A simple case for intelligent design

[Jose Fly]

Is that a joke? If we accept taxonomically that a land animal eventually birthed a dolphin, ALL those SYSTEMS had to be in place simultaneously in a single (or very few) generations.

Again, your level of ignorance on this subject, despite your years of debating it, is astounding.

 

[Jose Fly]

I am just saying that there are no good reasons to conclude beyond reasonable doubt that abiogenesis occurred naturally

Yeah there are. At the very least, the fact that no matter where we look in the universe, all we see are natural processes is a good start. Then when we look at unicellular organisms, all we see going on inside them are natural processes. Put those two very basic observations together and it's entirely reasonable to figure that the first life arose via natural means.

Then we can add in the question....what non-natural process would we even consider as an alternative possibility? As far as I'm aware, none have been proposed. So in the absence of an alternative, we go with the most reasonable hypothesis that's most consistent with our observations.

 

[leroy]

Statistically thermodynamics? Please don’t tell me you think the 2nd principle would not allow that. You would only confirm what I think about creationists scientific knowledge. And common sense. Nobody would become a complex adult after conception if the 2nd principle would not allow local increases of complexity.

And nobody has ever seen life being created supernaturally either. Actually, we know the natural exists, while the supernatural is mere conjecture without a shred of evidence. And I have been generous to use “a shred”.

But you still owe me an answer. I already answered positevely to your challenge, but you seem very shy to do the same, for some reason.

So, third try...

Evolution by natural selection could account for the complexity of life as we observe today. Do you grant this point?

And please, stay focused. Do not try to deny evolution by natural selection by arguments concerning the origin of the first cell. They are two completely different things.

Ciao

- viole

Yes evolution by natural selection could account for the complexity of life, (I personally agree) but some scientist (neutralist for example) would argue that the main mechanism is genetic drift.

I personally would say that guided mutations + natural selection account for the complexity of life, but I am aware of the fact that other mechanisms have been proposed and I know that there is a realistic possibility that I might be wrong.

Your logic of: “nature exists therefore nurture can do whatever I what to feed my world vie is stupid. “

If we ever find something that looks like a pyramid which conclution would be more obvious:

1 Nature did it because we know that nature exists

Or

2 an intelligent designer (an alien maybe) did it, even though we don’t know a priori if aliens exists?

Not to mention that I am not claiming that you most conclude that “natural abiogenesis” is wrong, al I am saying is that there is room for reasonable doubt.

 

[leroy]

Yeah there are. At the very least, the fact that no matter where we look in the universe, all we see are natural processes is a good start. Then when we look at unicellular organisms, all we see going on inside them are natural processes. Put those two very basic observations together and it's entirely reasonable to figure that the first life arose via natural means.

Then we can add in the question....what non-natural process would we even consider as an alternative possibility? As far as I'm aware, none have been proposed. So in the absence of an alternative, we go with the most reasonable hypothesis that's most consistent with our observations.

Well the alternative that I propose is Intelligent design, we know that the existence of a designer that predates life in this planet (ether God or an Alien or another kind of designer) is possible. There is nothing that suggests that the existence of a designer is impossible.


We know that an intelligent designer could create life if he what,

And together with the fact that every single observation and experiment confirms that life can not be created from non life naturally..Render ID as a possible explanation.

 

[Polymath257]

Well the alternative that I propose is Intelligent design, we know that the existence of a designer that predates life in this planet (ether God or an Alien or another kind of designer) is possible. There is nothing that suggests that the existence of a designer is impossible.

Depends a bit on how far back you go. You need the atoms for the designer to be formed from and those don't go back all that far.

We know that an intelligent designer could create life if he what,

We do???

And together with the fact that every single observation and experiment confirms that life can not be created from non life naturally..Render ID as a possible explanation.

Again, we *only* see life forming from natural processes. Life itself *is* a natural process. ID is so far down the list as to be ignorable.

 

[leroy]

Well, that is *precisely* the point. Are there such mechanisms? And we know that chemical processes *can* be self-organizing and produce structure. it is the chemical attractions between the atoms that provide the mechanisms.



Yes, thermodynamics doesn't completely determine the dynamics. The energy of the interactions needs to be taken into consideration.



Actually, there is. It is called energy minimization. And, guess what? it is entropy that drives this self-organization! it does so because heat is released into the environment and that increases overall entropy, even though structure is formed locally.

One big issue is that entropy is NOT the same as 'disorder'. That is a popular description, but it is not fully accurate. When water freezes, it becomes more ordered. There is a release of heat into the environment, which increases overall entropy. But it is the attraction of the water molecules to each other that drives that energy release.

In the amino acids in your example, the chemical attraction between the atoms and molecules is what provides the energy and mechanism for the development of structure. The release of heat makes the overall entropy increase.

Again, how do you go from “Chemestry” can create some order, to “therefore chemistry can create the particular order of amonoacis that personally need to fit my world view”… the fact is that there is not a natural mechanism that “forces” amino acids to organice themselves in to self replicating proteins.

Lets see if we can agree on something

1 We know that chemical self organizing chemical mechanism excist, but we don’t kwo if the particular mechanism that would create abiogenesis exists.

2 We know that intelligent designers exist (humans for example) but we don’t know if the particular designer that we need for abiogenesis excists

Do you agree with 1 and 2? If yes, would it be fait to say that at these point ID and naturalism are even? Is there any additional evidence for natural abiogenesis, that would put the balance at your side?

 

[Polymath257]

Again, how do you go from “Chemestry” can create some order, to “therefore chemistry can create the particular order of amonoacis that personally need to fit my world view”… the fact is that there is not a natural mechanism that “forces” amino acids to organice themselves in to self replicating proteins.

Lets see if we can agree on something

1 We know that chemical self organizing chemical mechanism excist, but we don’t kwo if the particular mechanism that would create abiogenesis exists.

But we *do* know that many processes related to those in life are, in fact, spontaneous and occur naturally.

2 We know that intelligent designers exist (humans for example) but we don’t know if the particular designer that we need for abiogenesis excists

And given our knowledge, no other designers have been around.

Do you agree with 1 and 2? If yes, would it be fait to say that at these point ID and naturalism are even? Is there any additional evidence for natural abiogenesis, that would put the balance at your side?

Well, the amount of chemistry that has already been done showing how natural processes can do many of the early steps towards life. And the lack of any evidence of other designers.

 

[leroy]

Depends a bit on how far back you go. You need the atoms for the designer to be formed from and those don't go back all that far.



We do???



Again, we *only* see life forming from natural processes. Life itself *is* a natural process. ID is so far down the list as to be ignorable.

We only see life coming from preexisting life.

But we know that at least the first living thing had to be an exception.

Why are you assuming with nearly 100% certainty that a natural mechanism (and not an intelligent designer) was responsible?

We have never seen such natural mechanism and we have never seen such designer, so why is naturalism superior to design?

 

[Polymath257]

We only see life coming from preexisting life.

But we know that at least the first living thing had to be an exception.

Why are you assuming with nearly 100% certainty that a natural mechanism (and not an intelligent designer) was responsible?

We have never seen such natural mechanism and we have never seen such designer, so why is naturalism superior to design?

We know life is a chemical process. There is nothing 'non-physical' about it. why would we assume a non-physical mechanism is required for it to form?

A physical mechanism is superior because *all* we have ever seen is physical mechanisms. And we know that life is a physical process.

 

[leroy]

Well, the amount of chemistry that has already been done showing how natural processes can do many of the early steps towards life. And the lack of any evidence of other designers.

Ooh, so you already have many steps? Good to know, can you show that any of the steps leading from aminoacids to self replicating molecules took place?...I was not aware of those discoveries


So you already have all the aminoacis in any ratio that you what?.....whats next? Please show that some of the steps took place

 

[leroy]

We know life is a chemical process. There is nothing 'non-physical' about it. why would we assume a non-physical mechanism is required for it to form?

A physical mechanism is superior because *all* we have ever seen is physical mechanisms. And we know that life is a physical process.

Well then why assuming that airplanes can not be created naturally from junkyards? Airplanes are physical objects, so why inferring the existence of a designer.

The reason why you need a designer is because airplains have many parts that have to be placed in a very particular order and pattern, the same is true with life, you need to place amino acids in a very specific order and pattern in order to produce life (self replicating proteins.)

As far as we know there is nothing in the laws of nature that prevent any other of the trillions and trillions of possible patterns, Iron, aluminion, rober, plastic etc. can be organiced in many possible ways, but only 1 (or few) combinations would produce a functional airplane, the same is true with amonacids, the laws of nature allow for trillions and trillions of different patterns, but only 1 (or few) would produce self replicating proteins.

In this analogy the junk yard would be the primordial soup, and the airplain would be “life”

Honestly where does my analogy fails?

 

[exchemist]

Aha, and how do you go from “nylon rope trick” to therefore abiogenesis occurred by a natural mechanisms, you are obviously missing some steps.

What researchers in abiogenesis have found in the last years is that abiogneesis as a grater problem that previously thought. I am not claiming that there is a conspiracy theory I am just saying that there are no good reasons to conclude beyond reasonable doubt that abiogenesis occurred naturally, and so far you haven’t presented arguments to the contrary. You believe by faith that such mechanism exist, we are dealing we stuff that we can actually observe, we know what aminoacids are, we know how can they react and we know that they don’t organize themselves in to self replicating molecules.

Your stuff about thermodynamics is irrelevant, since I am talking about statistical thermodynamics.

- The fist self replicating protein had less entropy than the “primodial soup”

- There is no known mechanism that would create order from disorder in the “soup”

- Every single observation indicates that amonacids don’t organize themselves natural in to self replicating proteins. ¿what else do you what?

I am not even asking you to show that the whole process is true, I am already making generous assumtons, we are assuming that all aminoacids can be created naturally, we are assuming that you can have a “warm little pond” with any ratio of aminoacids that you might find convenient, we are also assuming any environment that you might find convenient, we are assuming the precense of sugars, or any other molecules that you might find convenient. ¿why did amino acids organice themselves in to self replicating proteins? All the evidence that we have to date indicates that aminoacuds don’t have any bias towards creating that pattern.



Is there anything that would convince you that “natural abiogneisis” is probably not true? It seems to me that no matter what observations are made, no matter what experiments are made, you will never doubt “natural abiogenesis”

Eh? What on Earth gives you the idea that ordinary, macroscopic-scale thermodynamics is "irrelevant" to statistical thermodynamics? Stat TD is the theory of how the kinetic theory of matter and quantum theory, between them, give rise to macroscopic thermodynamics. They are not different: one is the explanation of how the other arises and is thus a seamless extension of it. (Stat TD and QM are the two great pillars on which almost the whole of physical chemistry is based so I've spent quite a bit of time on them at university.)

I should point out that the 2nd Law of TD, which you have been so keen to suggest prohibits life arising naturally, is not Stat TD at all. It was developed in relation to heat engines, by Clausius, about half a century before Stat TD. The only tiny bit of Stat TD you are implicitly using, probably without realising it, is Boltzmann's equation S=k log W (inscribed on his tombstone in Vienna, rather touchingly). I could write a paragraph on what W is and is not, but it wouldn't be very illuminating unless you know some quantum theory.

The suggestion that thermodynamics prohibits life arising naturally is the false idea that I have been anxious to nail in this discussion. I have demonstrated to you in this set of posts that there is nothing in chemical thermodynamics that prohibits a natural origin of biochemistry and thus life.

You can argue separately against abiogenesis on other grounds if you like, for myself and others to dispute. But drop the falsehoods about thermodynamics, please.

 

[exchemist]

I think I understand:

1) A science hypothesis must be eminently testable/verifiable/falsifiable to be even a candidate for reasoning/testing.
2) We cannot logically test for conditions, therefore, outside the known universe.
3) Therefore, taking any Bible statements for possible gedanken, even where such gedanken might provide a plausible alternative for dark energy or current inexplicable expansion of space is verboten.

Summing 1-3 from you, it is inappropriate for us to THINK when studying the Bible.

No need for hysterical overstatements of what I said. Why use the German word for "forbidden", when I used neither? But indeed the bible is not a promising place to look for science hypotheses, since it was mostly written thousands of years ago by tribal herdsmen.

And again, drawing the conclusion that I am telling you not to think when studying the bible is hysterical over-reaction. I certainly think when studying the bible. But I do not use it as a science textbook.

Re (1) and (2) yes that's right - as far as a scientific approach to the world goes. Though there are other approaches of course.

 

[leroy]

Eh? What on Earth gives you the idea that ordinary, macroscopic-scale thermodynamics is "irrelevant" to statistical thermodynamics? Stat TD is the theory of how the kinetic theory of matter and quantum theory, between them, give rise to macroscopic thermodynamics. They are not different: one is the explanation of how the other arises and is thus a seamless extension of it. (Stat TD and QM are the two great pillars on which almost the whole of physical chemistry is based so I've spent quite a bit of time on them at university.)

I should point out that the 2nd Law of TD, which you have been so keen to suggest prohibits life arising naturally, is not Stat TD at all. It was developed in relation to heat engines, by Clausius, about half a century before Stat TD. The only tiny bit of Stat TD you are implicitly using, probably without realising it, is Boltzmann's equation S=k log W (inscribed on his tombstone in Vienna, rather touchingly). I could write a paragraph on what W is and is not, but it wouldn't be very illuminating unless you know some quantum theory.

The suggestion that thermodynamics prohibits life arising naturally is the false idea that I have been anxious to nail in this discussion. I have demonstrated to you in this set of posts that there is nothing in chemical thermodynamics that prohibits a natural origin of biochemistry and thus life.

You can argue separately against abiogenesis on other grounds if you like, for myself and others to dispute. But drop the falsehoods about thermodynamics, please.

Statistically speaking, the small little pond would have high entropy, because amino acids would be organize in some random order, and self replicating molecules would have low entropy because they would be organized in a very specific pattern.

You can in theory add potential energy to the little pond and claim that entropy and claim that the entropy of the pond was reduced, but it still won’t help the aminoacids to organize themselves in the correct order, this is why your stuff about energy is irrelevant.

 

[Jose Fly]

Well the alternative that I propose is Intelligent design, we know that the existence of a designer that predates life in this planet (ether God or an Alien or another kind of designer) is possible.

No we don't. We've never seen or detected such a "designer".

There is nothing that suggests that the existence of a designer is impossible.

That's not the standard. In science you don't get to just make something up off the top of your head and then say "well it's not impossible, right?".

We know that an intelligent designer could create life if he what

You can't say that until you've first established that this "designer" exists. You've not done that.

And together with the fact that every single observation and experiment confirms that life can not be created from non life naturally..Render ID as a possible explanation.

Again, all you're doing here is committing the fallacy of argument from ignorance.

 

[Polymath257]

Well then why assuming that airplanes can not be created naturally from junkyards? Airplanes are physical objects, so why inferring the existence of a designer.

The aluminum in the airplanes doesn't have the attractive power to do that. The attractions between atoms in organic compounds does. Demonstrably so.

The reason why you need a designer is because airplains have many parts that have to be placed in a very particular order and pattern, the same is true with life, you need to place amino acids in a very specific order and pattern in order to produce life (self replicating proteins.)

No, we need a designer for an airplane because the parts themselves are relatively inert and do not spontaneously assemble. We know that organic compounds related to life do.

As far as we know there is nothing in the laws of nature that prevent any other of the trillions and trillions of possible patterns, Iron, aluminion, rober, plastic etc. can be organiced in many possible ways, but only 1 (or few) combinations would produce a functional airplane, the same is true with amonacids, the laws of nature allow for trillions and trillions of different patterns, but only 1 (or few) would produce self replicating proteins.

In this analogy the junk yard would be the primordial soup, and the airplain would be “life”

Honestly where does my analogy fails?

The part of the airplane are not chemically active (we don't want them to be--it would hurt the operation of the airplane--except for the fuel). The parts that make up living systems are *very* reactive chemically. They are NOT inert. The atoms do, in fact, have preferred ways to assemble. They do, in fact, tend towards lower energy states, which gives rise to structures.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Statistically speaking, the small little pond would have high entropy, because amino acids would be organize in some random order, and self replicating molecules would have low entropy because they would be organized in a very specific pattern.

You can in theory add potential energy to the little pond and claim that entropy and claim that the entropy of the pond was reduced, but it still won’t help the aminoacids to organize themselves in the correct order, this is why your stuff about energy is irrelevant.

You continually misunderstand what the laws of thermodynamics say. At that level thermodynamics is only about the energy available for work. If the formation of long chain molecules lowers the energy available for work, and that is exactly what those chemical reactions do, then there will be a higher entropy after the formation of those chains than before. You are mistakenly trying to apply what is observed at a macro scale to a micro scale. That is a misinterpretation of the Second Law. By your poor reasoning you could not advance from a single cell to your present state.

 

[viole]

Yes evolution by natural selection could account for the complexity of life, (I personally agree) but some scientist (neutralist for example) would argue that the main mechanism is genetic drift.

I personally would say that guided mutations + natural selection account for the complexity of life, but I am aware of the fact that other mechanisms have been proposed and I know that there is a realistic possibility that I might be wrong.

Your logic of: “nature exists therefore nurture can do whatever I what to feed my world vie is stupid. “

If we ever find something that looks like a pyramid which conclution would be more obvious:

1 Nature did it because we know that nature exists

Or

2 an intelligent designer (an alien maybe) did it, even though we don’t know a priori if aliens exists?

Not to mention that I am not claiming that you most conclude that “natural abiogenesis” is wrong, al I am saying is that there is room for reasonable doubt.

Cool. But that entails that you also accept the possibility that what looks like the most exquisite design, could be the product of a long sequence of unconscious natural steps., with no guidance, nor intentionality, nor ultimate purpose at all.

I understand that you do not find that plausible, but accepting the possibility is a progress.

Concerning your analogy with observing the pyramids, I agree that if i saw a pyramid like that on another planet I would also immediately suspect an intelligence.

And that is probably because pyramids, with an internal complex structure, are not necessarily in competition with other pyramids and subject to a process of natural selection that could provide an alternative for their complexity. Althought, a little possibility for something similar to my previous ant colony example, could still be possible.

But in general I am very skeptical of my intuition. Since I “believe” that my brain is the product of those many unconscious steps,mainly rewarding survival fitness, and not necessarily fitness to find truths, I am aware that my intuition is totally unreliable. So, like my belief forming systems.

And that is why science is such an effective tool. Agreement with experiment is the sole arbiter of what passes the test and what not. No matter how much our brains complains, and no matter how many cognitive dissonances that might create.

And if a claim is not testable, nor subject to validation by some objective means independent from the machine in our skull, then it cannot be right. It cannot even be wrong.

Ciao

- viole

 

[exchemist]

Statistically speaking, the small little pond would have high entropy, because amino acids would be organize in some random order, and self replicating molecules would have low entropy because they would be organized in a very specific pattern.

You can in theory add potential energy to the little pond and claim that entropy and claim that the entropy of the pond was reduced, but it still won’t help the aminoacids to organize themselves in the correct order, this is why your stuff about energy is irrelevant.

Ah well, the ordering of amino acids is a different question, I grant you. That is not a matter of mere thermodynamics, of course, I quite agree. Nobody, so far as I know, claims thermodynamics on its own is enough to bring life to pass. There obviously has to be a whole set of circumstances of available chemistry and environment. My "stuff about energy" is relevant only to the point I am making, which is that thermodynamics does not provide any reason to rule out a natural origin for life.

 

[Jose Fly]

Ah well, the ordering of amino acids is a different question, I grant you. That is not a matter of mere thermodynamics, of course, I quite agree. Nobody, so far as I know, claims thermodynamics on its own is enough to bring life to pass. There obviously has to be a whole set of circumstances of available chemistry and environment. My "stuff about energy" is relevant only to the point I am making, which is that thermodynamics does not provide any reason to rule out a natural origin for life.

Well, this is why discussion with @leroy is particularly frustrating.....he doesn't seem to internalize anything anyone says to him.

Earlier in this thread, back on October 5 I pointed out to him that his arguing against self-ordering of amino acids was a straw man (CLICK HERE). Also, you'll see in that post me calling him out for arguing from ignorance.

Now here we are over a month later and what is leroy doing? Arguing against self-ordering of amino acids and arguing from ignorance.

The term "brick wall" comes to mind.