Origin of Life: Another Great Challenge to Darwinism

[Wolf]

No, I've never heard that: though possible, I think it unlikely. The Romans were certainly corrupt, but also very good at killing people. Of all the various crucifixion "accounts" that exist, I find Mikhail Bulgakov's in The Master and Margarita to be the most interesting/entertaining.

[hide]Especially since they kill Judas immediately after the crucifixion to get the 40 pieces of silver back![/hide]

EDIT: Which reminds me, Chig, have you ever looked into all the Pagan influences that seeped into Christianity in the early middle ages? Once the Christians made it into Germany and Britain, absolutely tons of Norse and Celtic myth and practices find their way into the religion. Fascinating stuff.

[athanasios]

Wolf, have you read any of the speculation that Yeshua didn't actually die on the cross but was spirited away by the wealthy Joseph of Arimathea, who paid off the Roman guards to say he was already dead? Amusing stuff! :)

Are you a Muslim? :O

[chatfsh]

In other words, ID seeks to disprove the theory of evolution as a viable scientific hypothesis?

Yes, in my opinion, that is one of their objectives.

Does this mean that once (1) were accomplished, ID would replace the evolutionary theory as the major theory in the field?

It would mean that we would probably return to the same paradigm that existed in the scientific community prior to the introduction of Darwinism and the

[arnoldo]

This leads us to another point worth mentioning, namely the use of the word "intelligent". You claim (or the ID proponents claim) that it is possible to distinguish between phenomena which are products of intelligence and those which are not. However, I suppose you will not deny that the intelligence ID proponents talk about is different from human intelligence in many aspects. In context of theology, the question could be (and was, in Medieval times) formulated about how far we could stretch the concepts of intelligence, intent, will etc. when speaking about God?

From a theological perspective, I believe that God’s intelligence is so far superior to our own as to be hopelessly incomparable.  When it comes to God, we see through a glass darkly and can barely even begin to fathom all that He is.  But fortunately, He has gifted humankind with sufficient intelligence to readily discern His elegant signature as revealed through the study of biology, mathematics, astronomy and cosmology.

The late great philosopher Mortimer Adler simply stated that when comparing contingent beings to noncontingent beings the words used must be used in the analogical, rather than univocal sense.  Thus, G-d exists/knows analogically, rather than univocally, in relation to the way which man exists/knows.

The importance of this point should be clear to persons who speak of God and human beings and other of God's creatures. We recognize that we are not using the word "exists" in the same sense when we say we and other things exist and that God exists, but we cannot specify the difference between God's mode of being and our mode of being except negatively. We know it is not the same.

We know that in the sense in which God exists, we do not exist; and in the sense in which we exist, God does not exist. The word "exists" is used analogically of God and God's creature. Similarly, the word "knows" is used analogically when we say that we know and that God knows. The difference between the two meanings of a word used analogically is like the difference between two words being used equivocally, but here the equivocation is not by intention nor is it by chance. It is derived from the difference between the two subjects to which the word is applied.

[SandChigger]

Are you a Muslim? :O

Are you a moron?

No, I mean, <b>seriously</b>?

I was raised a "Christian". (Meaning, a Paulian Jewish Heretic.) Why anyone in their right mind would free themselves of thralldom to one imbecilic Abrahamic religion just to turn around and <b>submit</b> to another defies comprehension. American Muslims ... WTF?! But I guess the answer is right there: they aren't in their right minds.

But how you could possibly imagine that I might be a Muslim is also beyond me. So let me be clear: NO, I do not believe in any Big Sky Daddies (or Mommies) of any color, shape or persuasion.

[SandChigger]

G-d

What's the matter, arnoldo, forget how to spell <b>God</b>?

1. You're writing in English, not Hebrew. English vowels, particularly in the word <b>God</b>, have always been written.

2. You're not Jewish, only a follower of a Jewish heretic (Saul of Tarsus), so stop your posing. (Didn't Yeshua warn about showing off your piety?)

3. What a sad little egomaniac deity your god must be if he is impressed by such orthographic shenanigans.

[chatfsh]

I want to point out that the timeframe Hwi cites actually isn't the one accepted by most scholars.

Wrong.  Most scholars do agree with the timeframe that I listed.  If anything, according to Wiki, some scholars would go with even earlier dates than the ones that I used.

Gospel of Matthew originally written prior to 70AD (Destruction of the Temple)

Gospel of Mark written possibly as early as 37

[Edric O]

A small point about life expectancy in the ancient world: It was so low only because of very high child mortality. If you actually survived to puberty, you had a good chance of living well into your 60s.

It would mean that we would probably return to the same paradigm that existed in the scientific community prior to the introduction of Darwinism and the

[SandChigger]

Well, at least we've achieved a new level of <b>honesty</b> in this thread in that Hwi has dropped the "Intelligent Designer" obfuscation and is calling it "God". :)

And that of course explains why ID has no motivation or any real need to explore the characteristics of the "Designer", because such things are already "known" from the Bible. (Now, would that knowing be analogical or univocal or allegorical? Or just plain <b>gullible</b>? ::) )

Nature is fallen, Edric? From its perfect initial state upon the completion of Creation, you mean, yes? How beautifully quaint.

[Wolf]

Chig: You give the wench too much credit.

Edric: The only thing that bothers me about your post is that you have stated (only far more eloquently) essentially the same objections to the logical consistency of ID that I pointed out several months ago. Given that Hwi ignored them then, and continues to ignore them now, I would not expect any legitimate response to your post. She only handles things that she can understand.

Hwi: I like how your only objection to the Barabbas fiction is the word "alleged." Nothing else you have said refutes the point I have made regarding the egregious, almost savage changes made to your precious testament. I also want you to know that it is exactly that passage that has led to thousands of years of Jewish persecution and genocide. Bravo, bravo.

[SandChigger]

<b><i>"His blood be on us, and on our children."</i></b>

Now, now, Wolf, it's not very nice to point out that Arabs/Muslims actually rank in second place when it comes to hating and persecuting Jews through the ages. (Mmm, nothing like a good pogrom to clear them outstanding debts, eh? :D )

[Edric O]

<b><i>"His blood be on us, and on our children."</i></b>

You know, it always struck me as rather odd to use the words of one angry mob gathered in one particular public square as a justification for the eternal persecution of all people from the same ethnic group as the aforementioned angry mob. "Our children" does not mean "all our descendants, forever", and it certainly does not mean "the children of the guy from the house next door, who isn't here right now". But I guess I shouldn't expect anti-Semites to make sense.

And that of course explains why ID has no motivation or any real need to explore the characteristics of the "Designer", because such things are already "known" from the Bible.

But the claim to know the characteristics of God from some other source contradicts the claim to know the characteristics of God from a scientific analysis of the creatures He designed... bah.

Nature is fallen, Edric? From its perfect initial state upon the completion of Creation, you mean, yes? How beautifully quaint.

Nature is fallen when compared to the way it was supposed to be. I do not believe in a literal interpretation of Genesis. I tend to think that the part before the banishment of Adam and Eve from Eden is an allegory for events that took place in a spiritual realm (or a different universe, if you prefer), and that the banishment from Eden represents the arrival of human souls on Earth - the transformation of Homo sapiens from a mere ape into what we are today. But I may be wrong.

As for why life as we know it already existed before the Fall - well, it existed before the Fall of Humanity. But there is also the earlier Fall of Lucifer and his angels. Perhaps it was 3.5 billion years earlier. Perhaps evolution really is the devil's work... but not in the way the fundies imagine it to be, hehe. Or perhaps this explanation is dangerously close to gnosticism. Again, it's just an idea.

Not that I expect you to give a damn about the opinions of others, of course. This was an explanation for everyone else who is reading.

Edric: The only thing that bothers me about your post is that you have stated (only far more eloquently) essentially the same objections to the logical consistency of ID that I pointed out several months ago. Given that Hwi ignored them then, and continues to ignore them now, I would not expect any legitimate response to your post. She only handles things that she can understand.

I know... but I needed to rejoin the debate, even if just to reiterate points you made before. I expect I'll just make a few more posts to state my case and then leave this thread.

I really don't think I was more eloquent than you, though. I remember you making a fantastic post back there. :)

[Caid Ivik]

In this article the Danger Room speaks about another challenge to darwinism, namely the research program funded by Darpa, attempting to overcome the end of life.

http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2010/02/pentagon-looks-to-breed-immortal-synthetic-organisms-molecular-kill-switch-included/

[SandChigger]

But I guess I shouldn't expect anti-Semites to make sense.

No, no more in that than any of the rest of their beliefs.

(Have you ever reflected on how odd it is that Hilter, whom I'm sure you and Hwi would bandy about as an example of an atheist, was so strongly motivated by a "Christian" prejudice like anti-Semitism?)

But the claim to know the characteristics of God from some other source contradicts the claim to know the characteristics of God from a scientific analysis of the creatures He designed... bah.

But the only Designer [read: God] characteristic Hwi claims to derive from the analysis of Nature is intelligence, no?

Nature is fallen when compared to the way it was supposed to be. I do not believe in a literal interpretation of Genesis. I tend to think that the part before the banishment of Adam and Eve from Eden is an allegory for events that took place in a spiritual realm (or a different universe, if you prefer), and that the banishment from Eden represents the arrival of human souls on Earth - the transformation of Homo sapiens from a mere ape into what we are today. But I may be wrong.

As for why life as we know it already existed before the Fall - well, it existed before the Fall of Humanity. But there is also the earlier Fall of Lucifer and his angels. Perhaps it was 3.5 billion years earlier. Perhaps evolution really is the devil's work... but not in the way the fundies imagine it to be, hehe. Or perhaps this explanation is dangerously close to gnosticism. Again, it's just an idea.

Why Edric, what a delightfully mad little hatter you have turned out to be! :D

I don't prefer a different universe, but I do prefer to read the Fall inverted, as a Rising Up, from the "Paradise" of animal consciousness (living by instinct, in the eternal now, essentially free?) to the harsh "realities" of human consciousness.

Oh look, you've got me doing it now. ::) (But yes, you're dangerously close to both gnosticism and a lot of New Age nonsense.)

Not that I expect you to give a damn about the opinions of others, of course. This was an explanation for everyone else who is reading.

Aw, so bitter. Have I trod upon your little Paulian Gentile toesies yet again? So sorry!

[MrFlibble]

It would mean that we would probably return to the same paradigm that existed in the scientific community prior to the introduction of Darwinism and the

[Edric O]

(Have you ever reflected on how odd it is that Hilter, whom I'm sure you and Hwi would bandy about as an example of an atheist, was so strongly motivated by a "Christian" prejudice like anti-Semitism?)

Great. Now look what you did. I hope you realize this poses a serious threat of derailing the topic into yet another "I cannot stand the thought of Hitler agreeing with me on anything" mess. Please, for the love of - something - use a different mass murderer when you're trying to make a point! A reference to, say, Tom

[Wolf]

(Have you ever reflected on how odd it is that Hilter, whom I'm sure you and Hwi would bandy about as an example of an atheist, was so strongly motivated by a "Christian" prejudice like anti-Semitism?)

Having written and read extensively on religion during the Second World War, I have to agree with Edric's objections here. Although top-Nazis like Hitler and Heinrich Himmler were nominally "Catholic," their actual personal beliefs were highly anti-religious--but not atheistic, as you will see below. Himmler himself (I love that alliteration) actually articulated a vision of a Christian-free Germany, with the State as the sole object of service and religious worship--and with the SS as its chief "priesthood." However, the Nazis were pragmatists as well: not above manipulating the prejudices of actual German Catholics--and European Catholics generally, as Pope Pius XII might tell you--in addition to baser, animal instincts to achieve their goals. Indeed, much of German war propaganda at this time sought to portray the Reich as the "last Christian defender of Europe" against the "atheist, Bolshevik hordes." (Indeed, one might say that they even had a point.) But in the end, Hitler and the Nazi brass were far from being any sort of "Christian supremacists": ultimately, religion had no place in their long-term worldview, unless it was devoted solely to the worship of the Nazi State and Nazi Party. Actually, if you ever want to have some fun, do research on the Thule Society or Wewelsburg Castle. The top-Nazis were actually far more influenced by Norse and German Paganism than they were by Christian beliefs. However, this should come as no surprise: the Nazis were far more concerned with a racialized vision of the future than they were with notions of theism.

EDIT: Oh balls, I just remembered Edric's warning. Um, uh... you know, I'd just like to reiterate my position of unabashed Deism. A metaphysical God (or some other, incomprehensible intelligence) may be responsible for the creation of the universe and it's natural laws, but, um, we'll never know in these lives. You know, no evidence for the metaphysical and all that.

Whew, saved mai bakun.

[Edric O]

Whew, saved mai bakun.

Well, yes, except that...

(Indeed, one might say that they even had a point.)

You almost didn't. ;)

[athanasios]

Are you a moron?

No, I mean, <b>seriously</b>?

:O

But how you could possibly imagine that I might be a Muslim is also beyond me.

From your post. Isn't that similar to what Muslims believe about Yehoshua-that he didn't die?

Actually, if you ever want to have some fun, do research on the Thule Society or Wewelsburg Castle. The top-Nazis were actually far more influenced by Norse and German Paganism than they were by Christian beliefs...

Well spoken. So I do not need to add anything else about Hitler and the swastika and face the 'wrath' of Edric O. :D

[chatfsh]

And that paradigm was, essentially, "we don't know where the diversity of life comes from." Plus a few old discredited theories like Lamarckism and spontaneous genesis.

At that point, the most honest answer would be that we have no plausible scientific explanation for how life started, but based upon what we

[MrFlibble]

Other than intelligence, ID proponents do not make any other assumptions about the Designer.  The focus of their hypothesis is on proving that irreducibly complex organisms show strong evidence of design and are not the product of blind, undirected processes.  That

[SandChigger]

"Biological processes must ultimately be explained as they occur in living organisms and their communities, and not as poor imitations of mechanical or statistical models.

[Dante]

Well, if you're going to name drop...

*dons hazmat suit*

Aging is caused by a selection of genes that are "highly conserved," that is they first emerged a long time ago and have remained relatively unchanged since their arrival. This only happens to genes that are particularly useful; genes that carry no benefit are weeded out by natural selection. In the case of aging, these genes have been present throughout the development of eukaryotic life: they are present in everything from whales right down to yeasts.

The fossil record, therefore, does not need to provide evidence of senescence. We have evidence from far older species than our own that aging has been present for longer than spinal cords, eyes, or jaws. It's so old that we share it with insects. The only alternative explanation is that every individual of every single species extant today spontaneously generated a selection of remarkably similar aging genes in the not-so-distant past. Convergent evolution is not unheard of, that's why the term exists after all, but that would be just ridiculous.

In other words, either we share these aging genes thanks to inheriting them from a common ancestor so old that it predates the development of organs, or we try to make the evidence fit with the supposition that senescence is a relatively new development (that is, occured some time after the evolution of man) and are forced to conclude that it magically appeared in every single species alive at once. I know which one I'd bet on.

[Edric O]

Ah, righto. Because some dumb bint got sweet-talked into pinching an afternoon fruit snack by a talking snake and her equally naive hubby tried it when she gave it him for din-dins...

Yawn. You can make anything sound ridiculous by mocking it with suitably chosen language. Is there a point somewhere in there, besides a show of disbelief? You're an atheist, I get it. Anything else?

And what benefit in pre-programmed death? Why not instead ask what benefit in post-reproductive existence?

Why do you have to stop reproducing? Why not keep doing it forever? As far as I'm aware, most species remain fertile all the way until death. Even for species where that is not the case, the thing that stops fertility is usually aging itself. And if aging is the cause of infertility, then it cannot be its effect.

The human male, for example, could remain fertile and keep producing sperm forever if it were not for aging and death.

Think of salmon spawning. You blow your gunk over some hawt finny bint's eggs and then, since your offspring are pretty much able to take care of themselves, you both die.

Why die instead of resting for a bit and then spawning some more?

(By the way, meant to give you kudos the other day for the slickly PC reference to the deity and the things SHE had created. That was a nice one. ;) )

I keep trying to underscore the fact that Hwi's "Intelligent Design" does not provide the tiniest shred of evidence for the existence of the Christian God - so her whole enterprise is pointless - but she doesn't seem to notice the problem.

Aging is caused by a selection of genes that are "highly conserved," that is they first emerged a long time ago and have remained relatively unchanged since their arrival. This only happens to genes that are particularly useful; genes that carry no benefit are weeded out by natural selection. In the case of aging, these genes have been present throughout the development of eukaryotic life: they are present in everything from whales right down to yeasts.

Right. This observation is consistent with natural selection only if aging is somehow extraordinarily useful. So what is this great benefit that could justify the existence of aging?

In other words, either we share these aging genes thanks to inheriting them from a common ancestor so old that it predates the development of organs, or we try to make the evidence fit with the supposition that senescence is a relatively new development (that is, occured some time after the evolution of man) and are forced to conclude that it magically appeared in every single species alive at once. I know which one I'd bet on.

If we assume the existence of an omnipotent God, I don't see the problem with believing that something can magically appear in every single species alive at once.

On the other hand, if you want to dismiss the possibility of supernatural events a priori, then you've already dismissed the possibility that a god might exist, so we have nothing to talk about here.

[MrFlibble]

But isn't that how it <b>is</b> done?

Apparently, the idea of evolution being driven by purely random, arbitrary mutations is still popular with some people.

(Um ... the 1988 proceedings of a 1986 conference might not be the best place to look for "contemporary" opposition, no?)

Heh, I just happened to have that quote, and used it :) It's true though, that back in the day Sociobiology was the primary subject of heated debate ;)

Why do you have to stop reproducing? Why not keep doing it forever? As far as I'm aware, most species remain fertile all the way until death.

Why die instead of resting for a bit and then spawning some more?

I guess the obvious answer is that if a species continues to reproduce uncontrollably, it will eventually deplete all the resources necessary for its survival, and eventually face extinction. Such a situation is not only harmful for the species itself, bu also damaging for the environment, as the ever growing population will strip its surroundings of food (=other lifeforms) and water, pollute the area of habitation with excess waste etc.