Facts and Reason
by BradfordI enjoyed Tom Gilson's “Study: Learning science facts doesn’t boost science reasoning.” The blog title in quotes is the same (without quotes) as a EurekAlert article. Results of the cited study confirm what the commentaries of ID critics provide ample evidence for at Telic Thoughts. Scientific knowledge does not confer enhanced capacity to reason scientifically. More on this at the end of this blog entry. Quoting from the EurekAlert article:
Lei Bao, associate professor of physics at Ohio State University and lead author of the study, said that the finding defies conventional wisdom, which holds that teaching science facts will improve students' reasoning ability.
"Our study shows that, contrary to what many people would expect, even when students are rigorously taught the facts, they don't necessarily develop the reasoning skills they need to succeed," Bao said. "Because students need both knowledge and reasoning, we need to explore teaching methods that target both."
The finding does not surprise me as knowledge and the ability to reason are distinct.
Quoting Gilson:
The danger, in other words, is that this finding might actually apply to evolutionary studies. Maybe just teaching fact, Fact, FACT! isn’t necessarily the best thing for science students. And to question teachers? My daughter sat through six weeks of evolution studies last year and was never allowed to ask a question. (We have discussed this with the principal, and confirmed that this was the case.)
But an unquestioning, unchallenged, party-line approach to teaching evolution is supposed to save America’s science future from going down the tubes. That’s the line from the NCSE. Does NCSE really stand for National Center for Science Education?
My son had an unfortunate experience in an introductory course on biology. One of his professor's lectures included a digression about intelligent design. The prof described IDists in words usually reserved by ID critics for Michael Egnor and other prominent IDists. As far as we know the professor's personal knowledge of particular individuals extended no further than what he could gather on his computer screen. But that was enough for him to engage in character assasination in front of his impressionable students. My son was unimpressed and ended up majoring in math.
Let's look at some recent examples of the reasoning abilities of some ID critics right here at Telic Thoughts.
One critic argued the following:
A non-intelligent origin of life paradigm is plausible because we know that mathematics indicates that simple dynamical sytems can give rise to complex systems and we also know that self-replicating molecules exist. Nice facts. A clever IDist pointed out ommited information which bears on the reasoning that cells arose based on these facts. Quoting Paul Davies:
"[W]ithout a trained organic chemist on hand to supervise, nature would be struggling to make RNA from a dilute soup under any plausible prebiotic conditions. So, although an RNA world could conceivably function and evolve towards life if handed to us on a plate…getting the RNA world going from a crude chemical mixture is another matter entirely.” (The 5th Miracle, p131)
On more than one occasion during the comments about Egnor's piece, critics provided some very nice facts about emergence. Some asserted emergence as explaining the properties of the mind. They emerged from neural cells. Assertions and facts. What's missing? The reasoning able to decipher the details of emergence with respect to the issue at hand.
And science is about testing right? Another fact ID critics love to belabor. This can lead to pertinent objective data right? So can we reason that a discipline, engaged in testing for x which would reinforce conclusion y, affords any credibility for y in the absence of a test result showing x?
February 2nd, 2009 at 11:52 pm
Bradford,
I find much to agree with in your post. (Surprise, surprise!) It's unprofessional to waste your students' time talking about ID, which at this point has nothing to add to biology.
A small quibble: no one here suggests that emergence of the mind from the low-level functioning of the brain has been established.
Comment by olegt — February 2, 2009 @ 11:52 pm
February 3rd, 2009 at 12:44 am
I'm surprised anyone anywhere expected learning names, dates, and formulas to increase reasoning. Recall and reasoning are unrelated mental abilities.
What school teaches evolution for six weeks? That's more than I got in my entire school career.
News flash, no one participating in this forum is engaged in 'science' while posting here. Unlike ID supporters we apply science where science belongs and use philosophy where philosophy belongs. And just because I support empiricism doesn't mean I whip out a photometer before saying "the sky is blue."
Comment by Todd Berkebile — February 3, 2009 @ 12:44 am
February 3rd, 2009 at 5:15 am
Bradford approvingly quotes Davies:
So contrary to your usual claims, you agree then with Davies that it's plausible that life evolves once an RNA worlds is in place? That would be evidence of some progress in your scientific reasoning. Or do you only agree with those cherry picked statements of Davies that fit your preconceived notions (i.e. the first part of the quote)?
Comment by Raevmo — February 3, 2009 @ 5:15 am
February 3rd, 2009 at 9:31 am
A chemist doesn't "supervise" a reaction. All you can do is set up reactants and let interatomic forces minimize their potential energy
Discussion of recent research:
How does this differ from "God of the gaps"? Unless you can do as the biochemists do, and show us some actual process that the Designer uses to implement the design.
Comment by John Wendt — February 3, 2009 @ 9:31 am
February 3rd, 2009 at 9:38 am
Raevmo:
I agree with results showing no evolution of RNA to cells. I also agree with theory in that some natural selection dynamics would need to come into play. None are evident.
Comment by Bradford — February 3, 2009 @ 9:38 am
February 3rd, 2009 at 9:40 am
What gaps exist in your mind John? Looks like you've already filled them.
Comment by Bradford — February 3, 2009 @ 9:40 am
February 3rd, 2009 at 9:56 am
They seem to be getting smaller. Does Davies have a suggestion for filling the gaps that remain?
Biochemists see gaps in an explanatory framework and try to fill them with chemistry, because that's the only thing they can get their hands on. If the chemistry doesn't fit into the gaps, they try different chemistry.
Sometimes they discover that the gaps aren't what they thought. Science often surprises us. Have "Intelligent Design" theorists ever come up with anything surprising? Have they ever found that "God did it" was an incomplete explanation, so they had to come up with something better?
Comment by John Wendt — February 3, 2009 @ 9:56 am
February 3rd, 2009 at 10:09 am
JW:
They are not getting smaller. That's a cliche. What time has shown is that our conceptualization of cells has always erred on the belief that they would be simpler than increasing knowledge has shown them to be. The idea that RNA self-replicates itself to a proto-cell is primitive. Davies does have some good ideas. I have not read most of his books and articles but he is ideologically pure in that he distances himself from ID.
Not a problem but the gapping nonsense will not stop me and others from pointing out the truth of the current state of affairs.
Comment by Bradford — February 3, 2009 @ 10:09 am
February 3rd, 2009 at 10:39 am
If your purpose is just to show that current evolutionary explanations are incomplete, what's the big deal? That's what drives research. The gap between relatively simple chemicals and RNA does seem to be getting smaller, though there is always the possibility that new snags will turn up.
Given that you can't say anything about processes other than chemistry, what does "Intelligent Design" have to offer that will help make current explanations better?
Comment by John Wendt — February 3, 2009 @ 10:39 am
February 3rd, 2009 at 11:05 am
Stipulate that RNA exists in a primordial pond. So what? What does nature select for if RNA is self-replicating?
Better is subjective. If chemical options are the ones on the table so be it. I'll continue to critique implausible scenarios that are vigorously defended for reasons that have little to do with concern for science.
Comment by Bradford — February 3, 2009 @ 11:05 am
February 3rd, 2009 at 11:35 am
Thanks for the link again, Bradford.
John Wendt,
Of course. I hope you realize what you're asking about, the question is far too easy, really. The entire first several centuries of Western science were founded on men (mostly) who were convinced that God did it, but who wanted a more complete explanation, and searched for something more descriptive. And so it continues in ID research, and so it continues among many, many other scientists who are theists.
Comment by TomG — February 3, 2009 @ 11:35 am
February 3rd, 2009 at 1:23 pm
Resources, including energetic molecules and acquired sequences. Those which were better at this would tend to predominate over time. Most research indicates that there would have to be some sort of segregation, e.g. membrane. Primodial populations would probably be highly diverse, and may not even constitute well-defined individuals, exchanging material freely.
Comment by Zachriel — February 3, 2009 @ 1:23 pm
February 3rd, 2009 at 3:50 pm
Actually, this is what scientists select for when artificially producing these RNA's in strictly designed laboratories under artificially high concentrations.
In primordial ponds, nature tends to select RNA for extinction in favor of other more robust molecules.
Bradford, one additional problem with teaching facts over reason is that many will try to teach only the facts that agree with their worldview and omit facts that present obstacles.
Comment by chunkdz — February 3, 2009 @ 3:50 pm
February 3rd, 2009 at 5:03 pm
Todd B. said:
To get out of high school a semester's worth of biology is required. It, like all other science, history, social studies, language, math and whatever other courses are required, is "taught to the test." Teaching to the test requires instilling the rote concepts as isolated facts in order to train the kids to perform in a system where there is only correct and incorrect. No shades of gray.
Science teaching is not like science practice. Only about 2% of the students go on to be any kind of scientist, engineer or technician, and they take it further because they're interested and motivated and can afford to pursue it further. Everybody else is stuck with the factoids they memorized for the test and/or the general gist of what science does and what it thinks it knows right now about the way things are. Most will forget almost all of it well before middle age, don't care enough to keep up or really try to understand it, will believe what they choose about it. And about God/gods, healing crystals, astrology, conspiracies, politics, the weather, and sports.
The kids aren't in school to learn critical thinking skills. They're there to be indoctrinated into the world as we define it, acquire the rudimentary skills necessary to live in it, and be productive worker/consumers who don't cause trouble or complain too much.
Science is happy with this mission of public education. It allows for current dogma (whatever the current dogma is) to be drilled into the impressionable brains of young humans as the biological part and parcel of "the way things are" in today's world. Sure, the rote factoids and test questions will be different when the next Big Theory comes along, but you simply can't have the anarchy of critical thinking and alternative interpretations in a high school classroom. There's no time for it, and you might not like what the kids are thinking or asking questions about. They just have to memorize the parts that produce the 'correct' answer on the test, so the teachers can get paid and the school doesn't lose funding. And hopefully doesn't get sued for deviating from the dogma or honestly answering a student's question.
Comment by Joy — February 3, 2009 @ 5:03 pm
February 3rd, 2009 at 5:10 pm
dp:
Your straw men are getting tiresome. Noone has made that claim. That's why you comment is holed. I don't have time for these games.
Comment by Bradford — February 3, 2009 @ 5:10 pm
February 3rd, 2009 at 5:20 pm
Joy:
If you study science or maths at the university level, it's almost as if high school science/maths was a colossal waste of time, since you start all over again. No knowledge of science/maths is assumed. In maths you start from scratch with the construction of real numbers and the field axioms etc. Same with physics, chemistry and biology. At least where I live, it feels as if high school is just a way to (1) keep you off the street, (2) give you an opportunity to make new friends, (3) give you a little taste of different subjects so you can develop a preference, (4) select the brightest. After that, it's back to square one.
Comment by Raevmo — February 3, 2009 @ 5:20 pm
February 3rd, 2009 at 5:23 pm
chunkdz:
It's true. Or worse: they fabricate "facts". Witness the Creation Museum.
Comment by Raevmo — February 3, 2009 @ 5:23 pm
February 3rd, 2009 at 5:49 pm
Raevmo,
Yeah, the exhibit on Piltdown Man is a good example.
Comment by chunkdz — February 3, 2009 @ 5:49 pm
February 3rd, 2009 at 6:08 pm
chunk:
What facts does that exhibit fabricate? No, I was thinking more of the exhibit where people are riding saddled dinosaurs.
Comment by Raevmo — February 3, 2009 @ 6:08 pm
February 3rd, 2009 at 6:19 pm
Raevmo:
Wasn't Piltdown a fraud presented to support facts?
Yeah, I saw that episode on the Flintstones.
Comment by Bradford — February 3, 2009 @ 6:19 pm
February 3rd, 2009 at 6:33 pm
Raevmo,
You mean like this dinosaur?
Comment by chunkdz — February 3, 2009 @ 6:33 pm
February 3rd, 2009 at 6:39 pm
Do you want to understand why people use the term "emergence" or don't you? I told you why. If people using "emergence" in that way are doing so because they miss some subtlety of the ID argument, that's another matter. It's definitely not because they see "emergence" as an explanation, and I find that strawman equally tiring.
Comment by don provan — February 3, 2009 @ 6:39 pm
February 3rd, 2009 at 6:54 pm
dp:
So critics are using a non-explanation to explain something. Sounds like a self-caricature.
Comment by Bradford — February 3, 2009 @ 6:54 pm
February 3rd, 2009 at 7:28 pm
OK, keep to your strawman if you're not interesting in making any progress. The explanation is physical processes.
Comment by don provan — February 3, 2009 @ 7:28 pm
February 3rd, 2009 at 7:31 pm
And your point is that physical processes can provide evidence of design?
Comment by Bradford — February 3, 2009 @ 7:31 pm
February 3rd, 2009 at 7:44 pm
Let's see if Bradford is truly interested in making progress. Bradford, do you agree that the information kindly provided by John Wendt increases the plausibility that an RNA world evolved from the Ursuppe, yes or no?
Comment by Raevmo — February 3, 2009 @ 7:44 pm
February 3rd, 2009 at 7:54 pm
Raevmo:
I see that you measure progress by how much I agree with your position. JW's point makes it more plausible to believe that a replicator might arise. The main thrust of my criticism has been consistent over time i.e. that there are theoretical and empirical weaknesses to the SRM model. I consider the theoretical problems more significant at this point. Natural selection is presumed and the case for it is exceedingly weak. Long term replication of an SRM is fraught with problems and, as chunkdz already indicated, selection in a primordial pond would likely favor more robust reactions. There are numerous other problems though. JW may have inched forward his position but in a cross country race, spanning the two U.S. coasts, a few inches would not matter much.
Comment by Bradford — February 3, 2009 @ 7:54 pm
February 3rd, 2009 at 8:01 pm
My point is that people use "emergence" to respond to people that say physical processes are insufficient to explain the mind.
I don't recall "emergence" being used in the context of "evidence of design".
Comment by don provan — February 3, 2009 @ 8:01 pm
February 3rd, 2009 at 8:05 pm
Bradford,
I consider that an honest response. Thanks.
Perhaps you like to think so, but in fact it's easy to see that RNA replicators can evolve by natural selection since they meet the requirements: variation in replication rate and replication fidelity caused by variation in the sequences of RNA bases. That's enough. Or am I missing something?
Comment by Raevmo — February 3, 2009 @ 8:05 pm
February 3rd, 2009 at 8:13 pm
You previously wrote:
So since critics do not see emergence as an explanation (because emergence in this context is undeveloped) then why use it to respond to insufficiency claims? Do you think a possible future explanation, hinging on unknowns, is a good response? This is what Egnor meant by materialism in the gaps. The answers are predetermined with only the considerable details left unknown in the minds of materialists. Not very scientific is it?
Comment by Bradford — February 3, 2009 @ 8:13 pm
February 3rd, 2009 at 8:17 pm
Selection will always reject a reaction that doesn't replicate, no matter how robust. That suggests we're talking about a robust reaction that does replicate. Why is that a problem?
Comment by don provan — February 3, 2009 @ 8:17 pm
February 3rd, 2009 at 8:20 pm
You're missing the rest of the story. As I mentioned before, stipulate the appearance of RNA in a primordial pond. Besides the chunkdz point there is the matter of accounting for what is selected in the presumed sustained, self-replicating series of reactions. Why would you expect RNA, having varieties of enzymatic properties of utility within cells, to predominate in populations?
Comment by Bradford — February 3, 2009 @ 8:20 pm
February 3rd, 2009 at 8:25 pm
Selection may reject a reaction that does in the midst of a pond with many competing and at times inhibitory side reactions.
This is wearing blinders and seeing only that which you wish to see. Short circuiting an SRM reaction may take an SRM outcome out of the mix entirely in this pond.
Comment by Bradford — February 3, 2009 @ 8:25 pm
February 3rd, 2009 at 8:41 pm
Obviously such a reaction wouldn't be selected. Lots of reactions won't be selected. Still not seeing any problem beyond "it's hard". Since we don't actually have any clue what the reaction might be or what reactions it might be competing with, I don't see any reason to think it's too hard.
Comment by don provan — February 3, 2009 @ 8:41 pm
February 3rd, 2009 at 8:42 pm
Bradford:
I wouldn't expect that. I would expect that before RNA enters the cellular phase the most efficient replicators dominate. Once some RNA gets encapsulated by fatty acid membranes, different properties of RNA might have a selective advantage.
In response to Don:
Yes, and short-circuiting cellular replication might take cells out of the mix. Short-circuiting human replication might take humans out of the mix. What do you think this argument proves?
Comment by Raevmo — February 3, 2009 @ 8:42 pm
February 3rd, 2009 at 9:34 pm
dp:
If it were that easy someone would have already claimed a Nobel prize for work which validates your idea.
Comment by Bradford — February 3, 2009 @ 9:34 pm
February 3rd, 2009 at 9:39 pm
That already existing species can tolerate a percentage of death among their offspring. Survivors have existing robust reproductive capabilities and built-in genomic repair features which would be absent on the putative pond.
Comment by Bradford — February 3, 2009 @ 9:39 pm
February 3rd, 2009 at 9:41 pm
Huh? Are you suggesting anything hard enough that we don't already know it can't possibly be correct?
Comment by Todd Berkebile — February 3, 2009 @ 9:41 pm
February 3rd, 2009 at 9:44 pm
What makes you think a pond full of self replicating chemicals cannot tolerate a high percentage of death among their offspring? After all, if the replicator 'breaks' it has still left behind most of the component parts needed to form another replicator. If the replicator could form in the first place it would be even more likely to re-form after converting some of the pond into replicator parts.
Comment by Todd Berkebile — February 3, 2009 @ 9:44 pm
February 3rd, 2009 at 10:24 pm
Todd takes his turn in the batting cage:
The first thing you need to note is that the idea of a pond full of SRMs is a fanciful one at this time. These "genones" are unprotected from their environment by any cellular membrane. They lack homeostasis capabilities found in cells and lack the capacity to synthesize nucleotides. They are at the mercy of their environment.
Why would a split RNA molecule go on to form another self-replicator? The length and sequence identity of the SRM is relevant to its capabilites. But this just emphasizes the point I made before about detection and repair functions which protect cellular genomes but would be unavailable in our imaginary pond.
Comment by Bradford — February 3, 2009 @ 10:24 pm
February 3rd, 2009 at 11:35 pm
I don't know of any convention that holds that teaching facts improve students' reasoning ability. In math, I have encountered teachers who believe rot memorization and tedious drills improves math skills, but I find this most often in math teachers who themselves aren't that bright, and had trouble picking up math.
Comment by William Wallace — February 3, 2009 @ 11:35 pm
February 3rd, 2009 at 11:57 pm
?
What pond?
Yeh and IF the Carndinals would have stopped the Steelers at the Steelers 10 yard line they would have won the Superbowl. And IF I would have shorted the SP 500 at 1550 I would be rich ,and IF blah, and IF blah blah, etc, etc.
Handwaving at its finest.
Vivid
Comment by Vividbleau — February 3, 2009 @ 11:57 pm
February 4th, 2009 at 12:19 am
Sure, this is why I updated your 'percentage of death' to a 'high percentage of death.' What survival rate do you think would be required? One in ten? Or one in a million?
Are you expecting a jump from nothing to self-replicating RNA world? Do you expect a system that only involves a single step with homogenous components? Or would a multi-step process that can generate progressively more complex molecules be more likely? Clearly this is all just speculating, but it seems reasonable that a process that in failing still leaves large complex molecules lying around would certainly leave you further along the complexity curve than ground zero. Without proposing a specific mechanism its hard to guess how the parts might interact pr how complicated of a system might be required.
Comment by Todd Berkebile — February 4, 2009 @ 12:19 am
February 4th, 2009 at 12:30 am
Ask Bradford, he introduced that metaphor to the discussion.
Comment by Todd Berkebile — February 4, 2009 @ 12:30 am
February 4th, 2009 at 9:01 am
That wasn't Bradford's question. He presupposed existing replicators and asked about selection. Scientists who work in the field believe that segregating membranes would allow reproduction to proceed (as it does in extant life), but it is still an open question.
You stipulated existing replicators and asked about selection. "Stipulate that RNA exists in a primordial pond. So what? What does nature select for if RNA is self-replicating?"
Yes, life is fragile. Life can only exist within a narrow range of parameters. And even then, the vast majority of lineages have long ago gone extinct.
It would be helpful if you acknowledge the answer to your previous query before proceeding to a new argument.
Comment by Zachriel — February 4, 2009 @ 9:01 am
February 4th, 2009 at 11:16 am
Zachriel,
I'm aware of what Bradford said. The answer is that RNA is selected for extinction every time.
Scientists who work in the field already know that they can segregate and amplify desirable populations. In the lab, they call this "design".
In primordial ponds, rapid extinction is the rule – even when lipid bubbles are present.
Comment by chunkdz — February 4, 2009 @ 11:16 am
February 4th, 2009 at 11:32 am
You seem to be an expert on these primordial ponds, can you describe the various chemistries that were present in these ponds? You are certain that self replicating molecules are inconceivable so you must know a lot about the contents of these ponds, the competing chemistries, etc.
Comment by Todd Berkebile — February 4, 2009 @ 11:32 am
February 4th, 2009 at 2:13 pm
We're talking about how hard it would be for a replicator to arise. It may well be too hard for a potential Nobel Prize winner to discover while not being too hard to happen. For all we know, it's not even that hard to happen even though no one's thought of how yet.
Neither feature is required in the initial replicator.
Only if replication is less robust than other processes. Without knowing the environment and the nature of the replication, that we can't judge.
I assume everyone's aware that we are, of course, speaking of an exception to that rule.
Comment by don provan — February 4, 2009 @ 2:13 pm
February 4th, 2009 at 2:20 pm
Todd,
Inconceivable? On the contrary, many scenarios have been imagined.
I suppose it is fun to imagine that once upon a time a bolt of lightning struck a pond and produced gobs of amino acids which formed nucleotides under a reducing atmosphere. Then, as the pond shrunk, the nucleotides rode on a clay surfboard into it's protective fatty bubble. There, bathed in the polarized light of a mysterious supernova, they began to form into a homochiral chain with a sugary sweet coating. As luck would have it, this sugary phosphate chain grew and grew and grew into an auto-catalytic molecule (after defeating the evil Dr. Deamination and Horrible Mr. Hydrolysis) Then it had lots of babies and became a huge family who eventually learned how to makeproteinsandusethemtobuildtheirownminiatureindustrialcomplexesandtheylivedhappilyeveraftertheend.
It's fun. It's a fairytale which, like sugerplum fairies, is never seen yet is strangely comforting to puerile minds.
More accurately, it's a Rube Goldberg machine of stupendous proportions. Have fun with your imaginings, but please don't expect anyone to actually believe in your stories. In a thread about facts and reason, it is fair to point out that the RNA world is neither a fact, nor reasonable.
Meanwhile, designers in design labs all over the world are designing RNA's, TNA's, PNA's, DNA's, and every other kind of NA you want. You don't have to just imagine them either. You could actually go see it happen.
Comment by chunkdz — February 4, 2009 @ 2:20 pm
February 4th, 2009 at 2:33 pm
Don Provan,
Yes. The one known exception is design.
Comment by chunkdz — February 4, 2009 @ 2:33 pm
February 4th, 2009 at 3:34 pm
Selection in biology is defined as differential reproductive success due to heritable variations.
We know that life is based on chemistry, that life evolved from more primitive organisms, that RNA can form replicators, and that random sequences can have biological function, including autocatalysis. We also have evidence that primordial chemistry may explain the existence of both nucleotides and lipid membranes.
Handwaving. Significant scientific work is taking place in the field of abiogenesis.
RNA World is a reasonable hypothesis based on scientific evidence, but is certainly not a complete theoretical description.
Comment by Zachriel — February 4, 2009 @ 3:34 pm
February 4th, 2009 at 3:48 pm
Sorry, intelligent design isn't known any more than any other explanation. In addition, an intelligent designer isn't known, but natural processes are.
Comment by don provan — February 4, 2009 @ 3:48 pm
February 4th, 2009 at 3:51 pm
Ok, so inconceivable isn't the right word then. You find these scenarios implausible, then? You are certain that naturally arising self replicating molecules are implausible so you must know a lot about the contents of these ponds, the competing chemistries, etc.
What's even more fun is crafting testable hypothesizes as a result of this speculation and then testing the feasibility of each hypothesis. The cop out would be to say, "an unknown designer using unknown methods might have poofed life into existence." You can feel free to call natural biogenesis theories fairytales since none of them have been strongly supported yet, more power to you. At least these 'fairy tales' directly point to avenues of research that are expanding our understanding of biology whereas your favorite fairy tale doesn't provide us any knowledge or insight.
Comment by Todd Berkebile — February 4, 2009 @ 3:51 pm
February 4th, 2009 at 3:53 pm
How is different than intelligent design?
Comment by don provan — February 4, 2009 @ 3:53 pm
February 4th, 2009 at 4:27 pm
Zachriel:
It's a hypothesis or an idea? If a hypothesis how is it falsified?
Comment by Bradford — February 4, 2009 @ 4:27 pm
February 4th, 2009 at 4:57 pm
Zachriel,
Any reasonable hypothesis would be falsifiable. How would you propose we falsify this hypothesis?
Edit:Oops – should have refreshed before I responded. Bradford already picked up on Zach's mistake.
Comment by chunkdz — February 4, 2009 @ 4:57 pm
February 4th, 2009 at 5:00 pm
Todd,
Stop telling me what I'm certain of. Is this your idea of a logical argument?
Comment by chunkdz — February 4, 2009 @ 5:00 pm
February 4th, 2009 at 5:04 pm
Provan,
Intelligent design of RNA's has been observed, abiogenesis hasn't.
Comment by chunkdz — February 4, 2009 @ 5:04 pm
February 4th, 2009 at 5:24 pm
Wow, that changes everything. Tell me more.
Unless, of course, you're speaking of some human activity, which would obviously be irrelevant.
Comment by don provan — February 4, 2009 @ 5:24 pm
February 4th, 2009 at 5:28 pm
Provan,
Yes, it would be irrelevant to a closed mind. Better that you stick to your fairytales about supernovas and fatty bubbles.
Comment by chunkdz — February 4, 2009 @ 5:28 pm
February 4th, 2009 at 5:33 pm
But of course. No inductive reasoning allowed where advanced intelligence is concerned. It was human intelligence after all and we can infer nothing as a result of that fact.
Comment by Bradford — February 4, 2009 @ 5:33 pm
February 4th, 2009 at 6:08 pm
chunkdz:
Interesting argument. Can we generalize it? If humans can produce substance X, and we have never seen creation of X unassisted by humans, then the probability that a natural process can give rise to X is given by [insert correct mathematical formula]. Or maybe easier: is bounded above by [insert correct upper bound << 1]. Chunk, help us out here.
Comment by Raevmo — February 4, 2009 @ 6:08 pm
February 4th, 2009 at 6:12 pm
Raevmo,
It's not an argument.
Comment by chunkdz — February 4, 2009 @ 6:12 pm
February 4th, 2009 at 6:21 pm
chunk:
OK, then let's call it an observation in support of an argument. Perhaps you can explain how your supporting observation increases the likelihood that X cannot be generated by a natural process.
Comment by Raevmo — February 4, 2009 @ 6:21 pm
February 4th, 2009 at 6:45 pm
Raevmo,
When did I ever argue that something cannot be generated by a natural process?
I said the RNA World, and it's various iterations, is a fairytale, or perhaps the most stupendously idiotic Rube Goldberg machine ever conceived.
Comment by chunkdz — February 4, 2009 @ 6:45 pm
February 4th, 2009 at 6:49 pm
chunk:
You should publish your sophisticated analysis. It could be the first peer-reviewed ID paper.
Comment by Raevmo — February 4, 2009 @ 6:49 pm
February 4th, 2009 at 6:50 pm
I'm the one that says we don't know, so I don't believe in any fairytales. But as fairytales go, the one that starts "an intelligent designer that we have no evidence for…" seems slightly more like wishful thinking than the one that starts "the same physical processes were at work that we see at work today."
Anyway, feel free to actually backup your claim and explain why it is relevant.
Comment by don provan — February 4, 2009 @ 6:50 pm
February 4th, 2009 at 7:00 pm
Which of course noone is claiming. To the contrary, IDists often argue the reverse and contend that anthropic considerations and finely tuned constansts are suggestive of a designer. So what do you derive from peddling falsehoods? It's not as if you have not encountered the arguments I mentioned so do you need attention? Is that why you peddle false caricatures?
Comment by Bradford — February 4, 2009 @ 7:00 pm
February 4th, 2009 at 7:02 pm
Provan,
Exactly. Deamination and hydrolysis are not some new phenomenon. We assume they would have had a similar destructive effect on RNA 4 billion years ago.
But be my guest if you want to believe that polka dots and moonbeams came to the rescue.
Comment by chunkdz — February 4, 2009 @ 7:02 pm
February 4th, 2009 at 7:04 pm
A good source for peer reviewed analysis of fundamental problems with OOL theories is in papers themselves which focus on the issue. Researchers are called on to be objective. Commenters at ID blogs obviously are not constrained by a need for objectivity.
Comment by Bradford — February 4, 2009 @ 7:04 pm
February 4th, 2009 at 7:07 pm
chunkdz:
The difference being that 4 billion years ago there were no mechanisms in place designed to prevent genomic deterioration.
Comment by Bradford — February 4, 2009 @ 7:07 pm
February 4th, 2009 at 7:11 pm
Bradford:
The standard ID argument is that evolution by natural selection is incapable of producing complex adaptations. Having been shown the folly of their ways, many have retreated and assert that the physical constants are "finely tuned" as if there were some Intelligent Tuner of Physical Constants.
Comment by Raevmo — February 4, 2009 @ 7:11 pm
February 4th, 2009 at 7:13 pm
chunk:
So you disagree with Davies that life could have evolved once the RNA world was introduced with the help of an organic chemist?
Comment by Raevmo — February 4, 2009 @ 7:13 pm
February 4th, 2009 at 7:16 pm
More misinformation. Anthropic arguments go back many years and many of those supporting the cosmological arguments presented at TT are TTers and ID friendly commenters who support the concepts you mentioned except perhaps at an origins level where the scientific evidence for selected change is exceedingly weak.
Comment by Bradford — February 4, 2009 @ 7:16 pm
February 4th, 2009 at 7:30 pm
Wow, sorry, I didn't realize that trying to parse the words you type into this forum was offensive.
Comment by Todd Berkebile — February 4, 2009 @ 7:30 pm
February 4th, 2009 at 7:35 pm
Bradford:
Let's be honest, Bradford. You claim that abiogenesis is impossible so OOL requires intervention by Mr Designer, but at the same time you say that physical constants were fine tuned so life could originate. Why weren't the constants fine tuned to the extent that life would originate without subsequent intervention? It strikes me as a bit inconsistent, but I might be wrong.
Comment by Raevmo — February 4, 2009 @ 7:35 pm
February 4th, 2009 at 7:49 pm
Raevmo,
I'm not familiar with this.
Comment by chunkdz — February 4, 2009 @ 7:49 pm
February 4th, 2009 at 7:50 pm
Or intelligent designers?
Comment by don provan — February 4, 2009 @ 7:50 pm
February 4th, 2009 at 7:51 pm
Todd,
Putting words in someone's mouth is "parsing"?
Comment by chunkdz — February 4, 2009 @ 7:51 pm
February 4th, 2009 at 8:04 pm
Provan,
Yes, you are free to believe this too.
Comment by chunkdz — February 4, 2009 @ 8:04 pm
February 4th, 2009 at 8:25 pm
You're a bit off on the fine tuning argument. That argument does not necessarily indicate that the values of the constants made life inevitable. But they certainly make it possible for a universe that provides conditions hospitable to life on one planet and presumably on others as well. Nurturing conditions need not be conflated with deterministic causal scenarios.
Comment by Bradford — February 4, 2009 @ 8:25 pm
February 4th, 2009 at 8:28 pm
As you know, a hypothesis is a tentative assumption made in order to draw out and test its logical or empirical consequences. Many specific hypotheses have already been tested. Falsification of RNA World could come from a more detailed understanding of the origin of life, and RNA World has already been modified in the light of these new discoveries. There is little doubt that RNA World is substantially incomplete, but in a sense, RNA World still exists in modern cells.
As RNA can be shown to be capable of self-replication, that doesn't seem to a serious objection.
The natural formation of ribonucleic acids is quite feasible, as shown by Sutherland's group at the University of Manchester.
Comment by Zachriel — February 4, 2009 @ 8:28 pm
February 4th, 2009 at 8:31 pm
Raevmo:
I hope you don’t mind my jumping in
I would say that this is probably what happened, sort of the way that internal combustion takes place with out further intervention by the auto designer. in a well designed motor no one expects internal combustion to occur spontaneously.
It only occurs only where and when it’s supposed to.
peace
Comment by fifth monarchy man — February 4, 2009 @ 8:31 pm
February 4th, 2009 at 8:34 pm
I beg to differ. As I pointed out before the self-replication of RNA in an extra-cellular environment differs significantly from the replication of cells we are able to observe. You're pointing to a scenario that has no counterpart in nature and assuming the same outcome. At the very least this matter should be subject to resolution by testing rather than by proclamation.
Comment by Bradford — February 4, 2009 @ 8:34 pm
February 4th, 2009 at 8:39 pm
fmm:
Whether conditions established at the outset enabled abiogenesis or merely provided nuturing conditions for a subsequently designed organism, we have a trail of causal events consistent with design. One could be described a a strong design case and the other more indirect and weaker but both are design paradigms nonetheless.
Comment by Bradford — February 4, 2009 @ 8:39 pm
February 4th, 2009 at 8:50 pm
Self-replicating RNA demonstrates that repair mechanisms are not required to sustain the process.
That's what Lincoln and Joyce did. They tested the hypothesis that RNA is capable of self-replication as a facet of RNA World. Self-Sustained Replication of an RNA Enzyme, Science 2009.
Comment by Zachriel — February 4, 2009 @ 8:50 pm
February 4th, 2009 at 8:50 pm
Bradford:
No? Well, if the argument is that the values make life merely possible, then duh. We already know that, don't we?
Does it make sense to believe that Mr Designer created a universe which is just short of allowing life to develop spontaneously, but which needs a little extra divine push 10 billion years after creation? Not exactly a very elegant Designer.
Comment by Raevmo — February 4, 2009 @ 8:50 pm
February 4th, 2009 at 8:56 pm
fmm
Of course I don't mind.
When you buy a car, you don't expect to need the car designer to start your car when you want to take it for a drive.
Comment by Raevmo — February 4, 2009 @ 8:56 pm
February 4th, 2009 at 9:00 pm
Bradford:
Every trail of causal events is consistent with design. Therefore you need to show how and when the design and its implementation occurred in order to convince a reasonable person. So far, you have failed miserably.
Comment by Raevmo — February 4, 2009 @ 9:00 pm
February 4th, 2009 at 9:06 pm
I’m just thinking out loud here
Bradford:
I believe that the case can be strong in both instances.
Returning to the internal combustion analogy an alien could claim that the where and when coincidence of internal combustion is strong evidence for design of an engine.
This is despite the fact that nothing prohibits explosions occuring that are not designed (although not especially likely).
This evidence is perhaps as strong as the smoothness of the pistons etc.
peace
Comment by fifth monarchy man — February 4, 2009 @ 9:06 pm
February 4th, 2009 at 9:32 pm
Why can't critics show some integrity? RM/NS is not consistent with design. FLE is. Finely tuned constants are. Not finely tuned would not be supportive of design.
Comment by Bradford — February 4, 2009 @ 9:32 pm
February 4th, 2009 at 9:34 pm
Raevmo:
You and your fellow TT critics are not reasonable people.
Comment by Bradford — February 4, 2009 @ 9:34 pm
February 4th, 2009 at 9:56 pm
fmm:
You're provoking thought fmm (sorry TP). It's apparent that IDists see indicators of both design and non-design depending on the circumstances whereas their critics see nothing but non-design unless the designer can be identified in exquisite detail beforehand. So which group is really biased? Looks like the critics win this one hands down (covering their eyes).
Comment by Bradford — February 4, 2009 @ 9:56 pm
February 4th, 2009 at 10:22 pm
Wow me being compared to TP will wonders never cease?
So in the case of internal combustion we find among other things
A situation that strongly encourages the “emergence” of an explosion.
A readymade job that is apparently tailored specifically for an explosion to perform.
Mechanisms for channeling the explosion in a specific direction.
Mechanisms for controlling the side effects of an explosion when it occurs.
Would these evidences be enough to convince a reasonable alien that the engine and by implication the explosion were designed or would the fact that spontaneous explosions are in theory possible keep him from recognizing the obvious?
I wonder
Comment by fifth monarchy man — February 4, 2009 @ 10:22 pm
February 4th, 2009 at 10:28 pm
To go way out on a limb. Could the explosion himself conclude that he was designed based on the evidence?
I wonder
Comment by fifth monarchy man — February 4, 2009 @ 10:28 pm
February 4th, 2009 at 11:31 pm
Zachriel,
As you know, a hypothesis that is not falsifiable is not a scientific hypothesis.
Would this somehow exempt prebiotic RNA from it's inherent fragility? (By the way, if you are talking about the paper I think you are talking about they made a nucleotide, not RNA)
Interesting experiment. Nothing to do with the prebiotic world but an excellent example of designers exploiting natural selection.
Comment by chunkdz — February 4, 2009 @ 11:31 pm
February 5th, 2009 at 8:47 am
Life is inherently fragile.
You can pretend so and continue to wave your hands. However, the researchers were testing a prediction of the RNA World Hypothesis.
5‘-Ribonucleotide precursors of RNA. It's interesting that the Gap is now merely chemistry, with much of that already filled in.
Comment by Zachriel — February 5, 2009 @ 8:47 am
February 5th, 2009 at 11:04 am
So then are you denying that you think abiogenesis is implausible? Or was my statement correct and you're just dodging the issue? That certainly seems like a reasonable interpretation of your contributions to this and other threads, but since you evade answering all direct questions it is often hard to tell what your position is. It seems to me that you are admitting you have no knowledge of prebiotic earth conditions and yet you are still convinced that anything other than your a priori conclusion is merely a 'fairy tale.' Unless a human was there with a microscope and a video camera recording the event you'd say all the science is bunk, and yet ask for equivalent evidence of a designer and you'd claim that's a stupid request. It's an obviously hollow position.
Comment by Todd Berkebile — February 5, 2009 @ 11:04 am
February 5th, 2009 at 1:28 pm
SRMs are not genomes either which goes to the point of whether or not a complex system of interacting parts, whose synthesis mechanisms are coded for, is one for which error correction is superfluous. Continuous self-replication of RNA is a dead end. It becomes meaningful only if and when complexity arises.
Comment by Bradford — February 5, 2009 @ 1:28 pm
February 5th, 2009 at 1:32 pm
Yes and we also know that contingencies exist which make outcomes not inevitable. Besides that, if front loading constant values made life inevitable then a strong design inference would exist. We could easily see a universe hostile to life were the value parameters much different.
Comment by Bradford — February 5, 2009 @ 1:32 pm
February 5th, 2009 at 2:13 pm
Zachriel,
No, life has done quite well over the last few billion years. Very robust. RNA in puddles? Not so good.
A proof of concept that has zero relation to plausible prebiotic scenarios. It actually lends support to the design paradigm.
ALL the gaps are chemistry. In the ten thousand lane freeway between puddles and the first cell you've crossed lanes one, two, seven, fifteen, and nineteen. And the Rube Godlberg gets sketchier every day. Meanwhile, the contrast between the power of design and the power of puddles becomes more stark every day.
Comment by chunkdz — February 5, 2009 @ 2:13 pm
February 5th, 2009 at 2:18 pm
Todd,
You just can't help yourself can you?
Apologize for putting these words in my mouth.
Comment by chunkdz — February 5, 2009 @ 2:18 pm
February 5th, 2009 at 3:35 pm
I notice you once again evaded actually answering the questions and thus clarifying your position. It seems you care more about feigning righteous indignation.
Comment by Todd Berkebile — February 5, 2009 @ 3:35 pm
February 5th, 2009 at 3:46 pm
Life depends on very specific conditions for its continuation.
There's plenty of RNA in puddles.
A prediction of RNA World is that RNA would be capable of replication. This has been demonstrated. Other experiments have shown RNA evoluton and plausible scenarios for prebiotic chemical origins.
That's the whole point. RNA is a simpler precursor that represents the genome and the phenome.
RNA replicators don't require error correction, but may become dependent on it as they evolve in complexity. Your objection is meaningless now that we have observed continuous RNA replication.
Comment by Zachriel — February 5, 2009 @ 3:46 pm
February 5th, 2009 at 4:33 pm
Why, thank you! Do you think polka dots and moonbeams and intelligent designers coming to the rescue are comparable explanations?
Comment by don provan — February 5, 2009 @ 4:33 pm
February 5th, 2009 at 4:58 pm
Well, it's somewhat ill-defined to make a good hypothesis, so I'd call it an idea. If we want to think of it as a very vague hypothesis, it would be falsified by similarly vague evidence that "the RNA world" couldn't exist, but I believe you've already stipulated that it could. So it's already cleared falsification, but not being shot down isn't really much to talk about. Anyway, because of its vagueness, I'd say it really should be considered an idea that can be used to generate hypotheses.
Those hypotheses would be more specific, for example specifying the actual makeup of the RNA world, what environment it existed in, and what processes went on to cause replication and variation. Such hypotheses would be falsified by showing the specific makeup could exist in the necessary period, or that the environment at the time couldn't exist, or that the processes couldn't have gone on.
Of course, I've just described what's actually going on in origin-of-life research. And we've just heard that some progress is being made, in that some broad descriptions have stood up to falsification. That doesn't mean those hypotheses are correct answers, but only that more refined hypotheses can be made along those lines. I don't think anyone thinks we're remotely close to finding an actual path that we know would work in the actual environment. As someone around here recently said, it's like we've made a few feet of progress in the cross country race of knowing the origin of life.
Intelligent design, however, is still in Chicago looking for the starting line. It isn't even interested in coming up with the vaguest of hypothesis that we can consider falsifying. Or have I missed some progress in ID's origin-of-life research since Behe's "poof" hypothesis?
Comment by don provan — February 5, 2009 @ 4:58 pm
February 5th, 2009 at 5:15 pm
How could such a falsification of the RNA world be done conceivably?
Comment by kornbelt888 — February 5, 2009 @ 5:15 pm
February 5th, 2009 at 5:24 pm
What if a-telic views are taken as a whole to be a null hypothesis? If it could be demonstrated that a basic feature of life could not come into existence without something with insight overcoming the natural flow, wouldn't that be confirming evidence of the telic OOL hypothesis?
What are some examples of insight overcoming the natural flow? Human machines, of course. It is not our mere experience alone with human artifice that rules them out as natural effects, but rather that they demonstrate insight against the blind effects of nature. A smart extraterrestrial could infer that without any experiences with humans.
So it seems to me that telic OOL is a scientific proposition. It can be falsified, and it's opposite can be falsified as a null hypothesis. It is not philisophy or mere religion masquerading as science.
On the contrary. All OOL research is both telic and a-telic research. Someday, one of them will win. And it doesn't matter who does the experiments.
Comment by kornbelt888 — February 5, 2009 @ 5:24 pm
February 5th, 2009 at 5:59 pm
Bradford:
So whether life is inevitable or merely possible, you would still make a "design inference". What it boils down to is that you make the inference because life exists.
Easily? You mean it's easy to extrapolate from a model into a region of parameter space where the validity of the model is unknown and totally untestable at present.
The simple truth is, we don't know why the constants have the values they have. Maybe a designer did it, but any number of other speculations are just as valid. Your inference is wishful thinking — nothing more, nothing less.
Comment by Raevmo — February 5, 2009 @ 5:59 pm
February 5th, 2009 at 6:09 pm
We recognize a human machine as designed because we know that atoms don't naturally take such forms. Atoms arrange themselves in configurations that are determined by molecular orbitals and lone electron pairs. The dimensions of macroscopic things span large numbers of atomic dimensions, so we can cast, forge, or machine a piece of bulk matter to a wide variety of shapes. The macroscopic shape is usually not related to the underlying repeating structure of the material.
"Molecular machines", on the other hand, are organized on atomic distance scales, which means that they are constrained by the geometry of chemical bonds, and minimization of potential energy, rather than being able to take on the macroscopic shapes that we can impose on bulk material. If a particular biological molecule couldn't have formed by "the natural flow", then "intelligent design" of an organism would require specific placement of atoms, consistent with natural molecular geometry. Human chemists don't place atoms specifically, they put chemicals together, maybe with heat or some other source of energy, and let nature take its course.
The principle of least action tells us that this minimization of potential energy — the natural flow — takes place in the least possible time, so an "intelligent designer" of life would have to be able to put energy into a particular atom, interfering with its natural trajectory. If we don't know of anything that has such capability, we have to infer that "Intelligent Design" by non-humans is impossible.
Comment by John Wendt — February 5, 2009 @ 6:09 pm
February 5th, 2009 at 6:19 pm
Let me know when something other than RNA self-replicators evolve.
Comment by Bradford — February 5, 2009 @ 6:19 pm
February 5th, 2009 at 6:53 pm
Todd,
I don't know anyone who likes having words put in their mouth. (Except maybe Obama when signing executive orders)
Since you already know what I think and what I'm going to say, why don't you go have a nice argument with yourself.
Comment by chunkdz — February 5, 2009 @ 6:53 pm
February 5th, 2009 at 7:13 pm
Zach,
Everything depends on very specific conditions for continuation. But I acknowledge your superiority in making meaningless statements.
If you consider organisms to be puddles.
Designer RNA's are supporting evidence of the design paradigm. There is no plausible scenario for prebiotic chemical origins. Designers are currently working on designing original life forms, however.
Comment by chunkdz — February 5, 2009 @ 7:13 pm
February 5th, 2009 at 7:52 pm
Life.
Comment by Zachriel — February 5, 2009 @ 7:52 pm
February 5th, 2009 at 7:55 pm
Provan,
Neither is an explanation. As you said, it's just an idea. So far most of the research supports design.
But the atelic researchers did figure out how to make nitrogenous bases, fatty bubbles, and a nucleotide. Kudos!
Comment by chunkdz — February 5, 2009 @ 7:55 pm
February 5th, 2009 at 8:06 pm
That's a start. It's easy to show that life is dependent on very limited environmental conditions. It's not remarkable then that RNA replicators also require specific conditions. Determining those conditions requires testing various environmental situations. We now know that under certain conditions RNA can self-replicate.
Scientists are also testing various aspects of prebiotic and protobiotic hypotheses.
Comment by Zachriel — February 5, 2009 @ 8:06 pm
February 5th, 2009 at 8:18 pm
As I said, it would be vague, as vague as "RNA world". For example, if the universe were proven to not exist at the necessary point in time, then obviously no RNA world could exist within it. Anyway, as I noted, this is somewhat beside the point because "RNA world" is vague to the point of uselessness. Useful hypothesis are more specific and correspondingly easier to falsify.
Comment by don provan — February 5, 2009 @ 8:18 pm
February 5th, 2009 at 8:22 pm
Zach,
Or more accurately, we know that designer RNA's can be designed to exploit evolution and amplify certain strains under tightly controlled laboratory conditions.
Comment by chunkdz — February 5, 2009 @ 8:22 pm
February 5th, 2009 at 8:29 pm
chunk:
By chunk's reasoning, if you can call it that, the results of every designed experiment support ID, by definition. It's hard to have a reasonable discussion like that.
Comment by Raevmo — February 5, 2009 @ 8:29 pm
February 5th, 2009 at 8:38 pm
This is priceless. All we see around us is presumed to result from atelic forces of nature even when we are unable to depict the process. A difficult discussion indeed.
Comment by Bradford — February 5, 2009 @ 8:38 pm
February 5th, 2009 at 8:50 pm
Raevmo,
No. Experiments using plausible prebiotic conditions and minimal intelligent front-loading support the atelic paradigm.
This is just proof of concept, Raevmo. We may never know exactly how life was designed. But scientists will continue to look for plausible pathways toward designing life.
Comment by chunkdz — February 5, 2009 @ 8:50 pm
February 6th, 2009 at 8:55 am
Science studies telic processes, e.g. archaeology. Many in the ID Community, though, claim to have scientific evidence of teleology where it doesn't exist.
Many such experiments have been done and are being done. But the data is still tentative, so most such experiments only test small parts of the problem. These include the demonstration that RNA is capable of sustained replication, and the plausible prebiotic synthesis of 5‘-Ribonucleotide precursors of RNA.
You had asked "What does nature select for if RNA is self-replicating?" It would be helpful if you acknowledge the answer to your previous query before proceeding to a new argument.
Comment by Zachriel — February 6, 2009 @ 8:55 am
February 6th, 2009 at 2:04 pm
Zachriel,
I just said that.
It is true designers have not yet designed a novel organism or a living cell. There has been considerable progress though. So much so that some even claim to be on the verge of creating synthetic life. They are apparently way, way ahead of the atelic crowd.
I just said that.
Data is data. Explanations are tentative.
That's how science goes.
Lincoln and Joyce 2001. An impressive experiment in design.
Sutherland, et. al. They made a nucleotide. It takes two special puddles to make a nucleotide.
We already answered that. Nature selects RNA for extinction every single time.
Unless of course a designer steps in.
In that case, thanks to Lincoln and Joyce, we are 100% certain that a designer is capable of making RNA self replicate. There is still much to learn and many gaps in our knowledge, but I see little reason at this point to appeal to "special puddles" and "fatty bubbles" to fill in these gaps, especially when the design paradigm is advancing by leaps and bounds by comparison.
Comment by chunkdz — February 6, 2009 @ 2:04 pm
February 6th, 2009 at 5:45 pm
Apparently not, as RNA still exists in nature.
The experiment tested the prediction that RNA is capable of self-replication. Other experiments relate this back to the prebiotic environment. Handwaving doesn't constitute an argument.
There is no scientific 'design paradigm' to explain abiogenesis. Saying "Is not" over and over again is not a 'design paradigm'.
Comment by Zachriel — February 6, 2009 @ 5:45 pm
February 6th, 2009 at 6:13 pm
Zachriel,
Something that is not surprising to ID. Entirely expected, in fact.
Still seems to baffle the puddle-watchers, though.
I just said that.
That's good.
No handwaving from me. This is fairly exciting news for design theorists. The ability to create designer nucleic acids would be a logical pre-requisite for designing the first cell.
There is no explanation at all for abiogenesis.
When did I say that? Earlier I congratulated the researchers for making a nucleotide from two puddles. Don't begrudge me the right to congratulate the scientists who intelligently designed RNA. It's just that, frankly, to me the design paradigm is much more exciting and is making much faster progress than the puddle-watching paradigm. We'll just have to wait and see who creates a living organism first.
Comment by chunkdz — February 6, 2009 @ 6:13 pm
February 6th, 2009 at 7:00 pm
chunk:
So if I understand you correctly, the better humans get at designing stuff, the better it looks for the "design paradigm"? Weird. As if your estimation of the designer's capabilities are a function of our own capabilities. I thought God was omnipotent.
Comment by Raevmo — February 6, 2009 @ 7:00 pm
February 6th, 2009 at 8:39 pm
Raevmo,
No. As we fill in the gaps as to how life was designed, design becomes more plausible.
It stands to reason that if we can intelligently design a living organism then a living organism can be intelligently designed. Conceptual verification. Plausibility.
Likewise if it can be shown that living organisms can self-assemble from puddles, then it stands to reason that living organisms can self-assemble from puddles. Conceptual verification. Plausibility.
Either way, conceptual verification is likely the best we can hope for. It may never be known exactly how the first cell came to be.
It will be exciting to see which happens first – will scientists create a living novel organism in the lab? Or will scientists coax an organism out of a puddle?
Comment by chunkdz — February 6, 2009 @ 8:39 pm
February 6th, 2009 at 9:00 pm
chunk:
And that doesn't strike you as a bit circular? As we fill in the gaps as to how X, X becomes more plausible. Um, yeah. The first part contains the assumption of X, and the conclusion is X.
I can't argue with that.
So that's it. If it can be shown that humans can design organisms, that's the best evidence that life was designed. If humans manage to create a sustained nuclear fusion reaction, that would be evidence that the sun was designed. It's hard to believe that anyone can be convinced by this kind of primitive reasoning.
Comment by Raevmo — February 6, 2009 @ 9:00 pm
February 6th, 2009 at 9:16 pm
Raevmo,
It's a working assumption, and the only conclusion is plausibility. Nothing circular there.
Well, it's supporting evidence. If science coaxed a cell out of primordial puddle wouldn't you think that was evidence in support of abiogenesis?
If humans created a sustained nuclear fusion reaction the size of a star, and there was virtually no evidence that stars could form on their own, then design would be the most plausible explanation.
That was hurtful.
Comment by chunkdz — February 6, 2009 @ 9:16 pm
February 8th, 2009 at 1:26 pm
Not impossible, but unknown. But your post misses the point: this aspect of ID is falsifiable using our current physics, and so is it's opposite. Therefore, this aspect of ID falls within the purview of science.
Comment by kornbelt888 — February 8, 2009 @ 1:26 pm
February 9th, 2009 at 3:28 pm
If you could somehow rule out all a-telic views, what you'd be left with is the hypothesis, "the explanation is telic," an explanation that is entirely useless. At least "RNA world" leads to more specific hypotheses.
Comment by don provan — February 9, 2009 @ 3:28 pm
February 9th, 2009 at 3:47 pm
Not unless you've excluded options. If the telic inference is linked to an observation that process x tends to produce random results with respect to outcome y then biased outcomes could be an indicator of telic input.
Comment by Bradford — February 9, 2009 @ 3:47 pm
February 9th, 2009 at 4:01 pm
Are you disagreeing with me? If so, I don't see how. "The explanation is telic input," is no different than, "The explanation is telic." In fact, all you've done in this example is show the problem with ruling out all a-telic views: just because a-telic process X can't result in outcome Y doesn't mean some other a-telic process, perhaps even one we've never encountered, can't result in outcome Y.
But kornbelt888 and I are not concerned about that problem; I've tacitly stipulated that it is possible to rule out all a-telic views in order to show that that doesn't actually help us find an explanation. Your comment that we can move from "telic" to "telic input" doesn't seem very interesting in that context. Now if you present a Z, some specific or observable telic input, that would be an interesting proposal. But that's the point: IDists never suggest a Z.
Comment by don provan — February 9, 2009 @ 4:01 pm
February 9th, 2009 at 4:14 pm
dp:
I don't know if I'm disagreeing but specification of a point in a process where input is expected and the reason for that, differs from a mere opinion depicted as a telic explanation.
Comment by Bradford — February 9, 2009 @ 4:14 pm
February 9th, 2009 at 4:23 pm
Useless scientifically, perhaps, but not philosophically useless.
Comment by kornbelt888 — February 9, 2009 @ 4:23 pm
February 9th, 2009 at 4:27 pm
True. But since I don't have any evidence they are, why should I believe they are (and adjust my behavior as if they are) ? Wouldn't that be irrational?
Comment by kornbelt888 — February 9, 2009 @ 4:27 pm
February 9th, 2009 at 4:33 pm
I'm not as sure about that as you seem to be…
I agree, which is why I suspect science cannot deal with it, although I object to the term "supernatural." Science may never resolve why quantum uncertainty exists, but that doesn't necessarily require an invocation of "supernatural", unless, of course, the term simply means, and nothing more, "something outside the purview of science." But since the term is too ambiguous, I'd rather cast it out entirely.
Comment by kornbelt888 — February 9, 2009 @ 4:33 pm
February 9th, 2009 at 4:57 pm
Dunno. That wasn't what kornbelt888 asked.
Comment by don provan — February 9, 2009 @ 4:57 pm
February 9th, 2009 at 6:35 pm
Yes, of course I meant useless in the quest for scientific knowledge. The context was "RNA world" and such materialistic proposals suggested in order to find scientific explanations for how life came about. If you want to ignore the scientific question and do philosophy instead, that's certainly fine, but that doesn't relate to the OP and its discussion of what's presented in science classes.
On the contrary, changing your behavior based on something that makes no difference to you would be irrational. I don't know why you say "adjust my behavior as if they are". Clearly you think I am conscious; you would only be adjusting your behavior if you thought they weren't.
You can believe whatever you want, but you know that I will react differently if you act differently to me, and your knowledge on that point has nothing to do with my experience of consciousness. Assuming you believed I was not experience consciousness, how and why would you treat me differently?
Well I'm just reflecting how sure I thought you were based on your definition since it appeared to be ruling out any observables. If you are not that sure, then I must not have understood your definition. If something about that definition of "consciousness" was meant to imply an observable result that science can study, could you spell it out for me?
I object to the term "supernatural", as well. Perhaps you've been reading my comments on the other thread to that effect, along with some discussion about what various things we should be saying instead of confusing each other by pretending "supernatural" is well defined. If I've failed to be clear about it in this conversation, feel free to point out where and I clarify.
Comment by don provan — February 9, 2009 @ 6:35 pm
February 9th, 2009 at 8:45 pm
Who said anything about ignoring the queston? I said the opposite. Determining that a self-constructing RNA-world scenario is impossible based on known physics is hardly ignoring the question and hardly unscientific. Naturally, it would be a "science stopper" for a-telic hypothesis and anything based on them. A brick wall is a brick wall. So what if it's scientifically useless at that point?
You made a statement about the RNA world being possibly falsified, and I replied to that. Threads do drift. What can I say.
When did I say it makes no difference to me?
It is clear to you that I think you're conscious? Based on what?
I imagine a human-like robot might react as you would. But your reaction is only one factor in how I might govern my behavior. Another one would be value, how I value your consciousness. At present, science cannot inform my decision. Why should I assume you are conscious, and why should I value you as if you are?
The same reason I might treat a human differently than a human-like robot.
Comment by kornbelt888 — February 9, 2009 @ 8:45 pm
February 9th, 2009 at 9:55 pm
We were speaking of the hypothesis of a telic process. We've already agreed to assume that the RNA world can be proved impossible, so we need say no more about it.
Why do you say that? Is there something about telic explanations that prevents them from being studied scientifically? As far as I can see, the only problem with telic explanations is that no one can find any evidence for any of them, other than those involving humans, of course.
When you said, "I don't have any evidence they are". If it made a difference, that would be your evidence.
I was basing it on the observation that you're interacting with me as if I experienced consciousness subjectively. Why? Don't you think I'm conscious? How would you treat me differently if you thought I was?
I can't really say because I don't know how you'd treat me differently, one way or the other. If you are talking to me because I have interesting ideas that drive your thinking in fascinating directions, then you'd value me just the same for that regardless of what kind of robot I am.
What kind of additional value would you place on me simply because I experience consciousness subjectively? Would you make me your friend?
Which is?
Comment by don provan — February 9, 2009 @ 9:55 pm
February 10th, 2009 at 12:05 pm
Not necessarily. But I didn't say "telic", I said "a-telic". If a-telic hypotheses are ruled out, why then, they're ruled out. Any ideas that depend on them would be ruled out too.
I agree, there is nothing definite yet. It's the correspondence of intracellular processes with human engineering processes that leads some to suspect design and pursue this line of inquiry.
BTW, have you read Mike Gene's book yet?
Whether or not I have evidence for a thing has nothing to do with whether that evidence would be valuable if I did have it. I don't have evidence for the location of a gold mine, but if I did it would valuable to me.
The interactions I've had with you, thus far, have little if anything to do with whether you are conscious or not.
I suspect you are. I can't prove it. Science can't prove it. I'm willing to give you the benefit of my doubt, as I am with most humans and animals. But this is entirely non-scientific.
If someone wanted to destroy a robot I would probably feel and act differently than if someone wanted to destroy you.
Empathy. I doubt I would feel empathy for a robot.
Not necessarily. But I think without it I would be a lot less likely.
I have no empathy for robots.
Comment by kornbelt888 — February 10, 2009 @ 12:05 pm
February 11th, 2009 at 5:57 pm
The disturbing thing about this is that if your faith in dualism becomes shaken, perhaps by some scientific result you cannot ignore, then you'll have no empathy for any humans. Whether that drives you to go on a killing spree or merely turns you despondent seems like a coin flip, so we'd all better hope that never happens.
I guess I just can't conceive of being so prejudicial that I'd treat someone differently based on something about them that has no bearing on my interactions with them. But I guess what you've said should help me understand better why some people hate gays or blacks or the Irish.
Comment by don provan — February 11, 2009 @ 5:57 pm
February 11th, 2009 at 8:36 pm
Why does that disturb you? Is that based on some science or something?
That's a pretty wide spread. I probably wouldn't do either, actually, given my habits and feelings. But there's some areas in between that might get tweaked. And why not? But we're getting on another tired subject, that I don't much care to wade through at the moment.
Anyway, you just keep on hoping that I don't change my views.
Well, good for you, Don, good for you.
Thanks for sharing.
Comment by kornbelt888 — February 11, 2009 @ 8:36 pm