From: danwell@IASTATE.EDU (Daniel A Ashlock)
Subject: False duality out the bazoo (was: Biogenesis)
Keywords: logical error
Reply-To: danwell@IASTATE.EDU (Daniel A Ashlock)
Organization: Iowa State University
Date: Fri, 24 Jul 1992 18:21:37 GMT

   For those not interestind in wading through the whole mess, Mr. Einkauf's
errors are:

   (a) He thinks the theory of evolution tries explain where the 
       first life came from.

   (b) He blames evolution for not explaining where the first life came from.

   (c) He thinks that if some intellegence didn't create the first life
       then it arose by completely random processes.

   (d)  He concludes from the failure of human intellegence to produce 
        life that it couldn't have arisen naturally but rather requires a       
guiding intellegence.  I had real trouble with the logic here.

   (e)  He thinks the only possible alternative to randomness is a guiding    
        intellegence.

   (f)  He thinks all life must be DNA based.

Point by point:
In article <1992Jul23.135645.22992@awdprime.austin.ibm.com>, mark@austin.ibm.com
(Mark Einkauf) writes:
> 
>   I have followed talk.origins for about two months.  There  is much heated
>   debate on the fossil record, the  flood, macroevolution,  dinosaurs, etc.
>   These are all valid  topics.  However,  I'm amazed  that no  one seems to
>   question what is surely the very foundation  of the  evolutionary theory.
>   The theory (as I understand it) claims  that not  only the specialization
                ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^[1]
>   of life (i.e.  species) can be explained by purely natural  forces acting
>   through time, but that the very genesis of life  occurred through natural
>   forces acting randomly on inorganic matter over time.  I find  this claim
                                                                        ^^^^^
>   that  evolution   explains  biogenesis   to  be   preposterous, and  in
    ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^[2]
>   disagreement with scientific evidence.  I don't know why  no one  in this
>   group has questioned this, for this  is surely  the Achilles  Heel of the
>   theory.

   [1]  your understanding is wrong.  Evolution does not claim to explain       
biogenisis.  This is a seperate enterprise.

   [2]  Since the claim was never made, it doesn't matter if you find it
        preposterous.

>   The fact that biogenesis cannot occur  "naturally" is  a scientific fact,
>   and also,   I think,   self-evident.    

    There is absolutely no evidence for this alleged fact; far from self 
evident it is highly debatable.

>   It   is silly   to think   that the
>   complexity of our bodies  is the  result of  random forces.

   I agree, but since no one thinks this, why are you bringing it up?

                               [deletions]

>   The theory [evolution] does not explain how this [biogenisis] happens.
>   If the  theory is  woefully inadequate  on something this
>   fundamental, then I think the entire theory is suspect.

   Then you don't understand how theories work.  They are not required to
explain everything, just what they claim to explain.
 
>   As mentioned, I think that  the fact  that life  is too  complex to arise
>   spontaneously is  self-evident.  I  proposed as  much in  a post  about a
>   month ago.  The reaction  to the  post was  (as I  should have suspected)
>   vast disagreement.  This bothered me - that something so  self-evident to
>   me would be so violently objected to.  Therefore,  I did  some reading on
>   the subject, to determine if  scientific evidence  concurred with  what I
>   originally thought.

   And it didn't, but you were confused, see below.

>  A (very succint)  summary of  my findings  is in the
>   next two paragraphs.
> 
>   The basic proteins of which life is comprised do not occur  due to random
>   natural forces.  Granted,  biomonomers can  occur spontaneously,  and can
>   further  combine  to  form  proteinoids   and  some   amino  acids.   The
>   proteinoids produced  by chance  do not  have the  molecular architecture
>   required by  life.  The  amino acids  produced are  racemic and therefore
>   useless  for biogenesis.   The synthesis   of the   proteins of   life is
>   accomplished  by direction  from DNA.   The codes  found in  DNA are very
>   complex.  Such  codes are  not the  product of  randomness.  "Biochemical
>   predestination" has  been  postulated  by  some  as  a  way  to constrain
>   randomness  such that  natural forces  could give   rise to   the complex
>   macromolecules  of  life  and  the  code  found  in  DNA.   However,  all
>   experiments along these lines have proven futile.   Such "predestination"
>   is also theoretically invalid according to the laws of thermodynamics, as
>   the tendency of nature is to run down, rather than to build itself up.

    []  You assume all life must be DNA based because current life is.  Not
         only is this an unwarranted assumption but it is not an assumption 
         made by those attempting to develop a theory of biogenisis

    []  No one ever claimed DNA codes resulted from "randomness".  You are
         apparently unaware of the vast literature of self orginizing systems.
         You might try the proceedings of the first and second proceedings on 
         artificial life. 

>   Neither randomness nor inherent properties of matter can give rise to the
>   complex  molecules that  are the  very basis  for life.

    This is a proof by assertion.  You are assuming, apparently, that man has
already done everything nature could.  This is a bad assumption.

>   The large coded
>   molecules on which life rides and  which are  synthesized only  by living
>   material must  be accounted  for.  Such  codes and  complexity come about
>   only through synthesis guided by intelligence.  Of course, once  life has
>   been established, it will grow, reproduce,  adapt, etc.,  but the initial
>   synthesis of life requires intelligence.

    Another proof by assertion and/or lack of imagination.

>   Viruses have  been synthesized
>   by man,  but only  through intelligently  guiding  a  series  of chemical
>   reactions - not by allowing random natural forces to take their course.

    But that does not imply it can't happen.
 
>   I am familiar  with the  work of  Miller, Fox,  Oparin, Eigen, Prigogine,
>   Eden, Teilhard, Kenyon, Steinman, Monod, and  others.  These  attempts to
>   show that life can  spontaneously develop  have failed.   The attempts of
>   these scientists  to explain  how their  experimental results   prove the
>   spontaneous  development  of  life  amounts  to  handwaving  and  is  not
>   supported   by the   evidence.  I   think that   many of   today's modern
>   scientists   are  so  eager  to  do  away  with  the   existence  of  the
>   intelligence that is  surely required  for life  to be  synthesized, that
>   they readily accept the conclusions  drawn by  these researchers, without
>   carefully weighing the EVIDENCE.

                             
    That is because you are badly confused about the meaning of the word
EVIDENCE.  Using logic like yours, the attempts of medieval alchemists to turn
lead into gold prove that transmutation is, in principle, impossible.
 
>   If maximum progress is to be made in  biological science,  the leaders in
>   this field must be willing to deal  honestly with  the evidence  found in
>   experiments  attempting  natural biogenesis. If the  evidence  shows that
>   intelligence is required, let's admit it and move on.

     Nonsense.  I see to that you have adopted a "Leaders Rule" model of
science.  Wrong.  In addition, you are pulling a standard creationist trick. 
The evidence shows the methods we've used so far don't work.  From this you
deduce that an unrelated position, "guiding intellegence", must be true.  It
doesn't follow.  The TRUTH (tm) is that we don't know how life arose and any
conclusions are premature.

                              [invitation deleted]

Dan
Danwell@IASTATE.EDU
Newsgroups: talk.origins