Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 60 (9094 total)
6 online now:
Newest Member: d3r31nz1g3
Post Volume: Total: 901,611 Year: 12,723/6,534 Month: 6/2,210 Week: 337/460 Day: 6/22 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Could RNA start life?
Ed67
Member (Idle past 2756 days)
Posts: 159
Joined: 04-14-2014


Message 50 of 105 (724307)
04-15-2014 9:14 PM
Reply to: Message 48 by PaulK
12-15-2013 2:57 AM


Re: Good Question
"There has been an interesting new development."
Yes, there always is.
And a few years later they all end up on the garbage heap.
But they fulfill their PR purpose in the meantime...

This message is a reply to:
 Message 48 by PaulK, posted 12-15-2013 2:57 AM PaulK has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 51 by Pressie, posted 04-16-2014 8:41 AM Ed67 has not replied
 Message 52 by ringo, posted 04-16-2014 12:51 PM Ed67 has replied
 Message 60 by RAZD, posted 04-18-2014 9:01 AM Ed67 has replied

  
Ed67
Member (Idle past 2756 days)
Posts: 159
Joined: 04-14-2014


Message 53 of 105 (724401)
04-17-2014 12:34 AM
Reply to: Message 52 by ringo
04-16-2014 12:51 PM


Re: Good Question
Don't get me wrong; I'm not saying that about scientific discoveries in general, which have greatly benefitted our lives and led to better understandings.
I'm talking about this kind of discovery:
"The creation of a working protocell which could ALMOST be plausible in a prebiotic environment."
TRANSLATION: "Scientists are right on the CUSP of proving abiogenesis true once and for all"
These are the 'discoveries' that end up in magazines and newspapers enough to give the public the impression that scientists 'pretty much know' that life originated by natural causes.
Of course, it's been my impression that these 'discoveries' fall by the wayside and get forgotten, but by then the newest 'discovery' has taken the spotlight...and so on

This message is a reply to:
 Message 52 by ringo, posted 04-16-2014 12:51 PM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 55 by Omnivorous, posted 04-17-2014 7:20 AM Ed67 has replied
 Message 56 by ringo, posted 04-17-2014 11:39 AM Ed67 has replied

  
Ed67
Member (Idle past 2756 days)
Posts: 159
Joined: 04-14-2014


Message 54 of 105 (724425)
04-17-2014 3:01 AM
Reply to: Message 46 by PlanManStan
12-14-2013 10:41 PM


Re: Good Question
"My understanding is that the information storage was a by-product."
A by-product of what, if you don't mind rephrasing your second sentence?
Sorry, but until I understand what you were saying in the second sentence of your post, I can't really respond to it

This message is a reply to:
 Message 46 by PlanManStan, posted 12-14-2013 10:41 PM PlanManStan has not replied

  
Ed67
Member (Idle past 2756 days)
Posts: 159
Joined: 04-14-2014


Message 57 of 105 (724521)
04-17-2014 9:47 PM
Reply to: Message 55 by Omnivorous
04-17-2014 7:20 AM


Re: Good Question
"Most scientific work doesn't result in a shiny new edifice of discovery"
I agree. And may I remind you, I have the utmost respect for scientists in general.
Edited by Ed67, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 55 by Omnivorous, posted 04-17-2014 7:20 AM Omnivorous has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 59 by Omnivorous, posted 04-17-2014 10:49 PM Ed67 has not replied

  
Ed67
Member (Idle past 2756 days)
Posts: 159
Joined: 04-14-2014


Message 58 of 105 (724522)
04-17-2014 9:48 PM
Reply to: Message 56 by ringo
04-17-2014 11:39 AM


Re: Good Question
But where do you think the journalists GET their incessant stories about the 'new discoveries' that all but prove abiogenesis? Do you think the press has moles in the scientific community that steal these 'secrets'?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 56 by ringo, posted 04-17-2014 11:39 AM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 67 by ringo, posted 04-19-2014 11:53 AM Ed67 has not replied

  
Ed67
Member (Idle past 2756 days)
Posts: 159
Joined: 04-14-2014


Message 61 of 105 (724583)
04-18-2014 9:51 AM
Reply to: Message 60 by RAZD
04-18-2014 9:01 AM


Re: Progress made in baby steps ...
Okay, you've all made some very good points. I'm glad I brought it up to get your views on the topic of sensationalizing of origin-of-life science, but I grant your main point, so let's get back to the topic, shall we?
Could RNA start life?
Of course anything 'could have' happened. But the interesting question is:
"Could RNA start life without the assistance of an intelligent designer?
Is my question still on the topic?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 60 by RAZD, posted 04-18-2014 9:01 AM RAZD has seen this message but not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 64 by Taq, posted 04-18-2014 12:41 PM Ed67 has replied
 Message 65 by onifre, posted 04-19-2014 10:24 AM Ed67 has replied

  
Ed67
Member (Idle past 2756 days)
Posts: 159
Joined: 04-14-2014


Message 62 of 105 (724586)
04-18-2014 9:57 AM
Reply to: Message 4 by RAZD
12-04-2012 2:09 AM


Re: abiogenesis
Razd, you use some strange reasoning:
[qs="RAZD"]Hi dayalanand roy, welcome to the fray.
As we know, still majority of evolutionists believe in an RNA world hypothesis. ...
Wrong.
Many accept that the RNA hypothesis may be true, many are skeptical of it being true and are waiting for more information.
... However, I have a problem in imbibing this theory. ...
That would appear to be a personal problem, not a scientific one. Whether or not you accept the theory of gravity has no effect at all on the behavior of gravity.[qs] First, you insist that some scientists are skeptical about the RNA world hypothesis, then you berate the person for his own skepticism.
LOL you're funny.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by RAZD, posted 12-04-2012 2:09 AM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 66 by RAZD, posted 04-19-2014 11:07 AM Ed67 has not replied

  
Ed67
Member (Idle past 2756 days)
Posts: 159
Joined: 04-14-2014


Message 68 of 105 (724675)
04-19-2014 11:58 AM
Reply to: Message 65 by onifre
04-19-2014 10:24 AM


Re: Progress made in baby steps ...
onifire writes:
"Could RNA start life without the assistance of an intelligent designer?
You'd have to show how it couldn't. For that we'd need to know more about the origin of RNA.
Not exactly. Science has to show how the DNA code sequences needed to build life COULD have originated by naturalistic means. And so far it hasn't, though scientists have been trying for over 50 years.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 65 by onifre, posted 04-19-2014 10:24 AM onifre has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 69 by onifre, posted 04-19-2014 12:07 PM Ed67 has not replied
 Message 70 by ringo, posted 04-19-2014 12:26 PM Ed67 has not replied

  
Ed67
Member (Idle past 2756 days)
Posts: 159
Joined: 04-14-2014


Message 71 of 105 (724792)
04-20-2014 9:36 PM
Reply to: Message 64 by Taq
04-18-2014 12:41 PM


Back to the Main Topic (sort of)
"Taq" writes:
Could RNA start life without the assistance of an intelligent designer?
We don't know. However, looking for natural causes for natural phenomena has worked so well in the past that it seems foolish to not look for a natural cause in the case of the origin of life.
Good point. But when the search for natural causes gets to the origin of life, it stalls out. There has been no naturalistic answer in the half century since discovering the structure of DNA. The reason is that, at the level of the cell, virtually all of the molecular systems exhibit irreducible complexity, and the code embedded in the DNA sequence is something that can not yet be explained without positing an intelligent designer.
Is it possible that intelligence can exist without a living physical body to sustain it?
Is it possible that a living physical body can exist without intelligence to design it?
There's a bare, logical possibility for both questions; it's just our viewpoint that results in which option you believe to be MORE LIKELY. But without more information than science can provide, there's no basis for committing either way. More information is needed.
For the Biological research establishment to admit that, scientifically speaking, there is room in the origin of life for an intelligent designer, would require an admirable example of scientific self-criticism.
Edited by Ed67, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 64 by Taq, posted 04-18-2014 12:41 PM Taq has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 72 by saab93f, posted 04-21-2014 4:45 AM Ed67 has not replied
 Message 73 by onifre, posted 04-21-2014 9:20 AM Ed67 has not replied
 Message 74 by RAZD, posted 04-21-2014 10:31 AM Ed67 has not replied
 Message 75 by ringo, posted 04-22-2014 11:59 AM Ed67 has replied
 Message 76 by Taq, posted 04-22-2014 5:19 PM Ed67 has replied

  
Ed67
Member (Idle past 2756 days)
Posts: 159
Joined: 04-14-2014


Message 77 of 105 (724959)
04-23-2014 9:06 AM
Reply to: Message 76 by Taq
04-22-2014 5:19 PM


Re: Back to the Main Topic (sort of)
Taq writes:
...even those who claim that there is a designer fail to do any research to test the idea.
You don't have to "claim that there is a designer" to do research on the idea. The current research establishment is free to do real research based on Design Theory, it just chooses not to.
The Discovery Institute, on the other hand, has a small lab up and running, which took decades to do (as is the norm) and will probably take decades to grow to the point of having enough researchers to 'dig in' to the subject.
It's just the pace of science. It'll come. With the full resistance of the current establishment, ID has come a long way scientifically.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 76 by Taq, posted 04-22-2014 5:19 PM Taq has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 81 by Taq, posted 04-23-2014 11:35 AM Ed67 has not replied
 Message 83 by onifre, posted 04-23-2014 7:53 PM Ed67 has replied

  
Ed67
Member (Idle past 2756 days)
Posts: 159
Joined: 04-14-2014


Message 78 of 105 (724960)
04-23-2014 9:11 AM
Reply to: Message 65 by onifre
04-19-2014 10:24 AM


Oni writes:
So all your work is ahead of you. Good luck.
Thanks. Peace out.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 65 by onifre, posted 04-19-2014 10:24 AM onifre has not replied

  
Ed67
Member (Idle past 2756 days)
Posts: 159
Joined: 04-14-2014


Message 79 of 105 (724962)
04-23-2014 9:20 AM
Reply to: Message 76 by Taq
04-22-2014 5:19 PM


Re: Back to the Main Topic (sort of)
Taq writes:
Sorry, but a God of the Gaps is the most horrid argument I have ever seen.
Argument from personal opinion.
Taq writes:
If there is a God, he has to be insulted by it.
Religious argument (it's always the atheists who bring up the religious arguments, and they're the first to accuse ID of being religiously motivated! lol).
Taq writes:
If we abandonded research that stalled out in the past, we would still be banging rocks together...We tried for hundreds of years to produce machines that flew...
Confessions of personal FAITH in the current research program.
Still no responses to my arguments
Edited by Ed67, : No reason given.
Edited by Ed67, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 76 by Taq, posted 04-22-2014 5:19 PM Taq has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 80 by Theodoric, posted 04-23-2014 9:59 AM Ed67 has not replied
 Message 82 by Taq, posted 04-23-2014 11:37 AM Ed67 has replied

  
Ed67
Member (Idle past 2756 days)
Posts: 159
Joined: 04-14-2014


Message 84 of 105 (725140)
04-24-2014 1:10 PM
Reply to: Message 83 by onifre
04-23-2014 7:53 PM


Re: Back to the Main Topic (sort of)
The reason for the resistance from the scientific establishment, and that it hasn't done science from a design perspective, is its commitment to methodological materialism.
Edited by Ed67, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 83 by onifre, posted 04-23-2014 7:53 PM onifre has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 92 by Dr Adequate, posted 04-24-2014 2:00 PM Ed67 has not replied
 Message 96 by RAZD, posted 04-25-2014 9:00 AM Ed67 has not replied
 Message 98 by onifre, posted 04-25-2014 11:16 AM Ed67 has not replied

  
Ed67
Member (Idle past 2756 days)
Posts: 159
Joined: 04-14-2014


Message 85 of 105 (725141)
04-24-2014 1:17 PM
Reply to: Message 75 by ringo
04-22-2014 11:59 AM


Re: Back to the Main Topic (sort of)
ringo writes:
Ed67 writes:
Is it possible that intelligence can exist without a living physical body to sustain it?
There's your problem: If not, the "Intelligent Designer" would have to be an alien lifeform and not some "god". Then who/what designed it?
And if so?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 75 by ringo, posted 04-22-2014 11:59 AM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 87 by ringo, posted 04-24-2014 1:20 PM Ed67 has replied

  
Ed67
Member (Idle past 2756 days)
Posts: 159
Joined: 04-14-2014


Message 86 of 105 (725142)
04-24-2014 1:20 PM
Reply to: Message 82 by Taq
04-23-2014 11:37 AM


Re: Back to the Main Topic (sort of)
Taq writes:
Now you consider the very act of doing research as having faith. How pathetic.
So, do you consider the discovery of a naturalistic explanation for the origin of life inevitable?
Edited by Ed67, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 82 by Taq, posted 04-23-2014 11:37 AM Taq has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 99 by Taq, posted 04-25-2014 11:41 AM Ed67 has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2022 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.1
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2022