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! ;-)
Let us visit 'panspermia'.
The latest generation of 'scientists' are, as you say, visiting the panspermia hypothesis calling upon what might be called science fiction disciplines as interstellar microbiology, impact physics, galactic dynamics and planetary dynamics.
The fiction of panspermia gained interest when meteorites from Mars and the Moon were identified a few years ago. Mars, a 'relatively' large planetary body with an atmosphere took a powerful impact from an steroid which threw fragments up and out of the orbit of Mars and a few made their way to Earth. This spawned the term lithopanspermia. It is estimated that not all fragments will carry organisms due to cosmic radiation, thermal degradation, ultraviolet radiation. Only about 0.02% would carry organism if they existed. But as you know, all of this is speculation. You may call it hypothesis if it makes you feel better. But, there is not one shread of evidence this is actually what happened. It is like a comic book. A figment of imagination.
Most asteroids could never reach the Earth because of gravity. Only grains of dust could actually escape, and that would also be dependent on Solar radiation (solar winds). If bacteria were to be carried on dust survival ability is impossible because there would not be enough of a shield from radiation. Any meteorite with the mass of a tennis ball would never escape the Solar gravity effect. It is said that only in about 5 billion years would our star degrade to a Red Giant with a substantially smaller mass that escape of our star could be attained.
If a 10 pound rock did escape our solar system it is estimated that at a speed of 100,000 miles per hour it would travel about 16 light years in a million solar years, a length of time which not allow bacteriological survivability, given the very dangerous cosmic radiation, thermal fluctuations, and ultraviolet radiation. Radiopanspermia is unlikely to allow viable organisms be transported in such a manner.
The other question of Earth to Mars panspermia has resulted in non seeding of the suface of the planet Mars, or Venus ( very hot) for that matter. Should we consider this and wonder why? Mars is sterile. Venus is sterile. RNA and DNA transport is equally unlikely to result in seeding--->life.
So based on this 'hypothesis' let us take bacteria, morsillate or emulsify those cells, and plate them on agar. Let's do this thousands of times....no millions of times and you get the same thing-->no life.
Even the experts ( if such a person exists) on the subject of panspermia--->let us call them astrobiologists--->proved exchange of copious quantities of organic material the shortest time estimated to transfer this material is on the order of millions of years. If that happened, why did it not take?
This leads scientist to conclude that this idea is nonsense.
Miller-Urey---->contrary to what you say, and I paraphrase, little or no progress has moved us any closer to the goalposts of creating life in the lab. If you can refer me to coming close to life, (not organic molecules, not nucleic acids, not lipophosphates, but LIFE) I will change my mind. But I did get a library book and have spent many years studying this very subject and it just is not there. Speculation runs rampant, but science is in short supply on this subject.
I will not waste your time on the philosophical considerations that leads to warranted, true belief. I will only say that presuppositionalism is an affliction we all have to fight against in our mind if we are to attain to honest science. When we want something to be a certain way, we tend to evade a warranted truth if it does not comport with what we wish to be the case, we evade, we avoid and eschew certain obvious findings. If you wish to engage in this subject it is a long, arduous series of discussions on epistemology, ontology, and presuppositionalism.
The permutations of embryological development, I assure you, are not an article of faith of mine. The embryology of most classes of vertebrates have been worked out to a reasonable understanding. My only reason for my previous comment is to affirm, and now I reaffirm that Haeckel used deceit to inculcate millions of students into the nonsense that ontology recapitulates phylogeny. As I think you tangentially referenced we have now learned that what were once referred to as branchial slits are simply clefts and do not represent antecedent gill slits as once was thought. We can discuss embryology if you wish, but it has little to do with anything more than alleged homologies, not unlike hard parts (bones, shells, etc) which more easily fossilize. But that is not where changes occur, is it? All of the action is inside the nucleus of the cell. Those other fossils are simply expressions of nucleotide/nuclieoside changes. I will stop there.
i will return to "theistic evolution".
I believe theistic evolution is seized upon as a sort of "get out of jail free" card. It seems to want to create an atmosphere of conviviality between two views which cannot be reconciled. It is sort of what Philip Johnson called 'soft creationism', and not real Darwinianism as 'science' uses the term. As well read as you are, you certainly know George Gaylord Simpson. He was the head of the Paleobiology department at Harvard and world renown in his acclaim. He is known famously for saying, "If you put a chimpanzee in front of an IBM typewriter and he struck 60 elements per minute at random, he will eventually create the entire works of Shakespeare, given enough time." Few questioned him on this. After he died Stephen Gould took over his position and was equally at tension with the Biblical creationist. Simpson also said, "Although many details remain to be worked out, it is already evident that all the objective phenomena of the history of life can be explained by purely naturalistic or in a proper sense of the word, materialistic factors......Man is the result of purposeless and a natural process that did not have him in mind. This comment was ripped of the Dawkins and others. But this is their belief. I could give you 25 similar quotes. Because Darwinism has its roots in metaphysical naturalism it is not consistent to accept Darwinism and then to give it a theistic interpretation. Theistic evolutionists are continually confused on this point because they think that Darwinism is an empirical doctrine.....that it rests on observation.....but it does no such thing.
In short the reason that Darwinism and theism are incompatible is not that God could not have used evolution by natural selection to create. Darwinian evolution might seem unbiblicalto some, or and unlikely method for God to use, but it is always possible that god might dod something that confounds our expectations. The contradiction between Darwinism and theism is at a deeper level. To know that Darwinism is true (as a general explanation for the history of life), one must know that no alternative to naturalistic evolution is possible. This is to therefore know that God does not exist, or at least that God cannot, or did not create. To infer that Darwinsm is true because there is no creator God, and then to interpret Darwinism as God's method of creation is to engage in self-contradiction. I will not waist your time by going into Dobzhansky's Rules and their implications on this discussion.
Today the keepers of the culture eschew theistic evolution as a simple point of hostility. They imply everything contrary to Darwinism, specifically the existence of God, is simply false.
So the question becomes the following....."Do you know (warranted true belief) it is true that Darwinian evolution is true?" The honest answer requires one to set aside his presuppositions and allegiances to the metaphysical nature of science. Without that honesty, the scientist stumbles around like a blind man in the dark.
So, Buddy, ole, Pal (a nice reference, not a snippy one) I did find a library a long time ago. I learned to read,,,,at first, "See Spot run.", then right to Darwinism. It is late now, and I have work tomorrow. So I will let it rest and simmer tonight. Good luck to you and yours.