What might be the cognitive biases

[Daniel_Fisher]

I had observed:

@Daniel_Fisher

No one , objects to the idea that “all manner of organic molecules” can be created through various natural processes. This is not in dispute.

The debate is as to whether those specific highly complex molecules such as highly ordered, functional, homochiral, sequence-specific polypeptides and nucleotides could be created through such a process. Not whether “organic molecules” could be formed.

One member asserted:

@Astrid

We do know complex organic molecules self assemble.

And later in the discussion, the same claim was repeated:

@paleomalacologist

Unlike the construction of an iphone, though, the formation of complex biological molecules is something that can occur with no intelligent intervention - the laws of chemistry apply…

Getting specific useful complex organic molecules is the challenge, but getting some sort of complex organic molecule is easy.

Now, this claim is indeed most intriguing to me, as it would refute many ID claims I have heard. And seeking truth, not an ideology, as I am, I want to know about any evidence whatsoever that impacts the topic, whichever “side” benefits or is harmed by the evidence in question… I am truly curious. thus I asked for specific examples:

@Daniel_Fisher

How large and what kind of complex macromolecules (I assume we’re talking proteins/polypeptides or nucleotide chains?) have been observed to “self-assemble” under realistic prebiotic conditions (i.e., without significant interference from the investigator)? You mentioned “getting some sort of complex organic molecule is easy.” Any chance you can specify specifically what, and how large, of such complex molecules we’re talking about, and direct me to the relevant papers/journals, etc.?

And the answer I was given:

@paleomalacologist

Peptide ligation by chemoselective aminonitrile coupling in water | Nature is one example of forming simple peptides under reasonable abiotic conditions; Nucleotide Selectivity in Abiotic RNA Polymerization Reactions - PubMed forming simple nucleic acids.

As kind and respectful as I can be, I can’t describe this in any way other than to call it “moving the goalposts”, or some kind of equivocation. Now I don’t for a minute think this was conscious or deliberate, but I can’t help but see this as an example of the same ubiquitous confirmation bias I noted above. Grand claims are made that sound enormously impressive, and which, if true, would be a slam-dunk for evolution and a similarly unassailable rebuttal against various ID arguments.

And then when I actually dig down further, and explore the actual evidence cited, I so often find that these grand, categorical claims are based on the most scanty, irrelevant, or miniscule evidence - the grandiosity of the claim is a result of the wishful thinking, imagination, or exaggeration of the disputant, it is not found in the data itself.

Hence my overall skepticism is only enervated by such habits. If evidence for evolution (or abiogenesis) is so categorical and clear, why do its proponents not simply lay out the actual data as it is, and let the actual evidence speak for itself, without the routine and rather extravagant exaggerations? On the other hand, if such aggrandizement is necessary in order to make the case… perhaps the evidence isn’t quite so conclusive as it is advertised as being?