Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Uncommon Descent Contest Question 9: Is accidental origin of life a doctrine that holds back science?

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

For a free copy of Stephen Meyer’s Signature in the Cell (Harper One, 2009), help me understand the following:

Accidental origin of life is the basic thesis of origin of life researchers. Life all just somehow sort of happened one day, billions of years ago, under the right conditions – which we may be able to recreate. But there is a constant, ongoing dispute about just what those conditions were.

Here is the problem I have always had with accidental origin of life: It amounts to spontaneous generation. However, banishing the doctrine of spontaneous generation played a key role in modern medicine’s success. If we assume that life forms (for medical purposes, we focus on pathogens) cannot start spontaneously, then they must have been introduced. Hence, we can develop procedures for a sterile operating room or lab.

If life can be spontaneously generated, why isn’t it happening now? Conditions for life today are probably as good as they have ever been, and maybe better. For over 500 million years they have obviously been good for complex life forms, and for billions of years they have been good for simple ones.

If you wish to contribute to this question, you may advisedly wish to read this recent article in the math and engineering literature by Dembski and Marks:

Abstract—Conservation of information theorems indicate that any search algorithm performs, on average, as well as random search without replacement unless it takes advantage of
problem-specific information about the search target or the search-space structure. Combinatorics shows that even a moderately sized search requires problem-specific information to be successful. Computers, despite their speed in performing queries, are completely inadequate for resolving even moderately sized search problems without accurate information to guide them. We propose three measures to characterize the information required for successful search: 1) endogenous information, which measures the difficulty of finding a target using random search; 2) exogenous information, which measures the difficulty that remains in finding a target once a search takes advantage of problemspecific information; and 3) active information, which, as the difference between endogenous and exogenous information, measures the contribution of problem-specific information for successfully finding a target. This paper develops a methodology based on these information measures to gauge the effectiveness with which problem-specific information facilitates successful search. It then applies this methodology to various search tools widely used in evolutionary search.

Index Terms—Active information, asymptotic equipartition property, Brillouin active information, conservation of information (COI), endogenous information, evolutionary search, genetic algorithms, Kullback–Leibler distance, no free lunch theorem (NFLT), partitioned search.

Comments
kariosfocus, #59
The observed universe, in its thermodynamically credible lifespan will go through 10^80 atoms x 10^-43s/state x 10^25 s ~ 10^150 states. That is, less than 1 in 10^150 of the configs for 1,000 bits. A blind random walk based search of 1 in 10^150 of a space is not credibly different from zero fraction. It simply has not got enough coverage to be plausible in terms of landing us on shorelines of function so we can climb up to peak functions by the various hill-climbing mechanisms so beloved of evolutionary biologists and computer simulation writers.
If life consisted of a single organism blindly searching for a single specific configuration, your argument might actually make some sense. However, a single parent cell can produce 10^150 daughter cells in less than 500 generations, so finding any of the peak functions in your search space is almost a certainty.camanintx
August 29, 2009
August
08
Aug
29
29
2009
01:56 PM
1
01
56
PM
PDT
ARGH ABIOGENESIS IS NOT THE ABSENCE OF A "CAUSE" ARGH I think you mean "that life can occur without a living cause", or something. Or are you talking about the Big Bang, and including the notion that it was a causeless event in the realm of "Darwinism"?Lenoxus
August 29, 2009
August
08
Aug
29
29
2009
09:09 AM
9
09
09
AM
PDT
----Lenoxus: "Personally, I sense a disconnect. In Dembski’s words, I see that madhouse." Apples and oranges. Dembski is saying that predictability is not a function of design. The dynamic with which Mozart composes music is not the same dynamice that causes a musical sound when a hammer hits a string. The second is a function of mechanical laws, the first is not. Either way, that point has nothing at all to do with the Darwinist fantasy that events can occur without a cause.StephenB
August 28, 2009
August
08
Aug
28
28
2009
08:07 PM
8
08
07
PM
PDT
StephenB said the following:
In keeping with that point, if one thing can “just happen,” then why cannot anything just happen? Why not everything? Under these circumstances, how could the scientist know which things were caused and which ones were not? Science would become an intellectual madhouse where the impossible is affirmed with confidence and the obvious is dismissed with disdain, which, come to think of it, is not a bad description of Darwinst epistemology.
Dembski once wrote the following: To require prediction fundamentally misconstrues design. To require prediction of design is to put design in the same boat as natural laws, locating their explanatory power in an extrapolation from past experience. This is to commit a category mistake. To be sure, designers, like natural laws, can behave predictably (designers often institute policies that end up being rigidly obeyed). Yet unlike natural laws, which are universal and uniform, designers are also innovators. Innovation, the emergence to true novelty, eschews predictability. Designers are inventors. We cannot predict what an inventor would do short of becoming that inventor. Personally, I sense a disconnect. In Dembski's words, I see that madhouse. Also, I think the assertion that any biologists assert that something "just happened" is overtly ludicrous. As I see it, something-alive coming from something-not-alive is simply not the same thing as an "uncaused" something-from-nothing, flagrantly violating logic by "poofing" into air. ID insists not only that abiogenesis of a sort occurred (unless the designer is defined as an organism, which the ID designer usually isn't), but that it occurred by means material scientists have absolultey no hope of figuring out, so they may as well give up now and… start researching the problem with an ID mindset? How, exactly? Aren't designers unpredictable? Or was I simply quote-mining, and in fact, a system has been figured out for describing/predicting the designer's means? If it's the year 4 billion BC, and the designer wants life to occur, what are the odds that it successfully occurs? 100%? How could they be any less?Lenoxus
August 28, 2009
August
08
Aug
28
28
2009
05:57 PM
5
05
57
PM
PDT
I would simply point out that to ascribe origins of the universe, the origins of life on earth, or the evolutionary directions taken by life over the last ~3.5 billion years either to "accident" or "not an accident" is a category error (or category mistake), pure and simple. It is defensible to ascribe to persons and perhaps a few other higher organisms "intent" to engage in some behaviors. To do so is to ascribe to them the ability to represent behavioral options prior to behaving and hence "intend" a given behavior. As a component of this ascription, we say that for them it is possible to exhibit "accidental" behaviors or results, when their behavior results in an unanticipated outcome. A person may "accidently" knock the cup from the table. Or may do so intentionally. An earthquake, however, neither behaves intentionally nor causes results "by accident." It may cause many cups to fall from many tables, but these are neither accidents nor not accidents. They are not "acts" at all. Such an ascription is simply inappropriate for a natural event such as an earthquake, and represents a category error. It is similarly inappropriate to ascribe either intention or lack of intention ("accidents") to other natural phenomena, outside of the actions of organisms (particularly human beings) that may employ representations to guide their behavior. Hence the course of evolution is neither accidental nor non-accidental. Such an ascription is a category error. It is also a category error to describe the origins of the universe either as "accidental" or as "intentional." However universes originate, it is unlikely to be by means of "actions" analogous to human actions.Diffaxial
August 28, 2009
August
08
Aug
28
28
2009
11:08 AM
11
11
08
AM
PDT
---Adel: "It is an experimental endeavor based on testable hypotheses. Whoever those “Darwinists” to whom you refer may be, they would not be practicing science if they eschewed causality. That's right. Darwinists, for the most part, are not doing science. They are doing ideology in the name of science. They interpret all evidence in the light of their unwarranted assumption that life had to occur spontaneously and without a directive cause, meaning that they insist on the conclusion even before the investigation begins. So, to make their dubious scheme work, at least in their own minds, they accept causality when it serves their purpose and deny it when it doesn't. That may be convenient, but it isn't rational.StephenB
August 28, 2009
August
08
Aug
28
28
2009
10:20 AM
10
10
20
AM
PDT
StephenB, Thanks for the clarification. However,
The issue I am addressing is this: Can physical events occur without any cause at all? As I already indicated, Darwinists think they can.
In the context of the original post, the aim of scientific investigations into the origin of life is an investigation into causes, physical and chemical. It is an experimental endeavor based on testable hypotheses. Whoever those "Darwinists" to whom you refer may be, they would not be practicing science if they eschewed causalityAdel DiBagno
August 27, 2009
August
08
Aug
27
27
2009
06:00 AM
6
06
00
AM
PDT
PS: Looks like this contest has been abandoned too. I think my contest entry format suggestion might help.kairosfocus
August 27, 2009
August
08
Aug
27
27
2009
02:13 AM
2
02
13
AM
PDT
Stephen: Yes, I agree. GEM of TKIkairosfocus
August 27, 2009
August
08
Aug
27
27
2009
02:08 AM
2
02
08
AM
PDT
----kairosfocus: “I would only note that you need to underscore a little more strongly — per the comeback above by AD — that it is evolutionary materialists who [especially at UD!] have defended the notion of causeless events.” Hi KF: Yes, indeed. Most evolutionary biologists think anything at all is possible----except design. ----“I would also distinguish the issue of directed/purposeful and undirected/stochastic contingency: design vs chance, and the third factor, mechanical necessity, in so doing. 9Seems the materialists want to put in a blank cause of the gaps to be taken on unacknowledged faith.) See my comment to Adel.StephenB
August 27, 2009
August
08
Aug
27
27
2009
01:52 AM
1
01
52
AM
PDT
----Adel Dibagno: “Your distinction between accidents and causes looks spurious to me. If you should be struck by lightning, would you argue that it was a purposeful action of an agent, or would you consider it a random event? If the latter, a random event can be causal.” I see where there could be some confusion. I think it’s a problem with vocabulary. I am using the word “accidents” in the context that I perceive Denyse is using it, that is, the idea of a causeless event. On the other hand, plenty of random events can occur in the context of causality. So, in that sense, accidents happen all the time. If necessary and sufficient conditions are met, then randomness can occur, as in quantum events and the principle of causation is in operation. The issue I am addressing is this: Can physical events occur without any cause at all? As I already indicated, Darwinists think they can. I am saying that they can’t. If that is not what Denyse had in mind, then I am on my own. Thanks for giving me the opportunity to clarify. ----“Similarly, given the appropriate conditions, the random interactions of molecules often result in the synthesis of new molecules or the degradation of the old ones, or a variety of other outcomes. All causal.” All causal, yes. The conditions are a necessary cause. In order for a causeless event to occur, both the necessary and sufficient causes must be absent. A quantum void is not nothing, so something is not coming from nothing.StephenB
August 27, 2009
August
08
Aug
27
27
2009
01:48 AM
1
01
48
AM
PDT
Oops, this is the wrong thread!, sorry, Its been a very long day.BillB
August 26, 2009
August
08
Aug
26
26
2009
01:45 PM
1
01
45
PM
PDT
O'Leary: How will you tell if the code is genuine, given that it will be just pasted into this discussion? Should I just write out the algorithm Dawkins describes in Apple Basic and submit it? It would produce the results he published.BillB
August 26, 2009
August
08
Aug
26
26
2009
01:44 PM
1
01
44
PM
PDT
Caman: Please note the distinction between probability and plausibility. In context, once a complex, specified function uses at least 1,000 bits to carry out its function, we are looking at a configuration space in excess of 10^301 cells. The observed universe, in its thermodynamically credible lifespan will go through 10^80 atoms x 10^-43s/state x 10^25 s ~ 10^150 states. That is, less than 1 in 10^150 of the configs for 1,000 bits. A blind random walk based search of 1 in 10^150 of a space is not credibly different from zero fraction. It simply has not got enough coverage to be plausible in terms of landing us on shorelines of function so we can climb up to peak functions by the various hill-climbing mechanisms so beloved of evolutionary biologists and computer simulation writers. he only entities routinely observed to find functionality in such vast spaces is intelligence. Starting with posts in this blog thread. Life systems as observed use at minimum 100's of kilo bits of DNA storage. And novel body plans come in at 10's to 100's of mega bits of novel functional info. THAT is what the implausibility is about. GEM of TKIkairosfocus
August 26, 2009
August
08
Aug
26
26
2009
01:22 PM
1
01
22
PM
PDT
kairosfocus, #57
Of course this reflects a C19 ignorance of the information rich complexity and information systems base of life. Once that is factored in, we see that it is maximally implausible for such complexity to spontaneously originate ont eh gamut of the observed universe.
Why do people think they can assign probabilities to a process that they don't understand?camanintx
August 26, 2009
August
08
Aug
26
26
2009
10:20 AM
10
10
20
AM
PDT
PS: Shawn is right. Indeed in his famous warm little pond discussion, Darwin specuated as to how a spontaneously originating life form or component in today's world would be at once seized upon as food by an existing organism. He then suggested that in the imaginary prebiotic world of his salt-rich electrically active pond, since there were no such predators, prebiotic evolution could proceed without hindrance. Of course this reflects a C19 ignorance of the information rich complexity and information systems base of life. Once that is factored in, we see that it is maximally implausible for such complexity to spontaneously originate ont eh gamut of the observed universe.kairosfocus
August 26, 2009
August
08
Aug
26
26
2009
01:57 AM
1
01
57
AM
PDT
Stephen: Great to see a second actual contest no 9 entry! I would only note that you need to underscore a little more strongly -- per the comeback above by AD -- that it is evolutionary materialists who [especially at UD!] have defended the notion of causeless events. I would also distinguish the issue of directed/purposeful and undirected/stochastic contingency: design vs chance, and the third factor, mechanical necessity, in so doing. 9Seems the materialists want to put in a blank cause of the gaps to be taken on unacknowledged faith.) GEM of TKIkairosfocus
August 26, 2009
August
08
Aug
26
26
2009
01:51 AM
1
01
51
AM
PDT
@ShawnBoy: Using non-specialist dictionaries to define an often-misunderstood scientific term is a cheap tactic. What a dictionary writer and what a biologist has to say on the matter should not be equated.naontiotami
August 25, 2009
August
08
Aug
25
25
2009
10:52 PM
10
10
52
PM
PDT
Meriam-Webster definition of abiogenesis:
the supposed spontaneous origination of living organisms directly from lifeless matter
The Free Dictionary definition of abiogenesis:
The supposed development of living organisms from nonliving matter. Also called autogenesis, spontaneous generation.
Biology-Online definition of abiogenesis:
(Science: study) The study of how life originally arose on the planet, encompasses the ancient belief in the spontaneous generation of life from non living matter.
ShawnBoy
August 25, 2009
August
08
Aug
25
25
2009
06:57 PM
6
06
57
PM
PDT
Here is the problem I have always had with accidental origin of life: It amounts to spontaneous generation.
If you think abiogensis and spontaneous generation are the same thing then you need to brush up on your basic biology.
If life can be spontaneously generated, why isn’t it happening now? Conditions for life today are probably as good as they have ever been, and maybe better. For over 500 million years they have obviously been good for complex life forms, and for billions of years they have been good for simple ones.
Conditions today are good for complex life. New simple life may be forming all around us but if it cannot compete with the life forms already here it's not likely to stay around long enough to be noticed.camanintx
August 25, 2009
August
08
Aug
25
25
2009
05:59 PM
5
05
59
PM
PDT
Clive: "Maybe we’re just always looking the other way when it happens today." Or maybe it's so preposterously unlikely that it miraculously only happened once. :)CannuckianYankee
August 25, 2009
August
08
Aug
25
25
2009
05:53 PM
5
05
53
PM
PDT
StephenB, Your distinction between accidents and causes looks spurious to me. If you should be struck by lightning, would you argue that it was a purposeful action of an agent, or would you consider it a random event? If the latter, a random event can be causal. Similarly, given the appropriate conditions, the random interactions of molecules often result in the synthesis of new molecules or the degradation of the old ones, or a variety of other outcomes. All causal. (If I have misunderstood you again, just ignore me, thanks.)Adel DiBagno
August 25, 2009
August
08
Aug
25
25
2009
02:41 PM
2
02
41
PM
PDT
The accidental origin of life idea hurts science because it militates against the vital principle of causation, the rational and indispensible standard on which science is based. The first question any researcher asks is this: “How did it happen? or---What caused it? Yet, the concept of spontaneous generation popularizes the idea that physical events can occur without causes---that there need not be a “how”---that they can “just happen.” Consider the following proposition: Streets don’t just “get wet.” Using the scientific and philosophical principle of causation, we understand that something had to cause the streets to get wet. So, we say that if the streets are wet, then it must be raining, or else someone turned on a fire hydrant, or we look for some other reason. But if, as Darwinists or postmodern cosmologists claim, physical events do not always need causes or necessary conditions, that is, if something really can come from nothing, then streets can indeed just get wet. With this mind set, science is severely compromised. If, indeed, something can appear spontaneously or without a cause, why cannot it happen again somewhere else in some other situation? In keeping with that point, if one thing can “just happen,” then why cannot anything just happen? Why not everything? Under these circumstances, how could the scientist know which things were caused and which ones were not? Science would become an intellectual madhouse where the impossible is affirmed with confidence and the obvious is dismissed with disdain, which, come to think of it, is not a bad description of Darwinst epistemology. For Darwinists, and for postmodern cosmologists, a universe can pop into existence, life can come from non-life, and, yes, streets could, in principle, just “get wet.” Science cannot survive this irrational mind set indefinitely. As all reasonable people know, facts and evidence do not just interpret themselves. One reason why Darwinists cannot or will not follow where the evidence leads is because they refuse to interpret evidence according to the principles of right reason, one of which is the aforementioned principle of causation. How can scientists interpret evidence reasonably when they are hell bent on rejecting reason itself? As we already know, those dedicated to this principle of selective causation will avoid all the relevant questions about the information code in a DNA molecule. Perhaps it, too, was just another one of those events or circumstances that needs no cause—perhaps it, too, “just happened.” Thus, in order to preserve their paradigm, Darwinsts practice selective causation, that is, they pick and choose which events need to be explained, which ones do not, and at what times an explanation is needed at all, without, of course, explicitly admitting that they have abandoned causation at the preferred times. To keep everyone confused, they play with the language and use words that sound like, but really are not, explanations ---words like, “spontaneous generation,” or “emergence,” or “vitalism,” or anything else that creates the illusion of intellectual rigor. The doctrine of accidental origins, complete with its deceptive language, provides Darwinists with the anti-intellectual framework for institutionalizing the practice of selective causation. Of course, aggressive deception cannot survive without a protective front and a strong institutional barrier. Thus, Darwinists practice “selective causation” on offense and “methodological naturalism” on defense. Science is, or should be, about pursuing truth, and the search begins with an honest admission of the relevant evidence and a willingness to interpret it reasonably. Scientific research stands on the metaphysical assumption that our universe is rational and its physical components can be reasonably understood in light of their cause-effect relationships. That is why the practice of appealing to accidents in lieu of causal explanations harms science. By treating these alleged accidents as explanations, partisan scientists challenge the assumption of a rational universe, corrupt the practice of science, and politicize the institutions that support it.StephenB
August 25, 2009
August
08
Aug
25
25
2009
02:25 PM
2
02
25
PM
PDT
Adel: I suggest a read here first as a 101. Surely, you know that modern science was founded overwhelmingly by theists working in a theistic worldview. And, that the imposition of so-called methodological naturalism in the past few decades has had a censoring impact on origins science studies, as I explained above in brief. Then, please read Newton in his General Scholium to the Principia: ______________ >> . . . This most beautiful system of the sun, planets, and comets, could only proceed from the counsel and dominion of an intelligent and powerful Being. And if the fixed stars are the centres of other like systems, these, being formed by the like wise counsel, must be all subject to the dominion of One; especially since the light of the fixed stars is of the same nature with the light of the sun, and from every system light passes into all the other systems: and lest the systems of the fixed stars should, by their gravity, fall on each other mutually, he hath placed those systems at immense distances one from another. This Being governs all things, not as the soul of the world, but as Lord over all; and on account of his dominion he is wont to be called Lord God pantokrator , or Universal Ruler; for God is a relative word, and has a respect to servants; and Deity is the dominion of God not over his own body, as those imagine who fancy God to be the soul of the world, but over servants. The Supreme God is a Being eternal, infinite, absolutely perfect; but a being, however perfect, without dominion, cannot be said to be Lord God; for we say, my God, your God, the God of Israel, the God of Gods, and Lord of Lords; but we do not say, my Eternal, your Eternal, the Eternal of Israel, the Eternal of Gods; we do not say, my Infinite, or my Perfect: these are titles which have no respect to servants. The word God usually signifies Lord; but every lord is not a God. It is the dominion of a spiritual being which constitutes a God: a true, supreme, or imaginary dominion makes a true, supreme, or imaginary God. And from his true dominion it follows that the true God is a living, intelligent, and powerful Being; and, from his other perfections, that he is supreme, or most perfect. He is eternal and infinite, omnipotent and omniscient; that is, his duration reaches from eternity to eternity; his presence from infinity to infinity; he governs all things, and knows all things that are or can be done. He is not eternity or infinity, but eternal and infinite; he is not duration or space, but he endures and is present. He endures for ever, and is every where present; and by existing always and every where, he constitutes duration and space. Since every particle of space is always, and every indivisible moment of duration is every where, certainly the Maker and Lord of all things cannot be never and no where. Every soul that has perception is, though in different times and in different organs of sense and motion, still the same indivisible person. There are given successive parts in duration, co-existent puts in space, but neither the one nor the other in the person of a man, or his thinking principle; and much less can they be found in the thinking substance of God. Every man, so far as he is a thing that has perception, is one and the same man during his whole life, in all and each of his organs of sense. God is the same God, always and every where. He is omnipresent not virtually only, but also substantially; for virtue cannot subsist without substance. In him are all things contained and moved [i.e. cites Ac 17, where Paul evidently cites Cleanthes]; yet neither affects the other: God suffers nothing from the motion of bodies; bodies find no resistance from the omnipresence of God. It is allowed by all that the Supreme God exists necessarily; and by the same necessity he exists always, and every where. [i.e accepts the cosmological argument to God.] Whence also he is all similar, all eye, all ear, all brain, all arm, all power to perceive, to understand, and to act; but in a manner not at all human, in a manner not at all corporeal, in a manner utterly unknown to us. As a blind man has no idea of colours, so have we no idea of the manner by which the all-wise God perceives and understands all things. He is utterly void of all body and bodily figure, and can therefore neither be seen, nor heard, or touched; nor ought he to be worshipped under the representation of any corporeal thing. [Cites Exod 20.] We have ideas of his attributes, but what the real substance of any thing is we know not. In bodies, we see only their figures and colours, we hear only the sounds, we touch only their outward surfaces, we smell only the smells, and taste the savours; but their inward substances are not to be known either by our senses, or by any reflex act of our minds: much less, then, have we any idea of the substance of God. We know him only by his most wise and excellent contrivances of things, and final cause [i.e from his designs]: we admire him for his perfections; but we reverence and adore him on account of his dominion: for we adore him as his servants; and a god without dominion, providence, and final causes, is nothing else but Fate and Nature. Blind metaphysical necessity, which is certainly the same always and every where, could produce no variety of things. [i.e necessity does not produce contingency] All that diversity of natural things which we find suited to different times and places could arise from nothing but the ideas and will of a Being necessarily existing. [That is, implicitly rejects chance, Plato's third alternative and explicitly infers to the Designer of the Cosmos.] But, by way of allegory, God is said to see, to speak, to laugh, to love, to hate, to desire, to give, to receive, to rejoice, to be angry, to fight, to frame, to work, to build; for all our notions of God are taken from. the ways of mankind by a certain similitude, which, though not perfect, has some likeness, however. And thus much concerning God; to discourse of whom from the appearances of things, does certainly belong to Natural Philosophy. >> ________________ Do you see why for many such founders, ithas been said tha they viewed science as thinking God's creative and sustaining thoughts after him? That is, science was viewed as reverse engineering nature as the handiwork of a rational, thus intelligible, Creator. Or, in the terms of the current debates, Logos theology sets up a view of the world that expects to find rational order. It takes the risk in the Judaeo-Christian tradition of positing such. THAT RISKY PREDICTION IS NOW BEING DEEPLY CONFIRMED, NOT LEAST ON OOL: Life turns out to be based on programming, digital code, and algorithms. When last have you seen such writing itself out of say the electrical noise on an INTERNET connexion? (And what is the commonly observed source of such functional, complex, specific information?) GEM of TKIkairosfocus
August 25, 2009
August
08
Aug
25
25
2009
01:55 PM
1
01
55
PM
PDT
Barb, Forgot this part:
But this again leaves the issue unresolved: where did the parents come from? How did their flagellae arise from an evolutionary standpoint? Were all the components in place or not? Remember, Dr. Behe explained in his book “Darwin’s Black Box” that all the components need to be in place and functional before the flagellum can work properly. Evolution has no explanation (that I know of) as to how this happened.
The development of the bacterial flagellum is an unsolved problem. However, Matzke at least gives us a testable hypothesis which can be used to guide further research. What does ID tell us about the origins of flagella?yakky d
August 25, 2009
August
08
Aug
25
25
2009
12:37 PM
12
12
37
PM
PDT
Barb,
But several scientists, including those that I posted above, have suggested that it is mathematically improbable.
As we saw above, Harold Morowitz, far from believing abiogenesis is improbable, actually suggests that it could be inevitable given conditions on a young earth. I'm not blaming you, to be clear, but whoever first decided to use Morowitz' calculation as an anti-abiogenesis argument is guilty of the most spectacular example of quotemining I've ever seen. His actual view is quote literally the opposite of the representation given by Eastman. Whatever Hoyle's opinions were on the origin of life, his calculations involved assumptions that bear no resemblance to abiogenesis, so whatever probabilities he arrives at are not relevant. I didn't say anything about Robert Shapiro earlier, but he most certainly does not believe that abiogenesis is unlikely. His area of research is metabolism-first OOL, after all. Here is a quote:
There’s nothing freaky about life; it’s a normal consequence of the laws of the universe
which you will find here: http://www.news.harvard.edu/gazette/2008/10.23/11-life.html
Circular reasoning is a logical fallacy in which the conclusion that is to be proved is assumed in a premise. Abiogenesis is circular reasoning by definition, and this is primarily because scientists cannot—or will not allow a divine foot in the door. By ruling out design, they are left with abiogenesis. And they are left with an argument that is philosophically invalid.
Abiogenesis is one possible explanation for our presence. The action of a Designer is another. Whoever can provide the most compelling evidence for their side wins. There is no circularity here.
The foundation would likely be that design is detectable in nature.
Ok, we'll see how it works out.yakky d
August 25, 2009
August
08
Aug
25
25
2009
12:28 PM
12
12
28
PM
PDT
CannuckianYankee,
Indeed. If Evolution were true from an origin of life perspective, spontaneous generation should be happening all over the place; but it’s not. Something else must have happened as a one time event.
Maybe we're just always looking the other way when it happens today :)Clive Hayden
August 25, 2009
August
08
Aug
25
25
2009
12:10 PM
12
12
10
PM
PDT
Denyse: "If life can be spontaneously generated, why isn’t it happening now?" Indeed. If Evolution were true from an origin of life perspective, spontaneous generation should be happening all over the place; but it's not. Something else must have happened as a one time event.CannuckianYankee
August 25, 2009
August
08
Aug
25
25
2009
11:52 AM
11
11
52
AM
PDT
Yakky, “I don’t think we have enough information to say abiogenesis is mathematically improbable. Morowitz proposes that it was inevitable, given the conditions on the young earth. Michael Denton, an IDer and former senior fellow of the Discovery Institute, theorized that “… all phenomena, including life and evolution and the origin of man, are ultimately explicable in terms of natural processes.” in his book Nature’s Destiny; even though he believes in design, he essentially accepts that abiogenesis occurred.” But several scientists, including those that I posted above, have suggested that it is mathematically improbable. “I wouldn’t call it circular reasoning; abiogenesis is just one hypothesis which could explain our presence.” Circular reasoning is a logical fallacy in which the conclusion that is to be proved is assumed in a premise. Abiogenesis is circular reasoning by definition, and this is primarily because scientists cannot—or will not allow a divine foot in the door. By ruling out design, they are left with abiogenesis. And they are left with an argument that is philosophically invalid. “This is science, so nothing is known with absolute certainty. And with more work, the educated guesses can either be rejected or refined as appropriate.” One of the problems with abiogenesis is that scientists stubbornly hold to it despite the lack of evidence. They claim that the atmosphere must have been reducing because that would better support evolution. That is circular reasoning and it stalls science. “What, if anything, will take its place? What foundation will this new research program be based on?” The foundation would likely be that design is detectable in nature. “I would guess that the parents of an organism with a flagellum had flagella themselves or at least the majority of the components present, possibly serving other functions.” But this again leaves the issue unresolved: where did the parents come from? How did their flagellae arise from an evolutionary standpoint? Were all the components in place or not? Remember, Dr. Behe explained in his book “Darwin’s Black Box” that all the components need to be in place and functional before the flagellum can work properly. Evolution has no explanation (that I know of) as to how this happened.Barb
August 25, 2009
August
08
Aug
25
25
2009
11:40 AM
11
11
40
AM
PDT
LOL Please make the obvious correction to "junkyard-in-a-tornado".yakky d
August 25, 2009
August
08
Aug
25
25
2009
11:30 AM
11
11
30
AM
PDT
1 2 3

Leave a Reply