No. We’re not discussing your opinion here. Did you listen to his podcast comment? Szostak doesn’t make a distinction.
We’re not having that discussion. Stick with the topic.
The points of this topic are:
Szostak and Google are right to link evolution and abiogenesis (why abiogenesis anyway?)
Szostak wants to correct the inadequacy of both and to demonstrate to the creationists…
What kind of science is this where there’s only one hypothesis and it is declared true before any proof?
Yes, if you are a biologist (computer scientist, doctor, etc.), just run away from research topics like evolution / abiogenesis as these are intellectual dead ends.
So why is Szostak - a Nobel winner - feeling evolution inadequacy? Why does he want to show to all creationists out there…? Are you sure you understand and are not being served evolutionary myths instead?
I’m confined to using my phone (Harvey has been most inconvenient) and missed the podcast. I assume it is different from the text I read after following the link. I will have to check it out later.
Given what he have observed so far, “Abiogenesis” is at best a hypothesis.
More likely it’s a creation myth perpetuating Darwin’s baseless but magical “warm little pond”. The “philosopher’s stone” of our days.
An open mind and not an agenda to demonstrate Darwinism to creationists… But on the other hand he clearly sees inadequacies in the current narrative. And you don’t - I got that.
Say what? Let’s assume there is no such thing as abiogenesis. Would Darwinism survive? On what basis? Not that it otherwise makes any sense, but that’s another discussion.
Sorry, “feeling evolution inadequacy?” Why do you say this? And why would this feeling of his be connected to my feeling?
I think the entire quote is explanatory: “In my optimistic moods, I think that this might provide somewhat of a counterweight to all of the arguments raised by creationist or intelligent design people or religious people in general, you know who think that the problem is too hard and requires some magical or supernatural explanation, so to me having a simple natural process would be much better.”
I believe I do. I’m not a biologist. For me evolution is simply a scientific theory without connection to other issues. I’m an atheist, but for me, it’s not a “relentlessly cited primary argument” to defend atheism–I think evolution can be equally valid under a theistic or atheistic view. Even during my years of Catholic education I don’t recall it being questioned. I understand that for your beliefs (or some particular theistic beliefs) this is not necessarily true.
Having said that, I read the first few paragraphs of your article, but I don’t see that the problems you suggest are problems. For example, “Evolution is defined as (a) “Changes in gene frequencies in populations” … However, (a) is too broad as every newborn changes the gene frequency in a population”. A scan didn’t turn up any support to help me understand this statement, and I noticed a number of other statements without a firm logical basis. In addition, a definite non-scientific slant is quickly apparent, and I haven’t pressed on.
This is not my point - I have said repeatedly that the ideological/religious/atheist baggage that obviously permeates this area would be a distraction and a burden to clear scientific thinking.
Then why are you so stridently speaking out against those who want to test that hypothesis?[quote=“NonlinOrg, post:44, topic:36540”]
An open mind and not an agenda to demonstrate Darwinism to creationists… But on the other hand he clearly sees inadequacies in the current narrative. And you don’t - I got that.
[/quote]
That doesn’t answer the question. What hypotheses do you think Szostak should be testing if not the ones he is currently testing? You can hardly accuse Szostak of not having an open mind when you can’t even come up with a hypothesis to test.[quote=“NonlinOrg, post:44, topic:36540”]
Say what? Let’s assume there is no such thing as abiogenesis. Would Darwinism survive? On what basis? Not that it otherwise makes any sense, but that’s another discussion.
[/quote]
The theory of evolution would survive on exactly what it has survived on for the last 150 years, the evidence for common ancestry and the mechanisms by which species change over time.
Took me a while to unravel the comment, but a good point: Creationism, be it evolutionary or young earth, is by definition abiogenesis, as God is not a biologic being.
Thanks for your comment and sorry for being cryptic.
The conflation of phenomena that either did or didn’t happen (abiogenesis and evolution) with mechanistic hypotheses and theories underlying those phenomena is a staple of denialists, as it greatly hinders understanding.
No, it’s a phenomenon. The mechanistic hypotheses addressing how it occurred are indeed merely hypotheses, but plural, not singular.
Are you claiming that someone in the field misrepresenting them as theories (or even worse as a single theory), or are you just muddying the waters?
And as Taq noted, shouldn’t scientists be rigorously testing hypotheses? What exactly are you complaining about? What hypotheses should Szostak be testing instead?
You’re kidding right? You seem quite serious and I even clicked on your blog which had no actual substance on the link you provided. Something like this seems fairly serious to me and definitely makes me very skeptical of your ability to evaluate claims and data properly even outside of everything you’ve already said in this thread.
Are you intentionally misinterpreting astronomers? When Cosmologists discuss the view that all galaxies seem to be rushing away from the Milky Way, they are not trying to say that the Universe revolves around the Earth.
They are talking about a universal principle of an expanding Universe - - which creates the impression (no matter where you are) that the Universe is retreating from the viewpoint of the viewer!
@NonlinOrg
I finally got to the podcast today. And… Szostak is still describing abiogenesis. He did use the word “evolve”, in the context of putting some cellular features together and seeing what evolved. This is still separate from biological evolution.
What he is (was? Not sure what he is currently doing) trying to do is show how the first cells came into being. He is not researching what people normally think of when they hear the term “evolution” - change in living organisms over time.
The field of abiogenesis is much shorter on evidence than biological evolution. This is apparently why Szostak went into this field in the first place. @benkirk makes an excellent point – regardless of your belief system, abiogenesis had to occur in one way or another.
That’s the inadequacy that he recognizes. You only try to provide counterweight to valid arguments.
Not the subject of this topic, but I totally agree. You must recognize your fellow atheists do make a religious argument of it. Regardless, on a pure scientific basis, this theory - as accepted today - is badly flawed.
You seem to misunderstand / disagree (did you see the detailed explanations linked?), so let’s see your questions / counterarguments.
I don’t really think you are in any position to know when any of the biological sciences are flawed - - badly or otherwise.
[1] Do you believe there is something called De-volution?
[2] Do you think micro-evolution is really a different process from macro-evolution?
[3] What do you think tells the chromosomes to stop allowing mutations in order to prevent macro evolution?
[4] Do you understand that speciation doesn’t require dramatic differences to still be valid speciation?
[5] Do you understand that once you have speciation (the dividing of 2 or more sub-populations into separate reproductive pools), then you automatically have “Common Descent”?
You obviously do not understand relativity in general and relative coordinates in particular - is the Sun the “center of the creation” (your quote) in your opinion?
Not a simple [erroneous] “impression”. Which means that choosing Earth as it’s center is perfectly fine. Same goes for the Sun or any other point of your choice. Heliocentrism is not one iota more valid that Geocentrism.
You completely misunderstand. Go ahead and do the research. The point was this Nobel winner recognizes a Darwinism inadequacy and he implies that creationists and ID proponents have a valid argument …which he wants to counter but hasn’t done so yes. This is a simple point that you can’t grasp.
I said if materialistic abiogenesis fails. You are not taking into account this qualifier. Will you have a chicken without an egg?
Good point if you are a robot. I mean the materialistic abiogenesis.
Actually, not a phenomenon as it hasn’t been observed.
Since you are so picky, you should know that abiogenesis is understood as the materialistic abiogenesis while creationist abiogenesis is known as the Book of Genesis.
If so, there is no reason to believe God hands over His creation to a Darwinian process immediately after first abiogenesis or any other time for that matter.
Really, there’s a distinction? And that discontinuity happens exactly when? And this discontinuity is just a minor fact of life? Looks like this headless chicken is looking for its stone egg. And why is Szostak trying to address the criticism from creationists / ID proponents? You would not try to address invalid criticism, would you?
Yes, there is a distinction. Abiogenesis is the origin of life. Biological evolution is the development of things that are already alive.
I am completely against Szostak’s assertion that learning more about abiogenesis will eliminate creationist, ID, or any religious (can’t remember his exact words) arguments. But the fact remains that this research is not targeting what you claim it is targeting.