Abiogenesis Challenge

_{November 16, 2015

Chemistry, Origin Of Life}

Share: Facebook; Twitter; LinkedIn; Flipboard; Print; Email

Over on a recent thread, we witnessed some flailing about with respect to abiogenesis (see comments 374-376). Thoroughly confused about critical distinctions, such as the difference between deterministic forces and contingent possibilities, some seem to think that the fact that “nature forms stars and planets” means that nature can do just about anything. No need to ask any hard questions, kids! Just close your eyes and imagine the possibilities.

This is what so much of the materialistic abiogenesis creation story amounts to.

I have posted essentially this challenge before, but for Zachriel and anyone else who thinks materialistic abiogenesis is anything more than a laughable made-up story, here it is again:

—–

For purposes of this challenge, I’m willing to grant you all the amino acids you want. I’ll even give them all to you in a non-racemic mixture. You want them all left-handed? No problem. I’ll also grant you the exact relative mixture of the specific amino acids you want (what percentage do you want of glycine, alanine, arginine, etc.?). I’ll further give you just the right concentration to encourage optimum reaction. I’m also willing to give you the most benign and hospitable environment you can possibly imagine for your fledgling structures to form (take your pick of the popular ideas: volcanic vents, hydrothermal pools, mud globules, tide pools, deep sea hydrothermal vents, comets, dust clouds in space . . . whichever environment you want). I’ll even throw in whatever type of energy source you want in true Goldilocks fashion: just the right amount to facilitate the chemical reactions; not too much to destroy the nascent formations. I’ll further spot you that all these critical conditions occur in the same location spatially. And at the same time temporally. Shoot, as a massive bonus I’ll even step in to prevent contaminating cross reactions. I’ll also miraculously make your fledgling chemical structures immune from their natural rate of breakdown.

Every single one of the foregoing items represents a huge challenge to the formation of life, but I’m willing to grant them all for the present exercise.

Now, with all these concessions, go ahead, what is your theory about how life formed?

—–

Note:

I also reiterate my open invitation for Zachriel, AVS, billmaz and anyone else to do a guest post laying out their strongest evidence for abiogenesis. There have been no takers yet, but the invitation remains open.

Comments

Zachriel:
Replicating vesicles and replicating RNA strands are non-trivial results.
Replicating RNA strands were designed, as were the RNA strands used to replicate. That is a non-trivial fact.
Intelligent Design is scientifically sterile.
Only to a scientifically illiterate person. To the rest of the world the design inference opens up new questions which we will try to answer. And the design inference tells us that there is more to life than physics, chemistry and emergence. Only a fool would think ID is scientifically sterile.
They are instances of evolution.
Your equivocation causes confusion. Intelligent Design is not anti-evolution.Virgil Cain_{November 19, 2015
November
11
Nov
19
19
2015
08:55 AM
8
08
55
AM
PDT}

Jack Jones: It is an instance of a loss of information. Natural selection generally reduces Shannon information, while sources of variation such as mutation increase it. Jack Jones: You have fallaciously argued ad infinitum about something that is not what Mike asked or what I asked, Be happy to, once we have established a few facts (incremental change and branching descent) and basic terminology (evolution and natural selection).Zachriel_{November 19, 2015
November
11
Nov
19
19
2015
08:41 AM
8
08
41
AM
PDT}

@183 "They are instances of evolution." It is an instance of a loss of information. To go from a moth to something that would be a new type of life requires new information for a new body plan over time and does not explain the origin of the moth. You have fallaciously argued ad infinitum about something that is not what Mike asked or what I asked, While not dealing with what Mr Anderson is asking in the abiogenesis challenge.Jack Jones_{November 19, 2015
November
11
Nov
19
19
2015
08:07 AM
8
08
07
AM
PDT}

IVV:
We can think of a rather simple, plain house.
You are underestimating the power of the Darwinist's imagination. Their predicted response: A four-by-eight piece of plywood could get blown up against another stack of lumber, forming a primitive lean-to. This provides functional shelter. Given that we can also imagine self-replication, if this shelter provides a fitness advantage, we've got something on which natural selection can work its magic. Shingles get blown on top of the plywood and provide more of a fitness advantage. Imagine even more of that, over and over again for billions of years, and you've got your house. If intelligence is not allowed, surely it must have happened something like that.Phinehas_{November 19, 2015
November
11
Nov
19
19
2015
07:49 AM
7
07
49
AM
PDT}

AC:
Sure, things must be spatially and temporally linked, that represents somewhat of a challenge, but it can certainly be overcome. ... Sure, natural breakdown will always occur, but again, it can be overcome.
cf. Luke 7:9Phinehas_{November 19, 2015
November
11
Nov
19
19
2015
07:42 AM
7
07
42
AM
PDT}

Eric Anderson: But as for any kind of answer or path to abiogenesis, it is severely wanting. There's no workable theory of abiogenesis at this time; consequently, any proposed theory will have problems. Eric Anderson: As with most abiogenesis research, the results simply underscore the difficulties with the materialistic paradigm. Replicating vesicles and replicating RNA strands are non-trivial results. The key point is that abiogenetic research has been fruitful, guiding researching into many interesting areas. Intelligent Design is scientifically sterile. Eric Anderson: The only way things like the peppered moth or some beetles dying can amount to proof of “evolution” is through conflation of concepts coupled with unsupported assumptions. They are instances of evolution. Eric Anderson: “Heterogeneous” is not a word UB thought up. Sure, but "heterogeneous cell" seems to be a coined term. We have no problem with that, but Upright BiPed seemed to get upset when we asked exactly what it meant. Eric Anderson: obviously an apt adjective to describe the various components making up a cell. Then an RNA replicator in a lipid membrane is heterogeneous, but Upright BiPed indicated that his use of "heterogeneous cell" requires translation. Eric Anderson: we would be better off if the field were generally approached from a more objective viewpoint, rather than a set of naive materialistic presumptions. That's wonderful. Let us know what happens. Until then, Intelligent Design remains scientifically sterile. Eric Anderson: There is no rational reason to think that a self-replicating molecule (if such a thing actually existed) could ever lead to a functional cell, or a multi-celled organism, or new body plans, or anything even remotely resembling what we see in biology. It's hard to credit mere irrationality when the idea includes a lot of the world's best biologists. Possible? Sure. Likely? No. Wrong? Possibly, but that is far from certain at this point, and all the interesting results are coming from abiogenetics, not Intelligent Design. Eric Anderson: Indeed, when we do observe a cascading abiotic process it simply runs headlong downhill until the physical medium is used up or until some equilibrium state is reached and the process stalls. Unless there's an energy gradient. Hmm. That's funny. Life works the same way. Mung: The cell membrane itself is a barrier OOL theories seem incapable of crossing. Hanczyc & Szostak, Replicating vesicles as models of primitive cell growth and division, Chemical Biology 2004.Zachriel_{November 19, 2015
November
11
Nov
19
19
2015
07:36 AM
7
07
36
AM
PDT}

Eric Anderson @175 I see your strong argument. Thank you.Dionisio_{November 19, 2015
November
11
Nov
19
19
2015
06:10 AM
6
06
10
AM
PDT}

Zachriel:
* For readers who frequent Uncommon Descent, notice the proper use of Darwinian evolution to refer to evolution by natural selection.
That is incorrect as Darwin also wrote of neutrality and its implications. * For readers who frequent Uncommon Descent, notice the Zachriel continually misrepresents reality.Virgil Cain_{November 19, 2015
November
11
Nov
19
19
2015
04:06 AM
4
04
06
AM
PDT}

Alicia Cartelli @ 155:
No need to give us the amino acids, we’ve already demonstrated they can form through early-earth models.
reference please. The miller- urey experiment did not represent the early earth.
No need for the amino acids to be non-racemic at the earliest stages of life either. No need for a precise relative percentage of these amino acids or for a precise concentration. No need to give us a specific energy environment, any old source of high temperature will do and the surrounding water will create a temperature gradient for us. Sure, things must be spatially and temporally linked, that represents somewhat of a challenge, but it can certainly be overcome. No need to prevent contaminating cross-reactions at this stage, just about every reaction is part of the random walk of molecular evolution. Sure, natural breakdown will always occur, but again, it can be overcome.
No need for evidence either. No need for testable hypotheses. No need for science. Thank you.Virgil Cain_{November 19, 2015
November
11
Nov
19
19
2015
04:04 AM
4
04
04
AM
PDT}

Zachriel:
There’s the fact of evolution, and there’s the Theory of Evolution.
Except there isn't any theory of evolution
The mechanism at work with the peppered moth is called natural selection.
That is just a bald assertion. But we understand that is all you have.Virgil Cain_{November 19, 2015
November
11
Nov
19
19
2015
04:00 AM
4
04
00
AM
PDT}

Mung & EA: Yup, but once we see the Rational Wiki poof magick imposition -- "Methodological naturalism is the label for the required assumption of philosophical naturalism when working with the scientific method . . . " -- in the eye of materialist faith, all else follows, as Mandrake gestures hypnotically. Meanwhile, above, the most serious engagement of the actual challenge (I initially thought, here is an actual attempt) is a rebuttal by comparative analogy. Telling, as the strawmen sit in the empty chair and doubtless the mockery- scapegoating- and- dismissal proceeds apace as spleens are vented aplenty in the objector sites. And BTW, a glance at one of these shows a good reason for a spam surge in my relevant email account. Including attempted interference. KF PS: Magick actually has a subtle distinction.kairosfocus_{November 19, 2015
November
11
Nov
19
19
2015
12:15 AM
12
12
15
AM
PDT}

AC, you need to read Thaxton et al, and to reflect on cross reactions and concentration issues, to ponder UV and Oxygen and thermal issues, and to reflect on the phenomenon of homochirality vs the thermodynamics behind forming L/D forms in racemic proportions. Not to mention, reaction kinetics issues. Your remarks above come across as rather naive. Meyer's Signature in the Cell will also help. KFkairosfocus_{November 18, 2015
November
11
Nov
18
18
2015
11:58 PM
11
11
58
PM
PDT}

kf @117:
What it does is it exerts the poof magickal rhetorical power of “survivors survive (and drift)” which it is held axiomatically accounts for body plans through its powerful magick. Has that power of writing codes, systems and integrated body plans out of successively culled lucky noise been actually demonstrated? Nope, just imposed by the magick of evolutionary materialist scientism by the back door of a mere methodological constraint. Poof, smoke and mirrors, amazing as Mandrake famously gestures hypnotically.
This is spot on. There is no rational reason to think that a self-replicating molecule (if such a thing actually existed) could ever lead to a functional cell, or a multi-celled organism, or new body plans, or anything even remotely resembling what we see in biology. Indeed, when we do observe a cascading abiotic process it simply runs headlong downhill until the physical medium is used up or until some equilibrium state is reached and the process stalls. Just as we would expect with any chemical reaction. So the materialist proposal on the table is that (i) a never-before-observed hypothetical entity, (ii) accidentally came on the scene, and then (iii) replicated in a manner never before observed in any chemical system. It is truly astounding in its sheer absurdity. We haven't even gotten to the real difficult issues of information and semiotics and maintenance of far-from-equilibrium systems . . . The entire value of the hypothetical "self-replicating molecule" Dawkins and others talk about is that it provides what Darwinists imagine is a critical and powerful aspect of the evolutionary process: reproduction -- through some unspecified process that you aptly describe as "magic". Yes, they will admit, it is tough to get that first self-replicating molecule. But once reproduction is in place, then watch out, evolution can really take over and work its magic. Then anything is possible! Or so the thinking goes. The uncomfortable fact is that reproduction brings nothing of the sort to the table. I have had for some time an OP post sketched out in my mind on this very point. Hopefully before too long I'll get some time to write it up . . .Eric Anderson_{November 18, 2015
November
11
Nov
18
18
2015
11:15 PM
11
11
15
PM
PDT}

Dionosio @99: I hear you. Certainly there is an argument that time and resources would be better spent elsewhere. On the other hand, I'm not a complete utilitarian. I think there are several reasons to study and learn things about the world around us, including our own origins -- out of sheer interest, because it expands our horizons, because we stumble upon other discoveries in the process, etc. For the most part I don't begrudge scientists spending time and energy on abiogenesis research. It is a fascinating endeavor in its own right, and -- ironically -- the more we study the naturalistic storyline and learn about its problems and weaknesses the more solid becomes the design inference. I definitely agree, however, that we would be better off if the field were generally approached from a more objective viewpoint, rather than a set of naive materialistic presumptions.Eric Anderson_{November 18, 2015
November
11
Nov
18
18
2015
10:50 PM
10
10
50
PM
PDT}

Zachriel @72: "Heterogeneous" is not a word UB thought up. It is a well known concept in chemistry and is obviously an apt adjective to describe the various components making up a cell. Or are you claiming that cells are homogeneous in structure?Eric Anderson_{November 18, 2015
November
11
Nov
18
18
2015
10:37 PM
10
10
37
PM
PDT}

Jack Jones @62: Good points. The only way things like the peppered moth or some beetles dying can amount to proof of "evolution" is through conflation of concepts coupled with unsupported assumptions. Reminds me of our recent discussion here: https://uncommondescent.com/evolution/how-to-trick-yourself-the-darwinian-thought-process/Eric Anderson_{November 18, 2015
November
11
Nov
18
18
2015
10:30 PM
10
10
30
PM
PDT}

Mungy, mungy, still waiting for you come up with the name of an enzyme that “detaches the amino acid from the tRNA so that it can be added to the peptide chain,” that isn’t “the ribosome.” And for the last time, since I know you're still confused: Enzymes are protein catalysts Ribozymes are RNA catalysts Those are the correct definitions. Anything you look up that says different is either due to over-simplification, the word is being used colloquially, or they're just flat-out wrong.Alicia Cartelli_{November 18, 2015
November
11
Nov
18
18
2015
08:39 PM
8
08
39
PM
PDT}

Alicia Cartelli:
Speaking of strawmen…
Speaking of people who don't know what an enzyme is.Mung_{November 18, 2015
November
11
Nov
18
18
2015
07:54 PM
7
07
54
PM
PDT}

kairosfocus @ 117:
Mung, a self replicating molecule would not solve the problem, as the actual architecture of cell based life would have to be accounted for...
I absolutely agree! The cell membrane itself is a barrier OOL theories seem incapable of crossing. But for some reason, the anti-ID circus seems to think that given a self-replicating molecule all else follows. Just look at the latest argument from brian douglas. If they can propose a mechanism, the details just don't matter. But there's still a slight hitch. Given such a molecule, it would be 3D and governed by the laws of physical dynamics. There is no "description" present, as pointed out by Upright BiPed. So now the OOL theorists need to explain the transition from one scheme of copying to the other. You may as well start out by assuming that life began as self-describing self-copying based on a linear sequence of symbols stored in a memory, as gpuccio has pointed out. Tryi8ng to imagine a transition from one to the other is at least as complex, if not more complex, than simply starting out with a system capable of translation.Mung_{November 18, 2015
November
11
Nov
18
18
2015
07:45 PM
7
07
45
PM
PDT}

mike1962: “Species” in an imprecise term, and irrelevant in any case, since it they are an effect not a cause, and regardless of how precisely it is defined, new species are effects to be explain, not a verifiable and falsifiable mechanism that is the cause of new heritable traits. Zächrielein: If a single species divides into two species, then it is a mechanism that generates new species by branching descent. Species, whatever that means, is an effect to be explain, not a causal mechanism. mike1962: Branching descent in an effect in the fossil record, not a verifiable and falsifiable mechanism that is the cause of said branching descent. Zächrielein: There are mechanisms that bring about branching, but that doesn’t mean branching isn’t itself a mechanism. Yes it does. See previous posts. One species splits into two is a mechanism, just as much as one cell splits into two is a mechanism. See previous posts. We don’t have to know how the cell actually goes about splitting, it’s still a mechanism. I have no doubt that there are mechanisms in cells that cause the splitting. But splitting is not a mechanism, it is an effect caused by a mechanism. Apparently, you have trouble distinguishing between causes and effects. We might then look into the details of how cells split to determine the mechanics that make up the larger mechanism. Effects are never in the causal chain of themselves. mike1962: So I’ll ask (again), what is the verifiable and falsifiable mechanisms responsible for the heritable traits that survive? Zächrielein: Natural selection is one such mechanism. No it isn't. To verify natural selection one would have to show that particular variations in heritable traits cause differential reproductive success. Again, "natural selection" is merely a tautological tag meaning "survivors survive" and "survivors survive that reproduce survivors that survive." That tells us nothing about the mechanisms involved.... Unless you want to make the whole universe a "mechanism." In that case, everything is part of a "mechanism" one way or another. Of course, that just reduces the term "mechanism" to nothing in particular beyond the effects themselves. Calling a process whereby survivors survive and produce survivors that survive "natural selection" doesn't reveal anything more beyond the fact that survivors survive and produce survivors that survive. So far, no mechanism is specified. mike1962: Survivors survive, regardless of the particulars. Zächrielein: Sure, but only when the change in the population is due to heritable traits is it considered natural selection. The environment changes making a trait advantageous, and it causes a change in the population. The only mechanism(s) involved are those that produce heritable traits. So far, you have offered no mechanism that is verifiable or falsifiable that produce them. Are you going to do so? I've been waiting patiently. Push here and it causes a change there. Traits survive if they can survive. Or to generalize, objects exist if they can exist. This is true of everything in the universe and offers no explanatory power beyond the effects themselves. If you have verifiable and falsifiable mechanisms to offer for the appearance of the heritable traits found in the fossil record, go ahead. I've been waiting. Otherwise, there's no reason to continue.mike1962_{November 18, 2015
November
11
Nov
18
18
2015
06:37 PM
6
06
37
PM
PDT}

Andre @56:
You should be even more surprised at the fact that a self replicating molecule happened for absolute no reason whatsoever.
Ah, yes. The hypothetical, never-before-seen, stepping-stone to Darwinian evolution: the "self-replicating molecule." I was reading something from Dawkins a while back in which he referred to such an entity. I almost fell out of my chair laughing. You are quite right that it beggars belief to think that such a thing happened for no reason whatsoever. The typical party line is that the initial self-replicating molecule must have been a very simple entity -- that way the odds aren't quite so astronomical and it becomes a bit more believable (as long as we don't ask any hard questions). It is painful to see such things advanced as "science" when it is nothing more than a laughable, made-up story.Eric Anderson_{November 18, 2015
November
11
Nov
18
18
2015
06:15 PM
6
06
15
PM
PDT}

Zachriel @48:
You might want to check out Szostak’s Lab. They’ve done a lot of research into abiogenetics.
I'm familiar with his work, and have been for a long time. We've also discussed some of his work here at UD before. And nothing he has done gives the slightest confidence that the abiogenesis storyline holds water. I have checked out his lab. I believe they are doing good work and have some interesting results. But as for any kind of answer or path to abiogenesis, it is severely wanting. As with most abiogenesis research, the results simply underscore the difficulties with the materialistic paradigm. You have mentioned Szostak's work before. If you want to point to a specific paper or a specific claim or result you think is particularly meaningful, I'm happy to elevate it for discussion. But general suggestions to go check out his work won't cut it.Eric Anderson_{November 18, 2015
November
11
Nov
18
18
2015
06:06 PM
6
06
06
PM
PDT}

What I am trying here is to build an argument in stages for the proposition Why the Abiogenesis Challenge cannot find any Challenger? The Argument Plan 1. The argument is empirical based on reasonable analogies 2. The First Stage Analogy: Natural events and phenomena produce a house when all raw materials are available 3. The Second Stage Analogy: Natural events and phenomena produce a house when all construction materials (parts) are available. 4. The Third Stage Analogy: Natural events and phenomena produce a single function machine when all raw materials are available. 5. The Fourth Stage Analogy: Natural events and phenomena produce a machine when all machine parts are available. 6. The Fifth Stage Analogy: Natural events and phenomena produce a machine that manifest one organic-like sustained function. 7. The Sixth Stage Analogy: Natural events and phenomena produce a self-supporting, autonomous machine. 8. The Seventh Stage Analogy: Natural events and phenomena produce a self-replicating machine The Argument 1. The argument is empirical based on reasonable analogies. The nature of this argument is empirical and based on analogies. Although there are objections on taking an analogy approach, I believe that there is reasonable correspondence between the scenarios in the argument and what needs to happen for Inanimate Nature to produce the Simplest Organism. I sketched the plan for this argument in a sequence of stages – that are ordered in increased levels of requirements and perceived complexity. I am starting with only the First Stage and only Sketching the Core Ideas for the Following Stages – that I hope to develop later. 2. The First Stage Analogy: Natural events and phenomena produce a house when all raw materials are available We can think of a rather simple, plain house. Although a house is different than a (imagined) first primitive cell, there are some relevant similarities for the core objectives of this exercise. Both a house and a primitive cell are delimited, kind of “encapsulated constructions” with some internal observable structure and composition”. I believe we agree that the most primitive cell was not just a “blob of material”. The assumption here is that all raw materials needed for the construction of the house are available in sufficient quantities, even grouped and separated from each other but in the same limited area for proximity. The raw materials are in this case the primitive substances from which construction materials are made. For example, there is sand, lime, cement, pebbles and stones, tree trunks and branches, tar, petroleum, iron and copper ore, granite slabs and water. The expectations are that somehow natural events, occurrences and phenomena produce the proper mixtures from available raw materials, trigger some dynamics by which the tree trunks and branches are cleaned and shaped into beams and planks, sands and silica mixtures are heated by some local volcanic eruptions or rather by lighting and sheets of transparent glass appear, the iron, copper and zinc ore is somehow melted, refined and cast into proper shapes as nails, sheets of copper or metal or into metal braces or hinges. Then winds, earthquakes, thunderstorms, lightning, mudslides happen to put together some higher order assemblages like a window which is made up from wood panels, sheets of glass, nails or screws, hinges and locks assemblages from the raw materials synthesized previously. In the next round when all building assemblages (windows, doors, floors, sheet rock panels for walls) are in place or in process of being put together, another phenomena happen to put together the windows into the proper sized wholes into the house sides that are already in proper place, the doors go into the properly sized wall openings, the beams that support the ceilings and the house roof miraculously appear in the ideal places and connected through nails, screws or braces in a reasonable manner. The brick chimney is assembled from bricks and mortar with the proper vent pipe going through the house roof that itself got the proper sizes and fitted to the skeleton of the house. Challenges and Difficulties for this “Producing a House” Scenario • The “instruments of change” in the Inanimate Nature Toolbox are Blunt, Lacking Finesse, Selectivity and Accuracy. The available “instruments of change”: wind gusts, lightning, flood, volcanic eruption, unguided chemical reactions although some time may produce some glass from available sand and silica they may wreck havoc for the other raw materials in the vicinity. It’s hard to imagine how any lucky combinations of these “instruments of change” can produce the needed construction materials and parts from available raw materials or create (3D) geometrical, (rather) clean cut shapes that are useful (if not needed) in putting together a simple house. • By analogy it seems to me that chemical reactions and physical phenomena (like: diffusion, amalgamation, separation by weight/density, aggregation through humidity, etc.) that are expected to manifest in a “chemical pond” or in a deep water hot vent are also blunt, lack selectivity and finesse. • It is hard to imagine how the instruments of change somehow assemble (presumed) parts into a recognizable shape and structure of the simplest house: a floor, four walls, a door, a window, a ceiling and a roof. • Even if we assume that the instruments of change would have the versatility of common construction tools like: precision cutting, nailing, gluing, some assembly capabilities it is extremely improbable that without a plan, without a purpose anything that such “versatile instruments of change” may put together will look like a structure with a vague appearance of a house. 3. The Second Stage Analogy: Natural events and phenomena produce a house when all construction materials (parts) are available. In this Stage, it is assumed that ready-to-use construction materials are available in sufficient quantities. There are available: sheet rock panels, wood beams and wood plunks, nails, hinges, screws and braces, sheets of glass and sheets of metal, floor tiles and roof tiles, bricks and mortar, metal and plastic pipes, wires. 4. The Third Stage Analogy: Natural events and phenomena produce a single function machine when all raw materials are available. We talk here of a rather simple machine: a carriage, a rail car, something that can move on three or four wheels. Only raw materials are available in this case. 5. The Fourth Stage Analogy: Natural events and phenomena produce a machine when all machine parts are available. In this scenario there are available all kinds of machine parts. The main challenge here is that inanimate nature manages somehow to put all proper machine parts in the proper places so that we come out with a functioning machine. Several questions are important in this case: are there natural “instruments of change” that can move, manipulate machine parts and engage them in proper relationship with other machine parts? Does the “order of assembly” counts? Can anything like a working machine can results from natural events and phenomena “operating” on the “machine parts junk yard”? A more subtle relevant assumption: there is no given that pairs or groups of machine parts are compatible between them. For example there is no guarantee that a machine screw size or thread is compatible with a nut size or thread. 6. The Fifth Stage Analogy: Natural events and phenomena produce a machine that manifests one organic-like sustained function. In this scenario we consider how inanimate nature may produce a machine that manifests the organic-like function of growing like a plant. The machine is able to ingest some matter from its environment (or is supplied with some raw materials) then the machine appearance (like the stalk, branches and leaves of a growing plant) grows with preservation of its own 3D body shape. 7. The Sixth Stage Analogy: Natural events and phenomena produce a self-supporting, autonomous machine. In this scenario the machine is self-sufficient and function autonomously in its environment. It ingests whatever matter exists in its environment and uses this material to produce internal energy as well as for growing its own machine body. 8. The Seventh Stage Analogy: Natural events and phenomena produce a self-replicating machine. In this scenario we consider how a machine that is autonomous, self-supporting and able to create replicas of itself can be “produced” by the inanimate nature with the inanimate nature having at its disposal the known “nature instruments of change” and a large supply of luck and fortuitous circumstances.InVivoVeritas_{November 18, 2015
November
11
Nov
18
18
2015
05:24 PM
5
05
24
PM
PDT}

"melanism in the peppered moth is still one of the clearest and most easily understood examples of Darwinian evolution* in action" It's an example of a feeble definition being used. It's also an example that has nothing to do with how moths were created and provides no mechanism for moths to become something other than moths. * For readers who frequent Uncommon Descent, notice that the evolutionist did not realize that increasing the amount of what you already have ie: moths, does not explain how moths originated or provide a means for moths to give rise to a different type of life over time, This is a constant area of confusion for Evolutionists.Jack Jones_{November 18, 2015
November
11
Nov
18
18
2015
05:10 PM
5
05
10
PM
PDT}

Jack Jones: It’s a definition you have fallen back on in desperation, that does not support your faith, this is the fallacy of equivocation. It's the standard definition, and how it is used in the scientific literature. For instance, see Cook et al., Selective bird predation on the peppered moth: the last experiment of Michael Majerus, Biology Letters 2012: "The new data, coupled with the weight of previously existing data convincingly show that ‘industrial melanism in the peppered moth is still one of the clearest and most easily understood examples of Darwinian evolution* in action’." Jack Jones: There is no agreement on a theory of evolution The fundamentals of evolutionary are well-established, but the fun stuff is always on the edges. Jack Jones: I have been asking about evolution in regards to how moths could have originated and how a new type of life could emerge. Great. To do so, let's establish the historical record, primarily descent with variation from common ancestors. Then a clear definition of natural selection, which is the mechanism we'll examine. From there, we then need to show instances of incremental and selectable progression. -- ETA: * For readers who frequent Uncommon Descent, notice the proper use of Darwinian evolution to refer to evolution by natural selection. This is a constant area of confusion for IDers.Zachriel_{November 18, 2015
November
11
Nov
18
18
2015
04:56 PM
4
04
56
PM
PDT}

That should be "ignorant of the disagreement about what the theory is"Jack Jones_{November 18, 2015
November
11
Nov
18
18
2015
04:22 PM
4
04
22
PM
PDT}

"Just the standard definition." It's a definition you have fallen back on in desperation, that does not support your faith, this is the fallacy of equivocation. Dancing with a definition is not showing how increasing the amount of black moths will give something other than a moth. "There’s the fact of evolution" There's the fact of your equivocation. "and there’s the Theory of Evolution" There is no agreement on a theory of evolution, If you do not understand that basic fact then no wonder you are so ignorant that what you are appealing to does not answer what me or mike has been asking. "First, you say you accept the standard definition" I never used the term "standard definition" Now you are making things up to distract from the fact you cannot demonstrate what is being asked of you. When you are under the illusion that there is some "theory" in a singular sense that all evolutionists agree on then you are too short for the ride. You clearly are ignorant of the disagreem keep on dancing with your games, You failed to demonstrate what mike asked or I asked. I have been asking about evolution in regards to how moths could have originated and how a new type of life could emerge. Now you are back pedalling, the sense that you are now telling me that you are using the term does not answer what has been asked of you, You didn't know what you are talking about and that is why you are back pedalling. Still waiting for you to show how increasing the black moth is going to provide a mechanism for a new type of life to emerge.Jack Jones_{November 18, 2015
November
11
Nov
18
18
2015
04:01 PM
4
04
01
PM
PDT}

Jack Jones: I am getting the fallacy of equivocation. Just the standard definition. Jack Jones: There is no standard definition, there are loads of contradictory definitions. There's the fact of evolution, and there's the Theory of Evolution. Jack Jones: You failed to demonstrate how it explains the existence of moths or how they could become a different type of organism. First, you say you accept the standard definition, then you retreat to "survivors survive". If you don't understand the basics, then you won't understand how these mechanisms explain long term evolutionary change.Zachriel_{November 18, 2015
November
11
Nov
18
18
2015
03:53 PM
3
03
53
PM
PDT}

"You asked for support for the definition of evolution. That’s what you got." I am getting the fallacy of equivocation. "On the one hand you say you accept the standard definition of natural selection" There is no standard definition, I am pointing out what you have been arguing for the term and it does not support your faith. When it comes to the peppered moths then we can make an exception and use a literal definition and there is no evolution to support your faith. "Natural selection is a mechanism of evolution." You failed to demonstrate how it explains the existence of moths or how they could become a different type of organism. You can equivocate with the term evolution, You can dance like a cat on a hot tin roof, You cannot show what me or mike has asked you.Jack Jones_{November 18, 2015
November
11
Nov
18
18
2015
03:49 PM
3
03
49
PM
PDT}

Jack Jones: That has nothing to do with how moths originated and provides no mechanism for moths to become a new life form. You asked for support for the definition of evolution. That's what you got. Jack Jones: We already accept that survivors survive, On the one hand you say you accept the standard definition of natural selection, then on the other hand, you reject the standard definition. Natural selection is a mechanism of evolution. To understand that statement, you have to know what the terms mean.Zachriel_{November 18, 2015
November
11
Nov
18
18
2015
03:45 PM
3
03
45
PM
PDT}

Prev 1 … 3 4 5 6 7 … 11 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply