Origin of Life

[Obliquinaut]

That sucks. I'm sorry. (I have OCD too, though it actually forced me back to organized religion. Go figure.)

Thanks. You are correct. It sucks. I actually was at an OCD treatment center and there were several people there who were largely focused on their scrupulosity. (My main treatment focus was more on other aspects of my OCD).

There were some really, really good people who were truly dedicated to their faith but it was eating them alive in many ways. One young man had a ritual that whenever he thought something blasphemous (although we were never really apprised of the details of others problems this was something I inferred from the various conversations) he would touch the floor a certain number of times. Truly nice young man, afflicted with a terrible stutter, but just walking down the hall he'd seemingly have to genuflect every few feet and touch the floor.

My issue was "contamination" so in group therapy sessions I was encouraged to touch the floor while this young man sitting immediately beside me was discouraged to touch the floor.

I am hopeful for all of those folks who thus suffered that their faith wouldn't end up leaving them, but that they would be able to coordinate a healthy faith life and get past the OCD

For me it was much more complex than just the scrupulosity. The scrupulosity was pretty awful for me for years but it was a larger overarching investigation of my own faith that finally led me to leave it. Don't get me wrong; I wasn't raised in a particularly religious household...standard middle-of-the-road whitebread midwestern Methodist. So it wasn't anything anyone pushed onto me, it was just the way my brain worked.

I still have many, many, many Christian friends. People who's faith I honor and whom I respect. I have even helped defray costs for friends' mission work. But faith is no longer my thing.

Is this really true, though? Individual chemicals aren't going to exhibit the same phenomena that a living system is going to--growth, reproduction, metabolization.

I didn't go into biochem, but rather organic chemistry. As such I did have some biochem in college. At its heart living systems are just regular chemical systems. You can characterize all the processes that keep you alive using the same rules and chemistry as stuff that goes on in a beaker.

Science has yet to actually "create life", this is true. But then we've only been pursuing this end of chemistry for less than 100 years. I think the most important thing for me is that all the pieces-parts exist and are laid out there. It doesn't appear that any supernatural spark is needed.

We have two competing hypotheses:

1. An external intelligence (God) created life using standard chemistry
2. Life arose out of non-life through an (as yet unknown) process using standard chemistry

The "God hypothesis" leads to many more questions than it answers and may not be absolutely necessary as an explanatory variable.

I like the concept of emergent properties and all, but in some cases, it really does just sound like a fancy way to say "magic."

I am fascinated by emergent complexity as well. Not sure I know much in that area, however.

(My background's philosophy, not science.)

My closest friend in college was a philosophy major (now a professor of philosophy) and I found that my years in association with him have helped me immensely in my life as a scientist. It wasn't until I began to appreciate the logic and philosophy underpinnings of science and reason that I truly began to value the things I learned haning out with him. I miss those days.

 

[xianghua]

But evdence of manufacture is the only thing we can base our decision on. Functionality or complexity are not evidence of design.

so a wtach\motor\car by itself isnt evidence for design?

 

[durangodawood]

so a watch\motor\car by itself isnt evidence for design?

For me they ARE evidence for design..... as every single car and watch we've ever seen has been 100% for sure designed.

 

[xianghua]

For me they ARE evidence for design..... as every single car and watch we've ever seen has been 100% for sure designed.

and any motor, right?

 

[durangodawood]

and any motor, right?

I guess that depends on what youre calling a "motor".

I mean we know all mechanical piston drive engines have human creators.

But if youre including some cellular process, we certainly cannot demonstrate a creator for that.

 

[xianghua]

I guess that depends on what youre calling a "motor".

I mean we know all mechanical piston drive engines have human creators.

But if youre including some cellular process, we certainly cannot demonstrate a creator for that.

so what if we will find an organic watch llike this one, including the ability to reproduce?:

you will conclude design or not?

(image from Assunt Wood Watch)

 

[durangodawood]

so what if we will find an organic watch llike this one, including the ability to reproduce?:

you will conclude design or not?

(image from Assunt Wood Watch)

I can see the form is just like known human designs. Is the mechanism like known human designs too?

As for self-reproducing, this sounds like total fantasy. Youd have to show me how it self reproduces before I can answer properly.

 

[xianghua]

As for self-reproducing, this sounds like total fantasy. Youd have to show me how it self reproduces before I can answer properly.

lets say its reproduce somehow. you will conclude design or not in this case?

 

[durangodawood]

lets say its reproduce somehow. you will conclude design or not in this case?

Why cant I examine it it see how it works? Naturally I would want to do this before making firm conclusions. Wouldnt you?

But just based on form alone, I'd say human designed as the form is exactly like other known human designs.

 

[Speedwell]

lets say its reproduce somehow. you will conclude design or not in this case?

Your "gotcha game" isn't going to work. No matter how many fantastic examples you dream up, functionality and complexity in themselves can never lead to a conclusion of design. Only evidence of manufacture leads to a conclusion of design.

 

[xianghua]

But just based on form alone, I'd say human designed as the form is exactly like other known human designs.

thanks. the same can be said about this motor too, right?:

(image from Bacterial Flagella: Structure, importance and examples of flagellated bacteria - microbeonline)

 

[durangodawood]

thanks. the same can be said about this motor too, right?:

(image from Bacterial Flagella: Structure, importance and examples of flagellated bacteria - microbeonline)

Thats bacteria. Not a human design. We know that.

 

[Silmarien]

Biology certainly appears to be reducible to chemistry. The idea of vitalism, that "living organisms are fundamentally different from non-living entities because they contain some non-physical element or are governed by different principles than are inanimate things" died out starting 200 years ago with the discovery that organic molecules could be synthesized from inorganic components. As this process continued, learning how biology is reducible to chemistry and genetics (also chemistry), the idea of vitalism died out entirely by 100 years ago or so.

I explicitly mentioned the concept of emergent properties, so I am not sure why you would assume that I was suggesting something like vitalism as an alternative. This is a specifically 21st century debate within the philosophy of science, not a 19th century one. Your assumption to the contrary is frankly borderline offensive.

Here's an abstract on systems biology: Systems biology, emergence and antireductionism - ScienceDirect

Actually, it's a pretty comprehensive paper, since it goes into things like the difference between emergence and vitalism and their connections to property dualism and substance dualism, respectively. If this is the shape of the future, I'm hopeful that we'll see less of Creationism vs. reductive evolutionism this century, and more of a focus on whether emergentism works better in a naturalistic or theistic framework. Those are much more interesting discussions. Modern Catholic Scholasticism vs. Neo-Aristotelian naturalism, effectively.

 

[xianghua]

Thats bacteria. Not a human design. We know that.

but you said about the watch that "the form is exactly like other known human designs". so this fit well with that motor too.

 

[durangodawood]

but you said about the watch that "the form is exactly like other known human designs". so this fit well with that motor too.

I dont know of human designs that look just like the the bacterial flagellum. Maybe you can show me some? And please dont just show me something with rotational motion. Clearly that alone is not enough to distinguish human design, as the flagellum demonstrates.

 

[xianghua]

I dont know of human designs that look just like the the bacterial flagellum. Maybe you can show me some?

here is one:

Rotating locomotion in living systems - Wikipedia

 

[durangodawood]

here is one:

Rotating locomotion in living systems - Wikipedia

Thats a scale model of the bacterial flagellum. This is like saying a humans might have designed trees because:

 

[xianghua]

Thats a scale model of the bacterial flagellum.

so what? its a design that look just like the the bacterial flagellum. as you ask for.

 

[durangodawood]

so what? its a design that look just like the the bacterial flagellum. as you ask for.

Its not a design.

Its a model. A scale replica. An imitation of the form. Not a design.

 

[xianghua]

Its not a design.

Its a model. A scale replica. An imitation of the form. Not a design.

so this replica isnt looks design?