Another Perspective on Origins
by BradfordThe cosmological model of eternal inflation and the transition from chance to biological evolution in the history of life by Eugene V Koonin, sets forth an answer to the question of life's origin based on chance and an infinite number of possibilities linked to the multiverse concept. Koonin notes the difficulties with current ideas:
Origin of life is a chicken and egg problem: for biological evolution that is governed, primarily, by natural selection, to take off, efficient systems for replication and translation are required, but even barebones cores of these systems appear to be products of extensive selection. The currently favored (partial) solution is an RNA world without proteins in which replication is catalyzed by ribozymes and which serves as the cradle for the translation system. However, the RNA world faces its own hard problems as ribozyme-catalyzed RNA replication remains a hypothesis and the selective pressures behind the origin of translation remain mysterious.
He then cites his alternative:
A corollary of this hypothesis is that an RNA world, as a diverse population of replicating RNA molecules, might have never existed. In this model, the stage for Darwinian selection is set by anthropic selection of complex systems that rarely but inevitably emerge by chance in the infinite universe (multiverse).
The details are in the linked text viewers are encouraged to read. Koonin's concluding comment is this:
A final comment on "irreducible complexity" and "intelligent design". By showing that highly complex systems, actually, can emerge by chance and, moreover, are inevitable, if extremely rare, in the universe, the present model sidesteps the issue of irreducibility and leaves no room whatsoever for any form of intelligent design.
His judgement about multiverse implications for intelligent design is faulty. Even if a pathway to a chance based outcome exists that alone does not eliminate an outcome resulting from a teleological cause. Data can support teleology at the expense of a chance based paradigm.
Following Koonin's article are critical reviewers' comments. This one is revealing:
Eugene Koonin's present appeal to cosmology in order to address a complex evolutionary issue tells me that, as a scientist, he feels that there is currently a problem with the scientific theory aiming to explain the origin of replication and translation. In other words, his approach says something both about him and about the possible limits of our discipline on that topic. In this review, I will simply try to rephrase what serious problem Koonin has identified according to me, and I will argue that I am afraid his answer to this problem might open too broad an avenue to the supporters of intelligent design, as it is currently formulated, and thus does not satisfy me as such as an alternative to the theory to the RNA world.
If science is about empirical data and reason why should one be fearful if the data points to design?
September 21st, 2007 at 3:06 pm
Hi bradford, have you seen my comment in Biology Direct to this article. An excerpt:
Comment by AdR — September 21, 2007 @ 3:06 pm
September 21st, 2007 at 5:51 pm
Hi Albert. I just returned from a trip to your blog. I see you listed under People with Interesting Ideas. You have some noteworthy things to say.
You wrote:
As an IDist I need to clarify some points. Metaphysical views accompany all aspects of life even when those holding a metaphyscal point of view are oblivious to it. David Heddle and Doug are engaged in a discussion in another thread. The matter of the orderliness of the universe came up and David pointed out concepts we have tested. Some of what we have tested may have seemed intuitive to those pioneer scientists who lived centuries ago and attributed to their metaphysical intuition what we now are able to back up with empirical data. One could have believed in an orderly universe before the advent of the scientific age.
One can also perceive that intelligence and purpose are causally revealed in the origin of both the universe and life. The belief can be intuitive and metaphysical before it becomes empirical. Koonin's approach signifies the treadmill that we have been on in attempting to fit origin theories within an ateleological framework. Results have been spectacularly unsuccessful.
Teleology can be intrinsically difficult to link to results as purpose tends to be revealed directly through communication or indirectly through behavioral clues. When neither is forthcoming can nature nevertheless reveal clues. I think so. Orderliness is revealed within cells. It is found within the genomes of organisms. Order within genomes is maintained by identifiable enzymes whose function it is to recognize and correct genetic mistakes. One approach to intelligent design is to hypothesize that the mechanisms essential to genetic order are a prerequisite to genetic function. If they are, traditional mutation/selection concepts become problematic for ateleological processes and a testing standard is suggested.
Good point. There is a sound basis for skepticism. Real answers are better than fending it off with district court edicts or conflating ID with religion.
Comment by Bradford — September 21, 2007 @ 5:51 pm
September 21st, 2007 at 5:52 pm
This sort of thing makes me yawn, because unless you can demonstrate that it is even possible without intelligent foresight, given chemistry, QM, etc, that there exists a path from the elements to what is known to exist, it's all speculation squared. Just-so stories do not impress over here.
Like Einstein said, give me the simplest hypothesis necessary. But no simpler.
Nobody knows were that line is.
Comment by kornbelt888 — September 21, 2007 @ 5:52 pm
September 22nd, 2007 at 9:16 am
Scientifically vacuous, as a look at the so-called falsification makes clear.
Living organisms work and reproduce by chemical mechanisms in accordance with physical laws. We know that life has evolved from primitive beginnings. We know that simple replicators can exist and evolve. There is evidence that the processes at work on the primordial Earth are not unique. No Intelligent Design claim has yet survived scientific scrutiny.
There is more than enough reason to study the earliest epochs of life on Earth. Even if there was intelligent agency involved, we would still want to investigate the moment when life was originally breathed into the dust.
Comment by Zachriel — September 22, 2007 @ 9:16 am
September 22nd, 2007 at 9:24 am
Zachriel:
We know that life was non-existent at some time in history and we know that self-replicators are observed in labs under carefully controlled conditions. The fact that natural laws were the same on prebiotic earth is not an argument for the plausibility of abiogenesis. Linking ID to a causal chain is commonplace. We know the central tenet of ID based explanations- the explanatory insufficiency of natural laws alone.
Comment by Bradford — September 22, 2007 @ 9:24 am
September 22nd, 2007 at 9:48 am
Primitive evolving replicators is an important empirical confirmation.
Sure it is (when the evidence is taken as a whole, of course), but not conclusive absent a complete theory.
Assuming by "ID" you mean a causal chain linking an artist, art and artifact; suspect, modus operandi and crime scene; then yes.
Yes, we know. ID of the Gaps. (What suddenly happened to the causal chain?) You're more than welcome to investigate the possibility of ID, but I've never seen a testable scientific hypothesis.
Comment by Zachriel — September 22, 2007 @ 9:48 am
September 22nd, 2007 at 9:58 am
We could just as well call it anti-ID of the gaps. The missing ingredient of the causal chain is a purposeful direction of events. When an open question exists it should not be pre-closed to all options in the absence of confirming scientific data. It was an anti-IDist who first suggested to me what I have since thought is a hypothesis whose testing could yield results favorable to ID namely, testing a primitive genome, devoid of repair mechanisms, to measure whether its functional components remain invarient to degradation and resulting dysfunction or whether selection induces the needed maintenance remedies.
Comment by Bradford — September 22, 2007 @ 9:58 am
September 22nd, 2007 at 10:18 am
It's a Gap. There's lots of Gaps in science. It's mostly Gaps! But look at the evidence again.
* Life is chemistry.
* Life evolved from primitive ancestors.
* Primitive replicators exist and evolve.
* There is no empirical evidence of an outside agency.
But investigate whatever possibilities you like. Let us know if you ever find anything to support the claim of agency.
That's not quite a well-formed hypothesis. But what do you mean by "primitive genome" We have evidence that primitive replicators can evolve without the benefit of repair mechanisms. We would also expect that repair mechanisms would take a long time to evolve even in huge populations, so we wouldn't expect them to arise de novo in the lab.
Comment by Zachriel — September 22, 2007 @ 10:18 am
September 22nd, 2007 at 10:26 am
We do not have evidence that SRMs evolve into anything other than SRMs. In fact the starting point must be carefully engineered and the environment nourshed for a process to occur. If repair mechanisms take a long time to evolve any genomic regions having functional sequences of nucleotides will have long since been rendered biologically useless.
Comment by Bradford — September 22, 2007 @ 10:26 am
September 22nd, 2007 at 11:18 am
Yes, and humans are still Deuterostomes. Tubes with appendages for pushing food into one end.
That's what would be expected considering the populations and timescales involved.
That is correct. However, they still represent an important empirical confirmation.
Hmm. Your hypothesis has evolved into a claim.
Comment by Zachriel — September 22, 2007 @ 11:18 am
September 22nd, 2007 at 12:34 pm
That's what would be expected in the absence of a process that generates cells from SRMs.
It represents a trivial claim that self-replicating molecules replicate as long as very restrictive conditions allow this to occur.
Comment by Bradford — September 22, 2007 @ 12:34 pm
September 22nd, 2007 at 1:00 pm
Life is more than that. The biochemistry of living organisms is functional because sequences of nucleotides found in their nucleic acids is ordered to code for proteins and RNA. The chemical bonds of nucleic acids do nothing to explain the cause of these ordered polymers.
Comment by Bradford — September 22, 2007 @ 1:00 pm
September 22nd, 2007 at 2:20 pm
So trivial it won Altman and Cech the Nobel Prize. It is a fertile field of study and has led to entire new avenues of research, including the evolution of novel enzymes useful in medicine.
Comment by Zachriel — September 22, 2007 @ 2:20 pm
September 22nd, 2007 at 2:27 pm
"Life is chemistry" was meant as shorthand for my previous statement "Living organisms work and reproduce by chemical mechanisms in accordance with physical laws."
There are no processes in organisms that cannot be reduced to chemistry or other known laws. There is sufficient knowledge of these processes as to substantially rule out some unknown élan vital.
The Theory of Evolution is a strongly supported theory that explains why genomes exhibit order. There is no evidence of agency in this process and substantial evidence that suggests otherwise.
Comment by Zachriel — September 22, 2007 @ 2:27 pm
September 22nd, 2007 at 3:34 pm
The ToE has nothing to do with the origin of life. The evidence of agency is in the genetic code.
Medical progress has nothing to do with a process that generates a cell. That part is sheer hype.
Comment by Bradford — September 22, 2007 @ 3:34 pm
September 22nd, 2007 at 3:39 pm
The question was the cause of order within the genome.
What specific empirical predictions can be made and tested to support this claim and rule out competing claims?
It is not trivial. It is profound and scientifically fertile.
Comment by Zachriel — September 22, 2007 @ 3:39 pm
September 22nd, 2007 at 4:09 pm
Translation mechanisms are IC with respect to an incremental generating process. Generating a translation system from the ground up is a non-starter. Remove any amino acid group (sharing similar side chains) and a process is short circuited.
For medical research self-catalytic RNA has significance with regard to cellular function. It's role in natural history lies within the realm of science fiction.
Comment by Bradford — September 22, 2007 @ 4:09 pm
September 22nd, 2007 at 4:18 pm
Claim CB200
Comment by steve — September 22, 2007 @ 4:18 pm
September 22nd, 2007 at 4:22 pm
Bradford:
Zach:
Which ignores the FACT that spontaneous generation was soundly falsified by Louis Pasteur within a mere handful of years after Darwin published. Nothing observed currently or however far in the past we can see lends support to the idea that raw, inanimate matter gives spontaneous rise to living organisms. If you want to maintain that Pasteur made mincemeat of old wive's tales about mice and dirty underwear, you can't legitimately claim a gap exemption for your OOL scenarios.
This is why so many investigating things at that close a level have turned toward panspermia of some variety. Astronomy is positively overstocked these days with people seeking life in space (to account for life here).
I don't see 'naturalism of the gaps' as any more empirical, scientific, or convincing than 'gods of the gaps'. That's just me, of course. YMMV.
Comment by Joy — September 22, 2007 @ 4:22 pm
September 22nd, 2007 at 4:28 pm
Steve, claim CB200 does nothing to address the issue we are discussing. If you are going to point and click cite some relevant research, not the outdated BS prevalent in that site.
Comment by Bradford — September 22, 2007 @ 4:28 pm
September 22nd, 2007 at 4:59 pm
Many worlds and eternal inflation are speculative hypotheticals, whose scientific merrit is totally dependent on on the eventuality of complete theory to justify their usage in origins science. What a joke. What a lame and reaching copout on causality and first principles. How… "neodarwinian" of Koonin.
Anyway, "evidence for agency" isn't evidence for ID, so if I have evidence that we're not here by accident, then I still don't have to buy any ID hype about it, unless you have direct proof.
The whole debate is based on the false assumption about how evidence that we're not here by accident *necessarily* constitutes evidence for ID, and the antifantics buy this hype.
Ergo, Koonin's absurdity.
Comment by island01 — September 22, 2007 @ 4:59 pm
September 22nd, 2007 at 5:12 pm
island01:
Conclusive appears a more apt choice of words than necessarily and conclusive is a word not used by many with respect to origins questions. A narrow range of possibilities that were realized may not be conclusive but it is something rational thinkers need not dismiss.
Comment by Bradford — September 22, 2007 @ 5:12 pm
September 22nd, 2007 at 5:43 pm
You used the term "IC". I thought I'd show any lurkers or newbies who may be watching that IC is a discredited concept.
Comment by steve — September 22, 2007 @ 5:43 pm
September 22nd, 2007 at 6:19 pm
Bradford:
Only *IF* you have evidence that an intelligent agent, rather than some natural physical need for it, is behind the *reason* why we are here by non-accidental occurrence. Otherwise, nope.
So the debate is automatically and wrongly displaced from being centered on whether or not the evidence indicates an intelligent agent or a natural one, because "neodarwinians" willingly make the leap of faith that non-accidental occurrence alone constitutes evidence for ID.
Wrong.
Like Lynn Margulis says… 'I'm a darwinist, not an antifanatic'.
Comment by island01 — September 22, 2007 @ 6:19 pm
September 22nd, 2007 at 6:19 pm
You failed. Of course you are invited to prove that wrong by demonstrating how the translation function could come into existence in the absence of a capacity to synthesize tRNA amino acyl synthetases with a full complement of amino acids. Imagination is fine for science fiction but is no substitute for real science.
Comment by Bradford — September 22, 2007 @ 6:19 pm
September 22nd, 2007 at 6:19 pm
Joy:
Definitely one of the most stupid arguments against abiogenesis I've ever heard. Sterilize some soup and seal it air-tight, wait a couple of days, and hey no microbes. Therefore abiogenesis is impossible, QED.
Comment by Raevmo — September 22, 2007 @ 6:19 pm
September 22nd, 2007 at 6:24 pm
The evidence for a teleological process lies in the biochemistry of a cell. It is that same biochemistry that is used to infer all historic processes. None are actually observed including the non-ID causal chain.
Comment by Bradford — September 22, 2007 @ 6:24 pm
September 22nd, 2007 at 6:25 pm
Bradford:
Actually, a *lack* of imagination is no substitute for real science.
Comment by Raevmo — September 22, 2007 @ 6:25 pm
September 22nd, 2007 at 6:29 pm
Raevmo:
Is it any dumber than asserting a self-replicator mutates to become a cell?
Comment by Bradford — September 22, 2007 @ 6:29 pm
September 22nd, 2007 at 6:33 pm
The evidence for a teleological process lies in the biochemistry of a cell.
So does an anthropic energy conservation law.
Comment by island01 — September 22, 2007 @ 6:33 pm
September 22nd, 2007 at 6:40 pm
So does descent with modification. If you cannot identify pathways to life you are in no position to scientifically rule out possibilities that are not at odds with what we know about cells.
Comment by Bradford — September 22, 2007 @ 6:40 pm
September 22nd, 2007 at 6:49 pm
That's fine as long as you have what it takes to back up imagination. The ToR has both imagination and convincing data. Abiogenesis does not.
Comment by Bradford — September 22, 2007 @ 6:49 pm
September 22nd, 2007 at 7:06 pm
And I never said that I would do that, but the most naturally expected explanation supercedes "possibilities" unless you have direct evidence for intelligent intervention that would make me think that I should, and you don't.
Comment by island01 — September 22, 2007 @ 7:06 pm
September 22nd, 2007 at 7:07 pm
Bradford:
It's about as dumb as asserting that any scientist claims that a self-replicator can mutate into a cell.
Comment by Raevmo — September 22, 2007 @ 7:07 pm
September 22nd, 2007 at 7:10 pm
There are no "naturally expected explanations." If this is about assuming the sufficuency of an unidentifiable natural explanation then this is in the same category as blind faith. BTW, direct evidence for all historic theories is lacking.
Comment by Bradford — September 22, 2007 @ 7:10 pm
September 22nd, 2007 at 7:13 pm
You're right Raevmo. Note I did not say scientists make that claim. Scientists know that abiogenesis is a bag of horse crap.
Comment by Bradford — September 22, 2007 @ 7:13 pm
September 22nd, 2007 at 7:20 pm
No, we know the cause for every other known effect that we have been able to identify a cause for, so there is presidence, not blind faith.
BTW… ANY evidence that you have that supercedes the historically established natural explanation with intelligent intervention, will do just fine.
Comment by island01 — September 22, 2007 @ 7:20 pm
September 22nd, 2007 at 7:22 pm
There is no historically established explanation for the OOL just opportunities to look.
Comment by Bradford — September 22, 2007 @ 7:22 pm
September 22nd, 2007 at 7:24 pm
Bradford:
You're losing it. I'm a scientist and I don't know that. Or do you mean there exist at least two scientists who know that? I know you don't want to believe in the possibility of abiogenesis because it would upset your religious beliefs, but we don't care. Whether you like it or not, there is no evidence of a designer. Get over it.
Comment by Raevmo — September 22, 2007 @ 7:24 pm
September 22nd, 2007 at 7:26 pm
Go ahead and look… and like the multiverse… it will be a valid consideration of origins science when you have a complete theory, not before.
Comment by island01 — September 22, 2007 @ 7:26 pm
September 22nd, 2007 at 7:29 pm
In more than two dozen comments your side has had an opportunity to present a coherent case for what you claim excludes design. You can't do it because there is no case to be made for the alternative. The reason you and others get worked up is precisely because you want data that excludes divine possibilities and you do not have it. Have not had it for more than a century. So accept that and get on to something productive.
Comment by Bradford — September 22, 2007 @ 7:29 pm
September 22nd, 2007 at 7:31 pm
There is no historically established explanation for the OOL just opportunities to look.
I take that to be an affirmation of my comment that preceeded yours.
Comment by Bradford — September 22, 2007 @ 7:31 pm
September 22nd, 2007 at 7:37 pm
Bradford, you had to willfully ignore what I said about known causes for effect and everything else that you failed to successfully refute in any way.
You're done, and so am I…
Comment by island01 — September 22, 2007 @ 7:37 pm
September 22nd, 2007 at 7:38 pm
Bradford:
You're still losing it. I don't want to exclude the divine. The data just don't justify including it. Prove me wrong. By the way, what productive things have you done lately? You seem to do nothing but comment on this blog.
Comment by Raevmo — September 22, 2007 @ 7:38 pm
September 22nd, 2007 at 7:40 pm
Perhaps I mistakenly thought you were going to flesh out your general claims about causes with specific references to real biological systems and explanations that are based on them.
Comment by Bradford — September 22, 2007 @ 7:40 pm
September 22nd, 2007 at 7:44 pm
No, my contribution would be a true anthropic cosmolgoical principle.
Comment by island01 — September 22, 2007 @ 7:44 pm
September 22nd, 2007 at 7:47 pm
I do not base my belief in Christ on what goes on in labs. The objective evidence backing my belief lies with archeological and historic data. That does not mean however that I need to accept half baked ideas based on self-replicators, multi-universes and more.
That's a strange complaint coming from a TT member who began posting comments many months ago and has a long track record here. It takes two to debate.
Comment by Bradford — September 22, 2007 @ 7:47 pm
September 22nd, 2007 at 8:10 pm
Hi Bradford,
Are you enjoying your shield bashing?
Does the fact that no one knows the Truth give you the right to suggest whatever you imagine is just as good as what anyone else imagines?
Oh yeah, what is your imagined hypothesis for creation of the first living cell again?
I seem to have forgotten it.
You wrote…
Evidence for a teleological process lies in the existence of a purposeful moon. The existance of cosmological bodies is used to infer all historical processes. None are actually observed including the non-ID causal chain.
Did you note that Raevmo stated he didn't "…want to exclude the divine"
This should sound familiar by now. The Third Choice does not exclude the divine. God could very well have used quantum mechanics to create the first Self-replicating molecule and then the first cell.
And suggesting there is no such thing as natural randomness is another way of appealing to Island01's "anthropic cosmological principle."
Even you noted General Relativity has substantial evidence. However, do you realize the implication of the space/time aspects resulting from Einsteinain/Minkowskian geometry?
Both God and the Universe are timeless. Scientists can test and observe the universe. I have my doubts that science can do the same for God but, then again, it isn't necessary for science to do so.
Or is it?
Comment by Thought Provoker — September 22, 2007 @ 8:10 pm
September 22nd, 2007 at 8:25 pm
TP:
It is not necessary but neither is the polar opposite. As Mike wrote:
Abiogenesis is very, very far from a well substantiated explanation. So why do critics get upset when I point this out?
Comment by Bradford — September 22, 2007 @ 8:25 pm
September 22nd, 2007 at 9:11 pm
Hi Bradford,
You wrote…
MikeGene recently reposted some suggestions for Critical Thinking. One of the key points was to understand definitions. Here are some definitions…
a"¢bi"¢o"¢gen"¢e"¢sis (b--jn-ss)n.
The supposed development of living organisms from nonliving matter. Also called autogenesis, spontaneous generation.
Noun 1. abiogenesis - a hypothetical organic phenomenon by which living organisms are created from nonliving matterNow this can get into a game of semantics. A trivial interpretation of your above statement is that you meant to say…
Spontanteous generation is very, very far from a well substantiated explanation.
Which gets into what Raevmo was talking about when he said…
"Sterilize some soup and seal it air-tight, wait a couple of days, and hey no microbes. Therefore abiogenesis is impossible, QED."
Is this what you are suggesting Bradford?
You appear to equate the term "abiogenesis" with "Origin of Life". However, when you are called on that, you usually obfuscate. The Origin of Life, like the Origin of the Universe, is the question, not the answer. If you want to equate the two then say so.
If you want to say the Origin of Life is the result of divine intervention, you can say that too.
But that would mean committing yourself to a hypothesis, wouldn't it?
It's easy sitting on the sidelines throwing stones at other people's ideas. And, yes, that irritates some people.
Comment by Thought Provoker — September 22, 2007 @ 9:11 pm
September 22nd, 2007 at 9:38 pm
There is no intrinsic barrier to the evolution of irreducible structures. Your lack of understanding in this regard does not constitute an empirical barrier either.
Comment by Zachriel — September 22, 2007 @ 9:38 pm
September 22nd, 2007 at 9:46 pm
TP: You appear to equate the term "abiogenesis" with "Origin of Life". However, when you are called on that, you usually obfuscate. The Origin of Life, like the Origin of the Universe, is the question, not the answer. If you want to equate the two then say so.
OOL and abiogenesis mean about the same thing but it is understood by ID critics that no causal interpretation is allowed that is not reducible solely to underlying forces of physics. In that way it is similar to consciousness; strict materialism- no intelligence allowed. It is also anti-inquisitive and anti-intellectual. The obfuscation comes from those claiming pathways to life that begin with SRMs and end there. Where are the pathways?
I believe that God is ultimately the source of all phenomenon but am careful to distinguish my metaphysal views from what can be attributed to solid data. I wish ID critics were so observant.
It could mean that I am looking and honest enough to state that a scientific case for origins is lacking.
Tell me about it. Generally speaking there is no cruder group of critics than anti-IDists.
Comment by Bradford — September 22, 2007 @ 9:46 pm
September 22nd, 2007 at 9:46 pm
Really, Bradford. Didn't you get the news?
The model of eternal inflation implies that all macroscopic histories permitted by laws of physics are repeated an infinite number of times in the infinite multiverse.
Dare you stand against an infinite number of macroscopic histories existing throughout eternity in the infinite multiverse?
Comment by nullasalus — September 22, 2007 @ 9:46 pm
September 22nd, 2007 at 9:49 pm
Nice assertion Zachriel but until you manage to point me to a study showing that cells arise in prebiotic environments the applicability of IC to barriers will be determined by the data.
Comment by Bradford — September 22, 2007 @ 9:49 pm
September 22nd, 2007 at 9:51 pm
LOL. Or the belief that pathways to life begin with self-replicators.
Comment by Bradford — September 22, 2007 @ 9:51 pm
September 22nd, 2007 at 9:55 pm
Your claim is of the form that there is an irreducible structure that forms a barrier, a "non-starter". As irreducible structures do not form intrinsic barriers to evolutionary processes, your argument is fallacious. It is an empirical question.
There is a significant Gap in human knowledge of the early history of life. However, we do know that all processes in living organisms conform to known physical laws, that extant life evolved from primitive ancestors, and that relatively simple molecules can replicate and evolve.
Comment by Zachriel — September 22, 2007 @ 9:55 pm
September 22nd, 2007 at 10:09 pm
And when you add in the infinite repetition of all macroscopic histories throughout the eternity of an infinite multiverse, the question really becomes simple. Obviously, the answer is eternal-chance. Why people can't just accept this, I do not know.
Comment by nullasalus — September 22, 2007 @ 10:09 pm
September 22nd, 2007 at 10:15 pm
What is the "evolutionary" process that generates a cell in a prebiotic environment? It is indeed an empirical question as to whether or not a process exists that generates a minimallly functional genome from a zero gene starting point. Your non-starter claim would be more credible if you could cite a process that generates even a shadowy semblance of a genome.
Comment by Bradford — September 22, 2007 @ 10:15 pm
September 22nd, 2007 at 10:18 pm
Hi Bradford,
You wrote…
This is irritating too. You are deciding what other people believe. Do you consider Raevmo an ID critic when he stated he didn't ""¦want to exclude the divine"
And I suggest there is more that one ID Scientist that appeals to "anthropic cosmological principle" like Island01 does. Is Island01 an ID critic too?
An then there is me. I question your definition of the term "intelligence" (ala MikeGene's critical thinking post). From Merriam Webster…
Main Entry: in·tel·li·gencePronunciation: in-'te-l&-j&n(t)s
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English, from Middle French, from Latin intelligentia, from intelligent-, intelligens intelligent
1 a (1) : the ability to learn or understand or to deal with new or trying situations : REASON; also : the skilled use of reason (2) : the ability to apply knowledge to manipulate one's environment or to think abstractly as measured by objective criteria (as tests) b Christian Science : the basic eternal quality of divine Mind c : mental acuteness : SHREWDNESS
2 a : an intelligent entity; especially : ANGEL b : intelligent minds or mind (cosmic intelligence)
Do you consider me an ID Critic? (or just a pain in the….)?
Comment by Thought Provoker — September 22, 2007 @ 10:18 pm
September 22nd, 2007 at 10:24 pm
Look at the responses in this thread. The minute teleology rears its head there are plenty of volunteers ready to chop it off based on non-existent pathways to life. You do not have to be too discerning to realize what really bothers them. I don't consider you an ID critic. More like a critic who hones in on anyone named Bradford.
Comment by Bradford — September 22, 2007 @ 10:24 pm
September 22nd, 2007 at 10:27 pm
nullasalus:
This brings out a good point. OOLers will deny that their theories are chance based but when challenged to show how selection guides a process in the direction of a cell they come up empty.
Comment by Bradford — September 22, 2007 @ 10:27 pm
September 22nd, 2007 at 10:30 pm
Hi Bradford,
You wrote…
Oops, this is another opportunaty for critical thinking like definitions. What is your definition of life if it doesn't include self-replicators?
Here is the one I use (stolen from Dawkins)…
"Life results from the non-random survival of randomly varying replicators."
What is your definition of life?
Does your definition assume all life is the same as life on Earth?
Comment by Thought Provoker — September 22, 2007 @ 10:30 pm
September 22nd, 2007 at 10:36 pm
Hi Bradford,
You wrote…
Don't take it too hard. I have been open about my motivations with you. You have enough knowledge to get off the sidelines and join in the game.
As long as you continue to refuse to commit, I will continue to take advantage of it.
BTW, have you finally committed to agreeing that common descent is a scientific observation that has reached the level of "a given"
Comment by Thought Provoker — September 22, 2007 @ 10:36 pm
September 22nd, 2007 at 10:37 pm
Hi TP. My definition is a cell. I know that will not accord with the definition of many but a definition is not as important as a pathway to a cell. Whether you call an SRM life or not you still have the same pathway problem. It is really about causal chains and evidence for them.
Comment by Bradford — September 22, 2007 @ 10:37 pm
September 22nd, 2007 at 10:47 pm
Imperfect replicators replicating imperfectly. And as replication is necessarily imperfect, we can simplify that to just replicators.
No one knows the origin of the first cells. However, lipid membranes are not uncommon in nature. (By the way, Szostak has shown that lipid vesicles grow with RNA replication in competition with other protocells and can passively concentrate important components such as ribose.)
Comment by Zachriel — September 22, 2007 @ 10:47 pm
September 22nd, 2007 at 11:39 pm
Hi Bradford,
You wrote…
While I think you are being too restrictive in your definition of life, I admit you are not alone in this. As you may remember, I was looking at Nanobes as your "pathway" to more complex cells. Here is an update on this from a scientific paper found here (interesting pictures found here).
Our concept of the extension of the biosphere is again in a state of change since we have learned that "bacteria can penetrate rock" (Myers and McCready, 1966), and that an entire realm of our planet, which had been considered to be sterile, is in fact teeming with life, representing a substantial part of the "unseen majority" (Whitman et al., 1998). By now we have at least some awareness of "the biosphere below" (Grossman and Shulman, 1995), and begin to comprehend the consequences, including the concept that the nano-sized members of the community presumably represent structural-evolutionary steps towards the organizational level of present-day bacterial cells (Trevors and Psenner, 2001). The increasing number of reports on microbes in subterranean samples (Pedersen, 1993; Colwell et al., 1997; Fredrickson et al., 1997; Onstott et al., 1994, 1998; Chapelle et al., 2002) gives overwhelming evidence for the existence and survival properties of this part of the biosphere. Even the skepticism concerning the consideration, that whatever is living "down yonder" has probably resided there for millions of years, (Norton and Grant, 1988, Vreeland et al., 2000, Parkes, 2000) is generally dwindling. Reports on more specific situations as for instance the survival of halophilic bacteria under the harsh conditions of salt mines (Radax et al., 2001; Stan-Lotter et al., 2002), or microbes trapped in amber (Cano and Borucki, 1995; Greenblatt et al., 1999), confirm and underscore the general picture.
Could the difficulty you see in the OOL be because people hadn't noticed the tiny cells because they were too small for our previous technology?
Let's do Science!
P.S. Nanobes have DNA.
Comment by Thought Provoker — September 22, 2007 @ 11:39 pm