New abiogenesis news article 4/12/02

John was just using a vernacular form to say that endosymbiosis is very widely accepted. While I have no direct knowledge of Behe's views on endosymbiosis, he doesn't usually oppose positions supported by strong evidence - are you sure he disagrees with it? Almost every cell replication includes copying error, and copying errors (mutations) are the foundation of evolutionary change. This "step-by-step" evolution that you say cannot occur has been observed in the lab countless times. Because we've observed cells with mutations surviving and reproducing you would be incorrect to surmise that "any little error" causes cell death. Many cells function quite well with their error-ridden DNA. There is much supposition and little certainty. It happened long ago and there is little evidence left, and so we may never know. Absence of evidence invites speculation, but current theories of abiogenesis lie within the realm of science because they are consistent with current scientific understanding. That reproduction is an inherently error-prone process all but guarantees evolution. All organisms are always evolving, though the direction toward greater or lesser complexity would not usually be considered predictable. I don't know the specifics of the paramecium/algae case, but cell predation is a fact. You can observe it in the lab.Your list of requirements for cells is reasonable until the last: It is only the "highly regulated" and "elaborate" parts that I would object to. The earliest life would have been extremely primitive compared to modern single-celled life forms, and possibly would not even be recognizable by us as life. They could be extremely primitive because they did not have to worry about being food for other life. This is related to the reason why abiogenesis can no longer take place on earth - any complex collection of organic molecules would immediately become food for existing life.--Percy

Hi John,It looks like the quotes provided by thousands_not_billions that weren't from you were actually from one of the articles you provided a link to: --Percy

This Behe quote rejects symbiosis as the origin of complex biochemical systems, not symbiosis itself. As I said before, Behe does not usually reject positions with strong evidential support, and the evidence for endosymbiosis is fairly strong.What text was in the second ellipsis? The portions of the quote separated by that ellipsis seem to be commenting on different aspects of the issue. Falsifications of theory stem from evidence, not lack of evidence. The difficulty of the puzzle of abiogenesis stems from lack of evidence, not from the presence of falsifying evidence. You have no evidence supporting your claim of a "big problem with the theory."--Percy

Okay, now I see what Behe is saying. You've misunderstood him. He's not objecting to symbiosis at all. He's saying that symbiosis, one explanation offered for the origin of eukaryotes, is not an answer to "the origin of complex biochemical systems", by which he evidently means here the origin of life. And he's right, but symbiosis is not an answer any informed person would offer to the puzzle of the origin of life. It's a possible answer for the origin of eukaryaotes.But I originally responded because I was skeptical that Behe rejects symbiosis, since he accepts almost all of mainstream biology, especially, as I've said a couple times now, strongly supported positions. The statement in the article you were quoting (http://www.msu.edu/course/lbs/145/luckie/margulis.html) was accurate when it said, "Everyone takes endosymbiosis seriously".You might also have been reading more into this statement than intended. It isn't saying that everyone fully accepts endosymbiosis as promoted by Dr. Margulis, and the preceding phrase that you chose not to quote makes that clear (Full quote: "Although many biologists continue to disagree with some of her ideas, everyone takes endosymbiosis seriously."). First, the argument from personal skepticism has no standing.Second, about the evidence, I've already said in message #17: And third, we know that the same laws governing the universe today governed it billions of years ago because we can look out into the ancient universe and observe that this was so. Since these laws were operative unchanged they therefore governed all long ago events, including the origin of life. What is your evidence for unnatural or supernatural processes leading to the orign of life?--Percy[This message has been edited by Percipient, 01-15-2003]

Behe shares almost none of Philip Johnson's views. For one thing, Johnson is a YEC, thereby rejecting much of modern geology, physics, astronomy and cosmology, while Behe accepts the positions of all these sciences. Behe accepts most of evolution, but he believes he's found evidence of intelligent design in the form of irreducibly complex microbiological structures. In other words, though he believes that evolution played a significant role in life's history, he believes that intelligent design played an even more signficant role by helping life over certain humps that were otherwise insurmountable. Behe's website used to include Creationist material, but I don't see it there now, other than the picture with him holding up his book, Darwin's Black Box. But you might want to visit and take a closer look than I did.--Percy

Behe *is* an evolutionist.He's a professor at Lehigh University. He publishes in the mainstream journals, where, by the way, he never mentions irreducible complexity or intelligent desgn. Where he differs from mainstream biology is in believing evidence exists that at least some evolutionary steps must have required some form of intelligent guidance or intervention. I have never heard this before, it seems doubtful.--Percy

Wow! I know I've been busy, but how did I miss this? Thanks for the info.Amazon doesn't seem to think Nature's Destiny is out of print, but if it is then I think it would make sense to me . Naturally it has no appeal for Creationists, and as Denton has nothing original to contribute scientifically it holds no special attraction for evolutionists, either.--Percy

Sorry for doubting you about Denton - thanks for the info!!--Percy