Origin of Life

[durangodawood]

so this replica isnt looks design?

Not sure I understand what youre asking.

 

[xianghua]

Not sure I understand what youre asking.

i asking if the replica looks design.

 

[durangodawood]

i asking if the replica looks design.

If I copy the form of something that was designed, like a watch, then my copy looks like something designed.

But if I copy the form of something not designed, like a cloud, then my replica looks like something not designed.

Making imitations of a form doesnt really tell us anything about whether the form was designed or not.

 

[xianghua]

If I copy the form of something that was designed, like a watch, then my copy looks like something designed.

But if I copy the form of something not designed, like a cloud, then my replica looks like something not designed.

Making imitations of a form doesnt really tell us anything about whether the form was designed or not.

so we cant conclude design if we will see this object?:

(image from wiki)

 

[durangodawood]

so we cant conclude design if we will see this object?:

(image from wiki)

No we cannot.

 

[durangodawood]

so we cant conclude design if we will see this object?:

(image from wiki)

Well, there's a certain amount of design that has to go into an instructive model, like deciding what colors to paint the various molecules and so on.

But nothing here indicates that this is a model of a thing that was designed.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

so we cant conclude design if we will see this object?

The object is a model designed to represent the structure of a flagellum. A plastic Christmas tree is a model designed to represent a certain kind of pine tree.

Don't confuse the map for the territory.

 

[Silmarien]

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.

No worries. My background is non-religious, so almost all my friends are atheist, agnostic, or otherwise unaffiliated. I'm pretty much a Platonist who slipped and fell into Christianity--I expect it's going to take quite some time to figure out what that means, but I don't have a problem with atheists of the non-dogmatic variety.

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.

As far as I'm concerned, these discussions should be taking place on at least three levels. You start by looking at data on the scientific level--what do we know about the natural world and how does it appear to work? I don't see how the question of naturalism vs. non-naturalism is relevant at this point at all. So no God hypothesis.

Then you move into philosophy of science. Where are the boundaries between what science actually tells us and the metaphysical assumptions that we ourselves are bringing to the table? Do reductionist theories of science truly work or do we need a new framework? What are the epistemological presuppositions that scientific knowledge depends upon to be a reliable way of understanding reality? What are the ramifications of quantum physics for the entire endeavor? (Nobody knows!)

And then you move into the history of the philosophy of science and deconstruct everything. Is reductionism an artifact of a mechanistic worldview? How much else of what we inherited from the scientific revolution is now obsolete? Are we in the midst of a new revolution now, and what does that mean for what we think we know? Progress is not a straight line--are there concepts that we tossed out centuries ago that have since snuck their way back in? The debate on Aristotle and his relevance to modern science is very interesting in that regard.

It's at the second and especially third level where I think the question of theism really heats up. That's where you run into challenges like David Conway's The Rediscovery of Wisdom, which was apparently a big part of why Antony Flew ultimately embraced deism. And for a recent (and more affordable) take by an Oxford physicist, there's What is physics?: A defence of classical theism. I have not had a chance to read either, but I'm fairly familiar with the arguments involved. They're powerful in their subversiveness.

This approach is still in its infancy, but it's a really intriguing one. To me, at least. But I've spent my whole life convinced that modern Western society was wrong about something--just took a couple decades to zero in on exactly what.

 

[xianghua]

Well, there's a certain amount of design that has to go into an instructive model, like deciding what colors to paint the various molecules and so on.

But nothing here indicates that this is a model of a thing that was designed.

i talk about the model itself. lets say that it were even able to reproduce like a living thing. do you will conclude design in this case?

 

[durangodawood]

i talk about the model itself. lets say that it were even able to reproduce like a living thing. do you will conclude design in this case?

If the model were able to reproduce???

Sounds like more fantasy.

But lets go with it. We would have to examine the method by which it reproduces. We can examine how a tree reproduces. We can examine how a computer virus reproduces. Lets see how the model does it. Then I'll tell you.

 

[Obliquinaut]

As far as I'm concerned, these discussions should be taking place on at least three levels. You start by looking at data on the scientific level--what do we know about the natural world and how does it appear to work? I don't see how the question of naturalism vs. non-naturalism is relevant at this point at all. So no God hypothesis.

Then you move into philosophy of science. Where are the boundaries between what science actually tells us and the metaphysical assumptions that we ourselves are bringing to the table? Do reductionist theories of science truly work or do we need a new framework? What are the epistemological presuppositions that scientific knowledge depends upon to be a reliable way of understanding reality? What are the ramifications of quantum physics for the entire endeavor? (Nobody knows!)

And then you move into the history of the philosophy of science and deconstruct everything. Is reductionism an artifact of a mechanistic worldview? How much else of what we inherited from the scientific revolution is now obsolete? Are we in the midst of a new revolution now, and what does that mean for what we think we know? Progress is not a straight line--are there concepts that we tossed out centuries ago that have since snuck their way back in? The debate on Aristotle and his relevance to modern science is very interesting in that regard.

I have to admit I am out of my depth in terms of reductionism. This is where I, as a working scientist, can retreat back to the mechanisms of how I do science and how it seems to work best in its most simplistic form:

If we have an item, say "life" in front of us and we want to propose hypotheses that will provide the most information as to how "life" got here, barring our current ability to make it in a lab we can still come to some reasonable conclusions as to where life came from.

If life is made up of chemicals which occur naturally in non-life and if life can be effectively "stopped" by disrupting these chemical reactions then there is no reason to believe that life is anything more than a rather more complex form of non-life. That life probably arose from non-life.

To propose a supernatural agency or even a non-supernatural designer provides no explanatory value without raising far more questions. If it is supernatural then we must find a way to come up with a common understanding of the supernatural and some compelling evidence that such a thing exists. If it is a non-supernatural designer, then we are stuck with trying to explain where THAT life came from.

This approach is still in its infancy, but it's a really intriguing one. To me, at least. But I've spent my whole life convinced that modern Western society was wrong about something--just took a couple decades to zero in on exactly what.

I still science as a functional utility, albeit imperfect. I accepted long ago that science will never give a perfect explanation of the data (there will always be unexplained variance) and that the goal is to explain as much of the variability with as few factors as needed and not introducing more problems with these factors. I also am happy with science's ability to simply say "I don't know."

My problem with religious explanations is that they invariably are attempts to avoid the real human condition of imperfect knowledge. It seems that religious explanations for the "origins" of things are an attempt to deny that, indeed, we simply don't know some things.

(And ultimately the more we find in science the smaller that "unknown" becomes. One of the reasons that many theologians do NOT like the "God of the Gaps" explanations).

 

[Silmarien]

If we have an item, say "life" in front of us and we want to propose hypotheses that will provide the most information as to how "life" got here, barring our current ability to make it in a lab we can still come to some reasonable conclusions as to where life came from.

If life is made up of chemicals which occur naturally in non-life and if life can be effectively "stopped" by disrupting these chemical reactions then there is no reason to believe that life is anything more than a rather more complex form of non-life. That life probably arose from non-life.

I think you've misunderstood me. I accept abiogenesis and reject Intelligent Design. I do think that claiming that life is a more complex form of non-life begs the question of what non-life is in the first place, though. Or how such complexity can emerge from it at all--that part is at least potentially answerable, but might just lead to more questions all over again. We've become pretty good at figuring out how matter is organized and how it acts, but at the end of the day, we don't really know what it is. That's more of an ontological question.

My problem with religious explanations is that they invariably are attempts to avoid the real human condition of imperfect knowledge. It seems that religious explanations for the "origins" of things are an attempt to deny that, indeed, we simply don't know some things.

What are religious explanations? I like mythology, but I don't see the point in treating it like fact. Beyond that, ex nihilo nihil fit is not really an attempt to explain the origins of anything, and without centuries of Scholastic philosophy to lay the foundations, there would be no modern science at all.

(And ultimately the more we find in science the smaller that "unknown" becomes. One of the reasons that many theologians do NOT like the "God of the Gaps" explanations).

None of what I've said has been God of the Gaps logic. I just dislike the widespread belief that scientific answers don't lead to another round of philosophical questions. I'm primarily interested in whether emergentism as a concept would be more coherent in a naturalistic or theistic framework. The question is really whether nature as understood by the natural sciences points beyond itself to something else.

 

[Obliquinaut]

What are religious explanations?

When I say "religious explanations" I am referring to Creationism and Intelligent Design. Explanations predicated on the supernatural or extranatural (I consider ID "religious" but dressed up so as to avoid talking about religion directly.)

I like mythology, but I don't see the point in treating it like fact. Beyond that, ex nihilo nihil fit is not really an attempt to explain the origins of anything, and without centuries of Scholastic philosophy to lay the foundations, there would be no modern science at all.

I see the Scholastics as being humanity's exercising it's faculty for the primacy of logic. I always felt the Scholastics were a great aspect of Christian faith and it is sad that we've gone so far away from it.

However, that being said, it is like practicing scales vs playing music. Logic and reason are acquired skills and discipline, but implementing it is where modern science has utilized that discipline.

None of what I've said has been God of the Gaps logic.

Nor am I suggesting you are. I merely pointed out that religious explanations as opposed to standard "naturalistic" explanations usually fall afoul of this.

The question is really whether nature as understood by the natural sciences points beyond itself to something else.

What is this "something else"? I certainly agree that there are extreme limits at the frontiers of quantum mechanics that beggar the imagination and cause one to wonder about the nature of "reality", but I also see questions like "origin of life" as being potentially fully soluble by wholly naturalistic explanations.

 

[Silmarien]

I see the Scholastics as being humanity's exercising it's faculty for the primacy of logic. I always felt the Scholastics were a great aspect of Christian faith and it is sad that we've gone so far away from it.

Well, they're still around. Catholic cleric-scientists are as interesting as they ever were.

Nor am I suggesting you are. I merely pointed out that religious explanations as opposed to standard "naturalistic" explanations usually fall afoul of this.

I agree. I actually started posting in the thread specifically to point that out, but then got sidetracked by the non-theists.

What is this "something else"? I certainly agree that there are extreme limits at the frontiers of quantum mechanics that beggar the imagination and cause one to wonder about the nature of "reality", but I also see questions like "origin of life" as being potentially fully soluble by wholly naturalistic explanations.

Something like Aristotle's Unmoved Mover, quite possibly. I've been reading Mariano Artigas's The Mind of the Universe, since philosophy, physics, and theology is a fascinating mix, and I generally trust Catholic scientists to not be playing fast and loose with the scientific side of things.

Actually, turns out he gave a brief summary of the points he was going to highlight in the book, so if you're interested, this should help elucidate some of what I've been trying and probably failing to get across: Thomistic Institute 1998: Artigas

 

[Skreeper]

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

In a different thread he started to call penguins "robots" so my advice would be to limit your exposure to his opinion about motors.

 

[xianghua]

If the model were able to reproduce???

Sounds like more fantasy.

But lets go with it. We would have to examine the method by which it reproduces. We can examine how a tree reproduces. We can examine how a computer virus reproduces. Lets see how the model does it. Then I'll tell you.

lets say it replicate like a living thing. in this case you will conclude that such a watch were designed or evolved?

 

[durangodawood]

lets say it replicate like a living thing. in this case you will conclude that such a watch were designed or evolved?

Its a block of painted plastic that reproduces like a living thing?

How is that possible?

 

[xianghua]

Its a block of painted plastic that reproduces like a living thing?

How is that possible?

not plastic but a watch that made from wood and its able to reproduce. you will conclude design or not in this case?

 

[durangodawood]

not plastic but a watch that made from wood and its able to reproduce. you will conclude design or not in this case?

I still dont understand this object: a watch made from wood that can reproduce biologically?

You say it reproduces like a living thing. Does that mean it divides into 2 perfect copies? Does come in male and female versions that both participate? Sorry. This thing is not comprehensible to me so I cant make sensible statements about it.

 

[xianghua]

I still dont understand this object: a watch made from wood that can reproduce biologically?

yes. again: like any regular creature. lets say it even has DNA.