Artificial Life By Intelligent Design!

[Wowbagger]

Abiogenesis != evolution. Be careful to remember that.

As someone who has read a bit on both, I object to the idea of using "abiogenesis is not equal to evolution", as an argument against ID. That is clearly side-stepping the issue.

Abiogenesis and evolution are closely-related enough that it is worth embarking on how one emerged from the other, whenever creationists bring up the subject.

Abiogenesis, itself is mostly likely emerged as a product of a slow evolutionary process. There are a few theories, each with its own set of supporting evidence. We might not know, yet, which theory most-accurately describes what actually happened. But, the point is that we understand that such a thing is possible, and NOT impossible.

My favorite theory is that of Selfish Gene theory, as popularized by Richard Dawkins: early replicators forming from silicates, eventually emerging as replicating genes, which in-turn induce structures for their own survival, from the surrounding environment, etc.

But there are others.

If the cell had evolved it would have had to be all at once. A partially evolved cell cannot wait millions of years to become complete because it would be highly unstable and quickly disintegrate in the open environment, especially without the protection of a complete and fully functioning cell membrane.

As for cells being "too complex" to have emerged via evolution: we can demonstrate how this does not have to be true: Experiments and observations have yielded clues as to how various bacterial-like agents began working together, in a mutually symbiotic manner, against a backdrop of other agents doing the opposite. Agents would team-up in all sorts of ways, but only certain ones could resist destructive forces. Through further selection pressures, these agents eventually became our organelles.

I would like to address all the other issues brought up in the OP, but frankly I don't have the time, right now. If bgrnathan, or anyone else, starts demanding it, I will.

 

[MWare]

I'm certain that many here will give the respect a BA from Bob Jones University deserves.

A degree with an academic (HA!) concentration in the Bible and Biology. How convenient! How great it would have been to get through all of my courses in college with only having to buy ONE BOOK!

 

[Foster Zygote]

I'm certain that many here will give the respect a BA from Bob Jones University deserves.

I just ate so you'll have to give me a few hours.

 

[Apathia]

Hey, where'd he go? This is another one of those spam blitzes, isn't it? A seagull.

 

[The Great Hairy One]

As someone who has read a bit on both, I object to the idea of using "abiogenesis is not equal to evolution", as an argument against ID. That is clearly side-stepping the issue.

Actually, from a scientific point of view, Abiogenesis and Evolution are certainly not equal. I'll agree that they are closely related, but the underlying processes of the two are not the same. They are treated as seperate theories, and taught separately within biology courses at university.

Now, please realise that our understanding of Abiogenesis is currently weak. We have a great deal of work still to do in this area. It is quite possible that within 30-40 years, once our understanding of the processes within Abiogenesis have greatly improved, that the Theory of Abiogenesis is rolled into the Theory of Evolution. But currently this is not the case.

Whilst a scientist can clearly delineate and outline the various processes of evolution within an experiment in the lab, it's much more difficult to perform experiments with the processes of abiogenesis. It's quite valid to say "we don't know" at the moment when it comes to abiogenesis, but within evolution, we can clearly state "yes, this is how it works".

I would like to address all the other issues brought up in the OP, but frankly I don't have the time, right now. If bgrnathan, or anyone else, starts demanding it, I will.

I'd like to see him post here again before I bother. Taffer did a good job, let this chap answer the questions he raised before putting in some effort.

Cheers,
TGHO

 

[Wowbagger]

Actually, from a scientific point of view, Abiogenesis and Evolution are certainly not equal. I'll agree that they are closely related, but the underlying processes of the two are not the same. They are treated as seperate theories, and taught separately within biology courses at university.

No offense, but that is an incredibly stupid position to take!
Just because they are treated separately, in academia, does not give you an excuse to dismiss the issues raised. It is important to reflect that the argument from Intelligent Design tries to undermine a whole slew of sciences, not just Evolution, but also Abiogenesis, Geology, Physics, Information Theory, Organic Chemistry, etc., etc., etc.

Especially Abiogenesis! Their central claim, after all, is that such a thing is impossible, therefore "goddidit".

Are you going to let them do that, just because your school says they're all separate?!

Now, please realise that our understanding of Abiogenesis is currently weak. We have a great deal of work still to do in this area. It is quite possible that within 30-40 years, once our understanding of the processes within Abiogenesis have greatly improved, that the Theory of Abiogenesis is rolled into the Theory of Evolution. But currently this is not the case.

I do realize this. That is why it is important to reflect that at least the possibility of Abiogenesis exists, and can be worked out. It is not the utterly impossible occurrence ID would try to have us believe.

 

[The Great Hairy One]

No offense, but that is an incredibly stupid position to take!

You fail to understand the basic issue here, as I said here:

Whilst a scientist can clearly delineate and outline the various processes of evolution within an experiment in the lab, it's much more difficult to perform experiments with the processes of abiogenesis. It's quite valid to say "we don't know" at the moment when it comes to abiogenesis, but within evolution, we can clearly state "yes, this is how it works".

Evolution and Abiogenesis are taught separately because very little is known about how abiogenesis actually takes place. It would not be scientifically correct to teach them as the same, or as having the same processes.

Just because they are treated separately, in academia, does not give you an excuse to dismiss the issues raised. It is important to reflect that the argument from Intelligent Design tries to undermine a whole slew of sciences, not just Evolution, but also Abiogenesis, Geology, Physics, Information Theory, Organic Chemistry, etc., etc., etc.

Especially Abiogenesis! Their central claim, after all, is that such a thing is impossible, therefore "goddidit".

Are you going to let them do that, just because your school says they're all separate?!

I do not understand your argument here. You're saying that because we separate Abiogenesis and Evolution, we're ID enablers?

I do realize this. That is why it is important to reflect that at least the possibility of Abiogenesis exists, and can be worked out. It is not the utterly impossible occurrence ID would try to have us believe.

Obviously, Abiogenesis took place. The how it took place is still being examined and researched. As I noted before, it's perfectly legitimate to say "we don't know" at this point in time with respect to Abiogenesis. It's not legitimate to do that with Evolution. We do know how Evolution basically works. It is not correct to conflate them.

Cheers,
TGHO

 

[Taffer]

I'm not comfortable with self-replication being the sole defining factor for life in terms of abiogenesis... or rather... I'm perfectly comfortable with saying, "Okay, anything which can self-replicate is life, and abiogenesis is where this arises from non-self-replicating entities." With that definition, life loses any sort of 'specialness,' or voodoo, or other mysticism.

Firstly, self-replication is not the only criterion for "life". What is, and what isn't, a criterion is disputable. Defining "life" from "non-life" is hard.

But lets assume that "self-replication" is the only criterion for life.

Abiogenesis is the process which creates entities which can self-replicate from entities which cannot. Evolution is the process which changes the properties of those entities, once they already exist. Evolution occurs only once self-replicators exist.

So, I'm not comfortable with it as a response to the religious, because they probably shouldn't be comfortable with it. If they insist on life having special properites, this won't be a sufficient refutation...

It's not a refutation. It is simply pointing out that using an argument against abiogenesis cannot be used as an argument against evolution.

If you wish to argue the origin of life, i.e. abiogenesis, then that's fine. We know far less about abiogenesis then we do about evolution, and an argument against abiogenesis is not an argument about evolution.

 

[Taffer]

As someone who has read a bit on both, I object to the idea of using "abiogenesis is not equal to evolution", as an argument against ID. That is clearly side-stepping the issue.

No-one is using "abiogenesis is not equal to evolution" as an argument against ID. They are using that statement as an argument against arguments against abiogenesis being equated with arguments about evolution. The common theme of which goes along the lines of "Abiogenesis is wrong because of X, therefore evolution is wrong". It is clearly an equivication fallacy, because evolution and abiogenesis are seperate processes.

Abiogenesis and evolution are closely-related enough that it is worth embarking on how one emerged from the other, whenever creationists bring up the subject.

They are closely related, to be sure, but are fundamentally different, by definition. Because evolution occurs when living things already exist, abiogenesis must have occurred to create those living things. This could be by a huge number of mechanisms, and the definition of "living thing" varies a lot. But it must have occurred somewhere, sometime, otherwise living things must have always existed.

Abiogenesis, itself is mostly likely emerged as a product of a slow evolutionary process. There are a few theories, each with its own set of supporting evidence. We might not know, yet, which theory most-accurately describes what actually happened. But, the point is that we understand that such a thing is possible, and NOT impossible.

You are using "evolutionary process" using a different definition here to "evolution by natural selection". By definition, evolution by natural selection only occurs once living things already exist.

My favorite theory is that of Selfish Gene theory, as popularized by Richard Dawkins: early replicators forming from silicates, eventually emerging as replicating genes, which in-turn induce structures for their own survival, from the surrounding environment, etc.

No-one said that abiogenesis was a fast process. But please remember, that evolution by natural selection only occurs once living things exist.

But there are others.

As for cells being "too complex" to have emerged via evolution: we can demonstrate how this does not have to be true: Experiments and observations have yielded clues as to how various bacterial-like agents began working together, in a mutually symbiotic manner, against a backdrop of other agents doing the opposite. Agents would team-up in all sorts of ways, but only certain ones could resist destructive forces. Through further selection pressures, these agents eventually became our organelles.

I would like to address all the other issues brought up in the OP, but frankly I don't have the time, right now. If bgrnathan, or anyone else, starts demanding it, I will.

I agree with all of that, though.

 

[Taffer]

No offense, but that is an incredibly stupid position to take!
Just because they are treated separately, in academia, does not give you an excuse to dismiss the issues raised. It is important to reflect that the argument from Intelligent Design tries to undermine a whole slew of sciences, not just Evolution, but also Abiogenesis, Geology, Physics, Information Theory, Organic Chemistry, etc., etc., etc.

Especially Abiogenesis! Their central claim, after all, is that such a thing is impossible, therefore "goddidit".

The argument is that arguing against Abiogenesis is not arguing against evolution. It is never used as a refutation of their argument against abiogenesis.

Are you going to let them do that, just because your school says they're all separate?!

They are seperate, though.

I do realize this. That is why it is important to reflect that at least the possibility of Abiogenesis exists, and can be worked out. It is not the utterly impossible occurrence ID would try to have us believe.

Indeed.

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

You know how they make artificial gravity by spinning a large cylinder really fast? I think that pretty much vindicates intelligent falling.

~~ Paul

 

[Dancing David]

See above.



Our ability to do it does not mean it was originally created so.



Define "synthetic life", and explain how it is different from "natural life". Please explain what you mean by "artificial DNA".



Why remember it if you have no evidence? There is no point in postulating a god if there is no evidence for one. Please look up the principle of parsimony.



"Popular belief"? Who believes scientists have?



Your reasoning is fallicious. If scientists create life from non-life, this only means that it is possible, not that it had to happen that way.



This is not true, and there is no reason to believe that an entire cell must exist for there to be a benefit to a replicating molecule.



See above. The proteins we see in a cell today are by no means the simplest possible proteins. An entire working cell is not required to produce a benefit to a replicating molecule.



Wrong.



Definately wrong.



Actually, it is strongly supported by modern science.

Also, you are beginning to equate abiogenesis with evolution. The two are completely different.



Abiogenesis.



Nothing. It simply means that it is possible to do so.



False dichotomy. A complete cell is not required for a simple replicating molecule.



No, you are quite right. The answer to some of these questions currently is "we do not know".

Note that not knowing != goddidit.



Nothing is ever "proven" in science. Only strongly, statistically, supported by evidence.



Erm... what?



Of course biological natural selection does not occur when you do not have life.

Also, your description of natural selection is pretty poor. And it definately is selection, in the same way a filter selects a particular sized molecule.



Firstly, define "species".

Secondly, wrong.



Appeal to ignorance. Just because we can't understand it, goddidit?



Ok...?



Appeal to ignorance. Just because we do not understand it does not mean goddidit.



This couldn't be more wrong if you tried.



Not doing so well, so far.

Abiogenesis != evolution. Be careful to remember that.

Thnks for taking the time Taffer, there are always the lurkers.

 

[Dancing David]

You know how they make artificial gravity by spinning a large cylinder really fast? I think that pretty much vindicates intelligent falling.

~~ Paul

I dub this post a Nominee!

 

[Lothian]

It is only fair that evidence supporting intelligent design be presented to students alongside of evolutionary theory,

It is a shame you ignore the creed of your alma mater which says "God’s word was not given to us to teach science"

*The author, Babu G. Ranganathan, has been recognized in the 24th edition of Marquis Who's Who In The East. .

Not very impressive especially when you consider the selection criteria.
From wikipedia.

the selection process is neither rigorous nor meaningful, and self nominators and thousands of people not particularly notable are included.

 

[Wowbagger]

Evolution and Abiogenesis are taught separately because very little is known about how abiogenesis actually takes place. It would not be scientifically correct to teach them as the same, or as having the same processes.
...
I do not understand your argument here. You're saying that because we separate Abiogenesis and Evolution, we're ID enablers?

I have no problem with evolution and abiogenesis being taught separately, for the reasons you stated, and others. My point is that just because they are taught separately does not mean we can dismiss the issue once it is brought up.

For example: In the OP, bgrnathan stated this:

...Evolutionists generally believe that it took one billion years for the first life form or cell to have evolved. That belief, although still taught as gospel in many elementary and secondary schools, cannot be sustained by modern science.

Taffer's response was this:

Actually, it is strongly supported by modern science.

Also, you are beginning to equate abiogenesis with evolution. The two are completely different.

I think it would be a better tactic to actually present some of the strong findings that support this, instead of weaseling out of the issue by declaring it is "completely different".
Perhaps weaseling was not Taffer's intent, but that is what it can be taken as.

No-one is using "abiogenesis is not equal to evolution" as an argument against ID. (snip) The common theme of which goes along the lines of "Abiogenesis is wrong because of X, therefore evolution is wrong". It is clearly an equivication fallacy, because evolution and abiogenesis are seperate processes.

I understand, but that is the least important of the OP's violations.
It makes us look stupid, if our only response is that they are separate.
It is more important to demonstrate that their claim is falsifiable, and has, in fact, been falsified thus far.

Besides, I don't think most of the OP was refuting evolution, as much as it was attempting to refute abiogenesis, anyway, even if it never used the word "abiogenesis". The first few paragraphs make this clear. Some excerpts:

scientists may be close to creating artificial (synthetic) life. None of this is happening by chance but by intelligent design and planning. Why, then, will many not give credit to God for the original DNA and life?

Even if scientists ever do create a whole living cell from scratch (and not just its DNA) it still would not be by chance but by intelligent design. Synthetic life is another form of genetic engineering. But God was there first! Remember that.

Sounds like an attempt refute of Abiogenesis to me, albeit a very poor one.

And then there are these, also from the OP:

Many think that natural selection in nature is proof that we had evolved. Natural selection does occur in nature. However, natural selection itself does not produce biological variations.

Also, natural selection only applies once there is life and not before. In other words, natural selection is not involved in any pre-biotic, non-living interactions of chemicals.

Ignoring the fact that the first quote is nearly a self-refuting argument, it is quite clear that the OP accepts that natural selection occurs in nature (even if it is confused on several points).

What the OP does not seem to accept is that the blind process of nature is sufficient to
explain the wide variety of life, around us. We should communicate to the OP three things:
1. We have theories of abiogenesis that can explain how life came about naturally.
2. There are mechanisms by which biological variation can occur, in the process of natural selection: (transcription errors, double-copying, co-option, jumping genes, etc.)
3. The clumsy-appearing blindness of natural selection is sufficient to explain the clumsy-appearing design of life forms. No Intelligent entity is really necessary.

The least important priority is to enforce the separation of Abiogenesis from Evolution, at this time.

Perhaps bgrnathan did not even know the word "Abiogenesis". If he or she did, perhaps the sentence would have said "Many think that natural selection in nature is proof that we had come about through abiogenesis", instead of "evolved".


Another point:
Nature is not obliged to keep its processes separate and distinct from each other. Why should our human-oriented definitions and taxonomies be an excuse to enforce a separation, when others choose to tie two of the closely-related ones together?

Obviously, Abiogenesis took place. The how it took place is still being examined and researched. As I noted before, it's perfectly legitimate to say "we don't know" at this point in time with respect to Abiogenesis.

I think it would be better to say "we don't know exactly how Abiogenesis happened, but here is some of the evidence modern science has accumulated regarding the issue..."

Abiogenesis is the process which creates entities which can self-replicate from entities which cannot. Evolution is the process which changes the properties of those entities, once they already exist. Evolution occurs only once self-replicators exist.

I agree, but wish to add that abiogenesis, itself, likely occurred in a slow, gradual, process; closely akin to the Natural Selection evolutionary process that took off, once life got started (but might not exactly be the same).

You are using "evolutionary process" using a different definition here to "evolution by natural selection". By definition, evolution by natural selection only occurs once living things already exist.

Yeah, perhaps I should have made it clearer that I was using the word "evolution" in a general sense, when I was describing Abiogenesis, earlier. My bad.

 

[Jimbo07]

gghhhnnnn...

still seems kinda dodgy to me...



ETA: Thanks Wowbagger, for keeping this up

 

[Taffer]

This:

I think it would be a better tactic to actually present some of the strong findings that support this, instead of weaseling out of the issue by declaring it is "completely different".
Perhaps weaseling was not Taffer's intent, but that is what it can be taken as.

It definately wasn't my intention. It was merely an aside. He was arguing abiogenesis, while using "evolutionists", which is accepted to mean people who believe in evolution, not a particular abiogenesis hypothesis.

I understand, but that is the least important of the OP's violations.
It makes us look stupid, if our only response is that they are separate.
It is more important to demonstrate that their claim is falsifiable, and has, in fact, been falsified thus far.

But... it wasn't my only response. Nor did I use it to refute his argument against abiogenesis.

Besides, I don't think most of the OP was refuting evolution, as much as it was attempting to refute abiogenesis, anyway, even if it never used the word "abiogenesis". The first few paragraphs make this clear. Some excerpts:


Sounds like an attempt refute of Abiogenesis to me, albeit a very poor one.

And then there are these, also from the OP:


Ignoring the fact that the first quote is nearly a self-refuting argument, it is quite clear that the OP accepts that natural selection occurs in nature (even if it is confused on several points).

Perhaps. When I see the word "evolution" and "evolutionist", I think "evolution by natural selection", however it might not have been his intention.

What the OP does not seem to accept is that the blind process of nature is sufficient to
explain the wide variety of life, around us. We should communicate to the OP three things:
1. We have theories of abiogenesis that can explain how life came about naturally.
2. There are mechanisms by which biological variation can occur, in the process of natural selection: (transcription errors, double-copying, co-option, jumping genes, etc.)
3. The clumsy-appearing blindness of natural selection is sufficient to explain the clumsy-appearing design of life forms. No Intelligent entity is really necessary.

Agreed.

The least important priority is to enforce the separation of Abiogenesis from Evolution, at this time.

I disagree. If one is going to attempt to refute abiogenesis, and then use that refutation to mean a refutation of evolution, I most certainly am going to enforce the seperation.

Perhaps the OP did not mean his post this way. I am willing to be incorrect in this matter.

Perhaps bgrnathan did not even know the word "Abiogenesis". If he or she did, perhaps the sentence would have said "Many think that natural selection in nature is proof that we had come about through abiogenesis", instead of "evolved".

If it had be put that way, I wouldn't have had any reason to believe he was comparing the two.

Another point:
Nature is not obliged to keep its processes separate and distinct from each other. Why should our human-oriented definitions and taxonomies be an excuse to enforce a separation, when others choose to tie two of the closely-related ones together?

Because the defference is a human construct. It all comes from the way we define evolution by natural selection, and abiogenesis. By definition the two are different. Natural selection can, and only, works on variation of inheritable traits within a population. Other forms of selection exist, and it is possible that other forms of selection lead to abiogenesis, but that is not natural selection.

I agree, but wish to add that abiogenesis, itself, likely occurred in a slow, gradual, process; closely akin to the Natural Selection evolutionary process that took off, once life got started (but might not exactly be the same).

It is one possible hypothesis, agreed.

[quote[Yeah, perhaps I should have made it clearer that I was using the word "evolution" in a general sense, when I was describing Abiogenesis, earlier. My bad.[/QUOTE]

No problem.

 

[Taffer]

Perhaps there is some misunderstanding that I would like to clear up.

Making clear that abiogenesis is not evolution is not a "cop out" when used to refute an argument against evolution which was made by refuting abiogenesis. This should be clear, because it is possible that abiogenesis be divine in origin, but evolution by natural selection can and has still occurred.

 

[Jimbo07]

This should be clear, because it is possible that abiogenesis be divine in origin

Not in a mechanistic universe... this was my complaint. It's equated for IDers, because they're really arguing against atheists, not scientists.

A hole for God at the start of life? Boom! Your atheistic stance is gonna fall like a house of cards...

 

[Taffer]

Not in a mechanistic universe... this was my complaint. It's equated for IDers, because they're really arguing against atheists, not scientists.

A hole for God at the start of life? Boom! Your atheistic stance is gonna fall like a house of cards...

I'm not sure why you would think that. My atheism is, in part, due to a lack of need for a god to explain things. It's just the same in this case.

And the reason I used that as an example is because we understand evolution very well, and abiogenesis poorly. And because they are different processes, they can have different explanations. That was really my point.