Dr James Tour has proposed this challenge regarding origin of life research, inviting by name ten leading scientists in the field:

https://youtu.be/MmykRoelTzU?feature=shared

What is particularly interesting are the highly specific and informed points of challenge to speculative, implausible and overstated claims. Tour is an outsider able to rock the boat, but an accomplished scientist with relevant expertise in chemistry etc which enables him to mount a serious challenge.

Sure, many here will disagree, but the fact that such a challenge can be made says something about the state of OOL research and the degree of progress it claims, and is willing for the public to believe uncorrected.

We have "professor" Dave Farina's failure in a recent OOL debate with Tour to thank for adding fuel to Tour's initiative. I watch with interest.

On 8/25/2023 5:21 PM, MarkE wrote:
> Dr James Tour has proposed this challenge regarding origin of life research, inviting by name ten leading scientists in the field:
>
> https://youtu.be/MmykRoelTzU?feature=shared
>
> What is particularly interesting are the highly specific and informed points of challenge to speculative, implausible and overstated claims. Tour is an outsider able to rock the boat, but an accomplished scientist with relevant expertise in chemistry etc which enables him to mount a serious challenge.
>
> Sure, many here will disagree, but the fact that such a challenge can be made says something about the state of OOL research and the degree of progress it claims, and is willing for the public to believe uncorrected.
>
> We have "professor" Dave Farina's failure in a recent OOL debate with Tour to thank for adding fuel to Tour's initiative. I watch with interest.
>

You still do not want to believe in the designer of the origin of life
gap that exists. Tour likely doesn't either, but gap denial is all
creationist of his type have left. Tour has claimed to understand that
there is no ID science, so who cares about what we do not know at this
time? It is what is around the gap that Biblical creationists do not
want to deal with. Look at all the evidence for the evolution of life
over the billions of years since the origin of life. Behe claims that
his designer is responsible for some of that evolution, but the vast
majority of IDiot creationists do not want to believe in such a
designer. Really, most of the creationist support for the ID scam still
comes from YEC, and they can't stand the Top Six evidences for IDiocy.

Put your designer in the origin of life gap that you know exists, and
what do you get? Is it the designer that you want to believe in?

Ron Okimoto

On Saturday, August 26, 2023 at 9:15:15 AM UTC+10, RonO wrote:
> On 8/25/2023 5:21 PM, MarkE wrote:
> > Dr James Tour has proposed this challenge regarding origin of life research, inviting by name ten leading scientists in the field:
> >
> > https://youtu.be/MmykRoelTzU?feature=shared
> >
> > What is particularly interesting are the highly specific and informed points of challenge to speculative, implausible and overstated claims. Tour is an outsider able to rock the boat, but an accomplished scientist with relevant expertise in chemistry etc which enables him to mount a serious challenge.
> >
> > Sure, many here will disagree, but the fact that such a challenge can be made says something about the state of OOL research and the degree of progress it claims, and is willing for the public to believe uncorrected.
> >
> > We have "professor" Dave Farina's failure in a recent OOL debate with Tour to thank for adding fuel to Tour's initiative. I watch with interest.
> >
> You still do not want to believe in the designer of the origin of life
> gap that exists. Tour likely doesn't either, but gap denial is all
> creationist of his type have left. Tour has claimed to understand that
> there is no ID science, so who cares about what we do not know at this
> time? It is what is around the gap that Biblical creationists do not
> want to deal with. Look at all the evidence for the evolution of life
> over the billions of years since the origin of life. Behe claims that
> his designer is responsible for some of that evolution, but the vast
> majority of IDiot creationists do not want to believe in such a
> designer. Really, most of the creationist support for the ID scam still
> comes from YEC, and they can't stand the Top Six evidences for IDiocy.
>
> Put your designer in the origin of life gap that you know exists, and
> what do you get? Is it the designer that you want to believe in?
>
> Ron Okimoto

It's important to recognise the fundamental contention here: Does science provide greater evidence for naturalistic origin of life or for transcendent intelligent agency?

You only need to find one black swan to prove that black swans exist. Similar but different, you only need to find one part of origins that has no satisfactory naturalistic explanation. Tour is proposing OOL as that part.

Of course, the definition of “no satisfactory naturalistic explanation” is disputable: how large must the “gap” be? How many years/dollars of research must be first invested before a valid gap is declared? And even then, one may still choose to say, “not enough”, or simply, “I don’t know”.

If after say another 500 years of concerted scientific research into OOL, the gap has not narrowed but in fact widened (and Tour claims the current trend is that it is widening), then one may reasonably conclude that, on balance of evidence, the “God hypothesis” to be more likely. And some may be willing to accept less than another 500 years to reach this conclusion.

Note there is no claim of “proof” in this approach, rather a rational weighing of scientific evidence, subject to the complexities and personal factors inherent in that process. A metaphysical bias (e.g. atheistic or theistic) may influence one’s interpretation of this evidence.

That’s my framing of this debate. YMMV.

On Friday, August 25, 2023 at 8:10:15 PM UTC-4, MarkE wrote:
> On Saturday, August 26, 2023 at 9:15:15 AM UTC+10, RonO wrote:
> > On 8/25/2023 5:21 PM, MarkE wrote:
> > > Dr James Tour has proposed this challenge regarding origin of life research, inviting by name ten leading scientists in the field:
> > >
> > > https://youtu.be/MmykRoelTzU?feature=shared
> > >
> > > What is particularly interesting are the highly specific and informed points of challenge to speculative, implausible and overstated claims. Tour is an outsider able to rock the boat, but an accomplished scientist with relevant expertise in chemistry etc which enables him to mount a serious challenge.
> > >
> > > Sure, many here will disagree, but the fact that such a challenge can be made says something about the state of OOL research and the degree of progress it claims, and is willing for the public to believe uncorrected.
> > >
> > > We have "professor" Dave Farina's failure in a recent OOL debate with Tour to thank for adding fuel to Tour's initiative. I watch with interest.
> > >
> > You still do not want to believe in the designer of the origin of life
> > gap that exists. Tour likely doesn't either, but gap denial is all
> > creationist of his type have left. Tour has claimed to understand that
> > there is no ID science, so who cares about what we do not know at this
> > time? It is what is around the gap that Biblical creationists do not
> > want to deal with. Look at all the evidence for the evolution of life
> > over the billions of years since the origin of life. Behe claims that
> > his designer is responsible for some of that evolution, but the vast
> > majority of IDiot creationists do not want to believe in such a
> > designer. Really, most of the creationist support for the ID scam still
> > comes from YEC, and they can't stand the Top Six evidences for IDiocy.
> >
> > Put your designer in the origin of life gap that you know exists, and
> > what do you get? Is it the designer that you want to believe in?
> >
> > Ron Okimoto
> It's important to recognise the fundamental contention here: Does science provide greater evidence for naturalistic origin of life or for transcendent intelligent agency?
>
> You only need to find one black swan to prove that black swans exist. Similar but different, you only need to find one part of origins that has no satisfactory naturalistic explanation. Tour is proposing OOL as that part.
>
> Of course, the definition of “no satisfactory naturalistic explanation” is disputable: how large must the “gap” be? How many years/dollars of research must be first invested before a valid gap is declared? And even then, one may still choose to say, “not enough”, or simply, “I don’t know”.
>
> If after say another 500 years of concerted scientific research into OOL, the gap has not narrowed but in fact widened (and Tour claims the current trend is that it is widening), then one may reasonably conclude that, on balance of evidence, the “God hypothesis” to be more likely. And some may be willing to accept less than another 500 years to reach this conclusion.

The assumption underlying this argument is that all interesting scientific questions that have naturalistic answers, have answers which can be figured out by humans, given enough time and resources. Why do you think that that assumption is correct?
>
> Note there is no claim of “proof” in this approach, rather a rational weighing of scientific evidence, subject to the complexities and personal factors inherent in that process. A metaphysical bias (e.g. atheistic or theistic) may influence one’s interpretation of this evidence.
>
> That’s my framing of this debate. YMMV.

On Saturday, August 26, 2023 at 10:35:14 AM UTC+10, broger...@gmail..com wrote:
> On Friday, August 25, 2023 at 8:10:15 PM UTC-4, MarkE wrote:
> > On Saturday, August 26, 2023 at 9:15:15 AM UTC+10, RonO wrote:
> > > On 8/25/2023 5:21 PM, MarkE wrote:
> > > > Dr James Tour has proposed this challenge regarding origin of life research, inviting by name ten leading scientists in the field:
> > > >
> > > > https://youtu.be/MmykRoelTzU?feature=shared
> > > >
> > > > What is particularly interesting are the highly specific and informed points of challenge to speculative, implausible and overstated claims. Tour is an outsider able to rock the boat, but an accomplished scientist with relevant expertise in chemistry etc which enables him to mount a serious challenge.
> > > >
> > > > Sure, many here will disagree, but the fact that such a challenge can be made says something about the state of OOL research and the degree of progress it claims, and is willing for the public to believe uncorrected.
> > > >
> > > > We have "professor" Dave Farina's failure in a recent OOL debate with Tour to thank for adding fuel to Tour's initiative. I watch with interest.
> > > >
> > > You still do not want to believe in the designer of the origin of life
> > > gap that exists. Tour likely doesn't either, but gap denial is all
> > > creationist of his type have left. Tour has claimed to understand that
> > > there is no ID science, so who cares about what we do not know at this
> > > time? It is what is around the gap that Biblical creationists do not
> > > want to deal with. Look at all the evidence for the evolution of life
> > > over the billions of years since the origin of life. Behe claims that
> > > his designer is responsible for some of that evolution, but the vast
> > > majority of IDiot creationists do not want to believe in such a
> > > designer. Really, most of the creationist support for the ID scam still
> > > comes from YEC, and they can't stand the Top Six evidences for IDiocy..
> > >
> > > Put your designer in the origin of life gap that you know exists, and
> > > what do you get? Is it the designer that you want to believe in?
> > >
> > > Ron Okimoto
> > It's important to recognise the fundamental contention here: Does science provide greater evidence for naturalistic origin of life or for transcendent intelligent agency?
> >
> > You only need to find one black swan to prove that black swans exist. Similar but different, you only need to find one part of origins that has no satisfactory naturalistic explanation. Tour is proposing OOL as that part.
> >
> > Of course, the definition of “no satisfactory naturalistic explanation” is disputable: how large must the “gap” be? How many years/dollars of research must be first invested before a valid gap is declared? And even then, one may still choose to say, “not enough”, or simply, “I don’t know”.
> >
> > If after say another 500 years of concerted scientific research into OOL, the gap has not narrowed but in fact widened (and Tour claims the current trend is that it is widening), then one may reasonably conclude that, on balance of evidence, the “God hypothesis” to be more likely.. And some may be willing to accept less than another 500 years to reach this conclusion.
> The assumption underlying this argument is that all interesting scientific questions that have naturalistic answers, have answers which can be figured out by humans, given enough time and resources. Why do you think that that assumption is correct?

"The assumption underlying this argument is that all interesting scientific questions that have naturalistic answers, have answers which can be figured out by humans, given enough time and resources. Why do you think that that assumption is correct?"

Not assuming that in any absolute sense. Rather, I'm implying what I'd call an "open" or "extended" epistemology, i.e. one which allows for the possibility of transcendent agency and detection of that agency through inferred breach of natural laws.

I acknowledge the potential difficulties and subjectivities in making such an inference. Making that inference prematurely is god-of-the-gaps, but refusing to ever make it (or at least concede it as a rational, evidential possibility) is commitment metaphysical naturalism.

> >
> > Note there is no claim of “proof” in this approach, rather a rational weighing of scientific evidence, subject to the complexities and personal factors inherent in that process. A metaphysical bias (e.g. atheistic or theistic) may influence one’s interpretation of this evidence.
> >
> > That’s my framing of this debate. YMMV.

On 8/25/2023 7:08 PM, MarkE wrote:
> On Saturday, August 26, 2023 at 9:15:15 AM UTC+10, RonO wrote:
>> On 8/25/2023 5:21 PM, MarkE wrote:
>>> Dr James Tour has proposed this challenge regarding origin of life research, inviting by name ten leading scientists in the field:
>>>
>>> https://youtu.be/MmykRoelTzU?feature=shared
>>>
>>> What is particularly interesting are the highly specific and informed points of challenge to speculative, implausible and overstated claims. Tour is an outsider able to rock the boat, but an accomplished scientist with relevant expertise in chemistry etc which enables him to mount a serious challenge.
>>>
>>> Sure, many here will disagree, but the fact that such a challenge can be made says something about the state of OOL research and the degree of progress it claims, and is willing for the public to believe uncorrected.
>>>
>>> We have "professor" Dave Farina's failure in a recent OOL debate with Tour to thank for adding fuel to Tour's initiative. I watch with interest.
>>>
>> You still do not want to believe in the designer of the origin of life
>> gap that exists. Tour likely doesn't either, but gap denial is all
>> creationist of his type have left. Tour has claimed to understand that
>> there is no ID science, so who cares about what we do not know at this
>> time? It is what is around the gap that Biblical creationists do not
>> want to deal with. Look at all the evidence for the evolution of life
>> over the billions of years since the origin of life. Behe claims that
>> his designer is responsible for some of that evolution, but the vast
>> majority of IDiot creationists do not want to believe in such a
>> designer. Really, most of the creationist support for the ID scam still
>> comes from YEC, and they can't stand the Top Six evidences for IDiocy.
>>
>> Put your designer in the origin of life gap that you know exists, and
>> what do you get? Is it the designer that you want to believe in?
>>
>> Ron Okimoto
>
> It's important to recognise the fundamental contention here: Does science provide greater evidence for naturalistic origin of life or for transcendent intelligent agency?

Tour claims to understand that no ID science can exist. He admits that
he doesn't know how to do any. That means that his denial is just
denial, and it isn't even any denial that he wants to believe that his
designer is responsible for. Tell us how the existing origin of life
gap fits into your biblical beliefs. It is just a sad fact that most
biblical creationists do not want to believe in the designer of the Top
Six god-of-the-gaps denial arguments. Creationist like Tour only use
them to temporarily lie to themselves about reality, but never want to
build anything positive out of them. I have recently put up the Reason
to believe creation model that they claim that they can support, and
they have to deny the top six denial in order to make the junk fit into
their model. They use them all, but then they have to claim that they
don't really mean what they need them to mean. You can go to their site
and find them going on about the Cambrian explosion just like the ID
perps, but when it comes to using it in their model they can't use the
dates that they claim are so important to claiming that there isn't
enough time to evolve those multicellular animals. Really, they have to
claim that land plants were created before sea creatures, but the
fossils that they use to demonstrate the Cambrian explosion evolved long
before there were land plants on earth. We do not find land plants
until the Ordovician.

Tell us how the origin of life gap fits in with your Biblical model.
How long did life exist before land plants were created on the 3rd day?
The angiosperms described in the Bible didn't evolve until after
dinosaurs evolved. Really, they do not appear on earth until around 180
million years ago, and the Cambrian explosion was over half a billion
years ago, and microbial life may have existed for over 3 billion years.

The designer responsible for the origin of life is not the Biblical
designer. Demonstrate otherwise. The reason to believe IDiots have to
deny most of the fossil record in order to maintain their biblical beliefs.

The current origin of life gap tells us that life existed and was
evolving on this planet for billions of years before land plants evolved.

>
> You only need to find one black swan to prove that black swans exist. Similar but different, you only need to find one part of origins that has no satisfactory naturalistic explanation. Tour is proposing OOL as that part.

This does not apply to gap denial. The issue with gap denial is that no
black swans have ever been found. There has never been a single
god-did-it event ever verified to have occurred. This is the reality
that all existing Christians have been born into. Continuing the denial
will never change that situation.

Look at Denton. He claims that his designer got the ball rolling with
the Big Bang and it all unfolded into what we have today. Even though
the Big Bang is #1 of the ID perp's top six evidences for IDiocy and the
AIG still has it up at their creation museum, the Big Bang is one of the
science topics along with biological evolution that IDiots want to
remove from the public school science standards. They do not want their
kids to understand anything about the Big Bang.

Nelson has been an ID perp with the Discovery Institute from the
beginning of the ID creationist scam, and he has pretty much always
claimed that they did not have any ID science, but they were working on
producing it. It turns out that Nelson never wanted the ID perps to
produce any IDiotic science. He never wanted to believe in the designer
of the Top Six because he is a young earth biblical literalist. The
last thing that Nelson wanted to happen is for Behe to demonstrate that
some god designed the IC flagellum over a billion years ago.

Pagano claimed that the Top six were not the best IDiotic evidence for
IDiocy, and then he quit posting. The Top Six do not support a
geocentric IDiotic universe. Bill claimed that he had never supported
the creationist ID scam even though he had been an IDiot on TO since
starting to post to TO. What Bill likely meant was that he had never
supported what IDiocy had always been. Kalk and Glenn just ran in
denial and tried to keep posting the second rate denial that the ID
perps would put up, but Kalk couldn't keep doing that, so he claimed to
quit being an IDiot, and claimed that he had never claimed to be Hindu.
Now Kalk is just a plain vanilla biblical creationist who can't stand
what ID always was. Glenn still can't deal with the Top Six in an
honest and straightforward manner.

The origin of life is #3 of the Top Six. What was your response when
you were asked to put your designer into the origin of life gap that you
were creating?

Look what has happened in the last 3.8 billion years since the origin of
life on this planet. What kind of life did Tour's god or yours create,
and what has happened to it since? The origin of life gap god is not
the god of the Bible. You can go to the Reason to Believe site and see
that for yourself. They claim that it all makes biblical sense, but it
doesn't.

https://reasons.org/explore/publications/articles/summary-of-reasons-to-believes-testable-creation-model-1

Is the life created 3.8 billion years ago anything like the life
described to have been created on the third day? What does the evidence
tell us about when the lifeforms created on subsequent days were
actually created. The ID perps still make a big deal about the gaps in
the whale fossil record, but what does that fossil record tell us about
the whether aquatic whales could have been created before the land
mammals that they evolved from?

There just isn't any reason to maintain the gap denial when it is what
is between the gaps that you can't deal with. What was the advice that
Saint Augustine had about the issue of denial of aspects of nature that
could be determined to exist by human reasoning just because they
conflicted with something written in the Bible?

What good does it do for you or Tour to use it to deny existing reality
when you don't want to believe in the god responsible for the origin of
life on this planet?

Nyikos had to destroy his space alien designer fantasy. He had to
invoke god-like space aliens from another universe as being responsible
for the Top Six, and possible multiple different space aliens
responsible for some of the Top Six. What do you have to do with the
Top Six god-of-the-gaps denial? The origin of life is #3 of the Top Six.

Ron Okimoto

>
> Of course, the definition of “no satisfactory naturalistic explanation” is disputable: how large must the “gap” be? How many years/dollars of research must be first invested before a valid gap is declared? And even then, one may still choose to say, “not enough”, or simply, “I don’t know”.
>
> If after say another 500 years of concerted scientific research into OOL, the gap has not narrowed but in fact widened (and Tour claims the current trend is that it is widening), then one may reasonably conclude that, on balance of evidence, the “God hypothesis” to be more likely. And some may be willing to accept less than another 500 years to reach this conclusion.
>
> Note there is no claim of “proof” in this approach, rather a rational weighing of scientific evidence, subject to the complexities and personal factors inherent in that process. A metaphysical bias (e.g. atheistic or theistic) may influence one’s interpretation of this evidence.
>
> That’s my framing of this debate. YMMV.
>
>

On Saturday, August 26, 2023 at 12:05:15 PM UTC+10, RonO wrote:
> On 8/25/2023 7:08 PM, MarkE wrote:
> > On Saturday, August 26, 2023 at 9:15:15 AM UTC+10, RonO wrote:
> >> On 8/25/2023 5:21 PM, MarkE wrote:
> >>> Dr James Tour has proposed this challenge regarding origin of life research, inviting by name ten leading scientists in the field:
> >>>
> >>> https://youtu.be/MmykRoelTzU?feature=shared
> >>>
> >>> What is particularly interesting are the highly specific and informed points of challenge to speculative, implausible and overstated claims. Tour is an outsider able to rock the boat, but an accomplished scientist with relevant expertise in chemistry etc which enables him to mount a serious challenge.
> >>>
> >>> Sure, many here will disagree, but the fact that such a challenge can be made says something about the state of OOL research and the degree of progress it claims, and is willing for the public to believe uncorrected.
> >>>
> >>> We have "professor" Dave Farina's failure in a recent OOL debate with Tour to thank for adding fuel to Tour's initiative. I watch with interest.
> >>>
> >> You still do not want to believe in the designer of the origin of life
> >> gap that exists. Tour likely doesn't either, but gap denial is all
> >> creationist of his type have left. Tour has claimed to understand that
> >> there is no ID science, so who cares about what we do not know at this
> >> time? It is what is around the gap that Biblical creationists do not
> >> want to deal with. Look at all the evidence for the evolution of life
> >> over the billions of years since the origin of life. Behe claims that
> >> his designer is responsible for some of that evolution, but the vast
> >> majority of IDiot creationists do not want to believe in such a
> >> designer. Really, most of the creationist support for the ID scam still
> >> comes from YEC, and they can't stand the Top Six evidences for IDiocy.
> >>
> >> Put your designer in the origin of life gap that you know exists, and
> >> what do you get? Is it the designer that you want to believe in?
> >>
> >> Ron Okimoto
> >
> > It's important to recognise the fundamental contention here: Does science provide greater evidence for naturalistic origin of life or for transcendent intelligent agency?
> Tour claims to understand that no ID science can exist. He admits that
> he doesn't know how to do any. That means that his denial is just
> denial, and it isn't even any denial that he wants to believe that his
> designer is responsible for. Tell us how the existing origin of life
> gap fits into your biblical beliefs. It is just a sad fact that most
> biblical creationists do not want to believe in the designer of the Top
> Six god-of-the-gaps denial arguments. Creationist like Tour only use
> them to temporarily lie to themselves about reality, but never want to
> build anything positive out of them. I have recently put up the Reason
> to believe creation model that they claim that they can support, and
> they have to deny the top six denial in order to make the junk fit into
> their model. They use them all, but then they have to claim that they
> don't really mean what they need them to mean. You can go to their site
> and find them going on about the Cambrian explosion just like the ID
> perps, but when it comes to using it in their model they can't use the
> dates that they claim are so important to claiming that there isn't
> enough time to evolve those multicellular animals. Really, they have to
> claim that land plants were created before sea creatures, but the
> fossils that they use to demonstrate the Cambrian explosion evolved long
> before there were land plants on earth. We do not find land plants
> until the Ordovician.
>
> Tell us how the origin of life gap fits in with your Biblical model.
> How long did life exist before land plants were created on the 3rd day?
> The angiosperms described in the Bible didn't evolve until after
> dinosaurs evolved. Really, they do not appear on earth until around 180
> million years ago, and the Cambrian explosion was over half a billion
> years ago, and microbial life may have existed for over 3 billion years.
>
> The designer responsible for the origin of life is not the Biblical
> designer. Demonstrate otherwise. The reason to believe IDiots have to
> deny most of the fossil record in order to maintain their biblical beliefs.
>
> The current origin of life gap tells us that life existed and was
> evolving on this planet for billions of years before land plants evolved.

I have as many questions as answers. I see various problems in reconciling biblical theology, scientific data and different creationist positions. E.g.., it seems to me that while YEC avoids physical death before the Fall (arguably theologically problematic), it needs to appeal to the appearance of age (quite arguably problematic). OEC in its various forms addresses the old earth/universe data, and in the case of Theistic Evolution is accommodating of ToE. Progressive Creation (Hugh Ross) sits somewhere between these.

I find macroevolution unconvincing based on my interpretation of the limits of natural selection (as I've discussed elewhere), but accept adaptation in response to environmental pressures (this capacity being a feature of a planned, robust design).

How about you?

> > You only need to find one black swan to prove that black swans exist. Similar but different, you only need to find one part of origins that has no satisfactory naturalistic explanation. Tour is proposing OOL as that part.
> This does not apply to gap denial. The issue with gap denial is that no
> black swans have ever been found. There has never been a single
> god-did-it event ever verified to have occurred. This is the reality
> that all existing Christians have been born into. Continuing the denial
> will never change that situation.
>
> Look at Denton. He claims that his designer got the ball rolling with
> the Big Bang and it all unfolded into what we have today. Even though
> the Big Bang is #1 of the ID perp's top six evidences for IDiocy and the
> AIG still has it up at their creation museum, the Big Bang is one of the
> science topics along with biological evolution that IDiots want to
> remove from the public school science standards. They do not want their
> kids to understand anything about the Big Bang.
>
> Nelson has been an ID perp with the Discovery Institute from the
> beginning of the ID creationist scam, and he has pretty much always
> claimed that they did not have any ID science, but they were working on
> producing it. It turns out that Nelson never wanted the ID perps to
> produce any IDiotic science. He never wanted to believe in the designer
> of the Top Six because he is a young earth biblical literalist. The
> last thing that Nelson wanted to happen is for Behe to demonstrate that
> some god designed the IC flagellum over a billion years ago.
>
> Pagano claimed that the Top six were not the best IDiotic evidence for
> IDiocy, and then he quit posting. The Top Six do not support a
> geocentric IDiotic universe. Bill claimed that he had never supported
> the creationist ID scam even though he had been an IDiot on TO since
> starting to post to TO. What Bill likely meant was that he had never
> supported what IDiocy had always been. Kalk and Glenn just ran in
> denial and tried to keep posting the second rate denial that the ID
> perps would put up, but Kalk couldn't keep doing that, so he claimed to
> quit being an IDiot, and claimed that he had never claimed to be Hindu.
> Now Kalk is just a plain vanilla biblical creationist who can't stand
> what ID always was. Glenn still can't deal with the Top Six in an
> honest and straightforward manner.
>
> The origin of life is #3 of the Top Six. What was your response when
> you were asked to put your designer into the origin of life gap that you
> were creating?
>
> Look what has happened in the last 3.8 billion years since the origin of
> life on this planet. What kind of life did Tour's god or yours create,
> and what has happened to it since? The origin of life gap god is not
> the god of the Bible. You can go to the Reason to Believe site and see
> that for yourself. They claim that it all makes biblical sense, but it
> doesn't.
>
> https://reasons.org/explore/publications/articles/summary-of-reasons-to-believes-testable-creation-model-1
>
> Is the life created 3.8 billion years ago anything like the life
> described to have been created on the third day? What does the evidence
> tell us about when the lifeforms created on subsequent days were
> actually created. The ID perps still make a big deal about the gaps in
> the whale fossil record, but what does that fossil record tell us about
> the whether aquatic whales could have been created before the land
> mammals that they evolved from?
>
> There just isn't any reason to maintain the gap denial when it is what
> is between the gaps that you can't deal with. What was the advice that
> Saint Augustine had about the issue of denial of aspects of nature that
> could be determined to exist by human reasoning just because they
> conflicted with something written in the Bible?
>
> What good does it do for you or Tour to use it to deny existing reality
> when you don't want to believe in the god responsible for the origin of
> life on this planet?
>
> Nyikos had to destroy his space alien designer fantasy. He had to
> invoke god-like space aliens from another universe as being responsible
> for the Top Six, and possible multiple different space aliens
> responsible for some of the Top Six. What do you have to do with the
> Top Six god-of-the-gaps denial? The origin of life is #3 of the Top Six.
>
> Ron Okimoto
> >
> > Of course, the definition of “no satisfactory naturalistic explanation” is disputable: how large must the “gap” be? How many years/dollars of research must be first invested before a valid gap is declared? And even then, one may still choose to say, “not enough”, or simply, “I don’t know”.
> >
> > If after say another 500 years of concerted scientific research into OOL, the gap has not narrowed but in fact widened (and Tour claims the current trend is that it is widening), then one may reasonably conclude that, on balance of evidence, the “God hypothesis” to be more likely.. And some may be willing to accept less than another 500 years to reach this conclusion.
> >
> > Note there is no claim of “proof” in this approach, rather a rational weighing of scientific evidence, subject to the complexities and personal factors inherent in that process. A metaphysical bias (e.g. atheistic or theistic) may influence one’s interpretation of this evidence.
> >
> > That’s my framing of this debate. YMMV.
> >
> >

On Friday, August 25, 2023 at 9:35:15 PM UTC-4, MarkE wrote:
> On Saturday, August 26, 2023 at 10:35:14 AM UTC+10, broger...@gmail.com wrote:
> > On Friday, August 25, 2023 at 8:10:15 PM UTC-4, MarkE wrote:
> > > On Saturday, August 26, 2023 at 9:15:15 AM UTC+10, RonO wrote:
> > > > On 8/25/2023 5:21 PM, MarkE wrote:
> > > > > Dr James Tour has proposed this challenge regarding origin of life research, inviting by name ten leading scientists in the field:
> > > > >
> > > > > https://youtu.be/MmykRoelTzU?feature=shared
> > > > >
> > > > > What is particularly interesting are the highly specific and informed points of challenge to speculative, implausible and overstated claims. Tour is an outsider able to rock the boat, but an accomplished scientist with relevant expertise in chemistry etc which enables him to mount a serious challenge.
> > > > >
> > > > > Sure, many here will disagree, but the fact that such a challenge can be made says something about the state of OOL research and the degree of progress it claims, and is willing for the public to believe uncorrected..
> > > > >
> > > > > We have "professor" Dave Farina's failure in a recent OOL debate with Tour to thank for adding fuel to Tour's initiative. I watch with interest.
> > > > >
> > > > You still do not want to believe in the designer of the origin of life
> > > > gap that exists. Tour likely doesn't either, but gap denial is all
> > > > creationist of his type have left. Tour has claimed to understand that
> > > > there is no ID science, so who cares about what we do not know at this
> > > > time? It is what is around the gap that Biblical creationists do not
> > > > want to deal with. Look at all the evidence for the evolution of life
> > > > over the billions of years since the origin of life. Behe claims that
> > > > his designer is responsible for some of that evolution, but the vast
> > > > majority of IDiot creationists do not want to believe in such a
> > > > designer. Really, most of the creationist support for the ID scam still
> > > > comes from YEC, and they can't stand the Top Six evidences for IDiocy.
> > > >
> > > > Put your designer in the origin of life gap that you know exists, and
> > > > what do you get? Is it the designer that you want to believe in?
> > > >
> > > > Ron Okimoto
> > > It's important to recognise the fundamental contention here: Does science provide greater evidence for naturalistic origin of life or for transcendent intelligent agency?
> > >
> > > You only need to find one black swan to prove that black swans exist. Similar but different, you only need to find one part of origins that has no satisfactory naturalistic explanation. Tour is proposing OOL as that part.
> > >
> > > Of course, the definition of “no satisfactory naturalistic explanation” is disputable: how large must the “gap” be? How many years/dollars of research must be first invested before a valid gap is declared? And even then, one may still choose to say, “not enough”, or simply, “I don’t know”.
> > >
> > > If after say another 500 years of concerted scientific research into OOL, the gap has not narrowed but in fact widened (and Tour claims the current trend is that it is widening), then one may reasonably conclude that, on balance of evidence, the “God hypothesis” to be more likely. And some may be willing to accept less than another 500 years to reach this conclusion.
> > The assumption underlying this argument is that all interesting scientific questions that have naturalistic answers, have answers which can be figured out by humans, given enough time and resources. Why do you think that that assumption is correct?
>
> "The assumption underlying this argument is that all interesting scientific questions that have naturalistic answers, have answers which can be figured out by humans, given enough time and resources. Why do you think that that assumption is correct?"
> Not assuming that in any absolute sense. Rather, I'm implying what I'd call an "open" or "extended" epistemology, i.e. one which allows for the possibility of transcendent agency and detection of that agency through inferred breach of natural laws.

I think you are indeed assuming that if a natural explanation exists then it should be discoverable in a finite amount of time. Otherwise, there's be no reason to conclude that failure to find it was evidence for the supernatural.

You also assume that we fully understand natural laws, or that we can soon enough understand them, otherwise the proper inference from an "inferred breach of natural laws" would be that we based our inference on an incomplete understanding of natural laws.

Your argument assumes a much greater faith in the powers of science than most scientists would share.

>
> I acknowledge the potential difficulties and subjectivities in making such an inference. Making that inference prematurely is god-of-the-gaps, but refusing to ever make it (or at least concede it as a rational, evidential possibility) is commitment metaphysical naturalism.
> > >
> > > Note there is no claim of “proof” in this approach, rather a rational weighing of scientific evidence, subject to the complexities and personal factors inherent in that process. A metaphysical bias (e.g. atheistic or theistic) may influence one’s interpretation of this evidence.
> > >
> > > That’s my framing of this debate. YMMV.

On Friday, August 25, 2023 at 8:10:15 PM UTC-4, MarkE wrote:

> It's important to recognise the fundamental contention here:
> Does science provide greater evidence for naturalistic origin
> of life or for transcendent intelligent agency?

Simplified: Does science provide greater evidence for X or Y?

There are multiple problems with what you are attempting.
First, you are actually proposing that if science doesn't provide
you with a satisfactory narrative for X, they you think science
supports Y.

There are so many problems that I won't bother covering them
all. But for starters,

Why do you assert this dichotomy of either X or Y?

What is the significance of the test for establishing X?
.. is the test reasonable? why? established to whose
.. satisfaction? Why them? on what timeline? Why?

There's more if we get into details of X. Tour's implied model
is flawed. The model is implied by the specific tests. So
what if people can't support that particular model, especially
if it's the wrong model?

As for your Y, it's extremely arbitrary, not in a dichotomous
relationship with your X, and is ill-defined on top.

That combination of logical deficiencies makes for a rather
poorly inspired challenge. It seems more like a variant on a
Gish-Gallop than something rooted in scientific thought.

Sure, you can provide some answers for parts of the questions
above. For example, you can invoke that some named scientists
are "experts" so in ways represent some of the better current
authorities. But you won't have established why the authorities
of 2020 are special, as opposed to those of the 1970s, or
fifty years earlier, or 50 years from today. You are implicitly
assigning special significance to Now, something to always
be suspicious of. Willy Wonka and some Oompa Loompas
might have something to say about Verruca Salt.

Now the above isn't a reason to stop asking about the nature
of current best understandings of Origin of Life models.

That's a very legitimate thing to ask. But your proposed leap
from certain states of the answer to that question is dubious,
poorly founded, and ultimately quite silly.

On Saturday, 26 August 2023 at 01:25:15 UTC+3, MarkE wrote:
> Dr James Tour has proposed this challenge regarding origin of life research, inviting by name ten leading scientists in the field:
>
> https://youtu.be/MmykRoelTzU?feature=shared
>
> What is particularly interesting are the highly specific and informed points of challenge to speculative, implausible and overstated claims. Tour is an outsider able to rock the boat, but an accomplished scientist with relevant expertise in chemistry etc which enables him to mount a serious challenge.
>
> Sure, many here will disagree, but the fact that such a challenge can be made says something about the state of OOL research and the degree of progress it claims, and is willing for the public to believe uncorrected.
>
> We have "professor" Dave Farina's failure in a recent OOL debate with Tour to thank for adding fuel to Tour's initiative. I watch with interest.
>
Debating that "professor" did indeed heavily reduce my opinion about Tour.

What the creationists actually want not taught in public schools is theory
of evolution but that has nothing to do with origins of universe or origins
of life. Those are anyway not taught in public schools because we have
too little information to teach about what we do not know.

So all there is are old news about our lack of knowledge, and old PRATT of
concluding anything but ignorance from lack of knowledge. Super
powerful beings from other dimensions made it? Does not follow.

On Saturday, August 26, 2023 at 9:00:15 PM UTC+10, Lawyer Daggett wrote:
> On Friday, August 25, 2023 at 8:10:15 PM UTC-4, MarkE wrote:
> > It's important to recognise the fundamental contention here:
> > Does science provide greater evidence for naturalistic origin
> > of life or for transcendent intelligent agency?
> Simplified: Does science provide greater evidence for X or Y?
>
> There are multiple problems with what you are attempting.
> First, you are actually proposing that if science doesn't provide
> you with a satisfactory narrative for X, they you think science
> supports Y.
>
> There are so many problems that I won't bother covering them
> all. But for starters,
>
> Why do you assert this dichotomy of either X or Y?
>
> What is the significance of the test for establishing X?
> . is the test reasonable? why? established to whose
> . satisfaction? Why them? on what timeline? Why?
>
> There's more if we get into details of X. Tour's implied model
> is flawed. The model is implied by the specific tests. So
> what if people can't support that particular model, especially
> if it's the wrong model?
>
> As for your Y, it's extremely arbitrary, not in a dichotomous
> relationship with your X, and is ill-defined on top.
>
> That combination of logical deficiencies makes for a rather
> poorly inspired challenge. It seems more like a variant on a
> Gish-Gallop than something rooted in scientific thought.
>
> Sure, you can provide some answers for parts of the questions
> above. For example, you can invoke that some named scientists
> are "experts" so in ways represent some of the better current
> authorities. But you won't have established why the authorities
> of 2020 are special, as opposed to those of the 1970s, or
> fifty years earlier, or 50 years from today. You are implicitly
> assigning special significance to Now, something to always
> be suspicious of. Willy Wonka and some Oompa Loompas
> might have something to say about Verruca Salt.
>
> Now the above isn't a reason to stop asking about the nature
> of current best understandings of Origin of Life models.
>
> That's a very legitimate thing to ask. But your proposed leap
> from certain states of the answer to that question is dubious,
> poorly founded, and ultimately quite silly.

Are you saying that any origins debate on natural vs supernatural causes, on the basis of scientific evidence or lack thereof, is silly?

On 8/26/2023 12:45 AM, MarkE wrote:
> On Saturday, August 26, 2023 at 12:05:15 PM UTC+10, RonO wrote:
>> On 8/25/2023 7:08 PM, MarkE wrote:
>>> On Saturday, August 26, 2023 at 9:15:15 AM UTC+10, RonO wrote:
>>>> On 8/25/2023 5:21 PM, MarkE wrote:
>>>>> Dr James Tour has proposed this challenge regarding origin of life research, inviting by name ten leading scientists in the field:
>>>>>
>>>>> https://youtu.be/MmykRoelTzU?feature=shared
>>>>>
>>>>> What is particularly interesting are the highly specific and informed points of challenge to speculative, implausible and overstated claims. Tour is an outsider able to rock the boat, but an accomplished scientist with relevant expertise in chemistry etc which enables him to mount a serious challenge.
>>>>>
>>>>> Sure, many here will disagree, but the fact that such a challenge can be made says something about the state of OOL research and the degree of progress it claims, and is willing for the public to believe uncorrected.
>>>>>
>>>>> We have "professor" Dave Farina's failure in a recent OOL debate with Tour to thank for adding fuel to Tour's initiative. I watch with interest.
>>>>>
>>>> You still do not want to believe in the designer of the origin of life
>>>> gap that exists. Tour likely doesn't either, but gap denial is all
>>>> creationist of his type have left. Tour has claimed to understand that
>>>> there is no ID science, so who cares about what we do not know at this
>>>> time? It is what is around the gap that Biblical creationists do not
>>>> want to deal with. Look at all the evidence for the evolution of life
>>>> over the billions of years since the origin of life. Behe claims that
>>>> his designer is responsible for some of that evolution, but the vast
>>>> majority of IDiot creationists do not want to believe in such a
>>>> designer. Really, most of the creationist support for the ID scam still
>>>> comes from YEC, and they can't stand the Top Six evidences for IDiocy.
>>>>
>>>> Put your designer in the origin of life gap that you know exists, and
>>>> what do you get? Is it the designer that you want to believe in?
>>>>
>>>> Ron Okimoto
>>>
>>> It's important to recognise the fundamental contention here: Does science provide greater evidence for naturalistic origin of life or for transcendent intelligent agency?
>> Tour claims to understand that no ID science can exist. He admits that
>> he doesn't know how to do any. That means that his denial is just
>> denial, and it isn't even any denial that he wants to believe that his
>> designer is responsible for. Tell us how the existing origin of life
>> gap fits into your biblical beliefs. It is just a sad fact that most
>> biblical creationists do not want to believe in the designer of the Top
>> Six god-of-the-gaps denial arguments. Creationist like Tour only use
>> them to temporarily lie to themselves about reality, but never want to
>> build anything positive out of them. I have recently put up the Reason
>> to believe creation model that they claim that they can support, and
>> they have to deny the top six denial in order to make the junk fit into
>> their model. They use them all, but then they have to claim that they
>> don't really mean what they need them to mean. You can go to their site
>> and find them going on about the Cambrian explosion just like the ID
>> perps, but when it comes to using it in their model they can't use the
>> dates that they claim are so important to claiming that there isn't
>> enough time to evolve those multicellular animals. Really, they have to
>> claim that land plants were created before sea creatures, but the
>> fossils that they use to demonstrate the Cambrian explosion evolved long
>> before there were land plants on earth. We do not find land plants
>> until the Ordovician.
>>
>> Tell us how the origin of life gap fits in with your Biblical model.
>> How long did life exist before land plants were created on the 3rd day?
>> The angiosperms described in the Bible didn't evolve until after
>> dinosaurs evolved. Really, they do not appear on earth until around 180
>> million years ago, and the Cambrian explosion was over half a billion
>> years ago, and microbial life may have existed for over 3 billion years.
>>
>> The designer responsible for the origin of life is not the Biblical
>> designer. Demonstrate otherwise. The reason to believe IDiots have to
>> deny most of the fossil record in order to maintain their biblical beliefs.
>>
>> The current origin of life gap tells us that life existed and was
>> evolving on this planet for billions of years before land plants evolved.
>
> I have as many questions as answers. I see various problems in reconciling biblical theology, scientific data and different creationist positions. E.g., it seems to me that while YEC avoids physical death before the Fall (arguably theologically problematic), it needs to appeal to the appearance of age (quite arguably problematic). OEC in its various forms addresses the old earth/universe data, and in the case of Theistic Evolution is accommodating of ToE. Progressive Creation (Hugh Ross) sits somewhere between these.

So you are using an argument that you will end up denying means
anything, and isn't any good for supporting what you believe. Hugh Ross
claims to be an IDiot, but also admits that he is being IDiotic because
of his belief that the Bible is factually true, if interpreted
correctly, so he has reinterpreted some of the Bible, and has his
recreation model to account for the apparent evolution of life on earth,
but then has to reject most of his recreation timeline in order to fit
it into the Biblical order of creation of life on earth. He can't seem
to reinterpret enough of the Bible to make it fit into reality.

>
> I find macroevolution unconvincing based on my interpretation of the limits of natural selection (as I've discussed elewhere), but accept adaptation in response to environmental pressures (this capacity being a feature of a planned, robust design).

Behe claims that there are limits, but he hasn't documented any examples
where his limits had to be exceeded to evolve what has evolved. This
means that his limits aren't anything that biological evolution has had
to deal with, and the evolution that he has been able to document hasn't
met any limits that would have prevented evolution from happening. Your
limits do not seem to exist, at least, life hasn't had to exceed any
limits that Behe can think up. How do you know if your limits exist,
and that they have limited biological evolution?

Behe has looked for specific limits because he claims that if he finds
examples that exceed those limits that, that will be evidence that his
designer is responsible for that evolution. The problem is that Behe
has only found evidence for evolution that doesn't exceed his limits.
He even claims that some of it is on the "edge" of evolution, but he
acknowledges that it is just what is expected to occur naturally.

You have to somehow verify that your limits actually exist. Behe hasn't
been able to do that.

>
> How about you?

As Behe acknowledges we haven't encountered any biological evolution
that has ever exceeded what is possible, and all of it that we have been
able to study, so far, could have occurred without any designer assistance.

Behe and you only claim that some evolution that has occurred, could not
have occurred naturally. In the systems that he has looked at he has
failed to verify the existence of impossible evolution having occurred.

Your limits do not seem to exist in the evolution that has already
occurred, and seem to be your lack of imagination and ignorance. What
happened when Behe became less ignorant about all the systems that he
has looked at? What did he find? He has not verified the existence of
any evolution that has had to exceed his limits. He has only identified
evolution that he acknowledges could have occurred naturally without
designer assistance.

For as long as your limits remain fantasy, there is no reason to ignore
all the other evidence for biological evolution, and continue to add to
that aspect of the natural world through the scientific endeavor.

If you think that nature is the creation, you will never understand the
creation by surviving on gap denial. Science is just the best means
that we have for understanding nature. It turned out that there wasn't
very many IDiotic type creationists that ever wanted the ID perps to
produce any IDiotic creation science. Nature just is not Biblical
enough for most Biblical creationists. Most of the IDiotic creationists
never wanted the ID perps to fill the Top Six god-of-the-gaps best
evidences for IDiocy with any intelligent designer because that designer
would not be the Biblical designer. Any IDiotic science success would
just be more science to deny. This fact is likely the main reason that
no IDiotic science was ever produced.

On Saturday, August 26, 2023 at 8:55:15 AM UTC-4, MarkE wrote:
> On Saturday, August 26, 2023 at 9:00:15 PM UTC+10, Lawyer Daggett wrote:
> > On Friday, August 25, 2023 at 8:10:15 PM UTC-4, MarkE wrote:
> > > It's important to recognise the fundamental contention here:
> > > Does science provide greater evidence for naturalistic origin
> > > of life or for transcendent intelligent agency?
> > Simplified: Does science provide greater evidence for X or Y?
> >
> > There are multiple problems with what you are attempting.
> > First, you are actually proposing that if science doesn't provide
> > you with a satisfactory narrative for X, they you think science
> > supports Y.
> >
> > There are so many problems that I won't bother covering them
> > all. But for starters,
> >
> > Why do you assert this dichotomy of either X or Y?
> >
> > What is the significance of the test for establishing X?
> > . is the test reasonable? why? established to whose
> > . satisfaction? Why them? on what timeline? Why?
> >
> > There's more if we get into details of X. Tour's implied model
> > is flawed. The model is implied by the specific tests. So
> > what if people can't support that particular model, especially
> > if it's the wrong model?
> >
> > As for your Y, it's extremely arbitrary, not in a dichotomous
> > relationship with your X, and is ill-defined on top.
> >
> > That combination of logical deficiencies makes for a rather
> > poorly inspired challenge. It seems more like a variant on a
> > Gish-Gallop than something rooted in scientific thought.
> >
> > Sure, you can provide some answers for parts of the questions
> > above. For example, you can invoke that some named scientists
> > are "experts" so in ways represent some of the better current
> > authorities. But you won't have established why the authorities
> > of 2020 are special, as opposed to those of the 1970s, or
> > fifty years earlier, or 50 years from today. You are implicitly
> > assigning special significance to Now, something to always
> > be suspicious of. Willy Wonka and some Oompa Loompas
> > might have something to say about Verruca Salt.
> >
> > Now the above isn't a reason to stop asking about the nature
> > of current best understandings of Origin of Life models.
> >
> > That's a very legitimate thing to ask. But your proposed leap
> > from certain states of the answer to that question is dubious,
> > poorly founded, and ultimately quite silly.
> Are you saying that any origins debate on natural vs supernatural causes, on the basis of scientific evidence or lack thereof, is silly?
What's silly is the leap from "there's no current scientific explanation," to "there must be a supernatural explanation." Evidence against some particular naturalistic explanation is not positive evidence for an unspecified supernatural one. That's what's silly.

On Saturday, August 26, 2023 at 9:30:16 AM UTC-4, broger...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Saturday, August 26, 2023 at 8:55:15 AM UTC-4, MarkE wrote:
> > On Saturday, August 26, 2023 at 9:00:15 PM UTC+10, Lawyer Daggett wrote:
> > > On Friday, August 25, 2023 at 8:10:15 PM UTC-4, MarkE wrote:
> > > > It's important to recognise the fundamental contention here:
> > > > Does science provide greater evidence for naturalistic origin
> > > > of life or for transcendent intelligent agency?
..
> > > Simplified: Does science provide greater evidence for X or Y?
> > >
> > > There are multiple problems with what you are attempting.
> > > First, you are actually proposing that if science doesn't provide
> > > you with a satisfactory narrative for X, they you think science
> > > supports Y.
> > >
> > > There are so many problems that I won't bother covering them
> > > all. But for starters,
> > >
> > > Why do you assert this dichotomy of either X or Y?
> > >
> > > What is the significance of the test for establishing X?
> > > . is the test reasonable? why? established to whose
> > > . satisfaction? Why them? on what timeline? Why?
> > >
> > > There's more if we get into details of X. Tour's implied model
> > > is flawed. The model is implied by the specific tests. So
> > > what if people can't support that particular model, especially
> > > if it's the wrong model?
> > >
> > > As for your Y, it's extremely arbitrary, not in a dichotomous
> > > relationship with your X, and is ill-defined on top.
> > >
> > > That combination of logical deficiencies makes for a rather
> > > poorly inspired challenge. It seems more like a variant on a
> > > Gish-Gallop than something rooted in scientific thought.
> > >
> > > Sure, you can provide some answers for parts of the questions
> > > above. For example, you can invoke that some named scientists
> > > are "experts" so in ways represent some of the better current
> > > authorities. But you won't have established why the authorities
> > > of 2020 are special, as opposed to those of the 1970s, or
> > > fifty years earlier, or 50 years from today. You are implicitly
> > > assigning special significance to Now, something to always
> > > be suspicious of. Willy Wonka and some Oompa Loompas
> > > might have something to say about Verruca Salt.
> > >
> > > Now the above isn't a reason to stop asking about the nature
> > > of current best understandings of Origin of Life models.
> > >
> > > That's a very legitimate thing to ask. But your proposed leap
> > > from certain states of the answer to that question is dubious,
> > > poorly founded, and ultimately quite silly.
..
> > Are you saying that any origins debate on natural vs supernatural
> > causes, on the basis of scientific evidence or lack thereof, is silly?
..
> What's silly is the leap from "there's no current scientific explanation,"
> to "there must be a supernatural explanation." Evidence against some
> particular naturalistic explanation is not positive evidence for an
> unspecified supernatural one. That's what's silly.
..
That's certainly part of it. There was more that MarkE seems not
to have read. But let's put the above in mathematical terms.

MarkE seems to be starting from the position that the Origin of Life
was either N Natural, or S Supernatural.

That can be expressed as p(N) + p(S) = 1.

The probability of N plus the probability of S = 1.

MarkE seems to want to demonstrate that p(N) is either 0
or otherwise very small such that p(S) is either 1 or close to 1.

(this isn't a completely robust model because in a Universe
where p(S) is greater than 0, p(N) could theoretically still have
any value between 0 and 1 inclusive. But it suffices didactically.)

Again, the apparent claim is that if p(N) is zero or small, then
p(S) is promoted. But it takes a next step which is dubious.
That step is to assert that if some group of people can't show
that p(N) is non-zero or large, that p(N) must be small.

That connection is extremely weak. What makes one think
that the scientists of the 2020s have any great ability to
demonstrate much about p(N)? For reference, we know that
100 years ago they had extremely limited ability to do so.

There's a further problem in the challenge MarkE presents.

p(N) can be decomposed into p(N1) + p(N2) ... + p(Nn) = p(N)
where N1 is naturalistic OoL by model 1, N2 by model 2 etc.
Most of these models are likely wrong (perhaps even all).
In fact, within this modeling all but one of {N1, N2, ... Nn}
is the wrong model so most of the probabilities are zero.

MarkE's challenge is toward one model, as chosen by Tour.
Eliminating Ntour doesn't inform you about the other potential
models for naturalistic OoL. So even if we could somehow
rule out Tour's model, it doesn't tell us anything about p(S).

This is just an elaborate way of repeating that MarkE's challenge
sets up a false dichotomy. All of the above should be understood
simply from the phrase "false dichotomy".

** Yes, I know that the probabilities aren't necessarily additive
as multiple models could be viable but the illustration still
works.

On 8/26/23 5:53 AM, MarkE wrote:
> On Saturday, August 26, 2023 at 9:00:15 PM UTC+10, Lawyer Daggett wrote:
>> On Friday, August 25, 2023 at 8:10:15 PM UTC-4, MarkE wrote:
>>> It's important to recognise the fundamental contention here:
>>> Does science provide greater evidence for naturalistic origin
>>> of life or for transcendent intelligent agency?
>> Simplified: Does science provide greater evidence for X or Y?
>>
>> There are multiple problems with what you are attempting.
>> First, you are actually proposing that if science doesn't provide
>> you with a satisfactory narrative for X, they you think science
>> supports Y.
>>
>> There are so many problems that I won't bother covering them
>> all. But for starters,
>>
>> Why do you assert this dichotomy of either X or Y?
>>
>> What is the significance of the test for establishing X?
>> . is the test reasonable? why? established to whose
>> . satisfaction? Why them? on what timeline? Why?
>>
>> There's more if we get into details of X. Tour's implied model
>> is flawed. The model is implied by the specific tests. So
>> what if people can't support that particular model, especially
>> if it's the wrong model?
>>
>> As for your Y, it's extremely arbitrary, not in a dichotomous
>> relationship with your X, and is ill-defined on top.
>>
>> That combination of logical deficiencies makes for a rather
>> poorly inspired challenge. It seems more like a variant on a
>> Gish-Gallop than something rooted in scientific thought.
>>
>> Sure, you can provide some answers for parts of the questions
>> above. For example, you can invoke that some named scientists
>> are "experts" so in ways represent some of the better current
>> authorities. But you won't have established why the authorities
>> of 2020 are special, as opposed to those of the 1970s, or
>> fifty years earlier, or 50 years from today. You are implicitly
>> assigning special significance to Now, something to always
>> be suspicious of. Willy Wonka and some Oompa Loompas
>> might have something to say about Verruca Salt.
>>
>> Now the above isn't a reason to stop asking about the nature
>> of current best understandings of Origin of Life models.
>>
>> That's a very legitimate thing to ask. But your proposed leap
>> from certain states of the answer to that question is dubious,
>> poorly founded, and ultimately quite silly.
>
> Are you saying that any origins debate on natural vs supernatural causes, on the basis of scientific evidence or lack thereof, is silly?

Scientists discovered that electrons traveled around the nucleus of
atoms. But why didn't they radiate energy (like accelerating electrons
are supposed to do) and fall into the nucleus? The only answer is that
God holds atoms together. Then scientists found a different, unexpected
answer in quantum mechanics. No supernatural explanation was needed.

The conclusion is that, for billions of years, God held atoms together,
and then God stopped doing that when quantum mechanics was developed.

That's your theory, except as applied to atomic physics instead of
abiogenesis. Oh, and abiogenesis has not reached the unexpected answer
yet. In fairness, we may never reach that point. But also in fairness,
we probably will, eventually.

So is the conclusion above silly? You tell me.

--
Mark Isaak
"Wisdom begins when you discover the difference between 'That
doesn't make sense' and 'I don't understand.'" - Mary Doria Russell

On Saturday, August 26, 2023 at 10:20:15 AM UTC-4, Lawyer Daggett wrote:
> On Saturday, August 26, 2023 at 9:30:16 AM UTC-4, broger...@gmail..com wrote:
> > On Saturday, August 26, 2023 at 8:55:15 AM UTC-4, MarkE wrote:
> > > On Saturday, August 26, 2023 at 9:00:15 PM UTC+10, Lawyer Daggett wrote:
> > > > On Friday, August 25, 2023 at 8:10:15 PM UTC-4, MarkE wrote:
> > > > > It's important to recognise the fundamental contention here:
> > > > > Does science provide greater evidence for naturalistic origin
> > > > > of life or for transcendent intelligent agency?
> .
> > > > Simplified: Does science provide greater evidence for X or Y?
> > > >
> > > > There are multiple problems with what you are attempting.
> > > > First, you are actually proposing that if science doesn't provide
> > > > you with a satisfactory narrative for X, they you think science
> > > > supports Y.
> > > >
> > > > There are so many problems that I won't bother covering them
> > > > all. But for starters,
> > > >
> > > > Why do you assert this dichotomy of either X or Y?
> > > >
> > > > What is the significance of the test for establishing X?
> > > > . is the test reasonable? why? established to whose
> > > > . satisfaction? Why them? on what timeline? Why?
> > > >
> > > > There's more if we get into details of X. Tour's implied model
> > > > is flawed. The model is implied by the specific tests. So
> > > > what if people can't support that particular model, especially
> > > > if it's the wrong model?
> > > >
> > > > As for your Y, it's extremely arbitrary, not in a dichotomous
> > > > relationship with your X, and is ill-defined on top.
> > > >
> > > > That combination of logical deficiencies makes for a rather
> > > > poorly inspired challenge. It seems more like a variant on a
> > > > Gish-Gallop than something rooted in scientific thought.
> > > >
> > > > Sure, you can provide some answers for parts of the questions
> > > > above. For example, you can invoke that some named scientists
> > > > are "experts" so in ways represent some of the better current
> > > > authorities. But you won't have established why the authorities
> > > > of 2020 are special, as opposed to those of the 1970s, or
> > > > fifty years earlier, or 50 years from today. You are implicitly
> > > > assigning special significance to Now, something to always
> > > > be suspicious of. Willy Wonka and some Oompa Loompas
> > > > might have something to say about Verruca Salt.
> > > >
> > > > Now the above isn't a reason to stop asking about the nature
> > > > of current best understandings of Origin of Life models.
> > > >
> > > > That's a very legitimate thing to ask. But your proposed leap
> > > > from certain states of the answer to that question is dubious,
> > > > poorly founded, and ultimately quite silly.
> .
> > > Are you saying that any origins debate on natural vs supernatural
> > > causes, on the basis of scientific evidence or lack thereof, is silly?
> .
> > What's silly is the leap from "there's no current scientific explanation,"
> > to "there must be a supernatural explanation." Evidence against some
> > particular naturalistic explanation is not positive evidence for an
> > unspecified supernatural one. That's what's silly.
> .
> That's certainly part of it. There was more that MarkE seems not
> to have read. But let's put the above in mathematical terms.
>
> MarkE seems to be starting from the position that the Origin of Life
> was either N Natural, or S Supernatural.
>
> That can be expressed as p(N) + p(S) = 1.
>
> The probability of N plus the probability of S = 1.
>
> MarkE seems to want to demonstrate that p(N) is either 0
> or otherwise very small such that p(S) is either 1 or close to 1.
>
> (this isn't a completely robust model because in a Universe
> where p(S) is greater than 0, p(N) could theoretically still have
> any value between 0 and 1 inclusive. But it suffices didactically.)
>
> Again, the apparent claim is that if p(N) is zero or small, then
> p(S) is promoted. But it takes a next step which is dubious.
> That step is to assert that if some group of people can't show
> that p(N) is non-zero or large, that p(N) must be small.
>
> That connection is extremely weak. What makes one think
> that the scientists of the 2020s have any great ability to
> demonstrate much about p(N)? For reference, we know that
> 100 years ago they had extremely limited ability to do so.
>
> There's a further problem in the challenge MarkE presents.
>
> p(N) can be decomposed into p(N1) + p(N2) ... + p(Nn) = p(N)
> where N1 is naturalistic OoL by model 1, N2 by model 2 etc.
> Most of these models are likely wrong (perhaps even all).
> In fact, within this modeling all but one of {N1, N2, ... Nn}
> is the wrong model so most of the probabilities are zero.
>
> MarkE's challenge is toward one model, as chosen by Tour.
> Eliminating Ntour doesn't inform you about the other potential
> models for naturalistic OoL. So even if we could somehow
> rule out Tour's model, it doesn't tell us anything about p(S).
>
> This is just an elaborate way of repeating that MarkE's challenge
> sets up a false dichotomy. All of the above should be understood
> simply from the phrase "false dichotomy".
>
> ** Yes, I know that the probabilities aren't necessarily additive
> as multiple models could be viable but the illustration still
> works.
I agree with you. Also, just as p(N) can be decomposed, so can p(S) be decomposed into an infinite variety of supernatural models. Neither "N" nor "S" are testable hypotheses, since they completely lack specificity. You can only compare comparably specific explanations, so the only sort of comparison or test you can do is to ask, for example, are the predictions of "N45" more in line with the evidence than the predictions of "S23"? And just as "'N17' predicts X and X is not observed" does not make it possible to say "therefore 'N25' is correct," he cannot take problems in "N1-N14" to be positive evidence for any particular S.

On 2023-08-25 22:21:51 +0000, MarkE said:

> Dr James Tour has proposed this challenge regarding origin of life
> research, inviting by name ten leading scientists in the field:
>
> https://youtu.be/MmykRoelTzU?feature=shared
>
> What is particularly interesting are the highly specific and informed
> points of challenge to speculative, implausible and overstated claims.
> Tour is an outsider able to rock the boat, but an accomplished
> scientist with relevant expertise in chemistry etc

Yes, but the "etc" doesn't include anything relevant. 43 papers in
2022–2023, none of thm having anything to do with the origin of life.

> which enables him to mount a serious challenge.
> Sure, many here will disagree, but the fact that such a challenge can
> be made says something about the state of OOL research and the degree
> of progress it claims, and is willing for the public to believe
> uncorrected.
> We have "professor" Dave Farina's failure in a recent OOL debate with
> Tour to thank for adding fuel to Tour's initiative. I watch with
> interest.

--
Athel -- French and British, living in Marseilles for 36 years; mainly
in England until 1987.

On 2023-08-26 17:14:08 +0000, Athel Cornish-Bowden said:

> On 2023-08-25 22:21:51 +0000, MarkE said:
>
>> Dr James Tour has proposed this challenge regarding origin of life
>> research, inviting by name ten leading scientists in the field:
>>
>> https://youtu.be/MmykRoelTzU?feature=shared
>>
>> What is particularly interesting are the highly specific and informed
>> points of challenge to speculative, implausible and overstated claims.
>> Tour is an outsider able to rock the boat, but an accomplished
>> scientist with relevant expertise in chemistry etc
>
> Yes, but the "etc" doesn't include anything relevant. 43 papers in
> 2022–2023, none of thm having anything to do with the origin of life.
>
>> which enables him to mount a serious challenge.
>> Sure, many here will disagree, but the fact that such a challenge can
>> be made says something about the state of OOL research and the degree
>> of progress it claims, and is willing for the public to believe
>> uncorrected.
>> We have "professor" Dave Farina's failure in a recent OOL debate with
>> Tour to thank for adding fuel to Tour's initiative. I watch with
>> interest.

I previously only looked back two years, but I've now looked at Tour's
productions back to the beginning of 2013. 343 publications, of which
not a single one is related to the origin of life. If I submitted a
speculative paper about the future of graphene research the reviewers
would (rightly) say that I have no qualifications to write about
graphene. If I replied (accurately) that I had a D.Phil. in chemistry
from a major university, and was therefore an expert on all aspects of
chemistry, they not be impressed. I don't care how good an organic
chemist Tour is, he has no standing in origin-of-life research.

--
athel cb : Biochemical Evolution, Garland Science, 2016

On Sunday, August 27, 2023 at 4:45:16 AM UTC+10, Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:
> On 2023-08-26 17:14:08 +0000, Athel Cornish-Bowden said:
>
> > On 2023-08-25 22:21:51 +0000, MarkE said:
> >
> >> Dr James Tour has proposed this challenge regarding origin of life
> >> research, inviting by name ten leading scientists in the field:
> >>
> >> https://youtu.be/MmykRoelTzU?feature=shared
> >>
> >> What is particularly interesting are the highly specific and informed
> >> points of challenge to speculative, implausible and overstated claims.
> >> Tour is an outsider able to rock the boat, but an accomplished
> >> scientist with relevant expertise in chemistry etc
> >
> > Yes, but the "etc" doesn't include anything relevant. 43 papers in
> > 2022–2023, none of thm having anything to do with the origin of life.
> >
> >> which enables him to mount a serious challenge.
> >> Sure, many here will disagree, but the fact that such a challenge can
> >> be made says something about the state of OOL research and the degree
> >> of progress it claims, and is willing for the public to believe
> >> uncorrected.
> >> We have "professor" Dave Farina's failure in a recent OOL debate with
> >> Tour to thank for adding fuel to Tour's initiative. I watch with
> >> interest.
> I previously only looked back two years, but I've now looked at Tour's
> productions back to the beginning of 2013. 343 publications, of which
> not a single one is related to the origin of life. If I submitted a
> speculative paper about the future of graphene research the reviewers
> would (rightly) say that I have no qualifications to write about
> graphene. If I replied (accurately) that I had a D.Phil. in chemistry
> from a major university, and was therefore an expert on all aspects of
> chemistry, they not be impressed. I don't care how good an organic
> chemist Tour is, he has no standing in origin-of-life research.
>
> --
> athel cb : Biochemical Evolution, Garland Science, 2016

Which is why he has posed the challenge as "help me understand...what am I missing here?"

To dismiss on principle the questioning of a serious, informed outsider is a kind of appeal to authority. You wouldn't to commit that logical fallacy, would you?

On Saturday, August 26, 2023 at 6:20:16 PM UTC-4, MarkE wrote:
> On Sunday, August 27, 2023 at 4:45:16 AM UTC+10, Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:
> > On 2023-08-26 17:14:08 +0000, Athel Cornish-Bowden said:
> >
> > > On 2023-08-25 22:21:51 +0000, MarkE said:
> > >
> > >> Dr James Tour has proposed this challenge regarding origin of life
> > >> research, inviting by name ten leading scientists in the field:
> > >>
> > >> https://youtu.be/MmykRoelTzU?feature=shared
> > >>
> > >> What is particularly interesting are the highly specific and informed
> > >> points of challenge to speculative, implausible and overstated claims.
> > >> Tour is an outsider able to rock the boat, but an accomplished
> > >> scientist with relevant expertise in chemistry etc
> > >
> > > Yes, but the "etc" doesn't include anything relevant. 43 papers in
> > > 2022–2023, none of thm having anything to do with the origin of life.
> > >
> > >> which enables him to mount a serious challenge.
> > >> Sure, many here will disagree, but the fact that such a challenge can
> > >> be made says something about the state of OOL research and the degree
> > >> of progress it claims, and is willing for the public to believe
> > >> uncorrected.
> > >> We have "professor" Dave Farina's failure in a recent OOL debate with
> > >> Tour to thank for adding fuel to Tour's initiative. I watch with
> > >> interest.
> > I previously only looked back two years, but I've now looked at Tour's
> > productions back to the beginning of 2013. 343 publications, of which
> > not a single one is related to the origin of life. If I submitted a
> > speculative paper about the future of graphene research the reviewers
> > would (rightly) say that I have no qualifications to write about
> > graphene. If I replied (accurately) that I had a D.Phil. in chemistry
> > from a major university, and was therefore an expert on all aspects of
> > chemistry, they not be impressed. I don't care how good an organic
> > chemist Tour is, he has no standing in origin-of-life research.
> >
> > --
> > athel cb : Biochemical Evolution, Garland Science, 2016
> Which is why he has posed the challenge as "help me understand...
> what am I missing here?"
>
> To dismiss on principle the questioning of a serious, informed outsider
> is a kind of appeal to authority. You wouldn't to commit that logical fallacy,
> would you?

What you seem determined to miss is that nobody is objecting to the
idea of testing models of Origins of Life.

The objection is to you tagging on the irrational continuation that if
Tour's model of the OoL isn't well supported, that this means that
a supernatural model is then favored.

People have been very very clear about this. How are you missing it?

On Sat, 26 Aug 2023 19:14:08 +0200, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by Athel Cornish-Bowden
<athel.cb@gmail.com>:

>On 2023-08-25 22:21:51 +0000, MarkE said:
>
>> Dr James Tour has proposed this challenge regarding origin of life
>> research, inviting by name ten leading scientists in the field:
>>
>> https://youtu.be/MmykRoelTzU?feature=shared
>>
>> What is particularly interesting are the highly specific and informed
>> points of challenge to speculative, implausible and overstated claims.
>> Tour is an outsider able to rock the boat, but an accomplished
>> scientist with relevant expertise in chemistry etc
>
>Yes, but the "etc" doesn't include anything relevant. 43 papers in
>2022–2023, none of thm having anything to do with the origin of life.
>
IOW, the usual garbage of a credentials assumed to confer
expertise in every field, the "outside expert" fallacy.
>
>> which enables him to mount a serious challenge.
>> Sure, many here will disagree, but the fact that such a challenge can
>> be made says something about the state of OOL research and the degree
>> of progress it claims, and is willing for the public to believe
>> uncorrected.
>> We have "professor" Dave Farina's failure in a recent OOL debate with
>> Tour to thank for adding fuel to Tour's initiative. I watch with
>> interest.
--

Bob C.

"The most exciting phrase to hear in science,
the one that heralds new discoveries, is not
'Eureka!' but 'That's funny...'"

- Isaac Asimov

On Sunday, August 27, 2023 at 9:35:16 AM UTC+10, Lawyer Daggett wrote:
> On Saturday, August 26, 2023 at 6:20:16 PM UTC-4, MarkE wrote:
> > On Sunday, August 27, 2023 at 4:45:16 AM UTC+10, Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:
> > > On 2023-08-26 17:14:08 +0000, Athel Cornish-Bowden said:
> > >
> > > > On 2023-08-25 22:21:51 +0000, MarkE said:
> > > >
> > > >> Dr James Tour has proposed this challenge regarding origin of life
> > > >> research, inviting by name ten leading scientists in the field:
> > > >>
> > > >> https://youtu.be/MmykRoelTzU?feature=shared
> > > >>
> > > >> What is particularly interesting are the highly specific and informed
> > > >> points of challenge to speculative, implausible and overstated claims.
> > > >> Tour is an outsider able to rock the boat, but an accomplished
> > > >> scientist with relevant expertise in chemistry etc
> > > >
> > > > Yes, but the "etc" doesn't include anything relevant. 43 papers in
> > > > 2022–2023, none of thm having anything to do with the origin of life.
> > > >
> > > >> which enables him to mount a serious challenge.
> > > >> Sure, many here will disagree, but the fact that such a challenge can
> > > >> be made says something about the state of OOL research and the degree
> > > >> of progress it claims, and is willing for the public to believe
> > > >> uncorrected.
> > > >> We have "professor" Dave Farina's failure in a recent OOL debate with
> > > >> Tour to thank for adding fuel to Tour's initiative. I watch with
> > > >> interest.
> > > I previously only looked back two years, but I've now looked at Tour's
> > > productions back to the beginning of 2013. 343 publications, of which
> > > not a single one is related to the origin of life. If I submitted a
> > > speculative paper about the future of graphene research the reviewers
> > > would (rightly) say that I have no qualifications to write about
> > > graphene. If I replied (accurately) that I had a D.Phil. in chemistry
> > > from a major university, and was therefore an expert on all aspects of
> > > chemistry, they not be impressed. I don't care how good an organic
> > > chemist Tour is, he has no standing in origin-of-life research.
> > >
> > > --
> > > athel cb : Biochemical Evolution, Garland Science, 2016
> > Which is why he has posed the challenge as "help me understand...
> > what am I missing here?"
> >
> > To dismiss on principle the questioning of a serious, informed outsider
> > is a kind of appeal to authority. You wouldn't to commit that logical fallacy,
> > would you?
> What you seem determined to miss is that nobody is objecting to the
> idea of testing models of Origins of Life.
>
> The objection is to you tagging on the irrational continuation that if
> Tour's model of the OoL isn't well supported, that this means that
> a supernatural model is then favored.
>
> People have been very very clear about this. How are you missing it?

Have I not suggested something rather more nuanced than a simplistic dichotomy? I thought I had been very, very clear about this.

All the same, this issue is not incidental but fundamental to the terms of engagement in this debate. I've discussed it here before at length, but aim to revisit it.

On Sunday, August 27, 2023 at 12:00:16 PM UTC+10, Bob Casanova wrote:
> On Sat, 26 Aug 2023 19:14:08 +0200, the following appeared
> in talk.origins, posted by Athel Cornish-Bowden
> <athe...@gmail.com>:
> >On 2023-08-25 22:21:51 +0000, MarkE said:
> >
> >> Dr James Tour has proposed this challenge regarding origin of life
> >> research, inviting by name ten leading scientists in the field:
> >>
> >> https://youtu.be/MmykRoelTzU?feature=shared
> >>
> >> What is particularly interesting are the highly specific and informed
> >> points of challenge to speculative, implausible and overstated claims.
> >> Tour is an outsider able to rock the boat, but an accomplished
> >> scientist with relevant expertise in chemistry etc
> >
> >Yes, but the "etc" doesn't include anything relevant. 43 papers in
> >2022–2023, none of thm having anything to do with the origin of life.
> >
> IOW, the usual garbage of a credentials assumed to confer
> expertise in every field, the "outside expert" fallacy.

Regardless, Tour's arguments should ultimately be taken on their own merits.. Yes, someone outside the camp naturally has less voice, all else being equal, but when an accomplished scientist from an overlapping field with highly relevant expertise launches a serious, sustained, specific, coherent critique, to the point of declaring your whole project to be "utterly clueless", you might want to give ear, if only because your funders might also be listening.

Tour's arguments align with my own layperson's view formed over many years of contemplating OoL. I for one am breaking out the popcorn.

> >
> >> which enables him to mount a serious challenge.
> >> Sure, many here will disagree, but the fact that such a challenge can
> >> be made says something about the state of OOL research and the degree
> >> of progress it claims, and is willing for the public to believe
> >> uncorrected.
> >> We have "professor" Dave Farina's failure in a recent OOL debate with
> >> Tour to thank for adding fuel to Tour's initiative. I watch with
> >> interest.
> --
> Bob C.
>
> "The most exciting phrase to hear in science,
> the one that heralds new discoveries, is not
> 'Eureka!' but 'That's funny...'"
>
> - Isaac Asimov

On Sunday, August 27, 2023 at 2:30:16 PM UTC+10, MarkE wrote:
> On Sunday, August 27, 2023 at 9:35:16 AM UTC+10, Lawyer Daggett wrote:
> > On Saturday, August 26, 2023 at 6:20:16 PM UTC-4, MarkE wrote:
> > > On Sunday, August 27, 2023 at 4:45:16 AM UTC+10, Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:
> > > > On 2023-08-26 17:14:08 +0000, Athel Cornish-Bowden said:
> > > >
> > > > > On 2023-08-25 22:21:51 +0000, MarkE said:
> > > > >
> > > > >> Dr James Tour has proposed this challenge regarding origin of life
> > > > >> research, inviting by name ten leading scientists in the field:
> > > > >>
> > > > >> https://youtu.be/MmykRoelTzU?feature=shared
> > > > >>
> > > > >> What is particularly interesting are the highly specific and informed
> > > > >> points of challenge to speculative, implausible and overstated claims.
> > > > >> Tour is an outsider able to rock the boat, but an accomplished
> > > > >> scientist with relevant expertise in chemistry etc
> > > > >
> > > > > Yes, but the "etc" doesn't include anything relevant. 43 papers in
> > > > > 2022–2023, none of thm having anything to do with the origin of life.
> > > > >
> > > > >> which enables him to mount a serious challenge.
> > > > >> Sure, many here will disagree, but the fact that such a challenge can
> > > > >> be made says something about the state of OOL research and the degree
> > > > >> of progress it claims, and is willing for the public to believe
> > > > >> uncorrected.
> > > > >> We have "professor" Dave Farina's failure in a recent OOL debate with
> > > > >> Tour to thank for adding fuel to Tour's initiative. I watch with
> > > > >> interest.
> > > > I previously only looked back two years, but I've now looked at Tour's
> > > > productions back to the beginning of 2013. 343 publications, of which
> > > > not a single one is related to the origin of life. If I submitted a
> > > > speculative paper about the future of graphene research the reviewers
> > > > would (rightly) say that I have no qualifications to write about
> > > > graphene. If I replied (accurately) that I had a D.Phil. in chemistry
> > > > from a major university, and was therefore an expert on all aspects of
> > > > chemistry, they not be impressed. I don't care how good an organic
> > > > chemist Tour is, he has no standing in origin-of-life research.
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > athel cb : Biochemical Evolution, Garland Science, 2016
> > > Which is why he has posed the challenge as "help me understand...
> > > what am I missing here?"
> > >
> > > To dismiss on principle the questioning of a serious, informed outsider
> > > is a kind of appeal to authority. You wouldn't to commit that logical fallacy,
> > > would you?
> > What you seem determined to miss is that nobody is objecting to the
> > idea of testing models of Origins of Life.
> >
> > The objection is to you tagging on the irrational continuation that if
> > Tour's model of the OoL isn't well supported, that this means that
> > a supernatural model is then favored.
> >
> > People have been very very clear about this. How are you missing it?
> Have I not suggested something rather more nuanced than a simplistic dichotomy? I thought I had been very, very clear about this.
>
> All the same, this issue is not incidental but fundamental to the terms of engagement in this debate. I've discussed it here before at length, but aim to revisit it.

PS

Another option, for example, is some version of the multiverse. Koonin appeals to it to help non-supernatural OoL:

"Origin of life is a chicken and egg problem: for biological evolution that is governed, primarily, by natural selection, to take off, efficient systems for replication and translation are required, but even barebones cores of these systems appear to be products of extensive selection ... In an infinite universe (multiverse), emergence of highly complex systems by chance is inevitable." https://biologydirect.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/1745-6150-2-15

Koonin's third option supports my position , i.e. if all hypotheses based on physical-chemical pathways on a pre-biotic earth end up showing a widening explanatory gap, you're left with very limited reasonable alternatives. An appeal to the multiverse is on par with positing supernatural action.

And sure, there *might* be some other undiscovered property of matter that permits it to self-organise, but I'd argue that favouring this would be more about a metaphysical commitment.

On Sat, 26 Aug 2023 22:06:46 -0700 (PDT), MarkE
<mark.w.elkington@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Sunday, August 27, 2023 at 2:30:16?PM UTC+10, MarkE wrote:
>> On Sunday, August 27, 2023 at 9:35:16?AM UTC+10, Lawyer Daggett wrote:
>> > On Saturday, August 26, 2023 at 6:20:16?PM UTC-4, MarkE wrote:
>> > > On Sunday, August 27, 2023 at 4:45:16?AM UTC+10, Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:
>> > > > On 2023-08-26 17:14:08 +0000, Athel Cornish-Bowden said:
>> > > >
>> > > > > On 2023-08-25 22:21:51 +0000, MarkE said:
>> > > > >
>> > > > >> Dr James Tour has proposed this challenge regarding origin of life
>> > > > >> research, inviting by name ten leading scientists in the field:
>> > > > >>
>> > > > >> https://youtu.be/MmykRoelTzU?feature=shared
>> > > > >>
>> > > > >> What is particularly interesting are the highly specific and informed
>> > > > >> points of challenge to speculative, implausible and overstated claims.
>> > > > >> Tour is an outsider able to rock the boat, but an accomplished
>> > > > >> scientist with relevant expertise in chemistry etc
>> > > > >
>> > > > > Yes, but the "etc" doesn't include anything relevant. 43 papers in
>> > > > > 2022–2023, none of thm having anything to do with the origin of life.
>> > > > >
>> > > > >> which enables him to mount a serious challenge.
>> > > > >> Sure, many here will disagree, but the fact that such a challenge can
>> > > > >> be made says something about the state of OOL research and the degree
>> > > > >> of progress it claims, and is willing for the public to believe
>> > > > >> uncorrected.
>> > > > >> We have "professor" Dave Farina's failure in a recent OOL debate with
>> > > > >> Tour to thank for adding fuel to Tour's initiative. I watch with
>> > > > >> interest.
>> > > > I previously only looked back two years, but I've now looked at Tour's
>> > > > productions back to the beginning of 2013. 343 publications, of which
>> > > > not a single one is related to the origin of life. If I submitted a
>> > > > speculative paper about the future of graphene research the reviewers
>> > > > would (rightly) say that I have no qualifications to write about
>> > > > graphene. If I replied (accurately) that I had a D.Phil. in chemistry
>> > > > from a major university, and was therefore an expert on all aspects of
>> > > > chemistry, they not be impressed. I don't care how good an organic
>> > > > chemist Tour is, he has no standing in origin-of-life research.
>> > > >
>> > > > --
>> > > > athel cb : Biochemical Evolution, Garland Science, 2016
>> > > Which is why he has posed the challenge as "help me understand...
>> > > what am I missing here?"
>> > >
>> > > To dismiss on principle the questioning of a serious, informed outsider
>> > > is a kind of appeal to authority. You wouldn't to commit that logical fallacy,
>> > > would you?
>> > What you seem determined to miss is that nobody is objecting to the
>> > idea of testing models of Origins of Life.
>> >
>> > The objection is to you tagging on the irrational continuation that if
>> > Tour's model of the OoL isn't well supported, that this means that
>> > a supernatural model is then favored.
>> >
>> > People have been very very clear about this. How are you missing it?
>> Have I not suggested something rather more nuanced than a simplistic dichotomy? I thought I had been very, very clear about this.
>>
>> All the same, this issue is not incidental but fundamental to the terms of engagement in this debate. I've discussed it here before at length, but aim to revisit it.

The fatal flaw in Tour's argumentation is that he preaches to his
audiences how scientists lie about OoL research, that they "have no
idea" how OoL might have happened, and then claims this shows
Evolution is wrong.

>PS
>
>Another option, for example, is some version of the multiverse. Koonin appeals to it to help non-supernatural OoL:
>
>"Origin of life is a chicken and egg problem: for biological evolution that is governed, primarily, by natural selection, to take off, efficient systems for replication and translation are required, but even barebones cores of these systems appear to be products of extensive selection ... In an infinite universe (multiverse), emergence of highly complex systems by chance is inevitable." https://biologydirect.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/1745-6150-2-15
>
>Koonin's third option supports my position , i.e. if all hypotheses based on physical-chemical pathways on a pre-biotic earth end up showing a widening explanatory gap, you're left with very limited reasonable alternatives. An appeal to the multiverse is on par with positing supernatural action.
>
>And sure, there *might* be some other undiscovered property of matter that permits it to self-organise, but I'd argue that favouring this would be more about a metaphysical commitment.

Like most chicken-and-egg questions, OoL's answer is more a matter of
definition. With a chicken/egg, the answer is the first chicken was
hatched from an egg laid by a not-chicken. With OoL, the answer is
first life on Earth was an instance of self-duplicating not-life aka
chemistry randomly encapsulated within a lipid bilayer, the likely
consequence of a reasonably geologically active planet, with a
reasonably large amount of water and gases, and a reasonably large
amount of time. Neither God nor multiverse, infinite or otherwise,
need be involved.

--
To know less than we don't know is the nature of most knowledge