Thinking About Falsifiability and Abiogenesis

[Ronald_Cram]

TJ, none of the papers you linked show that any progress at all has been made on the question of how large molecules like DNA or RNA could have come into being through natural processes alone.

One of the papers you linked, published in 2013, begins with this statement:

“Despite more than 50 years of effort, the origin of the genetic code remains enigmatic.”
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.4161/rna.25977

Let me state this as clearly as possible. Nothing has changed since 2013.

[Ronald_Cram]

@swamidass

Your analysis is in mathematical error too. Did you catch the fallacy yet? Tour did immediately.

No, what’s the fallacy? Can you provide a link to Tour’s comment?

[swamidass (S. Joshua Swamidass)]

@Ronald_Cram

Your analysis is in mathematical error too. Did you catch the fallacy yet? Tour did immediately.

No, what’s the fallacy? Can you provide a link to Tour’s comment?

I’m talking about my conversations with him. If you can’t identify it on your own, you have much to catch up on. You are not Jim Tour. Study more, and we’ll engage again when you solve that puzzle.

[Ronald_Cram]

By the way, Shapiro has criticized the RNA World and DNA First models, but researchers from the RNA World have criticized Shapiro’s Metabolism First approach. Here’s one paper that does just that.

http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.591.5098&rep=rep1&type=pdf

[Guy_Coe]

Please excuse me if the post I meant as humorous regarding Jim Tour set the wrong tone; I am, first and foremost, a student of irony, and felt I could identify with his perspective on ID, even if I don’t share it. Mea (maybe) culpa… : )

[T.j_Runyon]

I suggest you keep reading that paper. You just quoted the first line of the abstract (a common tactic among anti-evos) Papers tend to state a problem in the abstract and answer it in the body. As they do here.

[swamidass (S. Joshua Swamidass)]

@Patrick

You put up Shapiro’s Scientific American paper from 2007. It is now 2018. If you are being honest, you would go through Shapiro’s 2007 paper and tell us - a) what has held up and b) what has been done in the past 11 years that has not held up and most importantly c) what results of the past 11 years are leading science in completely different directions.

And @Patrick has a point. This is one way we can tell if someone is merely a polemicist or not.

[Ronald_Cram]

Joshua, this kind of condescension doesn’t help your stated goals for Peaceable Science. Either engage in the conversation or don’t. I’ve provided you for links and information when you have requested. Either do the same for me or don’t pretend that you want to have a conversation.

[Ronald_Cram]

I’ve read the paper and don’t see any real breakthroughs here. What you think the paper proves exactly?

[swamidass (S. Joshua Swamidass)]

@Ronald_Cram

I’ve provided you for links and information when you have requested

Actually, no. I’m still waiting for you to explain how a metaphysical naturalist (like myself and @AJRoberts) can affirm the Resurrection.

I do understand we don’t always get what we want. I’m sure the feeling is mutual.

[T.j_Runyon]

Put simply, every paper I linked to provides compelling evidence that the genetic code formed naturally through chemical interactions. Does it tell us the whole picture? No. But to say this isn’t progress and evidence favoring a natural origin of life is mistaken

[Ronald_Cram]

@T.j_Runyon

Does it tell us the whole picture? No. But to say this isn’t progress and evidence favoring a natural origin of life is mistaken

Okay, so you admit that we don’t know the whole picture. That’s progress.

In Shapiro’s view in 2007, the idea large molecules like DNA or RNA arose naturally was indefensible. Based on the papers you linked, do you think Shapiro has changed his mind?

[swamidass (S. Joshua Swamidass)]

@Ronald_Cram

Okay, so you admit that we don’t know the whole picture. That’s progress.

Are you kidding me? I said that right up front, two weeks ago.

@swamidass

Most every scientist recognizes that origin of life researchers have not solved the problem of how the first life came to be. An appeal to panspermia is really just kicking the can down the road.

Exactly. That is 100% true. That means we do not know how the first life arose. If you feel the need to believe God directly created the first cell, that is certainly reasonable, even though it is unattested to in Scripture (unlike e.g. the de novo creation of Adam). Nothing in science disputes that belief. Science is silent on God’s action. This is one of those mysterious places in origins were maybe God acted.

@Ronald_Cram, we’ve granted right up front that science does not know the whole story. It is not “progress” for @T.j_Runyon to reiterate what I said to you in literally my very first post addressed you. It might be progress that you are finally hearing us in some small way.

[Ronald_Cram]

@swamidass

Are you kidding me? I said that right up front, two weeks ago.

Is Abiogenesis an hypothesis in distress?

I was talking to TJ. I know that you admitted we don’t know everything. I haven’t seen TJ make that concession yet.

[swamidass (S. Joshua Swamidass)]

@Ronald_Cram

I was talking to TJ. I know that you admitted we don’t know everything. I haven’t seen TJ make that concession yet.

Fair enough. Good point.

[T.j_Runyon]

We don’t know the whole story on the origin of life. We don’t know the whole story of it’s evolution. We don’t know the whole story of Big Bang cosmology. We don’t know the whole story of different periods in archaeology. And we probably never will.

[Ronald_Cram]

Okay, fair enough. But you didn’t answer the question so I will ask it again:

In Shapiro’s view in 2007, the idea large molecules like DNA or RNA arose naturally was indefensible. Given the papers you linked, do you think the evidence would have changed Shapiro’s mind?