The origin of Life

[Ansgar Seraph]

(hey AS, you wanted to know about another historical account that used chiasmus or parallelism, and Deuteronomy uses chiasmus quite a bit)

I asked for an example of parallelism or chiamus that was integrated into the structure of a narrative or history, rather than used as rhetorical flourish. I'll need a bit more direction than saying said structure is somewhere in Deuteronomy!

—Sam

[lucaspa]

I think lucaspa is still pontificating about the following descriptions. Which is the most accurate:

1) A scientific theory is a proposed best-fit explanation of all relevant observations;
2) A scientific theory is an informed flight of fancy usually consistent with relevant observations;
3) A scientific theory is some of both.

lucaspa is on record as going with #2, and ONLY #2. He has essentially come out and argued that evidence doesn't matter in the formulation of a theory. Since he's a scientists, he must be right.

Look what you said: "proposed". Yes, when a theory is proposed, it is #2.

After theories are tested, then the theory is "the best-fit explanation of all relevant observations". But nearly ALL those observations were deliberately done to test the theory. When you use "theory", you are using it as an accepted theory. What you need to realize is that theory formation and evaluation is a process.

The idea that theories, when proposed, are always a "best-fit explanation of all relevant observations" can be easily tested are refuted:
1. Multiverse theory
2. Modified Newtonian Dynamics theory
3. Ekpyrotic theory.

All theories. In science. But NONE of them fit #1. These theories still don't have any "relevant observations" nor did they have any when proposed.

Yes, in the formulation of a theory, evidence doesn't matter. Remember, we are talking theory formulation. Nearly every theory in the history of science was formulated without evidence. Instead, evidence comes later. Deliberately gathered to test the theory:
"I thought that scientific theories were not the digest of observations, but that they were inventions -- conjectures boldly put forward for trial, to be eliminated if they clashed with observations, with observations which were rarely accidental but as a rule undertaken with the definite intention of testing a theory by obtaining, if possible, a decisive refutation." Karl Popper, Conjectures and Refutations, 1963 p 38.

"To my mind the great strength of Karl Popper's conception of the scientific process is that it is realistic -- it gives a pretty fair picture of what actually goes on in real-life laboratories." "The Threat and the Glory", by P.B. Medawar (Nobel Prize winner in medicine), HarperCollins, New York, 1990 (original publication 1959). pp 96-101.

So, what are theories?

Both hypotheses and theories are statements about the physical universe. There is no clear or sharp dividing line between them. When you read through the literature on the philosophy of science, sometimes authors say "hypotheses" and sometimes they say "theory". Sometimes they go back and forth between them.

Hypotheses tend to be more specific statements. An example would be: Fibroblast growth factor (FGF) is a growth factor for human skin fibroblasts. F GF is a protein that stimulates the division of human skin fibroblasts. Theories tend to be more general statements. This is where the gray area comes in. How general does a statement have to be before it moves from hypothesis to theory? There is no clear cut answer. An example of a theory here would be "FGF is a mitogen for all mesodermal cells in mammals."

Hypotheses/theories can be either:
1. Untested.
2. Tested and falsified (refuted)
3. Tested and supported.

As a "broader statement", theories tend to incorporate hypotheses. In our example above, FGF got its name because it was shown to cause the growth for human fibroblasts in culture. Thus, fibroblast growth factor. Historically, the hypothesis was supported first, and then the theory that FGF was a growth factor for all mammalian mesodermal tissues was formulated. So, there was some very limited evidence -- one mammal, one mesodermal cell type -- and then extrapolation to the general without any general evidence. Now, individual hypotheses were formulated from that: FGF is a mitogen for mouse endothelial cells, FGF is a mitogen for rat chondrocytes, FGF is a mitogen for human chondrocytes, etc. Each of those hypotheses was a separate scientific paper in the literature and now each supported hypothesis became part of the theory.

Now notice the theory has never been "proved". There are lots of mammals out there, and still some mesodermal tissues that haven't been tested. No one has looked to see if FGF is a mitogen for anteater endothelial cells.

So, phank, you have to specifiy when in the history of a theory you are. Yes, I stand by my statements that, when theories are formulated, they are untested. But the history of a theory doesn't stop there. Theories are then tested. Most times they are falsified. The list of falsified theories is over 1,000 times as long as the list of theories we current regard as valid.

However, theories that we do regard (currently) as valid -- such as evolution -- are considered best-fit explanations for all relevant observations.

But also notice that we have theories that are not "best-fit explanations for all relevant observations". We also must consider theories that have been shown to be wrong: geocentric theory, miasma theory of disease, and blended characteristics theory of inheritance. Those are all scientific theories. A theory doesn't stop being "a scientific theory" because it is shown to be wrong. Instead, we refer to it as a "falsified theory".

[Cerebrum123]

Nothing in there deals with my comments.

Interestingly, I just finished a series of course lectures on the Hebrew Bible (OT). Most of JPH's complaints aren't even brought up in this course, yet a late authorship is still maintained for other reasons. The treaty issue that JPH bring up is actually espoused in this course, so there goes that theory. The passages which are clearly anachronistic, JPH doesn't even address (which, incidentally, are the ones I pointed out).

http://www.tektonics.org/jedp/deut.html

Then Moses set aside three cities east of the Jordan, to which anyone who had killed a person could flee if he had unintentionally killed his neighbor without malice aforethought. He could flee into one of these cities and save his life. The cities were these: Bezer in the desert plateau, for the Reubenites; Ramoth in Gilead, for the Gadites; and Golan in Bashan, for the Manassites.
These verses are sometimes put down as a late addition because they seem to be out of context. Christensen [Chr.Dt111, 69], however, shows that they fit into a chiastic structure:

© source where applicable

Here he doesn't even bother to address the more obvious complaint. Fine, so they fit into a chiastic structure. They also describe territory allocations that don't take place for quite some time. Still not written by Moses.

http://www.tektonics.org/jedp/deut.html

(Note that assigning authorship to Moses is usually not distinguished from authority of authorship: We may suppose that the actual work of writing Deuteronomy was given to a scribe.)

...

But even if not, what of it? Once again we may distinguish between Moses as "author" and "authority" -- and there is no problem with supposing that the scribe who penned Deuteronomy did so after crossing the river. The difference is that the critics want a period of hundreds of years, whereas we can deal with a period of only days or weeks.

© source where applicable

We have no reason to suppose this work was written by a scribe shortly after (or during) Moses' life. JPH doesn't even support this claim, just says that we may. And no, we cannot deal with it in a period of weeks. Again, these territory allocations didn't take place until later.


Thanks for the JPH link, though. I was reminded of why I quit reading him in the first place.

Actually, the only thing that you pointed out above was the change of first to third person, and not the anachronisms, which were covered in the Christian Think Tank article I had previously linked to. http://christianthinktank.com/qmoses1.html

*surreptitiously hides an empty vial of poison in his pocket*

I said that I would check him out. I was only pointing out that being a "Lutheran theologian" doesn't automatically give him a free pass, and I gave an example of a Bishop (who is also a theologian AFAIK) who happens to believe some very wrong things. I didn't realize that that was the same as "poisoning the well".

[Cerebrum123]

I asked for an example of parallelism or chiamus that was integrated into the structure of a narrative or history, rather than used as rhetorical flourish. I'll need a bit more direction than saying said structure is somewhere in Deuteronomy!

—Sam

Yes, I know that, and I gave the link to http://www.tektonics.org/jedp/deut.html that shows what the chiasmus is, and what verses are involved. Below is a small part of the article.

In an extensively detailed study, Christensen [Chr.Dt111, xli] analyzes the text of Deuteronomy and finds it to be full of "carefully balanced structures at virtually all levels of analysis."

Space prevents us from offering too much detail here, but here are some of the examples that Christensen offers. To begin, the whole of Deut. itself may be arranged thusly:

A A Look Backwards (Dt. 1-3)

B The Great Peroration (4-11)

C Covenant Stipulations (12-26)

B' Covenant Ceremony (27-30)

A' A Look Forwards (31-34)

Here is another, more detailed chiasm in the text [ibid., 1ff]:

A summons to enter the Promised Land (1:6-8)

B organization of the people for life in the land (1:9-18)

C Israel's unholy war (1:19-21)

D march of conquest (2:2-25)

C' Yahweh's Holy War (2:26-31)

B' distribution of land in the Transjordan (3:12-17)

A' summons to take the Promised Land (3:18-20)


And that is only a small part of the chiasmus in Deuteronomy. Also, chiasmus, or parallelism, or even poetry does NOT indicate historicity, and it is perfectly reasonable that a historical account had been taken and made poetic for ease of memorization in a preliterate society. There are examples today of historical events being made like this. http://www.teachingheart.net/columbus.htm
That poem was made to help students remember details of Christopher Columbus discovering America, is it so absurd for an oral culture to have done something similar with their own history?

[Ansgar Seraph]

Yes, I know that, and I gave the link to http://www.tektonics.org/jedp/deut.html that shows what the chiasmus is, and what verses are involved. Below is a small part of the article.

In an extensively detailed study, Christensen [Chr.Dt111, xli] analyzes the text of Deuteronomy and finds it to be full of "carefully balanced structures at virtually all levels of analysis."

Space prevents us from offering too much detail here, but here are some of the examples that Christensen offers. To begin, the whole of Deut. itself may be arranged thusly:

A A Look Backwards (Dt. 1-3)

B The Great Peroration (4-11)

C Covenant Stipulations (12-26)

B' Covenant Ceremony (27-30)

A' A Look Forwards (31-34)

Here is another, more detailed chiasm in the text [ibid., 1ff]:

A summons to enter the Promised Land (1:6-8)

B organization of the people for life in the land (1:9-18)

C Israel's unholy war (1:19-21)

D march of conquest (2:2-25)

C' Yahweh's Holy War (2:26-31)

B' distribution of land in the Transjordan (3:12-17)

A' summons to take the Promised Land (3:18-20)

I think that you're forgetting the context of the previous discussion. The claim wasn't that parallelism and chiastic forms aren't used in other parts of Scripture but rather that they are not used to comprise the structure of historical events. Deuteronomy is a collection of speeches or sermons; one would expect poetic elements here — but you could not understand the complete narrative of Exodus by reading Deuteronomy.

What you need to do is present a historical event, not a sermon, that has, as part of its necessary structure, parallelism or chiasmus. The Creation account of Genesis 1 is specifically broken into a 3/3/1 parallel structure. The Flood account is meticulously chiastic. In both of these accounts, the events themselves form the structure and are not merely elements in a rhetorical exhortation, as Deuteronomy is.

And that is only a small part of the chiasmus in Deuteronomy. Also, chiasmus, or parallelism, or even poetry does NOT indicate historicity, and it is perfectly reasonable that a historical account had been taken and made poetic for ease of memorization in a preliterate society. There are examples today of historical events being made like this. http://www.teachingheart.net/columbus.htm
That poem was made to help students remember details of Christopher Columbus discovering America, is it so absurd for an oral culture to have done something similar with their own history?

Of course it isn't absurd. But that's not the point! The point is that the stories, in order to fit a specific poetic structure, have to be manipulated to fit. So if one is looking at Genesis and seeing a literal, historical account in the Creation and Flood stories, such extensive and necessary use of poetic structure should be a large red flag indicating that the account wasn't intended to be interpreted that way. Would you consider that poem of Columbus' voyage to be history book material? Would it not be extremely unlikely that the specific events Columbus' voyage just happened to exhibit parallelism or chiasmus when laid out in chronological order?

It's not that parallelism is an absurd rhetorical tool — it has been quite extensively used throughout history — the problem is that allowing manipulation of historical events to fit a parallel structure is exactly what YECs refuse to do!

—Sam

[Carrikature]

Actually, the only thing that you pointed out above was the change of first to third person, and not the anachronisms, which were covered in the Christian Think Tank article I had previously linked to. http://christianthinktank.com/qmoses1.html

I cited an excerpt with an anachronism, though I didn't explicitly state it as such. The third person is not simply a usage of the treaty, either. It's a narrative written by someone else. There's no reason to believe any part of Deuteronomy was written by Moses. And no, that think tank article doesn't deal with what I'm talking about either. It spends a fair bit of time talking about other books, but next to nothing on Deuteronomy.

I said that I would check him out. I was only pointing out that being a "Lutheran theologian" doesn't automatically give him a free pass, and I gave an example of a Bishop (who is also a theologian AFAIK) who happens to believe some very wrong things. I didn't realize that that was the same as "poisoning the well".

Yes, you were merely pointing out reasons why you don't have to believe anything he says.

[shunyadragon]

Here are quotes I picked up from Casting Serious Doubts about Darwinian Origins of Life at http://forum.bible-discussion.com/sh...n-of-Life-html

"There is no known law of nature no process and no known sequence of events which can cause information to originate by itself in matter." Dr. Verner

"To press the matter further, if there were a basic principle of matter which somehow drove organic systems toward life, its existence should easily be demonstrable in the laboratory." Fred Hoyle

"Put bluntly, the organization of chemicals necessary for life to begin are endlessly complex and very, very unlikely to occur in a random manner. Some researchers have gone so far as to calculate the probability of life emerging by sheer chance alone and concluded that the odds against it were astronomically absurd. In short, the odds against life spontaneously emerging were so high the number exceeded the total number of particles in the known universe. In discussing that possibility, two scientists note with caution:
"The probability of life originating at random is so utterly miniscule as to make it absurd." Chandra Wickramasinghe

"The evidence... shows that some sequence of events of almost zero probability did take place over 3,500 million years ago. Before the event, the chances that it would occur were exceedingly small." J. Brooks

"Thus, one must inevitably come to the conclusion that the origin of life has yet to really be explained. Sure, various theories have been tossed around and a few unconvincing experiments have been conducted, but the fact remains that the actual sequence of events which led to life on Earth remain completely mysterious. Several quotes from experts confirm this in a variety of different ways: A scenario describing the [origin] of life on earth by chance and natural causes which can be accepted on the basis of fact and not faith, has not yet been written." Hubert P. Yockey

"What is so frustrating for our present purpose is that it seems almost impossible to give any numerical value to the probability of what seems a rather unlikely sequence of events... An honest man, armed with all the knowledge available to us now, could only state that in some sense, the origin of life appears at the moment to be almost a miracle." Dr. francis Crick

There are more quotes, but the point is clear. Life and matter could not possibility have begun apart from the supernatural creative act of God.

These and the other quotes are no help to your argument which is based only on a fundamentalist religious bias against science, also the quotes represent personal opinions that in and of themselves is not based on science.

[magellan004]

These and the other quotes are no help to your argument which is based only on a fundamentalist religious bias against science, also the quotes represent personal opinions that in and of themselves is not based on science.

Shunyadragon's chronic rhetoric directed at Theists leads me to wonder whether Baha'i "theisim" is some sort of ghastly Atheism dressed in a fluffy lamb coat.

Magellan

[shunyadragon]

Shunyadragon's chronic rhetoric directed at Theists leads me to wonder whether Baha'i "theisim" is some sort of ghastly Atheism dressed in a fluffy lamb coat.

Magellan

Mags, this thread is based on flimsy selective quotes, trying to denigrate science, evolution and abiogenesis, and has nothing to do with theism, nor the basis of belief.

You like many other traditional theists have an ancient paradigm religious agenda against science, which has many unfortunate consequences for our society including letting foreign countries take the cutting edge lead in the biological science. At present foreign students make up most graduate students in the biological sciences in US universities.

Most of the quotes are from astronomers and others who are not in the field of biology. One biologist of not was listed, who called abiogenesis a 'working hypothesis' and offered a skeptical view of the present knowledge of the process.

Abiogenesis is a young science, with only twenty or thirty years of meaningful research with a reasonably background of modern chemistry. such arguments presented so far in the negative have been 'arguing in ignorance,' which is a very fundamental fallacy for any argument.

[Cerebrum123]

Mags, this thread is based on flimsy selective quotes, trying to denigrate science, evolution and abiogenesis, and has nothing to do with theism, nor the basis of belief.

You like many other traditional theists have an ancient paradigm religious agenda against science, which has many unfortunate consequences for our society including letting foreign countries take the cutting edge lead in the biological science. At present foreign students make up most graduate students in the biological sciences in US universities.

Most of the quotes are from astronomers and others who are not in the field of biology. One biologist of not was listed, who called abiogenesis a 'working hypothesis' and offered a skeptical view of the present knowledge of the process.

Abiogenesis is a young science, with only twenty or thirty years of meaningful research with a reasonably background of modern chemistry. such arguments presented so far in the negative have been 'arguing in ignorance,' which is a very fundamental fallacy for any argument.

Magellan isn't the only one to notice this shunyadragon, even lpot has pointed this out to you, but you refuse to acknowledge it. Do you think that she has an "antie-science bias"? Also, people have been believing in some kind of abiogenesis for a long time, it used to be called "spontaneous generation", but it has since taken a new name, and has declared itself as a science. It all shares the same concept that life arises from non-living matter.

[lilpixieofterror]

Magellan isn't the only one to notice this shunyadragon, even lpot has pointed this out to you, but you refuse to acknowledge it. Do you think that she has an "antie-science bias"? Also, people have been believing in some kind of abiogenesis for a long time, it used to be called "spontaneous generation", but it has since taken a new name, and has declared itself as a science. It all shares the same concept that life arises from non-living matter.

It is true that the idea has changed up a bit from the days where people thought mold was spontaneous life, to the modern day where it has more been reset to microbes forming from non living chemicals. Anyway, Shuny most likely does think I am anti-science and must like Jaecp, most likely believes I am a 'closet creationist'.

[phank]

I think the Big Picture is that life either started by some sort of feedback involving ordinary physics and chemistry, or else it got started by magic. And if it was magic, we can pray at it but beyond that there's no way to understand it.

Now, if it was physics and chemistry, it would have to have been a gradual iterative process. So, based on current knowledge, what sorts of phenomena might lead to iterative processes? As soon as we have self-replication, we're off and running with life as we'd recognize it the inevitable result some tens of millions of years later. This is guaranteed because all we need is some variation, which means self-replication cannot be PERFECT replication. But nothing is perfect; there will be errors.

So what sorts of molecules can self-replicate? How would such molecules form in the first place? These are valid subjects of scientific research. Nobody I've read thinks that "microbes" poofed into being from chemicals - we're starting here with the simplest possible self-replicating molecules, a LONG way from what might be considered "alive". One of the many creationist misconceptions is that a "cell" is proposed to have somehow popped into existence. And that WOULD be spontaneous generation.

[Ansgar Seraph]

Magellan isn't the only one to notice this shunyadragon, even lpot has pointed this out to you, but you refuse to acknowledge it. Do you think that she has an "antie-science bias"? Also, people have been believing in some kind of abiogenesis for a long time, it used to be called "spontaneous generation", but it has since taken a new name, and has declared itself as a science. It all shares the same concept that life arises from non-living matter.

They're not the same concept; abiogenesis, in the scientific sense, deals with the first transition from inanimate chemical replication to biological reproduction. Spontaneous generation, by contrast, deals with the instantaneous transition from inanimate matter to biological organisms, both simple and complex. It's not possible that people have believed in the modern understanding of abiogenesis for a long time simply because the genetic nature of biology has not been known for a long time. Since abiogenesis is solely about this transition from chemicals to genetics, conflation between spontaneous generation and the scientific theory of abiogenesis is unsound.

--Sam

[shunyadragon]

Magellan isn't the only one to notice this shunyadragon, even lpot has pointed this out to you, but you refuse to acknowledge it. Do you think that she has an "antie-science bias"? Also, people have been believing in some kind of abiogenesis for a long time, it used to be called "spontaneous generation", but it has since taken a new name, and has declared itself as a science. It all shares the same concept that life arises from non-living matter.

Yes, Mags, marke, and you represent a combative anti-science religious agenda. The quotes were sound bites without context of scientific research behind them. Most were presenting a negative 'argument from ignorance' view, which is not a good argument.

What scientists have proposed in the past on very limited information is not really relevant. I'll stick with modern abiogenesis research, mostly out of Japan, and Europe where it is heavily funded. There is some in the USA with progress, but with graduate student programs made up of mostly foreign students. I doubt any of you have reviewed the serious literature on abiogenesis itself to come up with a knowledge base to draw relatively unbiased conclusion.

I consider abiogenesis as working theories and hypothesis in progress, as described by the only biologist of note cited above. There is progress in the research, but I will avoid giving the Roman sign like those with a religious agenda and let science do what science does.

[Cerebrum123]

I think the Big Picture is that life either started by some sort of feedback involving ordinary physics and chemistry, or else it got started by magic. And if it was magic, we can pray at it but beyond that there's no way to understand it.

Now, if it was physics and chemistry, it would have to have been a gradual iterative process. So, based on current knowledge, what sorts of phenomena might lead to iterative processes? As soon as we have self-replication, we're off and running with life as we'd recognize it the inevitable result some tens of millions of years later. This is guaranteed because all we need is some variation, which means self-replication cannot be PERFECT replication. But nothing is perfect; there will be errors.

So what sorts of molecules can self-replicate? How would such molecules form in the first place? These are valid subjects of scientific research. Nobody I've read thinks that "microbes" poofed into being from chemicals - we're starting here with the simplest possible self-replicating molecules, a LONG way from what might be considered "alive". One of the many creationist misconceptions is that a "cell" is proposed to have somehow popped into existence. And that WOULD be spontaneous generation.

I hear that they are saying that RNA would have been the first reproducing molecule, but again, both spontaneous generation, and abiogenesis both have a similar foundation, and that is life from nonliving matter. I believe they call the idea about the RNA thing the "RNA World" hypothesis.

Yes, Mags, marke, and you represent a combative anti-science religious agenda. The quotes were sound bites without context of scientific research behind them. Most were presenting a negative 'argument from ignorance' view, which is not a good argument.

What scientists have proposed in the past on very limited information is not really relevant. I'll stick with modern abiogenesis research, mostly out of Japan, and Europe where it is heavily funded. There is some in the USA with progress, but with graduate student programs made up of mostly foreign students. I doubt any of you have reviewed the serious literature on abiogenesis itself to come up with a knowledge base to draw relatively unbiased conclusion.

I consider abiogenesis as working theories and hypothesis in progress, as described by the only biologist of note cited above. There is progress in the research, but I will avoid giving the Roman sign like those with a religious agenda and let science do what science does.

Ugh, I am sick of the whole "YEC are antiscience, and therefore dangerous" canard. There are plenty of well qualified scientists who have made real progress that are YEC. Dr. Raymond Damadian invented the MRI, and he is YEC AFAIK. I am even willing to look at the evidence for evolution, but so far none of it has been convincing, but I am still looking at the evidence for it.