The Origin of Life

Remove this Banner Ad

Although Darwin would be pleased, he was not so much interested in abiogenesis as the origin of species by means of natural selection (hence the title), which occurs post the 'beginning'. This finding could be problematic for creationists and even theistic evolutionists.
 

Log in to remove this ad.

Pawtucket Patriot said:
Although Darwin would be pleased, he was not so much interested in abiogenesis as the origin of species by means of natural selection (hence the title), which occurs post the 'beginning'. This finding could be problematic for creationists and even theistic evolutionists.
Click to expand...

I'm betting the AnsersinGenesis website is a hive of activity at the moment.
 
Pawtucket Patriot said:
This finding could be problematic for creationists and even theistic evolutionists.
Click to expand...

I am a theistic evolutionist and I am delighted! This is another important part of the much larger puzzle of the origin of life that now has been solved. Other vexing parts have been convincingly addressed in recent years, such as how in principle homochirality could have arisen, see my article on the origin of life, published at the leading evolution website talkorigins.org:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/abioprob/originoflife.html

and other parts of the puzzle have been solved more recently than my 2006 overview (I am currently working on an update), and again others will be solved in the laboratory as we speak. We still have ways to go, but origin of life research looks now vastly more promising than just a decade ago, and scenarios are becoming very plausible.

My thoughts on why I expect an origin of life by natural causes are expressed in my article:

Upon considering this self-organization of material structures in the realm of philosophy, one may conclude that it happens either because the underlying laws of nature simply are the way they are, or because they were designed by God for this purpose. Since we know that the laws of nature are so self-sufficient that, based on them, the complexity of the entire physical universe evolved from fundamental particles, and further, complex life forms from simpler ones during biological evolution, we can reasonably extrapolate that they would also allow life itself to originate spontaneously, by evolution of complex structures – regardless if we believe these laws are designed or undesigned. Therefore, we should expect an origin of life by natural causes from both theistic and atheistic philosophical perspectives.

and:

The issue of chirality, among others, has been touted by creationists as a "huge problem" for the concept of an origin of life by natural causes. Allegedly, only a miraculous intervention by God could have solved the problem. Yet the above findings are a typical example for why the "God-of-the-gaps" concept does not work: science rapidly closes the gaps that previously might have been thought to be reserved for miraculous intervention.

This is exactly what should be expected if either the material world is all there is, or if the world was created by a God who, as primary cause, chose to create through secondary causes – precisely those natural causes that science studies. In fact, creationists should seriously ask themselves if their concept of God is not a belittling one: the Intelligent Designer as "tinkerer" who is forced to break his own created laws of nature once in a while because they are insufficient to achieve certain stages in the development of the material world. From a theistic philosophical perspective, the actual findings of science suggest a much grander idea of God: the Designer who laid out an elegant and self-sufficient set of laws of nature that accomplish the unfolding of his creation by inducing self-organization of the material world. This idea is easily compatible with the concept of God of many mainstream religions, including most Christian ones.

I prefer to believe in a God who performs miracles when He wants to, not when He has to -- the latter reeks of impotence.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Richo83,

thanks for the compliment. I'll think about posting more often; I have seen some more nuanced arguments on this board (including yours) when it comes to the God/non-God debate than I observe in most such discussions.
 
I was reading On The Origin of Species last night (I have it on my bed side table instead of the bible. Maybe motels should also place one copy in the top draw along with the bible. :D) and realised the flaw in ID's arguments that suggest Darwin's discussion of selective breeding actually supports the idea of a designer. Darwin explicitly differentiates between 'conscious' and 'unconscious' selection in the context of selective breeding. His so called 'unconscious' selection is not intended by breeders and functions without their knowledge (outside conscioussness). This is the domestic (artificial equivalent) of natural selection. Suffer in your jocks Dembski and Behe.
 
evo said:
That 99% of the species that have ever existed on the earth are no longer extant suggests to me that if life is indeed the result of a designer, he is not very good at his job.

But I suppose that is part of his plan as well. He being so mysterious and all.
Click to expand...

Evo,

actually, your argument is spot on when it comes to creationists. If God had created each species individually, then indeed "the musea of Natural History would be full of God's mistakes". That quote comes from Ken Miller, a hero on evolution education -- he was also one of the star witnesses in the Dover trial against Intelligent Design -- and a fellow Catholic.

However, if evolution is God's design, the argument fails. Species come and go, according to natural selection and natural catastrophes -- so? Death is part of life, and as we know, it is a biological prerequisite for living.

Of course, from our human perspective the elimination of our own species would be a greater disaster than individual death. But I don't think this holds for what other species are able to experience with regard to their extinction. Other animal species probably do not have the consciousness to experience things that way, and they certainly do not have the communication means for that -- how would the last of their species know that they are the "last man standing"? So for them going extinct as a species can hardly be worse than their death as individuals. I think we need to be careful not to fall into the trap of anthropomorphism when it comes to judging this kind of "catastrophic" events.

Certainly, all this cannot be an excuse for the careless exploitation of our planet by human hands, which may lead to the unnecessary extinction of species caused by us. Respect for nature and biodiversity, as well as for the functioning of nature as an ecosystem -- which ultimately benefits us as well -- should guide our actions.

Al
 
evo said:
That 99% of the species that have ever existed on the earth are no longer extant suggests to me that if life is indeed the result of a designer, he is not very good at his job.

But I suppose that is part of his plan as well. He being so mysterious and all.
Click to expand...

Their is actually some interesting work being done by a Pom academic, forget his name, on evolution convergence. IE Why do very different species come up with very similar solutions to problems, EG Eyes, Ears etc. Very simply God's imput is in the greater universe and local environment and Evolution is just a scientific process that occurs. Obviously it is much more complex than that, but its a little more challenging than Creationism
 
Al Moritz said:
However, if evolution is God's design, the argument fails. Species come and go, according to natural selection and natural catastrophes -- so? Death is part of life, and as we know, it is a biological prerequisite for living.
Click to expand...
So if I understand you aright you are saying, as a Catholic, if we totally fudge Genesis then the argument fails.

Ok, let us go with a deist-like God who "designed" evolution then sat back to let it take its course. If this is what really happened this also doesn't seem to me a very good argument for the effectiveness of this 'omnipotent' being's design capabilities.

Approximately 4.5 billion years ago the Earth is formed. For the next 1.5 Billion years, no life at all. For the next 2 billion years after that, only simple microbes. It is not until a mere 450 million years ago did we even have invertebrates. And only as recently as 1-200,000 years ago did we get an animal approaching what we now refer to as man.

Given he is alleged to be an all powerful omnipotent being this seems to me a mighty poor 'design' (if we assume that the ultimate purpose of this design is man). Personally I wouldn't worship such ineptitude, I doubt I'd even employ him as an engineer. The actual Genesis account is starting to look more competent by compare.

On the other hand, if his ultimate purpose wasn't man and we are not particularly special then why should we care if he thinks we are sinning anyway? On this worldview we are just one in a long line of events.
 
Al Moritz said:
Richo83,

thanks for the compliment. I'll think about posting more often; I have seen some more nuanced arguments on this board (including yours) when it comes to the God/non-God debate than I observe in most such discussions.
Click to expand...

Thanks. I mean we probably wont agree, but you actually are an intelligent person who doesn't resort to "the bible is 100% true, it has no lies, anyone who opposes me is not a Christian" statements.

As for evo's question, I think what evo was touching on is not if animals care whether they die, I agree they don't have the self-awareness to do so until obvious circumstances, but it is strange that god would create a universe of animals, in which so many of which would become extinct. Further, that he'd wait so long to create humans, out of monkeys no less, in which fish have lived longer.

It is said that if you stretched the time of all organism existence over a year, Humans would only exist within the last few moments (or days, can't remember) so it seems just like our other creatures, we have been a brief player in an order of existence, rather than the center which seems to be the common theme. If something is crucial, one doesn't create it at the 11th hour, not unless they're a uni student. :p (lame uni joke)
 
What is really amazing is that there are people out there who will devote their entire lives, knowing full well there is no afterlife to enjoy, to protecting other species from becoming extinct, even though99% of them are heading that way anyway!

Talk about a waste of time.
 
Qsaint said:
Their is actually some interesting work being done by a Pom academic, forget his name, on evolution convergence. IE Why do very different species come up with very similar solutions to problems, EG Eyes, Ears etc. Very simply God's imput is in the greater universe and local environment and Evolution is just a scientific process that occurs. Obviously it is much more complex than that, but its a little more challenging than Creationism
Click to expand...


I think Simon Conway_Morris is the bloke who you are thinking about.

He is the professor of Palaeobiology at Cambridge Uni (GB)
 
The rabbi said:
I think Simon Conway_Morris is the bloke who you are thinking about.

He is the professor of Palaeobiology at Cambridge Uni (GB)
Click to expand...



Yes thats him at least he has some academic grunt

Professor of Evolutionary Palaeobiology in the Department of Earth Sciences at the University of Cambridge. He is renowned for his insights into early evolution, and his studies of paleobiology. He gave the Royal Institution Christmas Lectures in 1996. He was elected a Fellow of the Royal Society at age 39, was awarded the Walcott Medal of the National Academy of Sciences in 1987, and the Lyell Medal of the Geological Society of London in 1998.
Click to expand...


from the Guardian a couple of months ago

Darwin was right. Up to a pointWhen physicists speak of not only a strange universe, but one even stranger than we can possibly imagine, they articulate a sense of unfinished business that most neo-Darwinians don't even want to think about, says Simon Conway Morris


What, one wonders, would Charles Darwin or indeed his pugnacious supporter Thomas Henry Huxley have made of the recent rash of posters aimed at those who have nothing better to do than look at the sides of buses? These now serve to inform the world at large that, by the way, there may not be a God (although if you keep staring at buses you may also read precisely the opposite message).

With atheist banners passing him by Darwin, I imagine, would have harrumphed and in his characteristic manner passed the problem to his devoted chum. Huxley, I further suspect, would have quietly deplored the fact that the lower orders might take this sort of thing seriously, but would probably also look on it as another useful opportunity to further his secular agenda.

So what's new? Darwinian has reached near saturation and among the customary pieties there is little doubt that it will conveniently serve as a love-in, with much mutual self-congratulation, for atheism. But perhaps now is the time to rejoice not in what Darwin got right, and in demonstrating the reality of evolution in the context of entirely unexceptional natural processes there is no dispute, but what his inheritance is in terms of unfinished business. Isn't it curious how evolution is regarded by some as a total, universe-embracing explanation, although those who treat it as a religion might protest and sometimes not gently. Don't worry, the science of evolution is certainly incomplete. In fact, understanding a process, in this case natural selection and adaptation, doesn't automatically mean that you also possess predictive powers as to what might (or even must) evolve. Nor is it logical to assume that simply because we are a product of evolution, as patently we are, that explains our capacity to understand the world. Rather the reverse.

But wait a moment; everybody knows that evolution isn't predictable. Yes, a rich and vibrant biosphere to admire, but no end-product any more likely (or unlikely) than any other. Received wisdom pours out the usual litany: random mutations, catastrophic mass extinctions and other mega-disasters, super-virulent microbes all ensure that the drunkard's walk is a linear process in comparison to the ceaseless lurching seen in the history of life. So not surprisingly nearly all neo-Darwinians insist that the outcomes – and that includes you – are complete flukes of circumstance. So to find flying organisms on some remote planet might not be a big surprise, but certainly no birds. Perhaps all life employs cells, but would anybody dare to predict a mushroom? In fact the evidence points in diametrically the opposite direction. Birds evolved at least twice, maybe four times. So too with the mushrooms. Both are among the less familiar examples of evolutionary convergence.

Convergence? Simply how from very different starting points organisms "navigate" to very much the same biological solution. A classic example are our camera eyes and those of the squid; astonishingly similar but they evolved independently. But let's not just concentrate on the squid eye, from molecules to social systems convergence is ubiquitous. Forget also the idea that in biology nearly anything is possible, that by and large it is a massive set of less than satisfactory compromises. In fact, paradoxically the sheer prevalence of convergence strongly indicates that the choices are far more limited, but when they do emerge the product is superb. Did you know eyes can detect single photons and our noses single molecules? Evolution has reached the limits of what is possible on planet Earth. In particular our doors of perception can only be extended by scientific instrument, enabling a panorama from the big bang to DNA.

Yet how the former led to the latter, how it was that complexity emerged and is sustained even in that near-miracle of a chemical factory we call the cell is still largely enigmatic. Self-organisation is certainly involved, but one of the puzzles of evolution is the sheer versatility of many molecules, being employed in a myriad of different capacities. Indeed it is now legitimate to talk of a logic to biology, not a term you will hear on the lips of many neo-Darwinians. Nevertheless, evolution is evidently following more fundamental rules. Scientific certainly, but ones that transcend Darwinism. What! Darwinism not a total explanation? Why should it be? It is after all only a mechanism, but if evolution is predictive, indeed possesses a logic, then evidently it is being governed by deeper principles. Come to think about it so are all sciences; why should Darwinism be any exception?

But there is more. How to explain mind? Darwin fumbled it. Could he trust his thoughts any more than those of a dog? Or worse, perhaps here was one point (along, as it happens, with the origin of life) that his apparently all-embracing theory ran into the buffers? In some ways the former possibility, the woof-woof hypothesis, is the more entertaining. After all, being a product of evolution gives no warrant at all that what we perceive as rationality, and indeed one that science and mathematics employ with almost dizzying success, has as its basis anything more than sheer whimsy. If, however, the universe is actually the product of a rational Mind and evolution is simply the search engine that in leading to sentience and consciousness allows us to discover the fundamental architecture of the universe – a point many mathematicians intuitively sense when they speak of the unreasonable effectiveness of mathematics – then things not only start to make much better sense, but they are also much more interesting. Farewell bleak nihilism; the cold assurances that all is meaningless. Of course, Darwin told us how to get there and by what mechanism, but neither why it is in the first place, nor how on earth we actually understand it.

To reiterate: when physicists speak of not only a strange universe, but one even stranger than we can possibly imagine, they articulate a sense of unfinished business that most neo-Darwinians don't even want to think about. Of course our brains are a product of evolution, but does anybody seriously believe consciousness itself is material? Well, yes, some argue just as much, but their explanations seem to have made no headway. We are indeed dealing with unfinished business. God's funeral? I don't think so. Please join me beside the coffin marked Atheism. I fear, however, there will be very few mourners.
Click to expand...


ANd then Dawkins Web site response

http://richarddawkins.net/article,3603,Simon-Conway-Morris-becomes-a-creationist,Jerry-Coyne
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

MrsBlueSky
Politics Local government - love them, loathe them or get rid of them
Replies
5
Views
270
MrsBlueSky
MrsBlueSky
Geoff
The Post Office, Horizon Scandal. Aka Mr Bates v The Post Office
Replies
1
Views
62
Chief
Chief
Gavin Excell
D Day - 80th anniversary of the Normandy landings
Replies
0
Views
54
Gavin Excell
Gavin Excell
Aristotle Pickett
Remove Sam Newman from the Hall of Fame petition.
14 15 16 17 18
Replies
448
Views
15K
Chief
Chief
nut
BRICS and the reduced power of the US dollar.
2
Replies
32
Views
2K
barreness
barreness
zeggie
  • Locked
Society/Culture Ending the centralisation of corporate power increasingly undermining government and culture.
2
Replies
29
Views
962
zeggie
zeggie
darth_timon
  • Poll
Politics Is Education better off Privatised?
Replies
19
Views
725
Rusty Brookes
R

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top