The Bafflement Continues
by MikeGeneIn a previous essay where I partially explored the God-of-the-Gaps argument, , I also noted that origin-of-life researcher George Cody was quoted as saying "No one knows anything about the origin of life." This moment of candor is consistent with what Paul Davies wrote in his book, The 5th Miracle: "Many investigators feel uneasy stating in public that the origin of life is a mystery, even though behind closed doors they admit they are baffled." Before we explore why it is that origin-of-life researchers feel the need to hide their bafflement from the public, it would be useful to demonstrate the truth of Davies observation with a recent paper by Eugene Koonin (HT to Paul Nelson ).
Koonin recently authored a paper entitled, The cosmological model of eternal inflation and the transition from chance to biological evolution in the history of life. Itai Yanai, from Harvard University, describes the model as follows:
In this work, Eugene Koonin estimates the probability of arriving at a system capable of undergoing Darwinian evolution and comes to a cosmologically small number. With such an improbable event at hand, Koonin turns to a cosmological perspective in order to grasp its feasibility. He cites recent work in cosmology that highlights the vastness of the universe, where any series of events is necessarily played out an infinite number of times. This so-called "many-worlds in one" model essentially reconceives any chance event as a necessary one, where its (absolute) abundance is proportional to its chance of occurring.
Eric Bapteste, from Université Pierre et Marie Curie, summarizes it likewise:
"¦.. he is in fact introducing a model from which teleology could be entirely absent to justify that, if everything with a low probability is possible somewhere, even though it has a low probability in a given universe, providing a high enough number of universes, everything -including the oddest phenomena- becomes necessary somewhere. Then, complex structures for replication have to emerge. By chance, we happened to be in the "right" type of universe where this very emergence took place, says Koonin. It is just maths: the initial paradox can be solved by an axiom: it had to be so or we would not be here to tell.
I should point out that Eugene Koonin is a major-league biologist who has published extensively on evolution. So why is it that a leading scientist like Koonin has felt the need to offer up such a radical model to explain the origin-of-life, a model that attempts to justify abiogenesis with the ultimate non-teleological expression of "it just happened?"
Well, let me quote Koonin at length as he offers a sobering summary of the state of abiogenesis research 50+ years after Stanley Miller's famous experiment:
The origin(s) of replication and translation (hereinafter OORT) is qualitatively different from other problems in evolutionary biology and might be viewed as the hardest problem in all of biology. As soon as sufficiently fast and accurate genome replication emerges, biological evolution takes off. I use this general term to include Darwinian natural selection[16] along with other major evolutionary mechanisms, such as fixation of neutral mutations that provide material for subsequent adaptation [17], exaptation of "spandrels" (features that originally emerge as evolutionary by-products but are subsequently utilized for new functions) [18], and duplication of genome regions followed by mutational and functional diversification [19]. All these processes that, together, comprise biological evolution become possible and, actually, inevitable once and only once efficient replication of the genetic material is established.
The crucial question, then, is how was the minimal complexity attained that is required to achieve the threshold replication fidelity. In even the simplest modern systems, such as RNA viruses with the replication fidelity of only ~10-3, replication is catalyzed by a complex protein replicase; even disregarding accessory subunits present in most replicases, the main catalytic subunit is a protein that consists of at least 300 amino acids [20]. The replicase, of course, is produced by translation of the respective mRNA which is mediated by a tremendously complex molecular machinery. Hence the first paradox of OORT: to attain the minimal complexity required for a biological system to start on the path of biological evolution, a system of a far greater complexity, i.e., a highly evolved one, appears to be required. How such a system could evolve, is a puzzle that defeats conventional evolutionary thinking.
The commonly considered solution is the RNA world scenario, i.e., the notion that replication evolved before translation such that the earliest stage of life's evolution was a versatile community of replicating RNA molecules [21-23]. A central element of the RNA world is a replicase consisting of RNA. The RNA world concept is supported by the experimental discovery of diverse catalytic activities of ribozymes (catalytic RNAs) [24-27]. However, all the advances of ribozymology notwithstanding, the prospects of a bona fide ribozyme replicase remain dim as the ribozymes designed for that purposes are capable, at best, of the addition of ~10 nucleotides to a oligonucleotide primer, at a very slow rate and with fidelity at least an order magnitude below that required for the replication of relatively long RNA molecules [28,29]. As recently noticed by one of the leading RNA world explorers, "Despite valiant efforts,…it appears unlikely that this particular polymerase enzyme will ever be evolved to the point that it can copy RNA molecules as long as itself (~200 nucleotides)" [30]. Of course, it remains possible "“ and this is, indeed, the belief in the RNA world community "“ that other ribozymes are eventually evolved to that level; however, the evidence is lacking.
The second paradox of OORT pertains to the origin of the translation system from within the RNA world via a Darwinian evolutionary process: until the translation system produces functional proteins, there is no obvious selective advantage to the evolution of any parts of this elaborate (even in its most primitive form) molecular machine. Conceptually, this paradox is closely related to the general problem of the evolution of complex systems that was first recognized by Darwin in his famous discussion of the evolution of the eye [16]. The solution sketched by Darwin centered around the evolutionary refinement of a primitive version of the function of the complex organ; subsequently, the importance of the exaptation route for the evolution of complex systems has been realized [18]. However, origin of translation resists both lines of reasoning. Primitive translation in a protein-free system is conceivable as an intermediate stage of evolution (see below) but this does not resolve the paradox because, even for that form of translation to function, the core components must have been in place already. Speculative scenarios have been developed on the basis of the idea that even short peptides could provide selective advantage to an evolving system in the RNA world by stabilizing RNA molecules, affecting their conformations or enhancing their catalytic activities [31-33] (see Ref. [34] for an attempt of a synthesis on this direction in the study of translation origins). These ideas are compatible with observed effects of peptides on ribozyme activity [35] but none of the scenarios is complete or supported by any specific evidence, and all include reactions without precedent in modern biological or model systems.
All this is not to suggest that OORT is a problem of "irreducible complexity" and that the systems of replication and translation could not emerge by means of biological evolution. It remains possible that a compelling evolutionary scenario is eventually developed and, perhaps, validated experimentally. However, it is clear that OORT is not just the hardest problem in all of evolutionary biology but one that is qualitatively distinct from the rest. For all other problems, the basis of biological evolution, genome replication, is in place but, in the case of OORT, the emergence of this mechanism itself is the explanandum. Thus, it is of interest to consider radically different scenarios for OORT.
The summary is quite good at many levels. Right now, I will content myself in noting that Koonin has forcefully made a point I have long argued "“ the evidence for evolution is NOT evidence for abiogenesis (and this takes us back to that promissory note I discussed in my essay linked to at the top of this posting). I can also point out that Itai Yanai echoes Koonin's pessimistic assessment in his review:
The context of this article is framed by the current lack of a complete and plausible scenario for the origin of life. Koonin specifically addresses the front-runner model, that of the RNA-world, where self-replicating RNA molecules precede a translation system. He notes that in addition to the difficulties involved in achieving such a system is the paradox of attaining a translation system through Darwinian selection. That this is indeed a bona-fide paradox is appreciated by the fact that, without a shortage effort, a plausible scenario for translation evolution has not been proposed to date. There have been other models for the origin of life, including the ground-breaking Lipid-world model advanced by Segrè, Lancet and colleagues (reviewed in EMBO Reports (2000), 1(3), 217"“222), but despite much ingenuity and effort, it is fair to say that all origin of life models suffer from astoundingly low probabilities of actually occurring.
Eric Bapteste still holds out hope for conventional speculations, but nevertheless concedes the following important point:
Deeply, I agree with Koonin that explaining the origin of replication cycles in general challenges any sort of thinking based on natural selection and goes beyond the classical evolutionary theory, in the sense that Darwinian evolution needs replication to happen and evolutionists need replication cycles (and descent) to reason. Explaining the origin/cause of the phenomenon of replication is thus a big problem.
I do not bring all this to your attention to score cheap "pro-ID" points at the expense of abiogenesis researchers, as I think ID proponents can extract only minimal mileage from the failure of abiogenesis. I bring this up because it is important that we understand the true state of affairs with regard to current abiogenesis research, as such bafflement should not be concealed behind closed doors.
To say that "No one knows anything about the origin of life" is not spin; it's just how things are.
June 25th, 2007 at 12:24 am
I thought Dave Scott over at UD made a good observation
Vivid
Comment by Vividbleau — June 25, 2007 @ 12:24 am
June 25th, 2007 at 12:39 am
Um, Vivid — there are already designing intelligences in our universe. They're called humans.
Comment by keiths — June 25, 2007 @ 12:39 am
June 25th, 2007 at 2:48 am
Psha, not even Koonin would say that. To pick one of thousands of areas on the OOL where we know something of the evolutionary origin, the tRNAs are paralogs. As Koonin says in the paper.
Comment by nickmatzke — June 25, 2007 @ 2:48 am
June 25th, 2007 at 4:01 am
Umm Keiths …your right and some of them apparently are intentionally dense.
Vivid
Comment by Vividbleau — June 25, 2007 @ 4:01 am
June 25th, 2007 at 4:13 am
Vivid wrote:
Is that a confession?
Comment by keiths — June 25, 2007 @ 4:13 am
June 25th, 2007 at 4:24 am
Off topic –
Hey Nick,
Sorry to hear that you're leaving the NCSE. They'll have a hard time filling your shoes.
Have fun at Berkeley.
Comment by keiths — June 25, 2007 @ 4:24 am
June 25th, 2007 at 5:14 am
nickmatzke said,
If anybody is curious as to what nickmatzke is talking about with his "tRNA are paralogs" epiphany, check out this video of tRNA's in action during the transcription of a hemoglobin molecule. The green triangular molecules bringing the amino acids to the ribozome are tRNA's. Claiming that "tRNA's are paralogs" somehow sheds light on the OOL issue is pretty cheeky.
Comment by Jehu — June 25, 2007 @ 5:14 am
June 25th, 2007 at 6:34 am
That comment came in response to this one:
Keiths, what point were you trying to make that is in any way relevant to shedding light on the problem highlighted by Mike's post?
Comment by Bradford — June 25, 2007 @ 6:34 am
June 25th, 2007 at 6:37 am
I agree. Paralogs. Sounds like a good word to insert when you don't have a clue as to how observed outcome x came about.
Comment by Bradford — June 25, 2007 @ 6:37 am
June 25th, 2007 at 7:51 am
Hi Mike,
I think you (and others) are trying to spin Koonin's appeal to quantum mechanics as an act of desparation.
I suggest it is just the inevidable march of science.
Got to run, more later.
Comment by Thought Provoker — June 25, 2007 @ 7:51 am
June 25th, 2007 at 9:50 am
I thought the article was indeed quite remarkable, but did not think the remarks regarding ID and irreducible complexity were appropriate and I commented on the article here. However, I must add that Eugene Koonin has done a great job with Biology Direct, leading to the easier publication on controversial topics and he himself is not afraid to speculate.
Comment by AdR — June 25, 2007 @ 9:50 am
June 25th, 2007 at 10:12 am
You wrote, "irreducible complexity and gradual evolution are mutually exclusive (cf. the concept of a perpetual motion machine for physics)".
This is incorrect. 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.
Comment by Zachriel — June 25, 2007 @ 10:12 am
June 25th, 2007 at 12:17 pm
Hi Mike,
I think you (and others) are trying to spin Koonin's appeal to quantum mechanics as an act of desperation.
I suggest it is just the inevitable march of science.
The opening sentence is…
link
Koonin is referencing the many-worlds quantum mechanics interpretation. In case there is any doubt that Koorin is talking about quantum mechanics, here is what he said later…
As I have indicated in other threads, the many-world interpretation is a metaphysical construct that attempts to get around the problem rather than solve it. This is essentially what the peer reviewers were saying when they asked "Philosophy or biology or both?".
The ID argument against multi-world is two fold. First, there is the concept that a hypothesis that allows for anything also allows for the existence of God. Second, the hypothesis doesn't explain why THIS world was so lucky. A multi-world explanation doesn't make the extremely improbable any less improbable for a single world.
IMO, these arguments are valid and that is why I feel the Penrose model is the better interpretation.
The Penrose OR model is a version of the Copenhagen Interpretation that provides for a non-random, non-deterministic waveform collapse. This quickly gets into retrocausality and the concept of the universe forcing consistency.
Without repeating my entire hypothesis, I am suggesting that Koonin's attempt to bring quantum mechanics into biology is what science will inevitably have to do to solve the OOL mystery.
Joy has expressed similar sentiments.
Comment by Thought Provoker — June 25, 2007 @ 12:17 pm
June 25th, 2007 at 12:59 pm
Zachriel:
Zachriel, Koonin may not have used the term barrier but he does recognize something different about the OORT mechanism:
The prerequisite to a take-off is accounting for OORT. Whether OORT is a barrier or a gap is a matter of conjecture and good arguments can be made for the former position based on the nature of OORT itself.
Comment by Bradford — June 25, 2007 @ 12:59 pm
June 25th, 2007 at 1:06 pm
TP, let me assume that the origin of life is consistent with the Penrose model. If we observe the existence of x is it necessarily consistent with Penrose because Penrose lays down a quantum based explanation that fits? IOW, can you cite examples of phenomenon that would not fit Penrose?
Comment by Bradford — June 25, 2007 @ 1:06 pm
June 25th, 2007 at 2:04 pm
I was speaking to AdR's comment that irreducible complexity and gradual evolution are mutually exclusive.
Koonin is more cautious: Using scare-quotes he says, "All this is not to suggest that OORT is a problem of 'irreducible complexity' and that the systems of replication and translation could not emerge by means of biological evolution."
I agree.
Neverthless, there is evidence suggesting that life may be an inevitable consequent of certain primordial conditions, and that these conditions are not unique to Earth. Resort to multiverses and quantum retrocausation are not scientifically warranted, though the speculation remains metaphysically interesting.
There is no complete theory of abiogenesis. A Gap in human scientific knowledge? So what? Ignorance is the norm. Knowledge is limited.
Comment by Zachriel — June 25, 2007 @ 2:04 pm
June 25th, 2007 at 2:15 pm
One can just as easily point to data indicating that abiogenesis is inconsistent with gradual, incremental changes. If so the "gap" would be an intraversible chasm.
Comment by Bradford — June 25, 2007 @ 2:15 pm
June 25th, 2007 at 2:19 pm
Hi Bradford,
You asked…
The simple answer is "No, I can't", which is one of the reasons people like Zachriel are very skeptical of it.
However, there is a difference between Penrose/Hameroff and whatever IDM leaders are proposing.
First, Penrose's model is clearly falsifiable. Penrose's FELIX experiment has more potential for falsifying his model than confirming it.
Second, there is an understandable mechanism that is logically consistent with itself. IOW, there is a model, not some fuzzy goo that includes everything from YEC to Martian meteors.
Third, it clearly explains where and why the effects are non-deterministic.
It is the non-deterministic nature of quantum mechanics that allows it to do whatever is required. What we will never know is the why behind the requirement. Is it God? Is it pre-determined? Is it non-telic?
A clear NOMA wall with science on one side, metaphysics on the other.
P.S. the less-than-simple-answer is that a big booming voice announcing the end-of-days would be a "…phenomenon that would not fit Penrose".
Comment by Thought Provoker — June 25, 2007 @ 2:19 pm
June 25th, 2007 at 9:37 pm
It occurrs to me that this appeal to very very large numbers may theoretically solve the OOL problem, but at the same time it also makes Darwinism superfluous. I posted on this at UD. Koonin points out that in this infinite multiverse even an OOL event way below Dembski's limit of submicroscopic improbability would happen. In fact it would happen an infinite number of times. But everything else, all other possibilities no matter how unlikely, also would happen an infinite number of times. So all the uncountable events, "random" mutations, etc. that actually happened in evolution also had to happen on an infinite number of earths in an infinite number of universes. But since they were inevitable on this infinite subset of Earths, Darwinistic processes had nothing to do with evolution - it all just happened. No need for any explanation, at least on these Earths. Of course, infinite really means infinite, so there must be an infinite number of other subsets of an infinity of universes where on these Earths descent with modification was the operative deterministic principle. How can we tell which of these infinite subsets of infinity we live in? This sort of conjecture seems to be a reductio ad absurdum of metaphysical thinking.
Comment by magnan — June 25, 2007 @ 9:37 pm
June 26th, 2007 at 4:11 am
magnan wrote:
Correctissimo.
Here's my version of why Darwinian naturalism has no alternative but to posit a "many-worlds in one" model, or some other version of maximal ontological extravagance, thus violating Ockham's Razor in the most egregious fashion in the history of thought.
1. For natural selection to operate at all, it must operate upon some domain.
2. To identify any domain whatsoever in the first place, science must find order of some kind already pertaining to that domain.
3. Hence, every domain upon which natural selection is to operate must already be ordered in some way.
4. Hence, natural selection cannot be the sole explanation of order in nature, unless one posits an infinite unobservable or an infinity of unobservables, which defeats the very purpose of relying on a natural selection mechanism in the first place to explain ordered phenomena without positing anything infinite and/or unobservable. Thus theorizing this extreme ontological extravagance to preserve naturalism is fundamentally incoherent and intellectually dishonest.
Some order, at some level of scientific analysis, must be primitive. It either can't all be generated by natural selection; or else, one must posit an infinity of some kind, which by definition must be physically unobservable by finite scientists. Which kinda, as in radically, defeats the purpose of relying on natural selection to explain order without appealing to an unobservable infinite reality of some kind.
Scientific materialists have now reached the nadir of positing, in a desperate and amusingly ironic attempt to explain the empirical data, an infinite number of physically unobservable entities as part of an untestable hypothesis, so as to avoid positing one unobservable reality endowed with reason and value and which is responsible for the existence of the universe, including us, plus the precise mathematical order that governs both, and the authentic moral and spiritual experience of humankind.
The whole naturalist enterprise is thus revealed to be a big bankrupt bucket of piss. Or pish, as we say in Glasgow.
Comment by stunney — June 26, 2007 @ 4:11 am
June 26th, 2007 at 7:33 am
As evolutionary biology doesn't make that claim, your argument is somewhat misdirected.
You make a very good point, but it is not quite correct. Regardless of the origin of life, we *observe* evolution and the evidence of its history. Evolutionary biology remains regardless of any speculation regarding life's origin. We can still consistently posit a large number of worlds to explain life's origin. Infinities are not unknown in science, either. For instance, quantum mechanics posits that particles take every possible path: The Law of Large Numbers results in the observed least action path.
Nevertheless, your point does deserve pondering. Keep in mind that Koonin is being rather speculative in this open journal format.
Evolution Defined: There is no complete theory of abiogenesis. The general hypothesis is that chemicals can form primitive replicators. Abiogenesis is not a component of the Theory of Evolution, or Germ Theory for that matter. The first life form on Earth may have been a lucky accident, a natural property of carbon and liquid water, a unique circumstance, seeded by comets, or even a Divine Miracle. The Theory of Evolution concerns the diversification of life, not its origin. However, it is known that life did not always exist on Earth, but that once it began, it diversified into a variety of forms.
Comment by Zachriel — June 26, 2007 @ 7:33 am
June 26th, 2007 at 7:47 am
Zachsurreal wrote:
No, what's misdirected is your claim that my argument is misdirected, you hopeless dimwit.
Read the frigging topic, freak.
Comment by stunney — June 26, 2007 @ 7:47 am
June 26th, 2007 at 8:09 am
Evolutionary biology doesn't claim that natural selection is the "sole explanation of order in nature". Koonin is addressing "the transition from chance to biological evolution in the history of life." This does not support your strawman. 1) Koonin's speculation only applies to the origin of life, and he considers evolutionary processes sufficient to explain succeeding history. 2) Natural selection is not the sole explanation of order by any reasonable understanding of evolutionary biology.
(Nor is it an appropriate cite to authority as Koonin is not representing his views as the consensus of his field of evolutionary biology, but rather as a speculation worthy of consideration.)
Comment by Zachriel — June 26, 2007 @ 8:09 am
June 26th, 2007 at 8:36 am
Zachriel wrote:
The only strawman is the one you erected.
I challenge you to quote any part of my post which says that natural selection is claimed to be the sole source of order in evolutionary biology.
Biology presupposes order. That's precisely what my argument asserts. And whence this presupposed order? What explains its obtaining?
This topic is addressing precisely the difficulty of generating the order that's necessary for life even to commence at all. So read the frickin topic, ya daft pillock ye.
Koonins appeals to an infinity to solve that problem via a naturalistic observer selection effect. And my argument, which I've repeated several times, in different threads is thus absolutely spot on. Namely, as I stated, the naturalist has no other option if he wants to explain order in nature at all, without which evolution can't even get off the ground, but to posit an infinity of universes or universe-regions. Thus, in a desperate and amusingly ironic attempt to explain the empirical data, he posits an infinite number of physically unobservable entities as part of an untestable hypothesis, so as to avoid positing one unobservable reality endowed with reason and value and which is responsible for the existence of the universe, including us, plus the precise mathematical order that governs both, and the authentic moral and spiritual experience of humankind.
The whole naturalist enterprise is thus revealed to be a big bankrupt bucket of piss. Or pish, as we say in Glasgow.
Which reminds me—do me a favor, willya? Piss off.
Comment by stunney — June 26, 2007 @ 8:36 am
June 26th, 2007 at 10:42 am
Let's look at your full statement more closely.
As natural selection is not being proposed as the "sole explanation of order in nature", and as we can derive this directly from the definition of natural selection which implies reproduction (heritability of traits) with variation among other observed regularities, your statement is vacuous. We agree that natural selection is not the "sole explanation of order in nature".
(And there is no point dragging evolutionary theory into the dry, dusty ground of Stunneyism. That just confuses the issue with unnecessary complexity: your philosophy applies to any observed order. Start with the observation of apples falling to the ground. Can we call an apple an "apple" Or does this present a problem?)
Comment by Zachriel — June 26, 2007 @ 10:42 am
June 26th, 2007 at 11:12 am
Though no one has a valid scientific explanation of the ultimate source of order in the universe, you are claiming that such an explanation is not possible"”other than infinite universes. One interesting theory, inspired by the exuberance of the quantum vacuum, is that "nothingness" is inherently unstable. But this is still unknown. Of course, an infinity of universes is still a possibility, or just an infinity of paths summing to the one observed universe. And there are other possibilities yet to be imagined. You are arguing in a Gap. The limitations of human imagination are not evidence.
I have no problem with you filling your Gap with whatever metaphysical paste you prefer, but don't convince yourself that Stunneyism's dry paste is a logicial necessity.
Comment by Zachriel — June 26, 2007 @ 11:12 am
June 26th, 2007 at 12:31 pm
Zachriel:
Nothingness has never been observed as far as I know. How can it be known to be unstable? Some physicists (Robert B Laughlin for one I believe) think that the vacuum might be another phase of matter, albeit perhaps a rather unstable one.
Comment by Raevmo — June 26, 2007 @ 12:31 pm
June 26th, 2007 at 1:10 pm
Sorry. I was using "theory" informally (and probably should have used "speculation"). 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."
Comment by Zachriel — June 26, 2007 @ 1:10 pm
June 26th, 2007 at 8:44 pm
Zachriel:
"You make a very good point, but it is not quite correct. Regardless of the origin of life, we *observe* evolution and the evidence of its history. Evolutionary biology remains regardless of any speculation regarding life's origin."
You miss my point. We can't observe what actually occurred over the long history of evolution. Darwinists say it was a process driven mainly by small random mutational changes as the source of genetic variation. ID advocates of the Behe persuasion agree with common descent and natural selection, but believe that the source of genetic variation could not have been random but instead was an intelligent agency. 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.
Since the resources of a truly infinite multiverse are unlimited, there would be an infinite subset of universes with Earths where this series of particular macromutations just happened - no need for any explanation other than luck of the draw. There would be no need to postulate intelligent agency, but there would also be no need to postulate a Darwinistic process - both would be superfuous.
Since infinity is truly infinite, there would also be an infinity of other infinite subsets of universes like our own where all other possibilities happened. Do these different infinities have different orders or sizes? In the absence of time travel is there any way of determining which infinite subset we happen to reside in? I don't think so. Although there is no way to observationally confirm or falsify this hypothesis of infinite unobservables, Koonin's conjecture might be considered by Darwinists to solve the persistent OOL problem, but at the cost of Darwinism and of reducing scientific reasoning to absurdity. Not a very good tradeoff, but at least it is an interesting mind game.
Comment by magnan — June 26, 2007 @ 8:44 pm
June 26th, 2007 at 10:08 pm
We can't observe the interior of the Sun, but by any reasonable measure of scientific certainty, there is a fusion reaction there. Science is a specific methodology validating hypotheses by empirical predictions. Life has the appearance of a history.
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.
Yes, I understand that. But non-random does not equate to intelligent agency, and their claim of valid scientific evidence is false.
There is substantial scientific evidence, including direct observation of mechanisms, that evolution is a stochastic and opportunistic process that results in ad hoc adaptations. 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.
These universes would have to be self-consistent, and presumably the argument is that only the initial conditions are being changed. The rest has to follow according to historical necessity. In any case, I find absolutely no reason to invoke multiple universes to consider that spontaneous abiogenesis is plausible in this universe.
Comment by Zachriel — June 26, 2007 @ 10:08 pm
June 27th, 2007 at 2:22 pm
Zachsurreal wrote:
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.
Comment by stunney — June 27, 2007 @ 2:22 pm
June 27th, 2007 at 5:44 pm
Zachriel: We can't observe the interior of the Sun, but by any reasonable measure of scientific certainty, there is a fusion reaction there.
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.
Comment by magnan — June 27, 2007 @ 5:44 pm
June 27th, 2007 at 6:52 pm
"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.
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.
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).
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.)
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.
Comment by Zachriel — June 27, 2007 @ 6:52 pm
June 27th, 2007 at 7:15 pm
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.
Comment by Zachriel — June 27, 2007 @ 7:15 pm
June 28th, 2007 at 5:05 am
Interesting article MG. Thanks. Though, seriously, I think pro-ID can make more of this than what you are offering :).
Zachriel:
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?
Comment by Mung — June 28, 2007 @ 5:05 am
June 28th, 2007 at 7:29 am
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.
Comment by Zachriel — June 28, 2007 @ 7:29 am
June 28th, 2007 at 8:20 am
Zachriel:
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.
Comment by Bradford — June 28, 2007 @ 8:20 am
June 28th, 2007 at 8:26 am
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.
Comment by Zachriel — June 28, 2007 @ 8:26 am
June 28th, 2007 at 3:18 pm
Koonin is baffled by cosmological bullshit. So what? Join the Club! Even cosmologists are baffled.
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).]
Comment by Rock — June 28, 2007 @ 3:18 pm
August 22nd, 2007 at 5:33 am
Only for a few years more, it seems…
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.
Comment by stunney — August 22, 2007 @ 5:33 am