A Retraction Regarding Abiogenesis

[one.opinion]

On November 23, 2017, Jack Szostak asked for a retraction of an article his lab had published in 2016. This is not very remarkable until additional details of the background story are revealed. First, Jack Szostak shared the 2009 Nobel Prize in Medicine for his work on telomeres (chromosome ends) and telomerase (the enzyme complex that builds them). Second, Szostak's retraction was for a paper in the field he has been working on for the last decade, pre-biotic chemistry - researching chemical complexes and reactions that would eventually (hypothetically) develop into processes inside functional cells. Third, this was Szostak's second retraction in this field of research. He previously retracted an article published in 2009, also related to pre-biotic chemistry. Fourth, Szostak initiated the retraction process himself, after learning that colleagues were unable to replicate his experiments. This is a bit unusual, as retractions are generally called for by someone other than the primary article author.

This raises the following two main questions for me:

1. Researchers have been working on pre-biotic chemistry since before Urey and Miller (1952), since they were working on hypotheses first presented by Oparin and Haldane. In the roughly 70 years since, very little discovery has been made in this regard. Generally, I tend to shy away from "God of the gaps" arguments, but at some point, there just may be a real gap! At what point will the atheistic version of life origins have to change to account for the lack of progress in this regard?

 

2. Although it is true that Szostak sought the retractions himself, his own colleagues brought problems to his attention and the retractions were actually made. I have read numerous posts here suggesting that scientists are more interested in maintaining their own pet hypotheses than pursuing truth - to the point of elaborate cover-ups of truth. Does this retraction by a well-known scientist bring that suggestion into question?

[Bonky]

2 hours ago, one.opinion said:

1. Researchers have been working on pre-biotic chemistry since before Urey and Miller (1952), since they were working on hypotheses first presented by Oparin and Haldane. In the roughly 70 years since, very little discovery has been made in this regard. Generally, I tend to shy away from "God of the gaps" arguments, but at some point, there just may be a real gap! At what point will the atheistic version of life origins have to change to account for the lack of progress in this regard?

Just like at what point will theists admit Jesus isn't coming back, it's been 2000 years.  

2 hours ago, one.opinion said:

2. Although it is true that Szostak sought the retractions himself, his own colleagues brought problems to his attention and the retractions were actually made. I have read numerous posts here suggesting that scientists are more interested in maintaining their own pet hypotheses than pursuing truth - to the point of elaborate cover-ups of truth. Does this retraction by a well-known scientist bring that suggestion into question?

Conspiracy theories are what they are.  There are times when they have a good measure of truth but conspiracy theories are a dime a dozen.  

[one.opinion]

4 minutes ago, Bonky said:

Just like at what point will theists admit Jesus isn't coming back, it's been 2000 years.

Well I'm certainly not questioning it because it hasn't happened yet. Although some early Christians did expect Christ to return quickly, we just plain don't know His timetable.

[Bonky]

2 minutes ago, one.opinion said:

Well I'm certainly not questioning it because it hasn't happened yet. Although some early Christians did expect Christ to return quickly, we just plain don't know His timetable.

Religion doesn't deal with falsifiable claims

[one.opinion]

50 minutes ago, Bonky said:

Religion doesn't deal with falsifiable claims

In my opinion, there is considerable evidence supporting the existence of Jesus Christ as well as His death and resurrection. If you refuse to consider the possibility of anything outside our ability to observe or detect, that is indeed your prerogative, but do consider the possibility of something beyond methodological naturalism.

[Tristen]

“At what point will the atheistic version of life origins have to change to account for the lack of progress in this regard?”

Since claims about history are unfalsifiable, no one is ever obligated to their rejection. Lack of knowledge about how something might have occurred will never be logically sufficient to necessitate the conclusion that such a claim is impossible. The best we can accurately say is that there is no plausible path to abiogenesis; given the current state of knowledge.

 

“I have read numerous posts here suggesting that scientists are more interested in maintaining their own pet hypotheses than pursuing truth - to the point of elaborate cover-ups of truth. Does this retraction by a well-known scientist bring that suggestion into question?”

I think actual “cover-ups” by senior researchers would be rare. But there are examples of people who become so invested in certain outcomes that they over-read positive results and underplay negative results – though I wouldn't apply this to “scientists” in general.

[listener24]

11 hours ago, one.opinion said:

there just may be a real gap! At what point will the atheistic version of life origins have to change to account for the lack of progress in this regard?

As books like this explain https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Structure_of_Scientific_Revolutions, it may take centuries to change paradigms, purely because of "political" reasons.

[one.opinion]

6 hours ago, Tristen said:

But there are examples of people who become so invested in certain outcomes that they over-read positive results and underplay negative results

Szostak pretty much admitted to this. To his credit, he stood up publicly and admitted his mistake. Although, it would have been really interesting to see what would have happened if the discovery of error would have been made by an outsider.

[Enoch2021]

On 1/4/2018 at 4:34 PM, one.opinion said:

Fourth, Szostak initiated the retraction process himself, after learning that colleagues were unable to replicate his experiments.

Jack NEVER performed any Experiments; Ergo...neither did his colleagues, so this entire yarn is nonsensical.

To refute, please post one of them...

a.  What Phenomenon was Observed...?
b.  Post the Formal Scientific Hypothesis then EXPERIMENT that validates your claim...?
c.  Highlight the "Independent Variable" that was used in the TEST...?
d.  Post the Null Hypothesis that was Rejected/Falsified...?

2.  Moreover, the ENTIRE genre of Origin of Life (OOL) Research isn't "SCIENCE"/Scientific to begin with.

 

Quote

1. Researchers have been working on pre-biotic chemistry since before Urey and Miller (1952), since they were working on hypotheses first presented by Oparin and Haldane.

Horse Pucky.  There was NEVER one Viable Scientific Hypothesis ever constructed in the entire history of OOL research.

Watch, Post this 'Hypothesis' from Oparin and Haldane...?

 

Quote

Generally, I tend to shy away from "God of the gaps" arguments, but at some point, there just may be a real gap!

This has nothing whatever to do with the conjured "God of the Gaps" argument (Actually, it's a TEXTBOOK 'evolution' of the GAPS  , but I digress) .  Why??  Well...

There are ONLY Two Possible World-Views (Ontological Primitives) that can be held to account for how we (Universe/Us) are here;

Unguided -- Nature (Matter)  or   Guided --- Intelligent Agency (God)

George Wald (Nobel Laureate Medicine and Physiology)...

“The reasonable view was to believe in spontaneous generation; the only alternative, to believe in a single, primary act of SUPERNATURAL CREATION . THERE IS NO THIRD POSITION." 
Wald, G., “The Origin of Life,” Scientific American, 191 [2]: 45-46, 1954.
http://www.academia.edu/2739607/Scientific_GOD_Journal  (Page 175-176)

Let's break this down so you can see it...

1: "The reasonable view was to believe in spontaneous generation".  Nature (UnGuided)

The Only Alternative ...

2: "a single, primary act of supernatural creation."  God (Guided)

True Dichotomy: Nature (UnGuided) vs. God (Guided); "THERE IS NO THIRD POSITION".

If you outright refute/deny One Choice; THEN, based on the Laws of Logic -- you Ipso Facto MUST 'believe' the other.
Disjunctive Syllogism:  A logical argument of the form that if there are only two possibilities, and one of them is ruled out, then the other MUST BE TRUE.
 

In short, whenever a claim can be defined--in this case "CAUSED", by only 2 possible outcomes (Disjunctive Syllogism) then it is the ANTITHESIS/Polar Opposite of any "GAP" appeals.  Follow?

 

Quote

At what point will the atheistic version of life origins have to change to account for the lack of progress in this regard?

NEVER.  Why?  Well there is no progress and never will be any progress because that's the way it's been designed ("Set-Up") .  They and their incoherent hoards couch the question in Two Fallacy Camps:

1.   We just don't know the answer (Argument from Ignorance Fallacy), denoting a probability by clumsy innuendo.  AND/OR...  

2.  We may find out in the future (Appeal to the Future Fallacy).

When... ever since these 2 camps magically appeared (and are Forever MINDLESSLY PARROTED ) those that could/can 'fog a mirror' ALREADY KNEW the Answer. 

However, whenever challenged to support their fairytale beliefs they need to have some recourse; hence...POST THE FALLACY CAMPS even after being shown they're Fallacious Ways and even after the ANSWER has been given to them.  RINSE/REPEAT, RINSE/REPEAT, RINSE/REPEAT.

It's a Perpetual Fairytale Game. 

 

Quote

2. Although it is true that Szostak sought the retractions himself, his own colleagues brought problems to his attention and the retractions were actually made. I have read numerous posts here suggesting that scientists are more interested in maintaining their own pet hypotheses than pursuing truth - to the point of elaborate cover-ups of truth. Does this retraction by a well-known scientist bring that suggestion into question?

Ahhh "Yea".  And more importantly... THEY'RE NOT SCIENTISTS !!! 

 

regards

[Enoch2021]

21 hours ago, Bonky said:

Just like at what point will theists admit Jesus isn't coming back, it's been 2000 years.  

Huh?  ...

(Matthew 24:36) "But of that day and hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels of heaven, but my Father only."

Which part of this ^^^^^^^ is particularly confusing?

What if something didn't happen for 2000 years but then happened in the: 2001st, 2006th, 2022nd, 28,654th ad Nauseam... does that mean it still didn't happen?? 

Can you post the Syllogism Validating your claim here...?

 

Quote

Religion doesn't deal with falsifiable claims  

How many times does it need to be Illustrated and Explained to you that Christianity isn't a Religion before you stop appealing to this??

Furthermore, It is "YOU" that adhere to "Religion"... Philosophical Naturalism/Realism (aka: atheism).  In fact, it's Blind/Deaf/Willfully Dumb Scientifically Falsified Religion.  Would you like me to show you step-by-step for the 1687th Time?

 

regards