The first life quandry

Most debates between an evolutionists and someone who supports intelligent design usually focus on the development and advancement of life on earth. Rarely is the argument centered around the origin of the first life on Earth.

It is obvious as why that is the case - evolutionists do not want to discuss that area, by far their weakest.

How is it that life arose from non-life? That is the question that evolutionists must answer. Without an answer for that question, it is useless to discuss fossils, Darwin, missing links or anything else. The debate is already lost.

If one can find no naturalistic way for life to develop from non-life, then you are forced to allow for supernatural in the creation of life. Am I wrong?

Comments

[Sam Wilkinson]

Aaron,

You know as well as I do that nobody has any convincing evidence about how life started. Nobody. Arguing about it is pointless.

[Aaron]

Then the same could be said for macroevolution as well. We have no convincing evidence of it. Each is looking into the past trying to tie together circumstantial evidence to provide a theory.

My evidence is that it is not possible naturalistically to develop life from non-life. It even violates scientific principle. You have a life form that is so complicated even in the single cell organism that it is impossible for it to develop by random chance. That is evidence for an outside influence, for a designer in the mix.

[Cineaste]

Then the same could be said for macroevolution as well. We have no convincing evidence of it. Each is looking into the past trying to tie together circumstantial evidence to provide a theory.

Assertion 4.18: Macroevolution remains unproved because no one has observed it. In fact, macroevolution is in principle unobservable, so evolution is unscientific.

Analysis

Although information in experimental science is acquired through observation, the observation of a great amount of indirect evidence of a process makes as good a scientific case as the direct observation of a process. As Michael Ruse asks, "[t]he evidence that I have a heart is all indirect, neither I nor anyone else ever seen it, but does anyone really believe that it is not a fact that I have a heart?" (Ruse 1982:58). In the same way, there is sufficient evidence for macroevolution that it can safely be considered a fact without direct observation of the process occurring in our time. We need not, as many unsophisticated creationists put it, observe cats changing into dogs right before our eyes, in order to have a good case for macroevolution.
References: Ruse M. 1982. Darwinism Defended: A Guide to the Evolution Controversies. London: Addison-Wesley.

You have a life form that is so complicated even in the single cell organism that it is impossible for it to develop by random chance. That is evidence for an outside influence, for a designer in the mix.

Assertion 3.5: Cells are too complex to have come into existence all at once by pure chance.

Analysis

This is true, but irrelevant to origin-of-life research, since no origin-of-life researcher supposes that cells came into existence all at once by pure chance. The origin of the first cell is supposed by all researchers to have been a stepwise process, far from the creationist caricature of a sudden organization of loose proteins into a fully functioning prokaryotic cell with all of its complexity. Nor is the origin of the first cell supposed to have been a chance occurrence. As Iris Fry explains, "origin-of-life theories rely on various organizing principles, including selection mechanisms and catalysis, that are supposed to have limited and constrained the wide scope of prebiotic chemical possibilities, thus constructing the scaffolding out of which the living arch eventually emerged" (Fry 2000:196).

References: Fry I. 2000. The Emergence of Life on Earth: A Historical and Scientific Overview. New BrunswIck: Rutgers University Press.

Source: Mark I. Vuletic

[Aaron]

Ruse, can state all day that "we have the evidence, we have the evidence," but I haven't seen it. I can make the same argument for a Designer. Just because you don't see the Designer does not mean it's not there. You don't see my heart, but we know it is there. There is plenty of evidence for a Designer enough that it can safely be considered a fact.

Where did the "various organizing principles, including selection mechanisms and catalysis" or "scaffolding" come from?

There is no evidence for the scaffolding. Secondly, is it not a coincidence that if they do exist the scaffolding keeps getting built in just the right spot to help life along?

What does half a cell look like? There is no transitional life form or evidence of one that takes the steps between non-life and a single cell organism. What part of the single cell organism can you take out and it still function?

While we are on this subject, care to go over to Their Two Cents v. 1 and take a guess at who said that quote?

[Cineaste]

I can make the same argument for a Designer.

You can't. One's heart falls within the realm of naturalism. A designer (and the capital "D" is noteworthy) is supernatural.

There is no evidence for the scaffolding. Secondly, is it not a coincidence that if they do exist the scaffolding keeps getting built in just the right spot to help life along?

What part of the single cell organism can you take out and it still function?

Assertion 3.6: There are too many different combinations of amino acids and nucleic acids for a given enzyme or DNA sequence to come into existence without the guidance of a Creator.

Analysis

This is true, but irrelevant to origin-of-life research, since no origin-of-life researcher supposes that modern enzymes and DNA strands came into existence all at once by pure chance. As Iris Fry explains, "origin-of-life theories rely on various organizing principles, including selection mechanisms and catalysis, that are supposed to have limited and constrained the wide scope of prebiotic chemical possibilities, thus constructing the scaffolding out of which the living arch eventually emerged" (Fry 2000:196). It is also worth pointing out, of course, that enzymes with many different configurations can have identical or similar effects, meaning that no one particular enzyme must necessarily be generated in order to carry out a specific function.

References: Fry I. 2000. The Emergence of Life on Earth: A Historical and Scientific Overview. New BrunswIck: Rutgers University Press.

While we are on this subject, care to go over to Their Two Cents v. 1 and take a guess at who said that quote?

Who said that?

[Aaron]

I think you block quoted the wrong thing or something because that is the same thing you put in the last comment and doesn't answer my question about where the scaffolding comes from.

So something must fall into naturalism? Well that is telling that you have an a priori commitment to naturalism and anything that may fall outside of that is not acceptable. I'm not sure how that is very scientific to exclude things from the beginning.

[Cineaste]

I think you block quoted the wrong thing or something because that is the same thing you put in the last comment and doesn't answer my question about where the scaffolding comes from.

The last sentence is different and addresses your question. As far as the scaffolding, "the wide scope of prebiotic chemical possibilities" according to the quote.

So something must fall into naturalism? Well that is telling that you have an a priori commitment to naturalism and anything that may fall outside of that is not acceptable.

You are correct. Science does not deal with anything supernatural. It deals with the empirical. Anything outside of that is not scientific.

[seeker]

the observation of a great amount of indirect evidence of a process makes as good a scientific case as the direct observation of a process.
Here is one typical bad assumption which evolutionists conveniently make. The main weakness of historical evidence, as opposed to empirical evidence, is that you are assuming, not observing, the causal pathway. Indirect evidence may make a case, but it is not as ironclad, and in the case of macroevolution, the indirect evidence does not support it at all unless you assume evolution in the first place.

You don't see my heart, but we know it is there.
Aaron, this is a poor example of needing indirect evidence. I have previously explained to Cineaste how one could have direct evidence that you have a heart - merely cut your chest open! We *assume* it is there because of past *empirical* evidence, and indirect evidence confirms such. But if we never had empirical evidence, the reality of a mythical "heart machine" causing your heartbeat would include lots of speculation.

A designer (and the capital "D" is noteworthy) is supernatural.
As a "moderate" conservative, I have to agree here. While I enjoy the Design debate, I somewhat agree with the objection that trying to PROVE a designer is a tough call, and you can't prove the supernatural directly. Even statistical proofs at best can only undermine a current theory like evolution, but you can't PROVE the existence of a designer this way.

However, the ASSUMPTION of a designer, just like the assumption of macroevolution, is something that can be investigated through examining historical evidence, and empirical experiments may be done to try to prove or disprove either of these positions. My problem with materialists is that they disallow the science based on a supernatural starting point. I understand why they do this, but I think it is mainly because they (1) want to avoid superstition and God in the gaps cop-outs, and more importantly, (2) don't/can't discriminate between their assumptions and their empirical science - for them , it is a continuum, and so they CAN'T make allowance for a supernatural first cause, becuase that would contaminate their continuum, and they would also have to cease claiming that their assumptions are fact, just like their empirical data.

[Cineaste]

We need to link to the previous discussion of, "does Cineaste have a heart?" I don't want to go over the same thing again :)

[seeker]

I'd rather not, it didn't really resolve the issue, which is the difference between empirical and historical analyses, and what they prove, disprove, support, or undermine with regard to scientific theories.

[Cineaste]

There is no issue to discuss. Macroevolution is supported by empirical evidence not historical. Historical evidence is how you support the bible.

[seeker]

Macroevolution is supported by empirical evidence not historical.

Yes, *that* is the point we disagree on. Macroevolution has not and can not be observed. We have historical evidence to interpret (fossil record), and you can make assumptions from what we *can* observe (natural selection, speciation), but those are not macroevolution, and making the jump to accepting macroevolution is one you make entirely on assumption and without direct empirical evidence.

And empirical evidence actually seems to *contradict* macroevolution, specifically, the pattern of regression to the genetic mean, as well as the prevalance of DNA repair mechanisms, not to mention the total paucity of examples of novel proteins being created from random mutations. My understanding is that you could count the examples of this on one hand, and even those are questionable.

[Cineaste]

The fossil record itself is empirical evidence. We can observe transitional forms in the fossil record.

[seeker]

OK, now we are disagreeing. The fossil record is *historical* evidence because (1) we can not directly observe the deposition of the fossils, nor (2) perform an experiment that creates the same conditions.

Actually, if we could do the latter, *that* would be empirical, but all we have in the fossil record is things that happened IN THE PAST, so they are historical. And the existence of intermediate forms is, of course, one of the great *abscences* from the fossil record, hence the constant debate over transitional forms.

[Cineaste]

OK, now we are disagreeing. The fossil record is *historical* evidence because (1) we can not directly observe the deposition of the fossils, nor (2) perform an experiment that creates the same conditions.

This is exactly why Vuletic says...

In the same way, there is sufficient evidence for macroevolution that it can safely be considered a fact without direct observation of the process occurring in our time. We need not, as many unsophisticated creationists put it, observe cats changing into dogs right before our eyes, in order to have a good case for macroevolution.

When Vuletic says "evidence" he is referring to the fossil record. One of the big reasons I accept macro-evolution is that I can observe transitional forms in the fossil record. It's an observation but not a direct one. I don't need to see a cat change into a dog before my very eyes to observe macro-evolution just like I don't need to directly observe your heart to accept that you have a heart. Indirect observations of autopsies on other people, etc., just like the fossil record, provide sufficient reason for me to accept you have a heart.

[Cineaste]

"This" does not refer to your comment but to my quote.

[Aaron]

I have a nice quote on the fossil record for today's "Their Two Cents."

Seeker, I was using the heart illustration to point out that all the arguments Cineaste made about macroevolution, I could make about a D[d]esigner.

The answer giving about the scaffoldiling doesn't say anything. That is a complete evasive tatic by whoever you are quoting. I say again - 1) There is no evidence for the scaffolds 2) How does it keep appearing in just the right places?

It is unscientific to eliminate a broad range of possibilities simply because you are conditioned to do so. Science is about causation and finding the answer that best fits the question of "what caused that." Sometimes the best answer may lie outside our current understanding of natural. It is highly arrogant to think otherwise.

[seeker]

there is sufficient evidence for macroevolution that it can safely be considered a fact without direct observation of the process occurring in our time.

Translation - we do not need empirical evidence because our assumptions about the historical evidences match what we see, so we must be right.

So I say that the fossil records matches my theory too. Why is yours right? Well, because you wish it to be so.

That's not science, that's circular reasoning masquerading as science. And regarding transitional fossils, I've read the FAQs on these at talk origins, which on first glance look impressive, but on further study, I realize that they are basing their interpretation on a mountain assumptions, a molehill of data. I'd hate to base my faith on such evidence. But that's what religion is all about. ;)

[Cineaste]

Translation - we do not need empirical evidence because our assumptions about the historical evidences match what we see, so we must be right.

Seeker, wrong.

See...

Indirect observation = autopsies showing other people have hearts. So, no need for direct observation to conclude you have a heart too.

Indirect observation = transitional forms in the fossil record. So no need for direct observation of "cats changing into dogs right before our eyes."

Indirect observation = empirical. Indirect observation does not = historical.

When Vuletic says "evidence" he is referring to the fossil record. One of the big reasons I accept macro-evolution is that I can observe transitional forms in the fossil record. It's an observation but not a direct one. I don't need to see a cat change into a dog before my very eyes to observe macro-evolution just like I don't need to directly observe your heart to accept that you have a heart. Indirect observations of autopsies on other people, etc., just like the fossil record, provide sufficient reason for me to accept you have a heart.

If I recall, it's at this point that you went purposefully "dense" in our last discussion about this.

[Aaron]

On the fossil record, look at today's Their Two Cents. It applies directly to this.

If the fossil record was so solidly in the camp of macroevolution, how do you explain the Cambrian explosion and the lack of true transitional forms. Why are evolutionists turning to things such as the punctuated equilibria theory to explain the lack of evidence for the expected macroevolution steps in biological forms?

[Cineaste]

Very well Aaron, I'll stop by there. You are trying to find fault with evolution as usual without even mentioning the huge holes in creation theory though.

Seeker, you there bro? Any response?

[Aaron]

I didn't bring up any creation theory, but we can discuss one if you'd like. What creation theory would you like to discuss and what holes would you like to point out? I was just mentioning counterpoints to all the points you brought up.