thought, and relies on ionic concentrations in the solution.

The combination of salt induced peptide formation reaction and clay catalysis: a way to higher peptides under primitive earth conditions.
(http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=10465717&dopt=Citation)

I wasn't able to access the link, so tell me this: exactly under what Earth-like conditions could proteins be formed via undirected chemical reactions from initial primordial chemicals? The problems I read are about while scientists can create proteins, in practice the artificial intervention is too high to say that we've correctly simulated Earth-like conditions (e.g. purifying select groups of amino acids, neglecting to mention how the Earth could have done that). What were the exact processes used in the laboratory and which ones mimicked the early Earth? Which steps (if any) were skipped?

It's been said, but has it been explained? Please tell me how my definition of a theory is flawed. I suspect I know a good deal more about the philosophy of science than you do.

No. It's obvious you don't. Very obvious.

Then you won't mind telling me how my definition of a theory is flawed?

A theory requires substantial evidence to support it.

If anything, it's "obvious" now that I know a good deal more about philosophy of science than you do. Have you even heard of the underdetermination of theories, for instance?

A theory does not require "substantial evidence to support it" to be a theory. Theories can be wrong and discredited. If you were right here, things like the caloric theory of heat would not be a "theory"--even though it clearly is (it's just a scientific theory that we've rejected now).

It requires the insinuation of a mechanism, and to be considered robust needs to predict phenomena. ID has none of those things.

I have explained the possible mechanisms and the predictions to you. You simply saying otherwise does not make it true, no matter how much you repeat it.

Are you you serious? They are not predictions.

Why not?

'We will never find A' can contribute nothing to making a speculation into a theory.

I lost my puppy when I was a kid. I think a dinosaur ate it. If a dinosaur did eat it, I'll never find it again. Therefore, for as long as I don't find my puppy, a dinosaur could have eaten it.

See the ludicrous application of predicting a negative?

No I don't. Predicting a negative allows a theory to become falsifiable. Mere falsifiability isn't enough to be a good theory of course, but it's certainly a good thing for a scientific theory to have. (And it's one thing abiogenesis doesn't have.)

As for the second, it is the same line of reasoning. It is not a valid prediction.

You haven't explained why. It predicts something that will exist (significant obstacles); not the absence of something.

In any case, you're upset not because ID doesn't make predictions, because the theory clearly does. It's just that you don't think the theory makes "valid" predictions. By simply claiming that ID makes no predictions you are obfuscating reality.

Again, what evidence does abiogenesis have that makes it better than intelligent design? So far all I've seen is that abiogenesis has a known possible mechanism (e.g. in getting amino acids). But (again) when it comes to having a known possible mechanism, ID beats out abiogenesis, i.e. we have a rigorously known means how a designer could create e.g. RNA and DNA, whereas abiogenesis does not.

Same track. It's been addressed.

Not quite. I have yet to see someone give any evidence beyond a known possible mechanism for abiogenesis. Do you have anything else, any other evidence at all? (I would really like this question answered.)

Here's the second red herring. Here you insinuate that one of the references does point to a published experiment of the sort I described, and that I "just did not look very hard." The reality I suspect is that there is no such reference pointing to the sort of experiment I described. What is this experiment I described? A paper published in a peer-reviewed scientific journal of a realistic scenario--verified by experiment simulating the said scenario--of undirected chemical reactions forming RNA from the basic primordial chemicals. You haven’t provided me with this.

I assumed you might have some idea on how science works. That you could read experimental results and see their application.

I assumed you understood what I was asking for: a paper published in a peer-reviewed scientific journal of a realistic scenario--verified by experiment simulating the said scenario--of undirected chemical reactions forming RNA from the basic primordial chemicals.

Perhaps I was wrong.

Mojo

8th July 2006, 02:28 AM

I assumed you understood what I was asking for: a paper published in a peer-reviewed scientific journal of a realistic scenario--verified by experiment simulating the said scenario--of undirected chemical reactions forming RNA from the basic primordial chemicals. To support your assertion that ID has a a better established mechanism than abiogenesis, can you refer us to a paper published in a peer-reviewed scientific journal of a realistic scenario--verified by experiment simulating the said scenario--of life being designed and created without the intervention of living (within the definition of life as it exists on Earth) beings. Until you have done this, there is no reason for anyone to produce the paper you have asked for. You have repeatedly asserted that ID is "scientifically superior to abiogenesis" because, you say, it has a known mechanism. You have provided no details of any mechanism whereby a non-living designer could have arisen without the intervention of living beings. The burden of proof is on you to produce evidence that such a mechanism has been established.

athon

8th July 2006, 03:23 AM

I could just as easily say the same thing to you. You've introduced (intentionally or unintentionally--I suspect the latter) at least one more red herring.

I actually agree. It was an unintentional red herring. And I apologise.

You see, I only now fully grasp what it is you are after precisely. I never understood before, as I did not quite see just how naive your request was. I offered articles which provided evidence contributing towards what I figured your question was, assuming it was an informed query. I was incredulous to just how naive your line of thinking is. For that, I apologise.

I'll explain my reasoning. And I'll put it in simple terms.

Prebiotic conditions have been demonstrated to have amino acids and a range of nucleic acids within the same family RNA is in. I know the articles I linked to did not demonstrate how they form, as we're not sure how. But they are present; for one thing, there are nucleic acids we can find today which are not compatible for living systems (therefore could not come from a biological origin). There were also the components making up nucleic acids, such as ribose, phosphates and various bases.

We can extrapolate, therefore, that there are processes which produce a whole plethora of nucleic acid variants, albeit it is often argued that it is without ribose as a backbone. It is possible that another sugar such as threose could have served the function, as it is more stable (although research shows that boron can actually stabilise ribose sugars, and there was plenty of that around)

Why was RNA selected? Again, we do not know. And there are no experiments showing how RNA became the chemical of choice in a range of contenders in a competition of polymerising chemicals.

It is even possible that RNA was not the primary polymerising nucleic acid; other oligonucleotides could well form structures which RNA eventually interacted with. Such a heterogenous prebiotic chemical foray has been shown to be possible.

Thus, while oligonucleotides were present in short forms, most need some form of support in order to grow beyond several bases. Amino acid structures could do the job, however they need to form into a protein scaffold to be effective. The 'protein first' school of thought is strong, however was stumped on how proteins could form.

The answer came when it was demonstrated in a series of experiments that amino acids in solution exposed to an inorganic surface, such as clay, and with substantial ions (again, which were present in higher concentrations than in today's oceans), will form polymers.

Which amino acids, which sequences, which nucleic acid precursors... all of this is significant. Chemical competition would sort out which ones remain based on efficiency of reaction, however for us to discover which ones by simply throwing them into a solution and standing back to watch would take more or less the same amount of time it took nature.

And we don't have that luxury.

Thus, your request for an RNA experiment is oversimplistic and naive. Nucleic acids of different forms appear to be naturally occuring chemicals, like amino acids. The process which creates them from the constituent chemicals is ill understood. RNA itself might well be a variation of other oligonucleotides that has been biologically altered, or it might occur naturally, however I don't know much about the conjecture on that.

You seem to be after an Urey-Miller scenario for RNA. I'm not discounting it impossible, but it the evidence it would offer would only add weight to that which we are already confident of. That nucleic acids of various forms were common in primordial solutions.

Are you being consistent? There's no known natural phenomena that creates e.g. RNA and DNA (outside of the biochemical machinery of a living cell) without the aid of artificial intervention. Remember, you yourself admitted as much regarding RNA. There is no known way to make the experiment I described to get RNA.

No, not at present. However, it's somewhat irrelevant.

I wasn't able to access the link, so tell me this: exactly under what Earth-like conditions could proteins be formed via undirected chemical reactions from initial primordial chemicals? The problems I read are about while scientists can create proteins, in practice the artificial intervention is too high to say that we've correctly simulated Earth-like conditions (e.g. purifying select groups of amino acids, neglecting to mention how the Earth could have done that). What were the exact processes used in the laboratory and which ones mimicked the early Earth? Which steps (if any) were skipped?

Hm. Link works fine for me. Anybody else have problems?

It says what I said it did; simplified, salts added to the solution induce polymerisation on a clay surface.

If anything, it's "obvious" now that I know a good deal more about philosophy of science than you do. Have you even heard of the underdetermination of theories, for instance?

I don't see how it applies here. You have no theory, therefore it cannot underdetermine abiosis. It only works if you have two theories, each supported by the same evidence. As there is no evidence supporting ID, I don't see how you can invoke underdetermination.

A theory does not require "substantial evidence to support it" to be a theory. Theories can be wrong and discredited. If you were right here, things like the caloric theory of heat would not be a "theory"--even though it clearly is (it's just a scientific theory that we've rejected now).

Wow. My brain hurt just thinking how flawed that thinking is.

Caloric's had evidence. Heat flows from one place to another, as if it is a substance. This evidence also happened to support the theory that heat is a quality of matter.

Try again.

I have explained the possible mechanisms and the predictions to you. You simply saying otherwise does not make it true, no matter how much you repeat it.

They are not predictions. Saying 'for as long as we never see phenomena A happen' adds no weight to a theory.

The whole 'nu-uh, you do' retorts are really not doing you any good, btw.

In any case, you're upset not because ID doesn't make predictions, because the theory clearly does. It's just that you don't think the theory makes "valid" predictions. By simply claiming that ID makes no predictions you are obfuscating reality.[quote]

The predictions you state do nothing to support your theory. It cannot be stated any other way. If you refuse to accept that, then so be it.

[quote]Not quite. I have yet to see someone give any evidence beyond a known possible mechanism for abiogenesis. Do you have anything else, any other evidence at all? (I would really like this question answered.)

Nothing it seems you would pay attention to. I've pointed out the papers, Dr. A. has pointed out papers, and you have simply dismissed them as they don't appeal to your narrow request.

There's little anybody can do for you here if you continue to simply close your eyes and continue to warp science.

I assumed you understood what I was asking for: a paper published in a peer-reviewed scientific journal of a realistic scenario--verified by experiment simulating the said scenario--of undirected chemical reactions forming RNA from the basic primordial chemicals.

Perhaps I was wrong.

Indeed, as I stated. I assumed you had a grasp of basic biochemistry and science.

I corrected that.

Athon

Dcdrac

8th July 2006, 04:09 AM

"A theory does not require "substantial evidence to support it" to be a theory."

is this meant to be a serious statement???????????

athon

8th July 2006, 06:21 AM

"A theory does not require "substantial evidence to support it" to be a theory."

is this meant to be a serious statement???????????

Unfortunately. This guy is full of serious statements. Seriously naive, seriously ignorant, seriously misinformed, seriously unscientific...

Athon

Dr Adequate

8th July 2006, 09:02 AM

I do not perceive this to be an intelligent response to the point I brought up. The enzyme's existence needs to be accounted for. No.

It would require accounting for if I claimed that this was how life arose on Earth. I don't. No-one does.

Rather, I claim it as an example of what you said couldn't happen: spontaneous origin of life from non-living chemicals.

It is rather a stretch for you to describe the experiment as "directed" when in fact Eigen and his colleagues had no idea what was going to happen and were so startled by the result that they thought they'd made a mistake!

There are always going to be entities that a theory itself does not explain. Yes, but your theory is supposed to explain the origin of life. But you do this by postulating the existence of a life-form the origin of which you do not explain. You don't see anything wrong with that?

Your "theory" fails to answer the one question it was meant to answer --- how did life originate?

It's as though you asked me where life came from, and I said "from other life-forms reproducing". Ah, you say, but where did the first organism come from? And I reply: "There are always going to be entities that a theory itself does not explain."

That would be a cop-out, and so is your "intelligent designer".

Tisthammerw

8th July 2006, 11:36 AM

Why? The intelligent design community and even hardcore creationists accept microevolution.

That's funny. A lot of hardcore creationists don't. Michael Behe for one, at least his "Black Box" book doesn't.

I suggest you read Battle of Beginnings: Why Neither Side is Winning the Creation-Evolution Debate. Part of the reason is that when fervent emotions arise, the view of the opposition is sometimes distorted (I'm convinced it's unintentional in most cases). Not surprisingly, the distorted view is easier to attack than the real thing. We even have a name for this, "straw man." Please point to a specific page number and/or quote where Michael Behe denies microevolution in his book Darwin's Black Box. I suspect you'll have difficulty doing so.

Besides, one can reject abiogenesis and still accept the rest of evolution. Evolution of pre-existing life is one thing. The biochemical machinery is already there. But getting the biochemical machinery via undirected chemical reactions? That's another thing entirely.

It is true that undirected development of bio. machinery is "another thing". But, to reject that idea and still accept the rest of evolution is not being a scientist.

This is what I'm talking about when I speak of "tenacity." Accepting a rival theory is not just being mistaken, it's to stop being a scientist? This is treating science like a religion, excommunicating those who dare to adhere to heresy.

As a human, you are allowed to hold any personal beliefs you want. But, unless your beliefs are backed up by empirical evidence, you can not call it science.

And that's my problem with abiogenesis. It puts forth an extraordinary claim backed by almost no evidence. A highly sophisticated system with vast machine-like organized complexity somehow came about via undirected chemical reactions--without even a pretense of knowing how this could possibly happen--and I'm supposed to believe this? Sorry, not without sufficient evidence. At least with evolution we have the pre-existing biochemical machinery to work with.

Now, if you are going to claim that your thoughts that ID is superior are only philosophical in nature, I won't argue any more. However, if you claim it is scientifically superior, then we'll never end this fight, until you accept the principals of science, which means dropping the Designer ideal.

I have yet to receive any satisfactory evidential answer why abiogenesis is scientifically superior to ID. As I said, the only reason mainstream scientists seem to think it better is the result of tenacity and non-empirical philosophical principles (e.g. having an unidentified designer is "inherently unscientific").

I think you will agree we can't find any evidence of the Designer

Not entirely.

no identity, no means to create life described, no street address, no fax number, no nothing.

As I said, when it comes to having a known mechanism, ID is superior to abiogenesis. For instance, abiogenesis does not have a means to create DNA, the same is not true for intelligent design. Indeed, the reason I reject abiogenesis (among other things) is precisely because abiogenesis has no means to create life described.

What about no identity, no street address etc.? None of this seems like a relevant reason to reject a design inference. Again, think back to the scenario of a stainless steel replica of Stonehenge on Mars. No identify of the designer, nor do we have the designer's street address, fax number etc. but none of this means we pretend it wasn't designed.

Supporting ID is like sweeping the problem under the rug. It does not solve the issues. It merely pretends they are not there.

That's largely what I've seen here for abiogenesis, e.g. ignoring the obstacles it faces. I seem to recall one fellow who claimed that there were papers published in peer-reviewed scientific journals of a realistic scenario--verified by experimental demonstration--of how abiogenesis could create RNA from the basic primordial chemicals. But the truth is there is no such paper.

Abiogenesis is superior, because it provides the most scientifically useful model.

Please elucidate. Why is abiogenesis "scientifically useful"? At least, how is it more "scientifically useful" than ID? I think ID is the most scientifically useful because it explains and predicts the existence of the obstacles we see, and abiogenesis doesn't.

Again, is there anything else abiogenesis has (when it comes to evidence) besides a known possible mechanism (note how extremely limited the success of this prediction is)?

On the other hand, when someone claims "God did it", how is that useful?

I don't believe it is. (Remember what I said about straw men.)

I agree, but the problem isn't merely that you think "science should never give up" it's "science should never give up on my theory" i.e. tenacity. Intelligent design predicts the existence of obstacles that we see for abiogenesis. I'm actually not saying we should give up on abiogenesis yet. I think it's prudent to give the current theory more time, but eventually if this global disciplinary failure continues (in finding any possible way abiogenesis could have happened) I think it's wise to switch to a theory that not only explains the existence of those obstacles but also predicts their existence.

We can almost agree on this. Except, I predict we'll never have to stoop to the level of ID. Science is already finding methods of undirected abiogenesis. The idea is hardly a failure.

Abiogenesis still has yet to find a way to penetrate the obstacles that ID predicts and has a means of overcoming (e.g. in getting DNA). Until the main prediction is empirically confirmed and it finds a way to overcome its problems, I don't think we can call it a "success" either. Tell me this, at what point should we switch to the ID theory I described? Suppose the predicted obstacles persist for another thirty years. Then should we switch to ID? About fifty years? A full century? Never?

(Note what I said about tenacity.)

This just sounds like another variant of abiogenesis (recall the definition I’m using in #142 (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=1636029&postcount=142)).

Actually, the purely philosophical idea of Blob "Theory" indicates RNA and DNA are merely illusions.

Very strange theory. It ignores empirical data by pretending they're illusionary.

But, I won't get into it. It's not science. Just another idea that works off of the same "failures" that fuel ID. (It makes the same predictions as your ID, but, without an Intelligence involved.)

Really? How so? How does the claim that "RNA and DNA are illusions" predict that we'll only find intelligent causes sufficient to create those molecules outside the biochemical machinery of a cell?

Besides, if the "Blob theory" were sufficient to rule out a design inference, it destroys other design inferences also. After all, maybe the Rosetta Stone (and every other alleged artifact of archaeology) wasn't designed but they're merely illusions. "Because it makes the same predictions as design theory, design can't be rationally inferred."

My question: so why favor abiogenesis over intelligent design? It has to be more than the existence of a possible mechanism, because intelligent design is superior in that regard. So there has to be something else. My guess? Tenacity and non-empirical philosophical principles. Intelligent design is not viewed as an inferior scientific theory but rather something akin to scientific heresy.

Emphasis mine. In response to the part I bolded: EXACTLY!!!

Well, I admire your candidness that the reason abiogenesis is favored over intelligent design is non-empirical philosophical principles (as opposed to something like empirical evidence). The problem is I have yet to find such a philosophical principle that is reasonable and one that abiogenesis adherents would consistently accept. For instance, suppose we should reject a design inference because we can't know the origins, motives, or identity of the designer. By the same logic, we should also reject a design inference for a stainless steel replica of Stonehenge on Mars. After all, can't know the origins, motives, or identity of the designer there either.

But, technically, ID does not have a "superior" possible mechanism, either.

Let me clarify, I say it is "superior" in the sense that when it comes to having a known means it could have happened, ID has more than abiogenesis. Scientists have built machines to synthesize DNA. Abiogenesis does not have a known possible mechanism to work with here. It has not found a way to overcome the obstacles that intelligent direction overcomes.

By what means did that Designer come about? Was it yet another Designer? If so, where does the circular argument end?

We can infer design without knowing the origins of the designer (e.g. the Martian Stonehenge replica). As for the origins of the designer in Earth biology, we can only speculate. Maybe the designer had another designer for all we know, maybe the designer never began to exist, maybe the designer has a different type of complexity than ours, one that could arise naturally.

Note we can take the same sort of attitude with the natural processes that created life. How did those natural processes come about? Was it yet another set of natural processes? If so, where does the circular argument end?

Dcdrac

8th July 2006, 11:41 AM

As far as I know Tim old son no serisous scientist in the field of biology accepts ID and evolution won the scientific debate ages ago, in the scientific community.

Tisthammerw

8th July 2006, 11:45 AM

Why? The intelligent design community and even hardcore creationists accept microevolution.

That's funny. A lot of hardcore creationists don't. Michael Behe for one, at least his "Black Box" book doesn't.

I suggest you read Battle of Beginnings: Why Neither Side is Winning the Creation-Evolution Debate. Part of the reason is that when fervent emotions arise, the view of the opposition is sometimes distorted (I'm convinced it's unintentional in most cases). Not surprisingly, the distorted view is easier to attack than the real thing. We even have a name for this, "straw man." Please point to a specific page number and/or quote where Michael Behe denies microevolution in his book Darwin's Black Box. I suspect you'll have difficulty doing so.

Besides, one can reject abiogenesis and still accept the rest of evolution. Evolution of pre-existing life is one thing. The biochemical machinery is already there. But getting the biochemical machinery via undirected chemical reactions? That's another thing entirely.

It is true that undirected development of bio. machinery is "another thing". But, to reject that idea and still accept the rest of evolution is not being a scientist.

This is what I'm talking about when I speak of "tenacity." Accepting a rival theory is not just being mistaken, it's to stop being a scientist? This is treating science like a religion, excommunicating those who dare to adhere to heresy.

As a human, you are allowed to hold any personal beliefs you want. But, unless your beliefs are backed up by empirical evidence, you can not call it science.

And that's my problem with abiogenesis. It puts forth an extraordinary claim backed by almost no evidence. A highly sophisticated system with vast machine-like organized complexity somehow came about via undirected chemical reactions--without even a pretense of knowing how this could possibly happen--and I'm supposed to believe this? Sorry, not without sufficient evidence. At least with evolution we have the pre-existing biochemical machinery to work with.

Now, if you are going to claim that your thoughts that ID is superior are only philosophical in nature, I won't argue any more. However, if you claim it is scientifically superior, then we'll never end this fight, until you accept the principals of science, which means dropping the Designer ideal.

I have yet to receive any satisfactory evidential answer why abiogenesis is scientifically superior to ID. As I said, the only reason mainstream scientists seem to think it better is the result of tenacity and non-empirical philosophical principles (e.g. having an unidentified designer is "inherently unscientific").

I think you will agree we can't find any evidence of the Designer

Not entirely.

no identity, no means to create life described, no street address, no fax number, no nothing.

As I said, when it comes to having a known mechanism, ID is superior to abiogenesis. For instance, abiogenesis does not have a means to create DNA, the same is not true for intelligent design. Indeed, the reason I reject abiogenesis (among other things) is precisely because abiogenesis has no means to create life described.

What about no identity, no street address etc.? None of this seems like a relevant reason to reject a design inference. Again, think back to the scenario of a stainless steel replica of Stonehenge on Mars. No identify of the designer, nor do we have the designer's street address, fax number etc. but none of this means we pretend it wasn't designed.

Supporting ID is like sweeping the problem under the rug. It does not solve the issues. It merely pretends they are not there.

That's largely what I've seen here for abiogenesis, e.g. ignoring the obstacles it faces. I seem to recall one fellow who claimed that there were papers published in peer-reviewed scientific journals of a realistic scenario--verified by experimental demonstration--of how abiogenesis could create RNA from the basic primordial chemicals. But the truth is there is no such paper.

Abiogenesis is superior, because it provides the most scientifically useful model.

Please elucidate. Why is abiogenesis "scientifically useful"? At least, how is it more "scientifically useful" than ID? I think ID is the most scientifically useful because it explains and predicts the existence of the obstacles we see, and abiogenesis doesn't.

Again, is there anything else abiogenesis has (when it comes to evidence) besides a known possible mechanism (note how extremely limited the success of this prediction is)?

On the other hand, when someone claims "God did it", how is that useful?

I don't believe it is. (Remember what I said about straw men.)

I agree, but the problem isn't merely that you think "science should never give up" it's "science should never give up on my theory" i.e. tenacity. Intelligent design predicts the existence of obstacles that we see for abiogenesis. I'm actually not saying we should give up on abiogenesis yet. I think it's prudent to give the current theory more time, but eventually if this global disciplinary failure continues (in finding any possible way abiogenesis could have happened) I think it's wise to switch to a theory that not only explains the existence of those obstacles but also predicts their existence.

We can almost agree on this. Except, I predict we'll never have to stoop to the level of ID. Science is already finding methods of undirected abiogenesis. The idea is hardly a failure.

Abiogenesis still has yet to find a way to penetrate the obstacles that ID predicts and has a means of overcoming (e.g. in getting DNA). Until the main prediction is empirically confirmed and it finds a way to overcome its problems, I don't think we can call it a "success" either. Tell me this, at what point should we switch to the ID theory I described? Suppose the predicted obstacles persist for another thirty years. Then should we switch to ID? About fifty years? A full century? Never?

(Note what I said about tenacity.)

This just sounds like another variant of abiogenesis (recall the definition I’m using in #142 (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=1636029&postcount=142)).

Actually, the purely philosophical idea of Blob "Theory" indicates RNA and DNA are merely illusions.

Very strange theory. It ignores empirical data by pretending they're illusionary.

But, I won't get into it. It's not science. Just another idea that works off of the same "failures" that fuel ID. (It makes the same predictions as your ID, but, without an Intelligence involved.)

Really? How so? How does the claim that "RNA and DNA are illusions" predict that we'll only find intelligent causes sufficient to create those molecules outside the biochemical machinery of a cell?

Besides, if the "Blob theory" were sufficient to rule out a design inference, it destroys other design inferences also. After all, maybe the Rosetta Stone (and every other alleged artifact of archaeology) wasn't designed but they're merely illusions. "Because it makes the same predictions as design theory, design can't be rationally inferred."

My question: so why favor abiogenesis over intelligent design? It has to be more than the existence of a possible mechanism, because intelligent design is superior in that regard. So there has to be something else. My guess? Tenacity and non-empirical philosophical principles. Intelligent design is not viewed as an inferior scientific theory but rather something akin to scientific heresy.

Emphasis mine. In response to the part I bolded: EXACTLY!!!

Well, I admire your candidness that the reason abiogenesis is favored over intelligent design is non-empirical philosophical principles (as opposed to something like empirical evidence). The problem is I have yet to find such a philosophical principle that is reasonable and one that abiogenesis adherents would consistently accept. For instance, suppose we should reject a design inference because we can't know the origins, motives, or identity of the designer. By the same logic, we should also reject a design inference for a stainless steel replica of Stonehenge on Mars. After all, can't know the origins, motives, or identity of the designer there either.

But, technically, ID does not have a "superior" possible mechanism, either.

Let me clarify, I say it is "superior" in the sense that when it comes to having a known means it could have happened, ID has more than abiogenesis. Scientists have built machines to synthesize DNA. Abiogenesis does not have a known possible mechanism to work with here. It has not found a way to overcome the obstacles that intelligent direction overcomes.

By what means did that Designer come about? Was it yet another Designer? If so, where does the circular argument end?

We can infer design without knowing the origins of the designer (e.g. the Martian Stonehenge replica). As for the origins of the designer in Earth biology, we can only speculate. Maybe the designer had another designer for all we know, maybe the designer never began to exist, maybe the designer has a different type of complexity than ours, one that could arise naturally.

Note we can take the same sort of attitude with the natural processes that created life. How did those natural processes come about? Was it yet another set of natural processes? If so, where does the circular argument end?

Tisthammerw

8th July 2006, 11:55 AM

I assumed you understood what I was asking for: a paper published in a peer-reviewed scientific journal of a realistic scenario--verified by experiment simulating the said scenario--of undirected chemical reactions forming RNA from the basic primordial chemicals.

To support your assertion that ID has a a better established mechanism than abiogenesis, can you refer us to a paper published in a peer-reviewed scientific journal of a realistic scenario--verified by experiment simulating the said scenario--of life being designed and created without the intervention of living (within the definition of life as it exists on Earth) beings.

I don't claim that the designer was non-living. This isn't a "zombie designer" theory after all. But perhaps you're saying I must show a means whereby the designer doesn't have the type of life we see on Earth—i.e. show a non-Earth-type life form creating an Earth-type life form. But why would I need to do this? You have not explained.

The fact of the matter is we have a known mechanism by which an intelligent agency (whatever it might be made of) could create DNA: it could have created the same sort of machinery we use to create DNA (a process that's rigorously known). That's one way it could have happened. We may never know the exact process used--but at least we have a known possible mechanism. Abiogenesis doesn't.

Mojo

8th July 2006, 12:20 PM

I don't claim that the designer was non-living. This isn't a "zombie designer" theory after all. But perhaps you're saying I must show a means whereby the designer doesn't have the type of life we see on Earth—i.e. show a non-Earth-type life form creating an Earth-type life form. But why would I need to do this? You have not explained.

The fact of the matter is we have a known mechanism by which an intelligent agency (whatever it might be made of) could create DNA: it could have created the same sort of machinery we use to create DNA (a process that's rigorously known). That's one way it could have happened. We may never know the exact process used--but at least we have a known possible mechanism. Abiogenesis doesn't.The only mechanism that you have so far suggested involves human scientists. This is obviously not a possible mechanism for the origin of life. For intelligent design of life to have a mechanism, you need to come up with a designer, and you need to explain how that designer arose in the absence of life. A living designer such as a human scientist is not a mechanism for the origin of life.

It's those pesky turtles again.

Wowbagger

8th July 2006, 03:54 PM

Please point to a specific page number and/or quote where Michael Behe denies microevolution in his book Darwin's Black Box. I suspect you'll have difficulty doing so.
I don't remember the page numbers, but I do recall Behe denying that it was possible for the flagellum of a paramecium to have evolved (he claims it is "irreducibly complex"), and the human immune system to have evolved (too much "chemical complexity" and stuff like that). Both are examples of micro-evolution. There were others in that book, but the point is that the evolution of them were all were eventually demonstrated. The book is a farce. But again, not too relevant to the current discussion.

This is what I'm talking about when I speak of "tenacity." Accepting a rival theory is not just being mistaken, it's to stop being a scientist? This is treating science like a religion, excommunicating those who dare to adhere to heresy.
Only those who do not follow the scientific process are "excommunicated" from science, and for a good reason: They are not doing science.

I think you will agree we can't find any evidence of the DesignerNot entirely.
Not entirely?! That's awesome! Please show us all the evidence you found for the Designer!!!!!

As I said, when it comes to having a known mechanism, ID is superior to abiogenesis.
You keep saying that. I don't think you understand what "superior" means. At least not from a scientific stand point. Maybe in your philosophical mind it is.

Your argument that ID is superior, because it has a "known mechanism", even if it were true, is still a pretty thin argument. Your mechanism looks suspiciously exactly like the ones humans use. Does your Designer use this same, exact method? If so, where does this so-human-like designer reside? If not, then you don't have a mechanism at all.

Please elucidate. Why is abiogenesis "scientifically useful"? At least, how is it more "scientifically useful" than ID? I think ID is the most scientifically useful because it explains and predicts the existence of the obstacles we see, and abiogenesis doesn't.
From a utilitarian perspective, abiogenesis is more "useful" because its study will help us fight diseases, such as viruses that parasite our own RNA and DNA structures.

From a theoretical science perspective, abiogenesis is more useful, because it fits all of the properties of a good scientific theory, among them are: Testability, Evidential support, Precision, Quantifiability, Consistency, Intersubjectivity, Repeatability, Universality, Progressiveness, and Independence of cultural milieu, and so on.

I have yet to receive any satisfactory evidential answer why abiogenesis is scientifically superior to ID. As I said, the only reason mainstream scientists seem to think it better is the result of tenacity and non-empirical philosophical principles (e.g. having an unidentified designer is "inherently unscientific").
If the current crop of studies don't satisfy you, just wait a couple of more years. Every several months, science gets closer and closer to the answers of abiogenesis. Little by little we unwrap its mysteries. The same can NOT be said for ID.

What about no identity, no street address etc.? None of this seems like a relevant reason to reject a design inference. Again, think back to the scenario of a stainless steel replica of Stonehenge on Mars. No identify of the designer, nor do we have the designer's street address, fax number etc. but none of this means we pretend it wasn't designed.
Okay, I was kidding when I asked for the street address and fax number. But, you are still going to have to identify the nature of the Designer, before we can begin to accept ID.

As for the stainless steel replica of Stonehenge on Mars: The analogy is bad. There is none, which means science is safe: There has yet to be found any artificial structure without a designer clearly identified.

I seem to recall one fellow who claimed that there were papers published in peer-reviewed scientific journals of a realistic scenario--verified by experimental demonstration--of how abiogenesis could create RNA from the basic primordial chemicals. But the truth is there is no such paper.
If published papers are so important to you, why don't you show us some published papers supporting ID?

While it might be true that scientists have not unraveled all the mysteries of RNA yet, they are still making progress, and that's the progress we find in the published papers, so far.

How much of such progress has been made for ID?

On the other hand, when someone claims "God did it", how is that useful?
I don't believe it is. (Remember what I said about straw men.)
How is your ID different from "god"? And, don't say "one is supernatural" because they both are.

Suppose the predicted obstacles persist for another thirty years. Then should we switch to ID? About fifty years? A full century? Never?
Let me tell you a tiny, true story:
For many, many years scientists thought that all of empty space was filled with an "aether". After all, Newton's laws seemed to imply it. However, many experiments were done to find the nature of this aether, and all of them failed. Still, the scientists persisted, for a long while.

Then, along came Albert Einstein, whose theories turned out to be much more accurate than Newton's. And, as it turns out, Einstein's equations did NOT rely on an aether!! Thus, the whole idea of aether was eventually dismissed by scientists.

Now, what is the difference between Einstein's Relativity and Intelligent Design? The difference is that Relativity has lots of empirical (mostly experimental) evidence to back it up. That is why it overthrew the concept of aether.

Until ID develops some level of empirical support, it will never overthrow abiogenesis.

And, for the record, abiogenesis now has a lot more empirical support than aether ever did. Even if that support is not sufficient to your personal liking.

Well, I admire your candidness that the reason abiogenesis is favored over intelligent design is non-empirical philosophical principles (as opposed to something like empirical evidence).
Just to be clear, here, it is intelligent design that incorporates non-empirical philosophical principals. ID is not being rejected because it lacks such principals, it is rejected because it lacks empirical evidence.
Your writing doesn't make it clear who has the philosophical principals.

The problem is I have yet to find such a philosophical principle that is reasonable and one that abiogenesis adherents would consistently accept. For instance, suppose we should reject a design inference because we can't know the origins, motives, or identity of the designer. By the same logic, we should also reject a design inference for a stainless steel replica of Stonehenge on Mars. After all, can't know the origins, motives, or identity of the designer there either.
That could be a good philosophical argument. But science is not philosophy. The one thing abiogenesis adherents have in common is that their idea has some good science behind it.

Note we can take the same sort of attitude with the natural processes that created life. How did those natural processes come about? Was it yet another set of natural processes? If so, where does the circular argument end?
It ends at the Initial Condition, before the Big Bang.

(As for Blob Theory, I will respond to that stuff in a separate post.)

Eos of the Eons

8th July 2006, 03:59 PM

CFLarsen

8th July 2006, 04:01 PM

I am eating spaghetti in honor of the FSM. This is because you all so rudely forget that HE IS THE DESIGNER!! Now chew these meatballs in contrition!

I will provide the recipe unless Tisthammerw can prove something else is the true designer, but that will be under threat of FSM striking him down for his lack of faith!!
Shouldn't that be "splattering him with sauce marinara"?

Eos of the Eons

8th July 2006, 04:08 PM

Uhh, yeah! Shoot, now I must prepare for splattering for my lack of proper process! *gulps more noodes*

Wowbagger

8th July 2006, 04:39 PM

(continued from my last post. My response to the Blob theory stuff follows.)

Very strange theory. It ignores empirical data by pretending they're illusionary.
It is indeed a strange idea. But, at least I admit it has no basis in science. I wish a lot more people would admit their crazy ideas have no basis in science.

Really? How so? How does the claim that "RNA and DNA are illusions" predict that we'll only find intelligent causes sufficient to create those molecules outside the biochemical machinery of a cell?

Besides, if the "Blob theory" were sufficient to rule out a design inference, it destroys other design inferences also. After all, maybe the Rosetta Stone (and every other alleged artifact of archaeology) wasn't designed but they're merely illusions. "Because it makes the same predictions as design theory, design can't be rationally inferred."

Lampert's Blob Theory (LBT), is of course, not a scientific theory. It is merely a philosophical musing. (sorry for repeating this point. But, it is important to emphasize, given the type of audience that reads this forum.)

LBT claims all of life acquires its sentience through "Bubbles" of material that are inherent in the "Blob" that is the rest of the Universe. Basically, it says human minds can think independently, because their material is separated, somehow, from the "rest" of the universe. (It's an exception to the idea of a "Holistic" universe.)
However, this 'separation' exists only in a 5th dimension that we can not detect.

LBT accepts evolution after about the level of "organelle". But, it does not accept that RNA or DNA could have evolved from non-organic material. RNA and DNA would really be the byproducts of processes that go on in dimensions we can not detect. And, it also claims they are not the true replicators. They only "seem" that way, to our limited view of dimensions. (Thus RNA and DNA are "illusions".)

Thus, LBT predicts we will never find non-directed methods for RNA to come about, because we will never be able to discover the goings ons in this alternative dimension.

It is worth stating that the Bubbles of LBT do not develop from any form of intelligence. They merely form, "randomly", as a natural process. (Or, there could be a precise pattern to their formation, but we won't discover that pattern because it exists in another dimension.)

Why am I bringing this up? Because you probably feel as though LBT is a very silly theory. Right? Well, now you know how a scientist feels when they hear about ID!

I challenge you this: The flaws of LBT are not worse than those of ID. Don't believe me? Tell me why!

Wowbagger

8th July 2006, 04:44 PM

I am eating spaghetti in honor of the FSM. This is because you all so rudely forget that HE IS THE DESIGNER!! Now chew these meatballs in contrition!

I will provide the recipe unless Tisthammerw can prove something else is the true designer, but that will be under threat of FSM striking him down for his lack of faith!!
LBT is superior to your puny FSM! LBT does not require intelligent forms of pasta to be incorporated into its calculations!! Take that, ye pastafarian punk! :D

Eos of the Eons

8th July 2006, 04:50 PM

LBT is superior to your puny FSM! LBT does not require intelligent forms of pasta to be incorporated into its calculations!! Take that, ye pastafarian punk! :D

Ohhh now you've done it!!! Prepare for Marinara!!! *ducks and winces*

Lamuella

10th July 2006, 07:05 AM

Darat

10th July 2006, 07:24 AM

...snip..

Intelligent design: the theory that intelligent causes are necessary for the creation of the type of life we see on Earth.

Again, please remember that definition. It is very important. This theory states that intelligent causes are necessary, so that if we show that intelligent causes are not necessary, we will have disproved the theory. Are you with me so far? (Please answer this question, since you seemed to have missed this very important detail.)

Now, here's an experiment that would falsify the design hypothesis: simply demonstrate a means (via experiment) how undirected chemical reactions could create life without artificial intervention (e.g. setting up a plausible and realistic starting point--as conditions resembling the early Earth--then step back and watch what happens). This would show that intelligent causes are not necessary, and would thus falsify the theory that "intelligent causes are necessary."

...snip...

I did read your definition (by the way I do think you should come up with new name for your story since there is already an established story also called "Intelligent Design").

As I said originally your experiment would not necessarily falsify your story for several reasons including:

This experiment requires "intelligent designers"!

Just because some chemicals etc. are formed that may be considered building blocks of life your experiment cannot prove that it would result in life as we have today until it actually produces life that is indistinguishable from life as we see it today.

As I said at best your experiment would lend some support to a hypothesis that life does not require any intervention by an intelligent designer however it does not falsify your story.

steenkh

10th July 2006, 08:00 AM

Well, yes. I did limit the scope to abiogenesis. So? I'm still using the bread-and-butter "fundamental claim" of intelligent design he mentioned.
I do not think that you are using the bread-and-butter claims of traditional Intelligent Design. Traditional ID is defined negatively as the default theory that apparently would be the only one standing if evolution is busted. Accordingly, traditional ID'ers concentrate on busting evolution. You are not addressing evolution at all! Traditional ID is not limited to life on Earth, whereas you impose this limitation which really just moves the burden of proof one step further. Aliens or gods: there is not a shred of evidence that they exist.

Your hypothesis is valid, but it has very little to do with traditional ID, and I doubt that many traditional ID'ers would embrace it.

True, I could come up with other variations of intelligent design that are not falsifiable and make no predictions (same with abiogenesis and evolution), but these don't seem to be of much use.
And that is the problem with your variation: it seems specially designed for falsification! But falsifying it will not do any harm to the main tenets that life was created by an intelligent designer who may be an alien. If abiogenesis is proven possible - and it seems that it has been proven more possible than I had expected in my life time - the only thing that has been busted in you variation is the word "necessary". Life could still have been created by a designer if abiogenesis could have happened. So the word "necessary" is an artificial addition to your hypothesis, that has nothing to do with your main hypothesis.

But is seems highly implausible to me that the sort of complexity we see on Earth-bound life forms could be formed via undirected natural processes. We're talking about incredibly vast organized complexity of high density digital information storage memory banks and decoding systems, complex mechanisms to duplicate that data with error-correcting mechanisms, automatic regulation of assembling components etc. Even if the materials are different, the system seems very machine-like in the type of complexity it has. Accepting abiogenesis to me is like someone saying that undirected natural processes could create an automobile. I'm not going to believe it until I have some hard evidence (e.g. an experimentally demonstrated means how natural processes could possibly create it). And when you throw in the known barriers we've discovered, well, hopefully you can see my point of view.
What you are really saying here is that you are going to treat any proof of the possibility of abiogenesis like traditional ID'ers treat evidence for evolution: For every step you will demand a number of substeps ad inifinitum, because you will simply not accept the fact that abiogenesis is possible.

Perhaps you do have more in common with traditional ID than I thought at first :)

Arkan_Wolfshade

10th July 2006, 08:42 AM

I think that instead of photons travelling as a wave or a particle, they're travelling in teeny tiny 1958 Ford Mustangs.

For known mechanisms, my theory is superior, because the exact nature of how photons move has still not been determined.

Although your analogy points out the logic fallacy in Tist's idea, the nitpicker in me must point out that Ford did not begin producing the Mustang until mid '64.

Mojo

10th July 2006, 08:57 AM

Although your analogy points out the logic fallacy in Tist's idea, the nitpicker in me must point out that Ford did not begin producing the Mustang until mid '64.But nevertheless, the Mustang is a known mechanism for photons travelling, even before the existence of Ford. ;)

Arkan_Wolfshade

10th July 2006, 09:00 AM

But nevertheless, the Mustang is a known mechanism for photons travelling, even before the existence of Ford. ;)

Now that may well be true.

Dcdrac

10th July 2006, 09:16 AM

you know this thread reminds me of the magic roundabout? maybe Zeebedee was the designer of it all? anyone with a moustache that big must be an intelligent deisgner right?

Mind you whats with the spring instead of legs?

Anacoluthon64

10th July 2006, 09:23 AM

you know this thread reminds me of the magic roundabout? maybe Zeebedee was the designer of it all? anyone with a moustache that big must be an intelligent deisgner right?(Emphasis mine.) I'm not sure if that spelling was inadvertent or not, but it is most revealing and suggestive.

Perhaps we should henceforth write "Intelligent Dei-sign."

Just an irreverent thought.

'Luthon64

steenkh

10th July 2006, 09:25 AM

But nevertheless, the Mustang is a known mechanism for photons travelling, even before the existence of Ford. ;)
That may well be so, but it is not the Ford Mustang that they travel in, but the P-51 Mustang! Photons are known to combine elegance with speed!

Wowbagger

12th July 2006, 03:25 PM

Now, I say, where did that Tisthammerw run off too, anyway?

Lamuella

12th July 2006, 03:29 PM

Although your analogy points out the logic fallacy in Tist's idea, the nitpicker in me must point out that Ford did not begin producing the Mustang until mid '64.

That's what the government WANTS you to think, anyway.

athon

13th July 2006, 01:07 AM

Now, I say, where did that Tisthammerw run off too, anyway?

Hopefully to study some basic biochemistry.

Athon

Arkan_Wolfshade

13th July 2006, 03:45 AM

That's what the government WANTS you to think, anyway.
Actually, the gov't wants you to think that they want you to think that. But, in reality, they don't actually want you to think that. :D

Tisthammerw

1st March 2007, 04:31 PM

I'll try to focus on the main points.

Please point to a specific page number and/or quote where Michael Behe denies microevolution in his book Darwin's Black Box. I suspect you'll have difficulty doing so.

I don't remember the page numbers, but I do recall Behe denying that it was possible for the flagellum of a paramecium to have evolved (he claims it is "irreducibly complex"), and the human immune system to have evolved (too much "chemical complexity" and stuff like that). Both are examples of micro-evolution.

No, both of those are examples of macroevolution. Microevolution has more to do with changes within species.

That's awesome! Please show us all the evidence you found for the Designer!!!!!

I think intelligent design wins the game of inference to the best explanation. I mentioned much of this in post #142 (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=1636029&postcount=142). It's predictions have been better confirmed than abiogenesis (in my view). Not enough evidence to accept? Perhaps, but I see no reason to think that abiogenesis is scientifically superior. As of the time of this thread, I have seen no such reason.

Your argument that ID is superior, because it has a "known mechanism", even if it were true, is still a pretty thin argument. Your mechanism looks suspiciously exactly like the ones humans use. Does your Designer use this same, exact method?

The designer could have, that's kind of the point: that intelligent design has a known possible mechanism (i.e. there is a known way it could have happened). When compared to abiogenesis, ID is superior when it comes to a known possible mechanism. There exists a known possible mechanism to artificially create RNA and DNA. The same is not quite true for abiogenesis, i.e. we have no experiment demonstrating a known possible mechanism abiogenesis goes from basic primordial chemicals to nucleotides to RNA.

From a utilitarian perspective, abiogenesis is more "useful" because its study will help us fight diseases, such as viruses that parasite our own RNA and DNA structures.

Why is this true? Remember, I'm not talking about evolution here, I'm talking about abiogenesis.

From a theoretical science perspective, abiogenesis is more useful, because it fits all of the properties of a good scientific theory, among them are: Testability, Evidential support, Precision, Quantifiability, Consistency, Intersubjectivity, Repeatability, Universality, Progressiveness, and Independence of cultural milieu, and so on.

Let's tackle the specifics of this so I can understand why exactly you think abiogenesis is scientifically superior to intelligent design. You mentioned evidential support. Exactly what evidence does abiogenesis have that makes it a scientifically better theory than intelligent design? So far all that's been mentioned is a known possible mechanism (e.g. behind amino acids). But when it comes to a known possible mechanism, ID beats out abiogenesis (as I explained before). ID not only has a known possible mechanism to create amino acids, it also has an experimentally demonstrated one for RNA and DNA--abiogenesis doesn't.

What about no identity, no street address etc.? None of this seems like a relevant reason to reject a design inference. Again, think back to the scenario of a stainless steel replica of Stonehenge on Mars. No identify of the designer, nor do we have the designer's street address, fax number etc. but none of this means we pretend it wasn't designed.

Okay, I was kidding when I asked for the street address and fax number. But, you are still going to have to identify the nature of the Designer, before we can begin to accept ID.

Again, why? We don't have a clue about the nature of the designer in our hypothetical Stonehenge replica scenario. Would we then reject design here?

On the other hand, when someone claims "God did it", how is that useful?

I don't believe it is. (Remember what I said about straw men.)

How is your ID different from "god"? And, don't say "one is supernatural" because they both are.

Why must the artificial creation of life necessitate the supernatural? That is unclear.

The difference is that the theory I defined makes no mention of the identity of the designer. I see no reason to conclude that a designer of life must be supernatural. If you have such a reason, I would please like you to explain it to me.

not worse than[/I] those of ID. Don't believe me? Tell me why!

It ignores empirical data by pretending they're illusionary (e.g. RNA and DNA). Intelligent design does no such thing.

Now how about you answer my question. Why exactly is abiogenesis scientifically superior to intelligent design (please be specific)? I have yet to see any such specific reason. (I've addressed most if not all of those offered in post #142 (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=1636029&postcount=142))

Note we can take the same sort of attitude with the natural processes that created life. How did those natural processes come about? Was it yet another set of natural processes? If so, where does the circular argument end?

It ends at the Initial Condition, before the Big Bang.

But what caused the Initial Condition?

Tisthammerw

1st March 2007, 04:37 PM

...snip..

Intelligent design: the theory that intelligent causes are necessary for the creation of the type of life we see on Earth.

Again, please remember that definition. It is very important. This theory states that intelligent causes are necessary, so that if we show that intelligent causes are not necessary, we will have disproved the theory. Are you with me so far? (Please answer this question, since you seemed to have missed this very important detail.)

Now, here's an experiment that would falsify the design hypothesis: simply demonstrate a means (via experiment) how undirected chemical reactions could create life without artificial intervention (e.g. setting up a plausible and realistic starting point--as conditions resembling the early Earth--then step back and watch what happens). This would show that intelligent causes are not necessary, and would thus falsify the theory that "intelligent causes are necessary."

...snip...

I did read your definition (by the way I do think you should come up with new name for your story since there is already an established story also called "Intelligent Design").

Apparently not. Notice what you said here:

As I said at best your experiment would lend some support to a hypothesis that life does not require any intervention by an intelligent designer however it does not falsify your story.

You seem to forget that the "story" is the theory that the type of life we see on Earth requires intervention by an intelligent designer. If we demonstrate via experimentation that the type of life on Earth does not require a designer to be created, we will have disproved this theory, correct?

Tisthammerw

1st March 2007, 04:53 PM

I'll respond to several people here.

Well, yes. I did limit the scope to abiogenesis. So? I'm still using the bread-and-butter "fundamental claim" of intelligent design he mentioned.

I do not think that you are using the bread-and-butter claims of traditional Intelligent Design.

That might depend on how you define "traditional" Intelligent design. However, please remember that the "fundamental claim" is something I took directly from William Dembski--a very prominent ID proponent.

But is seems highly implausible to me that the sort of complexity we see on Earth-bound life forms could be formed via undirected natural processes. We're talking about incredibly vast organized complexity of high density digital information storage memory banks and decoding systems, complex mechanisms to duplicate that data with error-correcting mechanisms, automatic regulation of assembling components etc. Even if the materials are different, the system seems very machine-like in the type of complexity it has. Accepting abiogenesis to me is like someone saying that undirected natural processes could create an automobile. I'm not going to believe it until I have some hard evidence (e.g. an experimentally demonstrated means how natural processes could possibly create it). And when you throw in the known barriers we've discovered, well, hopefully you can see my point of view.

What you are really saying here is that you are going to treat any proof of the possibility of abiogenesis like traditional ID'ers treat evidence for evolution: For every step you will demand a number of substeps ad inifinitum, because you will simply not accept the fact that abiogenesis is possible.

I treat the possibility of abiogenesis the same way I treat the possibility of an automobile coming about via undirected natural processes. I can accept the possibility if it's experimentally demonstrated--so far it has not. Also, there appears to be no scientific reason to favor abiogenesis over intelligent design (confer post #142 (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=1636029&postcount=142)).

I think that instead of photons travelling as a wave or a particle, they're travelling in teeny tiny 1958 Ford Mustangs.

For known mechanisms, my theory is superior, because the exact nature of how photons move has still not been determined.

No it is not, because that mechanism has not been experimentally demonstrated (unlike intelligent design).

The only mechanism that you have so far suggested involves human scientists. This is obviously not a possible mechanism for the origin of life.

I'm saying that one way a designer could create RNA and DNA is the same way we humans do. After all, why is it impossible for another intelligent entity to artificially create life the same way humans can (with built machinery)?

Now, I say, where did that Tisthammerw run off too, anyway?

Hopefully to study some basic biochemistry.

May I ask what basic fact of biochemistry I have gotten wrong? (I'm wondering if you can point to a specific example, so far I suspect not.) Be careful about putting up red herrings (confer this post (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=1752518&postcount=432) and this post (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=1753990&postcount=457) where I pointed out you did so).

It [underdetermination of theories] only works if you have two theories, each supported by the same evidence.

No, the underdetermination of theories merely have to do with consistency of empirical data. An example: the five-minute hypothesis (that the universe and everything in it was created five minutes ago) has little if any evidence, but it underdetermines the theory that the universe is 10 to 20 billion years old.

A theory does not require "substantial evidence to support it" to be a theory. Theories can be wrong and discredited. If you were right here, things like the caloric theory of heat would not be a "theory"--even though it clearly is (it's just a scientific theory that we've rejected now).

Wow. My brain hurt just thinking how flawed that thinking is.

Caloric's had evidence. Heat flows from one place to another, as if it is a substance.

The caloric theory of heat does not currently have substantial evidence to support it--yet it is still a theory.

I have explained the possible mechanisms and the predictions to you. You simply saying otherwise does not make it true, no matter how much you repeat it.

They are not predictions. Saying 'for as long as we never see phenomena A happen' adds no weight to a theory.

You’re obfuscating again. A prediction is foretelling that something will or will not happen beforehand. For example, if I say that during the entire twenty-first century we will never find a process that can decrease the entropy of an isolated system (this, of course, is a prediction from the second law of thermodynamics) this is a prediction. If I say that during the entire twenty-first century we will never find a realistic scenario for abiogenesis to create life, that too is a prediction (even if you believe that prediction does not or will not prove anything).

Similarly, if someone or something predicts we will find serious obstacles for undirected natural processes to create life from non-life, this is still a prediction (this, of course, is a prediction from intelligent design theory). Now you may not think this prediction has become sufficiently confirmed (perhaps you believe the obstacles are not “serious” enough) or that this prediction does not constitute sufficient evidence. Okay, fine. But it is obfuscation to pretend ID makes no predictions at all. I believe the main prediction of abiogenesis—due to being very unsatisfactorily confirmed—constitutes insufficient evidence (in fact, almost no evidence). But wouldn’t I still be guilty of obfuscation myself if I claimed that abiogenesis makes no predictions?

Rather, I claim it as an example of what you said couldn't happen: spontaneous origin of life from non-living chemicals.

Note quite. I know enough basic biochemistry to know that RNA is not a life form.

Quixote

1st March 2007, 04:55 PM

Tisthammerw

1st March 2007, 05:08 PM

When compared to abiogenesis, ID is superior when it comes to a known possible mechanism. There exists a known possible mechanism to artificially create RNA and DNA.

But the known possible mechanism involves the existence of entities that, according to ID, were created by the mechanism in question. Infinite regression is fun in mathematics, but not something you want in a theory that purports to model reality.

No, ID (as defined in this thread) does not imply an infinite regression. Please visit post #142 (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=1636029&postcount=142) to learn more about the theory being used in this thread.

The short answer is this: just because the type of life we see on Earth requires a designer does not imply that all possible forms of intelligent life require a designer.

Schneibster

1st March 2007, 08:32 PM

No.

Next?

fishbob

1st March 2007, 11:55 PM

Definitions (for this post)

Abiogenesis: the belief that life on Earth spontaneously arose from non-living matter (as through undirected chemical reactions)

Intelligent design: the belief that intelligent causes are necessary for the creation of life on Earth.

Your definitions are screwy.

Abiogenesis is a hypothesis, maybe even a fledgling theory. Belief has nothing to do with it. Understanding of natural processes supports the idea.

Intelligent design is indeed a belief. There is only absolutely evidence-free wishful thinking supporting the concept. Natural processes? ID don't need no stinking natural processes.

steenkh

2nd March 2007, 03:54 AM

It's predictions have been better confirmed than abiogenesis (in my view).
What predictions?

Tisthammerw

2nd March 2007, 06:27 PM

There is a common response I have for three people.

[Is intelligent design scientifically superior to abiogenesis?]

No.

Next?

It's predictions have been better confirmed than abiogenesis (in my view).

What predictions?

I suggest both of you read post #142 (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=1636029&postcount=142).

Schneibster, the question I would like answered is why? For various reasons (at least some of which I mention in post #142) it seems a bit unclear to me why one should think abiogenesis is scientifically superior.

Steenkh, you can find the predictions in post #142 (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=1636029&postcount=142).

Intelligent design is indeed a belief. There is only absolutely evidence-free wishful thinking supporting the concept.

Fishbob, I suggest you also read post post #142 (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=1636029&postcount=142). To say that intelligent design is "evidence free" is not entirely true; it does make testable empirical predictions. You may think these empirical predictions are not enough evidence, but then I must ask you this question: what better evidence does abiogenesis have?

Regarding your other comment:

Abiogenesis is a hypothesis, maybe even a fledgling theory. Belief has nothing to do with it.

Then it is not the case that scientists believe abiogenesis is true?

The word "belief" had no special meaning attached to it here (I was merely using definition 2 of the Merriam-Webster Dictionary (http://209.161.33.50/dictionary/belief)), so defining abiogenesis and intelligent design as "the belief that... [so and so is true]" seemed harmless under the circumstances.

All three of you are of course welcome to explain why you believe abiogenesis is scientifically superior to intelligent design (and please be specific).

Schneibster

2nd March 2007, 06:39 PM

ID requires an intelligent designer, a hypothesis which is unprovable and is not and never will be scientifically testable, or falsifiable. Any hypothesis that EVER has a chance of even BECOMING falsifiable is superior to a hypothesis that can never, by its very nature, be tested. What you've done in your post #146 is attempt to avoid discussing the designer- which is basically the elephant in the middle of the room.

fishbob

2nd March 2007, 06:55 PM

Numbered for my convenience:
1 - Fishbob, I suggest you also read post post #142 (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=1636029&postcount=142).
2 - To say that intelligent design is "evidence free" is not entirely true; it does make testable empirical predictions.
3 - You may think these empirical predictions are not enough evidence, but then I must ask you this question: what better evidence does abiogenesis have?

1 - Where do you think I found your definitions, if not in post 142?

2 - What testable empirical predictions does ID make?

3 - Theories of abiogenesis attempt to conform to what we have learned about how the universe works. The concept of ID has no basis in what we can see or measure, the concept of ID appears to derive from how you wish the universe worked.

kjkent1

2nd March 2007, 07:01 PM

All three of you are of course welcome to explain why you believe abiogenesis is scientifically superior to intelligent design (and please be specific).Although Schneibster has effectively explained the rationale without elaboration, I'd like to finish the point (since I started writing before he posted).

In order to affirmatively prove that organic life is designed, we must have an evidence trail to the designer. It's insufficient to infer that random chance makes the appearance of life unreasonably improbable, because life could still have arisen by random chance, and we would be laboring under a possible false conclusion by accepting anything less then absolute proof of design.

But, if the designer exists outside of this universe, and is therefore not subject to any possible natural and methodical discovery method, then it really doesn't matter if life was designed or not, because no scientific experiment will ever observe anything other than the random and accidental development of organic life.

Conversely, to affirmatively prove organic life is a natural process of matter -- even a random, accidental process of matter, we must merely continue to experiment and observe until we succeed in producing life in a test tube, and until we do, the question remains open as to how it occurred.

A convenient Gedanken for all of the above is available. Suppose that an extra-universal designer exists, and that he/she/it has set the universe on its course toward human existence. From inside this universe we would observe nothing more than life arising and moving from one ancestor species to its successor by random chance until humanity appears.

Now, run the same experiment presuming that no designer exists. The result is the same: life arises and moves from one ancestor species to its successor by random chance until humanity appears.

Either way, no difference at all is observed.

So, the issue of the designer's existence is moot, except as theology. It's merely one's belief to impute the evolutionary process to design or to accident, but the scientific method is to observe, verify and report, and the report is simply "evolution" has occurred, because there's nothing else to observe and report.

The question that I have to the design advocate is: if you're so certain of design, and you know that discovering an extra-universal designer is impossible, then why don't you focus all of your effort on trying to find evidence of an intra-universal designer, i.e., an alien life form who sometime long ago seeded the Earth with the beginnings of organic life?

I submit that you know the answer to this question: because that is not the goal. The goal is to place religion back into the story of creation -- nothing less.

And, I have no problem with this goal, as long as it's not part of a science curriculum, because this goal cannot be scientifically established.

Proving God via science is impossible and always will be, because otherwise God is not God.