From: Jim Armstrong (jarmstro@qwest.net)
Date: Thu Jul 24 2003 - 18:55:28 EDT
It strikes me that this line of reasoning is not unlike the
evolution/fossil dialogue with all the same issues. Indeed, I guess it
is only an extension of that discussion
A key question centers around what must be observed to qualify as
evidence of biogenesis.
One observer might only be satisfied if there is a complete and
demonstrable chain of connected links (e.g., experiments) showing
piecewise how the course of evolution could move from
atoms->molecules->amino acids->...->proteins->...->something that forms
a permeable container for an ensemble of protein-things->...->(something
that reacts to stimulus)->and so on to something that satisfies the
investigators definition of life. I don't pretend here to be rigorous
or even correct in the sequence or where the omissions (...) are, just
to illustrate what is required to connect the dots for this particular
investigator.
But let's assume now that the data available is much more fragmentary
than just described.
A second observer might look at this discontinuous data and simply say
that the gaps are incredibly big and the dots cannot be connected by
extrapolating the processes underlying the data observable. Ergo, can't
get there from here - something supernatural happened in between those
data sets.
A third observer might look at this same less complete "data set" and
sense patterns, trends, or flow in the available information that, to
his satisfaction, allows him to connect those dots by extrapolation of
the processes manifest in the data observable.
Same data, different conclusions - and we seem to have that same
situation with respect to biogenesis. We have experiments that
demonstrate the creation of amino acids (albeit simple ones). We have
more complicated amino acid structures arriving via meteor-mail from
time to time which may or may not be primordial in nature..(skip a few
pages)... And we have viral evolution, genetic misspellings, and so on
once life (whatever the definition) comes into existence.
But gaps exist - rats, there's that word again - but that's pretty much
my point.
In the early stages of the evolutionary discussions regarding fossil
data, there were huge gaps. Those fossil gaps have closed somewhat with
the discovery of thousands of additional fossils. Yet folks still are
divided into camps as to whether the fossil data are sufficiently
continuous to constitute satisfactory evidence of evolution in general
and man-evolution in particular.
Accordingly, it is not surprising that the same arguments about data
completeness and the validity of the conclusions exist with respect to
biogenesis. In the biogenesis discussion, we are essentially at a place
analogous to that time when fewer fossil skulls existed. The biogenesis
chain is discontinuous. Some will say fatally so, requiring supernatural
connecting acts of God. Others may say with about the same certainty
that there are great patterns here of which the present data are
microcosms, and there is no reason to think that the dots cannot be
connected by reasonable extrapolation of the processes manifest in the
data observable.
There is no satisfactory "win" in the biogenesis discussion just as
there is no forseeable end to the evolution/fossil discussion. There
will probably always be gaps because this is pretty complex stuff!
Those who are persuaded that God (or God's direct "form-conferring"
action) are to be found in the gaps, will do so. Those who are persuaded
that the gaps will in time be shown to be "closeable" through processes
already designed into the natural world will draw different conclusions.
It is the same argument - the God-of-the-gaps argument - with the same
differences in position. The only difference I can see is that the data
might be a little more complete in the case of the fossil discussion
than the biogenesis discussion.
I am reminded of a comparision I found recently between the data first
reported by Hubble regarding the expanding universe and current data
(http://home.fnal.gov/~rocky/cernteach.pdf - page 4):
That early data (middle left in the figure) is pretty noisy, but some
significant (and ultimately correct) trends were argued in the data
presented. It's pretty profound how the noise in the first finding
recedes in light of the later more complete data (middle right in the
same figure). [If anyone has trouble viewing the figures in the pdf
document, contact me for jpgs of the figures].
It is my persuasion that this is a model of our likely future as well
with both fossil and biogenesis discussions. But there is another camp!
And as long as gaps exist, those camps will continue to exist (with the
occasional turncoat fording the river in between in the dead of night!).
Jim Armstrong
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Tue Jul 29 2003 - 14:46:28 EDT