abiogenesis

Hi marc9000, hope the snow wasn't too much trouble. We only had a couple of inches and it was gone the next day, no time to enjoy it. No, it depends on whether it fits the definition or not. That is the purpose behind starting with an established definition and applying it equally to each area of investigation.Abiogenesis passed this first test because it meets the parameters of the first level definition.If you can show that ID meets the parameters of the first level definition, then we can move on to the next level. But I'm not holding abiogenesis to a lesser standard, I'm using the standard that you agreed to: I noted several predictions that not only had been made, but had been validated in regards to abiogenesis: So Abiogenesis meets the first level definition criteria. Its a systematic knowledge-base or prescriptive practice that makes a series of predictions that can be (and have been) tested to validate the concept. No, because the hypothetical early earth can be tested to see what evidence it should leave behind. We know a lot about the early earth, and learn more every day. The modern experiments that replace the first approximation used in the Miller-Urey experiment carry that information forward. This too is part of the definition of science that we are considering at this level of comparison: it's a "systematic knowledge-base that is capable of resulting in a prediction" as each correction to what we know brings us closer to the truth by eliminating what is known to be wrong.Thus it doesn't matter that we cannot know precisely what it was like, so long as we can apply a systematic knowledge based approach to what we do know, and eliminate what we know to be wrong, it fits the definition of science being used. One, you did not show that this "prediction" was based on ID in any way shape or form. The parameters of the definition are that the prediction be derived from the systematic body on knowledge and not based on guesswork.Two, there was no prediction to what the actual use of the DNA would be, so the "prediction" amounts to "well I think you are wrong" -- which is not a testable prediction that meets the requirements of the definition: ie "capable of resulting in a prediction or predictable type of outcome."Three, for a prediction to validate a hypothesis it must only support the hypothesis and not the contrary. In other words it must not support evolution of DNA to have other uses for non-coding sections, it must relate to ID to the exclusion of evolution, and this has not been achieved.Four, I've done a little investigating of the background on your "prediction" ...From your link:

quote:

---

As far back as 1994, pro-ID scientist and Discovery Institute fellow Forrest Mims had warned in a letter to Science[1] against assuming that 'junk' DNA was 'useless.'" Science wouldn't print Mims' letter, but soon thereafter, in 1998, leading ID theorist William Dembski repeated this sentiment in First Things:

[Intelligent] design is not a science stopper. Indeed, design can foster inquiry where traditional evolutionary approaches obstruct it. Consider the term "junk DNA." Implicit in this term is the view that because the genome of an organism has been cobbled together through a long, undirected evolutionary process, the genome is a patchwork of which only limited portions are essential to the organism. Thus on an evolutionary view we expect a lot of useless DNA. If, on the other hand, organisms are designed, we expect DNA, as much as possible, to exhibit function. And indeed, the most recent findings suggest that designating DNA as "junk" merely cloaks our current lack of knowledge about function. For instance, in a recent issue of the Journal of Theoretical Biology, John Bodnar describes how "non-coding DNA in eukaryotic genomes encodes a language which programs organismal growth and development." Design encourages scientists to look for function where evolution discourages it.

​

(William Dembski, "Intelligent Science and Design," First Things, Vol. 86:21-27 (October 1998))

---

Now let's review that "prediction" by Dembski again ...

quote:

---

... If, on the other hand, organisms are designed, we expect DNA, as much as possible, to exhibit function. ...

---

So that "prediction" has still not been fulfilled, unless you consider the small amount of all DNA having a known use today meeting the criteria of "as much as possible, to exhibit function." So what is predicted for the remaining DNA today? If we are still less than 50% known use then that prediction has not been met. What is the use? What is the function? Without that essential little detail there is no prediction of the use of such DNA. When I design something it is 100% functional parts.Then there is this choice little tell-tale tid-bit:

quote:

---

... And indeed, the most recent findings suggest that designating DNA as "junk" merely cloaks our current lack of knowledge about function. For instance, in a recent issue of the Journal of Theoretical Biology, John Bodnar describes how "non-coding DNA in eukaryotic genomes encodes a language which programs organismal growth and development." Design encourages scientists to look for function where evolution discourages it.

---

In other words, Dembski is NOT making a prediction at all. In 1998 he already knew that science (the real science) was finding some use for it. It gets worse.Organic or GMO? - psrast.org

quote:

---

However it has been found that the sequence of the syllables is not random at all and has a striking resemblance with the structure of human language (ref. Flam, F. "Hints of a language in junk DNA", Science 266:1320, 1994, see quote below). Therefore, scientists now generally believe that this DNA must contain some kind of coded information. But the code and its function is yet completely unknown.
By Jaan Suurkula M.D. Published at this website in May 1997.

---

The Science article reports on a paper suggesting that the non-coding 97% of the DNA, commonly referred to as junk DNA, might have a function. The authors of the paper employed linguistic tests to analyze junk DNA and discovered striking similarities to ordinary language. The scientists interpret those similarities as suggestions that there might be messages in the junk sequences, although its anyone s guess as to how the language might work. * F. Flam, Hints of a language in junk DNA, Science 266:1320, 1994.

---

In other words, real scientists in published journals were predicting use for this DNA in 1994 ... just about the time Mims got on the bandwagon ... now let's look at Mims' "prediction" ...http://www.forrestmims.org/publications.html

quote:

---

1 December 1994
Letters
Science
1333 H Street, NW
Washington, DC 20005

​

To the Editor:

​

Finally, Science reports "Hints of a Language in Junk DNA" (25 November, p. 1320). Those supposedly meaningless strands of filler DNA that molecular biologists refer to as "junk" don't necessarily appear so useless to those of us who have designed and written code for digital controllers. They have always reminded me of strings of NOP (No OPeration) instructions. A do-nothing string of NOPs might appear as "junk code" to the uninitiated, but, when inserted in a program loop, a string of NOPs can be used to achieve a precise time delay. Perhaps the "junk DNA" puzzle would be solved more rapidly if a few more computer scientists would make the switch to molecular biology.

​

Forrest M. Mims III
Geronimo Creek Observatory

---

Gosh, there is that very same paper by non-ID scientists being cited as the basis for his "prediction" -- can you say BOGUS? Can you say FOWNIE? How about PHAQUE? No it isn't enough, predictions made after the fact are not predictions. Repeat someone else's prediction is not a prediction. Additionally we still have no known use for most of DNA. As your link so eloquently puts it, " If, on the other hand, organisms are designed, we expect DNA, as much as possible, to exhibit function." To put it mildly, I would expect nearly 100% of the DNA to be necessary for function for a designed organism.Non-coding DNA - Wikipedia

quote:

---

About 95% of the human genome has at one time been designated as "junk",[3] ...
Broadly, the science of functional genomics has developed widely accepted techniques to characterize protein-coding genes, RNA genes, and regulatory regions. In the genomes of most plants and animals, however, these together constitute only a small percentage of genomic DNA. The function, if any, of the remainder remains under investigation. Most of it can be identified as repetitive elements that have no known biological function for their host (although they are useful to geneticists for analyzing lineage and phylogeny). Still, a large amount of sequence in these genomes falls under no existing classification other than "junk".

---

What we see is that the known use of junk DNA is in the development of the organisms, controlling gene sequences and other rather critical elements of evolution.AND we still have mostly "junk DNA" today (albeit with the name changed to "non-coding"), so this "prediction" has yet to be fulfilled.Bogus prediction. Failed prediction. Typical IDologist website misrepresentation (falsehood/s).Sorry, but that's as much as I can deal with tonight. I'll get back with more tomorrow on the definitions of science through the ages, and the fact that there has been no change in requirements for ID that do not apply equally to Abiogenesis.Enjoy.Edited by RAZD, : restructuredEdited by RAZD, : subtitle

---

quote:

---

I've already done that - requirements for falsifiability not required of other sciences...

---

Let us be clear here. The falsifiability requirement is not being applied to the basic idea of ID (which clearly isn't falsifiable). The problem is that - unlike abiogenesis research - ID isn't producing falsifiable hypotheses that could serve as a basis for research. "All DNA has function" for instance isn't falsifiable without complete understanding of the genome. (And we should note that it isn't specific to ID and at least most - perhaps all - of the successful attempts to find function for non-coding DNA have been driven by evolutionary theory).Abiogenesis research is making scientific progress in determining how life might have originated. Where is the equivalent ID research ?

quote:

---

...political action in courts,

---

What you mean here is that the courts are brought in to counter illegal political action from the ID side. It is the ID supporters who try to use the political process to change the curriculum to favour their religious beliefs. Complaining that ID can't get special favourable treatment is hardly evidence that ID is being held to a higher standard.

quote:

---

...and the biased subjectivity applied when ID vs other sciences are held to standards of science definitions.

---

Again you seem to be talking about the ID side. Let us not forget that it is Behe who argued for widening the definition of science in the Dover trial - to the point where it would include astrology. Would you want astrology taught in schools ?And we look through your posts and we see all sorts of demands that ID should be given special favourable treatment. Something of an inconsistency there.

What "other science" isn't being held to the requirements of falsifiability? But ID isn't being ruled out by science. It's being deemed "not science." About things that are "not science" science has no comment. That's why science doesn't rule out God, and it doesn't rule out ID. Well, at least you're honest about being religiously motivated, but in the science forums it would be nice if you'd confine yourself to scientific arguments about abiogenesis.--PercyEdited by Percy, : Grammar.

Not too much trouble, just time consuming. I have a snowplow — made a couple of bucks with it, then the truck breaks and I end up spending it all fixing it back haha Established definitions aren’t that simple, you should have noticed that in your thread about definitions of evolution. It’s at 174 posts and continuing to grow. That’s your opinion, and you can show a lot of scientific detail of abiogenesis to make that point, that I haven’t the time nor the scientific knowledge/interest to counter it. But my point is this — when abiogenesis was accepted as science, it had NONE of that detail. It gained those details within the public realm of science. It didn’t have to aquire them as a condition to be accepted as science, as ID is required to do. If ID could get its foot in the door like abiogenesis got with its original free pass, it could accomplish those things. I can base that statement on the success of other accepted sciences that deal with intelligence, like anthropology, archeology, forensic science, and the SETI Institute’s search for extraterrestrial intelligence. The SETI institute’s success seems to have come easy — correct me if I’m wrong, but so far it has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING in its quest for a contact with intelligence. If that BIG ZERO is good enough for the scientific community, why is it that the same scientific community is so demanding from ID proponents? You (and the scientific community) really are holding it to a lesser standard, by not demanding that it pass an entrance exam prior to become science. It will be interesting to see if you and others here will concede that point. If you don't, then this thread (mercifully for you ) will probably end, with my announcement that I'm finished with it. You largely disregarded an entire link I provided earlier about the gaps and faith in abiogenesis simply because the author didn’t define evolution in an exact way that you agreed with. Why would you blame me, or any creationist/ID proponent for disregarding most of what you (or any evolutionist/naturalist) say concerning science if you refuse to concede proven points about double standards in entrance requirements in the scientific community? I have to keep hammering this point home because it’s an important fact - those all happened after abiogenesis became science, with all the funding, all the attention, all the exposure to education curriculums, all the support from militant atheism, etc. ID doesn't have that luxury. And it also doesn’t matter that ID can’t yet jump through all the hoops required of it today, as long as it can apply a systematic knowledge based approach to areas of detail in biology that continue to stump those who study abiogenesis, and evolution for that matter. I’ve provided a general outline of that systematic knowledge earlier in this thread. Not enough detail to satisfy the scientific community of course (there couldn’t possibly be) but more than abiogenesis and the SETI Institute started with. Have you studied any of the detail in post 107 to this degree? Could it be that since abiogenesis is public science, and ID is not, that not only does the lopsided public establishment get one studied more than the other, it gets one attacked much more than the other? The change that is required of ID is an entrance requirement, that other branches of science have never had required of them.

Where is the equivalent access for ID to university grants, acceptance in the scientific community, exposure to new students, free passes from legal challenges? Not necessarily to favor religious beliefs, but to challenge a previous establishment of atheistic beliefs, which violates the first amendment. It is when atheism gets special favorable treatment.

Abiogenesis, and others — you were the one who said it! From your message 124;

quote:

---

To the extent that there's a theory of abiogenesis, all it says is that life originated through natural means. How are you going to falsify that, since the same assumption underlies all scientific study?

---

You’re claiming that science considers itself equal to other forms of knowledge, and in reality it doesn’t do that. Science has a prestige, a position of superiority. Naturalism is treated in science as an absolute truth, to a much greater extent than it is throughout the population at large. While the scientific community doesn’t directly claim science to be absolutely true and infallible, within our society anything that is the best scientific account of about any subject will automatically demand the public’s immediate acceptance. Any other form of knowledge takes a distant back seat to whatever political positions the scientific community takes. It’s this type of human imperfection that causes anything put forward by ID to be unfairly/emotionally attacked, while anything put forward by abiogenesis study to be unfairly/emotionally accepted as truth. That’s not a religious motivation, it’s a political motivation. A motivation to counter unconstitutional political action from the scientific community. These forums aren’t only about nuts-and-bolts science, they’re about the social aspects of science. I’m not a scientist, and I can’t go into scientific details on an equal basis with scientists. But I’m a middle aged member of a society that is supposed to have open inquiry, and I can discuss social aspects of science with anybody.

Do you have any idea how new scientific studies work? You seem to be under the impression that ANYTHING can be labeled science and be awarded funding. NO!
All new ideas must first have some preliminary research that is done pro-bono by whatever person/group is doing the research. They then must present their findings to another group whom will provide money (normally a grant) to do extensive research. The research is conducted, findings are found, data is presented to a group of peers. The peers see that it is legitimate. IT"S SCIENCE!Here's what ID wants: There is a hypothesis that life is too complex to occur naturally. Any study (ONE has been done....ONE) to substantiate the hypothesis is refuted and shown to be in errror. This is not a valid hypothesis. Start over, do more research. (hint: science seeks to prove itself WRONG. Not prove other shit wrong).So, where is the valid research ID has done to even TRY and be science?

---

"Some people think God is an outsized, light-skinned male with a long white beard, sitting on a throne somewhere up there in the sky, busily tallying the fall of every sparrow. Othersfor example Baruch Spinoza and Albert Einsteinconsidered God to be essentially the sum total of the physical laws which describe the universe. I do not know of any compelling evidence for anthropomorphic patriarchs controlling human destiny from some hidden celestial vantage point, but it would be madness to deny the existence of physical laws."-Carl Sagan

Hi, Marc. Okay, let’s get this straight: you don’t know when abiogenesis was first taught in education curricula; and you don’t know when it became science, so you really don’t have anything authoritative to say on the chronology.I am skeptical that abiogenesis was widely taught in science classes before the 1950’s, and I am skeptical that it was accepted in science as an authoritatively demonstrated reality before then.I request that you support this claim of yours by showing us a mainstream textbook, curriculum, statement from a relevant scientific society or some other evidence that abiogenesis indeed became science before it was supported with experimental results.

---

-Bluejay (a.k.a. Mantis, Thylacosmilus)Darwin loves you.

Nothing is treated as absolute truth in science. If there was anything that was considered absolute truth, then the research into that study would cease, and would then be as religion that is dogma.
Science deals in searching for truth and ammending that which has been falsified. Dogma cannot be falsified.

---

There is no better love between 2 people than mutual respect for each other WT Young, 2002Who gave anyone the authority to call me an authority on anything. WT Young, 1969Since Evolution is only ~90% correct it should be thrown out and replaced by Creation which has even a lower % of correctness. W T Young, 2008

From the Wedge Document:

We are building on this momentum, broadening the wedge with a positive scientific alternative to materialistic scientific theories, which has come to be called the theory of intelligent design (ID). Design theory promises to reverse the stifling dominance of the materialist worldview, and to replace it with a science consonant with Christian and theistic convictions. ...

​

Governing Goals

​

* To defeat scientific materialism and its destructive moral, cultural and political legacies.
* To replace materialistic explanations with the theistic understanding that nature and human beings are created by God.

And just how can you justify calling this nonsense science? It would seem to be the exact opposite of science.And how would you plan to enforce this "science consonant with Christian and theistic convictions?" A theocracy? The Inquisition? Censorship of all sciences that do not conform to some shaman's ideas?Sorry, not going to happen. For your enlightenment look up...The Enlightenment. It means that we no longer have to kowtow to the shamans. After thousands of years we are finally free to tell them to go jump.

---

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

I can't believe I didn't catch this when I first replied (thanks Coyote)What, exactly, are Atheists beliefs? You do know that atheists are called as such because they don't believe in god, right? The term "atheists beliefs" is somewhat oxymoronic.

---

"Some people think God is an outsized, light-skinned male with a long white beard, sitting on a throne somewhere up there in the sky, busily tallying the fall of every sparrow. Othersfor example Baruch Spinoza and Albert Einsteinconsidered God to be essentially the sum total of the physical laws which describe the universe. I do not know of any compelling evidence for anthropomorphic patriarchs controlling human destiny from some hidden celestial vantage point, but it would be madness to deny the existence of physical laws."-Carl Sagan

quote:

---

Where is the equivalent access for ID to university grants, acceptance in the scientific community, exposure to new students, free passes from legal challenges?

---

ID researchers have the same access to grants as anyone else. All they have to do is to demonstrate the merit and the value of their work to the same standards.Acceptance in the scientific community is earned, not just given. In fact it is earned by producing worthwhile research so on this count you are clearly putting the cart before the horse.The ID movement has the same means of getting exposure to students as any other idea in the same situation. If it wants to be treated like mainstream science it has to earn that place. Which again comes down to actually doing the research.Abiogenesis research has no "free pass" from legal challenges. So I don't know what you are talking about there.

quote:

---

Not necessarily to favor religious beliefs, but to challenge a previous establishment of atheistic beliefs, which violates the first amendment.

---

Teaching mainstream science in science classes is accepted as a valid secular purpose, and is therefore not in violation of the First Amendment. If ID could establish itself as valid mainstream science then it coud be taught in science classes without violating the First Amendment. But that requires time and work and the ID movement does not appear interested in doing the work, or in waiting - unlike scientific researchers in any other field, including abiogenesis.And let us be clear that in the actual Dover case we had creationists on the school board who wanted ID taught because they objected to evolution.

Hi Marc9000,Your problem isn't with abiogenesis but with science. You can't single out abiogenesis for being naturalistic because all of science is naturalistic, and abiogenesis is held to the same requirements of falsifiability as all the rest of science.If you want to discuss naturalism and falsifiability in science, and/or its supposed air of superiority, then I suggest you take the discussion to one of the Is It Science? threads, or propose a new thread over at Proposed New Topics. Of course you can, but in threads where it would be on-topic. This thread's about abiogenesis.--Percy

Hi Marc9000, The difference here is that we had an agreed definition to work by, you noted that abiogenesis fit that definition as science, but have failed to demonstrate that ID can fit it.I've also showed that this definition was used prior to Darwin and his theory of descent with modification, and that the definition has not changed to make ID unacceptable. ID doesn't meet the 1828 definition of science as noted in Message 125: Abiogenesis would fit that definition, ID would not.The definition of science has not changed to exclude ID. I disregarded it because it was full of misinformation, beginning at the start. My experience has been that starting with misinformation does not lead to valid conclusions. It's a logic thing. If your point was really valid, you would not need a website with misinformation to demonstrate it. If you think it has something relevant to say then pick out the point you think is relevant and present it. This is the response to my research into your single prediction that you put up to demonstrate that ID was actually capable of doing science?Don't you find it rather dishonest for ID to claim this as a prediction when it is based on repeating what was published in a scientific journal by actual scientists doing actual science? Curious how abiogenesis became a science by doing science, but ID has failed to do so.As for funding, try this little piece of news: Intelligent Design Might Be Meeting Its Maker

quote:

---

The Templeton Foundation, a major supporter of projects seeking to reconcile science and religion, says that after providing a few grants for conferences and courses to debate intelligent design, they asked proponents to submit proposals for actual research.

​

"They never came in," said Charles L. Harper Jr., senior vice president at the Templeton Foundation, who said that while he was skeptical from the beginning, other foundation officials were initially intrigued and later grew disillusioned.

​

"From the point of view of rigor and intellectual seriousness, the intelligent design people don't come out very well in our world of scientific review," he said.

---

There's your funding, available and ready to be used ... nobody applied to use it to actually do something scientific with it.Opportunity not taken, so it's not the fault of secular science that ID has not done any real science yet, it is the failure of the ID people to do science.There are a lot of evangelical colleges and places that could also provide funding, but it seems ID can't convince religious schools either (from the same article):

quote:

---

The only university where intelligent design has gained a major institutional foothold is a seminary. Southern Baptist Theological Seminary in Louisville, Ky., created a Center for Science and Theology for William A. Dembski, a leading proponent of intelligent design, after he left Baylor, a Baptist university in Texas, amid protests by faculty members opposed to teaching it.

​

Intelligent design and Mr. Dembski, a philosopher and mathematician, should have been a good fit for Baylor, which says its mission is "advancing the frontiers of knowledge while cultivating a Christian world view." But Baylor, like many evangelical universities, has many scholars who see no contradiction in believing in God and evolution.

---

This was discussed on ID Failing--at Christian Institutions. If ID can't convince religious schools that it's science, how can you expect secular universities to do so? The entrance requirement is to do science: make predictions and do scientific studies. So far we have one (1) bogus "prediction" and the absolute failure to use funding that was available.For a supposedly scientific movement that is a pretty sad paltry poor showing.Enjoy.Edited by RAZD, : xx

---

Yes, I remember reading this at the time. It seems to me the most damning thing of all. When they're given money to propagandize, they'll take it and welcome, but offer them money to do scientific research, and they literally can't think of anything to do with it.