Origin of Life Challenge

[MarkE]

Dr James Tour has proposed this challenge regarding origin of life research, inviting by name ten leading scientists in the field:

https://youtu.be/MmykRoelTzU?feature=shared

What is particularly interesting are the highly specific and informed points of challenge to speculative, implausible and overstated claims. Tour is an outsider able to rock the boat, but an accomplished scientist with relevant expertise in chemistry etc which enables him to mount a serious challenge.

Sure, many here will disagree, but the fact that such a challenge can be made says something about the state of OOL research and the degree of progress it claims, and is willing for the public to believe uncorrected.

We have "professor" Dave Farina's failure in a recent OOL debate with Tour to thank for adding fuel to Tour's initiative. I watch with interest.

[RonO]

You still do not want to believe in the designer of the origin of life
gap that exists. Tour likely doesn't either, but gap denial is all
creationist of his type have left. Tour has claimed to understand that
there is no ID science, so who cares about what we do not know at this
time? It is what is around the gap that Biblical creationists do not
want to deal with. Look at all the evidence for the evolution of life
over the billions of years since the origin of life. Behe claims that
his designer is responsible for some of that evolution, but the vast
majority of IDiot creationists do not want to believe in such a
designer. Really, most of the creationist support for the ID scam still
comes from YEC, and they can't stand the Top Six evidences for IDiocy.

Put your designer in the origin of life gap that you know exists, and
what do you get? Is it the designer that you want to believe in?

Ron Okimoto

[MarkE]

It's important to recognise the fundamental contention here: Does science provide greater evidence for naturalistic origin of life or for transcendent intelligent agency?

You only need to find one black swan to prove that black swans exist. Similar but different, you only need to find one part of origins that has no satisfactory naturalistic explanation. Tour is proposing OOL as that part.

Of course, the definition of “no satisfactory naturalistic explanation” is disputable: how large must the “gap” be? How many years/dollars of research must be first invested before a valid gap is declared? And even then, one may still choose to say, “not enough”, or simply, “I don’t know”.

If after say another 500 years of concerted scientific research into OOL, the gap has not narrowed but in fact widened (and Tour claims the current trend is that it is widening), then one may reasonably conclude that, on balance of evidence, the “God hypothesis” to be more likely. And some may be willing to accept less than another 500 years to reach this conclusion.

Note there is no claim of “proof” in this approach, rather a rational weighing of scientific evidence, subject to the complexities and personal factors inherent in that process. A metaphysical bias (e.g. atheistic or theistic) may influence one’s interpretation of this evidence.

That’s my framing of this debate. YMMV.

[broger...@gmail.com]

The assumption underlying this argument is that all interesting scientific questions that have naturalistic answers, have answers which can be figured out by humans, given enough time and resources. Why do you think that that assumption is correct?

[MarkE]

Not assuming that in any absolute sense. Rather, I'm implying what I'd call an "open" or "extended" epistemology, i.e. one which allows for the possibility of transcendent agency and detection of that agency through inferred breach of natural laws.

I acknowledge the potential difficulties and subjectivities in making such an inference. Making that inference prematurely is god-of-the-gaps, but refusing to ever make it (or at least concede it as a rational, evidential possibility) is commitment metaphysical naturalism.

[RonO]

On 8/25/2023 7:08 PM, MarkE wrote:
> On Saturday, August 26, 2023 at 9:15:15 AM UTC+10, RonO wrote:
>> On 8/25/2023 5:21 PM, MarkE wrote:
>>> Dr James Tour has proposed this challenge regarding origin of life research, inviting by name ten leading scientists in the field:
>>>
>>> https://youtu.be/MmykRoelTzU?feature=shared
>>>
>>> What is particularly interesting are the highly specific and informed points of challenge to speculative, implausible and overstated claims. Tour is an outsider able to rock the boat, but an accomplished scientist with relevant expertise in chemistry etc which enables him to mount a serious challenge.
>>>
>>> Sure, many here will disagree, but the fact that such a challenge can be made says something about the state of OOL research and the degree of progress it claims, and is willing for the public to believe uncorrected.
>>>
>>> We have "professor" Dave Farina's failure in a recent OOL debate with Tour to thank for adding fuel to Tour's initiative. I watch with interest.
>>>
>> You still do not want to believe in the designer of the origin of life
>> gap that exists. Tour likely doesn't either, but gap denial is all
>> creationist of his type have left. Tour has claimed to understand that
>> there is no ID science, so who cares about what we do not know at this
>> time? It is what is around the gap that Biblical creationists do not
>> want to deal with. Look at all the evidence for the evolution of life
>> over the billions of years since the origin of life. Behe claims that
>> his designer is responsible for some of that evolution, but the vast
>> majority of IDiot creationists do not want to believe in such a
>> designer. Really, most of the creationist support for the ID scam still
>> comes from YEC, and they can't stand the Top Six evidences for IDiocy.
>>
>> Put your designer in the origin of life gap that you know exists, and
>> what do you get? Is it the designer that you want to believe in?
>>
>> Ron Okimoto
>
> It's important to recognise the fundamental contention here: Does science provide greater evidence for naturalistic origin of life or for transcendent intelligent agency?

Tour claims to understand that no ID science can exist. He admits that
he doesn't know how to do any. That means that his denial is just
denial, and it isn't even any denial that he wants to believe that his
designer is responsible for. Tell us how the existing origin of life
gap fits into your biblical beliefs. It is just a sad fact that most
biblical creationists do not want to believe in the designer of the Top
Six god-of-the-gaps denial arguments. Creationist like Tour only use
them to temporarily lie to themselves about reality, but never want to
build anything positive out of them. I have recently put up the Reason
to believe creation model that they claim that they can support, and
they have to deny the top six denial in order to make the junk fit into
their model. They use them all, but then they have to claim that they
don't really mean what they need them to mean. You can go to their site
and find them going on about the Cambrian explosion just like the ID
perps, but when it comes to using it in their model they can't use the
dates that they claim are so important to claiming that there isn't
enough time to evolve those multicellular animals. Really, they have to
claim that land plants were created before sea creatures, but the
fossils that they use to demonstrate the Cambrian explosion evolved long
before there were land plants on earth. We do not find land plants
until the Ordovician.

Tell us how the origin of life gap fits in with your Biblical model.
How long did life exist before land plants were created on the 3rd day?
The angiosperms described in the Bible didn't evolve until after
dinosaurs evolved. Really, they do not appear on earth until around 180
million years ago, and the Cambrian explosion was over half a billion
years ago, and microbial life may have existed for over 3 billion years.

The designer responsible for the origin of life is not the Biblical
designer. Demonstrate otherwise. The reason to believe IDiots have to
deny most of the fossil record in order to maintain their biblical beliefs.

The current origin of life gap tells us that life existed and was
evolving on this planet for billions of years before land plants evolved.

>
> You only need to find one black swan to prove that black swans exist. Similar but different, you only need to find one part of origins that has no satisfactory naturalistic explanation. Tour is proposing OOL as that part.

This does not apply to gap denial. The issue with gap denial is that no
black swans have ever been found. There has never been a single
god-did-it event ever verified to have occurred. This is the reality
that all existing Christians have been born into. Continuing the denial
will never change that situation.

Look at Denton. He claims that his designer got the ball rolling with
the Big Bang and it all unfolded into what we have today. Even though
the Big Bang is #1 of the ID perp's top six evidences for IDiocy and the
AIG still has it up at their creation museum, the Big Bang is one of the
science topics along with biological evolution that IDiots want to
remove from the public school science standards. They do not want their
kids to understand anything about the Big Bang.

Nelson has been an ID perp with the Discovery Institute from the
beginning of the ID creationist scam, and he has pretty much always
claimed that they did not have any ID science, but they were working on
producing it. It turns out that Nelson never wanted the ID perps to
produce any IDiotic science. He never wanted to believe in the designer
of the Top Six because he is a young earth biblical literalist. The
last thing that Nelson wanted to happen is for Behe to demonstrate that
some god designed the IC flagellum over a billion years ago.

Pagano claimed that the Top six were not the best IDiotic evidence for
IDiocy, and then he quit posting. The Top Six do not support a
geocentric IDiotic universe. Bill claimed that he had never supported
the creationist ID scam even though he had been an IDiot on TO since
starting to post to TO. What Bill likely meant was that he had never
supported what IDiocy had always been. Kalk and Glenn just ran in
denial and tried to keep posting the second rate denial that the ID
perps would put up, but Kalk couldn't keep doing that, so he claimed to
quit being an IDiot, and claimed that he had never claimed to be Hindu.
Now Kalk is just a plain vanilla biblical creationist who can't stand
what ID always was. Glenn still can't deal with the Top Six in an
honest and straightforward manner.

The origin of life is #3 of the Top Six. What was your response when
you were asked to put your designer into the origin of life gap that you
were creating?

Look what has happened in the last 3.8 billion years since the origin of
life on this planet. What kind of life did Tour's god or yours create,
and what has happened to it since? The origin of life gap god is not
the god of the Bible. You can go to the Reason to Believe site and see
that for yourself. They claim that it all makes biblical sense, but it
doesn't.

https://reasons.org/explore/publications/articles/summary-of-reasons-to-believes-testable-creation-model-1

Is the life created 3.8 billion years ago anything like the life
described to have been created on the third day? What does the evidence
tell us about when the lifeforms created on subsequent days were
actually created. The ID perps still make a big deal about the gaps in
the whale fossil record, but what does that fossil record tell us about
the whether aquatic whales could have been created before the land
mammals that they evolved from?

There just isn't any reason to maintain the gap denial when it is what
is between the gaps that you can't deal with. What was the advice that
Saint Augustine had about the issue of denial of aspects of nature that
could be determined to exist by human reasoning just because they
conflicted with something written in the Bible?

What good does it do for you or Tour to use it to deny existing reality
when you don't want to believe in the god responsible for the origin of
life on this planet?

Nyikos had to destroy his space alien designer fantasy. He had to
invoke god-like space aliens from another universe as being responsible
for the Top Six, and possible multiple different space aliens
responsible for some of the Top Six. What do you have to do with the
Top Six god-of-the-gaps denial? The origin of life is #3 of the Top Six.

Ron Okimoto

[MarkE]

I have as many questions as answers. I see various problems in reconciling biblical theology, scientific data and different creationist positions. E.g., it seems to me that while YEC avoids physical death before the Fall (arguably theologically problematic), it needs to appeal to the appearance of age (quite arguably problematic). OEC in its various forms addresses the old earth/universe data, and in the case of Theistic Evolution is accommodating of ToE. Progressive Creation (Hugh Ross) sits somewhere between these.

I find macroevolution unconvincing based on my interpretation of the limits of natural selection (as I've discussed elewhere), but accept adaptation in response to environmental pressures (this capacity being a feature of a planned, robust design).

How about you?

[broger...@gmail.com]

I think you are indeed assuming that if a natural explanation exists then it should be discoverable in a finite amount of time. Otherwise, there's be no reason to conclude that failure to find it was evidence for the supernatural.

You also assume that we fully understand natural laws, or that we can soon enough understand them, otherwise the proper inference from an "inferred breach of natural laws" would be that we based our inference on an incomplete understanding of natural laws.

Your argument assumes a much greater faith in the powers of science than most scientists would share.

[Lawyer Daggett]

On Friday, August 25, 2023 at 8:10:15 PM UTC-4, MarkE wrote:

> It's important to recognise the fundamental contention here:
> Does science provide greater evidence for naturalistic origin
> of life or for transcendent intelligent agency?

Simplified: Does science provide greater evidence for X or Y?

There are multiple problems with what you are attempting.
First, you are actually proposing that if science doesn't provide
you with a satisfactory narrative for X, they you think science
supports Y.

There are so many problems that I won't bother covering them
all. But for starters,

Why do you assert this dichotomy of either X or Y?

What is the significance of the test for establishing X?
. is the test reasonable? why? established to whose
. satisfaction? Why them? on what timeline? Why?

There's more if we get into details of X. Tour's implied model
is flawed. The model is implied by the specific tests. So
what if people can't support that particular model, especially
if it's the wrong model?

As for your Y, it's extremely arbitrary, not in a dichotomous
relationship with your X, and is ill-defined on top.

That combination of logical deficiencies makes for a rather
poorly inspired challenge. It seems more like a variant on a
Gish-Gallop than something rooted in scientific thought.

Sure, you can provide some answers for parts of the questions
above. For example, you can invoke that some named scientists
are "experts" so in ways represent some of the better current
authorities. But you won't have established why the authorities
of 2020 are special, as opposed to those of the 1970s, or
fifty years earlier, or 50 years from today. You are implicitly
assigning special significance to Now, something to always
be suspicious of. Willy Wonka and some Oompa Loompas
might have something to say about Verruca Salt.

Now the above isn't a reason to stop asking about the nature
of current best understandings of Origin of Life models.

That's a very legitimate thing to ask. But your proposed leap
from certain states of the answer to that question is dubious,
poorly founded, and ultimately quite silly.

[Öö Tiib]

Debating that "professor" did indeed heavily reduce my opinion about Tour.

What the creationists actually want not taught in public schools is theory
of evolution but that has nothing to do with origins of universe or origins
of life. Those are anyway not taught in public schools because we have
too little information to teach about what we do not know.

So all there is are old news about our lack of knowledge, and old PRATT of
concluding anything but ignorance from lack of knowledge. Super
powerful beings from other dimensions made it? Does not follow.

[MarkE]

Are you saying that any origins debate on natural vs supernatural causes, on the basis of scientific evidence or lack thereof, is silly?

[RonO]

So you are using an argument that you will end up denying means
anything, and isn't any good for supporting what you believe. Hugh Ross
claims to be an IDiot, but also admits that he is being IDiotic because
of his belief that the Bible is factually true, if interpreted
correctly, so he has reinterpreted some of the Bible, and has his
recreation model to account for the apparent evolution of life on earth,
but then has to reject most of his recreation timeline in order to fit
it into the Biblical order of creation of life on earth. He can't seem
to reinterpret enough of the Bible to make it fit into reality.

>
> I find macroevolution unconvincing based on my interpretation of the limits of natural selection (as I've discussed elewhere), but accept adaptation in response to environmental pressures (this capacity being a feature of a planned, robust design).

Behe claims that there are limits, but he hasn't documented any examples
where his limits had to be exceeded to evolve what has evolved. This
means that his limits aren't anything that biological evolution has had
to deal with, and the evolution that he has been able to document hasn't
met any limits that would have prevented evolution from happening. Your
limits do not seem to exist, at least, life hasn't had to exceed any
limits that Behe can think up. How do you know if your limits exist,
and that they have limited biological evolution?

Behe has looked for specific limits because he claims that if he finds
examples that exceed those limits that, that will be evidence that his
designer is responsible for that evolution. The problem is that Behe
has only found evidence for evolution that doesn't exceed his limits.
He even claims that some of it is on the "edge" of evolution, but he
acknowledges that it is just what is expected to occur naturally.

You have to somehow verify that your limits actually exist. Behe hasn't
been able to do that.

>
> How about you?

As Behe acknowledges we haven't encountered any biological evolution
that has ever exceeded what is possible, and all of it that we have been
able to study, so far, could have occurred without any designer assistance.

Behe and you only claim that some evolution that has occurred, could not
have occurred naturally. In the systems that he has looked at he has
failed to verify the existence of impossible evolution having occurred.

Your limits do not seem to exist in the evolution that has already
occurred, and seem to be your lack of imagination and ignorance. What
happened when Behe became less ignorant about all the systems that he
has looked at? What did he find? He has not verified the existence of
any evolution that has had to exceed his limits. He has only identified
evolution that he acknowledges could have occurred naturally without
designer assistance.

For as long as your limits remain fantasy, there is no reason to ignore
all the other evidence for biological evolution, and continue to add to
that aspect of the natural world through the scientific endeavor.

If you think that nature is the creation, you will never understand the
creation by surviving on gap denial. Science is just the best means
that we have for understanding nature. It turned out that there wasn't
very many IDiotic type creationists that ever wanted the ID perps to
produce any IDiotic creation science. Nature just is not Biblical
enough for most Biblical creationists. Most of the IDiotic creationists
never wanted the ID perps to fill the Top Six god-of-the-gaps best
evidences for IDiocy with any intelligent designer because that designer
would not be the Biblical designer. Any IDiotic science success would
just be more science to deny. This fact is likely the main reason that
no IDiotic science was ever produced.

Ron Okimoto

[broger...@gmail.com]

What's silly is the leap from "there's no current scientific explanation," to "there must be a supernatural explanation." Evidence against some particular naturalistic explanation is not positive evidence for an unspecified supernatural one. That's what's silly.

[Lawyer Daggett]

On Saturday, August 26, 2023 at 9:30:16 AM UTC-4, broger...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Saturday, August 26, 2023 at 8:55:15 AM UTC-4, MarkE wrote:
> > On Saturday, August 26, 2023 at 9:00:15 PM UTC+10, Lawyer Daggett wrote:
> > > On Friday, August 25, 2023 at 8:10:15 PM UTC-4, MarkE wrote:
> > > > It's important to recognise the fundamental contention here:
> > > > Does science provide greater evidence for naturalistic origin
> > > > of life or for transcendent intelligent agency?

.

.

> What's silly is the leap from "there's no current scientific explanation,"
> to "there must be a supernatural explanation." Evidence against some
> particular naturalistic explanation is not positive evidence for an
> unspecified supernatural one. That's what's silly.

.
That's certainly part of it. There was more that MarkE seems not
to have read. But let's put the above in mathematical terms.

MarkE seems to be starting from the position that the Origin of Life
was either N Natural, or S Supernatural.

That can be expressed as p(N) + p(S) = 1.

The probability of N plus the probability of S = 1.

MarkE seems to want to demonstrate that p(N) is either 0
or otherwise very small such that p(S) is either 1 or close to 1.

(this isn't a completely robust model because in a Universe
where p(S) is greater than 0, p(N) could theoretically still have
any value between 0 and 1 inclusive. But it suffices didactically.)

Again, the apparent claim is that if p(N) is zero or small, then
p(S) is promoted. But it takes a next step which is dubious.
That step is to assert that if some group of people can't show
that p(N) is non-zero or large, that p(N) must be small.

That connection is extremely weak. What makes one think
that the scientists of the 2020s have any great ability to
demonstrate much about p(N)? For reference, we know that
100 years ago they had extremely limited ability to do so.

There's a further problem in the challenge MarkE presents.

p(N) can be decomposed into p(N1) + p(N2) ... + p(Nn) = p(N)
where N1 is naturalistic OoL by model 1, N2 by model 2 etc.
Most of these models are likely wrong (perhaps even all).
In fact, within this modeling all but one of {N1, N2, ... Nn}
is the wrong model so most of the probabilities are zero.

MarkE's challenge is toward one model, as chosen by Tour.
Eliminating Ntour doesn't inform you about the other potential
models for naturalistic OoL. So even if we could somehow
rule out Tour's model, it doesn't tell us anything about p(S).

This is just an elaborate way of repeating that MarkE's challenge
sets up a false dichotomy. All of the above should be understood
simply from the phrase "false dichotomy".

** Yes, I know that the probabilities aren't necessarily additive
as multiple models could be viable but the illustration still
works.

[broger...@gmail.com]

I agree with you. Also, just as p(N) can be decomposed, so can p(S) be decomposed into an infinite variety of supernatural models. Neither "N" nor "S" are testable hypotheses, since they completely lack specificity. You can only compare comparably specific explanations, so the only sort of comparison or test you can do is to ask, for example, are the predictions of "N45" more in line with the evidence than the predictions of "S23"? And just as "'N17' predicts X and X is not observed" does not make it possible to say "therefore 'N25' is correct," he cannot take problems in "N1-N14" to be positive evidence for any particular S.

[Mark Isaak]

Scientists discovered that electrons traveled around the nucleus of
atoms. But why didn't they radiate energy (like accelerating electrons
are supposed to do) and fall into the nucleus? The only answer is that
God holds atoms together. Then scientists found a different, unexpected
answer in quantum mechanics. No supernatural explanation was needed.

The conclusion is that, for billions of years, God held atoms together,
and then God stopped doing that when quantum mechanics was developed.

That's your theory, except as applied to atomic physics instead of
abiogenesis. Oh, and abiogenesis has not reached the unexpected answer
yet. In fairness, we may never reach that point. But also in fairness,
we probably will, eventually.

So is the conclusion above silly? You tell me.

--
Mark Isaak
"Wisdom begins when you discover the difference between 'That
doesn't make sense' and 'I don't understand.'" - Mary Doria Russell

[Athel Cornish-Bowden]

On 2023-08-25 22:21:51 +0000, MarkE said:

> Dr James Tour has proposed this challenge regarding origin of life
> research, inviting by name ten leading scientists in the field:
>
> https://youtu.be/MmykRoelTzU?feature=shared
>
> What is particularly interesting are the highly specific and informed
> points of challenge to speculative, implausible and overstated claims.
> Tour is an outsider able to rock the boat, but an accomplished
> scientist with relevant expertise in chemistry etc

Yes, but the "etc" doesn't include anything relevant. 43 papers in
2022–2023, none of thm having anything to do with the origin of life.

> which enables him to mount a serious challenge.
> Sure, many here will disagree, but the fact that such a challenge can
> be made says something about the state of OOL research and the degree
> of progress it claims, and is willing for the public to believe
> uncorrected.
> We have "professor" Dave Farina's failure in a recent OOL debate with
> Tour to thank for adding fuel to Tour's initiative. I watch with
> interest.

--
Athel -- French and British, living in Marseilles for 36 years; mainly
in England until 1987.

[Athel Cornish-Bowden]

I previously only looked back two years, but I've now looked at Tour's
productions back to the beginning of 2013. 343 publications, of which
not a single one is related to the origin of life. If I submitted a
speculative paper about the future of graphene research the reviewers
would (rightly) say that I have no qualifications to write about
graphene. If I replied (accurately) that I had a D.Phil. in chemistry
from a major university, and was therefore an expert on all aspects of
chemistry, they not be impressed. I don't care how good an organic
chemist Tour is, he has no standing in origin-of-life research.

--
athel cb : Biochemical Evolution, Garland Science, 2016

[MarkE]

Which is why he has posed the challenge as "help me understand...what am I missing here?"

To dismiss on principle the questioning of a serious, informed outsider is a kind of appeal to authority. You wouldn't to commit that logical fallacy, would you?

[Lawyer Daggett]

What you seem determined to miss is that nobody is objecting to the
idea of testing models of Origins of Life.

The objection is to you tagging on the irrational continuation that if
Tour's model of the OoL isn't well supported, that this means that
a supernatural model is then favored.

People have been very very clear about this. How are you missing it?

[Bob Casanova]

On Sat, 26 Aug 2023 19:14:08 +0200, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by Athel Cornish-Bowden
<athe...@gmail.com>:

>On 2023-08-25 22:21:51 +0000, MarkE said:
>
>> Dr James Tour has proposed this challenge regarding origin of life
>> research, inviting by name ten leading scientists in the field:
>>
>> https://youtu.be/MmykRoelTzU?feature=shared
>>
>> What is particularly interesting are the highly specific and informed
>> points of challenge to speculative, implausible and overstated claims.
>> Tour is an outsider able to rock the boat, but an accomplished
>> scientist with relevant expertise in chemistry etc
>
>Yes, but the "etc" doesn't include anything relevant. 43 papers in
>2022–2023, none of thm having anything to do with the origin of life.
>

IOW, the usual garbage of a credentials assumed to confer
expertise in every field, the "outside expert" fallacy.

>
>> which enables him to mount a serious challenge.
>> Sure, many here will disagree, but the fact that such a challenge can
>> be made says something about the state of OOL research and the degree
>> of progress it claims, and is willing for the public to believe
>> uncorrected.
>> We have "professor" Dave Farina's failure in a recent OOL debate with
>> Tour to thank for adding fuel to Tour's initiative. I watch with
>> interest.
--

Bob C.

"The most exciting phrase to hear in science,
the one that heralds new discoveries, is not
'Eureka!' but 'That's funny...'"

- Isaac Asimov

[MarkE]

Have I not suggested something rather more nuanced than a simplistic dichotomy? I thought I had been very, very clear about this.

All the same, this issue is not incidental but fundamental to the terms of engagement in this debate. I've discussed it here before at length, but aim to revisit it.

[MarkE]

On Sunday, August 27, 2023 at 12:00:16 PM UTC+10, Bob Casanova wrote:
> On Sat, 26 Aug 2023 19:14:08 +0200, the following appeared
> in talk.origins, posted by Athel Cornish-Bowden
> <athe...@gmail.com>:
> >On 2023-08-25 22:21:51 +0000, MarkE said:
> >
> >> Dr James Tour has proposed this challenge regarding origin of life
> >> research, inviting by name ten leading scientists in the field:
> >>
> >> https://youtu.be/MmykRoelTzU?feature=shared
> >>
> >> What is particularly interesting are the highly specific and informed
> >> points of challenge to speculative, implausible and overstated claims.
> >> Tour is an outsider able to rock the boat, but an accomplished
> >> scientist with relevant expertise in chemistry etc
> >
> >Yes, but the "etc" doesn't include anything relevant. 43 papers in
> >2022–2023, none of thm having anything to do with the origin of life.
> >
> IOW, the usual garbage of a credentials assumed to confer
> expertise in every field, the "outside expert" fallacy.

Regardless, Tour's arguments should ultimately be taken on their own merits. Yes, someone outside the camp naturally has less voice, all else being equal, but when an accomplished scientist from an overlapping field with highly relevant expertise launches a serious, sustained, specific, coherent critique, to the point of declaring your whole project to be "utterly clueless", you might want to give ear, if only because your funders might also be listening.

Tour's arguments align with my own layperson's view formed over many years of contemplating OoL. I for one am breaking out the popcorn.

[MarkE]

PS

Another option, for example, is some version of the multiverse. Koonin appeals to it to help non-supernatural OoL:

"Origin of life is a chicken and egg problem: for biological evolution that is governed, primarily, by natural selection, to take off, efficient systems for replication and translation are required, but even barebones cores of these systems appear to be products of extensive selection ... In an infinite universe (multiverse), emergence of highly complex systems by chance is inevitable." https://biologydirect.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/1745-6150-2-15

Koonin's third option supports my position , i.e. if all hypotheses based on physical-chemical pathways on a pre-biotic earth end up showing a widening explanatory gap, you're left with very limited reasonable alternatives. An appeal to the multiverse is on par with positing supernatural action.

And sure, there *might* be some other undiscovered property of matter that permits it to self-organise, but I'd argue that favouring this would be more about a metaphysical commitment.

[jillery]

On Sat, 26 Aug 2023 22:06:46 -0700 (PDT), MarkE
<mark.w.e...@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Sunday, August 27, 2023 at 2:30:16?PM UTC+10, MarkE wrote:
>> On Sunday, August 27, 2023 at 9:35:16?AM UTC+10, Lawyer Daggett wrote:
>> > On Saturday, August 26, 2023 at 6:20:16?PM UTC-4, MarkE wrote:

The fatal flaw in Tour's argumentation is that he preaches to his
audiences how scientists lie about OoL research, that they "have no
idea" how OoL might have happened, and then claims this shows
Evolution is wrong.

>PS
>
>Another option, for example, is some version of the multiverse. Koonin appeals to it to help non-supernatural OoL:
>
>"Origin of life is a chicken and egg problem: for biological evolution that is governed, primarily, by natural selection, to take off, efficient systems for replication and translation are required, but even barebones cores of these systems appear to be products of extensive selection ... In an infinite universe (multiverse), emergence of highly complex systems by chance is inevitable." https://biologydirect.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/1745-6150-2-15
>
>Koonin's third option supports my position , i.e. if all hypotheses based on physical-chemical pathways on a pre-biotic earth end up showing a widening explanatory gap, you're left with very limited reasonable alternatives. An appeal to the multiverse is on par with positing supernatural action.
>
>And sure, there *might* be some other undiscovered property of matter that permits it to self-organise, but I'd argue that favouring this would be more about a metaphysical commitment.

Like most chicken-and-egg questions, OoL's answer is more a matter of
definition. With a chicken/egg, the answer is the first chicken was
hatched from an egg laid by a not-chicken. With OoL, the answer is
first life on Earth was an instance of self-duplicating not-life aka
chemistry randomly encapsulated within a lipid bilayer, the likely
consequence of a reasonably geologically active planet, with a
reasonably large amount of water and gases, and a reasonably large
amount of time. Neither God nor multiverse, infinite or otherwise,
need be involved.

--
To know less than we don't know is the nature of most knowledge

[Martin Harran]

On Sat, 26 Aug 2023 08:10:04 -0700 (PDT), "broger...@gmail.com"
<broger...@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Saturday, August 26, 2023 at 10:20:15?AM UTC-4, Lawyer Daggett wrote:
>> On Saturday, August 26, 2023 at 9:30:16?AM UTC-4, broger...@gmail.com wrote:
>> > On Saturday, August 26, 2023 at 8:55:15?AM UTC-4, MarkE wrote:
>> > > On Saturday, August 26, 2023 at 9:00:15?PM UTC+10, Lawyer Daggett wrote:

The problem is, of course, that evolution-deniers never offer any
specific S(n) version for evaluation or comparison, they just want to
argue about S as some abstract overall value. That can be seen in the
various Ron Dean threads where, despite repeated requests, he refuses
to give any indication of what the characteristics of the designer
might be or the mechanisms that might have been used in the design
process.

[broger...@gmail.com]

I'm still not quite sure where you see a "widening explanatory gap," or even what you mean by the phrase. To me, it looks like starting from a huge gap, starting from Darwin's "warm little pond somewhere" to the first life, to a current state where lots of the detailed problems have been made explicit, some have been resolved (e.g., "but if that were true RNA alone without protein would have to have be able to form enzymatically active RNAs" and then people find enzymatically active RNAs). Likewise for all the pre-biotic synthesis pathways - for many of them we've gone from no plausible idea, to better ideas, there are progressively more and more constraints on the models. That seems to me to be progress and gradual filling in and defining of the gaps, not a "widening explanatory gap." No doubt the problem is not solved, and indeed like lots of other problems in science it may not get solved any time soon, but the idea that there's no progress just does not jibe with what's happening in the field.

As for Koonin's argument - it's another example of silly. It's based on a model of the origin of life to which nobody in the field subscribes, something almost as much of a strawman as the tornado in a junkyard making a 747. No need for multiverses. And if you read Koonin's argument and did not immediately see the flaws in it, or at least see what researchers in the field would identify as the flaws in it, you haven't been making much of an effort.

[broger...@gmail.com]

One more problem is that there are supernatural and natural explanations which can be true simultaneously, so it's not even fair to say P(N)+P(S)=1.

[Athel Cornish-Bowden]

Darwin's warm little pond should be put to rest. He made no pretence
that it was a fully worked out theory. He wrote a whole long book to
develop the idea of natural selection, and mentioned the origin of life
only twice (as far as I know), as a brief suggestion in a private
letter [presented in very tentative terms: "But if (and oh! what a big
if!) we could conceive in some warm little pond..."], and in a somewhat
longer but still brief account in a letter to The Athenaeum.

> to the first life, to a current state where lots of the detailed
> problems have been made explicit, some have been resolved (e.g., "but
> if that were true RNA alone without protein would have to have be able
> to form enzymatically active RNAs" and then people find enzymatically
> active RNAs). Likewise for all the pre-biotic synthesis pathways - for
> many of them we've gone from no plausible idea, to better ideas, there
> are progressively more and more constraints on the models. That seems
> to me to be progress and gradual filling in and defining of the gaps,
> not a "widening explanatory gap." No doubt the problem is not solved,
> and indeed like lots of other problems in science it may not get solved
> any time soon, but the idea that there's no progress just does not jibe
> with what's happening in the field.
>
> As for Koonin's argument - it's another example of silly. It's based on
> a model of the origin of life to which nobody in the field subscribes,
> something almost as much of a strawman as the tornado in a junkyard
> making a 747. No need for multiverses. And if you read Koonin's
> argument and did not immediately see the flaws in it, or at least see
> what researchers in the field would identify as the flaws in it, you
> haven't been making much of an effort.

[MarkE]

The following quote gives the overall vibe (emphasis mine):

"James Tour claims the origin-of-life community is further than ever from solving the mystery of life’s origin, and how the public has gotten the false impression that scientists can synthesize life in the lab. Tour explains that origin-of-life scientists aren’t even close to intelligently synthesizing life from non-life in the lab. The problem, Tour says, is that some leading origin-of-life researchers give the impression they are right on the cusp of solving the problem.

Not so, Tour says. He offers the analogy of someone claiming, in the year 1500, that he has the know-how to build a ship to travel to the moon, when no one yet knows even how to build an airplane, car, or car engine. Tour says that if he took a cell that had just died a moment before and asked top origin-of-life researchers to engineer it back to life, they couldn’t do it. They’re not even close to being able to do it. And yet all the ingredients, all the building blocks of life are right there, all in one place, in the right proportions. And not only can scientists not engineer those ingredients back to life, they still can’t synthesize even a fraction of the building blocks essential to cellular life, despite decades and millions of dollars poured into the problem. And yet they assume that purely blind material processes turned prebiotic chemicals into all the key building blocks, and then mindlessly engineered those into the first self-reproducing cell on the early Earth.

There are no models that would make such a scenario plausible. AND THE MORE WE LEARN ABOUT CELLULAR COMPLEXITY, THE HARDER THE PROBLEM GETS. Indeed, as Tour puts it, origin-of-life research is like moving down a football field in nanometer increments while the goalposts are racing away. What’s left is only the dogmatic assumption among origin-of-life researchers that the first life must have appeared on Earth purely through blind material forces. Tour has made it his mission to show the broader scientific community and the public that the emperor has no clothes."

> As for Koonin's argument - it's another example of silly. It's based on a model of the origin of life to which nobody in the field subscribes, something almost as much of a strawman as the tornado in a junkyard making a 747. No need for multiverses. And if you read Koonin's argument and did not immediately see the flaws in it, or at least see what researchers in the field would identify as the flaws in it, you haven't been making much of an effort.

Not citing Koonin as endorsment, rather to demonstrate I'm not implying a dichotomy.

[jillery]

On Sun, 27 Aug 2023 06:59:14 -0700 (PDT), MarkE
<mark.w.e...@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Sunday, August 27, 2023 at 8:55:17?PM UTC+10, broger...@gmail.com wrote:
>> On Sunday, August 27, 2023 at 1:10:16?AM UTC-4, MarkE wrote:
>> > On Sunday, August 27, 2023 at 2:30:16?PM UTC+10, MarkE wrote:
>> > > On Sunday, August 27, 2023 at 9:35:16?AM UTC+10, Lawyer Daggett wrote:
>> > > > On Saturday, August 26, 2023 at 6:20:16?PM UTC-4, MarkE wrote:

Citing Koonin doesn't demonstrate that you don't imply a dichotomy. To
the contrary, Koonin's words you quote describe the same dichotomy you
imply. As you say, Koonin uses multiverse on par with positing
supernatural action.

[Mark Isaak]

On 8/27/23 6:59 AM, MarkE wrote:
> [...]

> The following quote gives the overall vibe (emphasis mine):
>
> "James Tour claims the origin-of-life community is further than ever from solving the mystery of life’s origin, and how the public has gotten the false impression that scientists can synthesize life in the lab. Tour explains that origin-of-life scientists aren’t even close to intelligently synthesizing life from non-life in the lab. The problem, Tour says, is that some leading origin-of-life researchers give the impression they are right on the cusp of solving the problem.
>
> Not so, Tour says. He offers the analogy of someone claiming, in the year 1500, that he has the know-how to build a ship to travel to the moon, when no one yet knows even how to build an airplane, car, or car engine. Tour says that if he took a cell that had just died a moment before and asked top origin-of-life researchers to engineer it back to life, they couldn’t do it. They’re not even close to being able to do it. And yet all the ingredients, all the building blocks of life are right there, all in one place, in the right proportions. And not only can scientists not engineer those ingredients back to life, they still can’t synthesize even a fraction of the building blocks essential to cellular life, despite decades and millions of dollars poured into the problem. And yet they assume that purely blind material processes turned prebiotic chemicals into all the key building blocks, and then mindlessly engineered those into the first self-reproducing cell on the early Earth.
>
> There are no models that would make such a scenario plausible. AND THE MORE WE LEARN ABOUT CELLULAR COMPLEXITY, THE HARDER THE PROBLEM GETS. Indeed, as Tour puts it, origin-of-life research is like moving down a football field in nanometer increments while the goalposts are racing away. What’s left is only the dogmatic assumption among origin-of-life researchers that the first life must have appeared on Earth purely through blind material forces. Tour has made it his mission to show the broader scientific community and the public that the emperor has no clothes."

The part you emphasized shows just how incompetent Tour is in the field
of abiogenesis. The complexity of cells today is IRRELEVANT. Nobody
except creationists expects the first cells to be anywhere near as
complex as modern life.

Tour might as well claim that the more we learn about avionics control
software, the harder it seems that an airplane could ever have been
invented.

[Mark Isaak]

On 8/26/23 9:37 PM, MarkE wrote:
> [...]

> Regardless, Tour's arguments should ultimately be taken on their own merits.

Which means, as per my comment in another post in this thread, they
should be discarded.

[Burkhard]

Amazingly enough, this also holds true for the origin -egg researchers. Give them a broken egg, and neither the king's horses and all the king's men,
can put the egg together again. And also for astronomers - give them a Black Dwarf, and none of them manages to engineer it back into a proto-star.
which conclusively shows that eggs and stars must be of supernatural origin.

[broger...@gmail.com]

James Tour is simply incorrect - I mean incorrect about the pack of progress and the "widening explanatory gap." He's certainly correct that the OoL has not been solved, nobody in the field claims otherwise. If it's important to you to understand the current state of OoL research I keep suggesting you read Deamer's "Assembling Life". It will tell you honestly what is understood know and what problems remain. You say it's too expensive or hard to get hold of. Up to you. But it's sort of pointless to argue in the lack of information. And if you want to convince anyone that OoL research is going nowhere, you won't be able to do so unless you actually seem to know what's going on in the field.

[broger...@gmail.com]

.............................

> Darwin's warm little pond should be put to rest. He made no pretence
> that it was a fully worked out theory. He wrote a whole long book to
> develop the idea of natural selection, and mentioned the origin of life
> only twice (as far as I know), as a brief suggestion in a private
> letter [presented in very tentative terms: "But if (and oh! what a big
> if!) we could conceive in some warm little pond..."], and in a somewhat
> longer but still brief account in a letter to The Athenaeum.

Of course. I sort of thought it was obvious that the "warm little pond" was not a theory. Perhaps you jumped in in mid sentence. Happens a lot here.

[Bob Casanova]

On Mon, 28 Aug 2023 05:27:56 -0700 (PDT), the following
appeared in talk.origins, posted by "broger...@gmail.com"
<broger...@gmail.com>:

>On Sunday, August 27, 2023 at 10:00:17?AM UTC-4, MarkE wrote:
>> On Sunday, August 27, 2023 at 8:55:17?PM UTC+10, broger...@gmail.com wrote:
>> > On Sunday, August 27, 2023 at 1:10:16?AM UTC-4, MarkE wrote:
>> > > On Sunday, August 27, 2023 at 2:30:16?PM UTC+10, MarkE wrote:
>> > > > On Sunday, August 27, 2023 at 9:35:16?AM UTC+10, Lawyer Daggett wrote:
>> > > > > On Saturday, August 26, 2023 at 6:20:16?PM UTC-4, MarkE wrote:

https://www.amazon.com/s?k=assembling+life+deamer&i=stripbooks&crid=1HTBD3BH9U71P&sprefix=assembling+life+deamer%2Cstripbooks%2C154&ref=nb_sb_noss
>
Kindle ~$28.50; HB ~ $44.50; $36 used. Maybe cheaper
elsewhere.

A bit pricey, but *way* below most textbooks these days.
Call it <5 cups of "designer" coffee.

[MarkE]

A response re Deamer to come.

[peter2...@gmail.com]

On Saturday, August 26, 2023 at 8:25:15 AM UTC-4, Öö Tiib wrote:

> On Saturday, 26 August 2023 at 01:25:15 UTC+3, MarkE wrote:
> > Dr James Tour has proposed this challenge regarding origin of life research, inviting by name ten leading scientists in the field:
> >
> > https://youtu.be/MmykRoelTzU?feature=shared
> >

> > What is particularly interesting are the highly specific and informed points of challenge to speculative, implausible and overstated claims. Tour is an outsider able to rock the boat, but an accomplished scientist with relevant expertise in chemistry etc which enables him to mount a serious challenge.

> >
> > Sure, many here will disagree, but the fact that such a challenge can be made says something about the state of OOL research and the degree of progress it claims, and is willing for the public to believe uncorrected.
> >
> > We have "professor" Dave Farina's failure in a recent OOL debate with Tour to thank for adding fuel to Tour's initiative. I watch with interest.
> >

> Debating that "professor" did indeed heavily reduce my opinion about Tour.

Farina is a nonentity where OOL is concerned, but the relevant issue is:
have any of the big guns of OOL ever consented to debate Tour?


> What the creationists actually want not taught in public schools is theory
> of evolution but that has nothing to do with origins of universe or origins
> of life.

Creationists are one group, ID theorists like Michael Behe are a completely
different group: Behe has actually argued in favor of common descent
in both _The Edge of Evolution_ and _Darwin Devolves._ I think he
took a big loss in sales because this does not sit well with creationists.

Behe doesn't mind the *theory* of evolution, meaning the Modern Synthesis
(a.k.a. neo-Darwinism) being taught in the public schools, as long as teachers are
free to explain that it is really a theory of microevolution and can
only take change to the threshold of speciation. Even Ray Martinez,
the species immutabilist, had no trouble with microevolution on that level.

Here in the USA, of course, the vast majority of public school teachers
will avoid that explanation like the plague, and their silence
is perfectly legal according to the First Amendment of the US Constitution.


> Those are anyway not taught in public schools because we have
> too little information to teach about what we do not know.

I'm not sure what you are referring to, but it certainly applies
to not extrapolating from the Modern Synthesis to claim
that it explains how earth life blossomed explosively in
in a mere 550 million years to produce the vast panorama
of present day life.

That would be violating the standard of not teaching about
things they do not know or even have a smidgen of evidence for.

>
> So all there is are old news about our lack of knowledge, and old PRATT of
> concluding anything but ignorance from lack of knowledge.

Don't use "PRATT" as liberally as some other regular t.o. participants do.
You may run afoul of conjectures [speculative, granted]
like the one I make below about that 550 million year panorama.


> Super powerful beings from other dimensions made it? Does not follow.

Of course not. If all else fails, we could speculate on two or three
widely spaced visits to earth by beings on our level of intelligence,
due close approaches by a planetary system where they either evolved, or colonized.
Of course, their technology would be several centuries in advance of ours,
but there is no reason why we couldn't reach that level in two or three centuries.


Peter Nyikos
Professor, Dept. of Mathematics -- standard disclaimer--
University of South Carolina
http://people.math.sc.edu/nyikos

[peter2...@gmail.com]

That's Jack Chick's answer. Catholic physicists were always more sophisticated
than to give up on science so easily. Look at Lemaitre, for example.

>Then scientists found a different, unexpected
> answer in quantum mechanics. No supernatural explanation was needed.

If you are happy with "Just-so" stories like this, then I don't think your 2007 book
is worth getting even at the "bargain" rate of $9 plus handling costs.


Wait, it gets worse:

> The conclusion is that, for billions of years, God held atoms together,
> and then God stopped doing that when quantum mechanics was developed.
>
> That's your theory, except as applied to atomic physics instead of
> abiogenesis. Oh, and abiogenesis has not reached the unexpected answer
> yet. In fairness, we may never reach that point. But also in fairness,
> we probably will, eventually.
>
> So is the conclusion above silly? You tell me.

It's very silly, because it is an unsupported, and IMO unsupportable
fantasy of where MarkE is coming from.

In fact, you are insulting MarkE's intelligence, and the intelligence
of almost all t.o. participants. [Of course, there may be a lot of
lurkers who would upvote you, if upvotes were still possible on GG.]

Peter Nyikos
Professor, Dept. of Mathematics -- standard disclaimer--
University of South Carolina
http://people.math.sc.edu/nyikos

PS Did I miss an announcement about the Chez Watt winners for July?
There are only two more days left in August.

[Öö Tiib]

On Tuesday, 29 August 2023 at 18:30:19 UTC+3, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Saturday, August 26, 2023 at 8:25:15 AM UTC-4, Öö Tiib wrote:
> > On Saturday, 26 August 2023 at 01:25:15 UTC+3, MarkE wrote:
> > > Dr James Tour has proposed this challenge regarding origin of life research, inviting by name ten leading scientists in the field:
> > >
> > > https://youtu.be/MmykRoelTzU?feature=shared
> > >
> > > What is particularly interesting are the highly specific and informed points of challenge to speculative, implausible and overstated claims. Tour is an outsider able to rock the boat, but an accomplished scientist with relevant expertise in chemistry etc which enables him to mount a serious challenge.
> > >
> > > Sure, many here will disagree, but the fact that such a challenge can be made says something about the state of OOL research and the degree of progress it claims, and is willing for the public to believe uncorrected.
> > >
> > > We have "professor" Dave Farina's failure in a recent OOL debate with Tour to thank for adding fuel to Tour's initiative. I watch with interest.
> > >
> > Debating that "professor" did indeed heavily reduce my opinion about Tour.
>
> Farina is a nonentity where OOL is concerned, but the relevant issue is:
> have any of the big guns of OOL ever consented to debate Tour?
>

No. I don't think there are much to debate. OOL is in stage of several
hypothesises ... about like seven or so (mutually exclusive or hard to imagine
cooperating) scenarios. There can be more but each existing has quite
decent gaps, unresolved questions and missing evidences.

>
> > What the creationists actually want not taught in public schools is theory
> > of evolution but that has nothing to do with origins of universe or origins
> > of life.
>
> Creationists are one group, ID theorists like Michael Behe are a completely
> different group: Behe has actually argued in favor of common descent
> in both _The Edge of Evolution_ and _Darwin Devolves._ I think he
> took a big loss in sales because this does not sit well with creationists.
>

Yes.

> Behe doesn't mind the *theory* of evolution, meaning the Modern Synthesis
> (a.k.a. neo-Darwinism) being taught in the public schools, as long as teachers are
> free to explain that it is really a theory of microevolution and can
> only take change to the threshold of speciation. Even Ray Martinez,
> the species immutabilist, had no trouble with microevolution on that level.
>

Barrier between speciation say between grizzly bear and polar bear is never
described to me. Dr. Dr. Kleinman almost pretended starting but then
said maybe these indeed evolved and changed the subject to some of his
stock phrases.

> Here in the USA, of course, the vast majority of public school teachers
> will avoid that explanation like the plague, and their silence
> is perfectly legal according to the First Amendment of the US Constitution.
>
>
> > Those are anyway not taught in public schools because we have
> > too little information to teach about what we do not know.
>
> I'm not sure what you are referring to, but it certainly applies
> to not extrapolating from the Modern Synthesis to claim
> that it explains how earth life blossomed explosively in
> in a mere 550 million years to produce the vast panorama
> of present day life.
>

I am referring to things I ended previous sentence with "origins of universe
or origins of life". Neither was 550 mya.

> That would be violating the standard of not teaching about
> things they do not know or even have a smidgen of evidence for.
>

This is a fact that life blossomed, lot of billions of species appeared and
disappeared.
Cambrian sediments are up to 15km deep under ground. Digging all that
and systematising it is beyond abilities of anyone and only about noteworthy
findings there is some press announcement each week.

> >
> > So all there is are old news about our lack of knowledge, and old PRATT of
> > concluding anything but ignorance from lack of knowledge.
>
> Don't use "PRATT" as liberally as some other regular t.o. participants do.
> You may run afoul of conjectures [speculative, granted]
> like the one I make below about that 550 million year panorama.
>

Nothing can be concluded from ignorance. Arguing with that trivial
truth is most common PRATT.

>
> > Super powerful beings from other dimensions made it? Does not follow.
>
> Of course not. If all else fails, we could speculate on two or three
> widely spaced visits to earth by beings on our level of intelligence,
> due close approaches by a planetary system where they either evolved, or colonized.
> Of course, their technology would be several centuries in advance of ours,
> but there is no reason why we couldn't reach that level in two or three centuries.
>

Yes and row of whatever other things like contamination with remainders of
something, like just tourist dumping trash, hibernating seeds of whatever
nanotechnology they used waking up and evolving wildly or cooperating
with already existing lifeforms here. But most likely is that we just do not
know how it could happen right here without whatever intervention.

[peter2...@gmail.com]

Casanova killfiled me a while ago, and AFAIK so has Athel, so I am criticizing their
spiels below in reply to you, Mark.

On Sunday, August 27, 2023 at 12:40:16 AM UTC-4, MarkE wrote:
> On Sunday, August 27, 2023 at 12:00:16 PM UTC+10, Bob Casanova wrote:
> > On Sat, 26 Aug 2023 19:14:08 +0200, the following appeared
> > in talk.origins, posted by Athel Cornish-Bowden
> > <athe...@gmail.com>:
> > >On 2023-08-25 22:21:51 +0000, MarkE said:
> > >
> > >> Dr James Tour has proposed this challenge regarding origin of life
> > >> research, inviting by name ten leading scientists in the field:
> > >>
> > >> https://youtu.be/MmykRoelTzU?feature=shared

From the transcription, commas added:
1:52
Steve Banner, Jack sawstek,

Probably a poor transcription of Szostak. I've said a lot about his OOL
work on another thread and plan to finally say more today.

Clemens Reichert, Lee Cronin, Bruce Lipschitz, John Sutherland, Nicholas HUD,
Ramana Naran krishnamurthy, Neil devaraj, and Matthew pounder.

> > >> What is particularly interesting are the highly specific and informed
> > >> points of challenge to speculative, implausible and overstated claims.
> > >> Tour is an outsider able to rock the boat, but an accomplished
> > >> scientist with relevant expertise in chemistry etc
> > >
> > >Yes, but the "etc" doesn't include anything relevant. 43 papers in
> > >2022–2023, none of thm having anything to do with the origin of life.

This is intellectual snobbery of the worst sort, thinking
that only researchers specializing in some area are "experts" in it.
But in the case of the vast unknowns of OOL, there *are* no experts, and I think
Athel knows all too well how deep the lack of knowledge
of OOL is among the best specialists in the field.

I talked about this lack of knowledge in reply to you today on another thread,
expanding on what I had written in follow-up to Bill Rogers the day before:

https://groups.google.com/g/talk.origins/c/8fuyuKN4VhE/m/N3quNfJ2AQAJ
Re: Why do you participate here?
Aug 28, 2023, 5:00:18 PM

By the way, Bill Rogers is yet another OOL enthusiast who has killfiled me;
several years ago in his case.

> > IOW, the usual garbage of a credentials assumed to confer
> > expertise in every field, the "outside expert" fallacy.

Some of the best work in some areas of science has been done by amateurs
in that area. A famous example is J.L.B. Smith, a chemist by profession
who was a self-taught amateur ichthyologist. He did a masterly
job of identifying and describing the first known living coelacanth, *Latimeria*.
In his book on this and further work that he did, he had this to say
about the likes of Athel and Bob:

Another type of intellectual snobbery
is the dictum that science has now
passed beyond the understanding of the
ordinary man. That, however, is very
largely a matter of presentation.
With the possible exception of higher
mathematics, there is not a single
branch of science whose broad outlines
the ordinary man cannot appreciate if
it is properly explained to him.
--J.L.B. Smith, _The Search
Beneath the Sea_, Henry Holt
and Company, 1956, p. 44

Make no mistake: "broad outlines" are ALL we have of OOL,
once we leave Bill Rogers's comfort zone of prebiotic production
of mere amino acids and nucleotides.

> Regardless, Tour's arguments should ultimately be taken on their own merits. Yes, someone outside the camp naturally has less voice, all else being equal, but when an accomplished scientist from an overlapping field with highly relevant expertise launches a serious, sustained, specific, coherent critique, to the point of declaring your whole project to be "utterly clueless", you might want to give ear, if only because your funders might also be listening.

"funders"? Oh, yes, the sources of the grants that the professionals in OOL receive to carry on their research.

>
> Tour's arguments align with my own layperson's view formed over many years of contemplating OoL. I for one am breaking out the popcorn.

Does that sample you have of the pricey book that Bill Rogers keeps recommending show anything useful
outside Bill's comfort zone? [I'm talking about the sample you downloaded on Kindle.]

If not, then don't expect anything but vague generalities from Bill Rogers and others.

> > >
> > >> which enables him to mount a serious challenge.
> > >> Sure, many here will disagree, but the fact that such a challenge can
> > >> be made says something about the state of OOL research and the degree
> > >> of progress it claims, and is willing for the public to believe
> > >> uncorrected.
> > >> We have "professor" Dave Farina's failure in a recent OOL debate with
> > >> Tour to thank for adding fuel to Tour's initiative. I watch with
> > >> interest.
> > --
> > Bob C.
> >
> > "The most exciting phrase to hear in science,
> > the one that heralds new discoveries, is not
> > 'Eureka!' but 'That's funny...'"

Here's one of the best talk.origins-relevant "That's funny" quotes that I have come across:

Why has not anyone seen that fossils alone gave birth to a theory about the formation of the earth, that without them, no one would have ever dreamed that there were successive epochs in the formation of the globe?
—Georges Cuvier

Peter Nyikos
Professor, Dept. of Mathematics -- standard disclaimer--
University of South Carolina
http://people.math.sc.edu/nyikos

Ph.D. Carnegie-Mellon University, 1971

[peter2...@gmail.com]

On Friday, August 25, 2023 at 10:05:15 PM UTC-4, RonO wrote:

> Nyikos had to destroy his space alien designer fantasy.

RonO is dishonestly equivocating. If he is referring to directed
panspermia, he is shamelessly lying. I have always considered
it to be a hypothesis well worth the countless hours of study
that I have put into it over the last 26+ years.

That is not to say that I endorse it; I never have gone that far.

If, on the other hand, Okimoto is referring to the *possibility* that a designer
arising in another universe manipulated the primordia
of this one to design its fundamental constants to be
as life-friendly as that designer could make it, then
I never had to destroy anything to talk about this possibility.


> He had to
> invoke god-like space aliens from another universe as being responsible
> for the Top Six,

That's just the first TWO of six, more honestly described above.


> and possible multiple different space aliens
> responsible for some of the Top Six.

Only ONE of them, the one involving the Cambrian explosion.
I also have speculated about two other events that were not mentioned in the original
INTRODUCTIONS to the top six. I haven't thought very seriously about any
of them to date, but neither has anyone tried to dismiss them out of hand
in a rational way.


> What do you have to do with the
> Top Six god-of-the-gaps denial?

The denial of WHAT?
In the tedious rant that I deleted until he got to mention of my name, he ended over
a dozen sentences and clauses with "denial," with nary a hint of an answer to my four word question.

Could it be the denial of an unequivocal atheism to which RonO secretly subscribes?


> The origin of life is #3 of the Top Six.
>
> Ron Okimoto
> >
> > Of course, the definition of “no satisfactory naturalistic explanation” is disputable: how large must the “gap” be? How many years/dollars of research must be first invested before a valid gap is declared? And even then, one may still choose to say, “not enough”, or simply, “I don’t know”.
> >
> > If after say another 500 years of concerted scientific research into OOL, the gap has not narrowed but in fact widened (and Tour claims the current trend is that it is widening), then one may reasonably conclude that, on balance of evidence, the “God hypothesis” to be more likely. And some may be willing to accept less than another 500 years to reach this conclusion.
> >
> > Note there is no claim of “proof” in this approach, rather a rational weighing of scientific evidence, subject to the complexities and personal factors inherent in that process. A metaphysical bias (e.g. atheistic or theistic) may influence one’s interpretation of this evidence.
> >
> > That’s my framing of this debate. YMMV.

It's a very good framing, one about which Ron O had nothing intelligent to say above,
not even in the part I deleted.

Peter Nyikos
Professor, Dept. of Mathematics -- standard disclaimer--

Univ. of South Carolina at Columbia
http://people.math.sc.edu/nyikos

[peter2...@gmail.com]

On Sunday, August 27, 2023 at 11:55:16 AM UTC-4, jillery wrote:
> On Sun, 27 Aug 2023 06:59:14 -0700 (PDT), MarkE
> <mark.w.e...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >On Sunday, August 27, 2023 at 8:55:17?PM UTC+10, broger...@gmail.com wrote:
> >> On Sunday, August 27, 2023 at 1:10:16?AM UTC-4, MarkE wrote:
> >> > On Sunday, August 27, 2023 at 2:30:16?PM UTC+10, MarkE wrote:
> >> > > On Sunday, August 27, 2023 at 9:35:16?AM UTC+10, Lawyer Daggett wrote:
> >> > > > On Saturday, August 26, 2023 at 6:20:16?PM UTC-4, MarkE wrote:
> >> > > > > On Sunday, August 27, 2023 at 4:45:16?AM UTC+10, Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:

> >> > > > > > I previously only looked back two years, but I've now looked at Tour's
> >> > > > > > productions back to the beginning of 2013. 343 publications, of which
> >> > > > > > not a single one is related to the origin of life. If I submitted a
> >> > > > > > speculative paper about the future of graphene research the reviewers
> >> > > > > > would (rightly) say that I have no qualifications to write about
> >> > > > > > graphene. If I replied (accurately) that I had a D.Phil. in chemistry
> >> > > > > > from a major university, and was therefore an expert on all aspects of
> >> > > > > > chemistry, they not be impressed. I don't care how good an organic
> >> > > > > > chemist Tour is, he has no standing in origin-of-life research.

See my reply to MarkE about how Athel is pretending that there is OOL research
that goes beyond Bill Rogers's comfort zone at the bare beginnings of OOL.
Athel, of course, does not dare to hint at where any of that may be found.


Why Athel would identify the following book of his, after having so thoroughly
burned his own bridges to a relevant mention of it, is beyond me.

> >> > > > > > --
> >> > > > > > athel cb : Biochemical Evolution, Garland Science, 2016

Athel himself admitted that this book of his gives no information about OOL,
but never tried to explain why he couldn't get up to speed in a jiffy
about current research. I think he can, but is afraid of what he may learn
about the profound ignorance of even all ten OOL researchers that
Tour named, put together.

> >> > > > > To dismiss on principle the questioning of a serious, informed outsider
> >> > > > > is a kind of appeal to authority. You wouldn't to commit that logical fallacy,
> >> > > > > would you?

Athel evidently has no such qualms.

> >> > > > What you seem determined to miss is that nobody is objecting to the
> >> > > > idea of testing models of Origins of Life.
> >> > > >
> >> > > > The objection is to you tagging on the irrational continuation that if
> >> > > > Tour's model of the OoL isn't well supported, that this means that
> >> > > > a supernatural model is then favored.
> >> > > >
> >> > > > People have been very very clear about this. How are you missing it?

Obviously, because MarkE made no such "irrational continuation."
Bill Rogers and "Lawyer Daggett" have indulged in a dirty debating tactic here,
but MarkE is very lenient with them in his response:

> >> > > Have I not suggested something rather more nuanced than a simplistic dichotomy? I thought I had been very, very clear about this.
> >> > >
> >> > > All the same, this issue is not incidental but fundamental to the terms of engagement in this debate. I've discussed it here before at length, but aim to revisit it.
> >> > PS
> >> >
> >> > Another option, for example, is some version of the multiverse. Koonin appeals to it to help non-supernatural OoL:
> >> >
> >> > "Origin of life is a chicken and egg problem: for biological evolution that is governed, primarily, by natural selection, to take off, efficient systems for replication and translation are required, but even barebones cores of these systems appear to be products of extensive selection ... In an infinite universe (multiverse), emergence of highly complex systems by chance is inevitable." https://biologydirect.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/1745-6150-2-15
> >> >
> >> > Koonin's third option supports my position , i.e. if all hypotheses based on physical-chemical pathways on a pre-biotic earth end up showing a widening explanatory gap, you're left with very limited reasonable alternatives. An appeal to the multiverse is on par with positing supernatural action.
> >> >
> >> > And sure, there *might* be some other undiscovered property of matter that permits it to self-organise, but I'd argue that favouring this would be more about a metaphysical commitment.

> >> I'm still not quite sure where you see a "widening explanatory gap," or even what you mean by the phrase. To me, it looks like starting from a huge gap, starting from Darwin's "warm little pond somewhere" to the first life, to a current state where lots of the detailed problems have been made explicit, some have been resolved (e.g., "but if that were true RNA alone without protein would have to have be able to form enzymatically active RNAs" and then people find enzymatically active RNAs).

Bill is being intellectually dishonest here. Can you see why, jillery?

[I've refrained from addressing you by name up to now because
of the remoteness of the earlier posts from your addition below,
but now I think we are close enough to that addition.]

> >> Likewise for all the pre-biotic synthesis pathways - for many of them we've gone from no plausible idea, to better ideas, there are progressively more and more constraints on the models.

Do you agree, jillery? If so, can you figure out what pathways Bill Rogers is talking about?
He never responds to any posts I do in reply to him, so it's a waste of time to ask him.

> >>That seems to me to be progress and gradual filling in and defining of the gaps, not a "widening explanatory gap." No doubt the problem is not solved, and indeed like lots of other problems in science it may not get solved any time soon, but the idea that there's no progress just does not jibe with what's
> >happening in the field.

"no progress" is another dirty tactic of Bill AT BEST knocking down a straw man.

> >
> >The following quote gives the overall vibe (emphasis mine):
> >
> >"James Tour claims the origin-of-life community is further than ever from solving the mystery of life’s origin, and how the public has gotten the false impression that scientists can synthesize life in the lab. Tour explains that origin-of-life scientists aren’t even close to intelligently synthesizing life from non-life in the lab. The problem, Tour says, is that some leading origin-of-life researchers give the impression they are right on the cusp of solving the problem.
> >
> >Not so, Tour says. He offers the analogy of someone claiming, in the year 1500, that he has the know-how to build a ship to travel to the moon, when no one yet knows even how to build an airplane, car, or car engine. Tour says that if he took a cell that had just died a moment before and asked top origin-of-life researchers to engineer it back to life, they couldn’t do it. They’re not even close to being able to do it. And yet all the ingredients, all the building blocks of life are right there, all in one place, in the right proportions. And not only can scientists not engineer those ingredients back to life, they still can’t synthesize even a fraction of the building blocks essential to cellular life, despite decades and millions of dollars poured into the problem.

Here is where Tour is unassailable:

> >And yet they assume that purely blind material processes turned prebiotic chemicals into all the key building blocks, and then mindlessly engineered those into the first self-reproducing cell on the early Earth.

Bill Rogers know that this is the alternative he endorses, and so he is forced to indulge in
smoke and mirrors below.

> >There are no models that would make such a scenario plausible. AND THE MORE WE LEARN ABOUT CELLULAR COMPLEXITY, THE HARDER THE PROBLEM GETS. Indeed, as Tour puts it, origin-of-life research is like moving down a football field in nanometer increments while the goalposts are racing away. What’s left is only the dogmatic assumption among origin-of-life researchers that the first life must have appeared on Earth purely through blind material forces. Tour has made it his mission to show the broader scientific community and the public that the emperor has no clothes."
> >
> >> As for Koonin's argument - it's another example of silly.

Bill is very quick to name a straw man again:

> >> It's based on a model of the origin of life to which nobody in the field subscribes, something almost as much of a strawman as the tornado in a junkyard making a 747.

As expected, Bill makes no attempt to say what that model is, nor what is supposedly silly about it.
He just blandly imitates Laplace talking to Napoleon, and ignoring the fact that Laplace
was very specific about HIS model:

>>> No need for multiverses.


> And if you read Koonin's argument and did not immediately see the flaws in it, or at least see what researchers in the field would identify as the flaws in it, you haven't been making much of an effort.
> >
> >Not citing Koonin as endorsment, rather to demonstrate I'm not implying a dichotomy.

> Citing Koonin doesn't demonstrate that you don't imply a dichotomy. To
> the contrary, Koonin's words you quote describe the same dichotomy you
> imply. As you say, Koonin uses multiverse on par with positing
> supernatural action.

"on par" is you using a perennial tactic of yours, which I named
The One Shade of Gray Meltdown almost two decades before
I first encountered you, so common it is.

It consists of seizing on one or two isolated details that two
disparate things have in common, and painting them as
being essentially equivalent.


There is at worst a trichotomy: blind material causes defying all apparent odds,
a vast multiverse to overcome those odds, and supernatural design.

Mind you, this is about the *original* OOL, which may have taken place
on another planet or even on another planetary system in our galaxy,
with the resulting life transferred to earth by one kind of panspermia or another.

Depending on how many earth-like exoplanets in our galaxy there have been,
this could even give us a tetrachotomy, with the exoplanets taking over
the role of the multiverse in Koon's scenario.

[Gary Hurd]

What were these 5 big questions? I have tried to watch James Tour's babble twice.

In order;
1)
2)
3)
4)
5)

Your help is appreciated.

[MarkE]

Bill, I agree with Peter. My use of "on par" in context I think plainly does not imply equivalence (and therefore its negation as a third option). Rather, it's "on par" insofar as it represents a faith/metaphysics position. In fact, similarly, I claim that belief in naturalistic OoL is "on par" with the God-hypothesis.

[Glenn]

On Saturday, August 26, 2023 at 3:20:16 PM UTC-7, MarkE wrote:
> On Sunday, August 27, 2023 at 4:45:16 AM UTC+10, Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:
> > On 2023-08-26 17:14:08 +0000, Athel Cornish-Bowden said:
> >

> > > On 2023-08-25 22:21:51 +0000, MarkE said:
> > >
> > >> Dr James Tour has proposed this challenge regarding origin of life
> > >> research, inviting by name ten leading scientists in the field:
> > >>
> > >> https://youtu.be/MmykRoelTzU?feature=shared
> > >>

> > >> What is particularly interesting are the highly specific and informed
> > >> points of challenge to speculative, implausible and overstated claims.
> > >> Tour is an outsider able to rock the boat, but an accomplished
> > >> scientist with relevant expertise in chemistry etc
> > >
> > > Yes, but the "etc" doesn't include anything relevant. 43 papers in
> > > 2022–2023, none of thm having anything to do with the origin of life.
> > >

> > >> which enables him to mount a serious challenge.
> > >> Sure, many here will disagree, but the fact that such a challenge can
> > >> be made says something about the state of OOL research and the degree
> > >> of progress it claims, and is willing for the public to believe
> > >> uncorrected.
> > >> We have "professor" Dave Farina's failure in a recent OOL debate with
> > >> Tour to thank for adding fuel to Tour's initiative. I watch with
> > >> interest.

> > I previously only looked back two years, but I've now looked at Tour's
> > productions back to the beginning of 2013. 343 publications, of which
> > not a single one is related to the origin of life. If I submitted a
> > speculative paper about the future of graphene research the reviewers
> > would (rightly) say that I have no qualifications to write about
> > graphene. If I replied (accurately) that I had a D.Phil. in chemistry
> > from a major university, and was therefore an expert on all aspects of
> > chemistry, they not be impressed. I don't care how good an organic
> > chemist Tour is, he has no standing in origin-of-life research.
> >

> > --
> > athel cb : Biochemical Evolution, Garland Science, 2016

> Which is why he has posed the challenge as "help me understand...what am I missing here?"
>

> To dismiss on principle the questioning of a serious, informed outsider is a kind of appeal to authority. You wouldn't to commit that logical fallacy, would you?

That is Athel's "MO". But at least he seems to be the first in the thread to actually respond to your original post.

[MarkE]

I'll enjoy that consolation :)

[MarkE]

Actually, I skimmed the transcript and concede that they could (should) be stated more clearly and concisely. In fact, I commented on the video requesting this. TBA.

[peter2...@gmail.com]

Short answer: he would and does. He hates to talk about OOL.
Longer answer below.

> That is Athel's "MO". But at least he seems to be the first in the thread to actually respond to your original post.

FWIW.

Athel has all the comments I make about him filtered through intermediates
on which he is on talking terms. Naturally, these will be sorely tempted to delete
comments that make it clear that I know what I am taking about.

At one point, I made a remark about how Athel has written a book on
the biochemistry of life, and said that I couldn't understand why he hasn't
talked about OOL (abiogenesis). With his background in biochemistry, I couldn't see
why he couldn't get up to speed pretty quickly on OOL.

This got filtered through a sympathizer of Athel's with that last bit snipped,
giving Athel a chance to flame me for being a professor yet not knowing
that the biochemistry of prebiotic evolution is very different from the
biochemistry of life.

[Hell, I've known that since 1996, when I read through Francis Crick's
_Life Itself_ with rapt attention.]

Peter Nyikos
Professor, Dept. of Mathematics -- standard disclaimer--

University of So. Carolina at Columbia
http://people.math.sc.edu/nyikos

[Ron Dean]

RonO wrote:

> On 8/25/2023 5:21 PM, MarkE wrote:
>> Dr James Tour has proposed this challenge regarding origin of life
>> research, inviting by name ten leading scientists in the field:
>>
>> https://youtu.be/MmykRoelTzU?feature=shared
>>
>> What is particularly interesting are the highly specific and informed
>> points of challenge to speculative, implausible and overstated claims.
>> Tour is an outsider able to rock the boat, but an accomplished

>> scientist with relevant expertise in chemistry etc which enables him

>> to mount a serious challenge.
>>
>> Sure, many here will disagree, but the fact that such a challenge can
>> be made says something about the state of OOL research and the degree
>> of progress it claims, and is willing for the public to believe
>> uncorrected.
>>
>> We have "professor" Dave Farina's failure in a recent OOL debate with
>> Tour to thank for adding fuel to Tour's initiative. I watch with
>> interest.
>>
>

> You still do not want to believe in the designer of the origin of life
> gap that exists.  Tour likely doesn't either, but gap denial is all
> creationist of his type have left.  Tour has claimed to understand that
> there is no ID science, so who cares about what we do not know at this
> time?  It is what is around the gap that Biblical creationists do not
> want to deal with.  Look at all the evidence for the evolution of life
> over the billions of years since the origin of life.  Behe claims that
> his designer is responsible for some of that evolution, but the vast
> majority of IDiot creationists do not want to believe in such a
> designer.  Really, most of the creationist support for the ID scam still
> comes from YEC, and they can't stand the Top Six evidences for IDiocy.
>
> Put your designer in the origin of life gap that you know exists, and
> what do you get?  Is it the designer that you want to believe in?
>
It's interesting that evolutionist want the designer to be in the gaps. But
we do NOT find IDest; trying to fill in the gaps. Quite the contrary,
as for
the IDest, there are no gaps, only the _observed_ complete organism.
OTOH this is where we fine evolution: its advocates searching the fossil
record for intermediates: trying to fill these so called gaps between
claimed
transitional fossils.
And if one goes strictly by the fossil record, it supports the IDest
argument
that intermediate fossils do not exist. It's noteworthy that a common
excuse
for the rarity or absence of intermediates is due to failure to
fossilize, erosion.
predication, decay etc etc. These are excuses. But the reality is, these
intermediates fossils are virtually always _unobserved_.
>
> Ron Okimoto
>

[broger...@gmail.com]

Every fossil you see is an intermediate fossil. You have yet to make clear what you think an intermediate or transitional fossil should look like.

Why do you think ID predicts that intermediate fossils do not exist? You've said many times that you know nothing (scientifically anyway) about the designer. SO why could the designer not have designed an evolutionary system that would work through common descent and "transitional forms"? In fact, you have suggested that you think new species can evolve from related species. If that's the case why do you not find intermediate, transitional fossils between those species?
> >
> > Ron Okimoto
> >

[peter2...@gmail.com]

On Sunday, August 27, 2023 at 9:15:17 AM UTC-4, Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:

> On 2023-08-27 10:51:31 +0000, broger...@gmail.com said:
>
> > On Sunday, August 27, 2023 at 1:10:16 AM UTC-4, MarkE wrote:
>>> "Origin of life is
> >> a chicken and egg problem: for biological evolution that is governed,
> >> primarily, by natural selection, to take off, efficient systems for
> >> replication and translation are required, but even barebones cores of
> >> these systems appear to be products of extensive selection ... In an
> >> infinite universe (multiverse), emergence of highly complex systems by
> >> chance is inevitable."
> >> https://biologydirect.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/1745-6150-2-15

> >> Koonin's third option supports my position , i.e. if all hypotheses
> >> based on physical-chemical pathways on a pre-biotic earth end up
> >> showing a widening explanatory gap, you're left with very limited
> >> reasonable alternatives. An appeal to the multiverse is on par with
> >> positing supernatural action. And sure, there *might* be some other
> >> undiscovered property of matter that permits it to self-organise, but
> >> I'd argue that favouring this would be more about a metaphysical
> >> commitment.
> >
> > I'm still not quite sure where you see a "widening explanatory gap," or
> > even what you mean by the phrase. To me, it looks like starting from a
> > huge gap, starting from Darwin's "warm little pond somewhere"

This is a very telling admission: Bill Rogers is stuck in OOL not far from that
"warm little pond somewhere" stage. His handwaving below, after a little
comment that Athel made, shouldn't fool anyone.

> Darwin's warm little pond should be put to rest. He made no pretence
> that it was a fully worked out theory. He wrote a whole long book to
> develop the idea of natural selection, and mentioned the origin of life
> only twice (as far as I know), as a brief suggestion in a private
> letter [presented in very tentative terms: "But if (and oh! what a big
> if!) we could conceive in some warm little pond..."], and in a somewhat
> longer but still brief account in a letter to The Athenaeum.

Of course, Bill and Athel know about the Urey-Miller
"planet-wide warm thin soup of amino acids and organic chemisty molecules"
and about the theories which reject that hypothesis in favor of deep-sea vents,
refined by some to hot smoker chimneys and others to relatively cool chimney.

I'm sure they've both learned about the production of nucleotides under primitive earth
conditions -- a stage Urey and Miller couldn't get within a country mile of.


Now, back to Bill's handwaving:

> > to the first life, to a current state where lots of the detailed
> > problems have been made explicit, some have been resolved (e.g., "but
> > if that were true RNA alone without protein would have to have be able
> > to form enzymatically active RNAs"

The handwaving becomes frantic:

> > and then people find enzymatically
> > active RNAs).

An alert reader, not afraid to ask questions like so many college
students are, might well ask at this point: Acting on WHAT? to produce WHAT?

Spoiler: PRODUCING NOTHING REMOTELY LIKE the complementary strand
of EVERY POSSIBLE string of RNA, given a rich bath of the four RNA nucleotides.

Yes, even with that rich bath as a given, AFAIK all known ribozymes [1]
are incapable of duplicating any given strand of four RNA nucleotides .

[1] ribozyme = RNA enzyme = enzymatically active RNA --
- *not* to be confused with "protein enzyme," meaning the enzymes
that are familiar to laymen. )


The handwaving gets sneakier:

> >Likewise for all the pre-biotic synthesis pathways

"all" is the foot-in-the-door to make "many" look like
maybe 30% instead of the < 1% it actually is.

> > - for many of them we've gone from no plausible idea, to better ideas, there
> > are progressively more and more constraints on the models.

Of course, Bill doesn't tell us about ANY of these pathways, lest
we get an inkling on what these constraints are on what mOdels.


CUT TO THE CHASE:
The pathway Bill has been digressing about is the pathway from where we
are, not far from Darwin's warm little pond, to life as we know it, represented by some prokaryote.

A huge model, square in that path, is the first ribozyme replicase, i.e.,
a ribozyme capable of the universal replication feat of which I wrote above.
Producing it under primitive earth conditions is what I call
The First Holy Grail of OOL.

We know next to nothing about the "constraints" on that model, i.e.,
we haven't the foggiest idea of what string of RNA nucleotides
IS a ribozyme replicase.

So much for Bill's know-nothingism about a "widening explanatory gap":
he never lets out a peep about the very concept of a ribozyme replicase,
because that would widen the explanatory gap from his handwaving
to a realistic picture of what we are up against.


As it is, he can go on with his handwaving as follows:

> > That seems to me to be progress and gradual filling in and defining of the gaps,

But NOT the gap that separates us from The First Holy Grail of OOL.

> > not a "widening explanatory gap." No doubt the problem is not solved,
> > and indeed like lots of other problems in science it may not get solved
> > any time soon, but the idea that there's no progress just does not jibe
> > with what's happening in the field.

I talked about the actual progress after Athel's spiel, FWIW.
Maybe I didn't hit on all the important details, but I'll put my outline up against Bill's any day.

[peter2...@gmail.com]

On Wednesday, August 30, 2023 at 2:55:20 PM UTC-4, Ron Dean wrote:

...something I never thought I would see from him: an effort
to set himself apart from IDests where OOL is concerned. Maybe he's trying to humor Ron O,
or is sick and tired of RonO's abuse and wants to have a respite from it,
even at the cost of burning his bridges behind him.

> RonO wrote:
> > On 8/25/2023 5:21 PM, MarkE wrote:
> >> Dr James Tour has proposed this challenge regarding origin of life
> >> research, inviting by name ten leading scientists in the field:
> >>
> >> https://youtu.be/MmykRoelTzU?feature=shared
> >>
> >> What is particularly interesting are the highly specific and informed
> >> points of challenge to speculative, implausible and overstated claims.
> >> Tour is an outsider able to rock the boat, but an accomplished
> >> scientist with relevant expertise in chemistry etc which enables him
> >> to mount a serious challenge.
> >>
> >> Sure, many here will disagree, but the fact that such a challenge can
> >> be made says something about the state of OOL research and the degree
> >> of progress it claims, and is willing for the public to believe
> >> uncorrected.
> >>
> >> We have "professor" Dave Farina's failure in a recent OOL debate with
> >> Tour to thank for adding fuel to Tour's initiative. I watch with
> >> interest.
> >>
> >
> > You still do not want to believe in the designer of the origin of life
> > gap that exists.

The first sign of trouble: Ron doesn't call RonO out on this
wild unsupported accusation of his.

> >Tour likely doesn't either, but gap denial is all
> > creationist of his type have left.

I think I'm finally getting some idea as to what this mumbo jumbo
expression "gap denial" means: it means denying that the gap was
filled by a supernatural being that is NOT the God of the Bible.

Yeah, that's the ticket -- I think.

> > Tour has claimed to understand that
> > there is no ID science, so who cares about what we do not know at this
> > time? It is what is around the gap that Biblical creationists do not
> > want to deal with. Look at all the evidence for the evolution of life
> > over the billions of years since the origin of life.

OOPS. Ron O has slipped from OOL to talking about biological evolution, leaving Tour behind.


<snip to get back to OOL>

> > Put your designer in the origin of life gap that you know exists, and
> > what do you get? Is it the designer that you want to believe in?
> >
> It's interesting that evolutionist want the designer to be in the gaps. But
> we do NOT find IDest; trying to fill in the gaps. Quite the contrary,
> as for the IDest, there are no gaps, only the _observed_ complete organism.

Nonsense. IDests are just as happy with limited gaps in OOL as they
are in limited gaps in biological evolution. It's gaps as big as
between the results of Miller-Urey and the first ribozyme RNA-replicase [1]
that they are apt to think *a* designer had a hand in somewhere along the way.
[ID advocates keep making the foolish choice of "the designer" instead of "a designer" all the time.]

[1] RNA- replicase = an enzyme capable of producing the complementary strand
of EVERY POSSIBLE string of RNA, given a rich bath of the four RNA nucleotides,
fast enough to be useful [2].

We know of RNA replicases made of protein, because some viruses have them.
[If it weren't for those viruses, we would be totally in the dark
about what *these* enzymes could possibly look like.]

But NOBODY has the foggiest idea what a ribozyme [3] RNA-replicase could
look like (i.e. what string of RNA nucleotides it could consist of).
What I call The First Holy Grail of OOL is being able to show how
a ribozyme RNA-replicase could have arisen under natural, prebiotic conditions.

[2] In the context of OOL, it means producing them fast enough to beat the
odds against life as we know it arising a mere n00 million years starting from the replicase.
Here n = 500 - k, where k is the number of million years it took
to get to the first ribozyme RNA-replicase.

[3] ribozyme = RNA enzyme = enzymatically active RNA.
The well-known ribosome (which no virus has but every virus needs to be furnished by a host cell) --
becomes a ribozyme when stripped of its dozens of helper proteins: it can still function
as a ribosome should, albeit at reduced speed and efficiency.

> OTOH this is where we fine evolution: its advocates searching the fossil
> record for intermediates: trying to fill these so called gaps between
> claimed transitional fossils.

That would be a candid appraisal of what their wish list is,
but anti-ID zealots like Ron O and Bill Rogers like to pretend that
we have plenty of transitional fossils. Bill even defines "transitional"
so broadly that EVERY FOSSIL is transitional in The World According to Bill Rogers.

> And if one goes strictly by the fossil record, it supports the IDest
> argument that intermediate fossils do not exist.

This is falling in line with the jargon of doctrinaire creationists, who leave out qualifying phrases
like "in anything like sufficient abundance" or "between fossil species A and species B"
at the ends of sentences like these.

Creationists like these used to write all the time,
"The missing link is still missing." And that "missing link" is a
moving target: when a formerly missing link X from A to B is found,
they will put "the missing link" either between A and X or between X and B.

To be fair, the anti-ID fanatics are similarly neglectful of qualifying phrases.
One of them recently accused me of "plausible deniability" instead of "accurate word usage"
when I *did* put one in, as if to say, "We all know that you really believe in
the claim without the qualifying phrase."

> It's noteworthy that a common excuse
> for the rarity or absence of intermediates is due to failure to fossilize, erosion.
> predication, decay etc etc. These are excuses. But the reality is, these
> intermediates fossils are virtually always _unobserved_.

Failure to give specific examples renders this kind of talk almost useless,
even with that qualifying "virtually."

But, again, the anti-ID zealots are even less likely to give specific examples.

I could give examples, but Ron Dean seems to want to go it alone
and seems to forget about them in short order when they *are* supplied.

Peter Nyikos
Professor, Dept. of Mathematics

University of So. Carolina -- standard disclaimer--
http://people.math.sc.edu/nyikos

[Ron Dean]

Transitional fossils are critters with traits common to predecessors and
descendants. IE the fossil Archaeopteryx (archae) with characteristics
of both reptiles and birds. Intermediates are the missing links between
archae and dinosaurs and between archae and birds.

>
> Why do you think ID predicts that intermediate fossils do not exist? You've said many times that you know nothing (scientifically anyway) about the designer.

I think there is empirical evidence of design, hence a designer, But
there is no evidence which points to the identity of the designer. I
might believe the designer is God, but that's belief based on opinion,
not based on evidence.

>
SO why could the designer not have designed an evolutionary system that
would work through common descent and "transitional forms"? In fact, you
have suggested that you think new species can evolve from related
species. If that's the case why do you not find intermediate,
transitional fossils between those species?
>

I think the designer could have, but the evidence is, that it did is
not, is very convincing due to the rarity of the intermediates in the
fossil record. In fact, this rarity of intermediate fossils and the
abrupt appearance of most new forms in the earths strata followed by
stasis and then extinction
by most, is exactly what IDest would expect.
And this is the real characteristics of the fossil record, which was
recognized by Stephen J. Gould and Niles Eldredge. They attempted to
consolidate this real and observed nature of the fossil record with the
theory of evolution. Whether or not they succeeded is besides the point,
because their discoveries gave tremendous evidence in support for
Intelligent design.
>>>
>>> Ron Okimoto
>>>
>

[broger...@gmail.com]

OK. There are many such transitional series, between reptiles and mammals, between ungulates and whales, between various ancient horses and modern ones, fishes to tetrapods, etc. It's not hard to find them on-line.

Here's an entertaining list

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OuqFUdqNYhg

Here's a review of transitional fossils among hoofed mammals

https://evolution-outreach.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1007/s12052-009-0136-1

Transitional fossils in the evolution of turtles

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3001370/

Or you could just check some of the references in the wikipedia article on transitional fossils

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transitional_fossil

And from the end of that article, a quote about your misuse of Punctuated Equilibrium

"The theory of punctuated equilibrium developed by Stephen Jay Gould and Niles Eldredge and first presented in 1972[61] is often mistakenly drawn into the discussion of transitional fossils.[62] This theory, however, pertains only to well-documented transitions within taxa or between closely related taxa over a geologically short period of time. These transitions, usually traceable in the same geological outcrop, often show small jumps in morphology between extended periods of morphological stability. To explain these jumps, Gould and Eldredge envisaged comparatively long periods of genetic stability separated by periods of rapid evolution. Gould made the following observation concerning creationist misuse of his work to deny the existence of transitional fossils:

Since we proposed punctuated equilibria to explain trends, it is infuriating to be quoted again and again by creationists—whether through design or stupidity, I do not know—as admitting that the fossil record includes no transitional forms. The punctuations occur at the level of species; directional trends (on the staircase model) are rife at the higher level of transitions within major groups.
— Stephen Jay Gould, The Panda's Thumb[63]"

"Rife at the higher level of transitions between major groups," is what I am referring to above as in reptiles to mammals, ungulates to whales, fish to tetrapods, etc.

AS I keep telling you there are lots of transitional fossils between higher level taxa, transitions that you claim evolution is incapable of producing, and very few transitional fossils between species, the only sort of transitions that you think evolution might manage. Whatever is determining your beliefs about what evolution can do, it's not the fossil record.

[peter2...@gmail.com]

I hope Ron Dean reads this before trying to answer the post by Bill Rogers which I am answering now.

Ron, I will ask you a question towards the end.

There ain't all that much left for that etc. Bill seems to have mined the richest veins already below.

At the opposite extreme, we haven't a clue as to which non-gliding
animals bats descended from, and what is touted to be a "transitional" between
them is a bat that has claws at the end of the digits that support its efficient wing.

The case of pterosaurs is almost as bad.

>It's not hard to find them on-line.
>
> Here's an entertaining list
>
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OuqFUdqNYhg

I prefer good solid paleontology to entertainment.
Kathleen Hunt's horse evolution FAQ remains the gold
standard, fleshing out the Equioidea part of the following summary:

> Here's a review of transitional fossils among hoofed mammals

> https://evolution-outreach.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1007/s12052-009-0136-1

And here is Kathleen Hunt's excellent article:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/horses/horse_evol.html

The article linked by Bill Rogers above does a passable job of
explaining that all perissodactyls [1] are descended from
a common perissodactyl ancestor. It is authored by the
anti-ID fanatic Donald Prothero; but here, in his ungulate specialty,
he manages to confine himself to really stupid arguments by creationists,
enabling himself to be honest.

However, unlike Kathleen Hunt, whose evolutionary tree of the horse superfamily
is full of ancestor-descendant relationships, Prothero follows the reigning ideology
of "sister group hypotheses good, ancestor-descendant hypotheses bad,"
which is as devoid of sound reasoning as "four legs good, two legs bad"
was in George Orwell's satire _Animal_Farm_,

[1] The order Perissodactyla is comprised of odd-toed ungulates: horses,
rhinos, and tapirs, and extinct members of their respective superfamilies,
as well as by those of extinct brontotheres and chalicotheres. Except
for the last group, which is secondarily clawed, all are hoofed animals.

Elsewhere among the ungulates, Prothero is rather slapdash:
his "trees" of the camelids and giraffe relatives doesn't seem
to show very convincing relationships, and the same is
true of proboscideans. He does show a good example of a
transitional fossil sirenian, with four fully functional legs and
five-toed feet. Here he comes down hard on creationists
who play the same sort of definitional shell game that Bill Rogers
himself has used in defining "material" to include souls that interact
with bodies.

I'll have plenty more to say about the other two references
the selfsame Bill Rogers gives below, later today or tomorrow.
In sci.bio.paleontology, some time next week, I will also
give some more technical criticisms of Prothero's article.

> Transitional fossils in the evolution of turtles
>
> https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3001370/


> Or you could just check some of the references in the wikipedia article on transitional fossils
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transitional_fossil
>
> And from the end of that article, a quote about your misuse of Punctuated Equilibrium

Ron, do you know what alleged "misuse" Bill Rogers refers to here?

>
> "The theory of punctuated equilibrium developed by Stephen Jay Gould and Niles Eldredge and first presented in 1972[61] is often mistakenly drawn into the discussion of transitional fossils.[62] This theory, however, pertains only to well-documented transitions within taxa or between closely related taxa over a geologically short period of time. These transitions, usually traceable in the same geological outcrop, often show small jumps in morphology between extended periods of morphological stability. To explain these jumps, Gould and Eldredge envisaged comparatively long periods of genetic stability separated by periods of rapid evolution. Gould made the following observation concerning creationist misuse of his work to deny the existence of transitional fossils:

There are several flaws bedeviling this "observation." Keep reading.

> Since we proposed punctuated equilibria to explain trends, it is infuriating to be quoted again and again by creationists—whether through design or stupidity, I do not know—as admitting that the fossil record includes no transitional forms. The punctuations occur at the level of species; directional trends (on the staircase model) are rife at the higher level of transitions within major groups.
> — Stephen Jay Gould, The Panda's Thumb[63]"

The biggest flaw: there is no such quote on p. 189, to which [63] directs us. Instead, Gould keeps taking issue
with gradualists. In fact, the first paragraph on that page leads off with:

"All paleontologists know that the fossil record contains precious little in the way of intermediate forms; transitions between major groups are characteristically abrupt."

The other flaws are the straw man "no transitional forms," the ambiguous "directional trends" and
un-quantified "major groups."


Remainder deleted, to be replied to later: either today or tomorrow.


Peter Nyikos

Professor, Dept. of Mathematics -- standard disclaimer--

University of So. Carolina in Columbia
http://people.math.sc.edu/nyikos

[Lawyer Daggett]

". Faced with these facts of evolution and the philosophical bankruptcy
. of their own position, creationists rely upon distortion and innuendo
. to buttress their rhetorical claim. If I sound sharp or bitter, indeed I am
. -- for I have become a major target of these practices.

. I count myself among the evolutionists who argue for a jerky, or episodic,
. rather than a smoothly gradual, pace of change. In 1972 my colleague Niles
. Eldredge and I developed the theory of punctuated equilibrium. We argued
. that two outstanding facts of the fossil record -- geologically "sudden"
. origin of new species and failure to change thereafter (stasis) -- reflect
. the predictions of evolutionary theory, not the imperfections of the fossil
. record. In most theories, small isolated populations are the source of
. new species, and the process of speciation takes thousands or tens of
. thousands of years. This amount of time, so long when measured against
. our lives, is a geological microsecond . . .

. Since we proposed punctuated equilibria to explain trends, it is infuriating

. to be quoted again and again by creationists -- whether through design
. or stupidity, I do not know -- as admitting that the fossil record includes
. no transitional forms. Transitional forms are generally lacking at the
. species level, but they are abundant between larger groups.
- Gould, Stephen Jay 1983. "Evolution as Fact and Theory"
in Hens Teeth and Horse's Toes: Further Reflections in Natural History.
New York: W. W. Norton & Co., p. 258-260.

of further interest,
quote] As on the theory of natural selection an interminable number of
intermediate forms must have existed, linking together all the species
in each group by gradations as fine as our present varieties, it may be
asked, Why do we not see these linking forms all around us? Why are
not all organic beings blended together in an inextricable chaos?
[end quote]

So yes, Darwin asks the question. But he goes on to answer it.

[quote] With respect to existing forms, we should remember that we
have no right to expect (excepting in rare cases) to discover directly
connecting links between them, but only between each and some
extinct and supplanted form. Even on a wide area, which has during
a long period remained continuous, and of which the climate and other
conditions of life change insensibly in going from a district occupied
by one species into another district occupied by a closely allied species,
we have no just right to expect often to find intermediate varieties in
the intermediate zone. For we have reason to believe that only a few
species of a genus ever undergo change; the other species becoming
utterly extinct and leaving no modified progeny. Of the species which
do change, only a few within the same country change at the same time;
and all modifications are slowly effected. I have also shown that the
intermediate varieties which will at first probably exist in the intermediate
zones, will be liable to be supplanted by the allied forms on either hand;
and the latter, from existing in greater numbers, will generally be modified
and improved at a quicker rate than the intermediate varieties, which
exist in lesser numbers; so that the intermediate varieties will, in the
long run, be supplanted and exterminated. [end quote]

http://darwin-online.org.uk/content/frameset?itemID=F381&viewtype=text&pageseq=525

Yes, both Darwin and Gould get misrepresented.

[Gary Hurd]

[broger...@gmail.com]

Yes, all the yelling does kind of undermine his credibility as a serious critic. If he has strong, reasonable objections based on organic chemistry why not publish in a technical journal? It's not the case the non-mainstream views have no chance of getting published. Sabine Hofstedder manages to get her critiques of particle physics published, even though there's billions invested in the current approaches. Big Bang, inflationary cosomology is pretty dominant in the mainstream, but guys like Steinhardt still get published for working to poke holes in it. So if Tour has a solid critique, he should stop shouting and blogging and write it up as a paper and get it published by somebody other than the Discovery Institute.

[Mark]

It would be helpful to now provide a concise compilation of arguments and evidence. I've commented on his YouTube video suggesting as this.

What would his chances be now of being accepted for publication by a mainstream journal? But he could/should try. He could publish the reason for rejection if one is given, and either way if publication is refused, have the paper peer reviewed (by recognised OOL experts, anonymously if no-one is willing to step up) and published independently.

[Ron Dean]

On Aug 31, 2023 at 11:43:29 AM EDT, "peter2...@gmail.com"

I read that there was a problem the horse evolution, because
there were so many different species, it was like a bush. The tree in
so many text books was hyothical. - Eldredge

I don't know which post this is in reference to.

>
>>
>> "The theory of punctuated equilibrium developed by Stephen Jay Gould and
>> Niles Eldredge and first presented in 1972[61] is often mistakenly drawn into
>> the discussion of transitional fossils.[62] This theory, however, pertains
>> only to well-documented transitions within taxa or between closely related
>> taxa over a geologically short period of time. These transitions, usually
>> traceable in the same geological outcrop, often show small jumps in
>> morphology between extended periods of morphological stability. To explain
>> these jumps, Gould and Eldredge envisaged comparatively long periods of
>> genetic stability separated by periods of rapid evolution. Gould made the
>> following observation concerning creationist misuse of his work to deny the
>> existence of transitional fossils:
>

OK, Punctuated equilibrium was frequently followed by extinction after a
generally long period of stasis, but, due to rapid evolution, and in
isoluates, one should not expect to find the
these intermediate fossils.

>
>
> There are several flaws bedeviling this "observation." Keep reading.
>
>> Since we proposed punctuated equilibria to explain trends, it is infuriating
>> to be quoted again and again by creationists—whether through design or
>> stupidity, I do not know—as admitting that the fossil record includes no
>> transitional forms. The punctuations occur at the level of species;
>> directional trends (on the staircase model) are rife at the higher level of
>> transitions within major groups.
>> — Stephen Jay Gould, The Panda's Thumb[63]"
>

Gould and Eldredged described the real nature of the fossil record. The
interpretation (punctuated equalibrum) of this reality, is not just the sole
purview of G&E.

>
> The biggest flaw: there is no such quote on p. 189, to which [63] directs us.
> Instead, Gould keeps taking issue
> with gradualists. In fact, the first paragraph on that page leads off with:
>
> "All paleontologists know that the fossil record contains precious little in
> the way of intermediate forms; transitions between major groups are
> characteristically abrupt."
>

Most modern phyla appeared during the Cambrian, and I have problems accepting,
that there are actually forms bridging the separations between the original
phyla. Secondly, the evolution
of the massive whale from a single cell to some wolf size mammal involves, not
just the evolution of body forms, but also as many as 100 internal organs and
limbs. But given the random mutations and natural selection is offered as the
explanation, random means aimless, hazardous, purposeless, mindless and
chance. The 100 organs and body parts had to evolve in a near parallel, close
together at near the same time or en masse in order to survive. Natural
selection can select only the mutations provided by random chance. What are
the odds of this happening multiple times with the numerous intermediate body
plans, not to mention the new body parts and against the odds even with
50+million year time span. Where did the new coded information arise?. I
think, this takes faith! If this happened, a guiding hand of some form of
theistic evolution would be most ogical
> a

> The other flaws are the straw man "no transitional forms," the ambiguous
> "directional trends" and
> un-quantified "major groups."
>

I've been under the impression that Gould and Eldredge, brought to attention,
the extreme rarity of intermediate forms and the prevalence of stases, traits
which had been overlooked for decades by researchers.

[Mark Isaak]

On 8/30/23 11:54 AM, Ron Dean wrote:
> RonO wrote:
>>

>> Put your designer in the origin of life gap that you know exists, and
>> what do you get?  Is it the designer that you want to believe in?
> >
> It's interesting that evolutionist want the designer to be in the gaps. But
> we do NOT find IDest; trying to fill in the gaps.  Quite the contrary,
> as for
> the  IDest, there are no gaps, only the _observed_ complete organism.

I don't want the designer to be in gaps. I want the designer to be on a
lab table where I can see it. I bet every scientist feels the same way.
The IDists, however, force gaps upon us by effectively *defining* the
designer as a gap, and one that will be forever impossible to fill.

As for what people want, some of us want honesty; we want statements
that don't contradict evidence. And the evidence of history shows
repeatedly that explanations which once were left to the realm of the
supernatural are now well explained by natural processes.

We also want utility. IDists offer nothing whatsoever in that direction.
Evolution, on the other hand, has already been put to work solving
problems that human designers found intractable without it. Origins of
life research is almost certain to have practical, useful discoveries
arise from it, too.

> OTOH this is  where we fine evolution: its advocates searching the fossil
> record for intermediates: trying to fill these so called gaps between
> claimed transitional fossils.

Do you think there is something wrong with discovering new things about
the world??

> And if one goes strictly by the fossil record, it supports the IDest
> argument that intermediate fossils do not exist.

Except, of course, for the plethora of intermediate fossils that exist.

What the IDist argument supports is a quote from Kierkegaard: "No one is
so terribly deceived as he who does not himself suspect it."

--
Mark Isaak
"Wisdom begins when you discover the difference between 'That
doesn't make sense' and 'I don't understand.'" - Mary Doria Russell

[Glenn]

How's this for laughs (about Athel)?

"The majority of chemical compounds occurring in biological organisms are carbon compounds, so the association between organic chemistry and biochemistry is so close that biochemistry might be regarded as in essence a branch of organic chemistry. "

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Organic_chemistry

>
> This got filtered through a sympathizer of Athel's with that last bit snipped,
> giving Athel a chance to flame me for being a professor yet not knowing
> that the biochemistry of prebiotic evolution is very different from the
> biochemistry of life.

Yes, it is said to be a chemical "synthesis" ...sort of like Tour being a synthetic organic chemist".

"Stages in the origin of life range from the well-understood, such as the habitable Earth and the abiotic synthesis of simple molecules"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Organic_chemistry

And many more use of the word synthesis in context to OOL.

>
> [Hell, I've known that since 1996, when I read through Francis Crick's
> _Life Itself_ with rapt attention.]

Don't remember when Athel started posting, by I knew he was a kook about the first time he opened his mouth.

[broger...@gmail.com]

I think his chances of publication depend entirely on the strength of his arguments - as I said above, plenty of people with strong argument against mainstream science views do indeed get published.

[Glenn]

I enjoy, in a fashion, Athel's contributions here. Funny, today I watched a video that identifies Lee Cronin as a "synthetic chemist". Wiki references:
"Chemistry, Nanoscience, Self Assembly, Systems chemistry, Complex Chemical Systems, Inorganic Biology, Supramolecular chemistry, Self-organization, 3D printing"

Yet nothing from Athel about Cronin, or Farina being qualified because they make claims about OOL. Supposedly Tour isn't a qualified "OOLologist" since he hasn't published any rubbish on the subject.

[Ralph Page]

On Fri, 01 Sep 2023 04:16:38 GMT, Ron Dean <rdhall...@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Aug 31, 2023 at 11:43:29 AM EDT, "peter2...@gmail.com"
><peter2...@gmail.com> wrote:
>

<Massive snip>

>Most modern phyla appeared during the Cambrian, and I have problems accepting,
>that there are actually forms bridging the separations between the original
>phyla. Secondly, the evolution
>of the massive whale from a single cell to some wolf size mammal involves, not
>just the evolution of body forms, but also as many as 100 internal organs and
>limbs. But given the random mutations and natural selection is offered as the
>explanation, random means aimless, hazardous, purposeless, mindless and
>chance. The 100 organs and body parts had to evolve in a near parallel, close
>together at near the same time or en masse in order to survive. Natural
>selection can select only the mutations provided by random chance. What are
>the odds of this happening multiple times with the numerous intermediate body
>plans, not to mention the new body parts and against the odds even with
>50+million year time span. Where did the new coded information arise?. I
>think, this takes faith! If this happened, a guiding hand of some form of
>theistic evolution would be most ogical

How have you determined that random, or near random mutations coupled with
drift and natural selection are so unlikely to produce the life we see now
that a designer is required? Specifically, how have you estimated the
probability that this occurred through evolutionary forces is too low to be
considered reasonable?

[Glenn]

How have you determined that random or near random mutations coupled with drift and natural selection and anything else you can cook up are so likely to product the life we see now that a designer is not required? Specifically, how have you estimated the probability that this occurred through evolutionary forces is so high as to be considered fact?

[peter2...@gmail.com]

I don't recall us interacting before, Ralph, but this looks like a good time to start.

On Friday, September 1, 2023 at 12:55:22 PM UTC-4, Ralph Page wrote:
> On Fri, 01 Sep 2023 04:16:38 GMT, Ron Dean <rdhall...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >On Aug 31, 2023 at 11:43:29 AM EDT, "peter2...@gmail.com"
> ><peter2...@gmail.com> wrote:

>>> "All paleontologists know that the fossil record contains precious little in
>>> the way of intermediate forms; transitions between major groups are
>>> characteristically abrupt."

-- Stephen Jay Gould, _The Panda's Thumb_, 1980, p. 189

> <Massive snip>
> >Most modern phyla appeared during the Cambrian, and I have problems accepting,
> >that there are actually forms bridging the separations between the original
> >phyla. Secondly, the evolution
> >of the massive whale from a single cell to some wolf size mammal involves, not
> >just the evolution of body forms, but also as many as 100 internal organs and
> >limbs. But given the random mutations and natural selection is offered as the
> >explanation, random means aimless, hazardous, purposeless, mindless and
> >chance. The 100 organs and body parts had to evolve in a near parallel, close
> >together at near the same time or en masse in order to survive. Natural
> >selection can select only the mutations provided by random chance. What are
> >the odds of this happening multiple times with the numerous intermediate body
> >plans, not to mention the new body parts and against the odds even with
> >50+million year time span. Where did the new coded information arise?. I
> >think, this takes faith! If this happened, a guiding hand of some form of
> >theistic evolution would be most ogical

You didn't try to address any of Ron's actual comments, Ralph.
Do you see any weaknesses in them that others haven't already commented on?

Wrt Ron's first sentence, some have claimed that the earliest representatives of the ca. 20 phyla at
mid-Cambrian include some organisms that are close enough to belong in the
same phylum, but I haven't seen any examples. There are claims that this or that is a
"basal bilaterian" or "basal lophotrochozoan" but I see no close-looking representatives
of individual Cambrian phyla close enough to them.

> How have you determined that random, or near random mutations coupled with
> drift and natural selection are so unlikely to produce the life we see now
> that a designer is required?

"required" is premature; he only said "most [logical]," giving people
a much less easy target to hit.

> Specifically, how have you estimated the
> probability that this occurred through evolutionary forces is too low to be
> considered reasonable?

This too is premature, for essentially the same reason. In this area of
science/philosophy of science, "proof beyond a reasonable doubt"
is too high a standard to expect. The correct standard, in line with Ron's
wording, is "preponderance of evidence."

Do these phrases ring a bell? The first is the standard in criminal cases,
the other in lawsuits (tort).

Peter Nyikos
Professor, Dept. of Mathematics -- standard disclaimer--

Univ. of So. Carolina at Columbia
http://people.math.sc.edu/nyikos

[peter2...@gmail.com]

On Friday, September 1, 2023 at 12:20:21 AM UTC-4, Ron Dean wrote:
> On Aug 31, 2023 at 11:43:29 AM EDT, "peter2...@gmail.com"
> <peter2...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Wednesday, August 30, 2023 at 7:15:20 PM UTC-4, broger...@gmail.com wrote:
> >> On Wednesday, August 30, 2023 at 6:20:20 PM UTC-4, Ron Dean wrote:
> >>> broger...@gmail.com wrote:
> >>>> On Wednesday, August 30, 2023 at 2:55:20 PM UTC-4, Ron Dean wrote:

> >>>>> It's noteworthy that a common excuse
> >>>>> for the rarity or absence of intermediates is due to failure to
> >>>>> fossilize, erosion.
> >>>>> predication, decay etc etc. These are excuses. But the reality is, these
> >>>>> intermediates fossils are virtually always _unobserved_.
> >>>>
> >>>> Every fossil you see is an intermediate fossil.

This is Bill Rogers making a stupid comment. Every species that becomes extinct
without giving rise to other species is an exception.

> >>>> You have yet to make clear
> >>>> what you think an intermediate or transitional fossil should look like.

Bill's comment remains stupid regardless of how you define "intermediate",
because even he must have realized that you do NOT think every fossil is an intermediate fossil.

> >>>>
> >>> Transitional fossils are critters with traits common to predecessors and
> >>> descendants. IE the fossil Archaeopteryx (archae) with characteristics
> >>> of both reptiles and birds. Intermediates are the missing links between
> >>> archae and dinosaurs and between archae and birds.

You do try to distinguish between "intermediate" and "transitional" here, but
your distinction lacks the precision I use. Do you recall what it is?

> >> OK. There are many such transitional series, between reptiles and mammals,
> >> between ungulates and whales, between various ancient horses and modern ones,
> >> fishes to tetrapods, etc.
> >
> > There ain't all that much left for that etc. Bill seems to have mined the
> > richest veins already below.
> >
> > At the opposite extreme, we haven't a clue as to which non-gliding
> > animals bats descended from, and what is touted to be a "transitional" between
> > them is a bat that has claws at the end of the digits that support its
> > efficient wing.
> >
> > The case of pterosaurs is almost as bad.

The more knowledgeable creationists do make an issue of bats.
Have you come across a book that does this? ABEKA has a textbook that does.

Anti-creationists and anti-IDers ignore problems like these and keep touting
the success stories, like the discoveries that give us a fair picture of whale evolution.

> >> It's not hard to find them on-line.
> >>
> >> Here's an entertaining list
> >>
> >> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OuqFUdqNYhg
> >
> > I prefer good solid paleontology to entertainment.
> > Kathleen Hunt's horse evolution FAQ remains the gold
> > standard, fleshing out the Equioidea part of the following summary:
> >
> >> Here's a review of transitional fossils among hoofed mammals
> >
> >> https://evolution-outreach.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1007/s12052-009-0136-1
> >
> > And here is Kathleen Hunt's excellent article:
> >
> > http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/horses/horse_evol.html

> > The article linked by Bill Rogers above does a passable job of
> > explaining that all perissodactyls [1] are descended from
> > a common perissodactyl ancestor. It is authored by the
> > anti-ID fanatic Donald Prothero; but here, in his ungulate specialty,
> > he manages to confine himself to really stupid arguments by creationists,
> > enabling himself to be honest.
>
> >
> > However, unlike Kathleen Hunt, whose evolutionary tree of the horse superfamily
> > is full of ancestor-descendant relationships, Prothero follows the reigning

> > ideology of "sister group hypotheses good, ancestor-descendant hypotheses bad,"
> > which is as devoid of sound reasoning as "four legs good, two legs bad"
> > was in George Orwell's satire _Animal_Farm_,

> I read that there was a problem the horse evolution, because
> there were so many different species, it was like a bush. The tree in
> so many text books was hyothical. - Eldredge

The "problem" was all in the minds of the creationists, who called it a "tree"
instead of a "lineage" or "a path from the bottom of the tree to the ends of one of the limbs."
I say "ends" because the "limb" leading to "the modern horse" (*Equus*)
has several species involved: one or more species of asses,
at least two species of horses, and three species of zebras.

They either did not realize, or they tried to obscure,
the fact that the sequence (lineage) going from the "dawn horse"
[identified as Hyracotherium in Kathleen Hunt's time]
to "the modern horse" was the "Black Swan" that demolished the
claim that there were no direct paths from a species to another
species that was vastly different from it.

The side branches were there, of course, but dwelling on them
would have been beside the point of this demonstration.


Did you take a look at the tree in the Kathleen Hunt article that I linked above?
If not, then you should do so soon, and see whether
what I wrote just now makes all creationist
talk about that "problem" not worth mentioning.

> >
> > [1] The order Perissodactyla is comprised of odd-toed ungulates: horses,
> > rhinos, and tapirs, and extinct members of their respective superfamilies,
> > as well as by those of extinct brontotheres and chalicotheres. Except
> > for the last group, which is secondarily clawed, all are hoofed animals.
> >
> > Elsewhere among the ungulates, Prothero is rather slapdash:
> > his "trees" of the camelids and giraffe relatives doesn't seem
> > to show very convincing relationships, and the same is
> > true of proboscideans. He does show a good example of a
> > transitional fossil sirenian, with four fully functional legs and
> > five-toed feet. Here he comes down hard on creationists
> > who play the same sort of definitional shell game that Bill Rogers
> > himself has used in defining "material" to include souls that interact
> > with bodies.
> >
> > I'll have plenty more to say about the other two references
> > the selfsame Bill Rogers gives below, later today or tomorrow.

Correction: Bill has gone back to the topic of the origin of life,
and so, I think this topic of transitionals should go on the back
burner, unless you want to go on discussing it with me.

> > In sci.bio.paleontology, some time next week, I will also
> > give some more technical criticisms of Prothero's article.

This, I do plan to do, probably Monday already, because we are
in need of more threads that talk about a broad spectrum
of animals.

> >> Transitional fossils in the evolution of turtles
> >>
> >> https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3001370/
> >
> >
> >> Or you could just check some of the references in the wikipedia article on
> >> transitional fossils
> >>
> >> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transitional_fossil
> >>
> >> And from the end of that article, a quote about your misuse of Punctuated
> >> Equilibrium
> >
> > Ron, do you know what alleged "misuse" Bill Rogers refers to here?
> >
> I don't know which post this is in reference to.

Maybe Bill had several different posts of yours in mind.
I suggest you ask him about it.


Concluded in next reply, to be done after I answer a post by Glenn
on this same thread.

Peter Nyikos
Professor, Dept. of Mathematics -- standard disclaimer--

[peter2...@gmail.com]

> > [with whom] he is on talking terms. Naturally, these will be sorely tempted to delete

> > comments that make it clear that I know what I am taking about.
> >
> > At one point, I made a remark about how Athel has written a book on
> > the biochemistry of life, and said that I couldn't understand why he hasn't
> > talked about OOL (abiogenesis). With his background in biochemistry, I couldn't see
> > why he couldn't get up to speed pretty quickly on OOL.

> How's this for laughs (about Athel)?

The contrast with Athel's reaction [see what I wrote below] is interesting, that's for sure.

>
> "The majority of chemical compounds occurring in biological organisms are carbon compounds, so the association between organic chemistry and biochemistry is so close that biochemistry might be regarded as in essence a branch of organic chemistry. "
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Organic_chemistry

> >
> > This got filtered through a sympathizer of Athel's with that last bit snipped,
> > giving Athel a chance to flame me for being a professor yet not knowing
> > that the biochemistry of prebiotic evolution is very different from the
> > biochemistry of life.

The Wikipedia quote is at the opposite extreme, of course, but it's a refrain I've heard from Lawyer Daggett,
and several other over the years. AFAIK Daggett is the analogue of a Facebook "friend" of Athel.
If so, these radically different ideas of biochemistry are not going to be remarked on between them.

> Yes, it is said to be a chemical "synthesis" ...sort of like Tour being a synthetic organic chemist".

Athel the thesis, Daggett and others the antithesis, and the following the synthesis? :)

> "Stages in the origin of life range from the well-understood, such as the habitable Earth and the abiotic synthesis of simple molecules"

Where did you find this? It's not in the following webpage:

> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Organic_chemistry

> And many more use of the word synthesis in context to OOL.
> >
> > [Hell, I've known that since 1996, when I read through Francis Crick's
> > _Life Itself_ with rapt attention.]

> Don't remember when Athel started posting, by I knew he was a kook about the first time he opened his mouth.

He sure found his circle of "Facebook-like friends" in a hurry.


Peter Nyikos

[peter2...@gmail.com]

On Friday, September 1, 2023 at 12:20:21 AM UTC-4, Ron Dean wrote:

> On Aug 31, 2023 at 11:43:29 AM EDT, "peter2...@gmail.com"
> <peter2...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Wednesday, August 30, 2023 at 7:15:20 PM UTC-4, broger...@gmail.com wrote:

> >> "The theory of punctuated equilibrium developed by Stephen Jay Gould and
> >> Niles Eldredge and first presented in 1972[61] is often mistakenly drawn into
> >> the discussion of transitional fossils.[62] This theory, however, pertains
> >> only to well-documented transitions within taxa or between closely related
> >> taxa over a geologically short period of time. These transitions, usually
> >> traceable in the same geological outcrop, often show small jumps in
> >> morphology between extended periods of morphological stability. To explain
> >> these jumps, Gould and Eldredge envisaged comparatively long periods of
> >> genetic stability separated by periods of rapid evolution. Gould made the
> >> following observation concerning creationist misuse of his work to deny the
> >> existence of transitional fossils:
> >
> OK, Punctuated equilibrium was frequently followed by extinction after a
> generally long period of stasis, but, due to rapid evolution, and in
> isoluates, one should not expect to find the
> these intermediate fossils.

You mean the intermediates became extinct quickly, some even before
the next fossil that we know about? Here is a quote from Kathleen Hunt's FAQ
that tells us about several closely related exceptions:

[begin quote]
Soon after Mesohippus celer and its very close relative Mesohippus westoni appeared, a similar animal called Miohippus assiniboiensis arose (approximately 36 My). This transition also occurred suddenly, but luckily a few transitional fossils have been found that link the two genera. A typical Miohippus was distinctly larger than a typical Mesohippus, with a slightly longer skull. The facial fossa was deeper and more expanded. In addition, the ankle joint had changed subtly.

Miohippus also began to show a variable extra crest on its upper cheek teeth. In later horse species, this crest became a characteristic feature of the teeth. This is an excellent example of how new traits originate as variations in the ancestral population.

It was once thought that Mesohippus "transformed" gradually into Miohippus via anagenetic evolution, so that only Miohippus continued. Recent evidence shows that instead, Miohippus speciated (split off) from early Mesohippus via cladogenetic evolution, and then Miohippus and Mesohippus overlapped for some 4 million years. For instance, in one place in modern Wyoming there were three species of late Mesohippus coexisting with two species of Miohippus. (Prothero & Shubin, 1989)
-- http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/horses/horse_evol.html

This again tells you how unique the horse family is. None of the other "transitions" that
Bill cites has anything like this, AFAIK. Certainly the webpages he linked don't talk about anything like this.

> > There are several flaws bedeviling this "observation." Keep reading.
> >
> >> Since we proposed punctuated equilibria to explain trends, it is infuriating
> >> to be quoted again and again by creationists—whether through design or
> >> stupidity, I do not know—as admitting that the fossil record includes no
> >> transitional forms. The punctuations occur at the level of species;
> >> directional trends (on the staircase model) are rife at the higher level of
> >> transitions within major groups.
> >> — Stephen Jay Gould, The Panda's Thumb[63]"
> >
> Gould and Eldredged described the real nature of the fossil record.

Only to a limited extent: note part of the long quote Bill posted:

[repeated from above]

> > >This theory, however, pertains
> >> only to well-documented transitions within taxa or between closely related
> >> taxa over a geologically short period of time.

> The interpretation (punctuated equalibrum) of this reality, is not just the sole
> purview of G&E.

It only scratches the surface of how spotty the geological record is and
thus how much even PE takes for granted.

> >
> > The biggest flaw: there is no such quote on p. 189, to which [63] directs us.
> > Instead, Gould keeps taking issue
> > with gradualists. In fact, the first paragraph on that page leads off with:
> >
> > "All paleontologists know that the fossil record contains precious little in
> > the way of intermediate forms; transitions between major groups are
> > characteristically abrupt."

I've left in the rest below, uncommented, but if anyone else starts to comment on it
(Ralph Page didn't) I'll have more to say about it on Monday.

Peter Nyikos
Professor, Dept. of Mathematics -- standard disclaimer--

Univ. of So. Carolina in Columbia

[Glenn]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenesis

[Ralph Page]

On Fri, 1 Sep 2023 13:30:52 -0700 (PDT), "peter2...@gmail.com"
<peter2...@gmail.com> wrote:

>I don't recall us interacting before, Ralph, but this looks like a good time to start.
>

Nope.

>
>Wrt Ron's first sentence, some have claimed that the earliest representatives of the ca. 20 phyla at
>mid-Cambrian include some organisms that are close enough to belong in the
>same phylum, but I haven't seen any examples. There are claims that this or that is a
>"basal bilaterian" or "basal lophotrochozoan" but I see no close-looking representatives
>of individual Cambrian phyla close enough to them.
>
>> How have you determined that random, or near random mutations coupled with
>> drift and natural selection are so unlikely to produce the life we see now
>> that a designer is required?
>
>"required" is premature; he only said "most [logical]," giving people
>a much less easy target to hit.
>
>
>> Specifically, how have you estimated the
>> probability that this occurred through evolutionary forces is too low to be
>> considered reasonable?
>
>This too is premature, for essentially the same reason. In this area of
>science/philosophy of science, "proof beyond a reasonable doubt"
>is too high a standard to expect. The correct standard, in line with Ron's
>wording, is "preponderance of evidence."

So far, I just don't know why Ron thinks a designer is more likely than
evolution, that's why I asked. Based on his comments, it appears that he
probably thinks evolution just isn't up to the task, but I'm not sure.

[Ron Dean]

I>
You're explaining nothing!
What needs to be explained is this: in addition to physical body changes
there is
a least100 organs and limbs that have to change almost symonpusly, and close
at the same time, in order to be functioal, for _new_ body plans. Just to say
random mutation (chance) and natural selection is too glib and too simple
without
going into some details and some of the steps each organ went through. No body
has even attempted to do this.

[broger...@gmail.com]

Ron do you not remember the list of references I gave you to research on the evolution of a whole list of organs?
Evolution of the heart
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4459601/

Evolution of the kidney
https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Laila-Aboul-Mahasen/publication/316845606_Evolution_of_the_kidney/links/591352e3aca27200fe4b37fe/Evolution-of-the-Kidney.pdf

Evolution of the vascular system
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/jth.12253

Evolution of the biliary system (gall bladder) and pancreas
https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Hiromitsu-Nakauchi-2/publication/8937358_Conversion_of_biliary_system_to_pancreatic_tissue_in_Hes1-deficient_mice/links/0f3175337090eddbb7000000/Conversion-of-biliary-system-to-pancreatic-tissue-in-Hes1-deficient-mice.pdf

Evolution of the thymus
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1046/j.1365-3083.2001.00854.x

Evolution of the brain
https://www.academia.edu/download/56534237/HBS.ganglion.pdf

Evolution of the inner ear
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdfdirect/10.1002/jmor.20880

And you still have not explained why you think all the organs have to change simultaneously.

From before.....
You keep saying "I think this is impossible," but you still have not explained why it's impossible. I gave you the example of the transition from a three chambered heart to a four chambered heart. That will improve oxygenation in arterial blood. Why exactly must every other organ immediately adapt to take advantage of the increase oxygen availability? Why can't mutations that effect muscle biochemistry be selected for in the new environment they inhabit (ie one with increased oxygen availability) gradually over time? Why can't all sorts of other organs adapt to the new oxygen levels gradually over time? What makes you think that it all has to happen together? You still have in your mind this odd idea that there are complete organisms, in which all internal organs are perfectly matched to one another, and incomplete, transitional organisms, which somehow are virtually impossible because the organs are not perfectly matched yet. That's just not how evolution works. There are no perfect, complete organisms - evolution just selects for "good enough," not for some Platonic ideal of perfection. Your own human internal organs are not perfectly matched - they are just good enough to get the job done most of the time.

So you still have to show that there's some reason why organs cannot possibly evolve gradually, adapting all the while to the new internal environment created by small changes in other organs. For you, for some reason, it seems obviously impossible, but if you want to convince anyone else I think you need to give a more detailed explanation of what exactly you think makes it impossible - what small change in the heart, for example maybe a slight increase in cardiac output, would suddenly mean that the kidneys or thymus or spleen could no longer function? What small change in the small intestine would suddenly make the lungs stop working?

[Ron Dean]

Even though we see many pictorials and illustrations, demonstrating evolution
of intermediate
forms as they go through the many sequential body plans, representing ever
higher and higher body
forms.
Virtually, nothing is ever said about the 100 or so organs that have to also
go through evolutionary
change, in order to fit and function in the many intermediate and transitional
body forms. Such as
the heart, kidneys, livers etc etc etc from the worm, to the fish, to the
amphibians, to the wolf size
mammal, to each of pre-whale forms, to the whale. These organs and body parts
has to go through
many evolutionary changes and some universal ubiquous order But this is never
dealt with why?

[Lawyer Daggett]

I keep wondering what changes you imagine are required.
Physiologically, the hearts and kidneys of all the great apes are capable of
functioning as transplanted organs. The same is true going back to baboons.

The only reason that a baboon heart would not work for you in an organ
transplant is because of immunity based tissue rejection. But if you were
born with that organ, your immune system would have undergone the
same immune tolerance training it does on human heart tissue and so
there would be no immune rejection. It would still beat according to the
same signals, it would still respond to the same hormones.

The same is true for kidneys.

What are these many simultaneous adaptions that you imagine are required.

I am tending to get the idea that you think there are genes that fine tune the
shape and position of an organ, or some other mysterious changes that you
think occur as species diversify.

What are these barriers that you refer to? Can be cite specific examples?
And hopefully cite the time frames involved in the changes.

[Lawyer Daggett]

What do you mean by "fit"? Do you mean you have no idea what determines
the size of your heart but think it involves a set of genes to control the size
and shape of a human heart? And that these are all differences between
humans, and chimps, and gorillas, and orangutangs?

And what do you mean by "higher and higher body forms"?
It isn't a concept that is biologically meaningful.

[Ron Dean]

On Sep 1, 2023 at 8:19:09 PM EDT, "peter2...@gmail.com"

Actually no. I though my comment was quite specific and precise.

>
>
>>>> OK. There are many such transitional series, between reptiles and mammals,
>>>> between ungulates and whales, between various ancient horses and modern ones,
>>>> fishes to tetrapods, etc.
>>>
>>> There ain't all that much left for that etc. Bill seems to have mined the
>>> richest veins already below.
>>>
>>> At the opposite extreme, we haven't a clue as to which non-gliding
>>> animals bats descended from, and what is touted to be a "transitional" between
>>> them is a bat that has claws at the end of the digits that support its
>>> efficient wing.
>>>
>>> The case of pterosaurs is almost as bad.
>

Is there a common ancestor for the various dinosaurs with links?

>
> The more knowledgeable creationists do make an issue of bats.
> Have you come across a book that does this? ABEKA has a textbook that does.
>

There are a considerable number of fossilized bats with wings sonar ear
already in
full development, and not a single predecessor.

>
> Anti-creationists and anti-IDers ignore problems like these and keep touting
> the success stories, like the discoveries that give us a fair picture of whale
> evolution.
>

I think that whale evolution is actually discredited at this site: by a Dr.
Carl Werner

A press release entitled "Evolution The Grand Experment-Official Site".

[Gary Hurd]

I'll add the evolution of vision, AKA eyes;
Michael F. Land
2018 “Eyes to See: The Astonishing Variety of Vision in Nature” by Oxford University Press

Nilsson and Pelger,
1994 "A Pessimistic Estimate of the Time Required for an Eye to Evolve" Proceedings of the Royal Society 256: 53-58.

Dan-E. Nilsson, Lars Gislén, Melissa M. Coates, Charlotta Skogh & Anders Garm
2005 “Advanced optics in a jellyfish eye” Nature 435, 201-205 (12 May)

Ivan R Schwab
2011 “Evolution's Witness: How Eyes Evolved” Oxford University Press

Needham, D.M., Yoshizawa, S., Hosaka, T., Poirier, C., Choi, C.J., Hehenberger, E., Irwin, N.A., Wilken, S., Yung, C.M., Bachy, C. and Kurihara, R., 2019. A distinct lineage of giant viruses brings a rhodopsin photosystem to unicellular marine predators. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 116(41), pp.20574-20583.

Paterson, J.R., Edgecombe, G.D. and García-Bellido, D.C., 2020. Disparate compound eyes of Cambrian radiodonts reveal their developmental growth mode and diverse visual ecology. Science advances, 6(49), p.eabc6721.
https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/sciadv.abc6721

[Ron Dean]

On Sep 1, 2023 at 1:37:53 AM EDT, "Mark Isaak"

<specime...@curioustaxon.omy.net> wrote:

> On 8/30/23 11:54 AM, Ron Dean wrote:
>> RonO wrote:
>>>
>>> Put your designer in the origin of life gap that you know exists, and
>>> what do you get? Is it the designer that you want to believe in?
>>>
>> It's interesting that evolutionist want the designer to be in the gaps. But
>> we do NOT find IDest; trying to fill in the gaps. Quite the contrary,
>> as for the IDest, there are no gaps, only the _observed_ complete organism.
>
> I don't want the designer to be in gaps. I want the designer to be on a
> lab table where I can see it. I bet every scientist feels the same way.
> The IDists, however, force gaps upon us by effectively *defining* the
> designer as a gap, and one that will be forever impossible to fill.

..>
The designer lab table, Be real, you cannot put no designer on lab table,
unless hie is deceased. It's really not about the designer, bur rather it's
about design. There is evidence of design, but no evidence pointing to the
identity of a designer. You no doubt drive an automobile. Yet, you don't
know or care about the desigener of you car. Only about the design (car)
itself.

>
> As for what people want, some of us want honesty; we want statements
> that don't contradict evidence. And the evidence of history shows
> repeatedly that explanations which once were left to the realm of the
> supernatural are now well explained by natural processes.
>
> We also want utility. IDists offer nothing whatsoever in that direction.
> Evolution, on the other hand, has already been put to work solving
> problems that human designers found intractable without it. Origins of
> life research is almost certain to have practical, useful discoveries
> arise from it, too.
>

The early fathers of modern science had none of the problem that you
describe. Many fathers of modern science were religious.
Such a Issac Newton, Gegor. Mendel, Roger Bacon, Edward Jenner
to name, but a few.

>
>> OTOH this is where we fine evolution: its advocates searching the fossil
>> record for intermediates: trying to fill these so called gaps between
>> claimed transitional fossils.
>
> Do you think there is something wrong with discovering new things about
> the world??
>

That's no answer to my statement.

>
>> And if one goes strictly by the fossil record, it supports the IDest
>> argument that intermediate fossils do not exist.
>
> Except, of course, for the plethora of intermediate fossils that exist.
>

Just a pretense, most of these intermediates stand alone with no previous
lines of ancetors and no immediate linls of dependents.

>
> What the IDist argument supports is a quote from Kierkegaard: "No one is
> so terribly deceived as he who does not himself suspect it."
>

This applies to anyone who wants to believe in a particular paradign- which
could cirtanly apply to anypne who's a believer in evolution.

[Ron Dean]

I>
I do not remember you at all!. But I did read evolution of the heart to the
other examples
you offeree. Andt for so much of these articles were hypothesis, suppositions
and appealing
to other organism relating evolution to hearts of primitive organisms, zebra
fish, mice frogs.
I can understand how this might have happened. Thes suppositions, spectacttive
and suggestive
findings could be the explanation. So, you proved me wrong regarding the
absence pf evolution of
organs, skellitons.eyes etc. But it still does not explain how 100 or so
organs evolve
in unison to fit and function in the various organism from the water worm to
the fish, to the
lamd dwelling critter to the tree climbing monkey to hymans. And there had to
be to a considerable degree evolution of these organs in time of need..

[Ron Dean]

I seem to have a serious problem getting my question or the issue
understood.
In the depiction of evolution from single cell to humans, note: the site
below,
organs, skeletons, limbs had to come into existence. Then, in order to
fit and function
in the dozens of transitional forms, shown in the site below.
These organs had to undergo to considerable evolutionary change, and to
some
degree of unison, or together near the same time, in order to fit and
function
in all or most of these stages as shown in the site below. You might
skip some
of the depicted transitional forms, since some skeletons, and limbs
could be shared
between some body forms and a few decedents. But what are odds of the
evolutionary
changes happening by or random, aimless mutations (chance) and natural
selection?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=StqZI9pMq0U

[Burkhard]

only apart from all the references you have been given before
"I, Ron, have never seen anything being said about these things, though I
never looked very hard" =/= virtually nothing is said about these things

[Kerr-Mudd, John]

On Wed, 6 Sep 2023 00:31:02 -0700 (PDT)
Burkhard <b.sc...@ed.ac.uk> wrote:

> On Wednesday, September 6, 2023 at 1:10:26 AM UTC+1, Ron Dean wrote:

[]

> > Virtually, nothing is ever said about the 100 or so organs that have to also
> > go through evolutionary
> > change, in order to fit and function in the many intermediate and transitional
> > body forms.
>
> only apart from all the references you have been given before
> "I, Ron, have never seen anything being said about these things, though I
> never looked very hard" =/= virtually nothing is said about these things
>

[]

Challenging current understanding on science is good. But only if there is
real evidence.

Thinking you (generic) can debunk evolution and 'therefore' 'prove' "God
did it" isn't going to work.

--
Bah, and indeed Humbug.

[Mark Isaak]

On 9/5/23 4:32 PM, Ron Dean wrote:
>>[snip]

> You're explaining nothing!
> What needs to be explained is this: in addition to physical body changes
> there is
> a least100 organs and limbs that have to change almost symonpusly, and close
> at the same time, in order to be functioal, for _new_ body plans. Just to say
> random mutation (chance) and natural selection is too glib and too simple
> without
> going into some details and some of the steps each organ went through.

Yes, that needs to be explained. How could a supernatural being arrange
all those changes over all those hundreds of millions of years? It's
not enough to say it happened. You need to explain the mechanism.
Emphasis on "you". Also emphasis on "need", "explain", and "mechanism."

Evolution does provide an explanation. First, we note that everything
in your body does not need to fit exactly, with zero tolerance for any
divergence from the optimal. So there are random variations not only
in, say, arm length and skull thickness, but also in liver function,
lymph node functions, etc. Selection *can* (indeed, must) act on all of
these simultaneously. So organisms change in toto; there is never a
partial function. I can't think of any good examples offhand, but I
remember such multiple changes have been observed in observations of
evolved adaptations of populations in response to changed habitats.

Again, I contrast this existence of theory and observation with the
complete lack of same that you favor.

> No body has even attempted to do this.

Your own body has attempted and succeeded at this between your ages of 0
and 16.

[Mark Isaak]

On 9/5/23 10:12 PM, Ron Dean wrote:
> [...] But what are odds of the evolutionary

> changes happening by or random, aimless mutations (chance) and natural
> selection?

Very close to one. Only the possibility of extinction prevents it from
being even a tinier epsilon shy of one.

Think about it: What, aside from extinction, could possibly prevent
mutations from occurring and natural selection from acting?

[Mark Isaak]

On 9/5/23 7:57 PM, Ron Dean wrote:
> On Sep 1, 2023 at 1:37:53 AM EDT, "Mark Isaak"
> <specime...@curioustaxon.omy.net> wrote:
>
>> On 8/30/23 11:54 AM, Ron Dean wrote:
>>> RonO wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Put your designer in the origin of life gap that you know exists, and
>>>> what do you get? Is it the designer that you want to believe in?
>>>>
>>> It's interesting that evolutionist want the designer to be in the gaps. But
>>> we do NOT find IDest; trying to fill in the gaps. Quite the contrary,
>>> as for the IDest, there are no gaps, only the _observed_ complete organism.
>>
>> I don't want the designer to be in gaps. I want the designer to be on a
>> lab table where I can see it. I bet every scientist feels the same way.
>> The IDists, however, force gaps upon us by effectively *defining* the
>> designer as a gap, and one that will be forever impossible to fill.
> ..>
> The designer lab table, Be real, you cannot put no designer on lab table,
> unless hie is deceased. It's really not about the designer, bur rather it's
> about design. There is evidence of design, but no evidence pointing to the
> identity of a designer. You no doubt drive an automobile. Yet, you don't
> know or care about the desigener of you car. Only about the design (car)
> itself.

Of course your first statement is false; I have sat on a lab table
myself on occasion, and I am a designer.

And of course it is about design, which MAKES it about the designer.
The designer is what makes design design, and not just shape. And when
I shop for a new car, the first thing I look for is the reputation of
the car maker, which is a measure of the proficiency of the designer.

>> As for what people want, some of us want honesty; we want statements
>> that don't contradict evidence. And the evidence of history shows
>> repeatedly that explanations which once were left to the realm of the
>> supernatural are now well explained by natural processes.
>>
>> We also want utility. IDists offer nothing whatsoever in that direction.
>> Evolution, on the other hand, has already been put to work solving
>> problems that human designers found intractable without it. Origins of
>> life research is almost certain to have practical, useful discoveries
>> arise from it, too.
>>
> The early fathers of modern science had none of the problem that you
> describe. Many fathers of modern science were religious.
> Such a Issac Newton, Gegor. Mendel, Roger Bacon, Edward Jenner
> to name, but a few.

And their research was honest and practical. Religion is not a problem.
Basing science on religion is a problem.

>>> OTOH this is where we fine evolution: its advocates searching the fossil
>>> record for intermediates: trying to fill these so called gaps between
>>> claimed transitional fossils.
>>
>> Do you think there is something wrong with discovering new things about
>> the world??
>>
> That's no answer to my statement.
>>
>>> And if one goes strictly by the fossil record, it supports the IDest
>>> argument that intermediate fossils do not exist.
>>
>> Except, of course, for the plethora of intermediate fossils that exist.
>>
> Just a pretense, most of these intermediates stand alone with no previous
> lines of ancetors and no immediate linls of dependents.

They are still intermediates. Saying they don't exist is just plain
dishonest.

We know life forms changed more-or-less continually over time. We know
that evolution is inevitable and causes life forms to change
more-or-less continually. What more do you need?

[Ernest Major]

I think that he's thinking of the genome as a blueprint (a bad analogy).
On that model you can't change the shape and size of an organ because
you'd have to change the surrounding organs to make room for it.

--
alias Ernest Major

[Martin Harran]

On Wed, 06 Sep 2023 00:53:39 GMT, Ron Dean <rdhall...@gmail.com>
wrote:


[ snip for focus]

I asked you this a while back but you never responded to it.

With eyes having worked out so well in other species including birds,
have you any suggestions as to why an *intelligent* designer gave bats
eyes that don't work at all well but developed a sophisticated sonar
system of navigation to compensate?

[...]

[Ralph Page]

Yes, but remember I wasn't trying to explain anytihng. I was/am trying to
determine if you think evoution can't explain how life deveoped or you just
prefer the alternate explanation that an unknown designer did it, possibly
with a little evolutionary help. I'd appreciate it if you took the time to
answer my question.

You're wrong about your claim that nobody has attempted to understand how
organs have developed. Bill Rogers has provided a list of examples (twice
now).

[Ron Dean]

On Sep 5, 2023 at 8:27:14 PM EDT, "Lawyer Daggett" <j.nobel...@gmail.com>
wrote:

> It isn't a concept that is biologically meaningful..
>
Nothing you've written demonstrates that you understand my issue. So, there is
no need to continue with you.It's a waste of both your time and mine. time.

[Ron Dean]

The first and only reference to evolution of the organs, skelition, limbs
undergoing evolutionary change was provided by Gary Hurd, which I
appreciated. In my searches I did not find this, and I recall nothing on
TO prior to this thread..

However, one would think the evolution of these parts
would have to evolve concurrently,, at the same time in unison, so
as to conform amd function in radically altered bodies during evolution
from a single cell to the human species.

And given random mutations and natural selection, random means
aimless, mindless chance, so the odds are horrendously against this
ever happening.
I think design is a much better option. And this design strongly implies a
designer. Furthermore, there is no absolute empirical evidence which
falsifies a designer existence. Belief is all there is!

[Glenn]

ROTFLMAO!

[Ron Dean]

Proof? There is only two proofs
Proof-1. While alive, you are going to pay taxes.
Proof-2. You are going to die!

[Burkhard]

I'd say when you make a positive claim that "nothing is ever said..."
it is your job first to check if this is actually true or just something you made up
- not making the claim and then leaving it to others to correct you.
Especially given how easy this is these days. It took me e.g. exactly 27 seconds to find

Bishopric, N. H. (2005). Evolution of the heart from bacteria to man. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 1047(1), 13-29.
Olson, E. N. (2006). Gene regulatory networks in the evolution and development of the heart. Science, 313(5795), 1922-1927.
Jensen, Bjarke, Tobias Wang, Vincent M. Christoffels, and Antoon FM Moorman. "Evolution and development of the building plan of the vertebrate heart." Biochimica et Biophysica Acta (BBA)-Molecular Cell Research 1833, no. 4 (2013): 783-794.
Cupello, C., Hirasawa, T., Tatsumi, N., Yabumoto, Y., Gueriau, P., Isogai, S., Matsumoto, R., Saruwatari, T., King, A., Hoshino, M. and Uesugi, K., 2022. Lung evolution in vertebrates and the water-to-land transition. Elife, 11, p.e77156.
Farmer, C. G. "Evolution of the vertebrate cardio-pulmonary system." Annual review of physiology 61, no. 1 (1999): 573-592.

>
> However, one would think the evolution of these parts
> would have to evolve concurrently,, at the same time in unison,

"You" might, "one" doesn't. There is absolutely no reason to think
these have to happen in unison

> as to conform amd function in radically altered bodies during evolution
> from a single cell to the human species.
>
> And given random mutations and natural selection, random means
> aimless, mindless chance, so the odds are horrendously against this
> ever happening.

show your math

> I think design is a much better option. And this design strongly implies a
> designer. Furthermore, there is no absolute empirical evidence which
> falsifies a designer existence.

So you are saying that for your position, absence of evidence is not a
problem, while dismissing all the evidence for the opposite conclusion
as "insufficient"?

Once you can come up with theories about how and why the designer
designed the heart the way they did, that can be tested the same way we can
test the evolutionary theories of the way the heart came to be the
way it is, you woudl have a point.

[Ron Dean]

On Sep 6, 2023 at 10:57:43 AM EDT, "Mark Isaak"

<specime...@curioustaxon.omy.net> wrote:

> On 9/5/23 7:57 PM, Ron Dean wrote:
>> On Sep 1, 2023 at 1:37:53 AM EDT, "Mark Isaak"
>> <specime...@curioustaxon.omy.net> wrote:
>>
>>> On 8/30/23 11:54 AM, Ron Dean wrote:
>>>> RonO wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Put your designer in the origin of life gap that you know exists, and
>>>>> what do you get? Is it the designer that you want to believe in?
>>>>>
>>>> It's interesting that evolutionist want the designer to be in the gaps. But
>>>> we do NOT find IDest; trying to fill in the gaps. Quite the contrary,
>>>> as for the IDest, there are no gaps, only the _observed_ complete organism.
>>>
>>> I don't want the designer to be in gaps. I want the designer to be on a
>>> lab table where I can see it. I bet every scientist feels the same way.
>>> The IDists, however, force gaps upon us by effectively *defining* the
>>> designer as a gap, and one that will be forever impossible to fill.
>> ..>
>> The designer lab table, Be real, you cannot put no designer on lab table,
>> unless hie is deceased. It's really not about the designer, bur rather it's
>> about design. There is evidence of design, but no evidence pointing to the
>> identity of a designer. You no doubt drive an automobile. Yet, you don't
>> know or care about the desigener of you car. Only about the design (car)
>> itself.
>
> Of course your first statement is false; I have sat on a lab table
> myself on occasion, and I am a designer.
>

OK,but did someone put you on a lab table? I suspect you put yourself
there.

>
> And of course it is about design, which MAKES it about the designer.
> The designer is what makes design design, and not just shape. And when
> I shop for a new car, the first thing I look for is the reputation of
> the car maker, which is a measure of the proficiency of the designer.
>
>>> As for what people want, some of us want honesty; we want statements
>>> that don't contradict evidence. And the evidence of history shows
>>> repeatedly that explanations which once were left to the realm of the
>>> supernatural are now well explained by natural processes.
>>>
>>> We also want utility. IDists offer nothing whatsoever in that direction.
>>> Evolution, on the other hand, has already been put to work solving
>>> problems that human designers found intractable without it. Origins of
>>> life research is almost certain to have practical, useful discoveries
>>> arise from it, too.
>>>
>> The early fathers of modern science had none of the problem that you
>> describe. Many fathers of modern science were religious.
>> Such a Issac Newton, Gegor. Mendel, Roger Bacon, Edward Jenner
>> to name, but a few.
>
> And their research was honest and practical. Religion is not a problem.
> Basing science on religion is a problem.
>

I agree 100%!

>
>>>> OTOH this is where we fine evolution: its advocates searching the fossil
>>>> record for intermediates: trying to fill these so called gaps between
>>>> claimed transitional fossils.
>>>
>>> Do you think there is something wrong with discovering new things about
>>> the world??
>>>
>> That's no answer to my statement.
>>>
>>>> And if one goes strictly by the fossil record, it supports the IDest
>>>> argument that intermediate fossils do not exist.
>>>
>>> Except, of course, for the plethora of intermediate fossils that exist.
>>>
>> Just a pretense, most of these intermediates stand alone with no previous
>> lines of ancetors and no immediate linls of dependents.
>
> They are still intermediates. Saying they don't exist is just plain
> dishonest.
>

Personal slander proves nothing. Fankly, I trust Stephen j. Gould and
Niles Eldredge on this. While, I know both were committed to
evolution they were honest where the fossil record is concerned.
According to G & E most new fossils appear abruptly in the strata
remain in stasis (unchanged) for their tenure on the planet the
disappear without any known dependents. However, this explains
the majority not _all_ fossils, according to them. But abrupt
appearence and stasis, I suspect, is quite common. The
dozens or so "living fossils" are examples.

>
> We know life forms changed more-or-less continually over time. We know
> that evolution is inevitable and causes life forms to change
> more-or-less continually. What more do you need?
>

I think that the evolutionary change of vocal organs, skeletons, body parts
and
body shapes from the water worm to homo sapiens had to evolve concurrently
together, at the same time. I have difficulties with this. I think design is
the better
option.

[Lawyer Daggett]

Ron, your claims are rather obviously rooted in ignorance.
Ignorance is a natural state so nothing to be ashamed of, until you leverage
your ignorance of things to make claims that they don't exist.

Specifically, you are claiming that evolution of organs is largely ignored.
That's shocking in that it is a part of high school biology. You did not
study biology in high school. Fine. Some of us did, and in college, and
in grad school, and subsequently in our professional careers. We find
your claims difficult to match up with reality. Multiple people have been
trying to get you to be usefully specific about your claims. It seems as
if you are playing monkey hear no, see no, speak no evil to avoid them.

Hearts. As pointed out, the evolution of hearts is a mainstay of introductory
biology. It has been for a long time. So we get the basics of a progression
from an open circulatory system with a very primitive pump up to modern
examples of mammalian and avian 4 chambered hearts.

Furthermore, in the last 25 years significant work in developmental
biology has investigated how hearts come to be in developing embryos.
This has been done in multiple species looking at the function of
individual genes.

Yet you assert that nobody talks about it. How do you think that claim
of yours is perceived by people who know something about that body
of knowledge? Your claim makes no sense to us.

As many of use have spent time as teachers, I suggest that we have in
common an experience that odd questions and claims are often rooted
in unstated misconceptions.

Some of us have been trying to root out what unstated misconceptions
may be underlying your puzzling claims. I will say that you have been
unresponsive and evasive.

My guess is that you have weird misconceptions about what is required
for a heart to be a squirrel heart, a monkey heart, or a cow heart. But you
don't offer us any specifics so we can't quite figure out what you think
the specific problems are.

Or are you just worried about what's required to go from a pulsing vein
to a 4 chambered heart? Or is it that you think the odds of developing a
more sophisticated heart, and a more sophisticated set of lungs, and
more sophisticated kidneys are things whereby you have to multiply
probabilities so in combo they become less likely?

There exist good responses to any of that but you have not made
your objection clear.

Refining ones questions to be clear and exacting is essential. You
seem to be resistant to doing so.