Article ~ Why the Miller–Urey Research Argues Against Abiogenesis

On the contrary, Laland was complaining that the traditionalists were trying to erect creationism into a bogey-man, as a scare tactic to suppress legitimate debate - "seemingly designed to prevent new ideas from spreading by fair means or foul".

I don't care what you want to try to read into that snippet. The remainder of the article is specific that when it comes to the practice of science, these are "ordinary, hardworking, evolutionary biologists", and that what is going on is "normal science" with respect to extending the understanding of evolutionary biology. Throughout he refers to EES biologists as valid participants in the field - "protagonists with authoritative credentials square up on both sides of this debate", "hundreds of such studies, many published in the most prominent and prestigious journals", etc. And he refers to broad acceptance of some of these newer ideas - disputes over "whether epigenetic inheritance is truly Lamarckian or only superficially resembles it", but no dispute that it really does happen, or "all this complexity can't be reconciled with a strictly genetic currency for adaptive evolution, as many biologists now acknowledge".

He's not describing a group of scientists successfully confined to the fringe, through the efforts of traditionalists, with no legitimate audience for their ideas.

Linda

fls

Sorry, but you're getting silly now.

Of course no one has suggested that Laland is saying that he (Laland) isn't a valid participant in the field.

To repeat yet again - Laland is complaining that traditionalists are portraying people like him as "extremist", and are trying to suppress scientific debate by "fair means or foul". Behaving as he would have expected politicians to behave, rather than scientists, as he says.

It's not a question of reading anything into those two paragraphs. Laland could scarcely have been more explicit.

Yeah, ok Linda. This is obviously another game of last for you so this is my last response. If you want the last word, go for it, I'm not playing your silly game because this is precisely how you ruin discussions and why people don't want to engage with you.

Despite all the years you have spent debating on Skeptiko, you never seem to have understood that given two theories A and B, proving A wrong does not prove B is right unless you also prove that there are no other possible theories, such as C,D,E etc. You are only willing to choose between the Bible and strict materialism!

David

Steve, and others, can be excused their confusion when proponents of theories C, D, and E are so cagey and vague, whilst parroting and referencing the arguments for theory A.

fls

Sorry, but you're getting silly now.

Of course no one has suggested that Laland is saying that he (Laland) isn't a valid participant in the field.

Except that that is what Kamarling suggested and I took objection to. If you are now saying that you are in agreement with me on this objection, then I apologize for thinking that you were disagreeing with me. 

Linda

Kinda sort of. If your question is 'By what mechanism did it get started', panspermia doesn't get any help at all. But I think panspermia is somewhat likely given:

The universe has life all over the place (not for sure, but given NDEs, and current science, seems likely)
Life on Earth started relatively quickly as soon as it could have.
The universe allows for life to begin with.




My language was probably suboptimal, perhaps invoking 'intelligence' of some kind? Not necessarily against it, these types of things are hard to test. I'm just not sure why it couldn't be built into the physics of the universe, which seems to lead to life.

Yep, I'm with you to a point. I'm not sure what you mean by "it" which could be built into the physics of the universe. Intelligence? Again, I might be with you on that too if you can explain a little more.

To explain a little further, my view of evolution is predicated on a larger philosophical view of the universe and the reality in which we find ourselves. I'm inclined to the idealist view of mind being primary and therefore intelligence (mind) really is built-in. By these means I think that mind itself is evolving. There are probably other ways that mind could evolve and we exist in just one of them. NDEs do suggest this greater reality.

Except that that is what Kamarling suggested and I took objection to. If you are now saying that you are in agreement with me on this objection, then I apologize for thinking that you were disagreeing with me. 

(I'm not quite sure what you're trying to achieve by behaving like this, but as I've already told you, you're not going to succeed in provoking me.)

Of course Kamarling didn't suggest that Laland had said that he (Laland) wasn't "a valid participant in the field". No one had even mentioned Laland on this thread at that time! What Kamarling said was that the so-called Third Way proponents "are considered controversial".

And of course, that is entirely consistent with what Laland says in his article. He says that traditionalists are portraying people like him as "extremist".

But I think you knew all that already. Didn't you?

(I'm not quite sure what you're trying to achieve by behaving like this, but as I've already told you, you're not going to succeed in provoking me.)

Of course Kamarling didn't suggest that Laland had said that he (Laland) wasn't "a valid participant in the field". No one had even mentioned Laland on this thread at that time! What Kamarling said was that the so-called Third Way proponents "are considered controversial".

And of course, that is entirely consistent with what Laland says in his article. He says that traditionalists are portraying people like him as "extremist".

But I think you knew all that already. Didn't you?

So let me get this straight. Paul gently mocks Bergman as a valid source (from the OP). I suggest that if Bergman's concerns are legitimate that a valid source could be referenced instead. Kamarling jumped in to say that the EES biologists are treated as controversial (as though they wouldn't be regarded as a valid source, either) and I conceded that they did seem to be regarded as controversial, but not to the extent that they weren't treated as valid participants in the field.  

At that point, even though you agree that EES biologists, such as Laland and the other EES evolutionary biologists whose work he refers to, are regarded as valid participants in the field, and therefore would satisfy the conditions I suggested in my first post, you jumped in as though you were challenging me. It seemed like you were trying to disagree with me, and I apologize for thinking you were, and trying to clarify my position (that they are valid participants in the field) as though you were trying to say otherwise. But I'm at a bit of a loss as to what you were doing here, then.

Linda

Yep, I'm with you to a point. I'm not sure what you mean by "it" which could be built into the physics of the universe. Intelligence? Again, I might be with you on that too if you can explain a little more.

Wish I knew exactly what it was. Intelligence seems to be hit or miss. Abiogenesis? Very complicated, mind boggling how it could've worked using contemporary materialism. But on the other hand, if there was an 'intelligence', certain things that a human intelligence would think inadequate in nature have been allowed. That giraffe neck nerve is one example that is a fairly benign example. What of the many mutations that can be inherited in families (fatal familial insomnia comes to mind at the moment). 

But back to abiogenesis, the subject of this conversation, there's really not much to work with. Perhaps some spirits got together and started playing legos with molecules. Maybe the 'random' motions of molecules happen to not be so random sometimes? Lots of room for opinion.

To explain a little further, my view of evolution is predicated on a larger philosophical view of the universe and the reality in which we find ourselves. I'm inclined to the idealist view of mind being primary and therefore intelligence (mind) really is built-in. By these means I think that mind itself is evolving. There are probably other ways that mind could evolve and we exist in just one of them. NDEs do suggest this greater reality.

So you are suggesting that the universe is consciousness? I think I share that. There is a certain Is-ness to everything. Here seems to be the biggest diverging point between the two main tribes here. Consciousness as fundamental vs consciousness as an emergent phenomenon. 

So let me get this straight.

Now why was it, when I read that, that I just knew you were about to twist everything beyond all recognition? 

Why not take a break this Sunday? I'm going to.