Artificial Life By Intelligent Design!

[bgrnathan]

Artificial Life By Intelligent Design!

by Babu G. Ranganathan (B.A. theology/biology)*

Recent news reports suggest that scientists may be close to creating artificial (synthetic) life. None of this is happening by chance but by intelligent design and planning. Why, then, will many not give credit to God for the original DNA and life?

In the case involving synthetic (artificial) life, scientists don't actually create or produce life itself from non-living matter. What scientists do in this case is create (by intelligent design) artificial DNA (genetic instructions and code) which is then implanted into an already existing living cell and, thereby, changing that cell into a new form of life.

Even if scientists ever do create a whole living cell from scratch (and not just its DNA) it still would not be by chance but by intelligent design. Synthetic life is another form of genetic engineering. But God was there first! Remember that.

In all forms of genetic engineering, including production of synthetic or artificial life, scientists have always begun with already existing forms of life or their parts. Contrary to popular belief no scientist has ever created an entire living cell from "scratch" or from non-living matter. But, if that day ever comes it won't be by chance but only by intelligent design further supporting the argument that intelligent design was necessary for life's origin on Earth.

If the cell had evolved it would have had to be all at once. A partially evolved cell cannot wait millions of years to become complete because it would be highly unstable and quickly disintegrate in the open environment, especially without the protection of a complete and fully functioning cell membrane.

Although it has been shown that the basic building blocks of life, amino acids, can come into existence by chance, it has never been shown that the various amino acids can come together into a sequence by chance to form protein molecules. If the amino acids are not in the proper sequence the protein molecules will not function! Even the simplest cell is composed of millions of protein molecules.

It seems that the cell is irreducibly complex. For example, without DNA there can be no RNA, and without RNA there can be no DNA. And without either DNA or RNA there can be no proteins, and without proteins there can be no DNA or RNA. They're all mutually dependent upon each other for existence! It could not have gradually evolved! Evolutionists generally believe that it took one billion years for the first life form or cell to have evolved. That belief, although still taught as gospel in many elementary and secondary schools, cannot be sustained by modern science.

Of course, once there is a complete and living cell then the genetic program and biological mechanisms exist to direct the formation of more cells with their own genetic programs and biological mechanisms. The question is how did life come about on Earth when there was no directing mechanism.

If humans must use intelligence to perform genetic engineering, to meaningfully manipulate the genetic code, then what does that say about the origin of the genetic code itself!

The great British scientist Sir Frederick Hoyle has said that the probability of the sequence of molecules in the simplest cell coming into existence by chance is equivalent to a tornado going through a junk yard of airplane parts and assembling a 747 Jumbo Jet!

We tend to judge something as being simple or complex by its size. So many of us assume that because the cell is microscopic in size that it must be simple. Not so! Size is relative, but not complexity. If you were as big as the Empire State building you would probably think that the tiny cars and automobiles on the street were simple and could easily happen by a chance combination of parts. However, we know that is not so.

Natural laws are adequate to explain how the order in life, the universe, and even a microwave oven operates, but mere undirected natural laws cannot fully explain the origin of such order.

Science cannot prove how life originated since no human observed the origin of life by either chance or design. Observation and detection by the human senses, either directly or indirectly through scientific instruments, is the basis of science and for establishing proof. The issue is which position has better scientific support. Both sides should have the opportunity to present their case.

If some astronauts from Earth discovered figures of persons similar to Mt. Rushmore on an uninhabited planet there would be no way to scientifically prove the carved figures originated by design or by chance processes of erosion. Neither position is science, but scientific arguments may be made to support one or the other.

Many think that natural selection in nature is proof that we had evolved. Natural selection does occur in nature. However, natural selection itself does not produce biological variations. Natural selection can only work with biological variations that are possible and which have survival value. It is a passive process in nature. Natural selection is simply another way of saying that if a biological variation occurs which is helpful to an animal or plant's survival then that that variation will be preserved and be passed on. Of course, nature does not do any active or conscious selecting. The term "natural selection" is simply a figure of speech. Also, natural selection only applies once there is life and not before. In other words, natural selection is not involved in any pre-biotic, non-living interactions of chemicals.

Evolutionists believe that random or chance mutations in the genetic code (caused by random environmental forces such as radiation) will produce the favorable evolutionary changes necessary for natural selection to act upon.

However, there is no evidence that random or chance mutations in the genetic code are capable of producing greater biological complexity (vertical evolution) among natural species. Mutations are only capable of producing horizontal evolution (variations within natural species). In any case, most biological variations among natural species are due to new combinations of already existing genes and not mutations.

Considering the enormous complexity of life, it is much more logical to believe that the genetic and biological similarities between all species are due to a common Designer rather than common evolutionary ancestry. It is only logical that the great Designer would design similar functions for similar purposes and different functions for different purposes in all of the various forms of life.

What if we should find evidence of life on Mars? Wouldn't that prove evolution? No. It wouldn't be proof that such life had evolved from non-living matter by chance natural processes. And even if we did find evidence of life on Mars it would have most likely have come from our very own planet - Earth! In the Earth's past there was powerful volcanic activity which could have easily spewed dirt containing microbes into outer space which eventually could have reached Mars. A Newsweek article of September 21, 1998, p.12 mentions exactly this possibility.

We know from the law of entropy in science that the universe does not have the ability to have sustained itself from all eternity. It requires a beginning. But, we also know from science that natural laws could not have brought the universe into being from nothing. The beginning of the universe, therefore, points to a supernatural origin!

All of this simply means that real science supports faith in God. Science cannot prove that we are here by chance (evolution) or by design (creation). However, the scientific evidence can be used to support one or the other. It is only fair that evidence supporting intelligent design be presented to students alongside of evolutionary theory, especially in public schools which receive funding from taxpayers who are on both sides of the issue. Also, no one is being forced to believe in God or adopt a particular religion so there is no true violation of separation of church and state.

As a religion and science writer, I encourage all to read my Internet article "The Natural Limits of Evolution" at my website (just google my name).

*The author, Babu G. Ranganathan, is an experienced Christian writer. Mr. Ranganathan has his B.A. with academic concentrations in Bible and Biology from Bob Jones University. As a religion and science writer he has been recognized in the 24th edition of Marquis Who's Who In The East. The author's articles have been published in various publications including Russia's Pravda and South Korea's The Seoul Times.

[Wings]

Even if I were to admit that ID is possible, I can not accept that said creator is YHWH. The bible is too full of inaccuracies and I can not see how any creator could concieve of the idea of creating his creations knowing they will burn in hell forever.

The reason I state this, is because I notice that the author is a Christian and this is what it really is all about. This isn't meant as a knock to him, just simply how I see it.

[Taffer]

I haven't read the OP yet, but you cannot get a BA in biology.

[Hokulele]

Spam. Look at his other posts.

[Wings]

Spam. Look at his other posts.

Irony. I just checked it and it was an article on why hell isn't an eternal punishment. It's like he anticipated my comment.

[Taffer]

Artificial Life By Intelligent Design!

by Babu G. Ranganathan (B.A. theology/biology)*

See above.

Recent news reports suggest that scientists may be close to creating artificial (synthetic) life. None of this is happening by chance but by intelligent design and planning. Why, then, will many not give credit to God for the original DNA and life?

Our ability to do it does not mean it was originally created so.

In the case involving synthetic (artificial) life, scientists don't actually create or produce life itself from non-living matter. What scientists do in this case is create (by intelligent design) artificial DNA (genetic instructions and code) which is then implanted into an already existing living cell and, thereby, changing that cell into a new form of life.

Define "synthetic life", and explain how it is different from "natural life". Please explain what you mean by "artificial DNA".

Even if scientists ever do create a whole living cell from scratch (and not just its DNA) it still would not be by chance but by intelligent design. Synthetic life is another form of genetic engineering. But God was there first! Remember that.

Why remember it if you have no evidence? There is no point in postulating a god if there is no evidence for one. Please look up the principle of parsimony.

In all forms of genetic engineering, including production of synthetic or artificial life, scientists have always begun with already existing forms of life or their parts. Contrary to popular belief no scientist has ever created an entire living cell from "scratch" or from non-living matter.

"Popular belief"? Who believes scientists have?

But, if that day ever comes it won't be by chance but only by intelligent design further supporting the argument that intelligent design was necessary for life's origin on Earth.

Your reasoning is fallicious. If scientists create life from non-life, this only means that it is possible, not that it had to happen that way.

If the cell had evolved it would have had to be all at once. A partially evolved cell cannot wait millions of years to become complete because it would be highly unstable and quickly disintegrate in the open environment, especially without the protection of a complete and fully functioning cell membrane.

This is not true, and there is no reason to believe that an entire cell must exist for there to be a benefit to a replicating molecule.

Although it has been shown that the basic building blocks of life, amino acids, can come into existence by chance, it has never been shown that the various amino acids can come together into a sequence by chance to form protein molecules. If the amino acids are not in the proper sequence the protein molecules will not function! Even the simplest cell is composed of millions of protein molecules.

See above. The proteins we see in a cell today are by no means the simplest possible proteins. An entire working cell is not required to produce a benefit to a replicating molecule.

It seems that the cell is irreducibly complex. For example, without DNA there can be no RNA, and without RNA there can be no DNA.

Wrong.

And without either DNA or RNA there can be no proteins, and without proteins there can be no DNA or RNA.

Definately wrong.

They're all mutually dependent upon each other for existence! It could not have gradually evolved! Evolutionists generally believe that it took one billion years for the first life form or cell to have evolved. That belief, although still taught as gospel in many elementary and secondary schools, cannot be sustained by modern science.

Actually, it is strongly supported by modern science.

Also, you are beginning to equate abiogenesis with evolution. The two are completely different.

Of course, once there is a complete and living cell then the genetic program and biological mechanisms exist to direct the formation of more cells with their own genetic programs and biological mechanisms. The question is how did life come about on Earth when there was no directing mechanism.

Abiogenesis.

If humans must use intelligence to perform genetic engineering, to meaningfully manipulate the genetic code, then what does that say about the origin of the genetic code itself!

Nothing. It simply means that it is possible to do so.

The great British scientist Sir Frederick Hoyle has said that the probability of the sequence of molecules in the simplest cell coming into existence by chance is equivalent to a tornado going through a junk yard of airplane parts and assembling a 747 Jumbo Jet!

False dichotomy. A complete cell is not required for a simple replicating molecule.

We tend to judge something as being simple or complex by its size. So many of us assume that because the cell is microscopic in size that it must be simple. Not so! Size is relative, but not complexity. If you were as big as the Empire State building you would probably think that the tiny cars and automobiles on the street were simple and could easily happen by a chance combination of parts. However, we know that is not so.

Natural laws are adequate to explain how the order in life, the universe, and even a microwave oven operates, but mere undirected natural laws cannot fully explain the origin of such order.

No, you are quite right. The answer to some of these questions currently is "we do not know".

Note that not knowing != goddidit.

Science cannot prove how life originated since no human observed the origin of life by either chance or design. Observation and detection by the human senses, either directly or indirectly through scientific instruments, is the basis of science and for establishing proof. The issue is which position has better scientific support. Both sides should have the opportunity to present their case.

Nothing is ever "proven" in science. Only strongly, statistically, supported by evidence.

If some astronauts from Earth discovered figures of persons similar to Mt. Rushmore on an uninhabited planet there would be no way to scientifically prove the carved figures originated by design or by chance processes of erosion. Neither position is science, but scientific arguments may be made to support one or the other.

Erm... what?

Many think that natural selection in nature is proof that we had evolved. Natural selection does occur in nature. However, natural selection itself does not produce biological variations. Natural selection can only work with biological variations that are possible and which have survival value. It is a passive process in nature. Natural selection is simply another way of saying that if a biological variation occurs which is helpful to an animal or plant's survival then that that variation will be preserved and be passed on. Of course, nature does not do any active or conscious selecting. The term "natural selection" is simply a figure of speech. Also, natural selection only applies once there is life and not before. In other words, natural selection is not involved in any pre-biotic, non-living interactions of chemicals.

Of course biological natural selection does not occur when you do not have life.

Also, your description of natural selection is pretty poor. And it definately is selection, in the same way a filter selects a particular sized molecule.

Evolutionists believe that random or chance mutations in the genetic code (caused by random environmental forces such as radiation) will produce the favorable evolutionary changes necessary for natural selection to act upon.

However, there is no evidence that random or chance mutations in the genetic code are capable of producing greater biological complexity (vertical evolution) among natural species. Mutations are only capable of producing horizontal evolution (variations within natural species). In any case, most biological variations among natural species are due to new combinations of already existing genes and not mutations.

Firstly, define "species".

Secondly, wrong. (http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB102.html)

Considering the enormous complexity of life, it is much more logical to believe that the genetic and biological similarities between all species are due to a common Designer rather than common evolutionary ancestry. It is only logical that the great Designer would design similar functions for similar purposes and different functions for different purposes in all of the various forms of life.

Appeal to ignorance. Just because we can't understand it, goddidit?

What if we should find evidence of life on Mars? Wouldn't that prove evolution? No. It wouldn't be proof that such life had evolved from non-living matter by chance natural processes. And even if we did find evidence of life on Mars it would have most likely have come from our very own planet - Earth! In the Earth's past there was powerful volcanic activity which could have easily spewed dirt containing microbes into outer space which eventually could have reached Mars. A Newsweek article of September 21, 1998, p.12 mentions exactly this possibility.

Ok...?

We know from the law of entropy in science that the universe does not have the ability to have sustained itself from all eternity. It requires a beginning. But, we also know from science that natural laws could not have brought the universe into being from nothing. The beginning of the universe, therefore, points to a supernatural origin!

Appeal to ignorance. Just because we do not understand it does not mean goddidit.

All of this simply means that real science supports faith in God. Science cannot prove that we are here by chance (evolution) or by design (creation). However, the scientific evidence can be used to support one or the other. It is only fair that evidence supporting intelligent design be presented to students alongside of evolutionary theory, especially in public schools which receive funding from taxpayers who are on both sides of the issue. Also, no one is being forced to believe in God or adopt a particular religion so there is no true violation of separation of church and state.

This couldn't be more wrong if you tried.

As a religion and science writer, I encourage all to read my Internet article "The Natural Limits of Evolution" at my website (just google my name).

*The author, Babu G. Ranganathan, is an experienced Christian writer. Mr. Ranganathan has his B.A. with academic concentrations in Bible and Biology from Bob Jones University. As a religion and science writer he has been recognized in the 24th edition of Marquis Who's Who In The East. The author's articles have been published in various publications including Russia's Pravda and South Korea's The Seoul Times.

Not doing so well, so far.

Abiogenesis != evolution. Be careful to remember that.

[SezMe]

I haven't read the OP yet, but you cannot get a BA in biology.

Lord knows (so to speak) what kind of degree you can get from Bob Jones University.

[Taffer]

Spam. Look at his other posts.

On second thought, I agree with you.

Oh well, if he comes back, I'll have some fun with him.

[Taffer]

Lord knows (so to speak) what kind of degree you can get from Bob Jones University.

Well, a BA in biology, obviously. :rolleyes:

[Slimething]

Care to post these "news reports", liar? I haven't seen any and I read, read, read.

[my_wan]

You have happened upon the last and only piece of evolution not directly proved through direct observation. That being life created from non-life parts. Due to the massive misunderstandings conveyed in the OP I will restrict response to one main piece.


It seems that the cell is irreducibly complex. For example, without DNA there can be no RNA, and without RNA there can be no DNA. And without either DNA or RNA there can be no proteins, and without proteins there can be no DNA or RNA. They're all mutually dependent upon each other for existence! It could not have gradually evolved! Evolutionists generally believe that it took one billion years for the first life form or cell to have evolved. That belief, although still taught as gospel in many elementary and secondary schools, cannot be sustained by modern science.

First we can created irreducibly complex (IC) systems from artificial evolution systems. The produced IC systems we created were not designed in but arose by chance. Second, simple organisms do not require both RNA and DNA to be self replicating life. RNA alone can do everything necessary to define the first life, including self replicate.
http://www.hno.harvard.edu/gazette/1996/09.12/CreatingLifeina.html

The rest of the false claims in the OP argument is just an extension of these two false claims plus a God bias. bgrnathan, given that life from non-life is the only unobserved aspect of evolution will you concede evolution when it is observed? A good (honest) intellectual exercise is to research ways to prove you own beliefs wrong. This is what all good researchers do. It's not what believers do.

[Gary]

I haven't read the OP yet, but you cannot get a BA in biology.

Just for interest, whilst not wishing to appear to support the OP, there are respected institutions which give BAs and MAs for science degrees. I have an MA in engineering form Cambridge University, England.

[H3LL]

I wonder how long it will be before we are treated to his other articles.

His Web Site (http://www.geocities.com/athens/oracle/5862/)

We have first and second (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=87680) so far.

He holds a B.A. with a major in Bible and a minor in Biology from Bob Jones University in Greenville, South Carolina (class of '82).

I'm certain that many here will give the respect a BA from Bob Jones University deserves.

I wonder if the university still has its charity status removed (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=CASE&court=US&vol=461&page=574)for being a racist s[rule8]t hole.

.

[Beady]

Artificial Life By Intelligent Design!

by Babu G. Ranganathan (B.A. theology/biology)*

Recent news reports suggest that scientists may be close to creating artificial (synthetic) life.

As the OP has indicated, it takes something considerably less than divine intelligence to "create life." Therefore, God is an unnecessary complication.

[Taffer]

Just for interest, whilst not wishing to appear to support the OP, there are respected institutions which give BAs and MAs for science degrees. I have an MA in engineering form Cambridge University, England.

Oh. Ok. I respectfully stand corrected. :o

[JQH]

bgrnathan: If you think that God is needed to create life and if scientists do manage to create life in the laboratory do you think that this achievement elevates them to godhood?

If not, why not?

[aggle-rithm]

bgrnathan: If you think that God is needed to create life and if scientists do manage to create life in the laboratory do you think that this achievement elevates them to godhood?

If not, why not?

Sorry, I think bgrnathan is a synthetic poster.

[Jimbo07]

Abiogenesis != evolution. Be careful to remember that.

Interestingly, I find this to be entirely unsatisfying. It seems to be a case of 'passing the buck.' A mechanistic explanation of the universe ultimately will wind up raising the question of, "how did we come to be?"

Here's a crack at it (somebody feel free to correct me/comment):

Abiogenesis, at least as popularly conceived, is a red herring, in that it is based on the fallacy of assuming a clear distinction between life and unlife. If, rather, life and unlife exist merely on a spectrum and the distinction is understood to be an arbitrarily drawn line, abiogenesis is not required.

[Taffer]

Interestingly, I find this to be entirely unsatisfying. It seems to be a case of 'passing the buck.' A mechanistic explanation of the universe ultimately will wind up raising the question of, "how did we come to be?"

Here's a crack at it (somebody feel free to correct me/comment):

Abiogenesis, at least as popularly conceived, is a red herring, in that it is based on the fallacy of assuming a clear distinction between life and unlife. If, rather, life and unlife exist merely on a spectrum and the distinction is understood to be an arbitrarily drawn line, abiogenesis is not required.

The problem is one from definition.

Evolution happens if you have a self-replicating entity within a population of which there exists variation. Abiogenesis happens when you get this from non-self-replicating entities. Because it is clear that the individual chemicals which make up a modern living organism are not self-replicating, then abiogenesis must have occurred.

One's definition of "life" is important here. I have yet to hear an entirely satisfactory answer on this one. Ultimately, yes, it is a spectrum. We know that evolution by natural selection occurs in a population of self-replicating entities with variation of inheritable traits. Anything else is abiogenesis. If you follow... :o

[Jimbo07]

The problem is one from definition.

One's definition of "life" is important here.

I'm not comfortable with self-replication being the sole defining factor for life in terms of abiogenesis... or rather... I'm perfectly comfortable with saying, "Okay, anything which can self-replicate is life, and abiogenesis is where this arises from non-self-replicating entities." With that definition, life loses any sort of 'specialness,' or voodoo, or other mysticism.

So, I'm not comfortable with it as a response to the religious, because they probably shouldn't be comfortable with it. If they insist on life having special properites, this won't be a sufficient refutation...

[Wowbagger]

Abiogenesis != evolution. Be careful to remember that.
As someone who has read a bit on both, I object to the idea of using "abiogenesis is not equal to evolution", as an argument against ID. That is clearly side-stepping the issue.

Abiogenesis and evolution are closely-related enough that it is worth embarking on how one emerged from the other, whenever creationists bring up the subject.

Abiogenesis, itself is mostly likely emerged as a product of a slow evolutionary process. There are a few theories, each with its own set of supporting evidence. We might not know, yet, which theory most-accurately describes what actually happened. But, the point is that we understand that such a thing is possible, and NOT impossible.

My favorite theory is that of Selfish Gene theory, as popularized by Richard Dawkins: early replicators forming from silicates, eventually emerging as replicating genes, which in-turn induce structures for their own survival, from the surrounding environment, etc.

But there are others.

If the cell had evolved it would have had to be all at once. A partially evolved cell cannot wait millions of years to become complete because it would be highly unstable and quickly disintegrate in the open environment, especially without the protection of a complete and fully functioning cell membrane.

As for cells being "too complex" to have emerged via evolution: we can demonstrate how this does not have to be true: Experiments and observations have yielded clues as to how various bacterial-like agents began working together, in a mutually symbiotic manner, against a backdrop of other agents doing the opposite. Agents would team-up in all sorts of ways, but only certain ones could resist destructive forces. Through further selection pressures, these agents eventually became our organelles.

I would like to address all the other issues brought up in the OP, but frankly I don't have the time, right now. If bgrnathan, or anyone else, starts demanding it, I will.

[MWare]

I'm certain that many here will give the respect a BA from Bob Jones University deserves.


A degree with an academic (HA!) concentration in the Bible and Biology. How convenient! How great it would have been to get through all of my courses in college with only having to buy ONE BOOK!

[Foster Zygote]

I'm certain that many here will give the respect a BA from Bob Jones University deserves.

I just ate so you'll have to give me a few hours.

[Apathia]

Hey, where'd he go? This is another one of those spam blitzes, isn't it? A seagull.

[The Great Hairy One]

As someone who has read a bit on both, I object to the idea of using "abiogenesis is not equal to evolution", as an argument against ID. That is clearly side-stepping the issue.


Actually, from a scientific point of view, Abiogenesis and Evolution are certainly not equal. I'll agree that they are closely related, but the underlying processes of the two are not the same. They are treated as seperate theories, and taught separately within biology courses at university.

Now, please realise that our understanding of Abiogenesis is currently weak. We have a great deal of work still to do in this area. It is quite possible that within 30-40 years, once our understanding of the processes within Abiogenesis have greatly improved, that the Theory of Abiogenesis is rolled into the Theory of Evolution. But currently this is not the case.

Whilst a scientist can clearly delineate and outline the various processes of evolution within an experiment in the lab, it's much more difficult to perform experiments with the processes of abiogenesis. It's quite valid to say "we don't know" at the moment when it comes to abiogenesis, but within evolution, we can clearly state "yes, this is how it works".


I would like to address all the other issues brought up in the OP, but frankly I don't have the time, right now. If bgrnathan, or anyone else, starts demanding it, I will.


I'd like to see him post here again before I bother. Taffer did a good job, let this chap answer the questions he raised before putting in some effort. :)

Cheers,
TGHO

[Wowbagger]

Actually, from a scientific point of view, Abiogenesis and Evolution are certainly not equal. I'll agree that they are closely related, but the underlying processes of the two are not the same. They are treated as seperate theories, and taught separately within biology courses at university.
No offense, but that is an incredibly stupid position to take!
Just because they are treated separately, in academia, does not give you an excuse to dismiss the issues raised. It is important to reflect that the argument from Intelligent Design tries to undermine a whole slew of sciences, not just Evolution, but also Abiogenesis, Geology, Physics, Information Theory, Organic Chemistry, etc., etc., etc.

Especially Abiogenesis! Their central claim, after all, is that such a thing is impossible, therefore "goddidit".

Are you going to let them do that, just because your school says they're all separate?!

Now, please realise that our understanding of Abiogenesis is currently weak. We have a great deal of work still to do in this area. It is quite possible that within 30-40 years, once our understanding of the processes within Abiogenesis have greatly improved, that the Theory of Abiogenesis is rolled into the Theory of Evolution. But currently this is not the case.I do realize this. That is why it is important to reflect that at least the possibility of Abiogenesis exists, and can be worked out. It is not the utterly impossible occurrence ID would try to have us believe.

[The Great Hairy One]

No offense, but that is an incredibly stupid position to take!


You fail to understand the basic issue here, as I said here:

Whilst a scientist can clearly delineate and outline the various processes of evolution within an experiment in the lab, it's much more difficult to perform experiments with the processes of abiogenesis. It's quite valid to say "we don't know" at the moment when it comes to abiogenesis, but within evolution, we can clearly state "yes, this is how it works".


Evolution and Abiogenesis are taught separately because very little is known about how abiogenesis actually takes place. It would not be scientifically correct to teach them as the same, or as having the same processes.

Just because they are treated separately, in academia, does not give you an excuse to dismiss the issues raised. It is important to reflect that the argument from Intelligent Design tries to undermine a whole slew of sciences, not just Evolution, but also Abiogenesis, Geology, Physics, Information Theory, Organic Chemistry, etc., etc., etc.

Especially Abiogenesis! Their central claim, after all, is that such a thing is impossible, therefore "goddidit".

Are you going to let them do that, just because your school says they're all separate?!


I do not understand your argument here. You're saying that because we separate Abiogenesis and Evolution, we're ID enablers?

I do realize this. That is why it is important to reflect that at least the possibility of Abiogenesis exists, and can be worked out. It is not the utterly impossible occurrence ID would try to have us believe.


Obviously, Abiogenesis took place. The how it took place is still being examined and researched. As I noted before, it's perfectly legitimate to say "we don't know" at this point in time with respect to Abiogenesis. It's not legitimate to do that with Evolution. We do know how Evolution basically works. It is not correct to conflate them.

Cheers,
TGHO

[Taffer]

I'm not comfortable with self-replication being the sole defining factor for life in terms of abiogenesis... or rather... I'm perfectly comfortable with saying, "Okay, anything which can self-replicate is life, and abiogenesis is where this arises from non-self-replicating entities." With that definition, life loses any sort of 'specialness,' or voodoo, or other mysticism.

Firstly, self-replication is not the only criterion for "life". What is, and what isn't, a criterion is disputable. Defining "life" from "non-life" is hard.

But lets assume that "self-replication" is the only criterion for life.

Abiogenesis is the process which creates entities which can self-replicate from entities which cannot. Evolution is the process which changes the properties of those entities, once they already exist. Evolution occurs only once self-replicators exist.

So, I'm not comfortable with it as a response to the religious, because they probably shouldn't be comfortable with it. If they insist on life having special properites, this won't be a sufficient refutation...

It's not a refutation. It is simply pointing out that using an argument against abiogenesis cannot be used as an argument against evolution.

If you wish to argue the origin of life, i.e. abiogenesis, then that's fine. We know far less about abiogenesis then we do about evolution, and an argument against abiogenesis is not an argument about evolution.

[Taffer]

As someone who has read a bit on both, I object to the idea of using "abiogenesis is not equal to evolution", as an argument against ID. That is clearly side-stepping the issue.

No-one is using "abiogenesis is not equal to evolution" as an argument against ID. They are using that statement as an argument against arguments against abiogenesis being equated with arguments about evolution. The common theme of which goes along the lines of "Abiogenesis is wrong because of X, therefore evolution is wrong". It is clearly an equivication fallacy, because evolution and abiogenesis are seperate processes.

Abiogenesis and evolution are closely-related enough that it is worth embarking on how one emerged from the other, whenever creationists bring up the subject.

They are closely related, to be sure, but are fundamentally different, by definition. Because evolution occurs when living things already exist, abiogenesis must have occurred to create those living things. This could be by a huge number of mechanisms, and the definition of "living thing" varies a lot. But it must have occurred somewhere, sometime, otherwise living things must have always existed.

Abiogenesis, itself is mostly likely emerged as a product of a slow evolutionary process. There are a few theories, each with its own set of supporting evidence. We might not know, yet, which theory most-accurately describes what actually happened. But, the point is that we understand that such a thing is possible, and NOT impossible.

You are using "evolutionary process" using a different definition here to "evolution by natural selection". By definition, evolution by natural selection only occurs once living things already exist.

My favorite theory is that of Selfish Gene theory, as popularized by Richard Dawkins: early replicators forming from silicates, eventually emerging as replicating genes, which in-turn induce structures for their own survival, from the surrounding environment, etc.

No-one said that abiogenesis was a fast process. But please remember, that evolution by natural selection only occurs once living things exist.

But there are others.

As for cells being "too complex" to have emerged via evolution: we can demonstrate how this does not have to be true: Experiments and observations have yielded clues as to how various bacterial-like agents began working together, in a mutually symbiotic manner, against a backdrop of other agents doing the opposite. Agents would team-up in all sorts of ways, but only certain ones could resist destructive forces. Through further selection pressures, these agents eventually became our organelles.

I would like to address all the other issues brought up in the OP, but frankly I don't have the time, right now. If bgrnathan, or anyone else, starts demanding it, I will.

I agree with all of that, though. :)

[Taffer]

No offense, but that is an incredibly stupid position to take!
Just because they are treated separately, in academia, does not give you an excuse to dismiss the issues raised. It is important to reflect that the argument from Intelligent Design tries to undermine a whole slew of sciences, not just Evolution, but also Abiogenesis, Geology, Physics, Information Theory, Organic Chemistry, etc., etc., etc.

Especially Abiogenesis! Their central claim, after all, is that such a thing is impossible, therefore "goddidit".

The argument is that arguing against Abiogenesis is not arguing against evolution. It is never used as a refutation of their argument against abiogenesis.

Are you going to let them do that, just because your school says they're all separate?!

They are seperate, though.

I do realize this. That is why it is important to reflect that at least the possibility of Abiogenesis exists, and can be worked out. It is not the utterly impossible occurrence ID would try to have us believe.

Indeed. :)

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

You know how they make artificial gravity by spinning a large cylinder really fast? I think that pretty much vindicates intelligent falling.

~~ Paul

[Dancing David]

See above.



Our ability to do it does not mean it was originally created so.



Define "synthetic life", and explain how it is different from "natural life". Please explain what you mean by "artificial DNA".



Why remember it if you have no evidence? There is no point in postulating a god if there is no evidence for one. Please look up the principle of parsimony.



"Popular belief"? Who believes scientists have?



Your reasoning is fallicious. If scientists create life from non-life, this only means that it is possible, not that it had to happen that way.



This is not true, and there is no reason to believe that an entire cell must exist for there to be a benefit to a replicating molecule.



See above. The proteins we see in a cell today are by no means the simplest possible proteins. An entire working cell is not required to produce a benefit to a replicating molecule.



Wrong.



Definately wrong.



Actually, it is strongly supported by modern science.

Also, you are beginning to equate abiogenesis with evolution. The two are completely different.



Abiogenesis.



Nothing. It simply means that it is possible to do so.



False dichotomy. A complete cell is not required for a simple replicating molecule.



No, you are quite right. The answer to some of these questions currently is "we do not know".

Note that not knowing != goddidit.



Nothing is ever "proven" in science. Only strongly, statistically, supported by evidence.



Erm... what?



Of course biological natural selection does not occur when you do not have life.

Also, your description of natural selection is pretty poor. And it definately is selection, in the same way a filter selects a particular sized molecule.



Firstly, define "species".

Secondly, wrong. (http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB102.html)



Appeal to ignorance. Just because we can't understand it, goddidit?



Ok...?



Appeal to ignorance. Just because we do not understand it does not mean goddidit.



This couldn't be more wrong if you tried.



Not doing so well, so far.

Abiogenesis != evolution. Be careful to remember that.

Thnks for taking the time Taffer, there are always the lurkers.

[Dancing David]

You know how they make artificial gravity by spinning a large cylinder really fast? I think that pretty much vindicates intelligent falling.

~~ Paul

I dub this post a Nominee!

[Lothian]

It is only fair that evidence supporting intelligent design be presented to students alongside of evolutionary theory, It is a shame you ignore the creed of your alma mater which says "God’s word was not given to us to teach science"

*The author, Babu G. Ranganathan, has been recognized in the 24th edition of Marquis Who's Who In The East. . Not very impressive especially when you consider the selection criteria.
From wikipedia.
the selection process is neither rigorous nor meaningful, and self nominators and thousands of people not particularly notable are included.

[Wowbagger]

Evolution and Abiogenesis are taught separately because very little is known about how abiogenesis actually takes place. It would not be scientifically correct to teach them as the same, or as having the same processes.
...
I do not understand your argument here. You're saying that because we separate Abiogenesis and Evolution, we're ID enablers?
I have no problem with evolution and abiogenesis being taught separately, for the reasons you stated, and others. My point is that just because they are taught separately does not mean we can dismiss the issue once it is brought up.

For example: In the OP, bgrnathan stated this:
...Evolutionists generally believe that it took one billion years for the first life form or cell to have evolved. That belief, although still taught as gospel in many elementary and secondary schools, cannot be sustained by modern science.
Taffer's response was this:
Actually, it is strongly supported by modern science.

Also, you are beginning to equate abiogenesis with evolution. The two are completely different.
I think it would be a better tactic to actually present some of the strong findings that support this, instead of weaseling out of the issue by declaring it is "completely different".
Perhaps weaseling was not Taffer's intent, but that is what it can be taken as.

No-one is using "abiogenesis is not equal to evolution" as an argument against ID. (snip) The common theme of which goes along the lines of "Abiogenesis is wrong because of X, therefore evolution is wrong". It is clearly an equivication fallacy, because evolution and abiogenesis are seperate processes.
I understand, but that is the least important of the OP's violations.
It makes us look stupid, if our only response is that they are separate.
It is more important to demonstrate that their claim is falsifiable, and has, in fact, been falsified thus far.

Besides, I don't think most of the OP was refuting evolution, as much as it was attempting to refute abiogenesis, anyway, even if it never used the word "abiogenesis". The first few paragraphs make this clear. Some excerpts:
scientists may be close to creating artificial (synthetic) life. None of this is happening by chance but by intelligent design and planning. Why, then, will many not give credit to God for the original DNA and life?
Even if scientists ever do create a whole living cell from scratch (and not just its DNA) it still would not be by chance but by intelligent design. Synthetic life is another form of genetic engineering. But God was there first! Remember that.
Sounds like an attempt refute of Abiogenesis to me, albeit a very poor one.

And then there are these, also from the OP:
Many think that natural selection in nature is proof that we had evolved. Natural selection does occur in nature. However, natural selection itself does not produce biological variations.
Also, natural selection only applies once there is life and not before. In other words, natural selection is not involved in any pre-biotic, non-living interactions of chemicals.
Ignoring the fact that the first quote is nearly a self-refuting argument, it is quite clear that the OP accepts that natural selection occurs in nature (even if it is confused on several points).

What the OP does not seem to accept is that the blind process of nature is sufficient to
explain the wide variety of life, around us. We should communicate to the OP three things:
1. We have theories of abiogenesis that can explain how life came about naturally.
2. There are mechanisms by which biological variation can occur, in the process of natural selection: (transcription errors, double-copying, co-option, jumping genes, etc.)
3. The clumsy-appearing blindness of natural selection is sufficient to explain the clumsy-appearing design of life forms. No Intelligent entity is really necessary.

The least important priority is to enforce the separation of Abiogenesis from Evolution, at this time.

Perhaps bgrnathan did not even know the word "Abiogenesis". If he or she did, perhaps the sentence would have said "Many think that natural selection in nature is proof that we had come about through abiogenesis", instead of "evolved".


Another point:
Nature is not obliged to keep its processes separate and distinct from each other. Why should our human-oriented definitions and taxonomies be an excuse to enforce a separation, when others choose to tie two of the closely-related ones together?

Obviously, Abiogenesis took place. The how it took place is still being examined and researched. As I noted before, it's perfectly legitimate to say "we don't know" at this point in time with respect to Abiogenesis.
I think it would be better to say "we don't know exactly how Abiogenesis happened, but here is some of the evidence modern science has accumulated regarding the issue..."

Abiogenesis is the process which creates entities which can self-replicate from entities which cannot. Evolution is the process which changes the properties of those entities, once they already exist. Evolution occurs only once self-replicators exist.
I agree, but wish to add that abiogenesis, itself, likely occurred in a slow, gradual, process; closely akin to the Natural Selection evolutionary process that took off, once life got started (but might not exactly be the same).
You are using "evolutionary process" using a different definition here to "evolution by natural selection". By definition, evolution by natural selection only occurs once living things already exist. Yeah, perhaps I should have made it clearer that I was using the word "evolution" in a general sense, when I was describing Abiogenesis, earlier. My bad.

[Jimbo07]

gghhhnnnn...

still seems kinda dodgy to me...

:boxedin:

ETA: Thanks Wowbagger, for keeping this up

[Taffer]

This:

I think it would be a better tactic to actually present some of the strong findings that support this, instead of weaseling out of the issue by declaring it is "completely different".
Perhaps weaseling was not Taffer's intent, but that is what it can be taken as.

It definately wasn't my intention. It was merely an aside. He was arguing abiogenesis, while using "evolutionists", which is accepted to mean people who believe in evolution, not a particular abiogenesis hypothesis.

I understand, but that is the least important of the OP's violations.
It makes us look stupid, if our only response is that they are separate.
It is more important to demonstrate that their claim is falsifiable, and has, in fact, been falsified thus far.

But... it wasn't my only response. Nor did I use it to refute his argument against abiogenesis.

Besides, I don't think most of the OP was refuting evolution, as much as it was attempting to refute abiogenesis, anyway, even if it never used the word "abiogenesis". The first few paragraphs make this clear. Some excerpts:


Sounds like an attempt refute of Abiogenesis to me, albeit a very poor one.

And then there are these, also from the OP:


Ignoring the fact that the first quote is nearly a self-refuting argument, it is quite clear that the OP accepts that natural selection occurs in nature (even if it is confused on several points).

Perhaps. When I see the word "evolution" and "evolutionist", I think "evolution by natural selection", however it might not have been his intention.

What the OP does not seem to accept is that the blind process of nature is sufficient to
explain the wide variety of life, around us. We should communicate to the OP three things:
1. We have theories of abiogenesis that can explain how life came about naturally.
2. There are mechanisms by which biological variation can occur, in the process of natural selection: (transcription errors, double-copying, co-option, jumping genes, etc.)
3. The clumsy-appearing blindness of natural selection is sufficient to explain the clumsy-appearing design of life forms. No Intelligent entity is really necessary.

Agreed.

The least important priority is to enforce the separation of Abiogenesis from Evolution, at this time.

I disagree. If one is going to attempt to refute abiogenesis, and then use that refutation to mean a refutation of evolution, I most certainly am going to enforce the seperation.

Perhaps the OP did not mean his post this way. I am willing to be incorrect in this matter.

Perhaps bgrnathan did not even know the word "Abiogenesis". If he or she did, perhaps the sentence would have said "Many think that natural selection in nature is proof that we had come about through abiogenesis", instead of "evolved".

If it had be put that way, I wouldn't have had any reason to believe he was comparing the two.

Another point:
Nature is not obliged to keep its processes separate and distinct from each other. Why should our human-oriented definitions and taxonomies be an excuse to enforce a separation, when others choose to tie two of the closely-related ones together?

Because the defference is a human construct. It all comes from the way we define evolution by natural selection, and abiogenesis. By definition the two are different. Natural selection can, and only, works on variation of inheritable traits within a population. Other forms of selection exist, and it is possible that other forms of selection lead to abiogenesis, but that is not natural selection.

I agree, but wish to add that abiogenesis, itself, likely occurred in a slow, gradual, process; closely akin to the Natural Selection evolutionary process that took off, once life got started (but might not exactly be the same).

It is one possible hypothesis, agreed.

[quote[Yeah, perhaps I should have made it clearer that I was using the word "evolution" in a general sense, when I was describing Abiogenesis, earlier. My bad.[/QUOTE]

No problem.

[Taffer]

Perhaps there is some misunderstanding that I would like to clear up.

Making clear that abiogenesis is not evolution is not a "cop out" when used to refute an argument against evolution which was made by refuting abiogenesis. This should be clear, because it is possible that abiogenesis be divine in origin, but evolution by natural selection can and has still occurred.

[Jimbo07]

This should be clear, because it is possible that abiogenesis be divine in origin

Not in a mechanistic universe... this was my complaint. It's equated for IDers, because they're really arguing against atheists, not scientists.

A hole for God at the start of life? Boom! Your atheistic stance is gonna fall like a house of cards...

[Taffer]

Not in a mechanistic universe... this was my complaint. It's equated for IDers, because they're really arguing against atheists, not scientists.

A hole for God at the start of life? Boom! Your atheistic stance is gonna fall like a house of cards...

I'm not sure why you would think that. My atheism is, in part, due to a lack of need for a god to explain things. It's just the same in this case.

And the reason I used that as an example is because we understand evolution very well, and abiogenesis poorly. And because they are different processes, they can have different explanations. That was really my point.

[Slimething]

A hole for God at the start of life? Boom! Your atheistic stance is gonna fall like a house of cards...

Yes and no. You'll find that defining "God" is as challenging as defining "life".

[sts60]

(Inhales slowly, takes the plunge)

"Hi. Long-time listener, first-time caller."

I haven't read the OP yet, but you cannot get a BA in biology.

OK, I'll bite. Why not?

Edit to add: Oh, never mind. I saw Gary's and Taffer's followups. I was just wondering because I have a BA in physics.

[Jimbo07]

I'm not sure why you would think that. My atheism is, in part, due to a lack of need for a god to explain things. It's just the same in this case.

And the reason I used that as an example is because we understand evolution very well, and abiogenesis poorly. And because they are different processes, they can have different explanations. That was really my point.

I can't help but think an IDer will insist that if you're trying to stick to a mechanistic explanation of the universe, abiogenesis and evolution walk hand-in-hand.

I understand the scientific answer of "I don't know." I also understand conjecture. That still leaves a gaping hole into which they can dump a lot of garbage.

Yes and no. You'll find that defining "God" is as challenging as defining "life".

Not for them. Each person you argue with will be working with some kind of assumption about what they think "life" is, and what they think "God" is(although they may not have thought it through).
Well, an IDer might try the dodge of 'aliens,' but it doesn't matter.

[Taffer]

(Inhales slowly, takes the plunge)

"Hi. Long-time listener, first-time caller."

I haven't read the OP yet, but you cannot get a BA in biology.

OK, I'll bite. Why not?

Edit to add: Oh, never mind. I saw Gary's and Taffer's followups. I was just wondering because I have a BA in physics.

Yep, just me being wrong. :o

And welcome to the forums!

[Taffer]

I can't help but think an IDer will insist that if you're trying to stick to a mechanistic explanation of the universe, abiogenesis and evolution walk hand-in-hand.

I understand the scientific answer of "I don't know." I also understand conjecture. That still leaves a gaping hole into which they can dump a lot of garbage.

I don't see why they need to walk hand-in-hand. Like I've been saying, they are seperate processes. We know little about the process of abiogenesis. We know a lot about evolution.

Although I guess I see your point. All rather moot, anyway, mate. It's not like he's coming back to argue the point. :D

[Jimbo07]

It's not like he's coming back to argue the point. :D

That's why I felt safe hijacking this thread to work on my own thinking for a bit...

[Dancing David]

Not in a mechanistic universe... this was my complaint. It's equated for IDers, because they're really arguing against atheists, not scientists.

A hole for God at the start of life? Boom! Your atheistic stance is gonna fall like a house of cards...


Not a hole a possibility, it is much more likely that abiogenesis occured without any sort of divine intervention. But there is a possibility, without any evidence, that Thoth and Isis got together and made life. Very unlikely though it may be.

Posible is not the same as plausible.

[Dancing David]

(Inhales slowly, takes the plunge)

"Hi. Long-time listener, first-time caller."

I haven't read the OP yet, but you cannot get a BA in biology.

OK, I'll bite. Why not?

Edit to add: Oh, never mind. I saw Gary's and Taffer's followups. I was just wondering because I have a BA in physics.

Welcome.

[Wowbagger]

Thanks, Jimbo, for helping everyone clarify a couple of issues.

I know the whole "separate processes" statement was not meant to be a cop-out. But, to an ID advocate, it might look that way.

[Taffer]

Thanks, Jimbo, for helping everyone clarify a couple of issues.

I know the whole "separate processes" statement was not meant to be a cop-out. But, to an ID advocate, it might look that way.

Fair point. I usually follow up with qualifiers if the need arises. But yeah, fair point. :)