Awwwwww, I am so proud finally I started a thread and ppl. are posting real thoughts on it. YAY.
lola (I kinda miss the fluff)
I have this really crazy idea, please help ( nope not fluff)
by lola28 36 Replies latest jw friends
-
-
AuldSoul
Abaddon,
Well, experts in the field certainly aren't bothered by calling a gluon a particle.
Precisely my point. Experts in the field are completely unfettered by any need to justify their descriptions of how anything works. Just like a religion. So, if there is no basic difference between the metaphysical and inexplicable terms used by Science and those that are used by Religionists, why should one be preferred over the other.
How can a physical "thing" have no mass? I don't care that they say it is true and use their papal offices as proof of accuracy, I want an explanation—an accounting, if you will.
Respectfully,
AuldSoul -
SickofLies
Precisely my point. Experts in the field are completely unfettered by any need to justify their descriptions of how anything works. Just like a religion. So, if there is no basic difference between the metaphysical and inexplicable terms used by Science and those that are used by Religionists, why should one be preferred over the other.
Wrong again my friend, I'm sorry it appears as if you ignored my reply to your inquires for I have addressed your issues. To say that scientific experts don't justify their statements or explain them is just plain silly, what evidence do you have to back this up? There is a huge differece between science and religion as I stated earlier, sciece has real world applications where religion does not.
-
AuldSoul
SickofLies,
You are correct. I am genuinely fascinated by what science discovers, and I don't attempt to discount it in the least. However, you mentioned the existence of "concise theories" regarding abiogenesis and that was what I was hoping your would share. That is, an explanation of the ORIGINS, not a thorough description of what already exists.
The authors report the two ribozyme folds share no apparent evolutionary history and are completely different, with no base pairs (and probably no hydrogen bonds) in common. Minor variants of this sequence are highly active for one or the other reaction, and can be accessed from prototype ribozymes through a series of neutral mutations. The implication, the authors suggest, is that in the course of evolution, new RNA folds could arise from preexisting folds without the need to carry inactive intermediate sequences.
Now, instead of "concise theories" I see reference to unfalsifiable "implications" of what "could" have happened in the origins, and nothing about how the process started to begin with, which is the study of abiogensis. I find it impractical to imagine that a discussion of life that—without precluding all but the desired outcome—may or may not have spontaneously arisen, will yield "concise theories" of how life spontaneously arose. It is the concise theories you referred to which explain abiogenesis that I am most interested in reading about.
So, while the ribozymes may have developed without a need for protiens we still arrive at a problem of the ribozymes coalescing with sufficient frequency and under condition appropriate for them to start producing new RNA folds. It is at this point where the suppositions are no longer concise, and it is also at this point where abiogenesis is being discussed.
To cover the gap between the existence of ribozymes independent of proteins and the existence of ribozymes interacting with proteins by the statement "in the course of evolution" is, in my opinion, akin to the following: "Henry Ford's parents had sex, and so through the course of history, the Ford Bronco rolled off the assembly lines." It may be perfectly true, however the details have yet to be filled in. And, given only those facts, someone could just as easily assert, "Harrison Ford's parents had sex, and so through the course of history, the Ford Bronco rolled off the assembly lines."
Pressing for no further details would leave both statements of fact equally true, from a purely logical standpoint.
Also, life is not a collection of proteins and enzymes. I can have a vat full to the rim with proteins and enzymes that are completely lifeless. For a theory of abiogenesis to explain the spontaneous appearance of life with a "concise theory" requires it to explain the point at which proteins and enzymes BECAME life, not really describe processes or parts of already living matter.
That is what I thought you said you could provide. I was incredibly interested in that theory.
Of course, I am not a fan of the god of the gaps. But I don't see the congruity in the theories explaining abiogenesis that is claimed by its proponents.
Respectfully,
AuldSoul -
AuldSoul
SickofLies,
Regarding your last point, which I didn't think you were asserting as a significant point in your first reply on this issue, I would like to ask whether you have considered the impacts of religion on social development.
Anthropologically speaking, I think you shorten the influence of religion on things like the spread of agriculture, the formation of civilizations (which allowed for advances in sharing ideas farther within a single lifespan) the advent of writing and mediums on which to write, originally for the preservation of religious ideas, etc.
I think you are quite mistaken and provably so. Religion has directly led to quite a few leaps forward in technology. In fact, modern science could not have been nearly so successful in its current pursuits without the advent of technologies that were the direct result of religious "necessity".
Respectfully,
AuldSoul -
SickofLies
You are correct. I am genuinely fascinated by what science discovers, and I don't attempt to discount it in the least. However, you mentioned the existence of "concise theories" regarding abiogenesis and that was what I was hoping your would share.
I mention concise theories exist for most elementary processes that occur in our known reality, I did not mention abiogenesis, you are the one that brought the subject up. You said that there had been no progress in this area and I merely stated that this is not correct; there has been progress in this area.
I'm not sure what your arguing for, are you saying that our inability to explain abiogensis with 100% certainty is an argument for creation? To me its really not a big issue of being able to describe exactly how life arose in the first place. The fact is we are here, and there are very good theories to explain how life has developed into the forms we see today. Although I gave you the leading theory for how RNA has evolved, you immediately pointed to the next step in the evolutionary chain. Weitherit has or hasn't been explained is not proof for God. The argument of: science can't explain X yet is not an argument for creation. Regardless of if it can be explained or not at the moment their is nothing to say that it wont be explained in the future. If anything history has taught us it is the ingenuity of the human race, I have full confidence that these questions will be answered in time. -
AuldSoul
The fact is we are here, and there are very good theories to explain how life has developed into the forms we see today.
This mixes abiogenesis and evolution.
Respectfully,
AuldSoul -
SickofLies
Regarding your last point, which I didn't think you were asserting as a significant point in your first reply on this issue, I would like to ask whether you have considered the impacts of religion on social development.
Anthropologically speaking, I think you shorten the influence of religion on things like the spread of agriculture, the formation of civilizations (which allowed for advances in sharing ideas farther within a single lifespan) the advent of writing and mediums on which to write, originally for the preservation of religious ideas, etc.
I think you are quite mistaken and provably so. Religion has directly led to quite a few leaps forward in technology. In fact, modern science could not have been nearly so successful in its current pursuits without the advent of technologies that were the direct result of religious "necessity".
I have not consider this argument, and I have no knowledge of any technology that has resulted as a necessity of religon. Could you provide some examples of this as this is not my area of expertise.
~ SoL
-
Midget-Sasquatch
SickofLies
Even I'm curious in seeing how religion has positively influenced our technological advancement.
However, AuldSoul had a number of valid points, as I understand them. Mainly how our understanding of objective reality has its limitations, even when using the scientific method. Even though there are several scenarios offered up for the abiotic origins of life (each plausible in their own limited ways), we really can't be sure of just how life actually developed. Now you first wrote:
I think (an educated opinion) that bacteria can arise from amino acids in a variety of conditions.
You wisely dropped that angle.
You then brought up the RNA world hypothesis. I think that the "molecular fossils" present within cells is definitely evidence that there's something to that hypothesis. But AuldSoul raised a very valid point about just how much more info we lack. How do we get from just autocatalytic strands of RNA to forming the crucial dynamic between information encoded nucleic acid strands and the generation of proteins? What was the first ribosome like and how did it come about?
Now like you said: we're here, and I agree that to harp on all the things we don't know has limited mileage when it comes to yielding practical benefits. But I personally think acknowledging them can help us be more open to paradigm shifts.
-
SickofLies
You then brought up the RNA world hypothesis. I think that the "molecular fossils" ;present within cells is definitely evidence that there's something to that hypothesis. But AuldSoul raised a very valid point about just how much more info we lack. How do we get from just autocatalytic strands of RNA to forming the crucial dynamic between information encoded nucleic acid strands and the generation of proteins? What was the first ribosome ;like and how did it come about?
Now like you said: we're here, ;and I agree that to harp on all the things we don't know has limited mileage when it comes to yielding practical benefits. But I personally think acknowledging them can help us ;be ;more open to paradigm shifts.
No doubt, I agree that AuldSoul brought out some very good points, that's why I spent time and wrote a careful reply to the questions. I totally agree that there is much we don't know and that these are very interesting areas of research, I would find science boring if all the answers were already there. There is a good chance we will never be able to answer the questions brought up with 100% accuracy, that’s why I say it isn't a big issue, because we can't go back in time and see what happened. All we can do is create artificial laboratory conditions that may emulate what conditions were like and then study what happens. But even if we were able to evolve a complete civilization this way it's not guaranteed that this is the process that led to our being here. Thus I don't spend much time looking into these kinds of issues as I am doing research into more practical areas of evolution and biology mainly creating viruses to deliver gene therapy to humans.