|
Users viewing this topic:
none
|
|
Login  | |
|
RE: IC does not support ID - 4/28/2008 4:26:27 PM
|
|
|
drmark
Posts: 3175
Joined: 7/10/2006
Status: online
|
quote:
I would have to first find a way to stuff the theory of evolution into the scriptures. And I already called that a fool's task. Anyone who claims that creation by evolution and creation by God are one and the same should have no difficulty with such a foolish little task. Are you ready to retract your absurdity or just deny that the Bible discusses creation by God in any form?
_____________________________
Jeremiah 31:31-34. The time is NOW, fellow saints!
|
|
|
|
|
RE: IC does not support ID - 4/28/2008 4:49:56 PM
|
|
|
gluadys
Posts: 711
Joined: 4/26/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Jhud
quote:
I would have to first find a way to stuff the theory of evolution into the scriptures. And I already called that a fool's task.
The point of scripture is to reveal God as creator. Science has provided us an insight into his methods.
Just out of curiousity, what do you make of evolutionists like Dawkins who claim evolution makes 'God's methods' an unnecessary aspect of the conversation?
Dawkin's comments on religion are sophomoric. He displays almost as much ignorance about religion as his opponents do about evolution.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: IC does not support ID - 4/28/2008 5:00:21 PM
|
|
|
Jhud
Posts: 6770
Joined: 4/11/2005
From: Lake Wobegon
Status: offline
|
quote:
Dawkin's comments on religion are sophomoric. He displays almost as much ignorance about religion as his opponents do about evolution.
Well, he is not alone of course.
Harris, Dennett, Provine, Hitchens, etc. all seem to agree that evolution and atheism are related. Indeed, atheists who post around here often cite evolution as one of the primary reasons they have come to abandon the idea of God. This of course doesn't in and of itself tell us whether evolution is an accurate description of life's development, but it would be wrong I think to suggest that the issues aren't at all related.
_____________________________
Jack
“I mean to live my life an obedient man, but obedient to God, subservient to the wisdom of my ancestors; never to the authority of political truths arrived at yesterday at the voting booth”
William F. Buckley Jr. 1925-2008
|
|
|
|
|
RE: IC does not support ID - 4/28/2008 5:10:14 PM
|
|
|
gluadys
Posts: 711
Joined: 4/26/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Jhud
quote:
Dawkin's comments on religion are sophomoric. He displays almost as much ignorance about religion as his opponents do about evolution.
Well, he is not alone of course.
Harris, Dennett, Provine, Hitchens, etc. all seem to agree that evolution and atheism are related. Indeed, atheists who post around here often cite evolution as one of the primary reasons they have come to abandon the idea of God. This of course doesn't in and of itself tell us whether evolution is an accurate description of life's development, but it would be wrong I think to suggest that the issues aren't at all related.
What else would you expect of atheists? (Actually a fair number of atheists and agnostics agree that evolution does not have religious implications, so I should not tar them all with the same brush.)
And you can hardly fault those who abandon the idea of God because of evolution when you have well-funded evangelists preaching that evolution and Christian belief are mutually exclusive.
If both the militant atheists and the fundamentalists agree you must choose, one is likely to believe you must choose. (Although, ironically, some early fundamentalists were also evolutionists e.g B.B. Warfield)
But there have always been Christians, from Asa Gray on, who have understood that there is no threat to faith in evolution. Most churches and most Christians have long since assimilated the science and moved on.
You might like to check out some of these sermons and essays.
http://www.butler.edu/clergyproject/rel_resources.htm
|
|
|
|
|
RE: IC does not support ID - 4/28/2008 6:14:35 PM
|
|
|
drj11
Posts: 511
Joined: 3/29/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Jhud
Actually, you have perfectly highlighted the difference between the two, and that difference is time! So it remains basically ‘magical’, it’s just that in the case of abiogenesis, the magic takes longer.
I think you are missing the basic point; there is no more evidence that abiogenesis occurred than that spontaneous generation occurs. And as you have admitted above, the only real difference is time.
Do you think spontaneous generation is demonstrable? How could you say this as you can’t know if it is possible for it to be demonstrated or not?
As you said in a later post... "Its not that simple", and I suspect you know this. Again, the theory that complex organisms spring up spontaneously from decaying organic matter has been disproved (example: Maggots spontaneously forming in rancid meat). Several models exist for the possible formation of the building blocks of life, and they have made progress on various fronts. As far as I'm aware they have been able to simulate possible pre-life conditions and have gotten all the required amino acids to form, and they are currently working on the nucleotides and DNA/RNA backbones.
< Message edited by drj11 -- 4/28/2008 6:20:44 PM >
|
|
|
|
|
RE: IC does not support ID - 4/28/2008 6:16:59 PM
|
|
|
essentialsaltes
Posts: 735
Joined: 10/14/2007
From: Inglewood, CA
Status: online
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Jhud
quote:
Dawkin's comments on religion are sophomoric. He displays almost as much ignorance about religion as his opponents do about evolution.
Well, he is not alone of course.
Harris, Dennett, Provine, Hitchens, etc. all seem to agree that evolution and atheism are related.
'Related' is rather vague.
I think evolutionists (theistic and atheistic alike) would agree that evolution disproves a certain kind of literal theism. But this is not the same as support for atheism.
Dennett is the only one in this list that I'm very familiar with. He doesn't (as far as I know) contend that evolution implies atheism.
Dawkins does seem to have gone off the deep end in this respect. So much the worse for him.
quote:
Indeed, atheists who post around here often cite evolution as one of the primary reasons they have come to abandon the idea of God.
I haven't been around here that long, but I can't recall this having been said 'often'. Anyway, in my case it is not true.
_____________________________
"My object in all arguments is not to make any preconceived opinion of mine seem right, but merely to discover and establish the truth, whatever the truth may be."
-- HP Lovecraft, letter to Robert E. Howard 7/27-28/34
|
|
|
|
|
RE: IC does not support ID - 4/29/2008 6:23:24 PM
|
|
|
Real_Solitude
Posts: 328
Joined: 5/9/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Jhud
Actually, you have perfectly highlighted the difference between the two, and that difference is time! So it remains basically ‘magical’, it’s just that in the case of abiogenesis, the magic takes longer.
In the same sense that the reason a campfire dies out, and the reason the sun will cease burning is time. Yes, I agree. The problem is that the though the end result is the same, the proposed mechanisms are completely different. Time remains a major factor, but the fact that there is much more time in one than in the other necessitates different mechanisms for how they happened. When we can't rely on, "Poof! We have rats!" we have to come up with reasons for rats existing that can actually happen within the natural world.
quote:
I think you are missing the basic point; there is no more evidence that abiogenesis occurred than that spontaneous generation occurs. And as you have admitted above, the only real difference is time.
I don't really think I am missing the point, I think we're playing different games. You're attempting to conflate the two because neither has been observed. If our statement is based completely on observed phenomena then you are correct.
If, however, our statement is based on what is actually possible within the natural world, then conflating the two is ridiculous. For reasons described below, SG is patently impossible. Abiogensis, however, has not been proven impossible, and is plausible enough to be considered worth considering by people far smarter than I. Abiogensis seeks natural explanations for life, SG did not. SG attempted to simply replace god's role in creating life by offering a second magical explaination. Abiogensis is attempting to offer an actual one.
Spontaneous generation proposes a 'natural' method by which life arose without explaining the mechanism. Spontaneous generation is no better than saying that god did it. It adds nothing to our understanding of the subject. It's an attempt to brush the problem under the rug.
Abiogenesis research is attempting to find a natural way that life could have arisen. However, it is searching for actual mechanisms by which this could have happened. It is not attempting to simply say "there is a natural explanation for life." without research to back up the claim.
The evidence for abiogenisis is secondary. We see, through evolution, that more complex things are capable of coming from less complex things. Abiogensis asks where these simple things came from. It sees if it can extrapolate the basic trend of simple --> complex back into the non-organic range. It may not be possible, in which case we'll have to search for another plausible mechanism for this to have happened. Until we find a mechanism by which this is possible, we won't stop searching. Any statement, whether god or spontaneous generation which attempts to explain life without explaining life is not good enough.
quote:
Do you think spontaneous generation is demonstrable? How could you say this as you can’t know if it is possible for it to be demonstrated or not?
Just as we have not seen spontaneous generation occur, we have not seen abiogenesis occur. The main difference in saying that spontaneous generation is not observable and saying that abiogenesis is not observable is that spontaneous generation has been readily disproved. If the hypothesis is "Leave rags out overnight and rats will have formed in them by morning." we have a readily available way to test this; leave rags out overnight. If rats fail to form in controlled conditions after a generous sample size, we can safely discard the hypothesis as false. We can especially discard it because it violates a known law of physics. The rats are required to have formed from nothing. That is, there would have been insufficient energy inserted into the rags to allow for the additional matter of the rats to exist. This violates the Conservation of Energy. The odds of energy/matter assembling randomly into a fully functioning rat in the span of a night just once makes it statistically impossible in a 13.7 billion year old universe. To say that this happens every night, and happened even before rags were invented, makes it fully impossible.
Abiogesis, on the other hand violated no law of physics that I know of. Even if you disagree with it for chemical /time reasons, unless you can pinpoint a law that is violated by it you can not say that it is unobservable.
The reason that abiogenesis is being considered is because it violates no known law. Many people hope to find the chemical processes that could lead to the development of simple replicators. If it is possible to do this in laboratory conditions, it would indicate that it was possible for this to have happened to lead to the life we know today.
Basically, Spontaneous Generation is not an actual explanation for two reasons. It doesn't actually answer our question (How did life come to be?), and it violates the laws of physics.
Abiogensis actually attempts to answer the question. Moreover, it is attempting to do this without violating any physical laws. It is pursued because it is deemed plausible.
< Message edited by Real_Solitude -- 4/29/2008 6:33:53 PM >
_____________________________
"Instead of feeling alone in a group its better to have real solitude all by yourself."
~Faye Valentine
|
|
|
|
|
RE: IC does not support ID - 4/30/2008 12:18:21 AM
|
|
|
Jhud
Posts: 6770
Joined: 4/11/2005
From: Lake Wobegon
Status: offline
|
quote:
In the same sense that the reason a campfire dies out, and the reason the sun will cease burning is time. Yes, I agree. The problem is that the though the end result is the same, the proposed mechanisms are completely different. Time remains a major factor, but the fact that there is much more time in one than in the other necessitates different mechanisms for how they happened. When we can't rely on, "Poof! We have rats!" we have to come up with reasons for rats existing that can actually happen within the natural world.
First off, in your comparison of a the sun and a fire, they both go out – so time really isn’t a factor. Spontaneous generation is never thought to occur; and there are no demonstrable mechanisms for abiogenesis. They are for all intents and purposes the same.
quote:
I don't really think I am missing the point, I think we're playing different games. You're attempting to conflate the two because neither has been observed. If our statement is based completely on observed phenomena then you are correct.
If, however, our statement is based on what is actually possible within the natural world, then conflating the two is ridiculous. For reasons described below, SG is patently impossible. Abiogensis, however, has not been proven impossible, and is plausible enough to be considered worth considering by people far smarter than I. Abiogensis seeks natural explanations for life, SG did not. SG attempted to simply replace god's role in creating life by offering a second magical explaination. Abiogensis is attempting to offer an actual one.
Again, you apparently have no idea what the word ‘possible’ means. As there is no observed incidence of either, they are equally ‘possible’ – and incidentally, as equally impossible. Indeed, not knowing how life can come from non-life, how can you say the process wasn’t rapid? You are attempting to argue by ignorance!
Not only that, but you have no idea how science works; it never seeks to prove anything ‘impossible’, because that would require knowing every possible case, it can only falsify what is said to be impossible. Spontaneous generation has never been shown to be impossible, only extremely improbable, and a less suitable explanation for the propagation of organisms.
quote:
The evidence for abiogenisis is secondary. We see, through evolution, that more complex things are capable of coming from less complex things. Abiogensis asks where these simple things came from. It sees if it can extrapolate the basic trend of simple --> complex back into the non-organic range. It may not be possible, in which case we'll have to search for another plausible mechanism for this to have happened. Until we find a mechanism by which this is possible, we won't stop searching. Any statement, whether god or spontaneous generation which attempts to explain life without explaining life is not good enough.
The two problems of course is that life is now known to have never been ‘simple’, and as much as abiogenesis has never shown a single possible demonstrable mechanism in over 50 years of research, it doesn’t even rise to the level of a hypothesis, but mere wish fulfillment.
quote:
Just as we have not seen spontaneous generation occur, we have not seen abiogenesis occur. The main difference in saying that spontaneous generation is not observable and saying that abiogenesis is not observable is that spontaneous generation has been readily disproved.
No,no, no, it has never been ‘disproved’ – you can’t ‘disprove’ it accept to show that it is impossible for any mechanisms to produce life naturally – and you have already said this is possible. It’s like you are talking in circles.
quote:
If the hypothesis is "Leave rags out overnight and rats will have formed in them by morning." we have a readily available way to test this; leave rags out overnight. If rats fail to form in controlled conditions after a generous sample size, we can safely discard the hypothesis as false. We can especially discard it because it violates a known law of physics. The rats are required to have formed from nothing. That is, there would have been insufficient energy inserted into the rags to allow for the additional matter of the rats to exist. This violates the Conservation of Energy.
You are offering a strawman version here; the later SGs didn’t say this.
quote:
The odds of energy/matter assembling randomly into a fully functioning rat in the span of a night just once makes it statistically impossible in a 13.7 billion year old universe. To say that this happens every night, and happened even before rags were invented, makes it fully impossible.
But this is beside the point; spontaneous generationists didn’t deal only in rats and rags – the more sophisticated ones offered nutrient rich broths; and abiogenisists simply extend that to other scenarios. But I agree I think even in 13.7 billion years the odds of life occurring are so incredibly small that it is essentially impossible.
quote:
Abiogesis, on the other hand violated no law of physics that I know of. Even if you disagree with it for chemical /time reasons, unless you can pinpoint a law that is violated by it you can not say that it is unobservable.
It’s rather easy to say it is ‘unobservable’, as it has never been observed – to prove me wrong would require observing it.
But I never said it was unobservable; just that every observation indicates otherwise.
quote:
The reason that abiogenesis is being considered is because it violates no known law. Many people hope to find the chemical processes that could lead to the development of simple replicators. If it is possible to do this in laboratory conditions, it would indicate that it was possible for this to have happened to lead to the life we know today.
Well, technically, no assemblage of parts (Computers, books, skyscrapers, etc) violate a ‘known law’ when considering their unguided assembly, because our imaginations can always come up with a scenario whereby such a thing could occur – however, this doesn’t make such an assertion reasonable, probable, or worth considering.
quote:
Basically, Spontaneous Generation is not an actual explanation for two reasons. It doesn't actually answer our question (How did life come to be?), and it violates the laws of physics.
Abiogensis actually attempts to answer the question. Moreover, it is attempting to do this without violating any physical laws. It is pursued because it is deemed plausible.
In short, you are saying abiogenesis is an attempt to provide a rational for spontaneous generation within the known laws of physics according to imagined mechanisms; but this doesn’t make it any less spontaneous generation.
_____________________________
Jack
“I mean to live my life an obedient man, but obedient to God, subservient to the wisdom of my ancestors; never to the authority of political truths arrived at yesterday at the voting booth”
William F. Buckley Jr. 1925-2008
|
|
|
|
|
RE: IC does not support ID - 4/30/2008 12:34:33 AM
|
|
|
gluadys
Posts: 711
Joined: 4/26/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Jhud
Again, you apparently have no idea what the word ‘possible’ means. As there is no observed incidence of either, they are equally ‘possible’ – and incidentally, as equally impossible.
Apparently you have no idea what the word 'falsified' means. No, there is no observed incidence of either spontaneous generation or of abiogenesis.
But that does not make them equally possible. We know that spontaneous generation is not possible because it has been falsified.
We have not yet falsified abiogenesis, so we can still entertain that it is possible.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: IC does not support ID - 4/30/2008 12:49:11 AM
|
|
|
Jhud
Posts: 6770
Joined: 4/11/2005
From: Lake Wobegon
Status: offline
|
quote:
Apparently you have no idea what the word 'falsified' means. No, there is no observed incidence of either spontaneous generation or of abiogenesis.
But that does not make them equally possible. We know that spontaneous generation is not possible because it has been falsified.
Well Popper gave as an example of a properly stated scientific hypothesis the following:
All swans are white.
To falsify such a statement one simply needs to make verified observation of a non-white swan.
How was spontanoeus generation falsified per Popper?
_____________________________
Jack
“I mean to live my life an obedient man, but obedient to God, subservient to the wisdom of my ancestors; never to the authority of political truths arrived at yesterday at the voting booth”
William F. Buckley Jr. 1925-2008
|
|
|
|
|
RE: IC does not support ID - 4/30/2008 6:27:59 AM
|
|
|
Real_Solitude
Posts: 328
Joined: 5/9/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Jhud
Again, you apparently have no idea what the word ‘possible’ means. As there is no observed incidence of either, they are equally ‘possible’ – and incidentally, as equally impossible. Indeed, not knowing how life can come from non-life, how can you say the process wasn’t rapid? You are attempting to argue by ignorance!
Not only that, but you have no idea how science works; it never seeks to prove anything ‘impossible’, because that would require knowing every possible case, it can only falsify what is said to be impossible. Spontaneous generation has never been shown to be impossible, only extremely improbable, and a less suitable explanation for the propagation of organisms.
I've always operated under the definition of "That may or can be, exist, happen, be done, be used, etc." As in, that which can, however improbable, actually happen.
I can't say that the development of life wasn't rapid. It indeed may have been. However, the main tenant of classical spontaneous generation "complex, living organisms are generated by decaying organic substances" is patently impossible as our knowledge of physics stands. Nothing but disorder can come from a closed system. Unless SG adds some proposed mechanism by which significant amounts of energy are added to the system, it remains impossible in light of all we know. It is especially unsatisfying as it doesn't explain the origin of life at all, but merely the origin of current life. If it requires organic material to happen, it could not have been the cause of organic material.
I suppose it's my fault for using possible and impossible differently. By possible, I generally mean actually possible. By impossible, I am using it as "not to be done, endured, etc., with any degree of reason or propriety." It is a valid definition, but I suppose it does require clarification when used so close to 'possible.' Apologies. I use possible as "actually possible" and impossible as "vastly improbable."
In this way, this is the puropse of the 'testing' phase of hypothesis. To see if the hypothesis fits all relevant data while being contradicted by none. If the hypothesis is contradicted, it requires revision. This doesn't mean that, this is in no circumstance actually impossible. But rather 'according to what we know, this is not actually possible.'
quote:
The two problems of course is that life is now known to have never been ‘simple’, and as much as abiogenesis has never shown a single possible demonstrable mechanism in over 50 years of research, it doesn’t even rise to the level of a hypothesis, but mere wish fulfillment.
I'm going to copy-paste a description that I find compelling. Paste to word and expand as necessary.
"
Step 1: Formation of basic organic molecules from appropriate precursor materials (for which we have evidence) ... for example, experiments have demonstrated that it is possible for amino acids such as glycine to form even within interstellar clouds via ultraviolet photolysis of ammonia, carbon dioxide and water ices in cometary material, as a paper by Bernstein, Dworkin et al in 2002 demonstrated, where the appropriate conditions were replicated in the laboratory and the requisite synthesis performed. Another paper by Pizzarello and Weber (2004) demonstrates that prebiotic amino acids would act as asymmetric catalysts enhancing homochirality (the 'handedness' that is observed in today's amino acids in living systems). and of course, the Miller-Urey experiments, refined over the years, continue to provide repeatable tests of the ease with which the basic organic molecules seen in today's extant life forms can be synthesised from non-life precursor material with the input of energy from lightning and UV light.
Step 2 : Formation of more complex organic molecules from the simpler ones. Again, a paper by Orgel et al demonstrates that formation of polypeptides from a substrate of amino acids in aqueous solution takes place rapidly with yields of up to 80% in 24 hours or so, if the reactions are catalysed by a compound known as carbonyl sulphide. Carbonyl sulphide, COS, is produced in quantity naturally by volcanoes and is readily water soluble.
Step 3: Formation of the first segments of RNA. Again, this has been demonstrated to be possible experimentally, and even better still, a paper dating as far back as 1996 by Joyce describes the formation of nucleoside triphosphates catalysed by RNA molecules (nucleoside triphosphates are essential molecules in extant living systems - adenosine triphosphate powers muscle activity, for example). More recently, Johnson, Unrau et al in 2001 generated in the laboratory an RNA ribozyme that catalysed the formation of other RNA molecules, and in one experimental run, 1,088 out of 1,100 sequenced nucleotides matched the original template.
Step 4: Self-Replicating RNA molecules. Once autocatalytic RNA molecules are in existence, the first self-catalytic ones, that catalyse formation of identical copies of themselves, becomes possible. Patzke and Kiedrowski (2007) published a paper on this very topic, complete with example systems for synthesis, reaction rate calculations and other relevant data.
Step 5: RNA to other replicating molecules. Other classes of replicating molecules are known, including PNAs (peptide nucleic acids) which in turn could catalyse the formation of the first DNA molecules. Nelson, Levy and Miller (2000) published a paper to this effect and described synthesis pathways for these molecules. Again, these synthesis pathways are concordant with what is known about conditions on the early Earth, and again, appropriate reactions to form the component building blocks of PNAs are known to produce excellent yields even at high dilution in periods of around 24 to 48 hours.
Step 6: First DNA molecules. This is one step for which I do not have extant scientific literature on my hard drive, but there are several papers that cite the existence of known catalytic formation of DNA when certain clay substrates such as montmorillonite are available to stabilise and catalyse the syntheses. Franchi, Ferris and Galliori (2003) is one such paper dealing with this. An alternative hypothesis is advanced by Laczano, Guerrero and Margulis (1998), in which the first proto-cells rely upon RNA at first, and make an evolutionary shift to DNA once those cells exist. But I'm jumping ahead a little here. Robertson & Miller (1995) propose yet more mechanisms for migrating from RNA to DNA, while Gartner and Liu (2001) cover the utility of DNA with respect to the directed synthesis of molecules other than proteins and the experimentally observed reactions relevant thereto. We now move on to:
Step 7: Formation of enclosures within which replicating nucleic acids can reside. This involves the formation of lipid bilayers, which again are supported in the scientific literature. Furhop, Schneider et al began work on this as far back as 1988, whilst a more recent paper covering this is Segré, Ben-Eli et al (1999). Lipid bilayers are known to be capable of invaginating and forming vesicles around other molecules, and nucleic acids are prime candidates for such enclosure. Once enclosure in semi-permeable lipid bilayers takes place, we are part of the way toward the first proto-cells.
Step 8: Formation of additional structures. Once enclosed nucleic acids are able to engage in controlled catalytic reactions in a protected vesicle, the possibility of extension of nucleic acid strands to form other structures facilitating becomes possible. Now at the moment I haven't reviewed the scientific literature with respect to this step, but once this step is in place, we're a whisker away from the first cells.
So, apart from Step 8 above, the scientific literature on the subject is replete with documentation on the appropriate mechanisms, and I suspect that if I knew what papers to look for with respect to step 8 (as it's not my precise technical speciality, I'll have to rely on someone else to find the relevant papers), that gap would be filled neatly as well. So, it's not as if there isn't evidence supporting abiogenetic theory. Far from it."
quote:
No,no, no, it has never been ‘disproved’ – you can’t ‘disprove’ it accept to show that it is impossible for any mechanisms to produce life naturally – and you have already said this is possible. It’s like you are talking in circles.
I was arguing the difference between the apparition of a complex organism and the gradual accumulation of a simply chemical replicator. To say "life can naturally arise." is different from saying, "It's possible for complex life to arise without due process."
quote:
You are offering a strawman version here; the later SGs didn’t say this.
However, my statements still apply to classical SG, which is what most people are familiar with. The strawman is a real argument, just not the most current. There's a difference between attacking what's not there, and what is no longer held to be true. I can attack flat earth theory without attacking a straw man, because it was an actually held belief. Shall I label it "Aristotle to Redi Spontaneous Generation." for ease of reading?
quote:
But this is beside the point; spontaneous generationists didn’t deal only in rats and rags – the more sophisticated ones offered nutrient rich broths; and abiogenisists simply extend that to other scenarios. But I agree I think even in 13.7 billion years the odds of life occurring are so incredibly small that it is essentially impossible.
For 1500+ years it did, forgive me for attacking the most prevalent form of the dead theory. From what I can find, SG stopped being a theory around Pasteur, and abiogenesis took over the 'how life began' field at the time of Oparin. There doesn't seem to be a smooth transition between the two, and the only 'chemical soup' theories I can find start with Oparin.
quote:
t’s rather easy to say it is ‘unobservable’, as it has never been observed – to prove me wrong would require observing it.
But I never said it was unobservable; just that every observation indicates otherwise.
It is easy to say that my body is inedible, as it has never been eaten. To prove me wrong would require eating me.
Obviously this is false. We know bodies are edible because they have been eaten. It does not require observation to know that my body is edible.
I'm using "unobservable" in the same way I was using "possible" up above.
That comment was really more directed at Monkey's original comment than at you anyways.
quote:
Well, technically, no assemblage of parts (Computers, books, skyscrapers, etc) violate a ‘known law’ when considering their unguided assembly, because our imaginations can always come up with a scenario whereby such a thing could occur – however, this doesn’t make such an assertion reasonable, probable, or worth considering.
Again, there are people smarter than me who have provided reasons as to why they think it is worth considering. The generation via montmorillonite seems the most plausible to my feeble mind, but apparently there are others.
quote:
In short, you are saying abiogenesis is an attempt to provide a rational for spontaneous generation within the known laws of physics according to imagined mechanisms; but this doesn’t make it any less spontaneous generation.
In short, I'm saying that abiogenesis is an attempt to provide a rational for natural causes of life arising within the known laws of physics, according to actual mechanisms. This is why there are numerous hypothesis' that fall under the umbrella of abiogensis. It, unlike SG, is a field of research, not a single proposed idea.
And from what I've seen, none of the theories involve anything "spontaneous." They work within the natural bounds, and generally take quite a bit of time.
_____________________________
"Instead of feeling alone in a group its better to have real solitude all by yourself."
~Faye Valentine
|
|
|
|
|
RE: IC does not support ID - 4/30/2008 8:16:12 AM
|
|
|
gluadys
Posts: 711
Joined: 4/26/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Jhud
quote:
Apparently you have no idea what the word 'falsified' means. No, there is no observed incidence of either spontaneous generation or of abiogenesis.
But that does not make them equally possible. We know that spontaneous generation is not possible because it has been falsified.
Well Popper gave as an example of a properly stated scientific hypothesis the following:
All swans are white.
To falsify such a statement one simply needs to make verified observation of a non-white swan.
How was spontanoeus generation falsified per Popper?
By showing that every proposed concrete example of spontaneous generation was actually an instance of natural generation and that when the means of natural generation were blocked the alleged spontaneous generation did not occur. The non-occurrence of spontaneous generation when natural generation was blocked dispelled the claim that non-living matter contained "vital forces" capable of generating adult life-forms without the usual sequence of reproduction.
In terms of white and black swans, you have misaligned the terms. You are associating "spontaneous generation" with the white swans. But that was never the claim. It was never alleged that all generation was spontaneous. Alleged instances of spontaneous generation then were alleged sightings of black swans.
So "All swans are white" in this case is equivalent to "All instances of reproduction are non-spontaneous". And that has not been falsified since all instances of spontaneous generation have been shown to be illusory. No genuine sighting of a black swan has yet occurred. (Rather like ID.) 
Theoretically, of course, there could still be black swans, but scientifically the proposition is untestable until a new case is presented for examination.
So on a strictly Popperian track it would be more accurate to say that non-spontaneous generation has not been falsified than to say that spontaneous generation has been falsified. In practical terms it pretty much comes to the same thing.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: IC does not support ID - 4/30/2008 9:44:50 AM
|
|
|
Jhud
Posts: 6770
Joined: 4/11/2005
From: Lake Wobegon
Status: offline
|
quote:
By showing that every proposed concrete example of spontaneous generation was actually an instance of natural generation and that when the means of natural generation were blocked the alleged spontaneous generation did not occur. The non-occurrence of spontaneous generation when natural generation was blocked dispelled the claim that non-living matter contained "vital forces" capable of generating adult life-forms without the usual sequence of reproduction.
Well yes, of course; but this isn’t falsification – this is simply war by attrition – in every case that was brought up, a better explanation was demonstrated – but that doesn’t falsify spontaneous generation all together, simply makes it increasingly unlikely.
quote:
In terms of white and black swans, you have misaligned the terms. You are associating "spontaneous generation" with the white swans. But that was never the claim. It was never alleged that all generation was spontaneous. Alleged instances of spontaneous generation then were alleged sightings of black swans.
Well, again you are right while proving my point. Spontaneous generation isn’t falsifiable because it has never been stated as a falsifiable hypothesis – the same is true for abiogenesis, again showing the similarity betwixt the two. In fact that is the strength of an ID hypothesis regarding the origin of life; it can definitively be falsified; of course it never has been.
quote:
So "All swans are white" in this case is equivalent to "All instances of reproduction are non-spontaneous". And that has not been falsified since all instances of spontaneous generation have been shown to be illusory. No genuine sighting of a black swan has yet occurred. (Rather like ID.)
Actually, as I pointed out above, ID is much stronger than abiogenesis in this regard. Indeed, it is reasonable to conclude until proven otherwise, that all swans are white. Of course, this has been falsified, unlike ID.
quote:
So on a strictly Popperian track it would be more accurate to say that non-spontaneous generation has not been falsified than to say that spontaneous generation has been falsified. In practical terms it pretty much comes to the same thing.
Well, it’s good to see you have reasoned yourself into adopting my position.
_____________________________
Jack
“I mean to live my life an obedient man, but obedient to God, subservient to the wisdom of my ancestors; never to the authority of political truths arrived at yesterday at the voting booth”
William F. Buckley Jr. 1925-2008
|
|
|
|
|
RE: IC does not support ID - 4/30/2008 10:10:02 AM
|
|
|
Jhud
Posts: 6770
Joined: 4/11/2005
From: Lake Wobegon
Status: offline
|
quote:
I've always operated under the definition of "That may or can be, exist, happen, be done, be used, etc." As in, that which can, however improbable, actually happen.
I can't say that the development of life wasn't rapid. It indeed may have been. However, the main tenant of classical spontaneous generation "complex, living organisms are generated by decaying organic substances" is patently impossible as our knowledge of physics stands. Nothing but disorder can come from a closed system. Unless SG adds some proposed mechanism by which significant amounts of energy are added to the system, it remains impossible in light of all we know. It is especially unsatisfying as it doesn't explain the origin of life at all, but merely the origin of current life. If it requires organic material to happen, it could not have been the cause of organic material.
Again, you are appealing to older versions of spontaneous generation to make your case; if you follow the history of spontaneous generation, you will know that it is really part of a spectrum leading to abiogenesis rather than an alternate case.
quote:
I suppose it's my fault for using possible and impossible differently. By possible, I generally mean actually possible. By impossible, I am using it as "not to be done, endured, etc., with any degree of reason or propriety." It is a valid definition, but I suppose it does require clarification when used so close to 'possible.' Apologies. I use possible as "actually possible" and impossible as "vastly improbable."
In this way, this is the puropse of the 'testing' phase of hypothesis. To see if the hypothesis fits all relevant data while being contradicted by none. If the hypothesis is contradicted, it requires revision. This doesn't mean that, this is in no circumstance actually impossible. But rather 'according to what we know, this is not actually possible.'
Well I am glad you have come around to my understanding here.
quote:
I'm going to copy-paste a description that I find compelling.
Why do you find it ‘compelling’? Because they use scientific sounding terminology? Do you see in that description the actual instance of the many disparate components being utilized together to actually produce life?
quote:
I was arguing the difference between the apparition of a complex organism and the gradual accumulation of a simply chemical replicator. To say "life can naturally arise." is different from saying, "It's possible for complex life to arise without due process."
‘Due process’? That’s a legal term friend, not a scientific one.
quote:
However, my statements still apply to classical SG, which is what most people are familiar with. The strawman is a real argument, just not the most current. There's a difference between attacking what's not there, and what is no longer held to be true. I can attack flat earth theory without attacking a straw man, because it was an actually held belief. Shall I label it "Aristotle to Redi Spontaneous Generation." for ease of reading?
My simple point is that you are acting like the ‘rags to rats’ idea was the last word on the issue; in reality, the most recent SG proponents made similar arguments to abiogenesis proponents.
Oken, Lamarck, Theodor Schwann, Félix Archimède Pouchet, Huxley. It’s a spectrum, not an either or case.
quote:
It is easy to say that my body is inedible, as it has never been eaten. To prove me wrong would require eating me.
Obviously this is false. We know bodies are edible because they have been eaten. It does not require observation to know that my body is edible.
I'm using "unobservable" in the same way I was using "possible" up above.
As I said, I never claimed in abiogenesis was 'unobservable'; indeed, the word wasn’t used until you brought it up.
quote:
Again, there are people smarter than me who have provided reasons as to why they think it is worth considering. The generation via montmorillonite seems the most plausible to my feeble mind, but apparently there are others.
Ah yes, the appeal to ‘smarter people’. There are of course people smarter than both of us that believe a vast array of things; so this does little to settle the matter.
quote:
In short, I'm saying that abiogenesis is an attempt to provide a rational for natural causes of life arising within the known laws of physics, according to actual mechanisms. This is why there are numerous hypothesis' that fall under the umbrella of abiogensis. It, unlike SG, is a field of research, not a single proposed idea.
And from what I've seen, none of the theories involve anything "spontaneous." They work within the natural bounds, and generally take quite a bit of time.
Well, again, I just see that you are historically ignorant on the subject; much research went into showing whether SG was improbable on both sides of the question, and many mechanisms were proposed. Abiogenesis is simply the latest version of that earlier discussion.
_____________________________
Jack
“I mean to live my life an obedient man, but obedient to God, subservient to the wisdom of my ancestors; never to the authority of political truths arrived at yesterday at the voting booth”
William F. Buckley Jr. 1925-2008
|
|
|
|
|
RE: IC does not support ID - 4/30/2008 10:56:25 AM
|
|
|
gluadys
Posts: 711
Joined: 4/26/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Jhud
Actually, as I pointed out above, ID is much stronger than abiogenesis in this regard.
You have asserted this several times, but I haven't actually seen your reasoning yet. If you have set it out somewhere on this forum, perhaps you would like to direct me there.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: IC does not support ID - 4/30/2008 11:04:03 AM
|
|
|
Jhud
Posts: 6770
Joined: 4/11/2005
From: Lake Wobegon
Status: offline
|
quote:
You have asserted this several times, but I haven't actually seen your reasoning yet. If you have set it out somewhere on this forum, perhaps you would like to direct me there.
As regards a falsification schema; ID is readily falsifiable in terms of abiogenesis.
_____________________________
Jack
“I mean to live my life an obedient man, but obedient to God, subservient to the wisdom of my ancestors; never to the authority of political truths arrived at yesterday at the voting booth”
William F. Buckley Jr. 1925-2008
|
|
|
|
|
RE: IC does not support ID - 4/30/2008 2:36:36 PM
|
|
|
Real_Solitude
Posts: 328
Joined: 5/9/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Jhud
Well I am glad you have come around to my understanding here.
Those are the definitions I've always used. I don't really understand how you scored a point here.
quote:
Why do you find it ‘compelling’? Because they use scientific sounding terminology? Do you see in that description the actual instance of the many disparate components being utilized together to actually produce life?
I'm not going to lie. That is indeed part of it. I'm a whore for fancy words, and tend to fall for 'style of substance' fallacies if I don't watch myself. I'm more of an ideas person than a hands-on person (INTJ vs INTF).
However, the main reason I find this piece compelling is because I've seen the claims (at least the montmorillonite thing) substantiated elsewhere. If I saw all of the components coming together to create life, we wouldn't be having this discussion. Rather, I think that it is a possible mechanism by which life may have arisen. I believe it to be worth investigation.
quote:
I was arguing the difference between the apparition of a complex organism and the gradual accumulation of a simply chemical replicator. To say "life can naturally arise." is different from saying, "It's possible for complex life to arise without due process."
‘Due process’? That’s a legal term friend, not a scientific one.
You know what the fun thing about language is? It's that it's not all denotation, but also connotation. The way in which a word or phrase is used can change the meaning based on context. As long as there is mutual understanding of the underlying concept, it is a valid use of the language. Simply because something originates to be used in one context (Cool=lack of heat) it can be changed to fit other contexts (cool=good, fine). This even works when a phrase completely changes meaning based on usage, such as "begs the question" coming to mean "raises the question" instead of "circular argument."
Don't be cheeky just because you can. You understood exactly what I meant. If the communication was clear, and considering that we're in an informal forum, it is a valid use of the language.
In case you really were unclear, here you go, "It is possible for complex life to arise without taking the necessary steps."
quote:
However, my statements still apply to classical SG, which is what most people are familiar with. The strawman is a real argument, just not the most current. There's a difference between attacking what's not there, and what is no longer held to be true. I can attack flat earth theory without attacking a straw man, because it was an actually held belief. Shall I label it "Aristotle to Redi Spontaneous Generation." for ease of reading?
My simple point is that you are acting like the ‘rags to rats’ idea was the last word on the issue; in reality, the most recent SG proponents made similar arguments to abiogenesis proponents.
Oken, Lamarck, Theodor Schwann, Félix Archimède Pouchet, Huxley. It’s a spectrum, not an either or case.
The difference, in my mind, between spontaneous generation and other forms of abiogenesis is that spontaneous generation is, well, spontaneous. It happens in an instant.
If the process is a longer one, requiring multiple stages, it is not spontanous, and therefore should not fall under the umbrella of spontaneous generation. Modern theories of abiogenesis don't tend to include events that happen suddenly, and result in the emergence of life. They require multiple stage, each building on the last, to increase complexity until the point at which it can be called life.
quote:
It is easy to say that my body is inedible, as it has never been eaten. To prove me wrong would require eating me.
Obviously this is false. We know bodies are edible because they have been eaten. It does not require observation to know that my body is edible.
I'm using "unobservable" in the same way I was using "possible" up above.
As I said, I never claimed in abiogenesis was 'unobservable'; indeed, the word wasn’t used until you brought it up.
Again, that was more to unclemonkey's comment "It has NEVER been observed nor is it demonstrable."
I interchanged the words "observable" and "demonstrable" in a later post. Not particularly sure why. I think it had something to do with the fact that if something can not be directly observed until it is demonstrated to be possible. If it's not demonstrable, it's unobservable. I was more arguing that he couldn't rightly say that abiogensis is actually indemonstrable.
quote:
Again, there are people smarter than me who have provided reasons as to why they think it is worth considering. The generation via montmorillonite seems the most plausible to my feeble mind, but apparently there are others.
Ah yes, the appeal to ‘smarter people’. There are of course people smarter than both of us that believe a vast array of things; so this does little to settle the matter.
But, as I have only a brief formal foray into chemistry, I am required to deffer to those who do have extensive knowledge of chemistry for my answers to chemical problems. They might not be right, but without the wherewithal to nay say them, I must defer to consensus. Otherwise I'm relying on my 'gut instinct' which, for thousands of years, told mankind that everything rotates around the Earth.
quote:
Well, again, I just see that you are historically ignorant on the subject; much research went into showing whether SG was improbable on both sides of the question, and many mechanisms were proposed. Abiogenesis is simply the latest version of that earlier discussion.
Yes, forgive me for not deeply researching something that is of no practical value. I do so hate history.
Like I said above, the term 'spontaneous generation' has always meant, to me, life coming about spontaneously. That is, instantaneously. I don't care at what level of complexity, but at least complex enough to be called life. If this is the proposed idea, it has been shown to be ridiculous by modern knowledge. It doesn't matter how much debate there was over the topic. It was debate done by people with much less information at their fingertips. If the proposed mechanisms were not chemically possible, then they were always fatally flawed.
Abiogensis covers spontaneous generation as well as all modern theories. The difference being the plausibility level assigned to modern theories versus SG. I may say the same thing about current theories that I now say about SG, that they are fatally flawed; but that will be when more information is in about the plausibility of current theories.
_____________________________
"Instead of feeling alone in a group its better to have real solitude all by yourself."
~Faye Valentine
|
|
|
|
|
RE: IC does not support ID - 4/30/2008 3:06:43 PM
|
|
|
Jhud
Posts: 6770
Joined: 4/11/2005
From: Lake Wobegon
Status: offline
|
quote:
Those are the definitions I've always used. I don't really understand how you scored a point here.
I didn’t say anything about points.
quote:
However, the main reason I find this piece compelling is because I've seen the claims (at least the montmorillonite thing) substantiated elsewhere. If I saw all of the components coming together to create life, we wouldn't be having this discussion. Rather, I think that it is a possible mechanism by which life may have arisen. I believe it to be worth investigation.
It’s never been substantiated anywhere, at least not by any ordinary understanding of the word. And these various scenarios are fairly boilerplate for abiogenesis research; if they show the slightest bit of promise they would have no shortage of money or interested researchers.
quote:
In case you really were unclear, here you go, "It is possible for complex life to arise without taking the necessary steps."
Again, you are talking circles again; if the ‘necessary steps’ are unknown, then we can’t say that one proposed scenario is correct while the other is not.
quote:
The difference, in my mind, between spontaneous generation and other forms of abiogenesis is that spontaneous generation is, well, spontaneous. It happens in an instant.
If the process is a longer one, requiring multiple stages, it is not spontanous, and therefore should not fall under the umbrella of spontaneous generation. Modern theories of abiogenesis don't tend to include events that happen suddenly, and result in the emergence of life. They require multiple stage, each building on the last, to increase complexity until the point at which it can be called life.
But the reality is no one knows how many steps there were, does one?
quote:
Again, that was more to unclemonkey's comment "It has NEVER been observed nor is it demonstrable."
I interchanged the words "observable" and "demonstrable" in a later post. Not particularly sure why. I think it had something to do with the fact that if something can not be directly observed until it is demonstrated to be possible. If it's not demonstrable, it's unobservable. I was more arguing that he couldn't rightly say that abiogensis is actually indemonstrable.
Unless of course he is making a prediction based on his confidence that life didn’t arise unguided.
quote:
But, as I have only a brief formal foray into chemistry, I am required to deffer to those who do have extensive knowledge of chemistry for my answers to | | |
Forum Tools
Printable Version
