Abiogenesis chicken-and-egg problem

[ChetSinger]

I'd like to throw out an idea and get some thoughts on it.

It appears to me that one of the big problems with abiogenesis theory is a kind of chicken-and-egg problem.

DNA, by itself, doesn't do anything; it's a memory store that is acted upon by other chemicals. Where do those chemicals come from? They're manufactured in the cell by processes that read the DNA to get their specifications.

So which came first, the DNA or the chemicals that act upon them? If the DNA came first, nothing happens. But if those other chemicals came first, they can't reproduce because their specifications aren't stored anywhere.

So the DNA just happens to contain the very specifications of the chemicals that act upon it. It strikes me as a kind of chicken-and-egg conundrum, taken down to the cellular level.

I can't see such a system ever coming together randomly.

Any thoughts? Am I off-base here?

 

[Calminian]

I'd like to throw out an idea and get some thoughts on it.

It appears to me that one of the big problems with abiogenesis theory is a kind of chicken-and-egg problem.

DNA, by itself, doesn't do anything; it's a memory store that is acted upon by other chemicals. Where do those chemicals come from? They're manufactured in the cell by processes that read the DNA to get their specifications.

So which came first, the DNA or the chemicals that act upon them? If the DNA came first, nothing happens. But if those other chemicals came first, they can't reproduce because their specifications aren't stored anywhere.

So the DNA just happens to contain the very specifications of the chemicals that act upon it. It strikes me as a kind of chicken-and-egg conundrum, taken down to the cellular level.

I can't see such a system ever coming together randomly.

Any thoughts? Am I off-base here?

If your premises are sound, your conclusion is certainly valid. If DNA needs the chemicals and the chemicals need DNA, we have to conclude natural processes couldn't possibly have made life.

 

[Papias]

I'd like to throw out an idea and get some thoughts on it.

Sounds like a good start.

It appears to me that one of the big problems with abiogenesis theory is a kind of chicken-and-egg problem.
...

So which came first, the DNA or the chemicals that act upon them? If the DNA came first, nothing happens. But if those other chemicals came first, they can't reproduce because their specifications aren't stored anywhere.

...
Any thoughts? Am I off-base here?

To recap your question - DNA makes proteins, but only with other molecules involved in the process (DNA itself is not a catalyst for those reactions).

What we would need would be a molecule which can both store information as well as being able to catalyze the reactions which make proteins from that information. Yes, this can be seen as a "chicken and the egg" problem.

It turns out that RNA (like one side of DNA's double helix) can do just that. It makes sense then that an RNA heredity system could function, and then later, and RNA strand and it's complement could join to make a DNA system, which would work then because the catalysts are already around, plus it would benefit from the complintary base-pairing ability of DNA.

By now, it's pretty well established now that an RNA system is what led to our current DNA system. Some consequences of the RNA world hypothesis. - PubMed - NCBI Because, after all, this idea was first proposed around 50 years ago, so there has been a lot of experimentation on it. The origin of the genetic code. - PubMed - NCBI

That means that any group who proposes this DNA "chicken and the egg problem", without describing the understandings of the RNA world, is either irresponsible (by not bothering to check on a half-century of research), or worse, dishonest (by knowing of a half century of findings and not telling you).

In fact, this was explained in item #3, in the link I gave you (The Origin of Life ) back on this thread, about a similar question. Since you likely read it back then, take a look at it again and see if it is familiar to you.

http://www.christianforums.com/t7712278/#post62133255

Remember as well that even if the origin of DNA were a complete mystery, it wouldn't change the fact that evolution from cells to life today is well established. That's like the fact that we don't know how Rome was founded, yet it would be silly to use that lack of knowledge to suggest that the Roman Empire didn't exist.

Also, the rest of that post may be useful again. Here it is:

*********************************
Chetsinger wrote:

Or is that even a relevant question?

the question was "how did the first life come about".

Well, it's not relevant from a salvation standpoint. I think you can be saved whether you think life started according to these routes, or if it was an unnatural miracle, or even if you think the first life was brought to earth on a cosmic tortilla from beetle-juice.

It is, of course, an interesting historical question to some of us, just as it is interesting whether or not Cathage won the war against Persia, or whatever.

It's true that we don't know if it was a chemical route or a miracle. However, look at the progression here:

our understanding in the Year 1500:

Lightining - divine intervention?
disease - evil spirits? divine intervention?
origin of animals (say, dogs from wolves) - divine intervention?
Age of the earth - ~6,00 years
origin of languages - divine intervention?
Origin of life - divine intervention?



our understanding in the Year 1800:

Lightining - Static electricity.
disease - evil spirits? divine intervention?
origin of animals (say, dogs from wolves) - divine intervention? Lamarckian evolution?
Age of the earth - ~6,00 years? starting to look like at least millions of years.
origin of languages - divine intervention?
Origin of life - divine intervention?
etc.


our understanding in the Year 1900:

Lightining - Static electricity.
disease - Viruses and bacteria
origin of animals (say, dogs from wolves) - divine intervention? Lamarckian evolution? Evolution by natural selection?
Age of the earth - ~at least millions of years.
origin of languages - change over time from early proto-language.
Origin of life - divine intervention?
etc.


our understanding in the Year 2000:

Lightining - Static electricity.
disease - Viruses and bacteria.
origin of animals (say, dogs from wolves) - evolution by natural selection.
Age of the earth - 4.55 billion years.
origin of languages - change over time from early proto-language.
Origin of life - divine intervention? An RNA world? endosymbiosis? Micelles?
etc.

See how it goes? Hanging your faith on pockets of ignorance makes a continually shrinking "God of the Gaps". There is no need to do that - especially when realizing that God works through all things, all the time (see John 5:17) makes all these things the creative action of God anyway. To miss that is to fall for the atheist's line that God is banished from everything, when instead He is omnipresent.

To be clear - I think the position that "God intervened against his natural laws to make a miraculous first cell, which then evolved to give us the life we see today" is a plausible Christian position. I just don't think it's the best way to go, both for your faith and for bringing others to the faith. I think it is better to allow for the possibility of God using his natural laws to build the first cell, just as he did to knit you in your mother's womb, or to bring life to the forms we see today. That avoids any evidence denial, giving you a robust faith in a constantly active God.

Papias

 

[Resha Caner]

The RNA world is one of the leading ideas, but I've not heard that all the issues are settled. Most things like this seem to lead into an infinite regress, which is why someone wrote an entire book about how life seems to require an infinite regress: Godel, Escher, and Bach: An Eternal Golden Braid.

 

[ChetSinger]

The RNA world is one of the leading ideas, but I've not heard that all the issues are settled. Most things like this seem to lead into an infinite regress, which is why someone wrote an entire book about how life seems to require an infinite regress: Godel, Escher, and Bach: An Eternal Golden Braid.

Eugene Koonin published a paper a few years ago where he punted the abiogenesis issue to the multiverse, where "everything will eventually happen". The reason was that he considered the problems with the RNA world intractable.

His paper can be found here: Biology Direct | Full text | The cosmological model of eternal inflation and the transition from chance to biological evolution in the history of life

 

[Papias]

Chet wrote:

Eugene Koonin published a paper a few years ago where he punted the abiogenesis issue to the multiverse, where "everything will eventually happen".

Cool, a very relevant citation of a real expert! Kudos!

This also means that you are now clearly familiar with the idea of the RNA world.

The reason was that he considered the problems with the RNA world intractable.

Um, could you help me out here, please? I don't see that anywhere in the paper. He never suggests the abiotic transition to RNA is impossible to solve or impossible itself, but only that it was difficult. Is there a part that I missed that you based your statement on? Could you point it out?

Also, do you agree that it's irrelevant to common descent, since the start of life being a miracle of God, with evolution happening after that, is consistent with all known evidence? Thus, proving abiogenesis may help the atheist, but denying abiogenesis it provides no help to someone trying to deny common descent, since God may have provided that step.

He does write:

All this is not to suggest that OORT is a problem of "irreducible complexity" and that the systems of replication and translation could not emerge by means of biological evolution.​

******************************

((sorry, I forgot what you prefer to be called, but remember that it's not "Resha" )) wrote:

Most things like this seem to lead into an infinite regress, which is why someone wrote an entire book about how life seems to require an infinite regress: Godel, Escher, and Bach: An Eternal Golden Braid.

Have you read it? I read it, though it was 15 years ago. IIRC, it does have lots of infinite regresses, but not one about the start of life. After all, the start of life would not be limited by infinite regress, since atoms are of finite size. So a larger organism is made up of smaller cells, which originated in still smaller eukaryotes, which originated in still smaller prokaryotes, which originated in still smaller DNA molecules, which originated in still smaller RNA molecules, which originated in still smaller peptides, which originated in still smaller molecular fragments, which originated in still smaller atoms. The end. Since we need not go smaller than atoms.


It does have one about GOD, where, starting from the Indian Cosmological myth of earth being on a turtle, goes to have a turtle under that, and turtles all the way down. On top, there is a Djinn (genie). On top of him, another Djinn, again all the way up. This means that if we call the infinite stack of Djinn "God", then above on Djinn is "God Over Djinn" which is G - O - D. Of course, above that God is more stacked Djinn, so again GOD is above that.

But, that's the closest relevant thing I could remember after 15 years.

In Christ-

Papias

 

[Resha Caner]

Also, do you agree that it's irrelevant to common descent ...

I realize you didn't address this question to me, but yes I understand abiogenesis and common descent are 2 different things.

Have you read it? I read it, though it was 15 years ago. IIRC, it does have lots of infinite regresses, but not one about the start of life.

Yes, I've read it. He covers a wide variety of topics in varying levels of detail - the part that sticks with me the most was his discussion of the brain. I don't recall if he spent much time on the origin of life, but I thought he did touch on it. The blurb for the book seems to indicate he does:

Godel Escher Bach: An Eternal Golden Braid by Douglas R. Hofstadter | 9780465026562 | Paperback | Barnes & Noble

Anyway, I can see that my statement about the book was unclear. I should have said something more like, "it's a book about how many aspects of life require an infinite regress, with the origin of life being one of those". To be sure his main focus was the emergence of intelligence.

After all, the start of life would not be limited by infinite regress, since atoms are of finite size.

Size is not a necessary element of an infinite regress. What you describe sounds more like a simple hierarchy.

Infinite regress - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Papias]

Thanks for the good reply.

Caner (?) wrote-

with the origin of life being one of those. (described as an infinite regress in G E B )

That's the thing I'm questioning. I don't remember the origin of life being mentioned as an infinite regress, and I don't see why it would be. Of course, it could well have been mentioned and I simply forgot. If so, I'm interested in which page number or chapter (not that it's a big deal or anything).

Step from atoms to life could be:

1. atoms form simple molecules like NH3, CO2 (shown to happen)
2. These form organic precursors like amino acids (shown to happen)
3. These form more complicated peptide chains (shown to happen)
4. Some peptide chains are catalysts for their own formation - copying (shown to happen)
5. Some of these encode information (shown to happen)
6. Some form with sufficiently low copy errors (not yet shown to happen)
7. A copier with decent, but imperfect copying undergoes selection (shown to happen)
8. Complexity increases from there, leading to an RNA system (not yet shown to happen)
9. An RNA system, through failed separation, leads to a DNA system (not yet shown to happen)
10. A DNA system undergoes selection (shown to happen)
11. this is life as we know it.

Granted, this is simplified (a complete description would take many volumes, and is far beyond my knowledge). Granted, there are some steps there that are not yet shown to work. But, neither of those points change the fact that this is not an infinite regress.

Is the above series possible with God's current laws of physics and chemistry? I don't know - that's the question answered by my first post on this thread.

In Christ-

Papias

 

[Resha Caner]

Is the above series possible with God's current laws of physics and chemistry? I don't know - that's the question answered by my first post on this thread.

The "I don't know" and the "not yet shown" parts of your post combined with your insistence that it is not an infinite regress puzzles me. Note that my comment (post #4) is that life "seems to be" an infinite regress. It may be my opinion, but I can't prove it.

Why did you stop with atoms? In order for atoms to form we need wavicles. Some (like electrons) are considered fundamental, but others (like neutrons) are made of up and down quarks. Even though quarks are fundamental, do physicists think they have always existed? Not as I understand it. There was a quark epoch that formed them. Before that was the electroweak epoch, preceded by the grand unification epoch, preceded by the Planck epoch ... and I think there are some turtles in there as well.

Further, I don't think defining what life is, is all that easy. Defining biochemical processes is different than defining life.

But I don't expect to convince you. Rather, I'll just ask this question: Do you think someone will eventually succeed in creating life? Or can only God do it?

 

[Papias]

Caner wrote:

The "I don't know" and the "not yet shown" parts of your post combined with your insistence that it is not an infinite regress puzzles me. Note that my comment (post #4) is that life "seems to be" an infinite regress. It may be my opinion, but I can't prove it.

Why did you stop with atoms? In order for atoms to form we need wavicles......

As I mentioned before, and "infinite regress" is not the same as a "unanswered question". All of the above in your post seems to be able to be applied equally well to any mystery.

For instance, take the founding of Rome. We don't know exactly when or exactly how it was formed. There is of course the legendary story of Romulus, raised by wolves, but historians don't consider that real. So for Rome, does the fact that we don't know who founded it, then where they came from, then where their parents came from, and so on, mean that the founding of Rome is an infinite regress? Or that the founders likely used tools, made of molecules, made of atoms, made of wavicules, etc mean that the founding of Rome is an infinite regress?

I don't think so. Maybe we just have different ideas of what an infinite regress is.

But I don't expect to convince you.

I'm not sure what you are thinking about convincing me of. That these things are infinite regresses? That life is impossible without God? I already think that, since God upholds and constantly creates the entire universe, as stated by our Lord and Savior Jesus himself.

Further, I don't think defining what life is, is all that easy. Defining biochemical processes is different than defining life.

Defining life is indeed hard, but perhaps the definition that is used in many areas of biology (including NASA's exobiology program) is useful:

"Life" is a self sustaining chemical process capable of undergoing Darwinian evolution.
​

Though only a dozen words long, it strikes me how clear this definition is. For instance, it specifies that reproduction and heredity must both be present, that copying must be good enough to hold back degradation, that reproduction must be successful enough to produce a "gene" pool, that copying can't be exactly perfect (and hence static), and so on.

Using that definition, I can answer your question:

Rather, I'll just ask this question: Do you think someone will eventually succeed in creating life? Or can only God do it?

First, I don't know. Second, seeing all the progress made in the past 8 years or so, I'd have to guess yes, someone will. Maybe not though. Not that it's terribly relevant, since the whole creation is something God did in any case.

Best-

Papias

 

[Resha Caner]

As I mentioned before, and "infinite regress" is not the same as a "unanswered question". All of the above in your post seems to be able to be applied equally well to any mystery.

That's a fair enough point, but I don't think it stems from our definitions of an infinite regress, but rather from our definitions of life.

I'm not sure what you are thinking about convincing me of. That these things are infinite regresses? That life is impossible without God? I already think that, since God upholds and constantly creates the entire universe, as stated by our Lord and Savior Jesus himself.

I'm not trying very hard to convince you of anything, but my opinion matches the bolded statement: life is impossible without God. One thing that would make it impossible is the apparent need for an infinite regress.

"Life" is a self sustaining chemical process capable of undergoing Darwinian evolution.

Using that definition, I can answer your question:

First, I don't know...

I appreciate your honesty (per the "I don't know" part).

The definition is curious for 2 reasons. First, it's circular. Is it possible for nonliving things to undergo Darwinian evolution? I realize the word "evolution" can be used in many contexts, but to specify Darwinian evolution seems to restrict use of that word to biology. I haven't seen it used in other contexts. Second, it has a co-opting nature to it ... as if those who disagree with evolution don't know what life is.

But, putting all that aside, one can always pretend to address a difficulty by manipulating definitions. If all life is to you is the mechanistic - life is nothing more than a chemical machine - then maybe man will succeed some day in creating life. It seems more than that to me.

 

[mark kennedy]

First, it's circular. Is it possible for nonliving things to undergo Darwinian evolution? I realize the word "evolution" can be used in many contexts, but to specify Darwinian evolution seems to restrict use of that word to biology. I haven't seen it used in other contexts.

Darwinism has always been inclusive of living and non-living history, going back to and including the Big Bang:

"the probability of all change in the organic, as well as in the inorganic world, being the result of law, and not of miraculous interposition" (Darwin, On the Origin of Species)​

Darwinism is predicated on naturalistic assumptions, not anything remotely resembling empirical observation.

Second, it has a co-opting nature to it ... as if those who disagree with evolution don't know what life is.

You are assumed to be ignorant if you refuse to make the naturalistic assumptions of Darwinism. It's really that simple.

But, putting all that aside, one can always pretend to address a difficulty by manipulating definitions. If all life is to you is the mechanistic - life is nothing more than a chemical machine - then maybe man will succeed some day in creating life. It seems more than that to me.

In Him was life, and the life was the light of men. And the light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not comprehend [overcome] it. (John 1:4,5)​

One has to wonder what room a Darwinian worldview has left for Christian conviction, predicated as it is on naturalistic assumptions. Are we to accept that being born again is a naturalistic process and that the resurrection is figurative even as the original creation was in Genesis. The Theistic evolutionist is strangely silent on this point.

Grace and peace,
Mark

 

[Resha Caner]

Darwinism has always been inclusive of living and non-living history, going back to and including the Big Bang:

"the probability of all change in the organic, as well as in the inorganic world, being the result of law, and not of miraculous interposition" (Darwin, On the Origin of Species)​

That would be news to me. Just because Darwin made a poetic comment about it doesn't make it part of Darwinian evolution. He also commented on how monkeys like tea, but I don't think he considered tea a necessary element of his theory.

Charles Darwin Quotes - 216 Science Quotes - Dictionary of Science Quotations and Scientist Quotes

If Darwinian evolution stretches back to the Big Bang, that means it also includes abiogenesis. Yet for years proponents have been emphatically stating to me it is not part of evolution. See, for example, post #6 in this thread.

I don't know what resource people would accept, but the American Heritage Science Dictionary begins with the statement that Darwinism is, "A theory of biological evolution developed by Charles Darwin ..." (emphasis mine)

Further, my comment about co-opting the word "life" was not meant to apply only to the present. It would mean David didn't know what he was talking about in, for example, Psalm 26:9, "Do not sweep my soul away with sinners, nor my life with bloodthirsty men."

 

[mark kennedy]

That would be news to me. Just because Darwin made a poetic comment about it doesn't make it part of Darwinian evolution. He also commented on how monkeys like tea, but I don't think he considered tea a necessary element of his theory.

That was Darwin quoting Lamarck in the preface to On the Origin of Species, the sixth edition. We are not talking about poetry and if you don't realize that Darwinian evolution is predicated on naturalistic assumptions your wasting your time in these debates.

If Darwinian evolution stretches back to the Big Bang, that means it also includes abiogenesis. Yet for years proponents have been emphatically stating to me it is not part of evolution. See, for example, post #6 in this thread.

God cannot be given credit for the creation of life, not even as designer, do you really think Darwinians will give God credit for the creation of the universe? I have never seen one of them accept any aspect of creation going all the way back to and including the Big Bang, there are no exceptions. Pedantic denials don't interest me, no self respecting Darwinian would dare admit a miracle, especially creation. Even those who profess to be Christian.

I don't know what resource people would accept, but the American Heritage Science Dictionary begins with the statement that Darwinism is, "A theory of biological evolution developed by Charles Darwin ..." (emphasis mine)

Darwinism is defined different ways, principally by Charles Darwin in On the Origin of Species which is one long argument against special creation. The Modern Synthesis, aka Neodarwinism is more of the same thing only intermingled with an emerging Mendelian genetics Darwinians neither understand nor respect.

Further, my comment about co-opting the word "life" was not meant to apply only to the present. It would mean David didn't know what he was talking about in, for example, Psalm 26:9, "Do not sweep my soul away with sinners, nor my life with bloodthirsty men."

In that passage David is using 'life' synonymously with 'soul', I don't know if that is relevant to what you are expressing but it's an important literary pattern in the OT. It's a parallelism and while it may be meaningless with regards to the evolution/creation debate it underscores an important distinction between the concept of an immortal soul and the Hebrew concept which is the life breath.

 

[ebia]

The RNA world is one of the leading ideas, but I've not heard that all the issues are settled. Most things like this seem to lead into an infinite regress, which is why someone wrote an entire book about how life seems to require an infinite regress: Godel, Escher, and Bach: An Eternal Golden Braid.

The only explicit reference to origin of life in the index:

https://www.dropbox.com/s/eh5aqfp8zrsgjzm/scan%201%20mar%202015%202.53%20pm.pdf?dl=0

 

[Resha Caner]

What are you trying to accomplish, Mark? It feels like we're in this weird place where you're trying to argue against evolution (or at least besmirch it) by arguing with me (someone who doesn't accept evolution).

That was Darwin quoting Lamarck in the preface to On the Origin of Species, the sixth edition. We are not talking about poetry and if you don't realize that Darwinian evolution is predicated on naturalistic assumptions your wasting your time in these debates.

I didn't say it was poetry like "roses are red, violets are blue". I said it was a poetic comment. Poetic prose is a writing style that uses various embellishments (maybe you should Google it). You can't just plop every phrase into exact categories. You can't say: Darwin was a scientist therefore everything he wrote was scientific. Darwin lived during the Romantic Era, and his writing carries obvious characteristics of that period.

Further, I am fully aware what naturalism is and what its assumptions are. That is a far cry from saying Darwin thought that the formation of snowflakes, stalactites, and quartz constituted Darwinian evolution.

In that passage David is using 'life' synonymously with 'soul', I don't know if that is relevant to what you are expressing but it's an important literary pattern in the OT. It's a parallelism and while it may be meaningless with regards to the evolution/creation debate it underscores an important distinction between the concept of an immortal soul and the Hebrew concept which is the life breath.

I'm aware of the use of parallelism in the Psalms. That is exactly why I picked that verse. We were discussing the difficulties of defining life and whether or not someone can understand what life is apart from a PhD in chemistry and biology.

Rather than discussing Hebrew and Romantic Era poetry, I'd prefer to stick to the more pertinent topics.

 

[miamited]

Hi guys,

Just something to consider. I wonder why some on these boards stand opposed to evolutionary theory despite the 'obvious proofs' that science gives us that it did happen. It is even 'proven' in the Smithsonian museum of natural science. Our national treasure of natural science knowledge.

Yet, many of those same people are unwilling to accept a recently created universal realm based on those same 'obvious proofs'. God said He created the first man and some of us accept that based on nothing more than God said so despite all the apparent 'obvious proofs'. But God created this entire realm in which man lives in the span of time of six rotations of the earth is denied because, well, because science tells us that that isn't possible.

I suppose there are good reasons that each one has for their understanding, but personally, I find it curious.

God bless you all,
In Christ, Ted

 

[Papias]

Caner wrote:

I'm not trying very hard to convince you of anything, but my opinion matches the (your) bolded statement: life is impossible without God. One thing that would make it impossible is the apparent need for an infinite regress.

Yes. I guess my thought was that life is impossible without God, even if abiogenesis was something so easy that it was included in every elementary school science demonstration. Even in that case, Heb 1:3 and other verses show that it is God's constant action, through His glorious power, that allows anything to exist at all, including, and I think especially, life -and especially human life.

I mean I would never want to hang my faith on the bet that humans can't recreate life, because I think God is much bigger than that little bet. Just like the bet that humans could never recreate, say, flight, or eyes. Creating life is, of course, just a very minor parlor trick to God.

I appreciate your honesty (per the "I don't know" part).

Thanks!

Originally Posted by Papias View Post

"Life" is a self sustaining chemical process capable of undergoing Darwinian evolution

.

The definition is curious for 2 reasons. First, it's circular. Is it possible for nonliving things to undergo Darwinian evolution?

Yes. Anything which replicates imperfectly, and is subject to a selection process, will evolve. Hence things like genetic algorithms and electronic circuits being evolved instead of designed. Just look up those terms, or "universal darwinism" to find more info on them.

Of course, in those cases, humans supply the replication and the selection. The definition of life, above, only says that the chemical process itself must supply the replication - which is not a huge leap, since it is not that far from currently known (and synthesizable) systems. The environment supplies the selection.

I realize the word "evolution" can be used in many contexts, but to specify Darwinian evolution seems to restrict use of that word to biology. I haven't seen it used in other contexts.

No. As alluded to above, the process of replication and selection is all that is needed for evolution, and a replication and selection are not limited to biology. Heck, they apply pretty well to chain letters. Chain Letters and Evolutionary Histories - Scientific American (sorry, behind a pay wall.) *sigh*

Second, it has a co-opting nature to it ... as if those who disagree with evolution don't know what life is.

Perhaps. I agree that snootiness should generally be avoided. How about agreeing that without a definition, nobody can know that life is?

But, putting all that aside, one can always pretend to address a difficulty by manipulating definitions.

Right. I agree that doing so is not helpful, and I pledge not to pretend to discuss anything while manipulating (or making up) definitions.

If all life is to you is the mechanistic - life is nothing more than a chemical machine - then maybe man will succeed some day in creating life. It seems more than that to me.

Well, at the level of consciousness (like us), one can clearly argue that much more than mechanisticness is needed. But at the level of bacteria - where the chemistry is well known and there appears to be little there aside from the chemistry - I find it hard to argue that there is more there than a chemical machine.

Do you see more than chemistry in simple bacteria?

In Christ-

Papias

P.S.

You wrote:

What are you trying to accomplish, Mark?

I'm still not sure why mark wants to convince everyone that Darwinian evolution require atheism (which to me seems just as realistic as the idea that gravitational theory requires atheism).

Here's an example where this was discussed at length previously, ending in the summary post at #243.

http://www.christianforums.com/t7799807-25/#post65109190

 

[Resha Caner]

I mean I would never want to hang my faith on the bet that humans can't recreate life, because I think God is much bigger than that little bet. Just like the bet that humans could never recreate, say, flight, or eyes. Creating life is, of course, just a very minor parlor trick to God.

My faith doesn't depend on such things either, but I would phrase it differently. I would say my faith is not dependent on human wisdom - including mine.

Yes. Anything which replicates imperfectly, and is subject to a selection process, will evolve. Hence things like genetic algorithms and electronic circuits being evolved instead of designed. Just look up those terms, or "universal darwinism" to find more info on them.

That seems a confusion of reality and simulation. As an engineer, I've simulated many machines in my day, but I never confused a simulation of an internal combustion engine with the engine itself. Any natural examples?

I'll warn you that there is a lot of chemistry going on in the universe, and that "self-sustaining" is merely a matter of where you draw your boundary. As such, your definition is headed toward Gaia.

No. As alluded to above, the process of replication and selection is all that is needed for evolution, and a replication and selection are not limited to biology. Heck, they apply pretty well to chain letters.

The letters themselves do this? Or are we now confusing the byproducts of living organisms with life itself?

Perhaps. I agree that snootiness should generally be avoided. How about agreeing that without a definition, nobody can know that life is?

No. I would know life even if I never uttered or heard a word. Definitions are only necessary for communication ... and even then only when use of a word is in dispute - which seems to be the case here. So, I do appreciate the attempt on your part.

Do you see more than chemistry in simple bacteria?

I don't know anything more about bacteria than its biochemistry. Why? Because bacteria have never tried to communicate with me. Some would argue my interactions with my dog (or my children) are nothing more than biochemistry. In those cases I would argue it is different because they communicate with me.

Regardless, my ignorance of bacteria is no reason to say they are nothing more than a chemical machine. On the flip side, I feel no compulsion to say they are life either.

I'm tempted to make an analogy, but if it doesn't work I'm not going to dwell on it - spend 100 posts agonizing over clarifying it. If you get it (even if you don't agree with it) - great. If not, let's just move on. When an automobile rolls out of a factory, what made it? The building? The tools? the people? What is a "factory"? We can argue that all day, but I would never say a tool is a factory. I see bacteria more like a tool of life than life itself.

 

[mark kennedy]

What are you trying to accomplish, Mark? It feels like we're in this weird place where you're trying to argue against evolution (or at least besmirch it) by arguing with me (someone who doesn't accept evolution).

I don't know what your talking about, I have never argued against evolution. My problem is with Darwinism, the large body of work known as evolutionary biology is based on how living systems work not on who we are to presume our ancestors were and by what means things change over time. Is it possible you have no idea what the Modern Synthesis is?

I didn't say it was poetry like "roses are red, violets are blue". I said it was a poetic comment. Poetic prose is a writing style that uses various embellishments (maybe you should Google it). You can't just plop every phrase into exact categories. You can't say: Darwin was a scientist therefore everything he wrote was scientific. Darwin lived during the Romantic Era, and his writing carries obvious characteristics of that period.

I know what poetic prose is, historical narratives in the Old Testament are written in poetic prose, On the Origin of Species is not. Poetic prose is just a literary style, it has nothing to do with whether or not it is a literally true. Charles Darwin wrote one long argument against creation, specifically miraculous creation. His grand father on the other hand was quite the poet:

"ORGANIC LIFE beneath the shoreless waves
Was born and nurs'd in Ocean's pearly caves;
First forms minute, unseen by spheric glass,
Move on the mud, or pierce the watery mass;
These, as successive generations bloom
New powers acquire, and larger limbs assume;
Whence countless groups of vegetation spring,
And breathing realms of fin, and feet, and wing.
(The Temple of Nature, Erasmus Darwin)​

Classic pagan mythology.

Further, I am fully aware what naturalism is and what its assumptions are. That is a far cry from saying Darwin thought that the formation of snowflakes, stalactites, and quartz constituted Darwinian evolution.

I never said that, I have straight forward definitions for evolution as distinctly different from Darwinian a priori assumptions.

I'm aware of the use of parallelism in the Psalms. That is exactly why I picked that verse. We were discussing the difficulties of defining life and whether or not someone can understand what life is apart from a PhD in chemistry and biology.

Defined as life breath in the Old Testament. When Adam first breathed, he became a living soul. The strongest indication that Adam was created by divine fiat not evolved from ancestral populations.

Rather than discussing Hebrew and Romantic Era poetry, I'd prefer to stick to the more pertinent topics.

So you don't want to discuss the Hebrew Scriptures are Darwinism, which leaves what exactly?