DNA, Where did the code come from?

@Leadfoot,

Ok. That clarifies things a bit, and even sounds reasonable Wink

But I would like to focus on this part and test the edges a bit...

Leadfoot wrote:

I do want to know the best answer from the scientific POV but that of course has to always be open to revision. At this point I have not been able to convince myself that natural causes could account for abiogenesis in the time available so an external intelligence (non-human) or 'un-natural cause' seems more probable but not proven.

What I think I'm seeing here is that when you have not been supplied with a precise enough scientific explanation of something, you prefer to default to the assumption that a non-natural external process must be involved, rather than to assume that it's natural, but isn't yet completely explained. And this would be consistent with your larger "world view" on things.

So following that line of reasoning, I would ask, is it more probable that something is unexplained or that some un-natural intervention is implied?

And, bearing in mind that there are lots of unexplained things in the world which I'm assuming you would not attribute to non-natural explanations, what makes this particular unexplained thing different such that you grant it "un-natural origin" status?

1 Reply

@FBM,

Sorry for the slowness to respond, sometimes work is busier than others Smile

Quote:

there has been no credible evidence, to my knowledge, that a supernatural deity is either suggested or required by observations and necessary inference.

Evidence, logic and reason are all relative terms, and I wouldn't claim exclusive perspective on any of them. we can both come to logical conclusions but end up with conflicting data, likewise we can both reason on facts and end up with different perspectives. What you and I perceive as evidence will be very different. If you were asking for evidence by dictionary, there is plenty of data that could lead one to assume intelligent design, your acceptance of that evidence has nothing to do with it's qualifying as evidence. But I'm smart enough (me thinks) to know that is not the kind of evidence you're after Smile

Ultimately, I respect your position FBM, I imagine I would be asking similar questions if my bias was on your side of the tracks I appreciate that I am unlikely to offer you any evidence that would turn your world upside down, perhaps one day science will discover something we can all work with Smile

2 Replies

@Smileyrius,

"Assume intelligent design" is a cop out. There's no evidence for it. On the other hand, we know more about evolution. We can estimate the age of this planet, and how other forms of animals predated humans. Those are the best 'facts' available. No need to assume anything.

0 Replies

@FBM,

neologist wrote:

You mean the guppies are still guppies?

Who wouldda thought?

FBM wrote:

Everybody who knows the difference between adaptation and speciation, maybe?

The conundrum is identifying the point where the offspring is no longer able to mate with the parent (or grandparent).

2 Replies

@neologist,

neologist wrote:

The conundrum is identifying the point where the offspring is no longer able to mate with the parent (or grandparent).

You do know that never happens, right?

1 Reply

@rosborne979,

neologist wrote:

The conundrum is identifying the point where the offspring is no longer able to mate with the parent (or grandparent).

rosborne979 wrote:

You do know that never happens, right?

I was referring to parent in a generic sense. Perhaps ancestor would be a better word.

1 Reply

@neologist,

neologist wrote:

I was referring to parent in a generic sense. Perhaps ancestor would be a better word.

Ok. I was just checking.

Yes, distant ancestor would be better (at the very least).

0 Replies

@rosborne979,

rosborne979 wrote:

I posed this question to Leadfoot above, but I was interested in your viewpoint as well.
rosborne979 wrote:

Putting aside what is possible for the moment, and focusing instead on what is more probable, I would like to ask whether you think it is more likely (probable) that abiogenesis occurred through an as yet unidentified natural process, or whether it was the direct result of an "un-natural" process, be it a super-intelligence (which might still have arisen naturally) or a super-natural process?

What I'm trying to understand with each of you is whether you are trying to make a point about what is possible, or what is probable. And I'm also trying to understand what criteria you each use to determine what is probable .

.

I don't really have the time or (current) inclination to go into this question in the detail required to give a good answer, Ros, but I would first say that I probably don't see the word "natural" the same way you do. Given the options you offered, I would pick: "that abiogenesis occurred through an as yet unidentified natural process." But I would not exclude "intelligence" from the category of "natural process." Again, I do not use "intelligence" as synonym for god. Whether you call it "intelligence," "design," "purposefulness," "consciousness," "directional bias," "self-organization tendencies," or whatever, it seems to me that it takes something more than "random chance" to account for life. I don't claim to know what that "something" is, or to be able to explain it. Nor would I call it "unnatural" or supernatural.

The question remains: Where did the information come from? Unless it was somehow "in" the material which comprises life forms, then I don't see how it could "come out" of that matter.

Put another way, I just don't think that a strictly materialistic, mechanistic, reductionistic, deterministic explanation for life is sufficient. There must be some type of "natural laws" which guide this process.

3 Replies

@farmerman,

Quote:

Back to Nagel- hes made clims of a scientific nature bout Judge Jons' incoorrect headedness wrt the Kitzmiller decision. HAve ypou (or has he) even read Kitzmiller? before giving such assertions (I assume that, since you presented and bolded the initial part of his paper, that you agree with him?)

Read the article, Farmer. He cites the decision and discussed it to some extent. He also specifically discusses "creation science" which he says is "bad science" and should not be taught in schools for that reason alone. But he says you can't really claim that it is NOT science--again, it's just bad science.

He's not advocating ID or creationism--he's just making a simple point--there is a difference (which should not be ignored) between saying something is "bad" science and saying it is NOT science. He doesn't like the rationale for the court decision. That doesn't mean he disagrees with the ultimate decision.

Bottom line: He's saying that if the argument "ID is not science" proves anything, then it proves too much. That same line of reasoning would also render standard evolutionary theory as "non-science."

2 Replies

@layman,

That's a reasonable start to the answer. The fact that we may be in disagreement on the treatment of "natural" and "intelligence" could well account for a lot of any disagreement we may have.

Any time you soften the borders of any definition you automatically expand the possible meanings of any statement.

0 Replies

@layman,

Nonsense.

0 Replies

@layman,

Ive read the article a while back and I think much of what he states can be fixed with a course in biology .
Claiming that specific events occured in geologic time , and these claims are not only incorrect, they are fraudulently presented. That is certainly not science, besides being a lie.
When someone like Ken Ham or G McCready Price
can make up crap just because it satisfies some religious imperative? Then call it BAD SCIENCE. , lowers the bar too far.

Making mud pies doesnt mean youre a bad baker

1 Reply

@farmerman,

farmerman wrote:

Ive read the article a while back and I think much of what he states can be fixed with a course in biology .
Claiming that specific events occured in geologic time , and these claims are not only incorrect, they are fraudulently presented. That is certainly not science, besides being a lie.
When someone like Ken Ham or G McCready Price
can make up crap just because it satisfies some religious imperative? Then call it BAD SCIENCE. , lowers the bar too far.

Making mud pies doesnt mean youre a bad baker

Well, Farmer, you are displaying the very "mistakes and prejudices" (as Nagel would call them) that he rejects.

Your argument boils down to "It's not science unless I agree with it." I've seen you make this claim (in essence) before. If you think it's wrong, then you claim it's "not science." That is simply a self-serving (and completely unjustified) definition of "science."

I agree that "fraud" and "lies" are not science if that's what's really involved. But for you, it seems that any interpretation of empirical facts that doesn't agree with your interpretation is something you're going to call a "lie," or "fraud."

1 Reply

@layman,

layman wrote:

...it seems to me that it takes something more than "random chance" to account for life...

Also, with regard to the statement above, I would quickly point out that biological evolution is not driven by random chance, it is driven by natural selection (which is anything but random). The outcome may be random, but the process is not.

1 Reply

@rosborne979,

rosborne979 wrote:

layman wrote:
biological evolution .. is driven by natural selection (which is anything but random). The outcome may be random, but the process is not.

That is an "article of faith" adhered to by some Neo-Darwinists, but it is certainly subject to challenge. Many reputable evolutionary theorists reject this notion, and have empirical (and theoretical) support for their claims. It also has nothing to do with abiogenesis, but that's OK.

1 Reply

@layman,

No, its not science unless it can follow and stick with the rules of the various disciplines. Most Philosophers should just sit back and wish they payed more attention in calculus so they wouldnt have to be "non participants"
WOT? I still say that he did NOT read Jones opinion otherwise he wouldnt be lading with his ass on what governed the various "tests" .
I think that you said you never read the Jones decision either. Id recc that you take some time and take it in. Its a good piece thats been praised in both the scientific and judiciary literature .

0 Replies

@layman,

layman wrote:

1. All biological development and change is a product of mere random chance, or
2. Not all biological development and change is a product of mere random chance.

If either of those two is a "scientific" claim, then so is the other.

Farmer, you always seem to be long on assertions and short on explanation or reasoned response to counter-arguments. Do you disagree with what I said above?

2 Replies

@layman,

layman wrote:

That is an "article of faith" adhered to by some Neo-Darwinists, but it is certainly subject to challenge.

It is definitely not an article of faith within biological evolution as it is one of the required mechanisms of the process.

But in your previous quote were you limiting your application of "random chance" to abiogenesis only? If so, we can move on to focus on that.

2 Replies

@rosborne979,

rosborne979 wrote:

It is definitely not an article of faith within biological evolution as it is one of the required mechanisms of the process.

1. That's an entirely different claim than saying evolution is "driven by" natural selection, though.
2. I don't see how it's "required" but I agree that natural selection does, as a matter of fact, play some role in biological evolution.

0 Replies

@layman,

layman wrote:

1. All biological development and change is a product of mere random chance, or
2. Not all biological development and change is a product of mere random chance.

You are conflating terms within those statements and you can't do that.

For example, all change is a product of random chance because "change" is just variation which is random. But development is a function of variation and selection, which is not completely random. So you can't get a single answer to either of those statements unless you break them apart better.

1 Reply

DNA, Where did the code come from?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know