Could RNA start life?

Ed67 writes: Those were the only kind of intelligent entities around at the time, apparently....

Well, no. Non-physical intelligent beings have never been "apparent".

Ed67 writes: ... we now have a full overview of how the replication system and cell operate.

You have an over-optimistic idea of fulllness. We have a pretty good idea of how the replication system and cell operate but we are learning more about it every day. We do have a full enough understanding to know that no intelligence was necessary to set it in motion.

Ed67 writes: Think about it: All this design was somehow inserted into the first living thing.

Think about this: All any intelligence can do is manipulate existing processes.

The reason for the resistance from the scientific establishment, and that it hasn't done science from a design perspective, is its commitment to methodological materialism.

What a strange fantasy. Do you have any evidence for it, or is it just one of those things you like to say from time to time?

ringo writes: Think about this: All any intelligence can do is manipulate existing processes.

Yes, that's a good point. But I think an intelligence must have to UNDERSTAND a process before he could manipulate it, so not all intelligences are able to manipulate all existing processes - only the processes they understand.

And what if there is a higher intelligence than humans? Someone intelligent enough to construct life from chemicals using the laws of chemistry and physics? Someone who understands more natural processes than humans currently do?

Either there exists a higher race than man, which Francis Crick himself put forth decades after the helix discovery, along with the famous astronomer Hoyle,
OR there exists a form of life beyond our explanation by materialistic means alone.

Ed67 writes: And what if there is a higher intelligence than humans? Someone intelligent enough to construct life from chemicals using the laws of chemistry and physics?

What if there is? That's irrelevant to the question of whether or not chemistry and physics could do it on their own. The answer to that question and this thread is: There's no reason to think that intelligence is necessary.

But I think an intelligence must have to UNDERSTAND a process before he could manipulate it, so not all intelligences are able to manipulate all existing processes - only the processes they understand.

Do you think leafcutter ants are intelligent enough to understand the process of growing fungus?

And what if there is a higher intelligence than humans?

Then when we have evidence of it we will investigate it.

The reason for the resistance from the scientific establishment, and that it hasn't done science from a design perspective, is its commitment to methodological materialism.

So why haven't all your purported design theorists not done any? Anyone can do science -- just follow the scientific method.

Perhaps you have it backwards:

The reason for the resistance from the IDological crowd, and that it hasn't done any science from a methodological materialistic perspective, is its commitment to supernatural forces.

The reason for the resistance from the scientific establishment, and that it hasn't done science from a design perspective, is its commitment to methodological materialism.

Yes, sadly (for you), science is so committed to doing science:

quote:

---

Methodological materialism is neither a belief nor an assumption but a restriction on method. Briefly stated it holds that a non-material assumption is not to be made. Science, for example, is necessarily methodologically materialist. Science wishes to describe and explain nature. Diversion into the “supernatural” begins to describe and explain matters that are not natural and obfuscate the natural.

Methodological materialism is a defining characteristic of science in the same way that “methodological woodism” is a defining characteristic of carpentry. Science seeks to construct natural explanations for natural phenomena in the same way that carpentry seeks to construct objects out of wood. In operating in this manner neither discipline denies the existence of supernatural forces or sheet plastics, their usefulness or validity. The use of either supernatural forces or sheet plastics is simply distinguished as belonging to separate disciplines.

---

You can't study wood carpentry with plastic sheets. You can study plastic construction ...

You can't study science with supernatural forces. You can study philosophy and theology ...

ringo writes: You can detect artifacts but how do you connect them to some undetectable non-physical entity? Those were the only kind of intelligent entities around at the time, apparently, because we now have a full overview of how the replication system and cell operate. ...

Um, that didn't really answer the question now, did it?

Presumably you are claiming that "how the replication system and cell operate" are the assumed "artifacts" of "some undetectable non-physical entity" but you haven't shown how they are connected.

... My personal opinion is that there is too much design expressed in living things, let alone humans, to be ignored or explained away.

Unfortunately, for you, opinion, and the argument from incredulity, have demonstrated a total inability to alter reality in any way.

Message 93: And what if there is a higher intelligence than humans? Someone intelligent enough to construct life from chemicals using the laws of chemistry and physics? Someone who understands more natural processes than humans currently do?

And what if there is a higher higher intelligence than your higher intelligence? Something intelligent enough to construct the universe and the laws of chemistry and physics so that life develops naturally as a result of that design? Something who understands more natural processes than your higher intelligence?

Edited by RAZD, : added second

is its commitment to methodological materialism.

You're just taking a wild guess at this or you know for sure that the entire world's scientist are commited to this methodology?

I would guess, at the very least, out spoken Christian scientist like Francis Collins, for example, aren't so commited to that methodology.

Also, are you proposing a design perspective that is composed of something other than physical materials? If so, you'll have a hard time separating intelligent design from religion and mythology. Which is why it has failed as a science.

- Oni

So, do you consider the discovery of a naturalistic explanation for the origin of life inevitable?

I don't think it is inevitable, but I do think it would be a crime not to look for plausible pathways for abiogenesis.

Abiogenesis research is important because our curiosity is important. That's the whole point of scientific discovery.

I would guess, at the very least, out spoken Christian scientist like Francis Collins, for example, aren't so commited to that methodology.

I think you are wrong. Collins will not be commited to philosophical naturalism but I am pretty sure h is a methodological naturalist for his science work.

Collins will not be commited to philosophical naturalism but I am pretty sure h is a methodological naturalist for his science work.

Yeah, I meant to distinguish the two. My point was only that he is a man of faith and a scientist who isn't fully commited to naturalism in all aspects. But yes, I'm sure he is a methodological naturalist for his science work because, frankly, there is simply no other way to do science.

Anything else is witchcraft.

- Oni

Life did not just "appeared" on earth out of nothing. That doesn't happen. Life in the universe should be viewed as something more like an "infection" it spreads around, and wherever is an environment suitable for development, it evolves. In the case of earth, according to historical data, during the formation of the solar system this planet got infected with life from the collision between what it was the original earth and another celestial body orbiting the solar system which already had life on it.

Life did not just "appeared" on earth out of nothing. That doesn't happen. Life in the universe should be viewed as something more like an "infection" it spreads around, and wherever is an environment suitable for development, it evolves. In the case of earth, according to historical data, during the formation of the solar system this planet got infected with life from the collision between what it was the original earth and another celestial body orbiting the solar system which already had life on it.

Perhaps you could show us this "historical data". Thanks.

... Life in the universe should be viewed as something more like an "infection" it spreads around, and wherever is an environment suitable for development, it evolves. ...

The evidence that we can see is that pre-biotic molecules exist in space, and they could be the basic building blocks for the development of life on earth.

see Panspermic Pre-Biotic Molecules - Life's Building Blocks (Part I)

The thesis of this thread is that RNA developed as the first replicator molecule along the path of development of life on earth.

see Self-Replicating Molecules - Life's Building Blocks (Part II) - Self-Replicating Molecules - Life's Building Blocks, Part II for more.

... according to historical data, during the formation of the solar system this planet got infected with life from the collision between what it was the original earth and another celestial body orbiting the solar system which already had life on it.

Curiously, I must have missed that day in history class - can you provide reference material?

The evidence is that there may have been a collision between the primordial earth and what is now the moon -- where did the life on the moon go?

... and another celestial body orbiting the solar system which already had life on it.

And where did that life come from?

Enjoy

Perhaps you could show us this "historical data". Thanks.

Are you sure you want to see it? Apparently djufo has a huge suppository of historical data on life, the universe, and everything (with apologies).