Intelligent Design

[granpa]

Given an infinite World and infinite time anything is, of course, possible but the Earth is far from infinite and 4.5 billion years is far from infinite time.

[Strange]

One thing that is very clear about all the people posting here, you are all very emotionally committed to evolution.

 

 

Not at all. I am not in the least emotionally committed to evolution. However, I do feel quite strongly about evidenced-based science, critical thinking, and the correct use of logic.

 

 

 

Its not me, its you.

 

I'm not sure. You have studiously avoided any relevant science.

 

 

So I am hoping we can just get back to the subject, i.e. the creation/emergence/whatever of life.

 

Great!

 

What questions or views do you have about current scientific hypotheses, evidence, experiments, work, etc in the area of abiogenesis? This is a fascinating and developing area, so this should be an interesting discussion. It is also not an area I know very much about, so I hope to learn from it.

 

Let's go!

Given an infinite World and infinite time anything is, of course, possible but the Earth is far from infinite and 4.5 billion years is far from infinite time.

 

Please stick to the science, as Simon has requested.

I have always quite liked the idea that hydrothermal vents could provide the energy and chemical gradients necessary: http://www.livescience.com/26173-hydrothermal-vent-life-origins.html

 

But I haven't seen any recent work confirming or contradicting this. Anyone else?

 

p.s. Simon: if you don't want to start a new thread on abiogenesis, perhaps you could ask the mods to change the title?

[granpa]

Lol

[Strange]

I will be honest with you, I don't believe in creationism, however at the same time I do not believe wholly in the theory of evolution.

So, that is a different subject. (Which is why I think you have two threads.)

 

Which particular evidence do you have a problem with? Are you aware of any evidence that shows evolution to be wrong?

 

Or (as you use the word "believe") is this just a gut-feel thing, perhaps based on not knowing enough about the subject?

 

(It is the use of words like "believe" that may trigger an emotional reaction when discussing science. It tends to imply that you favour your own opinions over evidence.)

[SimonFunnell]

Ok, lets try this, considering the following:

 

1 - How much creative power do natural process (excluding biological life/intelligent agents) have to create complex things.

2 - What are the limits of this creative power (i.e. what is the maximum level of complexity this creative power can give rise to).

3 - Does the complexity of the most simple cell cross this limit.

 

Could you please critique the above in the following two ways:

 

1 - The language, for example rewriting the above in more appropriate language.

2 - The logic, for example if my logic is illogical please clearly explain why.

 

Thank you.

[granpa]

Given an infinite world and infinite time there are no limits

 

but the Earth is far from infinite and 4.5 billion years is far from infinite time

[Strange]

Ok, lets try this, considering the following:

 

1 - How much creative power do natural process (excluding biological life/intelligent agents) have to create complex things.

2 - What are the limits of this creative power (i.e. what is the maximum level of complexity this creative power can give rise to).

3 - Does the complexity of the most simple cell cross this limit.

 

 

Well, lets see if we can try and make this more scientific.

 

First:

How do you quantify "creative power"?

What units is it measured in?

How do you measure it, objectively?

 

Second:

How do quantify the "complexity of a thing?

What units is it measured in?

How do you measure it, objectively?

 

Third:

How do you determine how much of this "creative power" is required to create an object of given complexity?

 

If we could do those things, then it might be possible to look for cases that fit or do not fit the model.

 

Are you aware of any scientific research that attempts to quantify any of these things? (I'm not. So I can't help with that.)

Also, we would have to be careful because it is not clear that the first cells were, or needed to be, anywhere as complex (however we measure that) as the simplest current cells.

Edited July 26, 2016 by Strange

[SimonFunnell]

Ok, lets focus on the 'creative power' bit, when I say this, I mean the power to create.

 

I am assuming that at some point the universe 'created' life.

 

As I understand it people don't like the word 'create'.

 

What is the appropriate word to use instead?

[Strange]

The problem is not with the word "create".

 

But if you want to evaluate whether this creative power is sufficient to do X (create a cell, for example) then it needs to be quantified.

[SimonFunnell]

So if the universe created the first cell, it does by implication have creative power, because it has the power to create a cell.

[Strange]

So if the universe created the first cell, it does by implication have creative power, because it has the power to create a cell.

 

 

Well, we would need to define what "creative power" is, before asking that question.

 

And to go any further, it would need to be quantified, in some way.

 

I'm not sure this is going to go anywhere though. If you are not interested in discussing the current scientific work in this area, I think I will leave it there.

[SimonFunnell]

Well it kind of defines itself, it is the power (capability of doing or accomplishing something) to create.

 

I am assuming the universe is capable of creating a cell.

 

Well I will move onto the science once we have agreed a common understanding.

 

Without a common understanding how are we to discuss things?

Edited July 26, 2016 by SimonFunnell

[ajb]

Well it kind of defines itself, it is the power (capability of doing or accomplishing something) to create.

I asked about this before... anyway you have not defined `creative power' at all. It is just a loose term. You need to show us an equation that we can apply to different things and say that X has more creative power then Y. Otherwise we cannot really make scientific sence of the word.

[granpa]

a-pre-rna-world-genetic-code-with-only-a-single-but-reversible-nucleobase/ Edited July 26, 2016 by granpa

[SimonFunnell]

Ok lets break it down into even smaller chunks.

 

Did, or did not, the universe create the first cell?

 

It is a yes/no answer.

[Daecon]

Well, the laws of physics lead to the laws of chemistry, which in turn lead to the laws of biology.

[ajb]

Did, or did not, the universe create the first cell?

The first cell was 'created' in the Universe by natural processes - better so say evolved. It is thought that the emerged something like 3.8 billion years ago. It was a big step in the evolution of life on Earth.

[Strange]

Ok lets break it down into even smaller chunks.

 

Did, or did not, the universe create the first cell?

 

It is a yes/no answer.

 

Even if the answer is "yes" that doesn't imply the existence of something called "creative power".

 

Unless you can define what you mean by "creative power" and provide some evidence for its existence.

 

Is evolution by natural selection the same thing as creative power? After all it has the ability to create novel solutions (in both life and engineering).

 

Is the combination of gravity and the other fundamental forces of nature the same thing as "creative power"? After all, that has the ability to create stars, planets, new elements and hence everything we see around us.

[Moontanman]

Ok lets break it down into even smaller chunks.

 

Did, or did not, the universe create the first cell?

 

It is a yes/no answer.

 

 

Yes the first cell developed within the universe. Life //...............................././.

 

Life is an emergent property that develops out of complex chemical reactions fueled by available energy

[SimonFunnell]

Life is an emergent property that develops out of complex chemical reactions fueled by available energy

 

How exactly?

 

Even if the answer is "yes" that doesn't imply the existence of something called "creative power".

 

 

I have been over this several times, it is the power, or the capability, to create, for example a cell.

[Strange]

 

How exactly?

 

And we are back to: abiogenesis is a big area of research with many possible explanations and hypotheses. Have you read up on any of these? Do you have any specific questions on the relevant science?

[SimonFunnell]

I have noticed this has been moved to religion, interesting.

 

Can I talk about the evidence for God here?

[ajb]

How exactly?

No body really knows.

 

 

I have been over this several times, it is the power, or the capability, to create, for example a cell.

This is not a useful attempt at a definition. For example, how much creative power do you have? Is it more than a rock? If, so how much more?

 

 

Can I talk about the evidence for God here?

If it is relevent to your opening post - which seems to have been about neo-Darwin evolution but now you have moved to abiogenesis.

[Daecon]

Can I talk about the evidence for God here?

Which one?

[SimonFunnell]

Which one?

 

Firstly, I must let you know that I am Taoist, not a Christian, however I do believe in the second coming of Christ and I do believe he is God, the creator of the universe.

 

And I don't believe the heaven/hell theology. My basic belief is that the universe was not created in a big bang but is in fact spatially infinite and eternal, immortal. I also believe that the universe is quite literally heaven.

Edited July 26, 2016 by SimonFunnell