Origin of Life: Another Great Challenge to Darwinism

[Edric O]

Anyway, doesn't everyone know that LingoGOD Chomsky has declared the human language capacity (as embodied in the Language Acquisition Device and "language organ" in the brain) to be the result of a saltation?  ::) (I personally prefer pepperations, myself. Have to watch the ole BP, doncha know!)

Ah, passionate rivalries between linguists! Look at the sparks fly! Chomsky versus Chigger, the fight of the century, with colourless green ideas sleeping furiously in the audience...

[SandChigger]

(Well, Edric, at least the green <b>IDEAS</b> keep quiet.)

I

[Dunenewt]

For example:  Suppose that SETI reported that their radars had finally picked up a series of coded radio signals. They hand over the codes to an expert team of cryptographers, mathematicians and molecular biologists that eventually crack the code.  Suppose now that this code turned out to be detailed instructions for building highly advanced biomolecular machinery far beyond anything that humans have ever encountered.

Would you be satisfied with the explanation that somehow molecules had randomly scrambled around to form the specified instructions by chance?  Or would you logically conclude that the coded instructions had been programmed and broadcast by some intelligent being/agent?

And you realise that the thing you called God, was simply a being or race more intelligent than ours, without being a deity?  Interesting, I like the Sci Fi direction in which you're taking this...

[chatfsh]

Well, that would be all very nice IFF you had actually done so. You don't seriously believe that those ramblings about "probabilistic resources" and 1:10¹⁶⁴ odds demonstrate anything besides a woeful misunderstanding of concepts of mathematics and physics and biochemistry, do you?

The science was dead on, SandChigger.  If you have a valid argument to make against it, do so.  But to prattle on about how I misunderstand the process while you fail to provide any plausible origin of life theory only demonstrates your own inadequacies regarding the subject.  And to think that I even tried to offer assistance by mentioning RNA world.

What is so mind-numbingly stupid about that is the assumption that the first life would have had DNA or anything like "encoded, computer-like instructions." All that was needed to get the evolution ball rolling was a replicating molecule capable of variation.

Heh, so walk us through the process(or link the source) by which this

[Dunenewt]

More information about the shroud

Anyway, do we even need to provide any plausible origin of life theory?  It is enough to say we don't fully understand the process yet, without it meaning that it was the work of a magician.

[chatfsh]

And you realise that the thing you called God, was simply a being or race more intelligent than ours, without being a deity?  Interesting, I like the Sci Fi direction in which you're taking this...

I am rather fond of science fiction.

Strangely enough, you

[Dunenewt]

No, I'm just abusing your example so to speak.  These 'higher beings' would still have arisen from evolution, and not through ID.  Imagine that, the entity that so many people refer to as God, being a being (that sounds strange) that has evolved over time from 'lesser beings'.

[chatfsh]

Yes, I sort of picked up on that. 

Now you

[Wolf]

Well, Hwi, let me see if I can help you out:

In order to prove that intelligent design is responsible for the origin of life and/or species, you need not only to prove (1) that all other known possible explanations are ruled out, but also (2) a mechanism by which an intelligent designer can affect changes, i.e., "design" life. You've done a half-hearted job of the former, and you've not even attempted the latter.

Regarding (1). You have failed to show that intelligent design is the only possible explanation for the existence of life and/or origin of species. You have, in fact, conceded the possibility of "accidental" formation of life through natural, physical processes, but maintain that "there aren't enough chances" or "it's too hard" for this actually to happen. Given this concession, let's consider your point that "it's too hard." To that end, you've presented a flawed mathematical model that is itself the product of extremely-biased assumptions, or, in other words, exactly what you accuse the opposition of doing. Without justifying any of the assumptions that lead you to this specious conclusion, you cannot properly defend your position that the formation of life and/or the origin of species through natural, physical processes is "too hard" for it to have occurred. Furthermore, without ruling this possibility out, you can, at best, make only the weakest of cases for intelligent design.

That is, of course, provided that you can show (2). Failing to realize that Dunenewt, SandChigger, and others aren't actually arguing with you, but are in fact amusing themselves at your expense, you haven't felt the compulsion to show the second major point of this debate: you have failed to demonstrate the mechanism by which an "intelligent designer" might affect change on the life-forms or potential life-forms He wishes to design. Dunenewt, for his asshattery, has made a good point by suggesting that your "intelligent designer" could be everything from an anthropomorphic, metaphysical God to an alien intelligence, to a secret military weapons research bureau. You've also apparently conceded this point. Now, all of these "intelligent designers" fall into one of two categories. They are either physical beings or metaphysical beings. In other words, they exist within and obey the natural physical laws of this universe, or they do not. Aliens, Section 31, the Bavarian Order of the Illuminati and the Space Nazis are all physical beings that are alive. If they "intelligently designed" life, then who intelligently designed them? Clearly, putting the blame on any of these forces is merely passing the buck.

But to what? Any being that exists within this universe either had to be the product of intelligent design itself or (scratches chin) evolved (did I use that word?) naturally (naturally!) as a result of natural, physical forces (an accident... or is it?). The only being that can "intelligently design" life without itself having to have been intelligently designed is a metaphysical being that, by definition, cannot exist within the physical laws of this universe. In order plausibly to assert that any designer of this class is responsible for intelligently designing life or species, you must propose a mechanism by which this extrauniversal being might "touch" His creations. If He does not exist according to our natural laws, how can He affect change within our natural realm? How might He manipulate energy and matter according to His design? Logically, I believe it is well within my grasp (and I believe I have shown enough) to prove that, by definition, He cannot. Without this, intelligent design theory cannot sustain itself. Of course, it requires other components (see above) that you have also failed competently to show.

Now, I myself actually do believe in God. I believe He may be responsible for the creation of our universe, and perhaps much, much more. However, unless you want to take that single, isolated act as "proof" of "intelligent design," then you have failed not only to make your case for ID, but you have failed even to be original. (In my view, this is the far, far worse sin.) This is nothing new. This is the bland assertion of creationism: if God created the universe, then He created its natural laws. If we are the product of its natural laws, then I suppose we are the indirect product of God's design. Read the above again: it's what you should have said. This is not the "intelligent design" you are putting forward; even if it is, you must assume from the outset that it is impossible to test this--it has absolutely nothing to do with any of the crappy math or crackpot quotations put forth above--it is purely a matter of religious faith. Honestly, an assertion of pure creationism alone would be better and more reasonable than what you put forward, at least I do not need to go out of my way to assail the scientific views of others to assuage my own insecurities of faith, but had I chosen to do so, I feel I could have done a better job. See above.

Given I've just done your job for you--only better, because not only have I given room for the faithful to continue being faithful, I've also acknowledged the material truths demonstrated by trial and theory*--let's see who thinks which of the two of us has the better of this? (I bet I can get more votes than you--and you won't even be able to claim religious discrimination!)

*How did I do this?--you might be curious: I separated the material and immaterial "realms." I looked at the evidence of the former and went with what I felt was the best supported by trial and theory. As everything in the latter was a matter of faith, I chose the route that I personally believe in--you all, of course, are allowed to do with that as you will. Such is the natural order of things.

EDIT: Added obligatory in-post URL.

[SandChigger]

<i>Once upon a time in the land of So, a group of artists decided to have a contest to see which of them could paint the best picture of a snake and the fastest. The first of them to finish grew bored while waiting on the others and added legs to his snake, thus losing the contest. From this the expression "snake legs" came to mean adding the unnecessary, the superfluous, the redundant...</i>

Bravo, Wolf, bravo! That was quite nicely done. Anything after that is just legs on the snake. :D

[chatfsh]

Oh, kudos to you, Wolf.  Nicely done.  As long as you hold that God was the one who put the whole thing in motion, sort of front loaded the design from the big bang which resulted in the universe and life as we know it, then I have absolutely no argument with you.

Thank goodness for you, Wolf.:)

[SandChigger]

<img src="http://www.hairyticksofdune.net/extimgs/rolling.gif" />

[Wolf]

Thank goodness for you, Wolf.:)

Hey, I never start the day without saying this. Hell, my old sig was "What a great man am I, said I to myself," but I changed it because it wasn't lupine enough.

[SandChigger]

Hey, I never start the day without saying this.

Smart, an' so 'umble, too! :D

[chatfsh]

I

[MrFlibble]

I did like this bit, though:

<b>"...a theory that was promoted and supported for ideological rather than scientific reasons...."</b>

Gee, what does <b>that</b> sound like?

People were actually repressed (i.e. hunted down, arrested and executed) for opposing Marr's theory, until Marr himself fell out of favor with Stalin. One of Marrism victims was Yevgeny Polivanov, a prominent linguist who contributed a lot to the Japanese language studies, among other things. (Polivanov was the only person who had the courage to openly criticize Marr's ideas as completely unscientific)

Indisputably, the information found in the cell and DNA is a highly integrated, information processing system, where we find digitally encoded machine-like information for constructing the building blocks of life.  Basically, DNA contains specified coded instructions.  This type of information is habitually associated with conscious mind, intelligence.

When we, as intelligent agents observe an effect, we infer the cause even though the cause may be unobserved.  Plainly stated, we see the effect (digitally encoded instructions), and draw conclusions about the cause (intelligent agent) based upon our common experience with how digitally encoded instructions are produced or programmed.

ID is unable to determine the identity of the intelligent agent.  But we, as intelligent agents, recognize the product of intelligence when we see it.

Please keep in mind that whenever we say that DNA "contains digital information" (or simply "information"), we merely project our human concepts on natural phenomena. There is no "information" outside our minds, neither is there any "cause and effect": these concepts are our human interpretations of things that we observe happening in our environment. I hope no one here believes humans can perceive the world "as it is"; our worldview is defined by our nature as human beings. Therefore, whichever explanation or interpretation we might produce, it may vary in its adequacy (depending both on accuracy of observation and on the goal towards which such an explanation was conceived in the first place), but it's not going to be identical to the "real", "objective" world.

[chatfsh]

Fair enough, Mr. Flibble.  But are you implying that since we can never know the

[SandChigger]

You really, really didn't get it, did you?

Wolf gave you the chance to save face by just dropping this and walking away, but you didn't understand what he wrote, did you? All you saw or cared about was "I myself actually do believe in God" and you ran with it, totally ignoring his VALID criticisms but recasting his statement about natural law into your IDiot pseudoscience "front loading" terminology.

Oh well. As SandRider used to say, "Dance, monkey, dance!"

<img src="http://www.hairyticksofdune.net/extimgs/rolling.gif" />

(Edit: And Jesus Effing Christ, how many more times are you going to flog that Jastrow quote about? Get some new material already. ::) )

[MrFlibble]

Fair enough, Mr. Flibble.  But are you implying that since we can never know the

[chatfsh]

I'm afraid I do not fully understand this. How does unchanging faith affect scientific research? Besides, isn't it a bit odd to conduct research in hopes that at some point the results will come into consistence with one's preconceived notions (religious or other)? Sorry if I misunderstood what you were trying to say.

No problem.  What I meant to say is that a theistic worldview may give one a different perspective on our physical reality than what is presented by a shifting materialistic worldview.  Sometimes, as more advanced theories are developed, these worldviews views coincide rather nicely (i.e. Big Bang

[SandChigger]

Having said that, I believe that science should be an objective pursuit of knowledge completely independent of one

[Wolf]

Well that was comprehensible. Look, Hwi, you started a topic of conversation that you knew was highly inflammatory and controversial, mere weeks after a virtually-identical thread was shut down. You did so in a vaguely-pompous manner ("Ahem... Does anyone disagree with this assessment?") that reminded me more of why I started the Richard Dawkins' thread than it did of intelligent discourse. Incidentally, the reason why I started that thread wasn't because I hated Dawkins for being an atheist, it was because I hated him for being a douche about being an atheist. There's a lesson there. Anyway, what I'm getting at is... I don't have any more sympathy left for you or this topic. The well is dry. Among other things. Like my humor.

What I meant to say is that a theistic worldview may give one a different perspective on our physical reality than what is presented by a shifting materialistic worldview.

Sure. Learning new languages allows the mind to approach new problems in different ways, too. I'm not a cognitive neuroscientist, but I won't rule out the possibility. But how is this saying anything terribly new, or relevant to our debate regarding ID?

Having said that, I believe that science should be an objective pursuit of knowledge completely independent of one

[chatfsh]

I don't have any more sympathy left for you or this topic.

I never thought you had any in the first place, Wolf.

See, I say that because, I think what he meant to say was, that, scientists will eventually acquire a corpus of experimentally-derived knowledge and skills that might provide for them the same sense of sanctity, security, and peace that religion does, and perhaps even the same values and principles that derive therefrom.

That clearly is not what Dr. Jastrow intended when he made that comment.  The quote starts out -

[Wolf]

Two things:

1. The reason I went out of my way to characterize Jastrow's point about scientists as positive was because it is the only way your position could make sense. If he feels the way you claim he does, then he is a poor choice for your advocacy that science and religion may coexist separately. Unless of course... that advocacy isn't being conducted in good faith.

2. This debate has boiled down to how you feel about certain historical figures. I take that as an admission of your failure to rebut or introduce substantive material, or to admit defeat gracefully. Even if that weren't true, there is nothing left to discuss on "the origin of life." Mr. Flibble wishes to discuss the validity of human experience, I suggest you open a new thread.

And one more thing:

I never thought you had any in the first place, Wolf.

Actually, my mind is the only one that you have come close to changing. Well done.

[chatfsh]

1. The reason I went out of my way to characterize Jastrow's point about scientists as positive was because it is the only way your position could make sense. If he feels the way you claim he does, then he is a poor choice for your advocacy that science and religion may coexist separately. Unless of course... that advocacy isn't being conducted in good faith.

Oh, not at all.  Two paths can be completely independent (meaning the paths are not contingent upon or influenced by the other) and still arrive at the same destination.  One could take the expeditious route