Skepticism and the origin of life
by KrauzeSkepticism is a virtue, especially in science. As Carl Sagan wrote, in The Demon-Haunted World, "science requires the most vigorous and uncompromising skepticism, because the vast majority of ideas are simply wrong, and the only way to winnow the wheat from the chaff is by critical experiment and analysis. If you're open to the point of gullibility and have not a microgram of skeptical sense in you, then you cannot distinguish the promising ideas from the worthless ones." Or, as parent Jane Caro puts it, in explaining what separates science from religious belief:
Those who believe in something … start from the point of view that their belief is true, and set out to confirm it, creating the risk that they will fit the evidence to their belief. The scientist, as I understand it, starts from the exact opposite position. Scientists work to disprove their theories, not to prove them, specifically to avoid the pitfalls of, even unconsciously, distorting the evidence.
But I believe that there is at least one place where this skepticism isn't applied: Abiogenesis. By abiogenesis, I mean the view that the origin of life on earth was caused solely by physical and chemical processes, as they would have happened on a lifeless planet. Sure, origin-of-life researchers criticize each others' scenarios, but no one doubts the most basic assumption: That life did arise as the consequence of physical and chemical processes. I know of no scientist doing experiments to disprove abiogenesis, and apart from creationists and ID supporters, I can't name any who even thinks that doing so would be a good idea.
But are we supposed to be skeptical about everything? It would be foolish of you to be skeptical about gravity and fling yourself from a ten-story building. There are things that are so well-attested that doubting them would be a waste of time. However, abiogenesis isn't one of those things. A look at the literature reveals that it is still a field without a consensus theory, and any origin-of-life researcher should readily admit that we are still a far way from solving the question of life's origin. I don't mean to suggest that we should therefore reject abiogenesis – the origin of life is a murky subject, and whatever solution turns out to be correct is bound to encounter difficulties. My point is simply that this is a field where there's good reason for scientists to be skeptical. Yet no one are.
At this point, you might dispute the premise that skepticism is important to science. Being a parent doesn't give Jane Caro any special authority on the nature of science, and although Carl Sagan was a world-known astronomer, he wasn't a biologist, and may have overlooked some special aspect of abiogenesis that exempts it from skepticism. But this won't wash. If Jane Caro is confused about the nature of science, then so is a lot of very intelligent and educated people, from whom I've heard similar sentiments. And although Sagan may not have thought about abiogenesis when he praised the virtues of skepticism, his reasons sound sensible, and should be applicable to all kinds of knowledge.
So in the name of skepticism and good science, I say: Let's start doubting abiogenesis!
December 4th, 2005 at 7:38 am
I think Sagan would have objected fairly strenuously to this claim – I suspect you meant astronomer.
Mesk.
Comment by Mesk — December 4, 2005 @ 7:38 am
December 4th, 2005 at 8:06 am
Hi Mesk,
Thanks, I fixed it.
Mmm… Maybe I should take another look at my up-coming post about Pasteur, world-famous alchemist.
Comment by Krauze — December 4, 2005 @ 8:06 am
December 4th, 2005 at 9:23 am
Dean Kenyon was an OoL scientist. He authored a book on chemical evolution. Then he became a skeptic and remains one today.
As for Jane's quote- Why is then, when J. Wells said he was becoming a biologist to refute Darwinism (paraphrase), many anti-IDists were "up-in-arms" about his proclamation?
Also what evolutionary scientists and labs are out trying to falsify evolution?
Comment by Joe G — December 4, 2005 @ 9:23 am
December 4th, 2005 at 9:50 am
I think there is such a consensus, void of evidence, largely because it is this topic that allows us to see ground rules, extrapolation, and even metaphysics rise closest to the surface. Shameless plug.
Comment by MikeGene — December 4, 2005 @ 9:50 am
December 4th, 2005 at 12:20 pm
Of course it's not permissible to hold creationists' and IDists' claims on this subject up to skeptical review.
Comment by Art — December 4, 2005 @ 12:20 pm
December 4th, 2005 at 12:34 pm
Hi Art,
"Of course it's not permissible to hold creationists' and IDists' claims on this subject up to skeptical review."
What makes you think so?
Comment by Krauze — December 4, 2005 @ 12:34 pm
December 4th, 2005 at 12:45 pm
Let's come back to these comments in, say, a week or month and number the serious, self-critical comments (relevant, of course, to the creationists' and IDists' assertions regarding the OOL) offered by the blogmeisters.
Anyone wanna hazard a guess as to what will be found?
Comment by Art — December 4, 2005 @ 12:45 pm
December 4th, 2005 at 2:48 pm
Your remark about the certainty of gravity, reminds me that nothing is sacrosanct from the skeptic's disbelieving eye. When people speak of gravity as an unshakeable fact, they often confuse observed phenomena (things dropping, satellites orbiting, astronauts free-falling) with the theoretical belief which is presumed to explain these events. A theory presumably explains the "why" or "how" of something. Yet, scientists have no clue as to the how or why of the attractive force that atoms exert upon one another.
We know from direct experience, not theory, of the consequences of falling, and though space navigators can precisely calculate the effect of massive objects on space probes, they can't tell you why gravity attracts and not propels, or why the gravitational constant is not a little stronger or weaker than it is. Don't be fooled by the elaborate equations and obtuse explanations. We don't know diddly about gravity.
Comment by Missing Link — December 4, 2005 @ 2:48 pm
December 4th, 2005 at 3:16 pm
Krauze,
I don't think Caro is precisely correct to say that the role of science/scientists is to disprove theories. Instead, it would be better to say that it is the role of science to determine the extent of applicability and precision of a theory. Netwonian mechanics has been confirmed by experiment, but the boundaries of its applicability have also been detected.
However, every scientific theory must make predictions. Without them, the theory cannot be testable. Non-predictive theories are, at best, summaries of what has already been observed (and usually, they're not even that much).
As for abiogenesis, are you referring to the mechanisms of abiogenesis or the apparent facts of abiogenesis?
We have strong confirmation that the early Earth (or at least, the early universe) was inhospitable to biological life. IOW, we have strong evidence that there was once no life, then there was life. Hence abiogenesis is in no less doubt than are the empirical facts of biology, evolution and the Big Bang.
Of course, we don't know much about the mechanisms of abiogenesis. Until we have a good chemical model for abiogenesis, there aren't really any models to be skeptical about.
To be scientifically skeptical of abiogenesis (the observation) is to be scientifically skeptical that conditions in the universe (or on an early Earth) were inhospitable to biological life. However, it seems like a straightforward consequence of physics that biological life cannot prevail where the ambient temperature breaks, say, all carbon bonds found in biology.
Skepticism is ever-present but it is a matter of degree. I'm sure most scientists would be skeptical about specific abiogenesis models. However, there's not a lot of skepticism regarding strongly confirmed models like the Big Bang, chemistry, particle physics, and geology which allpoint to an observed fact of abiogenesis.
Comment by doctor(logic) — December 4, 2005 @ 3:16 pm
December 4th, 2005 at 4:58 pm
Usually skepticism is driven by an atheistic worldview.
Comment by Benjii — December 4, 2005 @ 4:58 pm
December 4th, 2005 at 5:25 pm
Art:
Being unable to raise an argument against Krauze's blog, and unwilling to acknowledge Krauze makes a good point (in Art's mind, all ID proponents are stupid or dishonest and must be treated accordingly), Art predictably resorts to attack tactics. However, given that Art has never once offered his own self-critical comments (in the years I have read his stuff, I have seen none), and that he fails to police any other blog for adherence to such standards, we can easily dismiss his comments as partisan sniping. When you have no counter-argument, and you can't bring yourself to agree with someone else, the only response left is the personal attack.
We have six entries on the OOL. One is actually a humor entry. When you read through the five entries, you will not find us arguing that abiogenesis is impossible, therefore life must have been designed. You will not find us arguing that abiogenesis is complete nonsense. What you will find are some modest, but good points. Apparently, Art would prefer that such blogs didn't exist.
Really Art, how can someone who is so extreme and biased as you actually preach to us about self-criticism?
Comment by MikeGene — December 4, 2005 @ 5:25 pm
December 4th, 2005 at 5:32 pm
Art:
"lets come back to these comments in, say, a week or a month and number the serious, self critical comments"
Let me suggest IDist will be agnostic because they are looking for evidence and no evidence for abiogenesis has yet been found. As for creationism at least they're honest and open about their a priori assumptions.
The interesting thing here though Art, correct me if I'm wrong, is you don't consider either, ID or creationism as real science! So your argument reminds me of an adult who copies a child's behaviour rather than showing them how to act and behave! Crossing your arms, pouting and saying, "but look at them!" just brings you down to their level doesn't it? Instead shouldn't you guys be leading the way showing those pseudoscientists how its done, considering you are the objective ones?
Why should the 'real scientists' even bother or care what those pseudoscientists are up to, let alone follow their lead! Your argument reveals materialistic science starts from the same faith position as creationism!
Comment by willo — December 4, 2005 @ 5:32 pm
December 4th, 2005 at 6:46 pm
Hi Missing Link,
When I referred to gravity as a fact exempt from skepticism, In was referring to the observation that bodies are attracted to each other (e.g. suicide jumper to pavement). I'm aware that the actual mechanism for this is far from worked out, but this isn't a direction I intend this thread to move in.
Comment by Krauze — December 4, 2005 @ 6:46 pm
December 4th, 2005 at 6:51 pm
Hi doctor(logic),
I made it clear in my post what I meant by abiogenesis:
Do you know of any mainstream scientists who're skeptical of this proposition?
Comment by Krauze — December 4, 2005 @ 6:51 pm
December 4th, 2005 at 8:11 pm
Benji said "Usually skepticism is driven by an atheistic worldview."
This is a false statement if, by skepticism, you mean exactly the general type of skepticism that has been mentioned in this thread.
Would you say it to a theist (say, a Christian) who was skeptical of the claims of Scientology? In this case, would skepticism be driven by an atheistic worldview?
Nope. Most skepticism is perfectly natural for rational animals who are interested in discovering the truth and not being deceived by current dogma or propoganda.
Comment by bipod — December 4, 2005 @ 8:11 pm
December 4th, 2005 at 9:55 pm
William Dembski gave a lecture to the Fourth World Skeptics Conference where he said "Skepticism, to be true to its principles, must be willing to turn the light of scrutiny on anything." I am always suspicious of any certainty, for consciousness by its nature interprets reality according to the symbolic structures (pre-existing beliefs, concepts) that it already contains.
Comment by Missing Link — December 4, 2005 @ 9:55 pm
December 5th, 2005 at 1:08 am
Yockey is one who has come out and said OOL is undecidable (at least from a naturalistic assumption). He is not a friend of ID, but a respected information theorist in molecular biology.
He was highly critical of OOL life researchers like Harold Morowitz (an OOL research for 50 years!) likening him to Breer Rabbit hitting Tar Baby: Breer Rabbit and Tar Baby
Yockey essentially feels it may be a fruitless pursuit, like trying to offer an explanation for the origin of matter.
The nicest most recent work on the issue is Albert Voie's paper:
Biological function and the genetic code are interdependent. It's one of the few skeptical views I've seen that made it through peer reviews. Same with Trevor and Abel's paper (Abel was reviewer of Yockey's books).
What makes a picture a picture is not merely the chemical substrates. A photograph is not reducible to the chemistry of the paper and ink. Sure, someone can describe the entire physical process of making a picture, but it does not explain the effect of symbolism on our minds.
I could also, for example make 500 coins heads. One could in principle record the physical forces involved in terms of newtons laws as I take coins and flip them heads. But the physics of making 500 coins heads does not explain the symbolic significance of 500 coins heads.
In like manner, Voie points out, chemistry does not explain the symbolic issues (information) that distinguish life from ordinary matter. OOL researchers are essentially trying to see if physical law can account for the symbolic significance of the information in life. It's like trying to describe why a picture is a picture purely in terms of ink and paper. What makes a picture a picture transcends the chemical substrates used to make ink and paper!
But the unwillingness to recognize and acknowledge these issues is evident. The abiogenesis industry refuses to admit the theoretical skepticism, especially by those who are pointing out the OOL questions are being framed in completely the wrong way, much less will the question be answered.
Would someone try to explain chemistry by gravitational theory? In like manner, OOL folks are trying to explain information theory by chemisty. It doesn't work. But as Yockey said, "they haven't been listening".
Comment by Salvador T. Cordova — December 5, 2005 @ 1:08 am
December 5th, 2005 at 1:14 am
Krauze,
As I said, skepticism is ever present, but abiogenesis (taking place somewhere in the universe, and very probably on Earth) is tantamount to an observed fact, just like evolution. Chemistry-based life would have been impossible for about 400,000 years after the Big Bang.
Could there be life that existed before chemistry? I can't imagine how, but that doesn't rule it out. Do I think it's likely? Nope. Could life on Earth have been sparked by an exploding Jaggeroth space ship? Yup. Do I think it probable? Nope.
I don't think you're getting any mileage out of this abiogenesis skepticism idea.
Comment by doctor(logic) — December 5, 2005 @ 1:14 am
December 5th, 2005 at 1:29 am
bipod said:
Benjii is correct. Theists generally pride themselves on their ability to suspend disbelief where their chosen religion is concerned. That's why they consider blind faith a virtue, and reward the most faithful with their highest honor.
In contrast, the skeptic casts off metaphysics, and demands that ideas be validated against experience and computation. If you're really a skeptic, you don't get to choose what you're skeptical about.
The only skepticism endorsed by clerics is skepticism of anything caustic to their particular brand of blind faith. Such as other blind faiths.
Sorry, no, religion doesn't get to appropriate skepticism, nor science.
Comment by doctor(logic) — December 5, 2005 @ 1:29 am
December 5th, 2005 at 8:05 am
doctor:
but abiogenesis (taking place somewhere in the universe, and very probably on Earth) is tantamount to an observed fact, just like evolution.
First it depends on what you mean by evolution. That things (may) change (evolution) is a fact and that is about it. That life arose from non-living matter via unintelligent, blind/ undirected processes (abiogenesis as in the OP) is tantamount to blind faith.
doctor:
Big Bang, chemistry, particle physics, and geology which allpoint to an observed fact of abiogenesis.
There isn't anything in the big bang, chemistry, partcle physics or geology which point to anything about abiogenesis.
Then Art chimes in:
Of course it's not permissible to hold creationists' and IDists' claims on this subject up to skeptical review.
Creationists and IDists are humble enough to know they may be wrong. Both will yield to the data.
Comment by Joe G — December 5, 2005 @ 8:05 am
December 6th, 2005 at 9:33 pm
Your presumption is quite astounding. Who among scientists claims that abiogenesis is solid? No one I can find.
You say, "My point is simply that this is a field where there's good reason for scientists to be skeptical. Yet [none] are."
Name one who isn't skeptical, can you? Andrew Ellington is one of the leading researchers in abiogenesis, and he's not claiming to have a non-God answer. James Ferris heads several projects for NASA's abiogenesis effort, and he doesn't fall into the category you claim most scientists are in.
In fact, I can't think of any who do. Your premise is just way, way off the mark. Scientists are quite skeptical of life's origin claims.
Comment by edarrell — December 6, 2005 @ 9:33 pm
December 7th, 2005 at 5:02 am
edarrell,
I think you miss Krauze's point. There is certainly some debate amongst scientists about the precise mechanisms of abiogenesis, and skepticism of the notion that any mechanism yet proposed is the actual pathway abiogenesis took, but it is essentially universally accepted that life did form via some unguided chemical process from non-living matter.
Krauze is right – this is a basic assumption amongst working biologists that goes largely unquestioned, at least in scientific circles.
Mesk.
Comment by Mesk — December 7, 2005 @ 5:02 am
December 8th, 2005 at 2:53 pm
Krauze is right that in science it is assumed that abiogenesis was solely due to physical and chemical processes. This is due to the fact that science assumes that everything that it examines is explainable by natural explanations. What does that leave you with respect to abiogenesis? Physical and chemical processes only. If it does not appeal to a facet, law or other feature of this universe as an explanation, you have left the realm of science.
Now what about other explanations that do appeal to facets of this universe to explaining the origin of life? Well until 5byo spaceship wreckage or viable bacterial endospores are found on meteorites all other explanations for the origin of life just don't have the support that the chemical explanation does.
I guess to me to be skeptical that life on this planet derived from the chemistry that existed back then is a bit too close to being skeptical of science in general.
Here is an anecdote that may be of interest. I just started graduate school at the University of Texas@Austin. Right now I am rotating in the laboratory of Dr. Andrew Ellington who is one of the scientists studying abiogenesis. His lab has a chapter in "The RNA World". Really technical but if this subject interests you I can not think of a better book with the best up to date info in this area. I came to his lab and told him I was very interested in doing research related to the RNA world and that I was reading the book. The first thing that he said to me was (paraphrasing) "You know how tentative that stuff is right?" At least one scientist knows how careful that they need to be when hypothesizing in this area.
Comment by JoshuaW — December 8, 2005 @ 2:53 pm
December 8th, 2005 at 7:22 pm
Interesting post, but your argument fails on a rather simple issue: do you have any evidence of any processes other then the material universal laws ever doing anything, anywhere?
We can imagine any reason for anything in the world that we don't understand. Say, you live in the early 1980's, and people start dying of an apparent immune system failure. The scientists that started studying the disease examined only material causes (viruses, bacteria, environmental toxins, etc). They never even tried to approach it from the "well, maybe the disease is caused by demons" perspective.
The reason is simple: every disease that we do understand has been shown to be caused by a purely materialistic factor (a virus, a bacteria, a toxin, a mutation). None have ever been shown to be caused by demons.
The same thing applies to abiogenesis. We have never, ever reliably observed any process in nature that is not a function of laws of physics and chemistry. Therefore, we assume that the same laws are responsible for creation of life. If you wish to postulate that other processes (i.e. an action of a supernatural entity) are responsible for origin of life, you have to first show that such processes (and such entities) exist in the first place.
It is the difference between examining all probable causes, and all imaginable causes. If we don't focus on probable causes, te entire scientific approach becomes untenable. The scientists studying AIDS could have spend eternity going through all imaginable causes ("ok, no, so it isn't bad chi flow", "ok, so it isn't a curse by a voodoo shaman", "ok, so it isn't caused by vampire's touch"…ad infinitum); thankfully, they focused on the probable causes, and found the virus, which allowed them to find ways to fight it.
Comment by GeneMiner — December 8, 2005 @ 7:22 pm
December 9th, 2005 at 1:03 am
There's no problem with focusing on the most probable causes of a phenomenon first; going for the low-hanging fruit has been an extremely successful strategy in many fields of science. But problems arise when people start to believe that those low-hanging fruit – i.e., those possibilities that are most amenable to investigation – are the only possible explanations, simply because it is too hard to consider the alternatives.
Scientists certainly should pursue mechanistic scenarios for abiogenesis, because (as you point out) the history of science suggests that such an approach will usually be successful. But at the same time, it's important for us not too lose sight of the limitations of this approach, of the fact that the actual explanation of the origin of life may not be mechanistic. In other words, we shouldn't confuse the boundaries of science with the boundaries of reality. We certainly shouldn't be writing the introductory chapters of biology textbooks as though the fact of chemical abiogenesis is a foregone conclusion, with only the details remaining to be elucidated; this is merely a working assumption, not a well-supported empirical fact.
The analogy with the cause of AIDS is fairly strained, by the way: AIDS researchers had plenty of prior examples of human diseases caused by viruses. In contrast, we have no prior, well-characterised examples of life being formed from non-life to demonstrate which mechanisms are possible. Abiogenesis researchers are examining a process that probably occurred only once (or at least only once that produced lineages that persisted until the present day) almost four billion years ago. In the absence of prior examples and solid evidence, how do we determine which explanations of this process are "probable causes"
Mesk.
Comment by Mesk — December 9, 2005 @ 1:03 am
December 9th, 2005 at 1:13 am
JoshuaW,
If scientists assume in advance that the only valid explanations for the origin of life are mechanistic chemical processes, and this assumption guides all of their research, how could evidence for alternative explanations be generated? We are discussing a mind-bogglingly ancient event, and it is likely that much of the evidence relevant to how this process occurred has been obscured by time; in other words, it is unlikely that relevant evidence will simply fall into our laps. Unless scientists actively pursue (or at least consider) alternative mechanisms, potential evidence supporting these mechanisms may never be uncovered.
So the approach you're advocating here – keep pursuing the chemical abiogenesis paradigm unless strong evidence for alternative scenarios somehow arises – would likely result in chemical abiogenesis remaining the favoured scenario even if it were wrong. This doesn't seem like a useful approach to me. Instead, applying a healthy dose of scepticism to abiogenesis, and at least spending some time contemplating and exploring alternative hypotheses, would create a scientific environment more conducive to uncovering the truth regardless of whether or not it fits with the current paradigm.
Mesk.
Comment by Mesk — December 9, 2005 @ 1:13 am
December 9th, 2005 at 1:33 am
JoshuaW:
I believe that was the point.
JoshuaW:
Which would then mean we have defined science such that geochemistry must have given rise to cellular biology. Like Krauze points out, "But I believe that there is at least one place where this skepticism isn't applied: Abiogenesis."
Justifying a lack of skepticism essentially confirms Krauze's point about the absence of skepticism. Now, you might want to make the case that this is one place where there is no room for skepticism.
Comment by MikeGene — December 9, 2005 @ 1:33 am
December 9th, 2005 at 4:04 am
HI all:
The only way that I can see ID actually gaining a stronghold within the Scientific Community is by 1) showing that abiogenesis is not possible, via an understanding of evolvability and IC; and 2) proposing a model of what the seed for first life must have looked like, and how that initial configuration provides explanation for the trajectories of life that we've actually seen.
I know Mike at least is working on 2). I'm sure several people are working on 1). I think ID has to be pretty convincing on both.
-Jazz
Comment by jazzraptor — December 9, 2005 @ 4:04 am
December 9th, 2005 at 10:31 am
JW:
Krauze is right that in science it is assumed that abiogenesis was solely due to physical and chemical processes. This is due to the fact that science assumes that everything that it examines is explainable by natural explanations.
Both design and intelligence are natural phenomena.
JW:
If it does not appeal to a facet, law or other feature of this universe as an explanation, you have left the realm of science.
If it does not appeal to reality you have left the realm of science. Thgat is all science should concern itself with- is the explanation indicative of reality.
————————————————————————————–
jazzraptor:
1) showing that abiogenesis is not possible, via an understanding of evolvability and IC; and
Demonstrating a negative is tough, although not impossible. Right now we know only life begets life. However 5that "knowledge" may be the driving force for abiogenesis- scientists hoping to overturn the status quo.
2) proposing a model of what the seed for first life must have looked like, and how that initial configuration provides explanation for the trajectories of life that we've actually seen.
Once we know what makes an organism what it is we will have most (if not all) the data required to do just that.
Comment by Joe G — December 9, 2005 @ 10:31 am
December 9th, 2005 at 1:40 pm
I wrote up a quick reply because I'm studying for finals so it looks like I may not have been detailed or clear enough in my response or perhaps in my thinking. Sorry if that is the case. Also saying that such skepticism of chemical and physical causes is too close to skepticism of science in general was probably too strong.
Those of you who think that it is wrong for scientists to only assume physical and chemical process in regards to the origin of life are right in one respect. It is possible that there is another explanation; it is just not probable given what is known about the conditions of the early earth and what the chemistry of life is like.
Scientists largely follow where the preponderance of the evidence lies even if it later turns out to be an incorrect path. So far physical and chemical processes have had great success in explaining how modern biology works so we assume that it will also enable us to one day explain how life originated as well. We just don't have a good reason for us to assume otherwise given the track record of physical and chemical explanations to date. So for me at least I am skeptical of other explanations for the origin of life because the evidence, such as it is, best supports the physical and chemical explanation.
But there are always scientists that are unsatisfied with the current approach for whatever reason and those are the ones that can lead us to the correct path in those cases where the current evidence may lead us in the wrong direction. There just has to be sufficient evidence to spark their imaginations toward that new path. As Mesk correctly pointed out, there is not a lot of evidence left. So I really do not believe that this is the situation for abiogenesis currently and so most scientists are going in the physical and chemical processes direction.
There are a few scientists going in other direction though. That example I mentioned concerning bacterial endospores and meteorites was mentioned in the "RNA World". I find this unsatisfying in the long run however because it throws another turtle under the stack so to speak. We still would need to explain the origin of those endospores. It would make Krauze technically right if that were to end up the correct explanation however.
So to answer MikeGene it is not that " "¦we have defined science such that geochemistry must have given rise to cellular biology." It's that the process of science has led us to this assumption and we have no reason to believe otherwise. There is no evidence that can give us another adequate direction to go in at present so few are skeptical.
Do you guys have any suggestions?
Comment by JoshuaW — December 9, 2005 @ 1:40 pm
December 9th, 2005 at 3:04 pm
Joshua wrote:
It's that the process of science has led us to this assumption and we have no reason to believe otherwise.
There indeed is good reason to believe otherwise. 1) the apparent lack of evolvability of simple hypothetical un-mapped replicators, and 2) Irreducible Complexity. Here from (you should read the whole paper, Joshua):
Comment by jazzraptor — December 9, 2005 @ 3:04 pm
December 9th, 2005 at 3:06 pm
"Protocell theory is a popular theory often proposed to explain how biochemical complexity arose in living cells by completely natural, evolutionary processes. The theory postulates that the complex cells we observe today evolved gradually from simpler protocells via natural selection. For example, Harold Morowitz has suggested that the original protocells were unstable and prone to self-destruction; but through the continual formation of billions of protocells over millions of years, eventually a stable, more advanced, protocell formed (Morowitz, 1992).
In contrast to protocell theory, intelligent design theory postulates that some biochemical mechanisms within cells are irreducibly complex, which implies that they are not products of any gradual, naturalistic process of formation. For example, many cell mechanisms resemble preassembled machines containing interdependent parts that work together to perform a cell function. Since all the co-dependent parts must be present before the mechanism is capable of function at all, it is unlikely that the mechanism evolved by any gradual process, but instead appears to have been designed.
. . .
If, however, the protocell is a self-reproducing cell, as the theory suggests, then several essential cell functions that appear to be complex in contemporary cells would have to be present even in the early protocell. For instance, a cell division mechanism would be essential even in early stages of protocell evolution. The impression given in many biology textbooks is that cell division is a simple process. However, upon close examination it becomes clear that cell division even in bacteria is a complex cellular process. This raises several questions concerning protocell theory. For instance, how did a simpler cell division mechanism function? How did it lead to the complex mechanism we observe today? Are any remnants of a simpler cell division process evident in cells today? Is the cell division process irreducibly complex?
The existence of an irreducibly complex cell division process would present two problems for protocell theory. First, it would require the theory to explain the origin of a protocell that must possess, at a minimum, an irreducibly complex cell division process for survival. Second, if a protocell is capable of surviving with a simple cell division process, how does natural selection lead to a more complex, indeed an irreducibly complex, cell division mechanism?"
Comment by jazzraptor — December 9, 2005 @ 3:06 pm
December 9th, 2005 at 3:08 pm
(Ack! The XHTML, and no editing, is killing me!)
Joseph Francis is the author of the paper.
Comment by jazzraptor — December 9, 2005 @ 3:08 pm
December 9th, 2005 at 4:01 pm
Just an observation re scientific discovery, people who say science is only concerned with the 'nuts and bolts' of things and not metaphysics is disingenuious, as, as soon as a nuts and bolts explanation is found metaphysical conclusions are made- see God doesn't exist e.t.c.
But apart from being disingenuous the logic is also flawed, its like saying we understand the mechanics of the internal combustion engine therefore it created itself!
Comment by willo — December 9, 2005 @ 4:01 pm
December 9th, 2005 at 7:57 pm
Hi JoshuaW,
You write:
I would not say it is wrong "for scientists to only assume physical and chemical process in regards to the origin of life." After all, you make the conventional case for making this assumption and it is quite reasonable. The point I would be interested in is whether scientists would consider is wrong to be skeptical of this assumption.
I think Mesk made a very good point: "There's no problem with focusing on the most probable causes of a phenomenon first; going for the low-hanging fruit has been an extremely successful strategy in many fields of science. But problems arise when people start to believe that those low-hanging fruit – i.e., those possibilities that are most amenable to investigation – are the only possible explanations, simply because it is too hard to consider the alternatives." I'm not sure why we must extrapolate from the success of understanding the spread of antibiotic resistance (for example) to the belief that the same approach will deliver the process by which life arose. Abiogenesis, after all, is only the most fundamental and difficult problem in biology (and maybe all of science). To use Mesk's analogy, I would be more comfortable extrapolating if we were talking about picking the lower-hanging fruit after succeeding in getting the stuff higher up.
But this underscores the whole philosophical element of the lack of skepticism. Endospores may very well explain the origin of life on this planet even if we can't explain the endospores.
But what type of data would you count as evidence sufficient for considering another direction?
Comment by MikeGene — December 9, 2005 @ 7:57 pm
December 11th, 2005 at 10:16 am
The discussion was getting off-topic, so I moved a bunch of posts to the Memory Hole.
Comment by Krauze — December 11, 2005 @ 10:16 am
December 12th, 2005 at 9:06 pm
Krauze,
Your post questioned whether science should be skeptical that there are mechanistic explanations of abiogenesis.
I agree that there should be a teensy weensy amount skepticism that we can find a naturalistic explanation of abiogenesis, but the alternative is that there is no explanation whatsoever.
Suppose my car won't start. Is there an acceptable explanation which explains how the car fails to start that does not also predict that the car will not start?
For example, I would predict that, if the fuel line were cut, the engine would not start. So, a cut fuel line sounds like an explanation, whether it is probable or not.
However, I cannot accept that my car will not start because "roses are red." Roses are indeed red, and their redness is perfectly consistent with my car not starting. However, the redness of roses does not predict that my car won't start.
Nor would I accept the "explanation" that an undetectable gremlin prevented the engine from starting. The undetectability of gremlins (and their unpredictable nature) renders the gremlin just another word for "ignorance of cause."
So, a plausible explanation is a picture of a cause and effect relationship. If the proposed cause is unknowable, or does not predict the effect, then you don't have an explanation.
Therefore, any valid explanation of abiogenesis must predict abiogenesis from knowable facts (i.e., from chemistry, physics, etc.).
To claim that there is no physical theory that explains a physical phenomenon is to claim that there is no explanation of that phenomenon at all.
It's not just a question of "low-hanging fruit," as Mesk puts it. It's all the fruit.
Comment by doctor(logic) — December 12, 2005 @ 9:06 pm
December 13th, 2005 at 1:42 pm
If my evil neighbor Joe is a mechanic and intends to cut the fuel line on my car, then I can predict that the engine will not start. Indeed, the best explanation for this event will make reference to Joe's intentions.
Here you have an example of a perfectly physical event best explained by reference to the intention and action of an agent.
This, of course, amounts to a radical redefinition of "explanation" – one that goes beyond any recognizable sense. Reference to the capacities of intelligent agents explains all sorts of physical effects.
Comment by bipod — December 13, 2005 @ 1:42 pm
December 13th, 2005 at 6:24 pm
bipod,
This is a great example.
The evil Joe theory is explanatory because we can know Joe's evil intentions by his other actions and statements. Being human, Joe has a limited set of options at his disposal, like cutting the fuel line with a tool that would leave tell-tale traces on the broken fuel line. Joe is an observable material agent with detectable material goals that are achieved with detectable material actions.
However, if Joe were non-material, and Joe's ability and intent were unknowable, then the theory explains nothing. Why go to the trouble of cutting the fuel line when he can just change the laws of physics as they apply to your car? Or make you disappear instead? Or make your car operate flawlessly forever as part of some yet deeper diabolical plot? Unlimited Joe predicts the observation with no more share of probability than an infinite number of other possible outcomes that were not observed. Unlimited Joe's probability of causing this particular outcome given no prior information is infinitesimal.
I don't see why.
What's the difference between claiming ignorance of cause and claiming that there is a cause that one is wholly ignorant about?
Yes, but only when the properties, abilities and intent of the intelligent agents are specified.
Take a look at Bayes' Theorem.
The probability that a theory T is inferred by observations O is proportional to the probability that T predicts O. If T doesn't predict O, or predicts it with infinitesimally small probability, then T is actually disconfirmed by the observations.
Therefore, T must be specific enough to preferentially predict O. If T is consistent with any possible observation, then you're spreading your probabilities so thinly that you are unable to infer T from O.
Comment by doctor(logic) — December 13, 2005 @ 6:24 pm
December 13th, 2005 at 6:54 pm
Oops! My error. T is not always "disconfirmed."
If T is uncorrelated with O, then the probability of O given T is just the probability of O, and it cancels out of the equation. Then the probability of T given O is just the prior probability of T.
Bottom line, you can't infer T from O unless T preferentially predicts O. (Unless, of course, T predicts that O is impossible, in which case, T really is disconfirmed.)
Comment by doctor(logic) — December 13, 2005 @ 6:54 pm
December 13th, 2005 at 7:13 pm
Jazzraptor
Irreducible complexity has failed as a scientific argument. In practice it has amounted to no more than a stealthy "god in the gaps" argument.
All of its most famous example systems (bacterial flagellum, the eye, blood clotting cascade) have been found to have perfectly good evolutionary explanations with supporting data. It is a negative argument only so it is useless from the perspective of a scientist trying to decide on an avenue of research since it basically translates as "move along there's nothing to see here". I have no more reason to believe that cellularity is any more irreducibly complex than the blood clotting cascade.
Besides, if this is the same Joseph W. Francis that sits on the editorial board of "Occasional Papers of the Baraminology Study Group", whose stated purpose is;
1. Develop a new view of biology that is consistent with the Biblical record.
2. Encourage high-quality creation biology and baraminology research.
3. Sponsor conferences and other appropriate activities to promote creation biology.
4. Develop a community of creation biologists who share these goals.
I have little reason to consider his scientific thinking sound. If all his scientific theorizing is seen through the lens of creation science, like many creation scientists before him he is making mistakes lethal to a scientific career. Rather than take the whole of the data available on a subject and using it to inform his hypothesizing, he starts from a preconceived notion about how the data should fit and may be consciously or unconsciously taking liberties with the data (cherry-picking for example).
Hi MikeGene,
Technically I don't think that it would be wrong for anyone to be skeptical about anything. Now when it comes to a research proposal, given what we do know about how life developed and the conditions of the earth at the time, for a scientist to be skeptical about only assuming physical and chemical process in regards to the origin of life would be difficult to justify. The data is just not there from what I have seen. To answer your last question I would be convinced by data like viable bacteria being discovered on meteorites (But like I said the origin of life in general is what is more interesting). It is actually a hard question to answer because the data right now fit the "physical and chemical process" explanation so well that it would be like asking me to come up with data that would convince me that the germ theory of disease was incorrect. In fact physical and chemical processes explain everything in science as far as I have been able to tell. Perhaps if you give me an example of a phenomenon in science that has an explanation in the "other than" category I might better understand your objection.
Comment by JoshuaW — December 13, 2005 @ 7:13 pm
December 13th, 2005 at 7:15 pm
There was supposed to be a "Hi" before jazzraptor. Im not trying to be unfriendly , I think something funny happened when I was spellchecking, cutting, pasting…
Comment by JoshuaW — December 13, 2005 @ 7:15 pm
December 13th, 2005 at 10:48 pm
Only one's faith in just-so stories destroys the force of IC as a problem for Darwinism, JoshuaW.
Comment by Dane Parker — December 13, 2005 @ 10:48 pm
December 14th, 2005 at 9:38 am
JoshuaW:
Irreducible complexity has failed as a scientific argument. In practice it has amounted to no more than a stealthy "god in the gaps" argument.
Do you have anything besides your say-so to back that up?
JoshuaW:
All of its most famous example systems (bacterial flagellum, the eye, blood clotting cascade) have been found to have perfectly good evolutionary explanations with supporting data.
Again do you have anything besides your say-so to back that up?
JoshuaW:
It is a negative argument only so it is useless from the perspective of a scientist trying to decide on an avenue of research since it basically translates as "move along there's nothing to see here".
In reality IC is a positive argument based on what we do know about intelligent agencies. IC can be empirically tested.
Also as ID is all about the detection AND understanding of design once IC is determined there is still plenty of work to do. Or do you think that once Stonehenge was determined to be an artifact that all work on it stopped?
JoshuaW:
I have no more reason to believe that cellularity is any more irreducibly complex than the blood clotting cascade.
You also have no data that demonstrates that a living cell can arise from non-living matter via unintelligent, blind/ undirected processes. If you did we wouldn't be having this discussion.
Comment by Joe G — December 14, 2005 @ 9:38 am
December 15th, 2005 at 6:39 am
Apologies for the late response.
You talk about us being skeptical of chemical/physical explanations, and that this means no evidence can ever accrue for alternative explanations.
The thing is, it's not just low-hanging fruit. It is the only fruit.
Let me put it this way. ID is being presented as an alternative theory. The problem is, there is no evidence for the Designer. There are no known methods of testing whether designer exists. There are no experiments that can possibly be performed to check for his existence.
Discovery Institute has a budget of $20 million a year. They perform zero scientific experiments with that money. They produce zero new knowledge. A scientific institution with that kind of funding would have a ton of results by now.
If we accept Intelligent Design as an alternative, that is the beggining and the end of that line of inquiry. We say "Ok, I don't believe that life arose through spontaneous processes"; and then we go home. Job done. We may as well say "life arose through the action of invisible pink unicorns that left our universe immediately afterwards." Same result.
This is the untestability fallacy – you can say anything, and while it is a possible explanation, it has no explanatory value. There is no way to ascertain how correct it is.
So, until you actually produce a theory (Discovery Institute itself admits that they have no theory of Intelligent Design), and a way of testing that theory, we have to go on working on the chemical/physical explanation of origin of life. The simple reason is that we have no testable alternative.
In addition to the previous: Irreducible Complexity is an extremely faulty argument against evolution. We have elucidated (by evidence, not just by inference) the evolution of many extremely complex cellular mechanisms (DNA polymerases, ribosomes, signaling pathways). Saying that those structures could evolve, while flagella couldn't, is kind of like saying that Egyptian pyramids could have been built by humans, but that Maya pyramids had to be poofed into existence by aliens…
The only reason ID people are getting away with their claims is that we don't have as much data about, say, flagellum. As we get more data (it is a currently ongoing process) their case gets weaker and weaker; for instance, Behe's case about blood clotting system is already shot to dust, even though he'll never admit it.
It's all sort of irrelevant, in the final instance. There is a reason Discovery Institute took four years to collect 400 signatures of people supporting ID, while a recent petition aimed directly against ID collected 8000+ signatures in four days: those who count know the truth. The scientists, the biologists, the geneticists – we know that evolutionary theory holds, because we see it on a daily basis in our work.
The ID proponents can do a lot of damage; they can destroy an entire generation of budding scientists if they dilute the very definition of science in our schools. But they can't get around the facts. In the end, the facts are the only thing that matters.
Comment by GeneMiner — December 15, 2005 @ 6:39 am
December 15th, 2005 at 8:50 am
GeneMiner:
ID is being presented as an alternative theory. The problem is, there is no evidence for the Designer.
There is plenty of evidence for design. ID is all about the design, not the designer. Now what IDists want is to be able to check as to whether the design is real or illusory.
GeneMiner:
There are no known methods of testing whether designer exists. There are no experiments that can possibly be performed to check for his existence.
But we do have known methods for detecting design. And that is all ID requires to get started.
We can test ID by the strict criteria put forth by IDists- namely Wm. Dembski& Mike Behe. To falsify ID all you have to do is to show that life can arise from non-living matter via unintelligent, blind/ undirected processes.
GeneMoner:
Irreducible Complexity is an extremely faulty argument against evolution.
But IC isn't an argument againsy evolution. It is an argument against the blind watchmaker thesis
GeneMiner:
Behe's case about blood clotting system is already shot to dust, even though he'll never admit it.
REally? The Dover case demonstrated otherwise- that blood clotting still stands as IC.
GeneMoner:
The scientists, the biologists, the geneticists – we know that evolutionary theory holds, because we see it on a daily basis in our work.
But reality demonstrates that IF you could support your claims (of NDE) then ID would never have made a come-back.
Comment by Joe G — December 15, 2005 @ 8:50 am
December 15th, 2005 at 9:04 am
Hi doctor(logic),
"I agree that there should be a teensy weensy amount skepticism that we can find a naturalistic explanation of abiogenesis,"
Indeed. So why isn't there?
Comment by Krauze — December 15, 2005 @ 9:04 am
December 15th, 2005 at 9:28 am
GeneMiner offers an instructive response.
First, he offers this criticism of ID:
"ID is being presented as an alternative theory. The problem is, there is no evidence for the Designer. There are no known methods of testing whether designer exists. There are no experiments that can possibly be performed to check for his existence."
This tells us that GM belongs to the designer-centric school of thought. This allows us to see what lies behind his following criticism:
"Discovery Institute has a budget of $20 million a year. They perform zero scientific experiments with that money. They produce zero new knowledge. A scientific institution with that kind of funding would have a ton of results by now."
To GM, the only valid way to research ID is to identify the designer. For the DI to satisfy his demand, they would have to spend their $20 million budget looking for the designer, like som Indiana Jones. Until then, they "produce zero new knowledge."
"So, until you actually produce a theory (Discovery Institute itself admits that they have no theory of Intelligent Design), and a way of testing that theory, we have to go on working on the chemical/physical explanation of origin of life."
GM misses the point of Mesk's and my posts. None of us were saying that scientists should give up "working on the chemical/physical explanation of origin of life." We simply pointed out that skepticism regarding this project is strangely absent.
BTW, what's with the "we" GM, do you do origin-of-life research?
"There is a reason Discovery Institute took four years to collect 400 signatures of people supporting ID, while a recent petition aimed directly against ID collected 8000+ signatures in four days: those who count know the truth."
Why would GM have us trust the authority of those 8000+ scientists? How many of those have attempted to understand ID, by reading the writings of ID supporters? How many of them have actually tried – and failed – applying ID in their research?
"The ID proponents can do a lot of damage; they can destroy an entire generation of budding scientists if they dilute the very definition of science in our schools."
Here's a little thing that I think GM will appreciate.
Comment by Krauze — December 15, 2005 @ 9:28 am
December 15th, 2005 at 9:56 am
Krauze,
It's there alright. It's just that the alternative is that there is no explanation at all, and that we're all wasting our time doing scientific research. So, I would expect scientists, in their professional capacity, to betray zero skepticism that science will be fruitful.
Comment by doctor(logic) — December 15, 2005 @ 9:56 am
December 15th, 2005 at 10:49 am
Krauze, I'm not sure why you think there is insufficient skepticism in the field of abiogenesis research. There is an interesting article by Richard Robinson about current thinking in abiogenesis available here. A number of abiogenesis hypotheses have been shot down, and I'm sure that the rivals from the two identified camps will not only research their own ideas, but also try to poke holes in their rivals. They may end up invalidating both camps. In concrete terms, what exactly do you think scientists ought to be doing in this field that they are not doing now?
Comment by Aagcobb — December 15, 2005 @ 10:49 am
December 15th, 2005 at 11:11 am
Aagcobb,
I think Krauze's point is that there is not sufficient skepticism as to whether abiogenesis occured. Most of the skepticism is about the mechanism or model of abiogenesis, not about whether it occured.
doctor(logic) would have us believe the absurd result that the reason for this lack of skepticism about an abiogenic origin of life is that there are only two logical possibilities:
1. There is no explanation for abiogenesis
2. The explanation is abiogenic
The first option is not interesting, so we assume the second option and pursue it.
Comment by bipod — December 15, 2005 @ 11:11 am
December 15th, 2005 at 11:32 am
OK, bipod, I get that Krauze thinks that there should be more skepticism about whether abiogenesis occurred. Persumably, if he thinks this is important, he has a concrete reason for thinking its important. I assume Krauze wants scientists to do something with the thought that maybe abiogenesis didn't occur. My question is what does Krauze think scientists should be doing that they aren't doing now? If all he wants is for them to take a moment to consider the possibility that abiogenesis didn't happen, then continue in exactly the same acitivities they would have engaged in anyway, I don't see how that would amount to anything of significance.
Comment by Aagcobb — December 15, 2005 @ 11:32 am
December 15th, 2005 at 11:34 am
Hi Aagcobb,
I already dealt with that in my post:
"Sure, origin-of-life researchers criticize each others' scenarios, but no one doubts the most basic assumption: That life did arise as the consequence of physical and chemical processes. I know of no scientist doing experiments to disprove abiogenesis, and apart from creationists and ID supporters, I can't name any who even thinks that doing so would be a good idea."
Comment by Krauze — December 15, 2005 @ 11:34 am
December 15th, 2005 at 11:43 am
Hi Aagcobb,
"I assume Krauze wants scientists to do something with the thought that maybe abiogenesis didn't occur."
My post didn't contain any claims that scientists should do this or that. I simply pointed to a discrepancy: Even though everybody seems to agree that skepticism is a good thing, no one in the scientific community seems to be interested in directing some of that skepticism towards abiogenesis. Simple as that.
"If all he wants is for them to take a moment to consider the possibility that abiogenesis didn't happen, then continue in exactly the same acitivities they would have engaged in anyway, I don't see how that would amount to anything of significance."
This is interesting. Taking "a moment to consider the possibility that abiogenesis didn't happen, then continue in exactly the same acitivities they would have engaged in anyway". Is that what you think skepticism amounts to?
Comment by Krauze — December 15, 2005 @ 11:43 am
December 15th, 2005 at 11:58 am
Krauze, I'm just trying to find out what it is specifically you think scientists should be doing. You say you know of no scientist doing experiments to disprove abiogenesis. I don't know how any scientist could possibly "prove" that abiogenesis is impossible. It seems to me that the most any scientist could do is research specific proposed hypotheses and thereby either invalidate, modify or strengthen them. That is occurring anyway. Do you have any thoughts on how a scientist would go about "proving" that abiogenesis is impossible as a general proposition?
Comment by Aagcobb — December 15, 2005 @ 11:58 am
December 15th, 2005 at 3:36 pm
Hi Aagcobb,
"Krauze, I'm just trying to find out what it is specifically you think scientists should be doing."
In case you didn't see it, here's what I wrote in my previous comment:
"My post didn't contain any claims that scientists should do this or that. I simply pointed to a discrepancy: Even though everybody seems to agree that skepticism is a good thing, no one in the scientific community seems to be interested in directing some of that skepticism towards abiogenesis. Simple as that."
"You say you know of no scientist doing experiments to disprove abiogenesis. I don't know how any scientist could possibly "prove" that abiogenesis is impossible."
"Disproving abiogenesis" could also cover the possibility that abiogenesis, although possible, didn't happen. That's the meaning many ID critics use when asking whether ID is falsifiable. I thought turnabout would be fair play.
Anyway, let's drop the word "disprove", as this has an absolutist undertone. Do you know of any scientists doing research that, if successful , would weaken the concept of abiogenesis?
Comment by Krauze — December 15, 2005 @ 3:36 pm
December 15th, 2005 at 3:59 pm
Krauze says: "Disproving abiogenesis" could also cover the possibility that abiogenesis, although possible, didn't happen. That's the meaning many ID critics use when asking whether ID is falsifiable. I thought turnabout would be fair play.
The best way of doing that, then, is developing an alternative hypothesis and doing research to demonstrate supporting evidence for the alternative, just as we have reason to think ID didn't happen because there is an alternative explanation, evolution, which is strongly supported by the evidence.
Do you know of any scientists doing research that, if successful , would weaken the concept of abiogenesis?
Of course, the scientists who are working on abiogenesis research themselves. In attempting to demonstrate the feasibility of their hypotheses, they could just as easily demonstrate that they are not feasible, as has already happened in this field. If every hypothesis is invalidated, and scientists run out of ideas, that would weaken the concept.
Comment by Aagcobb — December 15, 2005 @ 3:59 pm
December 16th, 2005 at 7:41 pm
There is no evidence for design, other then the "negative evidence" that boils down to Behe and a few others saying "I don't believe this could arise through evolution".
Can you name a single experiment performed on actual biological samples that supports ID?
Then why aren't they employed?
Let me make this dirt simple: you say that there has to be a designer. Fine. Go to the lab, make a theory of Intelligent Design, find a way of experimentally proving it, and go on to do so.
Those criteria are everything but strict. Even they cannot define it strictly. The best Behe could do is to say "you know complexity when you see it".
And that is exactly what the science of abiogenesis has been doing. The chain of events that could lead to life is being elucidated, link by link; with fewer links remaining unknown all the time.
It, actually, isn't really an argument against anything; since nobody, including its designers, can define it properly.
If you wish to argue differently, please look at the ribosome and the flagellum. Then give me a reproducible, firmly defined method that would allow me to calculate or decide how and why one is IC and the other isn't.
On the contrary. The Dover case illustrated that Behe will wave his hand, say "all of that is insufficient", without even a word to the contents of the research.
Blood clotting system is anything but irreducible; the mechanism of its evolution is actually genetically quite simple. See:
http://www.millerandlevine.com/km/evol/DI/clot/Clotting.html
We have certainly seen evolution of more biochemically and genetically complex sets of genes.
ID hasn't made a comeback. ID is a political idea, fashionable among non-scientist believers, who don't understand the scientific background of evolution enough; which allows the ID crowd to get huge amounts of money by, basically, lying. It is the same story as with the creationists before them – make up some arguments that sound good enough to be accepted by the poorly educated Christians, publish a book, and laugh on your way to the bank.
In science, ID has zero effect. It is mostly as source of some irritation (when you have to explain, for the umpteenth time, that none of the arguments in "Icons of Evolution" is true – and none would be true even if Evolution was incorrect, because the mistakes made have nothing to do with evolutionary theory itself), and some amusement.
Actually, no. You are reading far too much from the way I formulated the question.
Investigate the design. Investigate something. But do an experiment, with a control, comparing two things, one designed and one undesigned, and produce some way of defining your basic terms. If you need to start somewhere, look at the question about the ribosome and the flagellum above; what makes one IC, and the other not?
Take a look at vancomycin resistance. Or HIV membrane fusion. Those things evolved recently (or were they designed recently? evidence?). Show us why and how they are not IC, while flagellum is.
Until you do, all you have is an opinion that flagellum is IC, because you can see IC when you see it, and you are the judge of it…which, in science, isn't worth even the paper it's written on.
Also, evolutionary theory is the basic of modern bioinformatics. Practically none of our bioinformatic systems would work if evolution didn't hold. Since you claim that the similarities are similarities of design, and not of change over time, you can make a bioinformatics system that calculates the differences in, say, protein sequences based on design. If that shows better results then calculations based on evolutionary premises, that will be good evidence for your side of the argument.
Anything, really, that I can actually use in the lab. How about it?
Comment by GeneMiner — December 16, 2005 @ 7:41 pm