Posted on 01/20/2015 5:45:16 AM PST by Heartlander
No. Because evolutionary biology is about the dynamics of the biosphere. The biosphere certainly, in all naturalistic accounts of the origin of currently extant life-forms, most assuredly preexists life as we know it.
The point of my observation is that it moves the argument from design to a much grander scale — while the eye might be designed by the biosphere functioning as an intelligent agent through the mechanisms suggested by the Darwinian paradigm, much as novel complex computer code optimized for some purpose is designed by a program running autonomously following a Darwinian paradigm,* without new coding by a programmer — the question of the origin of a large complex dynamical system which functions as an intelligent agent (the biosphere) is not addressed by evolutionary biology and is not satisfactorily answered by naturalistic account, any more than the question of the origin of a computer program and digital computer is addressed by Hutter’s theory of intelligent agents modeled by interacting (possibly stochastic, or even quantum) Turing machines.
*Yes, do a search on current work in AI. “Evolved” programs, not coded by anything other than another program that interacts with input are cutting edge. They are also, mistakenly, pointed to by atheist polemicists as “proving” that the argument from design is invalid. This is part of why “mainstream” ID is off base — it’s trying to prove some external designer hand-built molecular machines, when it’s the whole dynamical system that is arguing for design, not the little bits of living stuff it constructs.
“They’ve found amino acids and other organic molecules in interstellar dust and on comets.”
Yes.
“And I believe they’ve synthesized RNA in the lab, without the help of living cells.”
Yes, but the lab itself is designed and operated by human intelligence, so that doesn’t help your argument.
“And there are lots of people working on figuring out the next step, to replication.”
You’re skipping severals steps there. You’ve still got to find a way to get from amino acids to proteins, which we have only observed happening (in nature) within living cells. Then you would need to get from proteins to RNA, which we only observe happening in living cells. Then you would need to find a way for the RNA to replicate, which again, we have only ever witnessed happening in living cells. There’s a bunch of other steps after that, but you can’t get this far, so I think that is a sufficient demonstration.
“The biosphere certainly, in all naturalistic accounts of the origin of currently extant life-forms, most assuredly preexists life as we know it.”
Huh? A biosphere is a collection of ecosystems, and you can’t have an ecosystem without living organisms. Without living organisms, the ecosystem is reduced to simply an environment, like we have on Mars, or Venus.
“...the question of the origin of a large complex dynamical system which functions as an intelligent agent (the biosphere) is not addressed by evolutionary biology and is not satisfactorily answered by naturalistic account”
Yes, we can agree on that, but that’s not the extent of the problem, as I see it. If you concede that a designer is required for the diversification of life once it exists, then you have essentially conceded that a designer is required for the origin of life. Otherwise, whence come the essential elements of life, which are just as complex as the diverse forms they supposedly evolve into?
Darwinists avoid that question by positing blind, unintelligent forces can produce complexity, but if you concede the need for a designer to produce complexity then you must be consistent and explain how the original complexity appeared without a designer, or you have an incomplete theory.
If you want to claim that nothing modeled in a lab can ever teach us anything about phenomena outside the lab, that's up to you. I disagree, as would lots of researchers in different fields.
There’s a bunch of other steps after that, but you can’t get this far, so I think that is a sufficient demonstration.
Demonstration of what? That we don't have a good theory of all the steps in the origin of life? I've acknowledged that several times. All I've been saying is that I wouldn't bet against science eventually coming up with one.
“If you want to claim that nothing modeled in a lab can ever teach us anything about phenomena outside the lab, that’s up to you. I disagree, as would lots of researchers in different fields.”
I didn’t claim that, but if you are trying to demonstrate that something can be produced abiotically, without intelligent intervention, you cannot do so by showing that intelligent, biological organisms can purposefully replicate it in a lab. The evidence you offered is not a demonstration of the claim.
“Demonstration of what?”
Demonstration of how far we are from imagining any way even the most basic constituents of life could be generated abiotically. Most scientists just assume it must happen, because that is the default assumption that scientific naturalism prompts. However, so far nobody has proposed a remotely sensible way that it might happen.
“It’s still pretty useless unless it can replicate.”
RNA is catalytic. Tom Cech won the Nobel prize finding that out.
It can auto catalyze it’s own polymerization and self replicate.
“It can auto catalyze it’s own polymerization and self replicate.”
Yes, RNA has catalytic properties, but the idea that it can self-replicate is still only a hypothesis, and hasn’t been observed of demonstrated, as far as I know.
Of course you can! It sort of depends on your approach. If you're trying to synthesize RNA by patching together different strands, then you have a point. But if you manage to produce RNA by recreating plausible conditions from the time and seeing what results, then sure, you've shown that it can happen. It's just like any other lab model of events that take place without intelligent intervention, from weather to beach movement.
so far nobody has proposed a remotely sensible way that it might happen.
Depends on what you mean by "sensible," I guess. By my standards, there are at least a few sensible hypotheses. Here's an overview of some.
“But if you manage to produce RNA by recreating plausible conditions from the time and seeing what results, then sure, you’ve shown that it can happen.”
Is that the type of experiment that leads to the synthesis of RNA? I know they can synthesize RNA with human-managed reactions, but I haven’t seen that they can just supply some soup of amino acids and organic chemicals under the right conditions where the RNA will spontaneously form.
“Depends on what you mean by “sensible,” I guess. By my standards, there are at least a few sensible hypotheses.”
Well, they’ve got hypotheses, but yes I guess sensible is a personal judgement. Ultimately, we will have to see if any of their hypotheses ever make it to the next level, and that will be the final measure of the quality of the hypothesis.
No. Cech showed the self replication.
It is pretty amazing what RNA can do.
The most recent finding about it’s role in the cell has really teed off the hardcore evolutionites who are still stuck in the 20’s and 30’s.
To have a random mutation to be favored by natural selection to become a past on in a genetic trait, it must be used so that brain capacity had to be used to give an advantage
So it should be proven scientific fact that we really use near the full capacity of our brain instead this old fib we use only 10 to 15 percent ...
even it we use 50 60 % of our brain it would not seem to fit with Darwinian natural selection evolution unless unless that one time we use the full capacity and then got stupider and just quit using it
just looking for some scientific fact what is the actual use of our brain capacity.. should be in 80’ 90 % area
... and FYI ....I'm not using this as an argument for intelligent design.... one does not have to be in favor of intelligent design to point out questions about Darwinian evolution
There are many things in the universe that neither intelligently designed nor evolved...
“So it should be proven scientific fact that we really use near the full capacity of our brain instead this old fib we use only 10 to 15 percent ...”
Ah, I see what you are getting at there. Well, I think maybe the whole thing is framed in an ambiguous way. People talk about “capacity” or “potential”, but our brains aren’t like a bucket we fill up and can check where the level is at. So maybe we are just thinking about it all wrong.
We know that our brain is always making new connections and can adapt to some amazing degrees, so maybe we have to ask “is there a limit to how far we can push our brain?”
They mixed the molecules in water, heated the solution, then allowed it to evaporate, leaving behind a residue of hybrid, half-sugar, half-nucleobase molecules. To this residue they again added water, heated it, allowed it evaporate, and then irradiated it.Now, I agree that’s a lot of manipulation. But the point is that they weren’t directly assembling RNA or using a process they knew would work. They were trying variations on conditions they though might have obtained on a prebiotic Earth, without knowing for sure what they’d get.
At each stage of the cycle, the resulting molecules were more complex. At the final stage, Sutherland’s team added phosphate. “Remarkably, it transformed into the ribonucleotide!” said Sutherland.
According to Sutherland, these laboratory conditions resembled those of the life-originating “warm little pond” hypothesized by Charles Darwin if the pond “evaporated, got heated, and then it rained and the sun shone.”
Such conditions are plausible, and Szostak imagined the ongoing cycle of evaporation, heating and condensation providing “a kind of organic snow which could accumulate as a reservoir of material ready for the next step in RNA synthesis.”
I know from an engineering perspective when I design a system I sometimes planning massive potential for future growth other words there's massive capacity that is not initially used...
But that's obviously an intelligent design decision by an engineer
nature should not do anything like that, it has no ability to see into the future and engineer major excess capability into a system...it's simply blindly picks winners and losers based on how well it functions in the environment at the current time.
ironically when we start to genetically designing new living beings we may very well design in massive excess capabilities that are not initially used but again that's an intelligent design decision made by an engineer.
so if we, the current systems, that were claiming are designed by nature really did have this massive excess capability then we've got a major problem in our understanding of how we came to be
one of the other has to be a false statement...I'm not making a claim of intelligent design
I was simply stating that the logic of a naturally evolved system does not fit with us having that excess capability
that's simply just following logic and reason to know one of the other must not be true
Im picking the latter that we don't have that much excess capability of the brain that it's commonly claimed.
But if scientific studies show we do have this massive excess brain capability ...they you must be at least open to seriously rethink on how we came to be..
Your handwaving is not argument, FRiend.
In fact, no serious scientist believes in "vitalism", but every scientist understands that complex organic chemistry can, under some conditions, naturally perform some functions of life -- i.e., self replication.
And a molecule which can replicate itself imperfectly will of necessity over time complexity = evolve.
That's not "vitalism", it's just chemistry.
And who invented such chemistry?
Well, Who created the Universe.
Was that "intelligent design"?
Seems pretty smart to me.
“That’s not “vitalism”, it’s just chemistry”
Yes. That is my point.
I think you are missing out the context of the discussion.
The design inference of the natural Universe is obvious, and Genesis tells us six times our Creator declared the Universe "good", which must mean perfectly according to His intentions.
Did those Intentions include molecules which replicate and complexity over time, as it seems?
Or, did an imperfect creation necessitate its Creator to intervene, forcing molecules to do what they weren't Intelligently Designed to do naturally?
I prefer to think (because that's what Genesis implies) the natural Universe was created perfectly to produce what we see today -- "pregnant with life", the Creator's handiwork all around us, no real "random chance" to it...
Intelligent evolution as intended by God.
You opponents of evolution really don't seem to appreciate the complexity and what I'll call the majesty that God's design presents.
So “I’m rubber and your you’re glue” is your response.
Are we supposed to take you seriously or even understand what point you are making?
Are you stating that evolution is guided with a purpose?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.