Did I ever go to school? Yes., I went to school. Did they never show me a dictionary? Yes, they showed me a dictionary. The dictionary does't tell. Words are defined in those which I have referred to over the years. …….."Guess" means "faith"…..I would agree with those two words are not synonyms.
A dozen or a bakers dozen…perhaps a little hyperbole, but that is OK. I understand your assertion. But Panspermia….really….panspermia?…..Even Fred Hoyle disavowed the theory as hokum…..but you can give it consideration….we are just talking. You are correct….none of your proposed hypotheses to consider have been confirmed….or even have any scientific evidence to support such nonsense.
As you know, since you brought it up, the Miller-Urey had false assumptions and as you must know the assumptions in primordial atmospheric conditions have been discarded. As I am sure you know borrowed from the Oparin-Haldane model of the atmosphere with methane, ammonia, water and hydrogen Geochemists have ruled out the presumption of such an atmosphere. But as you know these cursory amino acids rapidly degenerated to cyanide and formic acid in the reduced atmosphere which most certainly was present…..hardly a precursor for life….two of the most deadly chemicals to cells. So, Miller-Urey really can only claim to be one of the first attempts, but failed to elucidate any pertinent information on origen of life.
Pal, you did mention panspermia as an option….throwing it out there for the uninitiated. But, Pal, you might as well have been mentioning little green men from Mars, Pal. It was a senseless comment.
You say, "It must have happened in many, many small steps over not just millions, but billions of year." Do you not see that such an assertion is a statement of faith. You do not knows your statement is warranted, true belief. You simply assert this as your belief….you have faith that this is how it happened. Get it, Pal? Your next sentence, regarding enzymes 'evolving' over billions of years, is a statement of faith. If your purported hypothesis of panspermia were to be warranted, then billions of years would not be necessary, would it, PaL?
Good luck" or God's good planning, the process is still the same -- descent with modifications and natural selection result in increasing complexity and sometimes diversity.How do you know this statement is true? You make the assertion, but what is the epistemic explanation for your making such a statement?
The point of the schematic is to show that our sophisticated eyeballs were preceded by many others less highly engineered.
Who was the engineer? Dawkin's mindless, pitiless, pointless universe? Are we anthropomorphizing matter and energy?
In fact, there's more truth in it than you care to admit. Haeckel's drawings were wrong, but the basic idea, not so far off -- many creatures have similar early stages of fetus development.
Current literature in comparative embryology has made crystal clear that Haeckel's drawings were fraudulent. Even atheistic embryologists, who would wish his drawings to be correct, had completely discredited his drawings. His 'science' was presuppositional and he wanted his drawings to be true, but they were deceitful. Wikipedia is not the kind of authority which I reference.
If Haeckel's drawings were true, the statement that "In fact, there's more truth in it than you care to admit. Haeckel's drawings were wrong, but the basic idea, not so far off -- many creatures have similar early stages of fetus development. It sounds like a statement which would be made by Dan Rather….."false, but accurate".
So, Pal, we are just talking. Chatting. Discussing. I am not angry. Relax a little, it's not your style.
Sorry about that... but I used the word "guess", and suddenly I'm being accused of "the religion of science".
No, I just want to be clear: a guess is not a religion.
OK?
Texas Songwriter: "Panspermia….really….panspermia?
…..Even Fred Hoyle disavowed the theory as hokum…..but you can give it consideration….we are just talking.
You are correct….none of your proposed hypotheses to consider have been confirmed….or even have any scientific evidence to support such nonsense."
Actually, the panspermia hypothesis has enjoyed something of a comeback in recent years, so I understand, for two basic reasons:
So, "panspermia" is a legitimate hypothesis, but with no serious confirming evidence found, yet.
Texas Songwriter: "Miller-Urey had false assumptions and as you must know the assumptions in primordial atmospheric conditions have been discarded."
My point in mentioning the 1952 Miller-Urey experiment is to say that science is today over 60 years beyond that, much more work has been done, and some interesting things have been learned.
Of course, scientists have not created "life" in a lab from scratch, but they now know much more about it than the old Miller-Urey experiment suggested.
Texas Songwriter: "Do you not see that such an assertion is a statement of faith.
You do not knows your statement is warranted, true belief.
You simply assert this as your belief….you have faith that this is how it happened.
Get it, Pal?"
Now look who's getting snippy! ;-)
My saying that it "must have" is certainly not a "statement of faith", nor "true belief" nor "faith" -- none of that.
It is simply a logical conclusion, based on the presumption of abiogenesis.
Let me spell that out: logically speaking, if life evolved from chemistry entirely on Planet Earth, with no outside help from panspermia, or space-aliens or from divine miracles, then it must have grown slowly, slowly, step by step over many millions and billions of years.
That's not a "statement of faith", it's a logical conclusion, based on clearly stated premises.
That's why I strongly object to your accusing me of "the religion of science."
Texas Songwriter: "If your purported hypothesis of panspermia were to be warranted, then billions of years would not be necessary, would it, PaL?"
To repeat my point, panspermia is just one of a dozen or so Origin of Life hypotheses out there today.
It would mean, basically, seeds planted on earth -- accidentally-naturally, or by Someone's Intent -- and by itself solves the question, so far as we can learn here.
Other alternative hypotheses are all some form of evolutionary abiogenesis, and that, I'm saying, the fossil record shows as taking not just millions but billions of years to slowly, slowly develop.
Texas Songwriter: "How do you know this statement is true?
You make the assertion, but what is the epistemic explanation for your making such a statement?"
Thanks for that question!
It's not every day I get asked to explain my epistemic understandings... ;-)
First, you understand, hopefully, that my belief and position here is in defense of what is called "theistic evolutionism", and to the degree that I can accurately express those ideas, I stand by everything I've posted.
If I ever get off-track somehow, then would need to go back and make corrections later, understood?
Second, the view of theistic evolutionism is very simple and consistent: whatever we see in the natural-Universe, is what God created, it's there because that's the way He planned it, and it's there for His divine purposes -- and that most certainly includes us!
So, we never argue with science -- but, for example, we don't defend evolution on grounds that it is necessarily "absolute truth", that would be ridiculous, but rather that it seems like a pretty good explanation for what the data shows.
If new data supports some new explanation, then that's fine too -- we're not trying to force God into some specific theory, only hoping to learn which theory best describes His actions.
In this specific case, assuming evolution is God's plan, then whether we describe it as "random chance" or "divine miracle", the operations and results are the same.
Does that answer your question?
Texas Songwriter: "Who was the engineer?
Dawkin's mindless, pitiless, pointless universe?
Are we anthropomorphizing matter and energy?"
I don't know why the idea seems to hard to get across, but if you believe, as I do, that God created the Universe, based on His plan and purposes, then literally nothing can possibly be "mindless, pitiless, pointless" in the Universe.
Instead, there is reason for everything, including seemingly "random" mutations and "natural" selection.
The very fact that we are here proves the point to me that there was nothing "random" or "arbitrary" about any of it!
Texas Songwriter: "Current literature in comparative embryology has made crystal clear that Haeckel's drawings were fraudulent."
Yes, I understand that's an article of faith for you, however: mistaken, yes he was, but deliberately fraudulent, no, I don't think so.
More important, there is some truth in his findings -- he failed to see it clearly, but the fact is that all fetuses of closely related creatures resemble each other a lot, and even more distantly related fetuses resemble each other to a surprising degree.
The example cited here was alleged "gill slits" on human fetuses.
No, they are not gills, but they do look like gills, are informally called "gills", and in fish those same features do become gills.
In humans they never become gills, but are instead absorbed into surrounding tissue as part of the pharynx.
So Haeckel was certainly wrong, but he was also onto something important, which, when expressed correctly shows us more about how evolution operates -- or, if you prefer: how God operates through evolution.
Texas Songwriter: "It sounds like a statement which would be made by Dan Rather….."false, but accurate"."
Nothing, let me repeat: nothing, in science is like the ancient goddess athena, who supposedly sprang full grown from the head of zeus.
Everything: hypotheses, theories, even complex facts are developed iteratively -- trial and error, see what's wrong then go back and adjust for it, etc., etc., repeat and repeat until the results can be fully confirmed.
That is also the case with Haeckel.
Texas Songwriter: "So, Pal, we are just talking. Chatting. Discussing.
I am not angry. Relax a little, it's not your style."
And good morning dear, to you too! ;-)