A century later we know that the overwhelming obstacle facing spontaneous generation is probability, or rather improbability, resulting from life’s enormously complex phenotypes. If even a single protein, a single specific sequence of amino acids, could not have emerged spontaneously, how much less so could a bacterium like E. coli with millions of proteins and other complex molecules? Modern biochemistry allows us to estimate the odds, and they demolish the spontaneous creation of complex organisms.
Looks like IDists aren’t the only ones to appeal to probability arguments. How does Wagner know what the probabilities are, or that spontaneous generation is even within the realm of what is possible?
This does not mean that spontaneous creation did not occur in life’s early history. A natural origin of life even requires it, but in a much humbler form than a modern cell or even a modern protein.
Wagner just told us that not even a single protein could have emerged spontaneously but now he insists spontaneous creation must have occurred because “a natural origin of life requires it.”
That’s known as begging the question. I also love the appeal to spontaneous creation.
The origin of life is a problem for chemists, not biologists.
That’s odd. Is the origin of the chemical elements a problem for physicists, not chemists? Is the origin of organic compounds and organic materials a problem for inorganic chemistry, not organic chemistry?
Quotes are from Arrival of the Fittest by Andreas Wagner.
Does modern biochemistry allow us to estimate the odds of spontaneous generation?
If it cannot happen, why does Wagner insist that it must have happened?
This is simply untrue. He accepts GA’s.
??? Maybe I am misreading him. He doesn’t seem to think GAs simulate evolutionary processes.
Yes, that’s what it says in the paper coledw linked.
Proving a non ID process is capable of doing something does not falsify ID. Go ahead ,give an example Frankie ,that shows something cannot be the result of ID. Given that fact that our knowledge is never complete,there is always room for an unknown designer.
newton,
Yes, it will as ID says there aren’t any such processes. And guess what? That is how science refutes the claims of archaeologists-> by showing nature can produce what they called an artifact.
Your “understanding” is total BS. ID is not anti-evolution. Evolution by design is still evolution. However your scenario is pure fantasy.
GAs are examples of evolution by design and evolution by design is still evolution.
Can you post a quote?
Here is the nub of Yockey’s paper.
I will just add my impression of Yockey’s paper.
1. It was published 40 years ago.
2. It assumes a protein/genome first scenario.
3. It does not consider any replicators except those having proteins and genomes.
4. It does not consider replication with variation and differential fecundity as a possible algorithm that could explain the accretion of complexity.
5. Despite its negative tone, it provides a good example of how ad hoc explanations in science can be vindicated.
Of course there are ad hoc theories that generate research ideas, and ad hoc explanations that are sterile.
There isn’t any evidence that replicators lacking proteins and genomes can acquire them. Heck there isn’t any evidence that stochastic processes can produce replicators capable of evolution.
Can you just press the link he gave? It’s right there already in the abstract.
I’m confused. What paper?
ID says everything is designed? By that definition of ID, scientists can never show nature produces anything, everything is the result of ID. And that makes it unfalsifiable.
newton,
Nope. Not all rocks are artifacts, not all fires are arsons and not all deaths are murders.
ok, sure. But you said it was in the paper.
I read the abstract. I don’t see where he says any such thing. Are you pulling a neickert?
Which means that
Joe’sFrankie’s ideas are very informative. We should all thank him.Abstract
I rest my case.
Are you perchance slightly dyslexic? I’m not asking to scorn you, but I wonder how you could miss something so obvious.
He does not.
On the other hand, I never even considered the possibility that your misunderstanding might be based on a physical problem.
I read that abstract as asserting that “evolution to higher forms could not get started” without a genome long enough to “code a living system.” But who says the evolutionary process could not get started, long before the development of anything we’d regard as “alive” today, from something very simple?
This abstract demands something large and sophisticated enough to be alive, to start the process leading to life. And if this is correct, that only life can lead to life, then he has assumed his conclusion.
If you read the paper beyond the abstract, Yockey makes it clear that he is talking about the chance assembly of protein coding genomes.
He does not even address scenarios that do not require proteins first.
Sounds like he also assumes that protein formation must leap to the top of Mount Improbable in one swell foop.
I have read other things by Yockey, and I don’t think he was a creationist. He was arguing against a protein first scenario, and has been quote mined.
At one point he made a statement not unlike Gould’s statement, that creationists quoting him against evolution was stupid and dishonest. He did say he thought OOL was erased from history and would never be known.
I’m not up to date on the latest in biogenesis research. Maybe protein-first scenarios aren’t workable. I can easily understand why such a claim might be enthusiastically quote mined by creationists, and stuck into the context of “natural origin of life impossible”. Maybe a metabolism-first approach has more success?
Nonetheless it sounds like Rumraket is being misleading here. Yockey in your view would not be assuming that life began with large complex proteins. He would instead be saying that something else must have come first, that would have eventually led to something that could construct proteins. That IF proteins are required, they couldn’t have come first.
Here is a comment by his daughter, Cynthia.
ETA: The blog Cynthia still maintains
That sounds about right.
The problem is that not everyone writes looking over their shoulder for creationist quote miners. It’s pretty damn tough to write anything critical of anything in biology without having some piece of it conscripted by the god warriors.
How do you know that, an unknown designer with unknown abilities is capable of undetectable action.
newton,
The certain existence of this entity being proven by routine failure to detect his action!
Not only is he not a creationist, he is anti-ID. But because of what he writes, opponents of creationists and ID have mislabeled him and misunderstood him and misrepresented him. Only by a serious misreading of the abstract could one come away with the conclusion Rumraket came away with.
Begin with this statement:
An informational biomolecule. A genome. A protobiont.
Not a large complex protein as found in extant life.
I read it on the internet.
And yet I frequently see Yockey cited in support of anti-evolution.
So much so that his daughter felt obliged to put up a web page to refute thi interpretation.
How long are extant proteins?
That is why he designed the imagination
Who cares. It’s irrelevant.
Like you see me as being anti-science and anti-GA’s? I’m not impressed. Yockey’s paper is about the origin of life. What does that have to do with evolution?
I submit that when you see people quote Yockey about the origin of life you take them to be talking about evolution and conclude that they are anti-evolution.
No, when I see people citing Yockey as anti-evolution or anti-OOL, I assume they are stupid or dishonest.
Of course, this happens so often, that some competent people have been sucked in.
No one here at TSZ, obviously.
I think Yockey has been quote mined so frequently and so successfully that it is difficult to pin down his opinions.
I note that the linked paper costs $36 to download. That discourages mere online debaters from reading hin original papers.
So you don’t know what cytochrome-c is! I suggest you look it up.
What does it say in the abstract, you think?
It reads to me like he is criticizing an assumption that life began with the spontaneous formation of large extant proteins, such as cyt-C.
Are you dyslexic, Mung?
Hubert Yockey does in that paper. Cytochrome-c is a protein.
Science requires a positive case which is why evolutionism is not science- it doesn’t have a positive case. No one knows how to test the claim that stochastic processes like natural selection, drift and neutral construction produced ATP synthase.
The action of an intelligent designer has been detected. And your position has nothing to refute that inference. And we understand that has you all upset
Longer than evolutionism can account for. Heck most are so long that they require chaperones so they can fold properly- chaperones are something else that evolutionism cannot explain.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Titin
And yet evolution is falsifiable and ID isn’t, strange. While biology has proposed mechanisms which could be falsified, Design has no actual mechanism used by the intelligence .So on the topic of ATP ID is unfalsiable. Therefore ID fails the test of science you proposed.
Of course, I am using something to type that an intelligent designer built, but unless you propose Apple created life, that detection is irrelevant. What is your positive evidence that an unknown intelligence designed something ,somehow? There is nothing to refute until you provide some positive evidence yourself.
Thank you for your concern