[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?

Assembling those chemicals of course is a whole different matter and is the subject of this thread.

Re- sprit. By definition, spirit is not of this world and therefore is not able to be investigated by science, as it’s presents (if it exists) does not manifest itself in the natural world. It would take something as ‘real’ as depicted in the movie Ghostbusters, to manifest itself, then it could be confirmed, tested, experimented upon. There is no science showing the existence of sprit, so I do not assume a default position that such exists.

(I have grouped this series of questions and answers together, as they are addressing basically the same thing)(my bold)

I specifically stated that you had to make a case for ID, and by that I mean spending the money to ‘prove’ your POV (not disprove your competitor, besides you don’t know what evidences I will be using). Remember that we are both now on equal footing in that we have not excluded ID, you have your $10M and I have mine, the race is on, how do you experiment upon ID to show it exists?

(consider what one possible result might be – e.g. if I produce abiogenesis in the bottle, and you had wasted all your money on a mathematician, it will look pretty silly with you saying “I have proved ‘mathematically’ that abiogenesis is impossible, and me standing next to you desperately trying to contain my creation as it makes a break for the mathematician’s jugular)

If on the other hand, I find nothing conclusive, and you do find something supportive, your theory will gain prominence and go to the head of the que (else you will have two theories with no evidence). This is why it is important to have independent verification of ID.









At this point in time, I think generalities are appropriate, as abiogenesis is not a theory. It may be that DNA comes late to the party, so what would be the point in showing how DNA formed, could be life got on well enough with RNA for a while. The improbabilities argument is fallacious logic.




New evidence, revise POV!






Your putting the cart before the horse, if abiogenesis were to be ‘proven’ and a theory devised, that theory must be falsifiable (else it cant be a theory)! Current experimentation need only follow scientific process, and rigor.


You continue to make the same 3 accusations:

A. You claim abiogenesis should have all the answers neatly laid out, but how can this be if what is going on right now is trying to establish, the very base principles.

B. You claim that ID is being excluded (unfairly), but how can this be if your not able to show how to test it, science need something to test? To which you answer with ‘C’.

C. You claim ID is valid, purely because you are not convinced that abiogenesis is valid science, but how can this be if you have no science to put forward? To which you answer with ‘B’.

And so we continue with your standard responses (paraphrased). Can I suggest that I have answered each of these to the best of my ability, and that we agree to disagree?

One point for future discussion, even though we acknowledge the differences we refrain from statements like “you have no evidence” when what is actually meant is “I do not agree that the evidence is supportive of your POV”.

You attempt to separate "science" from God. Many great scientists in the past did not do so and performed their work and made their discoveries. The constant refrain that something is outside the realm of science is an attempt to get people to forget that God was and still is, part of science.

It is realistic to state that abiogenesis is outside the realm of mathematical possibility. To be more explicit, the counterargument is "with enough time, anything is possible." This falls into the realm of science fiction at best. I've read articles about evolution that include the word "must," obviously because unless this must is assumed, there is no answer. Example, A must have happened to get the organism to point B. A process is assumed.

I am not against scientific research, but I am not interested in hearing the atheist/agnostic refrain: it "must" have happened. This amounts to a statement on faith.

Abiogenesis happened because of God. It is written in the Bible. If this does not count as evidence for you, fine. But a physical person, Jesus Christ, the son of God, did appear on earth.



God bless,
Al

There is no "scientific consensus" that abiogenesis occurred or is even possible.



You cannot prove that we aren't something more than chemicals. You cannot assume that something you cannot measure with our limited tools does not exist.




We're back to the same debate. You say that by disproving abiogenesis I have not proven God. Yet you admit that if abiogenesis is demonstrated to be impossible, that would at least provide evidence of Diety. You are the one assume the default position. You exclude God and therefore conclude that abiogenesis occurred. You don't know how it occurred, but seem certain that somehow matter evolved into life because, in your mind, that's the only other choice. Why do you not recognize that as a default position?



What are you saying? Are you suggesting that even if I proved abiogenesis to be mathematically impossible that you would still hold out hope that it just happened?
And your suggestion that "if I produced abiogenesis in a bottle" is laughable... do you seriously believe that anyone is remotely close to being able to produce life?


You imply that the genesis of DNA is a minor detail that science hasn't got around to figuring out yet. If you're going to look at the problem squarely, you need to address the greatest obstacle to abiogenesis... DNA. So far you haven't offered any suggestion as to how DNA could form without intelligent design. If you propose that it occurred and that abiogenesis is a viable theory, you must address that critical issue. It doesn't matter if you can propose how a cell membrane formed. Self replication of simple proteins is dodging the issue. If there is one aspect of single cell life that is impossible to conceive by gradualism, NDT comes crashing down.


Another unsupported generalization. What sort of laws of probability are evolution required to adhere to?

You are confusing the fact that a scientist can be religious and perform science, with results from science inferring God! One has nothing to do with the other. For example - would you think that a missionary Christian, who studies the local religion intimately, has to convert to the local religion? Of course not, he can use his faculties to evaluate the local situation with integrity, as he should.


(my paragraphing)

Re.a I have already explained that this is a demonstrably illogical statement, when the conditions are unknown, it the same as attempting to work our the following:

probability X = A * B * C

where A, B, and C are unknown.

Re.b Enough time allows the formulation of the abiogenesis hypothesis, if for example it was proved the earth was young, then abiogenesis would become progressively more unlikely.

Re.c Without a reference to text you are refereeing to I could infer several possibilities:

a. you may have misunderstood the intent.
b. The sentences were generalisations of process e.g. to get from ice to steam, one can infer the water passed through a liquid stage at some point. Nothing wrong with this provided the thought process is explained.




perhaps you do not understand the context in which “must” is stated, see my explanation above on ice to steam.

(my paragraphing)

Re.a that is a act of faith not science.

Re.b No it is not scientific evidence, it is testimony! What sciences is there that concludes Gods existence? If you choose to believe such things they are matters of faith, not science. Qualifier (Jesus IMO may have been a historical person).

One more point, Chance:

You still have not addressed the issue of falsifiability of abiogenesis. Is it falsifiable? If so, how?

I’m afraid that on that point you are just simply, wrong! Try and prove me wrong, it should be easy enough, for a start just list the alternatives to abiogenesis.




Oh my ! – you think I need to prove a negative! You’ve hit rock bottom here Springer. Its the classic, Invisible Pink Unicorn argument. Next you’ll be asking me to disprove that Santa lives in the north pole! Come on!
Without evidence of whatever it is you think I should be measuring, it would be an assumption to think anything that is not observable/measurable even exists!!
Anyone can speculate any number of imaginary things we might be made of, fairy dust, extract of unicorn testicles, essence of dragons teeth, but seriously what’s the point, other than a complete waist of time. Stick to the science.





No I am assuming we are on equal footing (this is a hypothetical thought experiment), you have won you day in court i.e. the ‘Dover’ case found in favour of ID, and President Bush is so convinced by your current arguments, that you have been given $10M to cement your position with some positive evidence (that should shut those evolutionists up), as I have explained. What are you going to do, surly your not going to refuse the president with an “er excuse me Mr president, this thing about ID, er there something you should know…..”





Facts speak louder than math. In the situation I described, who’s argument is wrong?





I hardly think it’s a minor detail, but as I have stated you are making conclusions based on current knowledge, and the final product. And no science has not got around to figuring it out yet, why is this a problem for you? In every discipline of science, 99.99999999% of the research time is at the point of “not got around to figuring it out yet”. Science is not about re-inventing the wheel over and over again.




Show me your math then! and I’ll show you where you have made the unsupported assumptions.

However, to expand upon my comment – whatever becomes of abiogenesis, the product of that science must be falsifiable, (presuming it becomes a theory).

Things that can falsify abiogenesis right now are the individual experiments that show evidence for abiogenesis these must, by themselves, be falsifiable, i.e. remove one of the ingredients and it don’t work sort of thing.

So in the due course of time, various experiments lead to life, you will have a chain of falsification, from A to Z.

Another way of looking at it - (The original question is not really applicable), imagine you are in the past and you suspect that lightning is electricity (following various lines of evidence), and you state such as a hypothesis, could you falsify it at that point in time?

Now you're comparing a belief in a spirit to fairy dust and dragons teeth, as if there is no evidence for a spirit's existence. More than 90% of the world's population believes in God, including eminent scientists. As far as alternatives to abiogenesis, I'll start with the existence of a supreme being. No one believes in fairy dust, because there's no evidence for its existence. Many scientists see evidence of God. Chance, you're getting desperate. I think everyone can see who's scraping the bottom of the barrel.


If evolution could truely be falsified, it would "shut those evolutionists up". They could either imagine that life suddenly sprung into existence or they would be forced to believe in God. The problem is, evolution cannot be falsified in any evolutionist's eyes. God is assumed not to exist, so evolution is the only choice. The only thing that can be falsified in your eyes is a particular mechanism of evolution. THis is how steeped you are in the paradigm.

Of course a particular mechanism of abiogenesis can be falsified. That's a good reason why no particular pathway is proposed... it will immediately be falsified and its proponents laughed at. I don't care about a mechanism... I'm asking you to show how the general theory of abiogenesis can be falsified. You will always say that science hasn't figured out the mechanism. You make the gargantuan assumption that it happened, then proceed to figure out the mechanism. That is no different than assuming that life once evolved on Mars. Although we have no evidence of it, continued research will enlighten us. You can falsify the theory that life as we know it couldn't have existed on Mars, but you can't prove that some other form of life that could survive under Martian conditions existed. In other words, the falsification of one theory will only lead to the supposition that another mechanism was operative. This is the phantom that evolutionists have been pursuing for the last 160 years.
You ask me to stick to science. Can you show me one iota of fact that can convince a skeptic to believe in abiogenesis? Do you have any direct evidence that a primordial soup even existed? Do you have any evidence that complex proteins either could or did self-organize. Are you aware of any experiment that documents that DNA can evolve or did evolve. You have your imagination... nothing more. You accuse me of believing in pink unicorns... I find that far more plausible than life evolving from random molecules.

(my paragraphing)

Re.a And what scientific evidence do these 90% have for the existence of sprit? I would think this is not a matter of science but one of faith.

Re.b (circular, but never mind) Ok, since you opened the door, please list the evidence, and presumably the science that verify’s this claim. Pre-emptive strike – don’t include If Not X Then Y, or any positions from incredulity, I’m only interested in your positive scientific evidence on this matter.

Re.c I am absolutely gob smacked! Why are you notl inclined to say that I cant disprove the existences of fairy dust? How come you don’t invoke You cannot prove that [we aren't something more than chemicals] fairy dust exists. You cannot assume that something you cannot measure with our limited tools does not exist My my my Springer, you certainly pick and choose which proof you use don’t you.

Re.d If you think it is desperation, you could not be further from the truth, a simple request for evidence on my part seems to invoke the response that belief trumps science, in matters of science.




Sorry Springer, (your POV is well known) BUT, I specifically asked for an expenditure budget?

Don’t you feel it rather strange, that, given equal opportunity to make our case, that I could spend my $10 million three times over and still ask “please sir, I want some more”, and all I get from you is side stepping!

Don’t you think this inability is rather telling of the scientific position of ID?

ok assuming a theory was proposed, I would imagine it would go something like this:

If the initial conditions were X, Y, Z, and you mix A, B and C, life will be the result.

It could be falsified if, evidence showed that one or all of the conditions did not exist in the past, or the experiment does not work. Two methods of falsification.





hear we go again - Abiogenesis is the only possible path for the science to follow (all previously explained), show me another path and we can see if there is any scientific merit in it. But until you are able to do this, what is the alternative to abiogenesis research?




As I previously explained, much of the position science (re abiogenesis) is an inference, based on old earth/universe and evolution. You very well know this, I have explained it to you many, many times. It is a logical position to take. And there is circumstancial evidence that we are on the right track, again previously explained.

Why do you keep asking for direct evidence?





again with the same old strawman argument – Springer, abiogenesis proposes a chemical evolutionary path, not an DNA assembly using Lego™. So, please direct you criticism of abiogenesis to the proposed mechanism, not the fantasy one.

Chance,



Go to any atheist forum to see the reasons why atheists don't believe. I don't believe that science has nothing to do with it as you assert. The separation of science from God includes the separation of man from God. I am not against good science, I am against the constant atheist refrain that there is no God since there is no science proving God. I hope you can see that such a statement is one of the foundational atheist beliefs.

The pathway to abiogenesis is imagined. Science fiction. Like I wrote before, scientists can continue to look but, so far, they don't know.



God bless,
Al

(my paragraphing)

Re.a for what purpose, I already know atheists come in all different flavours and post for all sorts of reasons, if you want to talk about atheism, I would be happy to discuss such matter in a separate thread.

Re.b it should be very easy to determine I would think, just get a science experiment that conclude that God does not exist and you have made your case. However, what I suspect you mean is that individuals can infer the non existence of God, from the absence of scientific evidence, yes? On this point I freely admit it’s not exactly a purely logical position, hence the term agnostic, for those that think like that.

Re.c. No I cant agree with sentiment for exactly the same reason I made in point ‘b’. i.e. Science can neither prove nor disprove, the existence of God. Ones philosophy, is a product of ones mind.

Re.d I think ‘inferred’ is a preferable term to use instead of ‘imagined’. Imagined implies IMO, someone just thinking of stuff without applying reason.

You speak as if those who believe in God do so without evidence, on blind faith... and suggest that evolutionists are guided by pure objective logic... as if you have some corner on science.

The only evidence you can provide for abiogenesis is an argument from incredulity of God. You have no science behind your arguments. You have yet to show me even a vague pathway between molecules and single cell life. All you can say is that it's being actively investigated and the "scientific consensus" is that it occurred. I'm not one of the gullible public. I want to see evidence.




The scientific position of ID is that life demonstrates that it was intelligently designed by virtue of its irreducible complexity, beauty, and purpose. I am at a total loss to understand why you don't see that as evidence. Somehow evolutionists have imagined that they've debunked the irreducible complexity argument. What they've done is ignored it. First they tried to deny that any example of irreducible complexity existed. When they're backed into a corner by examples such as single cell life, they decide the argument is irrelevant. They think beauty is a relative term that has no scientific basis, which is false. Their view is only a reflection of their materialistic philosophy. They deny that 'purpose' exists, when it is obvious to everyone that it does. The only other alternative to creation is evolution, which is impossible. It defies all known laws of inheritance, verified by science. In the case of abiogenesis, you have no evidence that it occured, nor do you have evidence that it could occur. You cannot conceptualize how the individual components of a cell could come together by chance and natural selection. You have no evidence that a primordial soup ever existed, nor do you have evidence that conditions 4 billion years ago were even conducive to abiogenesis. You cannot even describe what those conditions might have been. What you have is nothing more than a belief... a belief based on your predetermined denial that God exists, so there is no other choice... a default position.
Chance, you seem to have such a high regard for science. Why are you so naive as to believe something such as abiogenesis that has no scientific backing whatsoever? Your contention that there is a "scientific consensus" is ludicrous. There are innumerable highly credentialed scientists who scoff at the notion of abiogenesis. Have you ever read anything about abiogenesis in a textbook of biochemistry? I don't think so. This is because there would be nothing to say. The subject is irrelevant to our understanding of biochemistry and in fact runs counter to what we observe. If the genesis of life is a property of matter, then why don't we incorporate that "knowlege" into our study of life? The reason is, of course, that we have to imagine that it occurred. We have to rationalize away what we do observe, bend the laws of probability, close our eyes and just accept the fact that life evolved, regardless of the fact that science cannot support it.

Chance, you may want to take a gander at http://www.lifeorigin.org/


Under "Criteria for winning" they list the major issues.




Some of the issues mentioned were brought up by Springer already. There is no denying it, these are serious issues that should give all evo's pause to think. Evo's are "hoping" to find the answers to, what looks like, a mountain of issues to hurdle. The bottom line is that there is simply no evidence, zero, from the scientific community to support abiogenesis events.

If evo's continue to insist that abiogenesis did indeed occur then it is flat out a "belief" a "faith" a "hope" and nothing more. This is precisely the reason most evo's like to shove abiogenesis aside and claim it has nothing to do with evolution. It takes them down a path that makes defending the nonsense that is evoution appear all the more ridiculous.

I feel somewhat justified in making such a claim as I have yet to see a scientific proof for the existence of God, therefore I am forced to conclude that those who believe in God, do so as a matter of faith, and not a scientific proof. However, I would be happy be corrected on this point, and await a science experiment that will prove this position I have taken is erroneous.



Already posted. Now, please answer the question.


(my paragraphing)

Re.a Because it’s an argument from incredulity, i.e. I cant believe it could be any other way! There is no supporting science behind your statement. A scientific position is supported by experimentation, and inference, they are logical positions based on current knowledge. Your position seems to be that the premise is the starting point from which the science must then confirm. An inability to provide the support for your statement is proof that you position is a philosophic one. That is why ID cant be taught as science.

Re.b IC is a condition (no one is denying it’s existence). You can engineer it or evolve it. The science states that IC is a product of evolution.

Beauty - it must be said is in the eye of the beholder, and as such must be somewhat relative.

Purpose – and what purpose does science attribute to life?

Belief – show me some science to change my mind then?

Re.c I have shown the science, IMO that science and reasoning for abiogenesis is sound. It will take science to change my mind.

More strawmen arguments (re the current state of abiogenesis), which I have answered previously.


Springer how long do you intend to ignore the questions and play this ‘deflect the argument away game’ with me? I have two simple questions that you have yet to answer:

Q1 I specifically asked for an expenditure budget?

Don’t you feel it rather strange, that, given equal opportunity to make our case, that I could spend my $10 million three times over and still ask “please sir, I want some more”, and all I get from you is side stepping!

Don’t you think this inability is rather telling of the scientific position of ID?

Q2 And what scientific evidence do these 90% have for the existence of sprit? I would think this is not a matter of science but one of faith.

Re.b (circular, but never mind) Ok, since you opened the door, please list the evidence, and presumably the science that verify’s this claim. Pre-emptive strike – don’t include If Not X Then Y, or any positions from incredulity, I’m only interested in your positive scientific evidence on this matter.

Seth, I am well aware of what must eventually be done for a scientific theory to be accepted, however, requesting such now is a bit premature, don’t you think?
Were you under the impression that abiogenesis has achieved the status of ‘scientific theory’?



No it is not a belief is a reasoned position based on current knowledge about how the universe works:

A. Biological evolution (i.e. inheritance, mutations, DNA and all that good stuff) is not abiogenesis.

B. evolution can and is, in this forum used more broadly to include age of the universe and “goo to you”. That is why you must be precise in your definition so we do not start talking cross purposes. In this topic of abiogenesis, we have earlier cleared this up, but as it’s now 14 pages long I can appreciate that this point can be forgotten from time to time.



The de-facto POV for this discussion is:

Universe is old, and went through long ages of ‘stellar evolution’ to our current sola system.

Abiogenesis is proposed as a series of ‘chemical evolutionary steps’, towards self sustaining life.

Biological evolution Darwinism, and Neo Darwinism, as the mechanism from some arbitrary point in the abiogenesis process, through to today.

Hope this is helpful.

I notice now that you're saying you don't see scientific "proof" of God, whereas before you denied "evidence" of God. Are you ready to admit that "evidence" of God exists? Do you have scientific proof of abiogenesis?






As I stated before, your argument for abiogenesis is based on incredulity that a creator exists. The evolutionary argument that "incredulity" is an illegitimate concern is assinine. You're asking me to "just believe" in something that has no scientific backing and runs counter to common sense. The simple parroting "argument from incredulity" is offered as if it's self-evident that everyone should just agree with evolution and not doubt. It's an extraordinarily arrogant stance. Somehow evolutionists have convinced themselves that this is a legitimate rebuttal, but it amounts to nothing but a dodge. You're the one who constantly demands science to back up one's position. Now you're insisting that I should "believe" without evidence. If you criticize me of "incredulity", you're admitting that you don't have real evidence. True science can demonstrate results which are reproducible to the skeptic. You're expecting me to draw conclusions based on your faith.


And if you think abiogenesis qualifies in this regard, please explain yourself with something other than "I've already posted the evidence". What sort of experimentation indicates that a cell can form from raw materials? If you think the Urey Miller experiment suggests this, your grossly mistaken. If you think protein self-replication is evidence, you're really grasping at straws. This is not evidence... showing that a protein can self-replicate does not suggest that DNA or a ribosome can form. You haven't provided the slightest hint of evidence that the irreducible complexity argument of single cell life is invalid.



I've provided evidence: Irreducible complexity, beauty and purpose. Your only rebuttal is that such a position is based on incredulity. You cannot explain to me how evolution can produce these things. All you can do is ignore these legitimate concerns with the all-inclusive "argument from incredulity" response. I can say the same thing to you... you don't believe in God.




As we already discussed in a different thread, beauty is not entirely in the eye of the beholder, and evolution cannot explain how natural seleciton can produce it, unless you think a peacock or a surgeonfish or a cowrie has sufficient intelligence to discriminate tastes in asthetics.


There you go again, denying the undeniable.


Chance, please reference where and how you have shown the science.


What sort of "proof" do you have that raw materialistic "science" is the only source of truth.




Regardless of how much evidence I provided for intelligent design, you would not believe unless I called down an angel and he would personally turn water into wine in front of you at your request, subject to your videotaping.
The fact is, Chance, you demand absolute positive proof of God, whereas you require no such thing for evolution.




I've provided evidence, and would now ask you to enlighten me as what sort of evidence would convince you. You said a miracle that could not be explained by science. I've done that and you've rejected it, arguing that you demand a bonafide "Biblical-type" miracle of your choosing.

From what I've been reading in this post, I am given the impression that most evolutionist's have the strange idea that there is sufficient evidence in existence to support abiogenesis. As of yet, I've seen no scientific evidence to support such claims and the website I supplied makes that evident. The best you can do is provide "a reasoned position based on current knowledge about how the universe works:"

I use a similar "reasoned" position based on current knowledge, understanding and experience about how anything created and designed requires an intelligent agent.

I've also gotten the impression that most evolutionist default to the "argument of Credulity" when it comes to anything evolutionary, including abiogenesis. Everything is "possible", we just haven't "discovered" it yet. However that "discovery" may be the intelligence that most evo's want to deny even exists since it's beyond the realm of scientific discovery. Science is not the be all and end all, it's simply a man made tool to help us understand our world and universe. Yet the creation with it's vast complexities and diversity speaks loud and clear that the universe and everything living in it could only have resulted via an intelligent source. Just because "science" can't discover this source through traditional man made processes doesn't mean it's beyond "all" discovery.

Blind people can't see color and no amount of their limited 4 senses can discover what color looks like or what it even is. Nevertheless despite those limitations beyond their ability to discover what color is it does indeed exist.

Your "reasoned" position is no different than my "reasoned" position except that I don't limit my knowledge to everything and anything evolutionist scientist say. As Springer has already shown several times, scientific discovery is against evolution including abiogenesis. It doesn't matter to you or any other evo how "impossible" it seems you'll always hang on to "hope" that the many difficulties found in ND will one day be solved and that includes abiogenesis. You can call it a reasoned position and "reason" all you want, which is what you've been doing all along, but that still equates to "hope" and nothing more since no "discovery" or "evidence" has been found to support abiogenesis or ND for that matter.

I sometimes write ‘proof’ erroneously when I mean evidence, I usually write it when I’m describing an experiment (not to imply that an experiment ‘proves conclusively, but it is a method of ‘proving’). It’s just a bit of loose phraseology on my part. So my statement stands with that qualifier.

No, I have not changed my mind on evidence of God, neither have I changed my mind re abiogenesis.







I have repeatedly shown you my evidence, we have discussed it as far as it is practically possible on this forum, what has yet to be presented is the evidence that supports your claims, re ID, beauty, and purpose, these subjects are lacking in evidence! Whenever I request the evidence the best you can do is to attempt a diversion and claim my evidence is weak! This continual avoidance at answering some very simple questions is paramount to an admission that you cannot answer them.






Ok, for the very last time, these process and evidences in order.

The philosophy from which will come questions that hopefully science will be able to investigate.

Question, how does life appear? Answer:

a. created ex nihlo, or
b. arrived in simple form (panspermia), or
c. abiogenesis
d. request you for additional scenarios - non forthcoming.

Question, from the list above, which have a possibility of being investigated using science?

a. No - science has no method of directly investigating phenomenon that doesn’t manifest it’s self in the natural world.
b. No (limited) - no way to test such an idea, other than a find of such in a meteorite.
c. Yes – a natural event, then there is a possibility to replicate some or all of the event.

Qualifiers for the above. A scientific theory must by definition be supported by positive evidence else it is only conjecture, only abiogenesis has the promise to do so.

the case for abiogenesis

The reasoning - a hypothesis must be internally consistent, i.e. it must fit within the frame work of what is known.

a. Old earth/universe – Yes abiogenesis is compatible.
b. Precedes biological evolution – yes early life is simple, thus not as large gap between early life and non life.

the evidence for abiogenesis

a. Experimentation has produced chemicals essential for life and currently manufactured by life from base elements, using estimates of primitive earth conditions.
b. Replicating molecules have been manufactured.
c. Examination of existing life reveals a complex arrangement of seemingly separate formes of life lending weight to a symbiotic stage in evolution, when individual elements were individuals.

Self evidences, and others

a. Science is experimenting on abiogenesis, and not on creation.
b. The courts have declared that ID is not science but a thinly disguised creationism.
c. evidences for creationism have been limited to attacks on evolution/abiogenesis, strawman, and incredulity arguments. Not a single scrap of positive evidence has been presented so far in this discussion.
d. No one can propose a method (given a hypothetical even footing with science including a monitory grant) to investigate ID.


Lets bookmark this post for future reference to any further questions about evidence or philosophy and reasoning of abiogenesis.











Really then list what evidence you have to support your statement that Irreducible complexity, beauty and purpose support ID.

a. What is it about IC that supports it being a product from ID? list is the evidence?
b. What is it about beauty that supports it being a product from ID? list is the evidence.
c. What is it about purpose that supports it being a product from ID? list is the evidence.

You make the claim then expect the claim to be the evidence, not by a long shot.



Sexual selective pressures can explain a peacocks feathers, else why is the peahen not similarly endowed? Experiments have shown that the female birds (and other species) prefer flamboyant colour and behaviour, it is reasoned that any individual that can afford to expend time an energy in display is virile and healthy.

Mutual benefit explains surgeonfish (symbiotic relationship have survival value)

So that’s 2 out of 3 without me even resorting to research, so much for your claim of “evolution cannot explain”.




It was a question to you, and it is you who must answer and not dodge. If you think science has answered this question, then please tell us what you think it is because I have not seen anything other than perpetuation?




From the evidence I see about me in everyday life, this computer for a start, cars, aeroplanes, modern medicine, astronomy, basically and endless list of materialism, that has been analysed, figured out and manipulated into devices that serve us.

Philosophy and rhetoric, serve us in organising our lives in a rational way, it direct us to ask a question in the right way without ambiguity. Asking the right question in the right way is essential in taking the next step in attempting to determine truth.

Both of the above can only flourish (work better) in an honest and healthy social system.

The combination of philosophy and science, is self evident as the source of all material progress.




How much evidence you have presented so far makes the grand sum of zero, not a singe experiment nor a single proposed idea on how to begin an experiment – actions speak louder than words springer!

This is the question “Does that support take the form of a scientific theory, or is it a hypothesis based in inference?” to which you seem to already know the answer below




You have answered your own question



Big claim what is your evidence? in post #298 I have gone to some length to list the reasoning and evidence that lead to abiogenesis, do you think you could do similar without resorting to arguments from incredulity, or If Not X then Y? in other words positive evidence and or reasoning compatible with naturalistic science? I’m betting you cannot.

(my paragraphing)


Re.a Then your impression is very much mistaken, or perhaps you are reading out of context, the positions of evolution and abiogenesis are scientifically sound and reasoned. There is of course only one way to settle this, and quote the article in question. However if you read my post #298 your original assumption could be explained in there.

Re.b If and when that scenario comes about, I and the scientific community will re-evaluate our positions. Currently the evidence points to abiogenesis and evolution, so that is the status quo. But you have acknowledge what it would take to change scientific opinion on this subject, so I applaud your understanding of the scientific method in this regard.



agreed. But what are you inferring here, that you have some special insight?

(my paragraphing)

Re.a My position is that of evidence based reasoning, and that of the scientific consensus. Now you may immediately claim that I am resorting to an argument from authority, but you would be mistaken. I have created a topic on the argument from authority where I hope to have made the position clear, but basically it is a weight of numbers, and openness to criticism method, where the possibility of error is reduced (but never eliminated). All such claims from authority in these circumstances must have the chain of reasoning explained, be internally consistent, and all of that has to have a scientific basis.

Re.b Such a claims by springer so far have proven to be based on false reasoning, there is no science supporting any alternate position!

Re.c No! hope need not have reasoning, I can ‘hope’ that the middle east will settle their difference and live in peace. Abiogenesis is a position from internally consistent inference from the current scientific knowledge, that is not a position from ‘hope’

P.S. there is scientific evidence that supports (not proves) abiogenesis! Can you say the same for any alternate position?

Chance, your argumentations until now are only rethorical. There is no evidence supporting abiogenesis.All abiogenesis experiments failed.There is no pathway explaining how life can come from no-life.The only thing you have are just-so stories without foundation in the reality.In this same thread you said that we don´t know the variables involved in abiogenesis so how can you say it is a position from internally consistent inference from the current scientific knowledge ? what knowledge ? is The knowledge you don´t know ? are Those mystical variables you said can turn abiogenesis possible ?