DNA Code...Proof of a Divine Creator?

[Skeptic Ginger]

There are some contorted and unrealistic configurations where it would not occur, it is neutrality to avoid dogmatism.

I think the likelyhood is very high like 99.99999999% that water would form, but any absolute is usually not always accurate.

Come on, David. Now you are just arguing absurd pedantics.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

...
That is why people who are careful use terms like 'seems likely' rather than 'it happened this way.'

The problem with this kind of statement is communication is a different animal than pedantic scientific terminology. So one needs to balance getting a message from one person to another with the importance of pedantic accuracy.

Are you suggesting we use phrases like, "it seems likely the Earth is not flat"?

I use "overwhelming evidence" because that does promote accuracy in scientific process statements. But you are suggesting we can't speak of anything that is an accepted fact without saying 'likely'? It's a given certain 'facts' are perpetually subject to new evidence being found. But some things can be spoken of as facts without erring by using such descriptions.

 

[marplots]

Apology accepted.

From your answers here you appear to be making the typical mistake of making statements about intelligent design and abiogenesis based on years old knowledge. (snip here)

That includes the evidence there was no need for a designer to get abiogenesis to occur. The fact you "cannot elucidate the details" does not reflect the state of the science. While we don't have the specifics exactly fine tuned, scientists at least have a general idea how abiogenesis could have occurred. Researchers actually have some pretty detailed options consistent with the conditions abiogenesis occurred under. It's been a while since the research was at the phase of testing RNA hypotheses but not having an hypothesis for how the RNA molecules formed.

And there are some good hypotheses supported by evidence for how the first cell walls might have formed.

Somehow, I went from a rant about probability into seeming support for Creationism. I'm a materialist, so it's an uncomfortable place to be.

It is true that I am not up on current research -- far from it. I am stuck in the phase when they were saying it must have been clay (and then there are some ideas and handwaving).

I would very much like to read 'solved science' on abiogenesis, provided I would even understand the molecular complexities.

All that said, I see I have fallen into one of the oldest traps in the Creation camp -- when you answer one objection, a new objection arises until the edge of the well known is reached and then they say, "See?"

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

...
No. We know it happened; we do not know it was inevitable. Unlike in the case of water, we do not know a single way to create the conditions which would cause life to emerge. Perhaps there is only one, and it was so unlikely as to have happened only once in the whole history of the universe.

Bring yourself up to speed on the current science and get back to me on this.

...We know there are a lot of repeating conditions. We do not know what conditions are required for abiogenesis. If we did, we could create those conditions today, and observe abiogenesis in the lab.

Not if a couple million years are required for abiogenesis to occur. We understand a lot about the Big Bang but that doesn't mean we can recreate a BB in a lab.

...As far as we know today: once.

I agree. If we find evidence that abiogenesis has happened more than once within our solar system (either on Earth, or on some extraterrestrial body) then we're likely to find that it's commonplace in the universe.

People are going differ in their conclusions about what the evidence supports here as far as live evolving. In my evaluation of the evidence, knowing what the process of evolution theory entails and what abiogenesis likely entails, I have no problem concluding life almost certainly has arisen elsewhere in the Universe. Finding life elsewhere would merely increase the frequency it likely occurred.

It's fine with me that others are not ready to draw that conclusion. But to conclude life would have only evolved once seems to me to be the more unlikely default position.

...Yes. This is especially true if "other life" employs some method other than DNA to reproduce. Just as "there are many ways to create water from hydrogen and oxygen" makes it more likely that water will be created, so "there are many ways that life can begin" makes it more likely that life will begin.

Since we can't currently offer even one way, though, I consider claims of inevitability to be premature at best.

Again, the science of abiogenesis is further along than your posts suggest you are aware of.


These differences in our positions result from differences in our underlying premises.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

... but without knowing more, we can't say which explanation is more likely. ...

Except we do know more.

 

[yomero]

Bokonon.. what is the probability that 2+2 = 1 ?

"This, and the following statement are false". "2+2=1".

The first phrase can not be true. If it were, it would contradict its message: "This and.....are false." So the first statement must be false. But the only way to keep that first phrase in the false category is by accepting that the second assertion is true. Thus, "2+2=1" is proven to be true.

What I'm trying to say is that rhetoric and sophistry are not what makes an argument legitimate. Evidence does. Anyone can take 2 oranges, add 2 more oranges and prove that he now has 4 oranges. If I.D. seeks to convince rationally, it has to provide evidence.

 

[bokonon]

Unlike in the case of water, we do not know a single way to create the conditions which would cause life to emerge. Perhaps there is only one, and it was so unlikely as to have happened only once in the whole history of the universe.

Bring yourself up to speed on the current science and get back to me on this.

We do not know a single way. If you have a source in "the current science" which contradicts that statement, please provide a reference. If you do not, your challenge amounts to nothing more than blowing smoke. "Promising research" may lead to such knowledge, or may only lead to "well, at least now we know THAT didn't work."

We do not know what conditions are required for abiogenesis. If we did, we could create those conditions today, and observe abiogenesis in the lab.

Not if a couple million years are required for abiogenesis to occur. We understand a lot about the Big Bang but that doesn't mean we can recreate a BB in a lab.

We aren't talking about simulating a singularity in the lab; we are talking about reproducing what are arguably common chemical reactions. While it may have taken a few million years for any given step on the path from non-life to life to occur spontaneously, if we truly had a working understanding of a viable model it would be sufficient to reproduce each step along that path by creating the precise set of conditions required for that step.

If the process truly is commonplace throughout the universe, there should be no set of conditions on the early earth which could not be reproduced today in a well-equipped laboratory. On the other hand, if a key step turns out to be extraordinary -- say, a set of chemical precursors needed to be subjected to the heat and pressure of the collision which created our moon -- then a valid argument might be made that this step is beyond our current ability to reproduce in the lab. Such an argument would necessarily concede that THIS path to abiogenesis might NOT be commonplace throughout the universe, however.

Human beings created "accelerated evolution" when they began to domesticate plants and animals. Processes which might take longer in the wild can be induced more quickly in the lab, if we truly understand the steps required in those processes. Nature might never have produced "knockout mice," but because we understand what is involved, we can do so routinely.

In my evaluation of the evidence, knowing what the process of evolution theory entails and what abiogenesis likely entails, I have no problem concluding life almost certainly has arisen elsewhere in the Universe.

"LIKELY entails". You don't really know. You don't really know if the current research into RNA world and various other alternative hypotheses will bear fruit, or turn out to be the modern-day equivalent of the search for the philosopher's stone.

Your confidence entails a leap of faith, and is not based on solid evidence. You may be right, but at this point in time, we can only say with certainty that life arose one time. There is no evidence today that would, in my opinion, justify the conclusion that life almost certainly arose elsewhere. We don't have spectroscopic evidence of any extraterrestrial source of the metabolic products of the sorts of life that exist on earth. We don't have a soup-to-nuts model of an inorganic to organic pathway.

Again, the science of abiogenesis is further along than your posts suggest you are aware of.

You are certainly free to bring additional facts to the table. I would just point out that "further along" is difficult to assess when the ultimate destination is not known. 90% of the way down a research dead end may not be as close to the final goal as you would like to believe.

 

[Dancing David]

The problem with this kind of statement is communication is a different animal than pedantic scientific terminology. So one needs to balance getting a message from one person to another with the importance of pedantic accuracy.

Are you suggesting we use phrases like, "it seems likely the Earth is not flat"?

I use "overwhelming evidence" because that does promote accuracy in scientific process statements. But you are suggesting we can't speak of anything that is an accepted fact without saying 'likely'? It's a given certain 'facts' are perpetually subject to new evidence being found. But some things can be spoken of as facts without erring by using such descriptions.

Did i say you should speak that way?

No I did not.

And when it comes to historical reconstruction through surmise and probable paths, some caution is warranted by my estimation.

I also use the term overwhelming evidence, so perhaps agreement continues....

 

[thaiboxerken]

Bokonon, what is the probability that adding 2 oranges to a basket containing 2 other oranges will result in 4 oranges being in the basket?
Consider that the basket will not fall apart, no pixies will steal the oranges and ideal conditions are present.

 

[excaza]

Bokonon, what is the probability that adding 2 oranges to a basket containing 2 other oranges will result in 4 oranges being in the basket?
Consider that the basket will not fall apart, no pixies will steal the oranges and ideal conditions are present.

It depends on what "2" and "4" mean!

 

[bokonon]

Bokonon, what is the probability that adding 2 oranges to a basket containing 2 other oranges will result in 4 oranges being in the basket?
Consider that the basket will not fall apart, no pixies will steal the oranges and ideal conditions are present.

I've answered your questions twice, and posed a single question to you each time. Your response has been to ignore my question (and my answer), and each time pose another question.

If you have a point, perhaps you should just state it. Or, if you'll answer my question, I'll consider answering yours.

 

[thaiboxerken]

You have yet to answer the question, you just keep producing silly hypotheticals as to how 2+2 = 4 can be false. I'm just trying to ask a simple mathematical question, not a trick question.

 

[bokonon]

You have yet to answer the question, you just keep producing silly hypotheticals as to how 2+2 = 4 can be false. I'm just trying to ask a simple mathematical question, not a trick question.

Your first question asked about 2+2=1, and I offered a way that might be true. Your second and third question asked about 2+2=4, and I answered one of those with a decidedly non-silly hypothetical reflecting a deep truth about the fundamental nature of matter.

You have still not answered my single question (also not a trick question), though I have answered two of yours, so feel free to provide whatever answer you're seeking to your own question.

 

[thaiboxerken]

It appears to me that you're speculating that 2+2=4 is a fact that was intelligently designed.

 

[bokonon]

It appears to me that you're speculating that 2+2=4 is a fact that was intelligently designed.

Ah.

No, I don't believe in intelligent design, either for the first cell, the path from the first cell to homo sapiens, or the rules of mathematics, physics, chemistry, or biology.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Did i say you should speak that way?

....

Actually you did, since I started the 'inevitable' piece of the discussion and you want to turn that into 'likely inevitable'.

On other issues we have a high degree of agreement.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

We do not know a single way. If you have a source in "the current science" which contradicts that statement, please provide a reference. ... [snipped for simplification of the debate]

We are operating under different values and underlying premises here and won't likely reach any kind of agreement exchanging 'facts'.

I find the scientific progress on the question of abiogenesis to be far enough along that I'm confident in describing it as clearly having occurred and we have a pretty good idea of how it occurred.

Where the problem occurs from my perspective, is in the absurd (IMO) default position that we somehow need to understand the exact mechanism of abiogenesis in order to conclude it happened, it happened naturally, and no god or magic was involved.

Life exists and evolution theory is confirmed. What are the options here then regarding abiogenesis?

1) Life always existed in the Universe and was just transfered here? Doesn't work with the Big Bang evidence.

2) Magic or gods were responsible for the first organism? Absurd on its face, but at a minimum this is not the default position of a rational thinker.

3) It didn't happen? Obviously not the correct default position.

OR,

4) Abiogenesis occurred naturally as the result of chemical processes that favored selection of certain molecules, eventually favoring a collection of certain molecules that combined, eventually forming a reproducing life form that eventually became a distinct cell.

Do you have an option I'm leaving out? Do you think one of these possibilities (or one I've left out) is a better default position than the last one?


Maybe you could articulate your specific objection here other than differing as to our characterization of how far along the abiogenesis research has progressed.

 

[bokonon]

We are operating under different values and underlying premises here and won't likely reach any kind of agreement exchanging 'facts'.

I find the scientific progress on the question of abiogenesis to be far enough along that I'm confident in describing it as clearly having occurred and we have a pretty good idea of how it occurred.

Where the problem occurs from my perspective, is in the absurd (IMO) default position that we somehow need to understand the exact mechanism of abiogenesis in order to conclude it happened, it happened naturally, and no god or magic was involved.

I agree that it happened naturally. I don't think we "have a pretty good idea of how it occurred." I've seen a couple of good ideas for how it might have occurred, but those ideas are only rough outlines at this point, and there's no guarantee that any of them are correct. The correct answer may involve bits of more than one current hypothesis.

If one of those ideas ("frozen accident") turns out to be the most nearly correct explanation, I think it's quite possible that we'll never know "how it occurred."

Metabolism First -- your favorite horse -- has the best chance among the current contenders of giving us a sequence of events someday, but only if it turns out to be the right hypothesis.

Abiogenesis occurred naturally as the result of chemical processes that favored selection of certain molecules, eventually favoring a collection of certain molecules that combined, eventually forming a reproducing life form that eventually became a distinct cell.

Do you have an option I'm leaving out? Do you think one of these possibilities (or one I've left out) is a better default position than the last one?

Maybe you could articulate your specific objection here other than differing as to our characterization of how far along the abiogenesis research has progressed.

I would quibble with a couple of details in your default position, but I don't think that would be productive here.

My specific objection here has always been the insistence on characterizing as "inevitable" something that the best evidence available to us today suggests may have happened only once in our solar system, and possibly only once period.

Certainly "frozen accident" would not be inevitable. RNA First would probably not be inevitable. Metabolism First might or might not be inevitable, but the burden of proof is on the one making the positive claim, and in my opinion the evidence is nowhere near there.

And until the real answer is known, it may still turn out to be "none of the above".

If you'd prefer to continue this conversation in your "Science and Technology" thread, we can do that. As I said when I revived it today, the recent discussion here has seemed to center less on philosophy than on science.

 

[thaiboxerken]

Ah.

No, I don't believe in intelligent design, either for the first cell, the path from the first cell to homo sapiens, or the rules of mathematics, physics, chemistry, or biology.

So you have no beliefs based in science, mathematics, logic, reason or faith?!

 

[bokonon]

So you have no beliefs based in science, mathematics, logic, reason or faith?!

I have no idea how what you wrote follows from what I wrote, but since this thread isn't about me, it would be off-topic in any case.