Jimmy Higgins

I saw another thread and I thought it was going on that subject, but fell way short.

I've wondered at how life does indeed perpetuate itself. At some point, something happened, and we are now a result of it. ID'ers always make claims that we are proof of design, but I wonder whether it is more likely that a reaction was destined to occur that would lead to further perpetuation. Molecules A and B meet and BOOM! Evolution begins from something much much much smaller.

I'm rambling here, sorry. Is it likely that what happened here is quite average, given the environmental circumstances?

Doubting Didymus

Good question!

No answer!

See, the thing is that despite there being many many theories about what the first entity capable of replicating actually was, and how it came to be put together, none of them are quite well supported enough to really stand out and gain some measure of scientific consensus. It's a pretty good chance that RNA predates DNA, and existed and replicated on its own (the 'RNA world' hypothesis). Experiments are often run trying to get RNA to carry out some protein synthesis on its own, to bridge the gap between RNA replicating endlessly and cellular life. The other hurdle is trying to get an idea of how RNA first fell together. Did it form by chance, or did even simpler replicators precede it? The cairns smith hypothesis envisions replicating crystal faces as the first replicators, and acting as templates for RNA later. This theory, though great fun, is by no means free from problems.

Bottom line is, no-one knows what the first replicator was. If you ever hear someone assign some probability factor to it, they are full of it (unless they are talking about some specific theory). Eventually, we will get a decent picture of how this happened, and then we may be able to start working out just how often it might be expected to happen. Till then, it could be anything from a practical inevitability (crystal replicators) to a nearly impossible, once in a universe event. My moneys on the 'highly probable' end of the spectrum.

gcameron

Yeah, Dawkins has said that once you get replicators, the world will willy-nilly become full of them, simply because they happen to be put together in such a way as to replicate. But nailing down the probability of replicators arising in the first place? I don't think we know enough to make that determination. But then, I'm not up on abiogenesis research.

Even if we knew what the probability was on earth, we would have to have some idea of what percentage of planets (or other potential havens for replicators) in the universe would have appropriate conditions.

Doubting Didymus

Here Is a talkorigins post of the month from last year, in which the current state of abiogenesis research programs is discussed.

Here is a really ugly page, but the article comes from the pen of Leslie E Orgel himself, one of the important figures in the RNA world hypothesis. He also discusses the cairns smith hypothesis here, but with a veiw towards pointing out the problems with it.

Jobar

We are working with a sample of one here. As far as we know, the Earth is the only environment with self-replicating systems.

So there is simply no way to say if life, or any other form of self-replication, is unique or ubiquitous.

As our observation techniques improve, and we increase our knowledge about other planets, we will be able to say whether or not SRSs (life) is inevitable, given energy, time and nutrients, or wildly improbable.

Like Didymus, I would put my money somewhere between highly probable and inevitable. After all, the same elements are found throughout the universe, and chemistry and thermodynamics are unchanging.

Jimmy Higgins

Great article. Was able to understand and get the point of most of it.

From that paper, I kinda get the point of ID'ers saying evolution is a "naturalist's" worldview. To be honest, I don't know whether theism and evolution can go hand in hand anymore. Perhaps a non-personal god, but not a personal one such as those gods that Earthlings seem to follow.

But one thing really sticks with me. The first perpetuator seems to have evolved into huge things, but the main power still remains within the much much smaller areas. The DNA and Cells control the show, which would seem to be consistent with an evolved perpetuator. The first was small and had the power. That it eventually added together to form something huge is remarkable, however, it has never really handed off the reins of power. So probably the cures to those incurable diseases actually are hidden in DNA and RNA, and not the very immature immune system. The DNA knows what to do. The immune system is an imperfect system trying to control smaller processes. Thats why viruses (or is it viri) work so well. Its the Death Star take 2. The immune system is designed to handle bigger things. It can't handle the smaller.

Simple RNA can kill humans. I don't know about others, but that certainly points to a naturalistic conclusion, that life had to of formed spontaneously. The human body is "proof" of it, in more of an allegorical way of course. Really amazing stuff.

gcameron

But can't the same be said for all science? The way I see it, naturalism is an assumption of science. The reason we've stuck with it is because we've gotten good results with it, not because of any ultimate philosophical justification.

Jimmy Higgins

Oh, absolutely. Science hasn't really suceeded well when trying to incorporate religious bias and nonsense. But my comment was meant more towards the reality of evolution having a negative effect on theism. Granted, the negative effect is evolution means that there is no personal god, atleast not one that is worshiped by humans. Its an absolute reality and you really can't harm evolution because it points to reality. Just as much as being upset about meteorology because it explains how thunder isn't caused by the gods.

But perhaps the acceptance of evolution is the first step in accepting atheism for society as a whole. Religion is still very prevalent because of inertia. But if people can accept a natural origin of life, then perhaps theism is finally on its way out, given about a couple more hundred years.

gcameron

The problem of course is, the more one takes this line, the more impossible seems any rapprochement between theism and evolution. The more diplomatic approach of evolution defenders is to take the Ken Miller line and argue that evolution is perfectly compatible with the major theistic religions.

I have seen many intelligent people come to the same logical conclusion as yourself, that it's difficult to sustain theism after accepting evolution. I suspect Dawkins is among them though I don't think he has said it outright. But think of the implications of statements along the line of "acceptance of evolution is a stepping stone to accepting atheism." Any Christian who reads such statements will be far more likely to embrace creationism afterward, because they will see evolution as a direct attack upon their faith. It immediately puts people into an "us vs. them" warlike frame of mind. It also opens up the important legal line of argument, that teaching evolution is a way of institutionalizing atheism in public schools, and is therefore in violation of the First Amendment. We must tread very carefully, here. I think there could be enormous danger in identifying the goals of evolutionary science with the goals of philosophical atheism. I mean when Dawkins writes (as he did in Blind Watchmaker) that "only Darwinism allows one to be a philosophically fulfilled atheist," how are we to expect the Philip Johnsons of the world will respond? Their "secret agenda!!!" alarms will go off, of course.

In this context, the idea of Non Overlapping Magisteria seems like an attempt at spackling, a sort of PR trick, doesn't it? A desperate lunge by moderates/liberals on either side to keep Science and Religion from clawing each others' eyes out. Are the two destined to clash for once and all? I hope not; because I fear Science will lose if it comes to that.

*sigh*

Jimmy Higgins

I agree completely. I say what I said more in the company of the choir than in any argument I'd have with an e-creationist, not that I ever argue for evolution (don't know the science enough like I know my geotechnical engineering and Ohio geology). It would certainly polarize the issue, stealing the legitimate science from a quite solidly scientific standpoint.

However, my point does stand to reason, that it may be true, but us atheists can keep that under our hat, a sort of vindicating thought that we will "triumph" or perhaps it would be better to say that man may no longer need a god(s) to live day to day. Its like Vonnegut said in one of his books. Its not that we want to take god away from them. God is their comfort. Its just we feel that it will become socially obsolete. Its also like I wrote, its almost as if our belief is taken as an attack on theirs. Sad, really. Why can't all theists be like normal theists?