Is Abiogenesis an hypothesis in distress?

[swamidass (S. Joshua Swamidass)]

@Ronald_Cram

My proposal is to run the same experiments in conditions closer to the early earth and do it with a view toward falsifying the hypothesis.

Good news, that is what they already do!!

@Ronald_Cram

My proposal is to run the same experiments in conditions closer to the early earth and do it with a view toward falsifying the hypothesis. As you know, scientists have a responsibility to try to falsify their own work. It is not a task that humans love to do. That’s why I am also proposing that each research team try to falsify the work of other teams. Those who hold to DNA first can attempt to falsify the RNA World hypothesis, the metabolism first hypothesis and the cell membrane first hypothesis. The other teams can do the same.

There is no question in my mind that abiogenesis is falsifiable and would be falsified within a few short years if researchers actually held to the standards of science.

So much falsification! Did you just read Popper?

That is not really how science works. At least, it is not how we do things in the context I was trained and am a scientist.

[swamidass (S. Joshua Swamidass)]

@Ronald_Cram

Your next series of comments show that you are not taking my comments seriously. To say “I can’t imagine this” or “I can’t imagine that” or “science doesn’t work that way” doesn’t really help to advance the discussion. As I have made clear in this comment,

I hope it does. I’m just point out the places that you lost me. Maybe instead of the super long posts, let’s focus on one thing at a time.

[swamidass (S. Joshua Swamidass)]

@Ronald_Cram

Just to demonstrate that Sean Carroll does not believe, as you do, that scientists are required to never consider the possibility of God, I will provide a quote from his appearance at the Greer Heard Forum when he debated Wiliam Lane Craig.

And I am well aware of this. You are getting catfished. We’ve covered this before: Miracles and Methodological Naturalism

Also, it is clear you are not reading the links I’m putting up. Can we try a reset here? Instead of trying to convince me, maybe we should try and understand each other first. I want to understand you too, and build some bridges. It is hard with all the (what appear to be) pre-canned polemics.

[Patrick]

@Ronald_Cram

I’m certain that some of the work that comes out of Discovery Institute is good,

Really, can you give me some examples of the work that comes out of Discovery Institute that is good?

[Patrick]

@Ronald_Cram

Tour leaves open the possibility that a purely natural explanation for origin of life may be found, but he estimates it will take at least 350 years to do so.

Prediction: A purely natural explanation for the origin of life will be found in the next 10 to 15 years, perhaps sooner.

[Patrick]

@Ronald_Cram

Let’s say for a moment that at some point in the future science is able to prove that nature is incapable of creating life through natural processes.

QM is at the root of all natural processes. And QM leaves nothing as impossible, so nature is certainly capable of creating life through natural processes. Stars, Planets, Galaxies were created through natural processes, why wouldn’t primitive little self replicating biological organisms on a stable rocky planet with liquid water near a sun not be possible? It has done it here at at least once.

[swamidass (S. Joshua Swamidass)]

@Patrick

QM is at the root of all natural processes. And QM leaving nothing as impossible, so nature is certainly capable of creating life through natural processes.

You are out on a limb @Patrick. That does not appear to be true.

[swamidass (S. Joshua Swamidass)]

@Patrick

Tour leaves open the possibility that a purely natural explanation for origin of life may be found, but he estimates it will take at least 350 years to do so.

Prediction: A purely natural explanation for the origin of life will be found in the next 10 to 15 years, perhaps sooner.

That is a poorly specified prediction. We already have the trivially facile explanation “it happened by natural processes”. It is certainly not specified to enough detail to know of that explanation is plausible or not, true or not.

Progress is being made, but we are very far from an explanation that can settle the debate (outside science) about whether it is reasonable to say this was by natural processes alone. Knowing how big the gap is, and the level of rigor required in science, 15 years seems wildly optimistic.

[Patrick]

@swamidass

That is a poorly specified prediction.

Yes, of course it is. If someone can say 350 years, I can predict wild predictions in the opposite direction.

We already have the trivially facile explanation “it happened by natural processes”. It is certainly not specified to enough detail to know of that explanation is plausible or not, true or not.

Agree, quite a lot of progress is being made. Especially in the astro-biology area.

Progress is being made, but we are very far from an explanation that can settle the debate (outside science) about whether it is reasonable to say this was by natural processes alone. Knowing how big the gap is, and the level of rigor required in science, 15 years seems wildly optimistic.

The debate over evolution isn’t settled, neither is the big bang. Do you really think it will ever be so solid that no scientist will be able to add to the richness of the theory?

Regarding 15 years. well I will be 75 years old then, and hopefully I still have enough brain power left to understand the answer science has in fifteen years. So for me, the answer 15 years from now will be good enough for me.

[swamidass (S. Joshua Swamidass)]

@Patrick

The debate over evolution isn’t settled, neither is the big bang. Do you really think it will ever be so solid that no scientist will be able to add to the richness of the theory?

No, of course not.

But we do a disservice to equate the success of evolutionary science with the real limits of origin of life science. The two are not at the same level of maturity, rigor, or detail. It is a common tactic of anti-evolutionists to attack evolution by attacking origin of life, though the two are separate things. It is wise not to step into that trap.

@Patrick

Regarding 15 years. well I will be 75 years old then, and hopefully I still have enough brain power left to understand the answer science has in fifteen years. So for me, the answer 15 years from now will be good enough for me.

Even atheists are allowed to dream of heaven.

[Patrick]

For atheists, we have to create heaven for ourselves.

Regarding the origin of life question, I think that science will make progress understanding the natural processes that could have enabled life to originate but not be able to definitively say how life actually started on Earth because, I predict there will be a transitions period or process where I will be difficult to draw a line between non-life and life.

Look at the problem with who were the first humans. As we find more and more fossils and genomes it gets more and more ambiguous as who are humans and who are not. Similar to the dividing line between species.

The same with the big bang, we are a femtosecond away now from t=0 but can never really get there.

All that is certain is that the gaps in any god of the gaps theory is getting squeezed tighter and tighter.

[swamidass (S. Joshua Swamidass)]

@Patrick

The same with the big bang, we are a femtosecond away now from t=0 but can never really get there.

Agree with most things but this. You picked an arbitrary starting point. There were things before the big bang, perhaps the inflationary membrane. If we take that seriously, the beginning of the Big Bang, is a vast amount of “time” away from the beginning of things. Yes, I’m using “time” in a loose sense here.

[swamidass (S. Joshua Swamidass)]

@T.j_Runyon

Yes they are! Do you keep up with literature? Do you have private correspondence with OOL of researchers like I do? I can’t believe you said what you just said with a straight face.

@Ronald_Cram

I notice that the level of discourse has devolved precipitously.

@T.j_Runyon

You’re right and I apoligize. Just tired of seeing work and people misinterpreted. I’m out

Thanks for apologizing @T.j_Runyon. This is fairly common, so its a good idea to figure out how to get desensitized to it.

[Patrick]

my t=0 is the start of inflation (or was it the end of inflation?) Given that time isn’t part of spacetime until there is a spacetime, I guess you are correct that t=0 is really arbitrary. So only time after big bang matters. So since I am an engineer, I will says that understanding the universe from one femtosecond after big bang to now is pretty good accomplishment for now especially when talking to YECs.

[Ronald_Cram]

@swamidass

So much falsification! Did you just read Popper?

No, actually. It’s been a while since I read Popper. Rather, I was inspired by your attempt to falsify the RTB Model. I appreciate the fact you publicized that you could not falsify it. But attempting to falsify it was the right thing to do. Of course, attempting to falsify the RNA World, DNA first, etc is also the right thing to do.

@swamidass

And I am well aware of this. You are getting catfished. We’ve covered this before: Miracles and Methodological Naturalism

Yes, I have read that link. I’m not sure why you think I haven’t. Let me pull a quote from you from that link and then compare it to Sean Carroll’s.

You write: “That is not actually correct. Rather, it is that science does not consider miracles. The hypothesis of miracles is not allowed from the get go. It is begging the question, circular reasoning, therefore to argue it teaches or finds that there are no miracles. That is a trivially absurd argument.”

Your claim is that science cannot consider miracles. Ever. My claim, and that of Sean Carroll, is that science has to consider miracles when the laws of physics give the scientist no other choice.

Let me quote Carroll again:
"“Some people try to sometimes say that science or naturalists start from an assumption of naturalism so they just simply won’t consider alternatives. I’m very happy to consider alternatives. I think if there was some phenomena in the world which really looked exactly like some religious tradition was saying should happen and was miraculous, was seemingly violating the laws of physics, what would scientists do in that situation? They would not say “We are not allowed to think about this because we agreed yesterday at faculty tea that the world is a natural world.” I think they would try to come up with the best explanation. If the best explanation is not naturalism, then I would buy that.” - Sean Carroll

Carroll goes on to say:

“In a proper, quantitative Bayesian probability analysis my prior for naturalism is higher than my prior for theism, but overwhelming evidence will always take care of that.”

There is a huge gulf between your viewpoint and that of Sean Carroll and me.

@swamidass

I want to understand you too, and build some bridges. It is hard with all the (what appear to be) pre-canned polemics.

These are not pre-canned polemics. As far as I know, I’m one of the few people who are making these points. In the years ahead, I plan to publish them in a series of philosophy of science articles. I would appreciate it if you could bring yourself to interact with the ideas.

If you believe Sean Carroll is wrong, then why is he wrong?

[Ronald_Cram]

@Patrick

QM is at the root of all natural processes. And QM leaves nothing as impossible, so nature is certainly capable of creating life through natural processes.

Hi Patrick. The truth or falsity of this statement comes down to the question of whether we live in a quantum universe or a classical universe. I believe most physicists and philosophers of physics are coming to the view that we live in a classical universe that has some quantum effects. For example, we can generate electricity using only wave or wind power and there are no quantum effects involved at all. If our universe was strictly a quantum universe, this would not be true.

My earlier statement that the laws of physics rules out certain behaviors from nature holds true.

[Ronald_Cram]

@T.j_Runyon

You’re right and I apoligize.

No problem. Thanks for apologizing. Best wishes to you.

[Ronald_Cram]

@Patrick

Really, can you give me some examples of the work that comes out of Discovery Institute that is good?

I haven’t read it and so I can’t defend it, but I hear good things about Meyer’s Signature in the Cell. I will also say that I have glanced at the book and believe that it is not just poking holes in Darwinism. It attempts to establish a scientific model and makes predictions based on that model. Other than that, I cannot say much. But I believe that it is probably the high point of the work produced by Discovery Institute.

[Patrick]

@Ronald_Cram

Hi Patrick. The truth or falsity of this statement comes down to the question of whether we live in a quantum universe or a classical universe. I believe most physicists and philosophers of physics are coming to the view that we live in a classical universe that has some quantum effects. For example, we can generate electricity using only wave or wind power and there are no quantum effects involved at all. If our universe was strictly a quantum universe, this would not be true.

My earlier statement that the laws of physics rules out certain behaviors from nature holds true.

We certainly live in a universe governed by QM. What you claim to be a classical universe is a superposition of QM effects. All of today’s technology is QM in nature. Cell phones, HDTVs. At every level the rules of QM determines how the systems work. Photosynthesis is a QM process at certain wavelengths of light. Even the network of synapses in your brain is QM based. Try generating electricity with a solar panel without knowledge of QM. Are you keeping up with Quantum computing? We live in a universe where QM is the natural law, not GR, QM.

So you’re earlier statement that the laws of physics rules out certain behaviors from nature is false.

[Ronald_Cram]

Most of the processes you are crediting as QM are better thought of as electromagnetism - one of the four fundamental forces of our classical universe.

However, I won’t try to persuade you further. We shall have to agree to disagree.