From: rh@smds.com (Richard Harter)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: A False Dichotomy
Date: 3 Sep 92 05:54:08 GMT
Reply-To: rh@ishmael.UUCP (Richard Harter)
Organization: Software Maintenance & Development Systems, Inc.

JD: = Joseph Duffy
RH: = Richard Harter
>   = Joseph Duffy

JD: Yes, but my point would be that the reason we're able to conclude that
JD: pyramids were built by humans is that they bear the marks of something
JD: that be can compare with our current knowledge and conclude that it took
JD: more than a hurricane to build them....

JD: If our only present knowledge of complex things being produced (things of
JD: a functional or mechanistic complexity) requires intelligent intervention
JD: then when we see other things with these marks we can only conclude that
JD: they originated in a similar fashion. 

RH: This is a false dichotomy.  Complex things are produced by (a) natural
RH: abiological processes, e.g. snowflakes, the Grand Canyon, (b) by
RH: intelligent intervention, e.g. the Pyramids, and (c) biological processes
RH: not requiring intelligence, e.g. a cell reproducing or someone posting
RH: to talk.origins.

>I specifically said things of mechanistic complexity such as a V-8 engine
>McFly. Also note that we're talking about the origin of the *first* cell. Which
>category a,b, or c do you put that in?

This is not particularly responsive.  Primus, the particular posting that
I quoted did not mention V-8 engines.  The reference was to pyramids.

Secundus, complexity is not limited to man made artifacts.  Biological
processes are much more complex than man made artifacts.  There are
natural processes that are much complex than man made artifacts.

Tertius, the second of the paragraphs quoted above is a vacuous conditional.
It is of the form "If X then Y" where X is a false statement, i.e. it
reads "Our only present knowledge of complex things ... requires
intelligent intervention".  My response, which inappropriately uses
the term "false dichotomy", explicitly points out the false assumption.
You have not challenged or even addressed the point being made.

Quartius (?), you are introducing the assumption, without visible
justification, that there was a "first cell".  The term, first cell,
carries considerable baggage with it.  It suggests a scenario wherein
various things came together to form a living cell which then repro-
duced unto this very day.  However it is entirely conceivable that
the scenario was rather different.  There may have been many cells,
with almost all of the essential features of life.  The first cell
may have been the "offspring" of some thing or things that are not
life as we know it today.  I don't know.  I wasn't there.

Finally, I recognize that we are indeed talking about the origin of
life [I am not going to admit an unqualified "first cell" without
supporting justification.]  The subject of the quoted paragraphs,
however, was about inferences one could draw about origins from
complexity.



JD: So my question then is this: What present mechanisms are there that
JD: would strongly allow us to conclude that cells were organized by natural
JD: (non intelligent) processes?

RH: This question is poorly stated.  There is a well understood mechanism
RH: whereby cells are organized by natural (non intelligent) processes.  It
RH: is called life.  

>Surely you don't mean that "life" produced the first life? :-)

Witty but irrelevant.  Let me elaborate.  There are about 10,000 different
molecules and about a milllion different chemical reactions involved in
the living cell.  All of these, to the best of our knowledge, are natural,
i.e. explicable in terms of natural law, and all can occur outside the
living cell.  Call these chemicals and reactions the chemistry of life.
Many of these processes are self-organizing; when packaged together in
a cell the totality is self-organizing and self-sustaining.

If life arose spontaneously it almost certainly arose as the result of
biological processes which were not in a living cell, i.e. biochemistry
produced the first life. 

Whether this actually happened is quite another question.

.......

RH: In other words, the "Watchmaker" argument sucks.  If I find a watch
RH: in the field, I can reasonably infer that it was made by a being
RH: very much like me.  If I find a living cell in the field I can 
RH: reasonably infer that it was made by another living cell.  If I
RH: find a living cell where no living cell has gone before I can infer
RH: diddly squat. 
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^

>Is "diddly squat" a synonym for "natural process"?

??? Have you really never heard the term, "diddly squat" ???

In this context it means "nothing", i.e. there is no legitimate
inference to be made.  
-- 
Richard Harter: SMDS Inc.  Net address: rh@smds.com Phone: 508-369-7398 
US Mail: SMDS Inc., PO Box 555, Concord MA 01742.    Fax: 508-369-8272
In the fields of Hell where the grass grows high
Are the graves of dreams allowed to die.