Someone that has actually done their research please address this question. How did life originate on this planet? Was it a totally unguided process and by mere chance?
I too would like to see a self-replicating RNA or protein strand; something fairly simple, but that adds to itself or replicates.
That would be cool
That would be cool
This just seems to be that gap that Darwinian evolution theory just can't explain. The more scientists study the cell the more complexity is discovered and the less likely that an unguided process be the cause.
In fifty years since the Miller/Urey experiment we are not even close to an answer. We do have alternative theories that are very testable but the results just aren't there.
In other words we can create a very small part but not the whole and that is were the rub comes in. Harvard is dedicated to spend $100 million dollars to find the answer.
Do you think we will ever find out the cause for the origin of life?
In fifty years since the Miller/Urey experiment we are not even close to an answer. We do have alternative theories that are very testable but the results just aren't there.
In other words we can create a very small part but not the whole and that is were the rub comes in. Harvard is dedicated to spend $100 million dollars to find the answer.
Do you think we will ever find out the cause for the origin of life?
QUOTE (bmoose9+Feb 1 2007, 10:30 AM)
This just seems to be that gap that Darwinian evolution theory just can't explain. The more scientists study the cell the more complexity is discovered and the less likely that an unguided process be the cause.
In fifty years since the Miller/Urey experiment we are not even close to an answer. We do have alternative theories that are very testable but the results just aren't there.
In other words we can create a very small part but not the whole and that is were the rub comes in. Harvard is dedicated to spend $100 million dollars to find the answer.
Do you think we will ever find out the cause for the origin of life?
There is no gap in the theory here. It's simple....natural selection took the cell to what it is now from simple organic material in 3.5 billion yrs. The Miller-Urey experiment didn't yield cells because they are much too complex to be formed so fast. Nature gave them about 3 billion yrs.
There are many reasonable hypothesis on the subject, and they should not be disqualified just because we can't prove them. The first theory that comes to mind is the relatively new clay model. This model seems reasonable to me, given the sheer quantity and continuous rate at which it must have 'evolved' before 3.5 billion yrs.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Graham_Cairns-Smith#Clay_theory
Anyway, here are some other models.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Origin_of_life#Current_models
In fifty years since the Miller/Urey experiment we are not even close to an answer. We do have alternative theories that are very testable but the results just aren't there.
In other words we can create a very small part but not the whole and that is were the rub comes in. Harvard is dedicated to spend $100 million dollars to find the answer.
Do you think we will ever find out the cause for the origin of life?
There is no gap in the theory here. It's simple....natural selection took the cell to what it is now from simple organic material in 3.5 billion yrs. The Miller-Urey experiment didn't yield cells because they are much too complex to be formed so fast. Nature gave them about 3 billion yrs.
There are many reasonable hypothesis on the subject, and they should not be disqualified just because we can't prove them. The first theory that comes to mind is the relatively new clay model. This model seems reasonable to me, given the sheer quantity and continuous rate at which it must have 'evolved' before 3.5 billion yrs.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Graham_Cairns-Smith#Clay_theory
Anyway, here are some other models.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Origin_of_life#Current_models
QUOTE
There is no gap in the theory here. It's simple....natural selection took the cell to what it is now from simple organic material in 3.5 billion yrs.
Please don't take this as a personal attack of any form.
What is "simple" about it is that there is a gap. Not because I say that there is, but because the science supports it. We can postulate and develop theories all day long but if they are "unproven" then that is a gap. When an experiment works and we get even the simplest form of live that can process energy, store information and replicate then the gap will be filled.
I'm not discounting any theories nor am I calling natural selection into question as it relates to existing life. Like I said I know the basic theories that seem viable in their own respects but all seem to have serious issues.
It seems the only critics of these theories are from the scientists from where they derived. Why can't we question anymore? Take the crystalline clay theory that you mentioned. Cairns-Smith said himself "No one has been able to coax clay into something resembling evolution in the lab nor has anyone found anything resembling a clay-based organism in nature." At the very best the clay can only provide us extremely low grade sequencing information. From the research that I have read it suggest that this would also be very repetitive. Orderly yes but no pattern for life.
All I'm really saying is don't we get more out of questioning theories than we do just repeating how much promise they show? Science is based on critical thinking and that just appears to be lacking for whatever reason in this field of study.
bmoose9, I admire your curiosity! I have been interested in this topic since late elementary school. In my mind it is a resolved issue, perceived gaps and all. Darwin was one of the most incredible, insightful savants ever to grace this planet. His thoughts from 1871: In a letter to Joseph Dalton Hooker of February 1 1871, Charles Darwin made the suggestion that the original spark of life may have begun in a "warm little pond, with all sorts of ammonia and phosphoric salts, lights, heat, electricity, etc. present, [so] that a protein compound was chemically formed ready to undergo still more complex changes". He went on to explain that "at the present day such matter would be instantly devoured or absorbed, which would not have been the case before living creatures were formed." In other words, the presence of life itself prevents the spontaneous generation of simple organic compounds from occurring on Earth today – a circumstance which makes the search for the origin of life dependent on the sterile conditions of the laboratory. I remember reading about the Graham Cairns Smith Clay theory and thinking how intuitive it seemed. This was before I was aware of Darwin's letter to Hooker! These are some of the ways science works its wonders and captures inquisitive people in its grasp. I think you may be a candidate for just such an enthrallment.
I'm glad ImmortalCoil weighed in here for your topic because I respect him and his views as wise, informed and very current. The clay in that theory would have bonded chemicals tightly, held them there and acted somewhat like a catalyst, enabling complex organic molecules to form. The steps and processes probably will never be known with certainty, but I don't think it requires the "leap of faith" to religion to require a "grand designer" to explain it adequately. Knowing science as ImmortalCoil and I do, is all we need to reach ecstasy.
“... the use of our intelligence quite properly gives us pleasure. In this respect the brain is like a muscle. When we think well, we feel good. Understanding is a kind of ecstasy.” Carl Sagan, scientific "guru."
bmoose9, I think your questioning is natural, intuitive and beneficial. Keep it up!
I'm glad ImmortalCoil weighed in here for your topic because I respect him and his views as wise, informed and very current. The clay in that theory would have bonded chemicals tightly, held them there and acted somewhat like a catalyst, enabling complex organic molecules to form. The steps and processes probably will never be known with certainty, but I don't think it requires the "leap of faith" to religion to require a "grand designer" to explain it adequately. Knowing science as ImmortalCoil and I do, is all we need to reach ecstasy.
“... the use of our intelligence quite properly gives us pleasure. In this respect the brain is like a muscle. When we think well, we feel good. Understanding is a kind of ecstasy.” Carl Sagan, scientific "guru."
bmoose9, I think your questioning is natural, intuitive and beneficial. Keep it up!
thanks for the support photojack, and right back at you!
bmoose9,
I admire your passion for science, it burns in many of us. But what I meant to say earlier when I said
I admire your passion for science, it burns in many of us. But what I meant to say earlier when I said
There are many reasonable hypothesis on the subject, and they should not be disqualified just because we can't prove them.
is that these hypothesis are like models. Many of them can fit a scenario perfectly, until further evidence is deduced.
Yes, question theories; that is why they are theories, but don't discredit them if they are plausible.
When you consider a theory such as the clay model, don't forget to account for the time that nature spent working on it and in what quantities.
Cairns-Smith said that no one has been able to recreate evolution in a lab, and he is correct of course, but that does not disprove the theory, and it is far from Cairns-Smith disagreeing with his own theory.
I am not sure why learning the origins of life would instantly enable us to recreate complex beings, if that's what you are inferring. Many things the universe has created are not easily replicable by us, including ourselves. Why that is, is unknown to us. Maybe simply because natural selection does not require that.
I think the question that follows is of the origin of human consciousness and that of would we ever be able to understand our brain fully. Is it possible that natural selection might not let us?
I just finished reading a 9 yr old book, "The origin of humankind" by Richard Leakey (great book!!), and the last chapter was dedicated to this. The previous 2 chapters were very interesting also, one being "The language of art" and the other "The art of language", regarding the evolution of art, language, and the driving factors towards those things.
I am kinda busy today, but I'll start a discussion on thoughts that come to mind from these chapters soon. Anyway, try and get the book, it's a quick read really. (and I am a slow reader)
Cheers
ImC
Sorry if you misunderstood me. I'm unwilling to discount any theory until it is proven invalid, either by nullifying itself or another theory is proven correct. That goes for all scientific theories where only one option can be correct. However because of the nature of this field we couldn't simply say all other theories were incorrect because of obvious reasons.
Sorry if you misunderstood me. I'm unwilling to discount any theory until it is proven invalid, either by nullifying itself or another theory is proven correct. That goes for all scientific theories where only one option can be correct. However because of the nature of this field we couldn't simply say all other theories were incorrect because of obvious reasons.
I am not sure why learning the origins of life would instantly enable us to recreate complex beings
I don't think any rational mind expects a dog to come jumping out of the soup here.
Seriously, I'm not looking for scientist to turn their life form into anything more complex than a simple life form. We don't have that kind of time.
Again. I am not disproving theories nor am I trying to. My question is what makes this field of discover so different causing people and scientists alike to hold back criticism about the set forth theories or at least acknowledge the issues or flaws?
Hmmmm....your understanding of history is mildly funny.
Plate Tectonics was initially rejected, but not because of pride or short-sightedness.
The lack of solid evidence was the main reason that it was doubted. When sea-floor exploration revealed alternating magnetic "bands" it was considered solid evidence.
Science typically does not suffer as much from a lack of openmindedness as it does a lack of good evidence.
Did you know that before Darwin's Theory of Evolution most of the scientists in the world were Creationists?
Thats right!
They all loved the bible and accepted it as the truth. Why?
They didnt have any better explanation for everything. Darwin provided a more complete and scientific solution. Within 50 years most Scientists were "Evolutionists" rather than Creationists?
You wanna talk about being hard to swallow. Can you imagine how difficult it must have been for all of those Creationists to swallow their pride and religious beliefs and admit Darwin was right?
Thats why there are almost NO critical thinkers who are Creationists.
Trust me, the Creationist scientists at the time of Darwin tried everything to prove he was wrong. They finally admitted he was right.
pucksr-
I'm sorry if you thought I was incorrect in my "pride" comment. I retract that as it had nothing to do with my point.
Photojack during his explanation did a great job of explaining my point. You also confirmed it by your explanation minus of course my ill placed "pride" remark.
I'm not sure why you brought up creationism. If you want to participate then please read this thread from start to finish.
I'm sure if you will give the posters this courtesy you will see this thread was not intended to be an emotional argument.
Thank you for your understanding.
Great point. So can you take each theory and rank them in the order of probability and what those associated probabilities would be? I would prefer that the data comes from the scientist that is working on the theories because they are the experts and should have the best idea of what they are.
Kandea- My point exactly. Discovery is fun.
You can't possibly know that. I would appreciate it again if we keep any such assumption out of this discussion because the argument is again circular and states that no one has every been objective.
Your comment simply has no bearing on the topic.
You can't possibly know that. I would appreciate it again if we keep any such assumption out of this discussion because the argument is again circular and states that no one has every been objective.
Your comment simply has no bearing on the topic.
It just seemed like your "pride" statement was in some way a comment about scientists being hard-pressed to admit they were wrong. I just wanted to make it clear that scientists are generally eager to admit they are wrong in the face of good evidence.
Again I apologize for my comment. My thought process and statement had no bearing on the topic at hand. My assertion when a theory or reality becomes obsolete that has been someones life's work then pride can sometimes get in the way. In that I was guilty of what I just charged you with because the argument is totally circular. My apologies and that will not happen again.
Great point. So can you take each theory and rank them in the order of probability and what those associated probabilities would be? I would prefer that the data comes from the scientist that is working on the theories because they are the experts and should have the best idea of what they are.
Thanks.
I don't really know the theories all that well, I can read the wikis as well as anyone, though.
I'm expecting that they'll discover a 300 unit strand of something (protein, RNA, etc.) that can self-replicate given fairly 'easy' conditions. I'll then think it's spiffy. Then other groups will provide a 276 unit strand that's 'easier' to get given a putative set of initial conditions.
I think it will be neat, but mostly a 'proof of concept'
It doesnt really work like that.
You might be able to rank them by popularity....but it would be impossible to rank them by probability.
Besides the gross misunderstanding of probability, I understand the question your trying to ask. However, in the sense that your asking(which theory is more likely) the "probability" would be entirely subjective.
So...no one can do this...and you misused the term probability(severely misused)
El_Machina misused it too...but he was merely using it to refer to the most probable theory. In other words, the one that will gain the widest acceptance.
I concur. We were using the term in more of a pop culture sense which can be slightly misleading. Darwin did have his own theory on the topic of abiogenesis namely his "primordial soup." I think that was were the popular understanding of the term has shifted to encompass more than just his theory about abiogenesis. Incorrect as that maybe.
I concur. We were using the term in more of a pop culture sense which can be slightly misleading. Darwin did have his own theory on the topic of abiogenesis namely his "primordial soup." I think that was were the popular understanding of the term has shifted to encompass more than just his theory about abiogenesis. Incorrect as that maybe.
That said, of course the study of abiogenesis is still very much in its infancy, as it is a far more complex question.pan
I couldn't agree more. What I would like to see is more people acknowledgment the complexity of the problem.
I'm not trying to be antagonistic here but your response does not answer the question of probability. All responses have been well received and well thought out. However they have also been lacking a critical element, namely an answer to my question of probabilities.
Now maybe this is my fault so again I'll try to redirect and break down the question of probability to creating a single protein molecule in a lab setting with the most optimal environment . This is a somewhat first step in the quest for creating life so it should be much easier task. I know that 1 protein molecule isn't life but it's a start. I also realize that we have created some amino acids in a lab setting so there is no need to go into that detail. Just the assigned probability is fine.
I appreciate the patience of all that have responded thus far and look forward to exploring this topic with all of you. As much as I have typed it, why am I having such a hard time spelling the word probability? I'm wearing this spell checker out!
This was actually the question that I wanted answered in the first place. I only moved to my probability question because someone brought it up and I wasn't getting an answer to the original question.
I will temporarily withdrawal my probability question and revert back to the original somewhat restated from above.
Can you(anyone) take one abiogenesis theory of your choice and discuss the most substantial problem with that theory based on the scientific evidence of course?
I thank you all again for your patience.
What are you talking about?
Your just rambling on....
Ok...here ya go..the best ideas on the topic
1. Abiogenesis-the idea that "life"(or something very basic resembling life) assembled and emerged from "non-living" material.
Abiogenesis on Wikipedia
2. Panspermia-the idea that life was "seeded" on this planet. This is a bit of a troublesome spot. Imagine asking "how did the galaxy begin?"...and someone replying...it came from the other material in the universe which is much older. It may be true, but it still begs the almost philosophical question of origins.
Panspermia on Wikipedia
Now, if you want to know about the "competing theories" inside the idea of abiogenesis...then you may be barking up the wrong tree.
There arent really "competing" theories.
Almost all scientists who study this topic believe that non-living proteins assembled into basic DNA-like strands...and that despite the "non-living" nature of these protein strands...they eventually assembled into your most basic of organisms.
The rest of the question is pretty much historical. We can and do assemble genetic code from scratch...we just dont know EXACTLY how it happened back then.
Just like all historical queries though with little or no evidence...you cant really call it competing theories. The scientists just hazard a guess. Even if they can get their "guess" to produce genetic material....it doesnt mean that is how life started on Earth.
"Almost all scientists" suggest that there are competing theories out there or at least critiques of the ones that are proposed. I have read both. Have you?
That is the whole point. Surely a scientist would agree that it would be irresponsible if he only considered his own theory without even a cursory look at anything else. Just like the architect example earlier.
No one has been willing to even acknowledge the competing theories. What am I to think? I don't know the individual reasons for that but what I do know is this.
Either you
-haven't or won't read them
-have read them and won't acknowledge them
Whatever the case or the reason. This is my disturbing point about how we view science today. We get the answer spoon fed to us (non-scientists) and we just buy it and are suppose to be happy about that. Well I'm not happy with that nor should you be. If you love science as much as you say you do I hope that you get that point.
I would probably be as equally convinced as everyone else is if I hadn't opened up my options a little more and critically explored the topic myself.
You all believe in the theories. I get that. So what is wrong with reading the work of other scientists that disagree?
????
Please...if your trying to mention a competing theory...let us know.
I said almost ALL scientists because I hate speaking in a tone of absolute certainty. Also frequently there are a few scientists who do not believe a current popular opinion. This is not to say that they have an alternative theory in mind....they just disagree with the unproven theory.
????
Please...if your trying to mention a competing theory...let us know.
I said almost ALL scientists because I hate speaking in a tone of absolute certainty. Also frequently there are a few scientists who do not believe a current popular opinion. This is not to say that they have an alternative theory in mind....they just disagree with the unproven theory.
No one has been willing to even acknowledge the competing theories. What am I to think? I don't know the individual reasons for that but what I do know is this.
Either you
-haven't or won't read them
-have read them and won't acknowledge them
I dont think anyone here knows of an alternative theory for abiogenesis besides the one mentioned.
You all believe in the theories. I get that. So what is wrong with reading the work of other scientists that disagree?
Its VERY obvious your driving at some point.
There is evidentially an idea that you want expressed.
What "alternative theory" are you talking about....????
Your adding to the confusion:
The concept of abiogenesis implies that non-living matter arranged itself into living matter to create life. There is no alternative abiogenesis theory....
The debate within abiogenesis is a question of HOW not IF
Your "alternative theory" either doesnt exist or is an alternative to abiogenesis.
There are several competing hypotheses for how this happened, but you dont seem interested in discussing the finer mechanics of abiogenesis.
So whats your damn point?
To my knowledge there are only two scientific theories as to the beginning of life on this planet: abiogenesis and panspermia.
Are you suggesting there is an alternative to these two...or do you really want to get into a discussion as to the finer mechanics of how proteins arranged themselves?
Ummm....huh?
What theories.....as of right now there are no abiogenesis theories.
Are you talking about all theories?
Hmmmm....arguments against abiogenesis perhaps?
Most arguments against abiogenesis revolve around these basic lines of reasoning....
a) The proposed mechanism _______ is insufficient or inadequate
Panspermia....which of course begs the question....where did that life come from?
Its generally a foregone conclusion that abiogenesis had to occur.
Life could not have existed forever, a single point universe would have been the most sterilizing environment imaginable.
Life must have had some beginning. In this case abiogenesis is a necessary tautology.
Even if you reject the whole "big bang"...and instead prefer a creationist perspective...life must have started...
So the question is not....is abiogenesis real? IT MUST BE
The question is how and where did it happen.
Your making this entire thread very confusing.
You keep mentioning "critical papers" on abiogenesis.
The critical papers that exist on the topic are in particular reference to proposed abiogenesis models...not the entire concept. The common hypothesis for a long time was that proteins arranged themselves into viable DNA(randomly) and then it took off from there. The classic Urey-Miller experiment proved that more complex "organic" molecules could emerge from simple "in-organic" molecules. Scientists today are carefully trying to evaluate the simplest form at which reproduction and evolution can take effect.
So, most of the criticism of this "model" is as follows
a) earth lacked the proper elements for this to occur
The simplest form is still far too complex to have arisen.
To this end, science has severely reduced the necessary amount of complexity needed. We no longer believe it is necessary for whole DNA strands to have arisen....but much shorter, simpler strands of amino acids.
So...what criticism were you referring to ad nauseam?
Ummm....huh?
What theories.....as of right now there are no abiogenesis theories.
Are you talking about all theories?
Hmmmm....arguments against abiogenesis perhaps?
Most arguments against abiogenesis revolve around these basic lines of reasoning....
a) The proposed mechanism _______ is insufficient or inadequate
Panspermia....which of course begs the question....where did that life come from?
Its generally a foregone conclusion that abiogenesis had to occur.
Life could not have existed forever, a single point universe would have been the most sterilizing environment imaginable.
Life must have had some beginning. In this case abiogenesis is a necessary tautology.
Even if you reject the whole "big bang"...and instead prefer a creationist perspective...life must have started...
So the question is not....is abiogenesis real? IT MUST BE
The question is how and where did it happen.
Your making this entire thread very confusing.
You keep mentioning "critical papers" on abiogenesis.
The critical papers that exist on the topic are in particular reference to proposed abiogenesis models...not the entire concept. The common hypothesis for a long time was that proteins arranged themselves into viable DNA(randomly) and then it took off from there. The classic Urey-Miller experiment proved that more complex "organic" molecules could emerge from simple "in-organic" molecules. Scientists today are carefully trying to evaluate the simplest form at which reproduction and evolution can take effect.
So, most of the criticism of this "model" is as follows
a) earth lacked the proper elements for this to occur
The simplest form is still far too complex to have arisen.
To this end, science has severely reduced the necessary amount of complexity needed. We no longer believe it is necessary for whole DNA strands to have arisen....but much shorter, simpler strands of amino acids.
So...what criticism were you referring to ad nauseam?
Bottom line: We have established that some scientists do not concur with the existing theories. What is there claim?
Once again...there are no "theories"
And I have just explained ALL of the critics of current abiogenesis models.
P. S. there are no other theories....panspermia doesnt really count because it just temporarily removes the problem.
Unless you know of another theory....I would be interested to know.
The same could be said for second-hand smoking data....except in reverse.
Ah well...anyways...
Were you honestly trying to say that abiogenesis didnt occur?
What alternative would you propose?
Hmmm...no
ID, panspermia, creationism shouldnt be on that list....cause they are definately false..
(except panspermia...which may be true...but seems like an unnecessary leap)
LOL...sure you can question the theory.
Any good scientist should question the theory....
But in the case of Evolution....it gets really hard to question the theory.
"I wonder if Evolution is true...."
"sure it is...wanna watch the video of it happening?"
We have witnessed things evolving several times...it has reached the point of indisputable fact.
The only remaining questions a rational person could ask are:
Does it always hold true?
What are all of the causes?
How does it occur on a molecular scale?
Otherwise its kind of like questioning the theory of atoms....
We know they exist....so there isnt much point in question their existence...
You are welcome to discuss how they work, look, etc....
LOL...sure you can question the theory.
Any good scientist should question the theory....
But in the case of Evolution....it gets really hard to question the theory.
"I wonder if Evolution is true...."
"sure it is...wanna watch the video of it happening?"
We have witnessed things evolving several times...it has reached the point of indisputable fact.
The only remaining questions a rational person could ask are:
Does it always hold true?
What are all of the causes?
How does it occur on a molecular scale?
Otherwise its kind of like questioning the theory of atoms....
We know they exist....so there isnt much point in question their existence...
You are welcome to discuss how they work, look, etc....
PuckSR,
You really are dim, have you not read the bible? Everyone knows we are decended from Adams rib. What twaddle you speak.
God have mercy on your ignorance.
I do not question it much...
I have questioned it in the past.
The evidence seems substantial enough in my opinion to validitate the claim.
I, therefore, believe that the current explanation is sufficient...until presented with a yet un-tested alternative or further evidence.
I have yet to see any alternative that is feasible....
I also have yet to see any further evidence that disputes the current claim.
Do you expect me to constantly question a rational conclusion without new evidence or an alternative rational conclusion?
This isnt an issue of faith.....I would readily doubt abiogenesis if any real alternative was presented....
But given the vast amount of evidence that continues to stack up in support of the theory....I am only more confident in my conclusion
Just to be clear. Are you saying that you reject those ideas of recent scientist that dispute the claim of unguided biogenesis or you haven't seen their data? If you reject them please list their claims and dispute them.
Just to be clear. Are you saying that you reject those ideas of recent scientist that dispute the claim of unguided biogenesis or you haven't seen their data? If you reject them please list their claims and dispute them.
But given the vast amount of evidence that continues to stack up in support of the theory....I am only more confident in my conclusion pucksr
And what "vast amount of evidence that continues to stack up" as it relates to unguided biogenesis are you talking about? List them if you could please.
Thanks
bmoose9
What are you talking about?
Except for the "panspermia" concept...I havent read a single scientist who has proposed anything else....or even who has disputed abiogenesis...
?????????????????
What are you talking about?
Except for the "panspermia" concept...I havent read a single scientist who has proposed anything else....or even who has disputed abiogenesis...
?????????????????
And what "vast amount of evidence that continues to stack up" as it relates to unguided biogenesis are you talking about? List them if you could please.
1. Its abiogenesis.
As far as evidence....
The last good article I read on the topic was in June 2004 "Discover".
Im sure you can find newer information...
but basically we have discovered the importance of RNA
Seen the ability of proto-cell to develop.
Admired the ways in which different sub-organisms came together...such as the mitochondria.
We basically have broken the cell down into semi-biological parts...traced the path of development of each....and proven that many of them can develop abiotically.
That is precisely why it has to be this way. A first cause that is TIMELESS and SPACE LESS is the only way you can settle this logical equation because it in itself doesn't need a cause just like infinity doesn't have a beginning or an end. Thus it is something that can not be fully comprehended but it is logical. Like I said.
How would you solve this logical problem? At this point you have to explore this as a possibility because everything else is illogical.
That is precisely why it has to be this way. A first cause that is TIMELESS and SPACE LESS is the only way you can settle this logical equation because it in itself doesn't need a cause just like infinity doesn't have a beginning or an end. Thus it is something that can not be fully comprehended but it is logical. Like I said.
How would you solve this logical problem? At this point you have to explore this as a possibility because everything else is illogical.
I have shelves full of critiques against evolution and Darwinism. They all have the same basic errors.
I applaud you for your research. Can you give me a list of those resources? I have seen misinterpretations on both sides of this theory. However, I can't speak to them unless I know which ones you are referring to.
I think the primary concern is the assembly problem. I don't think that is a misinterpretation or overstated as this is the point where it all has to come together. Every single theory hinges on this and the probabilities are extremely low. Even if that was the only flaw that would be enough to reach a rational conclusion.
Keep in mind I'm not asking you to reach the same conclusion. Just do the research and critically analyze the current theories.
I would solve the problem by taking the simplest answer. There is no need to invoke a God for a natural explanation. There is no evidence to make such a jump in logic. If you want to sit and try to rationalize it all out, you may come to some conclusion that is logically acceptable, but not necessarily true. The ancient Greeks already did all this, try reading some of their philosophies that are actually a part of the foundation of Science (and Christianity too). The problem is that in the thousands of years since then, we have moved from speculation based on logic without evidence to logical speculation based on verifiable evidence. There is no evidence or reason to make the jump to God. If you want speculate about such things, that is philosophy not science. Come up with some evidence, then you can start to make the jump to science.
I would solve the problem by taking the simplest answer. There is no need to invoke a God for a natural explanation. There is no evidence to make such a jump in logic. If you want to sit and try to rationalize it all out, you may come to some conclusion that is logically acceptable, but not necessarily true. The ancient Greeks already did all this, try reading some of their philosophies that are actually a part of the foundation of Science (and Christianity too). The problem is that in the thousands of years since then, we have moved from speculation based on logic without evidence to logical speculation based on verifiable evidence. There is no evidence or reason to make the jump to God. If you want speculate about such things, that is philosophy not science. Come up with some evidence, then you can start to make the jump to science.
I applaud you for your research. Can you give me a list of those resources? I have seen misinterpretations on both sides of this theory. However, I can't speak to them unless I know which ones you are referring to.
Well, I am a biologist. My life is literally immersed in this subject. I read new papers on the mechanisms of evolution all the time. There is no way I would list all the books in my library I have for and against evolution it is just too much. A shorter list would be any Creationist claims. I have yet to see one that even remotely falsifies evolution.
Here is a great link that carefully explains evolution and even provides information as to what would be potential falsification of each part of the theory.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/
Most biochemists would and have disagreed with this assessment that it is not difficult. I'll admit that your assessment does seem simple because these things to interact with one another and on the surface seems to be only a matter of time. That is what is further from the truth.
Here are the steps that you have to take if all of the building blocks are in place which they most likely would have been.
1-Amino acids come in 2 types left and right handed however only left handed amino acids are compatible for life.
Issue: They both are equally available in nature and react with one another fairly easily and they are difficult to separate. Some have theorized that in space due to left handed radiation that it leads LH-amino acids. I haven't seen what the ratio is but you still have the same problem. panspermia would move into the lead here.
2- The LH amino acids have to get together with nothing else and only a trace of RH-amino acids can be present (this still might be fatal). They have to form the correct peptide bonds (by product of H2O) to create a single functioning protein chain.
Issue: It is not a small chain we are talking about and how do you keep all of the other elements out of the mixture. You can't possibly stop the natural bonding with other elements that happen so readily. Once this happens it is over for that to be life form.
Given enough time is said to be the answer. However, time maybe the problem. The more time you have the dirtier your chain can become.
My description here is not even representative of the complexity of the situation. I didn't mention the number of amino acids, certain types or enzymes that have to be in place to make this clock start ticking.
Some over simplifications come in where the assumption is just because I have all of the elements together in the same location with the right environment that life will just be created. If you take a living cell and put it in a stable saline solution and rupture its cell wall so that you have everything that it takes for life. It doesn't reconstitute over time to create any life. Life demands a little more than just having all the components together.
“More than 30 years of experimentation on the origin of life in the fields
of chemical and molecular evolution have led to a better perception of
the immensity of the problem of the origin of life on Earth rather than to
its solution.
"At present all discussions on principal theories and experiments in the
field either end in stalemate or in a confession of ignorance.”
Dr. Klaus Dose, Director, Institute for Biochemistry
That is impossible to know. Do you have a record of the opinion of all biochemists?
As for the rest, I am not aware of any theory that states life started out complex. There has been plenty of time for the complexity seen to evolve out of a simpler start. The evidence shows that is was more than a billion years between the start of life to organisms on the order of Bacteria, Cyano-bacteria, and Archea. Of course, modern species of these supposed simple organisms are the product of billions of years more evolution since then. Just because the simplest form of life now is x, does not mean that simpler forms could not have existed earlier.
Scientists have only been trying to create life in a lab for a few decades. Nature had millions of years to work out the design. Is 50 or a 100 years too much time to work out the problem? Most have given Jesus around 2000 years to get his affairs in order without too much hassle. Is it too much to ask that human scientists at least get a century to experiment before you conclude their research is useless?
The universe has always existed and always will. ("As it was in the beginning, is now and ever shall be, world without end.")
The universe has always existed and always will. ("As it was in the beginning, is now and ever shall be, world without end.")
Let's say everyone said okay ID is the way it all happened. It is absurd to think that science at that point stops trudging forward in trying to understanding the design. What would be the harm done here?
What would be the advantage? In the long run it makes no difference in how science does it's job. You still have to understand how the thing works.
The danger comes in the baggage that people carry along with the idea of a creator.
Oh, it is possible. I love studying philosophy too. It is fun. It is logically possible that a God could exist. However, there is no evidence to support this hypothesis.
Oh, it is possible. I love studying philosophy too. It is fun. It is logically possible that a God could exist. However, there is no evidence to support this hypothesis.
Unless someone can come up with another alternative that doesn't defy the logic of a first cause then the idea has to be considered just like evolution.
No, until you can come up with some evidence for the existence of a Creator then it doesn't yet deserve consideration in a science classroom or discussion. Again, if you want to philosophize about things outside of our current knowledge, that is fine. Just know that is not what science is about, science is about what the evidence tells us. If you can present evidence of a Creator, I am sure that most scientists would jump right on the band wagon.
What about Behe, Wells, Crick, Hoyle, Collins, etc. Forgive me but I think reading a critic of the critic is not sufficient for anyones intellect.
Well...Im most familiar with Behe....
Behe's argument is logically invalid, and arguably dishonest.
Behe's argument is that organisms cannot be reduced beyond a certain point....and this point is called irreducible complexity.
He cannot define this point, and when has attempted to establish guidelines for this point...they are normally irrational.
i.e. If an organism reaches a point where you cannot remove a single part and the organism continues to function...then it is irreducibly complex.
This fails because it assumes that evolution is reversible and linear...which it is not
Almost every example of an IC system that he has previously listed has actually been found to be a non-example. For the record he has mentioned the flagellum and the eye.
Crick is not an opponent of Evolution at all...
""An honest man, armed with all the knowledge available to us now, could only state that in some sense, the origin of life appears at the moment to be almost a miracle, so many are the conditions which would have had to have been satisfied to get it going.""
Notice he does not state that it is a miracle.
He even says "at the moment". He in no way is claiming that abiogenesis is impossible...just that in 1953 we were yet to produce an explanation
Hoyle...and i may be mistaken....is famous oddly enough for his "card-player analogy". His claims on statistics are wildly misleading...and his interpretation of evolution as a purely random chance is equally misleading.
Anyone who makes an argument that the "odds of evolution are astronomical" is, as a rule, full of it.
Since it is impossible to assign odds to evolution(given that one would have to presume the odds of a final state occuring as it did, and take into account all variables). I do not consider Hoyle a person of importance at all.
The other two escape me, but let me explain something bmoose.
If I read that someone has 'debunked' evolution...and then in the very next line I read how deeply religious they are....I usually dismiss them.
You know why?
Religious people can easily lie to themselves....just look at the mormons.
Heck, even if you dont believe that religious people deceive themselves...think about this.
If you saw a book claiming that Hitler was a transsexual, who liked to eat his own feces....and then you noticed that it was written by a holocaust survivor....
Would you give it much respect?
You generally dont accept sensational claims from someone who has a direct, personal motive for wanting that sensational claim to be true.
Well...Im most familiar with Behe....
Behe's argument is logically invalid, and arguably dishonest.
Behe's argument is that organisms cannot be reduced beyond a certain point....and this point is called irreducible complexity.
He cannot define this point, and when has attempted to establish guidelines for this point...they are normally irrational.
i.e. If an organism reaches a point where you cannot remove a single part and the organism continues to function...then it is irreducibly complex.
This fails because it assumes that evolution is reversible and linear...which it is not
Almost every example of an IC system that he has previously listed has actually been found to be a non-example. For the record he has mentioned the flagellum and the eye.
Crick is not an opponent of Evolution at all...
""An honest man, armed with all the knowledge available to us now, could only state that in some sense, the origin of life appears at the moment to be almost a miracle, so many are the conditions which would have had to have been satisfied to get it going.""
Notice he does not state that it is a miracle.
He even says "at the moment". He in no way is claiming that abiogenesis is impossible...just that in 1953 we were yet to produce an explanation
Hoyle...and i may be mistaken....is famous oddly enough for his "card-player analogy". His claims on statistics are wildly misleading...and his interpretation of evolution as a purely random chance is equally misleading.
Anyone who makes an argument that the "odds of evolution are astronomical" is, as a rule, full of it.
Since it is impossible to assign odds to evolution(given that one would have to presume the odds of a final state occuring as it did, and take into account all variables). I do not consider Hoyle a person of importance at all.
The other two escape me, but let me explain something bmoose.
If I read that someone has 'debunked' evolution...and then in the very next line I read how deeply religious they are....I usually dismiss them.
You know why?
Religious people can easily lie to themselves....just look at the mormons.
Heck, even if you dont believe that religious people deceive themselves...think about this.
If you saw a book claiming that Hitler was a transsexual, who liked to eat his own feces....and then you noticed that it was written by a holocaust survivor....
Would you give it much respect?
You generally dont accept sensational claims from someone who has a direct, personal motive for wanting that sensational claim to be true.
1)RNA-is a fascinating theory but it has been dismissed among some biochemists. There basic rebuttal is the old chicken or the egg. No one can explain how RNA even pre-RNA (which has never been discovered) was created before living cells not to mention survive outside a cell in that environment.
Pre-RNA has been discovered and created in labs all over the world.
Of course you can explain how it would survive outside the cell....viruses are genetic material contained within a simple protein.
They have no cell...yet the genetic material survives without problems.
They can explain how RNA was created before living cells....RNA is simply a string of fatty acids.
In lab conditions they have simulated relatively short strings of fatty acids lining up...
As far as early cells?
You might want to read up on clay...but basically bubbles can form encapsulating the RNA.
The bubbles can even be forced to replicate under certain conditions.
If you had read up on any of the research currently being conducted AT ALL...you wouldnt be making this stupid post.
All i can do is accuse you of intellectual dishonesty.
Actually....current life has a vastly more complex system.
Life, however, could easily be simpler.
"Spawning offspring" is a rather rare event in nature, most of our simpler organisms merely duplicate themselves. Duplicating yourself is far simpler than mating.
What "basic setup" are you proposing...or are you merely making this claim because you dont want to believe that abiogenesis is possible?
You seem to have little to no understanding of biology...or the modern research that goes into a cell. You dont even seem to have read any good articles recently on the research going into abiogenesis.
If scientists think it is impossible....why are several major universities sinking heavy research funds into the topic?
Actually....current life has a vastly more complex system.
Life, however, could easily be simpler.
"Spawning offspring" is a rather rare event in nature, most of our simpler organisms merely duplicate themselves. Duplicating yourself is far simpler than mating.
What "basic setup" are you proposing...or are you merely making this claim because you dont want to believe that abiogenesis is possible?
You seem to have little to no understanding of biology...or the modern research that goes into a cell. You dont even seem to have read any good articles recently on the research going into abiogenesis.
If scientists think it is impossible....why are several major universities sinking heavy research funds into the topic?
The more scientist seem to uncover the farther away we seem to be going. Most scientists are actually in agreement with that statement
Now see....lying is a sin.
Besides that statement being false....you have no reason to make that statement.
No biologist I have ever met would support that statement.
Given the claims of some of the research teams....I doubt that statement.
There has been no poll or study that agrees with that statement.
So you just LIED....see how easy it was....you dont want to believe something so you lie. This is EXACTLY what religious people do EVERY DAY.
BTW...this is wrong
Let me give you a fun tidbit though.
We all know that as we travel at faster speeds...relative time slows down for us.
Relative time also slows down for people closer to a gravitational field. So time travels slower for you than....lets say an astronaut.
The big bang theorizes that all matter currently in the universe was condensed into a single point.
This point had infinite thermal energy, and infinite gravitational force....
In other words...time was infinitely slowed down within that singular point....while to an exterior observer that point may have only existed for a moment....within that point time existed FOREVER.
Dont get into a causal debate though....at best all you can prove is that God was an uncausal cause. Great....but I doubt anyone wants to worship an uncausal cause.
BTW...this is wrong
Let me give you a fun tidbit though.
We all know that as we travel at faster speeds...relative time slows down for us.
Relative time also slows down for people closer to a gravitational field. So time travels slower for you than....lets say an astronaut.
The big bang theorizes that all matter currently in the universe was condensed into a single point.
This point had infinite thermal energy, and infinite gravitational force....
In other words...time was infinitely slowed down within that singular point....while to an exterior observer that point may have only existed for a moment....within that point time existed FOREVER.
Dont get into a causal debate though....at best all you can prove is that God was an uncausal cause. Great....but I doubt anyone wants to worship an uncausal cause.
Most biochemists would and have disagreed with this assessment that it is not difficult. I'll admit that your assessment does seem simple because these things to interact with one another and on the surface seems to be only a matter of time. That is what is further from the truth.
They do?
I guess you have a survey, a poll, or a study to confirm this?
Or maybe you know a lot of biochemists?
Or maybe your just lying again because you want it to be true SOOOO badly.
Except....
Some bacteria use right-handed amino acids, too
McCarthy, Matthew D., John I. Hedges and Ronald Benner. 1998. Major bacterial contribution to marine dissolved organic nitrogen. Science 281: 231-234.
Except....
Some bacteria use right-handed amino acids, too
McCarthy, Matthew D., John I. Hedges and Ronald Benner. 1998. Major bacterial contribution to marine dissolved organic nitrogen. Science 281: 231-234.
The LH amino acids have to get together with nothing else and only a trace of RH-amino acids can be present (this still might be fatal). They have to form the correct peptide bonds (by product of H2O) to create a single functioning protein chain.
Issue: It is not a small chain we are talking about and how do you keep all of the other elements out of the mixture. You can't possibly stop the natural bonding with other elements that happen so readily. Once this happens it is over for that to be life form.
The first self-replicator may have had eight or fewer types of amino acids (Cavalier-Smith 2001). It is not all that unlikely that the same handedness might occur so few times by chance, especially if one of the amino acids was glycine, which has no handedness.
Cavalier-Smith T. 2001. Obcells as proto-organisms: membrane heredity, lithophosphorylation, and the origins of the genetic code, the first cells, and photosynthesis. Journal of Molecular Evolution 53: 555-595.
That analogy is so far off....it doesnt even make sense.
That analogy is so far off....it doesnt even make sense.
Let's say everyone said okay ID is the way it all happened. It is absurd to think that science at that point stops trudging forward in trying to understanding the design. What would be the harm done here? Maybe we could spend more money in designing better anti-biotics rather than trying to recreate the creation. No point in re-inventing the wheel but continuing to learn from it's design is crucial.
Ok....so apparently ID is a popular idea....lots of smart people support it according to you.
So here is a question....
What useful research has come from an IDist?
Name one piece of useful research.......
All they have done is try to debunk Evolution.
Even before Einstein's Theory of Relativity was accepted he was making predictions and claiming further explanation of certain phenomenon.
So what have they done?
Oh...thats right....NOTHING.
So...it isnt absurd to think that everything would come to a grinding halt.
We would stop researching the evolutionary pathways of "IC systems"...despite several claimed IC systems having been greatly reduced.
We would stop producing anti-bodies. Evolution doesnt happen....all evolution is merely God working.
Who would dare to stop the work of God...if he wanted the Bird flu in humans...then dammit....we need bird flu.
Sorry if I seem angry but ID is one of the most intellectually devoid, BS, completely lacking in scientific evidence ideas I have ever read.
It also was just a quick way to avoid the term creationism in the classroom.
Anyone who supports ID is not just wrong....but they are normally dishonest.
If you believe in Creationism...have the balls to say it....dont be a little bitch and throw around pseudo-science
bmoose9,
QUOTE
Science is based on critical thinking and that just appears to be lacking for whatever reason in this field of study.
I admire your passion for science, it burns in many of us. But what I meant to say earlier when I said
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Science is based on critical thinking and that just appears to be lacking for whatever reason in this field of study. |
I admire your passion for science, it burns in many of us. But what I meant to say earlier when I said
There are many reasonable hypothesis on the subject, and they should not be disqualified just because we can't prove them.
is that these hypothesis are like models. Many of them can fit a scenario perfectly, until further evidence is deduced.
Yes, question theories; that is why they are theories, but don't discredit them if they are plausible.
When you consider a theory such as the clay model, don't forget to account for the time that nature spent working on it and in what quantities.
Cairns-Smith said that no one has been able to recreate evolution in a lab, and he is correct of course, but that does not disprove the theory, and it is far from Cairns-Smith disagreeing with his own theory.
I am not sure why learning the origins of life would instantly enable us to recreate complex beings, if that's what you are inferring. Many things the universe has created are not easily replicable by us, including ourselves. Why that is, is unknown to us. Maybe simply because natural selection does not require that.
I think the question that follows is of the origin of human consciousness and that of would we ever be able to understand our brain fully. Is it possible that natural selection might not let us?
I just finished reading a 9 yr old book, "The origin of humankind" by Richard Leakey (great book!!), and the last chapter was dedicated to this. The previous 2 chapters were very interesting also, one being "The language of art" and the other "The art of language", regarding the evolution of art, language, and the driving factors towards those things.
I am kinda busy today, but I'll start a discussion on thoughts that come to mind from these chapters soon. Anyway, try and get the book, it's a quick read really. (and I am a slow reader)
Cheers
ImC
I also appreciate you weighing in on the issue as well.
However I think that in that very statement lies the ultimate issue. They are not "perceived gaps" but actual gaps and the "minds" of many have already been made up despite them. This is the polar opposite of what science is. We are taught to question, debate and to be critical about theories. The scientific process demands that of us. Why is this one issue different? We can't change the scientific process because we don't like the results and we can't make up our minds until prove is given.
I also have an extremely hard time fathoming that with science being as high tech and as wonderful as it is that we can't develop a sterile lab environment. I totally reject that as any valid reason that the experiments have not beared fruit (really, no pun intended.) We are closer to creating dark matter in a lab setting than the we are in the field of this topic.
I would also appreciate if all would refrain from interjecting religion into this discussion as it will only confuse this issue and has no bearing on the reason I started this thread.
Thanks again for your responses. They are very eliminating.
QUOTE
In my mind it is a resolved issue, perceived gaps and all. quote photojack
However I think that in that very statement lies the ultimate issue. They are not "perceived gaps" but actual gaps and the "minds" of many have already been made up despite them. This is the polar opposite of what science is. We are taught to question, debate and to be critical about theories. The scientific process demands that of us. Why is this one issue different? We can't change the scientific process because we don't like the results and we can't make up our minds until prove is given.
I also have an extremely hard time fathoming that with science being as high tech and as wonderful as it is that we can't develop a sterile lab environment. I totally reject that as any valid reason that the experiments have not beared fruit (really, no pun intended.)
We are closer to creating dark matter in a lab setting than the we are in the field of this topic.I would also appreciate if all would refrain from interjecting religion into this discussion as it will only confuse this issue and has no bearing on the reason I started this thread.
Thanks again for your responses. They are very eliminating.
QUOTE
Yes, question theories; that is why they are theories, but don't discredit them if they are plausible. immortalcoil
Sorry if you misunderstood me. I'm unwilling to discount any theory until it is proven invalid, either by nullifying itself or another theory is proven correct. That goes for all scientific theories where only one option can be correct. However because of the nature of this field we couldn't simply say all other theories were incorrect because of obvious reasons.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Yes, question theories; that is why they are theories, but don't discredit them if they are plausible. immortalcoil |
Sorry if you misunderstood me. I'm unwilling to discount any theory until it is proven invalid, either by nullifying itself or another theory is proven correct. That goes for all scientific theories where only one option can be correct. However because of the nature of this field we couldn't simply say all other theories were incorrect because of obvious reasons.
I am not sure why learning the origins of life would instantly enable us to recreate complex beings
I don't think any rational mind expects a dog to come jumping out of the soup here.
Seriously, I'm not looking for scientist to turn their life form into anything more complex than a simple life form. We don't have that kind of time.
Again. I am not disproving theories nor am I trying to. My question is what makes this field of discover so different causing people and scientists alike to hold back criticism about the set forth theories or at least acknowledge the issues or flaws?
bmoose9, "Thanks again for your responses. They are very eliminating." I hope you meant very illuminating! 
We don't want any eliminating in this discussion, maybe just gaps.... Perceived gaps, actual gaps, that starts to sound like those who think "gaps" in the fossil record negate the entire theory of evolution. It doesn't hold water. Maybe we need to clarify just where these gaps are, how many there are and between what stages. Probably one of the most glaring one is between non- and self-replicating molecules. Another would be between complex organic molecules and "life." The test tube studies have "created" complex amino acids from ammonia, water, methane and hydrogen. "At the end of one week of continuous operation, Miller and Urey observed that as much as 10-15% of the carbon within the system was now in the form of organic compounds. Two percent of the carbon had formed amino acids, including 13 of the 22 that are used to make proteins in living cells, with glycine as the most abundant." Wikipedia.
That complexity was unimagined prior to the experiment in 1953. "This experiment inspired many experiments in a similar vein. In 1961, Joan Oró found that amino acids could be made from hydrogen cyanide (HCN) and ammonia in a water solution. He also found that his experiment produced a large amount of the nucleotide base adenine. Experiments conducted later showed that the other RNA and DNA bases could be obtained through simulated prebiotic chemistry with a reducing atmosphere." Wikipedia. Now they are up to the level of RNA and DNA bases! Not a very big gap, given the billions of years for development to occur.
Then there is the topic of LUA. "Last universal ancestor (LUA), is the hypothetical latest living organism from which all currently living organisms descend. As such, it is the most recent common ancestor of the set of all currently living organisms. Also LCA (last common ancestor) or LUCA (last universal common ancestor). It is estimated to have lived some 3.5 billion years ago Construction of cladograms, based upon genetic distance between all living cells, shows that there was a very early split between the Archaebacteria that are highly resistant to environmental extremes of great salinity, high temperature or high acidity, and the remainder of life. This has led some to suggest that LUA evolved in areas like the deep ocean vents, where such extremes prevail today." Wikipedia.
Also, no one has touched on the theories of life originating elsewhere in the cosmos, comets being the most plausible vectors between "heavenly bodies." Before some people dismiss this as crazy, serious studies have been done and plausible theories have been proposed. Water is generally accepted as necessary for life to develop and comets contain frozen water, they travel throughout our solar system and could have transported living cells between Mars and Earth.
"Organic compounds are relatively common in space, especially in the outer solar system where volatiles are not evaporated by solar heating. Comets are encrusted by outer layers of dark material, thought to be a tar-like substance composed of complex organic material formed from simple carbon compounds after reactions initiated mostly by irradiation by ultraviolet light. It is supposed that a rain of material from comets could have brought significant quantities of such complex organic molecules to Earth." Wikipedia.
As we speak (or write) rovers are searching water containing areas of Mars for such evidence. Who knows what new discoveries await us? As I stated earlier, this topic has been of interest to me for most of my period of cognizant awareness. New research is ongoing and this is an excellent and appropriate forum for its discussion and dissemination. Thank you bmoose9 for instigating all this! We all can expect to learn a great deal here. LONG LIVE SCIENCE!
We don't want any eliminating in this discussion, maybe just gaps.... Perceived gaps, actual gaps, that starts to sound like those who think "gaps" in the fossil record negate the entire theory of evolution. It doesn't hold water. Maybe we need to clarify just where these gaps are, how many there are and between what stages. Probably one of the most glaring one is between non- and self-replicating molecules. Another would be between complex organic molecules and "life." The test tube studies have "created" complex amino acids from ammonia, water, methane and hydrogen. "At the end of one week of continuous operation, Miller and Urey observed that as much as 10-15% of the carbon within the system was now in the form of organic compounds. Two percent of the carbon had formed amino acids, including 13 of the 22 that are used to make proteins in living cells, with glycine as the most abundant." Wikipedia.That complexity was unimagined prior to the experiment in 1953. "This experiment inspired many experiments in a similar vein. In 1961, Joan Oró found that amino acids could be made from hydrogen cyanide (HCN) and ammonia in a water solution. He also found that his experiment produced a large amount of the nucleotide base adenine. Experiments conducted later showed that the other RNA and DNA bases could be obtained through simulated prebiotic chemistry with a reducing atmosphere." Wikipedia. Now they are up to the level of RNA and DNA bases! Not a very big gap, given the billions of years for development to occur.
Then there is the topic of LUA. "Last universal ancestor (LUA), is the hypothetical latest living organism from which all currently living organisms descend. As such, it is the most recent common ancestor of the set of all currently living organisms. Also LCA (last common ancestor) or LUCA (last universal common ancestor). It is estimated to have lived some 3.5 billion years ago Construction of cladograms, based upon genetic distance between all living cells, shows that there was a very early split between the Archaebacteria that are highly resistant to environmental extremes of great salinity, high temperature or high acidity, and the remainder of life. This has led some to suggest that LUA evolved in areas like the deep ocean vents, where such extremes prevail today." Wikipedia.
Also, no one has touched on the theories of life originating elsewhere in the cosmos, comets being the most plausible vectors between "heavenly bodies." Before some people dismiss this as crazy, serious studies have been done and plausible theories have been proposed. Water is generally accepted as necessary for life to develop and comets contain frozen water, they travel throughout our solar system and could have transported living cells between Mars and Earth.
"Organic compounds are relatively common in space, especially in the outer solar system where volatiles are not evaporated by solar heating. Comets are encrusted by outer layers of dark material, thought to be a tar-like substance composed of complex organic material formed from simple carbon compounds after reactions initiated mostly by irradiation by ultraviolet light. It is supposed that a rain of material from comets could have brought significant quantities of such complex organic molecules to Earth." Wikipedia.
As we speak (or write) rovers are searching water containing areas of Mars for such evidence. Who knows what new discoveries await us? As I stated earlier, this topic has been of interest to me for most of my period of cognizant awareness. New research is ongoing and this is an excellent and appropriate forum for its discussion and dissemination. Thank you bmoose9 for instigating all this! We all can expect to learn a great deal here. LONG LIVE SCIENCE!
QUOTE (photojack+Feb 1 2007, 09:00 PM)
bmoose9, "Thanks again for your responses. They are very eliminating." I hope you meant very illuminating! We don't want any eliminating in this discussion, maybe just gaps.... Perceived gaps, actual gaps, that starts to sound like those who think "gaps" in the fossil record negate the entire theory of evolution. It doesn't hold water. Maybe we need to clarify just where these gaps are, how many there are and between what stages. Probably one of the most glaring one is between non- and self-replicating molecules. Another would be between complex organic molecules and "life." The test tube studies have "created" complex amino acids from ammonia, water, methane and hydrogen. "At the end of one week of continuous operation, Miller and Urey observed that as much as 10-15% of the carbon within the system was now in the form of organic compounds. Two percent of the carbon had formed amino acids, including 13 of the 22 that are used to make proteins in living cells, with glycine as the most abundant." Wikipedia.
That complexity was unimagined prior to the experiment in 1953. "This experiment inspired many experiments in a similar vein. In 1961, Joan Oró found that amino acids could be made from hydrogen cyanide (HCN) and ammonia in a water solution. He also found that his experiment produced a large amount of the nucleotide base adenine. Experiments conducted later showed that the other RNA and DNA bases could be obtained through simulated prebiotic chemistry with a reducing atmosphere." Wikipedia. Now they are up to the level of RNA and DNA bases! Not a very big gap, given the billions of years for development to occur.
Then there is the topic of LUA. "Last universal ancestor (LUA), is the hypothetical latest living organism from which all currently living organisms descend. As such, it is the most recent common ancestor of the set of all currently living organisms. Also LCA (last common ancestor) or LUCA (last universal common ancestor). It is estimated to have lived some 3.5 billion years ago Construction of cladograms, based upon genetic distance between all living cells, shows that there was a very early split between the Archaebacteria that are highly resistant to environmental extremes of great salinity, high temperature or high acidity, and the remainder of life. This has led some to suggest that LUA evolved in areas like the deep ocean vents, where such extremes prevail today." Wikipedia.
Also, no one has touched on the theories of life originating elsewhere in the cosmos, comets being the most plausible vectors between "heavenly bodies." Before some people dismiss this as crazy, serious studies have been done and plausible theories have been proposed. Water is generally accepted as necessary for life to develop and comets contain frozen water, they travel throughout our solar system and could have transported living cells between Mars and Earth.
"Organic compounds are relatively common in space, especially in the outer solar system where volatiles are not evaporated by solar heating. Comets are encrusted by outer layers of dark material, thought to be a tar-like substance composed of complex organic material formed from simple carbon compounds after reactions initiated mostly by irradiation by ultraviolet light. It is supposed that a rain of material from comets could have brought significant quantities of such complex organic molecules to Earth." Wikipedia.
As we speak (or write) rovers are searching water containing areas of Mars for such evidence. Who knows what new discoveries await us? As I stated earlier, this topic has been of interest to me for most of my period of cognizant awareness. New research is ongoing and this is an excellent and appropriate forum for its discussion and dissemination. Thank you bmoose9 for instigating all this! We all can expect to learn a great deal here. LONG LIVE SCIENCE!
before I read further. Yes I did mean illuminating. Must have misspelled an I didn't notice what spell checker suggested. Sorry I'm glad you caught that.
We don't want any eliminating in this discussion, maybe just gaps.... Perceived gaps, actual gaps, that starts to sound like those who think "gaps" in the fossil record negate the entire theory of evolution. It doesn't hold water. Maybe we need to clarify just where these gaps are, how many there are and between what stages. Probably one of the most glaring one is between non- and self-replicating molecules. Another would be between complex organic molecules and "life." The test tube studies have "created" complex amino acids from ammonia, water, methane and hydrogen. "At the end of one week of continuous operation, Miller and Urey observed that as much as 10-15% of the carbon within the system was now in the form of organic compounds. Two percent of the carbon had formed amino acids, including 13 of the 22 that are used to make proteins in living cells, with glycine as the most abundant." Wikipedia.That complexity was unimagined prior to the experiment in 1953. "This experiment inspired many experiments in a similar vein. In 1961, Joan Oró found that amino acids could be made from hydrogen cyanide (HCN) and ammonia in a water solution. He also found that his experiment produced a large amount of the nucleotide base adenine. Experiments conducted later showed that the other RNA and DNA bases could be obtained through simulated prebiotic chemistry with a reducing atmosphere." Wikipedia. Now they are up to the level of RNA and DNA bases! Not a very big gap, given the billions of years for development to occur.
Then there is the topic of LUA. "Last universal ancestor (LUA), is the hypothetical latest living organism from which all currently living organisms descend. As such, it is the most recent common ancestor of the set of all currently living organisms. Also LCA (last common ancestor) or LUCA (last universal common ancestor). It is estimated to have lived some 3.5 billion years ago Construction of cladograms, based upon genetic distance between all living cells, shows that there was a very early split between the Archaebacteria that are highly resistant to environmental extremes of great salinity, high temperature or high acidity, and the remainder of life. This has led some to suggest that LUA evolved in areas like the deep ocean vents, where such extremes prevail today." Wikipedia.
Also, no one has touched on the theories of life originating elsewhere in the cosmos, comets being the most plausible vectors between "heavenly bodies." Before some people dismiss this as crazy, serious studies have been done and plausible theories have been proposed. Water is generally accepted as necessary for life to develop and comets contain frozen water, they travel throughout our solar system and could have transported living cells between Mars and Earth.
"Organic compounds are relatively common in space, especially in the outer solar system where volatiles are not evaporated by solar heating. Comets are encrusted by outer layers of dark material, thought to be a tar-like substance composed of complex organic material formed from simple carbon compounds after reactions initiated mostly by irradiation by ultraviolet light. It is supposed that a rain of material from comets could have brought significant quantities of such complex organic molecules to Earth." Wikipedia.
As we speak (or write) rovers are searching water containing areas of Mars for such evidence. Who knows what new discoveries await us? As I stated earlier, this topic has been of interest to me for most of my period of cognizant awareness. New research is ongoing and this is an excellent and appropriate forum for its discussion and dissemination. Thank you bmoose9 for instigating all this! We all can expect to learn a great deal here. LONG LIVE SCIENCE!
before I read further. Yes I did mean illuminating. Must have misspelled an I didn't notice what spell checker suggested. Sorry I'm glad you caught that.
bmoose9, Actually spell checker won't catch one like that because it was a correctly spelled word, just not the intended one! I helped edit a scientific journal, so please excuse my nit picking, I tried to have fun with it. I hope the joke was accepted and understood. Please, read on... then reply. I am glad you started this. I am looking forward to many enlightening revelations, especially from current researchers.
Please bare with me here. I know the research but my question still stands. Your well educated, research laden responses are slowly proving the point to my question.
I've researched all of the theories in depth and I've come to only one conclusion. They don't convince me either way and they shouldn't. The truth is out there and I cheapen myself if I just buy into a theory that has yet to be proven. I can lean to a likely option if one is more plausible but I also have to be willing to abandon it if the data doesn't support it. That's not flip-flopping, that's science.
When we loose objectivity in the field of science it no longer is science.
I hope the thing that we are truly learning here is about ourselves and how we process information. Question everything.
Next question to add to the first that may put a finer point on the issue at hand.
Can you critically explain these associated theories? I only want to hear about the problems with each one. If we can't answer this question (collectively) then we've only done half of our homework.
I've researched all of the theories in depth and I've come to only one conclusion. They don't convince me either way and they shouldn't. The truth is out there and I cheapen myself if I just buy into a theory that has yet to be proven. I can lean to a likely option if one is more plausible but I also have to be willing to abandon it if the data doesn't support it. That's not flip-flopping, that's science.
When we loose objectivity in the field of science it no longer is science.
I hope the thing that we are truly learning here is about ourselves and how we process information. Question everything.
QUOTE
I am not disproving theories nor am I trying to. My question is what makes this field of discover so different causing people and scientists alike to hold back criticism about the set forth theories or at least acknowledge the issues or flaws? bmoose9
Next question to add to the first that may put a finer point on the issue at hand.
Can you critically explain these associated theories? I only want to hear about the problems with each one. If we can't answer this question (collectively) then we've only done half of our homework.
QUOTE (photojack+Feb 1 2007, 09:31 PM)
.
Fact is I spelled illuminate with and 'e' so spell check did actually change it. Unfortunately I accepted the change without thinking. I'm nit picky too just in a hurry sometimes.
No harm. I got a laugh out of it.
Fact is I spelled illuminate with and 'e' so spell check did actually change it. Unfortunately I accepted the change without thinking. I'm nit picky too just in a hurry sometimes.
No harm. I got a laugh out of it.
bmoose9, Another good perspective to bring in. It is difficult to criticize experiments of this complexity unless you have done similar ones yourself. This isn't a cop out. If we were both trained in advanced organic chemistry with probably a Master's degree or better AND had a lab and student assistants and funding, we both could probably formulate further experiments to verify or refine theories about the origin of life. That would be one of the most pleasurable fields of research to be involved in. I don't know how old you are, but since I was in school, science has changed in many fundamental ways, but basic facts and theories have stood the test of time. When I was in early high school only two kingdoms were taught. Now that has expanded to five. Ethology had just begun with Karl von Frisch's study of bees being an example that was taught. Jane Goodall was just starting her research. Continental drift was pooh poohed as a joke, though first conceived in 1915 by Alfred Wegener. It wasn't until the 1960's, instigated by the I.G.Y. (International Geophysical Year) which I remember well, that it was refined into the current Plate tectonics theory. Miller and Urey did their experiment the year I was born (now you know if you do the math!). Watson and Crick, Oparin, Robert S. Dietz, Harry Hess and too many to mention have altered science and how people perceive it. I mention this to show the scale of the changes and their effects within only about 30 - 35 years. So the modeling and theories about the origin of life will change somewhat and be refined no doubt, but just like evolution itself, they will remain, rock solid.
photojack- Yes we have come a long way and hopefully we can continue the progress in the future.
For that simple fact we have to do our own due diligence before we decide anything. It is a natural tendency to immerse ourselves in only the articles that agree with our point of view. Guilty as charged on many accounts. Again, science demands that we step out of this comfort zone. It maybe painful but who ever said discovery was easy. If it was easy it wouldn't be fun.
I don't want to lead you in anyway so I won't refer to any resources at this time. Finding these are also part of the fun. Once you are able to research some of the counter arguments to the proposed theories I would be very interested in your comments.
I don't know what the sunglass guy means but I just thought he looked cool.
Off topic but I'm so glad that you brought up the Continental Drift. It is a great illustration of my original point. I imagine it took the scientific community a long time to swallow their pride in this one.
Just something to think about.
QUOTE
If we were both trained in advanced organic chemistry with probably a Master's degree or better.... photojack
For that simple fact we have to do our own due diligence before we decide anything. It is a natural tendency to immerse ourselves in only the articles that agree with our point of view. Guilty as charged on many accounts. Again, science demands that we step out of this comfort zone. It maybe painful but who ever said discovery was easy. If it was easy it wouldn't be fun.
I don't want to lead you in anyway so I won't refer to any resources at this time. Finding these are also part of the fun. Once you are able to research some of the counter arguments to the proposed theories I would be very interested in your comments.
I don't know what the sunglass guy means but I just thought he looked cool.
Off topic but I'm so glad that you brought up the Continental Drift. It is a great illustration of my original point. I imagine it took the scientific community a long time to swallow their pride in this one.
Just something to think about.QUOTE
Off topic but I'm so glad that you brought up the Continental Drift. It is a great illustration of my original point. I imagine it took the scientific community a long time to swallow their pride in this one. unsure.gif Just something to think about.
Hmmmm....your understanding of history is mildly funny.
Plate Tectonics was initially rejected, but not because of pride or short-sightedness.
The lack of solid evidence was the main reason that it was doubted. When sea-floor exploration revealed alternating magnetic "bands" it was considered solid evidence.
Science typically does not suffer as much from a lack of openmindedness as it does a lack of good evidence.
Did you know that before Darwin's Theory of Evolution most of the scientists in the world were Creationists?
Thats right!
They all loved the bible and accepted it as the truth. Why?
They didnt have any better explanation for everything. Darwin provided a more complete and scientific solution. Within 50 years most Scientists were "Evolutionists" rather than Creationists?
You wanna talk about being hard to swallow. Can you imagine how difficult it must have been for all of those Creationists to swallow their pride and religious beliefs and admit Darwin was right?
Thats why there are almost NO critical thinkers who are Creationists.
Trust me, the Creationist scientists at the time of Darwin tried everything to prove he was wrong. They finally admitted he was right.
QUOTE (PuckSR+Feb 2 2007, 01:12 AM)
pucksr-
I'm sorry if you thought I was incorrect in my "pride" comment. I retract that as it had nothing to do with my point.
Photojack during his explanation did a great job of explaining my point. You also confirmed it by your explanation minus of course my ill placed "pride" remark.
I'm not sure why you brought up creationism. If you want to participate then please read this thread from start to finish.
I'm sure if you will give the posters this courtesy you will see this thread was not intended to be an emotional argument.
Thank you for your understanding.
Oh sorry....
To your initial point.
It doesnt really matter if we can create life in a laboratory or not....at least not to you.
Your still going to believe what you believe.
If the mountains of evidence havent made you reconsider your beliefs so far....then what would it matter if we made them taller?
BTW....the Theory of Evolution doesnt say ANYTHING about abiogenesis.
This is a completely different area of research....the only similarity being the fact that it involves the ancient past and biology.
I told another poster.....several alternative theories exist that are all scientifically valid(if not accepted). One highly popular idea is that of panspermia.
It just seemed like your "pride" statement was in some way a comment about scientists being hard-pressed to admit they were wrong. I just wanted to make it clear that scientists are generally eager to admit they are wrong in the face of good evidence.
To your initial point.
It doesnt really matter if we can create life in a laboratory or not....at least not to you.
Your still going to believe what you believe.
If the mountains of evidence havent made you reconsider your beliefs so far....then what would it matter if we made them taller?
BTW....the Theory of Evolution doesnt say ANYTHING about abiogenesis.
This is a completely different area of research....the only similarity being the fact that it involves the ancient past and biology.
I told another poster.....several alternative theories exist that are all scientifically valid(if not accepted). One highly popular idea is that of panspermia.
It just seemed like your "pride" statement was in some way a comment about scientists being hard-pressed to admit they were wrong. I just wanted to make it clear that scientists are generally eager to admit they are wrong in the face of good evidence.
QUOTE (bmoose9+Feb 2 2007, 12:52 AM)
It is a natural tendency to immerse ourselves in only the articles that agree with our point of view. Guilty as charged on many accounts. Again, science demands that we step out of this comfort zone. It maybe painful but who ever said discovery was easy. If it was easy it wouldn't be fun.
Who says it ain't fun going to a creationist site and picking holes in all their lies? Or a religious site and explaining why the believers are wrong. This has required a knowledge of other religions, their beliefs and their books.
Who says it ain't fun going to a creationist site and picking holes in all their lies? Or a religious site and explaining why the believers are wrong. This has required a knowledge of other religions, their beliefs and their books.
QUOTE (bmoose9+Feb 1 2007, 03:30 PM)
Do you think we will ever find out the cause for the origin of life?
I would suspect not; there's no way to pierce the history to specifically determine what happened. But I'm not concerned, I'm certain that more and more working models will be generated. Once one viable replicating strand is discovered, other forms will be too. So, we'll never have an actual answer to what really happened, but we'll have a host of good ideas. I would guess that researchers will compete to determine which model has the highest probability.
It's like finding out what Hannibal ate on his 17th birthday; there's no way we can really know, but we can form a variety of viable hypotheses based on other things we know.
I would suspect not; there's no way to pierce the history to specifically determine what happened. But I'm not concerned, I'm certain that more and more working models will be generated. Once one viable replicating strand is discovered, other forms will be too. So, we'll never have an actual answer to what really happened, but we'll have a host of good ideas. I would guess that researchers will compete to determine which model has the highest probability.
It's like finding out what Hannibal ate on his 17th birthday; there's no way we can really know, but we can form a variety of viable hypotheses based on other things we know.
QUOTE
but we'll have a host of good ideas. I would guess that researchers will compete to determine which model has the highest probability.El machinae
Great point. So can you take each theory and rank them in the order of probability and what those associated probabilities would be? I would prefer that the data comes from the scientist that is working on the theories because they are the experts and should have the best idea of what they are.
Kandea- My point exactly. Discovery is fun.
QUOTE
It doesnt really matter if we can create life in a laboratory or not....at least not to you. pucksr
You can't possibly know that. I would appreciate it again if we keep any such assumption out of this discussion because the argument is again circular and states that no one has every been objective.
Your comment simply has no bearing on the topic.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| It doesnt really matter if we can create life in a laboratory or not....at least not to you. pucksr |
You can't possibly know that. I would appreciate it again if we keep any such assumption out of this discussion because the argument is again circular and states that no one has every been objective.
Your comment simply has no bearing on the topic.
It just seemed like your "pride" statement was in some way a comment about scientists being hard-pressed to admit they were wrong. I just wanted to make it clear that scientists are generally eager to admit they are wrong in the face of good evidence.
Again I apologize for my comment. My thought process and statement had no bearing on the topic at hand. My assertion when a theory or reality becomes obsolete that has been someones life's work then pride can sometimes get in the way. In that I was guilty of what I just charged you with because the argument is totally circular. My apologies and that will not happen again.
QUOTE (bmoose9+Feb 2 2007, 03:26 PM)
Great point. So can you take each theory and rank them in the order of probability and what those associated probabilities would be? I would prefer that the data comes from the scientist that is working on the theories because they are the experts and should have the best idea of what they are.
Thanks.
I don't really know the theories all that well, I can read the wikis as well as anyone, though.
I'm expecting that they'll discover a 300 unit strand of something (protein, RNA, etc.) that can self-replicate given fairly 'easy' conditions. I'll then think it's spiffy. Then other groups will provide a 276 unit strand that's 'easier' to get given a putative set of initial conditions.
I think it will be neat, but mostly a 'proof of concept'
QUOTE
So can you take each theory and rank them in the order of probability and what those associated probabilities would be? I would prefer that the data comes from the scientist that is working on the theories because they are the experts and should have the best idea of what they are.
It doesnt really work like that.
You might be able to rank them by popularity....but it would be impossible to rank them by probability.
Besides the gross misunderstanding of probability, I understand the question your trying to ask. However, in the sense that your asking(which theory is more likely) the "probability" would be entirely subjective.
So...no one can do this...and you misused the term probability(severely misused)
El_Machina misused it too...but he was merely using it to refer to the most probable theory. In other words, the one that will gain the widest acceptance.
Given that we don't know the nutrient content of the original bath that the replicating molecule found itself, there's no real way to figure out which potential strand is the most likely.
QUOTE (PuckSR+Feb 2 2007, 09:27 PM)
Besides the gross misunderstanding of probability, I understand the question your trying to ask. However, in the sense that your asking(which theory is more likely) the "probability" would be entirely subjective.
So...no one can do this...and you misused the term probability(severely misused)
El_Machina misused it too...but he was merely using it to refer to the most probable theory. In other words, the one that will gain the widest acceptance.
I disagree with that the term is being misused. A probability is just that. We can and do assign them everyday. You were able to state your subjective probability in making your statements about these theories. I just wanted to put a more scientific number to it.
If that is true then I would like an answer if you can provide one.
I agree that I asked a nearly impossible question to a non-scientist to assign a probability on multiple theories at the same time. I will restate and ask. Of the most widely accepted theory, what is the probability of success that the scientists working on them have assigned.
Again my purpose here is to promote critical thinking. Thanks.
So...no one can do this...and you misused the term probability(severely misused)
El_Machina misused it too...but he was merely using it to refer to the most probable theory. In other words, the one that will gain the widest acceptance.
I disagree with that the term is being misused. A probability is just that. We can and do assign them everyday. You were able to state your subjective probability in making your statements about these theories. I just wanted to put a more scientific number to it.
QUOTE
I understand the question your trying to ask. pucksr
If that is true then I would like an answer if you can provide one.
I agree that I asked a nearly impossible question to a non-scientist to assign a probability on multiple theories at the same time. I will restate and ask. Of the most widely accepted theory, what is the probability of success that the scientists working on them have assigned.
Again my purpose here is to promote critical thinking. Thanks.
Redirect pucksr & el machinae. Same question but give them the perfect lab environment.
bmoose, I think you misunderstood (or perhaps it was poorly presented) the comment about there being no gap for Darwinian evolution WRT abiogenesis. Biological evolution (which I assume here is represented by a colloquial use of Darwinian evolution) refers to the evolution of life, and thus assumes life to begin with regardless of source. That is to say, the elucidation of abiogenesis is not required for theory biological evolution. The evidence and argument for biological evolution is independent and irrefutable at this point.
That said, of course the study of abiogenesis is still very much in its infancy, as it is a far more complex question. We'd also like to see a Darwinian-esque evolution pattern for abiogenesis, but that has yet to be shown.
What the U-M and like experiments are intended to show is that complex biological molecules can form in abiotic enviroments, NOT that life spontaneously forms in those environments. At the time of U-M, folks were incredulous on that possibility, as those molecules themselves were thought "too complex." It turns out that the universe is remarkably awash in these biomolecules.
What we don't know is how all this came together to form life. That we haven't reproduced any possible (because there may be more than one) pathway. Given the time scales, the vast amounts of the precursors, and innumerable initial conditions available to the earth and/or universe to create life, that we haven't gotten very far in a wee petri dish shouldn't be disheartening. What we do know though, is that the chemicals in the cell behave in a fashion consistent with organic chemistry. As is the phenomenon of self assembly, which is becoming a hot topic in industry, so hopefully there will more insights and research that will answer the question of abiogenesis.
Cheers.
That said, of course the study of abiogenesis is still very much in its infancy, as it is a far more complex question. We'd also like to see a Darwinian-esque evolution pattern for abiogenesis, but that has yet to be shown.
What the U-M and like experiments are intended to show is that complex biological molecules can form in abiotic enviroments, NOT that life spontaneously forms in those environments. At the time of U-M, folks were incredulous on that possibility, as those molecules themselves were thought "too complex." It turns out that the universe is remarkably awash in these biomolecules.
What we don't know is how all this came together to form life. That we haven't reproduced any possible (because there may be more than one) pathway. Given the time scales, the vast amounts of the precursors, and innumerable initial conditions available to the earth and/or universe to create life, that we haven't gotten very far in a wee petri dish shouldn't be disheartening. What we do know though, is that the chemicals in the cell behave in a fashion consistent with organic chemistry. As is the phenomenon of self assembly, which is becoming a hot topic in industry, so hopefully there will more insights and research that will answer the question of abiogenesis.
Cheers.
QUOTE
Darwinian evolution WRT abiogenesis. Biological evolution (which I assume here is represented by a colloquial use of Darwinian evolution) refers to the evolution of life, and thus assumes life to begin with regardless of source. pan
I concur. We were using the term in more of a pop culture sense which can be slightly misleading. Darwin did have his own theory on the topic of abiogenesis namely his "primordial soup." I think that was were the popular understanding of the term has shifted to encompass more than just his theory about abiogenesis. Incorrect as that maybe.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Darwinian evolution WRT abiogenesis. Biological evolution (which I assume here is represented by a colloquial use of Darwinian evolution) refers to the evolution of life, and thus assumes life to begin with regardless of source. pan |
I concur. We were using the term in more of a pop culture sense which can be slightly misleading. Darwin did have his own theory on the topic of abiogenesis namely his "primordial soup." I think that was were the popular understanding of the term has shifted to encompass more than just his theory about abiogenesis. Incorrect as that maybe.
That said, of course the study of abiogenesis is still very much in its infancy, as it is a far more complex question.pan
I couldn't agree more. What I would like to see is more people acknowledgment the complexity of the problem.
I'm not trying to be antagonistic here but your response does not answer the question of probability. All responses have been well received and well thought out. However they have also been lacking a critical element, namely an answer to my question of probabilities.
Now maybe this is my fault so again I'll try to redirect and break down the question of probability to creating a single protein molecule in a lab setting with the most optimal environment . This is a somewhat first step in the quest for creating life so it should be much easier task. I know that 1 protein molecule isn't life but it's a start. I also realize that we have created some amino acids in a lab setting so there is no need to go into that detail. Just the assigned probability is fine.
I appreciate the patience of all that have responded thus far and look forward to exploring this topic with all of you. As much as I have typed it, why am I having such a hard time spelling the word probability? I'm wearing this spell checker out!
bmoose9, You are keeping up with the science pretty well and understanding more and more. That is how science captivated me in about 3rd grade and I remain enthralled and am constantly learning more everyday.
"Your response does not answer the question of probability." bmoose9
"Of the most widely accepted theory, what is the probability of success that the scientists working on them have assigned." bmoose9.
It may be fun to try and guess about, "the most widely accepted theory" and some scientists probably make conjectures of this sort at times. But that is not even remotely how the scientific method works. Experiments are based on trying to find evidence supporting OR DENYING a theory or theories. Ideally, there should be no preconceived bias or probability of success to be assigned. Wikipedia has an excellent article on "scientific method" which outlines what I learned way back in the '60's and it hasn't changed at all since. It is this constancy that keeps science true to its course and repeatable experiments confirm or deny theories on a daily basis, globally. If people had tried to guess about the continental drift theory in 1925 for example, no one probably would have been able to conceive the theory that it eventually morphed into, after the I.G.Y. (International Geophysical Year) in 1958 or 1959 provided mountains of data that cemented the Plate Tectonics theory and that also supports evolution as conceived by Darwin 100 years before the first oceanographic vessels left port. These "missing puzzle pieces" are what convince me, when they confirm and coincide with much earlier theories. What a marvelous work of nature is... SCIENCE!
"Your response does not answer the question of probability." bmoose9
"Of the most widely accepted theory, what is the probability of success that the scientists working on them have assigned." bmoose9.
It may be fun to try and guess about, "the most widely accepted theory" and some scientists probably make conjectures of this sort at times. But that is not even remotely how the scientific method works. Experiments are based on trying to find evidence supporting OR DENYING a theory or theories. Ideally, there should be no preconceived bias or probability of success to be assigned. Wikipedia has an excellent article on "scientific method" which outlines what I learned way back in the '60's and it hasn't changed at all since. It is this constancy that keeps science true to its course and repeatable experiments confirm or deny theories on a daily basis, globally. If people had tried to guess about the continental drift theory in 1925 for example, no one probably would have been able to conceive the theory that it eventually morphed into, after the I.G.Y. (International Geophysical Year) in 1958 or 1959 provided mountains of data that cemented the Plate Tectonics theory and that also supports evolution as conceived by Darwin 100 years before the first oceanographic vessels left port. These "missing puzzle pieces" are what convince me, when they confirm and coincide with much earlier theories. What a marvelous work of nature is... SCIENCE!
QUOTE
Can you critically explain these associated theories? If we can't answer this question (collectively) then we've only done half of our homework. bmoose9
This was actually the question that I wanted answered in the first place. I only moved to my probability question because someone brought it up and I wasn't getting an answer to the original question.
I will temporarily withdrawal my probability question and revert back to the original somewhat restated from above.
Can you(anyone) take one abiogenesis theory of your choice and discuss the most substantial problem with that theory based on the scientific evidence of course?
I thank you all again for your patience.
Hello. Anyone out there? I know a lot of posters are staying away from this one because it is actually a civil discussion but I hope there is still an interest in my question.
bmoose9. All you need to know about the subject at your own pace:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/abioprob/
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/abioprob/
Well at least your not taking the cop out route. However you are taking the easy way out of the question which I can not accept. I have read that article and at least some of it's references long before I posed this question. This also doesn't answer my question. I'm pushing for a much higher standard here.
It's not enough just to study the papers that are in support of your argument. I maybe on a different side of the fence here but I try to read both sides objectively. That is the only way that discovery will work.
I think pucksr said earlier that "scientists are always willing to admit that they were wrong in the face of solid evidence." They should also be willing to look at their own theories critically and acknowledge the arguments of their peers. Many times this is where the light bulb goes off and they could actually discover how to make their theory more plausible.
I just don't understand the unwillingness to subject yourselves to alternative scientific research on the topic. Again, what makes this field of study so different that we feel like we have to spout out the "company line" and are unable to look at all of the data. I argue that this alone is why we have seen little progress in this area.
Say your the architect of a $500mil skyscraper that is being built and one day you get a document from another architect that has reviewed your plans. In that document he makes a claim about the existing design being unstable under certain conditions. However you notice that the architect is your biggest competitor. What do you do? Through the document away without a consideration for safety because he has a different idea?
I'm not asking that you switch sides here. All I'm asking is that you explore them.
QUOTE
we have to do our own due diligence before we decide anything. It is a natural tendency to immerse ourselves in only the articles that agree with our point of view. Guilty as charged on many accounts. Again, science demands that we step out of this comfort zone.
It's not enough just to study the papers that are in support of your argument. I maybe on a different side of the fence here but I try to read both sides objectively. That is the only way that discovery will work.
I think pucksr said earlier that "scientists are always willing to admit that they were wrong in the face of solid evidence." They should also be willing to look at their own theories critically and acknowledge the arguments of their peers. Many times this is where the light bulb goes off and they could actually discover how to make their theory more plausible.
I just don't understand the unwillingness to subject yourselves to alternative scientific research on the topic. Again, what makes this field of study so different that we feel like we have to spout out the "company line" and are unable to look at all of the data. I argue that this alone is why we have seen little progress in this area.
Say your the architect of a $500mil skyscraper that is being built and one day you get a document from another architect that has reviewed your plans. In that document he makes a claim about the existing design being unstable under certain conditions. However you notice that the architect is your biggest competitor. What do you do? Through the document away without a consideration for safety because he has a different idea?
I'm not asking that you switch sides here. All I'm asking is that you explore them.
What alternative scientific research?
Everything I have seen basically says that we don't understand it, therefore it had to be "created/planted" by _____ (insert your own external source here).
I find that very unsatisfying as it really doesn't answer anything. History is full of examples of things we did not understand but now we do.
Everything I have seen basically says that we don't understand it, therefore it had to be "created/planted" by _____ (insert your own external source here).
I find that very unsatisfying as it really doesn't answer anything. History is full of examples of things we did not understand but now we do.
QUOTE
It's not enough just to study the papers that are in support of your argument. I maybe on a different side of the fence here but I try to read both sides objectively. That is the only way that discovery will work.
What are you talking about?
Your just rambling on....
Ok...here ya go..the best ideas on the topic
1. Abiogenesis-the idea that "life"(or something very basic resembling life) assembled and emerged from "non-living" material.
Abiogenesis on Wikipedia
2. Panspermia-the idea that life was "seeded" on this planet. This is a bit of a troublesome spot. Imagine asking "how did the galaxy begin?"...and someone replying...it came from the other material in the universe which is much older. It may be true, but it still begs the almost philosophical question of origins.
Panspermia on Wikipedia
Now, if you want to know about the "competing theories" inside the idea of abiogenesis...then you may be barking up the wrong tree.
There arent really "competing" theories.
Almost all scientists who study this topic believe that non-living proteins assembled into basic DNA-like strands...and that despite the "non-living" nature of these protein strands...they eventually assembled into your most basic of organisms.
The rest of the question is pretty much historical. We can and do assemble genetic code from scratch...we just dont know EXACTLY how it happened back then.
Just like all historical queries though with little or no evidence...you cant really call it competing theories. The scientists just hazard a guess. Even if they can get their "guess" to produce genetic material....it doesnt mean that is how life started on Earth.
QUOTE
Almost all scientists who study this topic believe that non-living proteins assembled into basic DNA-like strands...and that despite the "non-living" nature of these protein strands...they eventually assembled into your most basic of organisms.pucksr
"Almost all scientists" suggest that there are competing theories out there or at least critiques of the ones that are proposed. I have read both. Have you?
That is the whole point. Surely a scientist would agree that it would be irresponsible if he only considered his own theory without even a cursory look at anything else. Just like the architect example earlier.
No one has been willing to even acknowledge the competing theories. What am I to think? I don't know the individual reasons for that but what I do know is this.
Either you
-haven't or won't read them
-have read them and won't acknowledge them
Whatever the case or the reason. This is my disturbing point about how we view science today. We get the answer spoon fed to us (non-scientists) and we just buy it and are suppose to be happy about that. Well I'm not happy with that nor should you be. If you love science as much as you say you do I hope that you get that point.
I would probably be as equally convinced as everyone else is if I hadn't opened up my options a little more and critically explored the topic myself.
You all believe in the theories. I get that. So what is wrong with reading the work of other scientists that disagree?
QUOTE
"Almost all scientists" suggest that there are competing theories out there or at least critiques of the ones that are proposed. I have read both. Have you?
????
Please...if your trying to mention a competing theory...let us know.
I said almost ALL scientists because I hate speaking in a tone of absolute certainty. Also frequently there are a few scientists who do not believe a current popular opinion. This is not to say that they have an alternative theory in mind....they just disagree with the unproven theory.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| "Almost all scientists" suggest that there are competing theories out there or at least critiques of the ones that are proposed. I have read both. Have you? |
????
Please...if your trying to mention a competing theory...let us know.
I said almost ALL scientists because I hate speaking in a tone of absolute certainty. Also frequently there are a few scientists who do not believe a current popular opinion. This is not to say that they have an alternative theory in mind....they just disagree with the unproven theory.
No one has been willing to even acknowledge the competing theories. What am I to think? I don't know the individual reasons for that but what I do know is this.
Either you
-haven't or won't read them
-have read them and won't acknowledge them
I dont think anyone here knows of an alternative theory for abiogenesis besides the one mentioned.
QUOTE
You all believe in the theories. I get that. So what is wrong with reading the work of other scientists that disagree?
Its VERY obvious your driving at some point.
There is evidentially an idea that you want expressed.
What "alternative theory" are you talking about....????
Your adding to the confusion:
The concept of abiogenesis implies that non-living matter arranged itself into living matter to create life. There is no alternative abiogenesis theory....
The debate within abiogenesis is a question of HOW not IF
Your "alternative theory" either doesnt exist or is an alternative to abiogenesis.
There are several competing hypotheses for how this happened, but you dont seem interested in discussing the finer mechanics of abiogenesis.
So whats your damn point?
To my knowledge there are only two scientific theories as to the beginning of life on this planet: abiogenesis and panspermia.
Are you suggesting there is an alternative to these two...or do you really want to get into a discussion as to the finer mechanics of how proteins arranged themselves?
What other scientist that Disagree ,stop beating around the bush and tell us already.
What theories exactly, what are we *not* acknowledging here?
Spoon fed .. dude are you serious? Your sounding like imagination or dud1, there are plenty of scientific finding through the years I've disagreed with, I read their scientifically peer reviewed journals to find out were I stand. You act as though theres some conspiracy here or that thousands upon thousands of peer reviewed studies are secretly crap, and we just buy into it without thinking, like one day I just got up and started believing and worshiping my biology book. Unfortunately for your hypothesis its thinking and debating that we enjoy and thats why where on a physics forum in first place so your argument falls flat on its face.
"So what is wrong with reading the work of other scientists that disagree?" What Scientists? In what field ? Abiogenesis? What was their research? What was their findings, how did they come to those findings? Who's disagreeing? If your talking about a creationists ?theory? on abiogenesis then I'm afraid you must be confused, you see saying God did it is not science thats theology.
What theories exactly, what are we *not* acknowledging here?
Spoon fed .. dude are you serious? Your sounding like imagination or dud1, there are plenty of scientific finding through the years I've disagreed with, I read their scientifically peer reviewed journals to find out were I stand. You act as though theres some conspiracy here or that thousands upon thousands of peer reviewed studies are secretly crap, and we just buy into it without thinking, like one day I just got up and started believing and worshiping my biology book. Unfortunately for your hypothesis its thinking and debating that we enjoy and thats why where on a physics forum in first place so your argument falls flat on its face.
"So what is wrong with reading the work of other scientists that disagree?" What Scientists? In what field ? Abiogenesis? What was their research? What was their findings, how did they come to those findings? Who's disagreeing? If your talking about a creationists ?theory? on abiogenesis then I'm afraid you must be confused, you see saying God did it is not science thats theology.
I agree. Alternative "theory is the wrong term to use here. Point well taken.
Substitute that poor choice of terminology with critiques on the existing theories.
You all know a lot about the theories themselves but don't seem to know who refutes them and for what reason. Am I wrong? I've read through the posts again but to make sure but I didn't find any mention of these. I've asked repeatedly for some of your insight but the point seems to escape you. I've heard reasons that you've come up with not to answer the question but never an indication that you have read any of the scientific critiques on the subject.
And this has nothing to do with creationism. I'm sorry that I used the term competing theory. My mistake.
It is all about the existing theories and the reason that other scientist say they will not work.
Bottom line: We have established that some scientists do not concur with the existing theories. What is there claim?
Substitute that poor choice of terminology with critiques on the existing theories.
You all know a lot about the theories themselves but don't seem to know who refutes them and for what reason. Am I wrong? I've read through the posts again but to make sure but I didn't find any mention of these. I've asked repeatedly for some of your insight but the point seems to escape you. I've heard reasons that you've come up with not to answer the question but never an indication that you have read any of the scientific critiques on the subject.
And this has nothing to do with creationism. I'm sorry that I used the term competing theory. My mistake.
It is all about the existing theories and the reason that other scientist say they will not work.
Bottom line: We have established that some scientists do not concur with the existing theories. What is there claim?
alright, bmoose, I'll start on a small scale.
Though there is no way to disprove it (aside from proving another theory), I put Panspermia in my very unlikely list.
This theory instantly reminds me of Occam's Razor. Occam's Razor is by no means a rule in science, but I think it suggests that we be humble in our study of the universe.
For anyone who might be unfamiliar with the proper form of it, it basically says that we should not invent unlikely (or even more complex) things to explain some thing. (much like the idea of a God actually)
Wiki cites 'circumstantial evidence' for Panspermisa. This is the basic evidence it presents:
1. "The Precambrian fossil record indicates that life appeared soon after the Earth was formed. This would imply that life appears in several hundred million years when conditions are favorable."
- They don't think this was possible, partly due to:
* In the early history of the Earth, the "Late Heavy Bombardment" would have "sterilized" the planet not allowing any life.
- This is entirely baseless. You cannot prove that the entire earth would have been affected as severely, and also the existence of extremophiles could make life even in the most unpleasant parts possible. They have other lines of evidence along this line too, but none of it is substantial.
(sorry for the confusing format)
2. They actually use the existence of extermophiles as evidence too. They suggest that the existence of these could mean that life could easily survive on the back a comet or asteroid and survive the harsh conditions of open space.
3. Then they suggest that life is possible on other planets, so this must add to the jigsaw.
- Quite baseless.
I would love to hear someone argue for Panspermia. (perhaps bmoose9 will play the devil's advocate?)
Anyway, I hope that this is what you meant moose, simply discussing the theories. Hope this is a start.
Though there is no way to disprove it (aside from proving another theory), I put Panspermia in my very unlikely list.
This theory instantly reminds me of Occam's Razor. Occam's Razor is by no means a rule in science, but I think it suggests that we be humble in our study of the universe.
For anyone who might be unfamiliar with the proper form of it, it basically says that we should not invent unlikely (or even more complex) things to explain some thing. (much like the idea of a God actually)
Wiki cites 'circumstantial evidence' for Panspermisa. This is the basic evidence it presents:
1. "The Precambrian fossil record indicates that life appeared soon after the Earth was formed. This would imply that life appears in several hundred million years when conditions are favorable."
- They don't think this was possible, partly due to:
* In the early history of the Earth, the "Late Heavy Bombardment" would have "sterilized" the planet not allowing any life.
- This is entirely baseless. You cannot prove that the entire earth would have been affected as severely, and also the existence of extremophiles could make life even in the most unpleasant parts possible. They have other lines of evidence along this line too, but none of it is substantial.
(sorry for the confusing format)
2. They actually use the existence of extermophiles as evidence too. They suggest that the existence of these could mean that life could easily survive on the back a comet or asteroid and survive the harsh conditions of open space.
3. Then they suggest that life is possible on other planets, so this must add to the jigsaw.
- Quite baseless.
I would love to hear someone argue for Panspermia. (perhaps bmoose9 will play the devil's advocate?)
Anyway, I hope that this is what you meant moose, simply discussing the theories. Hope this is a start.
QUOTE
You all know a lot about the theories themselves but don't seem to know who refutes them and for what reason. Am I wrong? I've read through the posts again but to make sure but I didn't find any mention of these. I've asked repeatedly for some of your insight but the point seems to escape you. I've heard reasons that you've come up with not to answer the question but never an indication that you have read any of the scientific critiques on the subject.
Ummm....huh?
What theories.....as of right now there are no abiogenesis theories.
Are you talking about all theories?
Hmmmm....arguments against abiogenesis perhaps?
Most arguments against abiogenesis revolve around these basic lines of reasoning....
a) The proposed mechanism _______ is insufficient or inadequate
Panspermia....which of course begs the question....where did that life come from?Its generally a foregone conclusion that abiogenesis had to occur.
Life could not have existed forever, a single point universe would have been the most sterilizing environment imaginable.
Life must have had some beginning. In this case abiogenesis is a necessary tautology.
Even if you reject the whole "big bang"...and instead prefer a creationist perspective...life must have started...
So the question is not....is abiogenesis real? IT MUST BE
The question is how and where did it happen.
Your making this entire thread very confusing.
You keep mentioning "critical papers" on abiogenesis.
The critical papers that exist on the topic are in particular reference to proposed abiogenesis models...not the entire concept. The common hypothesis for a long time was that proteins arranged themselves into viable DNA(randomly) and then it took off from there. The classic Urey-Miller experiment proved that more complex "organic" molecules could emerge from simple "in-organic" molecules. Scientists today are carefully trying to evaluate the simplest form at which reproduction and evolution can take effect.
So, most of the criticism of this "model" is as follows
a) earth lacked the proper elements for this to occur
The simplest form is still far too complex to have arisen.To this end, science has severely reduced the necessary amount of complexity needed. We no longer believe it is necessary for whole DNA strands to have arisen....but much shorter, simpler strands of amino acids.
So...what criticism were you referring to ad nauseam?
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| You all know a lot about the theories themselves but don't seem to know who refutes them and for what reason. Am I wrong? I've read through the posts again but to make sure but I didn't find any mention of these. I've asked repeatedly for some of your insight but the point seems to escape you. I've heard reasons that you've come up with not to answer the question but never an indication that you have read any of the scientific critiques on the subject. |
Ummm....huh?
What theories.....as of right now there are no abiogenesis theories.
Are you talking about all theories?
Hmmmm....arguments against abiogenesis perhaps?
Most arguments against abiogenesis revolve around these basic lines of reasoning....
a) The proposed mechanism _______ is insufficient or inadequate
Panspermia....which of course begs the question....where did that life come from?Its generally a foregone conclusion that abiogenesis had to occur.
Life could not have existed forever, a single point universe would have been the most sterilizing environment imaginable.
Life must have had some beginning. In this case abiogenesis is a necessary tautology.
Even if you reject the whole "big bang"...and instead prefer a creationist perspective...life must have started...
So the question is not....is abiogenesis real? IT MUST BE
The question is how and where did it happen.
Your making this entire thread very confusing.
You keep mentioning "critical papers" on abiogenesis.
The critical papers that exist on the topic are in particular reference to proposed abiogenesis models...not the entire concept. The common hypothesis for a long time was that proteins arranged themselves into viable DNA(randomly) and then it took off from there. The classic Urey-Miller experiment proved that more complex "organic" molecules could emerge from simple "in-organic" molecules. Scientists today are carefully trying to evaluate the simplest form at which reproduction and evolution can take effect.
So, most of the criticism of this "model" is as follows
a) earth lacked the proper elements for this to occur
The simplest form is still far too complex to have arisen.To this end, science has severely reduced the necessary amount of complexity needed. We no longer believe it is necessary for whole DNA strands to have arisen....but much shorter, simpler strands of amino acids.
So...what criticism were you referring to ad nauseam?
Bottom line: We have established that some scientists do not concur with the existing theories. What is there claim?
Once again...there are no "theories"
And I have just explained ALL of the critics of current abiogenesis models.
P. S. there are no other theories....panspermia doesnt really count because it just temporarily removes the problem.
Unless you know of another theory....I would be interested to know.
That is indeed a start. What I'm trying to promote is intelligence through exploration. What I'm trying to dissuade is ignorance through prejudice indicative in comments like this. I'll hide the author of this one.
I've been fighting this one for a while and I get sick of talking to people that will not look at the data just because they don't like the person,idea or fill in your own reason. Personally I've never been an Al Gore fan but it's like pulling teeth to get some people to listen to the data. Republican double talk that states there is no data that supports GW yet they have no data to speak of to refute the claim. Hopefully the new doc that came out this week will help. I also hope that I didn't offend anyone by posting this quote.
Does this help all here see my point and why it's important to read both claims regardless of our personal belief?
As for panspermia I wish I could enlighten but I've read the theory and it seems unlikely as well. Not because I think it is to scifi but that it simply moves the problem to another place in space. Also if you believe this theory you really can't use the poor lab conditions on earth. Would you agree?
Thank you so much for your response immortalcoil and for not getting frustrated with me. Sorry to all. I felt like I let my sour attitude get the best of me. Forgive me please.
QUOTE
global warming is happening on all the planets, not just earth. for all those who just watched al gore's ridiculous movie displaying his little pity party of how he has done his "duty" as a politician...
I've been fighting this one for a while and I get sick of talking to people that will not look at the data just because they don't like the person,idea or fill in your own reason. Personally I've never been an Al Gore fan but it's like pulling teeth to get some people to listen to the data. Republican double talk that states there is no data that supports GW yet they have no data to speak of to refute the claim. Hopefully the new doc that came out this week will help. I also hope that I didn't offend anyone by posting this quote.
Does this help all here see my point and why it's important to read both claims regardless of our personal belief?
As for panspermia I wish I could enlighten but I've read the theory and it seems unlikely as well. Not because I think it is to scifi but that it simply moves the problem to another place in space. Also if you believe this theory you really can't use the poor lab conditions on earth. Would you agree?
Thank you so much for your response immortalcoil and for not getting frustrated with me. Sorry to all. I felt like I let my sour attitude get the best of me. Forgive me please.
QUOTE
I've been fighting this one for a while and I get sick of talking to people that will not look at the data just because they don't like the person,idea or fill in your own reason. Personally I've never been an Al Gore fan but it's like pulling teeth to get some people to listen to the data
The same could be said for second-hand smoking data....except in reverse.
Ah well...anyways...
Were you honestly trying to say that abiogenesis didnt occur?
What alternative would you propose?
pucksr
I was actually thinking of using the "9 out of 10 doctors smoke camels" analogy toward the beginning of this thread. That commercial is kind of funny and sad all at the same time.
Abiogenesis by definition had to occur because we are living. Non-living matter becomes living matter. Because life didn't always exist that has to be the case right? Now whether by panspermia, clay, ID, creationism, primordial soup or by some other means, that is another question for a different thread.
I'm right unless you are all in my mind......
I was actually thinking of using the "9 out of 10 doctors smoke camels" analogy toward the beginning of this thread. That commercial is kind of funny and sad all at the same time.
Abiogenesis by definition had to occur because we are living. Non-living matter becomes living matter. Because life didn't always exist that has to be the case right? Now whether by panspermia, clay, ID, creationism, primordial soup or by some other means, that is another question for a different thread.
I'm right unless you are all in my mind......
QUOTE
Now whether by panspermia, clay, ID, creationism, primordial soup or by some other means, that is another question for a different thread.
Hmmm...no
ID, panspermia, creationism shouldnt be on that list....cause they are definately false..
(except panspermia...which may be true...but seems like an unnecessary leap)
Great argument. You sold me.
Like I said, discussion for another thread.
Like I said, discussion for another thread.
or just continue this thread....
its not like we have stumbled onto anything important.....
its not like we have stumbled onto anything important.....
Just checking in. Sorry guys. I've been pretty busy latley. I'll be back as soon as I have a little more time to devote.
Take care,
bmoose9
Take care,
bmoose9
bmoose9, After a theory has been first established, criticism is sure to follow. Just look at 1859 and Charles Darwin! Since then a consensus opinion has formed among the scientific community and it is slowly seeping into the general population in America. Europeans find it much easier to accept, because there is much less dogma there. Look into T.H. Huxley called "Darwin's Bulldog" for his tenacious support of Darwin's theory in its early days. The consensus of virtually all scientists back evolution as the only way to explain the workings of nature and plants and animals in their global perspective in the past, present and future. Nothing else even comes close. Just extend it back to beyond the earliest fossils and project what had to happen. Models are formed, theories discussed and consensus opinions develop. These earliest self-replicating molecules won't be preserved in the fossil record unless some unforeseen method can be developed to do so. Conjecture does have its place in formulating theories and pondering origins. They may never be answered definitively, but all supernatural-based explanations can be safely thrown out after narrowing the perceived gap to such a minute scale.
QUOTE (photojack+Feb 11 2007, 09:07 AM)
bmoose9, After a theory has been first established, criticism is sure to follow. Just look at 1859 and Charles Darwin! Since then a consensus opinion has formed among the scientific community and it is slowly seeping into the general population in America. Europeans find it much easier to accept, because there is much less dogma there. Look into T.H. Huxley called "Darwin's Bulldog" for his tenacious support of Darwin's theory in its early days. The consensus of virtually all scientists back evolution as the only way to explain the workings of nature and plants and animals in their global perspective in the past, present and future. Nothing else even comes close. Just extend it back to beyond the earliest fossils and project what had to happen. Models are formed, theories discussed and consensus opinions develop. These earliest self-replicating molecules won't be preserved in the fossil record unless some unforeseen method can be developed to do so. Conjecture does have its place in formulating theories and pondering origins. They may never be answered definitively, but all supernatural-based explanations can be safely thrown out after narrowing the perceived gap to such a minute scale.
With all do respect. When it comes to this theory the sentiments that I've heard here sound more and more like "dogma."
I hear your argument about Huxley. However someone in the 1800's finally accepting Darwin's theory doesn't hold as much weight as a scientist today going through the same transition. We can just see so much more complexity in the "simple cell" than they could in Darwin's time. ie.. Francis Collins - Human Genome Project.
Are you unwilling to question this theory? I just can't trust anyone that is not willing to do that. How do I know that I'm getting the full story and not just spin?
If I totally refused to look at the science here and rejected the possibility for your theory to be true, what would you call me??? Would I even be worth listening to?
With all do respect. When it comes to this theory the sentiments that I've heard here sound more and more like "dogma."
QUOTE
Dogma (the plural is either dogmata or dogmas, Greek δόγμα, plural δόγματα) is the established belief or doctrine held by a religion, ideology or any kind of organization, thought to be authoritative and not to be disputed or doubted. While in the context of religion the term is largely descriptive, outside of religion its current usage tends to carry a pejorative connotation — referring to concepts as being "established" only according to a particular point of view, and thus one of doubtful foundation. wikipedia
I hear your argument about Huxley. However someone in the 1800's finally accepting Darwin's theory doesn't hold as much weight as a scientist today going through the same transition. We can just see so much more complexity in the "simple cell" than they could in Darwin's time. ie.. Francis Collins - Human Genome Project.
Are you unwilling to question this theory? I just can't trust anyone that is not willing to do that. How do I know that I'm getting the full story and not just spin?
If I totally refused to look at the science here and rejected the possibility for your theory to be true, what would you call me??? Would I even be worth listening to?
You're responsible for the 'life' that you create.
.....oh yes the consequences of these egotistical minds that no no limits.
Imagine if you were 'G-d' for just one day(some of you must do it all the time), do you really want that kind of power or responsibility?
Imagine if you made a 'mistake of thought', and had to live with all its consequences..
*I doubt few of you can comprehend what that would mean. Its a scary 'power' to say the least, and I wouldn't want it for a second.
.....oh yes the consequences of these egotistical minds that no no limits.
Imagine if you were 'G-d' for just one day(some of you must do it all the time), do you really want that kind of power or responsibility?
Imagine if you made a 'mistake of thought', and had to live with all its consequences..
*I doubt few of you can comprehend what that would mean. Its a scary 'power' to say the least, and I wouldn't want it for a second.
QUOTE
Are you unwilling to question this theory? I just can't trust anyone that is not willing to do that. How do I know that I'm getting the full story and not just spin?
If I totally refused to look at the science here and rejected the possibility for your theory to be true, what would you call me??? Would I even be worth listening to?
If I totally refused to look at the science here and rejected the possibility for your theory to be true, what would you call me??? Would I even be worth listening to?
LOL...sure you can question the theory.
Any good scientist should question the theory....
But in the case of Evolution....it gets really hard to question the theory.
"I wonder if Evolution is true...."
"sure it is...wanna watch the video of it happening?"
We have witnessed things evolving several times...it has reached the point of indisputable fact.
The only remaining questions a rational person could ask are:
Does it always hold true?
What are all of the causes?
How does it occur on a molecular scale?
Otherwise its kind of like questioning the theory of atoms....
We know they exist....so there isnt much point in question their existence...
You are welcome to discuss how they work, look, etc....
QUOTE (PuckSR+Feb 12 2007, 10:16 PM)
LOL...sure you can question the theory.
Any good scientist should question the theory....
But in the case of Evolution....it gets really hard to question the theory.
"I wonder if Evolution is true...."
"sure it is...wanna watch the video of it happening?"
We have witnessed things evolving several times...it has reached the point of indisputable fact.
The only remaining questions a rational person could ask are:
Does it always hold true?
What are all of the causes?
How does it occur on a molecular scale?
Otherwise its kind of like questioning the theory of atoms....
We know they exist....so there isnt much point in question their existence...
You are welcome to discuss how they work, look, etc....
PuckSR,
You really are dim, have you not read the bible? Everyone knows we are decended from Adams rib. What twaddle you speak.
God have mercy on your ignorance.
QUOTE (Jeremy Fisher+Feb 12 2007, 10:26 PM)
PuckSR,
You really are dim, have you <span style='font-size:21pt;line-height:100%'>not</span> read the bible? Everyone knows we are decended from Adams rib. What twaddle you speak.
God have mercy on your ignorance.
Thank you for your energy but if I could ask. Please refrain from this type of argument in this thread. It is not warranted and it serves only to drive the two sides further away.
Pucksr- I encourage you not to respond to that as it doesn't need a response.
Instead can we discuss this? In reading the things that you have posted it doesn't appear that you question this theory at all. Not how life evolves but how life was first created. I maybe way off here so please correct me.
You really are dim, have you <span style='font-size:21pt;line-height:100%'>not</span> read the bible? Everyone knows we are decended from Adams rib. What twaddle you speak.
God have mercy on your ignorance.
Thank you for your energy but if I could ask. Please refrain from this type of argument in this thread. It is not warranted and it serves only to drive the two sides further away.
Pucksr- I encourage you not to respond to that as it doesn't need a response.
Instead can we discuss this? In reading the things that you have posted it doesn't appear that you question this theory at all. Not how life evolves but how life was first created. I maybe way off here so please correct me.
The origin of life is connected to the hydrogen proton. In the modern cell, the hydrogen proton, via hydrogen bonding, is the dynamic glue that is the basis for the structure of the DNA double helix and the packing of the DNA with proteins to make chromosomes. It is the basis for the enzymatic aactivity that leads to transciption on genes to make RNA, and for translation of proteins from the RNA. Also, the dominate material of life, water, is singlely dependant on hydrogen bonding for its properties. Take away hydrogen bonding and the affects of the hydrogen proton and cells become sludge, even if we leave all the electrons untouched. Add the hydrogen proton back and life returns. There is no one single feature of life that has its hands touching everything in life, quite like the hydrogen proton.
Hydrogen protin potential was the drive behind life, right from step one. At every stage it had it hands in everything. If at any state, if it was removed, back to sludge. Add it back, pre-life or life comes back, and is once again able to progress. Life is a way to express special features of the hydrogen proton, the most abundant material in the universe, the food of the stars.
An interesting observation is that fusion into higher atoms will invlove a mass burn, with hydrogen being the preliminary building block of all the atoms, i.e, goes to helium. But the hydrogen protons captured by the water of the earth have escaped the mass burn, at least for now. This gives these hydrogen protons something extra relative to its proton buddies in oxygen, nitrogen and carbon. Working together, life appears.
Hydrogen protin potential was the drive behind life, right from step one. At every stage it had it hands in everything. If at any state, if it was removed, back to sludge. Add it back, pre-life or life comes back, and is once again able to progress. Life is a way to express special features of the hydrogen proton, the most abundant material in the universe, the food of the stars.
An interesting observation is that fusion into higher atoms will invlove a mass burn, with hydrogen being the preliminary building block of all the atoms, i.e, goes to helium. But the hydrogen protons captured by the water of the earth have escaped the mass burn, at least for now. This gives these hydrogen protons something extra relative to its proton buddies in oxygen, nitrogen and carbon. Working together, life appears.
You could say the same thing about carbon. Without it's stable yet not too stable bonding properties nothing could assemble.
I think that this is over simplified explanation of the problem. Abundance of a necessary material doesn't make it any easier to assemble life correctly.
Can you define this assumption? Not a smart remark here but I've never heard anyone describe life like this. Are you saying that if I take a simple single cell organism and remove it's hydrogen it will die but I can revive it by adding the right amount of hydrogen back?
I think that this is over simplified explanation of the problem. Abundance of a necessary material doesn't make it any easier to assemble life correctly.
QUOTE
If at any state, if it was removed, back to sludge. Add it back, pre-life or life comes back,
Can you define this assumption? Not a smart remark here but I've never heard anyone describe life like this. Are you saying that if I take a simple single cell organism and remove it's hydrogen it will die but I can revive it by adding the right amount of hydrogen back?
QUOTE
Instead can we discuss this? In reading the things that you have posted it doesn't appear that you question this theory at all. Not how life evolves but how life was first created. I maybe way off here so please correct me.
I do not question it much...
I have questioned it in the past.
The evidence seems substantial enough in my opinion to validitate the claim.
I, therefore, believe that the current explanation is sufficient...until presented with a yet un-tested alternative or further evidence.
I have yet to see any alternative that is feasible....
I also have yet to see any further evidence that disputes the current claim.
Do you expect me to constantly question a rational conclusion without new evidence or an alternative rational conclusion?
This isnt an issue of faith.....I would readily doubt abiogenesis if any real alternative was presented....
But given the vast amount of evidence that continues to stack up in support of the theory....I am only more confident in my conclusion
QUOTE
I have yet to see any alternative that is feasible....I also have yet to see any further evidence that disputes the current claim.pucksr
Just to be clear. Are you saying that you reject those ideas of recent scientist that dispute the claim of unguided biogenesis or you haven't seen their data? If you reject them please list their claims and dispute them.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| I have yet to see any alternative that is feasible....I also have yet to see any further evidence that disputes the current claim.pucksr |
Just to be clear. Are you saying that you reject those ideas of recent scientist that dispute the claim of unguided biogenesis or you haven't seen their data? If you reject them please list their claims and dispute them.
But given the vast amount of evidence that continues to stack up in support of the theory....I am only more confident in my conclusion pucksr
And what "vast amount of evidence that continues to stack up" as it relates to unguided biogenesis are you talking about? List them if you could please.
Thanks
bmoose9
If you believe that life is so complex it had to be designed, then by definition the designer is so complex it had to be designed. There is no way out of that logical “black hole”.
It does not prove or disprove anything, but it is a deep question that there is no answer to. How did it all begin?
Personally I haven’t heard any of the theories on how life began. I probably wouldn’t understand them if I did.
But I have a good grasp on the “concept” of evolution. I may not know all the technical details, but I have given the idea a LOT of thought. If you pay attention to mother nature it makes perfect sense. It’s obvious that reptiles are different from mammals. It’s fairly obvious that we are mammals. The evidence is pretty convincing that over time things grew from small and simple to large and complex.
There also appears to be a lot of randomness involved. Let the dinosaurs rule for a few million years, then slam a comet into the planet to kill them off. It seems like a very round about way for a guiding force to do things.
Then again, what do I know? Maybe it’s just a complicated recipe and I can’t see the whole picture.
What would you offer or accept as objective evidence of a "guiding force"?
It does not prove or disprove anything, but it is a deep question that there is no answer to. How did it all begin?
Personally I haven’t heard any of the theories on how life began. I probably wouldn’t understand them if I did.
But I have a good grasp on the “concept” of evolution. I may not know all the technical details, but I have given the idea a LOT of thought. If you pay attention to mother nature it makes perfect sense. It’s obvious that reptiles are different from mammals. It’s fairly obvious that we are mammals. The evidence is pretty convincing that over time things grew from small and simple to large and complex.
There also appears to be a lot of randomness involved. Let the dinosaurs rule for a few million years, then slam a comet into the planet to kill them off. It seems like a very round about way for a guiding force to do things.
Then again, what do I know? Maybe it’s just a complicated recipe and I can’t see the whole picture.
What would you offer or accept as objective evidence of a "guiding force"?
QUOTE
Just to be clear. Are you saying that you reject those ideas of recent scientist that dispute the claim of unguided biogenesis or you haven't seen their data? If you reject them please list their claims and dispute them.
What are you talking about?
Except for the "panspermia" concept...I havent read a single scientist who has proposed anything else....or even who has disputed abiogenesis...
?????????????????
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Just to be clear. Are you saying that you reject those ideas of recent scientist that dispute the claim of unguided biogenesis or you haven't seen their data? If you reject them please list their claims and dispute them. |
What are you talking about?
Except for the "panspermia" concept...I havent read a single scientist who has proposed anything else....or even who has disputed abiogenesis...
?????????????????
And what "vast amount of evidence that continues to stack up" as it relates to unguided biogenesis are you talking about? List them if you could please.
1. Its abiogenesis.
As far as evidence....
The last good article I read on the topic was in June 2004 "Discover".
Im sure you can find newer information...
but basically we have discovered the importance of RNA
Seen the ability of proto-cell to develop.
Admired the ways in which different sub-organisms came together...such as the mitochondria.
We basically have broken the cell down into semi-biological parts...traced the path of development of each....and proven that many of them can develop abiotically.
gmliam,
Somewhat off topic but I'll attempt to address because it was so earnestly asked.
I think you hit on the logical black hole but in reverse.
Up until 1965 the scientific consensus was that the universe was infinite. In fact between 1929 and 1965 the scientific data for the "Big Bang" (statement that the universe indeed had a definite beginning) far exceeded that of the infinite universe theory. The discovery of background radiation was a key piece of scientific evidence in this case.
This new evidence proved 2 things.
1) time, space and all matter had a definite beginning
2) Must have had a timeless, space-less, first cause
The logic argument is that within our time and space NOTHING physical can exist that is infinite. It defies the definition of time and space. In an infinite universe nothing could have ever been created because the first creation had to precede an infinite number of created things. Therefore an infinite existing universe could never exist.
Which leads us to the first cause because we now that the universe actually began. Your logical error holds up when you discuss any first cause that is effected by time and space because that would force you to look for an infinite number of first causes by logic standards.
The only way you can square the argument with logic is to have a creator that exist outside of time and space. Therefore the creator would have no beginning nor end and would not be subject to the same laws described above and would also not require a first cause.
I know that this is metaphysical explanation and I'll probably get a lot of flack for it but it is the only logical explanation for this quandary.
As for your thoughts on evolution. The purpose of this thread was to get all parties to read other conflicting scientific data. I would urge you to do the same. My premise is if we only subject ourselves to only one side of the argument we have only done half our our homework. Unwillingness to research criticism on the theory of evolution renders ones opinion moot and unreliable. This is only about promoting research and thorough cross-examination. Scientific discovery without this would be extremely hard to come by. You can obviously promote a theory without critical analysis but will limit additional discovery due to a limited field of vision.
Would you Knowingly use a tax accountant for your business who was not up to speed on the newest tax laws?
Did that response satisfy your inquiry?
Thanks and great question.
Somewhat off topic but I'll attempt to address because it was so earnestly asked.
I think you hit on the logical black hole but in reverse.
Up until 1965 the scientific consensus was that the universe was infinite. In fact between 1929 and 1965 the scientific data for the "Big Bang" (statement that the universe indeed had a definite beginning) far exceeded that of the infinite universe theory. The discovery of background radiation was a key piece of scientific evidence in this case.
This new evidence proved 2 things.
1) time, space and all matter had a definite beginning
2) Must have had a timeless, space-less, first cause
The logic argument is that within our time and space NOTHING physical can exist that is infinite. It defies the definition of time and space. In an infinite universe nothing could have ever been created because the first creation had to precede an infinite number of created things. Therefore an infinite existing universe could never exist.
Which leads us to the first cause because we now that the universe actually began. Your logical error holds up when you discuss any first cause that is effected by time and space because that would force you to look for an infinite number of first causes by logic standards.
The only way you can square the argument with logic is to have a creator that exist outside of time and space. Therefore the creator would have no beginning nor end and would not be subject to the same laws described above and would also not require a first cause.
I know that this is metaphysical explanation and I'll probably get a lot of flack for it but it is the only logical explanation for this quandary.
As for your thoughts on evolution. The purpose of this thread was to get all parties to read other conflicting scientific data. I would urge you to do the same. My premise is if we only subject ourselves to only one side of the argument we have only done half our our homework. Unwillingness to research criticism on the theory of evolution renders ones opinion moot and unreliable. This is only about promoting research and thorough cross-examination. Scientific discovery without this would be extremely hard to come by. You can obviously promote a theory without critical analysis but will limit additional discovery due to a limited field of vision.
Would you Knowingly use a tax accountant for your business who was not up to speed on the newest tax laws?
Did that response satisfy your inquiry?
Thanks and great question.
QUOTE (bmoose9+Feb 13 2007, 02:47 PM)
This new evidence proved 2 things.
1) time, space and all matter had a definite beginning
2) Must have had a timeless, space-less, first cause
Unless the big bang was just the end of a previous cycle.
1) time, space and all matter had a definite beginning
2) Must have had a timeless, space-less, first cause
Unless the big bang was just the end of a previous cycle.
I'd have to agree with gmilam on his earlier post. There is no good answer as of yet for the first cause argument. In my mind saying that there was a God as a first mover is not bad necessarily because of the fact that it would also need a cause. It's because why are we just assuming that there is an anthropomorphic Deity as a first mover, when to say we could just go about it in a Deist approach which when viewing the world around us makes much more sense. The Anthropomorphic God as a first mover is just another God of Gaps, the truth is there isn't a logical reason to insert God in there only an emotive one as anything anyone wants to assert was the first mover works with just as much validity.
To paraphrase you if is can. You have not see any scientific data that is critical to how evolution states that life began.
What about Behe, Wells, Crick, Hoyle, Collins, etc. Forgive me but I think reading a critic of the critic is not sufficient for anyones intellect.
How do you account for a spiritual skeptic like Francis Crick to state...?
"An honest man, armed with all the knowledge available to us now, could only state that in some sense, the origin of life appears at the moment to be almost a miracle, so many are the conditions which would have had to have been satisfied to get it going."
Others are a lot more bold in their statements but at least he is open to all possibilities.
Although, I don't call that a "vast amount" of new evidence but I will accept it.
1)RNA-is a fascinating theory but it has been dismissed among some biochemists. There basic rebuttal is the old chicken or the egg. No one can explain how RNA even pre-RNA (which has never been discovered) was created before living cells not to mention survive outside a cell in that environment.
2)Protocell theory doesn't get us any closer because a living organism has to have a basic setup to sustain live and spawn offspring. That is still very complex. These types of theories make it evident that scientists know how remote the possibility is that life can just come together because of the complexity. Therefore the only option is to rationalize a simple form of early life to fit the theory. That is not an indictment but merely an observation.
The more scientist seem to uncover the farther away we seem to be going. Most scientists are actually in agreement with that statement.
What about Behe, Wells, Crick, Hoyle, Collins, etc. Forgive me but I think reading a critic of the critic is not sufficient for anyones intellect.
How do you account for a spiritual skeptic like Francis Crick to state...?
"An honest man, armed with all the knowledge available to us now, could only state that in some sense, the origin of life appears at the moment to be almost a miracle, so many are the conditions which would have had to have been satisfied to get it going."
Others are a lot more bold in their statements but at least he is open to all possibilities.
Although, I don't call that a "vast amount" of new evidence but I will accept it.
1)RNA-is a fascinating theory but it has been dismissed among some biochemists. There basic rebuttal is the old chicken or the egg. No one can explain how RNA even pre-RNA (which has never been discovered) was created before living cells not to mention survive outside a cell in that environment.
2)Protocell theory doesn't get us any closer because a living organism has to have a basic setup to sustain live and spawn offspring. That is still very complex. These types of theories make it evident that scientists know how remote the possibility is that life can just come together because of the complexity. Therefore the only option is to rationalize a simple form of early life to fit the theory. That is not an indictment but merely an observation.
The more scientist seem to uncover the farther away we seem to be going. Most scientists are actually in agreement with that statement.
QUOTE (SIP+Feb 13 2007, 09:42 PM)
I'd have to agree with gmilam on his earlier post. There is no good answer as of yet for the first cause argument. In my mind saying that there was a God as a first mover is not bad necessarily because of the fact that it would also need a cause. It's because why are we just assuming that there is an anthropomorphic Deity as a first mover, when to say we could just go about it in a Deist approach which when viewing the world around us makes much more sense. The Anthropomorphic God as a first mover is just another God of Gaps, the truth is there isn't a logical reason to insert God in there only an emotive one as anything anyone wants to assert was the first mover works with just as much validity.
Sip,
I didn't insert any form of a creator. I was just asserting a logical argument. You are correct is saying basically who is this creator? You fill in the blank. That takes more research on the individuals part.
Logically I can not concur with a finite universe without a first cause. My argument fits because I support a first cause outside of our time and space. However outrageous, offensive that sounds it is a very logical conclusion.
gmilam,
That would only be a second cause and you would still have the same problem.
You can have as many previous cycles as you want but it will still be illogical that a first cause was not present that was timeless and space less.
I don't pretend to understand all aspects of this first cause because I can not. No one can comprehend what is outside of our comprehension. We can only know that it exists.
Take infinity. It can't exist physically because all physical bodies have a beginning and an end (some prettier than others). We can only know a sense of it in mathematics but never truly explain it or totally understand it. For instance what is the last number in existence? In our physical world that number has not been created yet, nor will it ever be created.
Sip,
I didn't insert any form of a creator. I was just asserting a logical argument. You are correct is saying basically who is this creator? You fill in the blank. That takes more research on the individuals part.
Logically I can not concur with a finite universe without a first cause. My argument fits because I support a first cause outside of our time and space. However outrageous, offensive that sounds it is a very logical conclusion.
gmilam,
QUOTE
Unless the big bang was just the end of a previous cycle.
That would only be a second cause and you would still have the same problem.
You can have as many previous cycles as you want but it will still be illogical that a first cause was not present that was timeless and space less.
I don't pretend to understand all aspects of this first cause because I can not. No one can comprehend what is outside of our comprehension. We can only know that it exists.
Take infinity. It can't exist physically because all physical bodies have a beginning and an end (some prettier than others).
We can only know a sense of it in mathematics but never truly explain it or totally understand it. For instance what is the last number in existence? In our physical world that number has not been created yet, nor will it ever be created.
QUOTE (bmoose9+Feb 13 2007, 04:22 PM)
That would only be a second cause and you would still have the same problem.
You can have as many previous cycles as you want but it will still be illogical that a first cause was not present that was timeless and space less.
I don't pretend to understand all aspects of this first cause because I can not. No one can comprehend what is outside of our comprehension. We can only know that it exists.
Take infinity. It can't exist physically because all physical bodies have a beginning and an end (some prettier than others). We can only know a sense of it in mathematics but never truly explain it or totally understand it. For instance what is the last number in existence? In our physical world that number has not been created yet, nor will it ever be created.
It's illogical any route you take.
It's hard to comprehend something that doesn't have a beginning. Then again, it's human nature to ask, what was before the beginning?
You say the universe had to begin and then invoke a "first cause" that is "outside of space and time" - whatever that means.
But back on the OP. Life on Earth obviously began... You can say it's totally unguided, or you can invoke a guiding force. But if you do that, the next logical question is where did that force come from? It doesn't take us one step closer to explaining anything.
We can all go home as soon as everyone admits that they don't really have a clue. Or we can go to the pub and have a few cold ones... and check out some of the "ends of the physical bodies" that are there.
You can have as many previous cycles as you want but it will still be illogical that a first cause was not present that was timeless and space less.
I don't pretend to understand all aspects of this first cause because I can not. No one can comprehend what is outside of our comprehension. We can only know that it exists.
Take infinity. It can't exist physically because all physical bodies have a beginning and an end (some prettier than others).
We can only know a sense of it in mathematics but never truly explain it or totally understand it. For instance what is the last number in existence? In our physical world that number has not been created yet, nor will it ever be created. It's illogical any route you take.
It's hard to comprehend something that doesn't have a beginning. Then again, it's human nature to ask, what was before the beginning?
You say the universe had to begin and then invoke a "first cause" that is "outside of space and time" - whatever that means.
But back on the OP. Life on Earth obviously began... You can say it's totally unguided, or you can invoke a guiding force. But if you do that, the next logical question is where did that force come from? It doesn't take us one step closer to explaining anything.
We can all go home as soon as everyone admits that they don't really have a clue. Or we can go to the pub and have a few cold ones... and check out some of the "ends of the physical bodies" that are there.
Carbon is important to the assemble of materials in the cell. Without carbon nothing bio-polymeric would occur. However, if all these polymers of life were fully assembled but didn't have hydrogen bonding for secondary feature and dynamics, we would have a sludge of lifeless bio-polymers. Add the hydrogen proton and the hydrogen bonding back, the sludge comes back to life.
A good example is a plant seed. One can dehydrate the seed so there is no sign of life (bio-activity at the DNA or proteins) Add a little water, whose properties are exclusively based on hydrogen bonding, and the spark of life returns. The dynamic hydrogen bonding in the water animates the static hydrogen bonding in the dehydrated seed, so that this hydrogen bonding can become dynamic once again. The result is life.
The problem with looking at life is philosophical. The random genetic approach makes things so complicated and unlikely that mystical arguments carry some weight. Hydrogen bonding simplies life to one primary variable, that touches everything in life, at all stages of its evolution. I am trying to figure how to undo the social brainwash so one can see reality. Growing a seed by adding water demonstrates that DNA needs help.
A good example is a plant seed. One can dehydrate the seed so there is no sign of life (bio-activity at the DNA or proteins) Add a little water, whose properties are exclusively based on hydrogen bonding, and the spark of life returns. The dynamic hydrogen bonding in the water animates the static hydrogen bonding in the dehydrated seed, so that this hydrogen bonding can become dynamic once again. The result is life.
The problem with looking at life is philosophical. The random genetic approach makes things so complicated and unlikely that mystical arguments carry some weight. Hydrogen bonding simplies life to one primary variable, that touches everything in life, at all stages of its evolution. I am trying to figure how to undo the social brainwash so one can see reality. Growing a seed by adding water demonstrates that DNA needs help.
QUOTE (gmilam+Feb 13 2007, 10:42 PM)
It's illogical any route you take.
It's hard to comprehend something that doesn't have a beginning. Then again, it's human nature to ask, what was before the beginning?
You say the universe had to begin and then invoke a "first cause" that is "outside of space and time" - whatever that means.
But back on the OP. Life on Earth obviously began... You can say it's totally unguided, or you can invoke a guiding force. But if you do that, the next logical question is where did that force come from? It doesn't take us one step closer to explaining anything.
We can all go home as soon as everyone admits that they don't really have a clue. Or we can go to the pub and have a few cold ones... and check out some of the "ends of the physical bodies" that are there.
gmilam,
Love the response. It's honest and true. All I can ever ask for in a person.
I couldn't agree with you more. That is why this line of questioning is so fun. We don't know but logic can still serve us if we let it. Revisit this argument latter.
Sorry if you misunderstood me. The intended meaning was universe had to begin SO (not then) invoke a first cause. The use of "THEN" would not fit into a logical argument of this nature. Wording is everything in this case.
Hey could someone educate me on the smiley faces? I don't know whether I'm insulting someone or asking for a date!
It's hard to comprehend something that doesn't have a beginning. Then again, it's human nature to ask, what was before the beginning?
You say the universe had to begin and then invoke a "first cause" that is "outside of space and time" - whatever that means.
But back on the OP. Life on Earth obviously began... You can say it's totally unguided, or you can invoke a guiding force. But if you do that, the next logical question is where did that force come from? It doesn't take us one step closer to explaining anything.
We can all go home as soon as everyone admits that they don't really have a clue. Or we can go to the pub and have a few cold ones... and check out some of the "ends of the physical bodies" that are there.
gmilam,
Love the response.
It's honest and true. All I can ever ask for in a person.I couldn't agree with you more. That is why this line of questioning is so fun. We don't know but logic can still serve us if we let it. Revisit this argument latter.
QUOTE
You say the universe had to begin and then invoke a "first cause" that is "outside of space and time" - whatever that means."
Sorry if you misunderstood me. The intended meaning was universe had to begin SO (not then) invoke a first cause. The use of "THEN" would not fit into a logical argument of this nature. Wording is everything in this case.
Hey could someone educate me on the smiley faces? I don't know whether I'm insulting someone or asking for a date!
QUOTE (bmoose9+Feb 13 2007, 05:28 PM)
gmilam,
Love the response. It's honest and true. All I can ever ask for in a person.
I couldn't agree with you more. That is why this line of questioning is so fun. We don't know but logic can still serve us if we let it. Revisit this argument latter.
Sorry if you misunderstood me. The intended meaning was universe had to begin SO (not then) invoke a first cause. The use of "THEN" would not fit into a logical argument of this nature. Wording is everything in this case.
Hey could someone educate me on the smiley faces? I don't know whether I'm insulting someone or asking for a date!
The questions are fun to contemplate. I've been thinking abut them my entire life. And I enjoy hearing the ideas from other people who have also really thought about it.
This is an interesting thread and it's given me more food for thought.
PS - I haven't interpreted any of the smilies as an insult, but I also hope you're not asking me for a date. Unless you're a single female in your mid to late 40's.
Love the response.
It's honest and true. All I can ever ask for in a person.I couldn't agree with you more. That is why this line of questioning is so fun. We don't know but logic can still serve us if we let it. Revisit this argument latter.
Sorry if you misunderstood me. The intended meaning was universe had to begin SO (not then) invoke a first cause. The use of "THEN" would not fit into a logical argument of this nature. Wording is everything in this case.
Hey could someone educate me on the smiley faces? I don't know whether I'm insulting someone or asking for a date!
The questions are fun to contemplate. I've been thinking abut them my entire life. And I enjoy hearing the ideas from other people who have also really thought about it.
This is an interesting thread and it's given me more food for thought.
PS - I haven't interpreted any of the smilies as an insult, but I also hope you're not asking me for a date. Unless you're a single female in your mid to late 40's.
I find the thought of first cause illogical. It just goes on and on. If you say that some infinite outside force must have created the universe- in other words God. Well then, by the same logic, something must have created God. Who created God? Who created the Creator of God? Who Created the Creator of the Creator of God? If you play that game, it can go on like that infinitely.
MDT, I think you are stating nothing really. Why not say that without any of the basic forces that life would not exist. Why not say that without gravity or any other fundamental property? Why not without electrons? You can go on all day saying that without this or that specific property life as we know it wouldn't be possible. I don't disagree that hydrogen bonds are an important property for life. I just don't agree with your conclusion.
There really isn't any conflicting scientific data. I have shelves full of critiques against evolution and Darwinism. They all have the same basic errors. Most start with a flawed understanding of evolution and therefore spend the whole time attacking a straw man of sorts. Some are just outright lies and distortions of the truth. I have never seen any that actually had any valid points, just authors attacking their own misperceptions. There are valid criticisms by scientists and authors about the exact mechanism of evolution. However, the theory of evolution is thus far unmarred. If you want to get into some of the mechanisms of evolution, then there is room for much debate. As in "Is natural selection the only mechanism of evolutionary change?"
MDT, I think you are stating nothing really. Why not say that without any of the basic forces that life would not exist. Why not say that without gravity or any other fundamental property? Why not without electrons? You can go on all day saying that without this or that specific property life as we know it wouldn't be possible. I don't disagree that hydrogen bonds are an important property for life. I just don't agree with your conclusion.
QUOTE
As for your thoughts on evolution. The purpose of this thread was to get all parties to read other conflicting scientific data. I would urge you to do the same. My premise is if we only subject ourselves to only one side of the argument we have only done half our our homework. Unwillingness to research criticism on the theory of evolution renders ones opinion moot and unreliable. This is only about promoting research and thorough cross-examination. Scientific discovery without this would be extremely hard to come by. You can obviously promote a theory without critical analysis but will limit additional discovery due to a limited field of vision.
There really isn't any conflicting scientific data. I have shelves full of critiques against evolution and Darwinism. They all have the same basic errors. Most start with a flawed understanding of evolution and therefore spend the whole time attacking a straw man of sorts. Some are just outright lies and distortions of the truth. I have never seen any that actually had any valid points, just authors attacking their own misperceptions. There are valid criticisms by scientists and authors about the exact mechanism of evolution. However, the theory of evolution is thus far unmarred. If you want to get into some of the mechanisms of evolution, then there is room for much debate. As in "Is natural selection the only mechanism of evolutionary change?"
Part of the problem stems from the false precept that life is a difficult thing for the universe and it's chemistry to produce. Nothing could be further from the truth.
As we look at more extreme places(deep in the rocks of the Earth, in ice that hasn't thawed in hundreds of thousands of years, near hydrothermal vents deep in the ocean, in boiling hot pools of toxic chemical laced water) everywhere we look, life is there. Bacteria have been found in ices at the south pole.
All that is required for life to exist, at least on this planet, are the building blocks(amino acids, found in molecular clouds between stars), polypeptides(found in CHON type meteorites after passing through the Earths atmosphere), water(oceans), protection from ultraviolet light(depth in that ocean) and a chemical energy source(black smokers). The result is a soup of complex molecules only one of which needs to learn to assemble a copy(or reverse copy) of itself from the chemicals around it. It does not matter if it takes a thousand years for brownian motion to move those chemicals into the proper place(from simple life to bacteria took almost 3.5 billion years), once that one molecule can replicate itself then the competition of evolution begins.
Life is not only possible, it is inevitable, given suitable conditions. That is what we have found on Earth, that is probably true throughout the universe.
Many will try to make the arguement that the odds are against my scenario, but they have no real understanding of the incredible number of "tries" nature can make, and it only takes one sucess for all life to begin. JUST ONE!!!
Now, if you want to discuss the beginings of the universe we will have to go through our understanding of time/space and dimensions other than those which we are aware of. That is a subject for another time.
Grumpy
As we look at more extreme places(deep in the rocks of the Earth, in ice that hasn't thawed in hundreds of thousands of years, near hydrothermal vents deep in the ocean, in boiling hot pools of toxic chemical laced water) everywhere we look, life is there. Bacteria have been found in ices at the south pole.
All that is required for life to exist, at least on this planet, are the building blocks(amino acids, found in molecular clouds between stars), polypeptides(found in CHON type meteorites after passing through the Earths atmosphere), water(oceans), protection from ultraviolet light(depth in that ocean) and a chemical energy source(black smokers). The result is a soup of complex molecules only one of which needs to learn to assemble a copy(or reverse copy) of itself from the chemicals around it. It does not matter if it takes a thousand years for brownian motion to move those chemicals into the proper place(from simple life to bacteria took almost 3.5 billion years), once that one molecule can replicate itself then the competition of evolution begins.
Life is not only possible, it is inevitable, given suitable conditions. That is what we have found on Earth, that is probably true throughout the universe.
Many will try to make the arguement that the odds are against my scenario, but they have no real understanding of the incredible number of "tries" nature can make, and it only takes one sucess for all life to begin. JUST ONE!!!
Now, if you want to discuss the beginings of the universe we will have to go through our understanding of time/space and dimensions other than those which we are aware of. That is a subject for another time.
Grumpy
QUOTE
I find the thought of first cause illogical. It just goes on and on. If you say that some infinite outside force must have created the universe- in other words God. Well then, by the same logic, something must have created God.
That is precisely why it has to be this way. A first cause that is TIMELESS and SPACE LESS is the only way you can settle this logical equation because it in itself doesn't need a cause just like infinity doesn't have a beginning or an end. Thus it is something that can not be fully comprehended but it is logical. Like I said.
How would you solve this logical problem? At this point you have to explore this as a possibility because everything else is illogical.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| I find the thought of first cause illogical. It just goes on and on. If you say that some infinite outside force must have created the universe- in other words God. Well then, by the same logic, something must have created God. |
That is precisely why it has to be this way. A first cause that is TIMELESS and SPACE LESS is the only way you can settle this logical equation because it in itself doesn't need a cause just like infinity doesn't have a beginning or an end. Thus it is something that can not be fully comprehended but it is logical. Like I said.
How would you solve this logical problem? At this point you have to explore this as a possibility because everything else is illogical.
I have shelves full of critiques against evolution and Darwinism. They all have the same basic errors.
I applaud you for your research. Can you give me a list of those resources? I have seen misinterpretations on both sides of this theory. However, I can't speak to them unless I know which ones you are referring to.
I think the primary concern is the assembly problem. I don't think that is a misinterpretation or overstated as this is the point where it all has to come together. Every single theory hinges on this and the probabilities are extremely low. Even if that was the only flaw that would be enough to reach a rational conclusion.
Keep in mind I'm not asking you to reach the same conclusion. Just do the research and critically analyze the current theories.
QUOTE
How would you solve this logical problem? At this point you have to explore this as a possibility because everything else is illogical.
I would solve the problem by taking the simplest answer. There is no need to invoke a God for a natural explanation. There is no evidence to make such a jump in logic. If you want to sit and try to rationalize it all out, you may come to some conclusion that is logically acceptable, but not necessarily true. The ancient Greeks already did all this, try reading some of their philosophies that are actually a part of the foundation of Science (and Christianity too). The problem is that in the thousands of years since then, we have moved from speculation based on logic without evidence to logical speculation based on verifiable evidence. There is no evidence or reason to make the jump to God. If you want speculate about such things, that is philosophy not science. Come up with some evidence, then you can start to make the jump to science.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| How would you solve this logical problem? At this point you have to explore this as a possibility because everything else is illogical. |
I would solve the problem by taking the simplest answer. There is no need to invoke a God for a natural explanation. There is no evidence to make such a jump in logic. If you want to sit and try to rationalize it all out, you may come to some conclusion that is logically acceptable, but not necessarily true. The ancient Greeks already did all this, try reading some of their philosophies that are actually a part of the foundation of Science (and Christianity too). The problem is that in the thousands of years since then, we have moved from speculation based on logic without evidence to logical speculation based on verifiable evidence. There is no evidence or reason to make the jump to God. If you want speculate about such things, that is philosophy not science. Come up with some evidence, then you can start to make the jump to science.
I applaud you for your research. Can you give me a list of those resources? I have seen misinterpretations on both sides of this theory. However, I can't speak to them unless I know which ones you are referring to.
Well, I am a biologist. My life is literally immersed in this subject. I read new papers on the mechanisms of evolution all the time. There is no way I would list all the books in my library I have for and against evolution it is just too much. A shorter list would be any Creationist claims. I have yet to see one that even remotely falsifies evolution.
Here is a great link that carefully explains evolution and even provides information as to what would be potential falsification of each part of the theory.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/
QUOTE
All that is required for life to exist, at least on this planet, are the building blocks(amino acids, found in molecular clouds between stars), polypeptides(found in CHON type meteorites after passing through the Earths atmosphere), water(oceans), protection from ultraviolet light(depth in that ocean) and a chemical energy source(black smokers). The result is a soup of complex molecules only one of which needs to learn to assemble a copy(or reverse copy) of itself from the chemicals around it.
Most biochemists would and have disagreed with this assessment that it is not difficult. I'll admit that your assessment does seem simple because these things to interact with one another and on the surface seems to be only a matter of time. That is what is further from the truth.
Here are the steps that you have to take if all of the building blocks are in place which they most likely would have been.
1-Amino acids come in 2 types left and right handed however only left handed amino acids are compatible for life.
Issue: They both are equally available in nature and react with one another fairly easily and they are difficult to separate. Some have theorized that in space due to left handed radiation that it leads LH-amino acids. I haven't seen what the ratio is but you still have the same problem. panspermia would move into the lead here.
2- The LH amino acids have to get together with nothing else and only a trace of RH-amino acids can be present (this still might be fatal). They have to form the correct peptide bonds (by product of H2O) to create a single functioning protein chain.
Issue: It is not a small chain we are talking about and how do you keep all of the other elements out of the mixture. You can't possibly stop the natural bonding with other elements that happen so readily. Once this happens it is over for that to be life form.
Given enough time is said to be the answer. However, time maybe the problem. The more time you have the dirtier your chain can become.
My description here is not even representative of the complexity of the situation. I didn't mention the number of amino acids, certain types or enzymes that have to be in place to make this clock start ticking.
Some over simplifications come in where the assumption is just because I have all of the elements together in the same location with the right environment that life will just be created. If you take a living cell and put it in a stable saline solution and rupture its cell wall so that you have everything that it takes for life. It doesn't reconstitute over time to create any life. Life demands a little more than just having all the components together.
“More than 30 years of experimentation on the origin of life in the fields
of chemical and molecular evolution have led to a better perception of
the immensity of the problem of the origin of life on Earth rather than to
its solution.
"At present all discussions on principal theories and experiments in the
field either end in stalemate or in a confession of ignorance.”
Dr. Klaus Dose, Director, Institute for Biochemistry
We are isolated is an average backwater of the galaxy. We don't really KNOW how much other life is out there. Personally I suspect that the universe is overflowing with life. It's just part of the "process". It's inevitable in the laws that the universe obeys. Is this "design" or "programming"? I don't know. I tend to avoid those terms because they imply a "designer" or a "programmer".
From my point of view, invoking a designer doesn't really answer any questions. ("How does this thing work?" "It's designed to work that way." "Uh, ok.. that's nice but, how does this thing work?")
From my point of view, invoking a designer doesn't really answer any questions. ("How does this thing work?" "It's designed to work that way." "Uh, ok.. that's nice but, how does this thing work?")
QUOTE
Most biochemists would and have disagreed with this assessment that it is not difficult.
That is impossible to know. Do you have a record of the opinion of all biochemists?
As for the rest, I am not aware of any theory that states life started out complex. There has been plenty of time for the complexity seen to evolve out of a simpler start. The evidence shows that is was more than a billion years between the start of life to organisms on the order of Bacteria, Cyano-bacteria, and Archea. Of course, modern species of these supposed simple organisms are the product of billions of years more evolution since then. Just because the simplest form of life now is x, does not mean that simpler forms could not have existed earlier.
Scientists have only been trying to create life in a lab for a few decades. Nature had millions of years to work out the design. Is 50 or a 100 years too much time to work out the problem? Most have given Jesus around 2000 years to get his affairs in order without too much hassle. Is it too much to ask that human scientists at least get a century to experiment before you conclude their research is useless?
Rusty,
I'm sure you are excellent in your field. No disrespect intended or otherwise implied.
I also don't want to disregard the site that you referenced. I have been there many times myself. However, I'm sure you can understand that I'm not too keen on the idea of getting my scientific data or developing my opinions from a website(s). They typically are filled with half truths and sound convincing until you dig a little deeper. While they can provide some insight I'll stick to the scientific journals.
My search is for objectivity.
I don't think it is a "jump" in logic to say that a timeless/space less creator was the first cause. That is just where logic takes us at this point in time. Unless someone can come up with another alternative that doesn't defy the logic of a first cause then the idea has to be considered just like evolution.
Saying that "it's possible" should not be difficult to say, otherwise we should look at our internal motives.
gmilam,
We know a lot about how it works regardless of the cause. We are also learning more each day of the complexity and inter workings of life. That is what science does and will continue to do. Design engineers are already learning from the design elements in a cell. Let's say everyone said okay ID is the way it all happened. It is absurd to think that science at that point stops trudging forward in trying to understanding the design. What would be the harm done here? Maybe we could spend more money in designing better anti-biotics rather than trying to recreate the creation. No point in re-inventing the wheel but continuing to learn from it's design is crucial.
I'm sure you are excellent in your field. No disrespect intended or otherwise implied.
I also don't want to disregard the site that you referenced. I have been there many times myself. However, I'm sure you can understand that I'm not too keen on the idea of getting my scientific data or developing my opinions from a website(s). They typically are filled with half truths and sound convincing until you dig a little deeper. While they can provide some insight I'll stick to the scientific journals.
My search is for objectivity.
I don't think it is a "jump" in logic to say that a timeless/space less creator was the first cause. That is just where logic takes us at this point in time. Unless someone can come up with another alternative that doesn't defy the logic of a first cause then the idea has to be considered just like evolution.
Saying that "it's possible" should not be difficult to say, otherwise we should look at our internal motives.
gmilam,
We know a lot about how it works regardless of the cause. We are also learning more each day of the complexity and inter workings of life. That is what science does and will continue to do. Design engineers are already learning from the design elements in a cell. Let's say everyone said okay ID is the way it all happened. It is absurd to think that science at that point stops trudging forward in trying to understanding the design. What would be the harm done here? Maybe we could spend more money in designing better anti-biotics rather than trying to recreate the creation. No point in re-inventing the wheel but continuing to learn from it's design is crucial.
It's late here. Night and thanks guys.
where's that yawning mans face when you need one. how about this one?
where's that yawning mans face when you need one. how about this one?
QUOTE
I don't think it is a "jump" in logic to say that a timeless/space less creator was the first cause.
The universe has always existed and always will. ("As it was in the beginning, is now and ever shall be, world without end.")
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| I don't think it is a "jump" in logic to say that a timeless/space less creator was the first cause. |
The universe has always existed and always will. ("As it was in the beginning, is now and ever shall be, world without end.")
Let's say everyone said okay ID is the way it all happened. It is absurd to think that science at that point stops trudging forward in trying to understanding the design. What would be the harm done here?
What would be the advantage? In the long run it makes no difference in how science does it's job. You still have to understand how the thing works.
The danger comes in the baggage that people carry along with the idea of a creator.
QUOTE
Saying that "it's possible" should not be difficult to say, otherwise we should look at our internal motives.
Oh, it is possible. I love studying philosophy too. It is fun. It is logically possible that a God could exist. However, there is no evidence to support this hypothesis.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Saying that "it's possible" should not be difficult to say, otherwise we should look at our internal motives. |
Oh, it is possible. I love studying philosophy too. It is fun. It is logically possible that a God could exist. However, there is no evidence to support this hypothesis.
Unless someone can come up with another alternative that doesn't defy the logic of a first cause then the idea has to be considered just like evolution.
No, until you can come up with some evidence for the existence of a Creator then it doesn't yet deserve consideration in a science classroom or discussion. Again, if you want to philosophize about things outside of our current knowledge, that is fine. Just know that is not what science is about, science is about what the evidence tells us. If you can present evidence of a Creator, I am sure that most scientists would jump right on the band wagon.
bmoose9. ID was shown in court to be nothing more than creationism under another name. Creationist organisations have dumped this lie and are looking for a more plausible lie to thrust onto it's gullible followers next time around.
The Earth and Universe are provable old. The bible is not backed up by history or science and is provably full of mistakes and none more than the creation story. We have no evidence that a mythical god exists let alone that he made anything. You can criticise what science can prove is true, you can make up things about the fossil record, you can ignore transitional fossils and dating methods, but at the end of the day, all you have on your side is "goddidit!" and you cannot prove god ever existed.
The Earth and Universe are provable old. The bible is not backed up by history or science and is provably full of mistakes and none more than the creation story. We have no evidence that a mythical god exists let alone that he made anything. You can criticise what science can prove is true, you can make up things about the fossil record, you can ignore transitional fossils and dating methods, but at the end of the day, all you have on your side is "goddidit!" and you cannot prove god ever existed.
QUOTE
What about Behe, Wells, Crick, Hoyle, Collins, etc. Forgive me but I think reading a critic of the critic is not sufficient for anyones intellect.
Well...Im most familiar with Behe....
Behe's argument is logically invalid, and arguably dishonest.
Behe's argument is that organisms cannot be reduced beyond a certain point....and this point is called irreducible complexity.
He cannot define this point, and when has attempted to establish guidelines for this point...they are normally irrational.
i.e. If an organism reaches a point where you cannot remove a single part and the organism continues to function...then it is irreducibly complex.
This fails because it assumes that evolution is reversible and linear...which it is not
Almost every example of an IC system that he has previously listed has actually been found to be a non-example. For the record he has mentioned the flagellum and the eye.
Crick is not an opponent of Evolution at all...
""An honest man, armed with all the knowledge available to us now, could only state that in some sense, the origin of life appears at the moment to be almost a miracle, so many are the conditions which would have had to have been satisfied to get it going.""
Notice he does not state that it is a miracle.
He even says "at the moment". He in no way is claiming that abiogenesis is impossible...just that in 1953 we were yet to produce an explanation
Hoyle...and i may be mistaken....is famous oddly enough for his "card-player analogy". His claims on statistics are wildly misleading...and his interpretation of evolution as a purely random chance is equally misleading.
Anyone who makes an argument that the "odds of evolution are astronomical" is, as a rule, full of it.
Since it is impossible to assign odds to evolution(given that one would have to presume the odds of a final state occuring as it did, and take into account all variables). I do not consider Hoyle a person of importance at all.
The other two escape me, but let me explain something bmoose.
If I read that someone has 'debunked' evolution...and then in the very next line I read how deeply religious they are....I usually dismiss them.
You know why?
Religious people can easily lie to themselves....just look at the mormons.
Heck, even if you dont believe that religious people deceive themselves...think about this.
If you saw a book claiming that Hitler was a transsexual, who liked to eat his own feces....and then you noticed that it was written by a holocaust survivor....
Would you give it much respect?
You generally dont accept sensational claims from someone who has a direct, personal motive for wanting that sensational claim to be true.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
What about Behe, Wells, Crick, Hoyle, Collins, etc. Forgive me but I think reading a critic of the critic is not sufficient for anyones intellect. |
Well...Im most familiar with Behe....
Behe's argument is logically invalid, and arguably dishonest.
Behe's argument is that organisms cannot be reduced beyond a certain point....and this point is called irreducible complexity.
He cannot define this point, and when has attempted to establish guidelines for this point...they are normally irrational.
i.e. If an organism reaches a point where you cannot remove a single part and the organism continues to function...then it is irreducibly complex.
This fails because it assumes that evolution is reversible and linear...which it is not
Almost every example of an IC system that he has previously listed has actually been found to be a non-example. For the record he has mentioned the flagellum and the eye.
Crick is not an opponent of Evolution at all...
""An honest man, armed with all the knowledge available to us now, could only state that in some sense, the origin of life appears at the moment to be almost a miracle, so many are the conditions which would have had to have been satisfied to get it going.""
Notice he does not state that it is a miracle.
He even says "at the moment". He in no way is claiming that abiogenesis is impossible...just that in 1953 we were yet to produce an explanation
Hoyle...and i may be mistaken....is famous oddly enough for his "card-player analogy". His claims on statistics are wildly misleading...and his interpretation of evolution as a purely random chance is equally misleading.
Anyone who makes an argument that the "odds of evolution are astronomical" is, as a rule, full of it.
Since it is impossible to assign odds to evolution(given that one would have to presume the odds of a final state occuring as it did, and take into account all variables). I do not consider Hoyle a person of importance at all.
The other two escape me, but let me explain something bmoose.
If I read that someone has 'debunked' evolution...and then in the very next line I read how deeply religious they are....I usually dismiss them.
You know why?
Religious people can easily lie to themselves....just look at the mormons.
Heck, even if you dont believe that religious people deceive themselves...think about this.
If you saw a book claiming that Hitler was a transsexual, who liked to eat his own feces....and then you noticed that it was written by a holocaust survivor....
Would you give it much respect?
You generally dont accept sensational claims from someone who has a direct, personal motive for wanting that sensational claim to be true.
1)RNA-is a fascinating theory but it has been dismissed among some biochemists. There basic rebuttal is the old chicken or the egg. No one can explain how RNA even pre-RNA (which has never been discovered) was created before living cells not to mention survive outside a cell in that environment.
Pre-RNA has been discovered and created in labs all over the world.
Of course you can explain how it would survive outside the cell....viruses are genetic material contained within a simple protein.
They have no cell...yet the genetic material survives without problems.
They can explain how RNA was created before living cells....RNA is simply a string of fatty acids.
In lab conditions they have simulated relatively short strings of fatty acids lining up...
As far as early cells?
You might want to read up on clay...but basically bubbles can form encapsulating the RNA.
The bubbles can even be forced to replicate under certain conditions.
If you had read up on any of the research currently being conducted AT ALL...you wouldnt be making this stupid post.
All i can do is accuse you of intellectual dishonesty.
QUOTE
Protocell theory doesn't get us any closer because a living organism has to have a basic setup to sustain live and spawn offspring. That is still very complex. These types of theories make it evident that scientists know how remote the possibility is that life can just come together because of the complexity. Therefore the only option is to rationalize a simple form of early life to fit the theory. That is not an indictment but merely an observation.
Actually....current life has a vastly more complex system.
Life, however, could easily be simpler.
"Spawning offspring" is a rather rare event in nature, most of our simpler organisms merely duplicate themselves. Duplicating yourself is far simpler than mating.
What "basic setup" are you proposing...or are you merely making this claim because you dont want to believe that abiogenesis is possible?
You seem to have little to no understanding of biology...or the modern research that goes into a cell. You dont even seem to have read any good articles recently on the research going into abiogenesis.
If scientists think it is impossible....why are several major universities sinking heavy research funds into the topic?
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Protocell theory doesn't get us any closer because a living organism has to have a basic setup to sustain live and spawn offspring. That is still very complex. These types of theories make it evident that scientists know how remote the possibility is that life can just come together because of the complexity. Therefore the only option is to rationalize a simple form of early life to fit the theory. That is not an indictment but merely an observation. |
Actually....current life has a vastly more complex system.
Life, however, could easily be simpler.
"Spawning offspring" is a rather rare event in nature, most of our simpler organisms merely duplicate themselves. Duplicating yourself is far simpler than mating.
What "basic setup" are you proposing...or are you merely making this claim because you dont want to believe that abiogenesis is possible?
You seem to have little to no understanding of biology...or the modern research that goes into a cell. You dont even seem to have read any good articles recently on the research going into abiogenesis.
If scientists think it is impossible....why are several major universities sinking heavy research funds into the topic?
The more scientist seem to uncover the farther away we seem to be going. Most scientists are actually in agreement with that statement
Now see....lying is a sin.
Besides that statement being false....you have no reason to make that statement.
No biologist I have ever met would support that statement.
Given the claims of some of the research teams....I doubt that statement.
There has been no poll or study that agrees with that statement.
So you just LIED....see how easy it was....you dont want to believe something so you lie. This is EXACTLY what religious people do EVERY DAY.
QUOTE
That is precisely why it has to be this way. A first cause that is TIMELESS and SPACE LESS is the only way you can settle this logical equation because it in itself doesn't need a cause just like infinity doesn't have a beginning or an end. Thus it is something that can not be fully comprehended but it is logical. Like I said.
BTW...this is wrong
Let me give you a fun tidbit though.
We all know that as we travel at faster speeds...relative time slows down for us.
Relative time also slows down for people closer to a gravitational field. So time travels slower for you than....lets say an astronaut.
The big bang theorizes that all matter currently in the universe was condensed into a single point.
This point had infinite thermal energy, and infinite gravitational force....
In other words...time was infinitely slowed down within that singular point....while to an exterior observer that point may have only existed for a moment....within that point time existed FOREVER.
Dont get into a causal debate though....at best all you can prove is that God was an uncausal cause. Great....but I doubt anyone wants to worship an uncausal cause.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| That is precisely why it has to be this way. A first cause that is TIMELESS and SPACE LESS is the only way you can settle this logical equation because it in itself doesn't need a cause just like infinity doesn't have a beginning or an end. Thus it is something that can not be fully comprehended but it is logical. Like I said. |
BTW...this is wrong
Let me give you a fun tidbit though.
We all know that as we travel at faster speeds...relative time slows down for us.
Relative time also slows down for people closer to a gravitational field. So time travels slower for you than....lets say an astronaut.
The big bang theorizes that all matter currently in the universe was condensed into a single point.
This point had infinite thermal energy, and infinite gravitational force....
In other words...time was infinitely slowed down within that singular point....while to an exterior observer that point may have only existed for a moment....within that point time existed FOREVER.
Dont get into a causal debate though....at best all you can prove is that God was an uncausal cause. Great....but I doubt anyone wants to worship an uncausal cause.
Most biochemists would and have disagreed with this assessment that it is not difficult. I'll admit that your assessment does seem simple because these things to interact with one another and on the surface seems to be only a matter of time. That is what is further from the truth.
They do?
I guess you have a survey, a poll, or a study to confirm this?
Or maybe you know a lot of biochemists?
Or maybe your just lying again because you want it to be true SOOOO badly.
QUOTE
1-Amino acids come in 2 types left and right handed however only left handed amino acids are compatible for life.
Issue: They both are equally available in nature and react with one another fairly easily and they are difficult to separate. Some have theorized that in space due to left handed radiation that it leads LH-amino acids. I haven't seen what the ratio is but you still have the same problem. panspermia would move into the lead here.
Issue: They both are equally available in nature and react with one another fairly easily and they are difficult to separate. Some have theorized that in space due to left handed radiation that it leads LH-amino acids. I haven't seen what the ratio is but you still have the same problem. panspermia would move into the lead here.
Except....
Some bacteria use right-handed amino acids, too
McCarthy, Matthew D., John I. Hedges and Ronald Benner. 1998. Major bacterial contribution to marine dissolved organic nitrogen. Science 281: 231-234.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| 1-Amino acids come in 2 types left and right handed however only left handed amino acids are compatible for life. Issue: They both are equally available in nature and react with one another fairly easily and they are difficult to separate. Some have theorized that in space due to left handed radiation that it leads LH-amino acids. I haven't seen what the ratio is but you still have the same problem. panspermia would move into the lead here. |
Except....
Some bacteria use right-handed amino acids, too
McCarthy, Matthew D., John I. Hedges and Ronald Benner. 1998. Major bacterial contribution to marine dissolved organic nitrogen. Science 281: 231-234.
The LH amino acids have to get together with nothing else and only a trace of RH-amino acids can be present (this still might be fatal). They have to form the correct peptide bonds (by product of H2O) to create a single functioning protein chain.
Issue: It is not a small chain we are talking about and how do you keep all of the other elements out of the mixture. You can't possibly stop the natural bonding with other elements that happen so readily. Once this happens it is over for that to be life form.
The first self-replicator may have had eight or fewer types of amino acids (Cavalier-Smith 2001). It is not all that unlikely that the same handedness might occur so few times by chance, especially if one of the amino acids was glycine, which has no handedness.
Cavalier-Smith T. 2001. Obcells as proto-organisms: membrane heredity, lithophosphorylation, and the origins of the genetic code, the first cells, and photosynthesis. Journal of Molecular Evolution 53: 555-595.
QUOTE
Some over simplifications come in where the assumption is just because I have all of the elements together in the same location with the right environment that life will just be created. If you take a living cell and put it in a stable saline solution and rupture its cell wall so that you have everything that it takes for life. It doesn't reconstitute over time to create any life. Life demands a little more than just having all the components together.
That analogy is so far off....it doesnt even make sense.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Some over simplifications come in where the assumption is just because I have all of the elements together in the same location with the right environment that life will just be created. If you take a living cell and put it in a stable saline solution and rupture its cell wall so that you have everything that it takes for life. It doesn't reconstitute over time to create any life. Life demands a little more than just having all the components together. |
That analogy is so far off....it doesnt even make sense.
Let's say everyone said okay ID is the way it all happened. It is absurd to think that science at that point stops trudging forward in trying to understanding the design. What would be the harm done here? Maybe we could spend more money in designing better anti-biotics rather than trying to recreate the creation. No point in re-inventing the wheel but continuing to learn from it's design is crucial.
Ok....so apparently ID is a popular idea....lots of smart people support it according to you.
So here is a question....
What useful research has come from an IDist?
Name one piece of useful research.......
All they have done is try to debunk Evolution.
Even before Einstein's Theory of Relativity was accepted he was making predictions and claiming further explanation of certain phenomenon.
So what have they done?
Oh...thats right....NOTHING.
So...it isnt absurd to think that everything would come to a grinding halt.
We would stop researching the evolutionary pathways of "IC systems"...despite several claimed IC systems having been greatly reduced.
We would stop producing anti-bodies. Evolution doesnt happen....all evolution is merely God working.
Who would dare to stop the work of God...if he wanted the Bird flu in humans...then dammit....we need bird flu.
Sorry if I seem angry but ID is one of the most intellectually devoid, BS, completely lacking in scientific evidence ideas I have ever read.
It also was just a quick way to avoid the term creationism in the classroom.
Anyone who supports ID is not just wrong....but they are normally dishonest.
If you believe in Creationism...have the balls to say it....dont be a little bitch and throw around pseudo-science
bmoose9
That is simply not true. Behe and other so called scientists were handed their butts when the trial in Kansas showed how their so called "irreducable" complexities are so irreducable after all. The premis that life must be complex to exist is a false one. All life has to do is be able to produce copies of itself, after that evolution will insure that mutations(of which there would be myriads) that are benificial are selected for.
That is simply not true. Behe and other so called scientists were handed their butts when the trial in Kansas showed how their so called "irreducable" complexities are so irreducable after all. The premis that life must be complex to exist is a false one. All life has to do is be able to produce copies of itself, after that evolution will insure that mutations(of which there would be myriads) that are benificial are selected for.
1-Amino acids come in 2 types left and right handed however only left handed amino acids are compatible for life.
There is a bias in nature toward left handed AAs. It can be seen in the molecular clouds. This does NOT mean RH AAs could not also produce life, nor is it necessarily true that contact between LH life and RH AAs would be fatal. Even if it was then that would certainly be a selective pressure for more resistent forms. (Splenda is a RH sugar, the body cannot process it, yet it tastes like sugar and(so far) it seems to be harmless).
Peptides(Quite large ones called polypeptides) have been found in CHON type asteroids and created in labs by "shocking" the amino acids with the pressures and temps produced by meteoric impacts. Large chain molecules are not rare in nature, nothing says that the correct type of molecules would not be available in the early Earths reducing atmosphere.
The thing is it only takes one happy accident. Given the immense number of tries available to nature even the most unlikely event becomes not only possible, but inevitable.
Peptides(Quite large ones called polypeptides) have been found in CHON type asteroids and created in labs by "shocking" the amino acids with the pressures and temps produced by meteoric impacts. Large chain molecules are not rare in nature, nothing says that the correct type of molecules would not be available in the early Earths reducing atmosphere.
The thing is it only takes one happy accident. Given the immense number of tries available to nature even the most unlikely event becomes not only possible, but inevitable.
My description here is not even representative of the complexity of the situation. I didn't mention the number of amino acids, certain types or enzymes that have to be in place to make this clock start ticking.
You are still presupposing that life must be complex to begin, this is a false precept. (Just as the eye can evolve from a single light sensative molecule(yes/no, on/off) and a teraflop computer can be designed from simple transisters). The ONLY requirement for simple life is the ability to reproduce. Cristalization comes closer to that type of life than a bacterium(it is a continuum from chemical evolution to biologic evolution, after all). A bacterium is the result of billions of years of evolution from the simplest lifeforms. The first life was most likely a strand of polypeptide that was configured in such a manner that other pieces of it's surroundings bind to it and create either a copy or a reverse copy of itself(the first sex?). This would be far from a perfect process and many mutations would occur, some of which were benificial and survived better, etc...
Yes, it also takes an energy source and a large amount of time times many different interactions. But once the lucky accident occurs it becomes a non-random process. Given the immense number of available interaction, the immense time available and the proclivity of carbon to form large molecules it then becomes inevitable.
Yes, it also takes an energy source and a large amount of time times many different interactions. But once the lucky accident occurs it becomes a non-random process. Given the immense number of available interaction, the immense time available and the proclivity of carbon to form large molecules it then becomes inevitable.
"At present all discussions on principal theories and experiments in the
field either end in stalemate or in a confession of ignorance.”
Dr. Klaus Dose, Director, Institute for Biochemistry
Many scientists disagree with Dose, self- replicating molecules have been formed in the lab. Is this life??? How do you differentiate these from the simplest life-forms???
Grumpy
http://talkorigins.org/faqs/abioprob/originoflife.html#intro
QUOTE
Most biochemists would and have disagreed with this assessment that it is not difficult.
That is simply not true. Behe and other so called scientists were handed their butts when the trial in Kansas showed how their so called "irreducable" complexities are so irreducable after all. The premis that life must be complex to exist is a false one. All life has to do is be able to produce copies of itself, after that evolution will insure that mutations(of which there would be myriads) that are benificial are selected for.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Most biochemists would and have disagreed with this assessment that it is not difficult. |
That is simply not true. Behe and other so called scientists were handed their butts when the trial in Kansas showed how their so called "irreducable" complexities are so irreducable after all. The premis that life must be complex to exist is a false one. All life has to do is be able to produce copies of itself, after that evolution will insure that mutations(of which there would be myriads) that are benificial are selected for.
1-Amino acids come in 2 types left and right handed however only left handed amino acids are compatible for life.
There is a bias in nature toward left handed AAs. It can be seen in the molecular clouds. This does NOT mean RH AAs could not also produce life, nor is it necessarily true that contact between LH life and RH AAs would be fatal. Even if it was then that would certainly be a selective pressure for more resistent forms. (Splenda is a RH sugar, the body cannot process it, yet it tastes like sugar and(so far) it seems to be harmless).
QUOTE
They have to form the correct peptide bonds (by product of H2O) to create a single functioning protein chain.
Issue: It is not a small chain we are talking about and how do you keep all of the other elements out of the mixture. You can't possibly stop the natural bonding with other elements that happen so readily. Once this happens it is over for that to be life form.
Given enough time is said to be the answer. However, time maybe the problem. The more time you have the dirtier your chain can become.
Issue: It is not a small chain we are talking about and how do you keep all of the other elements out of the mixture. You can't possibly stop the natural bonding with other elements that happen so readily. Once this happens it is over for that to be life form.
Given enough time is said to be the answer. However, time maybe the problem. The more time you have the dirtier your chain can become.
Peptides(Quite large ones called polypeptides) have been found in CHON type asteroids and created in labs by "shocking" the amino acids with the pressures and temps produced by meteoric impacts. Large chain molecules are not rare in nature, nothing says that the correct type of molecules would not be available in the early Earths reducing atmosphere.
The thing is it only takes one happy accident. Given the immense number of tries available to nature even the most unlikely event becomes not only possible, but inevitable.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| They have to form the correct peptide bonds (by product of H2O) to create a single functioning protein chain. Issue: It is not a small chain we are talking about and how do you keep all of the other elements out of the mixture. You can't possibly stop the natural bonding with other elements that happen so readily. Once this happens it is over for that to be life form. Given enough time is said to be the answer. However, time maybe the problem. The more time you have the dirtier your chain can become. |
Peptides(Quite large ones called polypeptides) have been found in CHON type asteroids and created in labs by "shocking" the amino acids with the pressures and temps produced by meteoric impacts. Large chain molecules are not rare in nature, nothing says that the correct type of molecules would not be available in the early Earths reducing atmosphere.
The thing is it only takes one happy accident. Given the immense number of tries available to nature even the most unlikely event becomes not only possible, but inevitable.
My description here is not even representative of the complexity of the situation. I didn't mention the number of amino acids, certain types or enzymes that have to be in place to make this clock start ticking.
You are still presupposing that life must be complex to begin, this is a false precept. (Just as the eye can evolve from a single light sensative molecule(yes/no, on/off) and a teraflop computer can be designed from simple transisters). The ONLY requirement for simple life is the ability to reproduce. Cristalization comes closer to that type of life than a bacterium(it is a continuum from chemical evolution to biologic evolution, after all). A bacterium is the result of billions of years of evolution from the simplest lifeforms. The first life was most likely a strand of polypeptide that was configured in such a manner that other pieces of it's surroundings bind to it and create either a copy or a reverse copy of itself(the first sex?). This would be far from a perfect process and many mutations would occur, some of which were benificial and survived better, etc...
QUOTE
Some over simplifications come in where the assumption is just because I have all of the elements together in the same location with the right environment that life will just be created. If you take a living cell and put it in a stable saline solution and rupture its cell wall so that you have everything that it takes for life. It doesn't reconstitute over time to create any life. Life demands a little more than just having all the components together.
Yes, it also takes an energy source and a large amount of time times many different interactions. But once the lucky accident occurs it becomes a non-random process. Given the immense number of available interaction, the immense time available and the proclivity of carbon to form large molecules it then becomes inevitable.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Some over simplifications come in where the assumption is just because I have all of the elements together in the same location with the right environment that life will just be created. If you take a living cell and put it in a stable saline solution and rupture its cell wall so that you have everything that it takes for life. It doesn't reconstitute over time to create any life. Life demands a little more than just having all the components together. |
Yes, it also takes an energy source and a large amount of time times many different interactions. But once the lucky accident occurs it becomes a non-random process. Given the immense number of available interaction, the immense time available and the proclivity of carbon to form large molecules it then becomes inevitable.
"At present all discussions on principal theories and experiments in the
field either end in stalemate or in a confession of ignorance.”
Dr. Klaus Dose, Director, Institute for Biochemistry
Many scientists disagree with Dose, self- replicating molecules have been formed in the lab. Is this life??? How do you differentiate these from the simplest life-forms???
Grumpy
http://talkorigins.org/faqs/abioprob/originoflife.html#intro
grumpy, i apologise about the sord. you were right for a change please forgive me for falsly accusing you.
QUOTE (PuckSR+Feb 14 2007, 05:36 PM)
The other two escape me...
"Collins" might be referring to Francis Collins, the Project Manager for the Human Genome Project. He's a strong Christian.
He also notably believe that Evolution is true and that Therapeutic Cloning is not only moral but something that should be done.
Jan 2007 interview with Discover Magazine
"There is a difference between doing research of an embryo that was generated by sperm and egg coming together, which is the way human beings are created, versus the very bizarre laboratory phenomenon of taking a nucleus from a skin cell or the udder cell of a sheep and putting it into an environment that takes it back in time to its stem cell state. In public discourse, they're both called embryos. Even though the somatic cell nuclear transer approach is a very different biological phenomenon, in many people's minds it has been all blurred together ..."
"...I think that many of those folks have been brought up to believe that if you accept evolution, you lose your faith..."
"Collins" might be referring to Francis Collins, the Project Manager for the Human Genome Project. He's a strong Christian.
He also notably believe that Evolution is true and that Therapeutic Cloning is not only moral but something that should be done.
Jan 2007 interview with Discover Magazine
"There is a difference between doing research of an embryo that was generated by sperm and egg coming together, which is the way human beings are created, versus the very bizarre laboratory phenomenon of taking a nucleus from a skin cell or the udder cell of a sheep and putting it into an environment that takes it back in time to its stem cell state. In public discourse, they're both called embryos. Even though the somatic cell nuclear transer approach is a very different biological phenomenon, in many people's minds it has been all blurred together ..."
"...I think that many of those folks have been brought up to believe that if you accept evolution, you lose your faith..."
Re: What an interesting discussion!
Well...I’m most familiar with Behe....
Behe's argument is logically invalid, and arguably dishonest.
Behe's argument is that organisms cannot be reduced beyond a certain point....and this point is called irreducible complexity.
He cannot define this point, and when has attempted to establish guidelines for this point...they are normally irrational.
i.e. If an organism reaches a point where you cannot remove a single part and the organism continues to function...then it is irreducibly complex.
This fails because it assumes that evolution is reversible and linear...which it is not
Almost every example of an IC system that he has previously listed has actually been found to be a non-example. For the record he has mentioned the flagellum and the eye.
Crick is not an opponent of Evolution at all...
""An honest man, armed with all the knowledge available to us now, could only state that in some sense, the origin of life appears at the moment to be almost a miracle, so many are the conditions which would have had to have been satisfied to get it going.""
Notice he does not state that it is a miracle.
He even says "at the moment". He in no way is claiming that abiogenesis is impossible...just that in 1953 we were yet to produce an explanation
Hoyle...and i may be mistaken....is famous oddly enough for his "card-player analogy". His claims on statistics are wildly misleading...and his interpretation of evolution as a purely random chance is equally misleading.
Anyone who makes an argument that the "odds of evolution are astronomical" is, as a rule, full of it.
Since it is impossible to assign odds to evolution(given that one would have to presume the odds of a final state occuring as it did, and take into account all variables). I do not consider Hoyle a person of importance at all.
The other two escape me, but let me explain something bmoose.
I’m surprised—and congratulations!—finally Something so intellectual came out of Something so simple a question as one being quested in this thread “The Origin of Life: How close are we to creating life?”
I would agree with all your characterizations of the above personalities in Science and Philosophy—although Behe is still a wild card, whose abuse of Science (especially Biochemistry) is exemplary, as an agenda being used to advance his misguided ID neocreationism in his 1996 bestseller Darwin’s Black Box: The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution.
As for Crick (1916-2004), he was just a cross-disciplinary adventurer (as a thinker in Science) by the influence of Erwin Schrödinger’s 1944 book What is Life?; as such, without the excellent work of Rosalind Franklin, he and Watson would probably have had been unable to fathom and arrive at the double helix-structure of DNA in 1953.
Crick’s last intellectual adventurism was to decipher the Mechanisms of Consciousness, but to no avail, as he attempted to account it in his 1994 book The Astonishing Hypothesis: The Scientific Search For The Soul, showing the fact that Modern Neuroscience and Neurochemistry were still beyond his grasp in his time.
As for Hoyle (1915-2001), the jury on his “Steady State theory of the Universe” is still out—unless the Big Bang theory would prove it otherwise, someday!? He was also a cross-disciplinary adventurer-thinker, who had caused quite a stir in Science and in Philosophy—God bless all the daring Brits: Some hits (like Darwin on Evolution; Crick with Watson on DNA helix; etc); Some misses (like Crick and Penrose on Consciousness; Dawkins on “selfish gene and hopping meme;” etc)—please see my analysis here, What is Consciousness? (PhysOrgEU; January 13).
Wells is an ID advocate; his 2002 book Icons of Evoltuion: Science or Myth? is an attempt to deny the Darwinian theory of Evolution, with full of biological misinterpretations and misconceptions—as those of Biologist’s abuses that I identified here, Evolution or Creation? (PhysOrgEU; February 6).
Collins is a medically-trained geneticist, who has gained much respect for his religious honesty and scientific integrity, as I’ve had analyzed before here, Let's begin the Dialogue and Reconciliation of Science and Religion Now!—The Time’s Dawkins-Collins debate (PhysOrgEU; November 11, 2006).
Last, but not least, I also noticed that you were able to define and differentiate Scientism from Science, as you acutely identified one herein above and quoted below:
Well...I’m most familiar with Behe....
Behe's argument is logically invalid, and arguably dishonest.
Behe's argument is that organisms cannot be reduced beyond a certain point....and this point is called irreducible complexity.
He cannot define this point, and when has attempted to establish guidelines for this point...they are normally irrational.
i.e. If an organism reaches a point where you cannot remove a single part and the organism continues to function...then it is irreducibly complex.
This fails because it assumes that evolution is reversible and linear...which it is not
Almost every example of an IC system that he has previously listed has actually been found to be a non-example. For the record he has mentioned the flagellum and the eye.
Crick is not an opponent of Evolution at all...
""An honest man, armed with all the knowledge available to us now, could only state that in some sense, the origin of life appears at the moment to be almost a miracle, so many are the conditions which would have had to have been satisfied to get it going.""
Notice he does not state that it is a miracle.
He even says "at the moment". He in no way is claiming that abiogenesis is impossible...just that in 1953 we were yet to produce an explanation
Hoyle...and i may be mistaken....is famous oddly enough for his "card-player analogy". His claims on statistics are wildly misleading...and his interpretation of evolution as a purely random chance is equally misleading.
Anyone who makes an argument that the "odds of evolution are astronomical" is, as a rule, full of it.
Since it is impossible to assign odds to evolution(given that one would have to presume the odds of a final state occuring as it did, and take into account all variables). I do not consider Hoyle a person of importance at all.
The other two escape me, but let me explain something bmoose.
I’m surprised—and congratulations!—finally Something so intellectual came out of Something so simple a question as one being quested in this thread “The Origin of Life: How close are we to creating life?”
I would agree with all your characterizations of the above personalities in Science and Philosophy—although Behe is still a wild card, whose abuse of Science (especially Biochemistry) is exemplary, as an agenda being used to advance his misguided ID neocreationism in his 1996 bestseller Darwin’s Black Box: The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution.
As for Crick (1916-2004), he was just a cross-disciplinary adventurer (as a thinker in Science) by the influence of Erwin Schrödinger’s 1944 book What is Life?; as such, without the excellent work of Rosalind Franklin, he and Watson would probably have had been unable to fathom and arrive at the double helix-structure of DNA in 1953.
Crick’s last intellectual adventurism was to decipher the Mechanisms of Consciousness, but to no avail, as he attempted to account it in his 1994 book The Astonishing Hypothesis: The Scientific Search For The Soul, showing the fact that Modern Neuroscience and Neurochemistry were still beyond his grasp in his time.
As for Hoyle (1915-2001), the jury on his “Steady State theory of the Universe” is still out—unless the Big Bang theory would prove it otherwise, someday!? He was also a cross-disciplinary adventurer-thinker, who had caused quite a stir in Science and in Philosophy—God bless all the daring Brits: Some hits (like Darwin on Evolution; Crick with Watson on DNA helix; etc); Some misses (like Crick and Penrose on Consciousness; Dawkins on “selfish gene and hopping meme;” etc)—please see my analysis here, What is Consciousness? (PhysOrgEU; January 13).
Wells is an ID advocate; his 2002 book Icons of Evoltuion: Science or Myth? is an attempt to deny the Darwinian theory of Evolution, with full of biological misinterpretations and misconceptions—as those of Biologist’s abuses that I identified here, Evolution or Creation? (PhysOrgEU; February 6).
Collins is a medically-trained geneticist, who has gained much respect for his religious honesty and scientific integrity, as I’ve had analyzed before here, Let's begin the Dialogue and Reconciliation of Science and Religion Now!—The Time’s Dawkins-Collins debate (PhysOrgEU; November 11, 2006).
Last, but not least, I also noticed that you were able to define and differentiate Scientism from Science, as you acutely identified one herein above and quoted below:
QUOTE (PuckSR: Feb 14 2007+ 5:36 PM)
QUOTE
What about Behe, Wells, Crick, Hoyle, Collins, etc. Forgive me but I think reading a critic of the critic is not sufficient for anyone’s intellect.
Well...I’m most familiar with Behe....
Behe's argument is logically invalid, and arguably dishonest.
Behe's argument is that organisms cannot be reduced beyond a certain point....and this point is called irreducible complexity.
He cannot define this point, and when has attempted to establish guidelines for this point...they are normally irrational.
i.e. If an organism reaches a point where you cannot remove a single part and the organism continues to function...then it is irreducibly complex.
This fails because it assumes that evolution is reversible and linear...which it is not
Almost every example of an IC system that he has previously listed has actually been found to be a non-example. For the record he has mentioned the flagellum and the eye.
Crick is not an opponent of Evolution at all...
""An honest man, armed with all the knowledge available to us now, could only state that in some sense, the origin of life appears at the moment to be almost a miracle, so many are the conditions which would have had to have been satisfied to get it going.""
Notice he does not state that it is a miracle.
He even says "at the moment". He in no way is claiming that abiogenesis is impossible...just that in 1953 we were yet to produce an explanation
Hoyle...and i may be mistaken....is famous oddly enough for his "card-player analogy". His claims on statistics are wildly misleading...and his interpretation of evolution as a purely random chance is equally misleading.
Anyone who makes an argument that the "odds of evolution are astronomical" is, as a rule, full of it.
Since it is impossible to assign odds to evolution(given that one would have to presume the odds of a final state occuring as it did, and take into account all variables). I do not consider Hoyle a person of importance at all.
The other two escape me, but let me explain something bmoose.
I’m surprised—and congratulations!—finally Something so intellectual came out of Something so simple a question as one being quested in this thread “The Origin of Life: How close are we to creating life?”
I would agree with all your characterizations of the above personalities in Science and Philosophy—although Behe is still a wild card, whose abuse of Science (especially Biochemistry) is exemplary, as an agenda being used to advance his misguided ID neocreationism in his 1996 bestseller Darwin’s Black Box: The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution.
As for Crick (1916-2004), he was just a cross-disciplinary adventurer (as a thinker in Science) by the influence of Erwin Schrödinger’s 1944 book What is Life?; as such, without the excellent work of Rosalind Franklin, he and Watson would probably have had been unable to fathom and arrive at the double helix-structure of DNA in 1953.
Crick’s last intellectual adventurism was to decipher the Mechanisms of Consciousness, but to no avail, as he attempted to account it in his 1994 book The Astonishing Hypothesis: The Scientific Search For The Soul, showing the fact that Modern Neuroscience and Neurochemistry were still beyond his grasp in his time.
As for Hoyle (1915-2001), the jury on his “Steady State theory of the Universe” is still out—unless the Big Bang theory would prove it otherwise, someday!? He was also a cross-disciplinary adventurer-thinker, who had caused quite a stir in Science and in Philosophy—God bless all the daring Brits: Some hits (like Darwin on Evolution; Crick with Watson on DNA helix; etc); Some misses (like Crick and Penrose on Consciousness; Dawkins on “selfish gene and hopping meme;” etc)—please see my analysis here, What is Consciousness? (PhysOrgEU; January 13).
Wells is an ID advocate; his 2002 book Icons of Evoltuion: Science or Myth? is an attempt to deny the Darwinian theory of Evolution, with full of biological misinterpretations and misconceptions—as those of Biologist’s abuses that I identified here, Evolution or Creation? (PhysOrgEU; February 6).
Collins is a medically-trained geneticist, who has gained much respect for his religious honesty and scientific integrity, as I’ve had analyzed before here, Let's begin the Dialogue and Reconciliation of Science and Religion Now!—The Time’s Dawkins-Collins debate (PhysOrgEU; November 11, 2006).
Last, but not least, I also noticed that you were able to define and differentiate Scientism from Science, as you acutely identified one herein above and quoted below:
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| What about Behe, Wells, Crick, Hoyle, Collins, etc. Forgive me but I think reading a critic of the critic is not sufficient for anyone’s intellect. |
Well...I’m most familiar with Behe....
Behe's argument is logically invalid, and arguably dishonest.
Behe's argument is that organisms cannot be reduced beyond a certain point....and this point is called irreducible complexity.
He cannot define this point, and when has attempted to establish guidelines for this point...they are normally irrational.
i.e. If an organism reaches a point where you cannot remove a single part and the organism continues to function...then it is irreducibly complex.
This fails because it assumes that evolution is reversible and linear...which it is not
Almost every example of an IC system that he has previously listed has actually been found to be a non-example. For the record he has mentioned the flagellum and the eye.
Crick is not an opponent of Evolution at all...
""An honest man, armed with all the knowledge available to us now, could only state that in some sense, the origin of life appears at the moment to be almost a miracle, so many are the conditions which would have had to have been satisfied to get it going.""
Notice he does not state that it is a miracle.
He even says "at the moment". He in no way is claiming that abiogenesis is impossible...just that in 1953 we were yet to produce an explanation
Hoyle...and i may be mistaken....is famous oddly enough for his "card-player analogy". His claims on statistics are wildly misleading...and his interpretation of evolution as a purely random chance is equally misleading.
Anyone who makes an argument that the "odds of evolution are astronomical" is, as a rule, full of it.
Since it is impossible to assign odds to evolution(given that one would have to presume the odds of a final state occuring as it did, and take into account all variables). I do not consider Hoyle a person of importance at all.
The other two escape me, but let me explain something bmoose.
I’m surprised—and congratulations!—finally Something so intellectual came out of Something so simple a question as one being quested in this thread “The Origin of Life: How close are we to creating life?”
I would agree with all your characterizations of the above personalities in Science and Philosophy—although Behe is still a wild card, whose abuse of Science (especially Biochemistry) is exemplary, as an agenda being used to advance his misguided ID neocreationism in his 1996 bestseller Darwin’s Black Box: The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution.
As for Crick (1916-2004), he was just a cross-disciplinary adventurer (as a thinker in Science) by the influence of Erwin Schrödinger’s 1944 book What is Life?; as such, without the excellent work of Rosalind Franklin, he and Watson would probably have had been unable to fathom and arrive at the double helix-structure of DNA in 1953.
Crick’s last intellectual adventurism was to decipher the Mechanisms of Consciousness, but to no avail, as he attempted to account it in his 1994 book The Astonishing Hypothesis: The Scientific Search For The Soul, showing the fact that Modern Neuroscience and Neurochemistry were still beyond his grasp in his time.
As for Hoyle (1915-2001), the jury on his “Steady State theory of the Universe” is still out—unless the Big Bang theory would prove it otherwise, someday!? He was also a cross-disciplinary adventurer-thinker, who had caused quite a stir in Science and in Philosophy—God bless all the daring Brits: Some hits (like Darwin on Evolution; Crick with Watson on DNA helix; etc); Some misses (like Crick and Penrose on Consciousness; Dawkins on “selfish gene and hopping meme;” etc)—please see my analysis here, What is Consciousness? (PhysOrgEU; January 13).
Wells is an ID advocate; his 2002 book Icons of Evoltuion: Science or Myth? is an attempt to deny the Darwinian theory of Evolution, with full of biological misinterpretations and misconceptions—as those of Biologist’s abuses that I identified here, Evolution or Creation? (PhysOrgEU; February 6).
Collins is a medically-trained geneticist, who has gained much respect for his religious honesty and scientific integrity, as I’ve had analyzed before here, Let's begin the Dialogue and Reconciliation of Science and Religion Now!—The Time’s Dawkins-Collins debate (PhysOrgEU; November 11, 2006).
Last, but not least, I also noticed that you were able to define and differentiate Scientism from Science, as you acutely identified one herein above and quoted below:
QUOTE (Photojack: Feb 11 2007+ 09:07 AM)
bmoose9, After a theory has been first established, criticism is sure to follow. Just look at 1859 and Charles Darwin! Since then a consensus opinion has formed among the scientific community and it is slowly seeping into the general population in America. Europeans find it much easier to accept, because there is much less dogma there. Look into T.H. Huxley called "Darwin's Bulldog" for his tenacious support of Darwin's theory in its early days. The consensus of virtually all scientists back evolution as the only way to explain the workings of nature and plants and animals in their global perspective in the past, present and future. Nothing else even comes close. Just extend it back to beyond the earliest fossils and project what had to happen. Models are formed, theories discussed and consensus opinions develop. These earliest self-replicating molecules won't be preserved in the fossil record unless some unforeseen method can be developed to do so. Conjecture does have its place in formulating theories and pondering origins. They may never be answered definitively, but all supernatural-based explanations can be safely thrown out after narrowing the perceived gap to such a minute scale.
With all due respect. When it comes to this theory the sentiments that I've heard here sound more and more like "dogma."
I hear your argument about Huxley. However someone in the 1800's finally accepting Darwin's theory doesn't hold as much weight as a scientist today going through the same transition. We can just see so much more complexity in the "simple cell" than they could in Darwin's time. ie.. Francis Collins - Human Genome Project.
Are you unwilling to question this theory? I just can't trust anyone that is not willing to do that. How do I know that I'm getting the full story and not just spin?
If I totally refused to look at the science here and rejected the possibility for your theory to be true, what would you call me??? Would I even be worth listening to?
Well, other pertinent issues and discussions require more reading, thinking, analyzing on my part; so, I would just reserve my comments for a later time and date. Good luck to all of you!
Best wishes, Mong 2/15/7usct10:29a; author Gods, Genes, Conscience and Gods, Genes, Conscience: Global Dialogues Now; a cyberspace hermit-philosopher of Modern Mind, whose works are based on the current advances in interdisciplinary science and integrative psychology of Science and Religion worldwide; ethically, morally; metacognitively, and objectively.
Much deeper emotional AND intellectual.
I am familiar with the common advocates on both sides of the debate
Much deeper emotional AND intellectual.
I am familiar with the common advocates on both sides of the debate
I have not lied about anything nor do I try to mislead anyone. I probably should have put quotations around statements like "most biochemists." These were not my words but from those who have credibility in this field. I don't presume anything. That is why I take the time to read both arguments.
I honestly doubt that....
Which credible person within the field?
This is where you would be mistaken.....VERY mistaken
Besides reading much of the literature....I have personally discoursed with scientists who support ID. Albeit...none of the ones that I have talked to personally were experts in the fields of life science. Mathematician and Physicist to be exact.
This is where you would be mistaken.....VERY mistaken
Besides reading much of the literature....I have personally discoursed with scientists who support ID. Albeit...none of the ones that I have talked to personally were experts in the fields of life science. Mathematician and Physicist to be exact.
I argue that is not the same thing and is irresponsible to presume that it is. Normally the critic hand picks only one or two points out of the material and goes on to conclude that the entire work is bogus.
In the field of science....if you have ONE error in your paper....your paper is flawed.
It may be important as a mental exercise or because of the implications of the error....such as the infamous "fudge factor" of Einstein...
But the paper is still flawed.
I did not say that.....
I did not say that.....
If I read that someone has 'debunked' evolution...and then in the very next line I read how deeply religious they are....I usually dismiss them.
You know why?
.........
You generally dont accept sensational claims from someone who has a direct, personal motive for wanting that sensational claim to be true.
I dont dismiss the research of "religious" people.
Ken Miller is an incredibly respected, yet deeply religious biologist.
Einstein considered himself religious
Newton was devoutly religious.
I dismiss research from people with obvious emotional predisposition to justify their position. Its the same reason I dismiss conspiracy theories. People want JFK to be a conspiracy....and therefore try to 'prove' it.
Which is why I dismiss a lot of ID research.
Which is why I dismiss a lot of ID research.
That said I'm not sure how I have offended you by what I have written during this thread. I know that I have not written anything that was attacking you or anyone else here personally. NO ONE on this site deserves to be disrespected in the manner that you have disrespected me.
You deeply offended me with your round-about approach to the topic.
ID is not Science.
They have done NO research....
The term was coined IMMEDIATELY after Creationism was banned in American Schools. The book that coined the term actually just went back and deleted "creator" and replaced it with "intelligent designer".
The ID "idea" is just a modern rewording of the classic teleological argument for God.
Teleology
Its not new, its not science.
Granted....its an interesting(if thoroughly debunked) philosophical argument.
Why my anger?
Because....in all honesty....NO SINGLE PERSON who supports Intelligent Design rejects Creationism.
Im not talking out of my ***....all you have to do is find one person who IS NOT a Creationist...who supports ID.
If you want to talk about Creationist scientists....I say "fine".
If you want to talk about a group of people who cleverly redefined the terms "creationist" and "teleology" into Intelligent Design...
Then please dont pretend that they are any different.
Why?
Have I lied?
Have I not strongly supported all of my posts?
bmoose9...Im a jerk. I'm arrogant. I'm confrontational
Unfortunately....Im also accurate, well researched, and very specific with my statements.
I get incredibly upset when someone tries to rectify poor information and bad logic with kindness and formality.
If you got the goods....shove them in my face.
Cause if I can bust you on something....I am going to do it.
Once again...Im an arrogant ***...but I'm generally correct.
Wow....Ive never seen anyone be SOOOOOOOOOOOOO wrong.
Evolutionary theory is not like "shooting dice".
I am going to use your half baked analogy....but at least try to fix it.
Evolution is like pulling activities out of a hat....but being able to discard them if you dont like them.
Evolution is not "random"....it is not throwing dice, flipping a coin, or "chance".
Evolution is very simple....you have a "Random" element, that is then filtered.
So...lets pretend we have 3 possible scenarios to describe life on this planet
1. Totally random
2. Random mutations, that are then filtered out based on practicality
3. Intelligent design
If #1 were true:
We would expect to see organisms that made absolutely no sense. They would not be capable of living, etc. This is obviously not even a practical scenario. Organisms are well suited and adapted to their environments
If #3 were true:
We would expect to see adapted and well-designed organisms. We do see this, so at least it is feasible.
If organisms were designed by an intelligence though, we should expect to not see the following things.
Vestigial features- features or organs that provide no use
Poor adaptation- features that while feasible in an environment are far from being the best solution.
Excessively complex features- features that, once again, while useful...are comprised of far more parts than are necessary for functionality.
If #2 were true:
We would see organisms that are at least "survivably" adapted to an enviroment. They might have residual features or vestigial features. Their adaptation would be sufficient but far from perfect.
If you study biology...you quickly realize that organic life falls heavily into the 2nd scenario.
Organisms cannot exist purely by random chance, but at the same time they lack any features of purposeful design.
With all due respect. When it comes to this theory the sentiments that I've heard here sound more and more like "dogma."
QUOTE
Dogma (the plural is either dogmata or dogmas, Greek δόγμα, plural δόγματα) is the established belief or doctrine held by a religion, ideology or any kind of organization, thought to be authoritative and not to be disputed or doubted. While in the context of religion the term is largely descriptive, outside of religion its current usage tends to carry a pejorative connotation — referring to concepts as being "established" only according to a particular point of view, and thus one of doubtful foundation. wikipedia
I hear your argument about Huxley. However someone in the 1800's finally accepting Darwin's theory doesn't hold as much weight as a scientist today going through the same transition. We can just see so much more complexity in the "simple cell" than they could in Darwin's time. ie.. Francis Collins - Human Genome Project.
Are you unwilling to question this theory? I just can't trust anyone that is not willing to do that. How do I know that I'm getting the full story and not just spin?
If I totally refused to look at the science here and rejected the possibility for your theory to be true, what would you call me??? Would I even be worth listening to?
Well, other pertinent issues and discussions require more reading, thinking, analyzing on my part; so, I would just reserve my comments for a later time and date. Good luck to all of you!
Best wishes, Mong 2/15/7usct10:29a; author Gods, Genes, Conscience and Gods, Genes, Conscience: Global Dialogues Now; a cyberspace hermit-philosopher of Modern Mind, whose works are based on the current advances in interdisciplinary science and integrative psychology of Science and Religion worldwide; ethically, morally; metacognitively, and objectively.
The problem with most theories of life is that they use the wrong variables for defining life. Because of this one either gets empiricsm or mythology both of which come down to popularity contests.
The variable nobody looks at is the hydrogen proton. All the DNA, RNA and proteins would not function without them. Even the basic energy of life is connected to reduced carbon (nonpolar hydrgogen protons) that become part of water so they can form hydrogen bonding (C-H + O2--->H2O...) If one looks at the cell, the hydrogen protons have their finger in everywhere. List one place where it is not found! Even dissolved ions and water soluble O2 have hydrations spheres with extended hydrogen bonding as they move about the cell.
The irony is, the hydrogen proton is the most logical choice for life, yet it is avoided for empiricm or mythology. Think of it, if you take the hydrogen bonding away, the DNA won't work. Even if you leave the DNA strands untouched along its length, it is dead without hydrogen bonding. Add the hydrogen bondiing back, life returns. The electron is important for the bio-polymers but without hydrogen bonding one gets plastics, oil, and protein sludge.
Picture this, we take a picture of the DNA and fade out all the C,N,O,P and leave only the hydrogen in the picture. The dynamics of just these hydrogen can be used to define the activity of the DNA. The C,N,O,P are also needed to form a structure to place the hydrogen in the correct spots, but the living dynamics is among the hydrogen protons. Take these away, nothing. Add them back, the DNA can do its dance of life.
If we fade all the atoms of a cell so only the hydrogen are visable, what we have is an image of the cell that looks like a ghost of hydrogen protons. (I use the word ghost only for illustrative purposes not to be taken literallly). All aspects of this hydrogen "ghost" are doing their local things but in a highly integrated way throughout the cell as a whole. Remove this "ghost", we get sludge. Add the "ghost" back the sludge comes back to life.
The hydrogen proton "ghost" is defined by the C,N,O,P etc., molecular structures that comprise it. The former is like the "body" that the "ghost" occupies. If we look at the hydrogen "ghost" associated with DNA we know the DNA body is the basis for this ghost. However, the DNA body is not able to anything connected to life without the ghost. The DNA body is inanimated chemistry without the ghost. But the ghost can only exist because the body is there to give it struture. Both are important and one sort of defines the other. The hydrogen ghost is a better modelling approach because it only takes one variable instead of thousands.
When it comes to evolution, things move in the direction of assembly needed to give the ghost a future body. In other words, life is more than the sum of its parts. Look at the brain, it can create new ideas that were not planted via genetics. Or the ghost is more than the body. This sets a potential for the body to grow into the ghost. The evolving body causes the ghost to evolve even further, always a few steps ahead. That is the essense of life, always progressing forward.
This may seem impossible but look at water. If forms a pH affect where water breaks into -OH and +OH3. Think of what happens. Very strong covalent bonds are broken quite easily by the hydrogen bonding in the water, using boning sdynamics ten time weaker. The hydrogen "ghost" in water can create amplified affects that can break strong covalent bonds such as in pH. It will also make eleborate structures in liquid water that are based on hydrogen bonding. Add the correct bio-blocks to the basic ghost of water and the body of life begins to take shape. This progresses into a pre-life ghost, which then advances the body, to make more elaborate bio-materialsm, etc.
The early earth only needed to add so extra potential at the level of the hydrogen proton to boost the process in water. Even simple stuff like the proton potentials created by acids and bases can affect polymerization of animo acids. The water them puts the squeeze on with hydrogen bonding and surface tension to make proteins structures.
The variable nobody looks at is the hydrogen proton. All the DNA, RNA and proteins would not function without them. Even the basic energy of life is connected to reduced carbon (nonpolar hydrgogen protons) that become part of water so they can form hydrogen bonding (C-H + O2--->H2O...) If one looks at the cell, the hydrogen protons have their finger in everywhere. List one place where it is not found! Even dissolved ions and water soluble O2 have hydrations spheres with extended hydrogen bonding as they move about the cell.
The irony is, the hydrogen proton is the most logical choice for life, yet it is avoided for empiricm or mythology. Think of it, if you take the hydrogen bonding away, the DNA won't work. Even if you leave the DNA strands untouched along its length, it is dead without hydrogen bonding. Add the hydrogen bondiing back, life returns. The electron is important for the bio-polymers but without hydrogen bonding one gets plastics, oil, and protein sludge.
Picture this, we take a picture of the DNA and fade out all the C,N,O,P and leave only the hydrogen in the picture. The dynamics of just these hydrogen can be used to define the activity of the DNA. The C,N,O,P are also needed to form a structure to place the hydrogen in the correct spots, but the living dynamics is among the hydrogen protons. Take these away, nothing. Add them back, the DNA can do its dance of life.
If we fade all the atoms of a cell so only the hydrogen are visable, what we have is an image of the cell that looks like a ghost of hydrogen protons. (I use the word ghost only for illustrative purposes not to be taken literallly). All aspects of this hydrogen "ghost" are doing their local things but in a highly integrated way throughout the cell as a whole. Remove this "ghost", we get sludge. Add the "ghost" back the sludge comes back to life.
The hydrogen proton "ghost" is defined by the C,N,O,P etc., molecular structures that comprise it. The former is like the "body" that the "ghost" occupies. If we look at the hydrogen "ghost" associated with DNA we know the DNA body is the basis for this ghost. However, the DNA body is not able to anything connected to life without the ghost. The DNA body is inanimated chemistry without the ghost. But the ghost can only exist because the body is there to give it struture. Both are important and one sort of defines the other. The hydrogen ghost is a better modelling approach because it only takes one variable instead of thousands.
When it comes to evolution, things move in the direction of assembly needed to give the ghost a future body. In other words, life is more than the sum of its parts. Look at the brain, it can create new ideas that were not planted via genetics. Or the ghost is more than the body. This sets a potential for the body to grow into the ghost. The evolving body causes the ghost to evolve even further, always a few steps ahead. That is the essense of life, always progressing forward.
This may seem impossible but look at water. If forms a pH affect where water breaks into -OH and +OH3. Think of what happens. Very strong covalent bonds are broken quite easily by the hydrogen bonding in the water, using boning sdynamics ten time weaker. The hydrogen "ghost" in water can create amplified affects that can break strong covalent bonds such as in pH. It will also make eleborate structures in liquid water that are based on hydrogen bonding. Add the correct bio-blocks to the basic ghost of water and the body of life begins to take shape. This progresses into a pre-life ghost, which then advances the body, to make more elaborate bio-materialsm, etc.
The early earth only needed to add so extra potential at the level of the hydrogen proton to boost the process in water. Even simple stuff like the proton potentials created by acids and bases can affect polymerization of animo acids. The water them puts the squeeze on with hydrogen bonding and surface tension to make proteins structures.
It is easy to say, OK, lets model the cell in terms of the one variable that is everywhere. How do you get started, since there are zillions of these little boogas in the cell and they all seem the same.
Here is the fundamental relationship. If you look at water H2O, it is a polar molecule, where the hydrogen are slightly positive and the oxygen becomes slightly negative. This occurs because oxygen has a higher electronegativity or affinity for electrons compared to hydrogen. Oxygen's greater affinity for electrons allows it to accommodate more electron density because it gains stability due to orbital addition.
One only has to look at oxides of metals, such as in ceramics, to see how tightly oxygen will hold extra electrons, even as oxide (O-2). Very tough to ionize oxide and get the oxygen to let go of extra electrons.
Because the hydrogen is induced slightly positive, in liquid water, the hydrogen will form hydrogen bonds with the unshared electron orbitals on the oxygen of other water molecules. On the surface, it looks like the hydrogen is lowering its positive charge via the hydrogen bond, end of story.
The twist to the plot is that hydrogen bonding is not just an electro-static bond for neutralizing charge, it also shows partial covalent character. In other words, hydrogen bonds not only show charge attraction but the electrons behave a little differently, than normal ionic attraction, because they also delocalize between the hydrogen and oxygen.
Think of what this means, the oxygen is still more electronegative than hydrogen, such that the partial covalent bond gives oxygen a way to take some of the shared electron density back and put the burden back on the hydrogen. The net result is the hydrogen proton retains a slight positive charge potential even in zero potential hydrogen bonds.
The most obvious demonstration of this is how water will catayze corrosion of metals. The negative end of water is stable due to magnetic addition within the oxygen orbitals. But the hydrogen still needs some extra electron density, inspite of hydrogen bonding, and tries to get it from the metal. This makes it easier for molecular oxygen to scope up the metal electrons.
This unique situation in chemistry, which occurs when hydrogen protons are bonded to highly electronegative atoms like O and N, is the spark of life. The hydrogen bonding hydrogen is always trying to get to zero overall proton potential, but being bonded to O and N and trying to lower potential with O or N with hydrogen bonding, it tend to falls short. One can see the frustration of the hydrogen proton. But the little engine keeps on trying, with life one of its results.
This simplifes the modelling. Instead of worrying about hydrogen bonds, we merely define hydrogen protons in the "ghost" in terms of potential. The cell makes it even easier because it sets itself up in hydrogen proton potential gradients, with the primary gradient between the DNA and cell membrane. The stuff in the middle connects the primary gradient.
Are there any research organizations that would like to participate in a cell modelling venture?
Here is the fundamental relationship. If you look at water H2O, it is a polar molecule, where the hydrogen are slightly positive and the oxygen becomes slightly negative. This occurs because oxygen has a higher electronegativity or affinity for electrons compared to hydrogen. Oxygen's greater affinity for electrons allows it to accommodate more electron density because it gains stability due to orbital addition.
One only has to look at oxides of metals, such as in ceramics, to see how tightly oxygen will hold extra electrons, even as oxide (O-2). Very tough to ionize oxide and get the oxygen to let go of extra electrons.
Because the hydrogen is induced slightly positive, in liquid water, the hydrogen will form hydrogen bonds with the unshared electron orbitals on the oxygen of other water molecules. On the surface, it looks like the hydrogen is lowering its positive charge via the hydrogen bond, end of story.
The twist to the plot is that hydrogen bonding is not just an electro-static bond for neutralizing charge, it also shows partial covalent character. In other words, hydrogen bonds not only show charge attraction but the electrons behave a little differently, than normal ionic attraction, because they also delocalize between the hydrogen and oxygen.
Think of what this means, the oxygen is still more electronegative than hydrogen, such that the partial covalent bond gives oxygen a way to take some of the shared electron density back and put the burden back on the hydrogen. The net result is the hydrogen proton retains a slight positive charge potential even in zero potential hydrogen bonds.
The most obvious demonstration of this is how water will catayze corrosion of metals. The negative end of water is stable due to magnetic addition within the oxygen orbitals. But the hydrogen still needs some extra electron density, inspite of hydrogen bonding, and tries to get it from the metal. This makes it easier for molecular oxygen to scope up the metal electrons.
This unique situation in chemistry, which occurs when hydrogen protons are bonded to highly electronegative atoms like O and N, is the spark of life. The hydrogen bonding hydrogen is always trying to get to zero overall proton potential, but being bonded to O and N and trying to lower potential with O or N with hydrogen bonding, it tend to falls short. One can see the frustration of the hydrogen proton. But the little engine keeps on trying, with life one of its results.
This simplifes the modelling. Instead of worrying about hydrogen bonds, we merely define hydrogen protons in the "ghost" in terms of potential. The cell makes it even easier because it sets itself up in hydrogen proton potential gradients, with the primary gradient between the DNA and cell membrane. The stuff in the middle connects the primary gradient.
Are there any research organizations that would like to participate in a cell modelling venture?
QUOTE (PuckSR+Feb 14 2007, 05:36 PM)
Anyone who supports ID is not just wrong....but they are normally dishonest.
If you believe in Creationism...have the balls to say it....dont be a little bitch and throw around pseudo-science
pucksr-It is obvious by your response that you have a much deeper emotional attachment to this issue than I.
I have not lied about anything nor do I try to mislead anyone. I probably should have put quotations around statements like "most biochemists." These were not my words but from those who have credibility in this field. I don't presume anything. That is why I take the time to read both arguments.
A few more things are apparent by your response. The first is that I doubt you have read Behe or any of others that I mentioned. What is apparent is that you have read the critiques of their work which was probably posted on the Internet.
I argue that is not the same thing and is irresponsible to presume that it is. Normally the critic hand picks only one or two points out of the material and goes on to conclude that the entire work is bogus.
You say you dismiss research from any "religious" person. That is assuming motive and passing judgment before you even look at the data. By the same way couldn't a "religious" person dismiss research from "non-religious" person on the same basis. Where would that ultimately take us?
Again this is an irresponsible way to make decisions and "intellectually dishonest." That was the very point that I was making earlier in this post. Why let someone else tell you what to believe. Go find out yourself. That means reading everything with one exception.
That exception is this. Dismiss any research (if you can call it that) that is obviously emotion filled, dehumanizing, degrading, vindictive or displays an obvious bias.
That said I'm not sure how I have offended you by what I have written during this thread. I know that I have not written anything that was attacking you or anyone else here personally. NO ONE on this site deserves to be disrespected in the manner that you have disrespected me.
I'm not sure what your motivation was but the outcome was extremely unproductive. The only thing that it accomplished was invalidating your entire argument. At this point I find it very difficult to trust anything that you post.
I'm truly sorry that it has come to this. My only intention was to question all of the available data, not everyones motives.
I would like to thank everyone else. I have enjoyed reading your arguments and I think that the discussion has been a healthy one.
If you believe in Creationism...have the balls to say it....dont be a little bitch and throw around pseudo-science
pucksr-It is obvious by your response that you have a much deeper emotional attachment to this issue than I.
I have not lied about anything nor do I try to mislead anyone. I probably should have put quotations around statements like "most biochemists." These were not my words but from those who have credibility in this field. I don't presume anything. That is why I take the time to read both arguments.
A few more things are apparent by your response. The first is that I doubt you have read Behe or any of others that I mentioned. What is apparent is that you have read the critiques of their work which was probably posted on the Internet.
I argue that is not the same thing and is irresponsible to presume that it is. Normally the critic hand picks only one or two points out of the material and goes on to conclude that the entire work is bogus.
You say you dismiss research from any "religious" person. That is assuming motive and passing judgment before you even look at the data. By the same way couldn't a "religious" person dismiss research from "non-religious" person on the same basis. Where would that ultimately take us?
Again this is an irresponsible way to make decisions and "intellectually dishonest." That was the very point that I was making earlier in this post. Why let someone else tell you what to believe. Go find out yourself. That means reading everything with one exception.
That exception is this. Dismiss any research (if you can call it that) that is obviously emotion filled, dehumanizing, degrading, vindictive or displays an obvious bias.
That said I'm not sure how I have offended you by what I have written during this thread. I know that I have not written anything that was attacking you or anyone else here personally. NO ONE on this site deserves to be disrespected in the manner that you have disrespected me.
I'm not sure what your motivation was but the outcome was extremely unproductive. The only thing that it accomplished was invalidating your entire argument. At this point I find it very difficult to trust anything that you post.
I'm truly sorry that it has come to this. My only intention was to question all of the available data, not everyones motives.
I would like to thank everyone else. I have enjoyed reading your arguments and I think that the discussion has been a healthy one.
QUOTE
It is obvious by your response that you have a much deeper emotional attachment to this issue than I.
Much deeper emotional AND intellectual.
I am familiar with the common advocates on both sides of the debate
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| It is obvious by your response that you have a much deeper emotional attachment to this issue than I. |
Much deeper emotional AND intellectual.
I am familiar with the common advocates on both sides of the debate
I have not lied about anything nor do I try to mislead anyone. I probably should have put quotations around statements like "most biochemists." These were not my words but from those who have credibility in this field. I don't presume anything. That is why I take the time to read both arguments.
I honestly doubt that....
Which credible person within the field?
QUOTE
A few more things are apparent by your response. The first is that I doubt you have read Behe or any of others that I mentioned.
This is where you would be mistaken.....VERY mistaken
Besides reading much of the literature....I have personally discoursed with scientists who support ID. Albeit...none of the ones that I have talked to personally were experts in the fields of life science. Mathematician and Physicist to be exact.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| A few more things are apparent by your response. The first is that I doubt you have read Behe or any of others that I mentioned. |
This is where you would be mistaken.....VERY mistaken
Besides reading much of the literature....I have personally discoursed with scientists who support ID. Albeit...none of the ones that I have talked to personally were experts in the fields of life science. Mathematician and Physicist to be exact.
I argue that is not the same thing and is irresponsible to presume that it is. Normally the critic hand picks only one or two points out of the material and goes on to conclude that the entire work is bogus.
In the field of science....if you have ONE error in your paper....your paper is flawed.
It may be important as a mental exercise or because of the implications of the error....such as the infamous "fudge factor" of Einstein...
But the paper is still flawed.
QUOTE
You say you dismiss research from any "religious" person. That is assuming motive and passing judgment before you even look at the data.
I did not say that.....
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| You say you dismiss research from any "religious" person. That is assuming motive and passing judgment before you even look at the data. |
I did not say that.....
If I read that someone has 'debunked' evolution...and then in the very next line I read how deeply religious they are....I usually dismiss them.
You know why?
.........
You generally dont accept sensational claims from someone who has a direct, personal motive for wanting that sensational claim to be true.
I dont dismiss the research of "religious" people.
Ken Miller is an incredibly respected, yet deeply religious biologist.
Einstein considered himself religious
Newton was devoutly religious.
I dismiss research from people with obvious emotional predisposition to justify their position. Its the same reason I dismiss conspiracy theories. People want JFK to be a conspiracy....and therefore try to 'prove' it.
QUOTE
Again this is an irresponsible way to make decisions and "intellectually dishonest." That was the very point that I was making earlier in this post. Why let someone else tell you what to believe. Go find out yourself. That means reading everything with one exception.
That exception is this. Dismiss any research (if you can call it that) that is obviously emotion filled, dehumanizing, degrading, vindictive or displays an obvious bias.
That exception is this. Dismiss any research (if you can call it that) that is obviously emotion filled, dehumanizing, degrading, vindictive or displays an obvious bias.
Which is why I dismiss a lot of ID research.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Again this is an irresponsible way to make decisions and "intellectually dishonest." That was the very point that I was making earlier in this post. Why let someone else tell you what to believe. Go find out yourself. That means reading everything with one exception. That exception is this. Dismiss any research (if you can call it that) that is obviously emotion filled, dehumanizing, degrading, vindictive or displays an obvious bias. |
Which is why I dismiss a lot of ID research.
That said I'm not sure how I have offended you by what I have written during this thread. I know that I have not written anything that was attacking you or anyone else here personally. NO ONE on this site deserves to be disrespected in the manner that you have disrespected me.
You deeply offended me with your round-about approach to the topic.
ID is not Science.
They have done NO research....
The term was coined IMMEDIATELY after Creationism was banned in American Schools. The book that coined the term actually just went back and deleted "creator" and replaced it with "intelligent designer".
The ID "idea" is just a modern rewording of the classic teleological argument for God.
Teleology
Its not new, its not science.
Granted....its an interesting(if thoroughly debunked) philosophical argument.
Why my anger?
Because....in all honesty....NO SINGLE PERSON who supports Intelligent Design rejects Creationism.
Im not talking out of my ***....all you have to do is find one person who IS NOT a Creationist...who supports ID.
If you want to talk about Creationist scientists....I say "fine".
If you want to talk about a group of people who cleverly redefined the terms "creationist" and "teleology" into Intelligent Design...
Then please dont pretend that they are any different.
QUOTE
The only thing that it accomplished was invalidating your entire argument. At this point I find it very difficult to trust anything that you post.
Why?
Have I lied?
Have I not strongly supported all of my posts?
bmoose9...Im a jerk. I'm arrogant. I'm confrontational
Unfortunately....Im also accurate, well researched, and very specific with my statements.
I get incredibly upset when someone tries to rectify poor information and bad logic with kindness and formality.
If you got the goods....shove them in my face.
Cause if I can bust you on something....I am going to do it.
Once again...Im an arrogant ***...but I'm generally correct.
Intelligent design?
Yes.
But you have to be INTELLIGENT to see it!
Mitch Raemsch -- Light Fell --
Yes.
But you have to be INTELLIGENT to see it!
Mitch Raemsch -- Light Fell --
QUOTE (Nick+Feb 15 2007, 04:56 PM)
Intelligent design?
Yes.
But you have to be INTELLIGENT to see it!
Mitch Raemsch -- Light Fell --
Dood, learn some new jokes. That one's getting old.
Yes.
But you have to be INTELLIGENT to see it!
Mitch Raemsch -- Light Fell --
Dood, learn some new jokes. That one's getting old.
...and you also have to define 'intelligence'.
Shouldn't it be:
Intelligent design?
Yes.
But you have to be IGNORANT to see it!
Intelligent design?
Yes.
But you have to be IGNORANT to see it!
QUOTE (Nick+Feb 15 2007, 10:56 PM)
Intelligent design?
Yes.
But you have to be INTELLIGENT to see it!
Mitch Raemsch -- Light Fell -- What Me Worry
Great joke, Nick. Got any more?
Yes.
But you have to be INTELLIGENT to see it!
Mitch Raemsch -- Light Fell -- What Me Worry
Great joke, Nick. Got any more?
In the recent Dover School court case in America, Intelligent Design was exposed as literally creationism under another name. Two books were produced. An earlier one on creationism and a later one on ID with the only difference between the two books was that the word "creationism" had been removed and replaced by the words "Intelligent Design". ID was shown to be a con trick to fool gullible people and has now generally been discarded by creationist organisations.
Intelligent design implies something that is well planned out and intended to occur in a logical order. That's an intelligent way to plan ones day. Maybe the mythology of creationism is not scientific, but the underlying approach seems the intelligent way to go.
Evolution theory is not based on intelligent design but on shooting crap with dice. That doesn't require much intelligence. It would be like planning one's day, by taking out the dice, heads we go, tails we stay. Someday,s one will actually be able to plan the perfect day with the dice, i.e., string of good luck. The result is good science with a gambling addiction, which isn't a very intelligent way to plan. Einstein said "I do not believe that God chose to play dice with the universe". He was not condoning creationist mythology but he also wasn't condoning crap shoot science. He essentially visualized an intelligent design, that was subject to the laws of nature, logic, reason and pure mathematics. The rest of nature appears to live up to these expectations.
The debate comes down to two half baked philosophies both of which contain half of the truth. The full truth is intelligent design using logical relationships that are a provable part of science. The roll of the dice fudge factors need to be taken out of the equation for the design to show intelligence that goes beyond the roll of the dice.
The hydrogen model is an intelligent design. It is rationally ordered and only uses the known laws of science. It is hard to break a long standing gambling tradition. I suppose, like other forms of gamblers, there is a parallel fantasy universe going on that is mistaken for reality. If fantasy is acceptable than fundamental creationism is just as valid.
Scientist talk about DNA assembling, etc., during the beginning of life. Where does the DNA do this, in the air or in water? If in water, what we have is DNA surrounded by hydrogen bonded water (hydration sphere) existing in an extended structure. That entire thing is what is assembling. Very early in the crap shoot approach one is out of touch with reality if you don't include the water.
Evolution theory is not based on intelligent design but on shooting crap with dice. That doesn't require much intelligence. It would be like planning one's day, by taking out the dice, heads we go, tails we stay. Someday,s one will actually be able to plan the perfect day with the dice, i.e., string of good luck. The result is good science with a gambling addiction, which isn't a very intelligent way to plan. Einstein said "I do not believe that God chose to play dice with the universe". He was not condoning creationist mythology but he also wasn't condoning crap shoot science. He essentially visualized an intelligent design, that was subject to the laws of nature, logic, reason and pure mathematics. The rest of nature appears to live up to these expectations.
The debate comes down to two half baked philosophies both of which contain half of the truth. The full truth is intelligent design using logical relationships that are a provable part of science. The roll of the dice fudge factors need to be taken out of the equation for the design to show intelligence that goes beyond the roll of the dice.
The hydrogen model is an intelligent design. It is rationally ordered and only uses the known laws of science. It is hard to break a long standing gambling tradition. I suppose, like other forms of gamblers, there is a parallel fantasy universe going on that is mistaken for reality. If fantasy is acceptable than fundamental creationism is just as valid.
Scientist talk about DNA assembling, etc., during the beginning of life. Where does the DNA do this, in the air or in water? If in water, what we have is DNA surrounded by hydrogen bonded water (hydration sphere) existing in an extended structure. That entire thing is what is assembling. Very early in the crap shoot approach one is out of touch with reality if you don't include the water.
QUOTE
Evolution theory is not based on intelligent design but on shooting crap with dice. That doesn't require much intelligence. It would be like planning one's day, by taking out the dice, heads we go, tails we stay. Someday,s one will actually be able to plan the perfect day with the dice, i.e., string of good luck. The result is good science with a gambling addiction, which isn't a very intelligent way to plan. Einstein said "I do not believe that God chose to play dice with the universe". He was not condoning creationist mythology but he also wasn't condoning crap shoot science. He essentially visualized an intelligent design, that was subject to the laws of nature, logic, reason and pure mathematics. The rest of nature appears to live up to these expectations.
Wow....Ive never seen anyone be SOOOOOOOOOOOOO wrong.
Evolutionary theory is not like "shooting dice".
I am going to use your half baked analogy....but at least try to fix it.
Evolution is like pulling activities out of a hat....but being able to discard them if you dont like them.
Evolution is not "random"....it is not throwing dice, flipping a coin, or "chance".
Evolution is very simple....you have a "Random" element, that is then filtered.
So...lets pretend we have 3 possible scenarios to describe life on this planet
1. Totally random
2. Random mutations, that are then filtered out based on practicality
3. Intelligent design
If #1 were true:
We would expect to see organisms that made absolutely no sense. They would not be capable of living, etc. This is obviously not even a practical scenario. Organisms are well suited and adapted to their environments
If #3 were true:
We would expect to see adapted and well-designed organisms. We do see this, so at least it is feasible.
If organisms were designed by an intelligence though, we should expect to not see the following things.
Vestigial features- features or organs that provide no use
Poor adaptation- features that while feasible in an environment are far from being the best solution.
Excessively complex features- features that, once again, while useful...are comprised of far more parts than are necessary for functionality.
If #2 were true:
We would see organisms that are at least "survivably" adapted to an enviroment. They might have residual features or vestigial features. Their adaptation would be sufficient but far from perfect.
If you study biology...you quickly realize that organic life falls heavily into the 2nd scenario.
Organisms cannot exist purely by random chance, but at the same time they lack any features of purposeful design.
PhysOrg scientific forums are totally dedicated to science, physics, and technology. Besides topical forums such as nanotechnology, quantum physics, silicon and III-V technology, applied physics, materials, space and others, you can also join our news and publications discussions. We also provide an off-topic forum category. If you need specific help on a scientific problem or have a question related to physics or technology, visit the PhysOrg Forums. Here you’ll find experts from various fields online every day.
To quit out of "lo-fi" mode and return to the regular forums, please click here.