The Origin of Life & Evolution- Why the Connection cannot be broken
Evolutionists always insist that the origin of living organisms (OoLO) be held separtae from the theory of evolution. This is nothing but posturing.
The OoLO is directly connected to the theory of evolution in that if living organisms did NOT arise from non-living matter via purely stochastic processes there wouldn't be any reason to infer the subsequent divesity of living organisms occured solely via stochastic processes.
Therefore when an evolutionist admits we don't know how living organisms arose that evolutionist is also admitting we don't know how the subsequent diversity arose.
IOW evolutionists are very dishonest. But that is already known...
The OoLO is directly connected to the theory of evolution in that if living organisms did NOT arise from non-living matter via purely stochastic processes there wouldn't be any reason to infer the subsequent divesity of living organisms occured solely via stochastic processes.
Therefore when an evolutionist admits we don't know how living organisms arose that evolutionist is also admitting we don't know how the subsequent diversity arose.
IOW evolutionists are very dishonest. But that is already known...
posted by Joe G @ 8:28 AM
33 Comments:
At 11:06 PM,
Ari-free said…
evolutionists also use the biologic universals (dna, protein, etc) as evidence for evolution but at the same time claim that the first life could not have had any of them.
At 11:17 PM,
oleg said…
I disagree. Scientific theories are never complete. To the contrary, they represent tentative knowledge. There are numerous examples of that in every scientific field. I'll give a couple from my own field of physics.
Cosmology. We have no idea what happened "before" the Big Bang and rather poor understanding of the inflationary stage. Nonetheless, we have a pretty good idea about what happened as the Universe gradually cooled down: hadrons (protons and neutrons) formed from the quark-gluon plasma, electrons appeared as products of hadron annihilation, nuclei formed, matter began dominating over light, atoms formed, large-scale structure of cosmos appeared out of small fluctuations, first stars appeared followed by galaxies. Clearly, all these events were triggered by the Big Bang itself. Yet not knowing how and why the Big Bang happened does not invalidate our understanding of the processes that followed. Neither does it make cosmologists "dishonest."
Particle physics. The Standard Model of particle physics relies on 29 empirically determined parameters (such as quark masses and various coupling constants) to describe the world of elementary particles. We do not know why these parameters have those particular values. Yet it does not make the Standard Model wrong or particle theorists "dishonest."
Lastly, if you applied your reasoning to ID, you would have to conclude that it would be dishonest not to consider the identity of the designer.
At 8:38 AM,
Joe G said…
Oleg said:
We have no idea what happened "before" the Big Bang and rather poor understanding of the inflationary stage.
To say we have no idea and then reject Intelligent Design is nonsense. And that is what is happening.
Everything that has a beginning requires a cause. And therefore by bexcluding ID science is in fact endorsing non-telic processes as the initial cause.
IOW it is very dishonest to reject ID a priori, and that is exactly what is happening.
And especially in light of the fine-tuning observed it is very dishonest to reject telic processes "just because".
Lastly, if you applied your reasoning to ID, you would have to conclude that it would be dishonest not to consider the identity of the designer.
But reality demonstrates that one doesn't have to know anything about the designer(s) in order to reach a design inference.
As a matter of fact without direct observation or designere input, the ONLY way to make ANY determination about the designer(s) or the specific process(es) used, is by studying the design.
And again that is what reality dictates.
Do you really think those "29 empirically determined parameters " "just are the way they are"?
Don't you think that is a tad bit silly, never mind being very unscientific?
BTW, we do have direct observations of designing agencies putting parameters in place to help specify and control their design.
At 9:08 AM,
Joe G said…
BTW oleg, reality also demonstrates that it matters a great deal whether or not that which is being investigated came to be via telic or non-telic processes.
At 9:09 AM,
Joe G said…
Ari- excellent point.
We have never seen nucleotides outside of living organisms (that is in nature, not a lab) and both RNA and DNA require nucleotides.
At 1:48 PM,
oleg said…
Joe,
If you're going to pick on particle physics, be prepared to come up with an alternative theory that does at least as well as the Standard Model. Are you ready to do that?
And no, particle theorists aren't sitting on their butts, they're trying to figure out where the empirically determined constants came from. So far they haven't converged on the next theory that would supersede the Standard Model, mostly because there are not enough clues from experimental data. But I don't see ID getting anywhere on this front.
At 4:03 PM,
Joe G said…
Gee Oleg,
Seeing that ID is busy just trying to get "mainstream" to allow the design inference your words are hollow.
Also I'm not picking on anything. I am just making a point- the point that was made by Max Planck many years ago:
"All matter originates and exists only by virtue of a force which brings the particles of an atom to vibration and holds this minute solar system of the atom together . . . . We must assume behind this force the existence of a conscious and intelligent mind."
The laws that govern nature and the constants that are independent of those laws, are best explained by a "conscious and intelligent mind".
To think otherwise- ie to think that unitelligent, purposeless processes can account for them- is ludicrous.
In the book Mathematics: The Loss of Certainty by Morris Kline, Kline states that Galileo, Koperik, Newton, Kepler et al., believed that "God had designed the universe, and it was to be expected that all phenomena of nature would follow one master plan. One mind designing a universe would almost surely have employed one set of basic principles to govern all related phenomenon."
In the end either the universe exists because it was designed or it exists just out of sheer dumb luck.
At 4:16 PM,
oleg said…
Joe, let me ask this question. How does knowing whether or not the Universe was made by God help you deduce a physical theory? How does it help you understand, say, Brownian motion? Or the properties of carbon? Or the diffraction of light?
At 5:05 PM,
Rich Hughes said…
Why don't you make a positive case for ID, Joe? If you can.
At 5:12 PM,
Joe G said…
Oleg-
1- I don't care if the designer is "God" or not.
2- Reality demonstrates it matters a great deal to any investigation whether or not that which is being investigated arose via agent activity or nature, operating freely
3- Nature, operating freely cannot account for the origins of nature
4- Properties of carbon- they only make sense in a design scenario
5- It is a good thing that we are in a position to study the difraction of light. Do you realize how many "just-so" factors it takes to make scientific discovery a possibility?
6- How does excluding the design inference help us?
At 5:18 PM,
Joe G said…
Rich chimes in:
Why don't you make a positive case for ID, Joe? If you can.
Rich why can't you stick to the OP??
ID would go away if you or any anti-IDist could support/ substantiate their anti-ID materialistic position.
And if you had 1/2 a brain and could actually follow along, you could easily see several of my blog entries that do just that- make a positive case for ID.
At 5:19 PM,
Rich Hughes said…
Joe, are you amazed that:
Holes are formed that fit puddles perfectly
The eyes of a cat are tight where the holes in the skin are to fit them?
Flies do in fact fly?
Lost keys are always in the last place you look?
At 5:19 PM,
Joe G said…
BTW Oleg- when you say "let me ask this question."
That usually means ONE question is to follow.
At 5:20 PM,
Rich Hughes said…
Please link me to a positive case. Please note "Darwinism [sic] can't explain.." is not a positive case.
At 6:43 PM,
Joe G said…
Joe, are you amazed that:
Holes are formed that fit puddles perfectly
Many times puddles spill over the holes. IOW it is easily demonstrateable that holes are formed that don't fit puddles perfectly.
Flies do in fact fly?
Except when they can't.
Lost keys are always in the last place you look?
I don't lose keys. They are ALWAYS right where I put them.
At 6:47 PM,
Joe G said…
The eyes of a cat are tight where the holes in the skin are to fit them?
What makes a fly a fly? In his book (English title) “Why is a Fly not a Horse?”, the prominent Italian geneticist Giuseppe Sermonti, tells us the following :
Chapter VI “Why is a Fly not a horse?” (same as the book’s title)
"The scientist enjoys a privilege denied the theologian. To any question, even one central to his theories, he may reply “I’m sorry but I do not know.” This is the only honest answer to the question posed by the title of this chapter. We are fully aware of what makes a flower red rather than white, what it is that prevents a dwarf from growing taller, or what goes wrong in a paraplegic or a thalassemic. But the mystery of species eludes us, and we have made no progress beyond what we already have long known, namely, that a kitty is born because its mother was a she-cat that mated with a tom, and that a fly emerges as a fly larva from a fly egg.”
At 6:57 PM,
Joe G said…
Please link me to a positive case.
Why Intelligent Design is Scientific
More Thoughts on Falsifying ID
The Design Inference- Why it Matters
ID 101
Why ID is Scientific- short version
The Privileged Planet
Factors Required for Complex Life
The options to our existence- Why ID is scientific part 3
Intelligent Design: The Design Hypothesis
There are others but those should be more than enough for you to ignore.
My prediction- all Rich will do is say "Is not" (positive evidence for ID) to each and every one of those entries.
IOW as usual Rich will not post anything of substance to counter the claims made.
At 6:59 PM,
Joe G said…
I will be off of the internet for the rest of the night.
I will post any responses tomorrow in the AM.
ciao for now
At 10:42 PM,
oleg said…
Joe,
I understand that you have answers. Unfortunately, they answer some other questions, not the ones I asked. Please concentrate, re-read my questions and answer them. I'll help you by commenting on the answers you gave.
1- I don't care if the designer is "God" or not.
I don't care who the designer is, either. I asked how that knowledge helps you gain better understanding of, say, diffraction of light. Does your theory attain another important equation?
2- Reality demonstrates it matters a great deal to any investigation whether or not that which is being investigated arose via agent activity or nature, operating freely
Again, how is our theoretical picture of carbon enhanced by the knowledge that it was designed?
3- Nature, operating freely cannot account for the origins of nature
I am afraid the physics of Brownian motion has nothing to do with the origin of nature. Same goes to diffraction of light: it's just a property of waves, regardless of their physical origin.
4- Properties of carbon- they only make sense in a design scenario
So tell me how the "design scenario" explain the chemical properties of carbon such as valence 4 and physical properties such as the crystal structure of diamond and graphite. Note that quantum mechanics successfully explain all of those without any reference to design.
5- It is a good thing that we are in a position to study the difraction of light. Do you realize how many "just-so" factors it takes to make scientific discovery a possibility?
Again you are answering questions you want to answer, not questions I asked. What does design inference say about diffraction of light that we already don't know from mathematics of waves, electromagnetic theory and quantum mechanics?
6- How does excluding the design inference help us?
First you answer my question: what can design inference do for us? Specifically, for our understanding of carbon, diffraction of light and Brownian motion.
Thanks in advance for your answers.
At 10:17 AM,
Joe G said…
OLeg,
You are being a distraction from the opening post and I do not appreciate that.
Why don't YOU focus and concentrate on the OP and tell me why it is valid to separate the origin of living organisms from the subsequent diversity when it is obvious that origins and diversity are directly connected?
ID is NOT supposed to be a "catch-all/ do all"- IOW it isn't supposed to answer everything:
Intelligent design is a good explanation for a number of biochemical systems, but I should insert a word of caution. Intelligent design theory has to be seen in context: it does not try to explain everything. We live in a complex world where lots of different things can happen. When deciding how various rocks came to be shaped the way they are a geologist might consider a whole range of factors: rain, wind, the movement of glaciers, the activity of moss and lichens, volcanic action, nuclear explosions, asteroid impact, or the hand of a sculptor. The shape of one rock might have been determined primarily by one mechanism, the shape of another rock by another mechanism.
Similarly, evolutionary biologists have recognized that a number of factors might have affected the development of life: common descent, natural selection, migration, population size, founder effects (effects that may be due to the limited number of organisms that begin a new species), genetic drift (spread of "neutral," nonselective mutations), gene flow (the incorporation of genes into a population from a separate population), linkage (occurrence of two genes on the same chromosome), and much more. The fact that some biochemical systems were designed by an intelligent agent does not mean that any of the other factors are not operative, common, or important.-Dr Behe
The same holds true in physics and cosmology- ID doesn't attempt to explain everything. Random effects permeate our existence.
You mention quamtum mechanics- for that I gave you Max Planck- so it is b ad form to say that QM explains things without reference to design- would carbon even exist if the universe wasn't designed? That is the question. However don't answer it but instead please stay on-topic.
And lastly one would not expect to find a comprehesible universe- that is if it arose via non-telic processes.
The most incromprehensible thing about our universe is that it is comprehensible". Albert Einstein
Looking at the universe as designed by "God" allowed the greatest minds to do just that- understand the universe. So yes I would say all the physical equations pertaining to the universe came about because the minds that formulated them understood they were uncovering the handy-work of the Creator.
Please get back on topic.
At 10:47 AM,
Rich Hughes said…
>Why Intelligent Design is scientific
What a deluge of Grok.
Lenny flank says it best:
“The scientific method is very simple, and consists of five basic steps. They are:
Observe some aspect of the universe
Form a hypothesis that potentially explains what you have observed
Make testible predictions from that hypothesis
Make observations or experiments that can test those predictions
Modify your hypothesis until it is in accord with all observations and predictions”
We’ve not even ruled out the supernatural. ID can’t do 3,4, or 5.
>More thoughts on falsifying ID
You use CSI, a Dembski’s useless concept that not even he can calculate You’d have use falsify such fairydust?. Thanks.
>The Design Inference- Why it matters
You say:
“But that is exactly why ID is scientific. Because it forces us to ask those questions.”
You seem to be confusing science and philososphy. Theology would be a subset of philosophy.
>Intelligent Design 101.
Navel gazing wankfest centered around “inference to the best explanation”…If you’ve never heard of Occam’s razor.
>"The Privileged Planet"
Privileged Planet, LOL.
http://www.ps.uci.edu/~kuehn/personal/asa2003.ppt
More red herrings than the scarlet fish shop.
I’ll stop there. You seem generally clueless about science, Joe. ID definitely has a place for you.
At 12:01 PM,
Joe G said…
Rich,
Thank you for fulfilling my prediction.
1- Lenny Flank is a clueless tool- like you
2- "The Privileged Planet" and Intelligent Design are based one observations, evidence and scientific data
3- Intelligent Design does not require the supernatural- as already explained many times even your anti-ID position comes down to something beyond nature. However that which is beyond nature isn't necessarily supernatural.
4- Occam's Razor favors ONE design over multiple cosmic collosions, coupled with multiple atomic accidents, coupled with multiple lucky events.
5- Back to "The Privileged Planet" the anti- ID explanation is that we won the cosmic lottery- see "Rare Earth" by two non-ID scientists Peter Ward and Donald Brownlee:
"The main conclusion of Rare Earth is that Earth is a very special place. Many circumstances and events had to happen just right for Earth to remain a healthy habitat for advanced life. It appears that our planet won the comic lottery and we should cherish our very special place and time in the Universe."
Now that is a science-stopper!
and when I said:
“But that is exactly why ID is scientific. Because it forces us to ask those questions.”
It proves that ID is NOT a scientific dead end. Meaning there are new avenues to explore.
to sum it up:
1- Intelligent Design is based on observations, evidence and scientific data
2- ID makes testable predictions- there are several listed in "The Privileged Planet" alone.
3- Those predictions can be tested and either confirmed or refuted
4- Both CSI and IC are testable concepts- that you and your ilk refuse to understand them is meaningless to me. Also both Dembski and SC Meyer have calculated CSI. To even suggest otherwise is a lie. But lying is all you have.
5- ID would go away IF you and your ilk could muster some substantiation for your anti-ID position.
Now asshole tell us what scientific methodolgy was used to determine that the universe and liviung organisms arose via non-telic, ie stochastic, processes.
1- what pobservation led to that inference?
2- What predictions does it make?
3- How can that position be tested?
So the bottom line is if we compare the two side-by-each, telic vs non-telic, it is easy to see that the non-telic position is not based on anything except that anti-IDists will not allow telic explanations, regardless of the data.
At 4:21 PM,
Rich Hughes said…
Come on Joe. Don't forget to promote my comments...
*wink*
At 4:42 PM,
Rich Hughes said…
don't be scared, Joe. Promote my comments. I'm sure you've got it covered..
At 5:06 PM,
Rich Hughes said…
What a surprise.. one of my posts has been 'disappeared' again. Was it too tough, Joe?
At 5:13 PM,
Joe G said…
Promote your comments?
You don't say anything so what is there to promote?
1- You can't stay on-topic
2- You can't substantiate your position
3- All you can do is post meaningless nonsense
So again, what is there to promote?
Everything you submit, I post. And if we add up all those posts t it just amounts to a pile of shit- but that is to be expected from a pile of shit.
And why should I promote a pile of shit?
At 5:28 PM,
Rich Hughes said…
Tell you what Joe, let them go through straight away. Then you wont look like a liar.
At 5:46 PM,
Joe G said…
Umm none of your posts have "disappeared" Rich. I have published everything you have submitted.
Tell you what Rich. Meet me face-to-face and after that meeting I will allow all of your posts to pass through straight away.
You trying to insult me is meaningless. You are the scum of the Earth and as such are in no position to insult anyone.
At 5:50 PM,
Rich Hughes said…
Are you trying to intimidate me, Joe? *swoon* I know this is your fallback position when you've taken an intellectual beating, but sorry cupcake, no dice. I'm not scared of you, or "your boys".
Pathetic. You and ID deserve each other.
At 6:57 PM,
Joe G said…
If my words intimidate you then you are not only an intellectual coward but you are a yellow-bellied mamma's boy coward as well.
Ya see Rich, the privilege you ask for has to be earned. And one way of earning it is for me to know who you are.
And yes you are pathetic. You are also dishonest, stupid and ignorant.
Don't expect any of your comments to be published unless they are on-topic.
That means for this thread you have to justify the disconnect between the origin of living organisms and their subsequent diversty. And that means you actually have to have something of substance to say.
IOW I predict that you will not have another post published on this blog.
At 7:21 PM,
Rich Hughes said…
So you know how someone is by meeting them? Why would you expect their behaviour to change/ be any different? You have a history of trying to intimidate people, but I can't think of anything less scary than you.
"That means for this thread you have to justify the disconnect between the origin of living organisms and their subsequent diversity. And that means you actually have to have something of substance to say."
You are saying they are inseparable, so you have to make the case, cupcake. "Evolution can't disprove.." change the record dippy Joe G.
from the Id perspective. A front-loaded organism would behave the same an an evolving non-designed mechanism, so how does that effect the price of cheese in Denmark?
look, I've got you scurrying off, closing threads, not promoting comments.
Bwak-Bwak-BWAKKAAA!!!
At 8:35 PM,
Joe G said…
Umm I made the case in the OP you moron.
If you pulled your head out of your ass and were actually able to read, you would have known that.
from the Id perspective. A front-loaded organism would behave the same an an evolving non-designed mechanism,
No, it wouldn't. That's the point. An evolving non-designed mechanism has never been shown to do anything except cripple what already existed.
BTW thanks again for demonstrating your dishonesty- I never said anything about "Evolution can't disprove". This debate isn't about evolution you dim-witted twit.
Also my alleged history of intimidation is all in the minds of intellectual and yellow-bellied cowards- like you.
You guys are all mouth no action. And when pressed to put up or shut up you run around like a chicken who just had its head twisted off.
ALL you have to do is to substantiate your position. Heck you guys have all the resources, most of the scientists and over 100 years of research.
Yet you can't even provide a testable hypothesis.
The Brits have a word for you and your ilk- Wankers. We call you "screamers"- that is a someone typing with one hand and choking their chicken with the other while screaming "I am right! ID isn't science but I will never support my PoV- oh my science I am cuming...."
At 10:09 AM,
Rich Hughes said…
Don't forget to promote my post on Retroviruses, Joe. The one that links to a paper showing how they engineered a workign one from genomic fragments.
*Mwah*
Post a Comment
<< Home