Artificial life likely in 3 to 10 years

By designing life, scientists will prove that life wasn't designed. And when they do, 'brights' will demand to know who designed the designers.

Not.

The baffling premise seems to be nothing more than a bizarre dilemma: Life is improbable and since we cannpot beleive it is a design, we must posit the existence of an infinite number of unknowables…

Bullshit pure and simple.

We do not know that life (even "life-as-we-know-it") is rare or improbable. For all we know life was "written into" the laws of the evolution of the universe and therefore inevitable.

What Koonin is doing is evoking an exhaustive exploration of all imaginable possibilities (other than design), but w/o realizing that it is exactly because nature does not exhaustively explore all possibilities that life is a pre-determined result.

Zachriel's "Theory of Evolution": ""Abiogenesis is not a component of the Theory of Evolution"¦ The Theory of Evolution concerns the diversification of life, not its origin," is to be rejected.

Nothing about the origin, evolution of life on Earth is known to be inconsistent with the laws of the evolution of the universe (the one and only that we know of).

[Per my policy. "Rock's Theory of Evolution" is completely plagiarized: It is one of the oldest theses in the history of Western natural philosophy (and natural theology).]

Bradford: The generating cause of an irreducible structure is the key. If one of the rocks contained engraved symbols indicating construction procedures we would infer something different.

We might very well, and you are right to point out that the "generating cause" would be key. However, that is not the claim at issue. The question is whether "irreducible structures" can spontaneously arise. They can and they do. Whether this explains particular biological structures is empirical, not formal.

Irreducible structures exist in non-biological nature, so we already have physical models. A typical example is a natural arch. You have a pile of rocks which form a bridge. Erosion removes most of the natural scaffolding, leaving just the stones forming an irreducible arch which can be composed of many interlocking stones.

The generating cause of an irreducible structure is the key. If one of the rocks contained engraved symbols indicating construction procedures we would infer something different.

Zachriel: There is no inherent barrier to the stepwise, selectable and probabilistically plausible evolution of irreducible structures. There are a variety of mechanisms available, including duplication, specialization, segregation, cooption, etc. Whether these are sufficient to explain particular biological structures is empirical, not formal.

Mung: So why should I or anyone else believe you, since you offer simply bald assertion without any evidence?

You shouldn't just believe it. You should analyze the claim and determine whether it is supportable, perhaps by asking appropriate questions and exploring the boundaries of the claim, or seek out valid authority. Any single example, real or contrived, is sufficient to disprove the existence of an inherent barrier.

Irreducible structures exist in non-biological nature, so we already have physical models. A typical example is a natural arch. You have a pile of rocks which form a bridge. Erosion removes most of the natural scaffolding, leaving just the stones forming an irreducible arch which can be composed of many interlocking stones.

Zachriel:

There is no inherent barrier to the stepwise, selectable and probabilistically plausible evolution of irreducible structures. There are a variety of mechanisms available, including duplication, specialization, segregation, cooption, etc. Whether these are sufficient to explain particular biological structures is empirical, not formal.

Says who, you? From my review of this thread there seems to be a great deal of doubt cast upon anyting you say. So why should I or anyone else believe you, since you offer simply bald assertion without any evidence?

magnan: OK, you have expressed your opinion, but you disagree with Koonin and a number of other researchers, who quite evidently do have a problem with "plausible", or there would have been no perceived need to postulate infinite unobservables.

Koonin doesn't close the door to a more conventional explanation. Specuation is fine: A pluralistic approach is often best practice when confronting an intractable or difficult problem. And, by the way, fundamental to his paper is the distinction between anthropic selection and darwinian selection. However, Koonin does allow anthropic selection throughout the darwinian period. Perhaps, in some universes a different evolutionary path is taken, in others no life at all. Perhaps in some, humans suddenly appears with no precedessors. Perhaps everything the world suddenly appeared complete just Last Thursday. But that is not the world we observe.

Koonin: The onset of biological evolution canalizes the historical process by reducing the number of available trajectories to the relatively few robust ones that are compatible with the Darwinian mode of evolution of complex systems.

magnan: We can't observe what actually occurred over the long history of evolution.

Zachriel: We can't observe the interior of the Sun, but by any reasonable measure of scientific certainty, there is a fusion reaction there.

magnan: The usual statement from authority, of opinion as fact, assuming similar degrees of certainty to innumerable unknowable events in deep time as to an established model in astrophysics.

"Opinion as fact" You actually doubt Solar fusion? Jeez.

"Unknowable events" Let's start with basic history, with what we do know. From a fossil of a T. Rex we can infer that a large, extinct organism walked, breathed, ingested, digested, grew, bred. We have reasonably inferred something we can't directly observe, a walking T. Rex. We have now established at least one point in history.

Your statement that "We can't observe what actually occurred over the long history of evolution." is misleading at best. We can determine historical events by the same scientific methodology we use to determine the existence of nuclear reactions in the interior of the Sun.

Zachriel: Life has the appearance of a history."

magnan: Certainly. Common descent and measured ages in the fossil record are not the issue.

Sure it is. You made it an issue when you claimed that infinite universes make "Darwinism superfluous". Common Descent, a crucial facet of Darwin's Theory of Evolution, and of modern evolutionary theory, is a valid scientific conclusion from the evidence.

Infinite universes does not equate to any possible universe. Regardless of the origin of life, we *observe* evolution and the evidence of its history. The scientific conclusions of evolutionary biology remain valid regardless of any speculation regarding life's origin.

Zachriel: That is a misuse of the term. Darwin didn't know the source of variation in organisms. If the term "Darwinism" has any meaning in modern science, it is in relation to Natural Selection, not the source of variation. The modern synthesis posits variation is random with respect to the environment, not that it is absolutely random. Of note, small mutational changes can have very profound effects on phylogeny, especially those that affect development.

magnan: Nit-picks not relevant to the issue.

All those were valid points. Improper use of terminology leads to confusion. "Darwinism" is poorly defined in context and leads to conflation. A crucial aspect of Darwin's Theory is Common Descent (for most taxa).

Zachriel: There is substantial scientific evidence, including direct observation of mechanisms, that evolution is a stochastic and opportunistic process that results in ad hoc adaptations.

magnan: Microevolution, and assumes what is in dispute over ID, that microevolution + enough time = macroevolution.

But that means looking at the historical evidence. And if we look at the evidence, we will see historical processes. We will see a progression, the first fish before the first reptiles, the first reptiles before the first mammals, the first mammals before the first hominids. That is what we see. There is a progression. A history. We CAN determine what actually occurred over the long history of evolution.

Nor was ID the issue. (How soon they forget.)

Zachriel: This is where your argument fails. Life on Earth has all the appearance of having a history, just as the rocks and rivers and stars do.

magnan: Sure there is a history; common descent and measured ages in the fossil record are not the issue. Observation of limited microevolutionary change is grandly extrapolated to the entire history of life despite a lot of evidence to the contrary, but that is the old debate again.

You've apparently already forgot what I took issue with. You claimed that infinite universes make "Darwinism superfluous". This is as incorrect for evolutionary theory as it is for gravitational theory. That's because Common Descent, a crucial facet of Darwin's Theory of Evolution and of modern evolutionary theory, is a valid scientific conclusion from the evidence. This scientific conclusion concerning this universe remains regardless of how many other universe there might be.

The usual statement from authority, of opinion as fact, assuming similar degrees of certainty to innumerable unknowable events in deep time as to an established model in astrophysics. In the face of considerable problems with the biological theory between predictions and data. Only the astrophysics model has any pretention of having a "reasonable measure of scientific certainty", but that is the tedious old debate again, and not the subject of this thread.

Zachriel: Science is a specific methodology validating hypotheses by empirical predictions. Life has the appearance of a history."

Certainly. Common descent and measured ages in the fossil record are not the issue. This begins the tedious debate again about the mostly absent intermediates, the Cambrian explosion, irreducibly complex biological systems, etc. etc.

Zachriel: That (random mutational changes) is a misuse of the term. Darwin didn't know the source of variation in organisms. If the term "Darwinism" has any meaning in modern science, it is in relation to Natural Selection, not the source of variation. The modern synthesis posits variation is random with respect to the environment, not that it is absolutely random. Of note, small mutational changes can have very profound effects on phylogeny, especially those that affect development.

Nit-picks not relevant to the issue.

Zachriel: Yes, I understand that (Behe's hypothesis regarding non-random variation). But non-random does not equate to intelligent agency, and their claim of valid scientific evidence is false.

A statement of opinion in the guise of a statement of fact. Saying it is so doesn't make it so. Anyway, not relevant to the issue.

magnan: Both sides would presumably agree that not considering any probability bound constraints, the source of genetic variation in macroevolution could in principle have been a fortuitous series of macromutations occurring by chance that just happened to produce the major biological innovations that resulted in present organisms.

Zachriel: There is substantial scientific evidence, including direct observation of mechanisms, that evolution is a stochastic and opportunistic process that results in ad hoc adaptations.

Microevolution, and assumes what is in dispute over ID, that microevolution + enough time = macroevolution.

Zachriel: This is where your argument fails. Life on Earth has all the appearance of having a history, just as the rocks and rivers and stars do.

Sure there is a history; common descent and measured ages in the fossil record are not the issue. Observation of limited microevolutionary change is grandly extrapolated to the entire history of life despite a lot of evidence to the contrary, but that is the old debate again. Overall, your response is mostly nit-picks and reflexive repetition of the standard doctrine. You assume what is in dispute: evolution happened by a Darwinian process, so fortuitus macromutations did not and could not have occurred, so the multiverse idea is a legitimate explanation for OOL and is not a reduction to absurdity. But Koonin has cherry picked the particular type of "infinite" subset he wants, really just a very very large number not required to actually be infinity. Is there any reason why reality has to fit his desire, and is there any way of confirming or discomfirming it observationally? I don't think so. So a true infinity is just as likely, and infinity is kind of weird, not just a very big number. Any event that isn't strictly impossible will happen not just once but an infinite number of times. You persistently refuse to recognize the true implications of a truly infinite multiverse. The concept really can't solve the OOL problem without also allowing chance to entirely explain evolution and even more importantly, pulling the rug out from under reason.

Zachriel: In any case, I find absolutely no reason to invoke multiple universes to consider that spontaneous abiogenesis is plausible in this universe.

OK, you have expressed your opinion, but you disagree with Koonin and a number of other researchers, who quite evidently do have a problem with "plausible", or there would have been no perceived need to postulate infinite unobservables.

The idea is that the Big Bang is a quantum fluctuation, a unique uber-particle, the child of cosmic uncertainty. There are no known empirical predictions concerning the stability of "nothingness". It is merely the wispy imaginings of physicists"”like multiverses.

Frank Wilczek: "The reason that there is something instead of nothing is that nothing is unstable."

Please don't confuse quantum vacua or fields with absolute nothingness. Such vacua and/or fields are not 'nothings', but rather, 'somethings'"“"“–namely, fields or structures that are governed either by quantum mechanical laws or whatever laws the ultimate physical theory or ToE specifies.

Far from being 'nothing', they are universe-generators.