Sweeping the Origin of Life Under the Rug

_{Barry Arrington

October 3, 2017

Intelligent Design}

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

60 years ago origin of life (OOL) researches practically wet themselves with excitement over Miller-Urey. Now everyone knows Miller-Urey, while perhaps mildly interesting, had nothing to do with OOL, because the early earth’s atmosphere was weakly reducing and the M-U reaction simply does not occur in such an atmosphere.

No worries. We get this from a new Proceedings of the National Academy of Science paper:

As to the sources of nucleobases, early Earth’s atmosphere was likely dominated by CO2, N2, SO2, and H2O. In such a weakly reducing atmosphere, Miller–Urey-type reactions are not very efficient at producing organics. One solution is that the nucleobases were delivered by interplanetary dust particles (IDPs) and meteorites.

This is amusing. You can’t get nucleobases from known natural sources? Just invoke space particles and meteorites. This is just one step removed from “little green men did it.”

Comments

@Barry Your first own goal was pointing out how we “run into the wall of reality”, as it represents a form of criticism which doesn’t require concious attempt to apply it. Now you have argued that we all have “faith commitments”. Gee, that sounds familiar. The idea that knowege comes from authorative sources is a “faith commitment”. The idea that there are basic beliefs that are immune from criticism is a “faith commitment”. They are epistemological views about the growth of knowege. I’ve been saying this all along. We cannot extrapolate observations without first putting them into an explantory framework. Yet, another own goal! However, I don’t consider the above a point of “faith” as that implies immunity to criticism, which isn’t my position. Currently lacking good criticism is not the same as being immune to criticism. Saying I dont know isn’t faith. That you believe my comment implied conflict between the two “speaks volumes about your confusion”.critical rationalist_{October 6, 2017
October
10
Oct
6
06
2017
03:41 PM
3
03
41
PM
PDT}

CR
First, Barry points out that we “run into the wall of reality”. Second, he says we all have “faith commitments”.
That you believe there is a necessary conflict between those two statements speaks volumes about your confusion. Would you like me to hold you by the hand as we step through the logic, or do you want to take a while and reflect on why those two statements do not conflict.Barry Arrington_{October 6, 2017
October
10
Oct
6
06
2017
10:42 AM
10
10
42
AM
PDT}

Further to my last, after you complete the rather beautiful dot-to-dot painting, step back and take a good look at it. I've written an article at https://ayearningforpublius.wordpress.com/2016/08/05/the-not-so-intelligent-designer/ that may help in taking this painting to a higher level of the varied and amazing functional things this painting is capable of. Do take a look yourself.DonJohnsonDD682_{October 6, 2017
October
10
Oct
6
06
2017
08:50 AM
8
08
50
AM
PDT}

critical rationalist @41: "I’m asked you to explicitly connect the dots ... " I realize that I am perhaps quoting you a bit out of context here, but what you ask is very reasonable -- "connect the dots." So let me return the favor and ask you and rvb8 to connect the 81 dots that Dr. Howard Glicksman provides at https://evolutionnews.org/tag/the-designed-body/ And I might venture to say that within each of those 81 dots, we probably would find many more dots that could be connected to flesh out a very compelling case for the Intelligent Design of the human body - mine as well as yours. So get out your colored pencils and start this little exercise of connecting the dots. Are you up to it? Oh and by the way ... this little experiment is open to all curious truth seekers.DonJohnsonDD682_{October 6, 2017
October
10
Oct
6
06
2017
08:45 AM
8
08
45
AM
PDT}

First, Barry points out that we “run into the wall of reality”. Second, he says we all have “faith commitments”. Yet another “own goal”!critical rationalist_{October 6, 2017
October
10
Oct
6
06
2017
05:05 AM
5
05
05
AM
PDT}

This is why I keep asking you how you’ve managed to infallibly identity and infallibly interpret an objective source of morality. Theory always comes first. I’m referring to how you know some source is the infallible source of moral duties and values and how you know you have correctly interpreted when those duties and values are actuall applicable. In the absence of such an ability, you guess and criticize those guesses. So, it’s unclear how you’re in any better situation. Moral knowelge grows by guessing and then testing our guesses, just like everything else. God is like X, and source Z reflects the Xness of God, so Z must be said infallible source. But that hinges on your idea that God is like X and it’s unclear how you know God actually is like X, should he even exist. Having pointed this out and asked this question of you directly dozens of times, it’s unclear how I’m completely ignorant about this.critical rationalist_{October 6, 2017
October
10
Oct
6
06
2017
04:42 AM
4
04
42
AM
PDT}

@Barry I’m asked you to explicitly connect the dots between what “faith commitments” I suppposedly have and “little green men”. Apparently, you thought it was obvious, so you shouldn’t have any problem presenting them. Second, I explained my objections in detail. One of which is that we cannot extrapolate observations without first putting them into some kind of explantory framework. Call those frameworks “faith commitments” if you like, but it’s unclear how I’m unaware of the fact that theories always come first. Again, what specifc faith commitments are you referring to and how do they end up with “little green men”, or the lack there of?critical rationalist_{October 6, 2017
October
10
Oct
6
06
2017
04:17 AM
4
04
17
AM
PDT}

BA @ 38: "That one question sums it all up. That you have faith commitments is beyond question. Everyone does. That you are completely ignorant of your own is tragic." Indeed it is tragic. Well said.Truth Will Set You Free_{October 5, 2017
October
10
Oct
5
05
2017
06:16 PM
6
06
16
PM
PDT}

RVB8, it seems that you refuse to believe the evidence of your lying eyes etc. Functionally specific complex organisation and associated information is obvious and readily observable all around us; starting with the text of your own comments. That's right, you have had to exemplify what you would belittle in order to try to brush it aside, an inadvertent indicator of how strong the observation is. Where BTW, more or less equivalent phrasings are to be found starting with Orgel and Wicken in the 1970's, i.e. your attempt to assign to obscurity fails also. As to quantification, I think you would be better advised to have a talk with say Leslie Orgel's ghost, on description string lengths, or any number of others. And yes, AutoCAD files etc are an index of just such FSCO/I for non textual cases. So, when objectors refuse to acknowledge the reality of the readily exemplified, where we are surrounded by trillions of cases in point, that begins to tell us just how strong the force of the point that such FSCO/I is always observed to come from intelligently directed configuration is. KF PS: Orgel and Wicken:
ORGEL, 1973: living organisms are distinguished by theirspecified complexity. Crystals are usually taken as the prototypes of simple well-specified structures, because they consist of a very large number of identical molecules packed together in a uniform way. Lumps of granite or random mixtures of polymers are examples of structures that are complex but not specified. The crystals fail to qualify as living because they lack complexity; the mixtures of polymers fail to qualify because they lack specificity . . . . These vague idea can be made more precise by introducing the idea of information. Roughly speaking, the information content of a structure is the minimum number of instructions needed to specify the structure. [The Origins of Life (John Wiley, 1973), p. 189, p. 190, cf. p. 196.] WICKEN: ‘Organized’ systems are to be carefully distinguished from ‘ordered’ systems. Neither kind of system is ‘random,’ but whereas ordered systems are generated according to simple algorithms [[i.e. “simple” force laws acting on objects starting from arbitrary and common- place initial conditions] and therefore lack complexity, organized systems must be assembled element by element according to an [[originally . . . ] external ‘wiring diagram’ with a high information content . . . Organization, then, is functional complexity and carries information. [--> FYI, this is the direct root of the phrase I have used and abbreviated,so if I catch you playing this game again, I will call you out yet again for speaking with disregard for truth] It is non-random by design or by selection, rather than by the a priori necessity of crystallographic ‘order.’ [“The Generation of Complexity in Evolution: A Thermodynamic and Information-Theoretical Discussion,” Journal of Theoretical Biology, 77 (April 1979): p. 353, of pp. 349-65. (Emphases and notes added. Nb: “originally” is added to highlight that for self-replicating systems, the blue print can be built-in.)]
kairosfocus_{October 5, 2017
October
10
Oct
5
05
2017
11:40 AM
11
11
40
AM
PDT}

CR
What faith commitments?
That one question sums it all up. That you have faith commitments is beyond question. Everyone does. That you are completely ignorant of your own is tragic.Barry Arrington_{October 5, 2017
October
10
Oct
5
05
2017
07:38 AM
7
07
38
AM
PDT}

CR:
My rejection of ID on the grounds of being a bad explanation isn’t limited to ID.
It's limited by your scientific illiteracy. Look, if you and yours had a methodology to test your claims, tested them and confirmed them, then you would have something. But you don't even have a testable methodology for your claims. Focus on your own position because flailing away at ID isn't going to help you.ET_{October 5, 2017
October
10
Oct
5
05
2017
06:36 AM
6
06
36
AM
PDT}

rvb8:
so you are now accepting kairos’s idea of FSCO/I, as one of the pieces of theoretical evidence, in the ID tool kit?
It isn't theoretical and it is better than anything you and yours have for your position.
You seem to have an argument that is utterly, and entirely negative.
Then it is obvious that you are not paying attention.
Particularly when all of your opposition is slowly but surely erroded by the facts.
That has yet to happen, If it ever does we will pay attention.
Or put another way; ‘fossils are a bitch!’
For you and yours as you don't have a mechanism capable of producing the organisms who left those fossils.ET_{October 5, 2017
October
10
Oct
5
05
2017
06:33 AM
6
06
33
AM
PDT}

CR @ 30:
In the case of creationism, the explanation for the growth of knowledge is supernatural, and therefore inexpclable by definition.
Can you have a materialistic explanation of the existence of the universe which includes an explanation for all included mechanics and events? Also, how would you separate naturalism from intellectually trendy anthropocentrism?LocalMinimum_{October 5, 2017
October
10
Oct
5
05
2017
05:57 AM
5
05
57
AM
PDT}

rvb8 -- here's something that might help you in examining evidence: https://www.facebook.com/enchroma/videos/1350092801731409/DonJohnsonDD682_{October 5, 2017
October
10
Oct
5
05
2017
03:49 AM
3
03
49
AM
PDT}

I say again --- The evidence confirming Intelligent Design is in and it’s massive. There is indeed a “mountain of evidence” and it conclusively confirms a creator, and totally demolishes the nonsense of evolution as the explanation for life on this planet. How you ask? It’s all around you and within you … all you have to do is examine the amazing functionality of your own body. It’s really that simple. Need some “technical” help in grasping this? Start taking a look at the amazing series from Dr. Howard Glicksman at https://evolutionnews.org/tag/the-designed-body/ rvb8 -- have you taken the time to examine any of the 81 points of evidence presented? No -- why not? Dr. Glicksman has an argument that is utterly, and entirely positive. Scientists bring up proposition after proposition, propose models, test them (M/U etc), and Dr. Glicksman says, ‘yes, it has been done and we can see it all around and within us’. I'll even allow you to use 'The Science Guy.' rvb8 -- take just one of Glicksman's 81 points of evidence and give us a point by point evolutionary description of how this might have come into existence. I'll even allow you to use props, such as a piece of polaroid film, or a Paper Mache mountain.DonJohnsonDD682_{October 5, 2017
October
10
Oct
5
05
2017
03:46 AM
3
03
46
AM
PDT}

CR and rvb8, you are correct, scientific theories are more than just saying ether is wrong. A scientific theory is going from ether is wrong to relativity is right. But, we have to first acknowledge ether is wrong before we get to relativity is right. Can't you see the utility in showing naturalism is wrong? It opens the doors to new theories, such as: https://www.amazon.com/Naturalism-Alternatives-Scientific-Methodologies-Methodological-ebook/dp/B01N9WGRUZ Instead, what you are doing is posing ever more speculative theories why ether is right.EricMH_{October 5, 2017
October
10
Oct
5
05
2017
03:24 AM
3
03
24
AM
PDT}

RVB "This is well understood" Saying so is not enough.Eugene S_{October 5, 2017
October
10
Oct
5
05
2017
01:52 AM
1
01
52
AM
PDT}

I know you don’t. Your faith commitments have literally blinded you to what is glaringly obvious to those who don’t share those faith commitments.
What faith commitments? My rejection of ID on the grounds of being a bad explanation isn’t limited to ID. It also extends to creationism and even inductivism. What each of these ideas share is a fundamental epistimogical problem regarding their explanation for the growth of knowelge in the biosphere. In the case of creationism, the explanation for the growth of knowledge is supernatural, and therefore inexpclable by definition. Nor is it even clear that there is any growth at all, because creationism is misleadingly named. It denies the only genuine creation that would have taken place. In the case of ID the explantion for that growth is simply absent. And in the case of inductivism, the explanation is irrational. IOW, when we try to take each of them seriously as an explanation for that growth, they fail spectacularly. And what’s particularly surprising is the refusal for even their own proponents to take their theories seriously, as if doing so is somehow an alien concept that they’ve never considered. So, if you want to talk about faith commitments that refusal takes the cake, so to speak. Again, things are not obvious in the sense you’re implying. We cannot extrapolate observations without first putting them into some kind of explantory framework. That always comes first. But, by all means, feel free to explain how that might work, in practice. Having faith that you can without actually trying to take that idea seriously, for the purpose of critism, is just that: a faith commitment. Not to mention the failure to understand the difference betwen the theory of the history of life on earth, as an historical science, and the theory of the origin of life, as a universal theory about the growth of biological complicity. The idea that our inability to go back in time to know about the former, makes the latter “utterly hopeless” suggests you hold a rather impoverished and naive view of science. Or, you actually know better, but appeal to that idea because you already know the answer and it’s a shortcut to “truth”. I could make a list of such ideas that seem to be accepted by ID. One is that probability is somehow a good way to pick betwen theories. This seems obvious, but attempts to take that idea seriously fail as well. First, probably doesn’t work unless you know all the possible outcomes and the process in question is actually random. It’s unclear how you can include theories you haven’t conceived of yet and you have to intepret observations inside some existing theory. So, if you stop to think about it, probably simply isn’t valid means to choose between theories. Theories come first, which constrain options. Without a theory, you don’t know what the possible outcomes are, so how can you use probability to choose between them? Second, we don’t actually use it. Despite the fact that it’s impossible to test that gravity is uniform beyond our local vicinity, it is a fundimental aspect of our understanding in the universe as a whole. Even though we’ve make trillions of observations locally, those are but a drop in the bucket compared to everywhere in the universe. So one could say that it is highly improbable that gravity is uniform. Rather, the uniformity of gravity is the best explantion as a universal theory, What I’m getting at here is that the idea that things are obvious, and therefore immune to criticism, is a faith commitment. The suposed obviousness that knowledge comes from authoritative sources, which is not subject to criticism, is one such faith commitment.critical rationalist_{October 4, 2017
October
10
Oct
4
04
2017
11:58 PM
11
11
58
PM
PDT}

Barry @, so you are now accepting kairos's idea of FSCO/I, as one of the pieces of theoretical evidence, in the ID tool kit? Good luck with getting that contraption a hearing beyond here. Asteroids are indeed places where amino acids and other organic compounds do form. This is well understood, by their composition including water, and the other elements common in our universe. This is not controversial. But in the article Barry says scientists are looking for other ways life could have originated on earth, and implies that the 'outer-space' model is desperate. There are so many natural forces at work in the universe, and quite a few on this planet. M/U proved that just by bringing together a few, you actually get complexity. (the second law nonsense is defeated by the adition of energy from outside the system; we call it the sun). You seem to have an argument that is utterly, and entirely negative. Scientists bring up proposition after proposition, propose models, test them (M/U etc), and you say, 'no, can't be done'. Don't you get tired of the constant negativity? Particularly when all of your opposition is slowly but surely erroded by the facts. Or put another way; 'fossils are a bitch!':)rvb8_{October 4, 2017
October
10
Oct
4
04
2017
08:55 PM
8
08
55
PM
PDT}

BA @ 23: Well done. Nothing but the truth!Truth Will Set You Free_{October 4, 2017
October
10
Oct
4
04
2017
11:55 AM
11
11
55
AM
PDT}

KF @ 25:
RVB8 & CR, I repeat from 4 above, which raises a cluster of issues you have studiously failed to face squarely
Don't hold your breath. Again, I call attention to the MH quote at 23. rvb8 and CR are literally blind to your correctives. I nevertheless appreciate your efforts for the lurkers' sake.Barry Arrington_{October 4, 2017
October
10
Oct
4
04
2017
11:22 AM
11
11
22
AM
PDT}

RodW
I don’t think this works as an argument against ID. If we were to find a clearly designed object, not knowing who or what the designer was would not effect our ability to judge whether the object is designed.
Of course you are correct, but don't waste your time on CR. This has been explained to him dozens of times, and he acts like he has never heard it. Hmmmm. I refer against to the MH quote in comment 23Barry Arrington_{October 4, 2017
October
10
Oct
4
04
2017
11:20 AM
11
11
20
AM
PDT}

RVB8 & CR, I repeat from 4 above, which raises a cluster of issues you have studiously failed to face squarely:
the sort of reducing suggested atmosphere used by Miller and Urey has not been credible for decades. Go to a more “realistic” model and the reactions collapse; that is the point of the OP, which then notes on how its force is evaded by appealing to a just so story on space dust. That’s why it is one of the classic misleading textbook and pop sci icons of evolutionary materialism rather than part of the citation for winning a nobel prize for successfully explaining OOL on evolutionary materialism. (Which is itself revealing, and nope Prigogine was not even close, as he acknowledged.) Besides, there is a huge issue on sustaining products and/or [lack of] molar concentration, there is another on the handedness (chirality) of life molecules, and on the gap between bricks and a self-replicating house — you need FSCO/I rich plans and since von Neumann 1948 we have had a very good idea of what a kinematic self-replicator requires. Suffice to note, we have yet to build such a vNSR seventy years later, never mind, doing that with molecular nanotech. And more. The OOL challenge chops out the root of the darwinist tree of life type model and it puts design at the table right from the start. If, people are willing to listen to the force of evidence provided by empirically well-warranted signs of design. In short, please open your mind to the actual weight of evidence.
KFkairosfocus_{October 4, 2017
October
10
Oct
4
04
2017
11:19 AM
11
11
19
AM
PDT}

Critical R
ID doesn’t actually add to the explanation. It just pushes the problem up a level without improving it.
I don't think this works as an argument against ID. If we were to find a clearly designed object, not knowing who or what the designer was would not effect our ability to judge whether the object is designed.RodW_{October 4, 2017
October
10
Oct
4
04
2017
10:50 AM
10
10
50
AM
PDT}

CR:
I don’t see where little green men come into play.
I know you don't. Your faith commitments have literally blinded you to what is glaringly obvious to those who don't share those faith commitments.
None so deaf as those that will not hear. None so blind as those that will not see.
Matthew HenryBarry Arrington_{October 4, 2017
October
10
Oct
4
04
2017
08:43 AM
8
08
43
AM
PDT}

ID doesn’t actually add to the explanation. It just pushes the problem up a level without improving it
That is your opinion and anyone with any investigative experience knows it is wrong.ET_{October 4, 2017
October
10
Oct
4
04
2017
08:33 AM
8
08
33
AM
PDT}

@Barry
Why yes you are. Didn’t you read the post? Materialists are increasingly coming to understand that OOL on materialist premises is utterly hopeless. So they are resorting to disguised “little green men” theories.
It is? I didn't get that from the post or the referenced link. We do not think physics or chemistry works differently on earth than it does in space. So, I don't see where little green men come into play. Even then, little "green men" would be complex knowledge laden entities, which would also exhibit the appearance of design. That's why they are not appealed to in the referenced in the link. ID doesn't actually add to the explanation. It just pushes the problem up a level without improving it. Not to mention that you seem to be confusing the origin of life on earth, which is indeed difficult to know because it happened in the past under difficult to determine conditions. This is not the same as our theory of the origin of life, in general, which is location independent and would include the entire universe.critical rationalist_{October 4, 2017
October
10
Oct
4
04
2017
08:08 AM
8
08
08
AM
PDT}

CR @18 To which explanation are you referring when you say: "our best explanation for how designers actually result in designed things, as opposed to merely what we experience"?
CR: what would the “first designer” look like?
Why is it any concern to ID what the "first designer", if there is such a thing, looks like?
CR: As I’ve pointed out, intelligence is insufficient.
Insufficient for what? Intelligent design?
CR: Does the medical community consist of intelligent agents?
Of course.
CR: If so, why don’t we have a cure for cancer?
Two possibilities: (1) they have not found it yet. (2) the cure does not exist. Why do you ask? To what is this relevant?Origenes_{October 4, 2017
October
10
Oct
4
04
2017
08:04 AM
8
08
04
AM
PDT}

As I’ve pointed out, intelligence is insufficient. Does the medical community consist of intelligent agents? If so, why don’t we have a cure for cancer?
So they don't help at all? Is that your worthless claim? Some cancers are curable.ET_{October 4, 2017
October
10
Oct
4
04
2017
08:01 AM
8
08
01
AM
PDT}

@Origenes From the earlier thread...
I’d point out the opposite is a problem for ID. Based on our best explanation for how designers actually result in designed things, as opposed to merely what we experience, they too would exhibit the appearance of design. So, exactly what would the “first designer” look like?
This is what I mean by an explanation. As I've pointed out, intelligence and will alone is insufficient. Does the medical community not consist of intelligent agents? Do they not want and intend to cure cancer? So, why don't we have a cure for cancer?critical rationalist_{October 4, 2017
October
10
Oct
4
04
2017
07:53 AM
7
07
53
AM
PDT}

1 2 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply