Author:
Wade A. Tisthammer
|
[
Next Thread |
Previous Thread |
Next Message |
Previous Message
]
Date Posted: 04/28/05 3:24pm
In reply to:
Wade A. Tisthammer
's message, "Primarily" on 04/27/05 10:55pm
>>Well, if scientists did indeed artificially create
>>life (take some chemicals, use them to create amino
>>acids and nucleotides, use those products to make
>>proteins and DNA...assembling the various created
>>components to make a life form), why believe they
>>didn't create life in this scenario?
>
>Okay, they did.
Thank you.
>>Okay, then it seems like I simply misunderstood what
>>you meant when you said "inferences are not rational
>>by definition" as it seemed you were saying
>>"inferences cannot be rational, the definition
>>prevents that." But then would the inference we were
>>originally talking about be the most rational
>>inference?
>
>You seem to equate "most probable" with most rational.
>I don't think probability on its own is a measure of
>rationality.
Nonetheless, you have avoided the question. And I don't think what you say is true. If it a theory's veracity is known to be "highly probable," why wouldn't it be rational to believe?
>>If they experimentally demonstrated it, yes.
>
>Well have they experimentally demonstrated ID?
In my scenario they did; experimentally demonstrate a means for ID. Of course this scenario hasn't happened yet. But I do believe a number of experiments yield evidence for ID (in the form of confirmed, falsifiable predictions).
>>>But life "is created" all the time without any
>>>intervention.
>>
>>I meant from non-life. Sure, RNA can be
>>created from within the cell. But organic evolution
>>(among other things) says RNA came about
>>without the benefit of a cell's biochemical
>>machinery. That's quite a bit different. ID does not
>>dispute biogenesis, it disputes abiogenesis.
>
>Well, on the one hand you use the fact that humans
>intervene as evidence that life needs help, but when I
>point out that life in fact doesn't need help quite
>frequently, you begin to shift the question back to
>life vs nonlife.
What do you mean "shift"? That's what I've been talking about all along!
>Put succintly, if life doesn't need help to make more
>life, why should it need to have help concerning
>non-life?
Because the biochemical machinery used to create more life was not present for organic evolution. The means isn't there.
>>I do because it is a fantastic and extraordinary
>>event; not at all on par with experimental
>>demonstrations that could falsify ID.
>
>Now exactly what kind of experiment could we set up to
>falsify ID?
An experiment demonstration showing a means where life evolves from non-life via undirected chemical reactions. This would show that artificial intervention is not necessary and absolutely demolish ID.
>>Ha! Why is that the case? ID makes
>>falsifiable predictions, has a known mechanisms above
>>and beyond what abiogenesis has etc.
>
>Because as you said before, what matters is evidence,
>not falsifiable predictions and not known mechanisms.
But those things are evidence. If predictions were not evidence, we'd never be accepting physical laws.
Once again I’ll play “round ‘em up.”
Damoclese: ID should be rejected because it’s complicated
>And I've responded that what I'm stating is not a
>"philosophical principle of simplicity". It's an
>empircal truth. Simple explanations work better more
>frequently. Do you deny that?
Well, then we have to junk QM because (however it arose) that doesn't give simple explanations. I deny that principle to the extent that you're using it.
Besides, ID really isn’t that complicated. The essence of it is very simple and can be summed up in a few sentences (e.g. the notion that artificial intervention is necessary).
>Yeah, a nameless faceless designer isn't at all open to
>making a crap load of assumptions.
Affirmative. One assumption (or implication) if artificial intervention is necessary: an intelligent designer. This isn't as complicated as you seem to make it out to be.
Damoclese: The explanations ID gives are inferior to abiogenesis because a number of questions can be raised
>>>No, because it opens up a whole slew of MORE
>>>complicated questions that are probably and would
>>>ALWAYS probably be unsolveable. (Who designed this,
>>>why, where did they come from...etc. etc.)
>>
>>That's it? That is not enough to justify the
>>claim that it doesn't explain the data better.
>
>Positing unanswerable questions is not the business of
>science. That is QUITE enough to justify not using it.
No it isn't.
Think of the Big bang theory. That raises questions as to what caused it, and under the science of the time such questions were unanswerable (though speculations could be made). Nonetheless, that did not make it an inferior explanation.
And let's use a counterexample: the robots on Pluto. Does the existence of unanswerable questions means science should pretend that they weren't designed? Obviously not. It doesn’t logically follow that the existence of such questions makes it a rationally inferior explanation.
>Science describes, predicts and explains.
So does ID. But you want to throw it out of science by fiat merely because someone can raise unanswerable questions. That can be done for just about anything, including organic evolution (more later).
>>Consider again the robots on example. Does the mere
>>fact that we have tons of unanswered questions make
>>the explanation inferior? Obviously not.
>
>If the questions are untestable and unanswerable and
>most likely always will remain that way, then yes. It
>does.
That's ridiculous. Design is still the most rational inference here even if there are questions (like the origin of the designer) that cannot be answered.
Think of it this way: what's the origin of matter? Anyone can ask that question when a theory involves the existence of matter. Does the fact that such a question cannot be answered make the theory illegitimate? Obviously not.
Not only that, but the same criticism can be applied for organic evolution. If natural processes created life, one could ask what the origin is for natural processes. And if one uses the Big bang (or any other explanation) one can ask the same question for that explanation. What you seem to be proposing would destroy the existence of any explanations whatsoever. That surely is a high price to pay just to throw out ID.
Damoclese: There is no reason to assume that artificial intervention is necessary.
>>Yes it does. The claim that artificial intervention
>>is necessary predicts that we would not e.g. find a
>>naturalistic means to do the job. In fact the theory
>>necessitates it. If the observations were different,
>>the theory would be disproved.
>
>But there is no reason to assume artifical
>intervention is necessary.
So says you. There are reams of empirical observations and arguments that give reasons why artificial intervention is necessary.
Let me give you an example: the barriers involving making a functional protein (which are not nearly as serious as e.g. getting RNA).
Chance is an impotent explanation. Consider the case of a short protein 100 amino acids in length (a typical protein consists of about 300 amino acids, some are very much longer). Amino acids must be L-form amino acids (as opposed to D-form amino acids, which are the mirror image of L-forms). They occur with roughly equal probability (as they did in Miller's experiment). The probability of getting them all right by chance is (1/2)^100, or about one chance in 10^30. A similar problem occurs with getting the right type of chemical bond (peptide bonds), and employing chance yet again (since they occur with roughly equal probability) is 1 in 10^60.
Things like these are why chance has often been abandoned by most origin-of-life researchers as a solution to many problems. Now this is the part where "law!" comes into play. Unfortunately for abiogenesis, there is no known law or combination of laws to solve the problem. No experiment has demonstrated how the right amino acids could be selected and used to form proteins (via undirected chemical reactions). But that's okay, because there are such laws and we just haven't discovered them yet. So the problem is neatly swept under the rug.
Still, appealing to unknown laws has superficial plausibility, since laws by their nature describe highly regular phenomenon. For instance, all the amino acids are of the L-form, and all the amino acids are connected with peptide bonds. But appealing to even unknown laws has problems when it comes to the origin of biological information.
Amino acids must form in a specific sequential arrangement, just as letters of the alphabet must when making meaningful sequences. Suppose for instance we have only the twenty amino acids of all the right forms. We still have to make a "meaningful" arrangement of them. Note for instance this:
ABABABABABABABABABABABAB
While it is ordered, it is not informative. However,
MYFIRSTCARWASNOTVERYGOOD
Is "meaningful." Similarly, the sequence of amino acids must be so that has useful biological activity. While there is some tolerance of differentiation (i.e. the sequence doesn't have to be exactly right, though it does have to be sufficiently close), the biochemist Robert Sauer of MIT calculated that the probability of achieving a functional sequence of amino acids is 1 chance in 10^65 (10^65 is an estimation of how many atoms there are in the visible universe). Chance is clearly impotent. However, appealing to undiscovered laws is also problematic. This is no longer a matter of producing "order" (e.g. all the bonds must be peptides), but of an information-rich sequence. Physical laws--almost by definition--describe highly regular phenomena, like
ABABABABABABABABABABABAB
Not information, like
MYFIRSTCARWASNOTVERYGOOD
So how does life conquer the problem of information? DNA codes the proteins. Explaining the coding away by law has a number of problems: one of course is that regularity is not information (like the sequence of letters above), also the bases A, T, G and C attach any site on the DNA backbone with equal probability, making all sequences equally probable. Chance is impotent, and undiscovered laws seem unlikely.
Additionally, there are chemical problems of getting the first protein. Hooking amino acids together chemically requires the removal of a water molecule. Conversely, the presence of water strongly inhibits amino acids from forming proteins. How to get around this problem? One theory Sidney Fox proposed is that some amino acids washed up onto a very hot surface, such as the edge of the volcano, that was able to boil the water away. Experimental demonstrations show that heating the amino acids gives smelly dark brown tar, but apparently no proteins. Fox demonstrated that when one amino acid exists in an extra large amount among a purified mix of amino acids and heated the mixture in a laboratory oven, they do join together. However, even then they still do not make proteins.
There are many other examples I could give, e.g. the chemical problems for getting AMP or RNA.
Damoclese: There are other alternative besides design.
>>I disagree. What other answer would they be willing
>>to accept (given that life had a beginning)?
>
>One not yet formulated.
Such as? Can you think of one other possibility? Do you remember the game of inference to the best explanation?
Damoclese: My answer regarding the scenario of “the odds of organic evolution being true are a trillion to one, and it is known that life began to exist, would I accept intelligent design”? is…
>>Well, ID theory I suppose, since that seems win the
>>game of inference to the best explanation in this
>>case. Now please answer my question!
>
>If the odds were a trillion to one in terms of organic
>evolution, then I wouldn't accept organic evolution.
>
>However, I wouldn't be so brash as to automatically
>accept design as the answer in lieu of organic
>evolution.
So the answer appears to be no, in spite of the overwhelming evidence and the game of inference to the best explanation.
>>And here we get to the question: why not? Does
>>it not win the game of inference to the best
>>explanation?
>
>No, it doesn't.
Why?
>It wins the "this is possible" game. A
>possibility is simply that, it's possible.
Well, technically abiogenesis is possible—just extremely unlikely to be the correct explanation. In this case, there is grounds to believe that artificial intervention was probably necessary. And yet you would still choose to reject it in the face of overwhelming evidence?
If so, please understand the claims of tenacity and non-falsifiability regarding abiogenesis.
Damoclese: My answer regarding the scenario of “abiogenesis still having unresolved problems, the predictions of ID continue to be confirmed etc. how long would it take to abandon abiogenesis and switch to the new paradigm (ID) that solves and predicts the existence of such problems?” is…
>>Great. I agree. The question is, how long before we
>>switch to another theory that solves those same
>>problems (e.g. ID)? So far, your answer seems to be
>>never! (Barring extraordinary circumstances, as
>>opposed to the mere existence of the theory that
>>solves those problems and predicts their existence.)
>
>No, my answer is until something better comes along,
>we don't. ID is not better.
Let’s review:
I never said it was a worse theory. In this scenario, ID continues to have its falsifiable predictions confirmed, abiogenesis still has unresolved problems that the other theory accounts for and explains.
Will it always be the case—no matter how long ID’s falsifiable predictions are confirmed and how long abiogenesis still has its unresolved problems (when ID predicts the existence of such problems)—that ID is not a better explanation? That ID should never be accepted no matter how long this goes on? Even when ID has a known means but abiogenesis doesn’t?
Here’s one of my reasons why such an approach is not rational. Take for instance the point in this scenario where ID has a known means but abiogenesis does not. Why is this important? Let’s take the example of twentieth-century forensics. Criminal X’s fingers are the only known cause for Criminal X’s fingerprints. Therefore, X’s prints on the murder weapon suggest that Criminal X’s fingers touched the murder weapon. Similarly, appealing to the only known cause (intelligent design) for life would be rational, I think, in this scenario; especially in light of heavily confirmed falsifiable predictions.
[
Next Thread |
Previous Thread |
Next Message |
Previous Message
]
|
Feedback: 