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.
Hi Allan,
Does you book have test questions?
What is the probability that in the time of Christ people had some background information about how well seeds grow on rocky soil as opposed to, say, fertile soil.
I don’t see how it’s at all analogous to questions about the origin of life. What background information do we have about the origin of life and how does it affect our inferences about how probable it is (or how improbable it is) that life will get started on a sterile planet as opposed to one that is not sterile?
Rumraket,
The way life is now is evidence for what can sustain life and reliably reproduce. A simpler version is speculation not evidence. With the exception of the work Venter and others are doing.
Saying I don’t understand how evidence works is not an argument for the extraordinary case you are trying to make.
I wish I get get ID to focus on single-celled non-eukaryotic organisms. Or even simply the origin of eukaryotes. But would it do any good. The anti-ID crowd can always claim that the prokaryotes of the past were different or that the eukaryotes of the past were different. And who can argue with that?
And you obviously don’t have a clue how it works. Which is pathetic after having it explained to you so many times
Allan Miller,
If you wrote this book I would be honored to read it.
Oh my LoL
Evolutionary biologist Joe Thornton has done extensive research on recreating the evolutionary path of extant proteins. In his lab he has recreated ancestral proteins much simpler than their extant descendants.
Prehistoric proteins: Raising the dead
Claiming life 3 billion years ago must have been as complex as what is seen today is just plain dumb.
You certainly have shown great ignorance on current research and on the topic you’re trying to argue.
Mung,
Ask for evidence? Or, is that outside the TSZ rules 🙂
I missed this post earlier. Yeah I’ll go dig up some references, hold on.
Yes, and what is evidence for what CAN sustain life and reliably reproduce, is NOT evidence that that is the ONLY thing that can.
I never said mere speculation in and of itself is evidence.
Life can be much simpler, and life can NOT be simpler, are BOTH speculation.
I’ve already explained to you at length why appealing to Craig Venter’s work will not yield evidence life can not be simpler.
I know I like to poke a bit fun at you Bill when I ask whether you have a reset button, but.. seriously, do you?. Some times, I swear, it’s like you forgot something said in a conversation mere hours before.
Even so, you don’t understand how evidence works. Whether that is an argument FOR any purportedly extraordinary cases I make is irrelevant.
And just to be sure, the case I’m trying to make is that you don’t have enough information to rule out, or even state as a matter of some likelihood, that life can’t be simpler. I’m sorry, no matter how many times you repeat “this is the way this organism is, and when we take out this particular part, it dies”, it will not constitute evidence there can’t be or wasn’t a simpler form of life.
Why? Read the post linked again, and try not hit the reset-switch this time.
LOL, ID could argue with that or anything else if ID was a thing, if it there was any explanatory power in it. What does ID say about how those things were in the past? nothing at all. who can argue with that?
Good argument. WERE YOU THERE? What, there are no eyewitnesses to life 4 billion years ago. We can only assume it was identical to life today, having no evidence it was different. We might even argue that life didn’t even exist before written records, since nobody today was there either. What we can NOT do is argue that the Designer isn’t involved, since we see the Designer at work in every living organism. QED.
Mung,
The background information is that already stated: ecology and adaptation – two related concepts.
We are talking about the probability of life, having happened, happening again. We know that living things are composed of things that other living things have an interest in, either by direct consumption or by competition for resources. I think it perfectly reasonable to suppose that a lineage that had been long established, and had therefore been through a period of tuning, would be better equipped to corral those resources than a clumsy novel replicator, and the latter would therefore struggle to obtain a foothold on such an earth. The clumsier replicators of Life’s own ancestry have already been outcompeted; same goes for any newcomers. You haven’t really given a reason why you think it unreasonable, beyond ‘ain’t necessarily so’.
But, it is necessarily so, based upon knowledge of living things, their adaptation, needs and ecology. ISTM the reason you object is that an ‘evolutionist’ – worse, Darwin himself – raised the possibility.
If you had no knowledge of agriculture, of the seeds referred to or the precise nature of the thorns, you would still be unlikely to object to the logic behind the Parable of the Sower. But that contains a similar ecological restraint: the thorns. Getting established when something else is already there is troublesome enough even for something with an equally lengthy lineage. For something with no lineage, it is far less likely still. To say nothing of other ecological interactions.
I’m all for the existence of things we cannot detect!
Mung,
We’re detecting the first OoL right now. It’s the others that seem to be causing the problem …
Well, see, I don’t know that. But I’m willing to learn.
Has someone done an experiment where they create a bunch of RNA molecules and then into that environment they dump some chemoautotrophs and see if they can survive and thrive off metabolizing the RNA molecules?
What speculation? I’m not here to make you believe in some particular speculation. I’m here to stop you making a fallacious inference. I seem to fail, you want to do it.
Actually that isn’t true, there is some evidence for that. I refer to it in the post.
I will simply note here that you are not aware of just how much even very weakly active enzymes increase the reaction rates of chemical reactions.
Some enzymes can have their reaction kinetics increased by 10 or even 14 orders of magnitude with relatively little modification (evolution), and the rate of catalysis above the spontaneous “background” rate is usually in the range of 4 to 6 orders of magnitude faster for the “bad” ones. Enzymes are, even if they are comparatively bad at it, amazing catalysts. And even enzymes with reaction rates so low they can’t be reliably measured by current technology, still have reaction rates visible to selection.
There are cells that have generation times measured in years, even decades. There is some evidence that cells living deep in the Earth’s crust divide something like once every thousand years (because resources are so sparse). Though I don’t know from memory how good that evidence is, so let’s just say the “slowest” growing cells known divide on the order of once a year. Such a cell doesn’t need high rates of catalysis, it has an extremely slow metabolism.
As a matter of principle I’m sure that’s true, but how low is that minimum rate and how does it compare to known weakly active enzymes?
So do I. Translation and transcription require a complex set of proteins. Though there’s actual evidence the number of such required proteins can be reduced to a smaller set.
I think what you want to buy isn’t relevant to what is actually true. No amount of fallacies will bridge the gap between “this is how life is now” and “it can’t be simpler”.
A replicator that produces more than 1.000 exact copies of itself is going to go rapidly extinct, you say? You don’t seem to understand basic math.
Well, the experiment has been done. Qbeta replicates with an error rate of 1.5 x 10-3, and has a genome of 4,217 nucleotides.
So we expect 0.18% of primary replicates to match their template.
So highly accurate genome replication is evidently not “mission critical”, even in today’s cut-throat world.
Furthermore, even if it were “mission critical” TODAY, that does not entail that it was at OOL. So both your facts and your logic are in error.
ETA: a Qbeta-infected cell produces (on average) 2,300 QBeta genomes, of which 90 are infective. That’s a 3.9% success rate (so perhaps 50% of mutations are not critical?), or a 9,000% success rate, depending on which way you look at it…
Mung,
I doubt it. It wouldn’t show much either way. Some kind of heterotroph is a more direct threat to one’s molecular chattels.
But let’s just suppose the RNA molecules have been imbued with the gift of self-replication. They need energy, and they have their lumbering proto-eyes on the same electron donor/acceptor that the ‘evolved’ chemotroph utilises. Who’s your money on?
When someone speculates how early life might have been, taking into account what we already know, it’s baseless speculation for Bill.
But DNA information being “downloaded” from out of space-time into reproductive cells is a scientific hypothesis in Bill’s world
@Mung
Here’s a few articles on the subject from the Szostak lab, which has been very active in this area: http://molbio.mgh.harvard.edu/szostakweb/publications/Szostak_pdfs/Budin_et_al_2011_PNAS.pdf
Physical effects underlying the transition from primitive to modern cell membranes.
Budin I, Szostak JW.
In this paper, you will find multiple references to previous work too. In an earlier thread on this site, I also highlighted reference (3) from that paper, which is:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18528332
Template-directed synthesis of a genetic polymer in a model protocell.
Mansy SS1, Schrum JP, Krishnamurthy M, Tobé S, Treco DA, Szostak JW.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27529283
A Self-Assembled Aggregate Composed of a Fatty Acid Membrane and the Building Blocks of Biological Polymers Provides a First Step in the Emergence of Protocells.
http://molbio.mgh.harvard.edu/szostakweb/publications/Szostak_pdfs/Engelhart_et_al_2016_NatChem.pdf
A simple physical mechanism enables homeostasis in primitive cells
Engelhart AE1, Adamala KP1,2, Szostak JW1.
http://molbio.mgh.harvard.edu/szostakweb/publications/Szostak_pdfs/Adamala_et_al_2016_Nat_Commun.pdf
Collaboration between primitive cell membranes and soluble catalysts.
But see, we have only partial evidence for life evolving from simpler forms, and no scientifically-sound evidence for life’s information being downloaded out of space-time.
No evidence beats some in creationist world. Every time.
Glen Davidson
When you don’t have any it can’t be nitpicked and criticized 😛
The evidence indicates that the ID crowd is more than willing to accept one-off “highly-atypical” events and incorporate them into their models. May as well believe in miracles.
You have this weird tendency to mimic other members of these boards. That post sounds a lot like Sal’s black swan nonsense. Previously you went on about love and how FMM might be onto something.
Where are those models BTW?
Mung:
The ubiquitous RNAse will likely google up the RNA long before the chemotrophs would ever have a chance to utilize the RNA molecules. Range is also the death knell to any chance of having a simple self-replicator, i.e., RNA, as proposed in the RNA first hypothesis in the current Earth environment.
First, the RNA would have to have a way into the cell. Then there would have to be a way to keep the RNA in the cell or it would just diffuse back out. Then there has to be a way for the cell to know to tear down this RNA and not tear down all the other RNA in the cytoplasm. That’s three reasons right there to call into question the theory that it would just gobble up all the RNA.
A fourth reason is, why even assume that all life starts in an RNA world in the first place?
seriously? I mean I know there’s controversy between different hypothesis, but that seems a silly question to me
Mung:First, the RNA would have to have a way into the cell.
Are you referring to RNAse? If so it does not need to be in a cell….you, I, and everyone has it all over our skin right now.
your point 2 is moot given RNAse is not intracellular…..although there is, certainly, RNAse that are intracellular.
Point 3…see above
Point 4…..current evidence suggests this may be the case.
You also may have replicators existing in environments without membranes, e.g., aerosols or the spaces between ice crystals (eutectic phase which has a fair amount of interesting research results with RNA replication and elongation)
Thank God the ribonucleases didn’t evolve before RNA!
Mung:Thank God the ribonucleases didn’t evolve before RNA!
That would require protein first OoL hypothesis….but there is not much support for that hypothesis.
but you digress..I thought we were discussing your proposed experimental setup that you outlined above……but I could understand why you wish to abandon it so quickly given the obvious problems you need to address to flesh it out into something that might isn’t fraught with problems.
Where has Allan pointed out that being too accurate is not a problem? Where have you pointed out that being too accurate is not a problem?
He has admitted, as presumably you would too, that IF the first replicator was perfect, what evolution would occur? So its ONE MORE of the many billions of lucky accidents needed for what we see today.
But oh the evolutionists cry, you don’t know how many trials there have been. Maybe there has been a trillion different types of original life.
Yep, and maybe there are an infinite number of universes. Skeptics don’t need evidence.
Chemoautotrophs don’t have skin cells. Now if you have some evidence that chemoautotrophs can “export” ribonucleases across the cell membrane I would be interested in seeing that.
ROFL
Anyone who has done an experiment with RNA has fought a brutal (and often losing) battle against the ubiquity and almost indestructable nature of RNAseA. Any RNA-first OOL scenario is completely doomed in the modern world, thanks to this one enzyme.
Truly, creationists say the darnest things.
Apparently, the cell has some way of “knowing’ whether and when the RNA molecule ought to be degraded. Miraculous!
Mung, the RNAse are not IN skin cells, some are but the ones you should be concerned with are freely present, non-membrane bound and present everywhere in our modern world, even on the SURFACE of your, mine, and everyones skin. What I would be interested in seeing is some basic understanding of this concept….it really isn’t that difficult to find this information even wikipedia has a section on endoribonucleases and exoribonucleases. That would at least be a place to start instead of continuing to make erroneous statements. You are not building much confidence in anyone (well maybe phodoo) that you have a grasp on the subject material.
DNA_Jock makes the same point.
They aren’t the only ones. Why do you think I am a creationist, or were you not referring to me?
Mung: Apparently, the cell has some way of “knowing’ whether and when the RNA molecule ought to be degraded. Miraculous!
Why, yes there are several mechanisms that protect RNA molecules from degradation, via RNAse, within the cell……question is do you know what any of them might be.
Sorry, missed this particular piece of performance art first time around.
You are going to have to explain to me HOW, precisely, the first replicator could be perfect, given challenges such as keto-enol tautomerism and the thermodynamic limits on specificity. DNA polymerases don’t do better that about 10^-5, absent proof-reading or strand-specific repair.
Let me guess, the answer involves a walking talking serpent.
😉
It’s okay, Mung, I am sufficiently familiar with your trolling style to never actually impute a position on anything to you, but when you write stuff like “Thank God the ribonucleases didn’t evolve before RNA!”, you are obviously playing the role of a creationist, and I’m happy to play along.
😉
I did not say they were IN skin cells, but it would be a surprise if they were NOT IN skin cells. In fact, even you acknowledge they are in fact IN skin cells while telling me they are NOT in skin cells.
Sure they are. And you even say so.
Now, if you want me to learn from what you have to say, you should start out by not contradicting yourself, and you should also avoid attributing to me something I did not say.
I brought up an experiment involving chemoautotrophs. You are the one who brought up skin cells, not me. As if in the experiment I described the presence of skin cells were somehow relevant. If you have some evidence that chemoautotrophs can “export” ribonucleases across the cell membrane I would be interested in seeing that.
And this is just hilarious. I actually read the articles you refer to, and I missed where they said endo- meant within the cell and exo- meant outside the cell. So if you care to cite the specific wikipedia article and where it explains the difference in those terms I am all ears.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ribonuclease
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Endoribonuclease
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exoribonuclease
Good thing trolling isn’t against the rules, I’d have to stop. Accusing someone of trolling isn’t against the rules, is it?
You don’t have a good reason for claiming I’m a creationist. Got it.
I don’t have to explain to you HOW it could have replicated perfectly, anymore than I need to explain to you HOW water molecules always have 10 protons and 10 electrons.
There is no explaining of HOW any of this exists by anyone.
You claimed that it would not be a problem if the first replicators were perfect, but now you want to say, well, yes, it would be a problem, but they couldn’t be anyway, so…that’s lucky.
Mung,
The rules for who? You have to be specific about who you are applying the rules to. DNA Jock is an atheist, why should be be subjected to any rules?
Mung the irony in your statements is telling.
First you say “you should also avoid attributing to me something I did not say.’ this and then follow it by attributing this statement of yours to me “You are the one who brought up skin cells”.
Now anyone who read my replies would find it abundantly clear that I stated the the RNAse are ON your, mine, and everyone else skin. Too funny.
You proposed an experimental scenario but obviously neglected to control for the presence of RNAse which doomed your proposed experiment before it even got out of the gate.
Mung: I actually read the articles you refer to, and I missed where they said endo- meant within the cell and exo- meant outside the cell.
Really, Mung, it looks as if you missed this clear and concise statement in your reading of Wikipedia….”Some cells also secrete copious quantities of non-specific RNases such as A and T1.”
What do you think the secreted RNAse are called, Mung? Perhaps exoribonucleases.
Slow down a bit, Mung, this is all too familiar a scenario reminiscent of your proclaimed objective reality that ALL vertebrates use hemoglobin to transport oxygen. You found out that your objective reality wasn’t all that objective after all in that instance. Don’t be in such a rush to make a similar mistake in this instance.
DNA_Jock is telling you the same thing but it appears to be sailing over your head……consider you might be in error.
An exoribonuclease is an exonuclease ribonuclease.
An exonuclease is an enzyme that works by cleaving nucleotides one at a time from the end (exo) of a polynucleotide chain.
It has nothing to do with being inside or outside the cell.
Eukaryotes and prokaryotes have three types of exonucleases involved in the normal turnover of mRNA:
And that would be inside the cell.
An Endoribonuclease is a ribonuclease endonuclease. It cleaves either single-stranded or double-stranded RNA, depending on the enzyme.
Endonucleases are enzymes that cleave the phosphodiester bond within a polynucleotide chain.
As in, not from the end.
It has nothing to do with being inside or outside the cell.
You don’t know what you’re talking about.
LoL. No, I think not. I think the sources you tried to throw in my face refute that claim quite well.
An exonuclease is an enzyme that works by cleaving nucleotides one at a time from the end (exo) of a polynucleotide chain.
It has nothing to do with being inside or outside the cell.
I don’t think DNA_Jock is dumb enough to think that exoribonuclease means outside the cell and then to try to make a big deal of it by citing sources that contradict that claim.
Which bleep changed their name to get off my ignore list?
No I did not. Please try to keep up. I stated that “too accurate” would not be an problem for first replicators. The unstated reason being, it is unattainable.
Actually, no.
Merry Christmas!