[Filo]

Filo, the question I asked was: "...how intelligence could arise from a random cause."

Exactly. And the evolution of intelligence versus the formation of life (abiogenesis) are two different things.

Darwin's macroevolution theory presupposes random causation plus natural selection. And I gather you worship at the temple of Darwinist orthodoxy, piling it on top of a materialist/naturalist/physicalist worldview. On this basis, you could give a rate and a purpose in answering my question (even though Darwinian orthodoxy says that nature has no real purpose, just the appearance of purpose). But you didn't tell me how matter bootstraps itself into life and intelligence.

Again, two different questions.

For the former there are numerous theories based around amino acids and how they might come together under different circumstances (porous rocks, mud in tide pools, etc.)

For the latter the evolution of nervous systems followed by increasing complexity, etc.

For more details consult a text book.

To say I mentioned nothing about "life" in the formulation of my original question (and therefore its restatement wasn't the "same" question) isn't a reasonable complaint. For intelligence presupposes life: Only living systems in nature possess intelligence (in some form or other).

But clearly not all of them. . .

I am well aware that abiogenesis "isn't within the realm of evolution." At least Darwinists tend to insist on this. But the fact of the matter is even Darwin speculated about the "warm little pond scenario".... Abiogenesis would answer every desire of the materialist insisting on natural causation exclusively, in support of any plausible account of the origin of life that does not involve God. This is why abiogenesis is so desirable (especially to atheists), and will probably be taken seriously as a "reasonable" hypothesis — even in the face of zero evidence — from now till the cows come home.

A whole lot of gibberish in there, but ultimately yes, abiogenesis is the operative theory in the total absence of any evidence supporting creation.

And life is really NOT "just a matter of definition." It's a matter of existence. No matter what the definition, Life is something we all personally, intimately experience. And when it is absent, i.e., at physical death, we can absolutely tell the difference.

Correct, but the metaphysical nonsense has nothing to do with the scientific definition of life.

In that realm a paramecium is alive but a virus is not. The difference between the two is subtle.

In the earliest systems that distinction would be a matter of definition; at what point do the self-replicating chemical systems become living things.

My final point would be, if you do not know what Life is, or from whence it came, but you can come up with a "theory" that it "evolves," pray tell, in what way does this tell us anything at all about what it is that is doing all the evolving? Shouldn't a theory that is supposedly about biology have something to say about the nature of its very subject?

Not necessarily.

As matters presently stand, for all intents and purposes, Darwinism deals with the behavior of an unknown or undisclosed entity. Somehow, I don't find that sort of thing terribly helpful.

Not at all. That is merely your twisted and willfully ignorant interpretation.

Yet I wonder whether the origin of life is a question that science can answer. For one thing, Life per se is NOT a "direct observable." And no human now living would have been there to see it anyway.

Life is very much observable.

The origins of life are not, but we can come up with theories that have testable hypothesis that will ultimately be reasonable or not.

For instance we have no way of observing the formation of the solar system or the Earth/Moon system but we have very good theories about how that happened.

Observations based on those (such as analysis of moon rocks, the compositions of the other planets, meteorites, comets, etc.) and so on either lend credence or discredit those theories.

This has happened to the point where we are quite confident in most of what we know about the formation of the solar system, albeit with some gaps that may be difficult to fill directly.

In the end, however, the overall knowledge is sound regardless of those minor details.

The same holds true of evolution. The whole of the system is understood while the details of how one species evolved from another may or may not be understood in totality.

Unfortunately some folks misunderstand those gaps and attempt to leverage them into a disingenuous attempt to discredit the entire system.

All they ever accomplish is documenting their own ignorance.

[tpanther]

bb:
Filo, the question I asked was: “...how intelligence could arise from a random cause.”

filo:
Exactly. And the evolution of intelligence versus the formation of life (abiogenesis) are two different things.

IOW, he has no answer. Period. This is clearly too much and way over his pay-grade. It’s not a difficult question to understand, and saying they’re two different things merely exposes your incredible weakness. It reminds me of the bridge arguments a while back. As if bridges are designed just out of thin air without studying the land they’re built upon, the space, water, etc. they span, the fault lines in the area, the geology of the area...it’s like saying bridge archoitecture can not and will not be discussed while discussing geology, for some strange illogical nonsensical bizarre reason. But this IS liberalism we’re beholding bettyboop!

bb:
Shouldn’t a theory that is supposedly about biology have something to say about the nature of its very subject?

Absolutely, and of course, speaking of reasonableness, this is what a resonable person would understand.

But filo’s response?

“Not necessarily.”

Now THAT non-response cop-out answers itself. Filo is floundering. Very badly. If he wasn’t so hopelessly arrogant I might even feel some sorrow for him.

bb:
As matters presently stand, for all intents and purposes, Darwinism deals with the behavior of an unknown or undisclosed entity. Somehow, I don’t find that sort of thing terribly helpful.

No rational person does...and Edward Peltzer observes as much below!

filo:
Not at all. That is merely your twisted and willfully ignorant interpretation.

Sir-project-alot seems to have no other response bettyboop. I’ve seen some doozies when it comes to liberal projections but...this is on up there!

filo:
The origins of life are not, but we can come up with theories that have testable hypothesis that will ultimately be reasonable or not.

Ummmm Filo? You destroyed the reasonable argument all by yourself a long long time ago.

Speaking of consulting and reading Filo:

---

As a chemist, the most fascinating issue for me revolves around the origin of life. Before life began, there was no biology, only chemistry – and chemistry is the same for all time. What works (or not) today, worked (or not) back in the beginning. So, our ideas about what happened on Earth prior to the emergence of life are eminently testable in the lab. And what we have seen thus far when the reactions are left unguided as they would be in the natural world is not much. Indeed, the decomposition reactions and competing reactions out distance the synthetic reactions by far. It is only when an intelligent agent (such as a scientist or graduate student) intervenes and “tweaks” the reactions conditions “just right” do we see any progress at all, and even then it is still quite limited and very far from where we need to get. Thus, it is the very chemistry that speaks of a need for something more than just time and chance. And whether that be simply a highly specified set of initial conditions (fine-tuning) or some form of continual guidance until life ultimately emerges is still unknown. But what we do know is the random chemical reactions are both woefully insufficient and are often working against the pathways needed to succeed. For these reasons I have serious doubts about whether the current Darwinian paradigm will ever make additional progress in this area.

Edward Peltzer
Ph.D. Oceanography, University of California, San Diego (Scripps Institute)
Associate Editor, Marine Chemistry

Posted by Robert Crowther on September 2, 2008

www.dissentfromdarwin.org

---

Sir-project-alot, your “arguments” are comical. In the liberal world up is down and down is up.