Most British scientists: Richard Dawkins' work misrepresents science

So in my view, ID doesn't provide an explanation of the original problem, it just mystifies it by compounding the things about which we have no understanding and still need to explain.
Not only do we have no understanding of these things, we also have no evidence of them!

The only "evidence" that the supernaturalists have ever presented to us, in support of their fairytales, is an occasional tortilla (one of billions fried every year) with a scorch mark that they insist is the likeness of a character mentioned in the Bible... of whom no portraits are available against which to compare it!
 
We broadly agree (I think), except for that highlighted part. I'm unaware of any serious ID proponent calling for or even suggesting that we should just give up and cease efforts to find a natural answer.

Certainly the ID proponents who believe (however privately) that the 'designer' is divine would seem to be implying that their proposed "explanation" is supernatural, hence outside the scope of natural science.

What alarms the sober members of the ID fraternity is the censorial heavy-handed attitude. That unfairly stigmatizes anyone offering serious critique of abiogenesis (and evolutionary theory more broadly), as 'religious subversives', 'anti-science' etc. etc.

I agree that there's too much of that kind of stuff.

But think about what you just wrote - "anyone offering serious critique of abiogenesis". It seems to me that's the only kind of scientific arguments that ID proponents can make, trying to poke holes in origin-of-life theorizing. ID rhetoric seems to all be negative, it seemingly has no positive content of its own.

And the reason that's so, is because the origin of life theorists (your "abiogenesis") are the only ones actually proposing testable physical mechanisms. ID never does that and I don't see how it could.

The call is for academic freedom - don't rule out alternative research and arguments, just based on dogma as criteria. The pendulum has swung too far the other way imo, since theistic religion ruled the roost.

If ID wants to be accepted as real science, then it needs to specify what kind of 'designers' it's talking about. It needs to propose plausible means of gaining reliable information about those designers. It needs to give some kind of account of what kind of being the designers have, where the designers reside and what their mode of action is. In other words, ID needs to actually propose some testable ID theory. It needs to turn itself into a real scientific rival to chemical "abiogenesis".
 
Last edited:
What alarms the sober members of the ID fraternity is the censorial heavy-handed attitude. That unfairly stigmatizes anyone offering serious critique of abiogenesis (and evolutionary theory more broadly), as 'religious subversives', 'anti-science' etc. etc. The call is for academic freedom - don't rule out alternative research and arguments, just based on dogma as criteria. The pendulum has swung too far the other way imo, since theistic religion ruled the roost.
ID is religion, not science. Don't pretend to be a skeptic.
 
Last edited:
I agree that there's too much of that kind of stuff.
Agreed, just as there is too much of labeling by ID supporters, of those that do prefer a scientific explanation like abiogenisis, as being Atheists, or as indulging in a conspiracy type of arrangement against the poor ID victim.
Considering this is first and foremost a science forum, their indignation [the ID supporters] is supportive of a crusade to silence those that are supporting abiogenisis and the scientific method. :rolleyes:
 
The arguments by the ID supporters, seem to stem more from incredulity then anything else.
If Abiogenisis is impossible, as seems to be inferred by some, then so to is life. :rolleyes:
For the usual gullible ID supporters that are certain to cry "prove it!" :rolleyes:. then I say to them, show me a scientist/s that has been around for 13 billion years or so, and has traveled to every planet/moon in the galaxy, and the Universe, where Abiogenisis could have possibly occurred, and spent the required amount of time making observations, then I would be able to show you the proof you so demand.
 
https://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2009-01/sri-ssd010909.php

PUBLIC RELEASE: 9-JAN-2009
Scripps scientists develop first examples of RNA that replicates itself indefinitely
Findings could inform biochemical questions about how life began

SCRIPPS RESEARCH INSTITUTE


Now, a pair of Scripps Research Institute scientists has taken a significant step toward answering that question. The scientists have synthesized for the first time RNA enzymes that can replicate themselves without the help of any proteins or other cellular components, and the process proceeds indefinitely.

The work was published on Thursday, January 8, 2008, in Science Express, the advanced, online edition of the journal Science.

In the modern world, DNA carries the genetic sequence for advanced organisms, while RNA is dependent on DNA for performing its roles such as building proteins. But one prominent theory about the origins of life, called the RNA World model, postulates that because RNA can function as both a gene and an enzyme, RNA might have come before DNA and protein and acted as the ancestral molecule of life. However, the process of copying a genetic molecule, which is considered a basic qualification for life, appears to be exceedingly complex, involving many proteins and other cellular components.

For years, researchers have wondered whether there might be some simpler way to copy RNA, brought about by the RNA itself. Some tentative steps along this road had previously been taken by the Joyce lab and others, but no one could demonstrate that RNA replication could be self-propagating, that is, result in new copies of RNA that also could copy themselves.

In Vitro Evolution

A few years after Tracey Lincoln arrived at Scripps Research from Jamaica to pursue her Ph.D., she began exploring the RNA-only replication concept along with her advisor, Professor Gerald Joyce, M.D., Ph.D., who is also Dean of the Faculty at Scripps Research. Their work began with a method of forced adaptation known as in vitro evolution. The goal was to take one of the RNA enzymes already developed in the lab that could perform the basic chemistry of replication, and improve it to the point that it could drive efficient, perpetual self-replication.

Lincoln synthesized in the laboratory a large population of variants of the RNA enzyme that would be challenged to do the job, and carried out a test-tube evolution procedure to obtain those variants that were most adept at joining together pieces of RNA.

Ultimately, this process enabled the team to isolate an evolved version of the original enzyme that is a very efficient replicator, something that many research groups, including Joyce's, had struggled for years to obtain. The improved enzyme fulfilled the primary goal of being able to undergo perpetual replication. "It kind of blew me away," says Lincoln.

Immortalizing Molecular Information

The replicating system actually involves two enzymes, each composed of two subunits and each functioning as a catalyst that assembles the other. The replication process is cyclic, in that the first enzyme binds the two subunits that comprise the second enzyme and joins them to make a new copy of the second enzyme; while the second enzyme similarly binds and joins the two subunits that comprise the first enzyme. In this way the two enzymes assemble each other -- what is termed cross-replication. To make the process proceed indefinitely requires only a small starting amount of the two enzymes and a steady supply of the subunits.

"This is the only case outside biology where molecular information has been immortalized," says Joyce.

Not content to stop there, the researchers generated a variety of enzyme pairs with similar capabilities. They mixed 12 different cross-replicating pairs, together with all of their constituent subunits, and allowed them to compete in a molecular test of survival of the fittest. Most of the time the replicating enzymes would breed true, but on occasion an enzyme would make a mistake by binding one of the subunits from one of the other replicating enzymes. When such "mutations" occurred, the resulting recombinant enzymes also were capable of sustained replication, with the most fit replicators growing in number to dominate the mixture. "To me that's actually the biggest result," says Joyce.

The research shows that the system can sustain molecular information, a form of heritability, and give rise to variations of itself in a way akin to Darwinian evolution. So, says Lincoln, "What we have is non-living, but we've been able to show that it has some life-like properties, and that was extremely interesting."

Knocking on the Door of Life

The group is pursuing potential applications of their discovery in the field of molecular diagnostics, but that work is tied to a research paper currently in review, so the researchers can't yet discuss it.

But the main value of the work, according to Joyce, is at the basic research level. "What we've found could be relevant to how life begins, at that key moment when Darwinian evolution starts." He is quick to point out that, while the self-replicating RNA enzyme systems share certain characteristics of life, they are not themselves a form of life.

The historical origin of life can never be recreated precisely, so without a reliable time machine, one must instead address the related question of whether life could ever be created in a laboratory. This could, of course, shed light on what the beginning of life might have looked like, at least in outline. "We're not trying to play back the tape," says Lincoln of their work, "but it might tell us how you go about starting the process of understanding the emergence of life in the lab."

Joyce says that only when a system is developed in the lab that has the capability of evolving novel functions on its own can it be properly called life. "We're knocking on that door," he says, "But of course we haven't achieved that."

The subunits in the enzymes the team constructed each contain many nucleotides, so they are relatively complex and not something that would have been found floating in the primordial ooze. But, while the building blocks likely would have been simpler, the work does finally show that a simpler form of RNA-based life is at least possible, which should drive further research to explore the RNA World theory of life's origins.






The paper is titled "Self-sustained Replication of an RNA Enzyme," and the work was supported by NASA and the National Institutes of Health, and the Skaggs Institute for Chemical Biology.

About The Scripps Research Institute

The Scripps Research Institute is one of the world's largest independent, non-profit biomedical research organizations, at the forefront of basic biomedical science that seeks to comprehend the most fundamental processes of life. Scripps Research is internationally recognized for its discoveries in immunology, molecular and cellular biology, chemistry, neurosciences, autoimmune, cardiovascular, and infectious diseases, and synthetic vaccine development. Established in its current configuration in 1961, it employs approximately 3,000 scientists, postdoctoral fellows, scientific and other technicians, doctoral degree graduate students, and administrative and technical support personnel. Scripps Research is headquartered in La Jolla, California. It also includes Scripps Florida, whose researchers focus on basic biomedical science, drug discovery, and technology development. Scripps Florida is currently in the process of moving from temporary facilities to its permanent campus in Jupiter, Florida. Dedication ceremonies for the new campus will be held in February 2009.
 
The trouble is that asserting something is due to miraculous intervention means it has no natural explanation, whereas the goal of science is to find natural explanations.
Asserting is maybe too pejorative a word, but allowing that as an actual option is something the ID crowd obviously want to be on the table. You only have to read certain repetitive refrains posted here to observe that 'asserting' is the chief characterization of the materialist/atheist crowd's position. They seem to have an irrational fear that allowing any notion of an agent or agencies acting outside of established materialist paradigm will just lead to a new Dark Age. How insecure is that?
 
Certainly the ID proponents who believe (however privately) that the 'designer' is divine would seem to be implying that their proposed "explanation" is supernatural, hence outside the scope of natural science.
Working entirely within the scope of established science, the ID crowd demonstrate convincingly that no proposed natural processes have even gotten close to explaining life. Hence, while not calling for an end to such an industry, it makes perfect sense to allow for the possibility of a supernatural agency. If not, let's have the neo-Darwinist crowd openly declare atheism as the sole allowed guiding philosophy.
I agree that there's too much of that kind of stuff.
But think about what you just wrote - "anyone offering serious critique of abiogenesis". It seems to me that's the only kind of scientific arguments that ID proponents can make, trying to poke holes in origin-of-life theorizing. ID rhetoric seems to all be negative, it seemingly has no positive content of its own.

And the reason that's so, is because the origin of life theorists (your "abiogenesis") are the only ones actually proposing testable physical mechanisms. ID never does that and I don't see how it could..
You can't see the obvious logical flaw in your reasoning there? I wrote this before, but to repeat: The perfectly legitimate role of ID is to both demonstrate the total inadequacies in all proposed naturalistic origin of life hypotheses, and in doing so make a strong case for an IDer. The claim is the skill levels required to create life far exceed current human ones. Hence illogical to demand an ID researcher has to exhibit the necessary super-intelligence to act as some kind of Divine Engineer. Watch that lecture by James Tour again.
If ID wants to be accepted as real science, then it needs to specify what kind of 'designers' it's talking about. It needs to propose plausible means of gaining reliable information about those designers. It needs to give some kind of account of what kind of being the designers have, where the designers reside and what their mode of action is. In other words, ID needs to actually propose some testable ID theory. It needs to turn itself into a real scientific rival to chemical "abiogenesis".
That is a typical cynical retort from the atheist/materialist and sorry to say it but it's facile. Who the hell are any of us to demand of some presumed higher intelligence that such has to bow to our puny demands and materialize for a prime time TV Q & A session? Or otherwise offer 'proof of existence'. We need know absolutely nothing about any such personage(s) or whatever game-plan is being worked out irrespective of our petty wants and presuppositions.
Just like in many crime investigations, one here has to work with circumstantial evidence. That's the legitimate role of the serious ID theorists. No-one is being forced to accept their conclusions. But they should not be disallowed and howled down on the basis of atheistic dogma.

And really Yazata, I just can't figure you at all. Taking up the hard-nosed materialist stance here. And then I go back and review e.g. p5 #87, and following. Let me make this plain - I consider your appeals to 'inner revelations' and such, a far, far weaker and entirely subjective argument in favour of a non-material existence.
 
ID is religion, not science. Don't pretend to be a skeptic.
Don't presume to label me. And do check the dictionary definition of religion. ID is NOT religion fyi. Whatever the politically and ideologically pressured court rulings may declare to the contrary.
 
https://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2009-01/sri-ssd010909.php

PUBLIC RELEASE: 9-JAN-2009
Scripps scientists develop first examples of RNA that replicates itself indefinitely
Findings could inform biochemical questions about how life began

SCRIPPS RESEARCH INSTITUTE....
....Their work began with a method of forced adaptation known as in vitro evolution. The goal was to take one of the RNA enzymes already developed in the lab that could perform the basic chemistry of replication, and improve it to the point that it could drive efficient, perpetual self-replication.

Lincoln synthesized in the laboratory a large population of variants of the RNA enzyme that would be challenged to do the job, and carried out a test-tube evolution procedure to obtain those variants that were most adept at joining together pieces of RNA.

Ultimately, this process enabled the team to isolate an evolved version of the original enzyme that is a very efficient replicator, something that many research groups, including Joyce's, had struggled for years to obtain. The improved enzyme fulfilled the primary goal of being able to undergo perpetual replication. "It kind of blew me away," says Lincoln.

The subunits in the enzymes the team constructed each contain many nucleotides, so they are relatively complex and not something that would have been found floating in the primordial ooze.
Another interesting 'nice try'. That was back in 2009. Has it set the abiogenesis field on fire since?
 
Don't presume to label me. And do check the dictionary definition of religion. ID is NOT religion fyi.
ID both requires a deity (the "intelligence") and was created by a religious organization in order to combat evolution. Hard to claim it is not religious in nature. (It is not, of course, its own religion.)
 
ID both requires a deity (the "intelligence") and was created by a religious organization in order to combat evolution. Hard to claim it is not religious in nature. (It is not, of course, its own religion.)
And that was my objection - the inference that ID is a religious belief or outright a 'religion'. Strictly, it simply holds natural processes are wholly inadequate, at least by every measure of scrutiny so far brought to bare. With vanishingly small chance of that picture changing, so let's admit to the possibility of an unseen hand. The poles are from fundamentalist YEC types, to the likes of David Berlinski, who simply say - show me a good objectively motivated theoretical argument why I should accept natural abiogenesis as credible story.
 
ID is NOT religion fyi.

I thought it was or at least closely associated with the notion of there being a God.

You seem to think there is something to it or are you simply saying folk should generally keep their minds open.

The ID concept presents the proposition that life was designed and set in motion by a supreme entity as I understand it. Would you be prepared to outline where I may have it wrong and perhaps present a run down of the idea.

Can the ID notion been seen as seperate from a creationist God concept.?

Alex
 
That unfairly stigmatizes anyone offering serious critique of abiogenesis (and evolutionary theory more broadly), as 'religious subversives', 'anti-science' etc. etc
The only serious critiques of the evolutionary approach to abiogenesis, let alone evolutionary theory more broadly, have come from within the scientific community that is addressing those matters - the "evolutionists" themselves.
What 'tribe' is that exactly? Better be careful how you answer
The tribe of people who wander into forums like this and post the stuff you've been posting - the links to creationists and their A-fundie websites, the standard errors of reasoning from probability one finds on creationist websites, the weirdly specialized vocabulary one finds on creationist websites and in their dingbat publications, the standard and ever-repetitive panoply of errors of attribution and "misreadings" and so forth - always the same as the latest fad (remember Behe and his "irreducible complexity"? it will be back) as if they were schoolchildren copying each other's book reports.

Or did you think you were the first creationist through the door here, on this or any other similar forum on this planet? There have been dozens - same arguments, same links, same basic confusions. And of them, how many have taken the trouble to fix a single one of their errors of reasoning, learn anything from the genuine professionals they encountered who took the trouble to explain where they were going wrong? Nobody knows, but by the evidence not one.

But you can be the first - redeem your tribe. There are people here who can help you with the high altitude microbiology, chemistry, etc, if you want it, and I'd bet they would be willing if asked. The only thing I'm willing to bother about is your simple error of reasoning regarding cumulative probability. You have now made clear where you derailed, and if you want me to, I can walk you through it step by step using your own links.

Or you can continue to post ignorance and nonsense in front of the informed and educated. Your choice.
 
Last edited:
The following article shows the many possibilities and paths that abiogenisis may have taken, and of course how it my have arisen differently in any other part of the universe that I mentioned earlier.

http://scitechdaily.com/new-evidence-on-the-origins-of-life-on-earth/

New Evidence on the Origins of Life on Earth
June 3, 2015

Science

New-Evidence-Emerges-on-the-Origins-of-Life.jpg

Hot springs and geysers at Yellowstone National Park.

Two newly published studies reveal evidence for how the genetic code developed in two distinct stages to help primordial chemicals evolve into cells.

Chapel Hill, North Carolina – In the beginning, there were simple chemicals. And they produced amino acids that eventually became the proteins necessary to create single cells. And the single cells became plants and animals. Recent research is revealing how the primordial soup created the amino acid building blocks, and there is widespread scientific consensus on the evolution from the first cell into plants and animals. But it’s still a mystery how the building blocks were first assembled into the proteins that formed the machinery of all cells. Now, two long-time University of North Carolina scientists – Richard Wolfenden, PhD, and Charles Carter, PhD – have shed new light on the transition from building blocks into life some 4 billion years ago.

Their findings, published in companion papers in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, fly in the face of the problematic “RNA world” theory, which posits that RNA – the molecule that today plays roles in coding, regulating, and expressing genes – elevated itself from the primordial soup of amino acids and cosmic chemicals to give rise first to short proteins called peptides and then to single-celled organisms.

more at
http://scitechdaily.com/new-evidence-on-the-origins-of-life-on-earth/
 
Given Iceaura's post I do think if any discussion is to take place that it would be appropriate to either start another thread or split this thread and continue discussion in a more appropriate part of the forum.
Alex
 
Although some consideration may be needed to keeping matters such as Paddoboys last post in the science section. I am not trying to be unkind but I think ID should go in another section.
Alex
 
I thought it was or at least closely associated with the notion of there being a God.
Fair to say most ID proponents see it exactly as pointing to a God or whatever other label one chooses.
You seem to think there is something to it or are you simply saying folk should generally keep their minds open.
Both. I'm personally of the opinion an unseen higher intelligence(s) is at work. No idea of the how and why and wherefore. More generally, yes keep an open mind given the demonstrably, wholly inadequate abiogenesis hypotheses offerings of strict materialists.
The ID concept presents the proposition that life was designed and set in motion by a supreme entity as I understand it. Would you be prepared to outline where I may have it wrong and perhaps present a run down of the idea.

Can the ID notion been seen as seperate from a creationist God concept.?
Some do. In fact there is a shadowy overlap with the panspermia notion. Higher Power(s) not as a supreme being but transcended alien intelligences. As Tour quickly pointed out - that does no more than shift the chemistry issues from one playground to another. Best stick with Terra Firma.
 
Back
Top