Abiogenesis

[liamconnor]

Again, I rarely wander over to the sciences and more rarely set up an argument. Not my forte.

But I recall reading that a famous atheist became a theist (not a Christian) because of the problem of abiogenesis.

Now, as I understand the term, it refers to the theory that life can come from non-life.

In simplistic terms, a rock can, over time, produce (on its own, nothing added to it; the development happens "within") cells.


Question:

Do I understand the term "abiogenesis"?


Based on my (or your corrected version's) definition, has it been reproduced by scientists?

[DrNoGods]

[Replying to post 517 by For_The_Kingdom]

... a panspermia event ...

The universe began to exist, sir. Any physical event that occur(s) only occurred AFTER the universe began to exist. So how/why the universe began to exist at some point in the finite past would still be an open question.

Panspermia just says that life may exist throughout the universe, and can be distributed to planets (including Earth) through collisions with asteroids, comets, or other bodies. If doesn't have anything to do with how/why the universe began to exist. But my point in that post was that it doesn't matter HOW life began on Earth ... evolution would work the same way for any of the specific hypotheses I mentioned, or any other ones. It does not concern itself with how life originated, only that it did at some point, via some mechanism.

This is still the cart before the horse fallacy. If you can't prove that abiogenesis is true, then you can't prove evolution to be true (macroevolution), on naturalism. If abiogenesis is false, then there is no way in hell evolution could possibly be true, because if life can't get to the point of ORIGINATING, then it can't get to the point of EVOLVING.

That was a response to BW, but is the same subject. Obviously, life has to originate via some method for evolution to then do its thing. But you don't have to prove abiogenesis true or false, or panspermia, or a creator, or (fill in the blank for any other origin-of-life hypothesis) as an origin. Evolution does not depend on HOW life originated, so if abiogenesis turns out to be false that is fine ... the specific mechanism for the origin of life has zero relationship to evolution or how it works.

A cart before the horse fallacy would be a claim that evolution could proceed before there was life, but no one is making that claim. Pick any origin mechanism you like ... evolution can only be discussed after that event has taken place, and has no dependence on how it happened to occur.

[For_The_Kingdom]

No brainer ... the brain, since consciousness is purely a manifestation of brain activity.

Ok, well visit your local morgue where there are plenty of unconscious brains and make those brains manifest consciousness again. Can't do that, can you? Let me guess; "because that is not how it works".

Well, Mother Nature somehow made it work, and she can't even think or see. And I challenge you with the following analogy; if you were able to gather up all of the brain matter in the world, and you had the ability to shape/mode this brain matter and create the perfect human brain and you are tasked with making this brain conscious....you will undoubtedly have the brain, but where would you get the consciousness from? Huh?

I will make it easier for you. Imagine a deliver truck made a trip to your lab, and delivered to you a truck load of neurons, sensors, electrons, etc...and you took all of it.

Now, what will you do with it, and still, where will you get the consciousness from? Huh?

Still not easy enough? Ok, well you can add whatever you want to the scenario, where you can have all of the skin, blood, bones, etc...in the WORLD. You have all of the components you need to create a physical human being from scratch.

But the question remains, where would you get the consciousness from? A storage freezer? A tool box? A locked safe? Where would you get the consciousness from?

I am not asking you to do ANY MORE than what Mother Nature did, btw. Mother Nature had all of the material she needed to get the job done, and she pulled it off...and she did this WITHOUT possessing the five senses that you possess.

What does that say about her? What does that say about you? Again I ask, where would you get the consciousness from in the scenario?

Consciousness originated when a brain developed the necessary complexity to carry out the functions of managing sensory inputs (sight, sound, feel, etc.), storing and retreiving information (memory and recall), and organizing these entities into thoughts and the other functions we associate with consciousness. Before brains had developed to this point there was no consciousness, and when brains did reach this level of development ... viola ... consciousness.

So if you know how it is made/originated, you should be able and go in the lab and produce the effect. If I want to know how potato chips are made, I will go to a potato chip factory.

I challenge you, that since you know so much about how things originated, go in a lab and produce the effect. Create a brain/consciousness from scratch. After all, you just explained it all, because you "know" so much, don't you?

The manager at a potato chip factory may be able to verbally tell me how potato chips are made, but the difference is, he can actually take me to the factory and produce the desired effect.

So not only can he talk the talk, but he can walk the walk. You, on the other hand, cannot do such. All talk, no action.

Science is supposed to be about observation, experiment, and prediction. You, my friend, haven't left first base from observation.

Impossible based on what?

I gave 3 reasons why in my prior point, and you've yet to address either.

What could possibly create consciousness in an animal if not the brain?

God. That is my answer.

My brain itself isn't aware in terms of its constituent atoms and molecules, but when it is operating as an integrated system (back to sensory inputs, memory, etc.) the capacity for awareness, emotions, etc. becomes available. There are many examples of components which themselves do nothing, but when integrated into an appropriate system very complicated functions can be carried out. The brain is no different ... this thing we call consciousness is a result of the brain system working as an integrated unit.

I fail to see how this answers the question of identity. The question is; when you are sad, who is sad? The brain isn't sad, the molecules aren't sad. Well, if you exclude the brain and the molecules, who exactly is sad? Who does the emotion of sadness correspond to?

Naturalism would say that there is no problem ... the "who" inside anyone's head is a manifestation of brain activity that creates the concept of self, theory of mind, awareness, etc.

Creates concept of self? No, there is an actual self, and the question is, who is feeling the emotion. If it isn't the brain or the molecules, than who? If I say "I am sad", I am not talking about my brain, or my molecules...so who in the hell is sad?? Who else could it possibly be?

The brain is capable of forming such thoughts and concepts in humans far beyond simple awareness (like might be the case with a worm) so we have sentience, but naturalism would argue that this is just an advanced use of the same sensory inputs, memory, etc. ... it is a matter of degree and not of kind. Our brains are far more complex in structure and orders of magnitude larger in size than the brain of a worm, so we have the capability of far greater functionality. But it is still sensory input being processed, neurons firing, memory working, etc. that creates consciousness and sentience.

Which says nothing about origins. I can agree with you on all of that but still ask the question of "yeah, but where did the consciousness come from in the first place".

And whatever answer you give begin to give, you should be able to go in a lab and simulate the entire process...because again, after all, Mother Nature did it, so why can't intelligent human beings.

I'm not missing the point, but trying to point out that the analogy is not a correct one. You disagree with my point on that and believe that consciousness and the "who" inside my head is some supernatural, magical thing that cannot be explained as the result of normal brain activity. If you did believe that consciousness was the result of normal brain activity, then you'd see that the TV remote analogy is not correct.

And if you did believe that the origin of consciousness was not a result of brain activity, then you would see that TV remote analogy is correct.

This might have been the best explanation in Descartes time, but not now.

If you can go in a lab and produce consciousness from scratch, I will be right with you and your assessment of things...however..

Another 3rd party reference and "in other words" statement. The original paper speaks for itself ... no need to keep beating this dead horse.

Give a direct reference from the original paper which state otherwise.

[For_The_Kingdom]

Panspermia just says that life may exist throughout the universe, and can be distributed to planets (including Earth) through collisions with asteroids, comets, or other bodies. If doesn't have anything to do with how/why the universe began to exist.

But my point in that post was that it doesn't matter HOW life began on Earth ... evolution would work the same way for any of the specific hypotheses I mentioned, or any other ones. It does not concern itself with how life originated, only that it did at some point, via some mechanism.

Which was confusing, because even if panspermia is true (on naturalism), the concept of abiogenesis isn't negated. Life would still have to be originated somehow, naturally. So you mentioning panspermia is still an abiogenesis concept, just wearing a slightly different colored cape.

That was a response to BW, but is the same subject. Obviously, life has to originate via some method for evolution to then do its thing.

Right, but my point is; on NATURALISM, there is no logical way for you to claim that macroevolution is a brute fact, if the question of abiogenesis has yet to be answered. Because it may just be the case that abiogenesis is naturally impossible..and if that is the case, then macroevolution would also be impossible.

It is simple; on naturalism, God doesn't exist...and if God doesn't exist, then abiogenesis is the only game left in town...but that is the problem, you don't know whether abiogenesis is true, so any belief in abiogenesis is speculative, along with the belief of any spin-offs or byproducts of its effects.

But you don't have to prove abiogenesis true or false, or panspermia, or a creator, or (fill in the blank for any other origin-of-life hypothesis) as an origin. Evolution does not depend on HOW life originated, so if abiogenesis turns out to be false that is fine ... the specific mechanism for the origin of life has zero relationship to evolution or how it works.

Thats the point, if abiogenesis turns out to be false, then creationism is the only game left in town. Panspermia is a naturalistic theory...so the laws of nature would apply to it and the concept only came into being with the finite beginning of the universe...so its existence would be contingent.

So the origin of life/evolution would owe its existence to a supernatural creator..after all, what other explanation could there be if abiogenesis is negated?

A cart before the horse fallacy would be a claim that evolution could proceed before there was life, but no one is making that claim.

In this case, it would be to claim that evolution is a brute fact before having a viable option as to whether or not abiogenesis is true. This is all on naturalism, of course.

[DrNoGods]

[Replying to post 520 by For_The_Kingdom]

Ok, well visit your local morgue where there are plenty of unconscious brains and make those brains manifest consciousness again. Can't do that, can you? Let me guess; "because that is not how it works".

The problem with that is that the brains at the morgue are dead. Only a living brain can carry out the functions needed for a conscious existence, so this suggestion is dead on arrival. But if it were possible to somehow bring a dead body (with previously intact and working brain) back to life, then consciousness would again appear as soon as the brain started working again.

Still not easy enough? Ok, well you can add whatever you want to the scenario, where you can have all of the skin, blood, bones, etc...in the WORLD. You have all of the components you need to create a physical human being from scratch.

But the question remains, where would you get the consciousness from? A storage freezer? A tool box? A locked safe? Where would you get the consciousness from?

If it were actually possible to take these parts and build a human being (or make this simpler ... build a worm), then you wouldn't need to get the consciousness from anywhere. It would exist as soon as the brain started working as a normal brain works, because the brain's functions create this thing called consciousness. You get it for free ... if you could simply build an animal from "parts" which of course humans can't do (yet anyway).

I challenge you, that since you know so much about how things originated, go in a lab and produce the effect. Create a brain/consciousness from scratch. After all, you just explained it all, because you "know" so much, don't you?

I have never claimed that I could go into a lab and build an animal capable of consciousness. The only, and very simple, point I am trying to make is that consciousness is the result of brain activity. And we are at least on first base if not second base on understanding how this all works. I've referenced some recent books on the subject before, and one relatively easy read is called "Consciousness and the Brain: Deciphering how the Brain Codes our Thoughts", by Stanislas Dehaene, Penguin Books, 2014. It is not as simple as making potato chips, but we have ample evidence now, from observation and experiments, that brain activity is the source of consciousness. It isn't some magic ingredient infused into animals that have it.

Explain why, of all the living things on Earth, the only entities with consciousness are those with sufficiently developed brains. If it were some magic property only a god could provide why is there no example ... not one ... of a conscious entity that doesn't have a brain? Wouldn't some plants benefit from having consciousness? Why didn't a god give at least one plant this magic property? Why only members of the kingdom Animalia, and only those with sufficiently complex brains?

Give a direct reference from the original paper which state otherwise.

I did better than that ... I have twice posted a link to a PDF of the original, very short, paper for anyone to read directly. There is no discussion or implication anywhere in it that the goal of the experiment was to create life from nonlife. It was to test a hypothesis that complex organic molecules might be formed by electrical and thermal actions on a 4-gas mixture thought to represent the early Earth's atmospheric composition. If such molecules were formed (and they were ... some amino acids) then it did not falsify earlier hypotheses that life could have formed from a similar scenario. But there is zero discussion in the actual paper of an intent to produce life in the experiment ... only to test the earlier hypotheses that complex organics could be formed.

[For_The_Kingdom]

The problem with that is that the brains at the morgue are dead. Only a living brain can carry out the functions needed for a conscious existence, so this suggestion is dead on arrival.

Actually, no the suggestion isn't dead on arrival, considering the fact that Mother Nature was able to create consciousness from DEAD MATTER...the matter was never living in the first place for Mother Nature, and she got the job done.

So why can't you? You can't create consciousness from scratch nor can you make a dead brain conscious again, but Mother Nature did one of the two..which means that a mind/blind process was able to do something that intelligent visual human beings aren't able to do.

But if it were possible to somehow bring a dead body (with previously intact and working brain) back to life, then consciousness would again appear as soon as the brain started working again.

And if it were also possible to somehow create a human being from nonliving physical matter, I guess the consciousness would also appear as soon as the brain started working.

If it were actually possible to take these parts and build a human being (or make this simpler ... build a worm), then you wouldn't need to get the consciousness from anywhere. It would exist as soon as the brain started working as a normal brain works, because the brain's functions create this thing called consciousness. You get it for free ... if you could simply build an animal from "parts" which of course humans can't do (yet anyway).

That is the question; what is required for the brain to start "working as a normal brain works", if you have all of the material needed for it to happen. You are making it seem as if it is as simple as connecting two wires together and getting an electrical current (in this case, consciousness), and I am merely asking what has to take place for this consciousness to originate if you have all of the material there to cause it to manifest.

Go in a lab and get results. After all, Mother nature was able to do it with no instruction manuals, no guidance, no vision, and most of all, no consciousness. So again, why can't intelligent human beings do it?

I have never claimed that I could go into a lab and build an animal capable of consciousness.

You have been claiming you know how it works, and if you know how it works, the process should be able to be simulated.

The only, and very simple, point I am trying to make is that consciousness is the result of brain activity.

That is a hypothesis, that is currently unsupported by any scientific evidence.

And we are at least on first base if not second base on understanding how this all works. I've referenced some recent books on the subject before, and one relatively easy read is called "Consciousness and the Brain: Deciphering how the Brain Codes our Thoughts", by Stanislas Dehaene, Penguin Books, 2014.

None of those authors can go in a lab and get the desired results, can they?

It is not as simple as making potato chips

It is not simple to teach an ant how to play chess, but the task is easier with human beings, isn't it?

, but we have ample evidence now, from observation and experiments, that brain activity is the source of consciousness.

We have evidence that the mind correlates with the brain, which no one that I am aware of have ever denied. This says nothing about how the mind originated, and if you think the mind originated from the brain, you are not basing this off of the scientific evidence. Your position is simply one by default, I mean after all, if God didn't do it, there has to be some kind of naturalistic way to explain the origin of consciousness...and there you have it.
.

Explain why, of all the living things on Earth, the only entities with consciousness are those with sufficiently developed brains.

The simple answer is because that is the way the designer designed it.

If it were some magic property only a god could provide why is there no example ... not one ... of a conscious entity that doesn't have a brain?

On Christian theism, there are conscious entities that don't have brains...you know, like angels, demons, spirits, and God himself. A mind can only begat a mind, and in this case, an unembodied mind.

The idea that physical matter (brain) can be the ultimate source of immaterial entities (mind) is logically absurd and naturally impossible. It is so absurd that you cannot think of a scenario at which it could occur.

I challenge you to give me a scenario at which the furniture in your house can suddenly and/or gradually become sentient objects. Can you even conceive of such a notion? Sure, it is certainly conceivable to imagine coming home and finding your furniture laughing and talking to one another...but if this was to occur, it surely wouldn't be a natural phenomena.

And that is the point, the idea that animate matter can become sentient would be equivalent to the furniture in your house becoming sentient. It is the same thing. Dead matter is dead matter. The molecules in your brain is as dead (non-sentient) as your living room couch.

Consciousness isn't something that you can just mix up ingredients in a bowl and get. It requires something much, much more. Something, divine.

Wouldn't some plants benefit from having consciousness? Why didn't a god give at least one plant this magic property? Why only members of the kingdom Animalia, and only those with sufficiently complex brains?

I don't know. On judgment day, ask God.

I did better than that ... I have twice posted a link to a PDF of the original, very short, paper for anyone to read directly. There is no discussion or implication anywhere in it that the goal of the experiment was to create life from nonlife. It was to test a hypothesis that complex organic molecules might be formed by electrical and thermal actions on a 4-gas mixture thought to represent the early Earth's atmospheric composition. If such molecules were formed (and they were ... some amino acids) then it did not falsify earlier hypotheses that life could have formed from a similar scenario. But there is zero discussion in the actual paper of an intent to produce life in the experiment ... only to test the earlier hypotheses that complex organics could be formed.

Nonsense. First off, there are too many videos and websites debunking the results of the experiment. If it was/is a known fact that the experiment was a failure at producing life, then why are people to the day still going at lengths to debunk the results?

This would only make sense if people are still out there giving credibility to the experiment as producing results that it did not produce, which they are.

[DBSmith]

[Replying to post 497 by DrNoGods]

DBSmith Quote:
So, essentially, you are asking me to disprove the existence of something that has not been proven to exist?


DrNoGod wrote: I'm not asking for that. A hypothesis was made by Darwin and others that life originated by some means on this planet a very long time ago, and by a process called evolution by natural selection the huge diversity of life that exists now came about (along with the huge number of now extinct species that are no longer around). Some refinements to this basic theory have been incorporated after analyses of fossil evidence and modern genetics research, and many tens of thousands of papers have been published that support the basic theory of evolution. No definitive falsifications have been presented that would invalidate the hypothesis, therefore it has reached the status of theory. If you (or anyone) can provide a falsification of the theory then it would have to be abandoned, or refined to accommodate the new results. I was simply asking for such a falsification, because to date none have ever been presented that proved to be legitimate (plenty of attempts by anti-evolutionists, but none that stand up to scrutiny).

You say "Some refinements to this basic theory..." Well, its closer to 10's of thousands of refinements redefining and seeding, sidetracks and the like to make it the theory it is today...with abundant articles to quote and nice short story boards with color pictures to aid in preaching the theory. Why do you want a falsification. The theory doesn't prove a common ancestor existed for me or anyone else to falsify. Again, that's why it is still a theory. Why do you insist it has to be abandoned, it is a good theory with many unproven conclusions. Again, that's why it is a theory.

DBSmith Quote:
the papers exist, but were not allowed to be published

DrNoGod wrote: That is a pretty bold statement. Are you claiming that legitimate scientific results were submitted to reputable peer-review science journals, but were not published due to some conspiracy by evolutionists to block them? I seriously doubt that is the case. If anything like that happened and could be proven that journal would quickly cease to have any credibility and would disappear. You mention some congressional finding but I didn't find any reference to it. I've never heard of any journal rejecting papers with legitimate research results that are presented formally and with supporting evidence simply because a reviewer may not agree with the results. If the work was shoddy, lacking proper evidence, reached clearly wrong conclusions by misinterpreting results, etc. then it would be rejected. That is what the peer review process weeds out. There are certainly erroneous results reported in some cases, but those are usually quickly refuted by subsequent research and corrected. But any widespread effort by legitimate science journals to block the publication of research papers because they don't agree with the results, is certainly not the case. I'd like to see the congressional report you mention. 

OK, tell us then. Why did they not publish Darwin’s paper(s) when he first submitted them? Rejection under the guise of peer review has always been a discriminator more recently. A lot of the breakthrough papers were/are rejected by the journals both for and against evolution, depending upon who was in control of the press during a particular interval in time. Not sure where you are coming from. We won’t talk about Galileo then. But, I agree with your enthusiasm. But, it has certainly become a epidemic in our day, even all the fake news. Below is a start for you to do your own research on the subject. This is where it all recently began …and as a result now we do have Intelligent Design articles being published and the like in the science journals because of the investigation and what followed. The congressional report noted harassment, discrimination and retaliation against a research associate and journal editor for allowing publication of a scientific paper supporting intelligent design back in 2004.

US Congressional Committee Report: INTOLERANCE AND THE POLITICIZATION OF SCIENCE AT THE SMITHSONIAN
REPORT PREPARED FOR THE HON. MARK SOUDER
UNITED STATES HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT REFORM
December 15, 2006 UNITED STATES HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT REFORM
DECEMBER 2006
________________________________________________
INTOLERANCE AND THE POLITICIZATION OF SCIENCE AT THE SMITHSONIAN
SMITHSONIAN’S TOP OFFICIALS PERMIT THE DEMOTION AND HARASSMENT OF SCIENTIST SKEPTICAL OF DARWINIAN EVOLUTION
________________________________________________
STAFF REPORT PREPARED FOR THE HON. MARK SOUDER
CHAIRMAN, SUBCOMMITTEE ON CRIMINAL JUSTICE,
DRUG POLICY AND HUMAN RESOURCES

(I copied the last paragraph in the executive summary)
Because of the Smithsonian’s continued inaction in the Sternberg case, Congress should consider statutory language that would protect the free speech rights regarding evolution of scientists in the Smithsonian and other federally-funded institutions. Since the treatment of Dr. Sternberg came to light in early 2005, evidence has accumulated of widespread discrimination against other qualified scientists who dissent from Darwinian theory, making further violations by federal agencies likely. While the majority of scientists embrace Darwinian theory, it is important that neither federal funds nor federal power be used to punish or retaliate against otherwise qualified scientists merely because they dissent from the majority view. 

So, the congressional investigation found “evidence has accumulated of widespread discrimination against other qualified scientists who dissent from Darwinian theory…� More research into the topic showed this to be the case. And you can look it up. It is difficult these days to find a good article due to the bias mainstream media, which like the journals, you should already be aware of. You tube might be helpful. The published paper was the very first paper favoring intelligent design to be published in a refereed journal. Some scientists got all bent out of shape fearing that it might be instrumental in supporting an academic argument for the acceptance of intelligent design. So, they did what they normally do.


Quote:
And their reviews and others finds up to 90% or so of their money is not being used on reproducible research projects and reproducible and accurate publications. Some reviews have 30-50% for reliable publications though. Still doesn’t look good. And biology articles, if I recall correctly, are the worse in terms of reliability.

DrNoGod wrote: This sounds like more conspiracy theory. Where are references to this claim? If you're claiming that 90% of the money is not being spent on research that is one thing, and a management problem. But if you're claiming that 90% of the published research is not reproducible that clearly can't be true. It would make a mockery of the peer review process and again, any journal publishing papers where 90% of the results were not reproducible would vanish quickly ... unless it were (this actually exists) the 'Journal of Irreproducible Results.", which is a tongue-in-cheek publication. 

It’s a combination of several things that are not always so openly stated in the liberal media and journals. The site for the gov’t review article has been taken down. But, plenty of other articles are out there. Don't get distracted by the % numbers. Where have you been not to be aware of this? The NIH and other agencies are undergoing massive overhauls with new requirements, policies and procedures. Trump, for sure, is going after them and others just to save the money.

“The government agency, which spends over $30 billion of taxpayer funding on research each year, highlighted remarks by a Yale doctor who said the majority of research is useless. Almost 90 percent of biomedical research is wasted, according to the National Institutes of Health’s monthly newsletter. July 6, 2016

But research has shown that as much as 85 percent of biomedical research is a waste of time.

Spectacular failures to replicate key scientific findings have been documented of late, particularly in biology, psychology, and medicine. Science Alert, 20 July 2016
More than 70% of researcher have tried and failed to reproduce another scientist’s experiments, and more than half have failed to reproduce their own experiments. A report on the issue, published in Nature, May 2016, found that about 90% of some 1,576 researchers surveyed now believe there is a reproducibility crisis in science.

20 or so papers like this came up first in a search that you for unknown reasons couldn’t find. Here are excerpts from the first one:
 “Last summer, the Open Science Collaboration announced that it had tried to replicate one hundred published psychology experiments sampled from three of the most prestigious journals in the field. Scientific claims rest on the idea that experiments repeated under nearly identical conditions ought to yield approximately the same results, but until very recently, very few had bothered to check in a systematic way whether this was actually the case. The OSC was the biggest attempt yet to check a field’s results, and the most shocking. In many cases, they had used original experimental materials, and sometimes even performed the experiments under the guidance of the original researchers. Of the studies that had originally reported positive results, an astonishing 65 percent failed to show statistical significance on replication, and many of the remainder showed greatly reduced effect sizes.�

“…in 2011 a group of researchers at Bayer decided to test it. Looking at sixty-seven recent drug discovery projects based on preclinical cancer biology research, they found that in more than 75 percent of cases the published data did not match up with their in-house attempts to replicate. These were not studies published in fly-by-night oncology journals, but blockbuster research featured in Science, Nature, Cell, and the like.�

“If peer review is good at anything, it appears to be keeping unpopular ideas from being published.� 

 “Consider the finding of another (yes, another) of these replicability studies, this time from a group of cancer researchers. In addition to reaching the now unsurprising conclusion that only a dismal 11 percent of the preclinical cancer research they examined could be validated after the fact, the authors identified another horrifying pattern: The “bad� papers that failed to replicate were, on average, cited far more often than the papers that did!� 

“As the authors put it, “some non-reproducible preclinical papers had spawned an entire field, with hundreds of secondary publications that expanded on elements of the original observation, but did not actually seek to confirm or falsify its fundamental basis.� “What they do not mention is that once an entire field has been created—with careers, funding, appointments, and prestige all premised upon an experimental result which was utterly false due either to fraud or to plain bad luck—pointing this fact out is not likely to be very popular. “ [DBSmith: yes, consider this paragraph for the fields of evolution specifically]

“Peer review switches from merely useless to actively harmful. It may be ineffective at keeping papers with analytic or methodological flaws from being published, but it can be deadly effective at suppressing criticism of a dominant research paradigm. Even if a critic is able to get his work published, pointing out that the house you’ve built together is situated over a chasm will not endear him to his colleagues or, more importantly, to his mentors and patrons.� Scientific Regress, May 2016

Some Prestigious Journals & others:
Francis Collins, the director of the NIH, all but shouted from the rooftops that 75% of medical research is unreliable – a shocking state of affairs. In his words: ‘the checks and balances that once ensured scientific fidelity’ have collapsed. Collins, Francis and Lawrence Tabak. NIH plans to enhance reproducibility, Nature 27 Jan. 2014; http://www.webcitation.org/6g9kqqJIW

The ‘unspoken rule’, he wrote in early 2011, ‘is that at least 50% of the studies published even in top tier academic journals. . . can’t be repeated with the same conclusions by an industrial lab’. Booth, Bruce. Academic bias & biotech failures. Life Sci VC, 28 Mar. 2011; https://lifescivc.com/2011/03/academic- ... -failures/.

A US National Academy of Sciences workshop has addressed ways of combating it and that country’s National Science Foundation has restated a fundamental principle: ‘If a scientific finding cannot be independently verified, then it cannot be regarded as an empirical fact’. Social, behavioral, and economic perspectives on robust and reliable science. Report of the Subcommittee on Replicability in Science Advisory Committee to the National Science Foundation Directorate for Social, Behavioral, and Economic Sciences. May 2015; http: //www.nsf.gov/sbe/AC_Materials/SBE_Robust ... Report.pdf

The elite scientific journal, Nature, has announced new measures aimed at ‘reducing our irreproducibility’ Reducing our irreproducibility. Nature, 24 Apr. 2013; http://www.webcitation.org/6g9mPEEGA

The editor-in-chief of the equally prestigious Lancet declares that ‘science has taken a turn toward darkness’ and that ‘much of the scientific literature, perhaps half, may simply be untrue’. “The case against science is straightforward: much of the scientific literature, perhaps half, may simply be untrue. Afflicted by studies with small sample sizes, tiny effects, invalid exploratory analyses, and flagrant conflicts of interest, together with an obsession for pursuing fashionable trends of dubious importance, science has taken a turn towards darkness. As one participant put it, “poor methods get results�. The Academy of Medical Sciences, Medical Research Council, and Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council have now put their reputational weight behind an investigation into these questionable research practices. The apparent endemicity of bad research behaviour is alarming. In their quest for telling a compelling story, scientists too often sculpt data to fit their preferred theory of the world. Or they retrofit hypotheses to fit their data.�
Horton, Richard. What is medicine’s 5 sigma? The Lancet, 11 Apr. 2015; http://www.webcitation.org/6g9lRzki3

An equally alarming report appeared in Nature in 2012. Amgen, an American pharmaceutical company, had attempted to verify the findings of 53 landmark papers connected to cancer research. It was unable to do so in 47 cases (89%). Begley, Glenn and Lee Ellis. Drug development: raise standards for preclinical cancer research. Nature, 29 Mar. 2012;

Up To 50% Of Govt-Funded Scientific Research Is Totally Flawed, Says New Report
By ANDREW FOLLETT
Energy and Science Reporter
10/27/2016

“APS and the NIH Office of Behavioral and Social Science Research to begin a conversation about improving reproducibility across science. These early efforts were noted and encouraged by Congress. Now, the entire agency has committed to this important goal: NIH’s 2016–2020 strategic plan announces, “NIH will take the lead in promoting new approaches toward enhancing the rigor of experimental design, analysis, and reporting.�
“NIH-Wide Strategic Plan� https://www.nih.gov/sites/default/files ... 20-508.pdf ; “NIH unveils FY2016-2020 Strategic Plan� https://www.nih.gov/news-events/news-re ... tegic-plan


“Enhancing the Reliability of NIMH-Supported Research through Rigorous Study Design and Reporting� https://www.nimh.nih.gov/research-prior ... ting.shtml


Report of the Subcommittee on Replicability in Science
Advisory Committee to the National Science Foundation Directorate for Social, Behavioral, and Economic Sciences
INTRODUCTION
Scientific knowledge is cumulative. The production of each empirical finding should be viewed more as a promissory note than a final conclusion. If a scientific finding cannot be independently verified, then it cannot be regarded as an empirical fact. And if a literature contains illusory evidence rather than real findings, the efficiency of the scientific process can be compromised.

In recent years, we have seen an accumulation of evidence suggesting that some scientific findings thought to be robust may in fact be illusory (e.g., Ioannidis, 2008). In some instances, initial findings turned out to be intentionally fraudulent, maliciously fabricated rather than being generated through genuine data collection and analysis. Scientists presume that such outright fraud is rare, because instances of it have seldom emerged.

But with the passage of time, an increasing number of studies suggest that conventional scientific practices, including practices routinely taught to students learning to become scientists, may sometimes yield findings that are not reliable because they are the result of well-intentioned data collection, data management, or data analysis procedures that unintentionally lead to conclusions that are not robust.

Although the behaviors that yield illusory findings appear to be occurring across many scientific disciplines, an understanding of these behaviors and the development of measures that can prevent them seem especially well-suited to social, behavioral, and economic scientists. Social and behavioral scientists routinely study the causes of human behaviors and the effectiveness of strategies meant to change behavior. Furthermore, the National Science Foundation (NSF) Directorate for Social, Behavioral and Economic Sciences (SBE) is positioned to establish policies and fund research to mitigate the factors that affect the robustness of scientific research.

In the spring of 2013, the NSF SBE Advisory Committee (AC) established a subcommittee to investigate actions NSF SBE might pursue to promote robust research practices in science. This document constitutes the subcommittee’s report. [dbs: and these guys are trying to be polite]

This is a spread of what is out there. Again, not sure why you were not able to find these kinds of articles. Several of them are landmark papers or articles.

[DBSmith]

[Replying to post 510 by Clownboat]

Like this post (3): Clownboat, rikuoamero, benchwarmer
Clownboat criticizes a post by For the Kingdom: Notice readers that For the Kingdom cannot describe a mechanism that MUST be in place in order for small changes to not lead up to large changes.

“Notice readers that…..�

Oh my! Argumentum ad ignorantiam again, but, Clownboat, you won’t understand as you noted earlier. You are going to have to do, perhaps, a word search like you appear to perform for many of your other responses. I truly cannot see the reasoning in your statement. It is illogical to essentially state that if you can't prove it false then it is true. Irrational thinking. You and several of your buddies make similar illogical statements as it relates to the science within the theory of evolution.

[DBSmith]

[Replying to post 499 by Clownboat]

Clownboat wrote: Lots and lots of claims like I use to hear in church, but no evidence provided to show that he speaks the truth.

You must have attended or attend church at a university where many scholars attend with you to hear so much of what actually exists in the literature. Much of the "claims" as you like to call them, have been well documented in the literature for decades and need not be referenced as noted in my comments.

Again, irrational reasoning: argument ad hominem. ...your attempts to associate the scientific literature with church goers to discredit what is said. But, I could be wrong....and perhaps the goal is to make fun, collect points and make as many comments as possible in a digital game of sorts. Dunno....

[DBSmith]

[Replying to post 494 by DrNoGods]

DrNoGods wrote to For the Kingdom:
No argument there ... either you create life in the lab or you don't if your experiment has as its goal to create life. But if your experiment has as its goal to test a hypothesis that complex organic molecules necessary for life might be produced, and some complex organic molecules that are necessary for life are produced, then this does in fact lend support to the idea that life could possibly have formed in a similar way. It does not prove it, but the Miller experiment was not done to create life in a flask from nonliving materials as you keep claiming. It was done to test a hypothesis and it did not get a negative result, thereby lending support to the original idea that prompted it. It remains to be proven how life originated on this planet, but so far an abiogenisis event cannot be ruled out and the Miller experiment was just one simple test done 65 years ago that did not eliminate it as an option.

“Miller’s experiment did not get a negative result.� Oh, but it did get rejected, despite his positive result in discovering a new way to make a few biomolecules, an accepted ‘fact.’ The Miller experiment essentially did “…eliminate it as an option� based on the materials and methods of his experiment. The materials (gases) Miller used did not exist in large amounts in the earth’s timeline as Miller stated which essentially aborts the application of any ‘facts’ obtained from his experiments….that particular molecules could be formed that are related to life forms today. Basically, he found a new way to make the biomolecules he was looking for from chemicals that did not exist in high enough concentrations to create the experimental conditions Miller describes in his experiment. Miller even repeated it with no better outcome. The literature has accepted the failure in reasoning used by this experiment long ago. About 10 yrs ago or so, however, the Scripps Institute of Oceanography repeated the experiment, modifying the chemicals to better fit early earth conditions, but they had to keep changing the mixture to neutralize agents that prohibited the desired outcome until the desired results were eventually obtained, and then made attempts to place & justify their added compounds as a possibility of existing in the early earth environment. So, a modern version of the same faulty reasoning, but with much better results though. But, hey, it is possible. It could be true. And that’s why evolution is still a theory: low probability events being elevated to exist with many other low probability events and being elevated to naturally create large changes and molecular growth and the like. Too many of our best scientists agree that it would take hundreds of thousands of such low probability events to all occur simultaneously. And then again, new such sets, at different times would have to simultaneously occur to even consider natural selection and the like to possibly originate life….and your example(s) above continue to demonstrate why evolution is still just a theory. But, its all a good theory. Most of your arguments put forth to support life springing forth from a primordial soup or the like or that a common ancestor actually existed…..always end up as exceedingly low probability events interacting with other low probability events all “being made� to try and add up to something….they really don’t, considering common things usually happen commonly...even on the mass mutation scales of evolution.

[DBSmith]

[Replying to post 503 by DrNoGods]

The paradox in my post I recall from my readings. It has the engineer who actually interacts with the real world, reality, simply noting the boys and girls will meet shortly and dance. The mathematician and physicist are embroiled in the theoreticals of their day, seeking to isolate & define; and, in the end, they are unable to prove that the boys and girls will actually meet and dance. Even though, reality shows, they do dance.

Like this post (3): Clownboat, rikuoamero, benchwarmer

Quote fromf DBSmith:
The 3 specialists were asked to analyze the advances ¼ of the distance between the boys & girls every 10 seconds. Essentially, total distance at time 0, d/2 at 10 secs, d/4 at 20, etc…. and to determine when the girls and boys would meet in the center of the gym.

DrNoGods wrote: If the problem weren't stated so ambiguously I'm sure all three groups could have arrived at a correct answer……What makes it a "paradox" is the mixing up of distance and time in an intentional way to confuse the reader….I think you probably meant to state the problem to invoke a nonconverging series,…

Well, the mathematicians and physicists back in the day later acquired new tools, calculus, and new reasoning, infinite geometric series, and proved that the boys and girls will meet. That’s is, they solved Zeno’s paradox. And the paradox as I submitted, is actually a well-known joke in the math literature like so many other vocational jokes reminding of us of the history of professions, using Zeno’s paradox in this case. It is certainly not my own. (I just now found it going through Wolfram/Alpha website)

Today we can prove, Zeno’s paradox, that a thrown ball is caught, even though we can keep dividing the remaining distance between by 2 as the vocational joke example states: boy & girl advances, plural, ¼ + ¼ = ½. Instead of the one catching the ball remaining in place, the joke paradox has him moving forward at same rate as the ball is coming to maintain the continued division by 2 (“d/2 at 10 sec,…etc…� The boys are the ball and the girls are the one catching the ball). Once you recognize Zeno’s paradox, your confusion and attempts to analyze will fade. It is noteworthy that you stated: “…invoke a non converging series.� Knowledge at such a level should have quickly, if not immediately, identified Zeno’s paradox …? And, perhaps, I could have been written the joke better, not sure.

DrNoGods wrote: but this is the same kind of ambiguous reasoning you're using with the fossil record and transitional forms.

I wish I were that smart to do so! But, the conditions for using this kind of math and science reasoning, which appear to you to be ambiguous in dealing with Zeno’s paradox, has no real place in the fossil record….?.

I was reminded of the tiring application of theoreticals by the math and physics guys, back in their day, against the engineer’s simple observation from reality. The arguing creationists will believe they are the engineer with their proof, and the arguing evolutionists will claim they are the engineer with their proof with each accusing the other of being the math & physic guys struggling with their theoretical applications.

And in the end, the m&p guys found new tools and better reasoning, and now all 3 agree the ball is, indeed, caught and the boys and girls will dance. I would guess we are waiting on the new tools and reasoning it seems for the debaters of science and evolution. In the meantime, can we keep it a little more honest without the equivocation and fallacies to attempt to draw support to, perhaps, mislead those who are less familiar with the literature?