[quote=Springer,Apr 25 2007, 11:48 AM]
[quote] Abiogenesis does not qualify as a hypothesis.. <snip>[/quote]

Depends somewhat on the definition of hypothesis, from this wiki extract [quote] A proposition may take the form of asserting a causal relationship (such as "A causes B"). A proposition often (but not necessarily) involves an assertion of causation. For example, if a particular independent variable changes, then a certain dependent variable also changes. This formulation, also known as an "If and Then" statement, applies whether or not a proposition asserts a direct cause-and-effect relationship. [/quote]

So IMO abiogenesis is a hypothesis for the explanation of life from non life, but not for a mechanism.

If you agree that single cell life is irreducibly complex, then why are you also not agreeing that Darwin's challenge has been met and that "my theory would absolutely break down." I'm at a loss to understand how you think irreducible complexity supports evolution in this case.



If irreducible complexity supports evolution, why are evolutionists trying to find a pathway such as you have just described?


And you are still unable to tell me how DNA came into being.



Because it doesn't follow that because self replicating molecules exist, somehow DNA could gradually come together. It's a totally unwarranted extrapolation. It's the same sort of reasoning always used to defend NDT. Because microevolutionary changes occur, a microbe can evolve into a man. This kind of reasoning is completely unscientific.





If I understand your question...
I'm not dismissing abiogenesis because a cell can't be manufactured in a laboratory. I'm dismissing it because there is no scientific basis that matter could evolve into a replicating cell. You have admitted that a cell is irreducibly complex. Let's assume that you've won the argument on the flagellum and that a hypothetical pathway of evolution has been found. That does not prove that a flagellum evolved. You're still dealing with enormous improbabilities.
In the case of abiogenesis, you cannot even show a hypothetical pathway. If you don't have a hypothetical pathway, what evidence do you have? The existence of self-replicating proteins is interesting, but it proves nothing. What good is a self-replicating protein if a cell is, by your own admission, "irreducibly complex".
Any theory in science can be disproven if there is one fatal flaw. It is immaterial how many "positive" evidences you have. If there is one impossibility, the theory should be discarded.
In every treatise on abiogenesis, the critical step is always ignored... how did DNA evolve? Also, how can natural selection have an impact on matter before it can reproduce. If self-replicating proteins did exist in the primordial soup, how could one self-replicating protein be selected over another? These are critical questions that are swept under the rug because they're impossible to answer and should seriously call into question the possibility of abiogenesis.
You believe that single cell life evolved. Thus, you believe that someday our lack of ability to unravel the pathway reflects a lack of knowledge. Yet you refuse to consider that the reason we can't figure it out is because it is impossible. If you continually hold out that someday science will discover the way, you are willfully limiting your quest for truth.
Another problem with abiogenesis... If single cell life evolved over a period of around one billion years, why is it that every example of the millions upon millions of intermediate forms between non-life and life have become extinct? I know what your answer will be .... "survival of the fittest". But doesn't it give you pause to consider how great the gap between inorganic matter and life is? You have before stated that NDT does not predict extinction of less advanced species... so why is it that there is nothing between matter and single cell life?

You misunderstand, ‘the challenge’ is for the ID proponents to disprove evolution, here is Darwin’s text "If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed, which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down." (my bold)

That Darwin proposed how the eye evolved can be seen in part in his explanation of the subject 150 years ago, and subsequent investigation has only bolstered this is the evidence for the ToE.


Extract To suppose that the eye with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree. Yet reason tells me, that if numerous gradations from a perfect and complex eye to one very imperfect and simple, each grade being useful to its possessor, can be shown to exist; if further, the eye does vary ever so slightly, and the variations be inherited, which is certainly the case; and if any variation or modification in the organ be ever useful to an animal under changing conditions of life, then the difficulty of believing that a perfect and complex eye could be formed by natural selection, though insuperable by our imagination, can hardly be considered real. How a nerve comes to be sensitive to light, hardly concerns us more than how life itself first originated; but I may remark that several facts make me suspect that any sensitive nerve may be rendered sensitive to light, and likewise to those coarser vibrations of the air which produce sound <snip>

So there is ample supporting evidence for evolution, the challenge is now in your court to disprove the theory by showing how it could not have happened as described. That was Darwin’s challenge.

I have already stated why irreducible complexity supports evolution, because it supports a ‘chain of events’.




One leads to another, a pathway shows how features are modified and coopted, leading to situations where you can no longer do without a feature.




I have to say, “so what”!


(my paragraphing)

Re.a Why not? you see this is the bit I don’t understand, why is in not possible for you to see that if replicating molecules can be created artificially they could not have been created naturally, is there some reason why you think they cant?

Re.b but it the very same evidence from YEC also, you also believe microevolution can change a wolf into a dog do you not? Why cant I say be just as incredulous as yourself and state “it’s a totally unwarranted extrapolation”, “have you ever seen a dog evolve from a wolf”?

(my bold)

But what science is that? Because it has not been observed? or do you find some of the science inconsistent. There is certainly a basis for the assumption i.e. cells:
Are made of natural substances,
The building blocks are reasonably simple,
Some chemicals can be manufactured,
Replicating molecules can be manufactured,
etc, etc.

Now I understand non of these, or collectivly, constitute a proof, but what about as a basis, a reasoned position, consistency with abiogenesis ‘hypotheses’? internal consistency. Do you find something scientifically wrong with those positions and reasons? What do you find wrong with them.




If your assuming I have proved the flagellum evolved path, why would you still say I have not proved it? I think you have just mistyped something here. I’ll take a guess and state that because a proposed pathway has been shown, there is still a margin of error that we could be mistaken and the flagellum evolved (or not) via a different path.

Yes I would agree 100% with this. What has happened is that we have reached the limit of the investigation, given the amount of evidence available. But it’s important to note that science doesn’t actually give ‘proof’, it provides internally consistent best explanation for the evidence available.




right, this is what I mean, you are demanding ‘proof’ when we are only at the pre-hypothesis stage, ‘proof’ cant come until at least after a theory.









Natural selection is a feature of imperfect reproduction in an environment of limited resources, no reason why this cant be applicable for pre DNA reproducing chemicals. But again you are skewing the argument away from what I can’t prove today when all I am asking is if the principle is flawed or inconsistent.




The reason abiogenesis is being pursued is because there are lines of evidence to follow, the reasoning is scientifically sound, and there are no alternatives.

Re - gap between inorganic and organic. Yes there is a gulf, and that gulf is represented in the time it took to evolve. Compare the lengths of time it took to get to a single cell and then compare that time to life after that point! That fact alone is telling, and reflects the difficulty in determining what processes were involved in abiogenesis.

And you have admitted that single cell life is irreducibly complex. That means that no intermediates could have gradually led up to it.



No, you have contradicted yourself. Irreducible complexity is totally inconsistent with gradualism. How does a ribosome gradually form? How does DNA gradually form? How does a cell membrane gradually form? How do complex proteins gradually form? You have answered none of these critical questions. By saying something is irreducibly complex, you're all but admitting that gradualism is untenable.




Because replicating proteins doesn't demonstrate that DNA can come about by chance, nor does it suggest that complex protein sequences can come about by chance.



Genetically, there's no problem for a dog to evolve into a wolf. There is genetically a problem for a microbe to evolve into a man... So the extrapolation is absurd.





None of this suggests that a cell can self organize. Simply pointing out that the building blocks are there and that a few reactions can take place to allow self replication of proteins does not in any way suggest that life can form on its own.


It's not a "basis"... it's grasping at straws.
Do you think that having a pile of "building blocks" constitutes evidence that a skyscraper can come together without intelligent design?


The genetic code is organized information... and you haven't provided a clue as to how that can come about by chance.


It's the "best explanation" as long as it excludes ID.



Chance, you've exposed yourself. You've proclaimed that there are "no alternatives". This is the foundation of evolutionary thinking. God is excluded... therefore evolution must be true by default.
I vehemently disagree that there are "lines of evidence" and that it is "scientifically sound". Abiogenesis theory doesn't bear the slightest hint of legitimate science.



You've missed by point. A billion year gap with no intermediates. That's tough to swallow.

It's interesting. I now see why articles about evolution include the word "must" when there is not yet an explanation for a process (i.e. this 'must' have happened to go from point A to point B in the organism's development). God is excluded. He must be. It would do irreperable harm to certain worldviews.

I'm not suggesting people stop looking. What I am saying is that even if you have parts to build something, they do not and cannot organize themselves, in this case, to create a cell, by themselves. Saying anything else amounts to a faith statement.



God bless,
Al

You can include god as much as you like. He just doesn't really seem to help with anything when you do though.

While childless couples can pray to god to help them conceive a child, you could come up with all sorts of theories of how god intervenes and helps with the process.

Its no substitute for IVF treatment though is it?

Try creating life, if you think God isn't necessary.



This thread is about abiogenesis, so stop trying to muddy the water because you can't respond to the arguments presented.

I've done that. There were no prayers neccessary.

We're talking about abiogenesis. Try making DNA from scratch, if you don't think God is necessary.

No, it means nothing of the sort - irreducibly complex only means that if you take one part away, the whole will fail or die or be somehow incapacitated.

Evolution explains how such complex structures come about.

Creation tells us how such complex structures come about.

ID has (supposedly) no position on how such complex structures come about.






Why cannot a mutation “gradually form” gradually? What is wrong for instance with the explanation I posted previously on the flagellum? Is that any different ‘in principle’ from the examples you have just posted?






Your missing the point completely – I specifically asked if replicating molecules can be created artificially, why they could not have been created naturally Your relying on a strawman argument in that you want such a specific scenario answered. My question has nothing to do with proteins or DNA, it precedes this evolutionary step by millions of years.




What is the difference you see genetically?






The argument is one of extrapolation what evidence is available – for example with the list I posted there is nothing non-natural is there? And also by watching cell division we also see there is nothing non-natural. To my way of thinking all that is needed is the recipe to get from A to B.
What other avenue is there for science to follow? To say the evidence doesn’t suggest, implies that you think there is some alternate, what is it?




That is your opinion of the conclusion I was asking if you could highlight some problem with the internal consistency of the ‘hypotheses’.

You skyscraper example is interesting, I wonder – if the Empire State Building materials were all laid out upon the ground (bricks, girders, cables, glass), that we could not figure out the final product. However a building is a known product of ID, we have evidence of this, we know what to look for. With life we have positive evidence that supports abiogenesis, yet non for ID. In which case science can only follow the evidence, provide some for ID then you might have a case, the ball is squarely in the ID’s court in this matter.




We are getting ahead of ourselves here, no one is saying you have to leap straight to DNA.




The provide some positive line of evidence to test your hypothesis.




Rubbish –

How can science test for God!
How can science test for ID!

You don’t like the evidence I posted fine, that’s your prerogative, but please don’t accuse me or science of not having any evidence.




Your ignoring reality – for example, just assume for the moment that all I have been telling you is 100% true, ok. What material evidence of the pre biotic (abiogenesis era) would you expect to find remaining in the world today?

[quote=chance,Apr 29 2007, 07:53 PM]
No, it means nothing of the sort - irreducibly complex only means that if you take one part away, the whole will fail or die or be somehow incapacitated.[

Yes, and you have yet to explain how a cell without ribosomes can function, or a cell without a cell membrane, or a cell without DNA/RNA, or mRNA, etc., etc. can function.

Evolution explains how such complex structures come about.

It does nothing of the sort... unless you can explain how all the interdependent structures of a cell can come about by gradualism.



ID has (supposedly) no position on how such complex structures come about.

ID can be concluded as essential in the genesis of the cell, regardless of one's lack of ability to define the mechanism. Evolutionists do it all the time. Do you have a mechanism as to how DNA can form. YOu keep demanding that I show you a mechanism... yet you cannot defend your hypothesis in that manner.

Why cannot a mutation “gradually form” gradually?

I beg your pardon?


Your missing the point completely – I specifically asked if replicating molecules can be created artificially, why they could not have been created naturally Your relying on a strawman argument in that you want such a specific scenario answered. My question has nothing to do with proteins or DNA, it precedes this evolutionary step by millions of years.

Your argument is a smokescreen. You cannot suggest that DNA could form because simple proteins can self replicate.

What is the difference you see genetically?

You know perfectly well that there is an enormous difference genetically between a wolf evolving into a dog and a microbe evolving into a man. Shuffling around preexisting genes in an existing pool is a far cry from the gain of millions of sequences of new information through chance mutations. Therefore, the comparison is ludicrous.


The argument is one of extrapolation what evidence is available

You don't have sufficient evidence, so your fabricating a mechanism to suit your purposes.

for example with the list I posted there is nothing non-natural is there?

Something beyond the reach of probability is "non-natural", and no one has ever demonstrated that any macroevolutionary change is within the realm of probability.
Please show me the math.

And also by watching cell division we also see there is nothing non-natural. To my way of thinking all that is needed is the recipe to get from A to B.

Again, you are ignoring laws of probability.

What other avenue is there for science to follow? To say the evidence doesn’t suggest, implies that you think there is some alternate, what is it?
Chance, there you go again trying to seize the default position. When backed into a corner you resort to the argument that "ID is not an option, therefore evolution must be the answer."


You skyscraper example is interesting, I wonder – if the Empire State Building materials were all laid out upon the ground (bricks, girders, cables, glass), that we could not figure out the final product. However a building is a known product of ID, we have evidence of this, we know what to look for. With life we have positive evidence that supports abiogenesis, yet non for ID.

You are again trying to take the default position. You assume that because God has not revealed himself to you that he doesn't exist. Therefore, abiogenesis is the only answer. I am still at a loss why you don't consider the impossibility of abiogenesis as evidence of ID. The fact is, evolutionists are always using the "impossibility of God" as evidence for evolution. Just listen to Richard Dawkins and Stephen J. Gould sometime.


In which case science can only follow the evidence, provide some for ID then you might have a case, the ball is squarely in the ID’s court in this matter.

In the case of abiogensis, there is no "evidence" to follow. A cell is irreducibly complex, and no pathway to the genesis of a cell has been proposed. Not even close. Most regard abiogenesis as an enormous freak of nature requiring billions of years and perhaps billions of planets to produce.
I have provided evidence of ID. The existence of life proclaims creative design by virtue of its purposeful design and enormous complexity. You have no proof that natural forces have any capacity to accomplish such a thing.
Your only rebuttal can be that I can't find a mechanism. The evidence speaks for itself, and you cannot demonstrate a mechanism for abiogensis by gradualism.

We are getting ahead of ourselves here, no one is saying you [b]have to leap straight to DNA.[/B]

You cannot provide a clue as to how DNA could form... all at once or gradually. If you think it could come together by small steps, please elucidate.

How can science test for God!
How can science test for ID!

A "test" is not required. One can make observations and draw conclusions.

You don’t like the evidence I posted fine, that’s your prerogative, but please don’t accuse me or science of not having any evidence.

You haven't presented any evidence that abiogenesis is possible.

Your ignoring reality – for example, just assume for the moment that all I have been telling you is 100% true, ok. What [b]material evidence of the pre biotic (abiogenesis era) would you expect to find remaining in the world today[/B]

I would expect to see some continuum between non-life and single cell-life. You have stated before that gradualism does not predict extinction of precursors.

Pt1


No because you cannot assume that: a cell evolved prior to evolving it’s membrane (why not membranes first?), nor can you assume a cell evolved prior to DNA/RNA(why not some replicating chemical first), etc, etc. You are creating straw man arguments, in that you are looking at current life in its long evolutionary history. It’s not presumed to be a jigsaw puzzle where bits of life plug together and when they all attached “it’s alive”.



I posted the flagellum link previously (this is a good example of evolution), but no such detail for abiogenesis is available.

(my paragraphing)

Re.a Without an ability to define and test, do you admit that your conclusions could be erroneous, do you admit that such is a possibility?

Re.b Form yes, in a cell via mitosis, but how it evolved exactly, no. That is why it is not a theory, but a ‘hypothesis’, a better word my be inference. Non of this however provides supporting evidence for ID. ID still has to earn it’s spurs, no free ride.




Another strawman – I have made it clear that DNA is not the question. Replicating molecules, artificially Vs naturally. Please stick to the question.




Is it? why cannot it be one of degree rather than absolute? Is there some mechanism or law that prevents it?

e.g. (wolf – dog) is a change over small time scale the other (microbe – man) over large. If a mutation occurs and is inherited, is that not one small step?




I can but disagree unless you wish to propose some specific argument.



I have already shown that your probability arguments are less than worthless, unless you can define the conditions of abiogenesis. You have not been able to list the conditions, and neither have I.
However I presume you have some math that shows how improbable abiogenesis is yes? Care to share those deliberations with us all, so we can see how much is based on science and how much is assumed.





The only reason ID is not an option is because it presents no theory or mechanism to test, where as evolution and abiogenesis do. People are actively doing science experiments on both of these, where is the equivalent for ID?

Really this is no small matter, until someone gets their hands dirty and does some experimentation regarding ID, this lack of real work is utterly damning.

Pt2

(my paragraphing)

Re.a no, it is the only scientific avenue available given our current knowledge, present some alternate show the evidence that support and then we shall see, until that day happens we are stuck with abiogenesis.

Re.b Absolutely 100% wrong – Lets assume for the moment that I do presume God to exist. Ok, now what! How do I determine what exactly God did (using science), to what is natural processes? Do I guess? Do I look at it and say “hmmm that’s a bit complex, this must be Gods handy work”, what I would prefer is some scientific way to determine what is responsible for what.

Re.c no you have this all wrong again, it not that God is impossible, it just that it lays beyond the scope of science to ‘prove’.

Re.d do you have a specific quote in mind?


(my paragraphing)

Re.a This is not evidence it is an observation. The purpose you infer is an illusion caused by life evolving into environmental niches, nothing more.

Re.b correct not proof, but evidence yes, and a consistent theory for evolution and lines of evidence inferred for abiogenesis.

Re.c I am not claiming to know how. I am claiming it is the only line of evidence that can be investigated with science.




Then it is not science!



Yes I have.

(my paragraphing)

Re.a Why would you expect to see some continuum? Why could it not have become extinct when conditions change? (note this is still presuming all evolution old earth explanations are true)

Re.b What! I think not. I think you should retract that or provide the quote.

You are stating that you refuse to consider ID because it's not science... therefore you have to believe in abiogenesis because it's the only choice left. You've essentially admitted that there are only 2 choices... abiogenesis or God. Therefore, the disproof of abiogenesis proves the existence of God. Thus, your "if not X, then Y" argument goes down the drain. It furthermore follows that the impossibility of abiogenesis is indeed positive scientific evidence of God.



So your conclusion when you see something complex is... it must have been evolution, because I refuse to consider God because that would be beyond the reach of science. Regardless of how irreducibly complex it is, evolution somehow found a way. I don't have to explain the mechanism... it just happened and someday science will figure it out. You have a predrawn conclusion.
You seem to think that in order for something to be "science", a mechanism has to be understood. Yet science is replete with examples of observations for which we have no mechanisms defined... we merely draw conclusions from what we see. You say that you cannot "guess" what God did. Yet with evolution, you are constantly guessing. In the case of abiogenesis, you see the end result (single cell life), and guess how it happened.

Chance, if you're so insistent that existence or non-existence of God is beyond the realm of science, then how did you become an atheist? You claim that atheism is not a religion. Did you rely on "scientific observation" to conclude that God doesn't exist? If religion is not part of your thinking, then what part of your thinking caused you to conclude that there is no God?



And by laying "beyond the scope of science to prove", the implication is that it didn't happen.




You assume that complexity is the result of evolution, then proceed to call design an "illusion". Another predrawn conclusion.


Again, abiogenesis seems to be the only choice... therefore it must be true. Another "proof by default" argument.


Before the discovery of DNA, evolutionists expected a continuum between life and non life. Now they think evolution "predicts" extinction of pre-life forms. If a pre-biont were discovered in some deep ocean vent, you would hail this as a prediction of evolution. Therefore, the existence or non-existence of pre-life forms are both "predicted" by evolution. You have the illusion that evolution predicts extinction because that is what the facts demonstrate. Yet you know that if a continuum were found, you would claim that to be a "prediction" of evolution.
In reality, the theory of abiogenesis doesn't predict anything because there is no theory... only the predrawn conclusion that it must have happened. This is why it is anything but science. There is no quest for truth, only the goal of convincing others that what you've already decided to be true is valid. The question is never "IF" abiogenesis occurred, but "HOW" it occurred.

The fact that any condition must be naturalistic is not debateable



But I'm not trying to prove that intelligent designer does not exist, that's impossible.In the same way I can't prove that abiogenesis didn't happen , or elfs don't exist, that's the reason why the scientific method establishes that the person who made the assertion is the one who must prove it.If one day a scientist proves that there is a naturalistic pathway for abiogenesis to happen, will he have proved that it does not exist another one beyond that he has discovered ? Of course not, we can only prove that there is a pathway but we will never prove what pathway really happened. That's a problem for abiogenesis and for intelligent design.if in 1000 years from now nobody discovers any pathway for abiogenesis then it means it has been disproved ? of course not, it will always exist an atheist saying that a pathway will be discovered.So, abiogenesis can't be falsified.



I have not understood what you want.

(my paragraphing)

re.a I am stating science cant investigate ID due to a lack of positive evidence, if you believe otherwise, propose an experiment that can test for ID, that should be simple enough should it not? Abiogenesis is being experimented upon QUD, it’s science.

Re.b Or 3 panspermia (which could include alien seeding), but lets call it two for the sake of your argument (abiogenesis or God). Disproving one does not prove the other, what it does do is direct where the science effort should be expended. This ‘decision’ is only the philosophic starting point, now there is a whole discipline of science to follow, to move that philosophic position into the realms of science by formulating hypothesis and theory.

If you are claiming disproving abiogenesis proves the existence of God, it is you are guilty of the false logical position If not, ‘X’, then Y. You are confusing the philosophic position with practical science.



(my paragraphing)

Re.a My conclusion is pending on a proposal from yourself about how to determine one from the other (I have yet to decide, my hypothetical position is that I believe in God, yet am not sure how to apply the science). For all I know you may have a rock solid scientific test for God, but until I am told how to determine one from the other, I don’t se how I can figure out what is god responsible for and what is natural. So here I wait …….!……………

Re.b Not necessarily understood, but predictable (consistent), repeatable, you could for instance formulate any number of experiments, develop engineering disciplines around gravity without actually knowing what gravity really is. The level to which the theory explains anything is commensurate with our abilities and understanding. You must stop thing of science as a ‘full stop’ to investigation, a list of truths, it’s not, it much more dynamic.

Re guessing – no I disagree, the ‘guessing’ as you put it, comes from a position of scientific knowledge previously gained, and then attempting to see if the unexplained observations fit into existing theory. Have a read of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_me...ientific_method
Where it explains the process.



(my paragraphing)

Re.a I have not been able to find any evidence for God (any god), and if I don’t believe in God, what am I (I am labelled an atheist)? Aside - some may say this is the same as agnostic, but that a whole different question.

Re.b By definition atheism (a_theism) cant be a religion. However I am prepared to concede that a philosophic world view (atheism, football club, politics etc) can be championed with the same verve as a religion.
I have not concluded there is no God, because I have no way to test the existence of such a being, nor do I have any evidence to test. Therefore I do not commit.





Is it? some may conclude as you have stated, but that is not a scientific position it is a philosophic conclusion.





No it’s far from an assumption - the evidence is in the fossil sequence, and nested hierarchy of life, it all points to common ancestry.




(my paragraphing)

Re.a perhaps, but would the expect it to be still in existence! This is the question.

Re.b partly, but so does changing environments.

Re.c it would be positive evidence, yes. But it would not ‘prove’ that this abiogenesis event was the exact same one as occurred on earth 4 billion years ago.

Re.d You seem to be under the impression that extinction and continuation of a specific life type is mutually exclusive, this is not the case, and there is no reason to think it should be.

Re.e strawman argument – abiogenesis is not a theory, “that is must have happened” is reliant upon the existing evidence, it is the only path that it is possible for science to follow. If you believe otherwise, show me how to investigate another pathway. You are quite correct the IF is assumed (because there is no alternative path science can follow), the HOW is what science is attempting to show.

I'm going to think about your challenge and perhaps start another thread on this topic... You can know that God exists, but the experiment will first require humility and faith. As far as "lack of positive evidence for ID"... I think you're being unfair. The beauty, complexity and order of nature all are positive evidence of ID. You may argue that I need to propose an "experiment" to test for ID, but you cannot deny that evidence is there.
I would likewise challenge you to propose an experiment to test for abiogenesis.



Chance, somehow we've got to get past this disagreement. By abiogenesis, I'm referring to all materialistic explanations of life, panspermia included. For your "if not x then y" argument to be valid, there has to be more than two alternatives.
Numerous references in evolutionary literature argue that the "improbability of God" is evidence of evolution, because that is the only other choice left. I frankly feel that you're using this argument in an attempt to "win the argument" rather than an honest seeking of truth. Common sense will tell you that if gradualism is false, there has to be some sorce of intelligence. At least you have to admit that the impossibility of gradualism provides positive evidence of ID. You've chosen to take the extremely dogmatic approach, arguing that this is fallacious reasoning. YOu put artificial limits on what science can or cannot investigate. You have admitted that something that science absolutely, positively could not explain (water into wine example) provides positive evidence of diety. Why don't you use the "if not x then y" argument in that case? Why are you so stubborn that you cannot concede that some other event which science absolutely, positively could not explain would also be evidence of ID.



Let me put some thought to this, ...





In the case of abiogenesis, it's guessing. You've (in so many words) admitted before that your belief in abiogenesis rests largeley on your belief in evolution in general. You are so convinced that NDT is true, that abiogenesis must therefore also be true, despite the fact that you are at a loss to come up with any possible mechanism.



Evidence or proof? I think it's absurd to say no "evidence" If you agree that some things in nature have the appearance of design, you would have to count that as evidence. Even Richard Dawkins concedes that nature "looks designed".



I don't draw a distinct line between science and philosophy. My belief in God is based on evidence and faith.






So you're saying that it "must have happened" because "it is the only path that it is possible for science to follow". You are saying that science cannot investigate God and therefore abiogenesis is all that is left. Why can't I state that you are in error by the "if not x then y" argument? Now you're admitting that it's either God or abiogenesis.

Good for you, I look forward to the challenge, however faith 'per se’ is not science!

It’s not that I am being unfair, it is a requirement of science to be objective. Beauty, and complexity are somewhat subjective and not really measurable, however I guess that should be determined after I read your experiment.




Ok I have no problem lumping all materialistic explanations under one heading.



Nope the ‘truth’ is uppermost in my reasons for ‘searching’. But lets be clear here, it is only that science has no mechanism to search beyond the material that that qualification is made, provide some material aspect and it’s full steam ahead!



But common sense can be wrong, to eliminate that possibility we still need to confirm our suspicions. I’m not being dogmatic just thorough.





Positive evidence sure, positive proof, no. The reason I don’t use the "if not x then y" argument for that situation is because I’m not making such a claim, if water into wine happened right in front of me, I could say a deity is likely, but I could not put hand on hart and say it was confirmed 100% (it would bee more like “If not X then Y becomes more likely).




Re, guessing - if I were guessing the conditions for abiogenesis I could state you need Mercury, Gold, Silver, and a temperature of 30 degrees centigrade! That would be a guess. That one concludes abiogenesis happened is certainly tied to the ToE and old earth both being correct. I am a bit reluctant to call such things ‘belief’ however, scientific consensus would IMO be more correct.




“Appearances can be deceiving” I think that quote speaks for itself. Appearance is not reliable in every case, it is subjective to out upbringing, culture, and education, it is no substitute for science.





Perhaps you should review your stance on this, science and philosophy are not the same thing at all.

Faith - I am sure you are not alone in what reasons you have to believe in God, faith is a very personal experience and not one that can be easily shared or perhaps explained. The best I or anyone can do is take that persons word for it.

Evidence – this one is a little trickier to explain. In my experience I have often seen this to mean “evidence that fits my belief”. For example, if one believed in an omnipotent God and all good things were attributed to him, one might conclude that a glorious sunset was evidence of God, while a raging storm evidence of his displeasure (generalisation). Such it is with ID and complexity, if one attributes life as divine and complexity as a trait of God, it’s not a very big leap to then see God in all forms of complexity.








Ok lets boil it down:

Science need material evidence to experiment upon. Abiogenesis is thought to have occurred using basic elements during an early earth – thus we can perform science. For each experiment there is either a positive or negative result (i.e. nothing happened or something happened). I am not using "if not x then y" for any of the justification, I am simply saying “out of the 3 possibilities, which ones can be tested”.

Can the same sort of thing done to prove the existence of god? If not then it is not testable by science (this does not say god does not exist, only that he is undetectable)

Then would you be willing to say, "If abiogenesis is false, then diety is likely?"
If so, would you then say, "If abiogenesis appears to be impossible, then that would provide evidence of diety?"



Suppose someone you trusted shared with you a miraculous experience that proved to him that there was a God? Would that increase your belief? Do you personally have to see a miracle to believe that they exist?




Yes, but life is more than raw materials. It represents highly organized raw materials. Although unproven, you invoke natural selection to account for complexities in differentiation of life, but you cannot do the same in the genesis of life from raw materials. In the case of single cell life, the most man can hope for in actually creating life would be some sort of complex manipulation of the elements using man's intelligence. What we're dealing with in abiogenesis is the chance formation of life, and what needs to be demonstrated is some force of nature that causes complex sequences to form [proteins, DNA] on their own. So far you've mentioned protein self-replication. That does not qualify because there you're dealing with repeating sequences. There's nothing out there that suggests that something like the purposeful genetic code can form without intelligent input, nor is there any evidence that some sort of "pre-DNA" could be selected out and replicated through the process of natural selection.
You're saying that science needs materials to experiment on. If it arbitrarily excludes intelligent input from the experiment, then it's left with the futile hope that the materials will find another way to come together. When man finds that they won't come together, he keeps holding out hope that someday we'll figure it out, while narrow-mindedly excluding the possibility that such is impossible without the essential ingredient of intelligence. If abiogenesis is indeed impossible, this fact will never be understood by the evolutionist because he will continue to believe that our lack of understanding of the processes is a result of lack of knowledge. At what point will he say, "it couldn't have happened?"... Never, because he has already excluded from the equation the factor of intelligent design. With this mindset, abiogenesis becomes unfalsifiable. I believe falsifiability is widely hailed by evolutionists as being a requisite for scientific inquiry.
At this point, the only hypothesis for abiogenesis that makes sense would be that raw materials existed, and single cell life was formed using those materials but with the essential addition of intelligent input. How do I prove that the intelligent force is out there? I deduce that it exists because there is no other explanation for the existence of life. You would say that I need to further characterize it and demonstrate that it exists. I have already demonstrated that it exists by virtue of the results... life. There are lots of forces of nature that we deduce exist that we cannot further characterize, so I don't see characterization of God as a requirement to conclude the he exists. We deduce that the genetic code resides in DNA, but we have no idea how it actually works. We deduce that thoughts have some sort of materialistic, chemical explanation, but we don't really know what thoughts are or what self-awareness is. We don't even know what vision is, but we all see so we assume that there must be an explanation. My point is that I think there is an attempt to exclude God from science because there are many who simply think it's a can of worms that they don't want to deal with. It's folly to say that you cannot observe the evidence and draw conclusions, even if some of those conclusions might require the existence of forces that far surpass man's understanding. In fact, if we are going to be honest, the existence of life itself far surpasses man's understanding... that is an undeniable fact. So why are evolutionists so reluctant to concede that point and continue to pretend that they can come up with a credible pathway from matter to life?

The False Conflict -


All over the internet, wherever this subject is discussed, an attempt to rewrite History is going on. In the past, scientists gratefully acknowledged God, both for their discoveries and in admiration for the ordered universe they found. The first telegraph message transmitted included the phrase: "What hath God wrought?"

What is happening recently is the constant repetition that God is over here and science is over there. The stale "this is the Why," and "this is the How." That's a lie. The desire to kick God out of human affairs is happening and ongoing. Sam Harris on secularhumanism.org talked about the "Alien hiss" of religion being talked about by "scientists." He compares these scientists to "pod people" from an old SF movie.

The goal is clear, everyone must believe that abiogenesis had a non-God, purely materialistic (i.e. natural) cause. God must not be allowed in as they attempt, through argument, to deny God the place in science He has always had.




God bless,
Al

Saying that chance produced life by the mere fact that life exists is a circular argument. There is no going around that. Hence by saying that the only possible cause of life's existence is chance alone, you're being illogical. You've already proven it before even proving it.

Also as Springer has raised, the existence of life is against the odds (due to 2nd law of thermodynamics). Living things contain highly organized energy just as machines. Nature's natural tendency is to disorganize heat, that is, heat will always, without fail, tend to disorganize, not localize. Only intelligent beings can temporarily localize heat. That is an empirical observable fact.

I'm not directing my post to anyone in particular. I just want to contribute to the discussion.

Good day to all!

I would say if abiogenesis were ‘proven’ false, then ID (could be God) or panspermia are more likely.

I would say if abiogenesis appears to be imposable, then ID (could be God) or panspermia are more likely.

I would go no further, because you would still need to find evidence supporting whatever theory is next in line, for a scientific opinion, one can philosophise as much as one desires at this point however.


(my paragraphing)

Re.a No.


The reasons are many and varied. Firstly the human brain can be deceived rather all to easily, false memories, brain disorders, personal biases (and why not some ultereriatetive motive?), In truth can we really say we ‘know’ someone that intimately? Testimony is not the science (it never has), the testimonies lead to science experiments. To be science it must be demonstrable, and you just cant demonstrate somebodies “say so”.


Re.b Yes.

Again it must be examined to be science – if an experience is personal only, what am I going to say that will convince you or otherwise of my sincerity? Testimony is not science, the whole purpose of science is to get to the facts, to remove personal bias, misunderstanding, misconceptions, etc.


The only form of ‘opinion’ that has any sort of validity (in any area of human knowledge) is that of consensus and expertise, the combination of which lends to less errors, but not infallibility.






Is it? if you chemically boil it all down life is only composed of a handful of elements. It is the complexity that makes life, i.e. it is that complexity that is now just begging to be explored.



Ok bear with this reply as there is a lot of ground to cover.

(my paragraphing).

Re.a as I keep stating the abiogenesis path is the only path that can be scientifically explored, and so far there is positive evidence that keeps the scientists from giving up.

Re.b I would see human creation of life (or something like it) as positive evidence for abiogenesis. But you again throw in requirements that at this point in time are unknown. It is fallacious to say we cant say how X or Y formed, because these are ‘final’ products after a long and who knows how tortuous path of chemical evolution. That there are clues and evidences is good enough. To say there is nothing out there is false.

Re.c Ok lets clear this up right now – lets assume that we have not arbitrarily excluded ID, and that you and I have been given a science grant of 10 million dollars each! I spend my money on various abiogenesis models. What would you do with your $10M to make a case for ID.

Re.d I would say that current indications are very promising and that your opinion on the state of affairs re abiogenesis, is overly pessimistic.

Re.e An answer from incredulity, in other words “I can’t believe it’s not butter” if not X then Y. This is not a scientific approach. You are summarily dismissing the evidence as invalid, and then placing creation or ID as a default replacement.

Re.f False logic, circular reasoning – the conclusion (life) dictates the conclusion (ID or created). here you are not demonstrating, you are philosophising, demonstrations need to be scientific, where as philosophy need not go much further than logic, prior knowledge, and inference.

Re.g the characterisation, as you put it are not arbitrary, for scientific inquiry we are forced to use what our senses and tools can provide. As an example re God – assume you had to make a list of what is attributed to God and what is not, when you come to Life, in what basket do you put it? If you put it in God’s basket ask yourself, what made you put it there, was it a scientific reason or a philosophic one? If it was science you should be able to come up with the experiments that deduced it so. It would be my bet however that it is wholly based on point ‘f’.

Re.h There is a huge misconception regarding the word ‘information’ and understanding what is meant and by whom is critical to understanding this argument. There are at least to topics in the forum already and I request that if you want to pursue this matter further we go to one of those. Needless to say, the scientific POV is that DNA information has no meaning and that it’s functions as a purely chemical machine.

Re.i IMO such things as self awareness are a product of the size and integration of brain. As there is ample evidence that damage or drugs diminishes the self or our abilities (generalisation), that observation implies a purely materialistic explanation. Vision is what the brain makes from optical input (part of our world view). There is a recent account I saw on the news where sight had been restored to a blind man, yet his brain could not make usable images.

Re.j Science is a material tool, it was and always has been the mechanism for exploring the material, it cant directly investigate non material (supernatural) phenomena unless it expresses itself in the material world (an then by default becomes materialistic). Even people of religious background used science to discover “the glories of Gods creation” (or, how the stuff that God created works) In this philosophy God is not seen as an interventionist God where the “fall of every sparrow” is accredited to some divine will or plan, but a more ‘free will’ driven or understandable universe. I can’t even recall some science where the conclusion is ‘God did this’, it has always been, “I cant believe this has a natural explanation therefore it must be God”. Basically if it’s deciding if God exists, science is the wrong tool for the job.

Re.k false reasoning - Because we do not currently have a scientific theory for a phenomenon does not mean that it is forever beyond our reach. Science is following a valid line of evidence, and is producing promising results commensurate with our knowledge, no one is denying there is an awful long way to go.

Is it also circular to say that because life exists, God must have created life, and we know this because life exists? I think you will find that theme often used.

The reason life is thought to have originated via abiogenesis is that we have evidence in the form of: knowledge of life, age of the universe, and experiments producing some aspect of life chemicals. Other possible causes (panspermia, or God) are not dismissed because they may not be true but because they cant be investigated by science.



The odds cant be calculated!

Life, chemical reactions, and man’s machines, appear to counter the 2nd law of thermodynamics, but they do not, as you say it’s a local effect, the sum energy is towards entropy, and no one is denying it! What I don’t understand is how you think this supports your POV!

Thank you for your candor, Chance. Abiogenesis indeed appears impossible. Such an observation is, therefore, evidence of Diety.



You rely on "testimony" to forumulate all of your beliefs. Have you ever actually performed radiometric dating? Do you know from first hand experience what a chimp genome is made of? You are relying on the "testimony" of others.


Do you have the nerve to actually say that evolutionary biologists are without personal bias?


You have no proof that life can be boiled down to chemicals. Can you assemble chemicals and create life? Of course not. You cannot see a spirit, so you assume that it does not exist.




And as I keep stating, ID is evidenced by the weakness of the abiogenesis position. You have admitted this, so to say that ID cannot be evaluated scientifically is false. There are all kinds of conclusions drawn in science that are a result of a default position.



To say there is something out there is false. You have not provided any evidence that abiogenesis is possible.



I would expose the scientific fallacies advanced by evolutionary theory, thus proving that gradualism is impossible. Specifically, I would hire the most renowned mathematicians and geneticists in the world to verify scientifically that the only conceivable mechanism of evolution, i.e., fortuitous sequential micromutations, is beyond the reach of probability. If gradualism is impossible, there remains only one other choice.



You can speak in broad generalities, but you have yet offer anything remotely convincing. I am pessimistic because I grasp the enormous complexity of DNA. You have to put on blinders and imagine that DNA could somehow form, but you cannot realistically face the ridiculous improbabilities.


And you yourself admitted that if you saw a prophet turn water into wine you would regard such as evidence of God, which is a default position.





The position of abiogenesis as a "science" today is unfalsifiable, because you are assuming that our lack of ability to explain it is an indication of a lack of knowledge. If it is indeed impossible, you will never know it because you will attribute it's "impossibility" to a lack of further research. If abiogenesis is not falsifiable, please indicate how it could possibly be falsified?

Panspermia just moves the "how did the first life form?" question to another location.

Fact: Life cannot be created in a lab.

Investigate all you want.




God bless,
Al

Agreed.



If it is a fact, would you mind terribly in showing your proof. Or do you mean you believe it to be a fact?

It has been attempted. I'm sure you know the experiment I'm referring to, but it was not successful.

I'm making this point to stress that if life came from non-life, it should be possible to create life in a lab. And again, for years, I've read about the "building blocks of life," amino acids, being found on comets and so on. Apparently, no one can show how to use those building blocks to create life. "Just add water," and 'poof,' life. I consider that idea to be promoting a belief since it is based on zero evidence (i.e. adding water and getting life).



God bless,
Al

Sure the Urey-Miller experiment, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miller-Urey but I hardly think anyone expected an amoeba to crawl out!



certainly it might be possible, but then again it might not be, if you assume one of the processes took a thousand years under extreme conditions then one would have to conclude not.

However your claim that is baseless (Zero evidence) is baseless, a quick read of this thread will reveal the extent of the scientific evidence or google.

The scientific censuses thinks otherwise, to change their POV you will need some science that can change their minds on this matter, else it’s just your opinion that it appears impossible, yes?




Indeed I am relying on others, specifically the honesty of the scientific community as a whole. While there remains the possibility of some individual or group manipulating data for there ends, I would have to say that no one group can pull this off, because of the requirement of repeatability (fraud should soon be detected). No one is immune from unscrupulous behaviour, indeed you would have to include your own creation scientists, would you not or do you think there behaviour is beyond reproach?

As I’ve said many times when it comes to science (or any discipline that takes a lot of expertise), you have to take the results somewhat on trust. For example I doubt you could devote all your spare time to Bible studies, and if you wanted to find out something specific you would go o a resources form which you could get learned opinion. This is more or less why I started the “authority” thread, to show that authority has it’s place, and it’s limitations.




Everyone has bias! Scientists however are trained to acknowledge this fact, it is part of their job, to be wary of their own bias and that of the establishment. To overturn a long held theory, is one of sciences “holy grails” (if you’ll excuse the analogy).




Huh, I seem to remember from high school that we are 90% water, enough carbon to make a pencil, enough iron to make a nail and stuff like that, not sure what you mean by ‘no proof that we are not chemicals?