A simple case for intelligent design

[gnostic]

have provided short definition for specifiec complexity multiple times, and you failed to understand the concept, I linked an article that explains the concept in more detail, and you don’t what to reed it…..honestly you are not willing to at least try to understand the concept of specified complexity.

Sorry, leroy, but I have to point out to you, that in almost every single posts you have made, in your own thread, you have only made some assumptions that biological matters (eg DNA) is complex, which you would imply "design". That's just purely faulty equivocation and speculation, not evidences for ID.

You have shown no scientific sources with data that can be verified and reviewed, and you certainly haven't shown evidences to support this speculation of yours that complexity = designed.

The thing is that your definition of complexity falls far short to be of scientific use and lack evidences to have any scientific merit.

And everyone here (not just in your thread) as well as everyone else (eg Discovery Institute members and creationists) who have ever advocate for Intelligent Design, have never been able to provide evidences for this Designer.

It is this Designer that make the whole ID concept falls apart, because in order for ID to be true, it needs evidences that the Designer actually exist, and not simply implied, as you have been doing repeatedly.

Some parts of abiogenesis, have already being tested.

Do you remember what is abiogenesis?

It is about finding the origin of life that would occur naturally. One of the steps, is to figure out how to turn inorganic matters (more precisely “inorganic molecules”) into organic matters (more precisely “organic molecules” or “organic compounds”).

The successful experiment of Miller-Urey, demonstrated how inorganic matters can be chemically turn into amino acids, which is an organic compound.

Amino acid isn’t alive, but such an experiment, is just the first step in abiogenesis, it does not fully validate the whole of abiogenesis. Hence, abiogenesis is a work-in-progress hypothesis.

 

[leroy]

Sure. it is quite reasonable to be skeptical about the mechanisms.

Nice try, is it reasonable to be skeptic about this statement “life had a natural origin”

Well, a first thing required to show that abiogenesis is invalid would be to show *anything* that isn't from a natural source.

You car for example, it was created by an intelligent designer, not by a natural mechanism.

Hmm...everything I have seen points exactly in the opposite direction: making the RNA world hypothesis *more* likely.

Take for example this problems

RNA is too complex a molecule to have arisen prebiotically

RNA is inherently unstable

catalysis is a relatively rare property of long RNA sequences only

the catalytic repertoire of RNA is too limited

what science has done is confirm that these problems are greater than previously thought, new discoveries tend to make these problems harder to solve. + the fact that these problems are specific to the RNA world hypothesis, there are docens of other problems that would apply to all abiogenesis theories.

Each of these problems by itself should be a show stopper for naturalism,

Except, of course, for strands that form in the presence of certain types of clay (which are chiral).

The chirality problem has not been solved; “clay” models also fail. (feel free to explain your favorite hypothesis and I will tell you why doesn’t it fail.

Well, any number of purported roadblocks to abiogenesis have been proposed and shown to be invalid. This goes back to the production of organic compounds non-biologically, to the formation of amino acids, to the production of polymers, to the formation of double walled vesicles, to the formation of RNA,etc, etc, etc. Any one of these could have falsified the whole, but instead they have shown to not be nearly the obstacles that were suggested.

RNA-LIKE molecules where created in a lab, by smart intelligent designers, not by natural mechanisms.

Polymers tend to disintegrate, they dont tend to become more complex,
And even more important, there is no tendency towards creating the specified pattern required to produce RNA, (or some other self replicating molecule)



Aminoacids are to DNA what ink is to a book. Sure some natural mechanism can create ink, but that wouldn’t imply that a book with meaningful words and sentences can also be created naturally, not to mention that few (if any) amino acids have been shown to be naturally occurring,

 

[Polymath257]

Nice try, is it reasonable to be skeptic about this statement “life had a natural origin”

You car for example, it was created by an intelligent designer, not by a natural mechanism.

An intelligent designer *using* natural mechanisms. And we already know there are intelligent agents acting. First show the intelligent agent, then claim something as its work.

Take for example this problems

RNA is too complex a molecule to have arisen prebiotically

RNA is inherently unstable

catalysis is a relatively rare property of long RNA sequences only

the catalytic repertoire of RNA is too limited

what science has done is confirm that these problems are greater than previously thought, new discoveries tend to make these problems harder to solve. + the fact that these problems are specific to the RNA world hypothesis, there are docens of other problems that would apply to all abiogenesis theories.

Actually, exactly the opposite is the case. Each and every one of these is *less* an issue than originally thought.

Each of these problems by itself should be a show stopper for naturalism,

And they could be except that the issues tend to disappear when appropriate mechanisms are discovered.

The chirality problem has not been solved; “clay” models also fail. (feel free to explain your favorite hypothesis and I will tell you why doesn’t it fail.

RNA-LIKE molecules where created in a lab, by smart intelligent designers, not by natural mechanisms.

Depends on the experiment. In some, the experimenter just sets up conditions and sees what happens. That allows for understanding of un-directed 'creation'. For those situations where the experimenter is frequently intervening, you might have a case. But those are mostly to understand the possible dynamics a bit better.

Polymers tend to disintegrate, they dont tend to become more complex,

Except in situations where there are wetting and drying cycles.

And even more important, there is no tendency towards creating the specified pattern required to produce RNA, (or some other self replicating molecule)

And your whole concept of 'specified' is incoherent: it depends on current understanding and not on what can be found later. All that having your type of specification shows is that we don't know mechanisms.

Aminoacids are to DNA what ink is to a book. Sure some natural mechanism can create ink, but that wouldn’t imply that a book with meaningful words and sentences can also be created naturally, not to mention that few (if any) amino acids have been shown to be naturally occurring,

Huh? DNA is not made from amino acids. It is made from nucleic acids.

 

[leroy]

To recap, the definition of falsifiability is that any statement where you find (discover) testable evidences for abiogenesis or where you can perform controlled experiments in lab environment, would count the abiogenesis being falsifiable.

That is not the definition of ”falsifiable” by that definition every idea would count as falsifiable.

By your logic the statement the statement . “there are unicorns in other planets” is falsifiable and has been tested. Science has proved that other planets exists, disproving the existence of planets would falsify the statement.


Falsifiable means that there is something that would potentially falsify a statement. And I already did provided examples of something that would falsify ID.

Premise 1 specified complexity can only come from an intelligent designer

Premise 2 life is specified and complex

Therefore life came from an intelligent designer.

Each of the premises is falsifiable, there could for example be a parallel universe where life does not have this attribute of specified complexity.

Naturalists cant even formulate an argument with testable and falsifiable premises, because you know that any potential premise would be easy to disprove.

 

[leroy]

An intelligent designer *using* natural mechanisms. And we already know there are intelligent agents acting. First show the intelligent agent, then claim something as its work.

First show that a there is at least 1 natural mechanism that can produce life, and then claim that “nature” was responsible for such a mechanism.

Let’s be honest I cant show with certainty that the specific type of designer that I need exist, and you cant show with certainty that such a mechanism exists. So at this point we are even.

You didn’t answer my question.

Is it reasonable to be skeptic about the idea that life had a natural origin.?

Actually, exactly the opposite is the case. Each and every one of these is *less* an issue than originally thought.

Under what bases do you make you make such an affirmation?

Except in situations where there are wetting and drying cycles.

source?

And your whole concept of 'specified' is incoherent: it depends on current understanding and not on what can be found later. All that having your type of specification shows is that we don't know mechanisms.

The same can be said about your car, maybe cars can be created naturally, we just don’t know the mechanisms.

Not to mention that the concept of specified is falsifiable, furder discoveries could prove that life fails to have this attribute, but the tendency is that life becomes more and more specified as we learn and as scientific knowledge progresses.

 

[Polymath257]

First show that a there is at least 1 natural mechanism that can produce life, and then claim that “nature” was responsible for such a mechanism.

Let’s be honest I cant show with certainty that the specific type of designer that I need exist, and you cant show with certainty that such a mechanism exists. So at this point we are even.

You didn’t answer my question.

Is it reasonable to be skeptic about the idea that life had a natural origin.?

In fact, we don't know of *any* mechanism that could produce the first life. That is part of the issue. We don't even know what would be required for a designer to do to make life.

So, for example, designers make care using the natural laws and manipulating things to produce the required result. At no point is anything supernatural going on. And, once we understand the mechanisms used for car production, we can say clearly that they required a designer.

But that is very far from being the case with life. We don't know the mechanisms, whether intelligently directed or not, that could produce life. Since we don't know the mechanisms, we cannot tell whether they were 'natural' in the sense of not being directed or not.

Given the examples of intelligent designers that we know about and their capabilities, I would very much say that skepticism about a natural origin for life is quite unreasonable.

The same can be said about your car, maybe cars can be created naturally, we just don’t know the mechanisms.

Again, that is an issue with *your* definitions. Your concept of 'specified complexity' is simply useless in practice and usually misleading under conditions where we don't know any mechanisms at all.

Not to mention that the concept of specified is falsifiable, furder discoveries could prove that life fails to have this attribute, but the tendency is that life becomes more and more specified as we learn and as scientific knowledge progresses.

I disagree that 'specified complexity' is well defined enough to be falsifiable. In fact, I would claim the opposite: instead of a characteristic of the system, it is a characteristic of our ignorance about the system.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Define “possible work” what exactly do you mean by that.

Then can you provide an example of a single hypothesis that has been proven to “possible work”


My claim is that the statement “life had a natural origin” is unfalsifiable ……….do we agree on this point?

This indicates that you have not been paying attention and is a bit frustrating. The various hypotheses of abiogenesis deal with only a small part of the problem. That is how science is done very often. When a huge problem is presented to you break it up into smaller parts and see if those can be solved. Some of those hypotheses have been found to be correct or "work". That does not necessarily mean that they work with other hypotheses, but that is often the case.

And I already gave you a very specific example. If you apologize for not paying attention I will give it to you again. Otherwise this only shows a lack of honesty on your part and there really would be no point in doing so.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Oh some of us were discussing an example of that yesterday. There was a hypothesis that an inorganic precursor of ATP might have been be able to catalyse the formation of peptides (i.e. the process by which proteins are built up), without the need for the strongly acidic or basic conditions that are typically needed in the lab to catalyse this condensation reaction (between an amine group and a carboxylic acid group, eliminating water, to form an amide link). An experiment has been run in which inorganic metatriphosphate actually does allow two amino acids to link in just this way, at pH values not far from neutral. ATP-> ADP conversion, as you may know, is the universal source of energy for driving cellular biochemical reactions (the purpose of metabolism, in effect, is to drive conversion of low energy ADP to high energy ATP, which is then turned back to ADP as it drives the biochemical processes in the cell.)

So this shows the hypothesis works: there could easily have been an inorganic precursor to the ATP-> ADP cycle that could perform one of the critical functions.

The discussion was on this thread, starting with post 287:
Scientific advances in abiogenesis

When a person starts making excuses that only means that he is refusing to learn.

 

[exchemist]

When a person starts making excuses that only means that he is refusing to learn.

Indeed. I explained to Leroy yesterday why you can't treat the presumption of natural abiogenesis as a falsifiable theory, and an hour later, he is demanding that you agree it is unfalsifiable, as if that is some sort of a win for his argument!

Basically he is not arguing in good faith. This is some sort of rhetorical point-scoring exercise, probably to be used in quote-mining exercises elsewhere, later. Something like : "I was in a science discussion and even the scientists there were forced to admit that natural abiogenesis is unfalsifiable, so by their own admission it isn't a scientific theory!!!".

 

[leroy]

This indicates that you have not been paying attention and is a bit frustrating. The various hypotheses of abiogenesis deal with only a small part of the problem. That is how science is done very often. When a huge problem is presented to you break it up into smaller parts and see if those can be solved. Some of those hypotheses have been found to be correct or "work". That does not necessarily mean that they work with other hypotheses, but that is often the case.

And I already gave you a very specific example. If you apologize for not paying attention I will give it to you again. Otherwise this only shows a lack of honesty on your part and there really would be no point in doing so.

You are the one who is not paying attention, I have said multiple times that you don’t have to show abiogenesis from zero.

As I said before, for the sake of this thread I am making many generous (and unrealistitic) assumptions. For the sake of this thread we are assuming that all amino acids (and other building blocks) can be created naturally, we are assuming that we already have a warm little pond with all the amino acids that you want, in any ratios that you would consider appropriate, and we are assuming any environment, temperature, pressure, etc. that you might find convenient.

The question is: how did amino acids organize themselves in the “correct order” to produce self replicating proteins? Based on every bit of data that we have to date, all the evidence indicates that aminoacids don’t tend to organice in the “correct order” they are simply not interested in creating self replicating proteins.

Just like we live in a universe where Oxygen and Hydrogen bond themselves in the correct “order” to from water (H2O), We could have been living in a different universe with different laws, in such universe there could have been a law that would “direct” amino acids in the correct order, but we don’t seem to live in such universe.

 

[leroy]

What about a situation where initially it looks like there are many different possibilities, but after analysis, the actual process only allows a few of them? Are the results specified or not? By your definition, they would be *if* you use the initial understanding, but not if you use the later understanding.

This is often the case in scientific investigations: it initially looks like something quite strange is going on, but later it is found to be quite ordinary.

For example, it is easy enough to estimate the total number of possible configurations possible for a medium length protein (single chain). It is also possible to calculate how long it would take for a protein to fold if all those configurations were to be tested randomly. But, in actual practice, proteins fold much, much faster than that because the random configurations are not all tested (not even close). Is this specified or not? Once we understand the environment in which folding occurs, the 'specified' nature of the end result vanishes.

In that situation (see your quote in red letters) ID would be falsified. If you show that amino acids naturally tend to organize and fold in the “correct way” ID would be falsified.

For example magnets and iron produce this nice pattern, that superficially might look “specified and complex” but a deeper understanding tells us that this pattern is “necessary “ according to the laws of nature, the same could be true with life, maybe a deeper understanding would show that life is a necessary consequence of the natural laws of chemistry. ID is falsifiable.

But ofcouse we can also say that the “N” and the “S” in the image are a product of design, because the natural laws don’t favor a pattern where the letters “S” “N” would form.

 

[Polymath257]

You are the one who is not paying attention, I have said multiple times that you don’t have to show abiogenesis from zero.

As I said before, for the sake of this thread I am making many generous (and unrealistitic) assumptions. For the sake of this thread we are assuming that all amino acids (and other building blocks) can be created naturally, we are assuming that we already have a warm little pond with all the amino acids that you want, in any ratios that you would consider appropriate, and we are assuming any environment, temperature, pressure, etc. that you might find convenient.

The question is: how did amino acids organize themselves in the “correct order” to produce self replicating proteins? Based on every bit of data that we have to date, all the evidence indicates that aminoacids don’t tend to organice in the “correct order” they are simply not interested in creating self replicating proteins.

Just like we live in a universe where Oxygen and Hydrogen bond themselves in the correct “order” to from water (H2O), We could have been living in a different universe with different laws, in such universe there could have been a law that would “direct” amino acids in the correct order, but we don’t seem to live in such universe.

Once again, we don't know. It is probably more likely that RNA was the original self-replicator and not amino acid chains (proteins). We know that short strands of RNA can self-catalyze their own reproduction. At this point, we don't know that such strands form spontaneously. But the shortness makes it much more likely.

Once self replication occurs, we have the dynamics of mutation and natural selection to get to more complicated structures.

 

[Polymath257]

In that situation (see your quote in red letters) ID would be falsified. If you show that amino acids naturally tend to organize and fold in the “correct way” ID would be falsified.

And what if, as seems more likely, amino acids don't self-organize, but RNA does and then helps the amino acids to organize?

The question we have yet to answer is what sorts of mechanisms can lead to life. Without knowing that, there is no way to determine if an intelligence is required. We also cannot know which mechanism was active on the early Earth.

At the very least, research into abiogenesis gives us information about possible mechanisms for the formation of life. When we find such mechanisms (and there has to be a mechanism even if there is an intelligence involved), then we can start to determine whether and to what extent the mechanism can happen spontaneously.

But, as it stands, the current research helps *both* the abiogenesis line of thought and the line that thinks there has to be an intelligence involved. When and if we do find mechanisms that lead to life, we can separate those two ideas. Until then, we have to use a bit of common sense and the lack of relevant intelligent agents to make the decisions.

 

[exchemist]

You are the one who is not paying attention, I have said multiple times that you don’t have to show abiogenesis from zero.

As I said before, for the sake of this thread I am making many generous (and unrealistitic) assumptions. For the sake of this thread we are assuming that all amino acids (and other building blocks) can be created naturally, we are assuming that we already have a warm little pond with all the amino acids that you want, in any ratios that you would consider appropriate, and we are assuming any environment, temperature, pressure, etc. that you might find convenient.

The question is: how did amino acids organize themselves in the “correct order” to produce self replicating proteins? Based on every bit of data that we have to date, all the evidence indicates that aminoacids don’t tend to organice in the “correct order” they are simply not interested in creating self replicating proteins.

Just like we live in a universe where Oxygen and Hydrogen bond themselves in the correct “order” to from water (H2O), We could have been living in a different universe with different laws, in such universe there could have been a law that would “direct” amino acids in the correct order, but we don’t seem to live in such universe.

Your assertions are again remarkably confident and appear based on a lack of reading in the right places. Self-organising systems are common throughout nature: Self-organization - Wikipedia

There is even a thermodynamic hypothesis, advanced recently, that life arose because it is more efficient creator of entropy than inanimate matter: A New Physics Theory of Life

 

[exchemist]

And what if, as seems more likely, amino acids don't self-organize, but RNA does and then helps the amino acids to organize?

The question we have yet to answer is what sorts of mechanisms can lead to life. Without knowing that, there is no way to determine if an intelligence is required. We also cannot know which mechanism was active on the early Earth.

At the very least, research into abiogenesis gives us information about possible mechanisms for the formation of life. When we find such mechanisms (and there has to be a mechanism even if there is an intelligence involved), then we can start to determine whether and to what extent the mechanism can happen spontaneously.

But, as it stands, the current research helps *both* the abiogenesis line of thought and the line that thinks there has to be an intelligence involved. When and if we do find mechanisms that lead to life, we can separate those two ideas. Until then, we have to use a bit of common sense and the lack of relevant intelligent agents to make the decisions.

Just to add a footnote to this, ATP, referred to in post 980 as the fundamental molecule for providing the energy to drive biochemical processes, including protein synthesis, happens to be one of the 4 monomers used to make........RNA. So once you have ATP, quite a few things can happen.

The plot - or rather, primordial soup - thickens.

 

[Polymath257]

Just to add a footnote to this, ATP, referred to in post 980 as the fundamental molecule for providing the energy to drive biochemical processes, including protein synthesis, happens to be one of the 4 monomers used to make........RNA. So once you have ATP, quite a few things can happen.

The plot - or rather, primordial soup - thickens.

Agreed. It seems that the role of phosphated nucleic acids isn't well understood. Such are involved in many crucial biological reactions (not just ATP, by the way. the other main nucleic acids also have important phosphated versions).

Another aspect that I find fascinating is that rRNA works to catalyze protein synthesis even without the amino acids usually associated with it: the nucleic acids are enough for this activity (although it runs slower). (hmm..having difficulty finding the source here....I know I read this, though).

 

[exchemist]

Agreed. It seems that the role of phosphated nucleic acids isn't well understood. Such are involved in many crucial biological reactions (not just ATP, by the way. the other main nucleic acids also have important phosphated versions).

Another aspect that I find fascinating is that rRNA works to catalyze protein synthesis even without the amino acids usually associated with it: the nucleic acids are enough for this activity (although it runs slower). (hmm..having difficulty finding the source here....I know I read this, though).

You mean without ATP, surely? Since proteins are made from amino acids, you won't get far without any of those.

But yes I start to feel that phosphate chemistry must be very fundamental indeed. Now that we know inorganic phosphates can work also, it gets more intriguing.

I also read recently that the organic bases used in biochemistry, e.g. ATP and RNA, have the interesting property of great stability against disruption by UV, due to their aromatic ring systems. Some have even been found in meteorites, apparently.

And that chiral selectivity is shown by adsorption processes on the faces of some types of mineral.

It feels certainly as though we are making great progress, though the significance of steps such as these is no doubt more apparent to a chemist than to the man in the Baptist chapel with a pickup truck full of guns outside.

 

[Polymath257]

You mean without ATP, surely? Since proteins are made from amino acids, you won't get far without any of those.

OK, I wasn't as clear as I could have been. Ribosomes are the structures that are central to protein synthesis. In modern species, they consist of a complex of nucleic acids (rRNA) and amino acids which work together to accomplish the synthesis. The article I saw showed that the amino acids in the ribosome could be eliminated and still have functioning protein synthesis. Yes, that synthesis amounts to linking amino acids together to produce the proteins, but the catalyst of this reaction can be purely RNA without amino acid helpers.

Another aspect that I find fascinating is the role of tRNA in protein synthesis. This is really where the genetic code resides: in the way tRNA links a codon to a particular amino acid. This was modified recently to allow amino acids (and nucleic acids) outside of the 'normal' ones (not just the usual 20 amino acids or 4/5 nucleic acids).

But yes I start to feel that phosphate chemistry must be very fundamental indeed. Now that we know inorganic phosphates can work also, it gets more intriguing.

I also read recently that the organic bases used in biochemistry, e.g. ATP and RNA, have the interesting property of great stability against disruption by UV, due to their aromatic ring systems. Some have even been found in meteorites, apparently.

And that chiral selectivity is shown by adsorption processes on the faces of some types of mineral.

It feels certainly as though we are making great progress, though the significance of steps such as these is no doubt more apparent to a chemist than to the man in the Baptist chapel with a pickup truck full of guns outside.

Agreed!

 

[Subduction Zone]

You are the one who is not paying attention, I have said multiple times that you don’t have to show abiogenesis from zero.

Please, don't give me that. If that is the case your question was answered long ago. Why keep asking?

As I said before, for the sake of this thread I am making many generous (and unrealistitic) assumptions. For the sake of this thread we are assuming that all amino acids (and other building blocks) can be created naturally, we are assuming that we already have a warm little pond with all the amino acids that you want, in any ratios that you would consider appropriate, and we are assuming any environment, temperature, pressure, etc. that you might find convenient.

Yes, that a god exists is an extremely unrealistic assumption. Oh wait. you don't seem to know what "assume" means. Sorry but the natural formation of amino acids is not assumed. There is a rule for creationists:

Rule 3: Since you do not know what an assumption is you should not use that term.

The question is: how did amino acids organize themselves in the “correct order” to produce self replicating proteins? Based on every bit of data that we have to date, all the evidence indicates that aminoacids don’t tend to organice in the “correct order” they are simply not interested in creating self replicating proteins.

Your second gross error. There is no one "correct order". When you make that incorrect error you make the rest of your argument moot.

Just like we live in a universe where Oxygen and Hydrogen bond themselves in the correct “order” to from water (H2O), We could have been living in a different universe with different laws, in such universe there could have been a law that would “direct” amino acids in the correct order, but we don’t seem to live in such universe.

As I said, when you make such an obvious error you defeat your own argument.

 

[leroy]

Please, don't give me that. If that is the case your question was answered long ago. Why keep asking?



Yes, that a god exists is an extremely unrealistic assumption. Oh wait. you don't seem to know what "assume" means. Sorry but the natural formation of amino acids is not assumed. There is a rule for creationists:

Rule 3: Since you do not know what an assumption is you should not use that term.


Your second gross error. There is no one "correct order". When you make that incorrect error you make the rest of your argument moot.



As I said, when you make such an obvious error you defeat your own argument.

Once again your are trying to “defeat” my argument with semantic games.