An Unconvincing Argument Against Evolution and/or Abiogenesis

[tjm190]

Then how can you claim that you have “Scientific” theory?

What would be the difference in saying, “We scientists believe that apples form from the yellow excretions of fairies that fly unseen at at night.”

There is an equal amount of Science in both propositions. Scientists really should be offended by the Secular priesthood trying to steal the name of Science for their cause.

Care to name a scientific theory that is completely air tight?

 

[tjm190]

But even more,

How can anyone claim that Science has anything to do with any claim concerning the evolution or origin of life if it can’t even create a model to begin the formation of a theory as to how life began on Earth?

It seems like someone is proposing a theory of gravity without ever even dropping anything so as to measure it.

How do you propose a theory without even one trial and call it Science???

Actually scientists should be offended by the Secular, Atheistic priesthood.

I’ve never seen or heard of a trial done by astronomy or geology.

 

[NowAgnostic]

I think that your general claim is correct. We certainly have no way to measure the probability of life’s spontaneous generation, but we know that life does exist.

However…

Suppose: A man walks on water, in clear sight of thousands of other people. It is obvious that this is not a trick; perhaps it is verified by experts in science, etc. Is this evidence of supernatural intervention?

This is a good question. The answer hinges on whether a prediction was made before the fact. If someone says, I am going to walk on water, or so-and-so is going to walk on water, at such-and-such a time, and does so, I’d accept that as evidence of supernatural intervention, as humans do not have such knowledge that such a combination of events would happen. If it’s just an after-the-fact thing, some ugly fat slob was seen walking on water, who had given no indication that such a thing would happen, then again it only reflects our lack of knowledge about the initial conditions.

If you say yes, then it seems like your probability calculus has gone out the window. For how is this different from the above scenario?

Because a prediction was made before the fact. Probability is only a measure of lack of knowledge, but a correct prediction would show extraordinary knowledge.

Something extraordinarily unlikely has happened,

Stop right there, because you have missed the point of the OP. “Unlikely” has no meaning except relative to our knowledge or lack of knowledge. If you want to get right down to it, our universe is not just “extraordinarily unlikely”, its “probability” is zero, because it is one out of an infinity of possible universes. Yet our universe is here. The only way that probability makes sense here is in terms of lack of knowledge.

but since it has happened, it seems that it must be more possible than we expected – surely science will sufficiently explain it (as if that precluded God’s intervention).

Who is saying scientific explanations are precluding God’s intervention? Certainly not me. But tell me, why is it so improbable God would have arranged the initial conditions such that life would arise via abiogenesis and evolution, rather than monkeying around with creation to ensure it arose? How are you going to assign probabilities here? And the comment about the zero probability of the universe is true whether God exists or not.

If you say no, then you are claiming that, if God exists, nevertheless no tangible evidence could ever materialize, such that we could know of His existence. In which case, it’s no wonder you’re an agnostic.

Every finite effect is explainable via a finite cause. Inferring the existence of supernatural entities is one thing, and one which I could be open to, as I said above. They need not be the philosophical God, however.

And this distinction needs to be made clear, also. Inference can only work with finite sets, and is only relevant to the actual universe. Now, there are a finite number of molecules in the universe, and thus a finite number of possible arrangements. We have no knowledge about what those arrangements were on the early earth, but we know a very specific configuration would need to be the case for abiogenesis. Our existence is evidence though that such a configuration in fact was the case. Saying that it was “unlikely” is an illegitimate reification of probability, which only reflects lack of knowledge.

But some versions of this argument (e.g. the fine-tuning or anthropic principle) arguments are different. They ask what are the “odds” of a universe existing where life can exist. Because there are an infinity of possible universes, and an infinity of possible universes where life can exist, any inference breaks down. Probabilities are fractions (by definition) and fractions (by definition) only apply to finite entities.

 

[NowAgnostic]

First of all, why the necessity for all these evolution/abiogenesis threads? Education? I don’t think so. The proportion of threads implies something else which is intimately connected to billboards that read: Praise Darwin. Evolve beyond belief, and bus signs: Man created God. Meanwhile, science is brought over here all the time to comment on theology. Science, which is supposedly silent about God and the supernatural. No peered reviewed papers but plenty of direct, and, at times, emotional comments here. Your Bible is wrong, here, here and here. It doesn’t seem to matter. Or conversely, don’t tell me God did it.

I’m inviting you to refine your arguments if you wish to make a more effective rebuttal.

Why mention God or the supernatural? Ideally, people would offer their information, and if people ignored it or said, I don’t think this makes no sense to me, I think a civil disagreement would be in order. But no. Just keep posting, day in and day out, waiting for acceptance. And when ‘acceptance’ does not occur, rail against the supernatural? The Bible? Hey, I know there are non-theists and Agnostics who post here. What do you do in the real world when someone you know is not convinced by your argument?

Again, debates are going to be won by rational argumentation, not by arguing about people’s motives. That’s a fallacy.

Your example about the gunshot is not relevant. The ability for DNA to gain the correct information in the correct order is astronomical - against.

You evidently didn’t get the point about what I stated about probability. It only reflects our lack of knowledge.

Take the eye:

I need two.
They must be set at the correct distance apart in the skull for binocular vision. Why don’t we have eyes in the back of our heads? It would certainly confer a survival advantage.
The image that goes through the lens is projected upside down on the back of the eyeball, but it is set right side up by our brain.
An optic nerve is required.
It needs to be hooked up to the brain correctly.

Oh, and let’s not forget eyelids. Great for duststorms and sleeping.

And someone is going to sit there and declare an accident had to happen only once?
How about a series of accidents that needed to be connected and highly specific? And where did the assembly instructions for the human optical suite come from?

Define “accident”. At bottom, saying something happened “by chance” is ultimately meaningless. Could the right initial conditions combined with the right quantum events result in a functioning eye? Clearly they can.

We were all bacteria once. Sure. Uh huh. Organisms smaller than man contain more genetic information.

Actually there is quite a bit of genetic information in bacteria, but that is irrelevant to my main argument.

Irreducible Complexity. Not the declaration that some part was floating around and then happened to connect itself to say, a cell, at the exact right spot, to perform a useful function. What if the part was too short or too long, too thick or too thin? I’m sure you’ve run across minor jobs where the screws you had could not be used because they fell in those categories. And assuming for the moment that such a free floating part could fit and do useful work, there are no instructions in the cell’s DNA to reproduce it. The cell divides and the “new” part gets left behind.

So no. It did not just happen once. In a non-directed development into greater complexity, the theoretical first cell, let’s say, had one page worth of instructions to assemble. Then the more complex things became, many more pages were added, a great many pages.

I’ve heard all these arguments before, you know. I am telling you that you are going to need to do better than this. Arguing from “improbability” is fundamentally flawed and fallacious.

Evolution cannot account for this massive increase in information.

The information under my scenario would be contained in the initial conditions and quantum events. At the Big Bang, the universe is in perfect order (zero entropy), and theoretically there could be any (finite) amount of information there. That is a complete rebuttal to the argument from information theory, the strongest argument against evolution that I know of.

 

[James_S_Saint]

Every finite effect is explainable via a finite cause. Inferring the existence of supernatural entities is one thing, and one which I could be open to, as I said above. They need not be the philosophical God, however.

What would be the “finite” cause of the very first finite spec of somethingness from the pre-existence void of absolute nothingness?

And what is the “philosophical God”??

 

[grannymh]

Because in real life, “probability” is synonymous with quantifying our ignorance about something. That’s all it means.

Not exactly.

As someone very curious about science, I use the words probable and probability according to another dictionary definition, e.g., the likelihood that something will happen, did happen, or is true. Probability also contains an element of uncertainty in that an explanation may not be plausible. Good thing that Thomas Edison wasn’t worried about an experiment not being plausible nor possible at the time. Otherwise we would be working at our computers by candlelight.

In other words, probability opens up a whole new world of possible explanations to be explored. Regarding evolution and marvelous human nature, people in the field of science should be more brave and explore the probable explanations which may be beyond the technical limits of the empirical.

Blessings,
granny

All human life is worthy of profound respect from the moment of conception.

 

[Prodigal_Son]

This is a good question. The answer hinges on whether a prediction was made before the fact. If someone says, I am going to walk on water, or so-and-so is going to walk on water, at such-and-such a time, and does so, I’d accept that as evidence of supernatural intervention, as humans do not have such knowledge that such a combination of events would happen. If it’s just an after-the-fact thing, some ugly fat slob was seen walking on water, who had given no indication that such a thing would happen, then again it only reflects our lack of knowledge about the initial conditions.

Because a prediction was made before the fact. Probability is only a measure of lack of knowledge, but a correct prediction would show extraordinary knowledge.

But wait a moment. We’re talking about induction, right? So the above sentence, extrapolated, says that the prediction would show “extraordinary *inductive *knowledge.” And yet, induction is simply a measure of the likelihoods of scenarios, relative to our knowledge (ignorance). Thus, any event is, objectively, infinitely unlikely (a possible world). But in relation to our knowledge, the prediction is no less likely than the event of walking on water itself. The combination of the two events is less probable, but the key here is that we’re talking about inductive knowledge.

How do the inductive knowledge of the prediction and the miracle, after the fact, prove anything – that is, if you claim that the existence of life itself does not prove anything, no matter how scientifically unlikely (unlikely relative to our ignorance) it was?

On the one hand, you seem to be discarding probability, but then you throw in the term “extraordinary knowledge” and I wonder: extraordinary relative to what? What else but our ignorance?

Who is saying scientific explanations are precluding God’s intervention? Certainly not me.

Good.

But tell me, why is it so improbable God would have arranged the initial conditions such that life would arise via abiogenesis and evolution, rather than monkeying around with creation to ensure it arose? How are you going to assign probabilities here?

Yes, this is where I agree with you. If, tomorrow, we found out that abiogenesis is actually quite common, this would not be a strike against theism, at all. And, of course, an almighty God would not need to tinker with creation; He could just as well make it so that creation, itself, had natural causation do His work for Him.

Every finite effect is explainable via a finite cause. Inferring the existence of supernatural entities is one thing, and one which I could be open to, as I said above.

Because you said that predictions are not events, so far as I can tell.

And this distinction needs to be made clear, also. Inference can only work with finite sets, and is only relevant to the actual universe. Now, there are a finite number of molecules in the universe, and thus a finite number of possible arrangements. We have no knowledge about what those arrangements were on the early earth, but we know a very specific configuration would need to be the case for abiogenesis. Our existence is evidence though that such a configuration in fact was the case. Saying that it was “unlikely” is an illegitimate reification of probability, which only reflects lack of knowledge.

If I roll a die, and get a 6, is it illegitimate to say that there was a 1-in-6 chance of me rolling a 6, after the fact?

 

[NowAgnostic]

Not exactly.

As someone very curious about science, I use the words probable and probability according to another dictionary definition, e.g., the likelihood that something will happen, did happen, or is true.

And what is the definition of likelihood? The probability that something will happen, did happen, or is true? Probability and likelihood have no meaning unless related to our ignorance.

Probability also contains an element of uncertainty in that an explanation may not be plausible. Good thing that Thomas Edison wasn’t worried about an experiment not being plausible nor possible at the time. Otherwise we would be working at our computers by candlelight.

And what’s the definition of plausible? You have to relate that to our current knowledge as well. The light bulb, and airplanes, etc., were “implausible” only based upon the current knowledge at the time, not anymore today.

In other words, probability opens up a whole new world of possible explanations to be explored. Regarding evolution and marvelous human nature, people in the field of science should be more brave and explore the probable explanations which may be beyond the technical limits of the empirical.

Science can’t move beyond the technical limits of the empirical, though, that’s the nature of empirical science.

 

[grannymh]

And what is the definition of likelihood? The probability that something will happen, did happen, or is true? Probability and likelihood have no meaning unless related to our ignorance.

And what’s the definition of plausible? You have to relate that to our current knowledge as well. The light bulb, and airplanes, etc., were “implausible” only based upon the current knowledge at the time, not anymore today.

Science can’t move beyond the technical limits of the empirical, though, that’s the nature of empirical science.

Why take the dull negative road of “no meaning unless related to our ignorance?” It is so limiting.

The definitions of likelihood, plausible, probable, possible, imaginative are related sources of creativity. Ah, one says. “Science can’t move beyond the technical limits of the empirical, though, that’s the nature of empirical science.” True.
But the nature of the human [the scientist, not the science] includes the spiritual principle which takes the animal matter to new, distinctive, unique heights of knowledge.

 

[NowAgnostic]

But wait a moment. We’re talking about induction, right? So the above sentence, extrapolated, says that the prediction would show “extraordinary *inductive *knowledge.”

No, the prediction would show extraordinary knowledge not attainable by induction (induction would predict the opposite of what was going to happen). Nevertheless, I think I see where you’re going with this, and your point is well taken.

And yet, induction is simply a measure of the likelihoods of scenarios, relative to our knowledge (ignorance).

Right.

Thus, any event is, objectively, infinitely unlikely (a possible world).

This isn’t true regarding the actual world (with a finite number of entities), only if induction is illegitimately extended to include possible worlds.

But in relation to our knowledge, the prediction is no less likely than the event of walking on water itself. The combination of the two events is less probable, but the key here is that we’re talking about inductive knowledge.

How do the inductive knowledge of the prediction and the miracle, after the fact, prove anything – that is, if you claim that the existence of life itself does not prove anything, no matter how scientifically unlikely (unlikely relative to our ignorance) it was?

What you’re trying to say is, couldn’t an “unlikely” set of initial conditions (and/or quantum events) result in both the prediction and the walking on water? This is true. Then again, a supernatural agent could have set those initial conditions up such that the events would have occurred. Back to the drawing board I suppose.

On the one hand, you seem to be discarding probability, but then you throw in the term “extraordinary knowledge” and I wonder: extraordinary relative to what? What else but our ignorance?

Exactly. An “improbable” event only means that, based on our knowledge of the initial conditions, etc., we can induce it didn’t, or won’t happen, with a certain confidence, but never with absolute certainty. What is your definition of “probability”? The term only makes sense when it is related to our ignorance.

Yes, this is where I agree with you. If, tomorrow, we found out that abiogenesis is actually quite common, this would not be a strike against theism, at all. And, of course, an almighty God would not need to tinker with creation; He could just as well make it so that creation, itself, had natural causation do His work for Him.

Exactly. Abiogenesis and evolution are not evidence against the existence of God.

Because you said that predictions are not events, so far as I can tell.

Right, and that was the problem with my scenario.

If I roll a die, and get a 6, is it illegitimate to say that there was a 1-in-6 chance of me rolling a 6, after the fact?

Yes, because the 1-in-6 “chance” is only so relative to your ignorance of the initial conditions. However, with knowledge of the initial position, initial velocity, initial angular velocity, air resistance, elasticity of the table, etc., this could make it certain that a 6 will be rolled. Your rolling a 6 shows that the initial conditions were such that a 6 would be rolled.

 

[buffalo]

No, the prediction would show extraordinary knowledge not attainable by induction (induction would predict the opposite of what was going to happen). Nevertheless, I think I see where you’re going with this, and your point is well taken.

Right.

This isn’t true regarding the actual world (with a finite number of entities), only if induction is illegitimately extended to include possible worlds.

What you’re trying to say is, couldn’t an “unlikely” set of initial conditions (and/or quantum events) result in both the prediction and the walking on water? This is true. Then again, a supernatural agent could have set those initial conditions up such that the events would have occurred. Back to the drawing board I suppose.

Exactly. An “improbable” event only means that, based on our knowledge of the initial conditions, etc., we can induce it didn’t, or won’t happen, with a certain confidence, but never with absolute certainty. What is your definition of “probability”? The term only makes sense when it is related to our ignorance.

Exactly. Abiogenesis and evolution are not evidence against the existence of God.

Right, and that was the problem with my scenario.

Yes, because the 1-in-6 “chance” is only so relative to your ignorance of the initial conditions. However, with knowledge of the initial position, initial velocity, initial angular velocity, air resistance, elasticity of the table, etc., this could make it certain that a 6 will be rolled. Your rolling a 6 shows that the initial conditions were such that a 6 would be rolled.

and if you continue to roll the six then it no longer is chance but setup.

 

[Nec5]

No, it doesn’t; it can be simulated on a computer.

Anything can be simulated on a computer. That does not prove it is possible in real life according to science.

 

[buffalo]

Anything can be simulated on a computer. That does not prove it is possible in real life according to science.

Simulated on a computer? - that is design at work.

 

[Prodigal_Son]

No, the prediction would show extraordinary knowledge not attainable by induction (induction would predict the opposite of what was going to happen). Nevertheless, I think I see where you’re going with this, and your point is well taken.

Conventionally, all predictions are inductive. However, that would not be the case with God, who has familiarity with the future, so you’re right.

What you’re trying to say is, couldn’t an “unlikely” set of initial conditions (and/or quantum events) result in both the prediction and the walking on water? This is true. Then again, a supernatural agent could have set those initial conditions up such that the events would have occurred. Back to the drawing board I suppose.

And this is the problem I see: if you say that any physically possible scenario, however “unlikely”, could be caused by either strange initial conditions or a supernatural agent (or both, of course), then you seem committed to the idea that God, if He exists, could not possibly give us evidential reason to believe in His existence. (Ironic, since many atheists argue that the lack of verifiable evidence suggests His nonexistence).

This form of agnosticism, if you subscribe to it, seems to be a form of epistemic skepticism. Many Christians actually agree, I suppose, if they claim that faith and reason are (in any possible world) mutually exclusive. But such a claim seems to throw out the baby with the bathwater – for how can you say that any amount of induction leads to any justified belief?

At any rate, I enjoy discussing this topic, if only because you are quite rational – you haven’t dug in your heels, but you seem to be really seeking out what’s true. Also, thanks for correcting my way of thinking about probabilities.

Yes, because the 1-in-6 “chance” is only so relative to your ignorance of the initial conditions. However, with knowledge of the initial position, initial velocity, initial angular velocity, air resistance, elasticity of the table, etc., this could make it certain that a 6 will be rolled. Your rolling a 6 shows that the initial conditions were such that a 6 would be rolled.

Case in point. Relative to my ability to justify a claim, I have a 1-in-6 chance. Relative to the location of all objects, it’s 1-in-1. (So long as we leave out free will; that is another can of worms).

 

[NowAgnostic]

Anything can be simulated on a computer. That does not prove it is possible in real life according to science.

That is a bad argument. Now you can believe me or not. But don’t expect to convince anyone that abiogenesis or evolution is impossible just because scientists haven’t done so in a laboratory. Scientists haven’t created stars or supernova explosions or black holes either.

When the parameters of the computer simulation involve the very same scientific and physical laws that we see operating in the universe then it is simply a matter of the initial conditions. And there is no reason any given set of initial conditions is “impossible”.

 

[NowAgnostic]

Conventionally, all predictions are inductive. However, that would not be the case with God, who has familiarity with the future, so you’re right.

OK.

And this is the problem I see: if you say that any physically possible scenario, however “unlikely”, could be caused by either strange initial conditions or a supernatural agent (or both, of course), then you seem committed to the idea that God, if He exists, could not possibly give us evidential reason to believe in His existence. (Ironic, since many atheists argue that the lack of verifiable evidence suggests His nonexistence).

Yeah, but I’m not an atheist. In fact in my mind it may well be the case that it is in fact impossible for God to give us evidential reasons - which means any alleged evidential reasons against His existence are also impossible.

This form of agnosticism, if you subscribe to it, seems to be a form of epistemic skepticism.

It is not. If there cannot be inductively justified belief in God it does not follow that there cannot be inductively justified belief in anything.

Many Christians actually agree, I suppose, if they claim that faith and reason are (in any possible world) mutually exclusive. But such a claim seems to throw out the baby with the bathwater – for how can you say that any amount of induction leads to any justified belief?

Bayes’ Theorem provides the answer. If you have 1) a well-defined prior precisely reflecting one’s lack of knowledge about the belief; and 2) a well-defined likelihood precisely reflecting one’s lack of knowledge about the observed data given the belief and also all other possible relevant beliefs, then you can arrive a very high degree of certitude.

But that’s just the problem with attempting inductive explanations to the supernatural, when there is an infinity of things a supernatural entity could have done.

At any rate, I enjoy discussing this topic, if only because you are quite rational – you haven’t dug in your heels, but you seem to be really seeking out what’s true. Also, thanks for correcting my way of thinking about probabilities.

Sure.

Case in point. Relative to my ability to justify a claim, I have a 1-in-6 chance. Relative to the location of all objects, it’s 1-in-1. (So long as we leave out free will; that is another can of worms).

OK.

 

[ricmat]

That is a bad argument. Now you can believe me or not. But don’t expect to convince anyone that abiogenesis or evolution is impossible just because scientists haven’t done so in a laboratory. Scientists haven’t created stars or supernova explosions or black holes either.

When the parameters of the computer simulation involve the very same scientific and physical laws that we see operating in the universe then it is simply a matter of the initial conditions. And there is no reason any given set of initial conditions is “impossible”.

You should look at those computer programs.

The book Signature in the Cell had the criticism that the computer simulations all had algorithms which were designed to home in on the target results, which were provided. Start off with random variations, but then “You’re getting warmer, no, now you’re getting colder…” Of course they got to the “target”. That’s what the algorithm was DESIGNED to do.

There’s some good stuff in that book and I continue to recommend it.

 

[ricmat]

That is a bad argument. Now you can believe me or not. But don’t expect to convince anyone that abiogenesis or evolution is impossible just because scientists haven’t done so in a laboratory. Scientists haven’t created stars or supernova explosions or black holes either.

Well, on the subject of stars, black holes (and I’ll add here “dark matter” and “dark energy”) - here’s a website that questions the current interpretation of those “facts.” The site is based on the work of a nobel physics winner, so it can’t be all bad.

So perhaps scientists can’t create stars or black holes, or dark matter because the current theories are wrong. Dark matter and dark energy are actually the god of the gaps for cosmology. We don’t have any way to explain what we see, so we’ll invoke an imaginary substance that has just the right characteristics (which have never been observed, anywhere) to make our theories work. LOL. Truth is stranger than fiction.

Remember the billions of dollars spent on nuclear fusion (“what the sun does”) energy research? Tokomaks, etc. It went nowhere. But a lot of scientists got paid while it was going nowhere.

 

[NowAgnostic]

You should look at those computer programs.

The book Signature in the Cell had the criticism that the computer simulations all had algorithms which were designed to home in on the target results, which were provided. Start off with random variations, but then “You’re getting warmer, no, now you’re getting colder…” Of course they got to the “target”. That’s what the algorithm was DESIGNED to do.

There’s some good stuff in that book and I continue to recommend it.

And that is relevant to what I wrote precisely how?

 

[NowAgnostic]

Well, on the subject of stars, black holes (and I’ll add here “dark matter” and “dark energy”) - here’s a website that questions the current interpretation of those “facts.” The site is based on the work of a nobel physics winner, so it can’t be all bad.

So perhaps scientists can’t create stars or black holes, or dark matter because the current theories are wrong. Dark matter and dark energy are actually the god of the gaps for cosmology. We don’t have any way to explain what we see, so we’ll invoke an imaginary substance that has just the right characteristics (which have never been observed, anywhere) to make our theories work. LOL. Truth is stranger than fiction.

Remember the billions of dollars spent on nuclear fusion (“what the sun does”) energy research? Tokomaks, etc. It went nowhere. But a lot of scientists got paid while it was going nowhere.

Again, what is the relevance? Are you really suggesting stellar formation or black holes or supernovae are impossible?