Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Evolution and Imagination

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

An interesting exercise is to read through a brief introduction to the origin of multicellular organisms, such as the Wikipedia article linked here.

Although a more rigorous analysis of the issues of the origin of multicellular organisms would be found elsewhere, Wikipedia, with its naturalistic predilection, still makes it plan that a scientific explanation is lacking.

When we consider the system-level functionality of even the simplest animals, we can use our imaginations to propose scenarios that might lead to their origin.  The Wikipedia article mentions several imaginative proposals:

“Multicellular organisms arise in various ways, for example by cell division or by aggregation of many single cells.”

“One hypothesis for the origin of multicellularity is that a group of function-specific cells aggregated into a slug-like mass called a grex, which moved as a multicellular unit.”

“A unicellular organism divided, the daughter cells failed to separate, resulting in a conglomeration of identical cells in one organism, which could later develop specialized tissues.”

The symbiotic “theory suggests that the first multicellular organisms occurred from symbiosis (cooperation) of different species of single-cell organisms, each with different roles.”

“The colonial theory of Haeckel, 1874, proposes that the symbiosis of many organisms of the same species (unlike the symbiotic theory, which suggests the symbiosis of different species) led to a multicellular organism.”

The oxygen availability hypothesis “suggests that the oxygen available in the atmosphere of early Earth could have been the limiting factor for the emergence of multicellular life.”

“The snowball Earth hypothesis in regards to multicellularity proposes that the Cryogenian period in Earth history could have been the catalyst for the evolution of complex multicellular life.”

All of these imagined scenarios, and others not mentioned, fail to fill in the void with any mechanism consistent with known laws of physics explaining how unguided natural processes resulted in functional biological systems that had never been seen (or imagined) before on Earth.

Imagine a world in which the existence of anything other than single-cell organisms is absent from reality.  What natural process, consistent with the action of the laws of physics, would cause single cells to move towards the unimagined goal of differentiating themselves into all of the needed types of cells that then organize themselves into an creature that possesses a digestive system, or a circulatory system, or a nervous system, or an immune system, or a reproductive system?

Does the committed evolutionist unconsciously impute their imagination into the supposed biological outworkings of the laws of nature? Should scientists imagine that a higher partial pressure of a certain gas can cause the origin of complex functional biological systems? 

Comments
Whistler: Ok, now ask yourself WHY would want humans to study the Universe? JVL: Because people are curious.
You are such an incompetent atheist. This is an theologic/theistic answer. People can't be curious without reason and conscience and these abilities can't be explained by materialism. I mean can be "explained" with just-so stories .
I THINK the notions of a deity came AFTER humans started studying natural phenomena and thought they had detected agency. Exactly the opposite of what you assume. And it is an assumption. Unless you have invented a time machine and can go back and talk to people living thousands of years ago.
Nonsense. Just-so stories are irresistible for materialists, I mean is their only "science" they've got. What about some real hard science ? No just-so stories . Only science please. :))) Talking about just-so stories and how irresistible are they for atheists:
JVL
Querius: You’re the one speculating on life without cells, not me. I’ve never heard of it. If it’s not your idea, where did you get it from?
Good lord, you are lazy. Don’t you even know how to use Wikipedia?
Look what "scientific evidences" brings JVL:
The current scientific consensus is that...The beginning of life may have included self-replicating molecules such as RNA and the assembly of simple cells. The prevailing scientific hypothesis is that ...Many proposals have been made for different stages of the process. The study of abiogenesis aims to... Researchers generally think that current life descends from an RNA world, although other self-replicating molecules may have preceded RNA.
PS: JVL ,stick to hard scientific evidences and let go the just so stories. "General consensus" and "the prevailing scientific hypothesis" are nonsense. Hard scientific evidences or just button it.whistler
October 24, 2022
October
10
Oct
24
24
2022
05:27 AM
5
05
27
AM
PDT
Kairosfocus: So, your selective refusal to acknowledge relevance of inference on tested reliable signs of intelligently directed configuration is hyperskepticism. When there is an explanation which requires fewer assumptions or unknown agents it is to be preferred is it not? The evasions, dismissals and denials or gross unwarranted extrapolations do not solve the problem. None of which I have done. I have disagreed with you because of a lot of data and research and publications but that's not the same as any of the things you accuse me of. I second Q’s challenges. He was only pointing out his own laziness and self-inflicted ignorance. He's never even heard of RNA-world? Really? How long has he been commenting on this forum? Why don't you scrutinise his statements and see if they are plausible.JVL
October 24, 2022
October
10
Oct
24
24
2022
03:50 AM
3
03
50
AM
PDT
Querius: You’re the one speculating on life without cells, not me. I’ve never heard of it. If it’s not your idea, where did you get it from? Good lord, you are lazy. Don't you even know how to use Wikipedia?
Highly energetic chemistry is thought to have produced a self-replicating molecule around 4 billion years ago, and half a billion years later the last common ancestor of all life existed. The current scientific consensus is that the complex biochemistry that makes up life came from simpler chemical reactions. The beginning of life may have included self-replicating molecules such as RNA and the assembly of simple cells.
The prevailing scientific hypothesis is that the transition from non-living to living entities was not a single event, but an evolutionary process of increasing complexity that involved the formation of a habitable planet, the prebiotic synthesis of organic molecules, molecular self-replication, self-assembly, autocatalysis, and the emergence of cell membranes. Many proposals have been made for different stages of the process. The study of abiogenesis aims to determine how pre-life chemical reactions gave rise to life under conditions strikingly different from those on Earth today. It primarily uses tools from biology and chemistry, with more recent approaches attempting a synthesis of many sciences. Life functions through the specialized chemistry of carbon and water, and builds largely upon four key families of chemicals: lipids for cell membranes, carbohydrates such as sugars, amino acids for protein metabolism, and nucleic acids DNA and RNA for the mechanisms of heredity. Any successful theory of abiogenesis must explain the origins and interactions of these classes of molecules. Many approaches to abiogenesis investigate how self-replicating molecules, or their components, came into existence. Researchers generally think that current life descends from an RNA world, although other self-replicating molecules may have preceded RNA.
The RNA world is a hypothetical stage in the evolutionary history of life on Earth, in which self-replicating RNA molecules proliferated before the evolution of DNA and proteins. The term also refers to the hypothesis that posits the existence of this stage. Alexander Rich first proposed the concept of the RNA world in 1962, and Walter Gilbert coined the term in 1986. Alternative chemical paths to life have been proposed, and RNA-based life may not have been the first life to exist. Even so, the evidence for an RNA world is strong enough that the hypothesis has gained wide acceptance. The concurrent formation of all four RNA building blocks further strengthened the hypothesis. Regardless of its plausibility in a prebiotic scenario, the RNA world can serve as a model system for studying the origin of life. Like DNA, RNA can store and replicate genetic information; like protein enzymes, RNA enzymes (ribozymes) can catalyze (start or accelerate) chemical reactions that are critical for life. One of the most critical components of cells, the ribosome, is composed primarily of RNA. Ribonucleotide moieties in many coenzymes, such as acetyl-CoA, NADH, FADH, and F420, may be surviving remnants of covalently bound coenzymes in an RNA world. Although RNA is fragile, some ancient RNAs may have evolved the ability to methylate other RNAs to protect them. If the RNA world existed, it was probably followed by an age characterized by the evolution of ribonucleoproteins (RNP world), which in turn ushered in the era of DNA and longer proteins. DNA has greater stability and durability than RNA; this may explain why it became the predominant information storage molecule. Protein enzymes may have come to replace RNA-based ribozymes as biocatalysts because their greater abundance and diversity of monomers makes them more versatile. As some co-factors contain both nucleotide and amino-acid characteristics, it may be that amino acids, peptides and finally proteins initially were co-factors for ribozymes.
JVL
October 24, 2022
October
10
Oct
24
24
2022
03:46 AM
3
03
46
AM
PDT
F/N: JVL's unacknowledged infinite monkeys problem which arises in cases of text but is WLOG as any functional organisation can be reduced to text through a description language:
[Wikipedia confesses regarding the infinite monkeys theorem:] The theorem concerns a thought experiment which cannot be fully carried out in practice, since it is predicted to require prohibitive amounts of time and resources. Nonetheless, it has inspired efforts in finite random text generation. One computer program run by Dan Oliver of Scottsdale, Arizona, according to an article in The New Yorker, came up with a result on August 4, 2004: After the group had worked for 42,162,500,000 billion billion monkey-years, one of the "monkeys" typed,
"VALENTINE. Cease toIdor:eFLP0FRjWK78aXzVOwm)-‘;8.t"
The first 19 letters of this sequence can be found in "The Two Gentlemen of Verona". Other teams have reproduced 18 characters from "Timon of Athens", 17 from "Troilus and Cressida", and 16 from "Richard II".[26] A website entitled The Monkey Shakespeare Simulator, launched on July 1, 2003, contained a Java applet that simulated a large population of monkeys typing randomly, with the stated intention of seeing how long it takes the virtual monkeys to produce a complete Shakespearean play from beginning to end. For example, it produced this partial line from Henry IV, Part 2, reporting that it took "2,737,850 million billion billion billion monkey-years" to reach 24 matching characters:
RUMOUR. Open your ears; 9r"5j5&?OWTY Z0d...
[ACC: Dec 17, 2019. NB: Where, also, as this is a digital age, we will readily see that we can compose a description language and then create a string of yes/no questions to specify any reasonable object -- as say AutoCAD etc do. Thus, our seemingly simplistic discussion on bit strings *-*-*- . . . is in fact without loss of generality [WLOG].] [Comment: 16 - 24 ASCII characters is far short of the relevant thresholds, at best, a factor of about 1 in 10^100. Yes, the article goes on to note that "instead of simply generating random characters one restricts the generator to a meaningful vocabulary and conservatively following grammar rules, like using a context-free grammar, then a random document generated this way can even fool some humans." But, that is simply implicitly conceding that design makes a big difference to what can be done. ]
KFkairosfocus
October 24, 2022
October
10
Oct
24
24
2022
02:36 AM
2
02
36
AM
PDT
JVL, for cause, I second Q's challenges. KFkairosfocus
October 24, 2022
October
10
Oct
24
24
2022
02:25 AM
2
02
25
AM
PDT
JVL, we both know the logic of abductive inference to the best explanation on signs. We both understand that origins were not directly observed by us so we can only infer on signs; this is pivotal to studies of origins topics and more broadly studies of the wider cosmos. Given your talk points above do you toss out the general earth and cosmos time scales on grounds of want of direct observation or record of eyewitnesses? I bet you do not. So, your selective refusal to acknowledge relevance of inference on tested reliable signs of intelligently directed configuration is hyperskepticism. By contrast, my following the same Newton on refusing to entertain as reasonable explanations speculations not shown in our own observation to have relevant causal capability is warranted. Orgel-Wicken functionally specific, complex organisation and/or associated information [FSCO/I] has but one plausible and actually observed cause. Design. It is a signature of design, though onward studies would be required to identify likely technique or agent. Further to this, fine tuning through matching, arrangement and proper coupling of parts to work together is a natural aspect of FSCO/I and it is why there are islands of function in the configuration space, as there are vastly more clumped at random non functional states than functionally organised ones. Scattering of parts goes well beyond even that, as a simple analysis of what would predictably happen if disassembled parts of an ABU 6500 reel were shaken up in a bait bucket would exemplify. And laughing to dismiss a familiar example is hyperskeptical. Or, do you want me to put on the table Paley's example from Ch 2, the self replicating watch that somehow never appears in the literature, the biggest strawman tactic of them all? So, mechanisms of adaptation that work within an island of function face an insuperable span of non function to blindly reach another. This is of course the problem of OOL and OO body plans [OOBP]. The evasions, dismissals and denials or gross unwarranted extrapolations do not solve the problem. And, on reverse engineering architecture of life, we are epistemically entitled to infer intelligently directed configuration by code using algorithm writing designers with deep knowledge of polymer chemistry. Notice, the actually observed means of synthesis in the world of life, based on molecular nanotech. That is suggestive that a logical means ab initio was similar nanotech some generations beyond Venter et al today. Indeed, intelligent design of life that uses the architecture we have reverse engineered is a matter of widely headlined fact. KF PS, smart gated cell encapsulating walls are a key component of stabilisation thus sustainability of life forms against entropy, i.e. of homeostasis. PPS, just for reminder, Lyell:
PRINCIPLES OF GEOLOGY: BEING AN INQUIRY HOW FAR THE FORMER CHANGES OF THE EARTH’S SURFACE ARE REFERABLE TO CAUSES NOW IN OPERATION. [--> appeal to Newton's Rules, in the title of the work] BY CHARLES LYELL, Esq, F.R.S. PRESIDENT OF THE GEOLOGICAL SOCIETY OF LONDON . . . JOHN MURRAY , , , 1835 [--> later, publisher of Origin]
See my point on abductive inference? PPPS, do you really want me to document in detail the dishonest, abusive treatment meted out to dissenters by the evolutionary materialistic scientism and fellow traveller establishment? The slaughter/expulsion of dissidents is a routine practice as our Prince Caspian here at UD exemplifies. Similarly, I am myself one who has experienced false accusations of quote mining, and online and offline stalking including of fairly remote family. The track record is there and it is ugly. Dr Tour is standing up to some bullies as we speak.kairosfocus
October 24, 2022
October
10
Oct
24
24
2022
02:12 AM
2
02
12
AM
PDT
JVL @109, You're the one speculating on life without cells, not me. I've never heard of it. If it's not your idea, where did you get it from? Neither metabolism nor reproduction is trivial. Do you have anything in mind for primitive metabolism? Does this reproduction your assuming use DNA, RNA, or some other coding mechanism and how could it have evolved? Again, this is your speculation. You should be the one coming up with support for it, not me. To start with, do you have any evidence at all that life can exist without cell walls or cell membranes? -QQuerius
October 23, 2022
October
10
Oct
23
23
2022
04:24 PM
4
04
24
PM
PDT
Querius: Yes, that’s pretty much the science now. But tell me more about this precursor hypothesis of yours. I don't have a hypothesis, but others do. If you're interested I'm sure you can find them. Does it have a metabolism? Can it reproduce? It would have to have some method of absorbing materials from the surrounding environment. And clearly it would be able to reproduce! What a silly question! Are you just trying to waste my time: asking silly questions and ones you can easily find answers for yourself?JVL
October 23, 2022
October
10
Oct
23
23
2022
02:32 PM
2
02
32
PM
PDT
JVL @103,
Querius: Anyone who has taken even a basic class in biology is taught that cells with cell walls or cell membranes are the basic unit of life. Without a semi-permeable cell wall or membrane, the matter inside would simply float away and disintegrate or become yummy food for cells with intact cell walls or cell membranes. JVL: So, you think until cells existed there was no ‘life’ on Earth? That they could not have come from a precursor?
Yes, that's pretty much the science now. But tell me more about this precursor hypothesis of yours. Does it have a metabolism? Can it reproduce? -QQuerius
October 23, 2022
October
10
Oct
23
23
2022
02:09 PM
2
02
09
PM
PDT
Whistler:
Dr Shubin’s book
He believes in junk DNA.
So much nonsense in so few words. If this weren't Uncommon Descent, I'd put it forward as some kind of record.Alan Fox
October 23, 2022
October
10
Oct
23
23
2022
10:46 AM
10
10
46
AM
PDT
Whistler: Ok, now ask yourself WHY would want humans to study the Universe? Because people are curious. Because sometimes knowing stuff gives you an advantage; for example: if you know about when to plant and harvest crops. Because people thought they could avoid certain disasters. Lots of reasons. So they observed and remembered and eventually recorded what they saw to detect patterns. Because the people had the assumption that the Universe is intelligible otherwise wouldn’t even bother about studying Gee, would that be the only reason you would study something? Because you thought it had something to do with there being an order? So the origin of science is a pure theological assumption and ,yes, even atheists today that are scientists have and use that theological assumption because you can’t do science without it. ? I THINK the notions of a deity came AFTER humans started studying natural phenomena and thought they had detected agency. Exactly the opposite of what you assume. And it is an assumption. Unless you have invented a time machine and can go back and talk to people living thousands of years ago.JVL
October 23, 2022
October
10
Oct
23
23
2022
08:25 AM
8
08
25
AM
PDT
JVL Plate Tectonics. Quantum Mechanics. Unguided Evolutionary Theory. Big Bang Theory. The Law of Gravity.
Ok, now ask yourself WHY would want humans to study the Universe? Because the people had the assumption that the Universe is intelligible otherwise wouldn't even bother about studying. So the origin of science is a pure theological assumption and ,yes, even atheists today that are scientists have and use that theological assumption because you can't do science without it. ;)whistler
October 23, 2022
October
10
Oct
23
23
2022
05:52 AM
5
05
52
AM
PDT
Whistler: Don’t you think that is easier to present on the spot one scientific work that doesn’t use design inference. Should be easy to spot one scientific research( from millions) that doesn’t involve design inference. Try it. Plate Tectonics. Quantum Mechanics. Unguided Evolutionary Theory. Big Bang Theory. The Law of Gravity.JVL
October 23, 2022
October
10
Oct
23
23
2022
12:02 AM
12
12
02
AM
PDT
Querius: Anyone who has taken even a basic class in biology is taught that cells with cell walls or cell membranes are the basic unit of life. Without a semi-permeable cell wall or membrane, the matter inside would simply float away and disintegrate or become yummy food for cells with intact cell walls or cell membranes. So, you think until cells existed there was no 'life' on Earth? That they could not have come from a precursor?JVL
October 22, 2022
October
10
Oct
22
22
2022
11:55 PM
11
11
55
PM
PDT
Kairosfocus: you show us an empirical — actually observed — example of a biological life form not based on encapsulated, smart gated, molecular nanotech, metabolising, self replicating entity using complex coded and algorithmic information and then there is a base to change understanding of biological life. Show me a designed life form that was observed being designed. Go on. And give me an example of one of your embedded algorithms. Go on. In all cases part of the subtext is that you could not possibly have a serious point or be a reasonably knowledgeable and responsible person in dissent from a degenerative research programme with self referentially incoherent controlling ideological commitments such as those Lewontin let out of the bag. Ignorant, stupid, insane or wicked lurks as a key narrative driver of the agendas to pull the Overton window. Look, if your arguments don't make sense or if they ignore some pertinent data or results or quotes are taken out of context it's fair to point that out. A 'degenerative research program'? Really. It seems pretty productive to me.JVL
October 22, 2022
October
10
Oct
22
22
2022
11:54 PM
11
11
54
PM
PDT
Kairosfocus SG, nope. I have not said science is only about observations — no one has seen an electron for instance — but that without a base of observations there is no science present.
Funny how SG argued for "first cell" with Big Bang and mount formation instead of presenting actual argumentation for "first cell" and this in fact was a freudian slip (that he agree with your observation but his ideology forbid him to accept it openly in front of infidels like you)
JVL What would a scientist do differently accepting the design inference? Do you have any examples of scientific work that was influenced positively because of the design inference?
:) Don't you think that is easier to present on the spot one scientific work that doesn't use design inference. Should be easy to spot one scientific research( from millions) that doesn't involve design inference. Try it. ;)whistler
October 22, 2022
October
10
Oct
22
22
2022
09:45 PM
9
09
45
PM
PDT
Kairosfocus @86,
JVL, you show us an empirical — actually observed — example of a biological life form not based on encapsulated, smart gated, molecular nanotech, metabolising, self replicating entity using complex coded and algorithmic information and then there is a base to change understanding of biological life. Absent that, it is all just so speculative stories perhaps dressed up in a lab coat.
Exactly. And it's not even a "story." It's fantasy. Anyone who has taken even a basic class in biology is taught that cells with cell walls or cell membranes are the basic unit of life. Without a semi-permeable cell wall or membrane, the matter inside would simply float away and disintegrate or become yummy food for cells with intact cell walls or cell membranes. For a more complete description, see https://teacherscollegesj.org/what-happens-to-a-cell-without-a-cell-wall/ -QQuerius
October 22, 2022
October
10
Oct
22
22
2022
07:02 PM
7
07
02
PM
PDT
Kairosfocus @93,
Q, the answers to those points are in the longstanding weak argument correctives under the same resources tab. KF
Thank you. Since the skeptics here apparently can’t be bothered with reading the Resources section here, when the accusation appears again (and again), I’ll simply paste in my points and a link to the Weak Anti_ID Arguments: https://uncommondescent.com/faq/ -QQuerius
October 22, 2022
October
10
Oct
22
22
2022
06:53 PM
6
06
53
PM
PDT
PPPS, observe further the rhetorical catch 22. Make detailed point by point responses that involve quotes and arguments anticipating a range of objection tactics and you will be accused of word salad being incomprehensible and blind copy pasting or quote mining. Write short points and you will be twisted into strawman tactic pretzels. In all cases part of the subtext is that you could not possibly have a serious point or be a reasonably knowledgeable and responsible person in dissent from a degenerative research programme with self referentially incoherent controlling ideological commitments such as those Lewontin let out of the bag. Ignorant, stupid, insane or wicked lurks as a key narrative driver of the agendas to pull the Overton window. That's why it is time to use the modified JoHari window, apply systems engineering techniques including sociotechnical systems to the ideological agendas and set out on reformation.kairosfocus
October 22, 2022
October
10
Oct
22
22
2022
06:44 PM
6
06
44
PM
PDT
PPS, Let these summary remarks and longstanding citations stand in record against the subtext of strawman tactics, willful hyperskepticism and subtext of contempt that peeks out from between the lines above. Observation based? Oh pounce. Correction given, and kindly refer to this from Opticks, Query 31 the source of the school level summary of scientific methods we may have been taught:
As in Mathematicks, so in Natural Philosophy, the Investigation of difficult Things by the Method of Analysis, ought ever to precede the Method of Composition. This Analysis consists in making Experiments and Observations, and in drawing general Conclusions from them by Induction, and admitting of no Objections against the Conclusions, but such as are taken from Experiments, or other certain Truths. For [speculative, empirically ungrounded] Hypotheses are not to be regarded in experimental Philosophy. And although the arguing from Experiments and Observations by Induction be no Demonstration of general Conclusions; yet it is the best way of arguing which the Nature of Things admits of, and may be looked upon as so much the stronger, by how much the Induction is more general. And if no Exception occur from Phaenomena, the Conclusion may be pronounced generally. But if at any time afterwards any Exception shall occur from Experiments, it may then begin to be pronounced with such Exceptions as occur.
kairosfocus
October 22, 2022
October
10
Oct
22
22
2022
06:35 PM
6
06
35
PM
PDT
JVL, you show us an empirical -- actually observed -- example of a biological life form not based on encapsulated, smart gated, molecular nanotech, metabolising, self replicating entity using complex coded and algorithmic information and then there is a base to change understanding of biological life. Absent that, it is all just so speculative stories perhaps dressed up in a lab coat. This is part of the empirical, observational base point. And, once there were cell based bioforms, there was a new order of existence, now manifest as the world of life, marked by present observations and preserved traces of the past. These forms all fit the cell based pattern showing it to be the core. That core includes complex, code based algorithms executed using a clear pattern of molecular nanotech fitting an architecture that has been progressively reverse engineered. See for example the process-flow framework of the metabolic framework of the cell that can be profitably compared with say a petroleum refinery or pharmacological synthesis. This pattern exemplifies language, and goal directed purposeful functional information rich processes far beyond the credible reach of blind chance and mechanical necessity and which are signatures of language using, deeply knowledgeable intelligence acting by design -- intelligently directed configuration, start with Venter et al for our own primitive techniques or even Dr Tour's molecular car. Of course, many are ideologically blinded to such through institutional dominance of evolutionary materialistic scientism and fellow travellers. KF PS, it seems some need a reminder from Newton's Opticks, Query 31:
As in Mathematicks, so in Natural Philosophy, the Investigation of difficult Things by the Method of Analysis, ought ever to precede the Method of Composition. This Analysis consists in making Experiments and Observations, and in drawing general Conclusions from them by Induction, and admitting of no Objections against the Conclusions, but such as are taken from Experiments, or other certain Truths. For [speculative, empirically ungrounded] Hypotheses are not to be regarded in experimental Philosophy. And although the arguing from Experiments and Observations by Induction be no Demonstration of general Conclusions; yet it is the best way of arguing which the Nature of Things admits of, and may be looked upon as so much the stronger, by how much the Induction is more general. And if no Exception occur from Phaenomena, the Conclusion may be pronounced generally. But if at any time afterwards any Exception shall occur from Experiments, it may then begin to be pronounced with such Exceptions as occur. [--> this for instance speaks to how Newtonian Dynamics works well for the large, slow moving bodies case, but is now limited by relativity and quantum findings] By this way of Analysis we may proceed from Compounds to Ingredients, and from Motions to the Forces producing them; and in general, from Effects to their Causes, and from particular Causes to more general ones, till the Argument end in the most general. This is the Method of Analysis: And the Synthesis consists in assuming the Causes discover'd, and establish'd as Principles, and by them explaining the Phaenomena proceeding from them, and proving [= testing, the older sense of "prove" . . . i.e. he anticipates Lakatos on progressive vs degenerative research programmes and the pivotal importance of predictive success of the dynamic models in our theories in establishing empirical reliability, thus trustworthiness and utility] the Explanations. [Newton in Opticks, 1704, Query 31, emphases and notes added]
That is how far things have fallen.kairosfocus
October 22, 2022
October
10
Oct
22
22
2022
06:25 PM
6
06
25
PM
PDT
Kairosfocus: the obvious first candidate life form is the cell What evidence do you have that the cell was the first thing that could be called alive on Earth? For months now objectors at UD have been trying to deny the well known observationally anchored otherwise utterly uncontroversial conclusion that D/RNA has in it complex codes and algorithms. Please give an example of one of those algorithms and tell us where it is stored and how it is 'read'. Accountability before observable fact is a touchstone of science. What observations can you offer as to what happened when life arose on Earth?JVL
October 22, 2022
October
10
Oct
22
22
2022
03:06 PM
3
03
06
PM
PDT
JVL, the obvious first candidate life form is the cell, and it is chock full of known reliable signs of design. For months now objectors at UD have been trying to deny the well known observationally anchored otherwise utterly uncontroversial conclusion that D/RNA has in it complex codes and algorithms. That is telling. KFkairosfocus
October 22, 2022
October
10
Oct
22
22
2022
02:30 PM
2
02
30
PM
PDT
Q, the answers to those points are in the longstanding weak argument correctives under the same resources tab. KFkairosfocus
October 22, 2022
October
10
Oct
22
22
2022
02:24 PM
2
02
24
PM
PDT
SG, nope. I have not said science is only about observations -- no one has seen an electron for instance -- but that without a base of observations there is no science present. Which is the case. Accountability before observable fact is a touchstone of science. As a reasonably educated person, that should be obvious. KF PS, we know just one force capable of causing FSCO/I, from observation of trillions of cases. The attempt to insist on the unknown in the face of this is little more than ideological obscurantism driven by refusal to accept that inference on signs is valid.kairosfocus
October 22, 2022
October
10
Oct
22
22
2022
02:22 PM
2
02
22
PM
PDT
Querius: ID Takes no position on the source of the intelligent design. Or when design was/is implemented apparently. Which makes you wonder how it can be a 'better' explanation. ID recognizes that biological research based on the appearance of design advances scientific progress faster than the presumption of undirected random chance. How so exactly? What would a scientist do differently accepting the design inference? Do you have any examples of scientific work that was influenced positively because of the design inference?JVL
October 22, 2022
October
10
Oct
22
22
2022
02:19 PM
2
02
19
PM
PDT
Kairosfocus, Sorry for the duplicate, but any chance of adding the following or something similar to the “Put a Sock in It” resource? Or is this information there already in some other form? General Note – ID is not synonymous with Creationism. – ID Takes no position on the source of the intelligent design. – ID recognizes that biological research based on the appearance of design advances scientific progress faster than the presumption of undirected random chance. I refuted Seversky's usual objections here: https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/at-scitech-daily-scientists-solve-an-origin-of-life-mystery/#comment-768119 Thanks, -QQuerius
October 22, 2022
October
10
Oct
22
22
2022
01:58 PM
1
01
58
PM
PDT
KF: And the information in the cell is observable, where did it come from, how. KF
I don’t know. And neither do you. Perhaps you should conduct scientific research into how the designer did it. When it did it. Just as those studying the unguided origin of life are doing.Sir Giles
October 22, 2022
October
10
Oct
22
22
2022
09:35 AM
9
09
35
AM
PDT
KF: SG, no observational base, no science.
This speaks volumes about your understanding of the scientific process. And, sadly, not in your favour. Results of experiments used to test a hypothesis are observed. The Big Bang has never been observed but there is plenty of scientific research and observational evidence concerning it. Mountain formation, other than those of volcanic origin, has never been observed but it is researched using science. The unguided origin of life has never been observed but hypotheses have been developed and experiments devised and observations obtained. Just because a hypothesis hasn’t been confirmed does not mean that the hypothesis is incorrect or that it cannot be studied scientifically. The intelligent design of the first cell, the first eukaryote, the first metazoan, the first chordate, etc, etc, etc, has never been observed. By your erroneous claim, this means that ID can’t be studied following the scientific process. I happen to believe that it can. That it hasn’t speaks further volumes. And, again, not in your favour.Sir Giles
October 22, 2022
October
10
Oct
22
22
2022
09:23 AM
9
09
23
AM
PDT
Kairosfocus: no observational base, no science. Why don't you show us your observational basis for how you think life originated on Earth? For example, as I have already asked you, what life form do you think was the first one on Earth?JVL
October 22, 2022
October
10
Oct
22
22
2022
09:05 AM
9
09
05
AM
PDT
1 2 3 4 5

Leave a Reply