"If an old, respected scientist tells you something is possible,
he's almost certainly right. But if an old, respected scientist
tells you something is impossible, he's very likely wrong."
-- (someone)
"Stephen E. Jones" writes
in message <200010152117.FAA23155@urban.iinet.net.au>:
> Reflectorites
>
> On Tue, 03 Oct 2000 11:06:16 -0700, Tedd Hadley wrote:
>
> >SJ>But what *Tedd* claims "doesn't follow logically". Why should
> >>"*all* evidence" be eliminated?
>
> TH>There is no elimination of evidence here that I can see.
>
> Tedd claimed that the evidence for the prebiotic soup had been
> eliminated. For example, here is his own words just above:
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> TH>Doesn't follow, given 1) we don't have rocks older than 3.85
> >bya to check (to my knowledge), 2) life forms would likely
> >consume or contaminate any such prebiotic soup.
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> This is saying that evidence of the prebiotic soup has been eliminated
> by: 1) geological processes; and 2) "life forms".
From points 1 & 2, it does logically follow that the evidence
would be eliminated or at least severely contaminated. And of
course we're discussing the likilihood of point 2 in this
thread.
> >SJ>The living world is full of `living fossils' that have hardly
> >>changed in the fossil record. There are fundamental biochemical
> >>processes that are conserved across the whole of biology.
>
> TH>Yes, that's true. How does it relate to what we're talking
> >about, though?
>
> It means that Tedd is overstating the lack of evidence and therefore how
> hard the problem of simulating the origin of life is. These "fundamental
> biochemical processes" are important clues about how life arose.
What's the relationship between conserved biochemical processes
and the origin of life? I don't see a necessary relationship.
> >>TH>2) the number of configurations of environments and chemicals
> >>>is still astronomical.
>
> >SJ>Again what *Tedd* claims "doesn't follow logically". The "number
> >>of configurations of environments and chemicals" *on the early
> >>Earth* is *not* "astronomical". It is *large* but it is not
> >>"astronomical".
>
> TH>I'm sticking to "astronomical". There are literally billions
> >of molecules known, each of which may play a subtle part in
> >possible origins of life.
>
> Not really. There are only 20 amino acids and 4-5 nucleic acids. And they
> are comprised of only a handful of chemical elements.
I hope you don't think abiotic scenarios list only those compounds
as important! It's not just a matter of enumerating the molecules
that make up the final product, you must take into account a
vast range of potential chemical reactions that originate,
catalyze, or even break down the desired end product. This is
a huge search space.
> Tedd is overstating the problem. I bet no origin of life researcher
> has ever told his granting agency that "the number of configurations
> of environments and chemicals is ... astronomical" and "There
> are literally billions of molecules known, each of which may
> play a subtle part in possible origins of life"! If he really
> believed that, he would not be (or remain) in the origin of life
> field.
That doesn't follow. Scientific research always takes on a huge
search space but in doing so can find ways to navigate more
efficiently through that search space by discovering new methods
and new approaches.
Certainly OoL researchers understand the magnitude of the problem
but they have a technique or hypothesis in mind they want to
test. Do they think they can solve the problem just like that?
I doubt it very much. Cancer researchers don't think they'll
solve the big problem, either, just like that. Researchers seem
to know very well how hard their general problem i is but they
break it down into subproblems and subsubproblems and do the
work knowing it may take a lot of time for the general problem
to be solved.
> Most (if not all) origin of life researchers work on the assumption
> that the origin of life must, in the final analysis, be a simple
> process, since unintelligent natural processes found it in the
> relatively short time-frame and adverse conditions on the early
> Earth.
Yes, but I'm not necessarily talking about a complicated process
either.
>If the origin of life turns out to be a highly complex
> and improbable process that looks contrived, then it will be
> good evidence for *design*:
Or extra-terrestrial origin.
[...]
> TH>Yes. I figure another 10-20 years should give us a pretty
> >good idea.
>
> They have been saying that for the last 40+ years.
So? I'm sticking my neck out.
> >SJ>And as I pointed out they *are* "simple problems which turn out"
> >>*not* "to be difficult to solve" just that they are not *worth*
> >>solving. They already *can* "solve" influenza (which is the same
> >>family of virii), because that is *worth* solving.
>
> TH>False. They can't solve the influenza problem currently (you
> >claim they've developed the perfect flu vaccine now?)
>
> No one claims there has to be "the perfect flu vaccine". If there are many
> strains of influenza virii, then all that is required is many effective flu
> vaccines. Which is what they do have.
>
> Tedd is confusing knowing enough about a problem to know what
> the solution is and that, in the nature of the case, there can
> be no one perfect solution, with not knowing enough about the
> problem to know what the solution is.
There is no difference in this case. Understanding viruses
better would surely offer better, simpler solutions. Doesn't it
seem rather primitive to you that possibly the most effective
way to treat viruses known is to fool the body into producing
antibodies?
Check Medline for any recent publications on "influenza". Here's
one dated Oct 1, 2000: "_A strain of human influenza A virus
binds to extended but not short gangliosides as assayed by thin-layer
chromatography overlay_ A human strain of influenza virus (A,
H1N1) was shown to bind in an unexpected way to leukocyte and
other gangliosides when compared with avian virus (A, H4N6) as
assayed on TLC plates. ... This investigation demonstrates
marked distinctions in the recognition of gangliosides between
avian and human influenza viruses. Our data emphasize the
importance of structural factors associated with more distant
parts of the binding epitope and the complexity of carbohydrate
recognition by human influenza viruses."
We're still learning about the influenza virus and this knowledge
will likely help us treat the disease better in the future.
> I maintain that they know enough about *both* the problems of
> influenza and the origin of life, to know what the solution is.
> In the case of influenza they have implemented that knowledge
> to develop cost-effective vaccines.
Doesn't follow. "A solution" does not imply that better,
more effective solutions do not exist. People die from
the flu virus all the time.
> But in the case of the origin of life, for philosophical reasons
> they don't like the solution, i..e. design, so they are stuck
> in a loop endlessly trying non - design law and chance solutions.
No, you haven't supported that argument sufficiently.
> TH>much like
> >they can't cure cancer, AIDS, or any of a variety of virus or
> >bacteria induced diseases. The problem is more complicated than
> >it appeared to be 50 years ago.
> See previously on "cancer".
You implied that prayer and chemotherapy can, on occasion, stop the
spread of cancer. How does that make your point?
> "AIDS" is a special case. There are many eminent researchers who claim
> that the real problem is they are barking up the wrong tree. But it is
> always possible that they are know that the cause of AIDS is HIV and
> that it is simply incurable. Knowing the problem perfectly can be
> knowing there is *no* solution.
No way would we ever conclude that something is incurable and
stop research! People are still looking for the cure for old-age
(and making progress, I might add).
> But I regard these all as red-herrings. If Tedd wants to change the
> subject to "cancer, AIDS, or any of a variety of virus or bacteria
> induced diseases" then I don't.
No red-herrings. Comparing progress and accumulation of knowledge
in one scientific endeavor to another is quite appropriate when
someone, such as Stephen, is insisting that we know so much
about abiogenesis that we should just stop working on it and
conclude it can't happen.
> TH>No, I'm not declaring the problem out of date, I'm declaring
> >your summary of the problem out of date. 12 years out of
> >date to be exact.
>
> Tedd can declare it all he likes. I regard it as a "ploy", unless
> he can come up with why my "summary of the problem" is *wrong*.
> Being "out of date" has nothing to do with it.
I can't take seriously a quote that is 12 years old that uses
the phrase "At present ..." to make a point. I think the
burden of proof is clearly on you to show that the status quo
has not changed in 12 years.
> TH>I agree with that. I recently posted a research URL here that
> >goes along that lines -- proposing lipid molecules as a potential
> >origin for early replicators -- i.e. a radically new approach
> >to origins of life. Whether that particular approach will pan
> >out remains to be seen.
>
> I would be surprised if an "approach" involving "lipid molecules
> as a potential origin for early replicators" is even new, let
> alone "radically new". Thaxton, et al, cite a 1980 approach
> by Stillwell involving "lipid vesicles" , which were in turn
> proposed as early as 1958:
Not relevant that I can tell, these refer to protocells that
assume nucleic acids already exist.
> In any event, it is clearly not what *Davies* means by a "radically
> new" approach to origins of life. Davies in fact mentions "lipids"
> but he points out that what needs to be explained is not "lipids"
> or amino acids or nuclei c acids but *all* of these components
> coming into existence *simultaneously* to form a self-replicating
> *system*:
Ah, there's your misunderstanding. Traditional approaches look
first for amino/nucleic acid replicators of some sort and
then look for ways to incorporate those into protocells. The
approach I listed suggests that replicators may have originated
without amino/nucleic acids and then later incorporated some
form of them. In neither case does anyone suggest that all
components came into existence simultaenously.
<snip long quote>
> >SJ>The only problem is that they assume it has to be "new"
> >>*naturalistic* "idea s"!
>
> TH>Yup, there's so many of them to test.
>
> Not really. Its just the same old thing recycled endlessly.
No, as shown above.
> It would not be such "a hard problem with no immediate solution on the
> horizon" if they thought even for a moment that it might not have been
> fully materialistic and naturalistic, but intelligently directed.
It doesn't follow that "intelligently directed" rules out
materialistic and naturalistic processes, I'm not sure why you
still have this misunderstanding. In fact, intelligent design
in a materialistic and naturalistic context is considered all the time
by scientists. However, the methodology to recognize it involves
comparing it directly to human design methods. "Complexity" is
too vague of a measure to be useful, currently.
> If NASA gives up on the origin of life, then that might be the end of
> materialistic-naturalistic OoL research. Then the ID movement (or a future
> ID science) might take it up?
I wish they'd take *something* up.
> >those are the ones that work. If supernatural process worked
> >as well, science would consider those as well.
>
> Tedd is IMHO kidding himself if he really believes this.
> Materialist- naturalists would keep on trying "naturalistic
> processes" and rejecting "supernatural process" on philosophical
> grounds, whether they "worked" or not.
IMHO, you're letting your religious belief cloud your thinking.
People do not reject anything without good reason.
> Larson and Witham have showed that 95% of the NAS are either atheists
> or agnostics and to think that as individuals they ever would consider
> as a possibility something that threatens their basic metaphysical
> framework, not to mention their cultural power, is at best simply
> naive.
Your worldview contains the premise that many people are angry
and rebellious against God and adopt materialistic frameworks
solely to spite him. I can't buy that.
One simple, unambiguous demonstration of supernatural processes
would convince anyone to devote more time and effort to
understanding what was going on. If supernatural processes
(what exactly does that term mean, by the way?) continued to be
fruitful, they would certainly be used and appealed to by
scientific explanations.
> >SJ>Yet they cannot escape now. If the origin of life requires
> >>intelligent input , then the whole materialistic-naturalistic
> >>program would collapse:
>
> TH>Nah, it just moves the natural origin of life to another part
> >of the universe.
>
> Tedd should read what I said again.
After rereading, I have to say the same thing: If the origin of life
requires intelligence, the materialistic-naturalistic program
would look for that intellignece and for the origins of that intelligence
in another part of the universe. The program wouldn't collapse.
> TH>I've already made my claim and supported it. There is a
> >great deal of material out there that you can't simply dismiss
> >out of hand
>
> I repeat, I don't "dismiss out of hand" anything.
Of course, you don't. Read what I wrote. You can't (or don't)
dismiss it out of hand because you don't know enough about it.
> TH>because you (the generic sense of "you") don't know
> >enough about early Earth conditions to rule it out. Thus,
> >you can't claim we know too much about abiogenesis.
>
> Again, I don't "rule...out" anything.
Of course, you don't. You can't (or don't) rule it out because
you don't know enough about it.
> TH>You really think there *aren't* a variety of approaches to
> >abiogenesis being attempted, suggested and often rejected?
>
> It is not a question of what I "think". It is up to Tedd to
> "support this claim from the scientific literature."
I wasn't aware that it was controversial.
> >SJ>I am not claiming that Tedd does not really believe this, but
> >>there is no claim that I am aware of in the OoL literature that
> >>"we know too little" "about abiogenesis".
>
> TH>It's obvious we know too little. Anytime you have two theories
> >to explain one phenomenon, we know too little. Look at the
> >history of science for gosh sakes.
>
> It is not "obvious" at all that "we know too little." What seems
> "obvious" to IDers is that they know too much now to know how
> the origin of life could happen fully materialistically and
> naturalistically but they keep on stuck in that rut because the
> alternative, intelligent agency is literally unthinkable.
No, scientists simply aren't comfortable with the idea of plugging
intelligence into any particular gap without independent evidence
of that intelligence. They've never done it before, and people
who have done it in the past have been consistently wrong.
> TH>5-10 years, perhaps? That seems a tad optimistic to me mainly
> >because such predictions in any area of human-oriented science
> >seem to fail. Whatever designed humans, be it evolution or an
> >intelligent force, did it in a very counter-intuitive manner.
>
> I do not see it as *very* "counter-intuitive". What is unfolding
> seems pretty much what I expected.
If your god designed humans, design should be lot more obvious,
I'd think. In particular, there should be some kind of unambiguous
signature at the very least.
> TH>No, I disagree. The number of environments combined with
> >potential chemical interactions is astronomical. Now we're
> >discovering that critical compounds may come from space: comets,
> >meterorites, etc., and that only adds to the search space.
>
> Tedd is of course entitled to his personal opinion. But to date
> he has not posted any quote from OoL researchers that "The number
> of environments combined with potential chemical interactions
> is astronomical."
I think it is fairly uncontroversial.
> We will have to agree to disagree on this point.
>
> TH>What other area of science seeks to elucidate one particular
> >molecular reaction that might or might not have taken place 4
> >billion year ago? Talk about a needle in a hay stack.
>
> That is assuming it was "one particular molecular reaction". If
> there was only "one particular molecular reaction" possible
> (otherwise what is Tedd's point?) then that sounds to me like
> the origin of life was indistinguishable from a miracle!
How does that follow? There is only one particular molecular
reaction that converts hydrogen and oxygen to water, is that
indistinguishable from a miracle?
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue Oct 17 2000 - 13:15:03 EDT