"The the conditions are met for the evolutionary algorithm to begin, then yes, evolution takes place on other planets. One of the conditions is abiogenes"

I think there is more to question regarding an evolutionary algorithm you want to package as a physical law of nature.

If a condition of an evolution algorithm to begin is abio, then any world with non living matter (along with a hospitable environment) would result in the physical law of evolution.

Hmmm..,

A physical law like gravity is based on induction from observation (any two bodies in the universe attract each other with...., etc etc) and evidence.
Arent physical laws of nature a posteriori truths justified by observation and empirical evidence?

What justification is there for the claim lifeless matter will beget abiogen which will beget evolution universally ( if the conditions are hospitable for life) if there is no evidence or observation to confirm abiogen or evolution any other place but earth?
How is that "law" an a posteriori truth, like other physical laws of nature are?

Evolution might me a local law but not a universal physical law.

What justification is there for the claim lifeless matter will beget abiogen which will beget evolution universally (

The condition of abiogenesis is a separate matter, as I've said. It already must be in place for the evolutionary algorithm to take over.

) if there is no evidence or observation to confirm abiogen or evolution any other place but earth?

There are laws in biology that your questions hold even more true for(limited to Earth but widely accepted as laws). Like Taylor's law. You should play devil's advocate with your resistance to these ideas. You'd foresee my replies. It's a concept called intellectual humility. I know, what good what it be to discuss these things if there was no area where we disagreed...

Universal physical laws. If we live in a multiverse, then there is no such thing. But if the laws of physics are the same, we'd expect the same higher-order laws to manifest if the conditions are similar enough. Carrier does a good job of expressing why in his section on reducibility. I'm sure if we found phosphorus based life, they'd have a unique set of biological laws, and the evolutionary algorithm would be slightly different than our own.

Evolution is more of a local law, but not a universal law like gravity.

Ever play dodge ball?
You'd be an elite player.


Thanks

Evolution is more of a local law, but not a universal law like gravity.

Ever play dodge ball?
You'd be an elite player.

I don't care either way ant. What is true should shine through regardless of what either of us want to believe.

I don't really know what you mean by local law. Let's say we enter the space age fully, and sent unmanned spacecraft with bacteria to dozens of distant habitable planets.

The evolutionary algorithm would apply at the time life is established.

Earth is the only place we see the law in action, you're right. Does that mean it cannot apply elsewhere in the universe? Being algorithmic, I think it would function the same everywhere the laws of physics are the same.

I guess the question is, does an empirical law need to be instanced everywhere in the universe, or merely be possible everywhere in the universe? I think there are many laws which are only instanced here on Earth, yet are understood to be universal laws.

But even then, if the "law" only has local instances, so what? Your initial argument was that the algorithm wasn't a law at all, not that it wasn't a universal law. I think you're the one playing dodgeball here.

But even then, if the "law" only has local instances, so what?

It does in fact make a difference.

Instances of local laws are different from instances of laws that hold universally.

And there is in fact a required corroboration of evidence (empirical and observational) in order for a law to have full explanatory power universally, by strong inference.
The algorithm has not been proven to have either. Locally it is not in dispute. Stop straw-manning this it to bolster your position.

And if you don't care then don't attempt to sound as if you know what you're talking about and those that doubt you receive chiding. Simply reply "I don't care" to questions you either care to discuss honestly, or know enough about to add substance to the conversation.

I'm tired of your attempts at covering up your ignorance with lame subterfuge.

Bye for now.

And there is in fact a required corroboration of evidence (empirical and observational) in order for a law to have full explanatory power universally, by strong inference.
The algorithm has not been proven to have either. Locally it is not in dispute. Stop straw-manning this it to bolster your position.

Right, and I'm the one playing dodgeball. You realize this tangent started with you stating that "evolution is not a law." Not even a local law?

Instances of local laws are different from instances of laws that hold universally.

First of all, I'm not claiming to know the distinctions. That's why I'm asking questions. A question which I'm pretty sure is still valid is, if we can instantiate evolution on another planet, does that mean the law changes from local to universal? If it is math based, why would it not hold elsewhere?

If we have an instance of a local law(an apple falling on Newton's head), how could we know whether or not that law would hold universally until we test it non-locally? In this case, we can't know whether or not the local instance of evolution would hold universally until we perform a test like I explained above. You say the evolutionary algorithm isn't a universal law. I can agree with that, because we only see it happen on Earth. But with increased understanding, we may see that the algorithm would work just as well non-locally.

Here's another example to show what I'm asking. What about Ohm's Law? We only have local instances of the law, but it's fairly basic, dealing with the way electrons move. Does the fact that we've only ever observed it locally mean that it does not apply universally?

You admitted that evolution may be a local law, but it is not a universal law. I'm wondering why you make such a strong statement. Do you know this for sure?

Hi Interbane, Since you and ant are on the evolution subject,maybe you could think about this.
This question is probably more Johnson's territory but there seems to be a logical riddle in it too.
Basically, how do you get the coding and decoding systems for D.N.A. since they are mutually dependent it would seem. Jonathan Sarfati presents the problem in this brief excerpt from a talk he gave. Dr Sarfati's Chicken and Egg is the excerpt.
www.youtube.com/watch?v=CmB4uLANCBo

I didn't watch the video. I've seen it before. DNA comes from simpler DNA which comes from simpler DNA, in the same process of cumulative information gain I've mentioned before. There is no mystery here, except Sarfati himself. If you want to cement your worldview further, read everything Sarfati writes. He's a YEC with a PhD. He also believes he has disproved carbon dating, as well as cornerstone theories in half a dozen other major scientific fields. Big Bang cosmology? He's disproven it. Evolution? Disproven. Anything that doesn't accord with YED? Disproven. The man's a good source of entertainment.

So what's the best current evolutionary theory on the origin of life? What is the simplest D.N.A., what does it do and how is it decoded to do anything? How is the coding/decoding enigma resolved?
Parfati wrote a book;The greatest hoax on earth; in response to Richard Dawkin's; The greatest show on earth. He has offered to debate Dawkin's who seems in no hurry to accept the challenge.
Shouldn't he debate the substance of the disagreements between them? He just dismisses him as a creationist unworthy of his time, it would appear.The issue about the good or bad design of the eye is an example of things that can be judged by scientific facts and not rhetoric.
I think Parfati makes some good points in relation to mutations for example.They may occasionally be beneficial in terms of survival but seem to entail loss rather than gain of information. Fish fossils in the Cambrian strata.
Information is essentially something other than matter and energy.Naturalism seems to reject this when it comes to biology.

So what's the best current evolutionary theory on the origin of life? What is the simplest D.N.A., what does it do and how is it decoded to do anything? How is the coding/decoding enigma resolved?

The theory on the origin of life wouldn't be evolutionary. It would be a separate theory. Your other questions are easily answered, and with good clarity, on many sites on the web. These aren't gotcha questions.

The exception may be what you call the coding/decoding enigma. Genetic expression you mean, through RNA? There is no enigma here.

Shouldn't he debate the substance of the disagreements between them? He just dismisses him as a creationist unworthy of his time, it would appear.

While it appears to the layman that Parfati has valid points, he doesn't. All a debate does is seemingly legitimize him as having valid arguments.

Information is essentially something other than matter and energy.Naturalism seems to reject this when it comes to biology.

Naturalism doesn't reject information. Information is a pattern of matter and energy that refers to something else. A patternized abstraction. Causal information, which is the type of information encoded by DNA, is like the causal information in a combination lock.