meester_bond (meester_bond) wrote,
meester_bond
meester_bond

Me vs Scott Part 9 More on ID from Part 8

Just some further stuff about that last Intelligent Design point. You have erred very badly to include "The absence of any explanation for how life sprang into being out of non-life" as one of the reasons for your conclusion that belief that ID is true.

This is a transparent argument from ignorance, or god-of-the-gaps argument. The absence of a naturalistic explanation is not in and of itself evidence for a supernatural one.

I expect that you included that without realizing that it was an erroneous point to be including. That doesn’t of itself undermine everything else you said, but it is still an irrelevant and fallacious point.

It’s also (sort of) untrue. Abiogenesis is still a field in its infancy so no hard conclusions have been drawn just yet. But it’s also not a field devoid of hypothesized chemical pathways that could reasonably result in the formation of proto-life from simple prebiotic chemistry.

The explanation that strikes me as the most beautiful and satisfying is Szostak’s vesicle-first model. Note that this isn’t the final word however, Jack’s work is almost certainly incomplete at this stage. But it’s still a very nice demonstration of what a naturalistic explanation looks like. And it could very well turn out to be a very significant and correct part of whatever the whole turns out to be.

For a crash-course, CDK007 has a very good introductory video here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6QYDdgP9eg . The original research by Szostak labs can be found at their website: http://molbio.mgh.harvard.edu/szostakweb/publications.html .

Do follow through on those links. Szostak’s work on this subject is fascinating and beautiful. At least, it is to me. Even if you disagree with it or find it problematic in other ways, I hope you still get something out of it. It struck me as a particularly poignant reminder to be intellectually humble (I hope you’re not rolling your eyes at me for that). Because, before going through that CDK007 video and reading the underlying research, I never would have been able to imagine that scenario as being valid. But after watching and reading and learning, it seems obvious.

Why do you think that our solar system isn’t old enough for evolutionary processes to have been responsible for life’s present complexity? If you understood evolution, you would realize that the thing guiding it is natural selection. That is good enough to develop bacteria that can digest nylon in a period of three months.

Also, can you give me a reference for how old you think the solar system is, and for what you think the minimum boundary of time would be for life to have evolved to its current form?

I’m very interested to see if and how you can back up your point "1." at all. I’m skeptical but open-minded. Please point us to these scientific studies so we can evaluate them for ourselves. Also, RNA World: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RNA_world , and this too: http://phenomena.nationalgeographic.com/2012/12/21/lifes-rocky-start/

Ultimately, refer to the Dover case. Creationism, dishonestly rebranded to Intelligent Design, both debunked as completely unscientific. Open and shut. Evolution absolutely didn't happen alone: Abiogenesis + time + evolution = present complexity!

The onus is then on you to propose a testable (And here is the crux. Want to make creationism/ID a viable SCIENTIFIC hypothesis? Propose it in a way that makes it TESTABLE. Then do, or convince someone, to DO THE TEST. And then you can get back to us) alternative (or additional) hypotheses sufficiently distinct from the known evolutionary mechanisms that once and if demonstrated by evidence, would not simply be added into the larger framework of existing evolutionary theory. (ie, such as endosymbiosis was)
Tags: reliability bible
  • Post a new comment

    Error

    default userpic
  • 0 comments