Abiogenesis

Post Reply New Topic

No, but I happen to view that the "artificial" is a sub-set of the natural.

Perhaps.


Off the top of my head, I do not see that it would practical or necessarily techologically feasible to have excluded introns.


Yes.


Yes.

Hence the modifier "strictly". If artificial is a proper subset of natural, then I propose the term strictly natural to mean the subset which remains after one excludes all things artificial. It's artificial if it where caused by an intelligent agent. Things which can only come into existence if an intelligent agent creates them are strictly artificial. It's irrelevant if the intelligence is strictly natural, artificial or strictly artificial.
Would you think it possible that the computer you are using, the internet and this discussion could be generated without any intelligent agent?
If I switch two lines of code this can change the meaning of the code completely. Changes to the control code would not show up if one was only counting RAM assignments, control code does not change anything in RAM.

Many parts of so-called junk DNA (DNA not coding for "stuff") remain unaltered over long periods. As research shows, nearly all DNA will be read-out into RNA, however not all RNA is then interpreted as instructions for building enzymes. The remaining RNA could maybe function similar to control codes: e.g. modifying cell behavior, etc. We know that cells can sense, react, plan, communicate, etc. They display highly specialized, rational behavior. Somehow it must be processing information. RNA could be used for this function.
Are you sure? I find it hard to believe. Citation needed?

(I would expect the genome difference between two unrelated humans to be way greater then 2-5% if one does a real similarity comparison.)

No. My point is that science is full of things that are not directly observable. An electron. An atom. Oxygen. Energy. Intelligence. Have you ever observed intelligence? How did you know it was intelligence?


And ID makes a lot of them. I can extend the list I gave you.


http://www.wrongplanet.net/postp2505081.html&highlight=#2505081


It would mean you have no way of identifying intelligent design that is good enough for a scientific theory.


If an essential part of an argument is based on "I know it when I see it", the argument has no scientific merit. You need to do better than that.


I am glad you have come to agree that you don't know for sure the limits of unintelligent processes. Please don't forget this.


Yes. Some ID proponents admit that. Dembski has tried to develop a test and believes he has succeeded. I don't think he has because I find this more convincing: http://www.talkreason.org/articles/eandsdembski.pdf[/quote].


Sure. You can make other predictions, test them, and compare the success of ID to the success of other theories. It is important to be clear about what counts as success. That's why I keep asking you whether you believe that a theory that can be adjusted to be consistent with any evidence is a better theory than one that can only be consistent with a small sub set of all conceivable data? I think it's the fourth time that I ask. This is important. If you don't know what counts as scientific merit, all the rest of the discussion is moot.

Testing ID without having a way of identifying design is also why I asked you to explain Unintelligent Design, and why there is so much less intelligent reuse than should be expected from ID. The assumptions you added to ID in your answer destroyed any scientific merit ID might have in discussing similar solutions to similar problems.

I haven't yet seen a reply to another argument I offered in refutation. Does that mean you accept your original argument is wrong? Here is the argument again:

Are you telling me that speed and cost of computation are not part of the phenotype? That reaction time makes no difference to natural selection? That the energetic needs of the organism, how much food it needs, make no difference? That is what you need to argue to claim that the usefulness of a solution makes no difference to natural selection, that only an intelligent agent can select on that basis.


What makes you think so? This is difficult to reconcile with what you wrote earlier about genotypes and phenotypes.


I agree.


So it might be premature to draw any conclusions about the limits of unintelligent processes from your experience with genetic algorithms that omit what we agree is important?


Why would you conclude that a process not requiring intelligence then must itself be intelligent? The whole point of the Turing test is to distinguish between something intelligent and something that generates just one limited solution, say a chess move. Would you call Deep Blue intelligent and say that it beating a chess grand master means it passed the Turing test?

You have a point that we have a difficulty with testing for design in a scientifically way. We can't easily differentiate based upon the result alone if it is was generated by a strictly natural process, if the origin is inherently unknowable, or if it was created trough strictly artificial means.

Someone could based a test on plausibility if we where able to calculate the chances? Are we? Maybe in some cases; Not in every case. I don't think that this is a viable route to take.

One could base a test on observable details. If some meaningful patterns have been imposed upon an object which cannot be derived from the physical properties of the object then this is a strong indication of design. The ink on the paper does not make a pattern which can be derived from the physical properties of either the paper or the ink. The term meaningful here relates to the idea that it is a pattern which is readable by a suitable reader, interpreter. This relates to Semiotics. Note that this also means that it there may not be a forcing physical reason why a particular sign is interpreted in some way. Arguments about efficiency alone is not enough, one must demonstrate that there was no other choice.

Note that each test will only affirm actual design, when in doubt it will fail to recognize design (false negatives) and have no false positives. The main problem however seems to be calibration? And not for strictly scientific reasons: Whatever test one can design, the results with regard to life will be highly contested. Many will not accept any test which tells them that life was designed. Others will not accept any test which tells them the opposite. A simple case of confirmation bias?

The main problem is that without any evidence there is a widely and very strong held believe in the plausibility of self-organisation (trough strictly natural processes, chance and necessity). I think this believe is wrong. Strictly natural system may self-order according to the physical properties of its elementary parts, it will not self-organize into something which is consisted with the physical properties but can't be derived from these physical properties.

Self-organization of an strictly natural system requires that chance and necessity are sufficient to explain the organization. It requires that generating testable meaningful solutions is easy enough to happen by chance alone, save enough that failure is not too likely, and quick enough to generate a lot of meaningful and tested data in (relatively) very little time.

Conjecture If generating testable meaningful solutions is easy enough to happen by chance alone this would mean that P=NP.

Most scientists are convinced that P≠NP for good reasons.

I question the generative part of any strictly natural (stochastic) variation and selection process. I'n highly doubtful that a strictly natural system could continuously generate original and meaningful variations which could be tested in any meaningful way. An intelligence seems to be able to do things similar only with great effort.

No, I observe
Which is consistent with the already observed fact that the organization cannot be derived from the physical properties of the elements of a strictly natural system.

The organizational information is just missing from the system, any possible source must be outside of the system.
Which is the point I wanted to make.
You seem to require me to first assume that self-organisation is possible then to somehow reason that it's it not.

What empirical evidence do you have that convinces you that a (strictly natural) system would be able to self-organize?

And please don't come with self-ordering phenomena which are in fact derivable from the physical properties from elements of the system.

Last edited by Meta on 20 Dec 2009, 7:28 am, edited 1 time in total.

Again, your usual leaps of faith.

I'd say:

The main problem is that with evidence there is a pragmatic acceptance of self-organisation (through strictly natural processes, chance and necessity) as a practical hypothesis.

or:

The main problem is that without any evidence there is a widely and very strong held belief in the implausibility of self-organisation (through strictly natural processes, chance and necessity).

Also your final "it will not ..." is just another bald statement - which may not be derivable from your slanted definitions of "self-order" versus "self-organize".

The onus has never been on me, to provide the "why" and "how" to every aspect of existence - it has always been on you, to provide any justification for your particular "someone else did it all" hypothesis. I always accept that could be the true situation. It cannot be invalidated, as you will just adapt the "somebody else" as needed to explain each detail.

Well, I don't have a problem with another plausible solution which does not involve a "someone". I reject all the hypotheses which require self-organisation because I reject self-organization for the reasons already given.

I think that if someone supports a hypotheses which requires self-organization they need to provide the evidence that self-organization is plausible. they cannot just refer to common convictions. Especially if I offer rational, scientific arguments why self-organization is not consistent with available observations and other facts.

Lacking any strictly natural alternatives, I do notice the obvious similarity between the organization of life and the organization of technology. The logical deduction that similar organization probably (here some speculation is involved) means similar origin brings me to my own special blend of ID.

I personally find the "who" or "whom" question rather boring and unimportant unless they where to contact us directly. The main question I would like to ask is "how?" As I already pointed out, the answer to this question is more likely to be discoverable, understandable, repeatable by us if life has been designed by an intelligence rather then if it was generated by an unknown natural process.

That is it precisely. Self-ordering is possible in the context of the laws of physics. The Muller-Urey experiments, for example, show amino acids emerge from purely physical processes. While that is no proof of the self emergence of life, it is clearly a pointer in that direction.

The synthesis of uric acid in the 19th century showed that so called organic substances are nothing but complicated but ordinary chemicals.

ruveyn

There was no reason to doubt it. Self-ordering does not require anything outside itself.
Personally I'm not impressed.
Why? It does not point anywhere at all. Yes, it's an interesting find, but the fact that you find a strictly natural explanation for the origin of rocks doesn't say much about the origin of the houses that are made from these rocks.
There are a lot of organic chemicals which are a lot more difficult to make.

Excuse me?!?

I'm a creationist and to me that one is, ... well, ... I don't know what it is.

Sorry to say, well actually I'm not the least bit sorry, as far as I can find out her own Bible, assuming that's her belief, gives zero evidence to support that.

Or even imply that.

Unless, it's a really, really, really, off the mark translation.

I'd love to make some kind of snide remark about someone apparently having had too much communion wine and moldy bread.
But I won't.
For now.
It wouldn't be treating my neighbor in a Christ-like manner.
(damn sam, the sarcastic gene is really showing its stuff today)

Having read your earlier comments about your use of the phrase "strictly natural" earlier in the thread, I was aware of the kind of meaning you attach to it, which is why I felt that clarity was best served by communicating that "strictly natural" is not a category that is relevant in any way to my opinion.


I do not know that it is impossible if it is a not impossible by definition (in particular the definition of "this discussion"). However, I also suspect that if it is possible, it is not even remotely likely.

It is not entirely clear why you believe this commentary is relevant; my very strong suspicion is that you lack basic and pertinent knowledge.

Yes.

Based on your comments, your disbelief does not appear to be the result of an informed evaluation of the materially relevant facts.

No, it is not.

I think if you cared about the truth you would not be asking these questions or making these suggestions because you would already know better. If you cannot be bothered, I do not see why you expect me to bother for you; I already know what I know and posting citations will not change that. If you do not know something and you do not care enough about not knowing to find it out, why would I care about your lack of knowledge so much more than you that I will go to this trouble (and then some) on your behalf? Why would your lack of knowledge be important to me if it is not important to you?

Jono has provided a link and nothing is preventing you from accessing the information at the other end of that link. If you do not know what a genome is, this information can be readily obtained from sources that can be quickly and easily accessed simply by conducting an appropriate "internet search" using a search engine. If you can be bothered to do that and find that you either do not entirely understand the information as it pertains to your questions and suggestions, or you dispute or doubt the information on some reasoned and informed basis, then it would be reasonable to ask others to gather or provide information for you, and/or provide citations for information sources.

So, in caring about "the truth" we should not ask questions that question "the truth"?

Basically this whole interminable discussion swings around whether the basic interactions of matter could possibly in one instance and the proper circumstances accomplish a living structure which could then proceed to elaborate into the forms we see extant today. Whether this instance took place on Earth or some other locale is irrelevant. Either it did or did not take place. If it did take place we merely must discover how. If it did not take place then we must assume either a supernatural cause for the creation of life or some way that life entered our universe after it was in condition to receive it since accepted theory on cosmological development indicates there was an earlier time when the entire universe was inimical to any living thing.

Since all references to supernatural forces have been generated out of primitive ignorant cultures that have resorted to supernaturality out of almost total misunderstanding of the nature of natural forces and their reactive processes I find any acceptance of the supernatural to be naive and ludicrous.

The assumption that life was injected into our universe from forces outside our universe makes assumptions about other universes that have little if any factual basis at the moment.

I therefore assume that life must have originated in this universe on Earth or some other location in our universe out of the accepted interactions of matter and energy and if this seems impossible out of our ignorance of how it came about it only remains for us to discover how it is possible. Unsuspected natural relationships are being discovered daily as research progresses.

I could be wrong but nothing evident indicates otherwise at the moment.

If that is what you choose to think that is your perogative. It is not a premise I personally agree with, nor is it a premise that is implied by or that can be reasonably inferred from the comments made by me that you are quoting above.

That it was not the meaning you wished to convey, that I'll accept; you didn't imply it. However, it is an inference derivable. And it seems to fit with the whole argument in general regarding abiogenesis, and also evolution and cosmology. However, it is in the abiogenesis aspect of secularism that it shows itself to be most like a religion, even in the Dawkonian sense. That life came from non-life is taken for granted, and guarded by ideological constraints so as to remain "unquestionable".

It is not reasonably inferable. I could infer from the fact that I exist that I am a blue striped chin chilla, but it would not be a reasonable inference.

The premise you posted is not a resonable inference of the comments I posted, which comments occured within a context and in fact are self-limiting in scope whether or not you inferred as much. Note that the comments addressed a particular person and that there is no indication within them that the referent of "you" is anyone other than the person who is being addressed. In the context the only reasonable interpretation of 'these questions" is the questions that were specifically been discussed.

Context is important and if ignored when making inferences there is a good chance the inferences will not be reasonable ones.