Natural Theology?

[River Jordan]

The focus on Axe's paper, as I pointed out, is the ability for protein sequences to vary and retain function. The issue is not whether or not the paper is referring to the origin of life or not.

Axe's paper is about the ability of a modern organism that exists today to evolve (from a backwards perspective) one piece of a very specific enzyme that confers resistance to antibiotics. Do you understand how that is totally unrelated to the origin of the very first life forms? Surely you're not arguing that the organism Axe experimented on is the same that arose 4+ billion years ago, or that the first organisms on earth had to have been antibiotic-resistant, right?

If you're not arguing either one of those, then citing that work as at all relevant to origins hypotheses is either a deliberate attempt at deception on your part, or an indication that you don't understand the subject.

The point was referring to the specificity of proteins which relates to their ability to retain function. Many Darwinists argue that there is flexibility in the protein structures and that they do not have to be exact to retain function (which, they argue, suggests the odds are not that great for such things to form by chance).

First, we know for a fact that there is functional redundancy in amino acid sequences, so it's not something that "Darwinists argue"....it's just a fact.

Second, please show where any "Darwinist" has argued that "such things form by chance".

Axe deals with this issue in a particular case scenario to show how that although there is a small amount of room for error in protein sequencing, this still does not open things up to the likelihood that such constructions could occur by chance. You were asking for mathematics behind the chances of functional elements of the cell to form by chance. I provided that information as a resource.

Are you actually arguing that the math in Axe's paper should be applied to origin of life hypotheses?

I just dont understand how you arent connecting the dots here. In order to have a functional, basic cell that is would even remotely be capable of the type of darwinian evolution claimed by biology textbooks, you need a cell that has a system for producing functional proteins. Axe's work shows that functional proteins, even with the small amount of flexibility in sequences that retain the protein's function, are highly improbable (essentially impossible) to occur by scenarios based in chance.

Let me see if I have this straight. Your argument is basically, "Axe has shown that if you take a modern E. coli, and degrade an enzyme that confers antibiotic resistance, the odds of random amino acid substitutions fixing the enzyme via a particular pathway (artificially limited due to experimental constraints) are 1077. Therefore, the first life on earth could not have arisen by natural means."

How does that make any sense at all?

Well, it seems to me that you are the one shifting your argument. My original statement was that your demand for the exact science behind the flood seemed silly since Darwinists put random chance scenarios as the rationale behind the origin of life and no one bats an eye. Even though it is mathematically impossible based on what we know of protein sequencing and the basic elements of the cell for such a construction to occur by chance scenarios, it is still implied in textbooks that this is what happened. So my point is simply this, "Why is it okay to imply that this is what happened, but its NOT okay to imply that possibly there was a worldwide flood?"

A few things....

1) What was my original argument, and what did I shift it to? Back up your accusations.

2) I didn't ask for anything like "the exact science behind the flood". I simply noted that what had been posted would cause the oceans to boil off, the atmosphere to evaporate, and the entire crust of the earth to be molten lava. If you think those are just little details, then I really don't know what else to say.

3) You continue to repeat the straw man that "Darwinists put random chance scenarios as the rationale behind the origin of life", despite not being able to show a single source doing anything like that. Frankly, I'm tired of asking you to show where any "Darwinists" have done that. All I can conclude is that you're sticking to this talking point no matter what, and nothing will change that. More's the pity.

4) You've not shown how any origin hypothesis is "mathematically impossible".

5) You've not shown where any textbook describes origins as occurring by "random chance scenarios". But as before, I get the impression that you're going to stick to this false creationist talking point no matter what.

The fact is simply this: Science does not support chance abiogenesis. So why is it taught?

It's not. It's just another dishonest creationist straw man.

Yet here we have scenarios that are so mathematically ridiculous and so unlikely that we cannot even create such scenarios under controlled and forced conditions...and yet this can be taught as the likely means by which life most probably developed.

You've got this sooooo twisted up in your head, you can't even keep things straight. Again....

1) You've not shown how any origins hypothesis is mathematically impossible.

2) No one is teaching any origins scenario "as the likely means by which life developed".

The fact is that you scream foul at creationists as being "unscientific" or "irrational" and yet the textbooks are allowed to teach the same unscientific hypotheses without challenge because naturalism has been deemed "science." It is not. A naturalistic explanation can be even MORE irrational and unscientific as an explanation based in intelligence. If you see a crime scene and a dead body with 5 bullet wounds in the chest, it is not more "scientific" to try to find a way that the event happened by mere chance.

Yet again you rely on that dishonest creationist straw man that the origin of life occurred "by chance". You've been corrected on this so many times yet continue to repeat it, the only thing I can conclude is that you're not really interested in this subject beyond parroting creationist talking points and defending them no matter what.

My argument is not so much that this is your claim (I think I have understood your position is that God created life). It's actually why im a bit perplexed you have been arguing with me about it. My argument is that darwinists are guilty of the same bold claims without the backing of science....and these claims are published in biology textbooks for mass consumption. A creationist is ridiculed for believing in a world-wide flood because they might not have all the answers for the physics behind it, yet a darwinist can write in a textbook that life arose from chance connections of non-living bases in a mud-puddle billions of years ago without answers to the science to back it. You took the role of defending abiogenesis taught in textbooks...which assumes this is how it happened as if it were inevitable given the right environment and enough time. In sum, the textbooks teach it and you were defending the teaching in the textbooks....make sense?

If we understand your undying adherence to ridiculous creationist straw man arguments, yes it makes sense.

Yes, trials do relate to probability, to a degree.

To what degree? Again, are the odds of winning the lottery the same if I buy one ticket versus if I buy 1077 tickets? If not, how does the number of tickets purchased relate to the probability of winning?

However, the point behind the work of the mathematicians and biologists I have cited argues that the more we have discovered about the cell reveals that the chances of such things forming by the above cited scenarios are so small, that history and space does not allow for even close to enough possible trials to make up for the overwhelming odds.

So your argument really is that the Axe paper on the ability of modern E. coli to backwards evolve an artificially-degraded antibiotic resistance enzyme directly speaks to the origin of the first life forms 4+ billion years ago.

Honestly, there's not much else I can do. I've tried explaining it to you, but you seem determined to stick to this creationist talking point no matter what.

It would be like me asking you to win the lottery 20x in a row. The odds at such a thought are so proposterous that even giving you 100 lifetimes and a lottery ticket for every drawing every day in which to accomplish such a feat is meaningless compared to the ridiculous probability such an event would EVER occur. At some point, someone just has to say, "You know, we can add a 100 billion years of trying every single day....but this just would never happen, no matter how many times you try." That is what these researchers and mathematicians have argued. Its not even that most biologists dont recognize how impossible such an event would be....its just that because intelligent design is not an option, they default to random chance. My view is NEITHER should be taught because NEITHER is science.

Again we see the creationist straw man of "it occurred by random chance". I don't know what else to say.

I dont doubt that. Yet it is taught in biology textbooks as arising due to chance. I think that is wrong and unfair.

Yet you can't point to a single textbook that says life "arose due to chance". But even the complete lack of support for this claim plus my essentially screaming at you "NO ONE IS SAYING IT HAPPENED BY CHANCE" isn't enough to get you to consider the possibility that you're wrong.

I am not intending to make you angry. I am not referring specifically to any comment you have made in this particular discussion. I am referring to past discussions where they usually seem to end with you discounting something I quote from Behe, Meyer, or others and write them off as "documented liars" or something to that effect. At that point, it becomes and issue of defending integrity of individuals rather than dealing with the content of their arguments. I dont feel the need, nor do I have the desire to get into a discussion over each individual's integrity that I cite. So, I am not lying. I am referring to the dozens of conversations we have had in the past and am simply anticipating that will be the final direction of this discussion. Although, I am hopeful that will not be the case.

Bull. Now you're backpedaling without retracting your accusation or apologizing for making it in the first place. Instead you repeat it, but still completely fail to support it in any way. That's a terrible way for a Christian to behave.

It seemed evident to me that once again you were going to start dismissing everything with claims that I am ignorant and my information is "copied from [my] creationists sources."
That just seems like a cop out to me.

What in the world is wrong with you? It could only be a "cop out" if I ignored the material you posted. Since I didn't, it couldn't have been a cop out. But you just re-stated the same accusation based apparently on what you imagined I was about to do?

That's.........just stunning in both its detachment from reality and hubris.

Finally, you didn't back up your accusation of slander against me. Who did I slander and where?

 

[Wormwood]

Axe's paper is about the ability of a modern organism that exists today to evolve (from a backwards perspective) one piece of a very specific enzyme that confers resistance to antibiotics. Do you understand how that is totally unrelated to the origin of the very first life forms? Surely you're not arguing that the organism Axe experimented on is the same that arose 4+ billion years ago, or that the first organisms on earth had to have been antibiotic-resistant, right?

I truly do not understand how you cannot find the correlation here. This is no different from me arguing something like, "You do realize that your theories about the oceans boiling off is totally unrelated to how the earth probably functioned in the pre-flood era? Surely you arent suggesting that the pre-flood world and ecology is the same as that which currently exists, right?" The point is that biology as we NOW know it does not justify present darwinian origin of life scenarios. Thus, darwinists and naturalists argue that "we know" these things happened by chance...because life exists. Thus, the world must have been a very different place to allow for such events that are now mathematically impossible. Why must it have been a very different place? Because they have already concluded that these things happen by chance scenarios due to their worldview. It has nothing to do with biology, sciences, or the actual possibilities of such a scenario. So again, darwinists get away with murder here and its called science, but we are eager to crucify the creationist that allows his or her worldview to shape possible early earth hypotheses that also may seem quite unlikely given our current situation.

Also, it seems very evident to me that you are the one who does not understand this article or what Axe is attempting to do. Allow me to provide a couple of quotes to illustrate the point...

The exponential relationship between possible sequence combinations and chain length makes exhaustive experimental searching of sequence space impossible for anything but small peptides. Simplifying assumptions will therefore always be essential for treatments of the spaces corresponding to proteins of biological significance. Yet, given the importance of these concepts to our understanding of such basic things as protein folding, stability, and evolution, the difficulty of achieving anything like certainty should not deter us from exploring the validity of such assumptions. Since they need not be provable to be testable (i.e. disprovable), we can reasonably hope for convergence upon correct ideas through a succession of testable hypotheses.

Yes, Axe is dealing with a very specific and simple scenario and is attempting to draw broader conclusions based on these findings. His goal is clearly to bring futher understanding to "basic things as protein folding, stability, and evolution..." Thus, he is very much trying to draw broader conclusions about the wide scope of biological processes related to the basic structures of functions of proteins as they relate to evolutionary processes. So, he is NOT simply exploring a very specific scenario and ignoring all other possibilities. Rather, the purpose of this specific study is to draw broader conclusions about our basic understanding of these processes and how they form, how flexible they are and how these concepts relate to the idea of evolution. This is EXACTLY what we are talking about in our discussion.

Considering that the functional mechanisms of natural proteins are intrinsically dependent upon well-defined tertiary structures†, a reasonable hypothesis is that activity ceases to be a reliable marker of native-like mechanism at the point where it is low enough not to require something akin to native-like tertiary structure. The present study takes advantage of two functional sequences, one that employs the known enzymatic mechanism and one that does not, in order to set the functional threshold at a level that seems to require a working active site. Since formation of the active site requires tertiary structure of some sort, by merely requiring a working active site, we ensure that we are focusing on the relevant sort of structure: i.e. what is needed for a crudely functional enzyme fold. Modes of catalysis that do not require this sort of structure, however real and interesting they may be in some respects, do not explain how this sort of structure appears as new folds emerge

Here Axe is striving to develop a "reasonable hypothesis" that strives to "set the functional threshold" for a working site of a particular structure. Again, this is something we have been discussing as it relates to how crudely formed structures developed either from protein based or RNA-first models could develop to allow for the functional specificity necessary to perform basic cell functions. This study is specifically looking at the threshold for such functions. You wanted "mathematics" to understand chance scenarios. Well, how do you suppose we come up with such probabilities that you demand without looking at modern structures and exploring their functional thresholds!? You want the math and figures but dont want us to look at studies that relate to present functional processes of cell structures!? Are you serious? How am I supposed to provide the science and math you demand for the first cells when no such cells exist today!? This is nothing more than circular reasoning. You are assuming the outcome and when actual figures and present biology studies are used to call that outcome into questoin, you reply with, "Well, thats based on modern cell structures. Early cells would have been different, and we know that because...well, because we know it happened!"

However, it is not obvious that fold diversity is as easily explained as sequence diversity, if functionally folded sequences are as rare as this analysis indicates. A commonly accepted view is that new folds are pieced together from small parts of existing folds.32,33,39,40 But to the extent that a new fold is really new, its formation must require the joint solution of at least a considerable number of new local stabilization problems of the kind described above. How likely is it that sequences that carry the hydropathy signatures of other folds and provide joint solutions to the stabilization problems for those folds may be pieced together in such a way that they satisfy a new set of constraints, equally demanding but substantially different? The analysis provided here, bearing in mind the uncertainties, calls for careful examination of such piecing scenarios. The need for caution is underscored by a recent study of the structural and functional consequences of piecing together parts from homologous versions of the same fold.41 Because even close homologues employ substantially different solutions to their local stabilization problems,8 chimeras made by homologous recombination suffer considerable disruption unless the points of crossover minimize intermixing of these local solutions.41 So, if re-creating a fold by ordered assembly of sections of sequences that already adopt that fold is not a simple matter, generating new folds from parts of old ones may be much less feasible than has been supposed.

Here Axe shows that "functionally folded sequences are....rare." Moreover, he informs us of the difficulty of developing new sequences based on combining other existing folds in ways that still allow for viable functions to take place. As he states, "even close homologues employ substantially different solutions to their local stabilization problems, chimeras made by homoglous recombination suffer considerable disruption unless the points of crossover minimize intermixing of these solutions." So, essentially he is saying that if trying to combine very similar structures and sequences to form functional processes is incredibly difficult and suffers from stability issues, how much more difficult would it be to generate "new folds from parts of old ones."

Thus, the point here is quite simple. It is ridiculously difficult to take existing structures that are very similar and combine them so that they maintain functionality. How much more difficult to take random sections of existing structure to form new functional processes? And for the sake of our discussion, if this is that difficult in maintaining functional folds and sequences in existing structures that already have functional capabilities, how much more difficult for such a structure to connect, fold and form in a functional way through random chance processes?

Anyway, I do understand the material and it does relate to our discussion in a very direct manner. I will respond to the rest later when time permits. I have a lot of work to get done today.

 

[River Jordan]

I truly do not understand how you cannot find the correlation here. This is no different from me arguing something like, "You do realize that your theories about the oceans boiling off is totally unrelated to how the earth probably functioned in the pre-flood era? Surely you arent suggesting that the pre-flood world and ecology is the same as that which currently exists, right?" The point is that biology as we NOW know it does not justify present darwinian origin of life scenarios. Thus, darwinists and naturalists argue that "we know" these things happened by chance...because life exists. Thus, the world must have been a very different place to allow for such events that are now mathematically impossible. Why must it have been a very different place? Because they have already concluded that these things happen by chance scenarios due to their worldview. It has nothing to do with biology, sciences, or the actual possibilities of such a scenario. So again, darwinists get away with murder here and its called science, but we are eager to crucify the creationist that allows his or her worldview to shape possible early earth hypotheses that also may seem quite unlikely given our current situation.

Wow. So in sum, your argument remains...

1) "Darwinists" claim that life first arose by chance, even though you can't cite a single paper, textbook, or anything else saying so.

2) Life arising naturally is "mathematically impossible", even though you haven't shown any probability estimates for any origins scenario.

I honestly don't know what else to say to that.

Yes, Axe is dealing with a very specific and simple scenario and is attempting to draw broader conclusions based on these findings.

Right. Axe’s paper is about living organisms conducting Darwinian searches (via mutation and natural selection) to try and find new protein folds, specifically about finding new folds by using parts from old ones.

But under origin of life scenarios, there are no living organisms nor are there old protein folds.

Do you understand that? Once you have living organisms that are conducting Darwinian searches for new protein folds by using old ones, the origin of life on earth is irrelevant.....life already exists!

His goal is clearly to bring futher understanding to "basic things as protein folding, stability, and evolution..." Thus, he is very much trying to draw broader conclusions about the wide scope of biological processes related to the basic structures of functions of proteins as they relate to evolutionary processes.

None of which has anything to do with the origin of life, which is probably why neither abiogenesis nor any specific origins scenario is mentioned in any way at all in his paper.

So, he is NOT simply exploring a very specific scenario and ignoring all other possibilities.

Actually, he did. Axe didn’t even use a naturally-occurring enzyme for his work. Instead, he used an artificially created, temperature-sensitive variant that was far, far more sensitive to change than the natural enzyme and differed from it at over 30 of the 150 or so amino acid locations.

Axe then subjected the non-natural variant to clusters of amino acid substitutions….ten amino acids at a time. But he didn’t account for other possible ways to confer antibiotic resistance (remember, evolution searches for any solution, not just a particular one). We know for a fact that other enzymes confer the same resistance. some of which are very unrelated to the TEM-1 enzyme he worked with.

Rather, the purpose of this specific study is to draw broader conclusions about our basic understanding of these processes and how they form, how flexible they are and how these concepts relate to the idea of evolution. This is EXACTLY what we are talking about in our discussion.

Um, no. You claimed that a natural origin of life was "mathematically impossible". Axe's work has nothing to do with origins scenarios.

Here Axe is striving to develop a "reasonable hypothesis" that strives to "set the functional threshold" for a working site of a particular structure. Again, this is something we have been discussing as it relates to how crudely formed structures developed either from protein based or RNA-first models could develop to allow for the functional specificity necessary to perform basic cell functions.

If that's what Axe really was trying to study, why didn't he do the work with one of the proteins that are necessary for basic cellular function? Why did he pick an artificially-constrained variant of an enzyme that confers antibiotic resistance? Simply put, your claim doesn't match up with Axe's work at all.

You wanted "mathematics" to understand chance scenarios. Well, how do you suppose we come up with such probabilities that you demand without looking at modern structures and exploring their functional thresholds!? You want the math and figures but dont want us to look at studies that relate to present functional processes of cell structures!? Are you serious? How am I supposed to provide the science and math you demand for the first cells when no such cells exist today!?

EXACTLY!!!! I think the light is finally beginning to dawn!

You've claimed that a natural origin of life is "mathematically impossible", but how can you calculate the probability of an event, when you don’t know how that event occurred?

See, that's why I keep asking you for your probability estimates for origins of life scenarios....because I know you don't have any, and I want to see how far you'll go before you finally admit you have no such calculations. But as we've seen, rather than admit you don't have these calculations which thereby renders your claim (a natural origin of life is "mathematically impossible") empty and without basis, you spend hours and hours scrambling around trying to shoehorn a study about modern E. coli and their ability to re-evolve an artificial modern enzyme into somehow being about the origins of the first life forms 4+ billion years ago.

So from this point on, can we at least agree that there are no probability calculations for the origin of the first life on earth?

This is nothing more than circular reasoning. You are assuming the outcome and when actual figures and present biology studies are used to call that outcome into questoin, you reply with, "Well, thats based on modern cell structures. Early cells would have been different, and we know that because...well, because we know it happened!"

Seriously? You're actually arguing that the E. coli Axe used in his study are no different than the very first life forms that lived on earth 4 billion years ago? I really don't know how to respond to that.

Here Axe shows that "functionally folded sequences are....rare." Moreover, he informs us of the difficulty of developing new sequences based on combining other existing folds in ways that still allow for viable functions to take place. As he states, "even close homologues employ substantially different solutions to their local stabilization problems, chimeras made by homoglous recombination suffer considerable disruption unless the points of crossover minimize intermixing of these solutions." So, essentially he is saying that if trying to combine very similar structures and sequences to form functional processes is incredibly difficult and suffers from stability issues, how much more difficult would it be to generate "new folds from parts of old ones."

Then explain how, as life was first arising on earth, there were "old parts" laying around? Old parts of what exactly?

Thus, the point here is quite simple. It is ridiculously difficult to take existing structures that are very similar and combine them so that they maintain functionality.

And apparently in your view, before life on earth first developed there were "existing structures that are very similar" laying around, and they came from........something. Bizarre. :blink:

And for the sake of our discussion, if this is that difficult in maintaining functional folds and sequences in existing structures that already have functional capabilities, how much more difficult for such a structure to connect, fold and form in a functional way through random chance processes?

As soon as you show where any paper, textbook, or other scientific material describes the origin of life as a "random chance process", the above will be relevant. Until then, it's just you constantly repeating an ignorant creationist straw man.

I will respond to the rest later when time permits. I have a lot of work to get done today.

I hope you get around to either backing up your accusations against me, or retracting them.

 

[Wormwood]

Wow. So in sum, your argument remains...
1) "Darwinists" claim that life first arose by chance, even though you can't cite a single paper, textbook, or anything else saying so.

I just dont understand. I cited a prominent biology textbook site and their teaching on life origins. How are you not understanding this?

2) Life arising naturally is "mathematically impossible", even though you haven't shown any probability estimates for any origins scenario.

Again, you are making no sense. The scenarios I have cited involve the most base elements of single-cell functions. That is "science." Science deals with what we can observe and test. What we can currently and observe and test about the most basic cell structures of living organisms require things like proteins, cell-walls, etc. The mathematics I have been citing refer to scenarios by which such structures could be formed through chance events. You are diverting the discussion again by asking for the impossible. You are wanting math-based formulas that refer to the first cells on a primitive earth with an unknown ecology. That is the entire point. The whole origin of life argument in these textbooks referring to the rise of polymers from these base forms just assumes this happens and that somehow the primitive earth was conducive to such bewildering events...even though our current understanding of biology tells us this could never happen! Its no different than the creationist saying, "Well the oceans wouldnt have boiled off because the earth was much different then than it is today." How are you not understanding this very simple concept?

I honestly don't know what else to say to that.

That makes two of us.

But under origin of life scenarios, there are no living organisms nor are there old protein folds.
Do you understand that? Once you have living organisms that are conducting Darwinian searches for new protein folds by using old ones, the origin of life on earth is irrelevant.....life already exists!

Dont you understand that the research seeks to understand the flexibility of the protein structure in order to retain functionality? The point is quite simple. If the protein fold needs this type of precision that it cannot even hardly be combined with other, already functional protein folds and maintain stability....how likely would it be for such precise complexity to be formed at random? It is like saying, "If we cannot hardly get two existing functional computer programs to work together because of how precise the programming is for each individual program, how likely is it that we can get this type of precise programming by chance simply by jumbling a soup of binary digits in a massive pool over billions of years?" So, again, this is referring to the basic complexity needed for a protein which is vital to a living cell. Even the most simple proteins are ridiculously complex in their structures (and Axe does the math on how complex these folds and systems are and the chances of such combinations coming together and retaining function).

Again, lets look at a computer program by way of analogy. The question is, "Could such a program arise by chance?" We decide to look at the most basic elements of a computer program that allows it to work. We say, ok, the code is very complicated. In fact, the code is so complicated that even two already functioning codes cannot easily be joined together because the code is so precise that changes in the most basic code causes the entire program to lose stability. Then you come along and say, "This has nothing to do with how the codes came into existance. Once we have the computer code, what difference does it make as to how complex the most simple elements are? Its already there!" My point is, "Dont you see? Axe is showing how complex and specific these codes are! They cannot be altered hardly at all. Thus, the question is, how can such a precise system come about by chance? If existing functional codes have difficulty working together, how mcuh more difficult to get a functional code from binary scrap and random chance!?"

Sorry. gotta run

 

[River Jordan]

I just dont understand. I cited a prominent biology textbook site and their teaching on life origins. How are you not understanding this?

This is just getting weird. I can't figure out if you being so busy is preventing you from keeping track of this discussion, or if I'm just witnessing the defensive mechanisms you favor. This is the only textbook or other educational material you've posted in this thread:
http://study.com/academy/lesson/the-origin-of-life-on-earth-theories-and-explanations.html

Nowhere does it use the terms "random" or "by chance". It also describes the scenarios it covers as hypotheses.

Yet you keep claiming that the origin of life is taught as occurring by random chance, and as something that is factual.

The disconnect between what you keep claiming and the material you cited to support those claims is just bizarre, especially coming from someone who I've always thought of as a highly intelligent person. So in the interest of communication and mutual understanding, exactly where do you see that material advocating life arising by random chance and it being a settled fact? Actual quotes from the material would help.

Again, you are making no sense. The scenarios I have cited involve the most base elements of single-cell functions. That is "science." Science deals with what we can observe and test. What we can currently and observe and test about the most basic cell structures of living organisms require things like proteins, cell-walls, etc.

Really? You're actually arguing that resistance to ampicillin is a basic cell function?

The mathematics I have been citing refer to scenarios by which such structures could be formed through chance events.

Which is completely irrelevant to origin of life scenarios. Again, I don't know why you persist in this "by random chance" straw man, even though you can't cite a single textbook, scientific paper, or other material saying that's how it happened, but it's become obvious now that you're sticking with it regardless.

You are diverting the discussion again by asking for the impossible. You are wanting math-based formulas that refer to the first cells on a primitive earth with an unknown ecology. That is the entire point.

Exactly. You claimed that a natural origin of life is "mathematically impossible" even though you have zero probability calculations for any origin of life scenario. But for some absolutely bizarre reason I can't understand, you don't see that as an issue.

The whole origin of life argument in these textbooks referring to the rise of polymers from these base forms just assumes this happens and that somehow the primitive earth was conducive to such bewildering events...even though our current understanding of biology tells us this could never happen!

Again I'm baffled to see you behave like this. The only textbook you've cited (linked above) specifically describes origin of life scenarios as "hypotheses"....several times! But here you are claiming they present it like it's an established fact? Wow......just wow. :blink:

Dont you understand that the research seeks to understand the flexibility of the protein structure in order to retain functionality? The point is quite simple. If the protein fold needs this type of precision that it cannot even hardly be combined with other, already functional protein folds and maintain stability....how likely would it be for such precise complexity to be formed at random?

Again, I don't know why you persist in this "by random chance" straw man, even though you can't cite a single textbook, scientific paper, or other material saying that's how it happened.

So, again, this is referring to the basic complexity needed for a protein which is vital to a living cell.

I guess we can throw one more straw man on your pile, i.e., ampicillin resistance is a vital cellular function.

Again, lets look at a computer program by way of analogy. The question is, "Could such a program arise by chance?"

You know, it's like you've got this mantra in your head and you keep repeating like some sort of chant.....it couldn't happen by chance.....it couldn't happen by chance.....it couldn't happen by chance. And no matter how many times it's explained to you that no one says life arose "by random chance", and no matter that you can't cite a single scientific source saying "it happened by random chance", you just keep chanting.

Thus, the question is, how can such a precise system come about by chance? If existing functional codes have difficulty working together, how mcuh more difficult to get a functional code from binary scrap and random chance!?"

Bizarre. :wacko:

Sorry. gotta run

I went and read back through our current discussion since we started and I was shocked at just how much you've left on the table. All sorts of unanswered questions, requests for citations, and demands for support for your accusations against me.....all just ignored. Normally I try and be understanding because I know people are busy and places like this are mostly just for fun. But given some of the claims you've made and accusations you've leveled at me, I have to say it looks more like you not being able to back up much of what you've said, but not being willing to admit it either.

But right now I'd settle for you just doing a few things...

1) Show where a textbook, journal article, or other scientific material teaches that life first arose "by random chance".

2) Show where scientists treat origins like it's a settled issue.

3) Show any calculations that are actually related to any origins scenario (not calculations based on ampicillin resistance in modern organisms).

4) Back up any of your accusations against me.

 

[Wormwood]

Nowhere does it use the terms "random" or "by chance". It also describes the scenarios it covers as hypotheses.

RJ, you must be kidding me.

"It is agreed by scientists that there are four main stages to how life came from non-living things." This is what the publisher states. Then it goes on to list a series of events that defy logic and everything we know about the science of microbiology. That somehow these non-living elements came together in a step by step process to make non-living material into a living organism. You dont have to say, "by chance." It is obviously inferred and you know it. It would be no different than a creationist textbook saying, "It is hypothesized that a preexisting intelligence was the guiding force behind the development of the first life." Then you say, "Hey we cant say that! That's not science! That's nothing but saying "God did it!"" Then I respond with, "Nowhere does it say, "God did it." Besides, its just a "hypothesis!"" Give me a break. Your hypocrisy knows no bounds. You continually defend this non-science propaganda while bashing Christians who make the same faith-based claims as being anti-science. It is absurd.

Really? You're actually arguing that resistance to ampicillin is a basic cell function?

I really have to question your reading comprehension at this point. The point of the study was to draw larger speculations about cell functions as it relates to evolution and other processes. I even quoted sections for you to help you with this, River. You're going to have to show me how the study is NOT drawing these conclusions based on the quotes I shared. Just ignoring the author's implications by citing the specifics of the case study just tells me you either didnt read or understand the author's stated objectives and conclusions.

Exactly. You claimed that a natural origin of life is "mathematically impossible" even though you have zero probability calculations for any origin of life scenario. But for some absolutely bizarre reason I can't understand, you don't see that as an issue.

Based on this rationale, science does not even apply to prehistoric hypotheses. After all, how can we calculate anything about a scenario we dont understand? So who are you to mock the flood scenarios with oceans boiling off and other such nonsense. How can you "calculate" such a scenario when you have zero calculations for any ancient world flood scenarios? This is pure hypocrisy, once again. The Darwinist has free reign to imagine any impossible scenario to protect their plight for naturalism, but the creationist cannot.

1) Show where a textbook, journal article, or other scientific material teaches that life first arose "by random chance".

River, I gave you a link. I cannot help it if you dont read it. Just dont accuse me of not doing something you asked me to do because you dont take the time to look at the information. However, for the sake of others reading in, I will quote, with great specificity and with areas emphasized to prove the points...

Now that we know the basic steps hypothesized to go from non-living chemicals to life, you may be asking yourself how this all happened. While we don't have a complete record of what actually happened, based on evidence and experimentation, scientists have agreed upon a few things.
The first widely accepted idea was proposed by a Russian chemist in the 1920s. A.I. Oparin proposed that the Earth's early atmosphere was very reactive and, along with lightning and UV radiation, was able to reduce substances....Along with this highly reactive atmosphere, Oparin thought that the early oceans contained an organically rich solution. This solution containing many essential elements and compounds is commonly referred to as aprimordial soup. Based on this, we generally consider Oparin's hypothesis to be that early life on Earth formed through a series of reactions that made simple compounds gradually more complex.

The article goes on to refer to lack of oxygen on early earth, volcanic eruptions, water vapors and lightning strikes which would have caused these non-living materials to become living cells. So, that is what we call "chance." When you are relying on these elements coming together on their own followed by chance lightning strikes and UV radiation for these simple substances to somehow react to create their more complex kin. What it certainly is NOT is design. Nor is it scientifically provable or repeatable. It is nothing more than imagination conjuring up fantasies about what early earth was like and a series of absolutely impossible scenarios to bring non-living materials to life. I cant believe as a Christian you defend this type of stuff being taught by publishers of biology books. I thought we were supposed to be about science. You dont want Christians teaching hypothetical flood scenarios in the public school classroom (and I have no problem with that). Yet this you defend. Stunning.

2) Show where scientists treat origins like it's a settled issue.

Its settled so long as its root cause was pure naturalism. Of course it is not settled. They know their theories cant hold a drop of water! Yet they still publish things like, "While we don't have a complete record of what actually happened, based on evidence and experimentation, scientists have agreed upon a few things." Which, of course, makes it sound like these things are proven facts that we know happened. Nevermind there have been far more questions and problems raised by such theories than solutions. Yet this publisher makes it sound like, "Well, its pretty much all figured out minus a few details." Disgusting.

3) Show any calculations that are actually related to any origins scenario (not calculations based on ampicillin resistance in modern organisms).

Well I would point you to the work of the two mathematicians I cited earlier, but I know you will discount them because of their ties to Meyer. Of course the other source I quoted is "too old" to be considered and now the Axe source is getting discounted because it is dealing with present proteins rather than imaginary early life scenarios (of course if he were writing about such early earth scenarios, you would tear it apart saying, "How does he know that is what early earth and cells were like! Scientists have different theories!?"

4) Back up any of your accusations against me.

I am not making accusations. I have only made observations based on conversations we have had in the past. Are you denying that you have regularly discounted my past sources as "documented liars?"

 

[River Jordan]

You dont have to say, "by chance." It is obviously inferred and you know it.

Your argument then is: Textbooks teach that life first arose on earth by random chance. No textbook actually says that, but it is implied.

I have nothing to add and am content to let it speak for itself.

The point of the study was to draw larger speculations about cell functions as it relates to evolution and other processes. I even quoted sections for you to help you with this, River. You're going to have to show me how the study is NOT drawing these conclusions based on the quotes I shared.

Your argument then is: Scientists have taken a modern E. coli, disabled its enzyme that confers resistance to a modern antibiotic, and shown that the probability of re-evolving this enzyme by randomly substituting amino acids ten at a time is 1077. Therefore it is mathematically impossible for life on earth to have arisen by natural processes.

I have nothing to add and am content to let it speak for itself.

Based on this rationale, science does not even apply to prehistoric hypotheses. After all, how can we calculate anything about a scenario we dont understand? So who are you to mock the flood scenarios with oceans boiling off and other such nonsense. How can you "calculate" such a scenario when you have zero calculations for any ancient world flood scenarios?

Your argument then is: There is no difference between probability calculations and physics equations.

I have nothing to add and am content to let it speak for itself.

The article goes on to refer to lack of oxygen on early earth, volcanic eruptions, water vapors and lightning strikes which would have caused these non-living materials to become living cells. So, that is what we call "chance."

Your argument then is: When scientists say something occurred by natural means, that means it occurred by random chance (mathematically).

I have nothing to add and am content to let it speak for itself.

When you are relying on these elements coming together on their own followed by chance lightning strikes and UV radiation for these simple substances to somehow react to create their more complex kin. What it certainly is NOT is design. Nor is it scientifically provable or repeatable. It is nothing more than imagination conjuring up fantasies about what early earth was like and a series of absolutely impossible scenarios to bring non-living materials to life. I cant believe as a Christian you defend this type of stuff being taught by publishers of biology books. I thought we were supposed to be about science.

Your opinions are noted.

Its settled so long as its root cause was pure naturalism. Of course it is not settled. They know their theories cant hold a drop of water! Yet they still publish things like, "While we don't have a complete record of what actually happened, based on evidence and experimentation, scientists have agreed upon a few things." Which, of course, makes it sound like these things are proven facts that we know happened.

Your argument then is: When textbooks teach that something is a hypothesis, that is the same as teaching it as a proven fact.

I have nothing to add and am content to let it speak for itself.

Well I would point you to the work of the two mathematicians I cited earlier, but I know you will discount them because of their ties to Meyer. Of course the other source I quoted is "too old" to be considered

Your argument then is: You could show probability calculations that are actually about origins scenarios, but you won't because you already know I will discount them.

I have nothing to add and am content to let it speak for itself.

I am not making accusations

Yes you have (e.g., you accused me of slander). But I have absolutely zero expectations that you will ever do anything to back them up.

 

[Wormwood]

Your argument then is: Textbooks teach that life first arose on earth by random chance. No textbook actually says that, but it is implied.

Your argument then is: that a textbook teaching how life came to exist "from non-living things" based on a hypothesis of aprimodial soup -> amino acids -> monomers -> polymers + lightning strikes is not the same as teaching that life arose from random chance.

I have nothing to add and am content to let it speak for itself.

Your argument then is: Scientists have taken a modern E. coli, disabled its enzyme that confers resistance to a modern antibiotic, and shown that the probability of re-evolving this enzyme by randomly substituting amino acids ten at a time is 1077. Therefore it is mathematically impossible for life on earth to have arisen by natural processes.

Your argument then is: An article specifically written to assess the mathematics behind "such basic things as protein folding, stability, and evolution" in relation to cellular functions apparently has no value in determining how such basic, necessary cell functions could have developed by chance.

I have nothing to add and am content to let it speak for itself.

Your argument then is: There is no difference between probability calculations and physics equations.

Your argument then is: The environment of the early earth has no bearing on the physics behind the flood (never mind that most creationists postulate that most of the water "sprang from the deeps" rather than falling from the sky. Apparently you understand the "physics" of such a flood without any knowledge of the topography or makeup of pre-flood earth scenarios.

I have nothing to add and am content to let it speak for itself.

Your opinions are noted.

Unfortunately, the opinions of others are published in textbooks as "science." But that gets a pass so long as it isnt from the evil Christians.

Your argument then is: When textbooks teach that something is a hypothesis, that is the same as teaching it as a proven fact.

Your argument then is: When textbooks teach a hypothesis that projects completely impossible scenarios, it is okay so long as it relies upon a naturalistic worldview rather than a biblical one.

I have nothing to add and am content to let it speak for itself.

Yes you have (e.g., you accused me of slander). But I have absolutely zero expectations that you will ever do anything to back them up.

I was attempting to explain that comment by asking you a question. Your failure to answer the question has been noted.

 

[Dcopymope]

Your argument then is: that a textbook teaching how life came to exist "from non-living things" based on a hypothesis of aprimodial soup -> amino acids -> monomers -> polymers + lightning strikes is not the same as teaching that life arose from random chance.

I have nothing to add and am content to let it speak for itself.



Your argument then is: An article specifically written to assess the mathematics behind "such basic things as protein folding, stability, and evolution" in relation to cellular functions apparently has no value in determining how such basic, necessary cell functions could have developed by chance.

I have nothing to add and am content to let it speak for itself.


Your argument then is: The environment of the early earth has no bearing on the physics behind the flood (never mind that most creationists postulate that most of the water "sprang from the deeps" rather than falling from the sky. Apparently you understand the "physics" of such a flood without any knowledge of the topography or makeup of pre-flood earth scenarios.

I have nothing to add and am content to let it speak for itself.


Unfortunately, the opinions of others are published in textbooks as "science." But that gets a pass so long as it isnt from the evil Christians.


Your argument then is: When textbooks teach a hypothesis that projects completely impossible scenarios, it is okay so long as it relies upon a naturalistic worldview rather than a biblical one.

I have nothing to add and am content to let it speak for itself.


I was attempting to explain that comment by asking you a question. Your failure to answer the question has been noted.

This back and forth between you two sums up the typical discussion seen between so called "believers" like River Jordan and those who let the Bible speak for itself. It is exactly this discussion that is the reason why I believe that the largely secular scientific community will eventually adopt aspects of the intelligent design argument into the clownish theory of evolution that makes insane claims such as amino acids magically forming into proteins given enough time. Never been observed, never will be observed, yet many "scientific groups" promote it as if its a fact, like NASA with its alleged space program supposedly in search of such proof, can't find it here, so it must be or must have occurred on another planet. It will essentially be neo-darwinism or evolution in reverse. Instead of increasing complexity over time that has been the basis of evolution, the argument will instead be something akin to irreducible complexity, that all the faculties or components had to be present within the cell for life to evolve to begin with. It will be a major part of the biggest deception to come. I'll leave it at that for now.

 

[River Jordan]

Your argument then is: that a textbook teaching how life came to exist "from non-living things" based on a hypothesis of aprimodial soup -> amino acids -> monomers -> polymers + lightning strikes is not the same as teaching that life arose from random chance.

That is correct.

Your argument then is: An article specifically written to assess the mathematics behind "such basic things as protein folding, stability, and evolution" in relation to cellular functions apparently has no value in determining how such basic, necessary cell functions could have developed by chance.

Correct. My position is the fact that scientists have taken a modern E. coli, disabled its enzyme that confers resistance to a modern antibiotic, and shown that the probability of re-evolving this enzyme by randomly substituting amino acids ten at a time is 1077 has no bearing on whether it is mathematically impossible for life on earth to have arisen by natural processes, let alone "by chance".

Your argument then is: The environment of the early earth has no bearing on the physics behind the flood (never mind that most creationists postulate that most of the water "sprang from the deeps" rather than falling from the sky. Apparently you understand the "physics" of such a flood without any knowledge of the topography or makeup of pre-flood earth scenarios.

No, I never said anything of the sort. What I said is that moving entire continents across the planet, forming entire mountain ranges, and subducting whole seafloors...all simultaneously within a single year...according to the laws of physics would require so much energy that it would boil off the oceans, evaporate the atmosphere, and render the entire planet uninhabitable.

Unfortunately, the opinions of others are published in textbooks as "science." But that gets a pass so long as it isnt from the evil Christians.

That makes me wonder....just how do you propose science curricula be set? The current system generally relies on the primary viewpoints of the scientists who work in the fields that are relevant to the subject being taught. How would you change that?

Your argument then is: When textbooks teach a hypothesis that projects completely impossible scenarios, it is okay so long as it relies upon a naturalistic worldview rather than a biblical one.

Nice try, but I've never said anything like that at all.

I was attempting to explain that comment by asking you a question. Your failure to answer the question has been noted.

What question was that? Repost it and I'll do my best to answer.

 

[River Jordan]

This back and forth between you two sums up the typical discussion seen between so called "believers" like River Jordan and those who let the Bible speak for itself.

Before we proceed any further, I want to be clear on something. What you said above gives the very distinct impression that for you, this is primarily a faith issue. IOW, your starting point is to "let the Bible speak for itself" and everything else falls into line behind that. Is that correct?

 

[Dcopymope]

Before we proceed any further, I want to be clear on something. What you said above gives the very distinct impression that for you, this is primarily a faith issue. IOW, your starting point is to "let the Bible speak for itself" and everything else falls into line behind that. Is that correct?

Obviously

 

[River Jordan]

Obviously

Would you say that affects how you read and think about things from scientific sources? If so, how?

 

[Dcopymope]

Would you say that affects how you read and think about things from scientific sources? If so, how?

Not really, not when I'm looking at material that claims to be "scientific". If I look at it and it comes to some conclusion that's akin to 2 + 2 = 6, then I'm going to have a problem.

 

[River Jordan]

Not really, not when I'm looking at material that claims to be "scientific". If I look at it and it comes to some conclusion that's akin to 2 + 2 = 6, then I'm going to have a problem.

So you're saying the fact that 1) you see origins questions as primarily issues of faith rather than science, and 2) believe that all reality must line up behind your reading of the Genesis creation accounts....none of it has any effect at all on how you read and react to science that relates to origins (e.g., big bang cosmology, evolutionary biology)?

Do you understand how that seems extremely unlikely?

 

[Wormwood]

That is correct.

I find your views to be scarcely different from the Deism that was prominent hundreds of years ago. It is quite evident that these publishers are pushing random chance scenarios. Now you may not view a mixing of an aprimordial soup and lighting strikes as "random" but I think the rest of the planet earth does. I mean, there is a reason people say things like, "You have a better chance of getting struck by lightning."

Correct. My position is the fact that scientists have taken a modern E. coli, disabled its enzyme that confers resistance to a modern antibiotic, and shown that the probability of re-evolving this enzyme by randomly substituting amino acids ten at a time is 1077 has no bearing on whether it is mathematically impossible for life on earth to have arisen by natural processes, let alone "by chance".

Again, I think you are missing the purpose of the article. It is not merely referring to antibiotic resistance and I think the quotes I provided make that quite evident.

No, I never said anything of the sort. What I said is that moving entire continents across the planet, forming entire mountain ranges, and subducting whole seafloors...all simultaneously within a single year...according to the laws of physics would require so much energy that it would boil off the oceans, evaporate the atmosphere, and render the entire planet uninhabitable.

I wasn't aware that every flood theory demanded such events. Yet as crazy as that sounds, it doesnt sound half as crazy as the idea of a prehistoric puddle with a soup of non-living elements play pinball for a few billion years, coupled with some well-timed lightning strikes and a somewhat unimaginable atmosphere that would allow for catalysis to form a living cell...which then somehow finds a way to transfer its genetic code, duplicate itself, and then finds a way to mutate and form more complex codes which allow for the random development of new functional proteins and new cellular structures, which then begins to produce multi-cellular organisms which then mutate and are able to form basic plant and animal life forms which continually, randomly mutate until they are forming new organs, developing minds and even eventually even thumbs so billions of years later we can both sit at our computers and discuss how completely natural and plausible such events would be. However, let us not utter the word "miracle" because then discredit yourself as a "scientist." smh

That makes me wonder....just how do you propose science curricula be set? The current system generally relies on the primary viewpoints of the scientists who work in the fields that are relevant to the subject being taught. How would you change that?

Simply by teaching science. The textbook doesnt have to go into theories about how life arose or developed. It could say something like, "There are many theories about how life arose on the earth. Although we do not know exactly what transpired, we are gaining an ever increasing understanding about how life functions, adapts and evolves today..." Then you go on with the actual science without postulating about chance lightning strikes or Genesis accounts. Genesis accounts belong in religious education as does naturalism.

Sorry, got a busy day. Got to go.

 

[River Jordan]

It is quite evident that these publishers are pushing random chance scenarios. Now you may not view a mixing of an aprimordial soup and lighting strikes as "random" but I think the rest of the planet earth does.

Funny how "the rest of the planet" thinks that way, yet you can't cite a single scientific source actually saying so. Again, that you don't see the disconnect between your rhetoric and the material you cite is somewhat baffling.

I mean, there is a reason people say things like, "You have a better chance of getting struck by lightning."

Apparently you don't understand the statistical difference between lightning striking one person at a specific time and place, and lightning striking anywhere on a body of water over the course of thousands of years. Also, there is a fair bit of research into the question of types and amounts of lightning on the prebiotic earth, but given your overall approach to origins research to this point, I have no interest in trying to explain it to you.

Plus, I'm getting the sense that you think "by natural causes" is the same thing as "by random chance". Is that right?

Again, I think you are missing the purpose of the article. It is not merely referring to antibiotic resistance and I think the quotes I provided make that quite evident.

I'm sure that's what you think, but....oh well. Just out of curiosity, I went and looked at the list of journal articles that have cited Axe's 2004 paper. Now surely if this paper was really all about origin of life scenarios, then surely that would be reflected in the types of papers that cited it. But looking through that list, none of them are about origins. So again we see the disconnect between your rhetoric and the material you cite.

Also I have to wonder about the theological implications of how you're interpreting Axe's work. You seem to be arguing it is impossible for natural mechanisms to not only produce life, but to produce proteins as well. Of course that must mean you believe God is responsible for protein production. Specific to Axe's research, doesn't that mean you must believe God deliberately gives pathogens resistance to our antibiotics? After all, if such enzymes can't develop naturally, God must do it....right?

I wasn't aware that every flood theory demanded such events.

Sheesh....try and follow the discussion. The reason I went into all that about continental plates and mountain ranges is because that's what justaname presented and demanded I respond to.

Yet as crazy as that sounds, it doesnt sound half as crazy as the idea of a prehistoric puddle with a soup of non-living elements play pinball for a few billion years

So you still think of chemistry as molecules and atoms "playing pinball". Unbelievable.

coupled with some well-timed lightning strikes and a somewhat unimaginable atmosphere that would allow for catalysis to form a living cell...which then somehow finds a way to transfer its genetic code, duplicate itself, and then finds a way to mutate and form more complex codes which allow for the random development of new functional proteins and new cellular structures, which then begins to produce multi-cellular organisms which then mutate and are able to form basic plant and animal life forms which continually, randomly mutate until they are forming new organs, developing minds and even eventually even thumbs so billions of years later we can both sit at our computers and discuss how completely natural and plausible such events would be.

Thanks for posting that. It's a very clear indication of your approach to this subject and explains a lot of your rather bizarre behaviors in this thread. Obviously you have some very real issues with not only a natural origin of life, but with evolutionary theory as well. I guess that tells us what you'll do when origins researchers actually develop a natural pathway that goes from non-living molecules to life. Just like you've done with evolutionary theory, you'll rely exclusively on creationist organizations to tell you what the science is, how it was conducted, and what excuses to employ to wave it all away.

It's sad to see you limit yourself like that.

However, let us not utter the word "miracle" because then discredit yourself as a "scientist."

Just what do you think a "miracle" is?

Simply by teaching science. The textbook doesnt have to go into theories about how life arose or developed.

You objected to the textbook saying that origins researchers agreed on four stages in the development of life. But if it's true that pretty much all scientists in that field agree on those four stages, why shouldn't schools teach it?

It could say something like, "There are many theories about how life arose on the earth. Although we do not know exactly what transpired, we are gaining an ever increasing understanding about how life functions, adapts and evolves today..."

Do you honestly think that accurately reflects the general views of scientists researching origins?

Then you go on with the actual science without postulating about chance lightning strikes or Genesis accounts. Genesis accounts belong in religious education as does naturalism.

What "actual science"? And what do you mean by "naturalism"?

Sorry, got a busy day. Got to go.

The only think you had left to respond to was to post the question you claimed I didn't answer as it related to your accusation of slander. Funny how often you seem to run out of time right when it comes time to substantiate your accusations against me.

 

[Wormwood]

Funny how "the rest of the planet" thinks that way, yet you can't cite a single scientific source actually saying so. Again, that you don't see the disconnect between your rhetoric and the material you cite is somewhat baffling.

So life from non-living particles + lightning strikes is not what that source was saying? And that is not "random"? I don't know what good citing other sources would do when you cannot seem to see the very simple and plain points being made from the sources I have already cited.

Plus, I'm getting the sense that you think "by natural causes" is the same thing as "by random chance". Is that right?

Yeah, we have been over this. Since amino acids, monomers and so forth do not "naturally" catalyze into functional cell systems, then we must refer to chance by necessity due to the series of rapid events that must transpire in sequential order to result in non-living particles to join in such as way as to form a single living cell. I mean, dogs "naturally" give birth to dogs. Plants "naturally" produce O2. Puddles do not "naturally" produce living organisms. Thus, we must say that (apart from intelligent intervention) such particles coming together to form a living cell without intelligent intervention would be an astounding feat of sequences that defy logic such that all our current combined intelligence and manipulation cannot duplicate such an event. So yes, I am content to use the phrase "random chance."

Now surely if this paper was really all about origin of life scenarios, then surely that would be reflected in the types of papers that cited it. But looking through that list, none of them are about origins. So again we see the disconnect between your rhetoric and the material you cite.

Really? Are you sure about that? Why is it that one of the abstracts of the papers that cite Axe's work is summarized by the following....

Mere possibility is not an adequate basis for asserting scientific plausibility. A precisely defined universal bound is needed beyond which the assertion of plausibility, particularly in life-origin models, can be considered operationally falsified. But can something so seemingly relative and subjective as plausibility ever be quantified?

Hmm, so this paper specifically references "life-origin models." Oh, but I am sure I am misreading it and you will inform me about how this reference to life-origin models really isnt referring to life-origin models. It's no wonder we cannot progress in our conversation. You dont seem to be able to understand your own citations, nevermind the ones I cite.

Just what do you think a "miracle" is?

Something that defies what we know of natural processes...which is precisely what is alluded to in these life-origin hypotheses in textbooks. At least Christians are honest when they say they believe in a miracle. Apparently naturalists can proclaim the impossible all day and even argue that elephants can dance on their tails, so long as they label it a "scientific hypothesis." The hypocrisy is baffling.

Do you honestly think that accurately reflects the general views of scientists researching origins?

I dont think our kids should be taught the belief systems of Christians or naturalists in the classroom. 200 years ago most scientists believed God created the world in 6 days. That didnt make it science then (even if I believe this is true, I recognize it is based on my faith, not on "science" as such), and the idea that the majority of biologists may be naturalists today does not make their beliefs about origins any more scientific. You always seem to appeal to majority vote when you cannot back up these claims as legitimate science. Your line of thinking is the very thing that has inhibited science in the past due to the determination to promote an ideology (such as geocentrism) rather than what is actually provable. Its odd that the think you seem most frustrated with among fundamentalists is the thing you defend on the other side.

What "actual science"? And what do you mean by "naturalism"?

Science is defined as: the intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behavior of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment. Thus, these things involve theories and hypotheses that can be tested, projected and observed. It's fine to have a theory about how life arose based on present studies and our current understanding of the natural world. However, chapters devoted to projections about how non-life came to life and the enviornment, puddles and catalysis events that led to such a chain of events does NOT encompass what we understand about the structure or behavior of the physical and natural world, nor what our current observations and experiments indicate. Rather, our current observations and experiments suggest that these things would not have happened...and imagining hypothetical environments and atmospheres in order to make such a theory more plausible is a result of someone determined to defend their ideology...not someone promoting a scientific observation.

Naturalism is: a philosophical viewpoint according to which everything arises from natural properties and causes, and supernatural or spiritual explanations are excluded or discounted. Thus, naturalism is a worldview that specifically rejects and seeks to dismiss any view or ideas that intelligence (alien, supernatural or otherwise) could have had a role in life-origin scenarios. Even theistic evolution (which you seem to hold) would be rejected by naturalism a priori. Therefore, for the naturalist, they MUST find purely natural causes for all things and will not allow, under any circumstances, any intervention from concepts of intelligence or design to impact their thinking about such scenarios. This is not science. It is a philosophy. Early scientists were not naturalists, yet they did science (and quite well). However, today we have been peddled the notion that any belief in intelligence or a divine agent is antithetical to science. It is amazing to me that someone could hold or defend such a position given the fact that science itself was developed by theists.

The only think you had left to respond to was to post the question you claimed I didn't answer as it related to your accusation of slander. Funny how often you seem to run out of time right when it comes time to substantiate your accusations against me.

Well, I really was running late for an appointment, but if you want to imply that I was simply lying to avoid the topic, then there isnt much I can do about that.

My question was:


I am not making accusations. I have only made observations based on conversations we have had in the past. Are you denying that you have regularly discounted my past sources as "documented liars?"
The point I had made was that these discussions always derail because you accuse my sources of being liars. You claimed you never said such a thing. I responded that you hadnt yet, but in our past discussions you always tend to stop dealing with the topic and simply start attacking my sources. You asked me to back up those claims. I responded with the question: "Are you denying that you have regularly discounted my past sources as "documented liars"?

There...thats the question. We are caught up.

 

[River Jordan]

So life from non-living particles + lightning strikes is not what that source was saying? And that is not "random"?

Not statistically, no.

Yeah, we have been over this. Since amino acids, monomers and so forth do not "naturally" catalyze into functional cell systems, then we must refer to chance by necessity due to the series of rapid events that must transpire in sequential order to result in non-living particles to join in such as way as to form a single living cell. I mean, dogs "naturally" give birth to dogs. Plants "naturally" produce O2. Puddles do not "naturally" produce living organisms. Thus, we must say that (apart from intelligent intervention) such particles coming together to form a living cell without intelligent intervention would be an astounding feat of sequences that defy logic such that all our current combined intelligence and manipulation cannot duplicate such an event. So yes, I am content to use the phrase "random chance."

Then you've been basing your argument on your own unique, personal definition of "random chance", but never bothered to tell anyone. See, in statistics "random chance" means that all outcomes are equally probable, e.g., the typical "pick a card" scenarios where the probability of picking any one of the 52 cards in the deck is the same (1/52).

But as I kept trying to explain to you, the chemical processes involved in origins scenarios are the opposite of that. Given a mixture of atoms and molecules, all outcomes/combinations are not equally probable. This is what I tried to illustrate with the sparking a mixture of hydrogen and oxygen example, where getting H-H-H-O is not equally probable with getting H-H-O (water).

That's why your whole "by random chance" argument is one gigantic straw man that only resonates with your fellow creationists.

Really? Are you sure about that? Why is it that one of the abstracts of the papers that cite Axe's work

I read through the whole paper (twice) and it was.....well....very odd. I kept finding myself saying "What kind of paper is this?" There were all sorts of empty assertions, philosophical assertions, and other strange things that you almost never see in actual scientific work. And even being generous, all the author does is say that someone should apply Axe's results to origins scenarios, but he never says how that would be done.

So I did some checking and found this: Origin of Life Foundation not seeking origin of life.

In a nutshell, the "Origin of Life Science Foundation" the author claims to work for is the author in his suburban home. He doesn't do any actual experimental research into origins either.

I guess if you want to hang your hat on that, I'll let it speak for itself.

Something that defies what we know of natural processes

Under that reasoning, 200 years ago lighting was a miracle. So was an infection. Are you sure you want to stick to that definition?

I dont think our kids should be taught the belief systems of Christians or naturalists in the classroom. 200 years ago most scientists believed God created the world in 6 days. That didnt make it science then (even if I believe this is true, I recognize it is based on my faith, not on "science" as such), and the idea that the majority of biologists may be naturalists today does not make their beliefs about origins any more scientific. You always seem to appeal to majority vote when you cannot back up these claims as legitimate science. Your line of thinking is the very thing that has inhibited science in the past due to the determination to promote an ideology (such as geocentrism) rather than what is actually provable. Its odd that the think you seem most frustrated with among fundamentalists is the thing you defend on the other side.

All that and you didn't answer the question I asked. You said: "There are many theories about how life arose on the earth. Although we do not know exactly what transpired, we are gaining an ever increasing understanding about how life functions, adapts and evolves today..." I asked if you think that accurately reflects the views of scientists who work on origin life life scenarios. Do you?

Also, you missed this...

You objected to the textbook saying that origins researchers agreed on four stages in the development of life. But if it's true that pretty much all scientists in the field agree on those four stages, why shouldn't schools teach it?

Science is defined as: the intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behavior of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment. Thus, these things involve theories and hypotheses that can be tested, projected and observed.

Ok.

Naturalism is: a philosophical viewpoint according to which everything arises from natural properties and causes, and supernatural or spiritual explanations are excluded or discounted. Thus, naturalism is a worldview that specifically rejects and seeks to dismiss any view or ideas that intelligence (alien, supernatural or otherwise) could have had a role in life-origin scenarios.

I'm pretty sure we've covered this before, but it seems you're still conflating methodological naturalism with philosophical naturalism.

Given what you posted above, I'm curious as to why teaching the hypotheses about life's natural origins is such a problem for you, whereas teaching hypotheses about natural origins for other things isn't. For example, scientists still aren't completely sure what causes tornadoes to form at specific times and places. They're working on it, but it remains an unsolved mystery. Yet AFAIK, no meteorologists or climatologists are offering up supernatural explanations to fill in the gaps. Why doesn't that bother you the same way origins researchers doing the same thing does?

IOW, the bigger question here is, do you object to all natural explanations, or just a subset? Is your logic path something like this?

Scientists propose and work on purely natural explanations for X.

--therefore--

Scientists are excluding non-natural explanations, a priori.

--therefore--

Scientists are practicing philosophical naturalism.

--therefore--

When schools teach these explanations as science, they are indoctrinating students into philosophical naturalism.

--therefore--

Indoctrinating students into philosophical naturalism is no different than indoctrinating them into theism, yet the schools do not allow any sort of theism to be taught.

--therefore--

Because the schools are deliberately indoctrinating students into philosophical naturalism and excluding theism, they are in effect promoting atheism.

I am not making accusations. I have only made observations based on conversations we have had in the past. Are you denying that you have regularly discounted my past sources as "documented liars?"
The point I had made was that these discussions always derail because you accuse my sources of being liars. You claimed you never said such a thing. I responded that you hadnt yet, but in our past discussions you always tend to stop dealing with the topic and simply start attacking my sources. You asked me to back up those claims. I responded with the question: "Are you denying that you have regularly discounted my past sources as "documented liars"?

Then you're going to have to show where I merely asserted that one of your sources was a documented liar.

There...thats the question. We are caught up.

Not quite. You missed this too:

Also I have to wonder about the theological implications of how you're interpreting Axe's work. You seem to be arguing it is impossible for natural mechanisms to not only produce life, but to produce proteins as well. Of course that must mean you believe God is responsible for protein production. Specific to Axe's research, doesn't that mean you must believe God deliberately gives pathogens resistance to our antibiotics? After all, if such enzymes can't develop naturally, God must do it....right?

 

[Wormwood]

Not statistically, no.

Good point. Statistically, its as close to impossible as one can imagine. It's about the odds of filling our entire galaxy with white golf balls and sticking one red one in the midst of the mass of white ones and asking a blindfolded person to select the red one.

But as I kept trying to explain to you, the chemical processes involved in origins scenarios are the opposite of that. Given a mixture of atoms and molecules, all outcomes/combinations are notequally probable. This is what I tried to illustrate with the sparking a mixture of hydrogen and oxygen example, where getting H-H-H-O is not equally probable with getting H-H-O (water).
That's why your whole "by random chance" argument is one gigantic straw man that only resonates with your fellow creationists.

And as I have kept trying to explain to you, the chemical processes involved in origins are IMPOSSIBLE. The scenarios requires to create the chemical combinations and catalysis are just impossible. You need extreme temperatures, rapid sequences of processes that must take place in a specific order in order to even make it somewhat plausible...and in a natural setting, these things wouldnt happen like that. Moreover, you need an atmosphere very foreign to the one we currently have, as well as some unforseen way in which RNA could mimic the properties of advanced proteins (which they do not do). The point is, what we know about chemical processes RESIST such events from happening. This is why we cannot do this in a lab, even when we manipulate the environment and try to force these sequences to take place rapidly. Chemical properties resist such events, they do not aid it..as you seem to imply. You are the one building straw men by implying these things would naturally occur, when real science shows us that not only do they not, but we cannot force them to occur given all our intelligence and manipulation of these base structures.

I read through the whole paper (twice) and it was.....well....very odd. I kept finding myself saying "What kind of paper is this?" There were all sorts of empty assertions, philosophical assertions, and other strange things that you almost never see in actual scientific work. And even being generous, all the author does is say that someone should apply Axe's results to origins scenarios, but he never says how that would be done.

Well, I guess that I will take that as an admission that you were wrong when you said not one of the papers refers to origins.

Under that reasoning, 200 years ago lighting was a miracle. So was an infection. Are you sure you want to stick to that definition?

Um, "something that defies what we know of natural processes..." That is the definition of miracle. "A miracle is an event not explicable by natural or scientific laws." It seems that if I say it, you are going to object...not matter what it is. What exactly is your point?

I asked if you think that accurately reflects the views of scientists who work on origin life life scenarios. Do you?

I believe the work of origin of life scenarios have not come to any conclusive results on how or why. There are creationists doing research on how the earth could be very young but "has the appearance of age." Should that be taught in the textbooks simply because they are doing research based on a worldview...regardless of how conclusive that research is? Research is done by groups all the time in all sorts of fields. It doesnt demand that it should all be placed in a High School text book. Leave that for college and elective courses on biology and life-origins research.

But if it's true that pretty much all scientists in the field agree on those four stages, why shouldn't schools teach it?

Pretty much all the scientists 200 years ago believed in geocentrism too.

I'm pretty sure we've covered this before, but it seems you're still conflating methodological naturalism with philosophical naturalism.

When you are dealing with origins scenarios and imagining different atmospheres and practically impossible chains of events occurring in rapidly unnatural sequences to make your theory fly...then that is philosophical naturalism. The theory is not based on what is observed. It is based in the philosophy of "well we assume it could not have involved intelligence..so we must find how it could have happened naturally, even if all we currently know of these processes says it would not have happened." That is no different from what some creationists do. They resist popular opinion on what is known (in some areas) because they believe their worldview best explains the world...even if what is observed doesnt support some of those presuppositions. Hey, I am fine with that. Lets allow people to have and do research based on their worldviews. Lets just not peddle it off as a "conclusive" finding that should be taught to kids. The theory is based in philosophical naturalism...period.

Scientists propose and work on purely natural explanations for X.

--therefore--

Scientists are excluding non-natural explanations, a priori.

--therefore--

Scientists are practicing philosophical naturalism.

--therefore--

When schools teach these explanations as science, they are indoctrinating students into philosophical naturalism.

--therefore--

Indoctrinating students into philosophical naturalism is no different than indoctrinating them into theism, yet the schools do not allow any sort of theism to be taught.

--therefore--

Because the schools are deliberately indoctrinating students into philosophical naturalism and excluding theism, they are in effect promoting atheism.

This is a straw man. That is not how the scenarios goes and you know it. When the theories fly in the face of what is observed, that is when the problem arises. I expect science to be based in natural causes and effects. What I do not expect is for unnatural scenarios to be conjured up in order to explain hypothetical origins events that exclude intelligence. You see, the problem is when you teach a theory that actually OPPOSES what we observe of how life could form from non-life. Do you see the difference?

Then you're going to have to show where I merely asserted that one of your sources was a documented liar.

Sure thing. I'll post the links sometime later today...but I expect no admissions of guilt. Im not that naive.