MrHambre - Abiogenesis and Origins

Mike,I've never been altogether comfortable with the strict division between abiogenesis and evolution. It's perfectly reasonable to say that the evolution of all species from the first life forms is a different subject than the emergence of the first life forms themselves. However, I think that Darwin's theory illuminates the similarities between both subjects.The origin of a contemporary species, according to Darwin, is a process of evolution from an ancestor species. There is no magic threshold that a species crosses where it assumes its species-hood, and it can be difficult to distinguish between subspecies and species. How, then, can we separate a species from the ancestor species, or from the very process by which the new species evolved? The answer is that we can't. The core of Darwinism is that such distinctions are useful but arbitrary, vestiges of the essentialism that Darwin's theory put to rest.The same goes for the distinction between life and non-life. If we're looking for the magic point where life 'happened,' we're not likely to find it. Even in modern forms there is a Twilight Zone between life and non-life, inhabited by such things as viruses and prions. These forms aren't considered living organisms, though they share some of the biochemical machinery of true life forms. I'm not an expert on proto-biology by any means. There are plausible scenarios for the emergence of life as we know it, but the field is by definition highly speculative.Speculation using verifiable, testable mechanisms is more responsible than speculation using supernatural fantasies. Yes, I have a thing for Methodological Naturalism, because it's the bullshit filter that has worked. Without MN we have literally no basis for limiting the field of possible mechanisms down to ones that are relevant. If I seem dogmatic in declaring that you can't do science without using MN, just look at the track record of MN in advancing our understanding of natural phenomena. If the puzzle of abiogenesis is to be solved, it will be solved using MN.regards,
Esteban "Amino Acid Casualty" Hambre

Mike the Wiz writes:

quote:

---

I heed Loudmouth's post, he says what has a religion got to do with our investigations - good point, my problem is that I am looking at this philosophically whereas you may take a totally scientific position so I understand the point well.

---

So why do you care whether science regards your religion as relevant to the origin of life? Philosophically, you can believe whatever makes you feel good. However, science depends on testable, verifiable, falsifiable hypotheses.Methodological naturalism doesn't care whether everything that is verifable and testable is all that exists, or whether it's a subset of everything that exists. MN (science) can only deal with things that can be investigated through empirical evidential inquiry. God is among those phenomena that don't yield to scientific research, so don't expect science to give you a basis for belief in God.regards,
Esteban Hambre

Mike,Whatever. If science's inability to comment on the existence or non-existence of pretend invisible entities sounds like a reason not to not believe in them, you get the green light. However, science functions according to the universal application of natural law, so without empirical evidence you can't claim a 'belief' is scientific. And I never mentioned 'chance,' since I don't think it's a meaningful explanation, so quit using the term.It's not that science assumes that naturalistic processes are the only ones that could conceivably be responsible for natural phenomena. It's that science couldn't deal with any processes that aren't naturalistic. If you think non-naturalistic mechanisms (whatever they may be) account for abiogenesis, you'll have to devise a methodology that could demonstrate this. Keep in mind that MN has led us to a greater understanding of disease, the weather, celestial motion, heredity, fermentation, and a slew of other former mysteries. I'm not aware of any such advances in our understanding of natural phenomena that propose supernatural mechanisms.Like I said, I'm not an expert on abiogenesis, but there are naturalistic processes that are being explored to account for the phenomenon. Stuart Kauffman has proposed that principles of self-organization may account for the autocatalysis of the original biochemical reactions, and there's some lab support for his proposals. Using naturalistic mechanisms, we can get closer to a definition of the phenomenon of abiogenesis, keep or discard hypotheses through empirical testing, and hopefully solve the mystery. By talking about God, miracles, and supernatural forces, you don't solve anything.regards,
Esteban Hambre