…and this is a 
Two people vying to out-stupid each other
Category: Creationism
Posted on: October 23, 2007 7:55 AM, by PZ Myers
Ben Stein and Bill O'Reilly.
Bill made a thousand creationist hearts flutter in dismay when he opened with his introductory definition: "intelligent design, that is, a deity created life". It was, unfortunately, the last hint of intelligence in the whole segment.
Ben Stein is an astonishingly ignorant person. He goes on and on about several themes.
Evolution (or as he called it, "Darwinism") is a weak theory with many gaps that was fit for the 19th century, but not the 21st. This is a ludicrous statement; Darwin would scarcely recognize what we were talking about if he attended an evolutionary biology conference today. We've added genetics, population genetics, molecular biology, and developmental biology to the heart of the theory.
ID is an effort to fill in the gaps, and is a sincere effort to add new knowledge to the theory. That's false. Look at the books written by IDists: from Darwin's Black Box to Icons of Evolution to The Edge of Evolution, they are all about complaining about evolution while providing no new useful suggestions for research.
This is a free speech issue, we just want to be able to express our side of the story. I don't see anyone rushing to censor Fox News, or shutting down the printing presses that dare to publish Behe's or Gonzalez's books. This is not about free speech, and no one's speech is being restricted. It is about quality education: will we have our kids taught baseless nonsense because some people want to smuggle their idiosyncratic religious beliefs into the classroom? It's about quality research: shall we fund and support unproductive and scientifically indefensible ideas because a third-rate character actor likes them? It's about defending what science is: science is not about wishing something were true and inventing excuse for it; it's about serious self-criticism and substantial work going into testing ideas. ID simply isn't science.
I think we get a good glimpse of the dogmatic and dishonest tack Expelled is going to take. It's going to be one solid wall of lies, insisting that we must privilege the hypothesis that "a deity created life" with the same seriousness that we do population genetics or the biochemistry of abiogenesis.
Jason has a transcript, if you'd rather read than actually listen to those two bray.
Comments
I am going to need to read Darwin's "Origin of Species" again to find the part about lightening hitting mud as a central argument to "Darwinism".
Posted by: Lago | October 23, 2007 8:05 AM
Since when did simply having a narrative account of something become a scientific explanation, much less an explanation at all? What does it matter if Darwin didn't explain these things? Yes, PZ, you're right this was an example of two people trying to outstupid each other, but I'm not sure who won.
Posted by: Martin Brazeau | October 23, 2007 8:06 AM
Creationists are thinking short term benefits here. They're shooting themselves and their religion right in the foot. If their goals are achieved, and the vast majority of Christians in this country accept that the theory of evolution negates God, then -- as science marches on, evolutionary understanding grows, and Intelligent Design remains an unproductive dead end -- God becomes a dead end, too. It becomes dead to everybody they persuaded into seeing a conflict. The ones Dawkins missed.
If you're religious, you're not supposed to treat God seriously like any other fact in the world: you're supposed to fall all over yourself explaining why it's supposed to be taken as a fact, but treated like a value. That's been the program ever since it didn't look like science was leading to God after all.
Way to go, guys. Keep it up. Trade in the fuzzy land of Faith for Science in order to make God "respectable," and the hypothesis of God isn't just cut out by people who are parsimonious, it's actually disproved. Unlike religion, science has rules. You can't just make crap up. Reality is that thing that, when you kick it, kicks back -- and it doesn't go away when you stop believing in it.
Creationism is another spear piercing Jesus through the ribs. Morons.
Posted by: Sastra | October 23, 2007 8:20 AM
Creationists keep trying to argue that they are promoting "science", but they scarcely seem to know what science even is. Here's a guy arguing that "evidence" helps creationists decide which arbitrary miraculous interventions God did or not perform. (They shouldn't mock their God this way.) [Link]
Posted by: Zeno | October 23, 2007 8:26 AM
Wow, I almost just passed out from the concentration of stupidity in the air around my laptop. I love how Bill O'Reilly thinks we "secular pinheads" should have everything figured out by now. If he wants answers he should shut up and let science take its course, not try to inject some BS "theory" on the grounds of free speech. If ID had any merit it would be discussed as an alternative, but since it's vapid and leads to no new information it does not belong in the classroom.
Posted by: Beave | October 23, 2007 8:37 AM
I'm seriously debating becoming an Intelligent Design Theorist. Like a theoretical physicist, I'll spend all day coming up with ID theories and valid hypotheses. I know exactly what the end result would be - my theories would be refuted time and time again. Still, I would find myself to be a better scientist than anyone currently in the ID field.
... I think I hate myself.
Posted by: Brian | October 23, 2007 8:41 AM
They are not exactly on-script here regarding the difference between the terms involved and are being pretty careless with calling it 'creationism' rather than intelligent design.
I wonder if this will carry over into the movie or will the Discovery Institute lawyers go through the script with a fine toothcomb (or again simply use a 'replace creator with designer' change using microsoft word).
Posted by: MartinC | October 23, 2007 8:43 AM
Ben Stein did actually make a correct statement in that evolution doesn't explain how life got started. From the rest of his comments, I figure it was pure, dumb luck. Neither show any real grasp of science (surprise!).
Posted by: Ron | October 23, 2007 8:43 AM
I'm a raving religious lunatic and even I can see that Stein and O'Reilly get it wrong. It's obfuscation that entrenches evolution deniers into greater close-mindedness and rhetoric that serves as a rallying cry in degrading the public's understanding of proper science.
Posted by: peak_bagger | October 23, 2007 8:49 AM
I always have to girt myself before clicking "play" on Bill O'Really Stupid video clips. It simply hurts to watch as he ramps up the vitriol to cover up his ignorance (which happens often). Fortunately Sastrs's comment (#3) was just the soothing balm that I needed.
Posted by: nunatak | October 23, 2007 8:55 AM
It is clear that Billo (along with other non-secular-pinheads) will never understand why they're wrong. Jeez Louise. He asks why not invite theologians into science classes to explain the other side? OMFG. If you invite one, then you have to invite all the others, and if you do that, then you have comparative religion, not biology. Duh. Duhduhduh. I'd wager that anyone who's even superficially skimmed the internet on this issue has seen this example as well as the astrologer in the astronomy class, the faith healer in the medical school, and so on. It's such a stupid proposition that it's been parodied over and over again and doesn't take much effort to find - yet Billo, with a paid staff, seems ignorant of the fact that it's such an incredibly ludicrous idea.
Maybe he's got a filter on their internet access that allows only AiG and DailyKos through?
Posted by: Alison | October 23, 2007 8:58 AM
"We are Morons, tried and true
and we'll do our yell for you;
nyaaahhhaaaeeeehhh!"
Amalgamated Association of Morons
Posted by: True Bob | October 23, 2007 9:01 AM
I'm giving a lecture to my evolution class later today, and contemplating showing this interview. Is this a good idea? What aspects should I focus on? We've covered creationism / ID earlier in the semester, but this being Louisiana, with a newly-elected governor who is in favor of the usual Discovery Institute talking points, I feel like this might be an opportunity to reintroduce this subject.
Posted by: Bryan Carstens | October 23, 2007 9:15 AM
No, he got that wrong, too. I think it is a HUGE tactical mistake to concede abiogenesis: it is a perfectly legitimate field of research, studying mechanisms of the origin of life using biochemical tools. Life is chemistry, and life arose by natural mechanisms to which Darwinian principles did apply.
Posted by: PZ Myers | October 23, 2007 9:16 AM
Love the salute at the end
Posted by: Chi | October 23, 2007 9:17 AM
Apologies if this has been done already, but:
Stein's brain....?
Stein's brain....? ...Anyone? ...Anyone? Bueller?
Posted by: BigHeathenMike | October 23, 2007 9:25 AM
The irony that these people (O'Reilly, Stein, et al) are descended from apes is completely lost on them.
Posted by: mayhempix | October 23, 2007 9:27 AM
PZ:
No, he didn't. The ToE doesn't concern itself with how life was initiated - it makes absolutely no difference to the predictions the theory makes if life spontaneously generated, came here from elsewhere, or was engineered by an intelligent entity and left to go its way.
It's certainly wrong for scientific inquiry to abandon the beginnings of life on this planet to religion - science has a lot to say about the possibilities and the available evidence - but the ToE is NOT the whole of science.
IF we accept the necessary but unstated assertion that the manner in which life here originated makes a difference to the ToE, AND we acknowledge that we do not currently know how life began here, THEN we're missing a key piece of information that's vitally necessary to our evaluation of the usefulness of the ToE, and that would turn it from one of science's greatest achievements to something that we have unfounded confidence in.
Fortunately, evolution is set on one of the firmest foundations of science, and it's partly because that assertion isn't actually the case.
I concur that Stein probably got the point right by accident. Even an ignorant ideologue will likely get some things right by chance - it would take gross improbability or real work to be completely wrong.
Posted by: Caledonian | October 23, 2007 9:27 AM
It's a great "non-secularist pinhead" tactic to babble one how evolution doesn't say anything about the origins of life (genesis) as if that's where science stops and magic begins. The first chapter of Paradigms Regained has a useful summary of current origin of life theories
Posted by: caynazzo | October 23, 2007 9:35 AM
Caledonian, surely this all depends on how you define the term 'life'. Most members of the public would place the boundaries at the level of the self replicating cell, whereas many molecular biologists would probably say the first 'life' was a self replicating molecule with the ability to evolve (an RNA strand with catalytic self polymerization properties, for instance).
To get from the RNA strand to the cell will require a lot of evolution and so it is important to emphasize this point. We have a 'missing link' between the first organic molecules and the first self replicating RNA strand but once you get to that RNA the rest is pretty straight forward.
Posted by: MartinC | October 23, 2007 9:36 AM
Well, I couldn't stand watching the whole thing. But it did seem that Ben was implying his god is a god-of-the-gaps.
Posted by: True Bob | October 23, 2007 9:41 AM
The segment of my course on ID is now over, or I would use that video in class -- it really emphasizes the rhetorical strategy of the IDists, and is the kind of thing that immediately sucks in the naive listener as a "fair" demand. I'd use it to invite discussion from the students: ask them to analyze their statements carefully, pick up on the errors, and develop ways to address those claims.
Posted by: PZ Myers | October 23, 2007 9:44 AM
I remember back in the day watching Win Ben Stein's Money, and being in awe of how much trivia that guy knew. I wanted to be like him and have that sort of memory.
Now, I'm not so sure.
(It was really back in the day for me, like high school/college days when I didn't know much more than he had once been a speechwriter and he was in that Ferris Bueller movie)
Posted by: Jeremy | October 23, 2007 9:45 AM
...as if that's where science stops and magic begins...
These modern mystics astound me. Step by step, the progress of discovery over millenia now has dispelled every ghost they have every conjured... And they keep imagining, nonetheless, that there must be one hiding under the next stone we will lift.
Posted by: AJ Milne | October 23, 2007 9:49 AM
MartinC:
Point acknowledged, but keep in mind the percentage of the American general public that cannot locate the US on a global map.
Posted by: Caledonian | October 23, 2007 9:50 AM
Arg, they used the "we just want all the cards on the table" line. I can't believe they're still doing that. Seriously.
Posted by: Samuel | October 23, 2007 9:56 AM
I think PZ's exactly right on abiogenesis. It's a bit disingenuous to pretend that the chemical origin of life has nothing to do with evolution. It's as if we're saying: "Evolution works, there is no doubt, but maybe the Cosmic Muffin got it all started."
Posted by: Archaeopteryx | October 23, 2007 10:09 AM
Excuse me. Is not Ben Stein a not so great relic of imperialism from the twentieth century?
Posted by: Janine | October 23, 2007 10:09 AM
Their cards and their table is what they want.
Posted by: True Bob | October 23, 2007 10:09 AM
They showed the "Expelled" trailed at the Values Voters Summit last Friday where Ben Stein also spoke live.
Click here for the C-SPAN link.
The lengthy trailer starts at 27:22 and Stein speaks afterwards (and yes, it's bad).
Posted by: tacitus | October 23, 2007 10:09 AM
0%? 0.01%? Somewhere around that mark, right?
Posted by: wintermute | October 23, 2007 10:23 AM
How is it disingenuous to state something which is true? It would be misleading to suggest that the chemical origin of life has something to do with evolution.
Posted by: Caledonian | October 23, 2007 10:24 AM
"It's a bit disingenuous to pretend that the chemical origin of life has nothing to do with evolution. "
They aren't unrelated, but they are two very, very different issues. For starters, evolution left a very, very hefty fossil record. Abiogenesis didn't leave any record at all. There are many things about the actual process of abiogenesis that we almost certainly will never know.
Posted by: Chris | October 23, 2007 10:24 AM
I am so thankful that the Florida science standards are being revised before this movie comes out. This article addresses just how bad our current situation is, and this link takes you to where you can review and comment on the current draft standards. We have less than 60 days, now, to leave our comments before the standards are decided upon.
Our local papers are filling up with op-eds on how "irresponsible and stupid" it is to teach "evolution of man as fact." (Orlando Sentinel, Oct 23, 2007, p A2)
If you have any interest in affecting the Florida science standards, please take the time to do this. I know the religion nuts will be doing their part.
Posted by: zeekster | October 23, 2007 10:25 AM
Bill O'Reilly uses the word pinhead as he would have used the word heretic a few centuries back.
Ben Stein's main argument is that abiogenesis = lightning strike in mud doesn't seem very "convincing" to him, and therefore ID should be studied in science class.
Mr Stein, come on, please listen to what scientists have to say before you talk. The universe is 13.5 b yold, earth 4.5, life appeared on earth fairly quickly, so what happened in the universe during those 9 bill years ? Can your small brain even imagine what that means ? 9 bill years of evolution of the universe from the big bang and you compare that to lightning in mud. Are you refering to the Urey-Miller experiment ? Learn before you talk.
Oh, but the Bible gives a perfect solution for abiogenesis, so science doesn't have to do what it has done so far. Trying to explain how God did it.
What a nutcase...
Posted by: negentropyeater | October 23, 2007 10:26 AM
I'm actually with Caledonian here.
We don't 'give away the farm' on evolution by distinguishing it conceptually from abiogenesis, or by acknowledging the relative strength of the respective claims. One could look at it a different way: the folk who accept pretty much everything else about evolution, but demur on abiogenesis, are in fact the ones who are 'giving away the farm'. After all, when (not if) folk like Venter, Szostak, etc. succeed in making replicators, the gap in which those creationists have sequestered God will narrow considerably...!
Posted by: Scott Hatfield, OM | October 23, 2007 10:27 AM
Darwins theorys based on the belief in a god? Thats a bit interesting...
"Science has nothing to do with Christ, except insofar as the habit of scientific research makes a man cautious in admitting evidence. For myself, I do not believe that there ever has been any revelation. As for a future life, every man must judge for himself between conflicting vague probabilities." -Charles Darwin
Posted by: deeks | October 23, 2007 10:36 AM
BS: "Bueller?...Bueller?"
BO'R: "Falafel."
Posted by: jeh | October 23, 2007 10:40 AM
ben stein, "maybe we're wrong, maybe we're stupid".
Sorry stein, there is no "maybe" about it.
It would be nice to see someone on O'Reilly's show describe him as a theocratic pinhead.
Posted by: bernarda | October 23, 2007 10:41 AM
"After all, when (not if) folk like Venter, Szostak, etc. succeed in making replicators, the gap in which those creationists have sequestered God will narrow considerably...!"
Even if you show one particular route from abiological to biological, there is no reason to believe that it is the *actual* route that was taken.
If I give you a gram of synthesized methamphetamine, you won't necessarily be able to extrapolate the pathway by which it was produced. There are a lot of different ways to synthesize meth.
TBF, you are talking only about demonstrating the *principle* of abiogenesis without deity, which is sufficient to nullify the "God *had* to have made it" argument. Which is entirely do-able.
I'm just pointing out that by comparison abiogenesis didn't leave fingerprints, whereas evolution left fingerprints, DNA, video tape, and a signed confession. :)
Posted by: Chris | October 23, 2007 10:43 AM
What do you know? Stein did say that Darwin worked in an environment where God was acceptable. So what's his point? That we're Darwin dogmatists, and we're adamantly opposed to God making one or more forms of life (as Darwin suggested at one point), even if the evidence favored it? Look, I know the man is stupid (even if only secondarily, by "learning" from idiots), but can't he make any coherent statements?
And of course there's the old whine that God is excluded (implication, we ought to subsidize religious speech--the exact opposite of free speech), that we're persecuting the poor folk like Sternberg who are just allowing that God might have something to do with life, when most of the "persecuted" have been telling us that God has nothing to do with ID. One has to suppose that the DI has truly switched tactics by now (they're not directly responsible for the film, however it's without doubt that DI figures have "informed" the movie and idiots like Stein), and now want to claim that "God" is excluded, not the "designer".
At least Stein got something almost right when he said, "we might be stupid". Dispense with the "might", and you're actually right.
Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/
Posted by: Glen Davidson | October 23, 2007 10:47 AM
I see no problem with distinguishing the development of life after it origination, from the origination itself. Obviously the origin of life has something to do with life, but one can happily study the development without reference to the origin, just as computer programmers can happily program without knowing the physics of silicon or how the integrated circuit was invented. That is not to say that we can just forget about biogenesis. No, that is a perfectly valid scientific field of study. And indeed, plausible models for the origins of life coming from that field must be consistant with what we know of the subsequent development thereafter. However, the speculative nature of the former does not automatically imply a speculative nature overall.
If that were the case I could argue that we have no scientific model for evolution at all; since the development of life depends on the origin of life from inanimate molescuiles, which depends on the origin of these molecules, which down the line inevitably depends on the origin of the universe itself. Since there is no scientific model for this origin (I'm talking 'before' the Big Bang, there being no quantum mechanical model of gravity) there can be no scientific model for evolution.
Posted by: Dave S. | October 23, 2007 10:53 AM
It's a bit disingenuous to pretend that the chemical origin of life has nothing to do with evolution.
It would help if people would stop conflating "evolution" with "theory of evolution". The current ToE does not address abiogenesis. However, if/when more clarity about abiogenesis is achieved, to the point that there is some confidence and scientific consensus about it, it will presumably be incorporated into the ToE, resulting in a more complete theory of biology.
Posted by: truth machine | October 23, 2007 10:54 AM
Ben Stein is just another paid liar for money. The truth or reality has nothing to do with it. Not the least important.
Of course this makes him a part of the attack on science, a rather stupid idea that somehow pulling ourselves up from the stone age to the space age was wrong.
He is also a reprehensible evil creature but way it goes.
Posted by: raven | October 23, 2007 10:55 AM
Chris, abiogenesis din't leave fingerprints... on this planet. We might find fingerprints on other planets though.
Posted by: negentropyeater | October 23, 2007 10:55 AM
Chris, do you posit some origin for life that didn't involve evolutionary processes?
Posted by: Archaeopteryx | October 23, 2007 10:59 AM
I see no problem with distinguishing the development of life after it origination, from the origination itself.
The problem with this is that it smacks of vitalism, and I think that's the point PZ was making with "life is chemistry". There was no firm dividing line in time between "not life" and "life"; life "emerged" as groups of organic molecules developed (via natural selection plus other processes not well understood at this point) more and more of the functions that we associate with life.
Posted by: truth machine | October 23, 2007 11:02 AM
I thought good IDers were supposed to draw a sharp line between creationism and ID. Note that Stein utterly failed in that department.
Scientists = secular pinheads? You eggheads make computers and drugs and prop up the economy, while us common-sensical god-fearing folks make policy about how science is to be taught. Yecchhhh!
Posted by: ngong | October 23, 2007 11:04 AM
It makes a lot of sense to separate abiogenesis from evolution. Even the defintions are different enough to make this useful.
Evolution is the why and how life changes through time.
Abiogenesis is the process by which life arose from nonlife.
We have tons of data on evolution, we see it going on around us every day, and it is a fact even most cretinists admit. Microevolution is so undeniable they try to drive their wedge between it and macroevolution, a false distinction.
Abiogenesis is far less understood. Some theories, some model experiments, little real direct data. It is inherently difficult to study a process that happened 3.6 billion years ago, probably only happened once, left few fossils, and most of the evidence has long since been subducted into the mantel.
Nothing wrong in science with saying, "we don't know...yet." Science is open ended. We will never know everything. Unlike the cretinists, we have the ability and wherewithal to find out and usually anything humans try to understand, eventually is understood.
Posted by: raven | October 23, 2007 11:07 AM
So 'Darwinism' is a relic of the 'age of imperialism in the nineteenth century'. Ah, yes, a very sophisticated view of nineteenth century intellectual history being presented here. I would have thought that the free-market, imperial world of mid-Victorian Britain would be quite appealing for O'Reilly and co.
And just think, key developments of modern chemistry are relics of autocratic old-regime France, or militaristic late nineteenth century Prussia. And Galileo's heliocentrism is clearly the relic of the decadent, scheming and evil world of Renaissance Italy. Don't tell these guys that the number system that enables modern mathematics was developed by Arabs!
On a mildly related note, I just reread On the Origin of Species and was astonished by how insightful and 'right' it was given the level of knowledge at the time. Darwin's inferences as to what was going on were incredibly imaginative, and, more significantly, accurate. Given the ideas around at the time, it is remarkable.
Posted by: tjh | October 23, 2007 11:09 AM
Even if you show one particular route from abiological to biological, there is no reason to believe that it is the *actual* route that was taken.
It won't be guaranteed to be the actual route -- there are no guarantees in scientific inference -- but that's not the same as "no reason to believe"; some routes will be more plausible and better fit the evidence than others.
If I give you a gram of synthesized methamphetamine, you won't necessarily be able to extrapolate the pathway by which it was produced.
The word "necessarily" is key here -- no inference is "necessarily" so in scientific epistemology. Much of the confusion about science is based on this fundamental mistake.
Posted by: truth machine | October 23, 2007 11:10 AM
"There is no God but NO God, and Darwin is His Prophet."
Why can't these people think outside their own frames of reference?
Oh, right.
Posted by: Joolya | October 23, 2007 11:14 AM
Of course it's a perfectly legitimate field of research, but it's not the sort of subject that we should be teaching as established science. We're not "conceding" abiogenesis as the proper stance for studying the early origins of life, we're conceding that abiogenesis has no near-certain theories like MET, and we're pointing out that "Darwinism" in the known history of life is not epistemologically beholden to the unknowns of abiogenesis.
The two subjects aren't exactly separate, any more than physics and biology are truly separate, but they are legitimately sorted into separate areas, both because of the status of current abiogenetic understanding, and because there are important "non-Darwinian" issues involved in abiogenesis which are not involved in the evolution of life.
Yes, but we don't know how or at what point Darwinian principles applied. There are likely to be crucial steps which had to take place prior to Darwinian principles becoming very important to chemical evolution. Abiogenesis isn't separated from evolution because Darwinian principles had nothing to do with it at any time, rather because there were almost certainly one or several developments which do not play a role in the evolution of life after life got started.
It's like the Big Bang and the subsequent evolution of the universe. They're connected subjects, there are definitely continuities between the two, and the evolution of the cosmos has to be understood in the light of the Big Bang. Yet we might know nothing at all about the Big Bang (as indeed was the case for a long time) and still confidently discuss much of the evolution of the universe. What we knew about the evolution of the stars and the cosmos was based upon principles of science and upon our ability to observe past and present developments, and the vagaries of the origin of the cosmos did not prevent our confidence about how later developments occurred.
Likewise with biological evolution. We'll understand evolution better when we have greater knowledge of abiogenesis, but that gap of information does not much trouble our ability to understand evolution subsequent to life's arising on earth. Abiogenesis is different enough from evolution, however, that we don't get a clear picture of the origin of life just by working out evolution--almost certainly because non-evolutionary processes were crucial to abiogenesis (analogous with the Big Bang).
Both for causal reasons and for reasons of our ignorance, we separate abiogenesis from evolution.
Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/2kxyc7
Posted by: Glen Davidson | October 23, 2007 11:15 AM
Even if you show one particular route from abiological to biological, there is no reason to believe that it is the *actual* route that was taken.
True, but we can then begin to calculate some honest-to-goodness probabilities instead of the "jet airplane arising after a tornado in a junkyard" bunk that creationists robotically summon up.
Posted by: ngong | October 23, 2007 11:18 AM
Evolution is the why and how life changes through time.
Abiogenesis is the process by which life arose from nonlife.
It isn't possible to completely separate these. Treating them as completely distinct leads to the mistaken notion used by deniers that cells sprang into existence by random accident. But, as PZ notes, "life arose by natural mechanisms to which Darwinian principles did apply.". That is, the transition from "non-life" to "life" can be explained as changes through time explainable via Darwinian principles. "non-life" and "life" are on a continuum; they aren't discrete states.
Posted by: truth machine | October 23, 2007 11:20 AM
While I get what's being said, and it's certainly fair to say we don't have anything like the kind of direct evidence listed (the fossil record, for instance) providing us with the relatively rich level of detail we have for the more recent evolutionary histories of living things, I do think even saying 'abiogenesis doesn't leave fingerprints' does leave a slight exaggeration on the table. We do know a few things. We know, obviously, it eventually lead to what we have now, and there are interesting details in contemporary organisms that probably provide broad hints. At the broadest level, we know we're looking for what led to RNA. That's something on its own. In a sense, it's one big fingerprint, that molecule itself.
Talking about abiogenesis as a progression from the non-living to the obviously living, and assuming it was a gradual sort of process (which I'd bet iet was), note also that there may be additional fingerprints not yet found, of a more geological sort, that may yet take us further back. It's true the earliest systems almost certainly wouldn't have been amenable to fossilization the way more recent living things are, but they may yet have left interesting chemical traces, if they existed on a broad enough scale, and though it may be a faint hope, given the turnover rate of the planet's crust, we may yet turn some of that up. So I'd say: we can't quite say that abiogenesis doesn't leave any fingerprints. We can just say: it almost certainly hasn't left (a) nearly as many (b) that we have, as yet, found. But there may be clues, nonetheless, and one or more of us we may be standing on them right now.
Outside fingerprints (as in: what follows isn't a quibble with the fingerprints statement so much as an aside), note also that we obviously can constrain some of the situation under which it should have occurred. Palaeochemistry, apart from finding those actual traces, gives us some of those hints. We also know roughly when it should have occurred, if we assume it occurred here. We also know roughly how long it could have taken at the outside, though yes, as yet, it's a longish time frame by our standards (smallish, though, against the whole of natural history, I might also note).
/End quibble.
Posted by: AJ Milne | October 23, 2007 11:23 AM
Yes, but we don't know how or at what point Darwinian principles applied. There are likely to be crucial steps which had to take place prior to Darwinian principles becoming very important to chemical evolution. Abiogenesis isn't separated from evolution because Darwinian principles had nothing to do with it at any time, rather because there were almost certainly one or several developments which do not play a role in the evolution of life after life got started.
Very well said (ditto for the rest of your post). I alluded to this with "natural selection plus other processes not well understood at this point".
Posted by: truth machine | October 23, 2007 11:26 AM
I can't recall ever seeing a materialist hypothesis for the origin of life that did not include variation, replication, and selection at some points within the continuum from mere chemistry to "life" (a term that is extremely hard to define, at any rate).
Posted by: Greg Peterson | October 23, 2007 11:26 AM
With extreme apologies to the memory of The Ramones, I wish to reveal a reworked version of 'Pinhead' entitled 'Secular Pinhead'. I know the extra syllables do note really fit. But it is punk, just say it really fast.
"Secular Pinhead"
Gabba gabba we accept you, we accept you one of us!
Gabba gabba we accept you, we accept you one of us!
I don't wanna be a secular pinhead no more.
I just met a creationist that I could go for.
I don't wanna be a secular pinhead no more.
I just met a creationist that I could go for.
I don't wanna be a secular pinhead no more.
I just met a creationist that I could go for.
I don't wanna be a secular pinhead no more.
I just met a creationist that I could go for.
D-U-M-B
Everyone's accusing me!
D-U-M-B
Everyone's accusing me!
I don't wanna be a secular pinhead no more.
I just met a creationist that I could go for.
I don't wanna be a secular pinhead no more.
I just met a creationist that I could go for.
Gabba gabba hey!
Posted by: Janine | October 23, 2007 11:27 AM
"non-life" and "life" are on a continuum; they aren't discrete states.
A broth is either gonna have replicators capable of mutating or not. No?
Posted by: ngong | October 23, 2007 11:28 AM
"Chris, do you posit some origin for life that didn't involve evolutionary processes?"
Define "evolutionary processes." It's possible to define the term in such a way that it covers nearly everything that has happened in the last 14 billion years.
In which case it's kind of different than the biological ToE.
"Chris, abiogenesis din't leave fingerprints... on this planet. We might find fingerprints on other planets though."
We're talking about the specific chemical reactions that occured among less than a handful of molecules 4.6 billion years ago. I'm really not making a controversial statement when I assert that we probably will never know exactly what happened there beyond the core principles.
Posted by: Chris | October 23, 2007 11:33 AM
A broth is either gonna have replicators capable of mutating or not. No?
"replicators" and "life" aren't synonyms. And if all you have is one replicator in a broth, that replicator isn't likely to survive. The explanation of abiogenesis is going to be considerably more complex than that.
Posted by: truth machine | October 23, 2007 11:35 AM
"replicators" and "life" aren't synonyms.
To flesh that out a little ... from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life
1. Homeostasis: Regulation of the internal environment to maintain a constant state; for example, sweating to reduce temperature.
2. Organization: Being composed of one or more cells, which are the basic units of life.
3. Metabolism: Consumption of energy by converting nonliving material into cellular components (anabolism) and decomposing organic matter (catabolism). Living things require energy to maintain internal organization (homeostasis) and to produce the other phenomena associated with life.
4. Growth: Maintenance of a higher rate of synthesis than catalysis. A growing organism increases in size in all of its parts, rather than simply accumulating matter. The particular species begins to multiply and expand as the evolution continues to flourish.
5. Adaptation: The ability to change over a period of time in response to the environment. This ability is fundamental to the process of evolution and is determined by the organism's heredity as well as the composition of metabolized substances, and external factors present.
6. Response to stimuli: A response can take many forms, from the contraction of a unicellular organism when touched to complex reactions involving all the senses of higher animals. A response is often expressed by motion, for example, the leaves of a plant turning toward the sun or an animal chasing its prey.
7. Reproduction: The ability to produce new organisms. Reproduction can be the division of one cell to form two new cells. Usually the term is applied to the production of a new individual (either asexually, from a single parent organism, or sexually, from at least two differing parent organisms), although strictly speaking it also describes the production of new cells in the process of growth.
Posted by: truth machine | October 23, 2007 11:39 AM
That is true as far as we know. Current theories state that the dividing line between life and nonlife will be fuzzy and hard to define.
It is also irrelevant.
The important thing is that at one end of the spectrum we have nonlife. At the other end we have life. Where the dividing line is placed is a minor detail.
Posted by: raven | October 23, 2007 11:39 AM
Come on, look at what we have learned, via science, about life, the world, the universe, in just a few centuries, a blip of time compared with what is left...
If America decides to take for serious the scientific recommendations of people like Billo and BStein, and continues to elect presidents like GWB, in a few generations the USA wil be the third world. Afterall, that's what happened with the most advanced nations in the 13th century, the arabs decided that Islam would freeze any quest for knowledge, that even asking how angel Gabriel looked like would be a crime and Europe took the lead.
Don't worry, us secular pinheads in Europe, China and Japan will make this century's main scientific discoveries whilst Fox News will continue airing these kind of really thought provoking discussions between your greatest thinkers.
God Bless America !
Posted by: negentropyeater | October 23, 2007 11:41 AM
Here's a concept those of you who disagree that abiogenesis involves evolution need to consider.
Do viruses evolve?
Are viruses alive?
Posted by: PZ Myers | October 23, 2007 11:45 AM
The important thing is that at one end of the spectrum we have nonlife. At the other end we have life. Where the dividing line is placed is a minor detail.
It seems that you don't know what "continuum" means; there is no "dividing line".
Posted by: truth machine | October 23, 2007 11:47 AM
#63...Well, we're discussing the abiogenesis/evolution barrier. Evolution needs replicators, but it doesn't need wikipedia's 7-point definition of life . No?
Posted by: ngong | October 23, 2007 11:50 AM
Here's a concept those of you who disagree that abiogenesis involves evolution need to consider.
I agree that it involves evolution. But Glen's point was that it doesn't involve the theory of evolution -- or that it involves only a little of that (variation, replication, and selection, Greg says) plus a bunch of other stuff.
Posted by: truth machine | October 23, 2007 11:51 AM
Well, we're discussing the abiogenesis/evolution barrier. Evolution needs replicators, but it doesn't need wikipedia's 7-point definition of life . No?
A theory of abiogenesis should at least explain how the first primitive cells arose. And since they didn't spring into existence like a jet plane in a junkyard, some sort of evolution of function must be considered.
Posted by: truth machine | October 23, 2007 11:54 AM
Right on PZ, and if I may add, does the milky way galaxy evolve ? Is it alive ?
I'm more and more convinced that the key to abiogenesis is a very lengthly evolutionary process which occured over billions of years across the universe, before the planet earth existed. The first replicators were not manufactured in an instant, on the planet earth, but over billions of years in thermodynamic conditions that we will gradually discover, using more and more sophisticated computers and experiments. Science will not give up.
Posted by: negentropyeater | October 23, 2007 11:55 AM
"At the broadest level, we know we're looking for what led to RNA."
Which brings us right back to the methamphetamine analogy. There are a *lot* of pathways by which RNA could have gotten here. You might use evidence to narrow it down to a few million.
(I guess I am kind of quibbling since I am not arguing that the *principle* of abiogenesis can't be demonstrated and educated guesses made about the actual process).
" We also know roughly when it should have occurred, if we assume it occurred here."
Wait...are you saying we don't even know whether this happened on Earth or someplace else at this point? Because that ain't a small gap in our knowledge.
""non-life" and "life" are on a continuum; they aren't discrete states.
Err...by definition they actually are discrete states. Reminds me of that scene in Princess Bride: "He's not dead, he's only mostly dead!"
Posted by: Chris | October 23, 2007 11:58 AM
#66...Obviously, it's a mistake to say that we should begin talking about evolution when the first "life" appears. That plays right into the creos hands.
But is it a mistake to refer to abiogenesis as the study of events that lead up to the first replicators? And here, many/most of the mechanisms (e.g. mutation) of standard biological evolution don't really come into play.
Posted by: ngong | October 23, 2007 12:00 PM
I think that C-span link has completely defused any worries I might have had about Expelled.
Conspiracy theories ("you could lose your friends just for watching this film!!!!" and quote mines. They even cut off Dawkins mid-sentence.
Posted by: Dan | October 23, 2007 12:00 PM
Weird shit...I venture over to dictionary.com and enter abiogenesis. Here's the first entry: the now discredited theory that living organisms can arise spontaneously from inanimate matter; spontaneous generation.
Posted by: ngong | October 23, 2007 12:07 PM
Err...by definition they actually are discrete states.
Yet another person who doesn't know what "by definition" means and thinks that "by fiat" is an argument.
Are "non-bearded" and "bearded" discrete states? Are "non-rich" and "rich" discrete states? Not only is there no definition that makes them so, but there is a rich body of literature that addresses such inexact criteria.
Posted by: truth machine | October 23, 2007 12:09 PM
Here's the first entry:
Yes, well, that's not the meaning we're discussing, now is it?
Posted by: truth machine | October 23, 2007 12:11 PM
Yes, well, that's not the meaning we're discussing, now is it?
Ok, I hadn't read the dictionary.com entry; I wasn't fair. Yes, that's weird shit, but general dictionaries are often poor sources for technical terms.
Posted by: truth machine | October 23, 2007 12:14 PM
#77...no. But it seems a bit loaded for the first definition offered. Or maybe I'm just seeing creationist conspiracies everywhere I look, Ben Stein-like.
Posted by: ngong | October 23, 2007 12:16 PM