It is not an argument from probability. As I stated earlier, I am not arguing probabilities and I explained why I am claiming that abiogenesis could not have occurred. Stick to the issue instead of trying to create diversions.
Okay. I am not qualified.
Perhaps YOU can present the ACTUAL probability for its occurrence. This should be interesting.
Whoever said I was qualified? For that matter, whoever said anyone was qualified to evaluate the probability of abiogenesis? It would be like trying to calculate the probability of a Powerball lottery win when you didn't know the rules, except much much harder. So any statement you could make (or grab from someone else) is going to be pretty much based on ignorance. Which begs the question of why intelligent design advocates keep trying to dismiss abiogenesis as improbable or implausible, both of which you've done in this thread.
Which came first; RNA, DNA, or a protein? This is one of the many insurmountable problems.
Why is it an insurmountable problem? Why do you consider this such a show-stopper? If you can't explain why, then it's an opinion and an uninformed one at that.
Is abiogenesis falsifiable? If so, please explain how. Is abiogenesis even based on science or is it mere speculation?
Any good hypothesis is going to be falsifiable, and that includes hypotheses about abiogenesis. You see, the whole point of making a hypothesis is that you're making a specific (and more to the point, isolated) prediction, which you then proceed to test. If the prediction proves false, then you revise it and try again. If it doesn't prove false, you keep testing it to make sure you didn't screw up somewhere. If it's tested sufficiently enough (by you and other people), then you can consider it 'true', at least unless someone comes along and finds a circumstance where it's false.
Since the generation of amino acids from a pre-biotic 'soup' was demonstrated by Miller and Urey back in 1953, and since verified by other experimenters, I would say that abiogenesis is indeed based on science.
There are no known natural laws of chemistry or physics which could originally direct or determine the ordering of the sequence that amino acids assemble in a protein. Neither do amino acids somehow direct the ordering of sequence. So, how did this occur? There are no known natural laws to explain this phenomenon. Thousands of experiments later and still nothing? 'Evolution diddit.'
I think you either misread what I said or misunderstood it, because I don't see how you get from me talking about how chemical reactions don't require instructions and that you're basing your position on an assumption you can't support to what you said just here.
Do you understand that before life came about, there was no reason why proteins would have formed one way compared to another? It was only after the first self-replicating life-forms came about that it would have mattered, because those life-forms would have required specific proteins in order to survive and replicate themselves. That's why the "which came first" question you keep posing simply doesn't matter the way you think it should - because there's no currently reason to assume that life needed DNA to come first, or RNA to come first, or proteins to come first. Whatever the answer ends up being, it'll be worth knowing, but the lack of knowledge doesn't falsify abiogenesis. Only knowledge can do that.
The part I bolded is key here. Your own words concede that the designed things you referenced were designed by an intelligence. The simple fact that some things are not complex, specified, or functional is irrelevant. They were still designed. Designed things do not design themselves.
Correct. But the point is that we need evidence which shows that those things were actually designed, and neither complexity, specificity, nor functionality provide that evidence - because it's possible to design things that are not complex, not specific, and not functional, and because we know of things that are complex, are specific, and are functional that we can show came about due to natural, non-design processes.
Your other examples cite the functionality in one thing, complexity in another, and specific in yet another. Intelligent Design identifies structures and systems that contain all three with no known pathway for the information to have been created.
Do you understand that "no known pathway" does not itself demonstrate design? Lack of knowledge can never demonstrate anything except for that lack of knowledge.
I wasn’t trying to be amusing. I am demonstrating that you are not practicing what you are preaching.
Nope, you were playing word games (the purpose is not relevant), and I find word games in a discussion like this to be a total waste of time. If you have something to say to me, don't try to be cute by modifying my words and then acting like it makes some kind of an argument, because it doesn't and didn't.
I am not trying to argue that abiogenesis is a scientific theory (because it is not; it is a hypothesis and one which we can barely test as yet). You, however, are trying to argue that intelligent design is a theory
, which requires much more in the way of substantiation than a hypothesis. Yet you have consistently failed to provide any such substantiation; all you've done is present a bad argument by Dembski trying to treat observations as predictions and then acting as if that demonstrates intelligent design. And to make matters worse, you've also claimed that you don't need to show evidence of an actual designer, as if simply saying "I can't imagine how this could have come about on its own" serves as sufficient evidence of design for anyone else to take it seriously. And then you act as if I am a hypocrite because I don't claim that abiogenesis is an established scientific theory and thus don't try to hold it up to the same standard as one, unlike you who do make that claim and then fail to meet the standards of a theory.
That is irrelevant. If you can argue that my re-statement of your comments using the substituted words is erroneous, then you are at least offering a refutation. My modified re-statement of your words is either accurate or it isn’t.
Your modified restatement of my words demonstrated your two-faced attitude in this discussion because you showed that despite your claim that intelligent design is a theory, you are actually trying to equate it to abiogenesis, which is not a theory as yet (indeed, the lack of empirical evidence - but notably, nothing that actively falsifies it - is exactly why it's still hypothetical). You do not get to have it both ways; if intelligent design is a theory then you have certain standards to meet to show that it is one (such as showing that it's been supported with repeated testing and experimentation). If it is not a theory, then you shouldn't claim it is. So which is it? Are you going to show that intelligent design is a theory, or are you going to stop claiming that it is one?
What you fail to understand is that there is no possible way to ever know what the variables (ie. atmosphere, temperature, the makeup of the pre-biotic soup, etc) were. A good example of what I am talking about is the Miller-Urey experiment. It was fired upon by many in the scientific community (regardless of worldview) for this very reason and any other similar experiments will likely produce the same level of contentiousness. Trying to find evidence for abiogenesis is not science.
How do you know there's no possible way? Have you tested every possible combination of variables? If you haven't (and I am quite sure you haven't), then saying there's "no possible way" is nothing but an argument from ignorance here. If anything, it shows that you don't really understand how science works despite repeated claims to the contrary. It's true that we don't know the specifics of the variables, but that's not going to stop scientists from trying to figure them out anyway...and thus, your "no possible way" will end up just being another line drawn in the sand, with about as much effect as you'd expect.
What I am hearing from you is that ‘evolution diddit’…..and an ‘evolution-of-the-gaps’ argument.
Trying to turn "Goddidit" and "God-of-the-gaps" around is pointless, because I'm not arguing that evolution is responsible for the origin of life. That makes this statement a strawman, and an ignorant one at that. You need to realize that evolution is not abiogenesis and does not require abiogenesis either, the sooner the better, because it's really tiresome to keep explaining otherwise and have you essentially blow it off because it doesn't suit how you think it should be.
IDT does make predictions, it can be tested, it can be falsified, and it studies nature. It is apparent that no amount of evidence to the contrary will convince you of this. The problem is, you see it as a threat to your personal worldview and you will protect that worldview even if it means being willfully dishonest.
It doesn't make predictions - save a single vague one, that there is a designer - it effectively can't be falsified because it presents no way to find the presumed designer, and while it does study nature, it does so solely to try to pick holes in evolutionary theory. As for the rest of this, haven't you realized yet that I don't find intelligent design threatening in the slightest way? I've never declared that intelligent design is impossible, the way you've done with abiogenesis. I've never declared that there's no possible way there could be a designer, the way you've done with abiogenesis. It wouldn't particularly bother me if we did find actual evidence of an intelligent designer, although I would then expect scientists to try to figure out what they could about it. What bothers me is the way you and your ilk repeatedly try to turn this discussion into one about religious belief/faith - as you've done several times in this thread alone - so that you can pretend that evolutionary theory is some kind of religious belief that you can choose to believe in or not. That's the willful dishonesty here, whether you're willing to admit it or not, and trying to turn it around so you can pretend that people who don't buy into your intelligent design beliefs are the ones who are biased, who are willfully dishonest, who have to have it their way or no way, when in fact you're projecting your own attitudes onto everyone else.
When you can adequately explain how the application of science as respects abiogenesis differs from IDT then you might have a leg to stand on. Your LUCA and your 'first living organism' are as elusive as the God you demand ID to produce.
It's true, we don't have enough information to pick out either of those. We may never have enough. But at least scientists are honestly trying to find that information, unlike you and your ilk, who are perfectly content to believe that a god is the "intelligent designer" and don't see the point in looking for evidence to support that belief, except to look for generic "evidence of design", despite the fact that your criteria for design is sorely lacking in an ability to pick out what's designed and what isn't. In fact, your primary basis for whether it's designed or not is whether it looks designed, which gives no effective way to eliminate false positives and false negatives. Your other criteria - functionality, complexity, and specificity - don't do that either. They're just ways to validate things that you already think are designed; whether something is functional enough, complex enough, and specific enough is purely subjective and not something you can effectively quantify.
Oh. So you had a valid reason for making use of the word “disproven.” Got it.
I can't tell if you're being sarcastic here. You've poisoned the well pretty thoroughly with this misbegotten post of yours.
You must have missed the part about how current molecular evidence suggests that the TTSS evolved from the flagellum.
If you have evidence which shows this, then present it already! This shouldn't be rocket science - if you have access to evidence, present it so that other people can evaluate it. That's the whole purpose of science. Don't just say something and then leave it to other people to look it up for you - that's just lazy.
That being said, I did look it up, and oddly enough, I found one paper
which described the secretory system as having evolved from the flagellum, and another
which describes them as having evolved from a common ancestor. In fact, the evidence suggests that they're related, and these are two hypotheses formulated as attempts to explain how; Miller's is a third, of course, and hasn't been shown to be false either.
More to the point, regardless of which one ends up being correct, they all falsify the idea of the flagellum being irreducibly complex. Whether the secretory system came first, last, or simply diverged, its mere existence amply shows that you don't need all of the proteins that go into the flagellum in order to have a working biological system, and thus it cannot be irreducibly complex as argued by ID advocates.
Well, then I guess either you can refute the molecular evidence or you can provide evidence of a pathway that explains the emergence of complexity from simplicity. If you can do neither then you weren’t impressed because you didn’t understand what you were reading.
I wasn't impressed because your arguments were pretty much the typical ID arguments I've unfortunately come to expect from the ID movement. Little surprise, considering that its goal is not to promote actual science but to try to shoehorn a religious belief into it. As evidenced by you, claiming without evidence that your god is the "intelligent designer".
I am less impressed by this post than I was by your last one. But that's mainly because you demonstrated just how low you're willing to stoop in order to defend your belief.