Evolution: Is There Any Good Reason To Reject The Abiogenesis Hypothesis?

  • Thread starter Thread starter IWantGod
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Aloysium said:
Then it supports ID over random mutation.
Click to expand...
No, it actually means that the evolution of body structures does not depend on rigid genetic codes to begin with. This, in turn, means that any argument from complexity or specificity is even weaker than it was before.

Intelligent Design relies primarily on the concept of irreducible complexity, namely that an organism much have this particular set of organs or features in order to survive, but the existence of these organs are interdependent and do not suffice for survival in and of themselves. A brain requires a heart, but a heart requires lungs, and lungs require a brain; without any one of these the other organs would fail, and each organ is so specialized that it can’t mimic the activity of the others. This interlocking complexity, specificity, and dependence is often brought down to the cellular level with specific cell structures used for the example instead of organs.

If, as this new research suggests, animal life actually began with single-celled “stem-cell like” creatures rather than with structurally fixed cells, then the argument from irreducible complexity and specificity loses a lot of whatever power it held. Stem cells are able to utilize their DNA in a myriad of ways that set cells can’t, and such genetic flexibility would allow for the kind of adaptation that would be necessary for cells to develop new organelles and features to react to their environment. They are “front loaded” only in the material they contain, not necessarily with set blueprints, and this material can be arranged in a far more flexible manner than a more established cell would be. A group of such cells could indeed differentiate into a heart, lungs, and brain as a means of integrated survival, and indeed we see this in sexual reproduction and fetal development.

In short, the research is saying that the first animal cells were more like embryonic cells than they were like lung cells, so the argument from irreducible complexity is all the weaker.

Peace and God bless!
 
Not true. Cells need to know what they are doing. So where do the instructions come from? Where do new instructions come from?
 
buffalo said:
The cells are flexible as in stem cells. They have the programming instructions already built in. These are the 500 or so conserved core components I have previously posted about and the ability to build any body plan. Right there at the get go. The design is so obvious.
Click to expand...
Pluripotency does not necessarily imply design from a scientific perspective. You are coming to question with a philosophical assumption, namely teleology, rather than simply looking at the data as it is. We can’t deduce teleology just by looking at the fact that cells can take many forms.

The teleological argument for God is sound in a general sense, but I don’t think it’s particularly strong. Regardless, it isn’t a scientific argument and has no place in scientific research.

Peace and God bless!
 
The Atheist only approach is heavily promoted here. Catholics understand that God had a direct causal role in the development of life.
 
edwest211 said:
Not true. Cells need to know what they are doing. So where do the instructions come from? Where do new instructions come from?
Click to expand...
Why on Earth would they need to know what they’re doing? Cells need to have information and material, but they don’t need to have a goal per se. Material that falls into place in a manner that preserves its existence will tend to exist more than material that falls apart. Over time the cream rises, so to speak, because it is prone to rise; cream doesn’t have to know how to rise.

Don’t get so wrapped up in poor scientific arguments that you miss the actual philosophical underpinnings of good arguments for God.

Peace and God bless!
 
I generally dislike using certain terminology but it applies here: All that is being used is hand waving, and vague speculation.
 
buffalo said:
The data said the ability was primordial, there in the beginning.
Click to expand...
There at the beginning of divergence of multicellular animals from single-celled living creatures, not at the beginning of life. What the research is pointing to is that complex life already had stem-cell like qualities before it became multicellular, and that this stem-cell like nature likely led to the development of multicellular organisms. Previously it was assumed that stem-cell like abilities developed later, after the divergence between multi-cellular organisms and single-celled life.

Peace and God bless!
 
Amazing that you read the entire book just based on the description. A little background: There is a joint US/Canadian intelligence process called CIRVIS: Communication Instructions for Reporting Vital Intelligence Sightings. Remember that: Vital - Intelligence - Sightings. A poster was published and among the air vehicles was a saucer with a dome on the top middle.
 
edwest211 said:
Amazing that you read the entire book just based on the description. A little background: There is a joint US/Canadian intelligence process called CIRVIS: Communication Instructions for Reporting Vital Intelligence Sightings. Remember that: Vital - Intelligence - Sightings. A poster was published and among the air vehicles was a saucer with a dome on the top middle.
Click to expand...
A true UFO can appear in one section of the sky… disappear and reappear in another section in a split second.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top