Universal Intelligence (The nature of a \'Creator\')

by George Jelliss , Crewe, Wednesday, September 23, 2009, 23:46 (5538 days ago) @ George Jelliss

I checked on RD.net whether anyone had raised this issue in the comments, and there was one by a J. D. Lipsitz. I reproduce his comment some replies:-
105. Comment #414485 by JDLipsitz on September 13, 2009 at 4:38 am -For a group of critical thinkers on this site, we really do let Prof Dawkins over-apply evolution via natural selection as an explanation for the origin of life. Evolution is a delicious explanation for biodiversity and the distinct characteristics of species, but it does nothing to explain how life originated in the first place. While I agree with most of what the Prof says, our nature as a group of atheists should help identify us as critical thinkers. Richard Dawkins is not - nor would he wish to be - exempt from our critical thought. If any opponent thinker came up with something so baseless, he would get trashed in these comments. Please be fair, and apply critical thought evenly. -
110. Comment #414493 by Quine on September 13, 2009 at 5:37 am -You make a fair point. We each have to make a judgment call on where to draw the line in each discussion. We are advancing on a theory of abiogenesis, but it very thinly supported v. origin of species. Theism used to stand on a prop of necessity because we had no natural explanation of our origins. Having removed that prop does not negate Theism, it just has less to stand on. Some theists have retrenched back to abiogenesis, but that does them little good because without the direct special creation of humans, something as simple as a protocell doesn't give much upon which to base scripture.-When it comes to the argument about teaching the ToE in schools, I agree with your point. It has to be the strict post protocell story of life. However, in the discussion of props for theism I think more latitude can be given because our nature as beings comes from the ToE no matter how the first cells got started. -
119. Comment #414512 by bendigeidfran on September 13, 2009 at 8:09 am -Yes. The exorcism that Darwin started continues all the way back to the origin of life. It is undeniable that unsophisticated primitive molecules can emerge into existence if the appropriate atoms are available, for little molecules are just a few atoms stuck together, and atoms stick together. Simple replicators can evolve as we watch, and more complicated 'molecules of life' are routinely found in comets and meteors. These are molecules of complexity deemed 'impossible' by creationists. As for the point at which non-life becomes life, it is difficult to draw a line in the soup, and uncertain whether or not it was seeded by space-croutons. But this is evolution at it's simplest and the only problem is the number of answers. -
121. Comment #414518 by Jos Gibbons on September 13, 2009 at 8:23 am -Does evolution explain abiogenesis? Yes and no, if you'll forgive the expression. Evolution began once self-replicators existed, and abiogenesis extends at least that far back, but one would probably insist on defining it as going further, for explanatory purposes, since the existence of self-replicators needs explanation too. How far? I've not heard people arguing to go back to the Big Bang, for example. Wherever you start abiogenesis, evolution explains it from an intermediate point onwards. As for the explanations so far suggested for the earlier parts, they are unsurprisingly harder to understand than natural selection (a simple idea par excellence), but they're very interesting. I suggest you read about them; you'd love it. -
153. Comment #414703 by Steve Zara on September 13, 2009 at 7:41 pm -There is a rather wonderful model of how life began. Actually, it is more like a set of models, but they all have the same foundation - life began as polymers of RNA. Richard mentions this idea in his latest book. It is called the "RNA World". If it is true, then evolution is there right at the very start. It could be said it is the origin of what we would call life. -It works like this: In a certain environment, countless long strands of RNA formed. This looks quite feasible for several reasons. There are only 4 possible bases at each position along the RNA strand, so a particular sequence is hugely more likely than the equivalent for proteins, where there would be at least 20 possibilities. Also, we now know of several physical and chemical environments that could have been present on the early Earth where RNA polymerizes quite nicely. It also looks likely that all the nucleotides would have been around in some quantity.-So, strands of RNA which catalyse their own formation, and which make mistakes in that formation, so allowing for variation to be selected by the environment, sound like a very likely possible origin of life, and would involve selection of nucleotide sequences, which would have directly coded for structure and catalytic activity right at the very start. -We have produced such RNA strands in the laboratory, so we know that they exist. We also know that in Nature RNA sometimes has catalytic activity - it works like enzymes.-So, this is selection of digital information - evolution by Natural Selection.-If the RNA World model is the right one, abiogenesis IS evolution: digitally replicating molecules are the origin of life.

--
GPJ