There are numerous definitions of naturalism. Here is one definition with some additional observations from infidels.org:
As defined by philosopher Paul Draper, naturalism is “the hypothesis that the natural world is a closed system” in the sense that “nothing that is not a part of the natural world affects it.” More simply, it is the denial of the existence of supernatural causes. In rejecting the reality of supernatural events, forces, or entities, naturalism is the antithesis of supernaturalism.
As a substantial view about the nature of reality, it is often called metaphysical naturalism, philosophical naturalism, or ontological naturalism to distinguish it from a related methodological principle. Methodological naturalism, by contrast, is the principle that science and history should presume that all causes are natural causes solely for the purpose of promoting successful investigation. The idea behind this principle is that natural causes can be investigated directly through scientific method, whereas supernatural causes cannot, and hence presuming that an event has a supernatural cause for methodological purposes halts further investigation.
http://infidels.org/library/modern/nontheism/naturalism/
For the purposes of this discussion, I’m not going to be too insistent on particular definitions, but it seems to me this captures the essence of naturalism: “More simply, it [naturalism] is the denial of the existence of supernatural causes.”
Personally, I’d be on the side of naturalists or at least agnostic if I felt the origin of life question were satisfactorily resolved. So although I have sympathy for the naturalistic viewpoint, I find insistence on it too closed-minded. I don’t think reality operates in a completely law-like, predictable fashion, it only does so mostly, but not always.
The word “natural” can be equivocated to death and is often equated with “ordinary” or “typical” when it should not be. So if someone insists that naturalism is true but wishes to also be fair with the facts and avoid such equivocations, when they comment on the origin of life, they might say:
The origin of life was an atypical and unique event far from ordinary expectation, but many of us presume it happened naturally since supernatural events are not observed in the lab.
That would be the an accurate way to characterize the state of affairs, but this not what is usually said by advocates of naturalistic origins of life. Most origin-of-life proponents insinuate that the origin of life event was not terribly extraordinary, that OOL fits well within “natural” expectation, even though by accepted laws of physics and chemistry and current knowledge, such an event violates the ordinary (dare I say “natural”) expectation that non-living things stay non-living.
Turning to evolution, if someone insists on naturalism, but is at least fair with our present day knowledge, they might say:
It is NOT typical for something as complex as an animal to emerge from a single-celled organism, but we presume it happened naturally since animals share some DNA with single celled creatures.
Again, that would be the an accurate way to characterize the state of affairs, but this is not what is usually said by advocates of naturalistic evolution of life from the first cell. Evolutionists insinuate that the necessary events to evolve an animal from a single cell must not have been terribly extraordinary because animals and single-celled creatures share some similar DNA — the idea is insinuated even though it is a non-sequitur because something can share DNA via extraordinary or atypical events, at least in principle.
Darwin and his supporters argue that most evolution of complex function proceeded via a mechanism which Darwin labeled “natural selection”. However, if Darwin’s claims actually entail highly atypical events rather than ordinary ones, then his label of “natural selection” for how things evolved would be a false advertising label. If major evolutionary changes require highly atypical events, then “highly atypical events almost indistinguishable from miracles” would be a far more appropriate label for Darwin’s proposed mechanism of evolution. Instead, Darwin’s label of “natural” is presumptuous and unproven at best and completely false at worst. For all we know, natural selection prevents major evolutionary change. Michael Lynch points out:
many genomic features could not have emerged without a near-complete disengagement of the power of natural selection
Michael Lynch
opening, The Origins of Genome Architecture
Many? How about most? No one knows for sure, and thus Darwin’s label of “natural” for “natural selection” is presumptuous. For all we know the correct theory of evolution could be “evolution of significant novel forms by highly exceptional events”.
Animals and single-celled creatures share some DNA, but from all that we know, the transition from single-celled creatures to something as complex as a multi-cellular animal is highly atypical and so far from natural expectation that something of that order of change might likely not happen again in the history of the universe.
If naturalism can accommodate any atypical or extraordinary event as a matter of principle, no matter how improbable, then naturalism can accommodate events that would otherwise be indistinguishable from miracles.
Whether there is a theological dimension with atypical events is a separate question. Can there be an event atypical enough that it warrants supernatural explanations? That’s a philosophical question with probably no formal resolution.
Proponents of naturalistic emergence of biological complexity desperately pretend the sequence of necessary events are not atypical, but rather within the realm of ordinary expectation. Hence they try to render the question of supernatural origins as moot as the question of whether supernatural causes are needed to make ice melt on a hot day.
But imho, efforts to characterize emergence of biological complexity as “not that out of the ordinary” are failing. The more we learn of life’s complexity the more it seems highly atypical events were involved to create them. Perhaps these events were so atypical that they are virtually indistinguishable from miracles of supernatural creation.
I’m certainly not alone in those sentiments:
If we do not accept the hypothesis of spontaneous generation, then at this one point in the history of evolution we must have recourse to the miracle of a supernatural creation
Ernst Haeckel, 1876
Pasteur’s experiments and those followed from 1862 disproved spontaneous generation. Ernst Haeckel’s 1876 quote shows how false ideas like spontaneous generation die a slow death. Haeckel’s quote symbolizes how naturalism seems inherently uncomfortable with anything that suggests a highly atypical event actually happened somewhere in the past.
You seem to be avoiding the elephant in the room. You seem to have convinced yourself that at a minimum some intelligent being placed the first cells upon earth fully formed as you have concluded that any other avenue of the origin of life is impassable.
So how much longer will you talk about how convinced you are that the origin of life required intelligent intervention? I believe you are convinced. Others have noted you have not convinced them. Are you going to spend the rest of your life marvelling over this ‘fact’ you have convinced yourself of or are you going to take a step forwards and improve humanity somehow? Or is this it? Cut and paste and pretty pictures of complex things? Over and over to people who have already explained why that is somewhat unconvincing?
If only we could get in touch with a being of such power we could live forever? Do you have any contact details for the engineer of life?
Rumraket’s comments are a great illustration of how many pro-OOLists (“as in OOL isn’t that out-of-the-ordinary”) frame the problem.
Rumraket says it’s not so hard to replicate DNA because he can take a protein (the pfu Polymerase 1, or whatever) out of a living organisms and then put it in his lab and replicate DNA.
The issue is not MERELY replicating DNA, it is replicating DNA as part of a self-replicating 3D printer we call life. I’ve said it repeatedly, there is more than one way to make life (more than one way to make a self-replicating 3D printer). The problem is how out-of-the-ordinary is the emergence of such a self-replicating 3D printer. And it’s not really just about how simply such a self-replicating 3D-printer can be made, but why such as self-replicating 3D printer might be far more complex than absolutely necessary — the problem of Peacock-tail extravagance.
Rumraket says it’s not so hard to replicate DNA because he can take a protein (the pfu Polymerase 1, or whatever) out of a living organisms and then put it in his lab and replicate DNA. But I pointed out, things like the pfu Polymerase are often intelligently designed by taking the genes of hyperthermophilic pfu creature ( Pyrococcus furiosus, and archaeon, not a bacteria) and shoving it into E. Coli bacteria and then harvesting the intelligently designed synthentic Polymerase 1.
Now when Rumraket puts all this an a beaker or test tube and makes more DNA, does the thing spring to life merely because DNA is replicating? No. Does he expect it to? No (and Rumraket can speak for himself if he expects it to spring to life).
The problem is how both the DNA and the pfu Polymerase self-duplicate. In Rumraket’s PCR amplification, there isn’t more pfu Polymerases created or perpetuated, is there?
For this to happen, one first needs a DNA that actually has the man-made/God-made gene for the pfu-Polyermase. If one is amplifying DNA without the pfu-Polymerase gene … oh well, extinction even before life-gets going. But having a pfu-Polymerase gene is only the beginning of problems. One needs a means of reading the gene and translating it to a protein called polymerase.
Oh GAG! We need DNA translation to proteins, maybe transcription to RNA along the way. We need a means of reading DNA which means, TADA, we need more proteins.
But where do we get these proteins — uh, we need genes — or at least they have to be fortuitously floating around for no good reason. Let me hint at some of them by showing a video, that is to say, if one implements the self-replicating 3D printer with an mRNAs.
The problem is NOT saying there is only one and one way to implement a self-replicating 3D printer, the problem is that for any given such implementation, the parts must be well-matched, like a key a given lock — the probability is remote as a matter of principle! In the case of the origin of complex life, it is having several lock-and-key systems in place simultaneously.
And again, it’s not about supposing that all the parts emerge there simultaneously, but how they get there simultaneously.
One cannot assume Darwinian-type evolution helps get the parts there simultaneously if Darwinian-type evolution works against evolution of Peacock-tail type complexity. In fact, random chance performs BETTER than Darwinian evolution in such cases. I pointed out the reasons here in :
http://theskepticalzone.com/wp/the-blind-watchbreaker-would-dispose-of-lunches-even-if-they-were-free-mootness-of-anti-nfl-arguments/.
So to create a protein from a DNA blueprint, in the Solar system version of life, it entails 2 steps:
Transcription to RNA
Translation
This video shows the two steps.
https://youtu.be/-K8Y0ATkkAI
Life in our solar system uses 20 aars genes alone. Now Allan will complain we don’t really need that many, maybe only 10, to which I respond, “Exactly! Why do we have then this peacock-tail type extravagance!” If it’s not needed, why did it evolve, because that implies there isn’t selective advantage if it’s not needed. 🙂
But in any case, just looking at that video we need (foregoing the eukaryotic-specific parts for now):
20 aaRS genes and thus 20 corresponding aminoacyl-tRNA-synethetases.
RNA polymerases
Atp related genes to create enzymes that power the condensation reactions that link one amino acid to another
the ribosomal genes
etc….
What I describe is the chicken-and-egg problem colewd mentioned earlier.
stcordova,
There is absolutely no contradiction between saying on the one hand that primitive life could have survived with fewer, and on the other that additional acids in the amino acid library provided selective advantage. It does provide for greater conformational and kinetic subtlety, but I see no evidence that catalytic proteins cannot be made with fewer, with the triplet matrix subdivided later, nor that we have to assume catalysis as the minimal functional product of coded synthesis.
It is noteworthy that the aaRS proteins divide neatly into two groups of 10, with substantial homology within each group, but none between. There is an evolutionary logic to this, and it’s at least suggestive of a simpler precursor code (as are many other things). There is, meanwhile, no apparent ‘design’ rationale. They are all doing the same job, grabbing a tRNA and gluing an amino acid on the end.
Thank you for the thoughts, but…
There maybe selective advantage if the thing is working in the first place, but one cannot invoke selective advantage for non-existent traits for no good reason.
What good is half an aaRS (to paraphrase Stephen Gould). Do we see evidences of large amounts half-aaRSe (pun intended) enzymes floating around anywhere in life today? If not, why would we suppose that ordinary expectation is that such half-aaRSe enzymes were floating around in primitive environment? Same is true for other proteins.
You might say, half-aaRSe enzymes got selected away over time, that’s why we don’t see an abundance of them today. To which I say, that is evidence half-aaRSe enzymes never evolved by selection in the first place!
stcordova,
Hey, come back with those goalposts!
If modern aaRS enzymes are superior to primitive ones, and a primitive one appeared now, then obviously … look, do I really need to type all this out? You are not thick.
stcordova,
Yes, likewise the absence of my great-grandparents wandering around the place is evidence that I never had any.
OK, I guess you’ll quit claiming that there was a designer that we don’t see today.
Nah, I’m kidding, you’ve never used the same arguments to question your beliefs that you’ve used against science.
Glen Davidson
It’s a neat little paradox. If selection were true, it would eliminate less effective versions of sequential polymer. The fact that we don’t see such ineffective proteins today is evidence that selection didn’t happen .. ?
Do you have some evidence to the contrary?
Rumraket,
First, how can you claim I am making a mistake when you have no contrary evidence to support your speculation.
I would not claim that simpler forms are not possible but there is currently no real evidence to support your claim of simpler life other than speculation. It is not clear with the life span of enzymes that you can get simpler and still keep the organism alive and that less efficient enzymes can catalyze reactions fast enough to maintain life. There is a minimum rate of transcription and translation required and I agree with Sal that this requires a complex set of proteins. I think it is a pretty hard sell that you can maintain a living organism with much less then 500 genes.
So 3.5 billion years ago we may of had technology on earth more complex then the space shuttle and the size of a pin head
colewd,
. The cause?
For some IDers it’s the flagellum. For me it’s the cell membrane. Any resources you can direct me to on just what it is that can cross the various sorts of membrane whether by transport or channel or osmosis would be welcome.
One day we can have a thread on it. It could be interesting with both you and Allan contributing.
To the best of our scientific knowledge and understanding there was no technology on Earth 3.5 billion years ago.
Will the IDiots ever learn that analogies aren’t evidence?? EVAR??
You chose to state it in terms of probability. If it were obvious I don’t see why it should be stated in terms of probability. So no, its not obvious at all.
From where I stand you’ve made a claim about how probable something is without having the slightest clue of the actual probabilities involved, just the sort of thing that was supposed to be an “ID only” failure.
I have no clue how to ascertain those probabilities such that we can compare them and say they are in fact different. Hey they may be different, but it could be the case that probability as life emerging on a populated planet is greater by far than the probability of life emerging to noticeable population on a sterile earth.
We’re often asked to believe that life today is much different from that original life, so what reason do we have to expect that life as currently constituted would have any impact at all on the probability of “simpler, more primitive” life from appearing?
Perhaps you only meant to say that the probability that the probabilities are equal is different than the probability that the probabilities are unequal. How do you calculate that?
ok, I’m still not quite getting it, so work with me.
I select two numbers at random from 1..100. One of the numbers will be greater/lesser than the other, that’s a given, assuming once a number is drawn it cannot be drawn again.
Why not just let the larger number be the winner?
Under what condition would the lesser of the two numbers be considered the winner and be returned to the original pool?
Mung,
Okay – apologies if I’m not explaining well. let’s consider the numbers balls like in bingo, taken from a jar, 2 drawn at random the winner replaced and the loser discarded.
Imagine that the number on the ball gives that ball a corresponding number of winning chances, so if “1” met “99”, “1” would win 1/100ths of the time (0.01) and “99” would win 99/100ths of the time (.99) – [the denominator is the sum of their chances]. Obviously we’d expect higher numbers to win more often as they get more chances that lower numbers. Once you convert to a decimal you can generate a random number test to see who won – in our case if RAND <= 0.01 “1” else “99”.
Of course, if 49 met 53 they’d be almost evenly matched…
No, I understand what you’re saying well enough. ‘x’ has some probability of winning and ‘y’ has some probability of winning, and these two are related according to he sum of ‘x’ and ‘y’. If the numbers are 2 and 3 then 2/5 + 3/5 or if 2 and 98 then 2/100 + 98/100.
I understand that one is expected to win more often than the other.
But given a single test, how do I decide which of the two numbers is the actual winner? I have a 2, and I have a 3, which one wins, and why? I have a 2, and I have a 98, which one wins, and why? How do I decide?
In the first case we have one number with a 40% chance and another with a 60% chance. In the second we have one number with a 2% chance and another with a 98% chance. I absolutely get all that.
But which one actually wins, how is that decided? That’s what I haven’t grasped yet.
ok, so here’s an idea. Let me know if this is what you have in mind:
In the 60/40 case I populate an array of 100 elements with 60 y’s and 40 x’s and then select (at random) one element from that array to determine the winner.
In the 98/2 case I populate an array of 100 elements with 98 y’s and 2 x’s and then select (at random) one element from that array to determine the winner.
I think that’s what you’re getting at. What say you?
Mung,
Functionaly that will work, or you can just generate a random number [rand in ruby – https://ruby-doc.org/core-2.2.0/Random.html ] and use that. If “1” has a 1% chance ( 0.01) and rand = .63, 0.63 isn’t <= 0.01 so “1” doesn’t win, “99” does. of course in rand comes up as 0.004, “1” wins and “99” loses.
I should add my musings here (and I haven’t run this) –
There are two levels of randomness – selecting the numbers and the picking the winner. The first becomes less equiprobable as stronger numbers dominate match ups.
I would be surprised if a number < 80 won more that 5 times out of 100 complete simulation runs (last man standing). I also wouldn’t expect 100 to be the outright winner more than 10 times max.
I just had a run where the numbers were 4 and 37 and the 4 won. heh.
Mung,
It can happen, but can 4 be the outright winner (last ball left)? The only likely way be not to get picked for duels until then end then get really luck in that David / Goliath fight.
arr = (1..100).to_a
x = arr.delete_at( rand(arr.size) )
y = arr.delete_at( rand(arr.size) )
x = 37
Array of 37 elements all populated with a value of 37:
tx_arr = Array.new(x) {|e| e = x}
p tx_arr
[37, 37, 37, 37, 37, 37, 37, 37, 37, 37, 37, 37, 37, 37, 37, 37, 37, 37, 37, 37, 37, 37, 37, 37, 37, 37, 37, 37, 37, 37, 37, 37, 37, 37, 37, 37, 37]
y = 4
Array of 4 elements all populated with a value of 4:
ty_arr = Array.new(y) {|e| e = y}
p ty_arr
[4, 4, 4, 4]
Array of 41 elements with 4 elements with a value of 4 and 37 elements with a value of 37, shuffled.
tz_arr = (tx_arr + ty_arr).shuffle
[37, 37, 37, 4, 37, 37, 37, 37, 37, 37, 37, 37, 37, 37, 37, 4, 37, 37, 37, 4, 37, 4, 37, 37, 37, 37, 37, 37, 37, 37, 37, 37, 37, 37, 37, 37, 37, 37, 37, 37, 37]
The winner is determined by a random sample from that array.
winner = tz_arr.sample
puts winner
So that’s the basic logic. Just put into a loop or recursive function and plot.
Mung,
Very good! Now can you generate all 100, pick 2, fight, return inner to the pot and repeat until one is left?
Thanks. Pretty sure I can do that. Might have to wait till tomorrow though.
Mung,
No worries – and good for you for exercising your programming chops.
Mung,
It is common enough to state that one thing is more probable than another without it being insisted that one calculate the probabilities precisely.
Consider this: “It is more probable that a fungal spore will found a colony on a sterile agar plate than on one that is already fully occupied”.
“Oh-ho ri-heally. I’d love to see those probabilities. Are they published and peer-reviewed somewhere?”
It is obvious that life would have a harder time getting going among evolved organisms than on a sterile earth. It is more probable that it would fail.
No, I meant to say what I said. Feel free to make further capital of it if you think it worthy.
Jesus 1: “And some fell on the road and were consumed, others fell amongst thorns and were unable to grow. But some were OK”
Thomas 1: “Ah yes, I see what you mean, chief. Good metaphor”.
Jesus 2: “Those that fall on fertile soil, having a greater probability of persistence than those that fall among thorns, would … “.
Thomas 2: “Can you calculate that probability? What does it even mean if you can’t? Are we supposed to just take your word for it? Perhaps you meant to say that the probability that the probabilities are different is more probable than … “
Interesting idea, but I’m a little confused. Let’s say you draw 56 and 57 in the first round. Is the rule that 56 wins if the random number generator returns a value less than or equal to 56 divided by (56 plus 57)?
Patrick,
Hi Patrick. Basically their odds of them winning should be the ratio of their “strength” to their opponents “strength”. a 99 is a monster, a 1 a weakling.
“Interesting idea, but I’m a little confused. Let’s say you draw 56 and 57 in the first round. Is the rule that 56 wins if the random number generator returns a value less than or equal to 56 divided by (56 plus 57)?” – Absolutely.
It’s another stochastic competitive fitness function. Sometimes I nearly do science.
Because with a sterile Earth, all niches are empty. There is nothing else competing for resources. There’s reason to think that earliest living organisms were chemotrophs. In an empty niche, those organisms could initially be hugely inefficient, slow and need absolutely no defences.
Alan Fox,
Do we all know the card came poker? Well for first life, having a high card of “2” beats no hand at all.
I hacked it up during lunch and got these results from a half dozen runs of 1000 rounds each, numbers ranging from 1 to 100:
Min = 16, max = 100, mean = 76.759, median = 57, stddev = 3.1645315
Min = 13, max = 100, mean = 78.023, median = 76, stddev = 9.588314
Min = 19, max = 100, mean = 78.284, median = 79, stddev = 11.804112
Min = 14, max = 100, mean = 78.34, median = 66, stddev = 4.414775
Min = 15, max = 100, mean = 79.361, median = 67, stddev = 4.0907016
Min = 8, max = 100, mean = 78.536, median = 58, stddev = 2.6068113
My implementation could be buggy, so I’m interested in others’ results. If my code is correct, it looks like sometimes the unexpected does happen, not uncommonly.
Patrick,
You’re a programming beast! A histogram of distributions of winners would be cool..
These predictions are looking dicey, especially the bottom end one.
I have a secret weapon.
Without breaking out Gnu Plot, here are a couple of screenshots from a website tool.
Min = 10, max = 100, mean = 77.749, median = 54, stddev = 2.26505
Min = 12, max = 100, mean = 77.519, median = 73, stddev = 8.325161
So?
You’re assuming that you are competing for the exact same resources as any life trying to get started today. You think you know what resources life needs in order to get started?
There are far more resources available now for life to use to get started than there would have been on a sterile earth, therefore life is more probable to get started now rather than then.
I am predicting what wouldn’t have been present when first life got started. That would include other life as prey or predators
Yes, that’s what happens with evolution. Living organisms get better at living – the ones who are not so good don’t make it to the next generation. You’re starting to get the hang of this! 🙂
Oops, I misread you. Nope. Life evolves slowly. It has to start simple. As I said, the first organisms had to be chemotrophs. To exploit light energy, photosynthesis would have first to evolve from chemosynthesis. Nowadays, most niches are occupied. Something getting started is going to find competition against “modern” organisms fatal.
Alan Fox,
Yet we don’t have evidence to support that life can sustain itself in a simple form. We also have evidence that in order for cells to sustain life they have mechanisms that reduce variation such as apoptosis and DNA repair. Life does not appear designed to evolve. It appears to want to sustain itself in a state of minimum variation. This is a tricky one 🙂
Thanks Petrushka. Maybe Mung will grasp Darwin’s point better than my poor effort. 🙂
Then why are there still bacteria and archaea?
Do we? I’m not sure of that. Why apoptosis? That’s crucial for multicellular organisms, sure. But for the first life? Why?
Life doesn’t want. It just lives if it can and dies if it can’t. It’s a matter of opportunity.
The presence of other living things rather obviously will produce more resources than would be produced on a sterile earth, making it more probable that life will evolve now rather than then. You can’t appeal to lack of resources as an excuse.
You don’t know if current life would be predatory to any new life form or not. That’s just your imagination at work.
What is your evidence that chemotrophs are simple life forms. It’s like you think they don’t exist today because they are too simple and would be gobbled up by predators.
If the simple always get gobbled up, why is there anything simple at all? There should not be any simple life forms left. And if simple life forms can co-exist in today’s world, there’s no reason to rule out new life forms arising every day.
Frankly, you’re engaging in question-begging.
Disagree about life getting going from scratch in an environment already teeming with life. I say that new life would stand no chance. It would be quickly demolished.
I can’t appeal to resources that couldn’t have been there. So I don’t!
You mean, I think, that I can’t rely on predation as an important process in early life. I agree, which is why I don’t.
Ain’t life grand?
Exactly. But you should be asking yourself that question.
There’s no reason to equate simple with food therefore gobbled up, so that explains why there are no new simple organisms appearing.
Everything in the ID movement is either Paleyism or Chardinism.
I find it interesting that even though Darwin couldn’t answer key questions, he asked them.
I understand the claim perfectly well.
at the present day such matter wd be instantly devoured, or absorbed
Darwin said it. You believe it. That settles it.
It’s just bald assertion. I’m looking for objective empirical evidence and I don’t see any.
You have to admit the possibility. For instance, cyanobacteria are the base of the food-chain.
I recall someone already pointing out “most” isn’t “all”.
So, you think there’s new life every day or that it never happens or God does it all, whatever? Or something else? Me, I don’t know. I’m curious, all the same.
Not really. I’m just thinking out loud. Explain where I’m going wrong.
And I say I have no reason to believe you. For all you know new chemotrophs are constantly popping into existence. They’re simple enough, right?