Chemical evolution:

[paddoboy]

https://www.edge.org/conversation/jerry_coyne-the-case-against-intelligent-design

THE CASE AGAINST INTELLIGENT DESIGN
Jerry A. Coyne [8.31.05]
In the end, many Americans may still reject evolution, finding the creationist alternative psychologically more comfortable. But emotion should be distinguished from thought, and a "comfort level" should not affect what is taught in the science classroom. As Judge Overton wrote in his magisterial decision striking down Arkansas Act 590, which mandated equal classroom time for "scientific creationism":

The application and content of First Amendment principles are not determined by public opinion polls or by a majority vote. Whether the proponents of Act 590 constitute the majority or the minority is quite irrelevant under a constitutional system of government. No group, no matter how large or small, may use the organs of government, of which the public schools are the most conspicuous and influential, to foist its religious beliefs on others.

JERRY COYNE is a professor in the department of ecology and evolution at the University of Chicago, and the author (with H. Allen Orr) of Speciation.
more at link................

 

[paddoboy]

https://www.livescience.com/9355-intelligent-design-ambiguous-assault-evolution.html

Intelligent Design: An Ambiguous Assault on Evolution

Science can sometimes be a devil's bargain: a discovery is made, some new aspect of nature is revealed, but the knowledge gained can cause mental anguish if it contradicts a deeply cherished belief or value.


Copernicus' declaration in 1543 that the Sun and the heavens were not, in fact, revolving around the Earth and its human inhabitants was one such painful enlightenment. The publication in 1859 of Charles Darwin's book, "The Origin of Species," set the stage for another.

Darwin's truth can be a hard one to accept. His theory of evolution tells us that humans evolved from non-human life as the result of a natural process, one that was both gradual, happening over billions of years, and random. It tells us that new life forms arise from the splitting of a single species into two or more species, and that all life on Earth can trace its origins back to a single common ancestor.

Perhaps most troubling of all, Darwin's theory of evolution tells us that life existed for billions of years before us, that humans are not the products of special creation and that life has no inherent meaning or purpose.

more at link..................

 

[paddoboy]

Intelligent design is creationism in a cheap tuxedo.
Physics Today, June 2002

https://blog.waikato.ac.nz/bioblog/2011/01/intelligent-design-is-not-crea/

"(1) ID violates the centuries-old ground rules of science by invoking and permitting supernatural causation; (2) the argument of irreducible complexity, central to ID, employs the same flawed and illogical contrived dualism that doomed creation science in the 1980s; and (3) ID’s negative attacks on evolution have been refuted by the scientific community. … [It] is additionally important to note that ID has failed to gain acceptance in the scientific community, it has not generated peer-reviewed publications, nor has it been the subject of testing and research".
https://www.lockhaven.edu/~dsimanek/philosop/creation.htm
Intelligent design is not science, [but is] grounded in theology [and] cannot uncouple itself from its creationist, and thus religious, antecedents. —District Judge John E. Jones III in Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District (2005).


https://www.lockhaven.edu/~dsimanek/philosop/summary.htm

Summary and Conclusions.
And that Inverted Bowl we call The Sky, beneath which crawling, cooped, we live and die;
Lift not your hands to it for help, for it as impotently moves as you or I!
—Omar Khayyam (translated by Edward Fitzgerald)

The article concludes thus......................

• There's no scientific evidence that the processes of evolution are anything but blind and purposeless.
• Scientists should avoid words such as "truth", and "belief", for they are inappropriate and unnecessary for doing or talking about science.
• Though science claims no absolute truths, it has discovered more solid, reliable and useful understanding of nature than any other system of inquiry.
• Scientific laws and theories work even for those who do not believe in them. Some may deny them, but that makes no difference; they still continue to work

 

[Q-reeus]

https://www.lockhaven.edu/~dsimanek/philosop/summary.htm
...The article concludes thus......................

• 
  
  
  • There's no scientific evidence that the processes of evolution are anything but blind and purposeless.
  • Scientists should avoid words such as "truth", and "belief", for they are inappropriate and unnecessary for doing or talking about science.
  • Though science claims no absolute truths, it has discovered more solid, reliable and useful understanding of nature than any other system of inquiry.
  • Scientific laws and theories work even for those who do not believe in them. Some may deny them, but that makes no difference; they still continue to work

• Contrast that with:
  From your http://www.sciforums.com/threads/we-probably-wont-find-aliens-soon.156039/#post-3374444
  The theory of evolution is fact...fact, and no not preaching, stating fact.
  and:
  http://www.sciforums.com/threads/is-science-a-religion.162719/page-9#post-3655275
  The theory of evolution is one example that is now so certain, it is fact.
  and:
  http://www.sciforums.com/threads/non-sense-of-macro-evolutionary-faith.163608/page-9#post-3651591
  ...and the certainty of Darwinism and evolution.
  
  You are in those representative posts claiming evolutionary theory as absolute truth - contrary to the provisional stance in the first quoted that you also ostensibly support. Contradiction.
  

 

[Write4U]

Will you never get it? Tour re abiogenesis, and Behe re Darwinian evolution, are not trying to construct a rival theory, instead content to establish the total unworkability of the respective mainstream positions.

IMO, that is a pure falsehood.
Behe wants his version of ID taught in schools, hence the Kitzmiller trial. And he has no motive other than to debunk mainstream science? Wake up man and smell the stench of "profit".

It's impossible in principle to construct a theory when the (perfectly reasonable) premise is a higher power guided or outright created biological life, via processes necessarily outside of human knowledge.

And you are asking me to accept that as "reasonable" proof of anything at all?

Ever heard of Thor?

Thor was an extremely popular figure and one of the earliest attested deities in the Norse pantheon. References to Thor were found going as far back as the first century CE, when Roman writings referred to him as Jupiter.

https://mythopedia.com/norse-mythology/gods/thor/#

What you wrote above has no greater sophisticated interpretation of Natural phenomena than that primitive mind who invented any and all the "gods" in those early days.
You have added nothing new......

 

[Q-reeus]

IMO, that is a pure falsehood.
Behe wants his version of ID taught in schools, hence the Kitzmiller trial. And he has no motive other than to debunk mainstream science? Wake up man and smell the stench of "profit".
And you are asking me to accept that as "reasonable" proof of anything at all?

Ever heard of Thor? https://mythopedia.com/norse-mythology/gods/thor/#

What you wrote above has no greater sophisticated interpretation of Natural phenomena than that primitive mind who invented any and all the "gods" in those early days.
You have added nothing new......

Use junk arguments to justify insulating from ever looking at what Tour or Behe actually write. You will then safely never understand the real problems with mainstream thinking. Fine. Just let it go ok?

 

[Write4U]

Use junk arguments to justify insulating from ever looking at what Tour or Behe actually write. You will then safely never understand the real problems with mainstream thinking. Fine. Just let it go ok?

I'll take that as a concession......thank you.... we may be in perfect agreement on another topic. I look forward to that.

 

[Write4U]

“Mainstream dogma” is how the scientific method works. A synonym for ‘dogma’, in this context, is ‘theory’. A theory stands until there is verifiable quantifiable evidence to refute it. Until that evidence is found, scientists proceed based on established theories.

How can you so easily ignore the most fundamental definition of "scientific theory". Let me refresh you memory.

From the American Association for the Advancement of Science:

A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world, based on a body of facts that have been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experiment. Such fact-supported theories are not "guesses" but reliable accounts of the real world.

The theory of biological evolution is more than "just a theory". It is as factual an explanation of the universe as the atomic theory of matter or the germ theory of disease. Our understanding of gravity is still a work in progress. But the phenomenon of gravity, like evolution, is an accepted fact.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_theory#:

 

[paddoboy]

How can you so easily ignore the most fundamental definition of "scientific theory". Let me refresh you memory.

Actually you are being a bit hard on Hercules. He is essentially correct. read it again. It appears you are placing too much emphasis on the word "dogma" and what it generally entails. No I would not use it, but again on what a scientific theory is, he is essentially correct.
A scientific theory being our best estimation at any particular time, does get more certain, the longer it keeps making successful predictions, like GR for example. And yes the theory of evolution is now fact without peer. Abiogenesis of course, despite the baseless objections stands as the only scientific answer as to how life first arose.

 

[paddoboy]

• You are in those representative posts claiming evolutionary theory as absolute truth - contrary to the provisional stance in the first quoted that you also ostensibly support. Contradiction.

The theory of the evolution of life is fact, no contradiction, with the possible exception of in your mind. That along with Abiogenesis are the exceptions to any normal definition of "scientific theory". And as I have said many times, scientific theories do grow in certainty over time, as long as they keep aligning with observational and experimental data, and making correct predictions, eg: GR. Surely you are not now disputing evolution?
Abiogenesis is the only scientific explanation for how life arose, not withstanding any unscientific, unsupported mythical hand-me-down beliefs through many generations, or any of the outrageous facsimiles you yourself seemed to have dreamed up.

The evolution of the universe/space/time, the stars, the planets etc, and eventually life certainly is blind and purposeless.
Is that what is troubling you?

Tour and the other joker, are driven by religious dogma, certainly not scientific theory and methodology, and are thus rejected by mainstream science, as they should be.
You need to live with that.

 

[Write4U]

Actually you are being a bit hard on Hercules. He is essentially correct. read it again. It appears you are placing too much emphasis on the word "dogma" and what it generally entails. No I would not use it, but again on what a scientific theory is, he is essentially correct.
A scientific theory being our best estimation at any particular time, does get more certain, the longer it keeps making successful predictions, like GR for example. And yes the theory of evolution is now fact without peer. Abiogenesis of course, despite the baseless objections stands as the only scientific answer as to how life first arose.

OK, I can live with that more liberal interpretation.
My knee-jerk reaction was based on the

dog·ma, noun

1. a principle or set of principles laid down by an authority as incontrovertibly true.

But I have used the term in various different context myself, I must admit......

p.s. no offense intended, Hercules.....

 

[paddoboy]

This silly little crusade for trying to establish a myth, by debunking the OP and those sticking to established science, started to gain momentum here after a so called correction by q-reeus.
I said.....

*yawn* So the origin of life is a complex problem...So?
Nature/and the synthesisation of the elements inside stars and finally Abiogenesis, had 100 millions of years to overcome those problems.
Oh, sorry q-reeus, no I did not watch all the video. Suffice to say, you havn't said anything of any value.

q-reeus replied, with my emphasis on the highlighted parts.

And the truth of that last line is painfully obvious. Had you watched it all and honestly assessed the points raised, your 'had 100 millions of years to overcome those problems' would likely never had been ignorantly typed out. Tour makes it very clear that time is the enemy of unguided abiogenesis. Too bad that and many other key issues raised and clearly explained, you choose to be blissfully unaware of, or indifferent to. Your choice.

And you have? I merely pointed to Tour who it is that gives a true expert's critique of a dogma-based hypothesis with many grave weaknesses. And with his qualifications and track record he should know. Refusing to here but a fraction of that account is not smart.
PS: 'synthesisation' is a nonsense word. Try synthesis. Correct spelling and shorter as well.

The first highlight claim is nonsense, and while I did not watch all the video, I have given links to show it as nonsense.
The second was a " pick-up" by q-reeus in an attempt to show ignorance on my part with regards to the word synthesisation...damn!! he got me!!!
But then again after reading his tripe again, I find the highlighted in red word " here," when obviously he should have said "hear"
Not one that normally rants and raves about pedant, it pains me to have to point this out.

And of course all the points raised by Tour, [which I did not fully watch] were obviously debunked by the many references and links that support the established origin of life and Abiogenesis, which q-reeus has never commented on.

 

[Q-reeus]

This silly little crusade for trying to establish a myth, by debunking the OP and those sticking to established science, started to gain momentum here after a so called correction by q-reeus.
I said.....

q-reeus replied, with my emphasis on the highlighted parts.

The first highlight claim is nonsense, and while I did not watch all the video, I have given links to show it as nonsense.
The second was a " pick-up" by q-reeus in an attempt to show ignorance on my part with regards to the word synthesisation...damn!! he got me!!!
But then again after reading his tripe again, I find the highlighted in red word " here," when obviously he should have said "hear"
Not one that normally rants and raves about pedant, it pains me to have to point this out.

And of course all the points raised by Tour, [which I did not fully watch] were obviously debunked by the many references and links that support the established origin of life and Abiogenesis, which q-reeus has never commented on.

My emphases in bold blue. Only a fool passes judgement without giving that passed judgement on a thorough and fair hearing. This error of logic you effectively admit to above. And btw you make very frequent spelling errors that it would be tedious and time wasting to keep commenting on. Be thankful I let the great majority go without comment.

 

[paddoboy]

My emphases in bold blue. Only a fool passes judgement without giving that passed judgement on a thorough and fair hearing. This error of logic you effectively admit to above. And btw you make very frequent spelling errors that it would be tedious and time wasting to keep commenting on. Be thankful I let the great majority go without comment.

You mean like watching Fat Freddy's videos, and giving hima fair hearing.
I gave him a fair hearing. As I explained his " preacher" like delivery, and literal interpretation of the bible, had me switch off......but as usual, since it aligns with your own ID beliefs, you lap it up.

FACT: Abiogenesis is the only scientific means of the origin of life. The unevidenced, mythical substitution of ID for "my God of choice" does not in anyway make it any more scientific. It ain't simple as that!!
suck it up q-reeus!!

 

[Q-reeus]

I gave him a fair hearing. As I explained his " preacher" like delivery, and literal interpretation of the bible, had me switch off......but as usual, since it aligns with your own ID beliefs, you lap it up

Nonsense. You conflate a specifically religious category video with one(s) that is/are specifically dealing with organic chemistry in a prebiotic setting. Illogical in the extreme.

It ain't simple as that!!

OK your recent post has got me in a 'catch your spelling/diction errors' mood. Presumably you meant 'It's as simple as that!!' No? Then your wording is quite illogical. No surprise either way.[/QUOTE]

 

[paddoboy]

Nonsense. You conflate a specifically religious category video with one(s) that is/are specifically dealing with organic chemistry in a prebiotic setting. Illogical in the extreme.

Actually I have posted references and papers, many of them, all supporting Abiogenesis and some debunking Tour. Live with it.

OK your recent post has got me in a 'catch your spelling/diction errors' mood. Presumably you meant 'It's as simple as that!!' No? Then your wording is quite illogical. No surprise either way.

Your pedant doesn't interest me in the least q-reeus. Just returning the favour. The facts remain..Abiogenesis is the only scientific theory of the evolution of life

 

[James R]

paddoboy:

The theory of the evolution of life is fact, no contradiction, with the possible exception of in your mind.

The theory of evolution is a theory. It says so right there in the title.

That along with Abiogenesis are the exceptions to any normal definition of "scientific theory".

Huh?

Abiogenesis is the only scientific explanation for how life arose, not withstanding any unscientific, unsupported mythical hand-me-down beliefs through many generations, or any of the outrageous facsimiles you yourself seemed to have dreamed up.

At the time of this writing, there is no complete scientific explanation of how life arose.

This is not to say that religious explanations are any better than the efforts that science is currently making towards a theory of the origins of life.

Tour and the other joker, are driven by religious dogma, certainly not scientific theory and methodology, and are thus rejected by mainstream science, as they should be.

You know, it doesn't have to be all or nothing. Yes, Tour is religiously motivated. But that doesn't necessarily mean that there aren't elements of what he says that are scientifically correct.

Nobody is driven by scientific theory and methodology, as far as I'm aware. Those things aren't the sorts of things that can motivate people. They aren't your motivations for arguing with Q-reeus, for instance.

 

[paddoboy]

paddoboy:


The theory of evolution is a theory. It says so right there in the title.

The theory of evolution is one theory that is now determined as fact
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolu...is context, is,the major patterns of change."
Evolution as fact and theory
The Incontrovertible Fact of Evolution. He also says "Natural Selection...is not a theory but a fact.
Stephen Jay Gould writes, "...evolution is a theory. It is also a fact. And facts and theories are different things, not rungs in a hierarchy of increasing certainty. Facts are the world's data. Theories are structures of ideas that explain and interpret facts. Facts do not go away when scientists debate rival theories to explain them

Huh?
At the time of this writing, there is no complete scientific explanation of how life arose.

Abiogenesis is the only scientific theory we have for the emergence of life. The exact methodology and pathway is though at time of writing unknown.

This is not to say that religious explanations are any better than the efforts that science is currently making towards a theory of the origins of life.

That's nice.

You know, it doesn't have to be all or nothing. Yes, Tour is religiously motivated. But that doesn't necessarily mean that there aren't elements of what he says that are scientifically correct.

Nobody is driven by scientific theory and methodology, as far as I'm aware. Those things aren't the sorts of things that can motivate people. They aren't your motivations for arguing with Q-reeus, for instance.

Have you read the Tour post in the chemical evolution thread and other links to his thoughts, particulalry how he said he would still accept the bible and Adam and Eve, even if evidence as to an exact Abiogenesis methodology were to surface.

 

[paddoboy]

You know, it doesn't have to be all or nothing. Yes, Tour is religiously motivated.

https://www.jmtour.com/personal-topics/evolution-creation/

extract
Based upon my faith in the biblical text, I do believe (yes, faith and belief go beyond scientific evidence for this scientist) that God created the heavens and the earth and all that dwell therein, including a man named Adam and a woman named Eve. As for many of the details and the time-spans, I personally become less clear. Some may ask, What’s “less clear” about the text that reads, “For in six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth”? That is a fair question, and I wish I had an answer that would satisfy them. But I do not because I remain less clear. So, in addition to my chemically based scientific resistance to a macroevolutionary proposal, I am also theologically reticent to embrace it. As a lover of the biblical text, I cannot allegorize the Book of Genesis that far, lest, as Tevye in Fiddler on the Roof said, “If I try and bend that far, I’ll break!” God seems to have set nature as a clue, not a solution, to keep us yearning for him. And if some day we do understand the mechanisms for these macroevolutionary changes, and also the processes that led to the origin of first life, it will not lessen God. As with all discoveries, like when the genetic code in the double-stranded DNA was discovered, they will serve to underscore the magnanimity of God.

 

[James R]

The theory of evolution is one theory that is now determined as fact
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_as_fact_and_theory#:~:text=Evolution, in this context, is,the major patterns of change."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolu...is context, is,the major patterns of change."
If wikipedia is defining "evolution" to be "the major patterns of change" that are observed in the data (e.g. fossil record, DNA), then it's fine to call it a fact. But the "theory of evolution" is a theory that sets out to explain those major patterns of change.

Evolution as fact and theory
The Incontrovertible Fact of Evolution. He also says "Natural Selection...is not a theory but a fact.
Stephen Jay Gould writes, "...evolution is a theory. It is also a fact. And facts and theories are different things, not rungs in a hierarchy of increasing certainty. Facts are the world's data. Theories are structures of ideas that explain and interpret facts. Facts do not go away when scientists debate rival theories to explain them

Gould sounds a bit confused there, though I'd give him benefit of the doubt since its an out-of-context quote that you may have mangled.

If he says evolution is "a theory" and "also a fact", but also that "facts and theories are different things", then it can't really be both, can it? Unless they aren't mutually exclusive in his mind. But if that's the case, then the question of whether evolution is a fact or a theory becomes meaningless; there's no debate to be had if it can be both at the same time.

From the given quote, it is hard to draw the conclusion that Gould thinks something can be both a theory and a fact simultaneously, because he writes "Theories are ... ideas that explain ... facts". If something is a fact and a theory, simultaneously, then we'd have a case of a fact being an idea that explains other facts, which blurs the distinction rather hopelessly in my opinion.

So, I'm left in a muddle as to what he means when he says evolution is both a theory and a fact. Maybe he was just having an off day when he wrote that.

Abiogenesis is the only scientific theory we have for the emergence of life.

If you say abiogenesis is a scientific theory of the emergence of life, please set out for me the basics of the theory. That is, tell me how life emerged, according to the theory. And don't skip over any important steps when you explain it.

The exact methodology and pathway is though at time of writing unknown.

Wouldn't the whole point of a workable theory of abiogenesis be to provide an exact methodology and pathway?

Have you read the Tour post in the chemical evolution thread and other links to his thoughts, particulalry how he said he would still accept the bible and Adam and Eve, even if evidence as to an exact Abiogenesis methodology were to surface.

I skimmed the thread and saw some quotes from Tour. I'm not saying any of his arguments for Creation are any good, or his arguments against abiogenesis. What I'm saying is that not everything is "you're with us or you're with the terrorists". Just because somebody is wrong about one thing, it doesn't mean they are wrong about everything. It also doesn't necessarily mean they are evil or on a crusade. This is not about Tour, specifically. It's more about you. Just because you disagree with Tour (or anybody else), it doesn't mean he is a "joker" who should never be taken seriously about anything, or whatever. Chances are, he's better qualified to talk about chemistry than you are, for instance.