[quote=“GJDS, post:77, topic:5604”]
Even beyond these methods, we are faced with even greater hurdles when we consider optical purity.[/quote]
That’s the problem with applying your applied orientation to basic science. Why would we, or anyone else, need to consider optical purity in the context of OOL?
[quote]I can post some of the reactions schemes in this paper if people are interested, but I think I have made my point.
[/quote]I’m not seeing your point and I don’t think reaction schemes would help.
The comments made by some persons render this exercise futile and down-right pointless. It is for this reason I tend to make a few remarks and when the angst begins, I prefer to avoid the waring culture adopted by some ideologically motivated comments.
It is not difficult to question the likelihood of conditions in a young earth that cannot compare to those adopted in the laboratory, as I posted. Just talk of CN compounds formed from lightening, as an example. The natural conditions would lead to dissolving CN (radical or ionic) to form HCN which is water soluble and almost certainly would react with bases such as Na, K, Ca, Mg oxides, hydroxides and carbonates. These reactions are far more likely than the organic ones postulated in laboratories. Add to this the dilution of small amounts of precursors in large amounts of water (be it rain, lakes, rivers, the sea) and we already are faced with vastly different conditions than discussed in these papers. My comments are on a simple molecule, and to a simple step, which would be understood at undergraduate level chemistry - why not address such points instead of continuing irrational and rude responses?
The extreme comments made in this site are at odds with the confessed speculation made by many of the authors of papers dealing with organic synthesis and attempts to relate these to origins of life. For heavens sake, disagree if you must, but to claim gracious dialogue in these comments is to indulge in self-deception.
Added to original post: Perhaps for the sake of clarity, I should point out that in the paper I referred to, the precursors ae HCH and an aldehyde. Chemistry that is well understood makes the possibility of HCN existing in realistic concentrations very low - it is also well understood (for >50 yrs) that oxidation of aldehydes will occur in the presence of oxygen. This is accelerated in the presence of metals oxides such as Mn, Cr, Cu. This chemistry is easily accessible and non-controversial. This means the precursors postulated are unlikely to be available in natural setting. The organic synthesis reported by OOL studies are clearly artificial and do not reflect conditions we would anticipate in nature. Even if some insist that artificial conditions are relevant, if oxygen and metal oxides were added to their artificial mix (found in great abundance in nature), the chemical kinetics will favour the formation of metal cyanides and carboxylic acids from precursors of HCN and aldehydes. If we cannot rationalise the formation of precursors at reasonable concentrations, we cannot postulate plausible reaction pathways - this is self evident.
Again I emphasise this chemistry is well established and can be found in any relevant text book and undergraduate chemistry courses. It is difficult to understand such angst and aggressive responses posted on this site to these facts of science.
This line of objection, however, is much like those other new-comers … who say something can’t be done without God’s guidance (fair enough) … and then seem to conclude by saying: and I don’t think God guided that!
Isn’t this like trying to argue both sides at the same time?
I am a BioLogos supporter. I’m SUPER interested in God’s ability to guide Evolution through the patchy and difficult processes. AND I think He did so.
If @GJDSalso thinks so … then how can we be at odds?
We are at odds only when someone says … and God did it all at once, and in Six days… and they insist on this without any evidence for it at all.
So, if you will permit me, I want to further clarify what you are saying in this and in other threads.
One, if you believe that God has helped life forms (plant or animal or anything in between) achieve a certain level of perfection (including the very FIRST life form… and/or any other virtually impossible step in a proposed evolutionary trail of “common descent”)…
How would you state the key difference between YOUR overall position and the many BioLogos supporters (say, like me) who ALSO believes God has helped life forms bridge these virtually impossible steps in the progress of this or that gene pool ?
You are asking the wrong questions. The discussion is on assertions regarding the so called chemistry of life, and the baggage that goes with this, in an attempt to make such nonsense sound scientific. Such wild speculation and at times stuff that is plain wrong, should be avoided by any Christian (and I might add any scientist who is repelled by ideologically motivated work). The irony is that many of these people have a “war cry”, in that God does not tell lies, and they discover “frontier stuff” from their endeavours - yet a great deal of this “frontier stuff” makes their theistic outlook appear to “tell lies” while invoking God’s name. Such rhetoric does more harm than the alternative, in that science just does not have answers, and ToE should be recognised for an inadequate outlook.
Your constant statement that if we are scientifically ignorant or wrong, we invoke God to make it sound right is frankly, theologically repugnant - it is in line with Zeus sending thunderbolts to do some god stuff. We worship God as revealed in and through Christ, and we accept this revelation with humility .
I don’t recognize your description as sounding like anything I’ve said. But it’s probably a matter of perspective. As you describe the statement, I would reject that sentence as well. So perhaps that should give you some sense of assurance.
So let me try, again, to have you answer a sincere question of mine:
"How would you state the key difference between your overall position and the many BioLogos supporters - - (say, like me) - - who also believes God has helped life forms bridge many “complex” steps in their common descent to their current forms?"
GJDS… this isn’t a trick question. It’s a really simple question. If I understand what you think the difference is, it might help me understand if I’m unnecessarily separating myself from your viewpoint.
Once again (and hopefully for the last time), the discussion is not on differences between Biologos, myself and supporters of Biologos. There are two strands in the various exchanges: (1) what is scientifically sound and acceptable within the context of science and faith, and (2) what basis is presented by those who would either abandon Orthodox Christianity (or modify it) to suit some outlook regarding ToE.
Regarding (1) you provide generalities that do not lead us to any specific point. My criticisms have dealt with claims made on the basis that science has either proven something significant in relation to ToE, and I have shown that the ToE is inadequate when seen against the claims. On this basis I look to other areas of science when I consider science-faith contemplations and in this I find harmony. Thus I do not give much weight on ToE in science-faith discussions. Surely you have picked up on this by now.
On (2) I find it difficult to take seriously a great deal of theological points made on this site. Early on I provided detailed posts that I thought could lead to serious discussions, but this went over like lead balloon - so my interest in such discussions is waning. The discussions have been wide ranging (Adam and Eve, soul, human agency, God’s sovereignty, the law, knowledge of God, just to mention a few). Thus if you are intent on looking for differences, they would be summarised by Orthodox Christianity as opposed to hetero-theology that seeks to be based on some pseudo-scientific ideology.
If you want to pursue this line, I suggest you find some of my theological comments I have made on this site and then ask specific questions or make specific points. I realy realy have many other tasks that require my time and energy.
The quote ends with this sentence: “Surely you have picked up on this by now.”
Oh, absolutely… I certainly “get” that you have presented us with commentary that you believe shows “. . . that the ToE is inadequate.”
In fact, I would say your general rejection of the various THEORIES of Evolution seems even MORE zealous and consistent than various hybrids of “Intelligent Design” proponents who visit this site, considering many of them say they accept SOME aspects of Common Descent.
You mention not having time to spend with me to answer my questions… implicitly acknowledging that you really haven’t answered my questions, urging me, “. . . if you are intent on looking for differences [between our views], they would be summarised by Orthodox Christianity . . . I suggest you find some of my theological comments I have made on this site and then ask specific questions or make specific points.”
I am always interested when I find someone who identifies with the Greek Orthodox community AND they are Creationists. . . . because that community is not notoriously monolithic on the topic!
And when there are hints of a common view … it doesn’t usually incline towards Young Earth Creationism:
"The traditional Orthodox view of the Genesis account, therefore, does not see it as a literal scientific account of the physical processes of the origins of the physical universe, nor a scientific account of the origins of life, or of the origins of human existence. Thus, St. Basil writing his work “On the Six Days of Creation” in the fourth century, did not limit himself to the Genesis account, but used the scientific information and philosophical terminology of his day to present a balanced account of the origins of the world, both spiritual and scientific. "
And when Evolution is rejected in an Eastern Orthodox writing … it is usually the Godless variety of Evolution that is being rejected:
“Another response more characteristic of the Orthodox approach, and accepted by many Roman Catholic and non-fundamentalist Protestants, may be characterized as theistic evolution. This view rejects evolutionary theories [i.e. Evolution without God], which are formulated in exclusively materialistic perspectives primarily because they fail to acknowledge the non-material spiritual verities of existence. Theistic evolutionary development, seeing in it justification for the view that God uses such processes not only to bring into existence the material world, but to guide it in its material development. The world as described by objective scientific description is, after all, God’s world, and it must be understood as such so that one truth about the origins of the world is maintained.”
So, maybe this last post qualifies for consideration, considering your instructions “…I suggest you find some of my theological comments I have made on this site and then ask specific questions.”
My specific question is, what leads you to reject the “general position” of the Eastern Orthodox view (presumably represented with more or less precision by the Archdiocese discussion I quote here) which, for the time being, could be summarized by this sentence:
“The traditional [Eastern] Orthodox view of the Genesis account . . . does not see it as a literal scientific account of the physical processes of the origins of the physical universe, nor a scientific account of the origins of life, or of the origins of human existence.”
You apparently DO see Genesis as in some way literal … or you wouldn’t be so unhappy with the BioLogos position that God has used millions of years of Natural Selection and Mutation to accomplish God’s goals on the Earth.
But I’ve never heard you explain WHY you are unhappy with the BioLogos perspective.
I wanted to touch on this paragraph separately from the rest. I’m sure many observers have seen that I would rather have 2 separate posts, separately treating separate ideas, than optimistically thinking multiple ideas will get adequate treatment inside the body of a much larger posting.
I can’t even imagine what kind of detailed post you might have provided that “went over like a lead balloon”. That seems like pretty poor treatment of you and your ideas…
I won’t ask you to PRODUCE a sample post of an example. Considering your time situation, that doesn’t seem like a kind thing to do. But if you would offer a phrase, or a couple of key topics, I would gladly do the leg work and find a posting by you on the topic, and see if I can bring you tardy justice on your efforts to support discussions here!
Hi Stephen, I definitely agree that everybody deserves to be heard and that @GJDS is being unjustifiably dismissive of those who do research on the origin of life. Especially the attribution of ideological motives to these researchers is disturbing.
Unfortunately, that type of reasoning is not uncommon among Christians. I think one root of the problem is that people fail to understand (or refuse to accept) that all researchers are operating under “methodological naturalism” as is standard practice in science. Science tries to understand everything we can observe in terms of natural processes. Therefore, scientific research on the origin of life can and should only invoke natural mechanisms as explanations. This does not mean other kinds of explanations are forbidden, but they fall outside the domain of science.
My previous comment was about looking for ways to further the conversation. Shutting @GJDS out because you regard him as “incorrect”, “dismissive”, or “uncharitable” will only strengthen his perception that current OOL research is driven by an ideological agenda. So your “acerbic” response was counter-productive if your goal is to increase mutual understanding.
Short answer: I will be glad to discuss OOL science with anyone anytime. And I will defend science and scientists from inflammatory accusations about motives, and from plain falsehoods about their work, against anyone anytime. It’s 2017.
I’m glad that you agree that @GJDS wrote about my colleagues in ways that were unjustifiably dismissive and disturbing. The writings were also incorrect and uncharitable. Those are just simple adult observations on the things that were written. They make no statement about the writer, whose name I don’t even know. So my post, and my response to you, is not about whether he or anyone else is good or bad or worthy of attention as a person. It is about something that you know is central to dialogue and conversation: mutual respect. And the question that you have to tackle is whether the writing of @GJDS indicates an opening for conversation based on basic standards of professional and personal respect. We all have to start by taking people’s writing seriously, by assuming that what they write, over and over again, represents what they think and how they approach a topic or a community. I reached a judgment about his writing by reading it. (When I wrote my first post in response to his disrespectful dismissal of my colleagues, I had looked at his previous 10-12 posts on this board.) That’s how I learned that his behavior is habitual.
I am here to talk about science – and to defend it. In this case, I just said that I’ll not engage with a person who writes dismissive and disturbing things about science. If you’d rather see a specific set of responses to the things that GJDS has written, let me know. I don’t think that’s a very good idea myself. But there can be no engagement, and obviously no “mutual understanding,” when one person expresses contempt for the other.
So, here’s my open response to you and to @GJDS. If you want to talk about OOL science, and especially about evolutionary biology, I’m gung-ho. Science is my life, and advancing science is my second highest personal value. This means that I’ll defend science and scientists when they are subjected to dismissive and disturbing rhetoric on your site. YMMV, but I think you have the same obligation that I do when it comes to such things at BL.
I presume that this comment is directed to me, so I will respond briefly. This person claims to seek adult and professional conversations (yet his tone is anything but), and to this end I provided two examples of a reaction route published in the top chemistry journal of the USA, and why I concluded the conditions used in OOL work did not, and could not be equated with natural conditions (and thus not natural methodology, as you put it). As yet, this person and his acerbic responses, has failed to rebut these points, nor provided an alternate set of precursors and/or conditions.
Such an approach is clearly not motivated by a desire to discuss science. The way some on this site jump in without any regard to mature discussions of the topic speak volumes about motives. Add to that the irrational labels stated, or implied regarding my comments, and I have to conclude that the more they protest, the more one may question their motives.
The steps and reaction routes I mentioned are all natural mechanisms; most of the so called OOL chemistry that I have seen is borrowed from text book organic synthesis and hardly frontier stuff - how in heavens name would any rational person stray into discussions of other areas, including the implying I support the nonsensical creationism promoted by other ning nogs in the USA.
If you are serious scientists, engage in serious science, which includes accepting and/or rebutting serious criticism. If you fail to do this, you cannot be considered anything but ideologues on a site such as this.
@GJDS The discussion is not about precursors and conditions. That’s a separate discussion, which included my citation of recent work that refutes some of your claims.
This discussion is about your comments above:
I am ignoring your abundant personal attacks on me. Those are BL’s problem. I just thought it is important to clarify the source of my concern about your lack of basic respect for my colleagues and I. It had nothing to do with precursors or synthetic pathways.
So there’s a very new commentary by John Sutherland at the MRC in Cambridge, UK, in Nature Reviews Chemistry. It’s an opinion piece, and I can only see the abstract so far because my subscription does not apparently allow access to the journal. (It’s an outrage!) Here’s the abstract. I’d love to see commentary or reactions from those who can read the full piece.
Understanding how life on Earth might have originated is the major goal of origins of life chemistry. To proceed from simple feedstock molecules and energy sources to a living system requires extensive synthesis and coordinated assembly to occur over numerous steps, which are governed only by environmental factors and inherent chemical reactivity. Demonstrating such a process in the laboratory would show how life can start from the inanimate. If the starting materials were irrefutably primordial and the end result happened to bear an uncanny resemblance to extant biology — for what turned out to be purely chemical reasons, albeit elegantly subtle ones — then it could be a recapitulation of the way that natural life originated. We are not yet close to achieving this end, but recent results suggest that we may have nearly finished the first phase: the beginning.
I have no idea who you are or how I can make personal comments of any type to you. It is unfortunate that you have made this a personal exchange with all that has gone with it. My comments were meant to show the importance of the comment: “the important thing is, however, that it did happen”. This approach is not consistent with seeking to find out what is unknown, since the very meaning is that it must be know if it must have happened.
Again you ignore my point, in that reaction schemes and pathways are discussed - if any step in such a scheme is show to be improbable, than the entire scheme is improbable. If you have a counterargument, than make it.
This site is not one where detailed chemical schemes are discussed, and my impression is comments are within the science-faith context - within such a contest, claims based on chemistry, to support some worldview, which cannot provide adequate details or conditions for such chemistry, are outside of the discipline, and fall into worldviews, faith, or ideology. I prefer to categorise such as support for the ideology that seeks to exploit biology science.
You may agree of disagree - but this should be done in context, and not your belligerent approach.
If you look at Steve Matheson’s bio, you’ll see that he is
“Author, editor, scientist, critic Former developmental cell biologist Evolutionist Humanist NCSE Steve Baseball fan Bardolator Bicyclist Beer lover Disclaimer: I am an editor at a major biology journal (Cell Reports). My contributions on this forum represent my own…”
He used to write articles for BioLogos a long time ago, and it’s good to have him back. He knows his stuff. He provides a good opportunity for all of us to learn more biology.
Speaking of ignoring points, in what way is optical or any other yield relevant to the significance of any chemical reaction hypothesized to contribute to OOL?
Please empirically and mathematically define “improbable” in this context. How does one show that negative empirically?
I understand that although people may appreciate satire when it targets perspectives that conflict with their own, they often take offense when it is directed at their own cherished ideas. If it strikes you that way, please channel the emotion into citing research studies or articles that provide empirical evidence which contradicts aspects of the following. Thank you for your consideration.
The Satirical Post (slightly edited from source version)
There are problems related to the Theory of Evolution. However it is very clear that all cellular life on this planet has a substantial amount of similar genetic material. So it would be inaccurate to claim that evolutionary explanations don’t help us understand a lot of things about biological life.
On the other hand, evolution can’t happen until life starts. And even the very simplest living cells are incredibly complex. So much so that we cannot create them in a laboratory from available chemicals, using all the knowledge, skills and technology that researchers have developed over more than 100 years. We can’t create them even though available cells could be used as a pattern to reverse-engineer them.
There are a lot of ideas about how life could have started, but very little about those ideas can be demonstrated in a laboratory setting. And the great complexity of even the simplest living cells makes it unlikely that they could have originated by random natural processes.
However we do know that human intelligence can create functional artifacts composed of many different parts which can do quite complicated things–for example naval aircraft carriers, computers, and computer software. Although humans can’t (yet) create living cells, a greater intelligence should be able to do so.
If you think that random natural processes really could produce something as complex as life on the prebiotic Earth, consider the following. One popular idea for how life could have started is the “RNA World” hypothesis. It suggests that the RNA molecule, which is kind of like half of a DNA molecule, could have formed by natural processes and evolved into living cells.
But it seems unlikely that a molecule as complex as RNA could develop on its own by natural processes. Something simpler should be more plausible as a starting point for life. However such a precursor might need more extensive capabilities than RNA has in itself.
It would have to reproduce itself without assistance—a lot.
It would have to catalyze the production of mostly “left-handed” amino acids and possibly separate them from existing mixed stocks.
It would have to catalyze the production of many different complexly foldable proteins, which are adaptable to perform necessary functions in cells, from those amino acids.
It would have to organize those proteins into much more complex assemblies: either into simple cells or aggregates at least complex enough to maintain their existence and evolve into such cells.
Thus the precursor molecule would have to be able to do a number of things that only existing cells with hundreds of functional proteins can naturally do now. A molecule (or just a few working together?) with such extraordinary capabilities might seem to be far beyond any that have ever been observed in nature. In other words, maybe even “supernatural?”
How should we refer to or describe such a molecule? Although the descriptor has been used before in a different context (try a web search), perhaps we should call it a “God molecule.” And if we’re going to let our imaginations run wild, maybe this molecule could bring itself into existence through some kind of retro-causality?
Maybe we should instead speculate about proteins being randomly formed in a special location on the early planet. Or possibly being brought together by natural processes from separate locations. But then these proteins plus other molecules would need to get organized or assembled into functional structures which can also reproduce themselves. And all this has to happen without the leadership of a mighty, master molecule as described above.
Or maybe there really is “a Divine Foot in the door” as Lewontin feared.
