Posted on 08/28/2005 4:07:56 AM PDT by snarks_when_bored
First of all, the requirement is being imposed on life origin theory, not the theory of Evolution. Secondly, all it really means is the theory of life origins has to be compatible with the way subsequent life works (i.e., the theory of Evolution.) What they mean by this is that a theory of life origins that explains a form of life NOT compatible with the subsequent evolution of that life form is not acceptable to the people offering the prize. An example of a life origin theory that was discontinuous with the theory of evolution might be one that posits some sort of silicon-based chemistry for the first life form. Obviously, this doesn't fit with the carbon-based chemistry of subsequent life forms that have existed.
So, back to my point, so long as one has a theory of origins of life that gives rise to life with the kind of biochemistry that the Theory of Evolution is compatible with, there is "continuity" between the two theories. It makes no difference what the explanatory model is for the origin of life, as long as it gives rise to something Evolution can subsequently work on.
So again, in that sense, Evolution is no more contingent upon how the first life form originated than Hydrology is contingent upon how water came into existence. Both are compatible with ALL explanations which result in the respectively required raw materials.
See?
"Hydrology -- a theory in crisis!"
Good 'un, ls.
Which is precisely why the origin of life -- although an interesting question -- is irrelevant to the theory of evolution, and not a part thereof. Although the evolution of species and the origin of life both involve organic chemistry, they are discrete phenomena, with separate mechanisms. (Similarly, practicing medicine and petroleum engineering involve organic chemistry, but ... well, you get the picture.)
Theists should rejoice in this distinction, rather than trying to bash evolution for it. Why rejoice? Because it leaves a great big gap they can, if they wish, fill with a supernatural agency. But trying to explain an abstract concept to a creationist is a fool's errand.
How can you chop the continuous process of water from the "formation of water" to the "action of water as we observe it" into seperate blocks and attribute separate blocks to different theories?
See how silly the argument sounds now?
I've already answered this question; there is no contingency between the theory of Evolution and the Theory of Life Origin, so long as the Theory of Life Origin explains the existence of biology compatible with evolutionary processes, for precisely the same reason that hydrology isn't contingent upon what explanation is correct for the origin of water. Putting blinders over your eyes and ears doesn't change this.
May you be touched by His Noodly Appendage.
Water has no component like this that is comparable.
Biophysicist Hubert P. Yockey makes the unique observation that "there is nothing in the physico-chemical world [apart from life] that remotely resembles reactions being determined by a sequence and codes between sequences. The existence of a genome and the genetic code divides living organisms from non-living matter." (Computers and Chemistry, 24 (2000) 105-123). This may well constitute the most concise and parsimonious dichotomization of animacy from inanimacy available in the literature.
In addition to the unique component issue there is vast difference in complexity, it's like comparing the space shuttle to a 2x4. This is why I don't think it is a good analogy, it *is* an analogy, I can see that, but there has to be better one.
None of which invalidates the point I made. Your argument is a non sequitor.
As long as a Theory of life origins explains how to get to the first life form, the Theory of Evolution explains how to get from THAT first life form to the diversity of species that have developed since that time. There's no dependency in the latter upon which theory we choose to explain the former; the theory of Evolution doesn't change depending upon how the first life form came into existence, just as the theory of Hydrology doesn't change depending upon how water came into existence.
Stuffing your fingers in your ears, covering your eyes, and waving rhetorical arguments about uniqueness and complexity around don't alter the fact that there is no dependency. If there were, you'd have pointed out the dependency long ago. You can't, because it doesn't exist.
All that Evolution needs to work is a population of some form of life that has heritable traits, variation of those traits, and a process like natural selection to act upon the population, and the games afoot. As long as the Theory of Origins explains a first life form that is compatible with what Evolution does, they are compatible with each other. Different theories of origin don't require any changes to the Theory of Evolution.
Example: assume that the first life form arose through some process of abiogenesis. The theory of evolution is perfectly compatible with with this. Now assume instead that the first life form was planted here on earth by (pick ONE, it doesn't matter): 1) space aliens or 2) a deity. In what way does the Theory of Evolution have to be modified to be compatible with either case?
The answer is: it doesn't. That's the point.
That's why The Theory of evolution is no more contingent upon the origin of life than Hydrology is contingent upon the origin of water. Both the origin of life and the origin of water represent fundamentally different processes from the mechanisms which operate upon those raw materials in accordance with Evolution and Hydrology, respectively.
That's why the origin of water is covered by a different theory than Hydrology, and that's why the origin of life is outside the scope of the Theory of Evolution. Different processes, different phenomona, different theories.
Let me see if I've got this straight.
Once man uses his intelligence to design life from inorganic material you will have ruled out intelligent design as a possible cause of life?
read later bump
Of course there is no rational connection. However, there is a reason why creationists see the "origin of life" issue as a titanic problem for evolution. In the fullness of their ignorance about the nature of science, they imagine that evolution is a satanic alternative to Genesis, and of course Genesis purports to explain the origin of everything. Thus, viewing evolution as a competing cult, they point out its limited scope as a failure. Genesis is the more robust "theory" because it appears to "explain" so much more.
In fact, they should rejoice that evolution starts where life has already begun, because the currently unexplained origin of life leaves a great big gap they can, if they wish, explain with a supernatural agency.
You said: A rational deity ought to at least insure that the punishment fits the crime. So because one chick decided to take a bite of a forbidden apple, all later generations are condemned to die—in many cases, in great pain and suffering. Sorry, that's a disproportionate punishment and, as such, it offends the rational mind.
The punishment was announced prior to the "crime." The "chick" was forewarned as to what would happen. That's what happens when you are created in the image of God-- there are consequences. Whyy do you blame God for something He didn't do?
What is are the specific reasons the theory of evolution cannot include origin of life? Why must the two theories be separated??
Touch me with your Noodly Appendage please..... :-)
Exactly *who* are you taking about?
Isn't there a word for this something like "projection" or "strawman"?? But hey it is kind of fun to beat up your imaginary straw men with your your Noodly Appendage isn't it?
Back to the first biological entity capable of passing on heritable traits to its subsequent generation, variation of those traits, and upon which natural selection can act, as I have previously explained to you.
At what point does one stop and why?
Asked and answered.
What/who has determined evolution's starting point? Man?
All scientific theories have a scope that is limited to the phenomona which are subject to the processes or mechanisms described by the theory. Evolution is about heritable traits being passed on to subsequent generations, those traits having variations across the population, and the population being subject to natural selection. Therefore, it's starting point is the earliest biological population that is capable of being characterized by that process. By definition, the first living organism arose from some other process (whether it be some form of abiogenesis, or seedlings planted by space aliens or deities.) Therefore it can't be described by the same processes that describe Evolution, as it is a different phenomona. This is identical to why the theory of the origin of water is fundamentally distinct from the theory of water dynamics, i.e., Hydrology. As I said in my last post: "Different processes, different phenomona, different theories." Which word didn't you understand?
Then it's whatever he wants it to be isn't it, and he will defend to death won't he.
No, as I have just painstakingly explained for you yet again. ("Different processes, different phenomona, different theories." Which word didn't you understand?)
I can see that *in theory* the Theory of Evolution doesn't *have to* depend on any Theory of Origion [sic] but how does one *know* it doesn't?
By paying attention to the argument I put forward three times now, instead of ignoring the content of my posts and responding with non-sequitors such as "Yes, but Evolution is unique and complex, therefore it must address Origin of Life itself!". Your conclusion does not logically follow from that premise.
What is are the specific reasons the theory of evolution cannot include origin of life? Why must the two theories be separated?
Asked and answered. ("Different processes, different phenomona, different theories." Which word didn't you understand?)
Touch me with your Noodly Appendage please..... :-)
I accept your cordial acknowledgement that you don't have a counter argument to what I've been trying to tell you for the last several posts. If you don't understand after this post, there isn't any point in my continuing this one sided dialogue. Go in peace; may all your noodles be al dente.
I didn't say that.
Once they've managed to construct an artificial organism by assembling chemical units, only the most obstinate will continue to argue against the possibility.Let me see if I've got this straight.
Once man uses his intelligence to design life from inorganic material you will have ruled out intelligent design as a possible cause of life?
No, that wasn't quite my point. The idea is this: ID'ers and others maintain that there is a fundamental difference between non-living and living things (there seems to me to be a strong vitalistic strain behind much creationist/intelligent design rhetoric). If humans can turn non-living chemicals into living organisms, it will no longer be possible to maintain that the difference between non-living and living things is fundamental.
I would argue that the only reason that humans would be required nowadays to turn non-living chemicals into living organisms is that current environmental conditions aren't conducive to this development on Earth and, in addition, we don't have millions of years to wait for it to happen.
You said: A rational deity ought to at least insure that the punishment fits the crime. So because one chick decided to take a bite of a forbidden apple, all later generations are condemned to die—in many cases, in great pain and suffering. Sorry, that's a disproportionate punishment and, as such, it offends the rational mind.The punishment was announced prior to the "crime." The "chick" was forewarned as to what would happen. That's what happens when you are created in the image of God-- there are consequences. Whyy do you blame God for something He didn't do?
Let's say you forbid your children—who don't yet grasp the difference between good and evil and who don't know that there are evil forces in the world who might induce them to do wrong—from swallowing pills which, if ingested, will teach them the difference between good and evil. Let's say you warn them that if they ingest the pills, you'll personally see to it that they ultimately die horrible deaths. Let's say that your kids go ahead and ingest the pills. Would you carry out your threatened punishment?
If so, I'd say that you'd acted justly (because of the warning), but unmercifully and also irrationally (on any rational scale I'm capable of grasping, the 'crime' of learning the difference between good and evil doesn't merit the punishment of horrible death).
More generally, the notion of a vengeful deity is something of an oxymoron. Tout comprendre, c'est tout pardonner.
This is illustrated by you pinging PatrickHenry with your last reply to me. Why? Because you want him to see how the mighty intellectual squishes the worm?
And why the deliberately warped misquote?
Why is this?
I heard Burt Rutan talk about revolutionary vs evolutionary thinking years ago, of course he is a proponent of revolutionary thinking. Is your thinking original and revolutionary thinking? Is my thinking original and revolutionary thinking? All to often people simply say what they were taught to say - no more and certainly no less; they think how they were taught to think - no more, and certainly no less. There is plenty of evidence of this on this thread. Consider the point in time where man switched from the flat earth theory to the round earth theory. Who were the evolutionary thinkers and who were the revolutionary thinkers? Consider the point in time where man switched from thinking the sun revolved around the earth to realizing the earth revolved around the sun; Who were the evolutionary thinkers and who were the revolutionary thinkers? Both times evolutionary thinking had to buck established revolutionary thinking. So now here we are on this thread discussing evolution vs design. I don't think it would be out of line to suggest people here ask themselves if their thinking is evolutionary or revolutionary, if it simply what they were taught to think, or independent, critical and original thinking.
What major breakthroughs were the result of regurgitated, evolutionary thinking?
Revolutionary thinking will always question the status quo.
The Origin-of-Life Prize ® is interesting to me because it is encouraging revolutionary thinking as evidenced by this statement; "The winning submission will likely provide both a novel and cardinal conceptual contribution to current biological science and information theory."
That should be pretty exciting.
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.