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.

[Dimensio]

I thought he meant Darwin didn't know the answer and therefore it was not part of his theory.

No, it's not part of his theory because the mechanisms of his theory simply don't apply. Darwin's theory -- the theory of evolution -- posits that existing diverse life arose from single common ancestry through a process of natural selection favouring specific heriditable traits that vary based upon individual environmental pressures. Such a process only occurs if you already have a population of existing imperfect replicators (organic life forms). Since the means by which the very first generation of imperfect replicators came to exist must involve at least one step where such imperfect replicators do not exist, Darwin's theory simply does not apply. He didn't leave it out because he "didn't know" (though it is true that no one knew at the time, nor does anyone really have that great an idea now), he left it out because ultimately the means by which the first life forms originated cannot be addressed by the mechanisms of his theory. Moreover, the theory itself is completely independent on how the first generation of life forms came to exist. I can come up with four different hypothetical scenarios by which life came to exist, and any one of them would be completely compatable with evolution occuring afterwards.

Attacking evolution for not addressing the ultimate origin of life is like attacking relativity theory for not explaining where matter originates, or -- for a more distanced analogy -- attacking a cake baking recipie for not explaining where eggs come from. Nonetheless, antievolutionists love to attack evolution for not explaining the ultimate origin of life. The fact that the theory is not meant to explain the ultimate origin of life is not relevant to them; facts are not an important part of their worldview.

[Dimensio]

Still not going to support your claim that Darwin rejected evolution? Still going to insist that you "know" that it is right despite abundant evidence that the story is a hoax?

[Dimensio]

Is the Theory of Evolution falsifiable? I don't mean proposed neo-Darwinian mechanism of mutation and natural selection. I mean the idea that life arose from non-life

The idea that life arose from non-life is not part of the theory of evolution.

[ReignOfError]

I see you snipped the "favorite argument of college freshmen" part of my post, among many others. I think I've covered the basics. Feel free to re-read the parts you missed.

Whether or not an argument is the favorite of someone does not refute the argument. That's why I ignored that comment.

That does not cover why you ignored the explanation. The "Dude, like, what if we don't really exist and stuff" argument is a favorite of freshmen because most folks tire of it by sophomore year.

So either can trust our senses or we cannot. Great. That was real helpful.

If you're asking for clear, concise, authoritative answers from philosophy, I can only advise you to learn to live with disappointment. Or write a screenplay.

As long as you can't scientifically prove that the world wasn't created yesterday, you have no grounds for claiming that you can scientifically prove the truth of the theory of evolution. (I'm not picking on evolution; I'm pointing out the problem with positivistic scientism.)

It is trivial to scientifically prove that the world was not created yesterday. There is abundant evidence that the Earth has existed for billions of years, civilization has existed for thousands, and I have existed for 35. There is no evidence to support the hypothesis that the world was created yesterday. Case closed.

Science cannot prove anything to a point of metaphysical certainty. Science does not deal in metaphysics. It cannot calculate the number of angels that can dance on the head of a pin or answer whether reality exists. It cannot, and does not claim to, tell you whether you are actually conscious or living in a perpetual dream state.

All science does is evaluate available evidence. All of the available evidence indicates that the world was has existed for billions of years. No evidence indicates that it was created yesterday.

I cannot prove to a point of metaphysical certainty that you will fall if you jump off of a tall building. But you're not going to test that hypothesis, are you? You don't seem to have the same problem accepting gravity that you have accepting evolution, though they share the common flaw of being derived from observation. That sounds like a personal issue to me.

[Junior]

Since the stuff I see around me is not necessarily encoded, does this mean my observations do not constitute information?

[JamesP81]

The analogy is simply to make DNA seem more like a computer, and therefore infer that it was designed.

Your're reaching.

[AndrewC]

Not really. Some virii are quite simple. And simpler-still free-floating RNA chains could be definable as organisms.

Only if you pervert the meaning of "organism". And a virus is no more a living creature than the paint on a paintbrush is the "Mona Lisa".

[Fester Chugabrew]

Since the stuff I see around me is not necessarily encoded . . .

It is necessarily encoded. Othwise you would not be able to see it.

[Junior]

Explain. I see the rock in my hand because photons of certain wavelengths are reflecting off of it and stimulating certain cells in my eyes. This begins a electro-chemical cascade through my optic nerves to my brain where further electro-chemical cascades in neurons allow me to identify it. There is no magic "code" only electro-magnetism and electro-chemistry involved.

[LiteKeeper]

letters and words are "code" - nucleotides(A,C T,G) constitute code

[Fester Chugabrew]

Code does not have to be "magic." Every rock is designed in such a way as to make its presence available to your reason and senses whenever the the two meet, whether that meeting is physical or imaginary.

[Ol' Dan Tucker]

Carbon dating has trouble with extremely young samples because of the effects of the atomic testing.

Thanks for the info. I was aware that CD had problems with samples from recent times.

My response was meant to be humorous.

Also the range (± or plus/minus if the symbol does not come through collectly) can eat you up quickly. The date is usually figured at two sigma or twice the range in either direction; thus a date of 100 ± 50 has a range of 200 years at the two sigma (95% confidence) level. Once you get a few hundred years old, or if you run lots of samples, this can be less of a problem.

Came through fine. Again, thanks for the info.

[Junior]

You're not showing any necessity for any code in any of this.

[Junior]

Those "letters" are simply the first letters of the words we use to denote the chemicals making up the DNA molecule. They are no more a code than the hydrogen atoms in a water molecule.

[Mind-numbed Robot]

Thanks for the excellent summary and specific distinctions.

[LiteKeeper]

Then you obviously don't understand DNA nor genetics

[attiladhun2]

If they can come up with testable hypotheses, ID will be welcomed. If the creationists can come forward with scientific evidence of life coming forth on this planet over a period of 6 days about 6,000 years ago. I'm sure it will be given consideration in the classroom.
Why do you continue to mis-characterize ID as equivalent to a narrow, fundamentalist interpretation of the first two chapters of Genesis? What you are doing is a trick of every propogandist--create a strawman then beat hell out him and congratulate yourself on a job well-done.

[Fester Chugabrew]

You're not showing any necessity for any code in any of this.

I don't have to show any "necessity" for code. I need merely take the reasonable position that the human brain is programmed to receive and process information, which if there were no information, there would be no intelligent design. I think science is better off looking for "code" in rocks than it is looking for whatever the opposite of "code" might be.

[Junior]

I understand them quite well. You obviously read too much into the DNA molecule.

[NC28203]

I did not characterize it that way. I said that if EITHER the ID folks or the creationist folks can come forth with testable hypotheses, then they will be welcome.
I understand that the two are not synonymous, though they do both require supernatural intervention which by definition is not science. Science looks to the natural world to provide explanations. Theology and philosophy are fields to explore the role of the supernatural.