Abiogenesis

Post Reply New Topic

To paraphrase: "It seems clever, therefore it cannot be the result of evolution?" - does not seem a very strong argument.

Why should the results be similar?

More paraphrasing: "I [think I] understand it - therefore I [or rather, something else?] must have designed it." - a rather non-existent argument.

So you keep saying - but without giving any hint as to where this other intelligence is hiding - or any support for all the "this CAN'T happen" statements you make.

Your thoughts here are the excellent basis for many science fiction stories that I have read (e.g. Permutation City). Being good story foundations, however, does not make them reality.

A thought that does occur to me is that, if you could show a Garden of Eden configuration in the natural world, you would have proved your case.

Conversely, in order to "prove" abiogenesis to you, you demand that you are shown the precise sequence of steps that the natural world took, to result in the current set-up of cells, when all traces of the early, not-quite-so-successful self-replication systems have long since been wholly erased.

Paraphrase: a mode of rewording another persons statement to either demonstrate your understanding or lack thereof.

"This kind of life", the kind which is observable, rather than the postulated super simplification which makes for a more attainable business plan.



So as to be able to have explanatory ability. Would you prefer that evolution not be able to produce the same kind of life seen today?



We are usually limited in our understanding of the technological features displayed in nature by our current knowledge in applied science. Such as echolocation, when the military in the USA started using SONAR, we then had an understanding of the sensing and navigation of bats.

Seems interesting that under evolution the notion of vestigial organs, that biological features which functions were not then understood were classified as vestiges and chalked up as more proof of evolution occurring in the past. However, now the vestigial argument changed from vestigial organs being useless leftovers to instead having functions different then in the previous lifeforms from which the current ones transmuted from.

In a pragmatic sense, at least, I think the assumption of a designer is more preferable. That things which would be called vestiges, and were once considered useless byproducts, would in the design paradigm be assumed to have a function, even if it is unknown at the present time. Thus leading to the seeking of more knowledge.



It doesn't matter where the "other intelligence is hiding". Lau, if you found an arrowhead lying on the ground, would you presume that it had been designed and made? And does it matter who designed or made it? You can infer that intelligence was required for it to be made, even if you'll never know who made it.

I am not a parakeet. I do not follow the crowd and mimic what the popular people say. I am my own person, and am not a parakeet.

In this era knowledge is called ignorance, ignorance is called knowledge.

Of course not. No parakeets are gullible enough to accept supernatural beings.

Who would be beguiling them either way? They have no school nor church to be taught what is acceptable to think or believe. If they do believe in supernatural beings, such as God or a designer in general, then it would also be through the design argument formulated individually.

and later...

You appear to be arguing against the "super simplification" of a long and complex process of evolution, and substituting it with the "god did it" belief.


Strange concept. I think that evolution certainly is able to produce the same kind of life seen today. We have evidence that it has - we are here.

As to whether a re-run of the universe would produce the "same kind of life" (whatever that is intended to convey) - I'd think it rather unlikely. The DNA game seems to have won, here and now. As to whether it was a "close run thing" with some wildly different system, I doubt it (based of those experiments that are showing that some of DNA's molecular building blocks seem to come about merely naturally - in surprisingly short time spans)


I know where the arrowhead came from - us. (That is, unless it is one of those very early ones, when I need some extra convincing that it is not just a freak of nature.) The intelligence is not hiding.

I also know where the eye came from - in all its convergent (though wildly differing in detail) evolutionary forms. There is no requirement for a hidden intelligence.

Of course, by juxtaposing fragments you can effectively eliminate context. Are your eyes dilated?

So you say. However you have not one grain, one wit, one dight, one smidgeon of empirical evidence to back that up. I prefer what Carl Sagan had to say: The Cosmo is all that is, all that was and all that ever will be. And we can actually observe it (or parts of it). Carl said there are billyuns and billyuns of stuhrs and we are made of stuhr-stuff. This has been demonstrated empirically. All the heavier atoms with atomic number greater than 5 come from the explosion (novas) of stuhrs.

ruveyn

The problem is that we (at the moment) can't examine this designer. Maybe this designer is natural occurring. This does not change that our type of life is not natural, but just as artificial as a car or computer. We are AIs, not Natural Intelligences (NIs).

Speculation follows

Whatever stuff NIs are made out of (their bodies) need to be very different; perhaps ruled by different physical laws? Laws which allow NIs to naturally occur? Very different from the matter that we are made out of; maybe its even stuff that we can only indirectly detect? Dark matter perhaps?

NIs composition must be very different from our own, and still their mind is very much like that of ours. They don't even have to be alive strictly speaking, just a creative intelligence is enough.
Not. I can't disprove it, but I don't hold it very plausible? I just don't think its necessary.

Last edited by Meta on 12 Dec 2009, 8:11 am, edited 2 times in total.

Well, at least we are agreed that the God concept is an invention of schools or churches. Nothing outside of that to convince a parakeet.

And if you where created we would also be here.

So how did you think about distinguish between these two options?

Ours existence alone does not prove anything about our origin.

Which "god" concept? Many kings where considered gods in the past. So a god did not need to have any special ability. I think that "god" as a historical/cultural concept is more or less the personification of power for the powerless? Compare: Mother is the name for god in the lips and hearts of little children.

Historically even gods had gods above them. The concept op God (with capital) is interesting because its the hypothetical god which is so powerful that he is never powerless nor is there anyone more powerful above God. In the literal meaning to the word the hypothetical God is an atheist (without a god); However strange this may seem.

Sorry for going offtopic into theology.

Context
I assumed you would know what you had just posted.

Separating the two assertions by some intermediate text does not stop them arguing for a contradictory conclusion from the same premise.

Your argument for a god and Meta's argument for a designer both seem to spring for a refusal to accept that we know there is no need for either. In each case, the "simple" a priori does explain everything, of course. The only problem is why should you believe such an arbitrary thing.

PS: Is this some sort of personal attack?

I can't speak for others but I don't know that. Please share the empirical, testable evidence that proves that there is no need for an intelligence. Explain how HMO can be the result of a unintelligent natural processes? Show that this idea of you is more then a delusion?

As far as I know none such evidence exists -- it would've made this discussion rather pointless if it did exist.

In reality all that you really have is circular reasoning from your philosophy. You position is just as solid as that of a YEC.

All your logic is out of a lack of imagination and ignorance. You cannot say something cannot be so because you have no information as to how it can. It is the same argument that convinced ancients that super beings in the sky tossed lightning bolts and that the Sun was drawn on a chariot across the zenith. So you invent alien life forms and declare that to be the solution. Every day new perspectives are being discovered about how the world works in ways not imagined before but you are still fiddling with your infantile leggo bits of your imagination and declaring impossibilities.

It is basically affirming the consequent, as shown here:



It begs the question of "can evolutionists consider anything aside from evolution?". As a creationist, I feel more freedom to think as I wish in regard to considering different modes of thought, but some of these people seem to be so locked into their mindset as to not even be able to read/comprehend anything which doesn't have a conclusion fitting to their paradigm.