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

[buffalo]

Given the four premises above is there any good reason to think that God didn’t allow complex life to form naturally from chemical interactions? More importantly is there any good reason to think that there is any logical contradiction in thinking that single celled organisms were the result of a chemical soup, and in fact this same process might have occurred elsewhere?

God front loaded the universe with purpose?

Consider that after the fall God allows humans to tinker. In other words, God allows our free will choices to determine outcomes.

 

[Wozza]

Wozza:

We don’t need to know how it happened. All we need to know that it’s possible. And we know that with 100% certainty.

My point is that if it was a direct act of divine creation then no probability arguments apply.

Agreed. But the OP is not suggesting that. He proposes that it happened naturally - as God designed it.

 

[buffalo]

If you want to use odds as a means to deny something happening in the universe, knowing that it has already happened once, then suggesting that the probability is ‘very, very low’ doesn’t mean what you think it means.

One must consider the available search space.

 

[snarflemike]

What you are actually saying is that you don’t believe that God could set up existence so that it would happen naturally.

Seems you are limiting Him.

This reply isn’t directed at me, but I certainly agree that God could have set things up this way. And if he did, more power to him. Just show the evidence.

 

[buffalo]

All we need to know that it’s possible.

ID is possible then. Good.

 

[buffalo]

Ordinary chemical processes have produced amino acids, purines, pyrimidines and short strands of RNA in the lab. Science has those chemicals, and others. Where is your evidence of any deity producing even an amino acid?

So bogus. You well know the issues with this.

Then consider the rise of immense complexity and order out of this disorder.

 

[Wozza]

IWantGod:

Given the four premises above is there any good reason to think that God didn’t allow complex life to form naturally from chemical interactions? More importantly is there any good reason to think that there is any logical contradiction in thinking that single celled organisms were the result of a chemical soup, and in fact this same process might have occurred elsewhere?

God front loaded the universe with purpose?

Consider that after the fall God allows humans to tinker. In other words, God allows our free will choices to determine outcomes.

I don’t believe He front loaded anything. But one must assume that you would have to. One would assume that you would think that God had a purpose and set things up to fullfill that purpose.

And forget the fall. The OP is just concerned with life forming on the planet. Just take it to that point if you could.

 

[buffalo]

He is believed to be omnipotent.

Catholics believe God to be almighty. There are things He cannot do.

 

[Wozza]

Wozza:

He is believed to be omnipotent.

Catholics believe God to be almighty. There are things He cannot do.

Organising the universe in such a way so that it produces life wouldn’t be one of them. Unless you’d disagree with that?

 

[Gorgias]

And each trial IS independent and DOES have an equal chance

It really doesn’t. Let’s take a look at it:

• is the earth a typical planet, such that it can be used as the basis for statistical inference?
• is each galaxy / solar system / planet capable of sustaining life, with equal probability? (If not, then your example isn’t a generic “lottery draw”, but rather “an attempt to buy a lottery ticket from a lion in the African plain” – in other words, it’s a non-starter from the very beginning!)

My second point kind of begs the question of the ‘denominator’, but it demonstrates a particular notion: if the trials aren’t equal, then don’t we have to throw out the “non-trials”? And if so, doesn’t that mean that our “large numbers” aren’t as large as we want to make them out to be?

My point is that if it was a direct act of divine creation then no probability arguments apply.

Precisely. And moreover, unless we have the means to distinguish “direct divine act” from “natural process”, we can’t make reasonable guesses about origins questions…

 

[buffalo]

@ IWantGod

If you have been following the other threads (and the one recently closed after record # of posts) the challenge is narrowed down to this as it refers to biology.

Science, pretty much accepting the obvious design in life, has to try and provide evidence that natural selection acts as a naturally occurring intelligent agent without providential (name removed by moderator)uts. There is a 5 million prize for the person who can show it.

 

[Wozza]

Wozza:

What you are actually saying is that you don’t believe that God could set up existence so that it would happen naturally.

Seems you are limiting Him.

This reply isn’t directed at me, but I certainly agree that God could have set things up this way. And if he did, more power to him. Just show the evidence.

For abiogenesis? We don’t have hard evidence yet. But ‘insert miracle here’ isn’t a great option.

If that were the case, then you are suggesting that God set up everything to end up with life (as we know all the natural processes right up to that point) but then the system stalled. He tried switching it off and on again, but no good. He’d done something wrong somewhere so He had to step in, fiddle around, write a few more lines of code and give the thing a kick.

Ah then yeah. There we go. Life.

You are suggesting He got stuck at that point and had to act supernaturally. You do know that is classic God Of The Gaps?

 

[TomH1]

I am a Catholic; I am a biologist; I am a biology lecturer in a college. This is, however, a discussion I try to avoid. The reason I am making this sole contribution to this thread is to recommend two things are not conflated. Abiogenesis and evolution are not the same.

Abiogenesis is the name given to the undiscovered process by which life started on Earth.

Evolution explains how life developed and diversified. You could not have evolution without abiogenesis.

I’m not aware of the Church’s position on abiogenesis but I do believe the Catholic Church officially accepts evolution. I am prepared to be disabused of that fact but not by personal opinion; only by reference to an official source from the Church rejecting evolution.

I would refer you to the works of K. R. Miller, a professor of Cell Biology at Brown University. He is both a Catholic and a proponent of evolutionary biology.

 

[Wozza]

Wozza:

And each trial IS independent and DOES have an equal chance

It really doesn’t. Let’s take a look at it:

• is the earth a typical planet, such that it can be used as the basis for statistical inference?
• is each galaxy / solar system / planet capable of sustaining life, with equal probability?

They are the losing tickets.

 

[buffalo]

I’m not aware of the Church’s position on abiogenesis but I do believe the Catholic Church officially accepts evolution. I am prepared to be disabused of that fact but not by personal opinion; only by reference to an official source from the Church rejecting evolution.

I would refer you to the works of K. R. Miller, a professor of Cell Biology at Brown University. He is both a Catholic and a proponent of evolutionary biology.

There is no question of micro-evolution. The Church and everyone else accept it. The issue is molecules to man.

Miller is not really offering anything to the debate.

Read Humani Generis in its entirety.

 

[Gorgias]

They are the losing tickets.

No. They are incapable of even being tickets. So, they don’t count toward the “large numbers” you’re positing, right?

Worse yet, if the earth is a special case in a way that we cannot perceive, then every other ticket could be – by definition! – a “losing ticket”! So, if we can’t even determine whether the earth is a reasonable basis for further inference, we’re sunk before we ever get the argument off the ground!

 

[buffalo]

I am a Catholic; I am a biologist; I am a biology lecturer in a college.

You missed a whole lot of current science in this now closed thread:

Here is one: Darwin Devolves

This is what Behe claims - The conclusions of all studies is that evolutionary processes are only capable of driving changes at the level of species and genera , but not at the level of families or higher. Stated differently, evolution produces a limited number of changes and then no further significant change is possible.

Darwin Devolves Book Review - Thus this book. In it Behe makes the case that random mutation and natural selection are actually quite “ de volutionary”:

Darwinian evolution proceeds mainly by damaging or breaking genes, which, counterintuitively, sometimes helps survival. In other words, the mechanism is powerfully de volutionary. It promotes the rapid loss of genetic information. Laboratory experiments, field research, and theoretical studies all forcefully indicate that, as a result, random mutation and natural selection make evolution self-limiting. That is, the very same factors that promote diversity at the simplest levels of biology actively prevent it at more complex ones. Darwin’s mechanism works chiefly by squandering genetic information for short-term gain .

https://billmuehlenberg.com/2019/06/08/a-review-of-darwin-devolves-by-michael-behe/

Micro evolution - yes
Macro evolution - no

 

[Gorgias]

You missed a whole lot of current science in this now closed thread:

I propose a variation on the Fermi paradox: if the evolution thread is closed, how many threads will it take before it pops up again in another thread?

(Apparently, not too many… )

 

[Wozza]

snarflemike:

My point is that if it was a direct act of divine creation then no probability arguments apply.

Precisely. And moreover, unless we have the means to distinguish “direct divine act” from “natural process”, we can’t make reasonable guesses about origins questions…

Can’t we agree that a natural process is one that we can explain scientifically? So planets don’t appear by direct divine act. They appear for well known scientific reasons. Eathquakes, solar flares, lightning…you name it. We know how they occur.

But if the moon dissapeared tonight, then we could out that down to direct divine act (by the deity of your choice).

 

[Wozza]

Wozza:

They are the losing tickets.

No. They are incapable of even being tickets. So, they don’t count toward the “large numbers” you’re positing, right?

Worse yet, if the earth is a special case in a way that we cannot perceive, then every other ticket could be – by definition! – a “losing ticket”! So, if we can’t even determine whether the earth is a reasonable basis for further inference, we’re sunk before we ever get the argument off the ground!

The earth is a special case for life as we know it. Water, air, carbon, Goldilocks distance etc.

But anyway, I think we’re boring everyone with this.