Sjf, I didn't mean postulate in the scientific sense. I meant it more in a literary sense.

At any rate, you can put up a 400 step process if you like, the problem is that only steps 1 and 2 have been show to be reproducible either in nature or the lab. AFAIK, no one has been able to make a replicating polymer or hypercycle using conditions that might exist in the pre-historical earth.

I also find the link you provided interesting. It goes to great lengths to debunk the idea of the improbability of random assembly of a self replicator. Here is a quote:

Yes, one kilogram of the amino acid arginine has 2.85 x 1024 molecules in it (that's well over a billion billion); a tonne of arginine has 2.85 x 1027 molecules. If you took a semi-trailer load of each amino acid and dumped it into a medium size lake, you would have enough molecules to generate our particular replicator in a few tens of years, given that you can make 55 amino acid long proteins in 1 to 2 weeks

My response is simple. THEN DO IT. If you think you can produce a self replicating polymer in a medium sized lake by dumping a few truckloads of proteins in and have the results in 10 or 20 years then DO IT. That is entirely plausible as a scientific experiment and you would rock the world. The abiogenesis crowd should put their money where their mouth is and do it. Why haven't they? Because they can't.

IROC,

No, I am simply saying that the evidence for both is equivalent. Both abiogenesis and ID rely on faith. If you truly believe that the evidence for abiogenesis compels you to think that life arose through that method, then I would respectfully submit that you show more faith than many religious people do.

Everyone gets up in arms about what is taught in schools. I don't think ID should be taught in schools, nor do I think abiogenesis should be taught in schools. I think evolution as a way for existing species to change over time should be taught and the book should then simply say that there are many theories about how life began, none of which are provable.

The evidence for both is not the same. We have clear evidence of abundant organic molecules for the pre-biotic earth. We have overwhelming evidence for the natural diversification of life via evolution from a LUCA. We have abundant evidence for spontaneous, unguided emergent complexity at all scales in this universe. We have no evidence for any diety, divine intervention, or ID except the negative arguments of ignorance and incredulity. They are not even on the same page.

What you have no evidence for is life from non-life. Come back when you have that. I don't know how many different ways I can say it.

Seriously, if this whole thing is so simple, design an experiment. Put a few truckloads of amino acids in a lake and wait 10 years. Show that a self-replicator will assemble itself out of a random mix of amino acids. There would be a Nobel Prize in it for you.

Lots of things from who knows where in outer space have eventually hit the earth over the past billions and billions of years. Asteroids, whatever. Some germ or cell or whatever contained on one of those was the origin of life on earth.

Isn't that as good a theory as any?

One problem is that we don't know what the exact conditions were on Earth when life began. It's hard to design an experiment to replicate those conditions when we don't know what they were. It is equally difficult to envision the success of dumping amino acids in a lake.

I fully agree that we don't know how life began. I simply think jumping to the conclusion that the origin even might have been supernatural is a cop out. "God did it" isn't a valid explanation for anything else on Earth - I don't expect it will be the answer to this issue, either.

If it comforts you to believe that god did it, that's fine, but I think the assumption that the "god did it" solution is just as probable as anything else is wrong. But that's just my opinion.

Yes, but then where did that life come from?

IROC if you choose to believe that there is some as yet unexplained scientific answer for life on earth that's fine. My point is that belief is belief, whether it be belief in as yet unimagined science or belief in a higher power. Thus, if you admit that you choose to believe in unknown science then you might want to reconsider your position on those who choose to believe otherwise.

We happen to have now ventured into the land of philosophy and out of the realm of science. Many philosophers have concluded that it is easier intellectually to believe in a higher power than to believe in an unimagined scientific explanation for the origins of life. Again, I'm not here to convert anyone to my way of thinking. I simply am trying to point out the irony of those who doggedly cling to things like abiogenesis while scoffing at those who believe other theories, including intelligent design.

Somewhere other than earth, trillions and trillions and trillions of years ago, from a process that our current science could not even begin to conceive of or recognize. And which, even if humans exist for a million more years on earth (highly unlikely), we will never even come close to figuring out. After all, even if humans last a million years, that's what, a micro-second in the history of the universe? Our entire existence is just a grain of sand on the beach and history of the universe.

But humans do have a need to have an explanation for everything.

So 5000 years ago, when the sun mysteriously rose over the horizon, it of course was being pulled up there by the sun god. Duh. What else could it be?

And 2000 years ago, when there was a drought, the cause was of course an angry god, and there was some sacrificin' to be done to cure it.

2000 years later, when we still know relatively squat about the history of the universe, or how we got here, the natural and historical human response is we were put here by a benevolent god.

No, I suggest you come back when you have some tangible evidence for your creator. Untli then, keep it at your church and out of science.

Again, sjf you choose to take your preconceived notions of creationism and apply it to me. I find it interesting that you paint with such a broad brush yet have not taken a single moment to actually find out what MY personal beliefs and ideas are. I guess it is intellectually easier to lump everyone who disagrees with you into the same bucket...

Again, you demonstrate the whole point of the movie.

I liken the evolution debate to the one of DNA. We have known about DNA for over 100 hundred years apparently. Those that made the claims of DNA 100yrs ago were branded lunatics. We knew about it then, the science of seeing it and the tools to map it were just not available at the time. So were those scientists back then lunatics. No, in fact they were ahead of their time. Simply brilliant. The same with evolution. We know it, it's just the tools, and the science of the tools is just not available yet. With the advances in science and new discoveries literally popping up overnight, it's just a matter of time.

Dewolf that may be true. And I believe you will notice that no where in this thread have I called anyone on either side of this debate a lunatic. In fact, the ones calling names are those on the other side of the aisle, so to speak. I think this is again, the point of the whole thread and the point of the movie. Why is there such a violent reaction?

Discrediting those who disagree with you is not the province of either side. We are all familiar with the times of Columbus and how he was mocked in the courts of the day for thinking the world was round. That was scientific establishment there. The same scientific establishment mocked and eventually drove Ignatz Semmelweis out of medicine for suggesting that doctors should wash their hands between patients, postulating that they were transmitting some unknown substance that was making women sick.

I wasn't saying anyone is name calling. I was merely pointing out that back then they were branded lunatics, even by their peers. The point being, a closed mind helps no-one. I think you will find the majority among us concede there may well be a creator, although upon the surface of what we know already, let alone what we will find in the future, the chances are very slim.

It sounds like Rick is saying that any scientific hypothesis is on par with "god did it" until it becomes theory or fact. Am I reading this correct, Rick?

BTW, I would be interested in your beliefs. :)

Best,

Kurt

I think because we are sick and tired of religion. It has done nothing to further man's cause of living in a unified peaceful world. It is full of hypocrisies. It's just a downright pain in the a$$.

FWIW, and IMHO, Stein's movie failed to make the desired point, except to the "choir".

The so called folks who were "expelled" were not very good examples of shunned, ostracized scientists. The movie itself was dishonest with interviews done under misleading circumstances, material literally stolen from its creators and the unfortunate playing of the Hitler card. All of the above has been said before in this thread and is supported by links already posted to credible information.

If the movie represents the strongest position that credible viewpoints are being silenced by science, then there's not much there. Anyone else have any references to real science being covered-up by "big science"? If serious and verifiable, it would make for a very provocative movie, if done properly.

Also, is there any real science being done to further the ID POV, or is "god did it" sufficient to keep ID at parity with the very real and active field of study on abiogenesis?

2¢

Best,

Kurt

The basic point of the movie is that ID proponents are being discriminated against by mainstream scientists. Even though the facts surrounding the "discrimination" are way overblown, the fact remains that ID is not science and these people don't deserve what little respect they demand anyway.

The other premise is that people who "believe" in evolution are evil and that belief in Darwinism has led to the greatest atrocities in man's history. The movie actually attempts to equate the Holocaust with atheism.

Rick, I sincerely hope you don't agree with these premises.

The movie is pure crap. We can discuss the philosophy of origins all day long and even agree to disagree, but the fact is that ID is an intellectual wasteland. It's a massive sinking ship. If you choose to lash yourself to it, that's your business, but it's going down.

I also agree that we don’t fully know how life began. We know a lot about it, but not 100%.

For everything we can explain today, there was a time when we could not explain it. I’m talking about things like the seasons, why the sun comes up every day, stuff like that. Before we could explain these things, they were attributed to a god. Once we learned more, it turns out that the explanation turned is natural, not supernatural.

A track record has been established here. For everything that we have an explanation for, 100% of those explanations are natural and 0% are supernatural.

I don’t have any reason to think this track record will change. Right now, we can’t explain abiogenesis. I seriously doubt it will be the first thing in the universe that has a supernatural explanation.

One more thing to what dewolf said, count me as one who does not rule out a creator or creators - it's certainly possible.

But, I am not about to throw up my hands and proclaim that we were created by something else just because we have no answer today.

Geeze, humans just figured out radio just over 100 years ago!

Take care,

Kurt