Windows of opportunities vs. building life

What I have in mind, is it possible anything other than a mind put in all of the data? When simple words are so hard to do by chance! Whose mind we need not worry about until the first question is answered.

It doesn't as such but I winced slightly when I read "Science of course does not even permit the supernatural-based explanations..."

When you've been around these topics for a little longer you'll start to see that certain members on the faith side of arguments believe that science is largely a conspiracy to overthrow religious belief & bring in an age of moral decline, because of course only people of faith have a true sense of morality!

That's why I wanted to stress that scientists don't have an instictive bias against any religious belief, they merely examine the story that the available evidence tells.

But we can't answer the question at this time of exactly how the first life began on earth. That leaves us with a void in our understanding but a void is not something from which anyone should draw sweeping conclusions.

And if you're promoting the idea that some kind of mind must have been the instigator of the first lifeform, then unless you're suggesting alien intervention, what other than a deity can you be thinking of?

I'm speaking to information in living systems that direct life's many processes. Beyond that, I have not said anything about the one who did it yet. I am trying here to establish truth here looking for other ideas than the ones I believe are true, that something other than a mind could have possibly done this. Right now, you've brought not even a bad idea to the table to show it would have happened; more than that, you have also expressed a strong disinterest even to entertain points of opposing views. You don't have any issues of expressing your desire to accept the 'inferences' for those things you believe are true. If all-natural causes cannot explain or even give a possible reason or purpose, would you then conclude it is likely something else could have done it?

You want the truth of the matter?

• We don't know how life began but we have no reason to think it impossible as the result of natural processes
• Since abiogenesis is not possible as a result of any natural process(es), a non-natural cause must be responsible for the first lifeform

Which of those two statements would you say was the true one?

You are not making sense here; how do you come up with this logic? If you have no idea how it began, therefore you cannot know what reasons or causes could have been responsible or required. If we are logically looking at this both A and not A can not be true at the same time, and declaring you have no clue to justify either you cannot therefore dismiss either.

You don't know what is or isn't possible or impossible, therefore what you think could have happen may not be possible, and what you think is possible may not be with respect to life.

When evaluating the cause of something, shouldn't we avoid possible alternatives that only add to the complexity of the problem?

Only if you want to avoid possible causes, you must go where the data leads. If not, you are trying to make something fit what you already have decided is true.

"you must go where the data leads" - I couldn't agree more but of course we don't have data as such that leads us towards any particular conclusion.

And as I keep emphasising, drawing extravagant conclusions from what we don't know should always be avoided. We don't know how the first lifeform emerged & so we should resist making fantastic inferences from our lack of knowledge.

I am pointing to what we do know, which is where written code comes from.

@TruthMuse, @stephen_33

In fairness, I don't think we can label TruthMuse's view as extravagant, unreasonable or even an argument from ignorance (*although, I would definitely replace "designer," "mind," "intelligent designer," etc., with terms like agency, which are more precise, do not require delving into the fray of the supernatural-natural debate and also because the former are weighed down with societal/cultural baggage).

(1) What we have empirically observed, continually and without exception (so far) is Omne vivum ex vivo ("All life from life").  So as an initial statement, it would seem that the burden of proof should fall on anyone who would claim otherwise.

(2) Furthermore, intentionality (i.e., "about-ness"), intentional information, and the processing of intentional information via non-deterministic, arbitrary rules and an arbitrary symbol code is a phenomenon only known to arise via intentional agency (e.g., computer programs, executable algorithms, etc., are the product of human intentionality).  The fact that the "simplest" single-cell exhibits intentionality, that biological information is prescriptive (i.e., "instructional," "procedural") and has the property of intentionality, and that the processing of biological information occurs via an empirically-verified set of non-physical, arbitrary coding rules mapped on to an arbitrary symbol code (genetic code) where molecules function as representative token symbols in the communication and processing of said information is not something that can be immediately derived from non-intentional, non-arbitrary, deterministic chemistry.

(3) Therefore, while modern science automatically rejects any intentional agency hypothesis for the origin of life (including the origin of biological information processing systems), philosophically it does not seem that such an inference from what we know about biological information and biological intentionality is inherently illogical or irrational.  To the contrary, it seems a normal, rational, logical prima facie conclusion to draw.

(4) While modern science automatically rejects any intentional purpose/goal-oriented explanation (i.e., teleological), modern science is still stuck with the problem that such intentionality and teleological, goal-driven behavior demonstrably exists in living things and, in fact, is a distinguishing characteristic of life from non-life.

(5) Thus, it again seems that anyone who would reject intentional agency as an explanation for the existence and origin of intentionality and intentional information would have the burden of proof in demonstrating how, then, such could arise via non-intentional processes (e.g., non-biological, chemical reactions).

What do you mean by "written code"? What does that have to do with the way life emerged?

Can you quote a single reputable biologist who believes that any lifeform needs written code to function?

"The fact that the "simplest" single-cell exhibits intentionality, that biological information is prescriptive (i.e., "instructional," "procedural") and has the property of intentionality, and that the processing of biological information occurs via an empirically-verified set of non-physical, arbitrary coding rules mapped on to an arbitrary symbol code (genetic code) where molecules function as representative token symbols in the communication and processing of said information is not something that can be immediately derived from non-intentional, non-arbitrary, deterministic chemistry"

Isn't 'intentionality' a rather loaded term? It suggests something capable of having intentions & doesn't that prejudice the argument from the very beginning?

I've never heard any scientist in the field of organic chemistry or biology claim that our undertanding of these subjects is anything but incomplete, so let's not claim that all we know is all there is to know. But that's no excuse for reaching for highly improbable explanations in those areas where our knowledge is lacking.

"modern science is still stuck with the problem that such intentionality and teleological, goal-driven behavior demonstrably exists in living things and, in fact, is a distinguishing characteristic of life from non-life"

Would you explain precisely what you mean by this please? Again, in the way that we commonly use such language, it seems to prejudice the argument in a certain direction, away from a naturalistic explanation.

How do  you define a reputable biologist or anyone in any field for that matter, do they have to agree with you?

When you come to a stop sign while driving, don't you intentionally stop? Within a living system, there are stop and start mechanisms that if these things didn't do them, and only when required, there would be no life. If your blood just started clotting for no reason you'd die, you could bleed out if it didn't either. You could come to a stop sign and not stop, that practice would end up killing or harming someone. Intentionality describes any activity done for a specific purpose. You may feel it is a loaded term, but you use weighted terms all the time. Natural selection has the word "selection" in it as if someone is choosing one thing over another with an outcome in mind, or suggesting you need to hear from a "reputable biologist" as defined by you.

"How do you define a reputable biologist or anyone in any field for that matter, do they have to agree with you?"

Most certainly not - that's really putting the cart before the horse! When it comes to the science of life, I accept that I'm largely ignorant except for what I've gleaned from people who make the study of life (i.e. professional biologists) their life's work. These are people who scrutinise the available evidence & form the most reasonable conclusions about what that evidence is telling them.

I can't stress strongly enough that I have no opinion other than that I've formed after listening carefully to what some of the best informed people on the planet have to say. I agree with their conclusions, they don't agree with mine - that would be absurd!

"When you come to a stop sign while driving, don't you intentionally stop? Within a living system, there are stop and start mechanisms that if these things didn't do them, and only when required, there would be no life. If your blood just started clotting for no reason you'd die, you could bleed out if it didn't either. You could come to a stop sign and not stop, that practice would end up killing or harming someone. Intentionality describes any activity done for a specific purpose. You may feel it is a loaded term, but you use weighted terms all the time. Natural selection has the word "selection" in it as if someone is choosing one thing over another with an outcome in mind, or suggesting you need to hear from a "reputable biologist" as defined by you."

Without water land-based plants eventually die. Such water is provided by rain falling from the sky.

Should this suggest to us that there's 'intentionality' in the way the heat of the Sun causes sea water to evaporate, increasing water vapour in the atmosphere which, when it cools, falls as rain?

This is also a process that's vital to life (at least on land) but I think we can all accept that's it's caused by entirely natural processes, the energy provided by our Sun being redistributed around the planet.

The growth of plants is controlled by various hormones which are distributed throughout the plant by means of its vascular system. A growth hormone is produced constantly throughout the year & drives the growth of the plant but another hormone, the concentration of which is dependent on daylight received (i.e. the length of day), acts to inhibit that growth.

This is why we see plants bursting into leaf & flower in the spring. It may be tempting to think that some intentionality is driving this process but it really isn't - it's all down to controlling chemicals (hormones) & the length of the day.

Knowing this doesn't rob me of the pleasure of seeing trees come into leaf at this time of year.

"Natural selection has the word "selection" in it as if someone is choosing one thing over another" - imagine a species in which half of its members have excellent immune systems coupled with unusual vigour & physical prowess, while the other half are sickly, failing & weak.

What do you think would happen to the sicklier members over a few dozen generations, given that available resources (food & water) are limited? Wouldn't you expect the healthier & more physically strong to prevail?

That's really all that natural selection means. There's no mind behind the selection of those that are more suitable candidates for survival & therefore, more likely to increase their number.

Not my experience with you with chemists.

I find I'm I have to repeat things already covered with you. Written instruction are not required to guide the rain, build snow flakes, or any other natural events.