A Retraction Regarding Abiogenesis

[MorningGlory]

1 hour ago, Bonky said:

I'm sure Enoch is a good person, but he appears to be defending a faith anchored by a person he seems to have ignored [considering how he deals with people].  

Maybe.  But, as a believer, I hold out hope that things will change.  And, to stay on topic, I don't believe that abiogenesis is possible or logical.  Everything came about at the hand of the Creator.  You can lay a rock in the middle of your dining table and four billion years later....it will still be a rock.

[Bonky]

8 hours ago, MorningGlory said:

Maybe.  But, as a believer, I hold out hope that things will change.  And, to stay on topic, I don't believe that abiogenesis is possible or logical.  Everything came about at the hand of the Creator.  You can lay a rock in the middle of your dining table and four billion years later....it will still be a rock.

I've found that the truth is stranger than fiction.  We've discovered all kinds of things that would have been considered absurd prior to the discovery.  

[MorningGlory]

5 hours ago, Bonky said:

I've found that the truth is stranger than fiction.  We've discovered all kinds of things that would have been considered absurd prior to the discovery.  

True.  But God told us that He created everything...that will not change as He is the same now as He was at Creation and as He will be throughout eternity.  It's only the details of His creation becoming apparent that surprise us.

[siegi91]

On 1/4/2018 at 11:34 PM, one.opinion said:

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?

The atomic theory of matter has been postulated, on pure phylosophical grounds, in Ancient Greece. Its evidence has been gathered 100 years ago or something.

We still have a bit of time before calling a gap

I am not sure about other things, like the electromagnetic theory of lightnings. But I am confident that filling the gap with Thor, was a bit pre-mature. Don't you think so?

I mean, the historical track record speaks for itself: how many times a supernatural explanation has been replaced by a natural one? How many times has a natural explanation been replaced by a supernatural one? I think the ratio between them is infinite. So, prima facie, expecting a different result in this case would be like expecting the sun rising somewhere else tomorrow morning. Possible, but not necessarily rational without some a-priori assumptions.

But I have a specific question for you: do you agree that this initial form, no matter how it came to be, accounts for all the complexity of life we experience today? In other words: do you think that the whole path "very  simple --> very complex" does not necessary entail the necessity of a divinity of any kind? Or said otherwise: is the gap closed by unguided naturalism in this area of development between simple and complex life, or is a divinity still necessary?

I ask for a simple reason: all discussions I have with European creationists (not necessarily Christians, I don't know many Christians) seem to always converge to the same subject --> the origin of life. Even when we talk about evolution (which is unrelated, one is the origin, the other is the development). Which tells me that maybe they are starting giving up fighting evolution, or seeing the necessity of a divinity to guide it, (at least here in Europe) and find the possibly last shelter in this big unknown that happened a few billions years ago on earth.

Is that so?

 siegi

 

 

Edited February 6, 2018 by siegi91

[one.opinion]

8 hours ago, siegi91 said:

I am not sure about other things, like the electromagnetic theory of lightnings. But I am confident that filling the gap with Thor, was a bit pre-mature. Don't you think so?

Possibly, but in the case of abiogenesis, 70 years of research has not even come close to a plausible naturalistic explanation.

8 hours ago, siegi91 said:

I mean, the historical track record speaks for itself: how many times a supernatural explanation has been replaced by a natural one? How many times has a natural explanation been replaced by a supernatural one? I think the ratio between them is infinite. So, prima facie, expecting a different result in this case would be like expecting the sun rising somewhere else tomorrow morning. Possible, but not necessarily rational without some a-priori assumptions.

Historically speaking, you make a good point. However, can you think of any other phenomena that have NOT been explained by 70 years of modern research? Would you consider it possible that we will never have a satisfactory naturalistic explanation for the beginning of life?

[siegi91]

6 hours ago, one.opinion said:

Possibly, but in the case of abiogenesis, 70 years of research has not even come close to a plausible naturalistic explanation.

Historically speaking, you make a good point. However, can you think of any other phenomena that have NOT been explained by 70 years of modern research? Would you consider it possible that we will never have a satisfactory naturalistic explanation for the beginning of life?

Of course it is possible. I actually believe that there are things beyond our observational horizon that, by definition, lie outside the range of science. I am not talking of supernatural things, for which I hold no beliefs, but of physical things that simply are not observable. Multiverses is one of them. They might exist, and most cosmological theories entail them in the equations, but we might never be able to confirm their existence.

However, for what concern the origins of life, I am moderately optimistic. After all, we "just" need to find mechanisms that cause chemical stuff to spontaneously duplicate itself (with some errors) in an environment with limited resources for that duplication. The rest of the information transfer (acquired complexity) from environment into phenotypes, will then boot itself up by natural selection. 

I am not a proto-biologist, but it does not smell all that miraculous. Difficult, for sure, but it does not seem to contain ingredients that are not reducible to the laws of physics as we know them.

[siegi91]

18 hours ago, one.opinion said:

Possibly, but in the case of abiogenesis, 70 years of research has not even come close to a plausible naturalistic explanation.

Historically speaking, you make a good point. However, can you think of any other phenomena that have NOT been explained by 70 years of modern research? Would you consider it possible that we will never have a satisfactory naturalistic explanation for the beginning of life?

One opinion, I just noticed you missed my primary question.

Do you agree that if we assume the origins of simple life (a-priori, without further explanation), then all the complexity that follows (including Homo Sapiens) is sufficiently explained by unguided, unconscious, naturalistic mechanisms?

So, what do you think?

 siegi

 

Edited February 7, 2018 by siegi91

[one.opinion]

6 hours ago, siegi91 said:

Do you agree that if we assume the origins of simple life (a-priori, without further explanation), then all the complexity that follows (including Homo Sapiens) is sufficiently explained by unguided, unconscious, naturalistic mechanisms?

On second thought, I am sure you did not miss the question really, did you?. Actually, I am pretty positive that you are so smart to realize what an honest answer would entail.

I believe that the biggest challenge to a completely unguided/unconscious/naturalistic explanation for life is the problem of abiogenesis. There are many Christians that believe that God set up the laws of the universe (or multiverses :-P) in such a way that life as we see it is the natural outcome of those laws and processes He initiated. I lean toward a slightly more hands-on approach. I must admit that I am only guessing that God created the first cells, but I believe it is a reasonable guess. Once life forms existed, God certainly could have guided evolution in such a way that His involvement was/is imperceptible, making any involvement no different from completely naturalistic processes. I can only guess at how life came to be and when/how/in what way God was involved in the development of life, but I am fully confident that God is Creator and is in full control of His creation.

[Tristen]

8 hours ago, siegi91 said:

One opinion, I just noticed you missed my primary question.

Do you agree that if we assume the origins of simple life (a-priori, without further explanation), then all the complexity that follows (including Homo Sapiens) is sufficiently explained by unguided, unconscious, naturalistic mechanisms?

So, what do you think?

 siegi

 

Hi Siegi. I know your question was addressed to One, but I hope you don't mind me answering.

Whilst I appreciate that your acknowledgement that the secular story has to "assume the origins of simple life (a-priori, without further explanation)", the "complexity" of life cannot currently be "sufficiently explained by unguided, unconscious, naturalistic mechanisms". In order for so-called simple life to evolve into the complexity and diversity we observe today, there would have to be a mechanism in place explaining the generation of novel, additive, functional, adaptively-advantageous genes for every unique gene that has ever existed - i.e. not just the tweaking, acquiring or re-arranging of pre-existing information, but an addition to the gene pool of an entirely new, functional permutations of genetic information. Even with all our current molecular knowledge and investigation, we have never observed such a mechanism. Given the amount of unique genes in all microbial, plant and animal life (both extant and extinct), we should expect such observations to be commonplace (if such a mechanism exists). Given that each gene represents a unique permutation of information, the odds against any unguided mechanism producing even one unique gene is astronomical. So even given the 3 billion-or-so years of the secular story of life, there is not nearly enough time to make such a claim mathematically plausible. We would also expect to see far more examples of the mechanism failing than producing successful genes (i.e. in the fossil record).

And this simple mathematical analysis doesn't begin to cover the observed complexity of the genomic system -e.g. transcription factors regulating genes, genes and proteins interacting with each other (including with genes of other species), epigenetic codes determining the appropriate timing of gene expression, copying and error correcting mechanisms etc. - each adding stupendous levels of functional complexity to the actual equation. Then to find ourselves on the perfect planet (i.e. the perfect distance from a stable sun - providing a temperature range facilitating the liquid water necessary for life, but with a magnetic field to protect life from harmful solar radiation). in a stable solar system, in a unique part of the galaxy where we are safe from being saturated with cosmic radiation, and in a rare universe (from an alleged multiverse of infinite possibilities) seemingly designed specifically to sustain life.

Calculating the odds of a small gene permutation falling together by unguided processes would break most calculators.

And this all without even considering the odds against life itself simply falling together to begin with.

[ytLiJC]

On 1/5/2018 at 12:34 AM, one.opinion said:

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?

 

unfortunately, all kinds of satanic(misleading) signs and wonders are possible, including sings and processes of abiogenesis

Blessings