Evolution: the Facts.

[Dr Adequate]

No, I don't buy the divinely-created first organism as fitting with evolution at all. If the first organism was divinely-inspired, then that organism could have contained the necessary equipment to evolve in the manner prescribed by its creator.

What you are describing is "front-loaded evolution", and this could have been true, in priciple, right up 'til we found out how genetics actually works: which I think that most historians of science would agree is the point at which the T.o.E. stopped being "Darwin's hypothesis" and started being "the theory of evolution".

 

[Dr Adequate]

I've added an article on [swiki]Front-Loaded Evolution[/swiki] to the [swiki]Creationist Arguments[/swiki] section.

 

[steenkh]

I've added an article on [swiki]Front-Loaded Evolution[/swiki] to the [swiki]Creationist Arguments[/swiki] section.

I do not understand the argument that front-loading is falsified by molecular genetics. In the article it is assumed that all the genes for future development lie dormant until their epoch comes. Why does this have to be so?

Why could front-loading not simply imply that some designer made the first living entity (whether it was a cell or something more primitive), and left it to its own devices, after which evolution developed life into what it is today?

 

[Dr Adequate]

I do not understand the argument that front-loading is falsified by molecular genetics. In the article it is assumed that all the genes for future development lie dormant until their epoch comes. Why does this have to be so?

Because that's what front-loading means --- that all the genetic information necessary for evolution is the the DNA from the very start.

Why could front-loading not simply imply that some designer made the first living entity (whether it was a cell or something more primitive), and left it to its own devices, after which evolution developed life into what it is today?

Well, because that's not what "front-loading" means. That would be abiogenesis-by-miracle followed by (presumably) Darwinian evolution.

Front-loading requires the first organisms to be designed, but is not coterminous with that hypothesis, since it also provides a specific mechanism for evolution, which, as the article shows, is not actually possible.

 

[Dr Adequate]

I may perhaps have been overinterpreting what The Atheist said when he suggested that divine abiogenesis leaves us with the possibility that the original organisms were supplied with "the necessary equipment to evolve in the manner prescribed by its creator", but I don't think so, because he was arguing that divine abiogenesis would render the theory of evolution moot, as being only one of two plausible hypotheses.

 

[steenkh]

Because that's what front-loading means --- that all the genetic information necessary for evolution is the the DNA from the very start.

OK. I see.

But isn't front-loading then a theory adhered to by an extreme minority? All the catholics, for instance, believe that their god did a miracle, the first cell was sent into the world, and evolution did the rest - as the god in his omniscience knew it would happen. This theory is also completely compatible with evolutionary theory, and it does not have any features that can be disproved.

 

[Dr Adequate]

But isn't front-loading then a theory adhered to by an extreme minority?

Googling on the subject suggests that it's making a comeback among I.D.-ologues.

You see, if one accepts the fact of evolution, but rejects the theory, in favor of some sort of divine activity, then one either requires some sort of front-loading --- or a god who's constantly miraculously tinkering with his creation in order to achieve what he could just have done with one big miracle.

 

[tracer]

either we have sufficient explanation for the initial life form or we don't. If we don't, the whole evolution debate becomes quite meaningless. Saying that evolution works regardless is just opening the way for a "goddidit", in which case I may as well hop on the creationist bandwagon Arti's so obsessed with putting me on.

It would still mean that humans and chimps have a common ancestor, though.

Which is the thing most Creationists really hate.

 

[steenkh]

You see, if one accepts the fact of evolution, but rejects the theory, in favor of some sort of divine activity, then one either requires some sort of front-loading --- or a god who's constantly miraculously tinkering with his creation in order to achieve what he could just have done with one big miracle.

No, strictly speaking, an omniscient and omnipotent god could have set it all in motion so that he or she would not have to intervene any further, and still get the desired result. On the other hand, it could also be the case that this god set it all in motion and did not know the result. Humans just happened to be one of the results.

 

[Tanstaafl]

It would still mean that humans and chimps have a common ancestor, though.

Which is the thing most Creationists really hate.

Even worse, it means that humans and pond scum have a common ancestor. But on the plus side, it does explain the existence of televangelists.

 

[six7s]

...most evolutionists have never read Darwin either.

Why would they? He was the first person to write about the theory of evolution. Science progresses, it gets better and better, so we should want to read the last person to write about evolution, not the first.

For those simply wanting a glimpse into the life of Darwin himself, I can recommend the Darwin Correspondence Project’s new (May 2007) web site, which has "an online database with the complete, searchable, texts of around 5,000 letters written by and to Charles Darwin up to the year 1865"

... includes all the surviving letters from the Beagle voyage - online for the first time - and all the letters from the years around the publication of Origin of species in 1859.

The letter texts, and the contextual notes which help make them accessible, are taken from the first thirteen volumes of the Correspondence of Charles Darwin (Burkhardt et al., Cambridge University Press 1985-)

Letters from later volumes will be added on a rolling programme following behind publication of the print edition. Volumes 14 (1866) and 15 (1867) are already published and Volume 16 will be published in 2008.

The database also includes summaries of a further 9,000 letters still to be published
<snip/>
Darwin’s letters are a rich source of information on many aspects of 19th century science and history; they are also very readable, and we hope they will be used and enjoyed by a wide audience

Source

 

[The Atheist]

What you are describing is "front-loaded evolution", and this could have been true, in priciple, right up 'til we found out how genetics actually works: which I think that most historians of science would agree is the point at which the T.o.E. stopped being "Darwin's hypothesis" and started being "the theory of evolution".

I may perhaps have been overinterpreting what The Atheist said when he suggested that divine abiogenesis leaves us with the possibility that the original organisms were supplied with "the necessary equipment to evolve in the manner prescribed by its creator", but I don't think so, because he was arguing that divine abiogenesis would render the theory of evolution moot, as being only one of two plausible hypotheses.

Yes, I do think divine intervention at any stage leaves evolution moot, because if a god were capable of creating life - which contained DNA from the very first instance of life - I think it's fair game to say that he left a pre-planned evolution to follow the creation. Accordingly, even though we know how evolution happened, god/s can only be discounted if they aren't given the chance to sneak in the back door with a statement that we don't know how or why life originated.

Benedict XVI would be thoroughly happy with a divinely-inspired kick-start to evolution. I wouldn't, so I'm not quite sure how we get around that.

I have to say that the word "abiogenesis" is a bit of a bugbear as well - "life from non-life". It just seems to have a hint of unbelievability about it and I far prefer to look at either panspermia or biopoiesis. Maybe it's just me not liking the terminology, but "abiogenesis" seems eminently attackable.

 

[articulett]

It would still mean that humans and chimps have a common ancestor, though.

Which is the thing most Creationists really hate.

Well Behe has actually conceded common descent. But he's done it in that wishy washy mealy mouthed way of his that I don't think many understood that he has. I think it was getting disowned by his former university that made him act as if he was proffering the notion all along. Creationists and apolgists-- you can spot them by the way they use lots of words to avoid having to discuss the fact that religion doesn't quite deliver on all it promises. Religious people more moral? --Yes, in their own minds. Their preacher man told them so.

 

[Dr Adequate]

Yes, I do think divine intervention at any stage leaves evolution moot, because if a god were capable of creating life - which contained DNA from the very first instance of life - I think it's fair game to say that he left a pre-planned evolution to follow the creation.

Yes, but "pre-planned" how? If by this you mean pre-programmed --- front-loaded --- then this is not possible, as I have shown. If you just mean that he knew what the outcome of Darwinian evolution would be, and was happy with it (as, for example, Simon Conway Morris would claim) then obviously that does not contradict the theory of evolution.

I have to say that the word "abiogenesis" is a bit of a bugbear as well - "life from non-life". It just seems to have a hint of unbelievability about it ...

Ah, this would be the Hint of the Argument from Incredulity.

... and I far prefer to look at either panspermia or biopoiesis. Maybe it's just me not liking the terminology, but "abiogenesis" seems eminently attackable.

Panspermia merely puts the problem off.

As far as biopoiesis goes, I'm sure it was part of the process, but this doesn't invalidate the concept of abiogenesis. Either a bare set of autocatalytic chemicals is to be considered alive, in which case the origin of the first such set was abiogenesis, or it isn't but life developed from it, in which case, at the stage of biopoiesis, abiogenesis is still to come.

There is, of course, no "correct" definition of "life", but for any such definition, so long as we count some things as being non-living, we must also concede that abiogenesis took place at some point.

The scientific hypothesis is that this took place in accordance with the laws of nature rather than in flat contradiction to them.

 

[The Atheist]

Yes, but "pre-planned" how? If by this you mean pre-programmed --- front-loaded --- then this is not possible, as I have shown. If you just mean that he knew what the outcome of Darwinian evolution would be, and was happy with it (as, for example, Simon Conway Morris would claim) then obviously that does not contradict the theory of evolution.

I've read your piece on front-loading and it all makes perfect sense, but if life was divinely-inspired, there's nothing to say that the process couldn't have been tinkered along the way - after all, if a virus can cause a mutation, no doubt the god who kicked it off could do as well.

I'd like to stay as far as possible away from any suggestion that any divine interference was made at any stage.

Ah, this would be the Hint of the Argument from Incredulity.

Not at all - it's just a personal dislike. I have no problem accepting that at some time, inorganic matter became living organisms, I just think it allows that god-thing back into the equation and I'd like to avoid it at all costs.

Panspermia merely puts the problem off.

I didn't think it did, if we look at the potential of amino acids to be formed elsewhere then arrive here via meteorite. I might be using "panspermia" wrong in that sense, but that's what's I'm driving at.

As far as biopoiesis goes, I'm sure it was part of the process, but this doesn't invalidate the concept of abiogenesis. Either a bare set of autocatalytic chemicals is to be considered alive, in which case the origin of the first such set was abiogenesis, or it isn't but life developed from it, in which case, at the stage of biopoiesis, abiogenesis is still to come.

There is, of course, no "correct" definition of "life", but for any such definition, so long as we count some things as being non-living, we must also concede that abiogenesis took place at some point.

The scientific hypothesis is that this took place in accordance with the laws of nature rather than in flat contradiction to them.

Yeah, look I think it's just my aversion to the terminology. I'll try to overcome it. You'd agree with the emphasis on biopoiesis then? It's the one which makes the most sense to me, and it fits nicely with the rest of evolution - a slow process of many indeterminate [yet] steps.

 

[arthwollipot]

Saying that evolution works regardless is just opening the way for a "goddidit", in which case I may as well hop on the creationist bandwagon Arti's so obsessed with putting me on.

My apologies - I did not intend to put you on the creationist bandwagon. I fully understand your position, but I believe that such a position can be used by creationists to further their agendas. To wit: "scientists don't even know how life began - how can we have faith in what they say about evolution?" This is not only hostile to evolution, but to science itself. This is far from the argument you are making, but I have long since tried to avoid this line of thinking since it only gives creationists ammunition. Not saying that it's necessarily wrong, mind - only that it is not a productive argument.

 

[The Atheist]

My apologies - I did not intend to put you on the creationist bandwagon. I fully understand your position, but I believe that such a position can be used by creationists to further their agendas. To wit: "scientists don't even know how life began - how can we have faith in what they say about evolution?" This is not only hostile to evolution, but to science itself. This is far from the argument you are making, but I have long since tried to avoid this line of thinking since it only gives creationists ammunition. Not saying that it's necessarily wrong, mind - only that it is not a productive argument.

No, that's fine, but it's precisely because the creationists have that little gap that we need to avoid giving them that ammo.

I'm looking at this from Dr A:

As far as biopoiesis goes, I'm sure it was part of the process, but this doesn't invalidate the concept of abiogenesis. Either a bare set of autocatalytic chemicals is to be considered alive, in which case the origin of the first such set was abiogenesis, or it isn't but life developed from it, in which case, at the stage of biopoiesis, abiogenesis is still to come.

TalkOrigins calls it Gradual build-up of complexity.

TalkOrigins spoils it a bit by going off on tangents. With the right approach, thanks to Dr A, I think the lack of "proof" of various bits would lose their importance.

 

[arthwollipot]

No, that's fine, but it's precisely because the creationists have that little gap that we need to avoid giving them that ammo.

I agree that it would be preferable to make a positive argument out of it, but so far I haven't managed to find any, so I avoid it.

 

[The Atheist]

I agree that it would be preferable to make a positive argument out of it, but so far I haven't managed to find any, so I avoid it.

Mate, I'm a salesman - if there's a way to make it look like a series of positive statements, I'll find it!

 

[Dr Adequate]

I've read your piece on front-loading and it all makes perfect sense, but if life was divinely-inspired, there's nothing to say that the process couldn't have been tinkered along the way - after all, if a virus can cause a mutation, no doubt the god who kicked it off could do as well.

Well, you don't even need life to be divinely inspired --- you just need a deity.

(One can imagine a deity who doesn't do abiogenesis, but just waits 'til it happens spontaneously and then starts to tinker. This is by the by).

If there is a God, then doubtless he can tinker with the process of evolution just as he could fiddle about with the dynamics of the Solar System or do whatever else he chooses. That's the great thing about being God.

The arguments against this hypothesis ("guided evolution"/"slow design") would be as follows:

(1) There's no historical evidence that such divine interventions have occurred.

(2) When we watch evolution happening, in the wild or the lab, we still don't see evidence of divine intervention.

(3) There's no necessity for such intervention, because the theory of evolution is sufficient to explain the phenomena. Of course, the [swiki]Intelligent Design[/swiki] people say that it isn't sufficient, but their arguments (e.g. [swiki]Irreducible Complexity[/swiki]) turn out on examination to be a pile of pants.

(4) It's Unintelligent Design. According to this hypothesis, God sets up the universe to work one way, and then has to tinker with it to make it work the way he actually intends it to. It's as though a man built a car such that to make a left turn he'd have to open up the hood and reconfigure the engine --- knowing that his journey would involve lots of left turns.

I'd like to stay as far as possible away from any suggestion that any divine interference was made at any stage.

Well I'm not saying it was: the point is that the theory of evolution can and should be logically separated from hypotheses about abiogenesis.

Not at all - it's just a personal dislike. I have no problem accepting that at some time, inorganic matter became living organisms ...

Well, that's what "abiogenesis" means, and so far as I'm aware it's the only word for it, so I think you're stuck with it.

I didn't think it did, if we look at the potential of amino acids to be formed elsewhere then arrive here via meteorite.

These amino acids, they'd be non-alive, yes?

I'll try to overcome it. You'd agree with the emphasis on biopoiesis then?

It's observable, I like that.