Dawkins on the OOL
by MikeGeneDawkins explains why the failure of abiogenesis research is actually predicted by his non-teleological perspective.
We'll pick it up as follows:
Only evolution, or some kind of gradualistic "˜crane' (to use Dennett's neat term), is capable of terminating the regress. Natural selection is an anti-chance process, which gradually builds up complexity, step by tiny step.
It's this type of thinking that led scientists astray when, for example, they believed that microsporidia were primitive eukaryotes.
The end product of this ratcheting process is an eye, or a heart, or a brain "“ a device whose improbable complexity is utterly baffling until you spot the gentle ramp that leads up to it.
Not to mention the deep homology and the manner in which evolution may have been rigged by it.
Whether my conjecture is right that evolution is the only explanation for life in the universe, there is no doubt that it is the explanation for life on this planet. Evolution is a fact, and it is among the more secure facts known to science. But it had to get started somehow.
Finally, Dawkins is starting to sound rational.
Natural selection cannot work its wonders until certain minimal conditions are in place, of which the most important is an accurate system of replication "“ DNA, or something that works like DNA.
Indeed.
The origin of life on this planet "“ which means the origin of the first self-replicating molecule "“ is hard to study, because it (probably) only happened once, 4 billion years ago and under very different conditions. We may never know how it happened.
Notice the change in attitude. The Bold Scientist gives way to hand-waving and timid excuses. We'll overlook the fact that the promissory note about that ever elusive "self-replicating molecule" is starting to look bogus and simply watch how Dawkins turns the failure of a scientific program into evidence for that scientific program:
Unlike the ordinary evolutionary events that followed, it must have been a genuinely very improbable "“ in the sense of unpredictable "“ event: too improbable, perhaps, for chemists to reproduce it in the laboratory or even devise a plausible theory for what happened. This weirdly paradoxical conclusion "“ that a chemical account of the origin of life, in order to be plausible, has to be implausible "“ would follow from the premise that life is extremely rare in the universe. And to be sure, we have never encountered any hint of extraterrestrial life, not even by radio "“ the circumstance that prompted Enrico Fermi's cry: "Where is everybody?"
So why does the government fund abiogenesis research when a leading scientist tells us that abiogenesis is too improbable for chemists to reproduce it in the laboratory or even devise a plausible theory for what happened? There is a simpler explanation "“ the reason chemists have failed to reproduce abiogenesis and have yet to come close to any plausible theory for what happened is because a non-teleological approach cannot process a teleological cause/event.
A billion billion is a conservative estimate for the number of planets in the universe. Suppose life's origin on a planet demands a hugely improbable stroke of luck, so improbable that it happens on only one in a billion planets. The National Science Foundation would laugh at any chemist whose proposed research had only a one in a hundred chance of succeeding, let alone one in a billion. Yet, if there are a billion billion planets in the universe, even such absurdly low odds as these will yield life on a billion planets.
I see. Abiogenesis is just improbable enough so that science cannot verify it, but not improbable enough such that Dawkins has to abandon it. How convenient that the failure of science supports his metaphysics. It looks more to me like how a non-teleologist would rationalize a teleological cause/event.
October 6th, 2006 at 10:30 pm
Nothing better illustrates the arrogance of Darwinism and reality-based thinking. If supporting scientific data is available then it exclusively supports a non-telic viewpoint. No room for front-loading in that case. If there is no supporting data then put your faith in a vaguely alluded to chemical process while stubbornly insisting there was no intelligence involved in the generation of highly specified genomes.
Comment by Bradford — October 6, 2006 @ 10:30 pm
October 6th, 2006 at 11:41 pm
"Failure of abiogenesis research" Sure, just as we've failed in cosmological research, and have no idea how, say, the solar system really formed. LOL No, Mike, failure would be a refutation of the theory, which hasn't happened. And considering the line between self-organizing chemistry and biology is difficult to define, it's entirely plausible, if remarkable, that a chemical evolution process could have given rise to storage of information in a replicative molecule, such as in the RNA World.
What is implausible is the concept of a higher power engineering even the simplest cell de novo. The mere existence, much less action, of such a higher power is outside of our empirical experience, be it in laboratory research or in nature - but, again, even chemical reactions can exhibit diversity and self-organization.
Yes, how arrogant of scientists to use reality-based thinking. By the way, what style of thinking are you using? (you might want to rethink what you say a bit, Bradford)
Comment by Daniel — October 6, 2006 @ 11:41 pm
October 6th, 2006 at 11:52 pm
Dawkins:
It seems like Dawkins has given up on the RNA world hypothesis, and other hypotheses which propose replicating informaton in a vastly more crude fashion than DNA affords.
I, like Michael Denton, am no longer convinced that an ideal set of laws of nature could create conditions which could conceivably produce a significantly simplified replicating entity. However, if DNA or something that works with similar precision is required for abiogenesis, then abiogeneis is a bona-fide miracle.
Daniel:
Ie: our premise is to disconsider the concept of a higher power, therefore no higher power could possibly exist. Well, that settles it then, doesn't it.
Comment by bFast — October 6, 2006 @ 11:52 pm
October 6th, 2006 at 11:57 pm
Yes, how arrogant of scientists to use reality-based thinking.
Baloney Daniel. Reality based thinking is a political ploy not attributed to scientists any more than any other profession. The defending science mantra is getting old particularly when used to support a belief noted for its lack of scientific credibility. You can believe unknown chemical processes led to life or whatever you wish but is it more scientifically plausible than believing abiogenesis is bunk?
By the way, what style of thinking are you using? (you might want to rethink what you say a bit, Bradford)
Take your own advise Daniel. What chemical processes led to life? If this is a matter of probability then why should we believe the odds favor a cell as an outcome of undescribed chemical reactions?
Comment by Bradford — October 6, 2006 @ 11:57 pm
October 7th, 2006 at 12:01 am
Also outside our experience are cells arising through prebiotic chemical reactions.
Comment by Bradford — October 7, 2006 @ 12:01 am
October 7th, 2006 at 7:37 am
So, how many years or decades of
failure to producenot seeing the expected/desired results would it take, Daniel, for you to adopt a different view on this?Comment by TomG — October 7, 2006 @ 7:37 am
October 7th, 2006 at 9:27 am
Hi Daniel,
You write:
You are missing my point. The part that you quote was lifted from the introductory sentence, and the entire sentence was, "Dawkins explains why the failure of abiogenesis research is actually predicted by his non-teleological perspective." Dawkins has come up with an argument that has him predicting that abiogenesis is "too improbable, perhaps, for chemists to reproduce it in the laboratory or even devise a plausible theory for what happened." He is predicting that abiogenesis research should fail. He has implemented a metaphysical escape hatch that can never be closed.
Comment by MikeGene — October 7, 2006 @ 9:27 am
October 7th, 2006 at 10:02 am
Mike,
Yes, and I disagree with Dawkins on that point as well - there are many things that have been discovered or invented by science that were, prior to their discovery, thought to be so remarkable or theoretical as to be outside the reach of science. There hasn't been a failure - merely not enough information has yet been placed at our fingertips to render a precise answer on how pre-organic chemistry could have given rise to nucleic acids and other components of modern cells.
It's the kind of question that we might have an answer to, in some far-off day in the future, and yes, I think it's incorrect to call this area of research "failed," regardless of whether it's you or Dawkins saying it.
Comment by Daniel — October 7, 2006 @ 10:02 am
October 7th, 2006 at 10:30 am
Daniel said:
And where did that information come from? A relatively mundane point you made, Daniel. Perfect, you've stated that chemical evolutionary processes could account for the storage of the information.
Comment by Fred Haster — October 7, 2006 @ 10:30 am
October 7th, 2006 at 10:37 am
This is a very inaccurate relationship. Our understanding of solar system formation is very well developed in comparison to the formation of biological information and a replicating system.
Why do you feel your comparison to be accurate?
Comment by Fred Haster — October 7, 2006 @ 10:37 am
October 7th, 2006 at 10:51 am
For what it is worth…
I find the framing of the Origin of Life debate almost amusing.
Many ID proponents (e.g. Behe) are emphatic that they believe in "Evolution" just not "Darwinism". But, as I indicated in a previous post, Darwin attributed the Origin of Life to "The Creator" in his book, Origin of Species. This directly conflicts with the atheist belief of Dawkins (although Dawkins calls himself an agnostic for both God and fairies). An intellectual Mexican standoff.
Everyone is tripping over everyone else on the subject of the Origin of Life. Why even argue about abiogenesis if you dismiss Darwin's Common Descent? Falsify Common Descent and you do more than falsify abiogenesis you render the whole subject moot. As a side effect, it also refutes ID proponents who aspire to front-loading. It even, in a small way, refutes YEC (depending on definitions, biblical genesis is just another abiogenesis hypothesis).
The funny part is watching how numerous advocates purposefully avoid defining terms and just launch into arguing against something while intentionally leaving open for interpretation what that something is.
I offer the following questions in an effort to provoke thought…
1. Do you believe life on earth was the result of a definable action (God breathed, chemicals sparked, Designer designed, etc)?
2. Do you believe this action was the beginning of a chain of events that resulted in the life we now observe on earth?
Comment by Thought Provoker — October 7, 2006 @ 10:51 am
October 7th, 2006 at 10:53 am
Organic chemistry must answer why nucleic acids with codon sequences consistent with function came about through reactions. If the answer has a chemical basis then one would expect it to differentiate between dysfunctional and functional codon sequences. It does not. The selective value of sequences determines functional utility. The selective value is linked to the function of protein end products which in turn takes place within a system context. You're looking in the wrong direction like the alchemists of old.
Comment by Bradford — October 7, 2006 @ 10:53 am
October 7th, 2006 at 11:02 am
TP, you are missing the point. IDers do not make artificial distinctions about natural history. It is perfectly legit to draw an inference of intelligence from data related to abiogenesis. If intelligent causality occurs at any point in the process then the ID concept is validated. The flip question to yours is why anti-IDers argue for abiogenesis and insist that only non-telic, non-ID conclusions be considered?
Comment by Bradford — October 7, 2006 @ 11:02 am
October 7th, 2006 at 11:18 am
Hi Bradford,
I doubt I am missing the point of how you want to frame the abiogenesis debate.
Prove me wrong by answering the simple questions I asked earlier. If they were too tough, how about an even simpler one…
What is your definition of "abiogenesis"
Comment by Thought Provoker — October 7, 2006 @ 11:18 am
October 7th, 2006 at 11:40 am
Abiogenesis is an attempt to explain the origin of life by excluding the possibility of intelligent direction as a causal explanation.
Comment by Bradford — October 7, 2006 @ 11:40 am
October 7th, 2006 at 12:53 pm
Fred,
I find the solar system analogy to be useful in the sense that we have only approximating theories of how these two disparate things occurred. We can argue about degree of support for such models, but this is directly correlated to the volume of evidence that we have available to study - in cosmology, we have other solar systems and their sites of origins that we can study through space telescopes. In biology we have only the equivalent of our solar system, long after it developed. Also, I could suggest other, perhaps more relevant theories for analogy, that are the subject of heated debate, but I chose this one because of its similarity as an origins question.
Owing to the small volume of available data with which to study the OOL, there are doubtless multiple inaccuracies in the current explanations for the OOL - but the "Darwinist" explanation involving a series of plausible (if remarkable) steps in the OOL of life makes far more sense, based upon the collective experiences of mankind in recorded history (anecdotal and scriptural "evidence" aside), than the concept of special creation. I visually compared these contrasting views over on my blog a while back.
To your questions TP: (1) No, I think a chemical evolution took place, and that there was no timepoint at which we could say "Life started now." As I mentioned above, I rest this argument on an inability to define "Life" without using a circular argument. For example, a metabolic definition finds it hard to exclude fire (which grows and reproduces via chemical reactions); a biochemical definition does not exclude enzymes (which are biologically functional but not living systems), while a thermodynamic definition does not exclude mineral crystals (which create and sustain local order and may reproduce). (More on this can be found in Joshua Jortner's paper in the October 29th issue of the Royal Society's Philosophical Transactions: B) So it seems more plausible by far to me that a chemical-to-biological evolution took place, providing the foundations for descent of form with modification, and a gradual acquisition of life-like or cell-like characteristics.
That's just a guess, of course, but I see nothing so plausible as that amongst alternatives.
And TP, I think I already answered your second question above.
Comment by Daniel — October 7, 2006 @ 12:53 pm
October 7th, 2006 at 12:58 pm
Hi Daniel,
You write, "Yes, and I disagree with Dawkins on that point as well."
I'm not sure why you added "as well," as the whole point of my blog was to focus on Dawkins' position. Dawkins is making that argument that abiogenesis is so improbable that we should expect scientists to fail to reproduce it or come up with a theory. And while you may disagree with it, Dawkins is reaching (and convincing) many more than you. So consider my blog as something that speaks to them.
Comment by MikeGene — October 7, 2006 @ 12:58 pm
October 7th, 2006 at 1:04 pm
Hi Bradford,
I asked…
What is your definition of "abiogenesis"
You responded…
I must confess I chuckled at your definition. It was what I expected, but I thought you might have managed to be a little more subtle.
a"¢bi"¢o"¢gen"¢e"¢sis (b--jn-ss) Pronunciation Keyn.
The supposed development of living organisms from nonliving matter. Also called autogenesis, spontaneous generation.
Do you see how God creating man from the dust of the earth would match this definition of abiogenesis?
But since you answered my question, I will answer yours.
You asked…
If we use your definitions for "abiogenesis" and "intelligent", this is a compound question that is redundant. It is like asking why do people who build mud houses use mud to build their houses?
Let's supposed that you aren't intentionally using the word "abiogenesis" as an equivocation fallacy. Then all you are asking for is an explaination for why anti-IDers argue that ID is wrong.
That's easy, because they are "anti-IDers"!
Please note I qualified the above with your definitions. I believe many people are open to intelligent and telic causes of abiogenesis (as they define it). Also, by my definitions, telic processes don't need to be intelligent.
Comment by Thought Provoker — October 7, 2006 @ 1:04 pm
October 7th, 2006 at 1:17 pm
Your last sentence is a theological statement. All arguments by anti-IDers exclude the possibility of purpose and intelligence a priori. Their position amounts to a declaration that only chemical necessity is detectable (even as it is undetected).
Comment by Bradford — October 7, 2006 @ 1:17 pm
October 7th, 2006 at 1:23 pm
Mike,
Sorry, I probably should have left out "as well." Regardless, you later quote Dawkins in various clips talking about our current limits in knowledge - I think he understates the potential for future advancement in OOL research (or is simply talking about the current state of things, which is limited), and you pounce.
Your comments, including "The Bold Scientist gives way to hand-waving and timid excuses"; "that ever elusive "self-replicating molecule" is starting to look bogus";
…And the big one, chock-full of assumptions which I know you can't support with a citation of solid, non-anecdotal research:
Recently, a few of your posts on Dawkins have taken this style, Mike… taking quotes of Dawkins that at face-value seem to take away from a viewpoint which you wish to criticize, and use that in "a-ha!" moments. That, Mike, is quote-mining.
Comment by Daniel — October 7, 2006 @ 1:23 pm
October 7th, 2006 at 1:34 pm
This is right on target. Stochastic events do not lend themselves to processing teleological events without a selection sieve.
Comment by Bradford — October 7, 2006 @ 1:34 pm
October 7th, 2006 at 1:42 pm
Bradford,
What line of evidence suggests that the OOL was, in fact, teleological?
No, I'm open to the possibility - I just haven't seen anything to suggest a teleological even occurred.
Comment by Daniel — October 7, 2006 @ 1:42 pm
October 7th, 2006 at 1:43 pm
Bradford,
What line of evidence suggests that the OOL was, in fact, teleological?
No, I'm open to the possibility - I just haven't seen anything to suggest a teleological event occurred.
Comment by Daniel — October 7, 2006 @ 1:43 pm
October 7th, 2006 at 1:45 pm
Daniel wrote…
Thank you for your response.
I knew my question was open to the it-happened-gradually interpretation, but I got lazy and figured I would deal with it if and when it came up. The point of the question was mostly a setup for the follow up.
This whole subject is vulnerable to exceptions and nuances. The chemical reactions for abiogenesis could be happening even today (near undersea thermal vents). Therefore, one could argue Common Descent might be wrong because some "life" might not be direcly related to the rest of life on earth.
This gets us to the definition of life. I kind of like Dawkins' "Life results from the non-random survival of randomly varying replicators." I have embraced that to mean life is the non-random survival of randomly varying replicators. That means "abiogenesis" occurs the first time a randomly varying replicator survives past one generation by a means this isn't fully random. These newly created "living organisms" may be wiped out when they fail to survive beyond a few generations but….
…prepare yourself…
THAT"S LIFE!
Comment by Thought Provoker — October 7, 2006 @ 1:45 pm
October 7th, 2006 at 2:07 pm
(Problems with the link, Mike Gene?)
My teleological perspective predicts that "abiogenesis" research will succeed.
Once researchers abandon the scientifically hopeless cause framed in their own assumptions: ""¦ We may never know how it happened." Reconstituting conditions, etc. that can't be known, seems to me, is a strikingly idiotic approach to abiogenesis!
We don't have to know how it happened, because we have arrived at the point where we can make it happen.
I have recently advocated (privately) and publicly (@ARN) that an effort comparable to the HGP be mounted. I don't see anything that would prevent the success of such a project. I don't underestimate the difficulty but I can't imagine what would keep us from succeeding other than a silly dysteleological defeatism.
Comment by Rock — October 7, 2006 @ 2:07 pm
October 7th, 2006 at 2:29 pm
No, I'm open to the possibility - I just haven't seen anything to suggest a teleological event occurred.
How would chemistry explain the order and specificity of codons when function is a product of selection. Invoking chemical necessity to explain the functional placement of initiation and stop codons and what lies in between is without basis. I previously wrote this:
Ordered messages are explained by intelligence. You do have experiences with them. What you do not have is a basis for believing biological messages result from the chemical properties of nucleotides. BTW, although it is useful in exchanges to maintain that one is open to a possibility the reality of it is refuted by the posts of anti-IDers. You might be an exception but if that is the case then what specifically would allow you to say you've seen something that suggests teleology?
Comment by Bradford — October 7, 2006 @ 2:29 pm
October 7th, 2006 at 2:38 pm
I wrote…
a"¢bi"¢o"¢gen"¢e"¢sis (b"“jn-ss) Pronunciation Keyn.
The supposed development of living organisms from nonliving matter. Also called autogenesis, spontaneous generation.
Do you see how God creating man from the dust of the earth would match this definition of abiogenesis?
Bradford responded with…
So what if my sentence was a theological statement?
What does the actions of "anti-IDers" have to do with the definition of abiogenesis?
Am I an anti-IDer?
Comment by Thought Provoker — October 7, 2006 @ 2:38 pm
October 7th, 2006 at 2:51 pm
So scientists have to answer every ultra-specific question before you'll accept a natural theory on abiogenesis?
Sure I have. Many times, when modifying plasmids in the lab. I can't tell you how every atom in a nucleotide sequence is impacting information storage and retreival, but it's quite clear that certain modifications have certain effects.
But you may have a point in one respect on assumptions of anti-IDers - generally, we biologists do find it a silly idea to consider a Designer/God intervening in any of our research, or anything that we might ever be capable of observing… sure, there's anecdotal observations (mostly in the Old Testament), but that's not science.
So I'm open to the possibility of a Designer or God, I just haven't seen anything to make such a higher power any more realistic than the existence of Zeus or Thor.
Comment by Daniel — October 7, 2006 @ 2:51 pm
October 7th, 2006 at 2:57 pm
Daniel wrote"¦
How is defining life by a biologically functional information system enabling the function of information dependent metabolic, reproductive systems etc. circular?
Comment by Bradford — October 7, 2006 @ 2:57 pm
October 7th, 2006 at 3:03 pm
Bradford,
Defining "Life" as a "biologically-functioning" anything is circular, isn't it? (bio=life) Also, as I noted, chemical/non-biological processes can be cited which also have metabolic or replicative capacities.
Comment by Daniel — October 7, 2006 @ 3:03 pm
October 7th, 2006 at 3:11 pm
What you do not have is a basis for believing biological messages result from the chemical properties of nucleotides.
Sure I have. Many times, when modifying plasmids in the lab. I can't tell you how every atom in a nucleotide sequence is impacting information storage and retreival, but it's quite clear that certain modifications have certain effects.
You begged the question. Pointing out that modifications have effects is obvious but sidesteps the origin of the the information itself. What chemical process induces functional specificity in an extra-cellular environment?
But you may have a point in one respect on assumptions of anti-IDers - generally, we biologists do find it a silly idea to consider a Designer/God intervening in any of our research, or anything that we might ever be capable of observing"¦ sure, there's anecdotal observations (mostly in the Old Testament), but that's not science.
Nice red herring. Continuous intervention in research or nature was not suggested as the origins nature of the discussion suggests.
Comment by Bradford — October 7, 2006 @ 3:11 pm
October 7th, 2006 at 3:13 pm
What such processes are governed by storage information systems?
Comment by Bradford — October 7, 2006 @ 3:13 pm
October 7th, 2006 at 3:19 pm
Incidentally, the problem with abiogenesis is not one of definition. It is a lack of supporting data for the idea. Define life as commencing however you want. It does not explain the origin of cells any better.
Comment by Bradford — October 7, 2006 @ 3:19 pm
October 7th, 2006 at 3:27 pm
That's the point of OOL research. If we could answer that, OOL would be a pretty moot subject.
Who said anything about continuous intervention in science? I'm merely arguing a concept of modern science that was first proposed by the "Father of Geology" Charles Lyell, called Uniformitarianism. Briefly, it involves the idea that the assumption be made that geological (and biological, physical, etc.) processes observable today probably were at work throughout geological history, and those processes which have never been observed were not likely to have ever occurred.
So it's not a red herring - I'm simply saying that you're hypothesizing something completely outside the realm of human experience, and thus, human knowledge. Of course, you'll say I haven't seen the primordial soup either - and you'd be right. I haven't seen anything to suggest that a infitesimally-improbably compination of chemicals came together to rapidly form a minimal genetic and metabolic system contained in a amphipathic membrane (i.e. a cell). Instead, I suspect that descent with modification can be extended back to a diverse chemical mixture. I can't offer every "transitional chemistry," but that doesn't refute the possibility any more than I can disprove the existence of a Designer, or God, Zeus, Thor, or any other deity of pre-historic mythology.
Comment by Daniel — October 7, 2006 @ 3:27 pm
October 7th, 2006 at 3:34 pm
Bradford wrote…
If we don't agree on the meanings behind these markings on our computer screens then everything else is moot.
Some people use the strange marking "abiogenesis" to mean the origin of cells. This is why you get such strange reactions when you claim abiogenesis "…does not explain the origin of cells any better." Better than the origin of cells?!?!?
Comment by Thought Provoker — October 7, 2006 @ 3:34 pm
October 7th, 2006 at 3:42 pm
Mineral crystals and their formation is a self-assembled process that is dependent on physical and chemical structural information. Clay deposits, in particular, have received a lot of attention for this as a possible catalyst for RNA polymerization.
No, defining what is the fundamental prerequisite for life as we know it is the central point in examining how life might have "began," if a precise starting point could be defined at all. For example, if we consider viruses as "not alive," then the transition from viruses (not alive) to cells (alive) isn't such a problem. But clearly viruses are sufficiently complex to be difficult to explain the origins of in the first place, so we must come up with a more fundamentally simple criteria for establishing the first step between simple pre-organic chemicals and complex organic chemicals. Scientific discovery is ALL about asking the right question, and using the right definition.
Comment by Daniel — October 7, 2006 @ 3:42 pm
October 7th, 2006 at 4:19 pm
Daniel wrote…
"Mineral crystals and their formation is a self-assembled process that is dependent on physical and chemical structural information. Clay deposits, in particular, have received a lot of attention for this as a possible catalyst for RNA polymerization."
Now you have gone an done it. I have noted that the idea of creating and storing information without intelligence creates cognitive dissonance in some people who post here.
I am looking forward to an opportunity to explain the difference between knowledge and intelligence. That is going to be hard enough. Trying to explore a potential difference between telic and intelligence might blow some fuses. However, that is where I have to go to explain how a modest scientific proposal for a telic process would be organizing and predictive mechanisms which would be, all but indistinguishable, from purposeful.
Comment by Thought Provoker — October 7, 2006 @ 4:19 pm
October 7th, 2006 at 5:00 pm
I know that's the standard line but I'm not arguing supernatural detection. Only intelligence. To argue that the two are necessarily conflated is a theological argument.
Comment by Bradford — October 7, 2006 @ 5:00 pm
October 7th, 2006 at 5:05 pm
The crystal anlogy is faulty. The analogy to human linguistic codes more accurate. There must be flexibility to a true code. The information of aphanumeric symbols, like nucleotides, is sequence dependent and adjustable for the function at hand.
Comment by Bradford — October 7, 2006 @ 5:05 pm
October 7th, 2006 at 5:08 pm
It's about asking and answering questions. You can assume any definition you like. It does not change the outcome of results. It's the data that ultimately counts.
Comment by Bradford — October 7, 2006 @ 5:08 pm
October 7th, 2006 at 5:10 pm
So it's not a red herring - I'm simply saying that you're hypothesizing something completely outside the realm of human experience, and thus, human knowledge.
I know that's the standard line but I'm not arguing supernatural detection. Only intelligence. To argue that the two are necessarily conflated is a theological argument.
Comment by Bradford — October 7, 2006 @ 5:10 pm
October 7th, 2006 at 5:13 pm
Comment by Bradford — October 7, 2006 @ 5:13 pm
October 7th, 2006 at 5:28 pm
If it's not natural - that is, observable in nature - it is super-natural (which means something other than natural). Such is the case for non-human intelligence - it's never been observed non-anecdotally.
The trouble is, I don't think you make this distinction. That's OK, I think that most IDers fail to make this observation. As I'm sure you know, one of Allen MacNeill's students wrote a very excellent piece this summer on this very phenomenon.
Yeah, I realize that the cell/molecular biologists' (mine) perspective in general tends to rile many IDers, which is a shame, but not surprising to me.
Comment by Daniel — October 7, 2006 @ 5:28 pm
October 7th, 2006 at 5:40 pm
Daniel,
Pounce? I forgot "“ no one is allowed to criticize Dawkins.
Yep, that's what I see.
Yep, that's what I see. BTW, how many random nucleotide sequences have been screened over the last decade in the search for this self-replicating molecule?
Solid, non-anecdotal research? Are you saying that anything less doesn't count?
Baloney. Look, there is nothing wrong with criticizing Dawkins. It's not like he is sacred, now is it?
Comment by MikeGene — October 7, 2006 @ 5:40 pm
October 7th, 2006 at 5:42 pm
So SETI should be re-named Search for the Supernatural?
Comment by MikeGene — October 7, 2006 @ 5:42 pm
October 7th, 2006 at 5:52 pm
Mike,
No, I'm not saying that you can't criticize Dawkins. I'm saying that taking quotes from Dawkins and using it to prop up conclusions that are not consistent with Dawkins is bogus. I'm also saying that anecdotal evidence (of the sort in the Old Testament, where prophets "saw" God) is bogus, which is what I'm ruling out.
Instead, if you want to argue that abiogenesis of the sort where chemical evolution may have given way to biological evolution via a gradual process, then come up with a viable alternative hypothesis that we can discuss. And no, I'm sorry, but a "Designer's" intervention is no more plausible than intervention by Zeus, Thor, or an advanced alien civilation (a la the Raelians).
Touche… but then again, SETI hasn't found any scientific evidence either. Maybe they will one day, but they haven't yet.
Comment by Daniel — October 7, 2006 @ 5:52 pm
October 7th, 2006 at 6:02 pm
Daniel,
You'll have to cite the specific example and demonstrate my wrong-doing. Otherwise, I'm not sure what your problem is.
In this case, bogus would be context-dependent. In other words, you can say that anecdotal evidence is insufficient to support a scientific claim, but clearly anecdotal evidence comes into play in many other arenas.
The alternative hypothesis will be explored in vol2 and 3 of The Design Matrix.
Yes, but are they searching for the supernatural?
Comment by MikeGene — October 7, 2006 @ 6:02 pm
October 7th, 2006 at 6:02 pm
If it's not natural - that is, observable in nature - it is super-natural (which means something other than natural).
Evidence for intelligence lies in the in our DNA. You do not have to observe an intelligent agent to observe the evidence left behind.
Comment by Bradford — October 7, 2006 @ 6:02 pm
October 7th, 2006 at 6:05 pm
Also, to follow-up on the bit about anecdotal evidence, I realize that you haven't brought that up, I did. I brought it up because I think that's all your telic filters are: anecdotal - just like Jonathan Wells pointing to the centrosome in cells and saying something to the effect of "a-ha!, it looks like a machine, thus it must've been designed." There is nothing resembling critical analysis in such conclusions, which rest purely on false analogies. That's the extent of evidence that teleology has, IMO.
But, as I realize that these thoughts will stir up what TP referred to as "cognitive dissonance" among the TT crew, so perhaps I should make this my parting shot before things get truly confrontational - this is your blog, afterall.
Comment by Daniel — October 7, 2006 @ 6:05 pm
October 7th, 2006 at 6:07 pm
Thank you for another fine example of dull, anecdotal evidence for telic intelligence.
Comment by Daniel — October 7, 2006 @ 6:07 pm
October 7th, 2006 at 6:32 pm
Daniel,
I have never argued, "a-ha!, it looks like a machine, thus it must've been designed."
So what data would you count as evidence for teleology? A video-tape of the designer? Something that evolution cannot possibly explain?
I have no plans on being "truly confrontational." And even if I did, I don't have the time. But you might want to consider how your argument looks to others. You have done little more than to express a faith that someday, somewhere, some scientists will reproduce abiogenesis or come up with something that resembles a theory. And there is nothing wrong with this. But why would you expect us to share in this faith?
Comment by MikeGene — October 7, 2006 @ 6:32 pm
October 7th, 2006 at 6:45 pm
You're welcome. Thanks in turn for your theological arguments against the possibility of telic intelligence. Citing qualities of a supreme being, in whose existence you do not believe, does not make convincing arguments.
Comment by Bradford — October 7, 2006 @ 6:45 pm
October 7th, 2006 at 9:27 pm
Daniel: "it's entirely plausible, if remarkable, that a chemical evolution process could have given rise to storage of information in a replicative molecule, such as in the RNA World"
On what basis is it plausible? Plausibility, or probability of any degree, can only be estimated based on past experience. What past experience with abiogenesis do you have? Merely imagining a thing (in this case, with huge gaps in the process) is not a rational basis for any judgement with regards to the probability of a thing occuring. I can imagine cows jumping over the moon. But it's irrelevant to the notion of it's plausibility.
Comment by kornbelt888 — October 7, 2006 @ 9:27 pm
October 7th, 2006 at 9:33 pm
"The chemical reactions for abiogenesis could be happening even today (near undersea thermal vents)."
This means nothing without an actual demonstrable chemical pathway.
Comment by kornbelt888 — October 7, 2006 @ 9:33 pm
October 7th, 2006 at 9:49 pm
Daniel: "I'm simply saying that you're hypothesizing something completely outside the realm of human experience, and thus, human knowledge."
Speak for yourself.
Comment by kornbelt888 — October 7, 2006 @ 9:49 pm
October 7th, 2006 at 9:53 pm
Daniel: "Mineral crystals and their formation is a self-assembled process that is dependent on physical and chemical structural information."
This process is empirically demonstrable. No leaps of imagination required to get from one state to the other.
Comment by kornbelt888 — October 7, 2006 @ 9:53 pm
October 8th, 2006 at 5:03 pm
[...] Dawkins on OOL. [...]
Pingback by Darwiniana » Dawkins on Origin of Life — October 8, 2006 @ 5:03 pm
October 9th, 2006 at 10:27 pm
Rock:
Actually, I wrote the above blog over a week ago when the Dawkins article was still available. It has since been taken down.
Comment by MikeGene — October 9, 2006 @ 10:27 pm
October 12th, 2006 at 1:13 pm
I have pointed out to Daniel previously why mindless-OOL will be not solved:
Perfect Architectures Which Scream Design
Comment by Salvador T. Cordova — October 12, 2006 @ 1:13 pm
October 12th, 2006 at 2:21 pm
Ok, ok, I'll return to address comments directed at me:
Sal,
Yes, you've mentioned it before, and you still ignore the fact that "but it looks designed" is purely anecdotal and superficial "evidence." If that's what constitutes convincing evidence to you, I have a 1970's BMW in my driveway that looks in great condition (but hasn't run in over 4 years) that I'd like to sell you.
Kornbelt:
Thanks for the personal incredulity - and I admit, I find Design (with an unspecified Designer or the Flying Spaghetti Monster), Biblical Creation, and Greek Mythological theories on the OOL to be equally (im)plausible. But evolution of complex chemistries has been shown in the lab, although we don't have much of a grasp on the vast possibilities out there, admittedly - it IS a tough question with a lot of possibilities.
And Mike:
Yes, something that the current paradigm cannot explain would be precisely what's required for a paradigm shift. I'm sure you've read Kuhns' Structure of Scientific Revolutions.
(1) you don't consider the RNA World hypothesis to be a reasonable start to such an explanation? (2) Faith? No… I'm just talking about plausible explanations, provided the cellular and molecular evidence that biology and chemistry has available to it. I assume that more evidence will be uncovered in the future (not a big assumption), and that the RNA World hypothesis will be revised in the future (also a reasonable assuption, I think). The biggest assumption, probably, is that the already well-demonstrated pattern of Descent With Modification in biology has some beginnings in the prebiotic world - with chemical and/or geological forces providing the template for organic chemistry to descend from it. This is the pattern that we HAVE observed in human and scientific experience regarding the history of the Earth: natural chemical, geological and biological processes have natural origins obeying laws and axioms that we can still observe today.
This is my point, so I'll repeat it and bold it:
This is the pattern that we HAVE observed in human and scientific experience regarding the history of the Earth: natural chemical, geological and biological processes have natural origins obeying laws and axioms that we can still observe today.
Which chem/geo/bio processes? That's the million-dollar question.
Comment by Daniel — October 12, 2006 @ 2:21 pm
October 12th, 2006 at 2:54 pm
As an afterthought, a question: why is it that arguments of personal plausibility are so prevalent here, absent of explanations of why, say, some of you find a design- or creation-centric view is more plausible than naturalistic views as I just stated (in bold) above?
I.e., I'm asking for reasons why extending Descent With Modification and observable laws of chem/geo/biology back in time isn't plausible? And conversely, why is replacing such principles with unobservable processes (design, creation, etc.) more plausible to some? I don't get it.
Comment by Daniel — October 12, 2006 @ 2:54 pm
October 12th, 2006 at 4:01 pm
In math an physics there are incompleteness and uncertainty principles. It's not a matter of personal plausibility of what can and can't be said, it's a matter of scientific law.
Heisenberg's uncertainty is inviolable (as far as we know). In similar fashion, there are uncertainty principles pertaining to OOL which an Trevors (who is an atheist, but not that it should matter), argued quite well. He demonstrated that :
1. there is an uncertainty principle in discovering OOL
2. uncertainty (equivalent to chance based arguments) can't solve OOL
3. physical laws can't solve OOL
It's not a matter of incredulity, it is a matter of proof by contradiction. There is a difference between the two styles of argumentation: "argument by incredulity" is not the same as "proof by contradiction". Anti-naturlistic arguments for OOL are "proofs by contradiction", it's basic information science if people are willing to follow first principles to their logical conclusion.
Comment by Salvador T. Cordova — October 12, 2006 @ 4:01 pm
October 12th, 2006 at 4:20 pm
Thanks for the personal incredulity - and I admit, I find Design (with an unspecified Designer or the Flying Spaghetti Monster), Biblical Creation, and Greek Mythological theories on the OOL to be equally (im)plausible.
You neglect to point out that most of the examples you cite are not argued based on empirical data. Abiogenesis is argued to be empirically based (at least theoretically although not in reality). The same facts you cite as support for your OOL belief of preference can be used against it.
But you might want to consider how your argument looks to others. You have done little more than to express a faith that someday, somewhere, some scientists will reproduce abiogenesis or come up with something that resembles a theory. And there is nothing wrong with this. But why would you expect us to share in this faith?
(1) you don't consider the RNA World hypothesis to be a reasonable start to such an explanation?
No. There is no evidence supporting the contention that nonsense nucleotide sequences evolve in the direction of functional genomic sequences or the biological structures they code for. Direction toward a cell is a minimal requirement for plausibility.
(2) Faith? No"¦ I'm just talking about plausible explanations, provided the cellular and molecular evidence that biology and chemistry has available to it.
The reason chemical evolution seems plausible to you is the same reason it appears plausible to others- only a purely naturalist view of natural history is palatable to you. If scientific evidence is there- fine if it is not you will claim it will be forthcoming and argue the delusion that conflates a scientific approach to a problem with favorable evidence.
Comment by Bradford — October 12, 2006 @ 4:20 pm
October 12th, 2006 at 5:12 pm
Bradford,
Naturalistic views of Natural History kinda go together?
Sal,
You don't really think that your ad hoc arguments on probability are actually valid for biology do you? Seriously, about that BMW, it looks brand new…
Comment by Daniel — October 12, 2006 @ 5:12 pm
October 12th, 2006 at 5:14 pm
Sorry, that was supposed to be "Naturalistic views of Natural History kinda go together, *don't they*?"
Comment by Daniel — October 12, 2006 @ 5:14 pm
October 12th, 2006 at 5:30 pm
Hi Daniel,
Let me clue you in on Bradford's definition of Abiogenesis…
"Abiogenesis is an attempt to explain the origin of life by excluding the possibility of intelligent direction as a causal explanation."
Edited to Add: I felt that was too subtle. What I was saying, I think you need to verify Bradford's definition of words like "Naturalistic". Here is my guess…
Naturalistic is an attempt to explain the nature by excluding the possibility of intelligent direction as a causal explanation.
Maybe Bradford will let us know if this is wrong.
Comment by Thought Provoker — October 12, 2006 @ 5:30 pm
October 12th, 2006 at 5:38 pm
Naturalistic views of Natural History kinda go together?
No they don't. Naturalism is a philosophical outlook that you have which makes empirical data superfluous. You have already determined the answers independently of data. That's why you think a truncated polymer of nonsense nucleotides would lead to a cell. Say natural selection and poof- like magic you have a "scientific" explanation.
Comment by Bradford — October 12, 2006 @ 5:38 pm
October 12th, 2006 at 5:45 pm
Very consistent with Daniel's declared views equating the belief that intelligence is a causal component to a genome having encoding properties with Greek mythology. He excludes intelligence outright. Expect the usual denials but some honesty would be refreshing.
Comment by Bradford — October 12, 2006 @ 5:45 pm
October 12th, 2006 at 5:53 pm
Hi Bradford,
Once again we are having interesting definitions. Let's give the dictionary another try, shall we?
nat·u·ral·ism n.
1. Factual or realistic representation, especially:
a. The practice of describing precisely the actual circumstances of human life in literature.
b. The practice of reproducing subjects as precisely as possible in the visual arts.
2.
a. A movement or school advocating such precise representation.
b. The principles and methods of such a movement or of its adherents.
3. Philosophy. The system of thought holding that all phenomena can be explained in terms of natural causes and laws.
4.Theology. The doctrine that all religious truths are derived from nature and natural causes and not from revelation.
5.Conduct or thought prompted by natural desires or instincts.
Comment by Thought Provoker — October 12, 2006 @ 5:53 pm
October 12th, 2006 at 6:09 pm
TP,
Thanks for helping to clue Bradford in - it's just so frustrating when trying to discuss things with people, like him, that do not know the actual meanings of the terms they're discussing… an understanding of etymology on both sides of a debate go a long way.
Comment by Daniel — October 12, 2006 @ 6:09 pm
October 12th, 2006 at 7:18 pm
Yup. Consistent with the way it was used and with Dan's beliefs. If the origin of life cannot be explained by reference to the above then just assume the absence of an explanation owes itself to insufficient information. IOW Dan, you hold a religious belief.
Comment by Bradford — October 12, 2006 @ 7:18 pm
October 12th, 2006 at 7:46 pm
LOL
No, genius, if the OOL cannot be explained naturalistically, then science cannot explain it (naturalism and science are rather synonomous). And that's fine: as we all know, science can't explain everything, and there's a limit to the degree that we understand the natural world. The point of the above definition, is that we "reality-based" thinkers assume that everything in the natural world can be explained by natural laws, regardless of whether we know what they are. This is just another way of phrasing my above point, which I'll quote again:
If you want to call that a religious belief, go ahead…
Comment by Daniel — October 12, 2006 @ 7:46 pm
October 12th, 2006 at 7:55 pm
And just for a second Bradford, let's consider the alternative to naturalism - that some things in nature can only be explained by violating the laws of nature - do you have any experience with this? Why is that even remotely a reasonable and reality-based view of the world?
Comment by Daniel — October 12, 2006 @ 7:55 pm
October 12th, 2006 at 7:59 pm
No pretender. Naturalism and science are not synonomous. Science involves the testing and evaluation of the natural but restricts itself to what testing data indicates. Naturalism is a philosophy, not bounded by empirical results. Your faith in abio is not based on sound scientific data. It is dictated by your philosophical predilection. The fact that you can't see that indicates your faith is blind.
Comment by Bradford — October 12, 2006 @ 7:59 pm
October 12th, 2006 at 8:02 pm
Precisely correct. And don't forget, that before they started calling people like me scientists over a hundred years ago, they called us "Natural Philosophers." And indeed, the degrees we scientists get today are "PhD's" (Doctors of Philosophy).
LOL
Comment by Daniel — October 12, 2006 @ 8:02 pm
October 12th, 2006 at 8:03 pm
?
This is not a problem. If empirical efforts do not yield a definitive result then that is the approriate explanation for the phenomenon. It is OK for one to indicate that scientific results do not tell us the answer. It is not OK to claim science supports a philosophical outlook when the data is not there.
Comment by Bradford — October 12, 2006 @ 8:03 pm
October 12th, 2006 at 8:05 pm
Geez, Bill, you clearly don't even know what the RNA World hypothesis is even about if you think that the RNAs are coding for any other biological structures. (Hint: the term "world" in the name should be sufficient to tip off a sharp person who was unfamiliar with it.)
Have you considered trying to understand the hypothesis before arrogantly proclaiming it to be reasonable, while demonstrating that you don't know the first thing about it?
Comment by Smokey — October 12, 2006 @ 8:05 pm
October 12th, 2006 at 8:09 pm
Bradford,
So to sum up your point of view, the philosophy that nature and reality has to obey the laws of nature is a religious belief system.
Yep, uh-huh, sure. LOL
Comment by Daniel — October 12, 2006 @ 8:09 pm
October 12th, 2006 at 8:11 pm
What's the matter Smoke? You want me to add that RNA has catalytic properties which are believed to make self-replication possible in a prebiotic soup? Do tell how this leads to a cell. Or if it does not then your point is?
Comment by Bradford — October 12, 2006 @ 8:11 pm
October 12th, 2006 at 8:12 pm
Cool. So I can go into my lab, do a sloppy experiment with no controls, and because it doesn't yield a definitive result, I can simply publish a paper saying that supernatural forces are the appropriate explanation for the phenomenon that I'm studying?
That would make my life so much easier. It reminds me of the famous saying, "Always do an experiment an odd number of times, but never more than twice." And I had always thought that it was meant as humor!
More seriously, are you claiming that there has been no progress, particularly on the basis of technological advances, in many fields in which initial empirical efforts didn't yield definitive results?
Comment by Smokey — October 12, 2006 @ 8:12 pm
October 12th, 2006 at 8:14 pm
You can do better than dumbing down and pretending not to be able to distinguish documented laws of nature from believed in results that are bereft of empirical support.
Comment by Bradford — October 12, 2006 @ 8:14 pm
October 12th, 2006 at 8:16 pm
Why can't you just say that results do not support hypothesis x; sloppy work or not. There, that's not so hard is it Smokey?
Comment by Bradford — October 12, 2006 @ 8:16 pm
October 12th, 2006 at 8:22 pm
No, self-replication is not the major point to which I was referring. Was I not clear in pointing out that your howler was thinking that the RNAs are coding for other biological structures?
Why not just admit that you are unfamiliar with the RNA World hypothesis, so that your rejection of it was pure arrogance, fueled by ignorance?
Why? It's not even remotely relevant to the major point that you missed by a mile.
That you don't know what you're talking about. The hint that I supplied went straight over your head.
Comment by Smokey — October 12, 2006 @ 8:22 pm
October 12th, 2006 at 8:29 pm
I can and do.
You, however, just claimed, "If empirical efforts do not yield a definitive result then that [violation of the laws of nature] is the approriate explanation for the phenomenon."
Are you backpedaling away from that now?
Comment by Smokey — October 12, 2006 @ 8:29 pm