homepage
  roll on christmas  
click here to find out more about ship of fools click here to sign up for the ship of fools newsletter click here to support ship of fools
community the mystery worshipper gadgets for god caption competition foolishness features ship stuff
discussion boards live chat cafe avatars frequently-asked questions the ten commandments gallery private boards register for the boards
 
Ship of Fools


Post new thread  Post a reply
My profile login | | Directory | Search | FAQs | Board home
   - Printer-friendly view Next oldest thread   Next newest thread
» Ship of Fools   » Special interest discussion   » Dead Horses   » The Death of Darwinism (Page 28)

 - Email this page to a friend or enemy.  
Pages in this thread: 1  2  3  ...  25  26  27  28  29  30  31  ...  40  41  42 
 
Source: (consider it) Thread: The Death of Darwinism
Justinian
Shipmate
# 5357

 - Posted      Profile for Justinian   Email Justinian   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
We somehow missed one of the gems from the Dover trial on the way through. Under oath in the court trial, Behe gave an estimate of how long it would take an irreducibly complex phenomenon to evolve. This was based on the paper Simulating evolution by gene duplication of protein features that require multiple amino acid residues by Behe and Snoke.

The conclusion of this paper is that "We conclude that, in general, to be fixed in 10^8 generations, the production of novel protein features that require the participation of two or more amino acid residues simply by multiple point mutations in duplicated genes would entail population sizes of no less than 10^9." Two or more amino acid residues needing to be fixed pretty much is the definition of irreducible complexity.

There are several simplifications in the above paper that make it an upper bound - it only goes into point mutations, meaning that it doesn't allow for intermediate steps (both mutations have to happen at once), it doesn't allow for mutations by transposition (it only allows for point mutations), it doesn't allow for recombination, and it strictly limits itself to asexual mutations. In short, the mutation rate is kept down.

This was then applied to Behe's example of irreducible complexity - the disulfide bond. Two specific point mutations in a prokaryote.

In short, by Behe's own mathematics, in a population of 10^9, it will take 10^8 generations - or 20,000 years for this irreducibly complex mutation to happen.

Unfortunately for Behe, a ton of healthy soil is estimated to contain more than 10^16 prokaryotes (or ten million times as many as Behe's example uses). This means that in a ton of soil, such an irreducibly complex mutation happens every 2*10^4/10^7 = 2*10^-3 years - or five hundred irreducibly complex mutations happen in each ton of soil in a year.

Let me repeat that. By Behe's own research, without outside tampering a ton of soil produces an irreducibly complex mutation group on average more than once each day.

[ 01. February 2006, 23:11: Message edited by: Justinian ]

--------------------
My real name consists of just four letters, but in billions of combinations.

Eudaimonaic Laughter - my blog.

Posts: 3926 | From: The Sea Coast of Bohemia | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
mdijon
Shipmate
# 8520

 - Posted      Profile for mdijon     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Although, in fairness, you'd be in trouble as soon as you hit the less numerous metazoan eukaryotes - a fairly important stage of evolution.

I think the flaw is in the calculation of the mutation rate, and allowing for point mutations only. I doubt many novel proteins occur by slow accumulation of point mutations, even in bacteria or protozoa. We have examples of drug resistance pumps in malaria, for instance, that appeared quite rapidly after the introduction of chloroquine.

Unless Behe argues that was the work of some malevolent intelligent design.

--------------------
mdijon nojidm uoɿıqɯ ɯqıɿou
ɯqıɿou uoɿıqɯ nojidm mdijon

Posts: 12277 | From: UK | Registered: Sep 2004  |  IP: Logged
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460

 - Posted      Profile for ken     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
Although, in fairness, you'd be in trouble as soon as you hit the less numerous metazoan eukaryotes

Yes but most of (perhaps all) of the fundamental biochemical pathways exist in bacteria. So I suppose they could have all evolved this way!

There is very little added in eukaryotes - and much of what seems unique to eukaryotes, such as a lot of the nuclear proteins, may be descended from prokaryote ancestors that are lost.

And almost nothing in metazoans (some bits of sterol synthesis?)

Green plants have a large chunk of pathway connected to making poisonous things and wood. And a few fungi have systems for digesting them - but they look relatively recent and aer probably retrofitted from other pathways.

--------------------
Ken

L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.

Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002  |  IP: Logged
mdijon
Shipmate
# 8520

 - Posted      Profile for mdijon     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
[Confused]

Granted there may be little difference between protozoan eukaryote protein expression and bacterial.... and little between protozoan and the simplest metazoans.... but once the metazoans start getting a bit more complicated, I imagine there's a fair list of new proteins.

I didn't mean just the initial jump - I meant from thereon up.

--------------------
mdijon nojidm uoɿıqɯ ɯqıɿou
ɯqıɿou uoɿıqɯ nojidm mdijon

Posts: 12277 | From: UK | Registered: Sep 2004  |  IP: Logged
Justinian
Shipmate
# 5357

 - Posted      Profile for Justinian   Email Justinian   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
I think the flaw is in the calculation of the mutation rate, and allowing for point mutations only. I doubt many novel proteins occur by slow accumulation of point mutations, even in bacteria or protozoa. We have examples of drug resistance pumps in malaria, for instance, that appeared quite rapidly after the introduction of chloroquine.

Indeed. Behe and Snoke make serious underestimates.

--------------------
My real name consists of just four letters, but in billions of combinations.

Eudaimonaic Laughter - my blog.

Posts: 3926 | From: The Sea Coast of Bohemia | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Alan Cresswell

Mad Scientist 先生
# 31

 - Posted      Profile for Alan Cresswell   Email Alan Cresswell   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Just to go back to the MORI poll momentarily, there's now an entry MORI website that includes the "should not be taught in science classes" answers to the last question. Which is
  • 15% say evolution should not be taught in science classes
  • 39% say creationism should not be taught in science classes
  • 40% say evolution should not be taught in science classes
Which still seem odd numbers to me. But I think we've exhausted that line of discussion. I thought it might be nice to just put in the last piece of the jigsaw.

--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.

Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
mdijon
Shipmate
# 8520

 - Posted      Profile for mdijon     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
The first and last bullet points are the same label with a different percentage.... is there an extra not?
Posts: 12277 | From: UK | Registered: Sep 2004  |  IP: Logged
TonyK

Host Emeritus
# 35

 - Posted      Profile for TonyK   Email TonyK   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Alan - I think your last line should read:

  • 40% say Intelligent Design Theory should not be taught in science classes


--------------------
Yours aye ... TonyK

Posts: 2717 | From: Gloucestershire | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Alan Cresswell

Mad Scientist 先生
# 31

 - Posted      Profile for Alan Cresswell   Email Alan Cresswell   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Tony, aye that be right.

--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.

Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Rex Monday

None but a blockhead
# 2569

 - Posted      Profile for Rex Monday   Email Rex Monday   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
It's a right dog's breakfast - with 69 percent saying evolution should be taught in schools and 44 percent saying young earth creationism should be taught, that means there are people saying mutually exclusive theories should both be taught. All this poll shows is that people have no idea what they're talking about.

(Which, of course, is where ID comes in, as this alternative ID FAQ so concisely shows.)

--------------------
I am largely against organised religion, which is why I am so fond of the C of E.

Posts: 514 | From: Gin Lane | Registered: Mar 2002  |  IP: Logged
mdijon
Shipmate
# 8520

 - Posted      Profile for mdijon     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Freudian slip there Alan?
Posts: 12277 | From: UK | Registered: Sep 2004  |  IP: Logged
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460

 - Posted      Profile for ken     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
I imagine there's a fair list of new proteins.

Brand new, there seem to be fewer than we used to think. What there are tend to be structural - very few new synthesis pathways.

Just how few really new ones, of course, depends on which ones we think are "new". For example all the various eye crystallins seem to be derived from enzymes - are they new proteins or not?

--------------------
Ken

L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.

Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002  |  IP: Logged
Dinghy Sailor

Ship's Jibsheet
# 8507

 - Posted      Profile for Dinghy Sailor     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Rex Monday:
It's a right dog's breakfast - with 69 percent saying evolution should be taught in schools and 44 percent saying young earth creationism should be taught, that means there are people saying mutually exclusive theories should both be taught.

Maybe they think they should both be taught?

--------------------
Preach Christ, because this old humanity has used up all hopes and expectations, but in Christ hope lives and remains.
Dietrich Bonhoeffer

Posts: 2821 | Registered: Sep 2004  |  IP: Logged
mdijon
Shipmate
# 8520

 - Posted      Profile for mdijon     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Spaghetti monsters.
Posts: 12277 | From: UK | Registered: Sep 2004  |  IP: Logged
Rex Monday

None but a blockhead
# 2569

 - Posted      Profile for Rex Monday   Email Rex Monday   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by dinghy sailor:
quote:
Originally posted by Rex Monday:
It's a right dog's breakfast - with 69 percent saying evolution should be taught in schools and 44 percent saying young earth creationism should be taught, that means there are people saying mutually exclusive theories should both be taught.

Maybe they think they should both be taught?
Why would anyone want two mutually exclusive theories to be taught in science classes? The only people who claim to like this idea are the 'teach the controversy' crowd, and I just cannot believe that fifteen percent of the British population fall into that camp. It's a very artifical stance, very dependent on American constitutional politics, and Judge Jones was very clear on its lack of legs.


R

--------------------
I am largely against organised religion, which is why I am so fond of the C of E.

Posts: 514 | From: Gin Lane | Registered: Mar 2002  |  IP: Logged
mdijon
Shipmate
# 8520

 - Posted      Profile for mdijon     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
I don't see the problem with teaching two mutually exclusive theories. It is probably unusual to be teaching on areas with competing, well evidenced theories before graduate level in biology - but in Geography or Sociology I would think it's more common at secondary/high school level.

(One can argue that the science behind ID is already taught - in that the complexity of life is taught in all it's glory. Anyone wishing to deduce that is irreducibly complex can do so.)

--------------------
mdijon nojidm uoɿıqɯ ɯqıɿou
ɯqıɿou uoɿıqɯ nojidm mdijon

Posts: 12277 | From: UK | Registered: Sep 2004  |  IP: Logged
Dinghy Sailor

Ship's Jibsheet
# 8507

 - Posted      Profile for Dinghy Sailor     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Or economics, I'm sure. And Rex, if half of Britain's population can't get 5 C grades at GCSE, then there must be a fairly stupid 15% out there somewhere.

--------------------
Preach Christ, because this old humanity has used up all hopes and expectations, but in Christ hope lives and remains.
Dietrich Bonhoeffer

Posts: 2821 | Registered: Sep 2004  |  IP: Logged
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460

 - Posted      Profile for ken     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Any serious teaching often has to discuss competing explanations. "So-and-so says this, but Thingamujig thinks that" has to be part of education. How on earth else could anyone ever teach literature or history?

Biology currently has more of these than other sciences because it is developing faster. Some of the real controversies about evolution or the history of life on earth ought to be mentioned in school - for example what killed the big dinosaurs? I think I remember allopatric vs. sympatric speciation being discussed in the 6th form, pre-university.

At university there are plenty of current or recently past approaches to evolution which ought to have arguments presented on both sides. The relative importance of neutral evolution and selection. Punctuated equilibrium. Can we describe evolution as "progress"? Cladistic and other approaches to systematics. Does group selection happen? Are there real distinct ecological communities? Are more diverse ecologies more stable? Stuff like that.

However, neither YEC or ID are scientific explanations that compete with neo-Darwinism. At university they might have a place in a historical approach to evolution, discussed alongside Lamarckism and so on. You wouldn't want to leave out Gosse, and the brief period in the late 18th and very early 19th century when flood geology was taken seriously by naturalists led directly to the discovery of the ice ages. So they belong in a history of science course, not a genetics or an evolution course.

--------------------
Ken

L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.

Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002  |  IP: Logged
Justinian
Shipmate
# 5357

 - Posted      Profile for Justinian   Email Justinian   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
And, in the name of controversies in a teacup, we have a political apointee in NASA who has been censor them.

quote:
In an e-mail message, Mr. Deutsch said that remarks about religious views on the creation of the universe sent last October to a Web designer working on a presentation on Albert Einstein were "personal observations" and never were reflected in the material that was posted online.

"We are both Christians, and I was sharing with him my personal opinions on the Big Bang theory versus intelligent design," Mr. Deutsch wrote to The Times. "What I said about intelligent design did not affect the presentation of the Big Bang theory in the subsequent Einstein Web story. This is a very important point, because I have been accused of trying to insert religion into this story, which I was not trying to do."

source

What he was trying to do was get the word "Theory" inserted after every mention of the Big Bang.

Scientifically defensible unless placed in context:
quote:
The Big Bang is "not proven fact; it is opinion, ... It is not NASA's place, nor should it be to make a declaration such as this about the existence of the universe that discounts intelligent design by a creator."
His defence appears to be that he failed.

Chalk one up to the Wedge Strategy's five year goal of "To see the beginning of the influence of design theory in spheres other than natural science."

[ 10. February 2006, 14:40: Message edited by: Justinian ]

--------------------
My real name consists of just four letters, but in billions of combinations.

Eudaimonaic Laughter - my blog.

Posts: 3926 | From: The Sea Coast of Bohemia | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Justinian
Shipmate
# 5357

 - Posted      Profile for Justinian   Email Justinian   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Sorry, wrong goal of the Wedge Strategy. The one I meant was "scientific research being done from the perspective of design theory".

--------------------
My real name consists of just four letters, but in billions of combinations.

Eudaimonaic Laughter - my blog.

Posts: 3926 | From: The Sea Coast of Bohemia | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
RuthW

liberal "peace first" hankie squeezer
# 13

 - Posted      Profile for RuthW     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Ohio Board of Education gets a clue, partly because of the legal trouble Dover, Pennsylvania got into, but also because at least one board member recognizes that "it is deeply unfair to the children of this state to mislead them about the nature of science."

I hope this means the Discovery Institute's "teach the controversy" notion will lose some steam.

Posts: 24453 | From: La La Land | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
Mamacita

Lakefront liberal
# 3659

 - Posted      Profile for Mamacita   Email Mamacita   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
at least one board member recognizes that "it is deeply unfair to the children of this state to mislead them about the nature of science."

I was impressed to read that one of the key people in the Ohio effort was an older woman -- with 28 years' experience on the school board and who considers herself a creationist -- yet feels strongly that schools are not the place to teach creationism (no matter under what name). And she has taken a lot of flak from her fellow creationists for her stand.

--------------------
Do not be daunted by the enormity of the world’s grief. Do justly, now. Love mercy, now. Walk humbly, now. You are not obligated to complete the work, but neither are you free to abandon it.

Posts: 20761 | From: where the purple line ends | Registered: Dec 2002  |  IP: Logged
RuthW

liberal "peace first" hankie squeezer
# 13

 - Posted      Profile for RuthW     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Wow. Very cool.

Wonder how freaked out she'd be getting a letter saying she's on this raving liberal Christian evolutionist's prayer list. [Big Grin]

[I'll learn to write right someday.]

[ 16. February 2006, 17:56: Message edited by: RuthW ]

Posts: 24453 | From: La La Land | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
Rex Monday

None but a blockhead
# 2569

 - Posted      Profile for Rex Monday   Email Rex Monday   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Meanwhile, it looks as if the Islamic creationists are out in force in London...

http://www.guardian.co.uk/religion/Story/0,,1714169,00.html

"Leaflets questioning Darwinism were circulated among students at the Guys Hospital site of King's College London this month as part of the Islam Awareness Week, organised by the college's Islamic Society. One member of staff at Guys said that he found it deeply worrying that Darwin was being dismissed by people who would soon be practising as doctors."

There's a lot more - it's a big article. I feel like printing up some FSM posters and going through Guy's corridors pinning them up everywhere...

R

--------------------
I am largely against organised religion, which is why I am so fond of the C of E.

Posts: 514 | From: Gin Lane | Registered: Mar 2002  |  IP: Logged
the_raptor
Shipmate
# 10533

 - Posted      Profile for the_raptor     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
May you be touched by his noodly appendage.

--------------------
Mal: look at this! Appears we got here just in the nick of time. What does that make us?
Zoe: Big damn heroes, sir!
Mal: Ain't we just?
— Firefly

Posts: 3921 | From: Australia | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged
mdijon
Shipmate
# 8520

 - Posted      Profile for mdijon     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Does anyone have an explanation for how the first RNA/DNA protein construct got together?

It's always struck me as an important first hurdle - and assembling the machinary for protein synthesis, transcription etc as well as a cell membrane seems a much bigger irreducible problem than most of the standard ID arguments - in that it occurs at a stage before the ball is rolling (so to speak - before the ball is reproducing, anyway.)

--------------------
mdijon nojidm uoɿıqɯ ɯqıɿou
ɯqıɿou uoɿıqɯ nojidm mdijon

Posts: 12277 | From: UK | Registered: Sep 2004  |  IP: Logged
MSHB
Shipmate
# 9228

 - Posted      Profile for MSHB   Email MSHB   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Rex Monday:
Meanwhile, it looks as if the Islamic creationists are out in force in London...

http://www.guardian.co.uk/religion/Story/0,,1714169,00.html

"Leaflets questioning Darwinism were circulated among students at the Guys Hospital site of King's College London this month as part of the Islam Awareness Week, organised by the college's Islamic Society. One member of staff at Guys said that he found it deeply worrying that Darwin was being dismissed by people who would soon be practising as doctors."

There's a lot more - it's a big article. I feel like printing up some FSM posters and going through Guy's corridors pinning them up everywhere...

R

Thereby showing that creationism has little to do with the gospel of Christ. One can be a creationist - and a devout Conservative Jew or Muslim ... and deny Christ. And one can be a non-creationist, and fervently believe the gospel.

Who do Christian creationists wish to fellowship with?

--------------------
MSHB: Member of the Shire Hobbit Brigade

Posts: 1522 | From: Dharawal Country | Registered: Mar 2005  |  IP: Logged
Questioning Sophia
Apprentice
# 11085

 - Posted      Profile for Questioning Sophia   Email Questioning Sophia   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Hello Mdijon [Smile]

quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
Does anyone have an explanation for how the first RNA/DNA protein construct got together?

It's always struck me as an important first hurdle - and assembling the machinary for protein synthesis, transcription etc as well as a cell membrane seems a much bigger irreducible problem than most of the standard ID arguments - in that it occurs at a stage before the ball is rolling (so to speak - before the ball is reproducing, anyway.)

Easy Peasy [Smile]

Tholins [Smile] and a bolt of lightning or two, [Smile] A religious interperetation of this would be "Lightning = The shekinah" and "End result = act of creation". As for timescales, when the old Gorah can be said (By creationists) to have maintained that Gd made the universe in six days, (That is 144 hours). The age of the actual universe being 14.4 Bn years old is a bit of a coincidence. Creationalists have missed something I suspect.

I think it fair to say that the literalists who deny what Darwin observed, (Called evolution) and claim that we are talking 144 hours in human time scales are actually missing the intriguing content of the creation narrative, completely.

I personally feel the entire Creation v Evolution debate is a red herring because it misses the point. "Intelligent Design" as presented now does not present the questions that should be asked. Nor does it approach the subject with a heathy scepticism, or imagination. On the other side of the coin, Atheism seems to discuss all this in terms of totally random events, Why does tthe notion of a belief in Gd and evolution have to be incompatible? Ewhich is fine, but serves the otion of their being no Gd,

Which in itself fails to ask the question "What actually happened". to approach a subject with the intent of excluding a possible explanation is to limit possible answers to questions. Especially when there is nothin in the Torah (Bereshyth in particular) that denies evolution, if anything a closer reading hints at otherwise, which is intriguing.

Shalom

Sophie

Posts: 11 | From: Hove | Registered: Feb 2006  |  IP: Logged
Questioning Sophia
Apprentice
# 11085

 - Posted      Profile for Questioning Sophia   Email Questioning Sophia   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Oh Does anyone know why the logging in system is so capricious? I log in and it is "You are not logged in" or

"oh press our back button, haha your post is deleted!!!"

Soophie

Posts: 11 | From: Hove | Registered: Feb 2006  |  IP: Logged
Justinian
Shipmate
# 5357

 - Posted      Profile for Justinian   Email Justinian   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Questioning Sophia:
"Intelligent Design" as presented now does not present the questions that should be asked. Nor does it approach the subject with a heathy scepticism, or imagination. On the other side of the coin, Atheism seems to discuss all this in terms of totally random events, Why does tthe notion of a belief in Gd and evolution have to be incompatible? Ewhich is fine, but serves the otion of their being no Gd,

Of course Atheism discusses things in terms of random events. If you are an atheist, you believe that there is no God. But not everyone who believes the theory of evolution is an atheist. (Indeed there are many who take the view that an honest study of the world is an honest study of God's handywork - and the part that most offends me about ID is the blasphemy involved in almost all the proponents lying about God's handiwork). God, however, comes in when Occam's Razor fails to make the cut. If you can explain things in terms of random events then why involve God unnecessarily?

--------------------
My real name consists of just four letters, but in billions of combinations.

Eudaimonaic Laughter - my blog.

Posts: 3926 | From: The Sea Coast of Bohemia | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
John Holding

Coffee and Cognac
# 158

 - Posted      Profile for John Holding   Email John Holding   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Questioning Sophia:
Oh Does anyone know why the logging in system is so capricious? I log in and it is "You are not logged in" or

"oh press our back button, haha your post is deleted!!!"

Soophie

You might get a faster answer by PMing one of the admins or by asking in the Styx.

John

Posts: 5929 | From: Ottawa, Canada | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Questioning Sophia
Apprentice
# 11085

 - Posted      Profile for Questioning Sophia   Email Questioning Sophia   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Hello Justinian [Smile]

quote:
Originally posted by Justinian:
Of course Atheism discusses things in terms of random events. If you are an atheist, you believe that there is no God. But not everyone who believes the theory of evolution is an atheist. (Indeed there are many who take the view that an honest study of the world is an honest study of God's handywork - and the part that most offends me about ID is the blasphemy involved in almost all the proponents lying about God's handiwork). God, however, comes in when Occam's Razor fails to make the cut. If you can explain things in terms of random events then why involve God unnecessarily? [/QB]

You mean "Gd of the spaces". What I find offensive about ID is Gd is plonked in said spaces and then said to be omnipresent, which I am sure you agree is a paradox.

The truth of it is that evolution happened. What is wrong is people take a medieval view of the Torah, and claim the text said "Six literal days" or others say "It is a metaphorical fantasy" (Often while in all good reason objecting to things done in the name of the bible, like denying Evolution happened)

But you have to understand the text from the viewpoint of those who first read it. We are talking about the evolution (There is that word again) of a cyphered language with multiple meanings attatched to each single word. It is based on a very complex narrative method. to say "This says Gd did it in six literal days" is incorrect. From the stanpoint of the narrative yet alone any observation of how things are.

If someone says "Gd did it because we have no explanation from this point" then that is intellectual laziness.

If someone says "But we must exclude any Gd behind it regardless of any evidence for or against" then that is dogmatism,

The truth is no one fully knows, it could be emergent properties from brownian motion, then again it may have been "assisted". Of course the most unsettling possibility is something along the lines of the anthropic principle. Where "Gd is what seems to have emerged"

But these philosophical issues aside, I find upsetting that an argument in such philosophical debate results in well evidenced facts (Like most of the observation of what we call evolution) is regarded as "Herecy"

I mean do people say that the sun rotates around the earth because the bible may have hinted at it (Actually it didnt)?

Galilaeo had hassle from Pope Urban on that one.
and the Earth rotates around the sun, as Galileo observed.

I think this is what I find so irritating. People misread a text to make it dogma, then deny reality, Nowadays those advocating reality seem to fall into the same bad habits. "Oh we cannot have this or that possibility, it is herecy"

I dont think the debate is really about the "history of everything" it is about people being told to believe what others tell them.

why is the idea of a Gd and Evolution at the same time icompatible? the human predisposition to polarise everything perhaps? to dogmatise perhaps?

There is not a lot wrong with free thinking I suspect [Smile]

shalom

Sophie

Posts: 11 | From: Hove | Registered: Feb 2006  |  IP: Logged
mdijon
Shipmate
# 8520

 - Posted      Profile for mdijon     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Questioning Sophia:
Easy Peasy [Smile] .... Tholins [Smile] and a bolt of lightning or two, [Smile]

I'd give the explanation 0 out of 10, to be brutally honest.

Tholins might be the precursers for organic molecules, but they hardly explain how the organic molecules line up to form RNA,DNA, protein and lipid in a reproducing form.

Posts: 12277 | From: UK | Registered: Sep 2004  |  IP: Logged
Questioning Sophia
Apprentice
# 11085

 - Posted      Profile for Questioning Sophia   Email Questioning Sophia   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Hello Mdijon [Smile]

quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
quote:
Originally posted by Questioning Sophia:
Easy Peasy [Smile] .... Tholins [Smile] and a bolt of lightning or two, [Smile]

I'd give the explanation 0 out of 10, to be brutally honest.

Tholins might be the precursers for organic molecules, but they hardly explain how the organic molecules line up to form RNA,DNA, protein and lipid in a reproducing form.

Well have a tendancy to post things like that because there often seems to be very little but dogma in much of these debates.

Macromolecules tend to "line up" because of states they are in due numerous factors. DNA is a chicken and egg question though. To get DNA you need a number of proteins to assemble the fragments (Okosaki Fragments) and you need the amino acids to make up the proteins and bases of the DNA. (As in the fragments and the amino acids that make up the peptide chains in the proteins).Protein synthesis involves ribosomes, pretty complex macropmolecular machinery by all accounts. It is a chicken and egg situation, Where did complex proteins like Ribosomes come from? or the proteins needed to synthesise DNA (Ligases and so on) and edit the DNA (Restriction enzymes) etc etc.

What assembled the DNA in the beginning? the whole gamut of proteins and enzymes required needed DNA or at lease RNA to begin with.

I imagine the ID theorist would say that this little problem "proves Gd did it" (Well no that is the Gd of the spaces, it does nothing of the sort)

Your Darwinist would argue that it all occured randomly (Again this explains nothing)

So I tend to give the debate 0 out of 10 for lack of imagniation.

I was sort of hoping you would yourself have a suggestion beyond my "Tholins + Lightning" line (Which was a bit cynical about the debate, not you, if you took it that way I apologise [Smile] )

A possible clue lies in methyl groups, carboxy and Amino ends and disulphide bridges. Which seem to form the components of the mechanics of all this. but if you get the raw materials (Numerous meduim sized molecules with above forming part of them) nothing happens ulnless you have them in the right environment in terms of energy (Heat, etc).

In these debates no one goes beyond the apparent gap between small molecules like methane (Which becomes a methyl group in larger molecules) and macromolecules like Ribosomes.

It is all space filling "Randomness" or "Gd". So I in frustration say strange things like "Tholins + Lightning [Smile] " because it is here where the gap seems to be filled with something other than just "Gd" or "Random".

For me it is the emergent properties, that is the potential for small molecules under certain conditions to lend themselves to forming larger molecules of a certain configuration. As such the complexity emerges under certain conditions.

I suspect the concept of "Random" and "Regularity" is missing the point. Just that molecules under certain conditions will often form certain patterns which get ever more complex as molecules get bigger.

the only thing I can say for certain is that the presence of certain molecules and the presence of various types of energy seem to make this pattern emerge. Hence my throw away remark.

Flash bang into a certain orange gaseus cloud seems to be where it happens, How it happens? well that does require an explanation above and beyond just "Gd" and "Random" as these molecules are obvioulsy forming as a result of permuations of various natural laws and states. I suspect it is the origin of these laws and states one needs to ask about. until then it is gap filling. Sadly [Frown]

Shalom

Sophie

Posts: 11 | From: Hove | Registered: Feb 2006  |  IP: Logged
the_raptor
Shipmate
# 10533

 - Posted      Profile for the_raptor     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Questioning Sophia:
Your Darwinist would argue that it all occured randomly (Again this explains nothing)

Yes it does. Nuclear decay being an entirely random (inputs far to complex for us to calculate anything more then statistical chances for something happening) process is a perfectly acceptable explanation.

If you leave a pool of chemicals for long enough then statistics dictate that eventually a self-replicating molecule will form. And it only takes one.

--------------------
Mal: look at this! Appears we got here just in the nick of time. What does that make us?
Zoe: Big damn heroes, sir!
Mal: Ain't we just?
— Firefly

Posts: 3921 | From: Australia | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged
CrookedCucumber
Shipmate
# 10792

 - Posted      Profile for CrookedCucumber     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by the_raptor:
quote:
Originally posted by Questioning Sophia:
[qb] Your Darwinist would argue that it all occured randomly (Again this explains nothing)

Yes it does. Nuclear decay being an entirely random (inputs far to complex for us to calculate anything more then statistical chances for something happening) process is a perfectly acceptable explanation.

There's a difference between something is truly random -- that is unpredictable even in principle -- and something that is quasi-random -- that is, giving an appearance of randomness because of the complexity of the process. My understanding is that there is dissent among physicists about whether quantum-level phenomena, including radioactive decay, are truly random or not. The idea, for example, that subatomic particles hold state (in some unspecified way), and act according to complex relationships involving that state, is one that has come into and gone out of fashion over the last 50 years or so.

My point is that to assert that, say, radioactive decay is truly random is to make a different kind of assertion than that it is too complex, or whatever, for us to predict.

quote:

If you leave a pool of chemicals for long enough then statistics dictate that eventually a self-replicating molecule will form. And it only takes one.

Really? I'll be you a pound to a penny that you can leave a pool of salt and water laying around for a billion years and you'll never get anything more complex than saltwater.

What's more, you're going to need a lot more than one self-replicating molecule. If that's all you've got, you'll just end up with the whole world filled with the same molecule.

I tend to agree with mdijon (if I've properly understood what he's saying) on this one. In the 19th and early 20th centuries, people seeking a non-design explanation for the emergence of life thought that the challenge was explaining complex macrostructures, such as the mammalian eye. But, in reality, what goes on in every nucleus is astronomically more complex than any macrostructure. Not just a bit more complex, but hugely, overwhelmingly more complex. The challenge now, as I understand it, is to understand how we got from a trivial self-replicating microstructure (whatever it was) to the incredible genetic machinery of the cell.

I think it is the difficulty involved in doing this that has led materialists like Francis Crick to speculate (without evidence irony, so far as i can tell) that life was seeded on Earth from space.

Posts: 2718 | From: East Dogpatch | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460

 - Posted      Profile for ken     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
Does anyone have an explanation for how the first RNA/DNA protein construct got together?

I've got a really cool explanation but there isn't enough space in the margin to write it down [Biased]

quote:
Originally posted by Questioning Sophia:
Your Darwinist would argue that it all occured randomly (Again this explains nothing)

Darwinian processes are not random - although the source of variation is commonly assumed to be random (though they don't have to be) selection is by definition not random. Because it is selection and selection is the opposite of random.

--------------------
Ken

L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.

Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002  |  IP: Logged
Questioning Sophia
Apprentice
# 11085

 - Posted      Profile for Questioning Sophia   Email Questioning Sophia   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Hello Ken [Smile]


quote:
Originally posted by ken:
quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
Does anyone have an explanation for how the first RNA/DNA protein construct got together?

I've got a really cool explanation but there isn't enough space in the margin to write it down [Biased]

quote:
Originally posted by Questioning Sophia:
Your Darwinist would argue that it all occured randomly (Again this explains nothing)

Darwinian processes are not random - although the source of variation is commonly assumed to be random (though they don't have to be) selection is by definition not random. Because it is selection and selection is the opposite of random.

I have to admit having found "Natural selection" as opposed to "Natural adaptation" somewhat telling when it comes to the sort of Darwinism Richard Dawkins preaches.

Getting past the issue of semantics is indeed quite important. Like most biologists seem to inadvertantly anthropopmorphise DNA by saying "The genes decide outcome X or Y" And while they dont actually mean it like this, the causual reader would see this implied statement as anthropopmorhic.

Anyway the question should be "Is randomness" a term used to describe Brownian motion for example. Which is by nature "random" but often regularity seems to emerge from it.

A cool answer to Mdijon's question would be interesting, please tell [Smile]

Does it involve emergent peoperties in your opinion? [Smile]

Shalom

Sophie

Posts: 11 | From: Hove | Registered: Feb 2006  |  IP: Logged
Questioning Sophia
Apprentice
# 11085

 - Posted      Profile for Questioning Sophia   Email Questioning Sophia   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Hello The Raptor [Smile]


quote:
Originally posted by the_raptor:
quote:
Originally posted by Questioning Sophia:
Your Darwinist would argue that it all occured randomly (Again this explains nothing)

Yes it does. Nuclear decay being an entirely random (inputs far to complex for us to calculate anything more then statistical chances for something happening) process is a perfectly acceptable explanation.

If you leave a pool of chemicals for long enough then statistics dictate that eventually a self-replicating molecule will form. And it only takes one.

Well yes and no really. I mean radioactive decay is basically brownian, and as such you would be right in that things would inevitably happen from something brownian, but the question is, what makes brownian motion have this property? what rules? Rather than just fill the gaps with "Randomness is ok, things just emerge".

Why not ask "Why does this happen?" I think the physical laws involved are reasonably understood, just very complex. But even chaos theorists would admit that in some systems a common outcome (Evolutionary convergence being a good example) would eventually appear, rather like every polyhedra ends up pretty much as a sphere as it gets bigger with more facets.

Well with spheres and shapes the answer is quite simple, with molecular interactions and the somewhat interesting laws the atoms they are made of seem to obey it gets a bit complex.

but does anyone ever ask "Where did the laws of physics" come from? Newton, Einstein, Shrodinger, and so on, they *discovered* them, they didnt write them. The laws themselves on the day to day physical level act like computer programs, almost totally predictable, on the subatomic level well not so. We get into quantum mechanics, which seem to delve into the realms of unspeakable strangeness (As in wierd not quark) that has people asking interesting questions. It is curious, what is wrong with curiosity?

I would rather turn my brain inside out....

and percive the universe as having the center of it and the outer horizon of it occupying the same space, (Where Einstien and Shroedinger actually agreed but never publically, so above so below says the quabbalist [Biased] Big as in univers small as in quantum mechanic are unified after all. [Biased] ).....more questions....

Than ponder the idea of filling gaps with Gd or with randomness.

The sad thing about these debates with Darwin v Faith, Creation v evolutiion. is that curiosity seems to be suspended, and replaced with statements most of which are without any scientific proofs.

Shalom

Sophie

Posts: 11 | From: Hove | Registered: Feb 2006  |  IP: Logged
Justinian
Shipmate
# 5357

 - Posted      Profile for Justinian   Email Justinian   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Questioning Sophia:
Hello Justinian [Smile]

Hello Sophia. (On a side note, would you find it more polite if I wrote "G-d" or "Gd" rather than "God" while replying to you?)

quote:
You mean "Gd of the spaces". What I find offensive about ID is Gd is plonked in said spaces and then said to be omnipresent, which I am sure you agree is a paradox.
No. God of the Gaps says that anything that we don't currently have an explanation for must have been done by God. I'm referring to things that are seemingly impossible rather than just unexplained. Occam's razor ("Do not multiply entities beyond necessity") is the principle here.

The truth of it is that evolution happened. What is wrong is people take a medieval view of the Torah, and claim the text said "Six literal days" or others say "It is a metaphorical fantasy" (Often while in all good reason objecting to things done in the name of the bible, like denying Evolution happened)

quote:
But you have to understand the text from the viewpoint of those who first read it.
[Devil's advocate]Why? Why not from the viewpoint of the intended recipients who are plainly [insert group of choice]. [/Devil's advocate]

[Barely relevant tangent]You mean the Babylonians for whom the Law was codified during the exile? And the faction in the middle of a religious dispute for which Deuteronomy was "found"? But I suspect that the historical provenance of the bible is a matter for another thread.[/tangent]

quote:
We are talking about the evolution (There is that word again) of a cyphered language with multiple meanings attatched to each single word. It is based on a very complex narrative method. to say "This says Gd did it in six literal days" is incorrect. From the stanpoint of the narrative yet alone any observation of how things are.
Indeed.

quote:
If someone says "Gd did it because we have no explanation from this point" then that is intellectual laziness.

If someone says "But we must exclude any Gd behind it regardless of any evidence for or against" then that is dogmatism,

What is "we must exclude any God because, based on the best evidence we have, he does not exist. If you can show evidence to overturn that, then you can bring God into play"? (Other than a step more moderate than Dawkins, but I think the default condition).

quote:
The truth is no one fully knows, it could be emergent properties from brownian motion, then again it may have been "assisted". Of course the most unsettling possibility is something along the lines of the anthropic principle. Where "Gd is what seems to have emerged"
The anthropic principle is IMO putting the cart before the horse. If we are well suited to this universe, that we evolved in it is a much more elegant explanation than that it was created for us.

quote:
But these philosophical issues aside, I find upsetting that an argument in such philosophical debate results in well evidenced facts (Like most of the observation of what we call evolution) is regarded as "Herecy"
If it weren't for the mendacious noise machine involving Creationists and the Discovery Institute this would be less of a problem. Trying to discuss God in the middle of the evolution debate is like trying to have a picnic in a war zone.

quote:
Galilaeo had hassle from Pope Urban on that one.
and the Earth rotates around the sun, as Galileo observed.

Actually he didn't. Pope Urban was quite keen on Galileo (and most of the educated portion of Europe had accepted a heleocentric universe) - until Galileo not only called the pope a fool and a simpleton in print (or rather put almost everything the Pope had said on the subject into the mouth of a fictional character called Simplicio) but did so in the vernacular.

quote:
I think the debate is really about the "history of everything" it is about people being told to believe what others tell them.
Sort of. The current incarnation is about creationism, the Wedge Strategy and attempts to presuppose the answer and misrepresent reality.

quote:
why is the idea of a Gd and Evolution at the same time icompatible?
AFAIK, only a handful of those who reject creationism and ID say that it is compatable.

--------------------
My real name consists of just four letters, but in billions of combinations.

Eudaimonaic Laughter - my blog.

Posts: 3926 | From: The Sea Coast of Bohemia | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Questioning Sophia
Apprentice
# 11085

 - Posted      Profile for Questioning Sophia   Email Questioning Sophia   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Hello Justinain [Smile]

quote:
(On a side note, would you find it more polite if I wrote "G-d" or "Gd" rather than "God" while replying to you?)
Whichever suits you [Smile] The use of vowels in Gd's name is not something I do, but then this is my cultural background. I dont find others using vowels to be demeaning to Gd in any way [Smile]


quote:
No. God of the Gaps says that anything that we don't currently have an explanation for must have been done by God. I'm referring to things that are seemingly impossible rather than just unexplained. Occam's razor ("Do not multiply entities beyond necessity") is the principle here.
Hmm intriguing [Smile] Monotheism emerged because of the very things you say ("Do not multiply entities beyond necessity"). I suspect this will be another debate. (And fascinating one).

what I am saying is that the "Gd of the Gaps" seems a bit of a paradox, I know you are talking about strict definitions and beliefs, that is you either believe there is or is not a Gd, Belief in a Gd seems to be presented as a belief in an omnipresent being, which contradictied by this being being relagated to smaller roles and smaller spaces ultimateley. Which puts ID and creationalism on a bad footing when that argument of the gaps is used. Myself I dont hold to ID or Creationalism anyway. both are just dogmas or circular arguments to assert a dogma.


You mean the Babylonians for whom the Law was codified during the exile? And the faction in the middle of a religious dispute for which

quote:
Deuteronomy was "found"? But I suspect that the historical provenance of the bible is a matter for another thread
Ah, pre and post Hezekiah. My tradition does know about the post Hezekian spin on the text. That could be complicated. I am using pre hezekian interperetation when discussing the Torah [Smile]

Will explain more when possible. (Again another debate) as you understand the Hezekiah demarkation I can see why you would see it as slightly going off track.

quote:
The anthropic principle is IMO putting the cart before the horse. If we are well suited to this universe, that we evolved in it is a much more elegant explanation than that it was created for us.
Illustrating quite well how difficult it seems to be to conceptualise "What it is all about" people simply dont know.

quote:
If it weren't for the mendacious noise machine involving Creationists and the Discovery Institute this would be less of a problem. Trying to discuss God in the middle of the evolution debate is like trying to have a picnic in a war zone.
Yes I agree with that [Smile]


quote:
Actually he didn't. Pope Urban was quite keen on Galileo (and most of the educated portion of Europe had accepted a heleocentric universe) - until Galileo not only called the pope a fool and a simpleton in print (or rather put almost everything the Pope had said on the subject into the mouth of a fictional character called Simplicio) but did so in the vernacular.
I think Urban was a bit naughty leading Galilaeo to believe that he entertained the ideas of Kepler was it? And then started challenging Galilaeo over the observations. I think Galilaeo was sort of commenting on the inconsistency of Pope Urban.

We can debate this for ages, I am sure, but the fact remains that the Earth rotates around the sun, as part of a solar system. (It is the notion of a sol-ar system that was at the core of the debate, as opposed to an "earthar" system)

quote:
The current incarnation is about creationism, the Wedge Strategy and attempts to presuppose the answer and misrepresent reality.
The thing is they dont just misrepresent reality, the text at the core of thier argument (Bible) is something they historically misrepresent. Pre or Post Hezekiah.

quote:
AFAIK, only a handful of those who reject creationism and ID say that it is compatable.
.

I simply reject creationalism because it is a very superficial reading of the text made into dogma. A dogma the gets so ingrained that 4 billion years worth of physical evidence in fossil records and geological processes is ignored.

I Reject ID because, it is all soundbites debating methods and spin, very little substance.
I have no problem with someone questioning scientific dogma, (I do that a hell of a lot myself) I do have an issue with people presenting arguments just to assert a pre existing dogma.

The problem I suspect is in how the western or hellenic conceptualisation of "The fall" and "Original sin" seems to involve another literalist reading with repsect to free will and questioning. The modern edifice of religion is built on the notion of "unquestioning" unless "Questioning" asserts the "Unquestionable Dogma"

The bible as it is now presented and read, seems to be used to prop up this "do not question" ideal. However earlier variations of the text, as I suspect you know, did not do this.

I think the real issue between science and faith is hat faith as currentley manifested seems to be about not asking questions. But the whole reason for religion itslef is because many thousands of years ago, people asked questions. Like "Why so many deities why not have a singular Gd?" (Ask Akenhaten [Biased] )

Shalom

Sophie

Posts: 11 | From: Hove | Registered: Feb 2006  |  IP: Logged
andyjoneszz
Shipmate
# 11045

 - Posted      Profile for andyjoneszz   Email andyjoneszz   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
the_raptor wrote:
If you leave a pool of chemicals for long enough then statistics dictate that eventually a self-replicating molecule will form. And it only takes one.
Crooked Cucumber answered:
Really? I'll be you a pound to a penny that you can leave a pool of salt and water laying around for a billion years and you'll never get anything more complex than saltwater.

Sure, CC, but that's not what's being proposed: a slightly 'thicker' soup, containing nucleotide bases, sugars, phosphates and amino acids is more the kind of thing.

They aren't hugely complex chemicals, but they are a lot more intricate than salty water. Some of them are detectable in interstellar gas clouds, so, relatively complex as they are, they are clearly not that difficult to form.

Moreover, they are capable of chemically latching on to one another, in ways that the molecules and ions in salt and water aren't, to form polymer chains.

That's the process that's statistically more and likely to happen, the longer it's left to get on with it. Now, one can readily imagine all sorts of intriguing structures resulting — intriguing to a chemist, that is, but not self-replicating.

But on the other hand, as Raptor said, it would only have taken one self-replicating structure to form...
and the rest, as they say, is biology.

Posts: 83 | From: Durham, UK | Registered: Feb 2006  |  IP: Logged
mdijon
Shipmate
# 8520

 - Posted      Profile for mdijon     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
I don't think that's a correct way of viewing molecules.

They don't behave like self-replicating evolution driving particles unless they first start to make up a biological life form.

If you leave amino-acids in solution, peptides will never form. Not even in small concentrations. And the "millions of years" argument doesn't really wash, since you've already had however many avagadro constant multiples of molecules interacting without anything happening.

On the other hand, DNA does spontaneously polymerise - up to a point - and so I think most theories on this argue that DNA came first. RNA is probably necessary to catalyse polymerising of DNA oligomers.

Eigen (I seem to recall) did something on this - and there was some older work on clays with embedded ions carrying ions as prototypes for DNA polymerisation.

But even if those details get overcome, I agree with Sophia's (later) analysis, that it's a hell of a chicken and egg situation.

If there's no space, Ken, a link might be good?

--------------------
mdijon nojidm uoɿıqɯ ɯqıɿou
ɯqıɿou uoɿıqɯ nojidm mdijon

Posts: 12277 | From: UK | Registered: Sep 2004  |  IP: Logged
CrookedCucumber
Shipmate
# 10792

 - Posted      Profile for CrookedCucumber     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by andyjoneszz:
Sure, CC, but that's not what's being proposed: a slightly 'thicker' soup, containing nucleotide bases, sugars, phosphates and amino acids is more the kind of thing.

I am aware of this theory, but to the best of my knowledge there is a huge gap between what has been demonstrated in the laboratory in this area (ie., not a lot) and what must actually have happened in the distant past.

Which leads to my main point:

Nobody's very keen of `God of the gaps' explanations for anything. But how big must the `gap' be before it becomes reasonable to consider whether there is, in fact, some creative influence at work? Getting from nucleotide soup to DNA is a helluva big gap, really; it's far easy to see how we can get from cells to people, in my view, than how we get from soup to cells.

Is there something instrincally unscientific about looking for creative input in the process of evolution?

Posts: 2718 | From: East Dogpatch | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged
Questioning Sophia
Apprentice
# 11085

 - Posted      Profile for Questioning Sophia   Email Questioning Sophia   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Hello Andyjoneszz [Smile]

quote:
Originally posted by andyjoneszz:
Sure, CC, but that's not what's being proposed: a slightly 'thicker' soup, containing nucleotide bases, sugars, phosphates and amino acids is more the kind of thing.

They aren't hugely complex chemicals, but they are a lot more intricate than salty water. Some of them are detectable in interstellar gas clouds, so, relatively complex as they are, they are clearly not that difficult to form.

Moreover, they are capable of chemically latching on to one another, in ways that the molecules and ions in salt and water aren't, to form polymer chains.

I think you will find Mdijon is correct, there may be a flaw in your argument when it comes to how complex molecules form.

Nucleotide bases are iitially amino acids, Sugars generally require a bit of tweaking from larger molecules to produce. Amino Acids are perhaps the best place to explain this actually Ammonia and a simple acid linked in the middle with a carbon atom (And a hydrogen atom off to the side) they are made into a single link in the backbone of a peptide chain when you get the ammonia molecule as the amino group, the acid as a carrboxy group and the carbon atom joining them "Back to back"

So you get H3N-CH-COO. (Usually denoted as "R") The Amino group and the Carboxy group can be also Joined together "front to front" with the by broduct being water. This makes a chain, a polymer. Where CH is you get other similarly small molecules joining up to form an amino acid. there are twenty different small molecules that link up to the CH making 20 different amino acids, which is what makes up a peptide chain.

But to join them front to front usually you would need a ribosome, which is basically protein, which are invariably made up of, errm peptide chains.

you see this is the problem what we currentley identify as "life" as in macromolecules needs macromolecules to form.

Chicken and egg.

So what most microbiologists have done is look at how simpler polymers can form without pre existing macromolecules. This is why Tholins are so interesting, but while they may be "Precursors" to self replicating molecules they could only theoretically form into self replicating molecules under certain conditions.

"Under certain conditions" tends not to involve long periods of time, rather it can simply involve a bolt of lightning. (I believe one attempt involed arcs of electricity to get the tholins doing something)

It is fair to say that amino acids being "Small" molecules, made up of even smaller molecules that you find in GSCE text books on chemistry are very much a part of biology as well as chemistry. Myself working mainly with genetics, I often find that it is more chemistry than discussing inheritance etc.

A "thicker soup" as you described it would really not be all that much thicker, and would probably not involve sugars. Because the thicker soup would not be at the stage where large and complex molecules like Enzymes and Proteins (Enzymes are proteins, they usualy convert one compound to another) are around to do the donkey work, you need to form these somehow before you get onto self replicating molecules.

The big mystery (And why people spend millions on things like the Cassini-Huygens probe to Saturn's moon, Titan, with an atmosphere full of tholins)
is how we get round the chicken and egg, like why did this happen on earth and not titan, Temperture must therefore play a part given that Titan is really a cold place.

I would much rather see what comes out of that than just sit here thinking of a thicker soup acted upon by Gd or Randomness. It is an important question, to determine how we circumvent the processes that require pre existing macromolecules.

Ultimately the question still remains, even if that is sussed out, what made the laws by which all this happens in the first place? How did they happen. Curiostity says "Well lets figure that out"

Shalom [Smile]

Sophie

Posts: 11 | From: Hove | Registered: Feb 2006  |  IP: Logged
Alan Cresswell

Mad Scientist 先生
# 31

 - Posted      Profile for Alan Cresswell   Email Alan Cresswell   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Basically, the approach of science is to try and narrow the gap. It works from both sides. Studies of pre-biotic chemical soups (eg: the chemistry of Titan Sophia mentioned) and what sort of chemistry happens in them give us hints as to how the more complex molecules needed for life could start off. From the other side, it's clear that even something as relatively simple as the DNA of an average bacteria is signifantly more complex than what's needed for self-replicating molecules. So, there are scientists working backwards to find out just how simple the system can get and be self-replicating. Even though we have no really good idea how the gap is bridged, we are beginning to get to the point where we know approximately how big the gap is. Inevitably, the gap will close further.

--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.

Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Questioning Sophia
Apprentice
# 11085

 - Posted      Profile for Questioning Sophia   Email Questioning Sophia   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Hello Crooked Cucumber [Smile]

quote:
Originally posted by CrookedCucumber:
Nobody's very keen of `God of the gaps' explanations for anything. But how big must the `gap' be before it becomes reasonable to consider whether there is, in fact, some creative influence at work? Getting from nucleotide soup to DNA is a helluva big gap, really; it's far easy to see how we can get from cells to people, in my view, than how we get from soup to cells.

Is there something instrincally unscientific about looking for creative input in the process of evolution? [/QB]

Well my throw away Remark earlier, was to illustrate a point I have about how people read the religious texts. Think about it, in the days when the bible was written (Thinking of the Torah which would be between 1200 BC and 710 BC when Hezekiah came along and codified it), Lightning would mean the Shekinah, or Presence of Gd. In fact many descriptions of the shekinah seem to involve natural processes like lightning.

The question again is "what laws of physics make bolts of lightning" (The induction of static usually). What makes the laws governing static? what makes the laws governing that, even if it all gets tied up and explained neatly, the people who wrote the narratives in the Torah, or other writings of the day(s) would not be tinking in terms of "What is behind this, and then behind that" and then say "we cannot explain it it therefore must be Gd" Rather they concluded that behind it all was a something that would one day be better understood. (This is what all the prophesies speak of, knowing this Gd).

Even as late as the 18th and 19th century the "divine" idea of "the spark of life" bringing "life" somehow captured the imagination. They knw nothing of tholins then. But have you ever read Mary Shelley? Who wrote A Modern Prometheus, alias Frankenstein?

All inspired by a rather strange nighmare and little chats at the royal institute with people zapping dead frogs legs with electricity.

It isnt a question of Gaps it is a question of perception, The old testament narrators did not have the benefit of science to explain what they saw, at the same time I am convinced that science seems to miss a few observations that seem to show up in old writings. Because the word "Gd" is attatched to the text, we find "It is therefore false" Rather than a study of what these cultures were capable of.

Take navigation, they didnt rely on sattelite navigation, it was looking at shadows, or rather the length of them, usually when on the sea or in the desert. You would at some point grasp how the solar system works, like where the sun is. But rely on a compass and a few thousand years on the church says "The earth is at the center" (Duh!).

I think ancient people fail to get the credit they deserve often. I think simply rejecting belief systems in the sneery manner some do (Like Dawkins does) is not helpful. They perhaps knew more about the solar system than Pope Urban did, And in navigation, then, across a sea or a desert, it would have been a matter of life and death.

It is about interperetation, not gaps.

shalom [Smile]

Sophie

Posts: 11 | From: Hove | Registered: Feb 2006  |  IP: Logged
CrookedCucumber
Shipmate
# 10792

 - Posted      Profile for CrookedCucumber     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
Even though we have no really good idea how the gap is bridged, we are beginning to get to the point where we know approximately how big the gap is. Inevitably, the gap will close further. [/QB]

Maybe it will, although I'm less certain that it's inevitable.

That isn't really my point, however. What concerns me is why so many people see it as unscientific in principle to try to determine whether the gap was closed by a creative act.

I can see good pragmatic reasons for objecting to this endeavour -- that it probably wont lead anywhere, that creationists will think its about them, that it will be done unscientifically, or that we just don't really have a clue how to start.

But that anyone should believe such an attempt is a priori unscientific perplexes me.

Posts: 2718 | From: East Dogpatch | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged
mdijon
Shipmate
# 8520

 - Posted      Profile for mdijon     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
One can construct a hypothesis and test it; perfectly scientific.

The difficulty is that ID type hypotheses are often the null hypothesis for another study.

eg. A biochemist might start with the hypothesis "DNA can polymerise spontaneously under certain conditions."

One does this by writing the null hypothesis - perhaps in a more focused way for the particular experiments "In this range of clay/ion concentrations no spontaneous DNA polymerisation will be observed."

One then either rejects or retains the null hypothesis.

The problem is that retaining the null hypothesis can't be viewed as proof of something. It can only be regarded as absence of proof for something else.

I think what ID would need to do is come up with a positive hypothesis - not "No evidence of a mechanism for x part of evolution will be found" - but more "Evidence x of creative input will be seen if y". The difficulty is, I'm not sure there is any such hypothesis. Hence it is very difficult for ID to stop being a philosophical gut reaction based on the complexity of the world, evolutionary theory and (as you say) "the gaps". Similarly belief in God.

--------------------
mdijon nojidm uoɿıqɯ ɯqıɿou
ɯqıɿou uoɿıqɯ nojidm mdijon

Posts: 12277 | From: UK | Registered: Sep 2004  |  IP: Logged
CrookedCucumber
Shipmate
# 10792

 - Posted      Profile for CrookedCucumber     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
I think what ID would need to do is come up with a positive hypothesis - not "No evidence of a mechanism for x part of evolution will be found" - but more "Evidence x of creative input will be seen if y". The difficulty is, I'm not sure there is any such hypothesis. Hence it is very difficult for ID to stop being a philosophical gut reaction based on the complexity of the world, evolutionary theory and (as you say) "the gaps". Similarly belief in God.

Well, rejecting a null hypothesis is supportive of some other hypothesis if there are only two hypotheses which are possibly correct. I think that's part of the ID problem. If you start from the assumption that either we have to accept the neo-Darwinian model as it currently is, or some form of ID, then anything that weakens the neo-Darwinian position strengthens the ID position.

The problem is that, from a scientific perspective, we have no a priori reason to assume that we must accept either some ID model or some neo-Darwinian model. There could be any number of design or non-Design things going on that we know nothing about as yet.

So, to that extent, I agree -- showing some weakness or other in the neo-Darwinian proposition provides no support at all for a design proposition.

Like you, I wonder if formulating a positive proposition to test is possible, even in principle. My gut feeling is that approaches based on information theory are most likely to be acceptable, but even then there is scope for arguing whether the presence of certain informational signatures is really indicative of intelligence or not.

Nevertheless, I wouldn't reject scientific investigation in this area on principle, despite it being difficult to do in practice.

Posts: 2718 | From: East Dogpatch | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged



Pages in this thread: 1  2  3  ...  25  26  27  28  29  30  31  ...  40  41  42 
 
Post new thread  Post a reply Close thread   Feature thread   Move thread   Delete thread Next oldest thread   Next newest thread
 - Printer-friendly view
Go to:

Contact us | Ship of Fools | Privacy statement

© Ship of Fools 2016

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classicTM 6.5.0

 
follow ship of fools on twitter
buy your ship of fools postcards
sip of fools mugs from your favourite nautical website
 
 
  ship of fools