Origin of Life: Another Great Challenge to Darwinism

[chatfsh]

As is often the case, the best place to start is at the beginning.  So let

[Dunenewt]

In your opinion scientists have failed utterly and miserably to explain something, in my opinion, religious people utterly and miserably fail to explain why so many people died in the 9/11 attack...unless it was because they deserved to die...I'm not sure?

Simply put, if you to start topics on a contentious matter, try to be a little more objective and a little less subjective, at least for the first post.

[chatfsh]

Please try to post meaningful responses and do not attempt to take this discussion off topic.  If anyone wants to discuss theology, start another topic.

[Dunenewt]

"Theology is the study of God or, more generally the study of religious faith, practice, and experience, or of spirituality."

If this thread does not concern Theology, then is it just concerning Biology?  In that case, this is in the wrong board.

Edit - Also, a quick point.  Thousands of years ago, a lot of phenomena would have just been dismissed as magic, because people did not understand it.  Pretty much what you're talking about here then.

[chatfsh]

"Theology is the study of God or, more generally the study of religious faith, practice, and experience, or of spirituality."

If this thread does not concern Theology, then is it just concerning Biology?  In that case, this is in the wrong board.

Wrong.  Discussions around science, particularly origin of life discussions, can be appropriately categorized as philosophy.  And I will thank you to cease your attempts to needlessly drive the discussion off topic.

[Wolf]

I don't see any real controversy here: the evolutionary process can result in DNA, RNA, or any other number of specialized biological structures. It's no different than evolution conspiring to create a mitochondria or a liver.

This might seem off-topic, but it isn't, since the entire goal of this article is essentially an absolute refutation of scientific materialism. Either way, I think your approach to this subject is better applied to a problem in neuroscience: specifically the hard problem of consciousness. If consciousness itself is purely the result of biological machinery, why is it necessary for there to be any sort of subjective experience? Why not just have the brain/computer run its calculations "in the dark," as it were, without subjecting us to an apparently unnecessary conscious experience?

[chatfsh]

I don't see any real controversy here: the evolutionary process can result in DNA, RNA, or any other number of specialized biological structures. It's no different than evolution conspiring to create a mitochondria or a liver.

Humor me, Wolf.  Walk me through just how we get from non-living matter to DNA through any naturalistic mechanism.  Do so without any human intervention, engineering, tampering, or manipulation of conditions

[Edric O]

Hwi, you are correct that the origin of DNA (and, more generally, the origin of life) is a serious problem that has not received any satisfactory answer from the natural sciences. However, this problem has nothing to do with darwinism.

Saying that the origin of life is a challenge to darwinism is like saying that the origin of gasoline is a challenge to the internal combustion engine. It is not. The science behind the internal combustion engine simply assumes that gasoline exists, and does not care where it came from. Likewise, the science behind darwinism simply assumes that DNA-based life exists, and does not care where it came from.

The question of the origin of life is entirely separate from the question of the evolution of life.

[chatfsh]

Hwi, you are correct that the origin of DNA (and, more generally, the origin of life) is a serious problem that has not received any satisfactory answer from the natural sciences.

Good.:)

However, this problem has nothing to do with darwinism.

Saying that the origin of life is a challenge to darwinism is like saying that the origin of gasoline is a challenge to the internal combustion engine. It is not. The science behind the internal combustion engine simply assumes that gasoline exists, and does not care where it came from. Likewise, the science behind darwinism simply assumes that DNA-based life exists, and does not care where it came from.

The question of the origin of life is entirely separate from the question of the evolution of life.

If that is the case, then two things:

1. Darwinism has truly missed the far more important and fascinating question, both from a scientific and philosophical perspective -

[Wolf]

Humor me, Wolf.  Walk me through just how we get from non-living matter to DNA through any naturalistic mechanism.  Do so without any human intervention, engineering, tampering, or manipulation of conditions

[chatfsh]

As far as I understand it, lightning plus liquid water formed the first amino acids, and as those acids developed into proteins, larger, and more complex organic molecules began to form--the basis for our beloved modern petroleum. DNA, therefore, to me, is no logically or rationally different regarding this discussion than the first cellular flagellum, the first mitochondrial power-plant, or the human eye.

Ah, the old

[Edric O]

If that is the case, then two things:

1. Darwinism has truly missed the far more important and fascinating question, both from a scientific and philosophical perspective -

[chatfsh]

"Darwinism" - that is, the theory of evolution by natural selection - is not supposed to answer any question other than how living species change from A to B. It's not supposed to be some kind of universal theory of everything.

Personally, when I first learned about Darwinism, I could not comprehend how it could possibly make atheists feel intellectually fulfilled since it failed to answer the BIG question

[MrFlibble]

As far as I understand it, the problem of Darwinism actually embraces two completely different subjects. First is its scientific value, and Edric O is absolutely correct here that the theory of evolution as a biological, scientific theory is not supposed to explain the origin of life - it has other purposes (namely, to explain evolution).

But Darwinism also has had a great cultural impact beyond its purely scientific application. For Darwin's contemporaries, the theory of evolution shattered an entire worldview imposed by creationist assumptions. To many people not directly concerned with biology and/or evolution, Darwinism allowed to question an important aspect of the religious teachings, and through this, the teaching itself.

The problem is that even today, many people seemingly cannot distinguish between these two aspects of Darwinism. One of the consequence is that it is still considered mauvais ton by many scientists to talk about intelligent design or, in a more down-to-earth formulation, the teleology of evolution. In a simplified way, one can offend an atheist's beliefs by saying that evolution has a purpose ;D

I think that the real problem here is not the question of the origin of life, or the way evolution goes, but that hard-headed, fanatical atheists are no better than their creationist counterparts. Scientific study has to take all the possible hypotheses and explanations into account to be objective, and discard those that prove ineffective or contradict factual evidence.

In short, saying that Darwinism somehow gives a scientific base to atheistic beliefs is incorrect. Science and religion are two different kinds of thins, and generally should not be mixed up at all.

[chatfsh]

Well said, Mr. Flibble. :)

And yes, scientists should ardently pursue science without regard to their respective worldview. They should simply and objectively follow the evidence to wherever it might lead.

So many people are under the false impression that evolution somehow invalidates a theistic worldview. In essence they say, "Aha!  We no longer need God, we've got evolution!"  You see, I understand that Darwinism neither explains nor addresses the origin of life or DNA. But unfortunately, there are too many supposedly educated people out there that falsely believe that it does. Thus, the topic.

[MrFlibble]

It seems like a pretty common misconception among people, most of whom aren't involved in scientific study themselves, to expect that scientific methods will give a final, ultimate explanation to this or that particular phenomenon. In this naive view, science and religion can become competitors in providing ultimate truths, and this is probably where the idea of Darwinism as an atheistic argument has emerged in the first place. However, said misconception manifests in many other (sadly) popular beliefs as well.

[chatfsh]

The reality is that a war does not exist between science and religion. As most are aware, some of the greatest scientific minds this world has ever produced resided in persons of religious faith who consistently held that the two great concepts were complementary in nature, not contradictiory as some would have us believe. Rather, the real war is a philosophical one of worldviews - that of materialsm and theism.

[Dunenewt]

Sure Darwinism does not explain the emergence of life, merely its evolution, but has the creation of a God ever been adequately explained?  To quote Dawkins, "A God capable of continuously monitoring and controlling the individual status of every particle in the universe cannot be simple. His existence is going to need a mammoth explanation in its own right."

[Khan]

That's the good thing about religion, it always has the backup argument of: "It's magic so stfu!"

[chatfsh]

Sure Darwinism does not explain the emergence of life, merely its evolution, but has the creation of a God ever been adequately explained?  To quote Dawkins, "A God capable of continuously monitoring and controlling the individual status of every particle in the universe cannot be simple. His existence is going to need a mammoth explanation in its own right."

Three things:

1. Despite all of the marvelous advances in modern day science, it is powerless to explain the origin of life or to prove the existence of God.  Since His existence can only be confirmed by faith and by no immediate materialistic process, I will not attempt to argue for His existence (not in this thread anyway).

2. Dawkins, however, succumbs to a logical fallacy by presupposing a god who is material in nature, a physical being requiring creation.  This of course only pushes the question back even further into the quagmire of infinite regression. What Dawkins fails to recognize is that God exists outside the physical realm and is not subject to the forces of the material world.  He is a spirit, an eternal Being, the Prime Cause.  The Ultimate Cause.

 

3. However, since we must limit our discussion to the material world, let us discuss the most logical cause of the various manifestations that we observe in the world such as the exquisite fine tuning of  the physical laws of the universe which make our life-sustaining cosmos possible, the immense improbability of the perfect placement of planet earth which was required to produce organic life generating conditions, the seemingly miraculous emergence of diverse biological life, and the highly specialized and complex digital information found in the DNA code along with the sophisticated transcription and translation engineering of the cell.  The amazing list of mind-boggling coincidences is endless.

Think of if this way.  When a man wins the big lottery jackpot, we think that he

[SandChigger]

Hello Kitty has brought the DARUMA OF THE DAMNED to the party.

<img src="http://www.hairyticksofdune.net/extimgs/kitty+daruma.jpg" />

All your argument iz invalids. :)

Seriously, if I wanted to know how to put together a lovely trifle, bake some gingerbread cookies, mend my holey socks or, in this case, write some ghastly fiction, a bored soccer mom <b>might</b> be the first person I would ask. But go to the same for information on a scientific theory?

I kinda THINK NOT.

But, it being what it is, let's play out the rope, shall we?

So, let's hear it: exactly how does Intelligent Design explain the origin of life and the wonders of DNA again?

[Dunenewt]

Another relevant Dawkins quote:

"If we want to postulate a deity capable of engineering all the organized complexity in the world, either instantaneously or by guiding evolution, that deity must have been vastly complex in the first place. The creationist, whether a naive Bible-thumper or an educated bishop, simply postulates an already existing being of prodigious intelligence and complexity. If we are going to allow ourselves the luxury of postulating organized complexity without offering an explanation, we might as well make a job of it and simply postulate the existence of life as we know it! "

[SandChigger]

I don't get all the references to "deities" and Big Bad Atheists here, if this is really a thread about scientific theories. (Wink wink, playing along, see!)

I'm just taking a break between episodes of "UFO Hunters" (which I'm half listening to as I correct some other stuff) so I'm not going to take the time to rewrite my quotes in my own words like Ms Thang. (Wanna play spot the source? :P ) I do actually understand the issues, though.

1. The theory of evolution applies as long as life exists. How that life came to exist is not relevant to evolution. Claiming that evolution does not apply without a theory of abiogenesis makes as much sense as saying that umbrellas do not work without a theory of meteorology.

2. Abiogenesis is a fact. Regardless of how you imagine it happened (note that creation is a theory of abiogenesis), it is a fact that there once was no life on earth and that now there is. Thus, even if evolution needs abiogenesis, it has it.

A true scientific theory must eventually deal in real-world objects and events. How does Intelligent Design explain the origin of life in scientific terms?

[Wolf]

Well, this is probably going to get out of hand again. (sigh) As I said in the other debate, I do not believe the questions of metaphysics and evolution are necessarily related, or in fact should be related. I disagree with Hwi, in that I think evolution is a satisfactory explanation for... eh... oh, the origin of species. Additionally, I do not believe that absolute scientific materialism is a satisfactory explanation for all phenomena we may encounter throughout the universe, simply because it assumes, by definition, that all things can be tested or observed in material terms. This is problematic, as are all "absolute" assumptions. In that, I disagree with probably the rest of you.

Now, I shall run before war breaks out and I am required to rip out SandChigger's still-beating heart on an altar with my bare hands.

[MrFlibble]

I disagree with Hwi, in that I think evolution is a satisfactory explanation for... eh... oh, the origin of species.

It should be noted that the "origin of the species" and the origin of organic life are two different things that should not be confused. Evolutionary theory, to my knowledge, does not explain the origin of organic life, and, as someone pointed above, it is not its purpose to do so.

I think we'd better decide what this thread is really about, after all: Darwinism or atheism?