Modularity, A distinguishing property of life

For your theory of recognizing design by integrated complexity to be scientifically valid, it has to be falsifiable.So I ask, what would falsify it ?

Of course, this is only true if you believe in materialism

I can prove I did not buy a pizza yesterday (joking)On a more serious note, what are you proposing here ? That evolution is not theoretically falsifiable ? (I mean, if there is no way to prove evolution could not have done it, then evolution isn't falsifiable ...)

Ok I'll make a negative statement that is more precise:I did not buy a pizza yesterday at 12h at Domino's pizza, 1273 Cartier street, Montreal, Quebec.I could prove this negative, simply by watching the security camera. Or by asking the person who worked there at that hour, etc. In the same way I could prove that there are no monkeys in my closet, by opening my closet and showing that there are none. Although it is more difficult to prove a negative, it is a common myth to say that 'you can't prove a negative'.In regards to the topic at hand. ''Mutation+natural selection could not have produced the genetic diversity we see'' is a statement that could be proven thru population genetics and genetic theory. Because of this, the theory that 'mutation+natural selection produced the genetic diversity we see today' is a valid scientific theory because it can be falsified.

This is a bit of a strawman of the creationist position. YEC say that 'either life made itself' or that 'intelligence made life'.It is not: either evolution is true or creationism/ID is true.

I was hoping no one would suggest something like that, really ...This argument-type can be used for anything. I mean, in the same way, I could say: 'Barack Obama said ''I have a dog'' on live TV' (a positive statement) and then, as proof, show you a tape of it. But you could say: you can't prove it, since maybe you tampered that tape to make him say that; see, you can't prove a positive. And then I would bring to you 100 people who saw it live, and have them tell you that Barack Obama did say 'I have a dog' on live tv. But you could say: maybe you bribed all these people so that they told me this, you still can't prove a positive. If your argument was valid, you could not prove either a positive nor a negative.In any case, we can see it in another way: suppose A and not-A, two opposite statements. If I falsify A, then automatically I prove not-A (by the law of non-contradiction)Example:A - My car is blue.
not-A - My car is not blue.If I falsify A, then it proves not-A. If I prove not-A, then it falsifies A.If I prove A, then it falsifies not-A. But if I falsify not-A, it does not prove A.Edited by slevesque, : No reason given.

OMG, I was tired when I wrote that response. It is far from conveying the idea I wanted haha ...I meant it to say that creationists do not propose either evolution or creationism (as the only two options), but rather they propose that the debate is either abiogenesis or Intelligent Design. Obviously, they support the later, and identify the designer as the God of the Bible.Now I understand many creationists such as Hovind propose the false dilemna of evolution/creation, but these people (at least, in my opinion) are not the ones who represent the real creationist position. CMI and AiG are the two organisations who take care not to propose this dilemna. Their tactic is still two fold: they critic evolution, and they promote a young earth perspective.But all this is off topic.

Well actually, didn't he exactly say that ?I mean, he was talking of abiogenesis as an emperical fact, because at some point in time life came to existence., and so abiogenesis did happen.Unless I don't understand the abiogenesis term correctly, but isn't it the origin of life from inanimate matter, excluding any supernatural intelligence ??

I would think if we had the videotape that showed I did not order a pizza at 12 o'clock, it would not be 'absence of information' but rather information that I did not order a pizza.In any case, if you do believe you can't prove a negative, you will have to answer two question:1- Can you prove the following statement: two plus two does not equal 5.2- Can you prove the following statement: you can't prove a negative.Edited by slevesque, : No reason given.Edited by slevesque, : No reason given.

Doesn't the scientific field of abiogenesis exclude the option of supernatural intervention A priori, and considers exclusively natural means by which life could arise from non-life.Reading the comments here, it would seem abiogenesis accepts the idea that an intelligence formed life from non-life. Am I missing something ?

You should talk about it with this guy then:

quote:

---

Most modern biologists, having reviewed with satisfaction the downfall of the spontaneous generation hypothesis, yet unwilling to accept the alternative belief in special creation, are left with nothing. I think a scientist has no choice but to approach the origin of life through a hypothesis of spontaneous generation.

---

quote:

---

One has only to contemplate the magnitude of this task to concede that the spontaneous generation of a living organism is impossible. Yet here we are as a result, I believe, of spontaneous generation

---

George WaldOf course, he does not mean spontaneous generation as bread+cheese = maggots.He also said:

quote:

---

The reasonable view was to believe in spontaneous generation; the only alternative, to believe in a single, primary act of supernatural creation. There is no third position.

---

Thus, since there are only two options, if abiogenesis is proven to be impossible, then it becomes proof for a supernatural creation.Thus someone who believes life was made by God, based on the fact that he thinks abiogenesis is impossible (because of racemization, etc.) does not have blind find, but it is evidence-based faith.

quote:

---

But it is a fact. Abiogenesis happened. What is being investigated is the how it happened. The phenomenon is a fact; life exists, abiogenesis occured. How? Well I guess it was either natural chemical reactions of known elements, or, a celestial invisible being waving a magic wand. But the fact remains, abiogenesis occured.

---

Maybe I misunderstood you, it seemed to me that abiogenesis included both from this comment, when I thought it did not. If it doesn't, then I think Hyroglyphs is right: the fact that life appeared at some point in time is not proof that abiogenesis occured.

quote:

---

Wouldn't the intelligence require an explanation as to how it formed before we even begin to investigated what it made?

​

Wouldn't the 'intelligence' also be considered 'life'? How is it different from life?

---

If you identify the intelligence as an alien, of course your questions are relevant.But if you identify the intelligence as the God of the bible, then it is irrelevant since by nature he is eternal, and also outside of time. So no starting point where you can say: before there was no intelligence, now there is intelligence.

quote:

---

This isn't an appropriate question; two plus two equals five by fiat. Mathematics is a conceptual system that operates by rules we define, so the proof you request is in essence saying "It does not because I say it does not."

---

If there is one domain where you can prove something, it is in mathematics. (some even say it is the only domain where proof is possible). In any mathematical semantics, two plus two will never be equal to 5.

quote:

---

Yes: You cannot dismiss accurate information regardless of its violation of previously established norms, including logical contradictions. This means that even if evidence points strongly toward something not happening, the possibility always remains of new information becoming available.

---

By saying this, aren't you proving a negative (after all, 'you can't prove a negative' is a negative ...)Edited by slevesque, : No reason given.

George Wald is the guy who wrote: the origin of life.I don't understand the last one (out of whole cloth). But you really consider these other options as legitimate, scientific possibilities ?

I have to agree, that if you say life came from non-life, you have to give a definition of life ...Maybe using an example will help define 'life':If I take a cell, and put it in a drop of water. And then I take a needle, and poke the membrane. And so everything inside comes rushing out of the membrane and into the water. Is it still alive ? Is there still something alive in my drop of water ?