Abiogenesis

Post Reply New Topic

No. The result generated by this technique is as if it was designed by ... Which explains why humans would not design this way.

Sure, and if we take that argument to its logical conclusion that would mean that you think that some intelligent designer designed the first life, designer the algorithms that drove the evolution of life towards the targets that it choose.
Yep that this kind of crap it often generates.
Well let us examine this point then?

Are living beings structurally and functionally organized in a modular way? Is de functionality spread out or isolated and located in discreet modules? Are modules combined to form greater modules?

Why do we design our technology in a modular way? Why don't we just build it up as compact and with as few atoms as possible? Why don't we write code using binary? Why do we use high-level programming languages?

As far as experimental evidence shows stochastic variation and selection does not generate modular systems; they are great to generate very compact designs which mostly work if you tweak the fitness function here and there. Can you explain why this is the case? What is such a process missing which we humans do have? Why the difference between the two?

No, it would not. The design would not be modular, just (re)generated.

Last edited by Meta on 15 Dec 2009, 2:51 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Good enough I think.

Should there be a break point? A watch does look designed at some scale, but at the atomic scale? Maybe the key is that it looks designed at (multiple) different resolutions? Separated at least one order of magnitude.

Last edited by Meta on 15 Dec 2009, 3:00 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Cool. However, though the meaning may be apparent to us, it is usually best to define the terms properly. Equivocation is a rampant aliment in this type of debate.

In any debate. Equivocation has always been the bane of scientific progress. Many mistakes have been made because of it.

Which term should we define?

Design is hard to define: Sculpting is very different from programming. Giving something a particular appearance?
What about the work from Jackson pollock? An implicit definition would be better?

The particular aspect of it is "resolution", which would be size level? Component level? Etc.

As for the defining of "design", Paley had attached "purpose" to it, and the argument against Paley's arguments have been more against perceived purpose than against whether they are actually designed. How it is, is that by claiming things to be without purpose, that they are supposedly no longer designed. With the way Paley defined design, in teleological terms, in terms that they have a purpose, the refutation of Paley was on the basis of supposed lack of purpose, or dysteleology. Such as with the case of "vestigial organs", which were once defined as evolutionary byproducts which are no longer needed, as they serve no purpose. However, since many vestigial organs have been shown to have functions (which were just not understood at Darwin's time, and some not until recent years), so the definition of "vestigial" has been revised so as to say that "vestigial" organs actually have functions, but they are still evolutionary byproducts which served different functions in the past few quadrillion generations or whatever. This all said to show the innate difficulties in defining, and how nitpicking works in action.

Implicit definition? Basically induction? Perhaps it would be good to run a few examples through the criterion, to see if there is contradiction. And then either refine the definitions or define the parameters in which the criterion is valid.

No. The circuit was designed by humans.

I think no such thing. I do not include myself in the "we" that I have emboldened, as there is no logic in your conclusion. There is no reason to posit your external agency.

So... if your evidence doesn't hold up, you call it names?

Why? You only repeat stagnant arguments.

Yes, but so what. The more efficient solutions dominate. End of story.

Because technology and programming have evolved. With nanotech and increased computing power, we may well improve over these techniques - and "just build it up as compact and with as few atoms as possible". Are you also suggesting that technology must remain static?

Yes - small, short-term experiments. Nothing. None, bar size.

Ah. The same way that DNA/cells/humans are (re)generated.

The "we" as not being as intimate as you have interpreted it, which it is replaceable with "anyone". Your statement of "as there is no logic in your conclusion" is not shown to be true and is both a hand-waving and an Ad Hominem in effect, most likely intentional as a form of attempt to discourage.



This is equivocation centered around the different meanings of words containing the etymon, generare "to produce".

You keep hunting for hidden operatives. Monsters under your bed. I merely am stating that if a thing exists in our continuum, it is natural. Yes, even computer keyboards since humans create them as snails create snailshells and humans are not artificial. You seem to think they could not possibly exist without some sort of mysterious intervention not possible under ordinary processes. I take their existence as proof that they can and you take their existence as proof they can't. It's that simple.

No, humans designed be method, not the result that was generated. Slight difference. If someone builds a machine that build machines, like a robot that build cars, then we don't say that this builder of the robot also build the cars.

The rest of you arguments make totally no sense to me; They aren't logical or reasonable in any way.

I tell you, no show you, that a process of stochastic variation and selection does not generate a modular organization. Life does have a modular organization. The quite obvious conclusion is that life cannot have been generated by a process of stochastic variation and selection. The process can't generate what we see. I point to a paper which explains that chance and necessity can't explain the origin of life... and then you come back with this? Please. Take the effort to understand the arguments which where made or don't bother replying at all.

No, I'm hunting for a clear definition of the terms as you use them.

So nothing artificial exists? The term is meaningless?
You take their existence as proof that they can. Which exactly the reason why a creationist believe in his creator: Someone must have build it otherwise it would not have existed.

I noticed that you make a slight mistake? I do not take the mere existence as evidence, but the particular organization of life. If life existed in a different form, one which could be generated by an natural process, we would not have this discussion.

That quick unjustified leap from "it exists" to "someone made it" is the one you and the creationists are so quick to make and which I do not take.

Your logic and that of the creationists is straight out of the Book of Job that declares that the lightning and the thunder are of unknown source and therefore it is God grumbling and flashing.

If something obviously exists it is natural for unnatural things do not exist. How they came to be is something else and the manufacture of fantasies with no other basis than ignorance is straight out of superstition. Science is concerned with process and if current understanding of process is inadequate then that understanding must be extended, not washed away by extraterrestrial monstrosities that in themselves constitute a greater mystery than the solution they propose to offer.

I'm repeating myself: Its not about existing, its about the form it exists as. It's the way it is implemented. If life looked like the something that could have been generated by genetic algorithms alone I wouldn't have to consider an intelligent cause.
You logic and that of all atheists zealots is straight out go the books of Richard Dawkins making unsubstantiated claims about what variation and selection can generate, what natural forces are capable of, and always pretending that you don't need to prove anything because you can imagine it to be true.
You can change the meaning words, the question can still be translated.

Does this mean that the term "artificial" does not mean "unnatural" but is rather a popper subset inside the category "natural"? So something can be both natural and artificial at the same time? Stuff which is strictly artificial would then require involvement of an intelligent agent to come into existence; Whereas other stuff would not require the involvement of an intelligent agent, it's strictly natural and just come into existence as a function of circumstance, change and/or necessity.

Question: Does life belong in the strictly artificial category or not; and how do you justify this?

Imagine we'll find a working spaceship in the amazon jungle. It was constructed using nanotechnology, the general layout is similar to how we would design such a thing, after a while we learn how to fix parts by using available replacement parts, etc. There is some excitement when we discover that if we take some parts out of it and place then in the right environment we can grow more spaceships. The nanotechnology seems to be able to adapt itself to its environment within a narrow band of factors by generating variating and combining successful adaptations.

Would you deny that some unknown intelligence made this? Do you think that it just happened to pop into existence by chance?

Now imagine that you find not a space ship but some robots made of the same material... what would you think?

Aha! Interesting expletive. "All atheist zealots". That places you nicely.

If I found a peculiar object I would probably entertain all sorts of theories as to how it came about and try to find evidence to indicate if any of them had possibilities. And I would maintain that, barring any evidence except the existence of the object, that I simply didn't know. Being ignorant has possible remedies. Being stupid is just tough luck.

This seems to be the problem. You have imagined an external agency creating life, and have confused that imagined (and undeniably conceivable) alternative to abiogenesis with a provable reality. Each of your justifications for your leap of faith starts off with what you consider an obvious truth, which you feel everyone should accept without question.

Imagine we'll find a theory which not only results in a less complicated structuring of all forms of energy and matter, but also incorporates our conciousness, and shows the precise steps whereby that conciousness is the true causal agency for abiogenesis. ...

Imagine that god finally steps out from the reredos and says "Hi folks! How're things going?" ...

Imagine that the simulation gets turned off. ....

Forget the word imagine. "Consider" works just as well.

Consider finding a robot, consisting of structural parts forming an endoskeleton; an optical system capable of 15 megapixel constant video feed; computing capability of a quadrillion microcomputers all networked together; and consisting of nanites which perform maintenance and other tasks. It also can reproduce, along with a complementary version of itself. And it is tattooed with "Cyberdine Systems" on it. Does it have a designer, possibly? If you remove the branding, would it change that?

And imagine you found a man with "manufactured by God" tattooed on his behind. Would that prove he was made by God?