The Law of Biogenesis

[OldEnglishSheepdog]

I think the Weasel Program bears testimony to how stupid Dawkins thinks the average reader of his books are...

Honestly, I cannot understand how so many people thing rehashed old Hume and John Stewart Mill arguments are so devastating, so it leads me to wonder if the average readers of his books even pay any attention to what he's saying.

I'm pretty convinced a lot of his fans are following his intentions, not his arguments.

Which books of his have you read?

I've just read parts, mostly of the Blind Watchmaker. I've listened to quite a bit of his lectures and debates though, and man it is painful.

[LuftWaffle]

The theory of evolution is usually thought of as being applicable only to things that are already alive.

Popularizers like Dawkins disagree. Are you familiar with his Weasel program? It attempts to demonstrate the origin of life using natural selection on abiotic matter.

I would agree that it's senseless to pretend that such could be the case, but it's not some kind of Creationist misunderstanding to address the application of evolution on non-living material.

However, I think it is true to say that many ideas in the scientific literature about the origin of life itself rely on selection processes akin to natural selection.

Natural selection only works through reproduction. NS selects from what's available among living organisms, cutting out organisms that are less adapted for certain environments. Without life there is no pressure from selection, i.e. nothing from which to select. The process fundamentally requires living organisms that can reproduce, otherwise it would have to be a physical force, physically moving abiotic matter around, and selecting not for survival advantage but deliberating for future potential advantage... and an immaterial force acting physically to assemble something with deliberation would simply be a description of God or some kind of ghost or whatever.

Actually, my comments in the earlier post probably owe their origin to having read some of Dawkins's books.

I think the Weasel program first sees the light of day in the chapter entitled "accumulating small change" in Dawkins's "Blind Watchmaker". The purpose of the chapter is not to discuss the origin of life, but to demonstrate the power of cumulative selection, because "Chance is a minor ingredient in the Darwinian recipe [i.e. natural selection], but the most important ingredient is cumulative selection which is quintessentially nonrandom". The weasel program is indeed used in the context of a discussion on life's origin, but that discussion is solely within the framework of natural selection.

If you read the chapter, I hope you would accept that my post sits comfortably within Dawkins's view.

I'm not sure I'm following you here when you say the discussion is solely within the framework of natural selection, but I think this blogger put it well "Probably the most obvious flaw in Dawkins line of reasoning is that the Weasel Program must be supplied with information to generate information. In fact, the only information it can generate is the information that was put in to it. If you put nonsense into the Weasel Program you get nonsense out, not information. The Weasel Program is just a conversion algorithm. Dawkins’ argument assumes that you can start with something that automatically has the ability to reproduce itself. I thought the idea here was that life was represented by a meaningful sentence. Shouldn’t nonsense be considered dead an unable to reproduce? Dawkins’ argument assumes that all the selected intermediate strings can reproduce even though he acknowledges that there are vastly more was of being dead than alive. If we were to enforce some rule for what is considered to be alive, like requiring the character string be composed of only properly spelled words, the Weasel Program wouldn’t be able to find a path to its expected output. To say that “there are vastly more ways of being dead than alive” would be a gross understatement because there would be easily billions of more ways of being “dead” than “alive”" (source: http://randystimpson...el-program.html).

Whether or not you're considering this as a simulation to demonstrate the origin of life or the increasing of applicable sequencing to facilitate adaptation to a certain environment, if nothing more than unguided forces are at play then either way the simulation fails to account for how the conversion algorithm (or genetic algorithm if the metaphor is to extend so far) was set up in the first place, and more importantly, how anything could survive long enough to reproduce nested generations of sequencing that's not set up to perform any valid function. This necessitates that organisms are not selected for survival advantage but for their potential suvival advantage according to some intelligently prescribed, desired future outcome. If the match between sequencing and environmental funcationality is a prospective one, then Natural Selection kills off the organism, since unguided forces have no foresight and all you have is something that's not adapted for survival in its environment.

If Natural Selection were actually in effect, none of the sequences except the last one would have made the cut. To survive the sentence would have to pop into being all at once, fully formed and error free, or else it would be selected out, demonstrating that you have to start with information and an algorithm to select from changes in the sequencing, just to get started, and from there you'd have to account for variations that would come into being as complete and environmentally relevant sequences that do not come at the expense of the functionality of the rest of the sequence.

I think the Weasel Program bears testimony to how stupid Dawkins thinks the average reader of his books are...

Which books of his have you read?

Hi DC-10,

The weasel program and its workings are freely available online. I do not need to read Blind Watchmaker in order to comment on the weasel program or its inclusion in a book. Does Dawkins use the Weasel program in an attempt to prove a point about RM + NS? If so, then it's quite reasonable to conclude that Dawkins thinks his readers are idiots by using such an unrealistic example to prove a point. Furthermore not only is the weasel program freely available online, but many of Dawkin's arguments. Dismissing comments because they're not within an artibitraly determined quota of books read (if that's what you're getting at), isn't really addressing any points that have been made.

How many Dawkins books would one need to read in order to qualify? Do partial readings count? Does it matter how recently I have read his books? All these things just complicate the matter, meanwhile a simple point is lost. Weasel is not even remotely an accurate representation of Dawkins point because it smuggles information in at the outset, it's selection process is ridiculously oversimplified and it assumes no fitness valleys. Inclusion of Weasel in a book speaks volumes of Dawkins view of his reader or his own credibility and bias.

[Don Fanucci]

Hi Don,

The point Isaiah is making is that intelligence has been smuggled into the experiment. 4 bottles of chemicals + 1 computer doesn't produce life.

This is not really germane as the Law of Biogenesis:

"Spontaneous generation (the emergence of life from nonliving matter) has never been observed. All observations have shown that life comes only from life."

As claimed, following your argument, it could never be observed and not because it is not possible. It would not be possible because in order to conclude that it does occur, the scientific method would need to be used, which would put a "human" in the middle of the experiment--controlling the variables in order to observe, gather data, and prove cause and effect. Remember, scientific experimentation requires controllingthe environment so that the experiment can be reproduced.

In fact, Venter showed that you can take inanimate/non living materials and assemble them into a living organism. Your argument woiuld hold if he just took some Mastodon DNA and after chemical treatment, shot them into an elephant egg and got a baby Mastodon. Ventner didnt. He took the genetic code in text form and brought it to life. Big difference.

Secondly, Venter did not create life. Scientific American is quite correct in that he created a prosthetic genome and inserted it into an already living organism. Having genes does not imply being alive. Dead things can contain genes, but aren't alive. It's possible that scientists will one day be able to create a simple self-replicating organism in a lab, which depending on a certain definition of "life" can be construed as "alive", but what Craig Venter did, is nothing of the sort. Claiming that the SA journalist isn't a scientist seems to me that you place way too much faith in credentials. Credentials alone do not make truth.

If he didn't, then you are using a different definition from Webster:

The state of being which begins with generation, birth, or germination, and ends with death; also, the time during which this state continues; that state of an animal or plant in which all or any of its organs are capable of performing all or any of their functions; - used of all animal and vegetable organisms.

Finally, would you accept an atheist's critique of the prayer, if it were, say, claiming that it does not nor could it work? I doubt it. And your reasoning would probably be that since an atheist does not have faith, they could not possibly understand prayer, and therefore would not be qualified to comment on it short of parroting what they have heard. Consequently, in the absence of any tangible experience, would you accept their review?

Edited July 20, 2011 by Don Fanucci

[Don Fanucci]

Speaking of credentials. This seems to be one of many things that make evolution, and origins science in general, quite unique. Most sciences are freely accessible to laypersons, and in fact there's always been a push to get laypersons involved in operational sciences.

for instance TV shows like Mythbusters and Brainiacs are geared for just that. Making science accessible to all. Viewers get to interact with the investigators and comment on certain outcomes in terms of chemistry, physics regardless of their expertise in such fields. Comments are handled according to validity and not credentials.

This happens in our day to day life as well. I can go to a physician and tell them that I think I have the flu. They can diagnose me, and if I'm not satisfied with the diagnosis then I can question it or even get a second opinion.

Many people question the science behind dietary supplements, mass building producs or weight loss remedies, and those queries are addressed if they're valid, regardless of qualification.

Lay persons have insisted that Power Balance bracelets do not work and many people received refunds even though they're not medically or chemistry trained.

If an electrical engineer repaires my TV I can ask them what they did and question whether an expensive part really required replacing.

But where origins science is concerned, it seems one dare not to question the science unless one is qualified in a relevant field. Television shows on evolution tell us the conclusions, but for the most part the way those conclusions are reached are never mentioned, and, it seems, are offlimits to us.

Objections are summarily dismissed and validity is secondary to one's qualifications. As OES put it, there seems to be a cult mentality where origins science is concerned, where only those ordained by the cult get to speak on the cult.

If Mythbusters had to work like origins science, I can imagine it would go something like this:

"Hey viewers, we've got a fan letter today from John in Arizona writing that our "Pigs can fly" experiment wasn't valid because we used a styrofoam pig and a model aricraft engine. He says real pigs are heavier and do not have the luxury of propulsion. Unfortunately his complaint is invalid because he is not a aeronautical engineer, but a hotel receptionist. What does he know?

Anyway, welcome to today's show.

Today, we'll be testing the myth that a duck's quack doesn't echo.

This myth is Busted!

Why? Because we say so and we're the experts.

Goodbye!"

*roll credits*

There is a very distinct different in the way origins science deals with objections versus the way operational science deals with objections.

You are mixing up science and entertainment. If you think mythbusters is the way science is really done, then I think I have found the problem. Read their bios and tell me if you think any of them could design a credible experiment that would yield a statistically significant outcome. Al Sharpton may be a heck of a reverend, but would you trust him to teach theology?

[LuftWaffle]

This is not really germane as the Law of Biogenesis:

"Spontaneous generation (the emergence of life from nonliving matter) has never been observed. All observations have shown that life comes only from life."

As claimed, following your argument, it could never be observed and not because it is not possible. It would not be possible because in order to conclude that it does occur, the scientific method would need to be used, which would put a "human" in the middle of the experiment--controlling the variables in order to observe, gather data, and prove cause and effect. Remember, scientific experimentation requires controllingthe environment so that the experiment can be reproduced.

Observation is one thing. Intelligently putting something together in a specific order and then claiming that no intelligence is required for life is something else. I have a problem with the latter, not the former.

Let me ask you again, does copying the Mona Lisa, show that it can happen through natural processes?

The abiogenesis issue is being tackled in two ways. There's the bottom-up approach, where you start with what you believe to be the initial conditions where life started (primordial soup) and you see if life arises. This is what the Miller-Urey experiment attempted.

Then you have Venter's top-down approach, where you take existing life and deconstruct it to see what the minimum requirements are. The problem with this approach is that it seems the minimum requirement for a self-replicating organism is pretty complicated, and therefore intelligence is required to recreate this process. This is an inherent problem of the top-down approach if the intention is to show that life initially arose through an unguided process.

In fact, Venter showed that you can take inanimate/non living materials and assemble them into a living organism. Your argument woiuld hold if he just took some Mastodon DNA and after chemical treatment, shot them into an elephant egg and got a baby Mastodon. Ventner didnt. He took the genetic code in text form and brought it to life. Big difference.

As far as I can tell, he assembled non-living chemicals, into non-living RNA and injected into a living organism. The genome itself is coded information, not intrinsically living.

As I said before, I have no doubt that scientists will eventually create life, but this experiment isn't it.

Edited July 20, 2011 by LuftWaffle

[LuftWaffle]

You are mixing up science and entertainment. If you think mythbusters is the way science is really done, then I think I have found the problem. Read their bios and tell me if you think any of them could design a credible experiment that would yield a statistically significant outcome. Al Sharpton may be a heck of a reverend, but would you trust him to teach theology?

You've totally missed my point. My point was, "There is a very distinct different in the way origins science deals with objections versus the way operational science deals with objections."

I used various examples including Mythbusters to show that there is a general push to bring science (limited to operational science, it seems) to the people and to get people involved in doing science; to question and interact. I did not say that Mythbusters' methodology is flawless.

Do yourself a favour and watch TV shows on Discovery, BBC Knowledge or NatGeo. You'll see a distinct pattern, in that operational sciences will be explained to the viewer. How the researcher determined their conclusion will typically be given, the methodology followed, the laws behind it etc. Then compare that to a documentary on origins, and in most cases it will be narrated in story format and things will be claimed matter-of-factly without any in depth description on how the conclusions were reached and what the raw evidence consisted of. All I did was point out this difference.

[Don Fanucci]

Observation is one thing. Intelligently putting something together in a specific order and then claiming that no intelligence is required for life is something else. I have a problem with the latter, not the former.

Let me ask you again, does copying the Mona Lisa, show that it can happen through natural processes?

I'm missing your point. What part of the Mona Lisa is alive?

The abiogenesis issue is being tackled in two ways. There's the bottom-up approach, where you start with what you believe to be the initial conditions where life started (primordial soup) and you see if life arises. This is what the Miller-Urey experiment attempted.

Then you have Venter's top-down approach, where you take existing life and deconstruct it to see what the minimum requirements are. The problem with this approach is that it seems the minimum requirement for a self-replicating organism is pretty complicated, and therefore intelligence is required to recreate this process. This is an inherent problem of the top-down approach if the intention is to show that life initially arose through an unguided process.

Unfortunately, Venter was not trying to address abiogenesis. If he were, the experiment would have been designed differently. Instead, he was simply trying to create life de novo. He did that, and simply proved it could be done. As for it being a model of abiogensis, yeah, I don't think an oligosynthesizer, Mycoplasma genome sequence, or a lab bench were around back when bacteria first appeared.

As far as I can tell, he assembled non-living chemicals, into non-living RNA and injected into a living organism. The genome itself is coded information, not intrinsically living.

As I said before, I have no doubt that scientists will eventually create life, but this experiment isn't it.

It was DNA. Except for viruses, RNA generally does not exist as long molecules, and it wasn't injected into a living organism, it was injected into an empty membrane.

[Don Fanucci]

You are mixing up science and entertainment. If you think mythbusters is the way science is really done, then I think I have found the problem. Read their bios and tell me if you think any of them could design a credible experiment that would yield a statistically significant outcome. Al Sharpton may be a heck of a reverend, but would you trust him to teach theology?

You've totally missed my point. My point was, "There is a very distinct different in the way origins science deals with objections versus the way operational science deals with objections."

I used various examples including Mythbusters to show that there is a general push to bring science (limited to operational science, it seems) to the people and to get people involved in doing science; to question and interact. I did not say that Mythbusters' methodology is flawless.

Do yourself a favour and watch TV shows on Discovery, BBC Knowledge or NatGeo. You'll see a distinct pattern, in that operational sciences will be explained to the viewer. How the researcher determined their conclusion will typically be given, the methodology followed, the laws behind it etc. Then compare that to a documentary on origins, and in most cases it will be narrated in story format and things will be claimed matter-of-factly without any in depth description on how the conclusions were reached and what the raw evidence consisted of. All I did was point out this difference.

Not knowing what origins and operational science are, I googled them and see they are frequent creationist terms. I think I see your complaint in that you somehow think evolutionary biologists don't like criticism, or try to exclude people from commenting or questioning their work. While science can be quite slow to accept new paradigms, it does indeed happen, and in fact, it is actually forced on scientists (by funding agencies). The reason we all don't jump up in down when someone hae a new theory is that more often then not, there is some underlying explanation for the atypical observations. Happens all the time, and it requires energy and aggravation to prove the "new" theory was not really novel after all. Second, the biggest part of this aggravation as bad experimental design. Creationists always complain about being shut out by biologists, but really, as we see on this site all thetime, their work is largely non-existent, and the reinterpretations are flawed. The field of creationism largely consists of non experts, and even people with no training, reinterpreting previous work. If you want to see examples of this, I'll pull up the backgrounds of the "leading" creationists and we'll compare them to some evolutionary biologists who are tenure track. Creationists should do their own work, that would solve all the problems. Science is not easy and a large percentage of scientific researchers eventually don't make it. Its too hard, too technically demanding, and requires great precision--usually beyond what most lay folks understand or deem important. In fact, if you want an example of why this does not work, read the whole Austism research field. Try as people might, there just is no signiciant link between vaccines and Austin, regardles of what Hollywood says. Opinion says there is, science shows there is not. Everyone wants to win the next Nobel, and if evolution were ever proved false, or creationism true, that person would't get a Nobel, they'd gather all the existing ones and give them to him/her.

[LuftWaffle]

I'm missing your point. What part of the Mona Lisa is alive?

I'm not arguing that living organisms aren't alive. The Mona Lisa analogy is about intelligent design. If you read the previous posts you'll notice we were commenting about intelligence being smuggled into the Venter experiment.

If Venter's experiment can be used to show that life can arise naturally then equally copying the Mona Lisa should show that paintings can come about through natural processes.

Unfortunately, Venter was not trying to address abiogenesis. If he were, the experiment would have been designed differently. Instead, he was simply trying to create life de novo. He did that, and simply proved it could be done. As for it being a model of abiogensis, yeah, I don't think an oligosynthesizer, Mycoplasma genome sequence, or a lab bench were around back when bacteria first appeared.

Well, this entire discussion is about abiogenesis and you offered Venter's experiment as evidence that the law of biogenesis can be violated.

It was DNA. Except for viruses, RNA generally does not exist as long molecules, and it wasn't injected into a living organism, it was injected into an empty membrane.

Ok

[LuftWaffle]

Not knowing what origins and operational science are, I googled them and see they are frequent creationist terms.

Wow, we already discussed the distinction we make between the two sciences here: http://www.worthychr...p?/topic/137994

That was in April, and there you also seemed to treat the distinction as invalid because they're not "scientific terms". Did you really forget that discussion?

I think I see your complaint in that you somehow think evolutionary biologists don't like criticism, or try to exclude people from commenting or questioning their work. While science can be quite slow to accept new paradigms, it does indeed happen, and in fact, it is actually forced on scientists (by funding agencies). The reason we all don't jump up in down when someone hae a new theory is that more often then not, there is some underlying explanation for the atypical observations. Happens all the time, and it requires energy and aggravation to prove the "new" theory was not really novel after all. Second, the biggest part of this aggravation as bad experimental design. Creationists always complain about being shut out by biologists, but really, as we see on this site all thetime, their work is largely non-existent, and the reinterpretations are flawed. The field of creationism largely consists of non experts, and even people with no training, reinterpreting previous work. If you want to see examples of this, I'll pull up the backgrounds of the "leading" creationists and we'll compare them to some evolutionary biologists who are tenure track. Creationists should do their own work, that would solve all the problems. Science is not easy and a large percentage of scientific researchers eventually don't make it. Its too hard, too technically demanding, and requires great precision--usually beyond what most lay folks understand or deem important. In fact, if you want an example of why this does not work, read the whole Austism research field. Try as people might, there just is no signiciant link between vaccines and Austin, regardles of what Hollywood says. Opinion says there is, science shows there is not.

We've discussed that "Creationists don't do their own research" objection in the past as well. I find this objection strange because if only people who are doing the research are allowed to comment on that research, then how do you handle peer review? Peer review is supposed to be scientists commenting on other scientists' work while not being involved with that work. So, what's good for the goose, must be good for the gander, not so?

This appears to be a sort of go-to argument for you, but how does any of this address the differences between how origins science and operational science deals with- and presents to the public?

Everyone wants to win the next Nobel, and if evolution were ever proved false, or creationism true, that person would't get a Nobel, they'd gather all the existing ones and give them to him/her.

You can't possibly be that naive?

Edited July 20, 2011 by LuftWaffle