I thought I would give a comment by a poster with the handle “ericB” a little more publicity as it was buried deep in an old thread where it was unlikely to be seen by passing “materialists / evolutionists”.
§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§
Calling all evolutionists / materialists! Your help is needed! Alan Fox has not been able to answer a particular challenge, but perhaps you know an answer.
The issue is simple and the bar is purposely set low. The question is whether there exists one or more coherent scenarios for the creation of a translation system by unguided chemicals.
The translation system in cells indicates intelligent design. I would submit that, regardless of how many billions of years one waited, it is not reasonable to expect that unguided chemicals would ever construct a system for translating symbolic information into functional proteins based on stored recipes and a coding convention.
[I realize people have thoughts about what happened earlier (e.g. that might not need proteins, for example) and what happened later (e.g. when a functioning cell provides the full benefits of true Darwinian evolution). For the purposes here, attention is focused specifically on the transition from a universe without symbolic translation to construct proteins to the origin of such a system. Whatever happened earlier or later, sooner or later this bridge would have to be crossed on any path proposed to lead to the cells we see now.]
One of the key considerations leading to this conclusion is that a translation system depends upon multiple components, all of which are needed in order to function.
+ Decoding
At the end, one needs the machinery to implement and apply the code to decode encoded symbolic information into its functional form. (In the cell, this is now the ribosome and supporting machinery and processes, but the first instance need not be identical to the current version.) Without this component, there is no expression of the functional form of what the symbolic information represents. The system as a whole would be useless as a translation system without this. Natural selection could not select for the advantages of beneficial expressed proteins, if the system cannot yet produce any. A DVD without any player might make a spiffy shiny disk, but it would be useless as a carrier of information.
+ Translatable Information Bearing Medium
There must be a medium that is both suitable for holding encoded information and that is compatible with the mechanism for decoding. Every decoding device imposes limitations and requirements. It would be useless to a DVD player if your video was on a USB thumb drive the DVD player could not accept instead of a suitable disk. In the cells we see, this is covered by DNA and ultimately mRNA.
+ Meaningful Information Encoded According to the Same Coding Convention
One obviously needs to have encoded information to decode. Without that, a decoding mechanism is useless for its translation system purpose. If you had blank DVDs or DVDs with randomly encoded gibberish or even DVDs with great high definition movies in the wrong format, the DVD player would not be able to produce meaningful results, and so would have no evolutionary benefit tied to its hypothetical but non-functioning translation abilities. In the cell, this information holds the recipes for functional proteins following the same encoding convention implemented by the ribosome and associated machinery.
+ Encoding Mechanisms
This is perhaps the least obvious component, since the cell does not contain any ability to create a new store of encoded protein recipes from scratch. Indeed, this absence is part of the motivating reasons for the central dogma of molecular biology. Nevertheless, even if this capability has disappeared from view, there would have to be an origin and a source for the meaningful information encoded according to the same coding convention as is used by the decoding component.
(For the moment, I will just note in passing that the idea of starting out with random gibberish and running the system until meaningful recipes are stumbled upon by accident is not a viable proposal.)
So there has to be some source capable of encoding, and this source must use the same coding convention as the decoding component. To have a working, beneficial DVD player, there must also be a way to make a usable DVD.
+ Meaningful Functional Source Material to Represent
It would do absolutely no good to have the entire system in place, if there did not also exist in some form or other a beneficial “something” to represent with all this symbolic capability. If you want to see a movie as output, there needs to be a movie that can be encoded as input. If you want functional proteins as output, there needs to be access to information about proper amino acid sequences for functional proteins that can serve as input. Otherwise, GIGO. Garbage In, Garbage Out. If there is no knowledge of what constitutes a sequence for a functional protein, then the result produced at the end of the line would not be a functional protein.
+ Some Other Way To Make What You Want The System To Produce
If we supposed that the first movie to be encoded onto a DVD came from being played on a DVD player, we would clearly be lost in circular thinking, which does not work as an explanation for origins. Likewise, if the only way to produce functional proteins is to get them by translating encoded protein recipes, that reveals an obvious problem for explaining the origin of that encoded information about functional proteins. How can blind Nature make a system for producing proteins, if there has never yet been any functional proteins in the universe? On the other hand, how does blind Nature discover and use functional proteins without having such a system to make them?
The core problem is that no single part of this system is useful as a translation system component if you don’t have the other parts of the system. There is nowhere for a blind process to start by accident that would be selectable toward building a translation system.
The final killer blow is that chemicals don’t care about this “problem” at all. Chemicals can fully fulfill all the laws of chemistry and physics using lifeless arrangements of matter and energy. Chemicals are not dissatisfied and have no unmet goals. A rock is “content” to be a rock. Likewise for lifeless tars.
The biology of cells needs chemistry, encoded information, and translation, but chemicals do not need encoded information or biology. They aren’t trying to become alive and literally could not care less about building an encoded information translation system.
§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§
I’m hoping ericB will find time to respond to any comments his challenge might elicit.
cubist,
Here’s the long 😯 version of what you just said:
Translation systems, like the Enigma machine, must have been designed and made by human intelligence because we all know that only intelligence can design/create translation systems. And the only intelligence we’ve ever seen or heard (at least, so far) is human intelligence.
Therefore it’s simply logical to conclude:
Translation systems, like the DNA machines in cells, must have been designed and made by human intelligence because we all know that only intelligence can design/create translation systems. And the only intelligence we’ve ever seen or heard (at least, so far) is human intelligence.
Wait, what! DIvide by cucumber error! Reboot!
Translation systems, like the DNA machines in cells, must have been designed and made by an unknown but definitely non-human, probably supernatural, intelligence because we all know that only intelligence can design/create translation systems. And the only intelligence we’ve ever seen or heard (at least, so far) is human intelligence. But we’ll imagine some unknown non-human, probably supernatural, intelligence – because we need one to keep our analogy from total brain-dead failure.
Thank god, nobody ruins the analogy by noting the little man behind the curtain making the switch between known “human intelligence” and completely unknown “non-human, probably supernatural, intelligence”.
Wait! Stop! Don’t look behind the curtain! No, stop! You’re not supposed to notice. You’re ruining our analogy!
—————
Too bad, if only they’d stayed in Kansas …
What is it about your deity, that you think him incapable of planning for biology?
Typical creationism. Exaggerate what is happening, in order to fool the rubes in the pews. “Interpreting its meaning by a code” seems like nonsense to me. It is more like the simple following of a mechanical template.
To me the metabolism, the controlled use of energy, is the most important feature of biology. Without that, you would just have a template for making lego blocks, a bunch of lego blocks, and no means to assemble them into something useful.
If we cannot measure and quantify it, then maybe all we have is a name that doesn’t actually apply to anything. It sounds impressive to the rubes in pews, but does it actually mean anything?
To specify the wiring of the brain would take far more bits of information than can reasonably be attributed to the DNA. So, at best, the DNA vastly underspecifies the complexity of the brain. That is why I see the controlled use of energy (the metabolism) and the feedbacks in biochemical processes as important, perhaps central, to biology. It’s a bit odd that people who criticize evolutionary theory as too mechanistic would emphasize the mechanistic use of DNA in their argument against evolution.
petrushka:
See what I mean cubist? The “challenge” is absurd on it’s face.
Give me an example of translation without doing the physics or chemistry.
Neil Rickert:
You’re the person that thinks we can just record the electrical impulses in a computer and have a complete description of what is taking place, are you not?
Typical “skepticism.”
Let’s make sure I’ve done my homework. I’d hate to falsely accuse you:
Neil Rickert:
Neil Rickert:
I actually agree with you on this, but so what? The controlled use of energy to what end? The very idea of controlled use of energy implies purpose.
English can be paraphrased without losing much meaning.
Change one base on a gene and the best chemist in the world cannot predict the consequences. DNA is a chemical template. It is not a language. The template is bound by the rules of chemistry, but it isn’t a language. You can’t read it for meaning outside the context of chemistry. It can’t abstract it. You can’t paraphrase it. You can’t read novel sequences for meaning.
Check my blog posts on a natural basis for purpose.
Here’s proof that “decoding” Engish is not the same as “decoding” DNA:
Scramble almost every word and the whole still has meaning to the human reader’s brain. You understand what the symbols mean even when they’re out of physical transcription order.
Can’t do that with DNA. You’ll have a dead cell. The transcription machinery can’t read the “symbols” because they have no meaning besides the literal, physical order which bonds to a chemical that physically matches it.
Then humans come along and call the nucleotides “codons” and call the chemical transcription “translation”, and hey, some guys holler out, “See, DNA’s a code. Letters! Translation! Just like English! Proof of the intelligent designer! See, I told you, there is a god. Neener neener.”
Way to miss the point, guys.
What do you mean what you use the terms “translation” and “decoding” and “code”? I want clear, explicit, direct definitions; no obfuscatory bafflegab need apply. Because I’ve been around this block a few times, and I know how you Creationists operate, and I want to see how you’re gonna try to slip your Designer in as an unsupported presupposition.
Perhaps I should post my “design is impossible” thesis as a thread.
No ID advocate has ever answered the challenge.
Absent pasta, its function is to stop it being absent, obviously. But a machine that makes a product must function before any product exists. Otherwise the product won’t come to exist. It makes no sense to say that a structure cannot function without its product, as in:
Of course, in the case of the ribosome, we actually do have essential protein.
But the ‘how can it possibly function without them’ here doesn’t relate to the fact that protein is the product, but that protein is part of the structure. All apparent chicken-egg problems are seized upon by Creationists as inexplicable mysteries, no further thought required. But a simple possibility suggests itself: the protein wasn’t always essential. The protein and RNA components have co-evolved and interact in ways that have become non-optional. Much as fungi and algae are each now essential to the other in a lichen. Another possibility is that the ribosome was preceded by a prior method of protein synthesis (which is supported by the timeline in the Caetano-Anolles paper in the other thread). Or analiendidit (again).
ericB,
It was a general statement, a syllogism – IF a Y occurs that is better than X, THEN … you are effectively saying that Y’s – things-that-are-better-than-X’s – can NEVER be assumed to occur. Every single one must be justified in exhaustive detail, else we can assume that Y’s-are-always-worse. Meantime, you haven’t the blindest idea when, how or what your Designer did.
Further discussion with you is pointless, Eric. Even the basics of Natural Selection become mangled in the face of your implacable deployment of the Deny-o-Matic. You can’t conceive of a way in which a bare non-translating replicator can become adaptively encapsulated and cellular? But you can conceive of a Designer assembling major molecular complexities without entropic catastrophe? Fine. Not my problem.
ericB,
I have NOT changed the ‘unit of replication’. It has always been an xNA genome. I personally think that goes right back to the origin of life, and was double stranded, but that is another issue. You asked for a plausible mechanistic explanation of how a coded translation system could arise from a system that was not coded. That I gave. You have been wriggling ever since about the things you will not concede in that precursor system – I cannot assume ribozymes unless I tell you what they are? I must start with a PCR-like system? Don’t be silly. If you didn’t mean translation – you meant the origin of folded ribozymes, or of biology, for example – you certainly didn’t say.
It is entirely reasonable, in the light of the challenge – to explain translation – to start at the point I think immediately preceded it: a replicating organism with a functional and useful (and replicatively essential) transcription system. Not bloody ‘PCR-organisms’! Yet now – as I anticipated – you want me to explain (with sequences and selection coefficients) the origin of that state. And the one before that. Of course.
Sorry, Allan,
I know you’ve been honest and EricB just … hasn’t.
petrushka:
If you decide to do so, please don’t do so by design, or by using anything that is designed. In particular, don’t take advantage of any encoding/decoding or any languages or any translation.
It’s self-refuting.
Anyone here claiming that DNA is a language? Anyone?
You assert it is a code that can be understood in the abstract, independently from chemistry.
In other words, it is not just a physical template.
Anyone here claiming that DNA is a code? Anyone?
Hmm, I wonder why we’re being treated to such a small bit of his article. (Well, it is scrupulous to respect copyright and not quote the whole thing but still, a little more is necessary for understanding.)
Mung, you should enjoy this bit since it pokes at the creationists you scorn:
Hee hee.
Hey, this is good:
Oh, no, that ruins the ID claim that DNA is a “code” – what kind of “code” is it when one chunk of code can mean many completely different things? Not an analog of human-designed code, that’s for sure.
But he did use the terms “encode” and “complexity”! Maybe Baltimore is a stealth IDist after all.
Nope. IDists, you lose.
This sentence confirms Petrushka’s repeated point that the big-D Designer could not have worked the way IDists pretend it could:
And he closes with:
Four billion years of evolution.
Questions, Mung?
hotshoe:
Feel free to post a link to the entire article. I hear it’s online.
I’ve never asked you to tell me what they are in terms of any particular sequence. That would be a misrepresentation. What I have required is that you justify the development of the ribozymes you need from the natural processes of mindless chemicals.
In other words, if you want to say that a ribozyme to do X appears, you cannot simply assume it because you need it. You have to deal with the question of how it came to be. Is it blind search in the sequence space? If so, how realistic is that for plausible sequence lengths? Or if you want to say it is not blind search, then how does something else (natural selection?) guide it without appealing to the benefits that might accrue in the future but don’t exist during the search? If function depends on coordination of multiple ribozymes (as would be more likely with ribozymes than with protein enzymes), how is it reasonable that they are all developed and all preserved in the meantime, if the function is waiting on their cooperative action in the future?
You are building a case for the causal efficacy of blind processes to build something whose function is in the future. That needs to deal with the obstacles in a serious way to be plausible. Since the origin of the ribozymes is a major obstacle, that cannot be merely hand waved away just by supposing whatever ribozymes are needed.
I certainly did say and have said repeatedly that you cannot just assume any sequence you needed, including the sequences for ribozymes, and that any proposal would need to reasonably justify the development of the such functional sequences.
One of my earliest posts was to elaborate some of the obstacles. Here are excerpts from the relevant obstacle concerning justifying the origin of the needed ribozymes.
[In passing, that was also an early example that I have always considered “enzymes” to be “(including ribozymes)”, not just proteins.]
My position hasn’t changed from the start, and the documentation shows this.
If you really want to claim I’ve made any change at all to what I’ve been saying on this point, I could go back and quote again other statements I’ve made (as I did recently to document another point where you seemed to think I had changed but had not). I trust that won’t be necessary. You or anyone else can observe in the record that I’ve made statements to this effect repeatedly, with the one above being an early example.
Even if there could exist some tiny ribozymes with some particular function, in general ribozymes are difficult and pose a genuine obstacle. I hope it will be obvious that assuming away a major obstacle is not a plausible way to make a convincing proposal.
I’ll say again, that has never meant providing any actual sequences. It has always meant engaging with the stated obstacles in a serious and persuasive manner. If there is no question begging and failure is a real possibility (no dogmatic presumptions), why should a skeptic of the proposal (someone who doesn’t assume it to be true going in) be persuaded that it is more plausible to expect success against these obstacles?
You’ve provided some of the more constructive posts in the thread. I do want your input. In order to find a productive way forward for discussion, I have some ideas in mind for bringing the focus of discussion back to aspects of your proposal that come nearer to the emergence of translation. I think there is plenty to talk about there. (More about that in a subsequent post.)
I don’t really want to stray far off topic, but already Craig Ventor et al are manufacturing synthetic organisms. I haven’t heard any news of an “entropic catastrophe” at their labs. Nor am I aware of any indication that they and others will not continue to advance in their abilities in this area. They are just getting going. So I’m genuinely curious what you are thinking of when you allude here (and I believe previously) to some idea that this would be something designers cannot do.
“Oh, no, that ruins the ID claim that DNA is a ‘code'”
Sigh. For some reason I assume that people posting here can read.
Here it is for you, again;
“Anyone here claiming that DNA is a code? Anyone?”
I find it interesting the first dozen words of that paragraph Mung quoted are only available on 5 sites that google knows of. One of the sites is the quite-literally insane freerepublic; two are separately-hosted pdf copies of the so-called “Cornell” conference proceedings (where it is limited to the same out-of-context quote we see above). The original source is an opinion column Baltimore wrote for NY Times in 2000, which – except for the RWA and creationist copies – appears to have sunk without a ripple in the scientific world. I have no speculation as to where Mung found it.
EricB, did you claim DNA is a code, ever? Did you claim DNA is a language, ever?
Did I?
So where do these assertions originate? Do they have any evidentiary basis?
Why didn’t you Mung? Oh, that’s right, you’re an ID-Creationist. Dishonest quote-mining with no source is what you guys do.
So it’s not available online? Send an email to Caltech.
IF YOU think no one is claiming that, then what’s YOUR problem? Why are you asking about it?
IF YOU think someone is, then why don’t you let us in on the little secret of who.
Or is this going to be another tacky guessing game, like the one Gregory keeps harping at? Ugh.
The whole text can be found here, embedded in another Creationist BS post on FreeRepublic.
It’s in green about halfway down the page. No wonder Mung only quote-mined bits and ignored the bulk of the post.
Mung, is that where you claim you found the article? Somewhere at Caltech?
Why would I expect Caltech to host a copy just because I send them an email? That doesn’t make sense. Your whole comment makes no sense. Of course the article is available online! How else could I have known about it and found the additional parts I quoted!
“IF YOU think someone is, then why don’t you let us in on the little secret of who.”
That’s what I am asking. Let us in on the secret.
Who here, in this thread, is claiming that DNA is a code or that DNA is a language? No one? GREAT!
“Mung, is that where you claim you found the article? Somewhere at Caltech?”
Where did I claim that I found the article? If I had found the article online I would have posted a link to it.
Remember the Agassiz article and the false claims that I quote mined that article? You weren’t the fool who made that claim, were you?
Funny then that I found it with a 10 second Google search.
As per the board rules I’ll assume you’re just incompetent and not a deliberate liar.
Thornton, I don’t think there’s any evidence that Mung is a freeper.
As my comment said, the Freep isn’t the only source of the bit Mung did copy – a more likely source is one of the IDist cpies that already exist. IMNSHO
And the whole article is online; I just wouldn’t guess how anyone – like Mung, or anyone – would stumble upon it unless they had been pointed at it by another IDist. Not unless they’re in the habit of reading 13-year-old editorials, anyways … just for fun …
It’s possible, but pointless speculation.
Artificial vs. Natural and The Relevant Distinction
There seems to be a confusion about the nature of the challenge with some supposing that it is based on an analogical argument that makes an analogy to what humans can or cannot do. That is an incorrect understanding of the nature of the challenge. Objections that depend on that misunderstanding become irrelevant, since they would be attacking a straw man.
I’ve said more than a few times that the key distinction is between the Artificial and the Natural. The key question to ask regarding this distinction is not, “Is X something we can reasonably expect to be produced by humans?” Analogies to human ability per se are largely beside the point. The relevant question to ask is, “Is X something we can reasonably expect to be produced by natural processes?”
Anyone can verify this by considering a grid of four quadrants. Along each axis put one of the two questions above and label each axis with Yes and No options for the two rows and columns.
For two of the quadrants, both questions lead to the same conclusion. If X can be attributed to human production but not to natural processes, then both indications would point toward the conclusion X is Artificial. If X cannot be attributed to human production but it could be to natural processes, then both indications would point toward the conclusion X is Natural. The remaining two quadrants provide the clear distinction.
Suppose X could be produced either by humans or by natural processes, for example as in the case of diamonds. Yet it would be absurd to suppose that we could infer that diamonds are Artificial just because humans can make them. The relevant question and observation is that natural processes are able to make them, and therefore we are not justified in inferring that a diamond is Artificial.
Or, suppose a probe we had sent to another planet were to encounter some X that could not be produced either by humans or by natural processes. For example, we could imagine some kind of alien technology that we would not be able to produce. Nevertheless, it would again be absurd to infer from human inability to produce X that X must be Natural. Again, the only relevant question is whether X can be reasonably attributed to being produced by natural processes. By that measure, we would clearly be justified in inferring that X was Artificial. In fact, it is obvious that if we received images of such an object, that is exactly what people around the globe would easily and immediately infer.
Therefore, the question of what humans can or cannot do is irrelevant to the core distinction of the challenge. The only relevant question is whether or not X is reasonably attributable to production by unguided natural processes. As I mentioned earlier…
Yes, I feel bad that I didn’t link to the article, in my comment; I should have.
Here’s NY Times Opinion, by David Baltimore
Hope that helps!
But surely, ericB, you have claimed that DNA is a “code” and/or that DNA is a “language.” After all, that’s what all “creationists” claim, and you, being a creationist, must agree.
Mung, you posted the question out of the blue at 1:10PM today. For no apparent reason. Did you have a reason at that time for asking? If so, spit it out. I’m tired of playing guessing games with Gregory, and you, and any of your friends.
If you didn’t have a reason at that time for your question, then simply mutter an apology for derailing this thread and we can all move on.
Maybe you’ll have better luck getting an honest answer from EricB than anyone else ever has. Really, I wish you luck!
I think that is a wildly optimistic interpretation of the status quo.
And your next step should be to clearly define what you mean by “natural” and “artificial”, especially if you intend that things can either be one or the other and not both. For instance, using standard definitions, I would suggest all real objects are natural objects. Some real objects can be described as artificial but they are still real and natural.
As an illustration, I would say the distinction between natural and artificial selection is artificial (or superficial)
Alan Fox:
What does your “saying” illustrate?
Since you cannot distinguish artificial from natural, how can you say that the distinction is artificial?
It depends on the meaning of words which was my point. I don’t think there is a categorical distinction to be made between an artificial object and a real object. All artificial objects are real. Eric needs to tell us what definition he’s using. You could too, if you want.
A tomato is a fruit though some people describe it as a vegetable.
So? Is it artificial or real? Does it matter?
No That’s the point. There is no distinction between real and artificial. You can classify some real but manmade objects into a subset of all real things. Unless you have some other way of defining artificial than the usually understood meaning, say, something on the lines of: made or produced by human beings rather than occurring naturally, typically as a copy of something natural.
William is welcome to put forward his own definition which may work as an “either or” thing. We’ll have to wait and see.
Regarding the distinction of meaning between Natural and Artificial, throughout the thread I have been using the meaning that Natural refers to what can be produced by (and therefore could be reasonably attributed to) unguided natural processes, i.e. combinations of natural law + chance operating on matter+energy over time in space without the aid of guidance / direction / influence from intelligent agency.
The complement of that set is the set of the Artificial where unguided natural processes alone are insufficient to reasonably account for something and the influence of some intelligence is needed.
Anytime anyone ever looks at some object or system or arrangement without having direct knowledge of its origin and nevertheless infers,
they are making that inference based on their knowledge of the limits of unguided natural processes. They perceive that unguided natural processes are insufficient (i.e. its explanation does not reasonably belong to the set Natural) and therefore that there had to be an involvement of someone to account for what they observe (i.e. its explanation reasonably requires intelligent agency, at least to some degree, whether the influence is direct or indirect).
That is exactly why the example of the interplanetary probe shows us that people would be able to infer intelligent agency even when there is a lack of information about the nature of the intelligence involved. The inference is based upon the limits of unguided natural processes, which we can study and understand and which we believe to be consistent even on other planets.
(BTW, I’ve never implied that either set is not “real”, which would be absurd since both exist. They are obviously both very real. To try to contrast either with what is “real” is a thorough confusion. Those who do not want to create confusion should avoid comparing or contrasting either with what is “real”.)
Have you read Life’s Ratchet yet?
About codes, the genetic code is a true code. DNA is not itself “a code”, but it does hold encoded information whose encoding corresponds to the code used by that organism, and that (via the transcribed mRNA) specifies the sequence of amino acids for proteins.
p.s. Of course, I am referring to the coding portions of the genome’s DNA. It’s not a mistake that they are identified in this way. Not all DNA is coding DNA.
Last night I happened to come upon and look at an old thread that caught my eye, since it relates to earlier posts in this thread. It was on how “Extraterrestrials could have started life on Earth …“. It listed various people who have advanced that idea at one time or another, just as I had mentioned earlier, such as Crick, Hoyle, and others. Much of the discussion centered on the recent acknowledgment that Dawkins made concerning the idea, which I quoted earlier.
I was surprised and delighted to find that Lizzie had made many posts in that thread. Not surprisingly, she had good points to make.
In Lizzie’s posts, she points out repeatedly that there is nothing at all controversial in principle about the possibility that the life we see was designed by some other intelligence in the universe, as Dawkins mused about. I agree, and have been saying so.
She also repeatedly points out the limitations of science and its methods regarding identifying supernatural intelligence (e.g. God). Before seeing that thread, I had made the point here repeatedly that nothing in this challenge would change if materialism were true. The challenge does not show (and indeed cannot prove) that the designer of the translation system must be supernatural.
The discussion on that other thread proceeded from her surprise when it was suggested that atheists would “hate” the clip where Dawkins makes the statements.
I can fully understand why she would find that surprising. I don’t think that makes much logical sense either. Materialism cannot exclude the possibility that humans would ever become capable of creating new forms of life. That being so, it cannot logically exclude the possibility that the life here might itself be the product of some earlier intelligence. To deny this inevitably leads into self-defeating internal contradictions.
Nevertheless, there are atheists who can flare into guano levels of response at the suggestion of the idea, namely that the possibility of a earlier natural undesigned designer is a logical possibility that this challenge does not exclude.
Dude. You are still, directly and explicitly, defining ‘Artificial” in purely negative terms. ericB-style “Artificial” is, therefore, still a negatively-defined ‘junk drawer’ category, and therefore problematic on its face.
Real scientists already have a methodology for determining whether or not a given whatzit is or isn’t the product of Design: Form a hypothesis of how the whatzit-in-question was manufactured, and test that hypothesis of manufacture. But you? You’re stumping for the same old ‘two models’ bullshit that Creationists are noted for, the only difference being that you use different vocabulary to express the idea than an honestly open Creationist would. Which, of course, means that you’re serving up the same old Creationist wine in a shiny new-ish bottle.
Yes, ericB, there is a discernible difference, at least in some cases, between Natural and Artificial. Real scientists have a methodology that lets them distinguish one from the other. You, on the other hand, have bullshit Creationist apologetics that you’ve dressed up to obscure the fundamental Creationist natuire of said apologetics.
And that’s apart from the fact that what you’re doing is a textbook example of
god-Designer-of-the-gaps argumentation in the first place…