|
Author
|
Topic: abiogenesis
|
Blue Jay
Member (Idle past 2866 days) Posts: 2843 From: You couldn't pronounce it with your mouthparts Joined: 02-04-2008
|
|
Message 106 of 177 (544543)
01-27-2010 12:15 AM
|
Reply to: Message 102 by marc9000
01-26-2010 10:48 PM
|
|
Re: Explanatory power
Hi, Marc.
marc9000 writes: It will do one thing - challenge the current godless evolution establishment, and they NEED a challenge! I'm a doctoral student in a biology lab. Let me give you a quick synopsis of the people in my lab: 1 is Anglican 2 are Catholics 1 is Mormon 1 is Protestant 1 is agnostic, but believes in an afterlife and I've never talked about it with the last guy. You keep referring to godlessness and atheism as characteristics of the scientific community. At least take into consideration the fact that many, if not most, members of that community are not atheists. I mean it this time: stop doing that!
-Bluejay (a.k.a. Mantis, Thylacosmilus) Darwin loves you.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 102 by marc9000, posted 01-26-2010 10:48 PM | | marc9000 has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 117 by marc9000, posted 02-03-2010 7:51 PM | | Blue Jay has not replied |
|
Iblis
Member (Idle past 4064 days) Posts: 663 Joined: 11-17-2005
(1)
| |
| |
| |
|
|
Message 107 of 177 (544547)
01-27-2010 12:19 AM
|
Reply to: Message 94 by marc9000
01-26-2010 9:51 PM
|
|
Supper's Ready
So to sum up what you've said, we’re there, with naturalistic abiogenesis? The PAH world hypothesis, combined with claims that the early earth atmosphere posed no threats to it becoming a starting point for evolution to begin, is now a solid theory? I haven’t seen it on the news. What am I not being told about that keeps naturalistic abiogenesis in its current position of only a hypothesis? Oh, it's worse than that. The main question has been settled for more than 50 years.
In 1953, Stanley Miller and Harold Urey demonstrated that many simple biomolecules could be formed spontaneously from inorganic precursor compounds under laboratory conditions designed to mimic those found on Earth before the evolution of life. Of particular interest was the substantial yield of amino acids obtained, since amino acids are the building blocks for proteins. In 1957, Sidney Fox demonstrated that dry mixtures of amino acids could be encouraged to polymerize upon exposure to moderate heat. When the resulting polypeptides, or proteinoids, were dissolved in hot water and the solution allowed to cool, they formed small spherical shells about 2 μm in diametermicrospheres. Under appropriate conditions, microspheres will bud new spheres at their surfaces. Although roughly cellular in appearance, microspheres in and of themselves are not alive. Although they do reproduce asexually by budding, they do not pass on any type of genetic material. However they may have been important in the development of life, providing a membrane-enclosed volume which is similar to that of a cell. Microspheres, like cells, can grow and contain a double membrane which undergoes diffusion of materials and osmosis. Sidney Fox postulated that as these microspheres became more complex, they would carry on more lifelike functions. They would become heterotrophs, organisms with the ability to absorb nutrients from the environment for energy and growth. As the amount of nutrients in the environment decreased, competition for those precious resources increased. Heterotrophs with more complex biochemical reactions would have an advantage in this competition. Over time, organisms would evolve that used photosynthesis to produce energy. The Miller-Urey-Fox "soup to nuts" model shows that in virtually any reconstruction of early earth conditions, we are quickly going to arrive at proto-life that is capable of mutating and evolving. The questions that remain open are all about how something like that might have gotten to something more like this, nucleic-acid based life with a cell structure. Before I get to the difficult parts that are still subject to heavy debate, I want to show you how the "sandwich" part works.
The concept of the primordial sandwich was proposed by the chemist Gnter Wchtershuser to describe the possible origins of the first cell membranes, and, therefore, the first cell. According to the two main models of abiogenesis, RNA world and iron-sulfur world, prebiotic[1] processes existed before the development of the cell membrane. The difficulty with this idea, however, is that it is almost impossible to create a complex molecule such as RNA (or even its molecular precursor, pre-RNA) directly from simple organic molecules dissolved in a global ocean (Joyce, 1991), because without some mechanism to concentrate these organic molecules, they would be too dilute to generate the necessary chemical reactions to transform them from simple organic molecules into genuine prebiotic molecules. To address this problem, Wchtershuser proposed that concentration might occur by concentration upon ("adsorption to") the surfaces of minerals. With the accumulation of enough amphipathic molecules (such as phospholipids), a bilayer will self-organize, and any molecules caught inside will become the contents of a liposome, and would be concentrated enough to allow chemical reactions to transform organic molecules into prebiotic molecules. Although developed for his own iron-sulfur world model, the idea of the primordial sandwich has also been adopted by some adherents of the RNA world model. Neither of these are just hypotheses anymore. Their explanatory power has made them theories, and they are used as a background for a great many current hypotheses. I will get to one of these in a moment, but I have some more things I want you to be aware of first. These are things we can already synthesize for ourselves.
Liposomes are used for drug delivery due to their unique properties. A liposome encapsulates a region on aqueous solution inside a hydrophobic membrane; dissolved hydrophilic solutes cannot readily pass through the lipids. Hydrophobic chemicals can be dissolved into the membrane, and in this way liposome can carry both hydrophobic molecules and hydrophilic molecules. To deliver the molecules to sites of action, the lipid bilayer can fuse with other bilayers such as the cell membrane, thus delivering the liposome contents. By making liposomes in a solution of DNA or drugs (which would normally be unable to diffuse through the membrane) they can be (indiscriminately) delivered past the lipid bilayer. There are three types of liposomes - MLV (multilamillar vesicles) SUV (Small Unilamellar Vesicles) and LUV (Large Unilamellar Vesicles). These are used to deliver different types of drugs. Liposomes are used as models for artificial cells. Liposomes can also be designed to deliver drugs in other ways. Liposomes that contain low (or high) pH can be constructed such that dissolved aqueous drugs will be charged in solution (i.e., the pH is outside the drug's pI range). As the pH naturally neutralizes within the liposome (protons can pass through some membranes), the drug will also be neutralized, allowing it to freely pass through a membrane. These liposomes work to deliver drug by diffusion rather than by direct cell fusion. Another strategy for liposome drug delivery is to target endocytosis events. Liposomes can be made in a particular size range that makes them viable targets for natural macrophage phagocytosis. These liposomes may be digested while in the macrophage's phagosome, thus releasing its drug. Liposomes can also be decorated with opsonins and ligands to activate endocytosis in other cell types. These are artificial cell membranes that we construct on a regular basis for our own purposes. That in itself wouldn't mean that they could just occur naturally, but luckily we already know they occur naturally, using mineral bases and "sludge", as detailed above. We also construct our own nucleic-acid chains, from scratch, for similar purposes.
DNA and RNA have a deoxyribose and ribose sugar backbone, respectively, whereas PNA's backbone is composed of repeating N-(2-aminoethyl)-glycine units linked by peptide bonds. The various purine and pyrimidine bases are linked to the backbone by methylene carbonyl bonds. PNAs are depicted like peptides, with the N-terminus at the first (left) position and the C-terminus at the right.[1] Since the backbone of PNA contains no charged phosphate groups, the binding between PNA/DNA strands is stronger than between DNA/DNA strands due to the lack of electrostatic repulsion. Early experiments with homopyrimidine strands (strands consisting of only one repeated pyrimidine base) have shown that the Tm ("melting" temperature) of a 6-base thymine PNA/adenine DNA double helix was 31 C in comparison to an equivalent 6-base DNA/DNA duplex that denatures at a temperature less than 10 C. Mixed base PNA molecules are true mimics of DNA molecules in terms of base-pair recognition. PNA/PNA binding is stronger than PNA/DNA binding. Synthetic peptide nucleic acid oligomers have been used in recent years in molecular biology procedures, diagnostic assays and antisense therapies. Due to their higher binding strength it is not necessary to design long PNA oligomers for use in these roles, which usually require oligonucleotide probes of 20—25 bases. The main concern of the length of the PNA-oligomers is to guarantee the specificity. PNA oligomers also show greater specificity in binding to complementary DNAs, with a PNA/DNA base mismatch being more destabilizing than a similar mismatch in a DNA/DNA duplex. This binding strength and specificity also applies to PNA/RNA duplexes. PNAs are not easily recognized by either nucleases or proteases, making them resistant to enzyme degradation. PNAs are also stable over a wide pH range. Now we are getting to the good part. Peptide nucleic acid has been proposed as a good example of the kind of thing that would have had to have been there prior to an RNA or DNA world such as we see early life consisting of.
Numerous problems exist with the current thinking of RNA as the first genetic material. No plausible prebiotic processes have yet been demonstrated to produce the nucleosides or nucleotides or for efficient two-way nonenzymatic replication. Peptide nucleic acid (PNA) is a promising precursor to RNA, consisting of N-(2-aminoethyl)glycine (AEG) and the adenine, uracil, guanine, and cytosine-N-acetic acids. However, PNA has not yet been demonstrated to be prebiotic. We show here that AEG is produced directly in electric discharge reactions from CH4, N2, NH3, and H2O. Electric discharges also produce ethylenediamine, as do NH4CN polymerizations. AEG is produced from the robust Strecker synthesis with ethylenediamine. The NH4CN polymerization in the presence of glycine leads to the adenine and guanine-N 9-acetic acids, and the cytosine and uracil-N 1-acetic acids are produced in high yield from the reaction of cyanoacetaldehyde with hydantoic acid, rather than urea. Preliminary experiments suggest that AEG may polymerize rapidly at 100C to give the polypeptide backbone of PNA. The ease of synthesis of the components of PNA and possibility of polymerization of AEG reinforce the possibility that PNA may have been the first genetic material.
Just a moment... Note that this covers the components of PNA, not the assembly process itself. Though much easier than something like RNA, synthesis of PNA still takes some work. So there was some confusion as to how such stacking could have occurred in nature. Then, starting in 2003 as new starseed transmissions interpreted from the Red Rectangle nebula led us to a deeper understanding of Polycyclic/Nuclear Aromatics, it became clear how this could occur easily.
It is known that polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons are a likely constituent of the primordial sea. PAH's are not normally very soluble in sea water, but when subject to ionizing radiation such as solar UV light, the outer hydrogen atoms can be stripped off and replaced with a hydroxyl group, rendering the PAH's far more soluble in water. These modified PAHs are amphiphilic, which means that they have parts that are both hydrophilic and hydrophobic. Thus when in solution, like lipids, they tend to self organise themselves in stacks, with the hydrophobic parts protected. In this self ordering stack, the separation between rings is 0.34 nm. This is the same separation found in RNA and DNA. Smaller molecules will naturally attach themselves to the PAH rings. However PAH rings, while forming, tend to swivel around on one another, which will tend to dislodge attached compounds that would collide with those attached to those above and below. Therefore it encourages preferential attachment of flat molecules such as pyrimidine and purine bases. These bases are similarly amphiphilic and so also tend to line up in similar stacks. This ends up making an effective scaffold for a nucleic acid backbone to form along the bases. A small change in acidity would then allow the bases to break off from the original stack of PAHs and so form molecules like RNA. Note that my favorite, PNA, is almost certainly not the earliest occurrence of a natural nucleic acid. That honor goes to GNA.
The 2,3-dihydroxypropylnucleoside analogues were first prepared by Ueda et al. (1971). Soon thereafter it was shown that phosphate-linked oligomers of the analogues did in fact exhibit hypochromicity in the presence of RNA and DNA in solution (Seita et al. 1972). The preparation of the polymers was later described by Cook et al. (1995, 1999) and Acevedo and Andrews (1996). The GNA-GNA self-pairing described by Zhang and Meggers is however novel, and the specificity of interaction well-demonstrated, the molecules themselves. DNA and RNA have a deoxyribose and ribose sugar backbone, respectively, whereas GNA's backbone is composed of repeating glycerol units linked by phosphodiester bonds. The glycerol molecule has just three carbon atoms and still shows Watson-Crick base pairing. Interestingly, the Watson-Crick base pairing is much more stable in GNA than its natural counterparts DNA and RNA as it requires a high temperature to melt a duplex of GNA. It is possibly the simplest of the nucleic acids, so making it a hypothetical precursor to RNA. Also note, and this may have bearing on your main theme, everything in this post since Miller-Urey is engaged in evolution. It reproduces, it changes over time, it undergoes natural selection. The only thing that keeps it from being "life" is a metaphysical objection to calling anything less than a complete cell by that name.
Abiogenesis proponents are to a man atheist. The atheist leanings of the current scientific community are comparable to the religious leanings of the ID community. Nonsense. All the Jesuits and more than half the Charismatics and huge gobs of the Spiritualists of all stripes support abiogenesis or chemical evolution as the means by which their creator accomplished his work. Anyone who studies what I'm giving you and isn't stuck in their box misinterpreting the poetry to limit God's options somehow has no problem with this process. It is, as I have mentioned already, a good solid elucidation of the concept of the development of modern kinds from "red dirt" / pre-organic compost / product of metabolism / shit, on command, of its own accord in its own way, without direct interference required. This is the same process Genesis describes.
I’ve been opposed by several in the past as a group[not here] and been taunted for missing just one or two evenings, as the new posts from different angles continued to pile up. Well, I for one am not going to taunt you for not answering. What I'm going to taunt you for, is for answering without bringing in this "science" that ID is allegedly doing or being or consisting of. What I want are hypotheses, predictions, experiments, and replicable results. In case someone may have confused you about this, Buzsaw for example, I don't care about peer review. Bring me replicable results, and I can then, replicate them. I've been through variations on the soup dozens of times, and the sandwich twice. I'm hoping for a stacking experiment with PAH sometime in the next year or so, but there are difficulties working with the stuff because it's a health hazard. (Don't want your genes restacked, do you? Neither did the 9-11 babies.) There's a huge misrepresentation of how peer review works going on in the non-science community, to reiterate. If you can find replicable results, we can start replicating. Being a humble patent clerk or an anonymous internet rat doesn't prevent that, peer review can begin right here. I've also been involved in Deluge Theory corpse-stacking experiments, with church elders who didn't want to just believe a lie. Any subject, any hypothesis, someone here can walk through it with you. Edited by Iblis, : psychic attack by Jesuits shouting Rectangle RECTANGLE
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 94 by marc9000, posted 01-26-2010 9:51 PM | | marc9000 has not replied |
|
Taq
Member Posts: 10230 Joined: 03-06-2009 Member Rating: 5.5
|
|
|
Message 108 of 177 (544550)
01-27-2010 12:39 AM
|
Reply to: Message 100 by marc9000
01-26-2010 10:37 PM
|
|
Re: Explanatory power (or lack thereof)
Why can’t intelligent design be an interdisciplinary science for both evolution and abiogenesis, that adds to exploration and searches for function and complexity that are currently only searched for by naturalistic forces that consist of only randomness/clumsiness/incompetence? Indeed. Why can't it? We are told that all of these great scientists are leaving evolution by the thousands and flocking to ID (at least, that's what we are told). So where is this work? Where is the ID research? Lacking such examples, perhaps you could tell us what type of experiments we could do based on ID that would allow us to discover new things in science. As to the topic, how would ID help us research PAH or the chemistry of the early Earth? What ID experiments could we do?
It’s about scientific education being bent in such a way as to not inspire questions, or open inquiry. In 2007, Michael Behe stated that On the origin of the cilium/IFT by random mutation, Darwinian theory has little that is serious to say." So what does ID have to say about it? All Behe can manage is "it was done on purpose". That doesn't help. So what were the steps involved in making the flagellum? Does ID help us understand that? Does ID help us understand WHEN it happened? Where it happened? To which species it happened to? Anything at all? Does ID help us understand what the first life looked like? Does it help us understand the relationship between ribozymes and proteins? How is ID actually applied in the field of abiogenesis? Can you tell us?
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 100 by marc9000, posted 01-26-2010 10:37 PM | | marc9000 has not replied |
|
greyseal
Member (Idle past 4030 days) Posts: 464 Joined: 08-11-2009
|
|
|
Message 109 of 177 (544553)
01-27-2010 1:06 AM
|
Reply to: Message 100 by marc9000
01-26-2010 10:37 PM
|
|
Re: Explanatory power (or lack thereof)
What does the "Christian Faith" have to do with biology, and why do they feel the need to "defend" that faith from objective scientific research? I'll answer that for you: because their faith is contradicted by the evidence of objective scientific research. A better answer would be, because their faith is under political attack, and scientific research is the weapon being used. If they feel they are under attack, that is their opinion. Stifling investigation so they can sleep easier at night is hardly the right thing to do!
I expanded on the PAH World Hypothesis to give you an example of the explanatory power of a real hypothesis. My brief (1 paragraph) paraphrasing of source material provided (hopefully) most of the main points. I then asked you if you could expand on ID to give us an example of its explanatory power in helping to understand the world around us, to which you replied: quote:
marc9000 writes: I'll need time - I do have a busy life.
As do the rest of us marc. But if you can find the time to say things like this (from your original post) ... quote:
marc9000 writes: It seems to me that in the scientific community’s haste to set criteria just higher than the concept of intelligent design can attain, they have also made it impossible for abiogenesis to be considered science.
... then you should be prepared to support those comments with some form of evidence. We are all also busy people. - and you (marc) then proceeded to waffle on again - look, I'm not being rude, it's just you've still not shown evidence whereas Briterican did. Not even one paragraph.
Would you consider the hypothesis that extraterrestrial intelligence exists to be of value in explaining/understanding anything? good question, and YES, I would consider it. It tells us we may be the result of "directed panspermia", it tells us that evolution can happen elsewhere. It tells us that our planet isn't so special, that we're not stuck here without a "place to go" - it tells us LOADS of things. And, most important perhaps, whilst many think it's a waste of time, it is being done in a rigourous manner such that results (if any) cannot be cast aside.
I’m saying that if water on the moon is surprising to the scientific community, I don’t automatically accept as fact their proclamations about what’s going on in deep space, at unimaginable distances. It seems that a lot of what the scientific community proclaims is not falsifiable, something that is often required of subjects the scientific community doesn’t like. Science is a changing field. Constantly. All scientists can tell you is that the facts they are presenting are well researched and HERE it is (great big fat lump of paper that anyone can sift through and pick apart). Take the moon - demonstrably it had no atmosphere. Demonstrably it has no seas. Demonstrably it is the wrong temperature for liquid water. Demonstrably there are no plants. With the information we HAD, it was an airless ball of dry rock, so that's what got taught. Now, it's STILL an airless ball of dry rock, but there had been theories about ice in lunar craters for a looonng time - and so new experiments proved there was. Now the moon's an airless, dry ball of rock with ice trapped in certain parts. What's really changed? Certain ideas ARE conjecture - but it is conjecture based on the best information had at that time. Take exoplanets - logic told us that other suns SHOULD have planets around them, but for centuries we saw none. Then about twenty odd years ago there were signs - wobbles of orbits, periodic dimmings of the light, that sort of thing. Then, finally, pictures. Do you still not believe there are other planets because you've not been standing on one?
I shouldn’t have brought it up, but now that I have, I’ll clarify it as briefly as possible, then be done with it. I’m saying they might be seeing a galaxy hundreds of billions of light years away, or they may be seeing a star similar to our sun one or two light years away, with dust around it. If all these foreheads are being smacked about water on the moon, I tend to not readily accept what they tell me about billions of light years. They have a mountain of work to show for their opinion. Please, by all means become a scientist and investigate it! However, dismissing their work without understanding any of it is hardly fair. If you don't think it's fair that I can look at the words of ID proponents themselves and see their "adherence to scripture" and wedge documents, the legal cases against them won and the lack of papers and infer that they're full of it, well... And if you want to be a moon landing denialist, then you're either wearing a tinfoil hat or haven't bothered checking up on the many, many sites disproving every single one of the conspiracy theorists' complaints. Want some links? Edited by greyseal, : No reason given.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 100 by marc9000, posted 01-26-2010 10:37 PM | | marc9000 has not replied |
|
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1573 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: 03-14-2004
|
|
|
Message 110 of 177 (544670)
01-27-2010 8:20 PM
|
Reply to: Message 93 by marc9000
01-26-2010 9:45 PM
|
|
Re: Explanatory power
Hi marc9000, glad to see you back making some responses.
IMO what you’ve done is taken statements that were made to appeal to laypersons in an abbreviated way, and applied more detailed scientific jargon that actually largely parallels them, and tried to discredit an entire webpage because of it. That webpage’s opening summary used far fewer words than you did, to explain a general, layman’s understanding of how the word evolution is thought of, and used in society. Sorry, but it is not that simple. The definition given by the website is not just a rewording to make it easy to understand, it is wrong. To repeat:
Message 84: No I don't consider it a credible link, because it portrays a false impression of evolution at the very start:
quote:
your creationist website:
Evolution, as it is strictly intepreted in technical terms, deals with the suggested mechanisms for the progressive development of more complex lifeforms from simpler ones.
Evolution, as it is "strictly interpreted in technical terms" within science is the change in frequency of hereditary traits in breeding population from generation to generation. It looks to me like my version is maybe a couple of letters shorter than your website version, so no it has not "abbreviated" a valid explanation. Nor is my version difficult to understand, so it does not need to be interpreted, especially by someone not part of the scientific community studying evolution. We don't ask mechanics to define law or banking or physics or science to make it "appeal to laypersons in an abbreviated way" ... we ask the people involved to explain it. The problem is not only is this "explanation" not a shorter easier to understand version, it is false, and it gives an entirely false impression of what evolution is about.
For you to go into technical terms to claim that evolution does not require progression from simple to complex, well, isn’t that what it is supposed to have done? See? You fell for it.
IMO what you’ve done is taken statements that were made to appeal to laypersons in an abbreviated way, and applied more detailed scientific jargon that actually largely parallels them ... I gave you a brief synopsis of why your website version was wrong, but apparently you fail to see the error involved. Let's call your website definition by a more appropriate name: "creolution" (the creationist misinterpretation of evolution)
Creolution: - is the progressive development of more complex lifeforms from simpler ones by various suggested mechanisms. Evolution: - is the change in frequency of hereditary traits in breeding population from generation to generation. ... and see how "creolution" compares with evolution in their ability to explain the diversity of life around us and what biologists study: | Comparison by ability to explain: | Creolution | Evolution |
|---|
| Peppered moths | no | yes | | Galapagos finch beaks | no | yes | | Wing/wingless/wing/wingless walkingsticks | noyes | Pelycodus speciation | noyes | | Asian greenish warbler ring species | noyes | | Therapsids with two jaw joints | noyes | | Whales | noyes | | Parasites | noyes | | Why apes are still living | noyes | | Why cyanobacteria are still living | noyes | | Human eye versus octopus versus combination | noyes | The human appendix & vestigial organs | noyes | Convergent evolution | noyes | | Hominid bipedality before brain | noyes | Chronological stratigraphic layers of foraminifera | noyes | Common descent | noyes | | Nested hierarchies of descent | noyes | | Neutral drift | noyes | | Coelacanths | noyes | | ... | ...... | | Direction to evolution | yesno | | Purpose for life | yesno | Abiogenesis | yesno |
I could go on, and I expect many people here can provide many additional examples where creolution fails to explain what evolution explains, but I think that should be sufficient to demonstrate the absolute failure of creolution as a viable alternate formulation of evolution. Now if you think creolution can explain any one of those items where a "no" is in the creo column, then proceed to do so ... without using the change in hereditary traits in breeding populations from generation to generation. If you have any doubts about evolutions ability to explain any of the items where there is a "yes" in the evo column, then ask. If you think that evolution should explain items where there is a "no" in the evo column, then ask. Note that the actual lack of direction and purpose in biological systems shows that, not only is a system that explain direction and purpose unnecessary, it gives the wrong impression. Any explanation of the diversity of life as we know it, from the life around us, to history, prehistory, the fossil record and the genetic record that fails these simple tests to the extent that your website definition does, does not qualify as "statements that were made to appeal to laypersons in an abbreviated way," but either evidence of a poor grasp of reality, intentional falsehoods, delusional distortions of reality, or profound ignorance. Your choice. Please note the irony involved with the inclusion of abiogenesis in the list. Not only is this telling on why creos keep insisting that abiogenesis is necessary for evolution, it also keeps us on topic. When you get around to posting information on why you think ID is as scientific as abiogenesis, we can do a similar comparison between them. In other news:
Message 96: Yes, I agree, but as we can easily see, those who take an interest in evolution have an equal enthusiasm for naturalistic abiogenesis. And abiogenesis may fall under a more 'loose', or more "exploratory" definition of what is science. One that I believe I can fit ID into. People who have an enthusiasm for science and expanding their horizons of knowledge, have an enthusiasm for science and expanding their horizons of knowledge. When you ever get to providing the evidence for ID we can then discuss whether it fits or not, and then we can raise the bar until one or the other fails.
Bluejay Message 104: To fit the definition of "science," an idea must contain (1) valid logical reasoning, (2) evidence that supports the possibility that it is accurate, and (3) a lack of evidence contradicting the possibility that it is accurate. This is a good relatively low bar level to start with, would you not agree?
Message 97: The subject of ID is not religious. If it’s used as a weapon against atheism, it’s no different than science used as a weapon against religion. Abiogenesis proponents are to a man atheist. The atheist leanings of the current scientific community are comparable to the religious leanings of the ID community. An uninvolved God is right next to a non-existent God. We'll get into the theistic evolutionist thing later - either in this thread or another. Correction: science proponents in general, and both evolution and abiogenesis proponents in specific, come from a mixture of backgrounds, from atheist to deist, to theist. ID is a religion to the same extent that deism is a religion. Personally, I am a deist, and I find absolutely no problem with abiogenesis occurring according to the laws of the designed universe and with the materials so plentifully provided. One can be religious and do science, what we cannot do is make science do religion.
Message 100: This obviously isn’t first level, primary science, but in the ‘frequently asked questions’ section, we find the following;
quote:
What is the connection between astrobiology and evolution?
Astrobiology is an interdisciplinary science investigating life in the universe. Where did life come from? What is its future? Are we alone in the universe? These are the major questions driving astrobiology research. The origin and evolution of life on a planet follows stellar and planetary evolution. Scientists study cosmic evolution, planetary evolution, the origin of life and evolution of life on Earth, in order to understand life here and to consider how to find life beyond Earth. The basic scientific premise is that life evolved on Earth, and may have evolved on other planets in a similar way.
Why can’t intelligent design be an interdisciplinary science for both evolution and abiogenesis, that adds to exploration and searches for function and complexity that are currently only searched for by naturalistic forces that consist of only randomness/clumsiness/incompetence? Curiously, all I see in your quote is that scientists (generally) study .... various branches of science. Some scientists combine their study into combinations of several disciplines to explore the interdisciplinary synergy that can develop. Astrobiology is one such study. For intelligent design to be interdisciplinary, it first needs to show what the science of ID is -- and we are still waiting for your input on that question. Personally, as a deist, I find that ID is more of a philosophical approach than a scientific one, where all the tools of science are used to investigate the philosophical question/s. Enjoy. Edited by RAZD, : more
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 93 by marc9000, posted 01-26-2010 9:45 PM | | marc9000 has replied |
|
marc9000
Member Posts: 1522 From: Ky U.S. Joined: 12-25-2009
|
|
|
Message 111 of 177 (545451)
02-03-2010 7:20 PM
|
Reply to: Message 110 by RAZD
01-27-2010 8:20 PM
|
|
Re: Explanatory power
RAZD writes: Bluejay writes: Message 104: To fit the definition of "science," an idea must contain (1) valid logical reasoning, (2) evidence that supports the possibility that it is accurate, and (3) a lack of evidence contradicting the possibility that it is accurate. This is a good relatively low bar level to start with, would you not agree? I don’t know, there have been so many in this thread so far, yet none of them have clearly specified what I’ve seen required of ID more than any other before I came here, the testable, repeatable, observable, falsifiable, useful requirements. Let’s review all of the variety that this thread has had so far; From your message 11;
quote:
Science (from the Latin scientia, meaning "knowledge") is, in its broadest sense, any systematic knowledge-base or prescriptive practice that is capable of resulting in a prediction or predictable type of outcome. In this sense, science may refer to a highly skilled technique or practice.[1]
In its more restricted contemporary sense, science refers to a system of acquiring knowledge based on the scientific method, and to the organized body of knowledge gained through such research.[2][3] This article focuses on the more restricted use of the word. Science as discussed in this article is sometimes called experimental science to differentiate it from applied science, which is the application of scientific research to specific human needsalthough the two are commonly interconnected.
Science is a continuing effort to discover and increase human knowledge and understanding through disciplined research. Using controlled methods, scientists collect observable evidence of natural or social phenomena, record measurable data relating to the observations, and analyze this information to construct theoretical explanations of how things work. The methods of scientific research include the generation of hypotheses about how phenomena work, and experimentation that tests these hypotheses under controlled conditions. Scientists are also expected to publish their information so other scientists can do similar experiments to double-check their conclusions. The results of this process enable better understanding of past events, and better ability to predict future events of the same kind as those that have been tested.
You added to that in your message 59;
quote:
Scientific method refers to a body of techniques for investigating phenomena, acquiring new knowledge, or correcting and integrating previous knowledge. To be termed scientific, a method of inquiry must be based on gathering observable, empirical and measurable evidence subject to specific principles of reasoning.[1] A scientific method consists of the collection of data through observation and experimentation, and the formulation and testing of hypotheses.[2]
Although procedures vary from one field of inquiry to another, identifiable features distinguish scientific inquiry from other methodologies of knowledge. Scientific researchers propose hypotheses as explanations of phenomena, and design experimental studies to test these hypotheses. These steps must be repeatable in order to dependably predict any future results. Theories that encompass wider domains of inquiry may bind many independently-derived hypotheses together in a coherent, supportive structure. This in turn may help form new hypotheses or place groups of hypotheses into context.
Among other facets shared by the various fields of inquiry is the conviction that the process be objective to reduce biased interpretations of the results. Another basic expectation is to document, archive and share all data and methodology so they are available for careful scrutiny by other scientists, thereby allowing other researchers the opportunity to verify results by attempting to reproduce them. This practice, called full disclosure, also allows statistical measures of the reliability of these data to be established.
And then from Coyote, message 61;
quote:
If something does not follow the scientific method, it can't claim to be science. It's that simple.
From Iblis, message 67;
quote:
You will need falsifiable hypotheses, predictions, experiments, and replicable results.
c/p’d in message 67, from John E Jones;
quote:
as it has failed to publish in peer-reviewed journals, engage in research and testing, and gain acceptance in the scientific community.
From the SETI website;
quote:
Curiosity motivates both exploration and learning in schools, science centers, colleges and universities.
And finally, the word rigourous was introduced in post #109;
quote:
And, most important perhaps, whilst many think it's a waste of time, it is being done in a rigourous manner such that results (if any) cannot be cast aside.
Can’t all of this be condensed into something concise, something brief and easily referable as we apply them to abiogenesis and ID? Could you do that for me, to the satisfaction of everyone posting in this thread? Do you agree that the words falsifiable, and useful are important words? How falsifiable was all that detail in message 107?
RAZD writes: For intelligent design to be interdisciplinary, it first needs to show what the science of ID is -- and we are still waiting for your input on that question. I touched on it briefly in my post #100 — it was ignored.To repeat;
marc9000 writes: There’s more to ID than goddidit — in Dembski’s words; ID supplements material mechanisms with intelligent agency — intelligent design can subsume present biological research. Even efforts to overturn the various criteria for detecting design are welcome within the intelligent design research program. (That’s part of keeping the program honest.) Intelligent design can also look for function as a heuristic for guiding research, inspiring biologists to look for engineering solutions to biological problems that might otherwise escape them. Also, Design is always a matter of tradeoffs. ID can help us understand these tradeoffs and clarify the design problems that organisms actually face. This in turn keeps us from sweeping problems under the rug simply because evolution is purported to be a blind and wasteful process. A non teleological approach to evolution has consistently led biologists to underestimate organisms. Is, for instance, junk DNA really junk? Work by John Bodnar and his associates suggests that some of it is not. To go further with the junk DNA thing, we find this link, including this paragraph;
quote:
Even if some rogue biologists suspected function for "junk" DNA, this does nothing to change the fact that the false "junk"-DNA paradigm was born, bred, and sustained far beyond its reasonable lifetime under the Neo-Darwinian mindset. Some Darwinists do not want to admit this fact of history. Given the behavior of Darwinists regarding the film Flock of Dodos, where they have denied that Haeckel's faked embryo drawings have been misused in modern textbooks, it is not surprising that some Darwinists are now trying to rewrite history to claim their paradigm never called non-coding DNA "junk." It appears that junk-DNA is truly going the way of the dodo, in more way than one.
Intelligent design really can sometimes correct mistakes of the Neo-Darwinian mindset. To continue to answer your question of what the science of ID is, here is a list of criteria that Dembski puts forward. As he admits, the nuts and bolts science of Intelligent Design is not as advanced as its cultural and political activity. His ideas to correct that; 1)To catalog fundamental facts 2)To catalog correcting misinformation 3)To network researchers and resources 4) To build a design curriculum 5)To objectively measure progress I'll admit this is mainly a promissory note. It’s not easy to attract talent to the movement if it's blocked from the public realm by the courts, and when the political evolution steamroller seeks to destroy it at every step. I suspect that progress is being made, except that it’s not carelessly being released until a proper, political time. Again, I hope you'll now average all of the above requirements of something to be "scientific" into something concise, and I'll then move forward in applying ID and abiogenesis to it. If I don't agree with what you come up with, I'll make a reasonable argument against it, based on the content of all of the above.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 110 by RAZD, posted 01-27-2010 8:20 PM | | RAZD has replied |
|
marc9000
Member Posts: 1522 From: Ky U.S. Joined: 12-25-2009
|
|
|
Message 112 of 177 (545455)
02-03-2010 7:31 PM
|
Reply to: Message 99 by Coyote
01-26-2010 10:16 PM
|
|
Re: Explanatory power
Coyote writes: You are thinking of dogma. That is the antithesis of science. It is the antithesis of science, but not to imperfect humans who study science. Those humans have loaded evolution up with dogma.
I think what you are reacting to is the body of established science, hundreds of years of trial and error, experiment, theory, data, and all the rest. Some of that doesn't need to be questioned at every step. Some of that is now well-established. Some of it, but how much of it? Here’s a list (only partial) of books written only in the last few years, several of them best sellers;
quote:
Darwin’s Dangerous Idea / Daniel Dennett - 1995
The End of Faith/ Sam Harris - 2004
The God Delusion/ Richard Dawkins - 2006
Letter to a Christian Nation/ Sam Harris - 2006
The Atheist Universe / David Mills - 2006
Breaking the Spell/ Daniel Dennett - 2006
Everything you know about God is wrong/ Russ Kick - 2007
The Quotable Atheist / Jack Huberman - 2007
The Atheist Bible / Joan Konner - 2007
Nothing - Something to Believe / Lalli Nica - 2007
The Portable Atheist / Christopher Hitchens - 2007
God is Not Great / Christopher Hitchens - 2007
God - the failed hypothesis - How Science Shows That God Does Not Exist / Victor Stenger - 2007
50 Reasons People Give For Believing in God/ Guy Harrison — 2008
Godless: How an Evangelical Preacher Became One of America’s Leading Atheists / Barker/Dawkins — 2008
In reading the reviews, it’s easy to see that ‘science’ is the most common basis and foundation for the claims. I’ m always told that that means nothing, that those people are allowed to have their personal opinions. So are the people who wrote the wedge document! It’s obvious that the people who read those books accept the science that they’re told about without question, to a comparable way that religious people accept their beliefs without question.
Scientists except that body of established science because it has been established and because no evidence has been produced to contradict it. Produce evidence and things can change, although not always turn on a dime. Two examples: continental drift and the channeled scablands of Washington. Both theories were resisted until the evidence was conclusive, then they were accepted. That is the problem with religious dogma when it tries to masquerade as science: it has not, so far, brought the body of scientific evidence that would cause it to be accepted. Religious believers accept it without question but scientists want evidence. So what we have, largely politically unopposed, is some scientific fact, and some atheist dogma masquerading as science. How are we supposed to tell them apart?
Perhaps it is because there is evidence there (once you can ignore the politics). And unfortunately, politics can overwhelm science in the short term, but in the long term the facts will win out. But I would guess that you are not concerned so much about global warming or many of the other things science is working on as about your religious beliefs not being either accepted or confirmed--or, horrors, being contradicted--by science. Would that be correct? My concern is about an un-level playing field concerning worldview opposition. The naturalist/Darwinist worldview is that evolution indicates a practically unlimited vision of improvement in humans/human nature, while the Judeo Christian worldview recognizes humans as sinners, not able to achieve perfection - having limits on what they can achieve. It’s largely what causes the political divide in the U.S. There are exceptions to every rule of course, but most Darwinists are liberal, and most traditional Christians are conservative.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 99 by Coyote, posted 01-26-2010 10:16 PM | | Coyote has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 115 by Coyote, posted 02-03-2010 7:44 PM | | marc9000 has replied |
|
marc9000
Member Posts: 1522 From: Ky U.S. Joined: 12-25-2009
|
|
|
Message 113 of 177 (545460)
02-03-2010 7:39 PM
|
Reply to: Message 101 by Coyote
01-26-2010 10:40 PM
|
|
Re: ID is not religious
Coyote writes: From the Wedge document, the famous internal memo of the Discovery Institute. They are, if you recall, the leading proponent of ID. A few passages: quote:Bringing together leading scholars from the natural sciences and those from the humanities and social sciences, the Center explores how new developments in biology, physics and cognitive science raise serious doubts about scientific materialism and have re-opened the case for a broadly theistic understanding of nature. ... We are building on this momentum, broadening the wedge with a positive scientific alternative to materialistic scientific theories, which has come to be called the theory of intelligent design (ID). Design theory promises to reverse the stifling dominance of the materialist worldview, and to replace it with a science consonant with Christian and theistic convictions. ... Governing Goals --To defeat scientific materialism and its destructive moral, cultural and political legacies. --To replace materialistic explanations with the theistic understanding that nature and human beings are created by God. This document was produced by the Discovery Institute's Center for the Renewal of Science and Culture. It apparently was an internal fundraising memo that was somehow leaked to the internet. All one would have to do is change a few words around, to show how a wedge is currently being driven, by evolutionists, between different denominations of religious people.
From Wiki: quote:In 2003, a review of tax documents on GuideStar showed grants and gifts totalling $1.4 million in 1997. Included in the supporters were 22 foundations. At least two-thirds of these foundations stated explicitly religious missions.[92] In 2001, the Baptist Press reported, "Discovery Institute ... with its $4 million annual budget ($1.2 million of which is for the Center for the Renewal of Science and Culture) is heavily funded by evangelical Christians. Maclellan Foundation of Chattanooga, Tenn., for example, awarded $350,000 to the institute with the hope researchers would be able to prove evolution to be a false theory. Fieldstead & Co., owned by Howard and Robert Ahmanson of Irvine, Calif., pledged $2.8 million through 2003 to support the Center for the Renewal of Science and Culture."[93] ... In 2005, the Washington Post reported, 'Meyer said the institute accepts money from such wealthy conservatives as Howard Ahmanson Jr., who once said his goal is "the total integration of biblical law into our lives," and the Maclellan Foundation, which commits itself to "the infallibility of the Scripture." '[94] Given all of this by the leading proponents of ID, I would doubt that you could make a legitimate case that ID is not religious. The religious nature of ID, incidentally, was also confirmed by a federal district court in the Dover decision. ID seems to be explicitly religious, and explicitly anti-science and anti-materialistic in nature. It certainly is not science! Where else could they get their funding? Evolutionary study gets its funding from the public realm, as well as from atheistic sources.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 101 by Coyote, posted 01-26-2010 10:40 PM | | Coyote has not replied |
|
marc9000
Member Posts: 1522 From: Ky U.S. Joined: 12-25-2009
|
|
|
Message 114 of 177 (545463)
02-03-2010 7:43 PM
|
Reply to: Message 104 by Blue Jay
01-26-2010 11:16 PM
|
|
Re: Explanatory power
I know a fair number of theistic evolutionists who would strongly disagree with you on this. Perhaps you've heard of this thing called "the Catholic Church"? I’ve seen the Catholic church brought up quite often concerning the creation/evolution debates — its position seems to be shapeable on demand. That, and details about the equally flexible positions of all theistic evolutionists should probably be kept brief in this thread, to keep it from straying off topic too much.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 104 by Blue Jay, posted 01-26-2010 11:16 PM | | Blue Jay has not replied |
|
Coyote
Member (Idle past 2274 days) Posts: 6117 Joined: 01-12-2008
|
|
|
Message 115 of 177 (545465)
02-03-2010 7:44 PM
|
Reply to: Message 112 by marc9000
02-03-2010 7:31 PM
|
|
worldviews
It is probably off topic, but...
The naturalist/Darwinist worldview is that evolution indicates a practically unlimited vision of improvement in humans/human nature, while the Judeo Christian worldview recognizes humans as sinners, not able to achieve perfection - having limits on what they can achieve.
I regard the concept of original sin as about the most evil thing every dreamed up by humankind. If you want to debate this, start another thread and let me know.
Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 112 by marc9000, posted 02-03-2010 7:31 PM | | marc9000 has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 118 by marc9000, posted 02-03-2010 7:57 PM | | Coyote has not replied |
|
marc9000
Member Posts: 1522 From: Ky U.S. Joined: 12-25-2009
|
|
|
Message 116 of 177 (545468)
02-03-2010 7:45 PM
|
Reply to: Message 105 by greyseal
01-27-2010 12:14 AM
|
|
Re: Explanatory power
If ID were done AS SCIENCE IS, then I would have no problems with it. When it threatens REAL work, it's a problem. What current work does ID threaten? What is the basis for your fears?
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 105 by greyseal, posted 01-27-2010 12:14 AM | | greyseal has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 122 by greyseal, posted 02-05-2010 5:04 PM | | marc9000 has not replied |
|
marc9000
Member Posts: 1522 From: Ky U.S. Joined: 12-25-2009
|
|
|
Message 117 of 177 (545470)
02-03-2010 7:51 PM
|
Reply to: Message 106 by Blue Jay
01-27-2010 12:15 AM
|
|
Re: Explanatory power
I'm a doctoral student in a biology lab. Let me give you a quick synopsis of the people in my lab: 1 is Anglican 2 are Catholics 1 is Mormon 1 is Protestant 1 is agnostic, but believes in an afterlife and I've never talked about it with the last guy. You keep referring to godlessness and atheism as characteristics of the scientific community. At least take into consideration the fact that many, if not most, members of that community are not atheists. I mean it this time: stop doing that! Militant atheists in the scientific community need theistic evolutionists. Much of evolutionary study concerns ancient history, and it can’t be studied in a way that brings a direct profitable product, so it can’t support itself in free markets. The 90+ percent of atheists in evolution must get support/funding from a general population that has far less than 50% of its population with the atheist worldview. It has to convince them that evolution is compatable with religion. Atheists in evolutionary academia need any and all religions they can find to be compatable with evolution, so they can shout from the rooftops that evolution isn’t just about atheism, hoping that mainstream Christians will be fooled enough to help provide them with funding. Amazingly enough, it works for them somewhat - it is not politically correct to speculate on the atheistic aspect of evolution too much. Since atheists need theistic evolutionists, it only makes sense that some theistic evolutionists, however few, are not sincere in the personal beliefs they put forward. Anyone can claim to be a Christian, but when his actions show him to be an atheist in every way, it does raise suspicions. There is really no question that some non-sincere ones exist. It seems to me that the sincere ones would make an effort to separate themselves from the phony ones, and they don’t seem worried about it. Kenneth Miller doesn’t seem worried about it — I read his book Finding Darwin’s God a couple of years ago — he showed absolutely no basic knowledge of Christianity in the entire book. Of course he’s adamant about his opposition to ID — seems strange that someone can claim to be Christian and not believe God is intelligent, or that indicators of God’s intelligence should not be publicly noticed, to protect the sacred separation of church and state. He’s sure not worried about the combination of atheism and state. I borrowed a public school biology textbook from my friend’s 15 year old son last weekend. Kenneth Miller was one of the two authors. I saw dogma there. 
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 106 by Blue Jay, posted 01-27-2010 12:15 AM | | Blue Jay has not replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 120 by RAZD, posted 02-03-2010 8:09 PM | | marc9000 has not replied |
|
marc9000
Member Posts: 1522 From: Ky U.S. Joined: 12-25-2009
|
|
|
Message 118 of 177 (545475)
02-03-2010 7:57 PM
|
Reply to: Message 115 by Coyote
02-03-2010 7:44 PM
|
|
Re: worldviews
It is probably off topic, but... I regard the concept of original sin as about the most evil thing every dreamed up by humankind. If you want to debate this, start another thread and let me know. It hasn't been debated here before yet? If not, we may do that sometime. But any detail about it is off topic for this thread, except to say that it's a fact that Christians believe that. And it's also indirectly part of the foundations of the U.S. - James Madison doesn't have good things to say about human nature in Federalist paper #10, and there's little question he was educated about original sin in his Presbyterian upbringing.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 115 by Coyote, posted 02-03-2010 7:44 PM | | Coyote has not replied |
|
Admin
Director Posts: 13092 From: EvC Forum Joined: 06-14-2002
|
|
|
Message 119 of 177 (545477)
02-03-2010 8:04 PM
|
|
|
Moderator Request
I know that there are instances of what some see as very erroneous assertions, but please, as someone already said, no matter how much you think a claim demands a response, if it's not on-topic then don't respond in this thread. Find an appropriate thread, or propose a new one over at Proposed New Topics, post a response there, then post a short note here providing a link to your response. Thanks.
|
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1573 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: 03-14-2004
|
|
|
Message 120 of 177 (545479)
02-03-2010 8:09 PM
|
Reply to: Message 117 by marc9000
02-03-2010 7:51 PM
|
|
Re: Explanatory power
Hi marc9000,
( Blue Jay) You keep referring to godlessness and atheism as characteristics of the scientific community. At least take into consideration the fact that many, if not most, members of that community are not atheists. I mean it this time: stop doing that! I borrowed a public school biology textbook from my friend’s 15 year old son last weekend. Kenneth Miller was one of the two authors. I saw dogma there. Kenneth Miller is a Christian, so you are proving Bluejay's point. Enjoy. hidden per moderator request to stay on topic. marc9000, this is your topic, and it behooves you to remain focused on the specific topic and start other threads to talk about your side issues. Enjoy Edited by RAZD, : topic
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 117 by marc9000, posted 02-03-2010 7:51 PM | | marc9000 has not replied |
|
™ Version 4.2