ElShamah - Reason & Science: Defending ID and the Christian Worldview
Would you like to react to this message? Create an account in a few clicks or log in to continue.
ElShamah - Reason & Science: Defending ID and the Christian Worldview

Welcome to my library—a curated collection of research and original arguments exploring why I believe Christianity, creationism, and Intelligent Design offer the most compelling explanations for our origins. Otangelo Grasso


You are not connected. Please login or register

A Response to "Snake was right"

Go down  Message [Page 1 of 1]

1A Response to "Snake was right"  Empty A Response to "Snake was right" Thu Sep 26, 2024 1:18 pm

Otangelo


Admin

A Response to Taylor  ("Snake was right")  

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tS359qNWAT4

Addressing the Supposed Sherlock Holmes Fallacy and Positive Evidence for Intelligent Design
The Dichotomy of Worldviews: Accounting for Competing Hypotheses in Understanding Reality
The Importance of Considering All Explanations in the Absence of Evidence for Abiogenesis
The Limits of Predictive Power and the Validity of Intelligent Design as a Plausible Hypothesis
The Validity of Intelligent Design in the Face of Naturalistic Assumptions and Abiogenesis
The Flexibility and Complementarity of Eliminative Induction and Intelligent Design in Scientific Inquiry
The Case for Intelligent Design as the Best Explanation for Complex Phenomena
Methodological Naturalism vs. Supernatural Explanations in Historical Sciences
Addressing the Limitations of Methodological Naturalism and the Role of Intelligent Causation
The Role of Mechanism in Intelligent Design
Methodological Naturalism and Historical Sciences
Mechanism and Burden of Proof in Intelligent Design
The Inadequacy of Naturalism in Addressing Origins
Why Would We Not Apply Methodological Naturalism to History?


Addressing the Supposed Sherlock Holmes Fallacy and Positive Evidence for Intelligent Design

Claim: Do you have perfect knowledge, Otangelo? That's what you need to rule out ALL other possibilities, Sherlock Holmes style. Which is why it's only used in fiction, not in science. The problem with the Sherlock Holmes fallacy is that you have essentially admitted you have ZERO evidence FOR your hypothesis, simply evidence AGAINST the other options. This is not a valid method of argumentation.

Response: Interestingly, you simply ignored my response in my previous email. Eliminative induction on its own would be sufficient to rule out naturalism on its own ground. But Creationism/Intelligent Design is also based on POSITIVE evidence, as provided before. See here and here

The Dichotomy of Worldviews: Accounting for Competing Hypotheses in Understanding Reality

Claim: The reason being, you can NEVER account for all competing hypotheses, and you can NEVER be sure you have all the data.

Response:  Either there is a(are) God(s), conscious intelligent mind(s) at the bottom of all reality, or not. The dichotomy is jointly exhaustive: everything must belong to one party or the other, and mutually exclusive: nothing can belong simultaneously to both parts. Only one worldview can be true. If the various worldviews have mutually exclusive truth claims, only one can be true. A true system of thought must be comprehensive of thought and life. It must possess consistency and coherence in its overall claims. But most importantly, the system must correspond to reality, past, present, and future, natural and supernatural. And all major systems of thought contain key truth claims which are contrary to those of all other systems. A worldview must be consistent and explain the evidence, phenomena, and observations in the natural world adequately.
More, see here

The Importance of Considering All Explanations in the Absence of Evidence for Abiogenesis

Claim: I'm not going to litigate big bang and abiogenesis here for a couple reasons, the chief among them is that it won't matter. It doesn't matter if we have zero evidence for abiogenesis. This does not justify a belief that God did it. That's the central issue here. Until we can get you over this deficit in your understanding, there is actually not a lot to talk about.

Response: Head far into the sand like an ostrich, you dismiss a crucial aspect of reasoning: the process of inferring the best explanation based on the evidence (or lack thereof) that we have. The claim that "it doesn’t matter if we have zero evidence for abiogenesis" overlooks a fundamental principle of rational inquiry. When evidence for a particular naturalistic process (such as abiogenesis) is lacking, this doesn’t mean we must blindly stick to a materialistic explanation. Instead, it invites us to consider all plausible explanations, including intelligent causation, especially when the phenomena we observe are consistent with purposeful design. The refusal to even consider alternative hypotheses, such as the existence of a designer, in light of insufficient evidence for naturalistic explanations reveals a commitment not to reason or evidence, but to a philosophical naturalism that excludes the possibility of intelligent design *a priori*. This, in itself, is a bias. The central issue is not a "deficit in understanding" but rather a reluctance to follow the evidence wherever it might lead—whether that be toward a naturalistic explanation, an intelligent cause, or an unknown. While the lack of evidence for abiogenesis doesn't automatically prove God, it should push us toward considering explanations that can account for the intricate, information-rich systems we observe, such as DNA, cellular machinery, and fine-tuned cosmological constants. Inference to the best explanation remains a valid method of reasoning, and intelligent design, grounded in both eliminative induction and abductive reasoning, offers a framework that fills the explanatory gaps left by materialistic approaches.  The point here is not to declare victory for one side but to remain open to all possible explanations, rigorously testing each one against the evidence. Closing off the conversation by stating "it won’t matter" if there’s no evidence for a naturalistic explanation like abiogenesis is not how scientific inquiry should proceed. Instead, we should continue exploring all viable hypotheses and follow the evidence wherever it leads, rather than adhering to a single worldview.

The Limits of Predictive Power and the Validity of Intelligent Design as a Plausible Hypothesis

Claim: Now, why do we use this mechanistic explanation over any other? Because we disproved all other exexplanations?  Oh, not even close. It's because it gives the correct predictive power. It MAY be the case that God moves the electrons and makes the color come out the way he wants. Does this help us predict the results? Absolutely not. You're assuming that because a solution is not CURRENTLY KNOWN. That it's not possible. A simple look at the history of science shows how absurd it is. Oppenheimer, the FATHER OF THE ATOMIC BOMB said that it was IMPOSSIBLE to split the atom, and went on to prove it mathematically. He then invented a bomb based on splitting the atom. He discovered a new explanation that he could not previously eliminate. The person with the MOST expertise in the field had eliminated ALL KNOWN POSSIBILITIES, and the answer that remained was rhat splitting the atom was not possible. And he was wrong.

Response: The claim you’ve presented attempts to draw a parallel between historical scientific breakthroughs, like Oppenheimer's discovery of nuclear fission, and the possibility of future explanations for unresolved phenomena such as the origin of life or the fine-tuning of the universe. However, the analogy has critical flaws, and it misrepresents the distinction between mechanistic explanations and the use of inference to the best explanation.

1. Predictive Power Is Not the Sole Criterion for Truth  
While predictive power is an important feature of scientific theories, it’s not the only one. Theories are also valued for their explanatory scope, coherence with other established knowledge, and ability to account for known phenomena. A mechanistic explanation that offers predictive power but fails to adequately explain the complexity and information content of systems like DNA may not be sufficient, especially if there are other plausible explanations—such as intelligent design—that can account for those features.

2. Misrepresentation of the History of Science  
The reference to Oppenheimer and the atomic bomb is misleading. Oppenheimer didn’t disprove the possibility of splitting the atom. Rather, early theoretical models underestimated the forces involved, but new evidence and breakthroughs in nuclear physics provided the foundation for a new understanding. The process of science often involves revising models based on new data, but this doesn’t mean that every unknown can be explained by future mechanistic discoveries. Oppenheimer's example highlights the progressive nature of science, not the dismissal of alternative hypotheses, including intelligent causation.

3. Intelligent Design and Abductive Reasoning  
The claim assumes that because a mechanistic explanation isn’t currently known, one must eventually be discovered. But this isn’t necessarily the case. Intelligent design uses abductive reasoning, which infers the best explanation based on the evidence we have. For example, when we see complex information processing systems—like the DNA code—it is reasonable to compare this to systems we know arise from intelligence (like computer codes or written languages). Therefore, ID is not simply appealing to a "God of the gaps" but rather positing a cause that is known to produce such effects.

4. The Limits of Mechanistic Explanation  
While mechanistic explanations can explain some aspects of nature, they have not been able to fully account for the origin of life, the information in DNA, or the fine-tuning of the universe. Assuming that every unknown will eventually have a mechanistic explanation—just because it has happened in some cases—amounts to an unsubstantiated form of scientism. The claim ignores the possibility that some phenomena may not be adequately explained by materialistic processes alone, and there is no inherent reason why intelligence should be excluded as a possible cause.

5. Relevance of Oppenheimer’s Example  
The example of Oppenheimer is a red herring in this discussion. While he revised his understanding of atomic physics based on new evidence, the analogy doesn’t hold when applied to questions about the origin of life or the universe's fine-tuning. The complexity and information content seen in biological systems are qualitatively different from simply discovering a new physical mechanism. There is no guarantee that future discoveries will reduce these phenomena to mere physical processes, especially when the evidence points toward design.

6. Inference to the Best Explanation Is Not "Assuming Impossibility"  
The response also falsely assumes that ID is based on saying, "We don't know, therefore it must be God." Inference to the best explanation is not about assuming that a naturalistic explanation is impossible—it’s about weighing the current evidence and asking what kind of cause is sufficient to explain the phenomena. In the case of DNA, molecular machines, and fine-tuning, intelligence is a causally adequate explanation based on what we observe in human-designed systems.
 
Oppenheimer’s shift in understanding did not rely on disproving other explanations; it was grounded in newly discovered evidence about nuclear physics. However, the claim that future science will always uncover a materialistic explanation for everything, just because it has done so in some cases, is an assumption without basis. It is essential to weigh the evidence carefully, and in the case of phenomena like the origin of life, the fine-tuning of the universe, and biological information, intelligent design remains a plausible and scientifically defensible hypothesis, not merely an argument from ignorance.

The Validity of Intelligent Design in the Face of Naturalistic Assumptions and Abiogenesis

Claim: I can deductively PROVE your god is false. Does that provide ANY evidence for abiogeneiss? No, not a shred. I still have to provide POSITIVE evidence FOR it which is why the research is focused on showing mechanisms that work, rather than in publishing philoosphical arguments against God. Now, I assume you believe I cannot prove your god false. I can, but it's irrelevant. IF I could, WOULD that prove abiogenesis? No, it would not, and I assume we agree at least on that point, yes?? 😉 So, you say we should start with evidence. That sounds nice, doesn't it? Everyone believes that's what they're doing. Yet, you don't start with evidence, you start with the Bible. Scientists go with the evidence - we have only ever been able to answer questions about how things work using naturalistic means, and all supernatural explanations have either been falsified or provide no predictive power to discover new data. THAT is the evidence.

Response: The claim presents a series of arguments aiming to separate the validity of abiogenesis research from the question of God's existence while asserting that scientific inquiry relies exclusively on naturalistic explanations. However, there are critical flaws in the reasoning that warrant a detailed refutation.

1. Proving God's Non-Existence Doesn't Advance Abiogenesis  
The claim correctly asserts that even if one could "prove" God to be false, it would not automatically provide evidence for abiogenesis. However, the argument itself is irrelevant to the core discussion. Whether or not a theistic explanation is valid has no bearing on whether abiogenesis is a plausible mechanism. What’s important is that the evidence for abiogenesis must be evaluated on its own merits, independent of philosophical arguments about God’s existence. The claim implicitly suggests that eliminating one explanation (God) strengthens the case for abiogenesis, but this is a false dichotomy. Both explanations should be evaluated based on their explanatory power, not in opposition to one another.

2. Positive Evidence for Abiogenesis Is Still Lacking  
The focus of the argument is to promote research into abiogenesis mechanisms, which is commendable. However, the issue is not the intention behind the research but the fact that, after decades of investigation, no fully naturalistic mechanism has been demonstrated to account for the origin of life. Current hypotheses regarding abiogenesis remain speculative, and while naturalistic scientists are working toward finding mechanisms, the lack of success in providing a robust, empirical model means that the origin of life remains an open question. Meanwhile, intelligent design provides an alternative explanation for the complexity and information observed in biological systems, based on the empirical observation that intelligence is capable of producing such complexity.

3. The Bible Is Not the Starting Point for All Proponents of ID  
The assertion that proponents of intelligent design "start with the Bible" is a strawman. Many advocates of intelligent design, including scientists and philosophers, do not base their views on religious texts but rather on evidence found in nature—such as the complexity of DNA, fine-tuning in the universe, and the existence of irreducible complexity in biological systems. The Bible may be a source of personal belief for some, but the scientific argument for intelligent design is built on empirical observations and abductive reasoning. It is about following the evidence to the best possible explanation, not about forcing conclusions based on scripture.

4. Naturalistic Explanations Have Not Falsified All Supernatural Explanations  
The claim that "all supernatural explanations have either been falsified or provide no predictive power" is both overly broad and inaccurate. First, many supernatural explanations are not falsifiable in the same way that purely materialistic hypotheses are because they deal with non-material causes. Moreover, in fields like cosmology and biology, there are aspects of nature—such as the fine-tuning of physical constants and the complexity of life—that have not been adequately explained by naturalistic means. These phenomena continue to leave open the possibility of intelligent causation. Supernatural explanations, such as intelligent design, are not dismissed because they have been falsified but because of the philosophical commitment to materialism within certain scientific communities.

5. Predictive Power of Naturalism Is Not Absolute  
The claim that "scientists go with the evidence" and have consistently found answers through naturalistic means ignores that many of these explanations are incomplete and rely on philosophical naturalism rather than empirical success. While naturalism has provided explanations for certain phenomena, it has not yet provided a complete or satisfactory explanation for all of them—particularly in the realms of cosmology, the origin of life, and consciousness. The assumption that naturalism will always prevail is a form of scientism, an unwarranted faith in material explanations for all aspects of reality. This is not based on evidence but on philosophical presuppositions.

6. Intelligent Design Does Provide Predictive Power  
Contrary to the claim, intelligent design can and does offer predictive power. For instance, ID predicts that systems exhibiting high levels of specified complexity (such as DNA and molecular machines) are the result of intelligent causation, just as complex information systems in human experience arise from intelligent agents. Additionally, ID has led to discoveries in areas such as “junk” DNA, where it was predicted that non-coding regions of the genome would likely serve functional purposes—this has been confirmed by research. Therefore, ID does offer a framework that can lead to testable hypotheses and new discoveries.
  
The claim attempts to draw a false contrast between science, which supposedly always provides naturalistic answers, and intelligent design, which it claims is based on the Bible and fails to provide predictive power. In reality, intelligent design is grounded in the empirical observation of complexity, information, and fine-tuning in nature. It offers a scientifically plausible alternative to purely materialistic explanations for phenomena that remain unresolved by naturalism, such as abiogenesis. While the debate between naturalism and intelligent design continues, it is important to recognize that dismissing one without properly considering the evidence for the other does not advance our understanding of the natural world.



The Flexibility and Complementarity of Eliminative Induction and Intelligent Design in Scientific Inquiry

Claim:The naturalistic, or scientific method can deal with this problem. We take a process that can reliably predict future results, then we modify that method when a more accurate one comes along. This ensures that errors in data collection are accounted for and unknown-unknowns are still tested for, and the model is open to be added to. If there is an unknown possibility still at work, the naturalistic method is capable of detecting its own gaps, as when it is unable to predict those variables that cause unpredictable variations in the data, we know where the model is incomplete and where more work is needed.  The Sherlock Holmes method CANNOT DO THIS!!!!!!  In fact, it RELIES on this not being a possibility, even though it is.  Makes for great NOVELS, not science.

Response:  The claim attempts to elevate the naturalistic method as superior to other forms of reasoning, such as the Sherlock Holmes "eliminative induction" approach, by arguing that the scientific method is more flexible, self-correcting, and capable of detecting unknowns. However, this argument misunderstands the relationship between different forms of reasoning and misrepresents the limitations of both naturalism and the scientific method itself.

1. The Sherlock Holmes Method: Eliminative Induction Is Not Static  
The so-called "Sherlock Holmes method" refers to eliminative induction, which posits that when all known possibilities are ruled out, the remaining explanation, however improbable, must be true. The claim suggests this method is incapable of adapting to new possibilities, but this is a mischaracterization. Eliminative induction, when applied properly, is a dynamic process that allows for the revision of hypotheses as new data and possibilities emerge. The key is that eliminative induction is based on the principle of logically eliminating flawed explanations, while also remaining open to the discovery of new ones. When new variables or unknowns are encountered, eliminative induction does not stop working—it adjusts, just like the naturalistic method.

For example, in historical sciences, when examining ancient artifacts, eliminative induction can rule out natural processes and infer intelligent causation based on evidence. If future discoveries reveal additional factors (e.g., new tools or techniques), the reasoning adjusts. This method, far from being closed off, remains open to new evidence, much like the scientific method.

2. The Naturalistic Method Has Its Own Limitations  
The claim that the naturalistic method is capable of detecting its own gaps and unknowns, while implying that eliminative induction is not, overlooks the fact that naturalism itself can be limited by its philosophical assumptions. For instance, methodological naturalism *precludes* any consideration of intelligent or supernatural causation a priori, regardless of where the evidence may lead. This bias can blind naturalism to legitimate explanations if those explanations do not fit within its materialistic framework.

Moreover, while the naturalistic method is indeed self-correcting in areas like physics and chemistry, it has struggled to explain certain phenomena in origins science—such as the origin of life, the fine-tuning of the universe, or the emergence of complex information systems like DNA. In such cases, even after repeated failures of naturalistic explanations, the method tends to continue looking for naturalistic answers, even when evidence may point toward intelligence.

3. Inference to the Best Explanation Complements the Scientific Method  
The claim ignores that eliminative induction and inference to the best explanation are complementary to the naturalistic method, not opposed to it. In fact, both eliminative induction and abductive reasoning (used in intelligent design) are tools employed within the scientific method, particularly in historical sciences, forensics, and archaeology. These methods are used to draw conclusions when direct experimentation or observation is not possible, based on the evidence available.

For instance, in archaeology, when determining whether an artifact was the result of human activity or natural processes, eliminative induction can rule out erosion, wind, or other natural forces, leading to the conclusion that the artifact was designed. This approach is also valid in origins science, where intelligent design infers that complex, specified information systems—such as those in DNA—are best explained by intelligence because naturalistic processes fail to account for them.

4. The "Unknown-Unknowns" Argument Is Not Unique to Naturalism  
The claim argues that the naturalistic method is capable of detecting its own gaps, particularly in dealing with unknown variables, whereas eliminative induction cannot. However, the ability to detect unknowns is not exclusive to naturalism. In any scientific or historical investigation, once inconsistencies or gaps in data are identified, this signals to the researcher that the model is incomplete—whether one is using eliminative induction, the naturalistic method, or any other form of reasoning.

In fact, eliminative induction is particularly useful in identifying where unknowns might lie, precisely because it requires careful testing and rejection of known hypotheses. Once naturalistic explanations are exhausted, eliminative induction encourages investigators to look for new hypotheses that might fill those gaps—whether naturalistic or otherwise. Thus, the process is not inherently closed but remains adaptable and open to refinement.

5. Intelligent Causation Is a Legitimate Hypothesis  
The dismissal of intelligent causation as merely "magic" misunderstands the role of intelligent design as a scientifically viable explanation. Unlike vague supernatural claims, intelligent design posits a specific type of cause—intelligence—that we know from experience is capable of producing complex information systems and finely tuned mechanisms. This is not a "just-so" story; it is an inference to the best explanation, based on our knowledge of how intelligent agents produce systems with high levels of specified complexity.

For example, when we see a software program, we do not attribute its origin to random natural processes; we infer that it was designed by an intelligent programmer. Similarly, when we observe the intricate design of biological systems, it is reasonable to infer that intelligence is the cause, particularly when naturalistic mechanisms fail to provide a sufficient explanation.

6. The Usefulness of Intelligent Design in Scientific Progress  
The claim that supernatural theories are "useless" because they don't predict patterns or advance scientific inquiry overlooks the fact that intelligent design has led to testable predictions and discoveries. For instance, ID has predicted that so-called "junk" DNA, initially thought to be useless by evolutionary biologists, would have functional significance. This prediction has been validated by recent research showing that many non-coding regions of DNA play crucial regulatory roles. Additionally, ID has advanced the study of molecular machines by predicting their irreducible complexity, which naturalistic mechanisms have struggled to explain.

Far from being useless, intelligent design provides a coherent framework for exploring the origins of complex systems and making testable predictions about their functionality. It encourages the investigation of systems under the assumption that they are designed for a purpose, leading to fruitful discoveries in genetics, biochemistry, and other fields.
 
The claim that the naturalistic method is inherently superior to eliminative induction or intelligent design misrepresents both the flexibility of eliminative induction and the limitations of naturalism. In many cases, inference to the best explanation—including intelligent causation—provides a more coherent and plausible account of phenomena that naturalistic models struggle to explain. Moreover, eliminative induction and intelligent design are not closed systems; they are adaptive, open to new possibilities, and capable of making testable predictions that advance scientific inquiry. Rather than dismissing them, we should recognize their value in complementing the scientific method, especially in the study of origins and complex systems.

The Case for Intelligent Design as the Best Explanation for Complex Phenomena

Claim: It's the Disregarded middle fallacy  which is a form of the personal incredulity fallacy.

Response: "Incredulous" basically means "I don't believe it". Well, why should someone believe a "just so" story about HOW reality came to exist? The sentiment of incredulity towards the naturalistic origins of life and the universe is a profound perspective, that stems from the perceived improbability of complex biological systems, intricate molecular machinery, and the finely tuned universe spontaneously originating from random processes, devoid of intention and foresight. These concerns echo a profound uncertainty about the naturalistic explanations of reality’s existence, giving rise to questions about the plausibility of scenarios such as abiogenesis and neo-Darwinism. This is underscored by the intricate orchestration within cellular and molecular processes. The bewildering complexity and apparent purposefulness in the biological realm make it challenging to conceive that such systems could emerge by mere chance or through the unguided mechanisms of natural selection and mutations. The vast information contained within DNA and the elaborate molecular machinery within cells necessitate an intelligent source, a purposeful designer who intricately crafted and coordinated these elements. In the merging context with the text about nature not being self-manifesting, this perspective accentuates the conviction that the universe's existence, form, and functionality could not have spontaneously sprung from its own non-existence or chaos. The position stresses the conceptual incoherence of the universe autonomously setting its fine-tuned parameters, orchestrating its order, and birthing life with its labyrinth of molecular complexities and informational systems. The hypothesis of an external, intelligent entity, beyond the boundaries of space and time, emerges as a logical postulation.

Premise 1: If a theory fails to consistently explain observed phenomena and its alternative provides both eliminative and positive evidence, the alternative theory is the best explanation.
Premise 2: Materialism fails to consistently explain the origins of complex phenomena in biology, chemistry, and cosmology, whereas Intelligent Design (ID) provides eliminative and positive evidence for an intelligent cause.
Conclusion: Therefore, Intelligent Design is the best explanation for the origins of complex phenomena in biology, chemistry, and cosmology.

1. High information content (or specified complexity) and irreducible complexity constitute strong indicators or hallmarks of (past) intelligent design.
2. Biological systems have a high information content (or specified complexity) and utilize subsystems that manifest irreducible complexity.
3. Naturalistic mechanisms or undirected causes do not suffice to explain the origin of information (specified complexity) or irreducible complexity.
4. Therefore, intelligent design constitutes the best explanations for the origin of information and irreducible complexity in biological systems. 


The Validity of Eliminative Induction in Scientific Inquiry and Its Misapplication by Arthur Conan Doyle

Claim: Arthur Conan Doyle, the author of Sherlock Holmes, was HIMSELF fooled by Harry Houdini, an illusionist, using the "whatever possibility remains must be true" method. We KNOW the method has massive flaws that CANNOT BE TESTED FOR OR CORRECTED. Conan Doyle was fooled into thinking a doctored image of fairies was real because he could think of no other possibilities, and debunked all the ones he could think of. He thought Houdini was doing real magic because he debunked the possibilities he KNEW of, but didn't know how Houdini was naturalistically doing them, and thus concluded that it was in fact real supernatural magic. He eliminated all the possibilities and was still wrong because he in fact had not eliminated all the possibilities because his knowledge was imperfect.


Response:  To refute the argument against eliminative induction using Arthur Conan Doyle's mistaken conclusions about fairies and Houdini, we must first acknowledge the limitations of Doyle's application of this reasoning method, while also distinguishing eliminative induction as a valid scientific tool when used correctly.

1. Doyle's Application of Eliminative Induction Was Flawed
In the cases of Doyle's belief in fairies and Houdini's supposed supernatural powers, Doyle's errors were not a result of eliminative induction itself, but of the limitations of his knowledge and understanding at the time. He eliminated the possibilities he was aware of but failed to consider that his knowledge was incomplete. Therefore, his conclusions were based on insufficient information and overconfidence in his ability to exhaust all possibilities. This highlights that eliminative induction requires a thorough and accurate knowledge base to be effective. When used in situations where the investigator lacks knowledge or overlooks key variables, the method will naturally be prone to errors. The flaw in Doyle's reasoning was not the method itself, but the false assumption that he had indeed considered all possible explanations.

2. The Importance of Knowledge and Methodological Rigor
In science, eliminative induction works within the framework of continuously expanding knowledge and rigorous testing. Scientists use eliminative induction while remaining open to new possibilities and explanations as knowledge grows. It is not about closing the door to inquiry, but about rejecting explanations that have been empirically tested and found insufficient, while remaining open to refining or revising hypotheses as new information emerges. Doyle's mistakes arose from prematurely closing off possibilities rather than the inherent flaws in the method. In modern scientific practice, hypotheses are constantly tested, refined, and updated, ensuring that eliminative induction operates within a dynamic, self-correcting framework. For instance, in physics, when certain forces or particles are proposed, they are tested, rejected, or confirmed through experimentation, and alternative explanations are always being sought.

3. Distinguishing Between Epistemological Limits and Fallacy
The argument that Doyle’s imperfect application of eliminative induction invalidates the method is a form of the “argument from anecdote” fallacy. Just because Doyle used it incorrectly doesn't mean the method is inherently flawed. We don’t discard a tool because it can be misused; rather, we develop best practices for its proper application. In this case, eliminative induction must be applied with a recognition of the limits of current knowledge, alongside continuous openness to new possibilities and evidence.

4. Correct Application of Eliminative Induction in Intelligent Design
In the context of Intelligent Design (ID), eliminative induction is applied by rigorously testing naturalistic mechanisms against observed phenomena. If materialistic explanations fail to account for specific features of biological complexity after extensive testing, ID considers intelligent causation as a more plausible explanation. However, ID proponents acknowledge that this reasoning must be held tentatively and is subject to revision if new naturalistic explanations emerge.

Doyle’s errors stem from an incomplete application of eliminative induction, not from inherent flaws in the method. When applied rigorously and within a context that recognizes the evolving nature of knowledge, eliminative induction remains a powerful and reliable tool for determining the best explanation for complex phenomena.

Methodological Naturalism vs. Supernatural Explanations in Historical Sciences

Claim: Why would we not apply methodological naturalism to history? What evidence do you have FOR the supernatural?  Evidence against a particular naturalistic explanation is not evidence against ANY natural explanation, just that one particular one, and it certainly is not evidence FOR supernatural.  There were 1001 ways to FAIL at naturalistically powered flight.  Did that do ANYTHING to support supernaturally powered flight as even a possibility? No.  Then they found a way to make airplanes. Naturalistically. We know there are natural forces. We know a lot about what they can do. We can model the results we see in the record, using known natural science. Invoking magic doesn't help, it's JUST a just-so story. It can't model anything in detail, it can't be used to predict the patterns in the record, and it can't be used to progress the sciences. Supernatural theories, EVEN IF TRUE, are USELESS. This is such a critical point. I don't care whether they're true or not (for this particular point.) The point is that they are USELESS.  You NEED to address this, this is CENTRAL to our disagreements, all of them.

Response: The argument presented suggests that methodological naturalism should be applied universally, even to historical events, and that supernatural explanations are inherently useless because they cannot provide predictive power or be used to model natural phenomena. However, this argument is based on several misconceptions about the nature of explanation, the role of inference in historical sciences, and the validity of invoking intelligent causation where naturalistic mechanisms fall short.

1. Methodological Naturalism's Limitations in Historical Sciences 
Methodological naturalism is a useful tool in many scientific inquiries, but it has limitations, particularly in historical sciences. Historical events, especially singular occurrences such as the origin of life or the universe, may not always fit within the framework of natural laws as we currently understand them. When investigating the distant past, especially events that are not repeatable or observable, it’s important to remain open to all possible explanations—both natural and intelligent. Historical sciences like archaeology, for example, often rely on the recognition of intelligent causation (such as human agency in the construction of ancient tools) because such explanations provide the best account of the evidence.

If we rigidly apply methodological naturalism to every historical inquiry, we risk missing the correct explanation. For instance, if an ancient artifact is clearly the product of intelligent design, we wouldn’t dismiss that conclusion just because it doesn’t fit a naturalistic model. The same openness should apply when considering the possibility of intelligent causation in the origins of life or the fine-tuning of the universe.


2. Evidence for the Supernatural: Positive Evidence of Intelligent Design 
The argument claims that there is no evidence for the supernatural and that eliminating a naturalistic explanation does not automatically point to a supernatural cause. However, this overlooks the positive evidence for intelligent causation that we observe in complex systems. The intricate information systems in DNA, the fine-tuning of physical constants, and the integrated complexity of biological machines are all features that, in every other context, are known to arise from intelligent agency. This is not simply a rejection of naturalistic explanations but a positive inference to design based on what we know about how intelligence produces complex, functional systems.

The claim that eliminating one naturalistic explanation doesn’t eliminate all possible natural explanations is true. However, after repeated failures of naturalistic mechanisms to account for specific phenomena, it is reasonable to consider other types of causation. When no known naturalistic process is sufficient to explain phenomena like the origin of life, it is valid to infer that intelligence may be involved, just as we infer intelligence when we find an ancient artifact that cannot be explained by natural forces.


3. Flight and the Limits of the Analogy 
The analogy to flight fails to address the nature of the debate. The fact that humans failed repeatedly before succeeding in creating a naturalistic explanation for powered flight does not imply that every problem can be solved by naturalistic means. Flight is a technological problem that falls within the domain of physical engineering, whereas questions about the origin of life or the fine-tuning of the universe deal with far deeper issues—such as the origin of information, irreducible complexity, and the laws governing the universe. These phenomena are not necessarily solvable by future discoveries in natural science because they involve fundamentally different categories of inquiry—such as the emergence of complex specified information, which we only observe arising from intelligence.

Furthermore, the fact that airplanes are naturalistically powered does not mean that every challenge humanity faces has a naturalistic solution. The origin of life, for instance, involves the creation of complex, functional information systems, and such information-rich systems, in every case we know of, are produced by intelligence.


4. Natural Forces vs. Intelligent Causes 
The argument that we “know there are natural forces” and can model results using known natural science overlooks the possibility that certain patterns in nature may not be explainable by natural forces alone. Just because natural forces exist and we can model them doesn’t mean they are the sole agents capable of producing the effects we observe. For example, the fine-tuning of physical constants, the intricate design of molecular machines, and the information content in DNA all point toward an intelligent cause because these phenomena bear the hallmarks of systems we know are designed by intelligent agents.

Moreover, invoking intelligence (whether supernatural or otherwise) is not a “just-so” story. Intelligence provides an explanatory model for understanding the purposeful arrangement of parts toward a function, which is precisely what we observe in living systems. The accusation that supernatural explanations are "useless" misunderstands the nature of inference to the best explanation. If intelligence is the best explanation for a particular phenomenon, then it is useful because it correctly identifies the cause of the observed effect.


5. The Role of Supernatural Theories in Science 
The argument that supernatural theories are "useless" because they don't provide predictive power or progress science misrepresents the function of explanation in historical and origins sciences. In many cases, the goal is not to predict future phenomena but to provide a coherent and sufficient explanation for what we observe. For example, in archaeology, we don’t use naturalistic processes to predict how ancient tools were made; instead, we infer human intelligence based on the design and function of the tools. Similarly, in biology, we may infer intelligence when we see systems that are irreducibly complex or exhibit specified complexity.

Intelligent design can and does offer predictions and has been fruitful in scientific inquiry. For instance, it predicts that systems thought to be the result of random mutations will turn out to be irreducibly complex, and this has been confirmed in the discovery of molecular machines such as the bacterial flagellum. Additionally, intelligent design has successfully predicted that so-called "junk DNA" would have functional purposes, a prediction that has been validated by research into non-coding regions of the genome.


6. The Usefulness of Supernatural Theories 
The claim that supernatural theories are useless is based on a misunderstanding of their purpose. Supernatural explanations, or more accurately, intelligent causation, are useful when naturalistic explanations fall short and when the evidence points toward design. The usefulness of a theory is not just in its predictive power but in its ability to explain observed phenomena in a coherent and plausible way. The fine-tuning of the universe, the complexity of biological systems, and the origin of information-rich structures like DNA are all areas where naturalistic explanations have struggled, and intelligent design provides a coherent alternative that fits the evidence.

The argument against supernatural explanations is based on the assumption that naturalism is the only valid approach to science. However, this assumption is not warranted. In cases where naturalistic explanations fail to account for observed phenomena—such as the origin of life or the fine-tuning of the universe—it is reasonable to consider alternative explanations, including intelligent design. Far from being useless, these explanations provide a coherent framework for understanding the complexity and order we see in the natural world. Supernatural explanations, especially those involving intelligence, are not mere placeholders but grounded in evidence and the recognition that intelligence is the only known cause capable of producing specified, functional complexity.


Addressing the Limitations of Methodological Naturalism and the Role of Intelligent Causation

Claim: Why would we not apply methodological naturalism to history? What evidence do you have FOR the supernatural?  Evidence against a particular naturalistic explanation is not evidence against ANY natural explanation, just that one particular one, and it certainly is not evidence FOR supernatural.  There were 1001 ways to FAIL at naturalistically powered flight.  Did that do ANYTHING to support supernaturally powered flight as even a possibility? No.  Then they found a way to make airplanes. Naturalistically. We know there are natural forces. We know a lot about what they can do. We can model the results we see in the record, using known natural science. Invoking magic doesn't help, it's JUST a just-so story. It can't model anything in detail, it can't be used to predict the patterns in the record, and it can't be used to progress the sciences. Supernatural theories, EVEN IF TRUE, are USELESS. This is such a critical point. I don't care whether they're true or not (for this particular point.) The point is that they are USELESS.  You NEED to address this, this is CENTRAL to our disagreements, all of them.

Response: The argument presented suggests that methodological naturalism should be applied universally, even to historical events, and that supernatural explanations are inherently useless because they cannot provide predictive power or be used to model natural phenomena. However, this argument is based on several misconceptions about the nature of explanation, the role of inference in historical sciences, and the validity of invoking intelligent causation where naturalistic mechanisms fall short.

1. Methodological Naturalism's Limitations in Historical Sciences  
Methodological naturalism is a useful tool in many scientific inquiries, but it has limitations, particularly in historical sciences. Historical events, especially singular occurrences such as the origin of life or the universe, may not always fit within the framework of natural laws as we currently understand them. When investigating the distant past, especially events that are not repeatable or observable, it’s important to remain open to all possible explanations—both natural and intelligent. Historical sciences like archaeology, for example, often rely on the recognition of intelligent causation (such as human agency in the construction of ancient tools) because such explanations provide the best account of the evidence.

If we rigidly apply methodological naturalism to every historical inquiry, we risk missing the correct explanation. For instance, if an ancient artifact is clearly the product of intelligent design, we wouldn’t dismiss that conclusion just because it doesn’t fit a naturalistic model. The same openness should apply when considering the possibility of intelligent causation in the origins of life or the fine-tuning of the universe.

2. Evidence for the Supernatural: Positive Evidence of Intelligent Design  
The argument claims that there is no evidence for the supernatural and that eliminating a naturalistic explanation does not automatically point to a supernatural cause. However, this overlooks the positive evidence for intelligent causation that we observe in complex systems. The intricate information systems in DNA, the fine-tuning of physical constants, and the integrated complexity of biological machines are all features that, in every other context, are known to arise from intelligent agency. This is not simply a rejection of naturalistic explanations but a positive inference to design based on what we know about how intelligence produces complex, functional systems.

The claim that eliminating one naturalistic explanation doesn’t eliminate all possible natural explanations is true. However, after repeated failures of naturalistic mechanisms to account for specific phenomena, it is reasonable to consider other types of causation. When no known naturalistic process is sufficient to explain phenomena like the origin of life, it is valid to infer that intelligence may be involved, just as we infer intelligence when we find an ancient artifact that cannot be explained by natural forces.

3. Flight and the Limits of the Analogy  
The analogy to flight fails to address the nature of the debate. The fact that humans failed repeatedly before succeeding in creating a naturalistic explanation for powered flight does not imply that every problem can be solved by naturalistic means. Flight is a technological problem that falls within the domain of physical engineering, whereas questions about the origin of life or the fine-tuning of the universe deal with far deeper issues—such as the origin of information, irreducible complexity, and the laws governing the universe. These phenomena are not necessarily solvable by future discoveries in natural science because they involve fundamentally different categories of inquiry—such as the emergence of complex specified information, which we only observe arising from intelligence.

Furthermore, the fact that airplanes are naturalistically powered does not mean that every challenge humanity faces has a naturalistic solution. The origin of life, for instance, involves the creation of complex, functional information systems, and such information-rich systems, in every case we know of, are produced by intelligence.

4. Natural Forces vs. Intelligent Causes  
The argument that we “know there are natural forces” and can model results using known natural science overlooks the possibility that certain patterns in nature may not be explainable by natural forces alone. Just because natural forces exist and we can model them doesn’t mean they are the sole agents capable of producing the effects we observe. For example, the fine-tuning of physical constants, the intricate design of molecular machines, and the information content in DNA all point toward an intelligent cause because these phenomena bear the hallmarks of systems we know are designed by intelligent agents.

Moreover, invoking intelligence (whether supernatural or otherwise) is not a “just-so” story. Intelligence provides an explanatory model for understanding the purposeful arrangement of parts toward a function, which is precisely what we observe in living systems. The accusation that supernatural explanations are "useless" misunderstands the nature of inference to the best explanation. If intelligence is the best explanation for a particular phenomenon, then it is useful because it correctly identifies the cause of the observed effect.

5. The Role of Supernatural Theories in Science  
The argument that supernatural theories are "useless" because they don't provide predictive power or progress science misrepresents the function of explanation in historical and origins sciences. In many cases, the goal is not to predict future phenomena but to provide a coherent and sufficient explanation for what we observe. For example, in archaeology, we don’t use naturalistic processes to predict how ancient tools were made; instead, we infer human intelligence based on the design and function of the tools. Similarly, in biology, we may infer intelligence when we see systems that are irreducibly complex or exhibit specified complexity.

Intelligent design can and does offer predictions and has been fruitful in scientific inquiry. For instance, it predicts that systems thought to be the result of random mutations will turn out to be irreducibly complex, and this has been confirmed in the discovery of molecular machines such as the bacterial flagellum. Additionally, intelligent design has successfully predicted that so-called "junk DNA" would have functional purposes, a prediction that has been validated by research into non-coding regions of the genome.

6. The Usefulness of Supernatural Theories  
The claim that supernatural theories are useless is based on a misunderstanding of their purpose. Supernatural explanations, or more accurately, intelligent causation, are useful when naturalistic explanations fall short and when the evidence points toward design. The usefulness of a theory is not just in its predictive power but in its ability to explain observed phenomena in a coherent and plausible way. The fine-tuning of the universe, the complexity of biological systems, and the origin of information-rich structures like DNA are all areas where naturalistic explanations have struggled, and intelligent design provides a coherent alternative that fits the evidence.
 
The argument against supernatural explanations is based on the assumption that naturalism is the only valid approach to science. However, this assumption is not warranted. In cases where naturalistic explanations fail to account for observed phenomena—such as the origin of life or the fine-tuning of the universe—it is reasonable to consider alternative explanations, including intelligent design. Far from being useless, these explanations provide a coherent framework for understanding the complexity and order we see in the natural world. Supernatural explanations, especially those involving intelligence, are not mere placeholders but grounded in evidence and the recognition that intelligence is the only known cause capable of producing specified, functional complexity.



Last edited by Otangelo on Thu Sep 26, 2024 3:05 pm; edited 11 times in total

https://reasonandscience.catsboard.com

2A Response to "Snake was right"  Empty Re: A Response to "Snake was right" Thu Sep 26, 2024 1:38 pm

Otangelo


Admin

The Role of Mechanism in Intelligent Design

Claim: No, we do not know that intelligence is capable of creating reality itself, by experience or otherwise. Do you mean intelligence is capable of assembling materials in certain functional orders? Okay, provide a mechanism for how God does it. Did God assemble life whole? Or did he react molecules piece by piece, as if a chemist would? Did he use existing matter, or did he just poof it into existence? By what power did he do it? See, your hypothesis ACTUALLY SAYS NOTHING. You SIMPLY say "it happened." There is NOTHING ELSE to it other that a just-so claim that it JUST IS the case that God did it, just-so. No explanation of HOW, which is why it's USELESS as an explanation at all! No, I will NOT be falsifying a single one of your hypotheses for intelligent design because you STILL do not understand the burden of proof!!!! I WILL take a look at falsifying them once you accept and understand that just because the hypothesis exists, that does NOT give validity to it! I don't have a burden to falsify them, YOU have the burden

to verify them!!!!!!!!!! THIS. IS. FUN.DA.MENTAL. We CANNOT have a meaningful or detailed conversation until you understand this!!!


Response: The claim argues that intelligent design (ID), or invoking God as an explanation for life and reality, offers no meaningful explanatory power because it supposedly provides no mechanism, no details about "how" God did it, and relies on a "just-so" explanation. However, this argument misrepresents the nature of intelligent design and the principles of explanation in both science and philosophy. Let’s address the core issues raised here.

1. The Role of Mechanism in Scientific Explanations 
The demand for a specific mechanism—“how” God created life or the universe—misunderstands the nature of many valid scientific and historical explanations. Not all valid explanations require a complete understanding of mechanisms to be scientifically legitimate. For example, when we discover ancient artifacts, we may not know precisely how early humans fashioned a particular tool, but we can still confidently infer intelligent causation based on the features of the artifact (such as functional complexity and purposeful design). Similarly, in cosmology, we might recognize certain cosmological constants as fine-tuned without fully understanding the mechanism behind their origin.

In the case of intelligent design, we infer intelligence because the patterns we observe (such as complex specified information in DNA or irreducibly complex molecular machines) are consistent with the kinds of systems that, in every other instance we know of, arise from intelligence. This inference is grounded in experience, just as we infer the existence of an engineer behind complex software or machinery, even if we do not know the exact step-by-step process the engineer used to build it.


2. Intelligent Design Provides Positive Evidence, Not a “Just-So” Story 
The claim that ID is a “just-so” story—that it simply asserts “God did it” without providing any details—misrepresents how the theory works. ID is based on abductive reasoning, or inference to the best explanation, which is a standard form of reasoning in many scientific disciplines. When we observe systems that exhibit high levels of specified complexity or irreducible complexity (like molecular machines in cells), we infer design because these features, in all other known contexts, are the product of intelligence.

ID doesn’t just say "God did it" in a vacuum. It draws on the observation that intelligence is the only known cause capable of producing such complex, functionally integrated systems. In other words, we infer intelligence because that is the best explanation for the evidence, not because of an arbitrary belief in supernatural intervention. ID remains open to empirical evidence, and in many cases, it has made successful predictions, such as the functionality of so-called "junk DNA" or the presence of irreducible complexity in biological systems.


3. Mechanisms in Intelligent Design vs. Naturalism 
The claim asks for a detailed mechanism by which God created life, but this demand overlooks a critical point: many scientific explanations, including those in evolutionary biology and cosmology, also lack complete mechanistic explanations. For instance, the precise mechanisms by which life arose from non-living matter (abiogenesis) remain speculative. The inability to fully explain a mechanism does not invalidate the broader inference that intelligence is responsible for the complexity we observe.

Additionally, the mechanism by which intelligence creates complex systems is observable in human endeavors. Engineers, designers, and programmers routinely create information-rich, functional systems. The exact *how* behind these human processes (step-by-step) may not always be fully detailed in every case, but we nonetheless attribute the systems to intelligent agents because of the nature of the outcome—purposeful, integrated design.

Intelligent design does not need to explain every mechanistic detail about how intelligence produced life, any more than a physicist needs to explain every detail about how the Big Bang occurred to assert its validity. What ID does is recognize intelligence as the most plausible cause based on what we observe in nature.


4. The Burden of Proof in Hypothesis Evaluation 
The claim that ID proponents must “prove” their hypothesis before it is worthy of consideration misinterprets the nature of scientific inquiry. In science, hypotheses are not required to be "proven" before being considered valid or worthy of investigation. Instead, hypotheses are evaluated based on their explanatory power, coherence with existing data, and ability to make testable predictions. ID has already provided positive evidence (such as the detection of complex specified information and irreducibly complex systems), which is sufficient to warrant its consideration as a plausible explanation.

Moreover, in the scientific community, the burden of proof is a shared process. Both sides—the proponents of intelligent design and the proponents of naturalistic mechanisms—must present evidence for their respective positions. ID is not dismissed because it lacks predictive power; in fact, it has led to testable predictions and successful findings, such as the discovery of functions in non-coding regions of DNA.


5. The Uselessness Argument Is a Red Herring 
The claim that ID is “useless” as an explanation misrepresents what counts as a useful scientific explanation. An explanation is considered useful if it can account for the data, provide a coherent framework for understanding, and potentially lead to new discoveries. ID has done precisely this. By treating biological systems as if they are designed, ID has led researchers to investigate functions in previously dismissed areas of biology (such as "junk DNA"), resulting in new discoveries.

Additionally, the idea that naturalistic explanations are inherently more useful ignores the fact that many naturalistic explanations are incomplete or speculative. For example, the origin of life (abiogenesis) remains an unsolved problem in naturalistic science, despite decades of research. ID, by contrast, offers a coherent explanation for the origin of biological complexity and information, which aligns with what we know about the causal powers of intelligence.


Conclusion 
The argument against intelligent design relies on a misunderstanding of what constitutes a valid scientific explanation. ID does not offer a vague “just-so” story but instead provides a positive inference based on empirical evidence of complex specified information and irreducible complexity—patterns that, in every other known case, arise from intelligence. While the exact mechanism by which intelligence created life may not be fully detailed, this is not a requirement for a hypothesis to be considered valid or worthy of investigation. ID offers testable predictions, leads to new discoveries, and provides a robust framework for understanding the origin of life and the complexity of biological systems. Far from being useless, it remains a scientifically plausible alternative to purely materialistic explanations.




Methodological Naturalism and Historical Sciences

Claim: Why would we not apply methodological naturalism to history? What evidence do you have FOR the supernatural?  Evidence against a particular naturalistic explanation is not evidence against ANY natural explanation, just that one particular one, and it certainly is not evidence FOR supernatural.  There were 1001 ways to FAIL at naturalistically powered flight.  Did that do ANYTHING to support supernaturally powered flight as even a possibility? No.  Then they found a way to make airplanes. Naturalistically. We know there are natural forces. We know a lot about what they can do. We can model the results we see in the record, using known natural science. Invoking magic doesn't help, it's JUST a just-so story. It can't model anything in detail, it can't be used to predict the patterns in the record, and it can't be used to progress the sciences. Supernatural theories, EVEN IF TRUE, are USELESS. This is such a critical point. I don't care whether they're true or not (for this particular point.) The point is that they are USELESS.  You NEED to address this, this is CENTRAL to our disagreements, all of them.

Response: The argument presented suggests that methodological naturalism should be applied universally, even to historical events, and that supernatural explanations are inherently useless because they cannot provide predictive power or be used to model natural phenomena. However, this argument is based on several misconceptions about the nature of explanation, the role of inference in historical sciences, and the validity of invoking intelligent causation where naturalistic mechanisms fall short.

1. Methodological Naturalism's Limitations in Historical Sciences 
Methodological naturalism is a useful tool in many scientific inquiries, but it has limitations, particularly in historical sciences. Historical events, especially singular occurrences such as the origin of life or the universe, may not always fit within the framework of natural laws as we currently understand them. When investigating the distant past, especially events that are not repeatable or observable, it’s important to remain open to all possible explanations—both natural and intelligent. Historical sciences like archaeology, for example, often rely on the recognition of intelligent causation (such as human agency in the construction of ancient tools) because such explanations provide the best account of the evidence.

If we rigidly apply methodological naturalism to every historical inquiry, we risk missing the correct explanation. For instance, if an ancient artifact is clearly the product of intelligent design, we wouldn’t dismiss that conclusion just because it doesn’t fit a naturalistic model. The same openness should apply when considering the possibility of intelligent causation in the origins of life or the fine-tuning of the universe.


2. Evidence for the Supernatural: Positive Evidence of Intelligent Design 
The argument claims that there is no evidence for the supernatural and that eliminating a naturalistic explanation does not automatically point to a supernatural cause. However, this overlooks the positive evidence for intelligent causation that we observe in complex systems. The intricate information systems in DNA, the fine-tuning of physical constants, and the integrated complexity of biological machines are all features that, in every other context, are known to arise from intelligent agency. This is not simply a rejection of naturalistic explanations but a positive inference to design based on what we know about how intelligence produces complex, functional systems.

The claim that eliminating one naturalistic explanation doesn’t eliminate all possible natural explanations is true. However, after repeated failures of naturalistic mechanisms to account for specific phenomena, it is reasonable to consider other types of causation. When no known naturalistic process is sufficient to explain phenomena like the origin of life, it is valid to infer that intelligence may be involved, just as we infer intelligence when we find an ancient artifact that cannot be explained by natural forces.


3. Flight and the Limits of the Analogy 
The analogy to flight fails to address the nature of the debate. The fact that humans failed repeatedly before succeeding in creating a naturalistic explanation for powered flight does not imply that every problem can be solved by naturalistic means. Flight is a technological problem that falls within the domain of physical engineering, whereas questions about the origin of life or the fine-tuning of the universe deal with far deeper issues—such as the origin of information, irreducible complexity, and the laws governing the universe. These phenomena are not necessarily solvable by future discoveries in natural science because they involve fundamentally different categories of inquiry—such as the emergence of complex specified information, which we only observe arising from intelligence.

Furthermore, the fact that airplanes are naturalistically powered does not mean that every challenge humanity faces has a naturalistic solution. The origin of life, for instance, involves the creation of complex, functional information systems, and such information-rich systems, in every case we know of, are produced by intelligence.


4. Natural Forces vs. Intelligent Causes 
The argument that we “know there are natural forces” and can model results using known natural science overlooks the possibility that certain patterns in nature may not be explainable by natural forces alone. Just because natural forces exist and we can model them doesn’t mean they are the sole agents capable of producing the effects we observe. For example, the fine-tuning of physical constants, the intricate design of molecular machines, and the information content in DNA all point toward an intelligent cause because these phenomena bear the hallmarks of systems we know are designed by intelligent agents.

Moreover, invoking intelligence (whether supernatural or otherwise) is not a “just-so” story. Intelligence provides an explanatory model for understanding the purposeful arrangement of parts toward a function, which is precisely what we observe in living systems. The accusation that supernatural explanations are "useless" misunderstands the nature of inference to the best explanation. If intelligence is the best explanation for a particular phenomenon, then it is useful because it correctly identifies the cause of the observed effect.


5. The Role of Supernatural Theories in Science 
The argument that supernatural theories are "useless" because they don't provide predictive power or progress science misrepresents the function of explanation in historical and origins sciences. In many cases, the goal is not to predict future phenomena but to provide a coherent and sufficient explanation for what we observe. For example, in archaeology, we don’t use naturalistic processes to predict how ancient tools were made; instead, we infer human intelligence based on the design and function of the tools. Similarly, in biology, we may infer intelligence when we see systems that are irreducibly complex or exhibit specified complexity.

Intelligent design can and does offer predictions and has been fruitful in scientific inquiry. For instance, it predicts that systems thought to be the result of random mutations will turn out to be irreducibly complex, and this has been confirmed in the discovery of molecular machines such as the bacterial flagellum. Additionally, intelligent design has successfully predicted that so-called "junk DNA" would have functional purposes, a prediction that has been validated by research into non-coding regions of the genome.


6. The Usefulness of Supernatural Theories 
The claim that supernatural theories are useless is based on a misunderstanding of their purpose. Supernatural explanations, or more accurately, intelligent causation, are useful when naturalistic explanations fall short and when the evidence points toward design. The usefulness of a theory is not just in its predictive power but in its ability to explain observed phenomena in a coherent and plausible way. The fine-tuning of the universe, the complexity of biological systems, and the origin of information-rich structures like DNA are all areas where naturalistic explanations have struggled, and intelligent design provides a coherent alternative that fits the evidence.

The argument against supernatural explanations is based on the assumption that naturalism is the only valid approach to science. However, this assumption is not warranted. In cases where naturalistic explanations fail to account for observed phenomena—such as the origin of life or the fine-tuning of the universe—it is reasonable to consider alternative explanations, including intelligent design. Far from being useless, these explanations provide a coherent framework for understanding the complexity and order we see in the natural world. Supernatural explanations, especially those involving intelligence, are not mere placeholders but grounded in evidence and the recognition that intelligence is the only known cause capable of producing specified, functional complexity.


Mechanism and Burden of Proof in Intelligent Design

Claim: No, we do not know that intelligence is capable of creating reality itself, by experience or otherwise. Do you mean intelligence is capable of assembling materials in certain functional orders? Okay, provide a mechanism for how God does it. Did God assemble life whole? Or did he react molecules piece by piece, as if a chemist would? Did he use existing matter, or did he just poof it into existence? By what power did he do it? See, your hypothesis ACTUALLY SAYS NOTHING. You SIMPLY say "it happened." There is NOTHING ELSE to it other that a just-so claim that it JUST IS the case that God did it, just-so. No explanation of HOW, which is why it's USELESS as an explanation at all! No, I will NOT be falsifying a single one of your hypotheses for intelligent design because you STILL do not understand the burden of proof!!!! I WILL take a look at falsifying them once you accept and understand that just because the hypothesis exists, that does NOT give validity to it! I don't have a burden to falsify them, YOU have the burden to verify them!!!!!!!!!! THIS. IS. FUN.DA.MENTAL. We CANNOT have a meaningful or detailed conversation until you understand this!!!

Response: The claim argues that intelligent design (ID), or invoking God as an explanation for life and reality, offers no meaningful explanatory power because it supposedly provides no mechanism, no details about "how" God did it, and relies on a "just-so" explanation. However, this argument misrepresents the nature of intelligent design and the principles of explanation in both science and philosophy. Let’s address the core issues raised here.

1. The Role of Mechanism in Scientific Explanations  
The demand for a specific mechanism—“how” God created life or the universe—misunderstands the nature of many valid scientific and historical explanations. Not all valid explanations require a complete understanding of mechanisms to be scientifically legitimate. For example, when we discover ancient artifacts, we may not know precisely how early humans fashioned a particular tool, but we can still confidently infer intelligent causation based on the features of the artifact (such as functional complexity and purposeful design). Similarly, in cosmology, we might recognize certain cosmological constants as fine-tuned without fully understanding the mechanism behind their origin.

In the case of intelligent design, we infer intelligence because the patterns we observe (such as complex specified information in DNA or irreducibly complex molecular machines) are consistent with the kinds of systems that, in every other instance we know of, arise from intelligence. This inference is grounded in experience, just as we infer the existence of an engineer behind complex software or machinery, even if we do not know the exact step-by-step process the engineer used to build it.


2. Intelligent Design Provides Positive Evidence, Not a “Just-So” Story  
The claim that ID is a “just-so” story—that it simply asserts “God did it” without providing any details—misrepresents how the theory works. ID is based on abductive reasoning, or inference to the best explanation, which is a standard form of reasoning in many scientific disciplines. When we observe systems that exhibit high levels of specified complexity or irreducible complexity (like molecular machines in cells), we infer design because these features, in all other known contexts, are the product of intelligence.

ID doesn’t just say "God did it" in a vacuum. It draws on the observation that intelligence is the only known cause capable of producing such complex, functionally integrated systems. In other words, we infer intelligence because that is the best explanation for the evidence, not because of an arbitrary belief in supernatural intervention. ID remains open to empirical evidence, and in many cases, it has made successful predictions, such as the functionality of so-called "junk DNA" or the presence of irreducible complexity in biological systems.


3. Mechanisms in Intelligent Design vs. Naturalism  
The claim asks for a detailed mechanism by which God created life, but this demand overlooks a critical point: many scientific explanations, including those in evolutionary biology and cosmology, also lack complete mechanistic explanations. For instance, the precise mechanisms by which life arose from non-living matter (abiogenesis) remain speculative. The inability to fully explain a mechanism does not invalidate the broader inference that intelligence is responsible for the complexity we observe.

Additionally, the mechanism by which intelligence creates complex systems is observable in human endeavors. Engineers, designers, and programmers routinely create information-rich, functional systems. The exact *how* behind these human processes (step-by-step) may not always be fully detailed in every case, but we nonetheless attribute the systems to intelligent agents because of the nature of the outcome—purposeful, integrated design.

Intelligent design does not need to explain every mechanistic detail about how intelligence produced life, any more than a physicist needs to explain every detail about how the Big Bang occurred to assert its validity. What ID does is recognize intelligence as the most plausible cause based on what we observe in nature.


4. The Burden of Proof in Hypothesis Evaluation  
The claim that ID proponents must “prove” their hypothesis before it is worthy of consideration misinterprets the nature of scientific inquiry. In science, hypotheses are not required to be "proven" before being considered valid or worthy of investigation. Instead, hypotheses are evaluated based on their explanatory power, coherence with existing data, and ability to make testable predictions. ID has already provided positive evidence (such as the detection of complex specified information and irreducibly complex systems), which is sufficient to warrant its consideration as a plausible explanation.

Moreover, in the scientific community, the burden of proof is a shared process. Both sides—the proponents of intelligent design and the proponents of naturalistic mechanisms—must present evidence for their respective positions. ID is not dismissed because it lacks predictive power; in fact, it has led to testable predictions and successful findings, such as the discovery of functions in non-coding regions of DNA.


5. The Uselessness Argument Is a Red Herring  
The claim that ID is “useless” as an explanation misrepresents what counts as a useful scientific explanation. An explanation is considered useful if it can account for the data, provide a coherent framework for understanding, and potentially lead to new discoveries. ID has done precisely this. By treating biological systems as if they are designed, ID has led researchers to investigate functions in previously dismissed areas of biology (such as "junk DNA"), resulting in new discoveries.

Additionally, the idea that naturalistic explanations are inherently more useful ignores the fact that many naturalistic explanations are incomplete or speculative. For example, the origin of life (abiogenesis) remains an unsolved problem in naturalistic science, despite decades of research. ID, by contrast, offers a coherent explanation for the origin of biological complexity and information, which aligns with what we know about the causal powers of intelligence.


Conclusion: The argument against intelligent design relies on a misunderstanding of what constitutes a valid scientific explanation. ID does not offer a vague “just-so” story but instead provides a positive inference based on empirical evidence of complex specified information and irreducible complexity—patterns that, in every other known case, arise from intelligence. While the exact mechanism by which intelligence created life may not be fully detailed, this is not a requirement for a hypothesis to be considered valid or worthy of investigation. ID offers testable predictions, leads to new discoveries, and provides a robust framework for understanding the origin of life and the complexity of biological systems. Far from being useless, it remains a scientifically plausible alternative to purely materialistic explanations.




The Inadequacy of Naturalism in Addressing Origins

Claim: And I will ask you AGAIN, since you seem to have missed the point.... WHAT EXACTLY IS THE INADEQUACY of naturalism? Is it that naturalism has NOT YET explained every major question? SHOULD we expect ANY science to have been fully explored at this point in human history?? These are not rhetorical questions! It seems like you simply think that if science doesn't know something RIGHT NOW, CURRENTLY, that it never will and makes that inadequate. If that's NOT the case, please describe IN DETAILED CRITERIA what makes naturalism inadequate IN PRINCIPLE. I gave the principle as to why the Sherlock Holmes method and supernaturalism are not adequate: they cannot account for the unknown unknowns, they assume they don't exist, and they provide no explanatory power whatsoever, ever, not even once, ever. Please, provide some similar set for naturalism. Please!

The argument questions whether naturalism is truly inadequate, suggesting that naturalism should not be dismissed simply because it hasn't yet answered every major question. It implies that rejecting naturalism due to current gaps in knowledge is premature and that supernatural or intelligent design explanations are inadequate because they allegedly cannot account for "unknown unknowns" or provide explanatory power. This line of reasoning requires a detailed response to clarify why intelligent design and supernatural explanations are valid alternatives and why naturalism may indeed be inadequate in principle, not just in practice.

Response: 1. Inadequacy of Naturalism in Principle: The Limits of Materialistic Explanations  
The inadequacy of naturalism is not just about its current gaps in knowledge but rather about its limitations in principle. Naturalism, by definition, restricts its explanations to purely material and natural processes. This exclusion of non-material explanations means that it may not be equipped to explain phenomena that transcend or are fundamentally different from physical processes, such as consciousness, the origin of life, or the fine-tuning of the universe. These issues are not just temporary gaps waiting for further exploration; they reflect deep, philosophical challenges that naturalism may never be able to overcome because of its inherent limitations.

Naturalism assumes that all phenomena must have material causes and that non-material explanations—such as intelligence—are ruled out a priori. This dogmatic approach is inadequate when the phenomena being studied, such as the complexity of biological systems, seem to require a cause that goes beyond physical processes. The origin of complex specified information (such as that found in DNA) and the fine-tuning of physical constants are examples where naturalism struggles to provide any plausible account, because these are not reducible to simple material interactions.

Naturalism also operates under the assumption that everything can be reduced to physical laws and chance. However, phenomena like irreducible complexity in biological systems, where all parts must function together for the system to work, challenge this reductionist view. Naturalism, in principle, lacks the tools to account for these kinds of systems, which exhibit characteristics we only know intelligence to produce.


2. Misunderstanding of Unknown Unknowns and Explanatory Power  
The claim suggests that supernatural or intelligent design explanations are inadequate because they supposedly cannot account for "unknown unknowns" and assume that such unknowns do not exist. This is a misunderstanding of both eliminative induction and intelligent design. Both methods remain open to new evidence and unknown factors, but they recognize that there are limits to what materialistic explanations can provide, especially in cases where intelligence is a more plausible explanation based on the available evidence.

Intelligent design does not assume that "unknown unknowns" don't exist. Rather, it evaluates the evidence at hand and makes an inference to the best explanation. When we observe complex systems that show signs of design—such as specified complexity or irreducible complexity—we infer intelligence because we know from experience that these kinds of systems are the product of intelligent causes. This is not an argument from ignorance; it is an argument from knowledge. If new evidence emerges, intelligent design, like any scientific hypothesis, can be revised.

The argument also claims that intelligent design provides "no explanatory power," but this is simply not the case. Intelligent design offers a coherent explanation for why certain systems exhibit the hallmarks of design. For instance, the genetic code functions like a language or a computer program, which are systems we know to arise from intelligence. The explanatory power comes from the fact that intelligent design provides a framework for understanding why these features exist and how they came to be.


3. Naturalism’s Inability to Address Key Questions  
There are certain questions that naturalism has consistently failed to answer, and these failures are not due to a lack of time or resources, but because they touch on areas where material explanations seem fundamentally inadequate:

The Origin of Life: After decades of research, naturalistic explanations for how life could arise from non-living matter (abiogenesis) remain speculative. The complexity and information content in even the simplest living cells have no known naturalistic explanation, and every attempt to simulate abiogenesis in the lab has fallen short. The emergence of life requires the origin of information, which is fundamentally different from the mere arrangement of matter.

Consciousness: Naturalism struggles to explain consciousness and subjective experience. Attempts to reduce consciousness to brain processes fail to account for why we experience subjective awareness, not just how neurons fire. This points to an inadequacy in naturalism's ability to explain non-material phenomena.

The Fine-Tuning of the Universe: The precise values of physical constants that allow for life are so improbably fine-tuned that naturalistic explanations—such as the multiverse hypothesis—seem speculative and ad hoc. The fine-tuning problem challenges naturalism because it suggests that these constants are set deliberately rather than by chance.

These issues demonstrate naturalism's inadequacy in providing a comprehensive explanation of reality. While some might argue that future discoveries could close these gaps, these are not simply unanswered questions; they represent fundamental challenges to the naturalistic worldview, pointing toward the need for explanations that go beyond material causes.


4. Supernatural or Intelligent Causes Are Not "Just-So" Stories  
The argument labels supernatural or intelligent causes as "just-so" stories, implying that they are ad hoc explanations with no predictive power. This is incorrect. Intelligent design offers a clear and testable hypothesis: that systems exhibiting specified complexity and irreducible complexity are best explained by intelligence. This is not a vague, arbitrary claim, but one grounded in empirical observation.

Moreover, intelligent design has successfully predicted that "junk DNA" would have function, leading to discoveries that non-coding regions of the genome play essential regulatory roles. This shows that intelligent design can generate fruitful research programs and make accurate predictions.

It’s also important to recognize that many of the greatest scientific breakthroughs were the result of thinking outside the constraints of methodological naturalism. For example, Isaac Newton’s discovery of gravity and Einstein’s theory of relativity involved thinking beyond simple mechanistic explanations to understand the deeper principles governing the universe. In the same way, intelligent design seeks to explore deeper causes for the complexity and fine-tuning we observe in nature.


5. The Burden of Proof and Evidence for Intelligent Design  
The claim that the burden of proof lies solely on proponents of intelligent design is misleading. In any scientific debate, both sides bear the burden of providing evidence for their respective positions. Intelligent design has offered substantial evidence in the form of complex specified information, irreducible complexity, and fine-tuning—phenomena that naturalism struggles to explain. It is not enough to simply say, "Naturalism might explain this one day." If naturalism cannot currently provide a plausible mechanism, then it is legitimate to consider other explanations, including intelligence. Intelligent design has provided positive evidence and successful predictions, making it a scientifically viable theory. The claim that naturalism has some future potential to explain these phenomena does not negate the current inadequacy of naturalistic models.


Conclusion: The inadequacy of naturalism is not merely that it hasn’t yet answered every question, but that it is fundamentally limited in its scope. Naturalism, by its very definition, excludes explanations that involve non-material causes, even when such causes may provide a better account of the evidence. Intelligent design, far from being a “just-so” story, offers a coherent and empirically grounded explanation for the complexity and fine-tuning we observe in nature. While naturalism has made significant strides in understanding the physical world, it remains inadequate in principle to address key questions such as the origin of life, consciousness, and the fine-tuning of the universe. Rather than dogmatically adhering to naturalism, we should be open to considering all possible explanations, including intelligent causation.


Why Would We Not Apply Methodological Naturalism to History?

Claim: Why would we not apply methodological naturalism to history? What evidence do you have FOR the supernatural? Evidence against a particular naturalistic explanation is not evidence against ANY natural explanation, just that one particular one, and it certainly is not evidence FOR the supernatural. There were 1001 ways to FAIL at naturalistically powered flight. Did that do ANYTHING to support supernaturally powered flight as even a possibility? No. Then they found a way to make airplanes. Naturalistically. We know there are natural forces. We know a lot about what they can do. We can model the results we see in the record, using known natural science. Invoking magic doesn't help, it's JUST a just-so story. It can't model anything in detail, it can't be used to predict the patterns in the record, and it can't be used to progress the sciences. Supernatural theories, EVEN IF TRUE, are USELESS. This is such a critical point. I don't care whether they're true or not (for this particular point.) The point is that they are USELESS. You NEED to address this, this is CENTRAL to our disagreements, all of them.

Response: The argument presented suggests that methodological naturalism should be applied universally, even to historical events, and that supernatural explanations are inherently useless because they cannot provide predictive power or be used to model natural phenomena. However, this argument is based on several misconceptions about the nature of explanation, the role of inference in historical sciences, and the validity of invoking intelligent causation where naturalistic mechanisms fall short.

1. Methodological Naturalism's Limitations in Historical Sciences  
Methodological naturalism is a useful tool in many scientific inquiries, but it has limitations, particularly in historical sciences. Historical events, especially singular occurrences such as the origin of life or the universe, may not always fit within the framework of natural laws as we currently understand them. When investigating the distant past, especially events that are not repeatable or observable, it’s important to remain open to all possible explanations—both natural and intelligent. Historical sciences like archaeology, for example, often rely on the recognition of intelligent causation (such as human agency in the construction of ancient tools) because such explanations provide the best account of the evidence.

If we rigidly apply methodological naturalism to every historical inquiry, we risk missing the correct explanation. For instance, if an ancient artifact is clearly the product of intelligent design, we wouldn’t dismiss that conclusion just because it doesn’t fit a naturalistic model. The same openness should apply when considering the possibility of intelligent causation in the origins of life or the fine-tuning of the universe.


2. Evidence for the Supernatural: Positive Evidence of Intelligent Design  
The argument claims that there is no evidence for the supernatural and that eliminating a naturalistic explanation does not automatically point to a supernatural cause. However, this overlooks the positive evidence for intelligent causation that we observe in complex systems. The intricate information systems in DNA, the fine-tuning of physical constants, and the integrated complexity of biological machines are all features that, in every other context, are known to arise from intelligent agency. This is not simply a rejection of naturalistic explanations but a positive inference to design based on what we know about how intelligence produces complex, functional systems.

The claim that eliminating one naturalistic explanation doesn’t eliminate all possible natural explanations is true. However, after repeated failures of naturalistic mechanisms to account for specific phenomena, it is reasonable to consider other types of causation. When no known naturalistic process is sufficient to explain phenomena like the origin of life, it is valid to infer that intelligence may be involved, just as we infer intelligence when we find an ancient artifact that cannot be explained by natural forces.


3. Flight and the Limits of the Analogy  
The analogy to flight fails to address the nature of the debate. The fact that humans failed repeatedly before succeeding in creating a naturalistic explanation for powered flight does not imply that every problem can be solved by naturalistic means. Flight is a technological problem that falls within the domain of physical engineering, whereas questions about the origin of life or the fine-tuning of the universe deal with far deeper issues—such as the origin of information, irreducible complexity, and the laws governing the universe. These phenomena are not necessarily solvable by future discoveries in natural science because they involve fundamentally different categories of inquiry—such as the emergence of complex specified information, which we only observe arising from intelligence.

Furthermore, the fact that airplanes are naturalistically powered does not mean that every challenge humanity faces has a naturalistic solution. The origin of life, for instance, involves the creation of complex, functional information systems, and such information-rich systems, in every case we know of, are produced by intelligence.


4. Natural Forces vs. Intelligent Causes  
The argument that we “know there are natural forces” and can model results using known natural science overlooks the possibility that certain patterns in nature may not be explainable by natural forces alone. Just because natural forces exist and we can model them doesn’t mean they are the sole agents capable of producing the effects we observe. For example, the fine-tuning of physical constants, the intricate design of molecular machines, and the information content in DNA all point toward an intelligent cause because these phenomena bear the hallmarks of systems we know are designed by intelligent agents.

Moreover, invoking intelligence (whether supernatural or otherwise) is not a “just-so” story. Intelligence provides an explanatory model for understanding the purposeful arrangement of parts toward a function, which is precisely what we observe in living systems. The accusation that supernatural explanations are "useless" misunderstands the nature of inference to the best explanation. If intelligence is the best explanation for a particular phenomenon, then it is useful because it correctly identifies the cause of the observed effect.


5. The Role of Supernatural Theories in Science  
The argument that supernatural theories are "useless" because they don't provide predictive power or progress science misrepresents the function of explanation in historical and origins sciences. In many cases, the goal is not to predict future phenomena but to provide a coherent and sufficient explanation for what we observe. For example, in archaeology, we don’t use naturalistic processes to predict how ancient tools were made; instead, we infer human intelligence based on the design and function of the tools. Similarly, in biology, we may infer intelligence when we see systems that are irreducibly complex or exhibit specified complexity.

Intelligent design can and does offer predictions and has been fruitful in scientific inquiry. For instance, it predicts that systems thought to be the result of random mutations will turn out to be irreducibly complex, and this has been confirmed in the discovery of molecular machines such as the bacterial flagellum. Additionally, intelligent design has successfully predicted that so-called "junk DNA" would have functional purposes, a prediction that has been validated by research into non-coding regions of the genome.


6. The Usefulness of Supernatural Theories  
The claim that supernatural theories are useless is based on a misunderstanding of their purpose. Supernatural explanations, or more accurately, intelligent causation, are useful when naturalistic explanations fall short and when the evidence points toward design. The usefulness of a theory is not just in its predictive power but in its ability to explain observed phenomena in a coherent and plausible way. The fine-tuning of the universe, the complexity of biological systems, and the origin of information-rich structures like DNA are all areas where naturalistic explanations have struggled, and intelligent design provides a coherent alternative that fits the evidence.

The argument against supernatural explanations is based on the assumption that naturalism is the only valid approach to science. However, this assumption is not warranted. In cases where naturalistic explanations fail to account for observed phenomena—such as the origin of life or the fine-tuning of the universe—it is reasonable to consider alternative explanations, including intelligent design. Far from being useless, these explanations provide a coherent framework for understanding the complexity and order we see in the natural world. Supernatural explanations, especially those involving intelligence, are not mere placeholders but grounded in evidence and the recognition that intelligence is the only known cause capable of producing specified, functional complexity.

https://reasonandscience.catsboard.com

3A Response to "Snake was right"  Empty Re: A Response to "Snake was right" Fri Sep 27, 2024 7:04 pm

Otangelo


Admin

Claim: MY problem is that YOU seem to be saying, with your Sherlock fallacy, that you KNOW that no naturalistic explanation will EVER be found. It is NECESSARY for your Sherlock elimination of alternatives to be valid, and you don't have that necessary component, which is why it's a fallacy.
  
Response:  The Role of Eliminative Induction and Intelligent Design in Scientific Reasoning

The objection misinterprets the Sherlock Holmes method of eliminative induction and the role it plays in reasoning within the context of scientific inquiry, particularly in the origins debate. The claim suggests that eliminative induction is flawed because it assumes no naturalistic explanation will *ever* be found. However, this objection misunderstands both the purpose and application of eliminative reasoning in a broader sense.

1. Eliminative Induction Does Not Preclude Future Discoveries
Eliminative induction, as applied in scientific reasoning, does not claim to have absolute knowledge that no future naturalistic explanation can ever be found. Rather, it functions as a tool to systematically evaluate existing hypotheses based on the available evidence. If all known naturalistic explanations are ruled out, the remaining explanation (however improbable it may seem) becomes the best explanation for the time being. It is not a statement of finality but one of current best reasoning based on the evidence at hand.

This process is common in both science and other fields of inquiry. When a new hypothesis or explanation arises, it must be evaluated on its merit, and eliminative reasoning remains open to revisiting previous conclusions if new data becomes available. In other words, eliminative induction is inherently *provisional*—it holds until new data or explanations emerge.

2. Intelligent Design as a Provisional Hypothesis
Intelligent design (ID) as an inference to the best explanation operates under the same principle. It does not claim to know that no naturalistic explanation will ever be found; rather, it argues that based on current knowledge and evidence, the most reasonable explanation for phenomena like biological complexity, fine-tuning, or the origin of information in DNA is intelligent causation.

ID proponents argue that naturalistic mechanisms, such as Darwinian evolution or abiogenesis, have repeatedly failed to account for the origin of specified complexity or functional information. This doesn’t mean that a naturalistic explanation is forever impossible, but given the evidence, the inference to intelligence becomes more plausible. If a robust naturalistic explanation were discovered, ID theorists would need to reassess their position, just as any scientific hypothesis must adjust when new evidence emerges.

3. The Fallacy Claim is Misapplied
The objection claims that eliminative induction relies on a fallacy because it supposedly "knows" no naturalistic explanation will be found. This is a misrepresentation. Eliminative induction doesn’t claim to "know" anything with finality; it only works with the available evidence to arrive at the best possible explanation. The method is not designed to assert permanent closure on a topic but to refine understanding as new information becomes available. Therefore, the argument that eliminative induction is fallacious because it disallows future naturalistic explanations is a strawman argument—it misrepresents what eliminative reasoning actually claims.

4. Science and Reason Work Together in Complement
Both eliminative induction and the naturalistic method work in complement to each other. Eliminative reasoning tests known hypotheses and rules out those that fail, while the naturalistic method continues to refine and explore. When naturalistic explanations consistently fail to account for certain phenomena, it becomes rational to explore alternative explanations, such as intelligence. The strength of science lies in its openness to various methodologies and explanations.

It is not about knowing with certainty that no future naturalistic explanation will be found; it is about making reasoned inferences based on the evidence we have right now. If future discoveries reveal new mechanisms, those must be tested and incorporated, but until then, both eliminative induction and inference to intelligence remain valid scientific tools.

Claim: I will ask again, do you have perfect knowledge? Unless you have perfect knowledge, how did you rule out possible future naturalistic explanations you haven't even thought of, that the experts haven't thought of? We know these new explanations for things happen all the time, and I AM NOT SAYING THAT MEANS IT WILL HAPPEN. I am asking how do you know they won't? Because you claim to have eliminated that as a possible option, leaving only theism.  
Therefore, you MUST know that an explanation will not come.  

If you say that indeed, it is possible for an unknown solution to be discovered in future, that means you have admitted that there are possibilities that you have NOT ruled out, which means your Sherlock holmes elimination of all possibilities is failed.  

Do you have perfect knowledge with which to account for all possible hypotheses now and in future?  

Answer this directly. Once we have dealt with this, we can move on.
  
Response:  The Provisional Warrant for the Design Inference in Scientific Inquiry

Based on our current understanding of science, it is entirely warranted to hold to the design inference, particularly when naturalistic explanations fall short in accounting for certain phenomena—such as the origin of life, the fine-tuning of the universe, or the presence of complex specified information in biological systems.

1. Current Gaps in Naturalistic Explanations  
In areas such as the origin of life and the emergence of complex biological systems, naturalistic processes have repeatedly failed to provide sufficient explanations. For example, the stepwise, undirected processes assumed by Darwinian evolution face significant challenges when explaining the emergence of highly complex systems like the genetic code or molecular machines (e.g., the bacterial flagellum or ATP synthase). In such cases, the design inference offers a coherent and logical explanation, as we know from experience that complex systems bearing the hallmarks of purpose and information are typically the product of intelligence.

This inference is based on best-available evidence and follows the principles of abductive reasoning—inferring to the best explanation. If all naturalistic mechanisms examined so far fail to account for these complexities, it is entirely reasonable, based on current knowledge, to infer design.

2. Science and the Provisional Nature of Knowledge 
Holding to the design inference today doesn’t mean closing off to future discoveries. Just like any other scientific hypothesis, the design inference is provisional, not absolute. It is held based on the strength of current evidence and reasoning, recognizing that future discoveries might either reinforce or challenge this position.

This provisional stance is not unique to the design inference; it is a cornerstone of all scientific inquiry. Many scientific theories or models—such as Newtonian physics, classical genetics, or early models of the atom—were held as the best explanations of their time, only to be refined or even replaced when better data or models emerged. The fact that science is open to revision does not invalidate the theories that are in use today; it only shows the adaptive nature of inquiry.

 3. The Design Inference is Not a "God of the Gaps" Argument  
Holding to the design inference isn’t merely a "gap-filling" exercise that attributes anything currently unexplained to an intelligent designer. Instead, the design inference is based on positive evidence—specifically, our empirical knowledge of how intelligent agents operate. In our experience, intelligent agents produce systems with high levels of complexity, specified information, and functional interdependence. We infer design in the same way we would infer that a watch was designed, not merely because we don't know how it formed naturally, but because we recognize the signs of purpose and engineering in its structure.

Moreover, the design inference is built on the idea that certain patterns—such as fine-tuning, information-rich structures like DNA, and irreducible complexity—are better explained by intelligence than by blind, undirected natural processes. It is an inference made based on known cause-and-effect relationships.

4. Future Discoveries May Reinforce or Refine the Inference  
While we hold the design inference based on current evidence, science remains open to future discoveries. If future findings offer a more coherent naturalistic explanation for these phenomena, then the position would adjust accordingly. However, this openness to change doesn't undermine the current validity of the design inference—it simply reflects the humility of all scientific reasoning, which always remains tentative and open to new information.

The design inference is warranted given the evidence available today, particularly in areas where naturalistic explanations have proven insufficient. However, like all scientific hypotheses, it is open to future revision if new data arise. This approach reflects a responsible and adaptive attitude toward scientific inquiry, one that is rooted in current knowledge but open to future refinement.

https://reasonandscience.catsboard.com

4A Response to "Snake was right"  Empty Re: A Response to "Snake was right" Sat Sep 28, 2024 4:02 am

Otangelo


Admin

Claim: The problem you have, Otangelo, is a double standard. It is a defining quality of pseudoscience. You want to make the bar for abiogenesis so high that nothing can clear that bar, especially not intelligent design. And yet, you also want to lower the bar for ID so low that by this standard, literally any conjecture has equal weight to ID.  

You said, "Eliminative induction, as applied in scientific reasoning, does not claim to have absolute knowledge that no future naturalistic explanation can ever be found."

Great. Glad we got that settled. 

"...it functions as a tool to systematically evaluate existing hypotheses based on the available evidence."

K. You have no evidence.  You have precisely zero evidence FOR intelligent design. NONE. You have a tiny bit of evidence CONSISTENT with ID. That's it. You have weak correlation and zero causation. All that's left is saying naturalism doesn't have a complete explanation. But we have a hell of a lot more explained than YOU do, so what gives? 

Response: Evidence refers to "what is," in the sense that it consists of observable, measurable, or recorded facts that represent reality. Evidence is what exists in the physical world or in documented form, serving as the foundation for understanding, testing, or proving something. It serves as the basis for forming conclusions. This means that evidence is available for both sides, theists, and atheists — to those who infer and believe that random chance without any guiding agency explains our existence, and those who infer an eternal, intelligent creator as the creator of the physical world. What you, and atheists in general mean, when they say that there is no evidence for a creator, is that the available evidence does not logically, and plausibly point to God. This is a philosophical stance, that is personal, and often, if not all the time influenced by someones bias and personal preference. But to answer your claim: 

We have 

- Millions of witnesses through all ages and all around the world that have experienced God. Here an example. 
- Teleological arguments based on Scientific evidence that point to God. See here
- Mathematical Beauty and Order: The laws of mathematics and physics exhibit an extraordinary degree of order and elegance, reflecting the intelligence of the creator. See here
- A fine-tuned universe for the existence of life. The odds of such conditions happening purely by chance are astronomically low. Considering 466 parameters, in the order of 1 in 10^^1577. See here.
- Odds to have a minimal bacterial population not subject to Mullers ratchet and extinction: One in 10^trillion See here
- Scriptural Revelation: The coherence, historical accuracy, ethical teachings, and transformative power are evidence of their divine origin.
- Fullfilled prophecies. Odds to have all 356 prophecies related to the messiah fullfilled in Jesus: 1 in 10^262 See here
- Historical evidence like the resurrection of Jesus: Odds that the Shroud of Turin is not authentic: 1 to 10^23 See here
- Consciousness and free will that is difficult, if not impossible to explain by claiming that it comes from matter. See here, and here, and here

Claim: Meanwhile, abiogenesis has thousands of papers supporting that biomolecules self assemble. While I *know* this doesn't mean we have a complete explanation, that is still infinitely more evidence for that explanation than you have. Technically, any evidence at all is infinitely more than you have, but I think you catch my meaning.  
Response: Steven A. Benner Paradoxes in the Origin of Life 5 Dec. 2014 The Asphalt Paradox 
An enormous amount of empirical data have established, as a rule, that organic systems, given energy and left to themselves, devolve to give uselessly complex mixtures, “asphalts”. The literature reports (to our knowledge) ZERO CONFIRMED OBSERVATIONS where  evolution emerged spontaneously from a devolving chemical system. It is impossible for any non-living chemical system to escape devolution to enter into the Darwinian world of the “living”. See here

Claim: That's why all science departments laugh ID out of the room. It has PRECISELY zero usage. It cannot predict, not with ANY novelty or specificity,
Response: Falsifiable Predictions of Intelligent Design: 61 Challenges to Unguided Processes See here

Claim: it cannot be used to make technology or discoveries, and never has.  It's not even consistent with observed reality.  Irreducible complexity is bunk and was proven bunk in court.
Response: Intelligent Design (ID) primarily serves as a framework for worldview construction rather than as a tool for traditional scientific discovery. Its core premise is that evidence of design in nature suggests an intelligent cause.

ID contributes to human flourishing by:
1. Providing meaning and purpose
2. Offering ethical guidance
3. Fostering hope and inspiration
4. Strengthening personal identity

While ID may not produce tangible technologies, it influences philosophy, culture, and spiritual enrichment. It challenges purely materialistic worldviews and promotes the idea of intentional creation. More, here

Claim: And no, you can't claim junk DNA being overturned as a prediction of ID. Scientists discovered non-coding functions without a single drop of ID theory helping the way. Then you ID proponents came in and asserted your god in the ever shrinking gap of knowledge, as usual.  ID used zero principles or mechanisms to come to this conclusion. They did none of the research.  They just didn't like the conclusion, and real scientists gave them a conclusion that was slightly more consistent with their views.  

Response:  The claim that Intelligent Design (ID) merely "asserted a god in the gap" regarding the functionality of non-coding DNA mischaracterizes the ID position. From its inception, ID theorists argued that design predicts function and that non-coding DNA would eventually be found to serve important biological roles, contrary to the prevailing "junk DNA" view in evolutionary biology.

Prediction of Functionality in "Junk" DNA: ID proponents like William Dembski and Stephen Meyer suggested that the assumption of "junk DNA" was based on the presupposition of evolution's randomness and non-teleological mechanisms. They anticipated that non-coding DNA would have function, precisely because of its origin in an intelligent cause rather than blind processes. This prediction was made independently of mainstream evolutionary claims and was rooted in ID's design principles.

Mainstream Science and the "Junk DNA" Hypothesis

For many years, the dominant view in evolutionary biology was that large portions of DNA, especially non-coding regions, were evolutionary "leftovers" or junk with no particular function. This was based on the idea that evolutionary processes leave behind non-functional remnants of mutations and duplications.

ID's Independent Prediction

While evolutionary biologists were dismissing the vast majority of the genome as "junk," ID proponents pointed to the hallmarks of design in biology, arguing that it was unlikely that such a significant portion of the genome would be functionless. For example, in his 2003 book, "The Design Revolution," William Dembski expressed skepticism toward the idea of junk DNA.

ENCODE Project and Discovery of Non-Coding DNA Functionality

In 2012, the ENCODE project revealed that a large proportion of non-coding DNA had important regulatory and functional roles, contributing to gene expression and other essential biological processes. This discovery turned the tide in the debate over junk DNA, revealing the functionality of much of what had been previously dismissed as non-functional.

ID and the Scientific Method

Critics of ID often argue that it doesn't contribute to the scientific process. However, the prediction that "junk DNA" would have a function is a clear example of how ID applied a scientific hypothesis based on design principles. While ID proponents were not conducting the primary molecular biology research, their conceptual framework did lead to predictions that were validated by empirical science.

Intelligent Design made an important prediction about the functionality of DNA, long before mainstream science accepted it. While evolutionary biologists were committed to the idea that non-coding DNA was "junk," ID suggested otherwise based on the idea of purposeful design. The subsequent discoveries, particularly by the ENCODE project, validate the ID hypothesis that non-coding regions of DNA are not simply evolutionary leftovers, but instead have crucial biological roles. The contribution of ID to this particular debate lies not in the laboratory work but in the theoretical framework that questioned widely accepted assumptions and offered a design-based alternative, which was later confirmed by scientific discoveries. This framework contributes to broader philosophical and scientific discussions about origins and the nature of biological systems.

Claim:  "If all known naturalistic explanations are ruled out, the remaining explanation (however improbable it may seem) becomes the best explanation for the time being.
For the time being, okay.  But, you haven't ruled out anything. Abiogenesis being incomplete isn't the same as being ruled out, and you know it. The best you can get is improbable, which isn't the same as eliminating. Your method keeps improbable as possible.  

Response: The scientific method often relies on inference to the best explanation, especially when dealing with historical sciences or origins questions. In the case of the origin of life, we're not just looking at improbability, but at positive evidence for design. We observe in the biological world:

1. Complex, specified, functional, instructional information in DNA and epigenetic codes and languages that regulate, instantiate, and operate, often in an interdependent manner. 
3. Information transmission and translation systems that direct the make of: 
4. Irreducibly complex molecular machines
5. Interdependent metabolic networks
6. Precise fine-tuning at the molecular and atomic level
7. regulation through feedback loops etc. 
8. error check, repair, and discard, and/or recycling mechanims

In our uniform and repeated experience, these features are consistently the product of intelligent agency, not unguided natural processes. While abiogenesis research continues, it faces significant hurdles:

1. The origin of biological information
2. The emergence of the first self-replicating system
3. The development of complex, irreducible, interdependent cellular systems that operate in an integrated fashion. 

These challenges aren't merely gaps in our knowledge, but point to fundamental limitations of undirected processes. When we observe effects in nature that in all other cases come from intelligent causes, it's reasonable to infer a similar cause. This isn't an argument from ignorance, but an inference based on our best understanding of causality. The case for design goes beyond mere improbability. It's based on positive similarities between biological systems and known designed systems. The specified complexity in life bears hallmarks of purposeful arrangement, not just unlikely occurrence. While naturalistic explanations aren't completely ruled out, the positive evidence for design, combined with the shortcomings of current naturalistic models, makes intelligent design a more favourable and plausible, rational explanation. It's not just a default position due to lack of alternatives, but a positive inference based on evidence and known causal powers. This approach doesn't claim absolute certainty, but argues that design is currently the best explanation given the evidence, following the principle of inference to the best explanation used throughout science.

Claim: "ID proponents argue that naturalistic mechanisms, such as Darwinian evolution or abiogenesis, have repeatedly failed to account for the origin of specified complexity or functional information. "

And ID has also failed to account for origins too. Just say "God did it" just-so doesn't account for anything at all! With that level of specificity, I can just say "Nature did it," and our theories now have PRECISELY EQUAL explanatory power.  

Moreover, specified complexity and functional information have been demonstrated to be evolved with naturalistic means over and over and over again.  

Response: Intelligent Design (ID) is not equivalent to simply saying "God did it." ID is a scientific inference based on observable evidence and known causal powers. It posits that certain features of the universe and living things are best explained by an intelligent cause rather than undirected processes. This is fundamentally different from a theological assertion or a "just-so" story.

ID has greater explanatory power than simply saying "Nature did it" because:

1. It provides a known cause (intelligence) capable of producing the observed effects (complex specified information, irreducible complexity, etc.).
2. It makes testable predictions (e.g., functionality in non-coding DNA, instructional information comes always from a mind. And so complex machines for specific functions).
3. It's based on our understanding of causality and information theory.

Saying "Nature did it" even if it provides a testable hypothesis, which i am not denying, has failed to be a hypothesis to refute any of the 61 hypotheses, that i listed, and that can be falsified. 

Evolution and natural selection do not explain the origin of life. You are conveniently overlooking this important observation. Evolution requires a self-replicating system with inherited variations - precisely what we're trying to explain when discussing life's origin. 

Darwinian evolution can only begin after the existence of:
1. A self-replicating molecule or system
2. A mechanism for storing and transmitting information
3. A system for translating that information into functional components

These are exactly the complex, information-rich systems that ID argues require an intelligent cause.

While it's true that evolutionary algorithms can produce some forms of functional information, these examples invariably involve intelligent input in the form of:

1. Carefully designed fitness functions
2. Pre-specified targets
3. Information-rich starting conditions

More, see here

These experiments actually demonstrate the need for intelligent input to generate specified complexity, supporting rather than refuting ID. ID doesn't just critique naturalistic explanations; it offers a positive explanation based on our understanding of intelligent causation. It provides a framework for understanding biological information, irreducible complexity, and fine-tuning that aligns with our observations of how these features arise in other contexts.
While ID doesn't claim to answer every question about origins, it provides a substantive, evidence-based framework for understanding key aspects of life's origin that naturalistic explanations have struggled to account for. It's not a gap argument, but an inference to the best explanation based on what we know about the causal powers of intelligence versus undirected natural processes.

Claim: "When naturalistic explanations consistently fail to account for certain phenomena, it becomes rational to explore alternative explanations,"

K. How are you exploring those explanations? You're not. You're asserting them and then stopping there. Because you can't do anything with the supernatural explanations. They're useless. They have no detail. They begin with the premise "God did it" in order to conclude "God did it." There is ZERO additional detail in between. This is why you tried coming up with excuses as to why you have, not just no *detailed* mechanism, but no mechanism AT ALL for how God intelligently designed or assembled ANYTHING at ANY level.  

Let's just pretend that the junk DNA thing is yours. It isn't, but let's give it to you. 

Let's see, that puts the score at approximately...

Intelligent design: 1.
Abiogenesis: >1,000.  

K. So, we can eliminate ID until you have some more evidence. Cool!  

Response: This critique misunderstands the nature and purpose of Intelligent Design. ID is not meant to compete with naturalistic explanations on their own terms, but rather to offer a different framework for understanding the origins and complexity of life. The claim that ID lacks explanatory power because it "stops at God did it" is a straw man argument. ID proposes that certain features of the universe and living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not by undirected processes. This is not a cop-out, but a legitimate inference based on our understanding of information and complex systems. The asymmetry in evidence argument fails to recognize that quality of evidence matters as much as quantity. While abiogenesis is claimed to ahve more individual pieces of evidence ( which i strongly reject) , ID offers a more coherent explanation for the origin of information-rich systems like DNA.
The burden of proof argument ignores that ID does offer positive evidence, such as the presence of instructive information in biological systems. It's not merely pointing out gaps in evolutionary theory. Non-falsifiability is a common misunderstanding. ID makes testable predictions, such as the functionality of "junk DNA," which have been borne out by subsequent research. The lack of predictive power claim is demonstrably false.  Regarding the complexity argument, ID doesn't just assert complexity, but specified and irreducible complexity that resembles designed systems we observe in the real world. The fine-tuning argument is not easily dismissed by multiverse hypotheses, which themselves lack empirical evidence and face philosophical challenges. Gaps in naturalistic explanations are not the core of ID arguments, but rather highlight the limitations of purely materialistic explanations for the origin and diversity of life. ID serves as a starting point for a comprehensive worldview that integrates science, philosophy, and theology. It allows for objective inquiry without a priori ruling out the possibility of design in nature. The cumulative case built on ID leads to deeper philosophical and theological questions, potentially pointing towards specific religious traditions based on historical and philosophical evidence. ID offers a valuable perspective for understanding the universe and our place in it. It provides a framework for integrating scientific observations with broader questions of meaning and purpose, something purely naturalistic explanations struggle to achieve.

Claim: Since you count junk DNA as a prediction in favor of ID, you have to count EVERY prediction abiogenesis has made correctly toward the theory. You can't then say there is only evidence if the entire theory is complete, since ID isn't complete and can't perfectly predict life's chemistry either! You gotta have the same standard, my guy!

Hey, at least we're making progress. You answered the question. Now, my focus will be on your inconsistent epistemological standards. 

Response: Abiogenesis, despite decades of research, has not made  progress toward solving the fundamental problems associated with the origin of life, but has in contrary to what was expected, and hoped for, demonstrated the immensity of the unsolvable problem. Even leading scientists in the field admit to its shortcomings. Eugene V. Koonin, in "The Logic of Chance," states that the origin of life field is a failure when judged by the straightforward criterion of reaching its ultimate goal. He notes that we still lack even a plausible coherent model for the emergence of life on Earth. Steve Benner highlights paradoxes suggesting the origins problem may not be solvable within current naturalistic frameworks. Graham Cairns-Smith, in "Genetic Takeover," speaks strongly against the supposition that nucleotide synthesis could occur spontaneously. Robert Shapiro challenges the RNA World hypothesis, stating that the formation of an information-bearing homopolymer through undirected chemical synthesis appears very improbable. Kenji Ikehara's 2016 paper concludes that nucleotides have not been produced through prebiotic means, RNA self-replication is practically impossible, and the RNA world hypothesis fails to explain the emergence of genetic information. See here

In contrast, while Intelligent Design has not provided detailed mechanisms for the origins of life, it operates under a different methodology, focusing on the inference of design from complex biological structures. ID made a key prediction about the functionality of "junk DNA," which was initially ridiculed but later supported by evidence showing that much of this non-coding DNA plays critical regulatory and structural roles. This highlights the predictive power of ID. Although abiogenesis has generated hypotheses, it has yet to produce concrete or testable results explaining how life emerged from non-life. By contrast: 

Intelligence has shown the ability to create protective structures, and we see similar things in nature with cell membranes shielding the internal components from external environments.
Human engineering has developed sophisticated security checkpoints, which is mirrored in nature by membrane proteins that control what enters and exits the cell.
We design specialized rooms for different purposes, just as cells have organelles for specific functions.
Our information management systems resemble the chromosomes and gene regulatory networks found in cells, efficiently organizing and retrieving genetic data.
Computers use hardware to process information, similar to how DNA serves as the molecular hardware in biological systems.
Software and programming languages created by humans parallel the genetic and epigenetic codes that instruct cellular processes.
Information retrieval systems designed by engineers are analogous to RNA polymerase in biological systems, accessing stored genetic information.
Our communication networks for transmitting information find their counterpart in messenger RNA within cells.
Language translation tools developed by humans are reminiscent of ribosomes translating genetic information into proteins.
Human-made signaling systems are mirrored by hormones in biological organisms, facilitating communication between cells.
Complex machines engineered by humans have their biological equivalents in proteins, performing complex sophisticated cellular functions.
Transportation systems we've created are similar to dynein, kinesin, and transport vesicles moving materials within cells.
Roads and highways built by humans resemble the tubulin structures used for intracellular transport.
Addressing and routing systems in logistics parallel the amino acid sequence tags on proteins for cellular transport.
Factory assembly lines designed by humans find their biological counterpart in structures like fatty acid synthase where several enzymatic steps are processed in one same enzyme holo-complex.
Error-checking algorithms in computing are similar to exonucleolytic proofreading in DNA replication.
Recycling facilities created by humans are comparable to endocytic recycling processes in cells.
Waste management systems we've engineered resemble proteasomes that break down unnecessary proteins.
Power plants built by humans are analogous to mitochondria generating energy in cells.
Turbines used in power generation are similar to ATP synthase molecules producing cellular energy.
Electrical circuits designed by engineers parallel the intricate metabolic networks within living organisms.


If we hold both abiogenesis and ID to the same standard, it's clear that ID has many, dozens of predictions that have not been falsified up to now, whereas abiogenesis still faces profound theoretical, empirical, and conceptual problemas and challenges.  ID is not merely "God of the gaps"; it offers a legitimate alternative explanation consistent with observed complexity in nature. In contrast, abiogenesis remains speculative, with many of its foundational assumptions being called into question by experts in the field. Abiogenesis research has magnificiently contributed to unravel the puzzle and the size of the problem of life's origins, but its most significant challenge is the inability to present a plausible model for how life began. ID, on the other hand, has successfully predicted certain biological functions that mainstream science initially missed. Therefore, ID remains a valuable framework for understanding life's origins, especially in a cumulative case that integrates science, philosophy, and theology.

https://reasonandscience.catsboard.com

5A Response to "Snake was right"  Empty Re: A Response to "Snake was right" Mon Sep 30, 2024 12:13 pm

Otangelo


Admin

Taylor ( Snake was right): Exactly the same problem as before, Otangelo. You lower the bar for your religion SO LOW that you let EVERY religion, EVERY claim in. We have Roman writers who said they PERSONALLY WITNESSED Emperors becoming gods and ascending. We have MILLIONS of people witnessing to Islam or to Krishna, and all the pagan gods of Norse myth. Does that make them true? Do I believe any of these people? No. Why? Because even if one of them is true, all the others are lies or mistakes.

But your standard of evidence is so low, they're equally strong to your case for Christianity. So, so far you have nothing.

Response: My faith hinges on the truthfulness of the resurrection of Christ. If he did indeed resurrect, Christ is who he said to be, the Son of God, the second person of the triune God, and all other religions are false, since Jesus said that he is the ONLY way to heaven. The Shroud of Turin serves as a tangible, empirical link that corroborates the accounts of Christ's crucifixion and resurrection as described in the Gospels.
The odds that the Shroud is not the burial cloth of Jesus are  1 in 4.25 × 10^23. See here.

Taylor: The telelological argument, a personal incredulity fallacy we've been discussing.

Response: "Incredulous" basically means "I don't believe it". Well, why should someone believe a "just so" story about HOW reality came to exist? The sentiment of incredulity towards the naturalistic origins of life and the universe is a profound perspective, that stems from the perceived improbability of complex biological systems, intricate molecular machinery, and the finely tuned universe spontaneously originating from random processes, devoid of intention and foresight. These concerns echo a profound uncertainty about the naturalistic explanations of reality’s existence, giving rise to questions about the plausibility of scenarios such as abiogenesis and neo-Darwinism. This is underscored by the intricate orchestration within cellular and molecular processes. The bewildering complexity and apparent purposefulness in the biological realm make it challenging to conceive that such systems could emerge by mere chance or through the unguided mechanisms of natural selection and mutations. The vast information contained within DNA and the elaborate molecular machinery within cells necessitate an intelligent source, a purposeful designer who intricately crafted and coordinated these elements. In the merging context with the text about nature not being self-manifesting, this perspective accentuates the conviction that the universe's existence, form, and functionality could not have spontaneously sprung from its own non-existence or chaos. The position stresses the conceptual incoherence of the universe autonomously setting its fine-tuned parameters, orchestrating its order, and birthing life with its labyrinth of molecular complexities and informational systems. The hypothesis of an external, intelligent entity, beyond the boundaries of space and time, emerges as a logical postulation.

As J. Warner Wallace aptly notes, the convergence of improbability, irreducibility, and specificity in the universe and life propels the inference that intelligent design stands as a robust explanation for the origins and intricacies of our world. The questions surrounding the universe and life’s origins are monumental, and while various perspectives offer their insights, the dialogue continues, enriching the exploration of life's profound mystery.

Taylor: You have no valid inference that intelligence made the universe or life. Your ONLY argument is the Sherlock fallacy and you can't even rule out the alternatives, all you can say is abiogenesis is not a complete theory. You haven't actually ruled it out as impossible or even likely impossible.

Response: I dealt with that before. It seems to me, that it's you who thinks that chance is the hero on the block, no matter how unlikely it is that random events created the universe and life. I am warranted to be incredulous towards that proposition and think your blind faith, and credulity towards random chance, is unwarranted.

https://reasonandscience.catsboard.com

6A Response to "Snake was right"  Empty Re: A Response to "Snake was right" Tue Oct 01, 2024 9:49 am

Otangelo


Admin

Immutable: But when you try to start sounding fancy saying idiotic things like junk dna is responsible for causing DNA to supercoil, when this is something all DNA does.

Reply: DNA supercoiling is essential for maintaining the structural integrity of the genome, allowing efficient compaction, replication, and transcription. In bacteria and minimal cells, the control of supercoiling is mediated by enzymes like topoisomerases and DNA gyrase. Gyrase plays a critical role in introducing negative supercoils into DNA, which helps to prevent excessive positive supercoiling during replication and transcription. The ability to manage DNA supercoiling ensures proper cellular function and genome stability in both bacterial and eukaryotic minimal cells.

Key Enzymes and Components Involved:

DNA gyrase (EC 5.6.2.2): 875 amino acids (Escherichia coli). DNA gyrase introduces negative supercoils into DNA, which is essential for relieving torsional stress during DNA replication and transcription.
Topoisomerase I (EC 5.99.1.3): 865 amino acids (Escherichia coli). This enzyme relaxes negative supercoils in DNA by making transient single-stranded breaks, thereby maintaining DNA topology.
Topoisomerase II (EC 5.99.1.2): 1,200 amino acids (Escherichia coli). Also known as DNA gyrase, it introduces negative supercoils or relaxes positive supercoils, depending on the cellular context.
Topoisomerase IV (EC 5.99.1.4): 1,459 amino acids (Escherichia coli). This enzyme is essential for chromosome segregation and decatenation of interlinked daughter chromosomes during cell division.
Topo III (EC 3.1.22.4): 624 amino acids (Escherichia coli). This enzyme is involved in resolving DNA recombination intermediates and plays a role in ensuring proper segregation of sister chromosomes.

The DNA Supercoiling Control enzyme group consists of 5 key components, with a total of 5,023 amino acids for the smallest known versions of these proteins.

Information on Metal Clusters or Cofactors:
DNA gyrase (EC 5.6.2.2): Requires ATP for introducing negative supercoils into DNA.
Topoisomerase I (EC 5.99.1.3): Does not require ATP but uses Mg²⁺ for its catalytic activity.
Topoisomerase II (EC 5.99.1.2): Requires ATP for its activity in managing supercoiling.
Topoisomerase IV (EC 5.99.1.4): Requires ATP for decatenation and chromosome segregation.
Topo III (EC 3.1.22.4): Does not require ATP, but uses Mg²⁺ for recombination intermediate resolution.

Unresolved Challenges in the Emergence of DNA Supercoiling Control

1. Coordination Between Supercoiling and Replication
The DNA supercoiling process must be precisely coordinated with DNA replication and transcription to prevent topological stress. 
- How did DNA gyrase and topoisomerases became coordinated with DNA replication and transcription? 
- The precise regulation of supercoiling, which ensures genome integrity without interfering with other cellular processes, how did it emerge ?

2. Energy Demands of Supercoiling Management
The introduction of negative supercoils by gyrase and the ATP dependence of some topoisomerases suggest a high-energy cost for supercoiling management. Understanding how early cells managed this energy demand while maintaining other cellular functions presents a challenge.

Conceptual problem: Energy Management in Early Cells
- The emergence of ATP-dependent mechanisms for managing DNA supercoiling raises questions about how minimal cells could allocate energy efficiently.
- Balancing energy requirements for maintaining supercoiling control alongside other essential processes is unresolved.

3. Supercoiling and Chromosome Segregation
Topoisomerases like Topo IV play critical roles in decatenating interlinked daughter chromosomes after DNA replication. The emergence of such specialized mechanisms for managing chromosome segregation raises questions about how early cells ensured proper genome inheritance.

Conceptual problem: Emergence of Chromosome Segregation Mechanisms
- How early cells developed mechanisms for decatenating chromosomes and preventing DNA entanglement during division remains unclear.
- The need for specialized enzymes like Topo IV to ensure chromosome segregation without disrupting cell division poses a significant question.

4. Topoisomerase's Dual Function
Topoisomerase performs two opposing functions: breaking and resealing DNA strands. Explaining how such a paradoxical enzyme function developed without a directed process is a significant challenge.

5. Molecular Recognition and Information Processing
Molecular recognition, such as  topoisomerases recognizing DNA topologies, involves sophisticated information processing. How did these capabilities emerge? 

6. DNA Gyrase Mechanism Complexity
DNA Gyrase exhibits a highly sophisticated mechanism for introducing negative supercoils into DNA. This process involves ATP-dependent DNA strand passage through a transient double-strand break, requiring precise coordination of multiple protein subunits.

Conceptual problem: Spontaneous Mechanistic Complexity
- No known mechanism for the spontaneous emergence of such intricate enzymatic processes
- Difficulty explaining the origin of coordinated subunit actions without invoking design

Immutable: I also just find it hard to believe this guy has never heard of cosmic inflation 

Reply:  Challenges in Cosmological Inflation: Fine-Tuning and Conceptual Issues

The inflationary model is a central aspect of modern cosmology, proposed to address several key issues in the early universe, including the flatness problem, horizon problem, and the fine-tuned initial conditions of the standard cosmological model. Despite its explanatory power, inflation faces a number of unresolved challenges that make it difficult to accept as a purely natural, unguided process.

1. The Need for a Special Inflation Field

For inflation to begin, there must be an inflation field—a scalar field with negative pressure—dominating the total energy density of the universe. This field would need to trigger an exponential expansion of space-time. However, the existence of such a field and its precise properties are not supported by any known physical model.

Conceptual problem: Lack of Physical Basis

- There is no direct observational evidence for the inflaton field or any underlying particle physics framework that explains how such a field could emerge or behave. The postulation of this field requires significant fine-tuning and precise initial conditions, with no clear natural mechanism to explain how this would arise spontaneously.

2. The Fine-Tuning of Inflation Duration

Inflation must last for a precise amount of time to solve the cosmological problems it was designed to address. If it lasts too short a time, the universe would not achieve the necessary homogeneity and isotropy. If it lasts too long, the universe would remain in a state of exponential expansion, preventing the formation of complex structures like galaxies and stars.

Conceptual problem: Precise Duration Control

- There is no known physical reason why inflation should end at the right time. A natural, unguided process would be expected to either end too soon, rendering inflation ineffective, or persist too long, leading to an eternally inflating universe. The required fine-tuning of the duration of inflation suggests a level of control and specificity that is difficult to account for without invoking guidance or intentionality.

3. The End of Inflation: The Graceful Exit Problem

Once inflation begins, there must be a mechanism to stop it, known as the “graceful exit.” If inflation were to continue indefinitely, the universe would never transition to a state where matter could form. However, halting inflation at the right time without causing other issues is highly non-trivial. For instance, if the inflaton field does not lose its energy properly, it could lead to a universe dominated by negative potential energy, causing a collapse back into a singularity.

Conceptual problem: Unexplained Stopping Mechanism

- The stopping of inflation requires an extremely fine-tuned mechanism to ensure that the energy from inflation transitions smoothly into the energy that forms matter and radiation. The odds of this happening naturally are astronomically low, with no physical model currently explaining how this transition could occur unguided.

4. Formation of Inhomogeneities for Structure Development

While inflation aims to create a universe that is homogenous and isotropic, it paradoxically requires small inhomogeneities in order for cosmic structures like galaxies, stars, and planets to form through gravitational instability. These inhomogeneities, or quantum fluctuations, must be precisely calibrated: too little, and structure formation would be impossible; too much, and the universe would be too chaotic for structures to emerge.

Conceptual problem: Fine-Tuned Fluctuations

- The delicate balance between homogeneity and inhomogeneity presents another level of fine-tuning that is hard to explain under naturalistic assumptions. The inflationary model must somehow produce quantum fluctuations of the perfect amplitude, raising questions about how such a balance could emerge without guidance or design.

5. Energy Conversion After Inflation

A major challenge for inflation is how the energy in the inflaton field converts into ordinary matter and radiation after inflation ends, a process known as "reheating." This energy transfer must be efficient enough to create the conditions for the universe to develop baryons and other particles necessary for the formation of galaxies and stars. However, the mechanisms for this process remain speculative.

Conceptual problem: Unsupported Energy Transfer Hypothesis

- There is no experimentally validated model that explains how the energy from inflation is transferred to matter and radiation in a way that would lead to the observable universe. The coupling between the inflaton field and ordinary particles is purely hypothetical and lacks empirical support, further complicating the inflationary scenario.

6. The Likelihood of a Successful Inflationary Model

The probability of achieving a successful inflationary scenario—where the inflaton field is finely tuned to the correct energy, lasts for the right period, and stops at the right time—is exceedingly low. It is estimated that the chances of this happening are at most one in a thousand at the peak of inflationary potential, and they drop rapidly with time.

Conceptual problem: Statistical Improbability

- Given the extreme fine-tuning required for a successful inflationary model, the likelihood of such a scenario occurring naturally is extraordinarily small. Without a guiding mechanism or intelligent intervention, it is difficult to justify how these precise conditions could arise by chance alone.

Conclusion
The inflationary model, while offering an explanation for some of the fine-tuning issues in cosmology, introduces its own set of problems. The lack of a physical basis for the inflaton field, the need for precise fine-tuning in the duration and termination of inflation, and the statistical improbability of these processes occurring naturally without guidance, all point to significant unresolved challenges. These challenges raise fundamental questions about whether inflation can be considered a plausible, unguided mechanism for the early universe. Without a comprehensive physical model or empirical evidence to support these processes, the concept of inflation remains speculative and far from a settled explanation for the fine-tuned universe we observe today.

https://reasonandscience.catsboard.com

7A Response to "Snake was right"  Empty Re: A Response to "Snake was right" Tue Oct 01, 2024 2:20 pm

Otangelo


Admin

Taylor: Otangelo, explain how God invented or solved the coiling, or even how he assembled it.  If you say that naturalism must be able to explain this, or it is too incomplete, then you must admit the same for your own hypothesis.  Be consistent.

Response:  W.L.Craig :
First, in order to recognize an explanation as the best, one needn't have an explanation of the explanation. This is an elementary point concerning inference to the best explanation as practiced in the philosophy of science. If archaeologists digging in the earth were to discover things looking like arrowheads and hatchet heads and pottery shards, they would be justified in inferring that these artifacts are not the chance result of sedimentation and metamorphosis, but products of some unknown group of people, even though they had no explanation of who these people were or where they came from. Similarly, if astronauts were to come upon a pile of machinery on the back side of the moon, they would be justified in inferring that it was the product of intelligent, extra-terrestrial agents, even if they had no idea whatsoever who these extra-terrestrial agents were or how they got there. In order to recognize an explanation as the best, one needn't be able to explain the explanation. In fact, so requiring would lead to an infinite regress of explanations, so that nothing could ever be explained and science would be destroyed. So in the case at hand, in order to recognize that intelligent design is the best explanation of the appearance of design in the universe, one needn't be able to explain the designer.
http://www.reasonablefaith.org/richard-dawkins-argument-for-atheism-in-the-god-delusion

What's the Mechanism of Intelligent Design?
We don't know how exactly a mind might can act in the world to cause change. Your mind, mediated by your brain, sends signals to your arm , hand and fingers,  and writes a text through the keyboard of the computer  I sit here typing. I cannot explain to you how exactly this process functions, but we know, it happens. Consciusness can interact with the physical world and cause change. But how exactly that happens, we don't know. Why then should we expect to know how God created the universe ? The theory of intelligent design proposes a intelligent mental cause as origin of the physical world. Nothing else. 

more, here

Taylor: Moreover, you deliberately conflate philosophical naturalism with methodological naturalism yet again!

Response:  I dont think i did. I know the distinction. See here.

Taylor:  If ID isn't a scientific theory, then leave science to naturalistic investigation and stop complaining about its CONSTANTLY SHRINKING incompleteness and work on completing literally step one of your own hypothesis.

Response:  Where did i say ID is not a scientific theory? It is. Now i have to repeat myself. See here.

Taylor: Again, all you have is "God did it because you have no proof of an alternative."  Which is fallacious.  You have no evidence FOR "God did it," because you can say NOTHING ELSE other than THAT he did it, just-so, and nothing else.

Response: For the fifth time. ID is based on POSITIVE evidence. Do you even care to read , and understand my responses ?

https://reasonandscience.catsboard.com

8A Response to "Snake was right"  Empty Re: A Response to "Snake was right" Tue Oct 01, 2024 4:59 pm

Otangelo


Admin

Immutable: By(what I am sure is purely coincidence) Otangello, and all creationists for that matter, do not invoke an intelligent designer as an explanation for complex processes that are known, like the Krebs cycle, DNA replication, etc.

Response:  Citric Acid Cycle (Krebs Cycle)

The citric acid cycle is an essential metabolic pathway that plays a central role in energy production by oxidizing acetyl-CoA to CO₂ and transferring high-energy electrons to NADH and FADH₂, which drive ATP production. Several steps in this process exhibit characteristics typically attributed to intelligent design:

1. Pathway Diversity and Specificity
- Observed in Nature: The existence of multiple carbon fixation pathways (e.g., citric acid cycle, Calvin cycle, Wood-Ljungdahl pathway) tailored to specific environmental conditions and organisms points to high specificity and diversity. Each pathway involves distinct enzymes, cofactors, and regulatory mechanisms, working together with remarkable precision.
- Human Action Parallel: Humans design specialized systems tailored to specific conditions (e.g., various energy-generating technologies like internal combustion engines, turbines, or solar panels). These systems require careful planning and foresight to meet particular needs.
- Challenge for Naturalism: The independent emergence of multiple, highly specific metabolic pathways, each requiring complex and precise interactions between components, is difficult to explain through random mutation and selection alone. Intelligent agents, in human experience, are known to create systems with specificity and diversity based on intended functionality. The specificity of each carbon fixation pathway suggests intentional design rather than unguided processes.

2. Enzyme Complexity and Oxygen Sensitivity
- Observed in Nature: Enzymes in the reductive TCA cycle and Wood-Ljungdahl pathway are highly sensitive to oxygen, yet they must function in environments where oxygen levels fluctuate. For example, the enzyme aconitase is inactivated by oxygen, yet it plays a crucial role in the citric acid cycle under aerobic conditions.
- Human Action Parallel: Engineers design systems that function under specific environmental constraints, such as devices that operate at particular temperatures or pressures. Oxygen-sensitive processes in industry, such as certain chemical reactions, require carefully controlled environments.
- Challenge for Naturalism: The emergence of oxygen-sensitive enzymes in early Earth's fluctuating atmospheric conditions, without foresight, is difficult to explain. Human engineers create systems that can adapt to or mitigate environmental challenges, suggesting that the fine-tuning of enzyme activity in fluctuating oxygen environments points to a purposeful design rather than random evolutionary processes.

3. Cofactor and Metal Requirements
- Observed in Nature: Many steps in the citric acid cycle require specific metal cofactors (e.g., Fe-S clusters, Mn, Mg), which are essential for enzyme function. The availability and matching of these cofactors with enzymes are crucial for the cycle's operation.
- Human Action Parallel: In engineered systems, humans design machines that require specific components or raw materials to function. For example, engines need specific metals and fuels to operate efficiently, and these must be available and compatible.
- Challenge for Naturalism: The naturalistic origin of specific cofactors and their integration into enzyme function poses a significant challenge. The matching of cofactors with enzymes across diverse pathways suggests an intelligent agent that arranged these materials and components to function harmoniously, much like how humans design machines requiring particular inputs.

4. Thermodynamic Considerations
- Observed in Nature: The citric acid cycle is energetically favorable and efficient. However, some other carbon fixation pathways, such as the 3-hydroxypropionate cycle, are far more energy-intensive, raising the question of how energy-demanding pathways could have emerged and persisted.
- Human Action Parallel: Humans design energy-efficient systems (e.g., energy-efficient appliances) by carefully optimizing processes. In contrast, energy-intensive systems require deliberate design choices and external energy sources to maintain their operation.
- Challenge for Naturalism: The emergence and maintenance of energetically unfavorable pathways in early life are difficult to explain through random processes. Intelligent agents, through careful design, optimize energy use in systems, suggesting that the energy-efficient citric acid cycle could also be the result of intentional design.

DNA Replication

DNA replication is an extraordinarily precise process where genetic information is copied with high fidelity during cell division. Several specific actions during DNA replication highlight challenges for unguided naturalistic mechanisms, and the parallels to intelligent design become apparent:

1. Protein Complexity and Specificity in Initiation
- Observed in Nature: DNA replication initiation relies on highly specific protein-DNA interactions, such as the binding of DnaA to the origin of replication (oriC). These interactions are finely tuned to ensure accurate DNA unwinding and loading of the replication machinery.
- Human Action Parallel: In human-engineered systems, precise interactions between components are critical. For instance, circuit boards require specific connections between wires and components to function correctly, and engineers design these systems with exact specifications.
- Challenge for Naturalism: The emergence of specific protein-DNA interactions, without any guiding intelligence, presents a major obstacle for naturalistic explanations. Intelligent agents, such as human designers, are known to create systems where specific interactions are required for function. The precision of DNA replication initiation suggests the work of an intelligent designer.

2. Interdependence of Proteins and Regulatory Mechanisms
- Observed in Nature: DNA replication initiation involves a network of interdependent proteins (e.g., DnaA, DnaB, DnaC, and regulatory proteins like SeqA) that must function together for accurate replication. Any failure in this network could lead to catastrophic errors.
- Human Action Parallel: Humans design interdependent systems where components rely on each other to achieve a function, such as in automobiles, where the engine, transmission, and braking systems must work in concert for the car to function safely.
- Challenge for Naturalism: The emergence of such interdependence through undirected processes is highly improbable. Human-designed systems, where multiple components are interdependent, typically require foresight and planning, suggesting that DNA replication's interdependent protein network may also be the result of intelligent design.

3. Coordination of DNA Unwinding and Replication Machinery Loading
- Observed in Nature: The coordination between helicase loading (DnaB), primase, and polymerases at the replication fork is essential for accurate DNA replication. This coordination is finely tuned to prevent errors.
- Human Action Parallel: Humans often coordinate complex, multi-step processes in manufacturing, where different machines and components must operate in sync to produce a final product (e.g., in an assembly line).
- Challenge for Naturalism: The stepwise, highly coordinated process of helicase loading and polymerase function is difficult to explain as a product of random mutations. Human designers coordinate multiple components to achieve specific outcomes, suggesting that the coordination observed in DNA replication also points to an intelligent origin.

4. Error Correction Mechanisms
- Observed in Nature: DNA polymerase III has proofreading functions that detect and correct errors during replication. These error correction mechanisms maintain the integrity of genetic information.
- Human Action Parallel: Humans create systems with built-in error detection and correction mechanisms, such as self-correcting software algorithms or quality control processes in manufacturing. These mechanisms are deliberately designed to maintain the integrity of the system.
- Challenge for Naturalism: The simultaneous development of DNA synthesis and error correction functions is highly improbable through random processes. Error correction mechanisms are a hallmark of intelligent design, as seen in human systems, suggesting that DNA replication's error correction is also the product of foresight and planning.

Summary: A Positive Case for Intelligent Design

In both the citric acid cycle and DNA replication, we observe highly specific, coordinated, and complex processes that mirror the types of actions human beings perform when designing systems. These biological processes require:
- Fine-tuned specificity (e.g., enzyme function, protein-DNA interactions),
- Coordination of multiple components (e.g., replication proteins or metabolic pathways),
- Error detection and correction mechanisms,
- The use of precise and limited resources (e.g., cofactors or energy sources).

Each of these actions is analogous to what intelligent beings do when designing systems, leading to the inference that similar causes—intelligence and design—are likely responsible for the observed complexity and functionality in nature. Naturalistic, unguided processes struggle to account for the emergence of such systems, whereas intelligent design offers a more plausible explanation based on observed causes of similar effects.

Unresolved Challenges in the Origin of the Citric Acid Cycle

1. Pathway Diversity and Specificity
The existence of diverse carbon fixation pathways, such as the Calvin cycle, the reductive citric acid cycle, and the Wood-Ljungdahl pathway, raises questions about their origins. Each pathway is specific to certain organisms and environmental conditions, creating significant challenges for naturalistic explanations.

Conceptual problem: Multiple Independent Origins
- Explaining the emergence of multiple complex pathways independently, each serving a similar function, remains challenging.
- The specificity of each pathway to particular organisms and conditions raises further questions about their origins without guided processes.

2. Enzyme Complexity and Oxygen Sensitivity
Some carbon fixation pathways, like the reductive TCA cycle and the Wood-Ljungdahl pathway, include enzymes that are highly sensitive to oxygen. This presents a challenge for explaining how these enzymes could have emerged and persisted in environments where oxygen levels fluctuated.

Conceptual problem: Environmental Constraints
- The origin of oxygen-sensitive enzymes in early Earth’s varied atmospheric conditions is difficult to explain through naturalistic mechanisms.
- As oxygen levels increased, maintaining the function of these enzymes poses additional challenges.

3. Cofactor and Metal Requirements
These pathways require specific metal cofactors (Fe, Co, Ni, Mo) for enzyme activity, such as the requirement for carbon monoxide dehydrogenase/acetyl-CoA synthase in the Wood-Ljungdahl pathway. The availability and specific matching of cofactors to enzymes in early Earth conditions add complexity to naturalistic origin scenarios.

Conceptual problem: Cofactor Availability and Specificity
- Simultaneous availability of the necessary cofactors in early Earth environments is difficult to account for.
- The specific pairing of cofactors with enzymes across different pathways requires further explanation.

4. Thermodynamic Considerations
The energy demands of various carbon fixation pathways differ substantially. For example, the 3-hydroxypropionate bicycle is more energy-intensive than the reductive TCA cycle, raising questions about how such energetically unfavorable pathways could have emerged and persisted.

Conceptual problem: Energetic Favorability
- The emergence of energy-intensive pathways in early life forms requires further investigation.
- Explaining how these pathways were maintained over time, despite their high energy demands, is a significant challenge.

5. Pathway Interconnectivity
Many carbon fixation pathways share intermediates or reaction sequences. For instance, the dicarboxylate-hydroxybutyrate cycle combines features of other pathways. This modularity raises questions about the origins of these shared elements.

Conceptual problem: Modular Origins
- The presence of shared reaction sequences across distinct pathways challenges the notion of independent origins.
- The assembly of pathways from shared components requires an explanation that accounts for their integration.

6. Biosynthetic Byproducts
Some pathways, such as the 3-hydroxypropionate bicycle, also produce intermediates useful for biosynthesis, like acetyl-CoA and succinyl-CoA. Explaining the origin of such multi-functional pathways poses additional challenges.

Conceptual problem: Multi-functionality
- The emergence of pathways that serve dual roles in energy generation and biosynthesis is difficult to explain without invoking guided processes.
- The coordination between carbon fixation and biosynthesis adds to the complexity of these pathways.

7. Taxonomic Distribution
The distribution of carbon fixation pathways across different organisms is sporadic, not following a clear pattern of common descent. For instance, the dicarboxylate-hydroxybutyrate cycle is found only in specific taxa, such as Ignicoccus hospitalis, but its broader distribution remains unclear.

Conceptual problem: Non-uniform Distribution
- The uneven distribution of these pathways among various taxonomic groups is difficult to explain through naturalistic processes alone.
- The presence of similar pathways in distantly related organisms challenges existing models of common ancestry.

8. Pathway Regulation
The regulation of these pathways, which involves sophisticated mechanisms such as allosteric regulation and transcriptional control, is essential for their function. The origin of such regulatory systems presents significant challenges to naturalistic explanations.

Conceptual problem: Regulatory Complexity
- The emergence of complex regulatory mechanisms without foresight remains unresolved.
- Coordinating regulatory systems with pathway components across various carbon fixation strategies poses significant challenges to unguided origin theories.

Unresolved Challenges in the Initiation of Bacterial DNA Replication

1. Protein Complexity and Specificity in Initiation  
Bacterial DNA replication initiation relies on precise protein-DNA and protein-protein interactions. DnaA specifically binds oriC and unwinds the DNA, while DnaC facilitates the loading of DnaB helicase. The complexity and specificity of these interactions pose significant challenges in explaining how such a precise system could have arisen without guidance.

Conceptual problem: Spontaneous Complexity  
- No plausible mechanism explains the spontaneous development of these highly specific protein-DNA interactions.  
- There is no clear explanation for how the structural formation of active sites evolved to enable precise protein-protein interactions necessary for replication.

2. Interdependence of Proteins and Regulatory Mechanisms  
The initiation process requires a network of proteins, such as DnaA, DnaB, DnaC, and SeqA, to function in a coordinated manner. The interdependence of these proteins poses a challenge in explaining their independent emergence, as the system requires all components to function together for accurate replication.

Conceptual problem: Simultaneous Emergence  
- Difficulty arises in explaining how multiple, interdependent proteins developed the ability to interact cohesively.  
- No known evolutionary pathway accounts for the independent evolution of these proteins without disrupting the replication process.

3. Role of Methylation and Epigenetic Regulation  
Methylation by DAM methylase regulates the timing of DNA replication, with SeqA recognizing hemimethylated DNA to delay new replication rounds. The challenge lies in explaining how such a precise methylation system and its recognition proteins could have co-evolved in a way that ensures accurate replication timing.

Conceptual problem: Specificity and Timing in Epigenetic Regulation  
- There is no known unguided mechanism for establishing specific methylation patterns that regulate replication timing.  
- The co-evolution of methylation and its recognition systems remains unexplained.

4. Coordination of DNA Unwinding and Replication Machinery Loading  
The loading of DnaB helicase onto the DNA requires precise coordination between DnaA, DnaC, and DiaA. This sequential process must occur in a specific order, making it difficult to explain how this complex coordination evolved through undirected processes.

Conceptual problem: Sequential Coordination and Timing  
- There is no plausible naturalistic scenario for the synchronized activity of these essential proteins.  
- The correct sequence of events during replication initiation remains a significant challenge to explain.

5. Structural Role of Nucleoid-Associated Proteins  
Nucleoid-associated proteins, such as HU, IHF, and Fis, structure the DNA to enable replication initiation. These proteins introduce DNA bends and organize the chromosome, but the emergence of these structural roles and their integration into the replication process remains unclear.

Conceptual problem: Emergence of DNA Structural Organization  
- There is no explanation for how nucleoid-associated proteins with DNA-bending properties evolved without guidance.  
- The integration of structural DNA changes into the replication process presents a significant conceptual challenge.

6. Regulation of Initiator Protein Activity  
The regulation of DnaA activity by Hda ensures that DNA replication begins only at the correct time. The complexity of this regulatory system raises questions about how such precise control mechanisms could have evolved naturally.

Conceptual problem: Regulation of Protein Function  
- There is no known unguided process that explains the precise regulation of initiator proteins like DnaA.  
- The co-evolution of regulatory proteins and their target proteins remains unexplained.

These unresolved challenges highlight the intricate complexity of bacterial DNA replication initiation. The precise coordination, specificity, and regulation of the involved proteins present significant obstacles to naturalistic explanations, pointing to the need for further investigation and alternative models to fully understand the origin and evolution of such essential biological processes.

Unresolved Challenges in the Helicase Loading Process

1. Complexity of DnaC and DnaB Interactions:  
The interaction between DnaC and DnaB is crucial for loading DnaB onto DNA. DnaC not only assists in the loading process but also keeps DnaB inactive until properly positioned. The specificity of this interaction raises questions about how such coordination could have emerged. How could the specific regulatory functions of DnaC arise spontaneously?  
Conceptual problem: Spontaneous Emergence of Specificity  
- No known mechanism for the unguided emergence of specific binding and regulatory functions in DnaC  
- Difficulty explaining DnaC’s ability to stabilize and regulate DnaB’s activity  

2. Coordination of Helicase Loading and DNA Unwinding:  
The process of loading DnaB must be tightly coordinated with DNA unwinding. If DnaB is activated prematurely, replication errors may occur, threatening genomic integrity. How could such a precise and regulated system develop without advanced regulatory mechanisms?  
Conceptual problem: Origin of Coordinated Regulation  
- No known unguided process can account for the precise timing required in helicase loading and activation  
- No explanation for how DnaC and DnaB evolved to work in perfect synchrony  

3. Molecular Adaptation for Specific Binding Sites:  
DnaB must be loaded onto specific sites within the DNA origin of replication. How did the molecular adaptations required for DnaB to recognize and bind specific sites arise through natural mechanisms? The system’s precision suggests advanced molecular recognition capabilities.  
Conceptual problem: Emergence of Binding Site Specificity  
- Challenge explaining the origin of specific DNA binding sequences needed for DnaB function  
- No known natural mechanism for developing complementary binding affinities between DnaC, DnaB, and DNA  

4. Role of Conformational Changes in Helicase Loading:  
DnaB and DnaC undergo conformational changes during the loading process. How could these specific structural shifts evolve without guided mechanisms? These changes must be carefully regulated to ensure proper function.  
Conceptual problem: Regulation of Conformational Dynamics  
- No plausible explanation for the unguided emergence of regulated conformational changes in replication proteins  
- Difficulty accounting for the evolution of structural plasticity required for helicase loading  

5. Integration with Other Replication Components:  
Helicase loading and activation are part of a larger network of interactions involving multiple replication machinery components. How did the coordinated network of interactions between DnaB, DnaC, and other proteins evolve without a guiding mechanism?  
Conceptual problem: Emergence of Integrated Functionality  
- No known explanation for the independent evolution and functional integration of DnaC, DnaB, and other replication proteins  
- Lack of a naturalistic mechanism to account for the development of a coordinated replication network  

These unresolved challenges highlight the intricate and highly regulated nature of the helicase loading process. The specific interactions between DnaC and DnaB, their coordination with other replication machinery, and the sophisticated regulation of these activities are difficult to explain through naturalistic mechanisms alone. The complexity of these systems invites further investigation into alternative explanations for their origins.
[/size]

Unresolved Challenges in Primase Activity

1. Specificity of RNA Primer Synthesis  
DnaG primase must synthesize RNA primers at specific sequences within the origin of replication. This specificity is critical because the primers must be accurately placed to ensure that DNA polymerases can initiate synthesis at the correct sites. The precise recognition of specific DNA sequences and synthesis of RNA primers raises questions about how such specificity could emerge naturally.

Conceptual problem: Origin of Enzymatic Specificity  
- There is no known naturalistic mechanism that can account for the emergence of precise sequence recognition and RNA primer synthesis.  
- The specificity required for accurate primer placement suggests the existence of pre-existing regulatory systems.

2. Coordination with DNA Polymerases  
DnaG primase and DNA polymerases must work in concert, as the RNA primers synthesized by DnaG provide the necessary 3' ends for DNA polymerases to initiate synthesis. This interdependence requires highly coordinated interactions between the two entities. How this coordination between DnaG primase and DNA polymerases could have evolved without pre-existing mechanisms is unclear.

Conceptual problem: Interdependent System Emergence  
- The origin of the coordinated interaction between primase and DNA polymerases is challenging to explain without guided mechanisms.  
- The necessity for precise timing and functional compatibility between these enzymes suggests a complex system that is difficult to attribute to unguided processes.

3. Regulation of Primase Activity  
DnaG primase activity must be carefully regulated to ensure RNA primers are synthesized only when required. Improper regulation could lead to replication errors. The emergence of such sophisticated regulatory mechanisms, which must integrate primase activity with the broader replication system, presents a significant challenge to naturalistic explanations.

Conceptual problem: Emergence of Regulatory Mechanisms  
- No plausible unguided process explains how complex regulatory pathways could develop to control primase activity.  
- The need for integration with other regulatory mechanisms in DNA replication adds another layer of complexity.

4. RNA-DNA Transition in Replication  
A key aspect of DNA replication is the transition from RNA to DNA. After DnaG synthesizes the RNA primers, these are extended by DNA polymerases and eventually replaced with DNA. This transition requires coordinated activity between different enzymes, including those responsible for removing RNA primers and filling the gaps with DNA nucleotides.

Conceptual problem: Spontaneous Development of RNA-DNA Transition Mechanism  
- The spontaneous emergence of a mechanism to transition from RNA primers to DNA synthesis is difficult to explain.  
- The requirement for specific enzymes to replace RNA with DNA presents a significant challenge to naturalistic origin theories.

5. Compatibility with Replication Fork Dynamics  
DnaG primase must operate within the dynamic environment of the replication fork, coordinating with helicase (which unwinds DNA) and DNA polymerase (which synthesizes new strands). This level of coordination and compatibility is essential for efficient DNA replication.

Conceptual problem: Integration with Replication Fork Machinery  
- There is no known naturalistic explanation for how DnaG primase could evolve compatibility with the other replication fork components.  
- The requirement for synchronized action among multiple enzymes at the replication fork points to a highly organized system.

These unresolved challenges highlight the complexity and precision required for primase activity in DNA replication. The specificity of RNA primer synthesis, coordination with other enzymes, regulation of activity, the RNA-DNA transition, and compatibility with the replication fork all present significant obstacles to naturalistic explanations for the origin of such a sophisticated system.
[/size][/size]

Unresolved Challenges in DNA Replication Elongation

[size=12]1. 
Enzyme Complexity and Specificity:  
  DNA polymerase III's ability to synthesize DNA with high speed and accuracy is based on a highly specific active site that catalyzes nucleotide addition. Explaining how such a specialized enzyme could emerge spontaneously presents a major conceptual challenge.  
  Conceptual problem: Origin of highly specific enzymatic functions  
  - No known natural mechanism accounts for the precise formation of the active site necessary for such high-fidelity replication.

2. Coordination Among Multiple Enzymes and Proteins:  
  The elongation phase requires tight coordination between DNA polymerase III, ligase, sliding clamps, clamp loaders, and primase. The interdependence of these components raises the question of how such a system could have evolved naturally.  
  Conceptual problem: Emergence of a coordinated molecular system  
  - There is no plausible explanation for how all the required enzymes could evolve simultaneously to function in a coordinated manner.

3. Processivity and Speed of DNA Synthesis:  
  The sliding clamp dramatically increases the processivity of DNA polymerase III, enabling it to add thousands of nucleotides without dissociating from the DNA strand. How this intricate interaction arose naturally remains unexplained.  
  Conceptual problem: Development of high processivity  
  - Lack of evidence for how the sliding clamp and its interaction with DNA polymerase could have emerged stepwise.

4. Error Correction Mechanisms:  
  DNA polymerase III's proofreading function, which detects and corrects errors during DNA synthesis, presents a sophisticated error-correction mechanism. The simultaneous development of both synthesis and error correction functions is difficult to explain naturally.  
  Conceptual problem: Origin of proofreading capabilities  
  - The coordinated emergence of DNA synthesis and error correction functions defies a naturalistic explanation.

5. Replication Fork Stability and Dynamics:  
  The stability and coordination at the replication fork involve multiple proteins and enzymes working in concert. The complexity of maintaining the fork’s stability presents challenges for any naturalistic model.  
  Conceptual problem: Emergence of replication fork dynamics  
  - The need for continuous coordination and interaction at the replication fork raises questions about how this could evolve naturally.

6. Okazaki Fragment Maturation and Ligation:  
  The process of joining Okazaki fragments on the lagging strand requires the coordinated action of DNA polymerase I and DNA ligase. The simultaneous evolution of these enzymes for efficient fragment maturation is difficult to explain.  
  Conceptual problem: Origin of Okazaki fragment processing  
  - No explanation exists for how primer removal, gap filling, and fragment ligation could evolve together.

These unresolved challenges in the elongation phase of DNA replication underscore the complexity and precision of the molecular machinery involved. The simultaneous coordination of DNA polymerase III, DNA ligase, primase, and other proteins presents significant obstacles to naturalistic explanations for the origin of this process. The high level of integration and specificity in the replication machinery calls for a reconsideration of existing assumptions about the emergence of such complex biological systems.
[/size]

Unresolved Challenges in DNA Replication Termination

1. Tus Protein-Ter Site Specificity
Tus protein exhibits highly specific binding to Ter sites, but the mechanism behind this specificity remains unclear. How such precise molecular recognition evolved is an open question, especially in the absence of selection mechanisms for specific DNA-protein interactions.

Conceptual problem: Spontaneous Specificity
- No known mechanism for generating highly specific protein-DNA interactions.
- Difficulty in explaining the origin of precise molecular recognition.

2. DNA Ligase Catalytic Mechanism
The multi-step catalytic process of DNA ligase, including enzyme adenylation and AMP transfer, raises questions about the origin of such complex mechanisms without guidance.

Conceptual problem: Mechanistic Complexity
- Lack of explanation for the spontaneous development of multi-step catalytic processes.
- Challenge in explaining the precise coordination required for enzyme-substrate interactions.

3. Topoisomerase's Dual Function
Topoisomerase performs two opposing functions: breaking and resealing DNA strands. Explaining how such a paradoxical enzyme function developed without a directed process is a significant challenge.

Conceptual problem: Functional Paradox
- Difficulty in explaining enzymes with opposing yet coordinated functions.
- No known mechanism for spontaneous development of such sophisticated enzymatic behavior.

4. Coordinated System of Replication Termination
The interdependence of Tus, DNA ligase, and topoisomerases for proper DNA replication termination presents a challenge in understanding how such a system could arise.

Conceptual problem: System-level Emergence
- No known mechanism for the spontaneous emergence of interdependent molecular systems.
- Difficulty in explaining the simultaneous availability of multiple, specific proteins.

5. Temporal and Spatial Regulation
Precise regulation of the timing and location of DNA replication termination is crucial. The level of organization required for correct placement and activation of these enzymes presents a challenge for naturalistic explanations.

Conceptual problem: Spontaneous Organization
- No explanation for the origin of precise spatial and temporal regulation.
- Difficulty in explaining how complex regulatory mechanisms developed without guidance.

6. Energy Requirements and ATP Utilization
DNA replication termination relies on ATP for certain enzymatic reactions. Explaining how early systems efficiently harnessed and utilized energy in this context is a challenge.

Conceptual problem: Energy Coupling
- No known mechanism for the spontaneous development of energy utilization.
- Difficulty in explaining the precise coupling between ATP and enzymatic processes.

7. Molecular Recognition and Information Processing
Molecular recognition, such as Tus identifying Ter sites and topoisomerases recognizing DNA topologies, involves sophisticated information processing. How these capabilities emerged remains unresolved.

Conceptual problem: Information Origin
- No explanation for the spontaneous emergence of molecular information processing capabilities.
- Difficulty in explaining the development of complex recognition systems.

Together, these challenges highlight the complexity of DNA replication termination and underscore the need for further research into the mechanisms driving these processes.


Unresolved Challenges in DNA Replication

1. Ribonuclease H Substrate Specificity  
Ribonuclease H displays remarkable substrate specificity by recognizing and cleaving RNA-DNA hybrids. This level of precision poses significant challenges in explaining how such molecular recognition could emerge naturally. The enzyme must selectively recognize these hybrids and accurately cleave them to ensure proper primer removal and DNA synthesis.

Conceptual problem: Spontaneous Specificity  
- No known natural mechanism accounts for the spontaneous development of highly specific enzyme-substrate interactions.  
- Explaining the origin of precise molecular recognition capabilities without a guided process is difficult.

2. Rep Protein’s ATP-Dependent Helicase Activity  
Rep Protein functions as an ATP-dependent helicase, requiring a complex mechanism to couple ATP hydrolysis with DNA unwinding. This sophisticated energy transduction system, which involves precise conformational changes and mechanical action, presents a significant challenge to naturalistic explanations.

Conceptual problem: Energy-Function Coupling  
- The spontaneous development of ATP-dependent molecular machines is difficult to explain.  
- There is no clear pathway to account for the precise coordination between ATP hydrolysis and mechanical function.

3. Structural Complexity of Ribonuclease H  
The three-dimensional structure of Ribonuclease H is essential for its function. It includes specific binding pockets for RNA-DNA hybrids and catalytic residues positioned for accurate RNA cleavage. The spontaneous emergence of such a complex, functionally precise structure remains unexplained.

Conceptual problem: Spontaneous Structural Sophistication  
- No known process can generate complex protein structures with functional specificity spontaneously.  
- Explaining the precise spatial arrangement of catalytic residues is particularly challenging.

4. Rep Protein’s Directional Movement  
Rep Protein’s ability to exhibit directional movement along the DNA strand is essential for its role in DNA unwinding. The coordination between ATP hydrolysis and directional movement requires a sophisticated mechanism, and explaining the origin of this coordination poses a significant challenge.

Conceptual problem: Spontaneous Directionality  
- The emergence of directional molecular motors without a guided process is unexplained.  
- Coupling energy input to directional mechanical output presents difficulties in naturalistic models.

5. Coordinated Function in DNA Replication  
Ribonuclease H and Rep Protein must operate in concert with other replication proteins to ensure efficient DNA replication. This coordination involves precise timing and spatial regulation of enzymatic activities. Explaining how such a coordinated system could arise naturally presents significant challenges.

Conceptual problem: System-level Coordination  
- There is no known process that could account for the spontaneous emergence of coordinated, multi-enzyme systems.  
- Explaining the precise temporal and spatial regulation of enzymatic activities without guidance is problematic.

6. Ribonuclease H’s Dual Substrate Recognition  
Ribonuclease H must recognize both RNA and DNA components of its hybrid substrate. This dual recognition capability raises questions about how an enzyme could develop such specificity naturally, especially given the chemical similarities between RNA and DNA.

Conceptual problem: Multi-substrate Specificity  
- Explaining the spontaneous development of enzymes with multiple specific recognition capabilities is difficult.  
- The ability to distinguish between chemically similar substrates remains an unresolved challenge.

7. Rep Protein’s Interaction with Single-Stranded DNA Binding Proteins  
Rep Protein must interact with single-stranded DNA binding proteins to function efficiently in unwinding DNA. This interaction requires specific protein-protein recognition, presenting a challenge to naturalistic explanations of how such intermolecular interactions could arise.

Conceptual problem: Spontaneous Protein-Protein Recognition  
- There is no known mechanism for the spontaneous emergence of specific protein-protein interactions.  
- Explaining how multiple proteins coordinate their activities in DNA replication without a guided process is difficult.

8. Irreducibility of DNA Replication  
The DNA replication process, including the roles of Ribonuclease H and Rep Protein, demonstrates a high degree of interdependence. Each component is essential for the overall process, presenting a challenge to stepwise models of naturalistic origin.

Conceptual problem: System Irreducibility  
- Explaining the simultaneous emergence of multiple essential components is difficult without invoking a guided process.  
- The gradual development of such a complex, interdependent system appears unlikely.

These unresolved challenges highlight the complexity and precision required in DNA replication. The functions of Ribonuclease H and Rep Protein, from substrate specificity to energy utilization and protein-protein coordination, present significant obstacles to unguided origin scenarios. Understanding these mechanisms requires further exploration and consideration of alternative explanations for the emergence of such sophisticated biological systems.

https://reasonandscience.catsboard.com

9A Response to "Snake was right"  Empty Re: A Response to "Snake was right" Tue Oct 01, 2024 5:14 pm

Otangelo


Admin

Immuatable  a)  Demonstrate such a designer exists and is even possible, 

Response:  Why it`s an irrational demand to ask for proof of his existence , See here.  Why does God not simply show himself to us ? See here  Is the existence of God possible? See here

Immuatable Even so, in deep sea hydrothermal vents we see very similar and analogous processes that do the same thing the kreb cycle does, including the proton gradients.

Response:  Serpentinization and prebiotic chemistry

Dr. Hideshi Ooka (2018): *Deep-sea hydrothermal vents may drive specific chemical reactions such as CO2 reduction, harnessing thermal and chemical energy. These environments are suited to prebiotic chemical reactions due to the material properties of the vent chimneys.* Link

David Deamer (2019): *Theoretical conjectures about hydrothermal vents assume that minerals can catalyze the reduction of CO2, but experimental support for this is lacking. Moreover, the thickness of the mineral membranes poses a significant challenge for the chemiosmotic process to work effectively.* Link

Commentary: The hypothesis that hydrothermal vents, particularly those involving serpentinization, could drive the prebiotic chemical reactions necessary for the origin of life has garnered attention. These environments are thought to offer the right conditions for the reduction of CO2 and other reactions, potentially providing the energy and raw materials needed to kickstart metabolism in a prebiotic world. The mineral-rich chimneys formed at these vents are believed to act as catalysts, facilitating these reactions in a natural, albeit highly controlled, setting. However, there are significant challenges to this hypothesis. One of the primary issues lies in the lack of experimental evidence supporting the idea that these mineral catalysts can effectively reduce CO2 or perform other essential chemical transformations. The theory remains largely speculative without laboratory validation. Moreover, the physical structure of these mineral membranes, particularly their thickness, presents a barrier to the chemiosmotic processes that are essential for life. Thick mineral membranes are not conducive to creating or maintaining the necessary proton gradients that drive ATP synthesis in modern cells. The reliance on such speculative mechanisms highlights the difficulties in explaining the origin of life through purely natural processes. Serpentinization and hydrothermal vent hypotheses offer intriguing scenarios, but they face significant scientific hurdles that have yet to be overcome. As with many naturalistic models for the origin of life, the complexity of the proposed systems often requires leaps that are difficult to justify without invoking some form of guided or intentional process.

Energetics and Transport in Proto-Cells: Fundamental Questions and Conceptual Challenges

The emergence of energy generation, storage, and utilization systems in proto-cells is a cornerstone of life's development. This transition from simple chemical reactions to highly orchestrated cellular machinery presents significant conceptual challenges. Without assuming undirected processes or evolutionary mechanisms, the following sections explore the specific hurdles and questions associated with explaining how these systems may have emerged in proto-cells.

1. Energy Generation: Initial Sources and Conversion Mechanisms
The earliest proto-cells required a mechanism to capture and convert environmental energy into usable forms. Energy sources like sunlight, geothermal heat, or chemical gradients (such as pH or redox potential) were potentially available, but the conversion of these sources into chemical energy remains a critical issue. In modern cells, enzymes such as ATP synthase catalyze the conversion of a proton gradient into ATP, the primary energy currency. However, ATP synthase is an immensely complex molecular machine, requiring both a membrane and a finely tuned proton gradient to operate.

Conceptual problem: Emergence of Molecular Machines
- How did proto-cells generate and maintain proton gradients before the existence of sophisticated enzymes like ATP synthase?
- The energy-coupling mechanisms that convert environmental gradients into chemical energy require specialized structures and coemerged systems, yet it is unclear how such systems could arise simultaneously without external guidance.

2. Energy Storage: The Role of High-Energy Compounds
Energy must be stored in a form that the cell can access when needed. In modern cells, ATP acts as the universal energy currency, storing energy in its phosphate bonds. The synthesis of ATP, however, is highly complex and dependent on complex molecular machinery. Proto-cells would have needed a method to store energy efficiently in a usable form, yet there is no simple precursor to ATP synthesis that avoids invoking already complex structures.

Conceptual problem: Precursor to ATP and Energy Storage
- Without ATP synthase, how could early cells store energy in a form that is both stable and accessible for metabolic processes?
- The synthesis of ATP involves numerous coemerged pathways that all rely on each other, suggesting that energy storage systems in proto-cells must have required highly coordinated mechanisms from the start.

3. Energy Utilization: Driving Metabolic Processes
Once energy is generated and stored, cells must harness it to drive essential biochemical processes, such as the synthesis of macromolecules and maintaining homeostasis. The challenge is that the utilization of energy in modern cells depends on complex regulatory networks and enzymatic reactions that are highly specific and regulated.

Conceptual problem: Early Energy Utilization Systems
- What primitive systems could have harnessed stored energy without the aid of enzymes that themselves require energy to be synthesized?
- The dependence of metabolic processes on pre-existing enzymatic systems presents a circular problem: the enzymes require energy to function, but the generation and utilization of energy rely on enzymes.

4. Membrane-Driven Chemical Gradients: Proton Motive Force and Transport
Membranes are essential for maintaining chemical gradients, such as the proton motive force, which modern cells use to drive ATP synthesis. However, the presence of a membrane itself introduces a new layer of complexity. For proto-cells, the formation of a selectively permeable membrane that could maintain gradients while allowing controlled transport of ions and molecules is not trivial.

Conceptual problem: Membrane Formation and Transport Mechanisms
- How could early proto-cells form membranes capable of maintaining chemical gradients without the specialized proteins required for selective permeability and active transport?
- The emergence of both a membrane and transport proteins at the same time presents a considerable coordination challenge, as these components must coemerge to function.

5. Simultaneous Development of Interdependent Systems
The greatest conceptual hurdle in explaining proto-cell energetics and transport lies in the interdependence of its systems. Energy generation, storage, and utilization are tightly linked, and none can function effectively without the others. For example, ATP synthase relies on a proton gradient to function, but maintaining that gradient requires membrane integrity and selective transport proteins. This creates a "chicken-and-egg" problem where all components must coemerge simultaneously for the system to work.

Conceptual problem: Interdependent Systems and Coordination
- What processes could lead to the simultaneous development of all necessary components for energy generation, storage, and transport in proto-cells?
- Current hypotheses struggle to explain how complex, coemerged systems could arise in a stepwise manner, as even the simplest modern analogs require multiple interacting parts to function.

Conclusion
The interplay between energy generation, storage, and utilization in modern cells underscores the complexity of even the simplest proto-cell models. The simultaneous emergence of these tightly coupled systems remains a central challenge. While theoretical models have proposed various environmental conditions that might facilitate such processes, none satisfactorily address how the necessary molecular machinery coemerged to support proto-cell viability.

Understanding how proto-cells managed energy and molecular transport demands a reevaluation of current naturalistic explanations, as the complexity observed even in primitive systems far exceeds what can be easily accounted for by undirected processes. This remains one of the most profound and unresolved questions in the study of life's origins.

Unresolved Challenges in Transition from Hydrothermal Vents to the Krebs Cycle

1. Conceptual Gaps in Energy Harnessing Mechanisms

The proposal that life might have emerged around hydrothermal vents often posits that natural proton gradients provided the necessary energy for early metabolism. These environments feature serpentinization, a process by which reduced gases such as hydrogen (H₂) are formed in the presence of minerals. Proponents suggest that these reactions could have driven early forms of metabolism, potentially leading to more complex systems like the Krebs cycle. However, several critical gaps remain unresolved.

The Krebs cycle is central to cellular respiration in modern life, facilitating the oxidation of acetyl-CoA to carbon dioxide while simultaneously reducing NAD+ and FAD to NADH and FADH₂. This cycle is highly intricate, relying on a sequence of enzyme-catalyzed reactions that must function in an organized, cyclic fashion. For early life to transition from the supposed energy gradients of hydrothermal vents to a functional Krebs cycle, several steps would have been required, including the emergence of key enzymes, cofactors, and membrane structures. Each of these components is highly specialized and complex, raising significant questions about how they would have co-emerged.

Challenges:
- Enzyme specificity: The Krebs cycle involves multiple highly specific enzymes, including citrate synthase, aconitase, and succinate dehydrogenase, each catalyzing a distinct reaction. The spontaneous appearance of these enzymes is not supported by known chemical processes.
- Cofactor requirements: The cycle requires the presence of cofactors like NAD+, FAD, and coenzyme A, none of which would have been easily available in a prebiotic environment without pre-existing complex biosynthetic pathways.
- Organizational complexity: The cycle operates as a closed loop, with the products of one reaction serving as the substrates for the next. This level of organization raises questions about how such a system could have emerged incrementally.

Conceptual Problem: Integrated Functionality
For the Krebs cycle to function, all the enzymes, cofactors, and substrate availability must be in place simultaneously. This presents a major conceptual issue: how could such a highly organized and interdependent system arise in a naturalistic, stepwise fashion? The requirement for simultaneous emergence challenges the notion that the cycle could have come about through unguided processes.

2. Lack of Experimental Evidence for Natural Proton Gradients as Energy Sources

The idea that natural proton gradients in hydrothermal vent environments could drive early metabolic processes remains largely speculative. Proton gradients across a membrane require a mechanism for pumping protons, maintaining the gradient, and harvesting the energy from proton movement back across the membrane. In modern cells, this is achieved through highly complex systems such as ATP synthase, a molecular machine that couples proton flow to ATP production.

Challenges:
- Absence of proton pumps in prebiotic environments: There is no evidence that a natural, spontaneous system existed that could maintain a sustained proton gradient without the help of molecular machinery. Without a pump or similar mechanism, proton gradients would rapidly dissipate, rendering them useless for driving metabolic reactions.
- Lack of experimental validation: Although theoretical models propose that such gradients could have existed at hydrothermal vents, there is little experimental support for this claim. Attempts to replicate these conditions in the laboratory have not yet produced self-sustaining metabolic systems.

Conceptual Problem: Proton Gradient Maintenance
To utilize a proton gradient, early proto-cells would have required a mechanism to maintain the gradient and prevent dissipation. However, proton pumps and membrane channels are highly sophisticated proteins that are unlikely to have emerged without pre-existing metabolic systems. This raises the question of how proto-cells could have maintained energy-generating proton gradients in the absence of such machinery.

3. The Implausibility of Unguided Emergence of ATP Synthase

ATP synthase, the enzyme responsible for the synthesis of ATP from ADP and inorganic phosphate, is a critical component of cellular life. This rotary motor enzyme is among the most complex molecular machines in living organisms, and its existence is universal across all known life forms. For life to emerge, a system for energy storage and conversion, such as ATP synthase, would have been necessary from the start.

Challenges:
- Extreme complexity of ATP synthase: ATP synthase is composed of multiple protein subunits that form a rotating motor. The precise coordination required for its function makes it exceedingly unlikely that such a system could have emerged through random chemical processes.
- Dependence on proton gradients: The function of ATP synthase is dependent on a proton gradient across a membrane, which itself requires sophisticated machinery to maintain. The emergence of both ATP synthase and a functional proton gradient maintenance system presents a significant catch-22 scenario.

Conceptual Problem: Chicken-and-Egg Dilemma of Energy Generation
The emergence of ATP synthase requires a pre-existing proton gradient, but the maintenance of a proton gradient depends on the availability of ATP or similar energy sources. This presents a serious conceptual issue for any naturalistic model of life's origins: how could such an interdependent system arise without the necessary components already in place? The spontaneous emergence of such a complex system without guidance appears to be beyond the capabilities of known chemical processes.

4. The Unsolved Problem of Metabolic Organization

A central issue in explaining the origin of life is the emergence of organized metabolic networks. Modern metabolic systems, including the Krebs cycle, glycolysis, and oxidative phosphorylation, are highly integrated and rely on precise control mechanisms to regulate energy flow and ensure cellular homeostasis. However, prebiotic environments lack the organizational structures needed to support such intricate networks.

Challenges:
- No known mechanism for metabolic organization: Prebiotic chemistry can produce simple organic molecules, but there is no evidence that such reactions could organize themselves into functional metabolic networks. The transition from random chemical reactions to the structured pathways seen in modern life remains unexplained.
- Thermodynamic barriers to complexity: The Second Law of Thermodynamics states that systems naturally tend toward disorder. The emergence of highly ordered metabolic networks in defiance of this principle raises significant questions about how early life could have achieved and maintained such complexity.

Conceptual Problem: Overcoming Thermodynamic Barriers
For life to begin, it would have needed to overcome the natural tendency toward disorder and establish a highly organized metabolic system. Without the guidance of pre-existing biological machinery, it is difficult to see how such organization could have arisen spontaneously. The challenge is compounded by the fact that early life forms would have had to maintain this order in a thermodynamically unfavorable environment.

Conclusion: Unanswered Questions in the Transition from Hydrothermal Vents to Cellular Metabolism
The transition from hydrothermal vent environments to functional cellular metabolism presents numerous unresolved challenges. The complexity of energy-harnessing mechanisms, the interdependence of key metabolic components, and the thermodynamic barriers to organized metabolic systems all raise serious doubts about naturalistic explanations for life's origin. The simultaneous emergence of proton gradients, ATP synthase, and organized metabolic networks appears to require a level of coordination and precision that cannot be easily accounted for by unguided processes. Without experimental validation or a plausible mechanism for the spontaneous organization of such systems, the gap between prebiotic chemistry and the earliest life forms remains a significant obstacle in origin-of-life research.


Immuatable: the replication of DNA prebiotically is not complicated

Response:  The assertion that DNA replication prebiotically would not have been complicated is not only a gross oversimplification but also a fundamental misunderstanding of the interdependent processes involved in modern DNA replication. The complexity of DNA replication in living cells—requiring a suite of highly specialized proteins, precise enzymatic reactions, and an error-correction system—presents significant challenges to any claim that it could have occurred spontaneously in a prebiotic environment. To fully appreciate why such a claim is indefensible, we have to examine the core components and processes of DNA replication and the immense hurdles that would have needed to be overcome for this system to function without any pre-existing biological machinery.

1. The Structural Complexity of DNA

DNA is a highly ordered double-helix polymer, composed of a sugar-phosphate backbone and four nucleotide bases (adenine, thymine, cytosine, and guanine). For DNA replication to occur, the two strands of the double helix must be separated, and each strand must serve as a template for the formation of a new complementary strand. This process alone introduces significant challenges in a prebiotic context:
- Hydrogen bonding between base pairs: The two DNA strands are held together by hydrogen bonds between complementary base pairs. In a prebiotic environment, the spontaneous separation of these strands without highly specialized proteins would be extremely unlikely.
- Polymerization of nucleotides: DNA polymerization requires the precise addition of nucleotides in a complementary fashion to the template strand. This process requires both activated nucleotides and an enzyme capable of forming phosphodiester bonds between them—yet no such enzymes would have existed prebiotically.

The formation of a stable, double-stranded DNA molecule with its complex tertiary structure in the chaotic conditions of early Earth would have required a highly regulated environment, which is difficult to imagine without pre-existing biological systems.

2. The Role of DNA Polymerases and Other Enzymes in Replication

In modern cells, DNA replication is facilitated by a suite of enzymes, each playing a specific role in the replication process. These enzymes include:
- Helicase: Unwinds the DNA double helix, separating the two strands.
- DNA Polymerase: Adds complementary nucleotides to the template strand and forms the phosphodiester bonds that link them together.
- Primase: Synthesizes a short RNA primer to provide a starting point for DNA polymerase.
- Ligase: Joins Okazaki fragments on the lagging strand to form a continuous DNA molecule.
- Topoisomerase: Prevents the DNA strands from becoming overwound as the helix unwinds.

Without these enzymes, DNA replication as we know it would be impossible. The claim that replication could have occurred in a prebiotic world without such proteins is unsupported by any evidence, as the precision and speed required to synthesize and maintain a functional DNA molecule would not be achievable without these molecular machines.

Conceptual Problem: Enzymatic Specificity
Enzymes like DNA polymerase have highly specific active sites that allow them to selectively add the correct nucleotide bases. The specificity of these enzymes ensures the fidelity of DNA replication, keeping mutation rates low enough for life to be viable. Without these precise molecular tools, the spontaneous replication of DNA would have been riddled with errors, leading to non-functional or harmful genetic sequences. The emergence of such highly specific and efficient enzymes in a prebiotic world presents an enormous challenge, particularly since these enzymes are themselves coded for by DNA—a classic chicken-and-egg problem.

3. Energy Requirements for DNA Replication

DNA replication is an energy-intensive process, requiring nucleotide triphosphates (dNTPs) to fuel the addition of nucleotides to the growing DNA strand. In living cells, ATP (adenosine triphosphate) provides the energy required for various stages of replication. The spontaneous generation of such high-energy molecules, coupled with the precise regulation of their use, is difficult to account for in a prebiotic environment.

Moreover, DNA replication occurs in a highly controlled, compartmentalized cellular environment that ensures the correct balance of dNTPs, the proper coordination of enzymes, and the necessary energy supply. Prebiotically, no such regulatory mechanisms would have been in place, making the spontaneous replication of DNA even less feasible.

4. The Error-Correction Mechanisms in Modern DNA Replication

One of the hallmarks of modern DNA replication is its incredible accuracy, maintained by sophisticated error-correction mechanisms. DNA polymerases not only synthesize new DNA strands but also possess proofreading functions that remove incorrectly paired nucleotides. Additionally, post-replication mismatch repair systems identify and correct any remaining errors in the DNA sequence.

In the absence of such error-correction systems, prebiotic DNA replication would have been highly error-prone, with mutations accumulating at a rate that would make the stable inheritance of genetic information impossible. The evolution of these error-correction mechanisms remains unexplained by naturalistic models, and their spontaneous emergence prebiotically would have been even more implausible.

Conceptual Problem: Fidelity and Mutational Load
The spontaneous emergence of DNA replication without error-correction mechanisms would result in extremely high mutation rates, rendering any genetic material non-functional within just a few generations. The idea that a self-replicating molecule could arise and sustain life without a means to correct errors is untenable.

5. The "RNA World" Hypothesis and Its Shortcomings

One of the most popular hypotheses for the origin of life is the "RNA World" hypothesis, which suggests that RNA, not DNA, was the original genetic material. This idea is based on RNA's ability to both store genetic information and catalyze chemical reactions. Proponents argue that RNA could have served as a precursor to DNA, with the transition to DNA occurring later in life's evolution.

However, even this hypothesis faces significant challenges:
- RNA instability: RNA is far less stable than DNA, particularly in the harsh conditions that likely existed on early Earth. Its susceptibility to hydrolysis and degradation makes it an unlikely candidate for long-term genetic storage.
- Lack of RNA polymerases: As with DNA, the replication of RNA requires highly specific enzymes—RNA polymerases—which would not have been present prebiotically.
- Transition from RNA to DNA: The transition from an RNA-based system to a DNA-based system would have required the simultaneous emergence of new enzymes (such as reverse transcriptase) and a complete overhaul of genetic replication machinery.

Thus, even if RNA did serve as an intermediary, the eventual transition to DNA replication would have required overcoming the same challenges of enzyme specificity, energy requirements, and error correction, making the claim that DNA replication prebiotically is "not complicated" even more dubious.

Conclusion: DNA Replication Prebiotically Was Incredibly Complicated

The claim that DNA replication prebiotically was not complicated is utterly baseless. The complexity of modern DNA replication, with its reliance on a vast array of enzymes, energy sources, and error-correction mechanisms, points to a system that is highly unlikely to have arisen spontaneously. The coordinated functioning of multiple components in a living cell underscores the fact that DNA replication is an immensely complicated process, even in its simplest forms. The spontaneous emergence of such a system, without guidance or pre-existing biological machinery, faces insurmountable conceptual and practical hurdles, rendering the claim of simplicity entirely untenable.


Immuatable:  the first replicator doesn’t need to be precise until there is some relationship between nucleotide sequences and the amino acid that gets associated

Response:   The claim that the first replicator does not need to be precise until there is an established relationship between nucleotide sequences and the corresponding amino acids is deeply flawed. This statement misunderstands the fundamental nature of molecular replication and the importance of fidelity from the very beginning. In order for any replicating system to give rise to complex biological processes, including the translation of nucleotide sequences into amino acids, a certain level of precision must already be in place. Without such precision, replication errors would accumulate, leading to non-functional molecules, degraded information, and an inability to maintain any stable genetic system.

1. The Necessity of Fidelity in Early Replication

Even in the earliest stages of molecular replication, some degree of fidelity would have been essential for maintaining the integrity of the replicating sequence. The concept of the "first replicator" implies that some molecule—whether RNA, DNA, or another polymer—was capable of copying itself. However, if this copying process were imprecise from the start, the replicated molecules would have quickly diverged from their original form, leading to information loss and non-functional sequences.

Error Catastrophe: A key issue here is what is known as error catastrophe, which occurs when the replication process introduces so many errors that the genetic information is rapidly degraded and rendered useless. In the absence of precision, replication errors would multiply exponentially with each generation, resulting in a loss of functional molecules and an inability to sustain any meaningful replication process. This is particularly problematic in small, early replicators, where even minor errors can have catastrophic effects.
 
Information Preservation: Molecular replication is about more than just making copies—it is about preserving the integrity of the information encoded in the sequence. For any self-replicating system to evolve and maintain functional properties, the replicated sequences must retain a high level of fidelity. Without this fidelity, the information necessary for creating functional molecules, such as enzymes or ribozymes, would rapidly degrade, making it impossible for any meaningful biochemical processes to emerge.

2. Early Relationship Between Sequence and Function

The claim suggests that precision in replication is not important until there is a clear relationship between nucleotide sequences and the amino acids they encode. However, this notion overlooks the critical role that **sequence-specific functional molecules** play from the very beginning. Even before the development of a fully functioning translation system (i.e., the genetic code that links nucleotide sequences to amino acids), precise replication is necessary to maintain any **functionally useful sequence**.

Ribozymes and Catalytic Function: In the RNA world hypothesis, ribozymes (RNA molecules with catalytic properties) are thought to have played an early role in the development of life. These ribozymes are highly sequence-dependent, meaning that their catalytic activity relies on the precise arrangement of their nucleotide bases. If early replication were not precise, ribozymes would lose their ability to catalyze key reactions, making the emergence of complex biochemical systems impossible.
 
Emergence of Function Requires Precision: Before any relationship between nucleotide sequences and amino acids can be established, functional molecules (like ribozymes or other catalysts) must already exist. These functional molecules depend on the correct replication of their sequences. The notion that replication could be imprecise at this early stage fails to account for the fact that molecular function is inherently tied to sequence precision. Any early replicator that lacks fidelity would not be able to maintain the sequence integrity necessary for functionality, leading to non-functional or harmful outcomes.

3. The Accumulation of Errors in an Imprecise System

Another fundamental problem with the claim is the idea that an imprecise replicator could later evolve into a system with greater fidelity. In fact, the reverse is far more likely the accumulation of replication errors over time would lead to a progressive decline in functional sequences, making it increasingly unlikely that any functional molecules would persist. The idea that early replication could tolerate high error rates is contradicted by the overwhelming tendency of such errors to destroy information.

Error Threshold: There is a well-established threshold for error rates in replication systems, beyond which the system cannot maintain its integrity. This error threshold is particularly low for early replicators with short sequences. Even small deviations from the correct sequence can result in loss of function, rendering the replicator incapable of sustaining any meaningful biological processes. The idea that early replicators could tolerate imprecision without significant negative consequences is scientifically unsound.

No Path to Increased Fidelity: The claim implies that early imprecision could somehow evolve into greater fidelity once the relationship between nucleotide sequences and amino acids emerges. However, the very emergence of such a relationship would depend on pre-existing, accurate replication mechanisms. Without fidelity from the start, there is no clear path for improving replication precision, as the necessary molecular machinery would degrade before it could evolve into a more reliable system.

4. The "Chicken-and-Egg" Problem of Replication and Translation

The idea that precision becomes important only after the development of a translation system (linking nucleotide sequences to amino acids) ignores the **chicken-and-egg problem** inherent in molecular biology. Translation itself requires highly precise machinery, such as ribosomes, tRNAs, and aminoacyl-tRNA synthetases. However, these components are encoded by genetic information, which requires accurate replication.

Functional Translation Requires Replication Fidelity: Translation systems rely on the correct interpretation of genetic sequences. For this to occur, the sequences themselves must be accurately replicated. If early replication were imprecise, the sequences encoding key components of the translation system would be corrupted, preventing the system from functioning. The development of translation depends on prior replication fidelity, making it impossible for translation to emerge in an environment of high replication error.

Conclusion: Precision in Replication Was Essential from the Start

The claim that early replication did not require precision until the emergence of the genetic code linking nucleotide sequences to amino acids is fundamentally flawed. Precision in replication is a prerequisite for the maintenance of functional sequences, even in the earliest stages of molecular evolution. Without fidelity, replication systems would rapidly degrade, leading to error catastrophe and the loss of any meaningful biological function. The emergence of complex systems, such as translation, is contingent on the accurate preservation of genetic information from the very beginning. Thus, the necessity of precision in early replication cannot be overstated, and any suggestion to the contrary is inconsistent with both molecular biology and the challenges inherent in the origin of life.


Immuatable: As far as the shroud of Turin goes, wether it is real or not(let’s just argue it is not fake), you must now demonstrate Jesus as the historical figure displayed in the gospels, which is not going to be feasible

Response:  The odds that the Shroud of Turin is a forgery, and the man not Jesus, are  1 in 4.25 × 10^23 See here

https://reasonandscience.catsboard.com

10A Response to "Snake was right"  Empty Re: A Response to "Snake was right" Wed Oct 02, 2024 6:54 am

Otangelo


Admin

Immutable: The assertions aren’t gross

If there are systems which produce molecules that degrade rapidly

Response:  Indeed. All molecules, not just some. Benner, S. A. (2014): An enormous amount of empirical data have established, as a rule, that organic systems, given energy and left to themselves, devolve to give uselessly complex mixtures, “asphalts”. The theory that enumerates small molecule space, as well as Structure Theory in chemistry, can be construed to regard this devolution a necessary consequence of theory. Conversely, the literature reports (to our knowledge) exactly zero confirmed observations where “replication involving replicable imperfections” (RIRI) evolution emerged spontaneously from a devolving chemical system. Further, chemical theories, including the second law of thermodynamics, bonding theory that describes the “space” accessible to sets of atoms, and structure theory requiring that replication systems occupy only tiny fractions of that space, suggest that it is impossible for any non-living chemical system to escape devolution to enter into the Darwinian world of the “living”. Such statements of impossibility apply even to macromolecules not assumed to be necessary for RIRI evolution. Again richly supported by empirical observation, material escapes from known metabolic cycles that might be viewed as models for a “metabolism first” origin of life, making such cycles short-lived. Lipids that provide tidy compartments under the close supervision of a graduate student (supporting a protocell first model for origins) are quite non-robust with respect to small environmental perturbations, such as a change in the salt concentration, the introduction of organic solvents, or a change in temperature.Link

Immutable:  those systems have a degraded probability of being assigned to some nucleic acid sequence

Response:  No random system has EVER been shown to assign meaning to a codified sequence. And that is another MASSIVE problem for the origin of life. How did the genetic code come to be?

1. The genetic code, and genetic information, are analogous to human language. Codons are words, the sequence of codons ( genes) are sentences. Both contain semantic meaning.
2. Codon words are assigned, and code for amino acids, and genes which are strings containing codified, complex specified information instruct the assembly of proteins.
3. Semantic meaning is non-material. Therefore, the origin of the genetic code, and genetic information, are non-material.
4. Instructional assembly information to make devices for specific purposes comes always from a mind. Therefore, genetic information comes from a mind.

More, here.

Immutable: If you bother studying biochemistry and its basic components you can easily see that there are plausible solutions to the problem. 

Response:  It seems that you have some knowledge that those working in the field don't have..... zz.

 Eugene V. Koonin: The Logic of Chance: page 252:
Despite many interesting results to its credit, when judged by the straightforward criterion of reaching (or even approaching) the ultimate goal, the origin of life field is a failure—we still do not have even a plausible coherent model, let alone a validated scenario, for the emergence of life on Earth. Certainly, this is due not to a lack of experimental and theoretical effort, but to the extraordinary intrinsic difficulty and complexity of the problem. A succession of exceedingly unlikely steps is essential for the origin of life, from the synthesis and accumulation of nucleotides to the origin of translation; through the multiplication of probabilities, these make the final outcome seem almost like a miracle.

Steve Benner:  Paradoxes in the origin of life
Discussed here is an alternative approach to guide research into the origins of life, one that focuses on “paradoxes”, pairs of statements, both grounded in theory and observation, that (taken
together) suggest that the “origins problem” cannot be solved.

Graham Cairns-Smith: Genetic takeover, page 66:
Now you may say that there are alternative ways of building up nucleotides, and perhaps there was some geochemical way on the early Earth. But what we know of the experimental difficulties in nucleotide synthesis speaks strongly against any such supposition. However it is to be put together, a nucleotide is too complex and metastable a molecule for there to be any reason to expect an easy synthesis.

Garrett: Biochemistry, 6th ed,  page 665
Key compounds, such as arginine, lysine, and histidine; the straight-chain fatty acids; porphyrins; and essential coenzymes, have not been convincingly synthesized under simulated prebiotic conditions.

Robert Shapiro: A Replicator Was Not Involved in the Origin of Life
A profound difficulty exists, however, with the idea of RNA, or any other replicator, at the start of life. Existing replicators can serve as templates for the synthesis of additional copies of themselves, but this device cannot be used for the preparation of the very first such molecule, which must arise spontaneously from an unorganized mixture. The formation of an information-bearing homopolymer through undirected chemical synthesis appears very improbable.

Kenji Ikehara Evolutionary Steps in the Emergence of Life Deduced from the Bottom-Up Approach and GADV Hypothesis (Top-Down Approach) 2016 Mar; 6
(1) nucleotides have not been produced from simple inorganic compounds through prebiotic means and have not been detected in any meteorites, although a small quantity of nucleobases can be obtained.
(2) It is quite difficult or most likely impossible to synthesize nucleotides and RNA through prebiotic means.
(3) It must also be impossible to self-replicate RNA with catalytic activity on the same RNA molecule.
(4) It would be impossible to explain the formation process of genetic information according to the RNA world hypothesis, because the information is comprised of triplet codon sequence, which would never be stochastically produced by joining of mononucleotides one by one.
(5) The formation process of the first genetic code cannot be explained by the hypothesis either, because a genetic code composed of around 60 codons must be prepared to synthesize proteins from the beginning.
(6) It is also impossible to transfer catalytic activity from a folded RNA ribozyme to a protein with a tertiary structure.

Immutable: the environment is prebiotic earth is brimming with energy and there are an almost uncountable number of things that could be happening 

Response:  And thats precisely the problem. There would have been the possibility of infinite chemical and molecular combinations, but there was no natural selection. More, here

Joining nucleotide ingredients together in the right way

Shapiro, R. (1986): A Skeptic's Guide to the Creation of Life on Earth 1986, p.186:
In other words,' I said, `if you want to create life, on top of the challenge of somehow generating the cellular  components out of non-living chemicals, you would have an even bigger problem in trying to it the ingredients together in the right way.' `Exactly! ... So even if you could accomplish the thousands of steps between the amino acids in the Miller tar-which probably didn't exist in the real world anyway-and the components you need for a living cell-all the enzymes, the DNA, and so forth-you's still immeasurably far from life. ... the problem of  assembling the right parts in the right way at the right time and at the right place, while keeping out the wrong material, is simply insurmountable. Link

A. Graham Cairns-Smith (1982): Genetic takeover, page 64:
What is missing from this story of the evolution of life on earth is the original means of producing such sophisticated materials as RNA. The main problem is that the replication of RNA depends on a clean supply of rather complicated monomers—activated nucleotides. What was required to set the scene for an RNA world was a highly competent, long-term means of production of at least two nucleotides. In practice the discrimination required to make nucleotide parts cleanly, or to assemble them correctly, still seems insufficient. Link

One of the challenges in prebiotic chemistry lies in the assembly of RNA and DNA without the presence of cellular machinery. These nucleic acids must have somehow formed and organized in a highly specific manner, yet prebiotic environments lacked the controlled processes seen in modern cells. The difficulty arises not just in the synthesis of the nucleotide components but in their arrangement into functioning polymers. This issue is further compounded by the need for a clean, uninterrupted supply of nucleotides, free from contaminants that could inhibit proper formation. The mechanisms required for such precision are elusive under prebiotic conditions. The challenge of joining nucleobases with ribose and phosphorus in a prebiotic world, without the benefit of cellular mechanisms, presents a fundamental barrier to understanding life's origins. To function properly, RNA and DNA must consist of correctly assembled nucleotides, but achieving this level of order from non-living chemicals is an essential hurdle. The synthesis and subsequent polymerization of these nucleotides would have needed to occur in a precise and clean environment, without which the formation of functional genetic materials is improbable. The absence of cellular machinery only magnifies the issue of producing complex and functional biomolecules naturally.

Prebiotic assembly of nucleotides remains an unsolved mystery due to the requirements for joining the individual parts of nucleotides into functional monomers. Without cellular assistance, such a process would demand an environment capable of fostering not just the creation of the individual components but their accurate assembly into functional molecules. These conditions pose an essential challenge, as any errors in nucleotide sequence or structure could result in dysfunctional biomolecules, rendering the emergence of life impossible. The sheer complexity involved in joining RNA and DNA nucleotides in the right manner without the guiding influence of life points to a deeper problem in prebiotic chemistry.

Immutable: Your responses come from the abstract of origin of life papers, and rather than dealing intellectually with the issues, you instead return back to this age old dead argument of “well it had to be the way it is now at the beginning”, the almost infinite number of flaws in that argument has been pointed out to everyone including you, multiple times.

Response:   The argument that the first universal common ancestor (FUCA) was much simpler than LUCA and, therefore, capable of arising through unguided processes overlooks key points regarding the improbability of even a simpler organism spontaneously emerging from prebiotic conditions. 

1. Complexity from the Start
Even if FUCA were simpler than LUCA, it would still require a minimal level of complexity to function as a living organism. At the very least, FUCA would need:
  - A genome capable of encoding essential proteins for cellular processes.
  - A basic metabolic system for energy production and utilization.
  - A membrane capable of selectively allowing nutrients in and waste out, maintaining an internal environment distinct from the surroundings.
 
  These components, even in their simplest forms, require highly specific molecular arrangements and biochemical reactions that are unlikely to arise spontaneously. The fundamental problem remains: how did even a rudimentary version of these systems emerge without guided processes?

2. Minimum Genetic Information Problem
Although FUCA may have had a smaller genome than LUCA, it still would have required a functioning genetic information system. Studies on minimal genomes suggest that even the simplest cells need hundreds of essential genes. For example, research on the smallest known bacteria (e.g., Mycoplasma genitalium) suggests a minimal genome size of around 500-600 kilobases (Kb), which is still far too large to arise by chance.

The probability of randomly assembling a functioning genome, even one smaller than LUCA's, remains astronomically low. Even if FUCA's genome was 10% of LUCA's, the odds of assembling such a genome without guided processes would still be vanishingly small, making spontaneous emergence highly improbable.

3. Interdependence of Cellular Systems
The argument that FUCA was simpler than LUCA does not address the issue of interdependence in even the most basic cellular systems. For example, even a simpler ancestor would still need:
  - A method to store genetic information (e.g., DNA or RNA).
  - A mechanism to translate genetic information into functional proteins (e.g., ribosomes or ribozymes).
  - A way to produce energy (e.g., ATP synthesis).
  - A membrane to maintain homeostasis.

  These systems are tightly interconnected, meaning they must all be present and functioning simultaneously for life to persist. The absence of even one crucial component would render the entire system non-functional. This level of interdependence is difficult to explain through unguided, stepwise processes, as all systems would need to arise concurrently.

4. Chemical Instability in Prebiotic Conditions
The spontaneous formation of complex molecules necessary for life, even for a hypothetical FUCA, faces significant obstacles due to the inherent instability of these molecules in prebiotic environments. Nucleotides, amino acids, and lipids tend to break down rather than organize into complex structures in the absence of protective mechanisms, making the emergence of even a "simpler" FUCA improbable without external guidance or direction.

For example:
  - Nucleotides degrade in the presence of water, preventing long-term persistence needed for functional RNA or DNA.
  - Proteins require a precise sequence of amino acids to function, but prebiotic conditions would produce random, non-functional polymers.

  Without mechanisms for repair or stabilization, essential biomolecules would degrade faster than they could assemble into a living system, further reducing the likelihood of unguided emergence.

5. Energy Requirements for Basic Cellular Functions
Even for a simpler organism like FUCA, basic cellular functions would require energy. Processes such as active transport across membranes, protein synthesis, and replication demand a reliable energy source (e.g., ATP). However, the spontaneous emergence of complex energy-harvesting systems, such as ATP synthase, is extraordinarily unlikely. Even simpler energy pathways would require coordinated enzyme functions, which, again, depend on highly specific protein structures and sequences that are unlikely to form without guidance.

6. No Known Naturalistic Pathways for Key Cellular Functions
Despite decades of research, no plausible naturalistic pathways have been discovered that can account for the spontaneous development of the key functions necessary for even the simplest forms of life. Hypothetical scenarios for the origin of metabolic networks, information storage systems, and cellular membranes all face severe obstacles, particularly in prebiotic environments where chemical reactions are far more likely to lead to disorganized, non-functional compounds.

Conclusion:
Even if we hypothesize that FUCA was significantly simpler than LUCA, the fundamental challenges to the unguided emergence of life remain unchanged. A simpler ancestor would still require a functioning genome, metabolic pathways, membrane systems, and energy production mechanisms, all of which are highly improbable to have arisen spontaneously. The problem is not just the number of components but the precise organization, interdependence, and complexity required from the very beginning. Thus, the objection that LUCA is not the first universal common ancestor does not sufficiently address the core issue: the extreme improbability of life's emergence without guidance, even for a simpler FUCA.

https://reasonandscience.catsboard.com

Sponsored content



Back to top  Message [Page 1 of 1]

Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum