An Eye Into The Materialist Assault On Life’s Origins
| July 11, 2009 | Posted by Robert Deyes under Intelligent Design |
Synopsis Of The Second Chapter Of Signature In The Cell by Stephen Meyer
ISBN: 9780061894206; ISBN10: 0061894206; HarperOne
When the 19th century chemist Friedrich Wohler synthesized urea in the lab using simple chemistry, he set in motion the ball that would ultimately knock down the then-pervasive ‘Vitalistic’ view of biology. Life’s chemistry, rather than being bound by immaterial ‘vital forces’ could indeed by artificially made. While Charles Darwin offered little insight on how life originated, several key scientists would later jump on Wohler’s ‘Eureka’-style discovery through public proclamations of their own ‘origin of life’ theories. The ensuing materialist view was espoused by the likes of Ernst Haeckel and Rudolf Virchow who built their own theoretical suppositions on Wohler’s triumph. Meyer summed up the logic of the day
“If organic matter could be formed in the laboratory by combining two inorganic chemical compounds then perhaps organic matter could have formed the same way in nature in the distant past” (p.40)
Darwin’s theory generated the much-needed fodder to ‘extend’ evolution backward’ to the origin of life. It was believed that “chemicals could “morph” into cells, just as one species could “morph” into another “ (p.43). Appealing to the apparent simplicity of the cell, late 19th century biologists assured the scientific establishment that they had a firm grasp of the ‘facts’- cells were, in their eyes, nothing more than balls of protoplasmic soup. Haeckel and British scientist Thomas Huxley were the ones who set the protoplasmic theory in full swing. While the details expounded by each man differed somewhat, the underlying tone was the same- the essence of life was simple and thereby easily attainable through a basic set of chemical reactions.
Things changed in the 1890s. With the discovery of cellular enzymes the complexity of the cell’s inner workings became all too apparent and a new theory that no longer relied on an overly simplistic protoplasm-style foundation, albeit one still bounded by materialism, had to be devised. Several decades later, finding himself in the throws of a Marxist socio-political upheaval within his own country, Russian biologist Aleksandr Oparin became the man for the task.
Oparin developed a neat scheme of inter-related processes involving the extrusion of heavy metals from the earth’s core and the accumulation of atmospheric reactive gases all of which, he claimed, could eventually lead to the making of life’s building blocks- the amino acids. He extended his scenario further, appealing to Darwinian natural selection as a way through which functional proteins could progressively come into existence. But the ‘tour de force’ in Oparin’s outline came in the shape of coacervates- small, fat-containing spheroids which, Oparin proposed, might model the formation of the first ‘protocell’.
Oparin’s neat scheme would in the 1940s and 1950s provide the impetus for a host of prebiotic synthesis experiments, most famous of which was that of Harold Urey and Stanley Miller who used a spark discharge apparatus to make the three amino acids- glycine, alpha-alanine and beta-alanine. With little more than a few gases (ammonia, methane and hydrogen), water, a closed container and an electrical spark Urey and Miller had seemingly provided the missing link for an evolutionary chain of events that now extended as far back as the dawn of life. And yet as Meyer concludes, the information revolution that followed the elucidation of the structure of DNA would eventually shake the underlying materialistic bedrock.
Meyer’s historical overview of the key events that shaped origin-of-life biology is extremely readable and well illustrated. Both the style and the content of his discourse keep the reader focused on the ID thread of reasoning that he gradually develops throughout his book.
404 Responses to An Eye Into The Materialist Assault On Life’s Origins
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Thanks to BillB for coming back and eliciting the following from ScottAndrews:
Such is the nature of historical science. Especially when we’re talking about the very, very remote past. In any case, science never knows anything for sure. I thought that was common knowledge.
I think you are. Read your own words. As someone said, “You aren’t conceding anything by admitting it.”
What’s the alternative? An unnatural explanation?
Adel:
I find your comments pointless. You criticize what I’ve said by restating and confirming it. What am I to say? Your last question was willfully ignorant.
KF-san,
The topology of islands of function in a sea of nonfiction is not “imaginary”, in short — but it is inconvenient for those who would wish that contra what Shapiro and Orgel have counselled after a lifetime in the field, organised complexity assembles itself conveniently out of small prebiotic molecules.
Not imaginary perhaps, but simply imagined, asserted without proof.
How can you assert the existence of islands of function when you cannot articulate a clear idea of what function means in a pre-biotic environment, and on what kind of entity function is being measured?
Following up:
1] Adel (and Nakashima-san)
Thanks, NYRB, okay.
Pity they just give a preview for a 1997 article!
2] BB, 395: your mind, once closed, remains forever shut. your opinions are fixed and you believe that repeating your assertions will somehow make them fact.
This is yet another turnabout false accusation; and on the matter of the Weasel case, an outright misrepresentation of the truth.
(Onlookers, observe how this is (a) yet another rabbit trail led out to a strawman soaked in ad hominems [to be ignited . . . ], and (b) is false to the actual outcome on the merits, which I have in my always linked here. As teh just linked demonstrates, BB et al cannot be trusted to give a true and fair view of the case on the merits.No prizes for guessing why there is much interest in stating a twisted summary and little interest in actually addressing my point on the merits. See why I have spoken about the attritional implications of repeated rhetorical wave attacks, not only for UD [which is being snowed under], but for our civilisation as a whole which is having the civility at the heart of democracy eaten out by scorched earth rhetorical stratagems, at 338 above?)
Now, too, a glance at either the always linked or the weak argument correctives of which I am a co-author, will show that my positions are taken on evidence and on inference to best current explanation in light of such evidence. ["Proof" in any strong sense is not in the power of science.]
And, it remains the case that intelligence is the ONLY observed cause of FSCI such as will have to be explained for the case of OOL. Indeed, it is the ROUTINE cause of FSCI. So the inference on best explanation from FSCI as sign to intelligence as cause is inductively strong. So strong that the usual resorts are not to providing solid counter-examples (several suggestions having been shot down in flames in this thread) but to censoring Lewontinian a priori materialism, often under the disguise, “methodological naturalism.”
2] I await your invasion of Poland, although from what I have heard about their education minister Liljana Colic’s attempts to ban evolution from schools it may already have begun.
unworthy, ad hominem laced rhetoric.
And, what part of the following, from 338, constitutes “banning evolution from schools”?
Namely:
[ . . . ]
3] What an independent origins science education course could look like
FYI, BB, such a fresh approach should include an advanced placement -cum- college level survey course that covers:
[1] an overview of the strengths and weaknesses of science, including the difference between origins and operational science: projecting to a remote, unobserved past and seeking to explain it is not at all epistemically equivalent to matters of direct observation in the present.
[2] a survey of cosmology including stars, galaxies, cosmos, planet system formation and timelines [including terrestrial dating techniques], with relevant finetuning to operating point issues.
[3] A survey of OOL, including the relevant thermodynamics and information theory considerations in light of the information system at he heart of cell based life.
[4] A similar survey of origin of body plan level biodiversity, with a look at typical icons over the past 150 years.
[5] A survey on origin of conscious, reasoning, en-conscienced mind, and raising issues tied to that.
[6] Addressing origins science in society based on the context of the ideological war that now threatens to fatally break the heart of our civlisation, inviting the kind of strategic defeats that Byzantium suffered in the C7 and France suffered in 1940.
–> Such a critical survey course on a controversial aspect of science is very feasible.
–> And, as an INDEPENDENT course, such will not be vulnerable tot he control of the sort of nasty censorship and hostage-taking tactics that now so often obtain at the hands of the NCSE, ACLU, NAS etc.
–> In an Internet dominated era, such can be offered online quite easily, thank you.
–> All that is required is to actually construct and present such a course, which can be done based on the above outline.
4] Adel, 396: What’s the alternative? An unnatural explanation?
Close but no cigar.
From the days of Plato on, the ART-ificial — thus, intelligent — has been a classic distinction to the “natural.”
Design theory gives us a way to draw that distinction, based on reliable signs of intelligence.
5] Nakashima-san, 398: simply imagined, asserted without proof.
First, science is not about PROOF; but instead, empirically warranted provisional inference to best explanation.
For that, the bottomline for this thread still obtains: [1] FSCI is real and quantifiable, [2] it is routinely produced by intelligence in our observation, [3] it is ONLY observed to be produced by intelligence, [4] on search space grounds, it is unlikely that non-intelligent forces such as chance and/or necessity will be able to achieve FSCI.
In short, the conclusion is inductively strong.
6] How can you assert the existence of islands of function when you cannot articulate a clear idea of what function means in a pre-biotic environment, and on what kind of entity function is being measured?
That’s odd: as has been repeatedly pointed out, we observe cell based life as a self-replicating system, which works though the von Neumann type self-replicator architecture: blueprint, reader, implementer allowing self replication.
That constitutes an irreducibly complex set, which necessarily is an island of function. No code and/or no storage, and/or no reader and/or no effector, and observed self-replication capacity vanishes.
So, we have a threshold of required functionality based on a logically based framework. In addition, we do observe existing life forms, and see tha the DNA storage ranfes upwards of 100′s of kilo bases, i.e independent life [not parasitic on preexisting life for key nutrients etc] starts out at about 600 – 1,000 kilo bases. Parasitics start out at 100,000 or so bases, or about 200 k bits.
All of these are well beyond the practical limitations of the search resources of the observed cosmos; of which 1,000 bits is a very reasonable threshold.
GEM of TKI
KF-san,
That’s odd: as has been repeatedly pointed out, we observe cell based life as a self-replicating system, which works though the von Neumann type self-replicator architecture: blueprint, reader, implementer allowing self replication.
Here I have to respond similarly to my response to Mr BillB’s use of the term autocatalytic sets. Such a thing as a Von Neumann replicator might be the ultimate goal you are aimed at, but it isn’t the way you measure progress. You might as well say that the Empire State Building is your measure of buildings. This is either a quite unwieldy way of measuring small buildings, or it is a boolean variable, true for one building and false for every other. Either way, not very helpful as a measure. Measures such weight, volume, and power consumption are more useful measures for buildings than “is it the Empire State Building?”
However, this kind of boolean measure is useful for your argument. A GA that only gets one bit (literally) of feedback from its fitness function is reduced to random search.
Nakashima-san:
There is a distinct threshold of function, allowing identification and measure.
Absent a replicator based on a code, storage, a reader and an implementer, there is no active self-replication. No active self-replication, no life. No self-replicating life, no possibility of hill climbing by blind variation and selective replication on differential success.
Thus, until you have a viable life form with a viable body plan (including the von Neuman replicator set) you have no basis for hypothesied or observed evolving.
Thus, we see a sharp distinction between that which can replicate and that which cannot. Functionality is in an island, and non-function on self replication is the surrounding sea.
GEM of TKI
ScottAndrews,
You seem unwilling or unable to answer simple questions about your beliefs.
That’s fine for now. I’ll catch up with you later.
Regards,
Adel
Adel,
Don’t bother. Some people in this forum present meaningful, informed challenges to my point of view. Sometimes I have to look past their tone because their content is constructive.
Others offer “What’s the alternative? An unnatural explanation?”