In which I accuse Scott Youngren of not understanding evolution or panspermia - updated 11/7/14

Part seven where I try to break down the general areas of Scott Youngren's ignorance. 

Part 1: Quote-mining
Part 2: Idealism/Materialism & QM
Part 3: Second Law of Thermodynamics (2LOT)
Part 4: Statistics and scientific laws
Part 5: The "symbolic representation" in DNA (information theory)
Part 6: Logical fallacies and general logic

Sorry for the late entry. I’ve tried to post this a few times, but there were problems with your site. This is my final installment in the “Things Scott Youngren Doesn’t Understand” series (though it’s used tongue-in-cheek, as I’m confident you understand the following topics well enough.)

Evolution:

You say in many places, “Random mutation and natural selection cannot apply to something that does not have any genes to mutate nor any reproductive offspring to be naturally selected.” You reach the same conclusion in response to me: “This is part of the absurdity that I am trying to call [Dawkins] out on!! He is citing a mechanism that only applies to things which are already alive to explain how the space aliens… evolved from non-living matter!” (Emphasis yours) But Dawkins didn’t cite a mechanism that included genes. He claim any specific mechanism, and the general evolutionary description doesn’t require genes or natural selection.

Why do you think the aliens would have to develop by the exact same method we see on earth, when that’s neither what Dawkins said, nor is it a reasonable conclusion from his words? Dawkins is clearly saying the explanation for the aliens would probably follow a general form of evolution, but not any specific one. No modern theory of abiogenesis on earth includes genes as the first step. Why would you try to handcuff Dawkins’ explanation into that narrow framework, when he clearly says these aliens would result from “some” natural process, “some” Darwinian means, or “some other crane”? You erected a straw man then–somewhat hysterically–bashed away at it as if you were accomplishing something. On your site you even say, “Darwinian theory does not even attempt to explain the origin of life,” so why try to pigeonhole Dawkins’ hypothetical into a specific interpretation that you know is inapplicable?

In general, evolution is a result of variation, inheritable variation, differential survival and reproduction, and finite resources. Mutation of “genes” and “natural selection” are specific expressions of evolution. You keep trying to apply the specific to the general, when it isn’t justified. What Dawkins posited is that a general evolutionary theory requires some method of replication, and some method of variation, and some method of passing on the variation, and some method of filtering for beneficial variations. Genes are not specifically required.


Panspermia:

You say, “And regarding panspermia, even though I have no reason to object to it, I still think the theory has virtually no merit. Below is a copy and paste from an article at another website: ’Even if life could originate naturally, there are many difficulties faced by a theory which states that life entered earth from outer-space. The trip through the upper atmosphere would be extremely harsh upon any life-form, and it is difficult to imagine how life could survive such high temperatures and extreme pressures upon entry to the earth, and then upon impact with the surface.’”

There is a crucial piece of information that the authors of this ‘other website’ didn’t share with you: Panspermia doesn’t require that life came from space, and the people who actually investigate the plausibility of panspermia say that it is (non-living) organic compounds or chemical precursors that could have come from space. You’re presenting a narrow and distorted view to make it seem more unlikely than it needs to be. Also, computer modeling and physical experiments show two things you’ll never hear from apologetics sources: Metorites containing intact organic compounds, including simple sugars and amino acids have been documented to have struck the earth, and computer modeling indicates that during the late bombardment period there were pockets of water on earth. It doesn’t matter how difficult your source thinks it would be for “life” to survive in a meteorite, we know for a fact that organic compounds can and do remain intact.

Nov. 7 Scott:

THE COUNTER IS NOW ON TWO (2) for the question of what is the source of the “high degree of ordering of the objective world” that Einstein marveled at. READERS PLEASE TAKE NOTE BECAUSE THIS IS INSTRUCTIVE!!:

Atheists will use every tool in their arsenal to avoid this question because it cannot be coherently answered from within the explanatory framework of their worldview.

Non-Credenti, regarding evolution, if you or Dawkins did (some bright and shining day in the future) come up with “some other crane” or “some other natural process” to explain how life emerged from non-living matter, what would this achieve? Please recall that, as I pointed out to another reader (Skl), the following two statements commit the same category error because they confuse different levels of causation:

“Life was not created by God, but rather by natural processes.”

“Cars are not created by people, but rather by manufacturing processes.”

As the ancient Greek philosopher Aristotle pointed out, there are different levels of causation. God and human agency are proposed efficient causes, whereas evolution and manufacturing processes are proposed formal causes (using the Aristotelean model).

You can use the natural-mechanisms-of-the-gaps approach by suggesting that natural mechanisms which have yet to be discovered will someday explain the origin of life. However, what does this achieve as long as you have not cited some ultimate cause for the “high degree of ordering of the objective world” (that Einstein marveled at)?

You have backed yourself into a corner because you have already said that natural laws are descriptive rather than prescriptive. Therefore, you cannot cite natural laws as the source of the “high degree of ordering of the objective world.” What does this leave you with? Nothing really.

Further, you have failed to respond to what I pointed out about the COMPLETE INABILITY of natural laws to explain the information contained in the language of life (DNA). Please recall my following citation of Nancy Pearcey from her book Total Truth:

…in principle, laws of nature do not give rise to information. Why not? Because laws describe events that are regular, repeatable, and predictable. If you drop a pencil, it will fall. If you put paper into a flame, it will burn. If you mix salt in water, it will dissolve. That’s why the scientific method insists that experiments must be repeatable: Whenever you reproduce the same conditions, you should get the same results, or something is wrong with your experiment. The goal of science is to reduce those regular patterns to mathematical formulas. By contrast, the sequence of letters in a message is irregular and non repeating, which means it cannot be the result of any law-like process.
To illustrate the point, let’s invoke our imaginary Scrabble game… but this time when you organize the letters, you decide to follow a certain formula or rule (an analogy to laws of nature). For example, the formula might require that every time you have a D, it is followed by an E. And every time you have an E, it’s followed by a S, then an I, then a G, and an N. The result would be that every time you started with D, you would get DESIGN, DESIGN, DESIGN, over and over again. Obviously, if the letters in a real alphabet followed rules like that, you would be limited to spelling only a few words—and you could not convey very much information. The reason a real alphabet works so well is precisely that the letters do not follow rules or formulas or laws. If you know that a word begins with a T, you cannot predict what the next letter will be. With some minor exceptions (in English, q is always fol-lowed by u ), the letters can be combined and recombined in a vast number of different arrangements to form words and sentences.

Non-Credenti, I am really not interested in panspermia because it does NOTHING to explain the origin of life from non-living matter. Rather, it just discusses the hypothesis that life came from space. Of what relevance is it whether life came from space or not? What we are looking for is an explanation for the origin of life.

Therefore, panspermia is a tangential issue.

Nov. 7 Non:

“THE COUNTER IS NOW ON TWO (2) for the question of what is the source of the “high degree of ordering of the objective world” that Einstein marveled at. READERS PLEASE TAKE NOTE BECAUSE THIS IS INSTRUCTIVE!!” (All caps and multiple punctuation marks yours)

Yes, is it instructive. I posted something that I wrote a number of days ago, beforeyou started your most recent silly little counter, and told you that it was older material that I couldn’t post because of problems with your web site. .
Your reaction is to throw another temper tantrum, and increment your silly little counter.
.
Well, I’m not answering it this time, either, so now your silly little counter is up to THREE (3)!!!!11!!!!!wtfbbq!!!!!

Part 6: Logical fallacies and general logic