A Small Thought About Some Big Numbers: A Reply

 

A reply to the always thoughtful Henry Racette’s recent post.

I used to be impressed with the Carl Saganesque notion that billions and billions (insert “stars,” “years,” “galaxies,” whatever) means that anything can come into being and that theories of simple abiotic origins of life are probably right. I don’t (can’t) believe that anymore. Rolling a pair of dice a few billion times does not alter the probability of rolling a 13.

Around 70 years ago, the Miller-Urey experiment generated amino acids from an electric charge in a container of water, hydrogen ammonia, and methane. From this result, we were taught in our basic biology textbooks that science was thus already on the verge of recreating the accident that created life on earth.  (In that same era, we were also urged to expect the replacement of the creaky markets and democratic institutions with central planning done by experts because … science.)

A coherent, confident worldview came into being in which even that which science could not explain would be explained in short order, so we should act as if it already did.

In the seven decades since those amino acids appeared in a flask, nobody has abiotically created even a single protein, much less a system that replicates proteins. While the science of finding abiotic origins has stalled, our understanding of living structures has become vastly more complex and makes the lightning strike in the primordial ooze model even less satisfying.

The orthodox model of natural selection plus random mutation is becoming almost tiresome because of its limitations. A marvelous presentation of the disarray of biological science and the challenges to Darwinian orthodoxy can be found in this informative, must-read article:  Do we need a new theory of evolution?

It is not that natural selection does not work.  The problem is that it is overrated as an explanatory hypothesis if we ask, “Who will survive?” Answer: “The Fittest!” And if we ask, “How can we identify The Fittest?” Answer: “They are the ones who survive.” Thanks a pantload, Nostradamus.

And I have never been comfortable with point mutation as the author of speciation. I enjoyed Stephen Jay Gould’s explorations (such as Goldberg’s notion of a “hopeful monster”) of the topic of traits that were unlikely to be aided by natural selection if gradually presented to the court of natural selection (feathers, for example).  Therefore larger, more complete leaps are logically necessary, leaps unlikely to be the result of random point mutations. The fact that the fossil record seems to include long periods of stable systems followed by rather sudden change is generally not consonant with a gradualist paradigm. How did those entirely new forms emerge? The fact that they did not die off does not explain how they came to be here in the first place.

Not to sound like Ian Malcolm, but more than just “life always finding a way.” I will speculate that many living things have a built-in capacity for giving rise to novel forms (e.g., the Senegal bichir) while others appear to be end-points with no further destiny.  Environmental challenges call forth that which was always potentially there (I lost both Aristotle and Darwin on that one, but I am undeterred…) and such changes are coordinated across interrelated adaptable species.  Maybe too much focus on species instead of ecosystems is a conceptual limitation, maybe influences of change are mutual.

None of this requires a theological explanation (though a sense of wonder is never a bad thing spiritually or intellectually) but it does require an admission that our understanding of life’s nature and origins is nowhere as complete as some would have us believe and perhaps less compelling than it once was.  And that saying “billions and billions” grounds or even is an explanation for the nature and origin of life is somehow so very 1970s.  

Published in General
This post was promoted to the Main Feed by a Ricochet Editor at the recommendation of Ricochet members. Like this post? Want to comment? Join Ricochet’s community of conservatives and be part of the conversation. Join Ricochet for Free.

There are 111 comments.

Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.
  1. Victor Tango Kilo Member
    Victor Tango Kilo
    @VtheK

    Old Bathos (View Comment):
    The astonishing precision of the Big Bang (the exact amount of matter in the universe has to be within the weight of a dime in order for this whole thing to work)

    The thing about the Big Bang is that the theory relies on observation of current conditions and assumptions that these conditions are a continuation of past conditions.

    It’s like standing beside I-70 in Denver and observing a car with Maryland license plates traveling westbound at 70 MPH and concluding that the car originated in Baltimore and has been holding a constant west course and speed for the previous 24 hours. It’s a viable explanation for currently observed phenomena, but there isn’t enough information to confirm it.

    Then there’s the whole matter of “dark matter” which was more or less made up to explain why the universe didn’t behave the way the models said it ought to. (Simplification, I know)

    • #31
  2. DaveSchmidt Coolidge
    DaveSchmidt
    @DaveSchmidt

    Susan Quinn (View Comment):

    A couple of years ago I read a book that focused on the Cambrian Explosion, and I can’t seem to find my copy. I found it to be very credible, although the author was attacked mercilessly. As I review books on the topic, it might have been Darwin’s Doubt, by Stephen C. Meyer. But then I’m not a scientist. . .

    You are not a biologist, yet you have an extraordinarily accurate understanding of what a woman is.  

    • #32
  3. Henry Racette Member
    Henry Racette
    @HenryRacette

    All,

    I appreciate the skepticism. I don’t share it, but I guess I understand why some do.

    To say “it isn’t possible” is fine, if evidence exists that it isn’t possible: that is, if the claim is itself testable. But saying “it isn’t possible” based on a failure to discover a mechanism by which it might be possible is not, for me, a satisfactory position to take.

    That’s my big problem with the Stephen Meyer (whom I mention because his name has been raised), the irreducible complexity arguments, the probability-is-zero arguments: I think they mistake we can’t see how it could have happened for ergo it must not be possible.

    I know that one could invoke G-d to fill in that gap in understanding, and that many feel justified in doing so. I’m not doing that because I think invoking an entire universe outside of the scope of nature is an extraordinarily expensive solution to the questions science might yet be capable of addressing. I am saying merely that we’ve gone down a long road of naturalistic explanations, and it seems hubristic of me to say, in effect, “we now know with certainty that there is no answer to these important questions.” I don’t think we do know with certainty, nor even with confidence, that these questions can’t be answered the same way we believe we’ve answered so many more, and so I’ll keep following the path of naturalistic explanation until convinced that it goes no further.

    I think humility strongly recommends that course, since the leap to metaphysics seems to entail a strong claim of knowing what aspects of observed nature it is impossible for natural processes to have achieved.

    • #33
  4. navyjag Coolidge
    navyjag
    @navyjag

    Sorry got on this one by accident.  Turned into one of the Watt’s Up With That Posts. Bunch of scientists talking about the b.s. climate change stuff. Understand about 25% of it. So will bow out. 

    • #34
  5. BDB Inactive
    BDB
    @BDB

    Old Bathos: It is not that natural selection does not work.  The problem is that it is overrated as an explanatory hypothesis if we ask, “Who will survive?” Answer: “The Fittest!” And if we ask, “How can we identify The Fittest?” Answer: “They are the ones who survive.” Thanks a pantload, Nostradamus.

    Where is this from?

    • #35
  6. DaveSchmidt Coolidge
    DaveSchmidt
    @DaveSchmidt

    navyjag (View Comment):

    Sorry got on this one by accident. [snip] Bunch of scientists talking about the b.s. climate change stuff. Understand about 25% of it. So will bow out.

    Wish Al Gore would do the same.

    • #36
  7. Skyler Coolidge
    Skyler
    @Skyler

    Not knowing the answers to these questions does not mean that there are no answers.  We just don’t know the answers. 

    Does knowing the answer to whether there are aliens change anything that anyone here on Earth should do or think?  No.

    The questions are purely academic.  Sadly, too many factions want to control populations or just want to think they have answers for some vague sense of feeling better and more secure.  The fact is that despite the human desire to have the answers,  the questions affect us not a whit.  The sun will still rise tomorrow.

    • #37
  8. Doctor Robert Member
    Doctor Robert
    @DoctorRobert

    Victor Tango Kilo (View Comment):

    Old Bathos (View Comment):
    The astonishing precision of the Big Bang (the exact amount of matter in the universe has to be within the weight of a dime in order for this whole thing to work)

    The thing about the Big Bang is that the theory relies on observation of current conditions and assumptions that these conditions are a continuation of past conditions.

    I can’t tell if this post and Old Bathos are advocating or denigrating the BBT, but I hope the latter.  The BBT is the ultimate cop out.  A magical ball created out of nothing, by no one, existing in no place, containing all of the Universe in a mass the size of a potato?  Serious scientists actually advocate this as a viable creation model?  C’mon, give me a break.

    • #38
  9. Skyler Coolidge
    Skyler
    @Skyler

    Dr. Bastiat (View Comment):

    An evolutionary researcher, I think Dawkins, once gave the following example: If enough tornadoes go through enough junkyards, eventually one of them will leave a working 747 in the wake of its destruction. Just by random chance.

    Of course, that’s a silly analogy.  

    Imagine water collecting in a basin at high elevation.  It wouldn’t be absurd to imagine a river being created when the water starts to leak.  That’s over stating it, but life is not random, and each successful step tends to reinforce the likelihood of the next step, whereas a tornado would be as destructive to each step, crushing any advancement.

    Life is anti-entropy.  It is the creation of order.  Entropy, so far as we know, will always win in the end, but life is a stop gap.  And life might prevail after all.  Someday, but not today. 

    • #39
  10. Skyler Coolidge
    Skyler
    @Skyler

    Doctor Robert (View Comment):

    Victor Tango Kilo (View Comment):

    Old Bathos (View Comment):
    The astonishing precision of the Big Bang (the exact amount of matter in the universe has to be within the weight of a dime in order for this whole thing to work)

    The thing about the Big Bang is that the theory relies on observation of current conditions and assumptions that these conditions are a continuation of past conditions.

    I can’t tell if this post and Old Bathos are advocating or denigrating the BBT, but I hope the latter. The BBT is the ultimate cop out. A magical ball created out of nothing, by no one, existing in no place, containing all of the Universe in a mass the size of a potato? Serious scientists actually advocate this as a viable creation model? C’mon, give me a break.

    Well, it’s better than most cosmological claims. At least it’s an attempt at using math rather than just silly stories made by primitive societies.

    • #40
  11. I Walton Member
    I Walton
    @IWalton

    Maybe humans will Never know the whole story.  Perhaps human religion also evolved but it plays a crucial role.  Christianity was shaped by Hebrew thought that had a lot of practice and they continue to evolve together.   Perhaps we need a god to root successful notions.  We’ve seen a lot of failed notions, some spectacularly so.  Nazism, and  Communism,  were recent enough to understand  their spectacular harm and failure, but they keep coming back along with most other notions.  It seems it makes sense to hold on to things that are successful, believe in them and if they need a creative god to give them endurance, that’s a good idea whether true in some more knowable fundamental existential way.  Moreover, the god that gives fundamental endurance to approaches that work for humans and make them more successful, i.e. better fed, better educated, better self managed from top to bottom , maybe it’s smart to not reject that god for the same notions we’ve seen miserable failure thousands of times over the ages. Moreover, the most successful place so far, was rooted in Christ which meant individuality, not a church, or a group or a collective although clearly we need those as well, but it has to have a root and the root seems to be individuals who are shaped by and try to hold on to a certain set of beliefs.

    • #41
  12. MarciN Member
    MarciN
    @MarciN

    I spent a couple years studying geology for my own purposes, specifically the tectonic plate theories. The history of the theory formulation about how the continents arrived at where they are presently parked was as fascinating as the theories themselves.

    The sciences, as bodies of thought, have centers and edges. :-)

    • #42
  13. J Climacus Member
    J Climacus
    @JClimacus

    With respect to the origin of life experiments, they have always struck me as putting the cart before the horse. Is there a replicable scientific experiment that produces life from non-living organic matter?  As far as I know, there isn’t. Frankenstein is fiction. “Life only comes from life” is about as well-established an empirical principle as we have, isn’t it?

    If that is so, then the first step in any origin-of-life investigation is to establish that life arising from non-life is even an empirical possibility. But that step seems to be taken for granted. Instead, the focus is on research concerning contents of the early atmosphere or early environmental conditions, as though once the organic matter is in place it’s a given that life would arise from it. The whole thing strikes me as a bait and switch or a misdirection. I’ll grant you whatever non-living matter you want in the early oceans, and any scenario you like involving electrical storms or any other natural phenomena. It doesn’t prove anything at all until it is empirically established that life can be generated from non-living matter.

     

     

    • #43
  14. BDB Inactive
    BDB
    @BDB

    J Climacus (View Comment):

    With respect to the origin of life experiments, they have always struck me as putting the cart before the horse. Is there a replicable scientific experiment that produces life from non-living organic matter? As far as I know, there isn’t. Frankenstein is fiction. “Life only comes from life” is about as well-established an empirical principle as we have, isn’t it?

    If that is so, then the first step in any origin-of-life investigation is to establish that life arising from non-life is even an empirical possibility. But that step seems to be taken for granted. Instead, the focus is on research concerning contents of the early atmosphere or early environmental conditions, as though once the organic matter is in place it’s a given that life would arise from it. The whole thing strikes me as a bait and switch or a misdirection. I’ll grant you whatever non-living matter you want in the early oceans, and any scenario you like involving electrical storms or any other natural phenomena. It doesn’t prove anything at all until it is empirically established that life can be generated from non-living matter.

    Yet as a hypothesis it’s still better than Bronze-Age bedtime stories oddly enough.

    • #44
  15. J Climacus Member
    J Climacus
    @JClimacus

    BDB (View Comment):

    J Climacus (View Comment):

    With respect to the origin of life experiments, they have always struck me as putting the cart before the horse. Is there a replicable scientific experiment that produces life from non-living organic matter? As far as I know, there isn’t. Frankenstein is fiction. “Life only comes from life” is about as well-established an empirical principle as we have, isn’t it?

    If that is so, then the first step in any origin-of-life investigation is to establish that life arising from non-life is even an empirical possibility. But that step seems to be taken for granted. Instead, the focus is on research concerning contents of the early atmosphere or early environmental conditions, as though once the organic matter is in place it’s a given that life would arise from it. The whole thing strikes me as a bait and switch or a misdirection. I’ll grant you whatever non-living matter you want in the early oceans, and any scenario you like involving electrical storms or any other natural phenomena. It doesn’t prove anything at all until it is empirically established that life can be generated from non-living matter.

    Yet as a hypothesis it’s still better than Bronze-Age bedtime stories oddly enough.

    Science isn’t in competition with Bronze Age stories.  It is a method of inquiry that follows certain established procedures and standards. It’s always disturbed me that, in the case of the origin of life, people want to throw those standards aside because somehow, if you don’t, you’ll be forced to embrace ancient mythology.  That kind of thinking doesn’t do science any favors. Why not simply admit ignorance?  Right now, we don’t know how life arose, or even how it could have possibly arisen, since we know of no natural causes that might generate life from non-life.  

    • #45
  16. Misthiocracy has never Member
    Misthiocracy has never
    @Misthiocracy

    Old Bathos:

    It is not that natural selection does not work.  The problem is that it is overrated as an explanatory hypothesis if we ask, “Who will survive?” Answer: “The Fittest!” And if we ask, “How can we identify The Fittest?” Answer: “They are the ones who survive.” Thanks a pantload, Nostradamus.

     

    Quibbles: a) Darwin never used the phrase “survival of the fittest”.  b) The word “fit” can be used literally. Just as a round peg fits in a round hole but a square peg does not, the surviving organism is that which fits into its environment and the non-surviving organism is that which does not. The word “fit” is  not meant to signify moral value.

    • #46
  17. Justin Other Lawyer Coolidge
    Justin Other Lawyer
    @DouglasMyers

    BDB (View Comment):

    J Climacus (View Comment):

    With respect to the origin of life experiments, they have always struck me as putting the cart before the horse. Is there a replicable scientific experiment that produces life from non-living organic matter? As far as I know, there isn’t. Frankenstein is fiction. “Life only comes from life” is about as well-established an empirical principle as we have, isn’t it?

    If that is so, then the first step in any origin-of-life investigation is to establish that life arising from non-life is even an empirical possibility. But that step seems to be taken for granted. Instead, the focus is on research concerning contents of the early atmosphere or early environmental conditions, as though once the organic matter is in place it’s a given that life would arise from it. The whole thing strikes me as a bait and switch or a misdirection. I’ll grant you whatever non-living matter you want in the early oceans, and any scenario you like involving electrical storms or any other natural phenomena. It doesn’t prove anything at all until it is empirically established that life can be generated from non-living matter.

    Yet as a hypothesis it’s still better than Bronze-Age bedtime stories oddly enough.

    Mocking religion gets tedious.  I get it–you think scientific advancements have completely discredited the wisdom of the ages.  That’s fair, there’s much more to these matters than mere “bedtime stories”.  When in doubt, I’d prefer to err on the side of Moses, Jesus, Paul, Augustine of Hippo, Aquinas, Luther, Calvin, Kepler, etc., etc.

    • #47
  18. kedavis Coolidge
    kedavis
    @kedavis

    Misthiocracy has never (View Comment):

    Old Bathos:

    It is not that natural selection does not work. The problem is that it is overrated as an explanatory hypothesis if we ask, “Who will survive?” Answer: “The Fittest!” And if we ask, “How can we identify The Fittest?” Answer: “They are the ones who survive.” Thanks a pantload, Nostradamus.

     

    Quibbles: a) Darwin never used the phrase “survival of the fittest”. b) The word “fit” can be used literally. Just as a round peg fits in a round hole but a square peg does not, the surviving organism is that which fits into its environment and the non-surviving organism is that which does not. The word “fit” is not meant to signify moral value.

    You can fit a square peg in a round hole, if it’s the right size.

    • #48
  19. MarciN Member
    MarciN
    @MarciN

    Justin Other Lawyer (View Comment):

    BDB (View Comment):

    J Climacus (View Comment):

    With respect to the origin of life experiments, they have always struck me as putting the cart before the horse. Is there a replicable scientific experiment that produces life from non-living organic matter? As far as I know, there isn’t. Frankenstein is fiction. “Life only comes from life” is about as well-established an empirical principle as we have, isn’t it?

    If that is so, then the first step in any origin-of-life investigation is to establish that life arising from non-life is even an empirical possibility. But that step seems to be taken for granted. Instead, the focus is on research concerning contents of the early atmosphere or early environmental conditions, as though once the organic matter is in place it’s a given that life would arise from it. The whole thing strikes me as a bait and switch or a misdirection. I’ll grant you whatever non-living matter you want in the early oceans, and any scenario you like involving electrical storms or any other natural phenomena. It doesn’t prove anything at all until it is empirically established that life can be generated from non-living matter.

    Yet as a hypothesis it’s still better than Bronze-Age bedtime stories oddly enough.

    Mocking religion gets tedious. I get it–you think scientific advancements have completely discredited the wisdom of the ages. That’s fair, there’s much more to these matters than mere “bedtime stories”. When in doubt, I’d prefer to err on the side of Moses, Jesus, Paul, Augustine of Hippo, Aquinas, Luther, Calvin, Kepler, etc., etc.

    This is slightly tangential to the topic at hand, but: Years ago, we Ricochet arguers got into a really interesting discussion on evolution theory versus creationism. The discussion meandered into the area of “What is evidence?” And someone said, “What do you call the evidence of the apostles and so many others who said they said they actually saw and touched the risen Christ?”

    Very few of us have a laboratory to test the physics theories on our own. We’re using our innate logic and the strength of the scientists’ credibility and honor to decide on which theory to hang our hat. :-)

    • #49
  20. Henry Castaigne Member
    Henry Castaigne
    @HenryCastaigne

    MarciN (View Comment):

    This is my favorite of all of Dr. Bastiat’s essays: “Heisenberg Was Right About the Theology of Frightened Warts.” :-)

     

    Was just going to reference that. I am not sure about frightened warts but the incredibly complexity of every nuclei got me on the the universe is designed track. I still see no real evidence of Christianity or even a kind and loving god. 

    • #50
  21. Henry Castaigne Member
    Henry Castaigne
    @HenryCastaigne

    Barfly (View Comment):
    I think Sagan was involved when NASA decided Viking didn’t find life, after it obviously did. I’m not sure what was up there, but I assume it was dishonest.

    If Viking obviously found life, why is it only obvious to you and a small minority of people. I think you are contradicting what the word obvious means. 

    • #51
  22. Henry Castaigne Member
    Henry Castaigne
    @HenryCastaigne

    Justin Other Lawyer (View Comment):

    When in doubt, I’d prefer to err on the side of Moses, Jesus, Paul, Augustine of Hippo, Aquinas, Luther, Calvin, Kepler, etc., etc.

    Luther and Calvin gave way to some pretty terrible violence remember.

    • #52
  23. Justin Other Lawyer Coolidge
    Justin Other Lawyer
    @DouglasMyers

    Henry Castaigne (View Comment):

    Justin Other Lawyer (View Comment):

    When in doubt, I’d prefer to err on the side of Moses, Jesus, Paul, Augustine of Hippo, Aquinas, Luther, Calvin, Kepler, etc., etc.

    Luther and Calvin gave way to some pretty terrible violence remember.

    Not my point though. Humans have major blind spots and are capable of extreme cruelty (including modern evolutionary biologists). Yet they were brilliant men who thought and read deeply about the universe. In so doing, they saw a designer and creator. I’m with them on that question. 

    • #53
  24. Nanocelt TheContrarian Member
    Nanocelt TheContrarian
    @NanoceltTheContrarian

    Barfly (View Comment):

    David Gelernter’s review of Stephen Meyer’s Darwin’s Doubt. Gelernter, like most, used to be a Darwin believer.

    One paragraph in Gelernter’s article that you cite is remarkable:

    “I would, myself, expect to find the answer in a phenomenon that acts as if it were a new and (thus far) unknown force or field associated with consciousness. I’d expect complex biochemistry to be consistently biased in the direction that leads closer to consciousness, as gravitation biases motion toward massive objects.  I have no evidence for this idea. It’s just the way the biology seems to work.”

    The key point elided by Meyer is what consciousness is. An Intelligent Designer would have to possess consciousness, it would seem. And we possess consciousness, and are biological organisms. Gelernter precisely picks up on that missing point in his review of Meyer’s book.

    Such a field could be envisioned as a Quantum Field (everything that comes down the pike is described in Quantum field terms, it seems), a Quantum Consciousness Field. with a fundamental particle manifesting the field, that might be termed a “cognition”. Such a fundamental particle would have 

    Sir Cyril Burt postulated such a thing over half a century ago. But he was discredited and ridiculed. 

    A key point (or a conundrum if you are an atheist quantum physicist) is that consciousness interacts directly with quantum systems to collapse the wave equation (Schrodinger’s cat), so consciousness must be something physical. Further, it would need to something intrinsically a part of the cosmos, as a constituitive component of the Universe, in order for conscious brains to develop (emerge), just as the electromagnetic field is necessary for the development of the eye–or as Gelernter says, as Gravity induces the formation of stars, galaxies, black holes, etc. So that you have a constitutive aspect and an emergent aspect to the appearance of consciousness embodied in nervous systems, including in humans. The physicists have never come to grips with this scenario. 

    Biology will have to understand quantum phenomena to explain the biological world, and given the strangeness of quantum systems, surprises await. One example is the observation that sulfur-fixing bacteria use light at close to 100% efficiency; that is the light energy is transferred to the chemical system with almost a 100% conservation of the energy of the incident photon. The only way that can occur is if the photons, consistent with quantum behavior, take all possible paths to the reactive center of the molecule simultaneously in their passage through the large complex molecule within which the energy transfer occurs. Quantum phenomena and processes may have a lot to do with the seeming impossibility of Darwinian explanations of life; and given the connection of consciousness and quantum processes, our entire understanding of the biological world, and other aspects of the cosmos, may have to be utterly revamped. 

    Roger Penrose, with Hameroff, has proposed a model of the human CNS as a quantum computing system. 

    • #54
  25. BDB Inactive
    BDB
    @BDB

    J Climacus (View Comment):

    BDB (View Comment):

    J Climacus (View Comment):

    With respect to the origin of life experiments, they have always struck me as putting the cart before the horse. Is there a replicable scientific experiment that produces life from non-living organic matter? As far as I know, there isn’t. Frankenstein is fiction. “Life only comes from life” is about as well-established an empirical principle as we have, isn’t it?

    If that is so, then the first step in any origin-of-life investigation is to establish that life arising from non-life is even an empirical possibility. But that step seems to be taken for granted. Instead, the focus is on research concerning contents of the early atmosphere or early environmental conditions, as though once the organic matter is in place it’s a given that life would arise from it. The whole thing strikes me as a bait and switch or a misdirection. I’ll grant you whatever non-living matter you want in the early oceans, and any scenario you like involving electrical storms or any other natural phenomena. It doesn’t prove anything at all until it is empirically established that life can be generated from non-living matter.

    Yet as a hypothesis it’s still better than Bronze-Age bedtime stories oddly enough.

    Science isn’t in competition with Bronze Age stories. It is a method of inquiry that follows certain established procedures and standards. It’s always disturbed me that, in the case of the origin of life, people want to throw those standards aside because somehow, if you don’t, you’ll be forced to embrace ancient mythology. That kind of thinking doesn’t do science any favors. Why not simply admit ignorance? Right now, we don’t know how life arose, or even how it could have possibly arisen, since we know of no natural causes that might generate life from non-life.

    You seem to assert that failure to observe emergence of life from physical processes makes magical thinking a realistic alternative.  No, rational people who have not imported Bronze-Age axioms reject that, and without refutation.  Supernatural origins is the smuggled concept underpinning at least a great majority of anti-science techno-rationalizing.

    • #55
  26. Justin Other Lawyer Coolidge
    Justin Other Lawyer
    @DouglasMyers

    BDB (View Comment):

    J Climacus (View Comment):

    BDB (View Comment):

    J Climacus (View Comment):

    With respect to the origin of life experiments, they have always struck me as putting the cart before the horse. Is there a replicable scientific experiment that produces life from non-living organic matter? As far as I know, there isn’t. Frankenstein is fiction. “Life only comes from life” is about as well-established an empirical principle as we have, isn’t it?

    If that is so, then the first step in any origin-of-life investigation is to establish that life arising from non-life is even an empirical possibility. But that step seems to be taken for granted. Instead, the focus is on research concerning contents of the early atmosphere or early environmental conditions, as though once the organic matter is in place it’s a given that life would arise from it. The whole thing strikes me as a bait and switch or a misdirection. I’ll grant you whatever non-living matter you want in the early oceans, and any scenario you like involving electrical storms or any other natural phenomena. It doesn’t prove anything at all until it is empirically established that life can be generated from non-living matter.

    Yet as a hypothesis it’s still better than Bronze-Age bedtime stories oddly enough.

    Science isn’t in competition with Bronze Age stories. It is a method of inquiry that follows certain established procedures and standards. It’s always disturbed me that, in the case of the origin of life, people want to throw those standards aside because somehow, if you don’t, you’ll be forced to embrace ancient mythology. That kind of thinking doesn’t do science any favors. Why not simply admit ignorance? Right now, we don’t know how life arose, or even how it could have possibly arisen, since we know of no natural causes that might generate life from non-life.

    You seem to assert that failure to observe emergence of life from physical processes makes magical thinking a realistic alternative. No, rational people who have not imported Bronze-Age axioms reject that, and without refutation. Supernatural origins is the smuggled concept underpinning at least a great majority of anti-science techno-rationalizing.

    Thank you for calling them axioms rather than bedtime stories.

    • #56
  27. BDB Inactive
    BDB
    @BDB

    Justin Other Lawyer (View Comment):

    BDB (View Comment):

    J Climacus (View Comment):

    With respect to the origin of life experiments, they have always struck me as putting the cart before the horse. Is there a replicable scientific experiment that produces life from non-living organic matter? As far as I know, there isn’t. Frankenstein is fiction. “Life only comes from life” is about as well-established an empirical principle as we have, isn’t it?

    If that is so, then the first step in any origin-of-life investigation is to establish that life arising from non-life is even an empirical possibility. But that step seems to be taken for granted. Instead, the focus is on research concerning contents of the early atmosphere or early environmental conditions, as though once the organic matter is in place it’s a given that life would arise from it. The whole thing strikes me as a bait and switch or a misdirection. I’ll grant you whatever non-living matter you want in the early oceans, and any scenario you like involving electrical storms or any other natural phenomena. It doesn’t prove anything at all until it is empirically established that life can be generated from non-living matter.

    Yet as a hypothesis it’s still better than Bronze-Age bedtime stories oddly enough.

    Mocking religion gets tedious. I get it–you think scientific advancements have completely discredited the wisdom of the ages. That’s fair, there’s much more to these matters than mere “bedtime stories”. When in doubt, I’d prefer to err on the side of Moses, Jesus, Paul, Augustine of Hippo, Aquinas, Luther, Calvin, Kepler, etc., etc.

    I have mocked nothing, and I’m being more frank than the tone of the OP with its strawmen — so far un-addressed (the day is young), despite mine and two other objections to just one of the mis-representations of my side.

    Science has nothing to do with debasing wisdom, although I may commit a bit of No True Scot here — I separate the primitive (and at the time sophisticated and socially necessary; a survival requirement for a social species) gap explanations from the time-tested wisdom including things like family, society, and even the place of religion in helping to anchor communities and preserve culture.  Don’t criticize me for my Godless church appreciation; it is possible to appreciate the role of church in society and faith by the individual without myself believing each stick and brick of the edifice.  I admit the folks like Aquinas are magnificent intellects, but with some axioms that can only be reconciled via magical thinking.

    We no doubt have different ideas about just what is the baby and what is the bathwater.

    Where I get grumpy is well-intended, friendly people arguing “but Entropy!” without even knowing why that only applies to a closed system, or even what one is.

    Sunday school quality science is a bad look for grown-ups.

    • #57
  28. Justin Other Lawyer Coolidge
    Justin Other Lawyer
    @DouglasMyers

    BDB (View Comment):

    We no doubt have different ideas about just what is the baby and what is the bathwater.

    Where I get grumpy is well-intended, friendly people arguing “but Entropy!” without even knowing why that only applies to a closed system, or even what one is.

    Sunday school quality science is a bad look for grown-ups.

    And good day to you as well.

    I didn’t get back to the entropy comment yet (I intend to get to that presently, but I think you misunderstood what I did not understand).  Thank you for that reminder.

    • #58
  29. BDB Inactive
    BDB
    @BDB

    kedavis (View Comment):

    Misthiocracy has never (View Comment):

    Old Bathos:

    It is not that natural selection does not work. The problem is that it is overrated as an explanatory hypothesis if we ask, “Who will survive?” Answer: “The Fittest!” And if we ask, “How can we identify The Fittest?” Answer: “They are the ones who survive.” Thanks a pantload, Nostradamus.

     

    Quibbles: a) Darwin never used the phrase “survival of the fittest”. b) The word “fit” can be used literally. Just as a round peg fits in a round hole but a square peg does not, the surviving organism is that which fits into its environment and the non-surviving organism is that which does not. The word “fit” is not meant to signify moral value.

    You can fit a square peg in a round hole, if it’s the right size.

    Or if you hit it hard enough.

    • #59
  30. J Climacus Member
    J Climacus
    @JClimacus

    BDB (View Comment):

    J Climacus (View Comment):

    BDB (View Comment):

    J Climacus (View Comment):

    With respect to the origin of life experiments, they have always struck me as putting the cart before the horse. Is there a replicable scientific experiment that produces life from non-living organic matter? As far as I know, there isn’t. Frankenstein is fiction. “Life only comes from life” is about as well-established an empirical principle as we have, isn’t it?

    If that is so, then the first step in any origin-of-life investigation is to establish that life arising from non-life is even an empirical possibility. But that step seems to be taken for granted. Instead, the focus is on research concerning contents of the early atmosphere or early environmental conditions, as though once the organic matter is in place it’s a given that life would arise from it. The whole thing strikes me as a bait and switch or a misdirection. I’ll grant you whatever non-living matter you want in the early oceans, and any scenario you like involving electrical storms or any other natural phenomena. It doesn’t prove anything at all until it is empirically established that life can be generated from non-living matter.

    Yet as a hypothesis it’s still better than Bronze-Age bedtime stories oddly enough.

    Science isn’t in competition with Bronze Age stories. It is a method of inquiry that follows certain established procedures and standards. It’s always disturbed me that, in the case of the origin of life, people want to throw those standards aside because somehow, if you don’t, you’ll be forced to embrace ancient mythology. That kind of thinking doesn’t do science any favors. Why not simply admit ignorance? Right now, we don’t know how life arose, or even how it could have possibly arisen, since we know of no natural causes that might generate life from non-life.

    You seem to assert that failure to observe emergence of life from physical processes makes magical thinking a realistic alternative. No, rational people who have not imported Bronze-Age axioms reject that, and without refutation. Supernatural origins is the smuggled concept underpinning at least a great majority of anti-science techno-rationalizing.

    Nope. I said just the opposite.  Scientific hypotheses stand on their own and are not in competition with religious explanations. If a scientific hypothesis fails it doesn’t make a religious explanation any more or less plausible.

    • #60
Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.