The question even Darwin avoided

The Sydney Morning Herald ^ | 12/22/05 | Paul Davies

[Michael_Michaelangelo]

WHEN Charles Darwin published On the Origin of Species in 1859, he gave a convincing account of how life has evolved over billions of years from simple microbes to the complexity of the Earth's biosphere to the present. But he pointedly left out how life got started.

One might as well speculate about the origin of matter, he quipped. Today scientists have a good idea of how matter originated in the Big Bang, but the origin of life remains shrouded in mystery.

Although Darwin refused to be drawn on how life began, he conjectured in a letter to a friend about "a warm little pond" in which various substances would accumulate.

Driven by the energy of sunlight, these chemicals might become increasingly complex, until a living cell formed spontaneously. Darwin's idle speculation became the basis of the "primordial soup" theory of biogenesis, and was adopted by researchers eager to re-create the crucial steps in the laboratory. But this approach hasn't got very far.

The problem is that even the simplest known organism is incredibly complex. Textbooks vaguely describe the pathway from non-living chemicals to primitive life in terms of some unspecified "molecular self-assembly".

The problem lies with 19th-century thinking, when life was regarded as some sort of magic matter, fostering the belief that it could be cooked up in a test tube if only one knew the recipe.

Today many scientists view the living cell as a type of supercomputer - an information-processing and replicating system of extraordinary fidelity. DNA is a database, and a complex encrypted algorithm converts its instructions into molecular products.

[Antoninus]

It's a dark day when a judge decides what may or may not be discussed as matters of scientific speculation.

[frgoff]

Not quite. The biochemistry of vision is a bit more complex than that. Read Darwin's Black Box.

[Coyoteman]

Sorry, try this (caffeine level got too low or something): The Wedge Strategy

[cornelis]

There is no "mind" or "design" or "intent" required. Just random mutations and natural selection.

Six of one half a dozen of the other, as my ma used to say.

Actually, Darwin wanted to argue that matter had the design in itself. Selection was a design process that he wanted to transfer over from divine causality to material causality. Smart matter, that is. Otherwise selection and fitness are borrowed terms that lose meaning.

[frgoff]

No, actually, I keep them wide open with a college-level understanding of Chemistry and Physics (my majors of study).

[Aquinasfan]

The only possibility I can see for 'thinking' computers

I'm sure that in the future it will be possible to write unimaginably complex programs that will be able to mimic human behavior in some ways. But a computer can never truly think.

[HEY4QDEMS]

Darwin's theory of evolution can answer none of these fundamental human yearnings.

Doesn't drive me nuts. I happen to agree 100%

My observation was global, I was not defending Darwin, I just don't like it when people make assertions about other people's motives without basis.

[Antoninus]

And simpler-still free-floating RNA chains could be definable as organisms.

Trouble is, the leap from free-floating amino acids to free-floating RNA chains is actually much greater and more unfathomable than the leap from an RNA chain to a gorilla.

When someone is able to generate a functional strand of RNA in a lab ex nihilo let me know, will you?

[orionblamblam]

> Darwin wanted to argue that matter had the design in itself.

And on that score he was obviously in error. But that's ok; the originator of a theory does not need to have all the answers.

[cornelis]

Is the origin of life now off-limits for science?

[orionblamblam]

> When someone is able to generate a functional strand of RNA in a lab ex nihilo let me know, will you?

And tell me: when that occurs, what will you have to say?

[Ichneumon]

Indeed. There is a group of computer scientists (can't remember what their theory is called, though) that have pretty much come to the same conclusion: that self-awareness is not a function of sufficiently sophisticated hardware, but is something that lies outside of science, or at least outside of known science. Basically, they believe the spark of self-awareness is a function of having a soul or something like it, something that cannot be replicated.

And they base this conclusion on *what*, exactly?

Until we have a better idea of what "self awareness" is, it's wildly premature to jump to conclusions about what it does or does not require.

I'm aware of Searle's arguments, but they fall apart upon examination, being based on too many unsupported presumptions (i.e., begging the question).

And if a "soul" is required for self-awareness, what about the fact that most people deny that animals have souls, yet most mammals and birds show clear self-awareness?

Of course, those of you who know me, know that I believe that we do have a soul given to us by the Most High God. A computer doesn't.

A religious presumption is hardly any better than a nonreligious presumption when it comes as a foundation for reasoned conclusions.

The only possibility I can see for 'thinking' computers, is to replace a computer's central processing unit and memory storage with a collection of neurons, essentially a cloned brain.

And why do you feel that there's something "special" about neurons that would allow them to "enable" thought that an electronic equivalent would not? What about circuits that exactly replicate the biochemical responses of equivalent neurons, signal-wise?

[Ichneumon]

I'm sure that in the future it will be possible to write unimaginably complex programs that will be able to mimic human behavior in some ways. But a computer can never truly think.

And you base your "sure" belief on what, exactly?

[pageonetoo]

It does not mean "ignore the complicated theory with all the evidence supporting it just because you want a simpler notion to be true".

I do not share your appliction of Occam's Razor philosophy, herein, thank you.

There is no evidence of Darwin being correct. What he did is formulate a theory of how things may have come into being. Others took those theories, and tried to prove them, with only limited success. They have been unable to explain where it began. They have been unable to find any facts to support their theories. There are no macro-links, only little deviations within species. There are no dog-cats, nor are there any bird-sheep. There are only more postulations, and theories...

Why does a man's sexual organ fit a woman so perfectly? Why aren't we hermaphroditic? Why are there male and female components within most higher level species? A simple organism must have a need to change into another form, if the theory is correct.

You are welcome to your evolutionary faith. It is at odds with mine...

I have the Creator on my side! I know Him... I walk with Him! I talk to Him. He speaks peace to my soul.

Darwin is dead.

[Ichneumon]

[There are no "laws" in science dealing with things that are unknown, unsettled, or have ambiguous data.]

Yet, it is taught in school that life does not arise from non-living matter, or at least it was up until about 6 or 7 years ago.

You're confusing several different concepts.

Read this.

[highball]

astrology?

Yes, astrology.

Behe admitted on the stand that in order for ID to be considered a scientific theory, the definition of the word had to be "broadened" to include such disciplines as astrology.

[Mind-numbed Robot]

Would you mind taking the trouble to answer a few elementary questions?

What causes a mutation? Is it a flaw, a malfunction, randomness, or what?

Is survival of the fittest a key part of ToE?

If so, what does fittest mean? Does that mean the survivors are the best overall of a particular species or organism, or just the ones that happened to have survived the particular occurring phenomena? (By that I mean if we have bacteria in a petri dish and add an antibiotic which kills most of them but not all, does that mean the survivors ordain the best future for that strain of bacteria, or only that they were superior to the others in the presence of that particular antibiotic but otherwise not as robust? Same with dinosaurs, etc.)

If this is so elementary as to detract from the discussion, please ignore it.

[Ichneumon]

[I see somebody got a computer dictionary for Christmas, and thinks that buzzwords are a sufficient substitute for understanding.]

Well, admittedly, the buzzwords being used do show he's not a computer scientist, but as I said in a previous post, characterizing living things as a computer system and thinking of it in those terms is a pretty good way of describing an organism.

It's a good *analogy*, but don't forget that that's all it is.

You're mistaking the analogies that are used to help people understand DNA, with the actual DNA itself. DNA is not "symbolic". It does not contain "symbols". DNA is a molecule, with mass, chemical properties, etc. DNA is not a text, nor is it a blueprint, nor a recipe, nor computer code. It does not send "messages" that have a "meaning" beyond their physical arrangement. ribosomes do not "read" DNA or RNA. These are all helpful metaphors, but do not mistake the metaphor for the reality.

[cornelis]

Interesting. Is that an internet rumor?

[elbucko]

Today many scientists view the living cell as a type of supercomputer -.....

I can say with some level of authority that this is actually a pretty darn good characterization.

I agree.

What amazed me about computer science in college was the degree to which computer science now overlaps with biology, physics, philosophy, neurology, and of all things, religion.

In quiet contemplation, it's really astounding, isn't it.