New origin of life book argues, even the simplest life forms are extraordinarily complex

_{Denyse O'Leary

April 4, 2020

Intelligent Design, Origin Of Life}

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

The Stairway To Life: An Origin-Of-Life Reality Check by chemist Change Laura Tan and physicist Rob Stadler, hit the wall over the desk recently and author Rob Stadler writes to offer:

Could natural processes and millions of years have produced the first life?
We know enough to know better.
The Stairway to Life: An Origin-of-Life Reality Check, by Change Tan and Rob Stadler, takes a new approach to addressing the origin of life.
By studying the simplest forms of life and laboratory efforts to synthesize life, we know that the simplest living organisms are extraordinarily complex. Al life contains highly interdependent subsystems and hierarchical layers of information that flows between the subsystems. Tan and Stadler organize this knowledge into a set of minimal requirements for life. The minimal requirements are organized via the convenient metaphor of a stairway: The Stairway to Life.
We also know enough about physics, chemistry, and thermodynamics to understand the creative capacity of natural processes. Tan and Stadler then review the capacity of natural processes to meet the requirements and ascend the Stairway, concluding that none of the required steps can be accomplished by natural processes.
The book then explores why some intelligent people believe that life started naturally. Many believe that science supports a natural origin of life, but this reasoning is shown to be circular because they have constrained the scientific process to only consider natural phenomena. When science is constrained in this manner, it no longer seeks truth; it only seeks the best naturalistic explanation. The Stairway to Life opens inquiry to follow the evidence wherever it leads – notably beyond natural explanations.

See also: What we know and don’t know about the origin of life

Comments

. On a previous thread, JVL stated that random mutations might help some poor sap run faster or fly higher or whatever whatever to survive, thus affording the opportunity to leave more offspring. So I asked him how many of those beneficial mutations would require a symbol system and interpretive constraints in order to serve up the benefits. He steadfastly (and very clearly) deflected the question 5 (FIVE) times in-a-row before finally punting with a non-answer. On this thread he tells us that he is open and willing to discuss any "hard" evidence supporting the kinds of arguments he hears here. So I give him an example of completely settled science - been settled for more than half a century --no one questions it -- it's taught in every biology textbook on the surface of the planet -- and I ask him if this is what he considers "hard evidence". But does he answer? Nope. To answer would be to submit to the evidence he seeks to avoid. So instead of just answering a fair question, he reaches into his bag and pulls out another positioning statement. He tells me that we have "different ideas" about what constitutes rigorous "hard" evidence. I am thinking, wha? man, it's settled friggen science!. But of course, it all makes perfect sense. Regardless of the milkman routine JVL uses to sell himself, if shining a light on physical evidence (that has been settled for 50 years) serves the design inference in any way, or causes one blade of grass to twitch on his perfectly protected lawn, then JVL clearly wants no part of it. He is as closed-up and guarded as it gets.Upright BiPed_{April 8, 2020
April
04
Apr
8
08
2020
06:08 PM
6
06
08
PM
PDT}

It's very telling that the people who disagree with the design inference have absolutely nothing to account for what we observe. Even Richard Dawkins has admitted that science can only accept so much luck and yet that is all the anti-IDists have- nothing but sheer dumb luck. So the people who find the arguments from design as unconvincing only do so for personally biased reasoned. They are irrational and illogical. Is it also worth working on a natural formation process for Stonehenge? We know that Stonehenge was designed because of our knowledge of cause-and-effect relationships. We know that nature could not have possibly produced it. Yet Stonehenge is by far more simple than biologically relevant replicators.ET_{April 8, 2020
April
04
Apr
8
08
2020
02:56 PM
2
02
56
PM
PDT}

.
UB: This means that different sections of the description must be simultaneously organized with one another for the system to begin to function. What part of this temporal organization (semantic closure) is resolved by stereo-chemistry? None of it whatsoever. JVL: I was first made aware of a possible naturalistic genesis for the genetic code...
Yes, of course. Universal physical evidence is easily dismissed on the mere nugget of a possibility -- as you raise your hand to demand hard evidence otherwise. Good grief. And let me guess -- just moments before this unexpected revelation, you happily believed the universal physical evidence that all encoded languages have an intelligent source, right? Trust me on this, Muhammad Ali was better at rope-a-dope than you are.Upright BiPed_{April 8, 2020
April
04
Apr
8
08
2020
09:23 AM
9
09
23
AM
PDT}

Truthfreedom: True. Darwinism from-bacteria-to-man-one-mutation-at-a-time is trash. Pseudoscience at its best. Religious dogma at its worst. Other opinions are available! We are discussing facts, not opinions. This is not a tavern. Maybe visiting the latter you would feel in better company. I was just trying to be honest; owning up to the things that are just my opinion. I thought you'd appreciate me being frank and not trying to beat you over the head with notions you find ridiculous. If you're just going to scorn and mock when I'm trying to be straight and respectful then perhaps I shouldn't bother.JVL_{April 8, 2020
April
04
Apr
8
08
2020
08:36 AM
8
08
36
AM
PDT}

@37 JVL
And we’re clearly not going to change each other’s minds.
Pass me the crystal ball.
We seem to have differing views on what is rigorous and universal evidence.
True. Darwinism from-bacteria-to-man-one-mutation-at-a-time is trash. Pseudoscience at its best. Religious dogma at its worst.
Jsust my opinion though.
We are discussing facts, not opinions. This is not a tavern. Maybe visiting the latter you would feel in better company.Truthfreedom_{April 8, 2020
April
04
Apr
8
08
2020
08:32 AM
8
08
32
AM
PDT}

Truthfreedom: 150+ years ‘slow’? Now people know the trick, so you are going to need a better ‘argument’. The ‘keep waiting, one day we will show you how’ one is no longer valid. I specifically meant the work into trying to tease out the orgin(s) of the genetic code. And that has not been going on for 150+ years. I didn't say "and one day we will show you how." We may never get to the bottom of it; we not going to be able to travel back in time to be completely sure. But it's worth working on. It's a tough problem. And how the hell can you know if that (changing someone’s mind) is going to happen or not? Your continuous assertions of clairvoyance are really strange and boring. Obviously I don't KNOW what's going to happen (I didn't say I did) but I do know that I'm not intentionally trying to alter peoples' opinions. That's all I meant.JVL_{April 8, 2020
April
04
Apr
8
08
2020
08:32 AM
8
08
32
AM
PDT}

@37 JVL
I’m not here to change anyone’s mind or score points.
And how the hell can you know if that (changing someone's mind) is going to happen or not? Your continuous assertions of clairvoyance are really strange and boring.Truthfreedom_{April 8, 2020
April
04
Apr
8
08
2020
08:21 AM
8
08
21
AM
PDT}

@37 JVL
The research seems to be progressing, albeit slowly.
150+ years 'slow'? Now people know the trick, so you are going to need a better 'argument'. The 'keep waiting, one day we will show you how' one is no longer valid.Truthfreedom_{April 8, 2020
April
04
Apr
8
08
2020
08:13 AM
8
08
13
AM
PDT}

Upright BiPed: Further, it was a chance for you to get your hands on the evidence, so to speak, and actually show that you’ve already considered it or that you are willing to. You, in turn, chose to address neither the example nor the question). I think we got our wires crossed just a little. I was specifically referring to evidence of a designer as in the sort of detritus or stuff living creatures leave behind. Something outside of the living forms and celestial indicators we disagree about, i.e. the designs you see which I do not. I should have been more clear. There is also no doubt, given your own words, that you are an intelligent person who wants to think of himself as such; Don't we all? :-) This means that different sections of the description must be simultaneously organized with one another for the system to begin to function. What part of this temporal organization (semantic closure) is resolved by stereo-chemistry? None of it whatsoever. I was first made aware of a possible naturalistic genesis for the genetic code via comments made by a biologist so I assumed they knew what they were talking about. The research seems to be progressing, albeit slowly. But I do not have the background to consider the finer points of the situation. I was intrigued by the possibility that the genetic 'code' was not a true code so I mentioned it. Let me ask a question (one that I’ve asked here before). The set of aaRS are the physical constraints in the system that independently establish the genetic code. You can easily grasp their importance to cellular function. The aaRS are individually specified from memory, and it is a virtual certainty that there was once a time on this planet when they did not exist, but yet came to exist. Here is my question: Regardless of what one might think preceded their arrival, at the point in earth’s history when the first ever aaRS constraint was synthesized from memory, how many of the other constraints had to be in place? No idea, not even close to something I know much about. This is where I think the (frankly outrageous) “I didn’t find any” and the “it’s not convincing” part of your reasoning comes into play; where an entire block of coherent science and observation is neatly swept away by a mere speculation that doesn’t even explain the observations in hand. Yes but those are only opinions and not research or data or published work. And, for myself and myself only, I have NOT seen compelling evidence that there is a designer. Not in the design inferences made and certainly not in outside, hard evidence that some being was around with the necessary skills and supporting technology. Just my opinion though. What results is rigorous universal evidence is dismissed out-of-hand with tone-deaf demands like “hard evidence” and conclusions like “not convincing”. These are almost inevitably accompanied with self-assurances like “I looked” and “I am making no assumptions”. We seem to have differing views on what is rigorous and universal evidence. And we're clearly not going to change each other's minds. My opinion may be completely fallacious. Your opinion may be completely fallacious (although that will seem like a very, very remote possibility to you, granted). I've been observing the ID vs naturalistic discussion for a while now and we always come to that point: what one side finds compelling and rigorous the other side finds completely unconvincing. Both sides have their thought out arguments which haven't changed much in the last decade or so. I'm happy to keep attempting to answer your questions/queries honestly if you want to keep asking them. On the other hand, if you wish to stop here because I'm just not seeing your logical and well laid out rationale then that's okay too. I'm not here to change anyone's mind or score points. I'm more interested in a conversation instead of a contest. And if you think the conversation is pointless then I won't take offence if you wish to drop it.JVL_{April 8, 2020
April
04
Apr
8
08
2020
07:43 AM
7
07
43
AM
PDT}

.
Well, I looked for other evidence, not necessarily uncontested.
This doesn’t really address the issue that you yourself put on the table, that is the issue of your own reasoning. A person who says he/she discounts evidence because other people find ways to disagree with it has ultimately given himself permission to discount whatever he wishes, in particular a) evidence that he cannot effectively confront on its strength and merits, and b) evidence that is contrary to his own personal preferences. (This is precisely why I gave you a clear example of the evidence you are dismissing and asked if it met your stated criteria of “hard evidence”. Further, it was a chance for you to get your hands on the evidence, so to speak, and actually show that you’ve already considered it or that you are willing to. You, in turn, chose to address neither the example nor the question). In any case, reading over the content in your response above, there is little doubt (in my mind) that this is exactly what you are doing here. There is also no doubt, given your own words, that you are an intelligent person who wants to think of himself as such; indeed, promoting himself as an open-minded thinker who carefully weighs and reasons important issues. You can quickly pick up on this by the number of times you’ve said as much since you began commenting here (including in your comments on this thread).
Well, I have read that there is some evidence that the genetic ‘code’ isn’t really an abstract code at all; it may have come about from basic chemical attractions.
The living cell (as it is actually found to be) has the capacity to replicate because it successfully describes each individual constituent of a complex dissipative process; where the dissipation of energy causes the constituents to physically read linear descriptions and use those descriptions as the means to specify the construction of the products necessary to continue the process. It also describes a special group of products; the set of constraints in the system that establish how the description itself is to be interpreted. These two groups of descriptions are critically linked together because changes among the constraints immediately alters all the descriptions of the dissipative process, leading to catastrophic failure of the system. This means that different sections of the description must be simultaneously organized with one another for the system to begin to function. What part of this temporal organization (semantic closure) is resolved by stereo-chemistry? None of it whatsoever. Let me ask a question (one that I’ve asked here before). The set of aaRS are the physical constraints in the system that independently establish the genetic code. You can easily grasp their importance to cellular function. The aaRS are individually specified from memory, and it is a virtual certainty that there was once a time on this planet when they did not exist, but yet came to exist. Here is my question: Regardless of what one might think preceded their arrival, at the point in earth’s history when the first ever aaRS constraint was synthesized from memory, how many of the other constraints had to be in place? It’s interesting to watch. The successful model of a significant phenomenon (like semiosis, for instance) is molded, contemplated, honed, and advanced over a considerable number of years (indeed multiple generations) with each new discovery and each advancing technology confirming the core validity of the model and adding weight to its universality over all the domains where the phenomenon is found. Layers upon layers of primary and secondary observations, all carefully documented to confirm the model, while not collecting a single instance of contradictory fact along the way. This is where I think the (frankly outrageous) “I didn’t find any” and the “it’s not convincing” part of your reasoning comes into play; where an entire block of coherent science and observation is neatly swept away by a mere speculation that doesn’t even explain the observations in hand. Then there is another speculation behind that one, and another to follow on after yet another after that. What results is rigorous universal evidence is dismissed out-of-hand with tone-deaf demands like “hard evidence” and conclusions like “not convincing”. These are almost inevitably accompanied with self-assurances like “I looked” and “I am making no assumptions”.Upright BiPed_{April 7, 2020
April
04
Apr
7
07
2020
08:22 PM
8
08
22
PM
PDT}

@ET
But there is speculation based on the assumption.
Naturalists rely on speculation (multiverse crap, everything is 'randomness', 'natural selection' as a 'creative' force, life appearing in a 'warm little pond', etc.) Cold hard facts: not that much.Truthfreedom_{April 6, 2020
April
04
Apr
6
06
2020
04:50 PM
4
04
50
PM
PDT}

and I bet the physicists and chemists etc. 500 years from now
No clima-apocalypse then.Truthfreedom_{April 6, 2020
April
04
Apr
6
06
2020
04:39 PM
4
04
39
PM
PDT}

JT:
We’ve been doing agriculture a dozen times longer than we’ve been doing modern Science or math, and I bet the physicists and chemists etc. 500 years from now will regard us all as a bunch of daft Neanderthals...
Yes, for your thinking that evolutionism was in any way, scientific.ET_{April 6, 2020
April
04
Apr
6
06
2020
04:25 PM
4
04
25
PM
PDT}

Primal tRNA? Where did that come from? Again, the things evos accept as science proves they don't understand the concept.ET_{April 6, 2020
April
04
Apr
6
06
2020
04:23 PM
4
04
23
PM
PDT}

The earth/ moon system did NOT form by accident. And evolutionary biologists don't have a clue about macro-evolution. They don't have a mechanism capable of producing the transformations required. They don't have a mechanism capable of producing developmental biology. They don't have a mechanism capable of producing eukaryotes given starting populations of prokaryotes. All evolutionary biologists have are assumptions supported by speculations. Science requires that the ideas be testable. Evolutionary biology hasn't reached that level yet.
Well, I have read that there is some evidence that the genetic ‘code’ isn’t really an abstract code at all; it may have come about from basic chemical attractions.
There isn't any such evidence. But there is speculation based on the assumption.ET_{April 6, 2020
April
04
Apr
6
06
2020
04:21 PM
4
04
21
PM
PDT}

Today on ENV: "We are not saying DNA is like a message. Rather, DNA is a message. Even though logic indicates a message sender, a result that has obvious philosophical and spiritual implications, it is important to note that it was not reached by philosophical or spiritual presuppositions. It may be an unwanted or unpopular result in some quarters, but scientists do not have a reputation of advocating only what is wanted or popular. We seek the truth. "
“Nothing More Deceptive than an Obvious Fact” - Charles Thaxton - April 6, 2020 Excerpt; The so-called Shannon information laws apply equally well to human language, Morse code, and the genetic code. Hubert P. Yockey notes in the Journal of Theoretical Biology: "It is important to understand that we are not reasoning by analogy. The sequence hypothesis [that the exact order of symbols records the information] applies directly to the protein and the genetic text as well as to written language and therefore the treatment is mathematically identical." There is an identity of structure between DNA (and protein) and written linguistic messages. Since we know by experience that intelligence produces written messages, the implication, according to established experimental method of inferring causes from effects, is that an intelligent cause most probably produced the informational pattern in DNA and protein. The significance of this inference lies in the security of it, for it is much stronger than if the structures were merely similar. We are not dealing with anything like a superficial resemblance between DNA and a written text. We are not saying DNA is like a message. Rather, DNA is a message. Even though logic indicates a message sender, a result that has obvious philosophical and spiritual implications, it is important to note that it was not reached by philosophical or spiritual presuppositions. It may be an unwanted or unpopular result in some quarters, but scientists do not have a reputation of advocating only what is wanted or popular. We seek the truth. https://evolutionnews.org/2020/04/nothing-more-deceptive-than-an-obvious-fact/
bornagain77_{April 6, 2020
April
04
Apr
6
06
2020
02:55 PM
2
02
55
PM
PDT}

@JVL about 20 years ago I knew the guy who had the record in Sweden for the fastest ever PhD. From the moment he finished his bachelors, he had his PhD about six months later. He was a math guy, and he had one of those tweaked math brains that just sees complex patterns in ways that yours and mine don’t. He was also basically an idiot on any other topic, but very sure of himself because he was such a math genius. He used to explain to me what was wrong with movies and the actors in like Lord of the rings, and it was clear that he just didn’t understand how blocking and camera work worked. But I bring this up because he told me a story one time, about this math class in like Germany or Hungary many years ago. A doctoral student had arrived at a grad class late and frantically copied the problems he saw on the board. And the professor wondered what happened to the guy when the guy disappeared for like two weeks. Finally the guy shows up and says hey I’m sorry it took me so long to do the homework, but this one problem was horrible. What he had copied off the board was several homework problems, but the last one was a problem the professor had just mentioned for fun as an outstanding problem that no one had managed to figure out in 100 years. This guy thought it was a homework problem, and spent two weeks, and solved it. That guy wound up being the guy who got the Fields medal for figuring out wavelets if I recall correctly. We’ve been doing agriculture a dozen times longer than we’ve been doing modern Science or math, and I bet the physicists and chemists etc. 500 years from now will regard us all as a bunch of daft Neanderthals, in the same way that a modern watermelon would seem like alchemy to an earlier farmer.Jim Thibodeau_{April 6, 2020
April
04
Apr
6
06
2020
02:35 PM
2
02
35
PM
PDT}

BobRyan: Macro-evolution has never been witnessed, nor has it ever been replicated. Without both, it is not a valid theory. No evolutionist can point to a single example of the Scientific Method being used. Science is about what is observed and being able to accept any given hypothesis or theory will change over time. The more something can be observed, the more of an understanding we have. Macro-evolution is not the exception to the rule, but the violation of all the rules used to determine if a hypothesis should move to theory. Do you think the Big Bang occurred? Did we actually observe it? Can we reproduce it? It is now hypothesised that the Moon was formed when something collided with the early Earth. Did we observe that or can we reproduce it? Do black holes exist? Dark matter? No one has ever seen a living dinosaur or recreated one yet who doubts they existed? Neanderthals . . . real or just weird humans that fossilised? Was there a Phoenician state? What about the Druids? And who did build those pyramids anyway? Not all sciences are of the type that you can test every single hypothesis in the laboratory. Archaeology, for example, consists mostly of first finding the data and then trying to interpret it compared to other data from other sites and other kinds of records. Very, very few archaeological discoveries are reproducible or observable and yet archaeology is a science is it not? What evolutionary biologists do try and do is to check as many of the possible developmental steps as they can by reproduction. It will never be complete, it will always be somewhat guesswork until we invent a time machine. But I would say it's still a science since the goal is to try and explain the data and evidence as best as possible making as few assumptions as possible. Cleary all sciences contain some wide ranging speculations and conjectures. Physics is replete with things like worm holes and dark energy and the multi-verse to say nothing of string theory. But those things are acknowledged to be merely hypotheses. There's nothing wrong with coming up with ideas and seeing if they match the observed data. No one knows how life originated on Earth; there are some ideas floating about and some researchers are trying to see if they can verify parts of them. So far it is all somewhat far-fetched but 100 years from now . . . 200 years from now . . . who knows? I'm not saying someone will 'crack' the problem eventually but I am also not willing to bet that it won't be cracked. Humans being can be pretty clever when they've got a problem to solve.JVL_{April 6, 2020
April
04
Apr
6
06
2020
02:08 PM
2
02
08
PM
PDT}

UprightBiPed: Hello JVL, 'ello, 'ello, 'ello! Hope you're keeping well. This appears moot, given that I made no argument about things outside of the designed things. Yes, I know. I was just going to address your comment about people like me making assumptions and then I threw on some other general stuff. I wanted to be honest and clear in stating my own opinion so that other readers would know my basic view. As you might suspect, I’m prepared to defend my arguments regardless of your ability to modify your beliefs. As well I know!! I should have just addressed the assumption issue. Sorry. I’m trying to parse what exactly the point of this statement is. You hold that there is no uncontested evidence of design in nature; so you looked for other uncontested evidence and didn’t find any, but you want me to know that you make no assumptions in your beliefs. Well, I looked for other evidence, not necessarily uncontested. But then I admitted I already didn't buy the fine-tuning argument so that means I had already written off stuff you consider evidence. I probably should have just stayed quiet!! I do think I wasn't making any pre-assumptions. But I suspect we will differ on that!! JVL, is the cellular gene system (at the very heart of Life and evolution on earth) dependent on an irreducible system of symbols and constraints, a language structure, and a simultaneous organization of the system? Or not? Well, I have read that there is some evidence that the genetic 'code' isn't really an abstract code at all; it may have come about from basic chemical attractions. IF it's the case that the genetic 'code' is built on chemical reactions then it's more likely that it could have arisen with no guidance. It's an area of ongoing research and I don't expect there to be a definitive answer soon but it's worth monitoring the work. So, to answer your question: I don't know. I'm going to wait and see what the research says. From Wikipedia: (One of three basic scenarios) Stereochemical affinity: the genetic code is a result of a high affinity between each amino acid and its codon or anti-codon; the latter option implies that pre-tRNA molecules matched their corresponding amino acids by this affinity. Later during evolution, this matching was gradually replaced with matching by aminoacyl-tRNA synthetases. Some references: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3223571/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC336109/ https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00239-009-9270-1JVL_{April 6, 2020
April
04
Apr
6
06
2020
01:45 PM
1
01
45
PM
PDT}

@25 Martin_r:
so once again, it can’t be cracked – that is why after 150 years of OOL research there is a ZERO progress ….. ZERO ZERO ZERO… they have got nothing … ZERO….
They have the Miller Urey experiment and some unproved non-sense about a 'warm little pond'. :)Truthfreedom_{April 6, 2020
April
04
Apr
6
06
2020
09:59 AM
9
09
59
AM
PDT}

Seversky@ 9 you wrote "The Universe is currently estimated to be around 13.8bn years old and you expect us to have cracked it in just 150 years? Give us a break! If you have a better way then let’s hear it." i don't expect anything from you guys, because it can't be cracked. So simple it is. Seversky, do you understand what i just said ? IT CAN'T BE CRACKED !!! THIS IS A FACT !!! I am sure that OOL researchers even know that, but why don't take other people's money, easy money so once again, it can't be cracked - that is why after 150 years of OOL research there is a ZERO progress ..... ZERO ZERO ZERO... they have got nothing ... ZERO.... not 10%, not 5%, not 1%... but ZERO % Seversky, do i have a better way for what? To show you how a masterpiece of engineering self-engineered with no help from an engineer ? :)))))) Seversky, no, i don't have a better way to show you how this can be done ... ... i don't do miracles :)))))martin_r_{April 6, 2020
April
04
Apr
6
06
2020
09:42 AM
9
09
42
AM
PDT}

Upright BiPed @17 & @21: Very well stated.jawa_{April 6, 2020
April
04
Apr
6
06
2020
12:50 AM
12
12
50
AM
PDT}

Martin_r @3 & @7: Very well said.jawa_{April 6, 2020
April
04
Apr
6
06
2020
12:46 AM
12
12
46
AM
PDT}

Macro-evolution has never been witnessed, nor has it ever been replicated. Without both, it is not a valid theory. No evolutionist can point to a single example of the Scientific Method being used. Science is about what is observed and being able to accept any given hypothesis or theory will change over time. The more something can be observed, the more of an understanding we have. Macro-evolution is not the exception to the rule, but the violation of all the rules used to determine if a hypothesis should move to theory. The laws of physics have been observed and the results have been replicated. Those laws are not random. If one cannot see intelligence and purpose behind those laws, then they are blind to reason.BobRyan_{April 5, 2020
April
04
Apr
5
05
2020
11:13 PM
11
11
13
PM
PDT}

. Hello JVL,
I, PERSONALLY, do not see evidence of designer outside of the supposed designed things.
This appears moot, given that I made no argument about things outside of the designed things.
(Which you may assume means I’m not agreeing with the fine tuning argument either.)
See above
We can/could get into a discussion of the nature of the evidence/data which I doubt will change anyone’s mind, let’s be honest.
As you might suspect, I’m prepared to defend my arguments regardless of your ability to modify your beliefs. You might also notice that the first part of that is a healthy and necessary practice in science and reason, while the second is generally considered a well-known limitation.
I just wanted to say that I don’t think I’m making any kind of assumption: we disagree about whether or not life was designed so I looked around for other evidence of a designer, I didn’t find any. But I did look.
I’m trying to parse what exactly the point of this statement is. You hold that there is no uncontested evidence of design in nature; so you looked for other uncontested evidence and didn’t find any, but you want me to know that you make no assumptions in your beliefs. I’m not sure how convincing you expected this statement to be. You might need to clarify it, if not abandon it altogether. I can suggest to you -- given the documented predictions, experimental confirmations, and the recorded history in the literature that life and evolution depend upon a multi-referent symbol system/language structure to encode information in a semantically-closed system -- that your statement comes off as a sort of up-in-your-head attempt to skip over evidence altogether. Ignoring documented physical evidence because another human being can muster a way to disagree with it is tantamount to giving oneself intellectual permission to ignore whatever they wish.
And I am very open to consider any hard evidence that is brought forward.
Given that you are here responding to a question (which is based on nothing but hard evidence) and you chose to do so by providing the dubious statement above – while not engaging the actual question or evidence in any way – perhaps it would be prudent to have to disclose exactly what you mean by “hard” evidence. Do successful predictions, their experimental confirmations, or any of the recorded history in the literature qualify as hard evidence to you? Does physical evidence that is otherwise considered “settled science” qualify? For instance, during the process of protein synthesis, the amino acid-to-anticodon association is physically independent of the codon-to-anticodon association, thereby establishing the necessary system of discontinuous association between DNA sequences and their products, which are then mediated by the set of aaRS constraints in the system. Does that kind of thing count as “hard” evidence, or no? - - - - - - - - - - EDIT: JVL, if in fact such things are what you would consider "hard" evidence, then I think the question that you responded to (without engaging in) is perfect for you. Here it is again: In the first half of the 20th century, it was predicted by prominent scientists (Erwin Schrodinger among others) that a living thing (an autonomous open-ended self-replicator) would have to be specified from memory in order to exist. It was later predicted this would require a symbol system, a language structure, and semantic closure in order to function. In the second half of the 20th century, each of these things was famously confirmed via experimental result, and each has been subsequently (and carefully) described in the literature using the language and equations of physics. The symbol system requires discontinuous association mediated by a set independent constraints; the language structure requires spatial orientation to enable multiple referents in a rate-independent medium, and semantic closure requires the simultaneous corporeal organization of the system in order for it to persist over time. It is also noted in the literature that the equations used to model the elementary forces of nature (as also predicted) are not capable of modeling this organization (requiring complimentary descriptions throughout both physics and biology); and that the only other organization known to science that has this type of structure is human language and mathematics (i.e. two unambiguous correlates of intelligence). JVL, is the cellular gene system (at the very heart of Life and evolution on earth) dependent on an irreducible system of symbols and constraints, a language structure, and a simultaneous organization of the system? Or not? If you feel this is too much to bite off, then we can certainly break it down into smaller pieces, you will find that none of those pieces of evidence (like the discontinuous association mentioned above) are even in question.Upright BiPed_{April 5, 2020
April
04
Apr
5
05
2020
05:00 PM
5
05
00
PM
PDT}

JVL, you don't know how to assess evidence. And you damn sure don't have any explanation for it. ID is evidenced in biology, physics, chemistry and cosmology- for a start. And you don't have anything to account for any of it. You didn't look. You don't know how.ET_{April 5, 2020
April
04
Apr
5
05
2020
04:52 PM
4
04
52
PM
PDT}

Upright BiPed: You don’t have an argument for a natural Origin of Life that doesn’t force you to merely assume your conclusions against the accumulated physical evidence to the contrary. And given that life was either designed or it wasn’t, this is to say that you don’t have a valid evidence-based counter-argument to the design argument I, PERSONALLY, do not see evidence of designer outside of the supposed designed things. (Which you may assume means I'm not agreeing with the fine tuning argument either.) We can/could get into a discussion of the nature of the evidence/data which I doubt will change anyone's mind, let's be honest. I just wanted to say that I don't think I'm making any kind of assumption: we disagree about whether or not life was designed so I looked around for other evidence of a designer, I didn't find any. But I did look. And I am very open to consider any hard evidence that is brought forward.JVL_{April 5, 2020
April
04
Apr
5
05
2020
02:40 PM
2
02
40
PM
PDT}

Yes, TF, it's pathetic that they say "we don't know" when the really mean "we don't know but we 'know' it ain't via Intelligent Design. Hypocrites, all of them. That said, please let's leave Upright Biped to discuss the evidence if any anti-IDist cares to try.ET_{April 5, 2020
April
04
Apr
5
05
2020
02:10 PM
2
02
10
PM
PDT}

. In speaking on the Origin of Life, Seversky makes these various statements:
We have more evidence for the naturalistic and materialistic nature of life than for any other explanation. - - - As I see it, everything that can be observed or inferred to exist is part of the natural order. There is nothing beyond it. The proper antonym to “natural” is something like “artificial”. - - - What do you think is wrong with atheism?
Simple. You don’t have an argument for a natural Origin of Life that doesn’t force you to merely assume your conclusions against the accumulated physical evidence to the contrary. And given that life was either designed or it wasn’t, this is to say that you don’t have a valid evidence-based counter-argument to the design argument (ID). Yet, being a socio-political ideologue (fully engulfed in anti-ID rhetoric) you pretend otherwise. Want to have it demonstrated again? Okay. In the first half of the 20th century, it was predicted by prominent scientists (Erwin Schrodinger among others) that a living thing (an autonomous open-ended self-replicator) would have to be specified from memory in order to exist. It was later predicted this would require a symbol system, a language structure, and semantic closure in order to function. In the second half of the 20th century, each of these things was famously confirmed via experimental result, and each has been subsequently (and carefully) described in the literature using the language and equations of physics. The symbol system requires discontinuous association mediated by a set independent constraints; the language structure requires spatial orientation to enable multiple referents in a rate-independent medium, and semantic closure requires the simultaneous corporeal organization of the system in order for it to persist over time. It is also noted in the literature that the equations used to model the elementary forces of nature (as also predicted) are not capable of modeling this organization (requiring complimentary descriptions throughout both physics and biology); and that the only other organization known to science that has this type of structure is human language and mathematics (i.e. two unambiguous correlates of intelligence). Seversky, is the cellular gene system (at the very heart of Life and evolution on earth) dependent on an irreducible system of symbols and constraints, a language structure, and a simultaneous organization of the system?Upright BiPed_{April 5, 2020
April
04
Apr
5
05
2020
01:36 PM
1
01
36
PM
PDT}

@15 ET:
Then they should shut up about pushing an atheistic agenda.
No, they won't. 72 virgin LUCAs are awaiting them in heaven. They are forced to spread their gospel.Truthfreedom_{April 5, 2020
April
04
Apr
5
05
2020
11:27 AM
11
11
27
AM
PDT}

1 2 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply