Re: OT: Gravity explained

John Larkin <jjlarkin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:

On Fri, 16 Feb 2007 11:44:16 +0000, John Devereux
<jdREMOVE@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

John Larkin <jjlarkin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:


No sillier than "a bunch of atoms randomly clumped together and formed
a living cell full of DNA, RNA, messenger RNA, helper enzymes,
mitochondria, and lots of other stuff, none of which functions unless
all of it is there."
I don't think anyone is saying that. For example, it is pretty clear
that mitochondria were one independent organisms (e.g. they have their
own DNA). There would have been have been a crude "chemical" evolution
leading up to the sophisticated machines we see now.

Also I think you need to distinguish the *origin* of life from its
subsequent evolution. If you want to say that we don't yet know
exactly how the thing got started off, or even that "god did it",
fine.

But as I understand it "ID" also says that the "designer" is also
guiding all the subsequent development too.

If the "designer" is represented by the algorithms he left encoded in
DNA, then yes. As time goes on, more of the algorithms will be
understood - slowly, as the complexity is incredible - and some
surprises may emerge, maybe even the equivalent of a copyright
notice.

:) Reminds me of a science fiction story about a message received from
an alien star, that when decoded, contained all knowledge, their DNA
etc. Then one of the scientists realised the message could be written
down as the decimal expansion of pi.

But I don't see how it fits the facts. The record shows complexity
increasing with time, from single cells to plants to animals etc. If
your theory of ID is correct, and evolution wrong, then we should not
expect this. If all the complexity is there from the start, and
evolution does not exist, we should expect to see very complex
organisms right from the start, maybe even a *reduction* in complexity
as time goes on and errors accumulate.

Wherever there is
something "unexplained" (in their mind) in evolution, they invoke "the
designer".

Who is "they"? Fundies? Well, forget fundies and allow some other
conjectures to be considered. What I see is fundamantalists being
used, even internalized, as boogie men to scare off unorthodox
thinking. You're doing that right here.

I mean proponents of ID, when they come up with examples of things
that, they think, could not have evolved naturally. (Like the eye,
which even I can see obvious routes to.)

The point about rejecting possibilities is that the rejection
precludes evaluating evidence, and evidence is the only way to
resolve stuff like this.

What possible evidence can refute ID?

Something like computer simulation of a chemical chain from inorganic
to life, along with some reasonable calculation of probabilities,
along with geological evidence that the appropriate chemical
environment existed, or even better geological evidence for some
intermediate steps.

That would just provide more evidence for the "chemical evolution"
theory - and perhaps this will happen as computers get better. But it
would not refute ID.



While this sort of thing can never be disproved, it is not science
(for that very reason) and should be tought as "religous studies".

So should a random origin of life, ditto.

It seems to me that a theory of "chemical" origin does fall in the
realm of science (although I agree it is not a proven fact). I can
make predictions about it and from it, do some experiments etc.

It's like saying everything was created, as-is, one second ago. It is
an interesting idea (the first time you hear it). You can't refute
it. But it is untestable, useless, makes no predictions and in general
does not get you anywhere.

That's why we need facts. Which I am confident we will eventually get.
And they will be very interesting... to the extent that current ideas
of evolution will join phlogiston theory in the annuls of silliness.


--

John Devereux
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Is Evolution or natural selection the driving force?
    ... "...Life is a major source of complexity, and evolution is the major ... Dr. Myers uses the phrase "natural selection" pretty often. ... because the evidence indicates that. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: OT: Gravity explained
    ... DNA, then yes. ... as the complexity is incredible - and some ... your theory of ID is correct, and evolution wrong, then we should not ... crude and error prone, but could still "evolve". ...
    (sci.electronics.design)
  • Re: YoooHooo! Oh Chris, Lookie here.. Man is not a Fish!
    ... DNA. ... One can still -believe- in evolution i suppose. ... Because it's all about the evidence with... ... Fossil evidence sorted by time, corresponding to progression of early, ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Developing a focused set of questions for IDists - Comments encouraged
    ... This came up before and nobody provided good evidence that a thorough ... Meanwhile, in the real world, extensive analysis of DNA, statistical and ... process known as biological evolution. ... That's what scientists do. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Since Darwin...
    ... Just a reminder to the lurkers, there is no evidence of life arising ... I wrote a comment elsewhere about the usefulness of evolution. ... evolutionary history, the mitochondrion. ... mitochondrial DNA retains bacterial DNA motifs. ...
    (talk.origins)