Posted on 02/18/2004 3:41:01 PM PST by Heartlander
Sure, I grasp the impossibility of the situation as you portray it but it doesn't have to be that way.
It is true that the biochemistry in a cell is intimately tied together, as you express it, but not to such a degree that every small change causes the whole system to break down. So the addition of isolated features (which aren't immediately detrimental to the cell) is the way these biochemical systems get more complex. Through other changes those features may become essential for the cell. (I suggest you read Ichneumon's post on how so-called irreducibly complex systems can form by gradual change)
So the only problem in this scenario should be the emergence of the first self-replicator(s). Of course if we assume that it must be as complex as most modern single-celled organisms then I concede that it's practically impossible that it could have arisen by chance but I don't see why this has to be the case. Most likely the first self-replicators were a lot less complex than any organism we know today.
And since research in this field is only in its infancy and our knowledge on what is possible resp. impossible in biochemical systems is still quite limited, I think it's quite presumptuous to declare abiogenesis to be impossible.
Really?! This is inconsistant with what can be objectively seen today in medicine . . . one - small - change --> leads to disease of the cell, and it ceases functioning properly or outright dies.
So the addition of isolated features (which aren't immediately detrimental to the cell) is the way these biochemical systems get more complex. Through other changes those features may become essential for the cell.
Cute. However, wholely and entirely inconsistant with what we understand about the principles of biochemistry and molecular/cellular biology and what can be objectively seen.
So the only problem in this scenario should be the emergence of the first self-replicator(s).
True
Of course if we assume that it must be as complex as most modern single-celled organisms then I concede that it's practically impossible that it could have arisen by chance but I don't see why this has to be the case.
Again true - "impossibility" is this case occurs because the emergence of any life-like "self-replicator" is inconsistant with what is known and objective.
I think it's quite presumptuous to declare abiogenesis to be impossible.
And I, obviously, think it quite presumptuous to declare abiogenesis to be possible.
Ok, smart guy, what is it about abiogenesis that does make it possible, considering the known principles of physics, chemisitry, and biology?
Ball's in your court . . . ;-)
Where the hell did you study biology? Far and away, most genetic changes are neutral. Even deletion of entire genes usually results in no phenotypic change. Some organisms can double their chomosome set. Some can lose entire chromosomes with no ill effect. You never learned any of this? I am very curious to learn where you are attending medical school.
stu·pid·i·ty [ stoo píddətee ] (plural stu·pid·i·ties) noun
1. lack of intelligence: lack of intelligence, perception, or common sense
Gould refers to this as “the drunkard's walk”.
Dawkins, “The Blind Watchmaker” or a flowing stream void of intelligence and going forward.
Darwin? Well:
With respect to the theological view of the question. This is always painful to me. I am bewildered. I had no intention to write atheistically. But I own that I cannot see as plainly as others do, and as I should wish to do, evidence of design and beneficence on all sides of us. There seems to me too much misery in the world. I cannot persuade myself that a beneficent and omnipotent God would have designedly created the Ichneumonidae [wasps] with the express intention of their [larva] feeding within the living bodies of Caterpillars, or that a cat should play with mice. Not believing this, I see no necessity in the belief that the eye was expressly designed. On the other, I cannot anyhow be contented to view this wonderful universe, and especially the nature of man, and to conclude that everything is the result of brute force. I am inclined to look at everything as resulting from designed laws, with the details, whether good or bad, left to the working out of what we may call chance.
(Darwin to Asa Gray, [a minister] May 22, 1860)
Ichneumon, I don’t think you are stupid or the name you have chosen is due to stupidity. I am merely arguing for “intelligence in design” and you are arguing for “stupidity in the appearance of design”. Now, I fail to see how Bevis and Butthead images help your position.
The Stupid Design Theory
I've already pointed out before (read:previous posts) why it is quite impossible with no one giving any sort answer to some of the most simple and important questions asked about abiogenesis. My position is simply what it is. Want to prove me wrong? "Show me the money, fool!" :-)
Until then, I don't see us having any more to discuss on the subject, do you?
Cute. Straw man, smart guy, because I never said anything about "genetic changes" did I? Although you did a VERY good job of giving a different argument then what I gave followed by interesting points counter to an argument I never gave in the first place, not to mention a thinly vieled ad hominem personal attack about my medical and biological knowledge. What is this 3rd grade?
BTW, I attend one of the top medical schools in the country. Don't be jaealous and play nice now.
An admirable profession!
A doctor you might be interested in… Dr. Howard Glicksman
Did you not say: "one - small - change --> leads to disease of the cell?"
What kind of "change" pray tell are you referring to? Pocket change?
BTW, I attend one of the top medical schools in the country.
Which country?
Thank you. It's a calling, like the priesthood or military special ops - not everyone can do it, and because of that I tend to take my medical education rather seriously. I've been blessed, and it's quite important for me to do what I'm doing, even when I find myself disliking it at times. The greater good will always be served by those working in the healing ministries.
It is truly a calling and we are blessed to have you accepting this responsibility. Your sacrifices are not lost with my knowledge of what it truly takes to become a doctor. It takes far beyond just a special person.
I would not ridicule any individual who would sacrifice so much for others.
It would, if it were ever demonstrated. What we actually have right now are researchers trying to figure which route to life is most probable, which are unlikely, etc.
As we go back the definition of "life" becomes less obvious. Is a closed autocatalytic network "alive"? It metabolizes, grows, evolves, but doesn't have a genetic code. Is a lipid membrane with a few catalysts on the surface "alive"? What if the catalysts help make more lipid and catalyst?
why do you think an "off-planet" origin of bacteria is necessary in the first place
I don't. I was saying that would be compatible with later evolution.
sorry, no cell, no evolution. It's quite simple, really, but grasp at straws if you must.
Cells are necessary for life as we know it today. It seems reasonable to restrict "evolution" to the study of the changes in cells and their genetic material over time.
That does not mean they're necessary at the beginning of life. It is quite likely that earlier forms of life had no genetic code, for example. There is active research going on to try and find out just how the code evolved.
It's quite simple, really, but grasp at straws if you must
Whatever are you talking about!?
Oh please. Medicine is hardly self-sacrifice, even if it is difficult. And any ridicule is not directed at the medical career, but at ideas that, if implemented across the profession, would have it stagnate. I suppose a general practioner has no requirement for understanding science, but research would come to a screeching halt without a guiding paradigm.
Natural selection occurs as does random mutations and these are factors in biodiversity and anyone who argues otherwise is foolish.
And if one believes that it is possible for all biodivesity to have occurred via random chance from a single instance of life forming by random chance, and seeks evidence backing up his theory, nobody should stop him.
But if one believes otherwise that doesn't make him illogical or anti-science or a believer in magic. I'd argue that a good scientist would express honest skepticism of the theory -- without rejecting it out of hand, of course.
Some argue that if one expresses skepticism or rejects absolute randomness, one is resorting to "God did it" and forfeits any claim to science.
Once science was predicated on the belief that God did do it and the job of the scientist was to find out how. If God did do it, saying so is a much better model of reality than one claiming all exists by accident.
It would work but I think we can get glimpses of what the plan is :-)
"Peer" = "Evolutionist"
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.