A challenge for evolution/abiogenesis believers

page: 1
3
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join

posted on Apr, 21 2014 @ 10:03 PM
link   
I recently came across this scientific paper, which basically concludes that inanimate matter and natural laws are insufficient to explain some of the main processes of life. Please find the abstract below:


Self-ordering phenomena should not be confused with self-organization. Self-ordering events occur spontaneously according to natural “law” propensities and are purely physicodynamic. Crystallization and the spontaneously forming dissipative structures of Prigogine are examples of self-ordering. Self-ordering phenomena involve no decision nodes, no dynamically-inert configurable switches, no logic gates, no steering toward algorithmic success or “computational halting”. Hypercycles, genetic and evolutionary algorithms, neural nets, and cellular automata have not been shown to self-organize spontaneously into nontrivial functions. Laws and fractals are both compression algorithms containing minimal complexity and information.

Organization typically contains large quantities of prescriptive information. Prescriptive information either instructs or directly produces nontrivial optimized algorithmic function at its destination. Prescription requires choice contingency rather than chance contingency or necessity. Organization requires prescription, and is abstract, conceptual, formal, and algorithmic. Organization utilizes a sign/symbol/token system to represent many configurable switch settings. Physical switch settings allow instantiation of nonphysical selections for function into physicality. Switch settings represent choices at successive decision nodes that integrate circuits and instantiate cooperative management into conceptual physical systems. Switch positions must be freely selectable to function as logic gates. Switches must be set according to rules, not laws. Inanimacy cannot “organize” itself. Inanimacy can only self-order. “Self-organization” is without empirical and prediction-fulfilling support. No falsifiable theory of self-organization exists. “Self-organization” provides no mechanism and offers no detailed verifiable explanatory power. Care should be taken not to use the term “self-organization” erroneously to refer to low-informational, natural-process, self-ordering events, especially when discussing genetic information.


Source


How does this change your view of evolution and/or abiogenesis?




posted on Apr, 21 2014 @ 10:18 PM
link   
a reply to: vasaga



Self-ordering phenomena should not be confused with self-organization. Self-ordering events occur spontaneously according to natural “law” propensities and are purely physicodynamic.


To play devil's advocate, would self-organization be explained by natural selection? If self-ordering events happen a lot, certainly natural selection would bring forth self-organization?



posted on Apr, 21 2014 @ 10:21 PM
link   
a reply to: Deaf Alien

Since it's stated in the article that;
'Organization requires prescription, and is abstract, conceptual, formal, and algorithmic.'

and natural selection does not have prescription and is not formal, conceptual or algorithmic, I'd have to assume that natural selection could not bring it forth.



posted on Apr, 21 2014 @ 10:22 PM
link   


“Self-organization” is without empirical and prediction-fulfilling support. No falsifiable theory of self-organization exists. “Self-organization” provides no mechanism and offers no detailed verifiable explanatory power. Care should be taken not to use the term “self-organization” erroneously to refer to low-informational, natural-process, self-ordering events, especially when discussing genetic information.


Never mind. It is not a challenge.



posted on Apr, 22 2014 @ 08:36 AM
link   
a reply to: vasaga

Two threads on exactly the same subject, in exactly the same forum, by the same person.

Mods, is this allowed? Here's the other thread.



posted on Apr, 22 2014 @ 09:05 AM
link   

originally posted by: vasaga
How does this change your view of evolution and/or abiogenesis?


Considering that they are mutually exclusive subjects, not at all.



posted on Apr, 22 2014 @ 10:40 AM
link   
The authors are David L. Abel & Jack T. Trevors.

Here is an opinion by PZ Myers...


I started wondering about this “in-house staff” who would be doing the initial judging, and about the Origin of Life Science Foundation itself. It’s awfully hard to track down — its only web presence is the prize page, and its only employee seems to be…David L. Abel. So I looked it up in google maps to see where the foundation’s majestic headquarters might be.

It’s a house in a residential neighborhood of a Maryland suburb. It made me wonder if maybe the Department of ProtoBioCybernetics was located in the master bathroom, while he Department of ProtoBioSemiotics was in the hall closet, or whether both were consolidated into a sunny corner of the kitchen. At least it seems to be a step above Patriot University, but it’s still some guy’s house that he’s calling a Foundation with multiple implied Departments with fancy titles.

That’s not all! Mr Abel seems to be a linchpin of the Intelligent Design movement, who manages to work his rambling, incoherent publications into all kinds of journals.



More bad science in the literature

The author is not exactly well respected...



posted on Apr, 22 2014 @ 11:57 AM
link   
a reply to: MarsIsRed

So OP ignores the massive amount of scientific papers published that support the theory of evolution but holds one crappy paper up as some sort of killer blow to a scientific theory OP doesn't even understand? Well there's a surprise!



posted on Apr, 22 2014 @ 03:03 PM
link   

originally posted by: MarsIsRed
The authors are David L. Abel & Jack T. Trevors.

Here is an opinion by PZ Myers...


I started wondering about this “in-house staff” who would be doing the initial judging, and about the Origin of Life Science Foundation itself. It’s awfully hard to track down — its only web presence is the prize page, and its only employee seems to be…David L. Abel. So I looked it up in google maps to see where the foundation’s majestic headquarters might be.

It’s a house in a residential neighborhood of a Maryland suburb. It made me wonder if maybe the Department of ProtoBioCybernetics was located in the master bathroom, while he Department of ProtoBioSemiotics was in the hall closet, or whether both were consolidated into a sunny corner of the kitchen. At least it seems to be a step above Patriot University, but it’s still some guy’s house that he’s calling a Foundation with multiple implied Departments with fancy titles.

That’s not all! Mr Abel seems to be a linchpin of the Intelligent Design movement, who manages to work his rambling, incoherent publications into all kinds of journals.



More bad science in the literature

The author is not exactly well respected...


I was just coming on here to post P.Z. Myers critique of this foundation's scholarship and associations. They are involved with the Discovery Institute. I don't know why "peer reviewed" is touted by the ID'ers . . . except to con those laypeople who will see "peer reviewed" and think this means there is any truth to what it contains. Discovery Inst itself, has four (less-than-reputable) "journals" to promote their pseudoscience . . . despite almost every paper containing a non-testable hypothesis . . . those that are testable are quickly and easily falsified.

I really enjoyed this part . . .

It’s drivel. The whole thing is one long windy argument from assertion, as in the penultimate sentence above, which is simply the bald claim that higher order functions of human functions like cognition cannot be derived from chemistry and physics. The paper itself contains no data at all — no experiments, measurements, or observations — but it is full of novel acronyms. Apparently, all you need to do to make it as a big time creationist is to make up new words and phrases and string them together. I checked out some of his other papers — he seems to be some kind of computer science guy, and this is all he does, is write impenetrably glib papers full of pretentious acronyms, posing as an expert on biology while saying nothing credible about biology at all.
edit on 4/22/14 by solomons path because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 22 2014 @ 05:18 PM
link   

originally posted by: GetHyped
a reply to: MarsIsRed

So OP ignores the massive amount of scientific papers published that support the theory of evolution but holds one crappy paper up as some sort of killer blow to a scientific theory OP doesn't even understand? Well there's a surprise!
I've read so many times in this forum, that in science you only need a single proof of something that contradicts the current theory and that the theory needs to be adapted or discarded. But now that it's something you don't like, you want to make up excuses to discard it.



posted on Apr, 22 2014 @ 05:18 PM
link   
a reply to: solomons path

If it really is that way, why is it on science direct?
Also, attacking the person does not discredit the paper.


originally posted by: Astyanax
a reply to: vasaga

Two threads on exactly the same subject, in exactly the same forum, by the same person.

Mods, is this allowed? Here's the other thread.
It's funny how basically an argument for censorship gets so many stars.

The reaction is the same as when religious people wanted to kill others for not believing in God or in their God. The irony is uncanny.
edit on 22-4-2014 by vasaga because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 22 2014 @ 06:59 PM
link   
a reply to: vasaga

Science Direct is the equivalent of Wikipedia. It's a good place to launch a search for preliminary sources but just like on Wikipedia, some of it is entirely suspect, and you have to dig deeper to find the worthwhile stuff. It also does not have a very good system of removing debunked, falsified or hoaxed journal articles.

You are right, once enough evidence is collected a theory can be written or challenged. However, the paper you posted doesn't even come close to producing any evidence to the contrary.

And again, Evolution and Abiogenesis are two entirely different fields of interest and study.

edit on 4/22/2014 by MonkeyFishFrog because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 22 2014 @ 07:33 PM
link   

originally posted by: vasaga
a reply to: solomons path

If it really is that way, why is it on science direct?
Also, attacking the person does not discredit the paper.


originally posted by: Astyanax
a reply to: vasaga

Two threads on exactly the same subject, in exactly the same forum, by the same person.

Mods, is this allowed? Here's the other thread.
It's funny how basically an argument for censorship gets so many stars.

The reaction is the same as when religious people wanted to kill others for not believing in God or in their God. The irony is uncanny.


As above, Science Direct is nothing more than a search engine for science journals.

Science Direct is a leading full-text scientific database offering journal articles and book chapters from more than 2,500 journals and almost 20,000 books.


P.Z. Myers piece is not attacking the author, it is attacking the authors work, as nothing about biology or evolution was presented. And, based on his associations (or lack there of), Myers is also questioning his motives.

As Myers said, there is no data presented to back up any of Abel's claims and is nothing more than argument from assertion. If Abel would have produced a testable hypothesis with supporting data instead speculation . . . then we could test for confirmation. It's the epitome of the pseudoscience movement.

Abel offers proof of nothing, so nothing has changed. If he ever does offer independently verifiable "proof" . . . then he'll be taken seriously.

Your confirmation bias has gotten the better of you.

Confirmation bias (also called confirmatory bias or myside bias) is the tendency of people to favor information that confirms their beliefs or hypotheses. People display this bias when they gather or remember information selectively, or when they interpret it in a biased way. The effect is stronger for emotionally charged issues and for deeply entrenched beliefs. People also tend to interpret ambiguous evidence as supporting their existing position. Biased search, interpretation and memory have been invoked to explain attitude polarization (when a disagreement becomes more extreme even though the different parties are exposed to the same evidence), belief perseverance (when beliefs persist after the evidence for them is shown to be false), the irrational primacy effect (a greater reliance on information encountered early in a series) and illusory correlation (when people falsely perceive an association between two events or situations).
edit on 4/22/14 by solomons path because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 22 2014 @ 07:53 PM
link   

originally posted by: vasaga
I've read so many times in this forum, that in science you only need a single proof of something that contradicts the current theory and that the theory needs to be adapted or discarded. But now that it's something you don't like, you want to make up excuses to discard it.


Ehhh....no. In science, you need to have results that are repeatable and falsifiable. You not only need a result, you also need to show how you came to that result, and why that result was obtained. It takes more than one single "proof".

And this...article meets none of the criteria above. Evolution is is a complex system, not to mention a biological one. I do not see anything even touching the science and facts that have come together to construct evolution. I see only very naive, unscientific babble on why the author does not think it possible based his own ignorance of biology, evolution, consciousness, and science in general.

And like others have already stated, abiogenesis is a different bird all together.



posted on Apr, 22 2014 @ 09:12 PM
link   
a reply to: solomons path

If you don't think science direct is sufficient, did you bother to check where sciencedirect got it from? Oh that's right. It's from Physics of Life Reviews. Tell me again; why is anything that Myers has to say (i.e. 'drivel') relevant if the paper passed peer review?

It's evident now. You people on here will make up ANY excuse to discard anything that does not support your beliefs. Exactly like the religious folk you hate so much. Hypocrisy at its finest. But hey, what else can be expected...



posted on Apr, 22 2014 @ 10:00 PM
link   

originally posted by: vasaga
a reply to: solomons path

If you don't think science direct is sufficient, did you bother to check where sciencedirect got it from? Oh that's right. It's from Physics of Life Reviews. Tell me again; why is anything that Myers has to say (i.e. 'drivel') relevant if the paper passed peer review?

It's evident now. You people on here will make up ANY excuse to discard anything that does not support your beliefs. Exactly like the religious folk you hate so much. Hypocrisy at its finest. But hey, what else can be expected...


You seem to be misinformed as to what "peer reveiwed" means. It is nothing more than a process. Basically, a recommendation from others that the author's work is suitable for publication.

It makes no claims to the validity of their work or whether or not the hypothesis has been confirmed.

It is then up to the community to look upon the work and falsify or confirm.

You don't seem to understand that this paper, which for all we know was peer reviewed by like minded researchers, presents no testable hypothesis. It presents no data to support its supposition. It is a typical pseudoscience paper which just pontificates and shows no work for others to verify.


Myers is an actual Biologist who works in academia and evolutionary developmental biology. Not, some guy with a computer science background running a "science foundation" out of a three bedroom house and has his work funded by the Discovery Institute.



posted on Apr, 23 2014 @ 05:27 AM
link   

originally posted by: vasaga

originally posted by: GetHyped
a reply to: MarsIsRed

So OP ignores the massive amount of scientific papers published that support the theory of evolution but holds one crappy paper up as some sort of killer blow to a scientific theory OP doesn't even understand? Well there's a surprise!


I've read so many times in this forum, that in science you only need a single proof of something that contradicts the current theory and that the theory needs to be adapted or discarded. But now that it's something you don't like, you want to make up excuses to discard it.


Well you're wrong. How about you educate yourself about the scientific method instead of attacking a concept you have such a poor grasp on? Really, this entire sub-forum is like shooting fish in a barrel.



posted on Apr, 23 2014 @ 08:34 AM
link   
a reply to: vasaga


It's funny how basically an argument for censorship gets so many stars.

It's not censorship, it's just editing. Why can't you say whatever you have to say about this 'paper' in a single thread?

Anyway, the emperor's nakedness has been well and truly exposed, so that should be the end of it.



posted on Apr, 23 2014 @ 05:07 PM
link   

originally posted by: solomons path

originally posted by: vasaga
a reply to: solomons path

If you don't think science direct is sufficient, did you bother to check where sciencedirect got it from? Oh that's right. It's from Physics of Life Reviews. Tell me again; why is anything that Myers has to say (i.e. 'drivel') relevant if the paper passed peer review?

It's evident now. You people on here will make up ANY excuse to discard anything that does not support your beliefs. Exactly like the religious folk you hate so much. Hypocrisy at its finest. But hey, what else can be expected...


You seem to be misinformed as to what "peer reveiwed" means. It is nothing more than a process. Basically, a recommendation from others that the author's work is suitable for publication.

It makes no claims to the validity of their work or whether or not the hypothesis has been confirmed.
Uh... So you're saying that even if the work is invalid it will be published as being peer-reviewed? Then what's the purpose of peer-reviewing in the first place? If it's true that a peer review makes no claims to the validity of the work, why are so many people in here always saying that there are no peer-reviewed papers regarding for example intelligent design, allthewhile emphasizing that peer review is something that the scientific community has accepted as worth publishing as something scientific? Oh but in this case, peer review doesn't mean anything, because the paper challenges pre-held beliefs by the evolutionist community.


originally posted by: solomons path
It is then up to the community to look upon the work and falsify or confirm.
Science is not a democracy. I hope you mean by testing and verifying. Scorn is not a falsification, which is generally what the response to these papers is.


originally posted by: solomons path
You don't seem to understand that this paper, which for all we know was peer reviewed by like minded researchers, presents no testable hypothesis. It presents no data to support its supposition. It is a typical pseudoscience paper which just pontificates and shows no work for others to verify.
Until you show that that is the case there is no reason to objectively discard the paper, other than bias. If you can show me how the Physics of Life Review is a so-called biased paper, we'll talk again.


originally posted by: solomons path
Myers is an actual Biologist who works in academia and evolutionary developmental biology. Not, some guy with a computer science background running a "science foundation" out of a three bedroom house and has his work funded by the Discovery Institute.
Bruce Lipton is also an actual biologist. And yet I bet you'll discard his work in the same way.

It's blatantly obvious that some arguments are only allowed when it favors the status quo. If some layman writes a random paper explaining how DNA could've possibly formed from random amino acids clumping together with just gibberish, you'd be having an orgasm all over the paper. No one said anything when the physicist was promoting abiogenesis. Just by talking about this he suddenly became a biochemist, but when someone who does not support the status quo talks about it, he doesn't become a biochemist. No no no, he's suddenly not qualified.

And about the whole 'three bedroom house' thing, I'll be leaving this here.. From an actual scientist, not a conforming scientist.

edit on 23-4-2014 by vasaga because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 23 2014 @ 05:09 PM
link   

originally posted by: Astyanax
a reply to: vasaga


It's funny how basically an argument for censorship gets so many stars.

It's not censorship, it's just editing. Why can't you say whatever you have to say about this 'paper' in a single thread?

Anyway, the emperor's nakedness has been well and truly exposed, so that should be the end of it.
Oh you didn't notice that the other thread was regarding a different paper. Good to know that you didn't read any of them but are simply trying to discard things with all your might.





new topics
top topics
 
3
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join