Brian Miller vs. Jeremy England, Round 2

_{News
May 20, 2020

Intelligent Design, Origin Of Life

1}_{Categories
Intelligent Design
Origin Of Life}

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

Round 1 was at Inference Review: A Sizzling Exchange On The Origin Of Life

England rightly states that the fluctuation theorems allow for the possibility that some mechanism could drive matter to both lower entropy and higher energy (higher free energy), thus potentially solving the problem of the origin of life, at least in theory. In contrast, I addressed the likelihood that, given the practical constraints, realistic natural processes on the early earth could generate a minimally complex cell. In that context, England indirectly affirmed the main points of my argument and thus reinforced the conclusion that an undirected origin of life might be possible in principle, but it is completely implausible in practice.
Brian Miller, “On the Origin of Life, Here Is My Response to Jeremy England” at Evolution News and Science Today

Origin of life is more fun when it is a genuine discussion rather than a speculation based on a chance finding.

See also: The Science Fictions series at your fingertips – origin of life What we do and don’t know about the origin of life.

Comments

The people who say that ID has not "proven" its case are the same people who don't have any science to support their own claims. All they have is their dislike of ID. And that is due to personal biases.ET_{June 5, 2020
June
06
Jun
5
05
2020
06:14 AM
6
06
14
AM
PDT}

LoL! @ JVL- You cannot use what needs to be explained- bacteriophage Qbeta replicase- to do the explaining. And Spiegelman's Monster stops the process. Meaning it, the replicator, isn't going to become more complex.ET_{June 5, 2020
June
06
Jun
5
05
2020
06:12 AM
6
06
12
AM
PDT}

Upright BiPed: I hope things are going as well as possible for you and your family. Losing a parent is never easy; it take a long time to stop thinking about it every minute. I'm sorry that I have offended you in some way. We were discussing a paper which seems pretty clearly to me to draw a conclusion different from your own and I pointed that out. I don't consider that a blanket denial of reams of evidence and work which I haven't commented on yet. I share the opinion with quite a few people that ID has not proven its case yet so I don't see why you find that so annoying. You don't seem inclined to have any further discussion but I will ask: Have you looked at this paper: Evidence for de novo production of self-replicating and environmentally adapted RNA structures by bacteriophage Qbeta replicase. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC432262/ I'll quote from The Ancestor's Tale:
M Sumper and R Luce, working the the laboratory of Manfred Eigen, Obtained a truly stunning result. Under some conditions, a test tube containing no RNA at all, just the raw materials for making RNA plus the Qbeta replicase enzyme, can spontaneously generate self-replicating RNA which, under the right circumstances, will evolve to become similar to Spiegelman's Monster. So much, incidentally, for creationist fears (or hopes, we might rather say) that large molecules are too 'improbable' to have evolved. Such is the simple power of cumulative natural selection (so far is natural selection from being a process of blind choices) Spiegelman's Monster takes only a few days to build itself up from scratch.,
I haven't followed through on that work but it seems like scientists have found productive lives of research so I think it's too soon to say such work will never find a plausible unguided process wherein RNA may have arisen. If you want to abandon the conversation I'll not take it up any further. Good luck!!JVL_{June 5, 2020
June
06
Jun
5
05
2020
05:27 AM
5
05
27
AM
PDT}

. JVL, the bottom line here is really very simple. You are being forced by science and history (just as I predicted) to argue for the unfalsifiable (and illogical) assumption that your conclusions are true. In case you are not aware of it, that is most certainly the short end of the stick within the practice of science and reason. That’s just the way empiricism works. You are not going to be marshaling forward any physical evidence, for instance, that Peirce’s fundamental observations about specification (the capacity to specify something among alternatives) are incorrect in some way. You won’t be demonstrating that the anticodon-to-amino acid association inside the cell is not spatially and temporally independent of the codon-to-anticodon association. You have no choice but to deal with the fact that Von Neumann used an irreducible system of symbols and constraints to predict the organizational requirements of cell, and further, that his predictions were famously confirmed by Crick, Brenner, Hoagland, Zamecnik, Nirenberg, and others. These are recorded historical facts that you simply can do nothing about. You also won’t be providing any evidence that Pattee’s 50-year material analysis of the gene system is not universally supported by physics, or that he doesn’t demonstrate that the expressive power of human language and of the gene system are both enabled by (and require) the same physical and relational organization. He specifically argues that very point. Likewise, you can repeat the many unsupported assumptions made by leading materialist OoL researchers (dissembling that the problem "is hard", and "may take years" to resolve), but you can’t point to even a single paper where they physically model the details of the transition from dynamics to the semantically-closed symbol system actually required for life and evolution. To sum it up, you simply have to avoid and dismiss the entire range of documented physical evidence and history against your beliefs. In fact, you’ve even been forced to tacitly acknowledge that your position is unfalsifiable (I.e. there is no test it could fail and be proved wrong; and is therefore unscientific). So you are left, as I already pointed out, to do the dispassionate confectionary spin thing, if not commit outright denial. Just yesterday you said on another thread that a case for ID has “not been established”, when you know damn well that is not true -- you’ve demonstrated it here yourself. We could ask the question, what does it look like when someone is clearly faced with scientific evidence against their beliefs, which they cannot refute, but decide to stick it out anyway. In the space of one blog post, you have demonstrated that for all to see. You’ve assumed your unfalsifiable conclusion against universal evidence to the contrary, just as I said you would. And you will continue to do so. As a strategy, you have no other choice. You are free to now join the other materialist ideologues on UD that avoid this topic altogether.
Out of respect for Upright BiPed and his family…
If you had intended to display even a modicum of respect, you would have simply honored my request.Upright BiPed_{June 5, 2020
June
06
Jun
5
05
2020
01:34 AM
1
01
34
AM
PDT}

And it still remains that the genetic code just doesn’t run itself. Editing, splicing, proof-reading and error-correction all require knowledge that bare molecules just do not have. Moar handwaving, Lou?ET_{June 3, 2020
June
06
Jun
3
03
2020
07:42 AM
7
07
42
AM
PDT}

"This is my last post in this thread. " FakeFaces, Goodbye again. :) Andrewasauber_{June 3, 2020
June
06
Jun
3
03
2020
07:42 AM
7
07
42
AM
PDT}

The programming code arose from immaterial information. You haven't refuted anything, Lou. All you have done is handwave. Read "The Programming of Life" by Dr Donald JohnsonET_{June 3, 2020
June
06
Jun
3
03
2020
07:41 AM
7
07
41
AM
PDT}

Is there a programming code in your computer that needs some immaterial substance to run it? Of course not. It's just zillions of atoms and molecules doing their thing. You keep repeating the same talking point that I already refuted. Not being able to do something is not proof of anything and it is certainly not a valid argument against the physical nature of living organisms. This is my last post in this thread. Good luck.FourFaces_{June 3, 2020
June
06
Jun
3
03
2020
07:38 AM
7
07
38
AM
PDT}

LoL! There is immaterial information running the day-to-day happenings of cellular life. The genetic code just doesn't run itself. Editing, splicing, proof-reading and error-correction all require knowledge that bare molecules just do not have. You are the one not arguing out of good will. Scientists have synthesized a genome. They have synthesized other biological macromolecules. So if life was reducible as you say, they should have no problem making life in a lab.ET_{June 3, 2020
June
06
Jun
3
03
2020
07:21 AM
7
07
21
AM
PDT}

ET, You're not arguing out of good will. There's no immaterial information being imparted into living organisms. You're making this up. You convinced yourself of something long ago without evidence and you won't let go. You're like those Christians who believe that the mind does not need a brain to think. You are wrong.FourFaces_{June 3, 2020
June
06
Jun
3
03
2020
06:59 AM
6
06
59
AM
PDT}

We built airplanes. We will NEVER be able to produce a living organism without also having the ability to impart the required immaterial information into it.ET_{June 3, 2020
June
06
Jun
3
03
2020
06:11 AM
6
06
11
AM
PDT}

ET, As long as you understand it is only a belief. I can say the same thing to anybody. In my opinion they should be able to if it was so reducible. This is a weak argument. For centuries, many people were convinced that humans will one day be able to build flying machines. Were they wrong because the science was not yet ready? I don't think so.FourFaces_{June 2, 2020
June
06
Jun
2
02
2020
06:55 PM
6
06
55
PM
PDT}

FourFaces:
I’m a Christian and I believe that life is reducible to physics and chemistry.
As long as you understand it is only a belief.
Whether or not scientists can make life in a test tube is irrelevant in my opinion.
In my opinion they should be able to if it was so reducible.ET_{June 2, 2020
June
06
Jun
2
02
2020
04:33 PM
4
04
33
PM
PDT}

Out of respect for Upright BiPed and his family I shall not be commenting on this thread until he returns, if he chooses to do so. Some things are much, much more important than our arguments and Upright BiPed's situation is such a thing. Please join me in wishing him and his family the strength and courage and insight to get through the next few days. No matter what our disagreements we all agree that we need to look after each other. Let's hope we never forget that.JVL_{June 2, 2020
June
06
Jun
2
02
2020
02:06 PM
2
02
06
PM
PDT}

Upright BiPed: JVL, as a free agent, no one can make you do anything. My only goal in this exchange was to demonstrate once again the irrationality and hypocrisy inherent in the modern materialist position on the OoL and ID. I've just been trying to understand your thoughts and reasoning. I am not trying to overturn your beliefs. Irrational, because a fully materialistic OoL on earth can be consistent with the design hypothesis (allowing materialists to actually integrate the science if they so choose), but modern materialist like yourself cannot stomach an honest assessment of the documented physical evidence (and history) because it logically supports theism (the true intellectual enemy). I'm sorry but I have not seen the hard physical evidence to support your view. Hypocritical, because you wrap yourselves in the flag of science and reason, and then very deliberately do everything you can to subvert them for your sociopolitical and ideological causes, often while casting stones at theists who are neither attacking the boiling point of water, nor telling you that you must believe in their God. I have been trying to have a dialogue with you. We have been discussing a particular paper by a particular researcher and we have come to the point where you feel he has said something which I think he pretty clearly has not said. Where do we go from there? I am satisfied that both of these things have been abundantly recorded in this exchange, but you will no doubt have another calm and confectionary spin on what is otherwise completely clear. Ultimately, you will be forced to stand on your illogical and non-falsifiable objection (regardless of how weak it is) because you quite clearly have nothing else. Sorry . . . what? We were discussing a particular paper which I think clearly does not say what you think it says. Shall we just stick to that? If you are going to stay here at UD to act out your indifference to physical evidence, perhaps you should take a page from people like Ed and Sev, and just stay out of conversations that involve physical evidence. I think you will find that peppering your intellectual opponents with lazy remarks about supreme beings is more comfortable and rewarding that having to tiptoe through physics and logic. Just hang on. That's rubbish. We were talking about a particular paper. When I pointed out that the paper did not say what you thought it said then you get all defensive and claim I am denying something. Fine. You tell me: how can I have a conversation with you about these issues and still disagree with you without being labelled a denialist? With that, I will retire from the conversation, and will be gone for a couple of days My mother has passed away and her only wish was to be taken back to our family hometown and be buried next to her husband (my father) who died on the same day 57 years ago. Peace be with you and your family. If I could help I would. I'm not a praying person but I hope you find the strength and courage you need to get you through the next few days and weeks. Remember: you never get over such a lose: you just learn to work around it. You have my sympathy and support. By the way JVL, when the Covid crisis first broke out, I stated that my family had our mother tested for possible infection and then immediately removed from the facility caring for her. That facility recently appeared in the local newspaper under the title “Deathtrap”, where they suffered a high infection rate and have averaged three fatalities per week. You used my comment as an opportunity to score a cheap rhetorical point at the time. I would appreciate it if you did not comment further on the subject. I'm sorry to say I don't remember the comment but I shall certainly respect your request. And, I am sincerce, I hope you find the strength and courage to deal with your situation. I sincerely would help if I could. Take care of yourself and your family. <3JVL_{June 2, 2020
June
06
Jun
2
02
2020
02:00 PM
2
02
00
PM
PDT}

WilliamJMurray: The problem with that analogy is that it doesn’t address the theoretical cause of an observed phenomena, which is the essential root of the conversation here. I'm interested in reality, what actually happens. You can argue all you like about what we haven't observed but that doesn't tell us completely what might be true. Let’s look at another analogy. Let’s say that in every prior observation, when we see extra-solar planetary systems following elliptical orbits, we find a solar body at roughly the center of those orbits that provides the gravity necessary for those orbits. Let’s say that we then find an elliptical planetary system but cannot find a solar body at the center. In fact, we don’t observe anything there at all. Could be a black hole then. How should scientists proceed under the assumption that all they currently have to work with is the above observation and the prior precedent? Should they say, “there is no evidence that a central source of gravity is causing this system, so we need to find out some other process or model that explains this particular case of an elliptical, planetary system? No, of course not. I see what you're heading towards: you want to say that since our experience says that only intelligent beings, humans in fact, have produced complicated information dense code systems then we should fall back on that explanation. BUT we have no other solid physical evidence that anything like a human was around at the pertinent time. And that's not calling you to task for not saying when design was inplemented. The interesting thing here is the refusal to consider known precedent as working explanatory evidence to continue forward in research. More simply, if in every other case the phenomena “B” is either known or assumed to be caused by “A”, why would any reasonable person insist that “A” should not be assumed as a valid theoretical model as the theoretical cause when an additional “B” phenomena is observed somewhere? Because of the complete lack of evidence that any of 'A' criteria were met|!! You keep making this arguement but there is no evidence, except for your disputed design inference, that any kind of intelligent being was around . . . . when was it again? And what did they do exactly? Give us some hard data! Find some uncontroversial evidence! If there were designers about then where are their ships, their living quarters, their latrines, their labs, their equipment, their energy sources? Where is any of that evidence? Give me that, show me even a small part of that and my opinion would be very, very weakened. And, if you can't provide that, then explain to me why that is the case.JVL_{June 2, 2020
June
06
Jun
2
02
2020
01:45 PM
1
01
45
PM
PDT}

upright Biped: So you agree that the cell requires a) an irreducibly symbol system, I'm not sure Dr Pattee said that so NO I do not agree to that. I'd be happy to be proved incorrect. Additionally, you agree that this system must be semantically closed in order to begin to function, which entails a three-way simultaneous coordination between the sequences describing the system, and b) the sequences describing the interpretive constraints, and c) inexorable law. Oddly enough you had a point b> and c) but not a). I think I agree but I'm still not full cognisant with the theory. Additionally, you agree that the gene system and human language are the only two physical systems described by science that meet these unique criteria, Uh, no, I do not agree to that. I'm not saying I have a counter-example but I am saying I haven't looked yet. and you further agree that a viewpoint such as “the gene system is just chemistry” enabling life on earth is false. Nope, I do not accept that. And finally, you agree that there is no way to falsify the hypothesis that life came about by natural means, but you are both willing and able to minimize and wordsmith this glaring problem away, as a means to justify ignoring all prior facts, and you will do this openly on this forum, even as I successfully predict your actions right in front of you.. Nope, I do not agree to that. And, I'm quite sure that Dr Pattee did not assert that in his paper.JVL_{June 2, 2020
June
06
Jun
2
02
2020
01:32 PM
1
01
32
PM
PDT}

JVL, whisling while walking by the graveyard. The key issue is not only the trillions of observed cases on origin of FSCO/I but also the search challenge vs Sol System and Observed cosmos gamuts. KFkairosfocus_{June 2, 2020
June
06
Jun
2
02
2020
01:32 PM
1
01
32
PM
PDT}

LOL, I must have struck a rather sensitive nerve. Fake Christians remind me of fake Jews for some reason. :-DFourFaces_{June 2, 2020
June
06
Jun
2
02
2020
01:22 PM
1
01
22
PM
PDT}

"And I have been told that ID had nothing to do with Christianity. Was I mistaken?" Ed George, TwoFaced and I weren't talking about ID. Andrewasauber_{June 2, 2020
June
06
Jun
2
02
2020
01:02 PM
1
01
02
PM
PDT}

Andrew
This makes 0.0 sense. What kind of Christian are you? One who doesn’t know anything about Christianity?
And I have been told that ID had nothing to do with Christianity. Was I mistaken?Ed George_{June 2, 2020
June
06
Jun
2
02
2020
01:01 PM
1
01
01
PM
PDT}

FourFaces, Real idiot. ;) Andrewasauber_{June 2, 2020
June
06
Jun
2
02
2020
12:59 PM
12
12
59
PM
PDT}

Asauber, Fake Christian. :-DFourFaces_{June 2, 2020
June
06
Jun
2
02
2020
12:49 PM
12
12
49
PM
PDT}

"I said what I wanted to say." FourFaces, Good boy. Run along now. ;) Andrewasauber_{June 2, 2020
June
06
Jun
2
02
2020
12:29 PM
12
12
29
PM
PDT}

Asauber, We're playing Bible quotes ping-pong now? I said what I wanted to say. Take care.FourFaces_{June 2, 2020
June
06
Jun
2
02
2020
12:22 PM
12
12
22
PM
PDT}

FourFaces, Try Genesis 2:7 Andrewasauber_{June 2, 2020
June
06
Jun
2
02
2020
11:50 AM
11
11
50
AM
PDT}

Asauber, What kind of Christian are you? LOL. I am the kind that believes that life is reducible to physics an chemistry. It says somewhere in the OT that the life of the flesh is in the blood, doesn't it? Blood is physics and chemistry, isn't it?FourFaces_{June 2, 2020
June
06
Jun
2
02
2020
11:45 AM
11
11
45
AM
PDT}

. By the way JVL, when the Covid crisis first broke out, I stated that my family had our mother tested for possible infection and then immediately removed from the facility caring for her. That facility recently appeared in the local newspaper under the title “Deathtrap”, where they suffered a high infection rate and have averaged three fatalities per week. You used my comment as an opportunity to score a cheap rhetorical point at the time. I would appreciate it if you did not comment further on the subject.Upright BiPed_{June 2, 2020
June
06
Jun
2
02
2020
11:31 AM
11
11
31
AM
PDT}

. JVL, as a free agent, no one can make you do anything. My only goal in this exchange was to demonstrate once again the irrationality and hypocrisy inherent in the modern materialist position on the OoL and ID. Irrational, because a fully materialistic OoL on earth can be consistent with the design hypothesis (allowing materialists to actually integrate the science if they so choose), but modern materialist like yourself cannot stomach an honest assessment of the documented physical evidence (and history) because it logically supports theism (the true intellectual enemy). Hypocritical, because you wrap yourselves in the flag of science and reason, and then very deliberately do everything you can to subvert them for your sociopolitical and ideological causes, often while casting stones at theists who are neither attacking the boiling point of water, nor telling you that you must believe in their God. I am satisfied that both of these things have been abundantly recorded in this exchange, but you will no doubt have another calm and confectionary spin on what is otherwise completely clear. Ultimately, you will be forced to stand on your illogical and non-falsifiable objection (regardless of how weak it is) because you quite clearly have nothing else. If you are going to stay here at UD to act out your indifference to physical evidence, perhaps you should take a page from people like Ed and Sev, and just stay out of conversations that involve physical evidence. I think you will find that peppering your intellectual opponents with lazy remarks about supreme beings is more comfortable and rewarding that having to tiptoe through physics and logic. With that, I will retire from the conversation, and will be gone for a couple of days My mother has passed away and her only wish was to be taken back to our family hometown and be buried next to her husband (my father) who died on the same day 57 years ago. Peace out.Upright BiPed_{June 2, 2020
June
06
Jun
2
02
2020
11:22 AM
11
11
22
AM
PDT}

"I’m a Christian and I believe that life is reducible to physics and chemistry. " FourFaces, This makes 0.0 sense. What kind of Christian are you? One who doesn't know anything about Christianity? Andrewasauber_{June 2, 2020
June
06
Jun
2
02
2020
11:07 AM
11
11
07
AM
PDT}

Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 … 9 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply