Abiogenesis-earliest life? (Origins)

by dhw, Tuesday, August 23, 2011, 16:19 (4841 days ago) @ David Turell

KENT (broken_cynic): I'm not asking you to 'believe in' chance, only to grant that given our current state of knowledge it is the explanation which requires the least assumptions. Beating huge odds is something we know happens in the real world. Magic isn't.-DAVID: If the Earth cooled down enough to allow some early exotic form of life as described in this article, it was allowed to happen in a short period of geologic time. The odds become enormous, the shorter the time frame.-http://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/22/science/earth/22fossil.html?_r=1&nl=todaysheadlin...-I would like to make three comments on this exchange:-1) I agree with Kent that chance requires the least assumptions, in the sense that it is the simplest explanation. However, since the odds against it are so "enormous", simplicity is no grounds for belief, but the moment you categorically reject the design explanation, you are left with no alternative (= atheism). If you don't believe chance did it, you will have to keep the other option open (= agnosticism). You can of course lean one way or the other without actually toppling over. Your previous posts have wavered in their degree of rejection, and so I guess we must wait for a more definitive statement of your position.-2) Use of pejorative terms like "magic" are a common device among hardline atheists, but what could be more "magic" than a hugely complex mechanism appearing from nowhere, having unconsciously assembled itself with no outside aid? "Beating huge odds" is another cop-out expression, as this scenario is something utterly unique in our experience. There is no precedent in "the real world". ID-ers claim that the mechanism has been assembled by a form of intelligence ... i.e. it has been deliberately designed. That is not magic but science. (No, I'm not forgetting the problem of the origin of a scientific UI. I'm merely objecting to pots calling kettles black.)-3) The article concerns claims that the fossils are of microbes 3-4 billion years old, and hence the oldest forms of life ever found (a real feather in the cap of the finders, and a yahboo to the previous record-holders). As in all matters relating to early life, there is no consensus. Indeed, these fossils may not even be organic.
 
Dr. Buick said: "You've got to realize how divisive this microfossil war has been over the last decade. Most people just want it to be over. If claim and counterclaim go back and forth for a decade, it sounds like we don't know what we're doing." -Yep.