You are saying the same thing that I said in this exchange - they may be curious, they may have funding for such research, or whatever - but they are not working on a basis provided by a hypothesis as scientist normally mean by the term.
And that’s false.
2 Likes
How are they not working on hypotheses?
Hypothesis: Nucleotide sequence A will result in a replicating genome in the presence of lipid vesicles.
Experiment: Measure the changes in nucleotide sequences to see if there is replication.
At least to me, that looks like hypothesis driven science.
2 Likes
You’re an academic chemist, man. Read the papers instead of cherry-picking Google.
3 Likes
NonlinOrg, I am sincerely trying to follow your arguments but I must admit considerable difficulty. I used to adamantly deny the Theory of Evolution, so I do think I have considerable empathy with where you are coming from. But I would encourage you to re-examine your logic and your misuse of scientific terminologies. I scarcely know where to begin.
The following reaction to your claims hits one of many nails squarely on the head:
And I think you surprised many of us with this one:
Oh my. As someone else insinuated in reference to a popular adage, that’s so far off the deep end that it is not even close enough to qualify as “wrong.”
Perhaps you are misled by what I sometimes call “The Morpheme Ambiguity.” Geocentrism refers to the earth as the center of the universe. But heliocentrism only asserts that the sun is the “center” of the solar system, not the entire universe. (I put quotation marks around “center” because, technically, the earth’s orbit is an ellipse and under Kepler’s Law, the sun is at just one of two foci of that elliptical orbit. So one must be very careful about the meaning of center in this context.)
That’s not just his opinion. Those are standard definitions. Or do you consider scientific terms just a matter of personal opinions?
[quote=“NonlinOrg, post:71, topic:36540”]
The evidence for a materialistic abiogenesis is utterly lacking. [/quote]
By definition, abiogenesis (biological life from non-living ingredients) is always “materialistic” because those non-living ingredients are matter, the chemical elements of the earth’s crust.
If someone denies abiogenesis, the only logical alternatives are (1) biological life has always existed and therefore had no beginning, or (2) biological life suddenly “poofed” into existence where nothing previously existed—a concept strongly denied by both the Bible and modern science. (The Bible claims that all animals come from “the dust of the ground”, which is just another way to refer to abiogenesis, life from the non-living chemical elements of the earth’s crust.)
That’s absurdly illogical. How does the latter logically follow from the former? Let’s see how you apply that same “logic” to the following converse claim that we will attribute to some imaginary anti-theist:
The evidence for a God-directed abiogenesis is utterly lacking. If it were true, given Earth’s life supporting environment, we would see God-directed abiogenesis every day.
Does that kind of logic still make sense to you?
Obviously, it is successful in scientific terms because it demonstrates a logically necessary first step if abiogenesis processes are ever to be explained by the scientific method. It is reminiscent of Friedrich Wohler’s groundbreaking experiment where he synthesized the first organic compound in a laboratory. You see, prior to Wohler’s experiment, virtually everyone assumed that organic chemicals, chemical compounds thought to only be produced by living organisms, were solely within God’s creative domain—and would NEVER be synthesized by humans from non-living ingredients. Yet, nobody assumed that Wohler’s synthesis of urea, a product of animal kidneys, in and of itself proved that chemists could create living organisms. But it did demonstrate one step in that potential direction. (And from that time on, the term “organic chemistry” changed its definition from “the chemistry of life” to “carbon chemistry”, a much broader definition.)
Let’s look at your logic further. Suppose a critic of cancer research were to say:
The experiment in which Dr. John Doe synthesized biochemicals which markedly reduced the growth and multiplication of cancer cells has been called an encouraging success. But how can a lab experiment in a petri dish which didn’t cure even one person’s cancer be called successful?
Does that kind of argument sound at all familiar to you, NonlinOrg? Do you still think that your argument is logically sound?
So now you are telling us that any “utter stagnation” in some field of science logically indicates that the concept being researched is “unrealistic” and will never be understood? Do we really need to review the many examples in the history of science when scientists appeared to make very little progress for many many years? Did that slow progress render the pursuit “unrealistic”? (Of course, I’m not accepting your assertion of “utter stagnation.” You provided no evidence nor other basis for your claim.)
For a long time there were scholars who belittled the belittled the attempts of scientists to understand the motions of the planets. To them, the pursuit of scientific explanations were “unrealistic” because it was (allegedly) clear that “God commands angels to propel the heavenly bodies in their courses.” Should scientists like Isaac Newton have given up on their research because of the “utter stagnation” which preceded his development of calculus and the development of his Laws of Motion and the Law of Universal Gravitation?
Perhaps you could define for us what exactly would constitute “utter stagnation”. Should scientists give up on their research based on what you think are questions too difficult for them to address?
How does that at all logically follow? Absurd.
NonlinOrg, do you have any professional or academic background in science? I know that you’ve been asked that question before but I don’t recall seeing your reply.
Once again, this is mind-numbingly illogical. Couldn’t the same argument be applied to so many other scientific phenomena? For example, if the sun is powered by hydrogen atoms fusing to produce helium (and other heavier elements), why don’t balloons filling with hydrogen gas in high school chemistry lab experiments routinely produce nuclear explosions?
As to information and chaos, I strongly recommend that you read even the first few chapters of any undergraduate information theory textbook.
Why? What about it constitutes “magic”? Suppose that someone told people living in remote areas of Papua New Guinea a hundred years ago that some rocks could be used to make devices which would allow human voices to be transmitted silently so that other people many miles away could hear them. Would that have been “belief in magic”?
NonlinOrg, do you understand why I am struggling to make sense of your claims?
And what does that have to do with either abiogenesis or evolution? Both the Bible and modern science agree that living things did not come from nothing. Living organisms come the earth’s crust. (And by the way, EX NIHILO “out of nothing” creation has been a staple theological topic for many centuries, so why would it be wrong for physicists—if not biologists—to investigate the “something out of nothing” concept?)
Why? The Theory of Evolution makes no claims about the existence or non-existence of any deity. Science textbooks don’t talk about God’s role (or non-role) in creation for the same reason that music theory textbooks don’t discuss theological topics. So I’m baffled by your claim.
I believe photosynthesis and mitosis are manifestations of God’s will. So does that thereby require that the whole photosynthesis narrative and the entire mitosis narrative needs to be reevaluated? Honestly, I don’t understand your point here.
Seeing how nobody claims that “monkeys ate too many bananas and randomly grew a brain”, this bizarre argument has nothing to do with anything, let alone evolution or abiogenesis. [content edited]
I’m not exactly sure what you mean by “a predetermined design” but seeing how I’m a Molinist, I certainly believe that God chose the particular “reality path” which we observe today, one in which evolutionary processes brought about his divine will. Are you trying to mock this idea? Or are you making some other point? Once again, your argument baffles me. I thought all Christians could agree that God uses natural processes like the water cycle, solar fusion, photosynthesis, mitosis, and all sorts of biological processes to accomplish his will.
4 Likes
NonlinOrg, I have two questions for you:
(1) If scientists eventually synthesize biological life in a laboratory, such as an artificial E. coli bacteria made from non-living ingredients found on the shelves of their chemical supply cabinet, will it undermine your faith in God and the Bible? Will you deny that they were successful in creating a bacterium, just as some Christian ministers initially denied that Freidrick Wohler had synthesized urea in his laboratory “because the chemicals of living things belong solely to the creative domain of God himself”?
(2) Does the Bible tell us that humans will never synthesize a biological organism in a laboratory? Does the Bible forbid scientific research towards that goal?
I’m very interested in your answers to these questions.
2 Likes
No, we wouldn’t, because newly-formed life would be unable to compete with life that has evolved for billions of years.
Would you like a very specific, mechanistic example of this?
1 Like
what on earth are you trying to say?
Would it be surprising to you that God designed and created monkeys? Isn’t that what your view of Genesis already accepts?
Lad, you aren’t making much sense…
It is observed by the criminal.
You didn’t read the whole thread so your replies are out of touch with the previous discussion.
That is explained in the following paragraph (which I updated - see blog). You’re taking it out of context.
Does anyone call M-U an “encouraging success”? That would be acceptable indeed, but this little experiment is presented as proof positive by many. Still, I will tone this down and you talk to the Dawkins out there to do the same.
The fact remains, as far as we know, life is binary - yes or no, so Miller Urey failed in that it did not create life which is what it tried to do. You don’t “make progress” by putting your gloves on and entering the lab or by synthesizing compounds no one was lacking.
We do have all the building blocks of life and we know the initial conditions supporting abiogenesis would have to be compatible with life as we know it. If it happened once it should happen again and in fact we should see it every day. How is this not logic to you?
It bears no comparison with your motion of the planets example which was an unknown at that time, whereas we do now the basics of how life works. And motions of the planets just moved the knowledge envelope a bit - we might yet find that angels play a role in that. Hydrogen atoms fusing will definitely happen every time the right conditions are present - my point exactly - why is abiogenesis not doing the same? Do crystals not repeatedly and reliably form when the necessary matter and the proper conditions are present? How is that absurd?
And by the same token should I recommend you read your elementary school books? By the way, do you have any professional or academic background in science? Who cares?
The expectation of information out of chaos without external intervention is the materialistic magic you and others support. EX NIHILO requires God’s intervention. Is that what the abiogenesis proponents claim? This is quite basic.
ma·te·ri·al·ism
məˈtirēəˌlizəm/Submit
noun
noun: materialism
1.
a tendency to consider material possessions and physical comfort as more important than spiritual values.
2.
PHILOSOPHY
the doctrine that nothing exists except matter and its movements and modifications.
the doctrine that consciousness and will are wholly due to material agency.
Are you kidding? If God’s will, then humans are not just a random excrescence from some brainless monkey that ate too many bananas. Real science books, don’t make unsubstantiated claims about how things came into being. They just examine and try to understand the universe as it is. Yes, photosynthesis and mitosis too.
You are kidding or simply unaware of the materialistic-atheistic perspective - this is hard to believe.
We can agree on these phenomena we all try to understand. But history is another matter and hardly science.
- I think not. We already do a lot of things we thought only God can do, but of course with the materials and knowledge that was handed down to us. That’s why I am asking: is life an intrinsic property of matter? If so why don’t we see abiogenesis happening? Same with evolution - I only find ridiculous the materialistic view (see the definition).
- No and No. For more info, this is the post that made me start this topic. However, the Bible tells us that humans were incapable to build the Tower of Babel because they tried to do it on their own.
Really? How do you know? What about the labs working on abiogenesis? Did they forget to sterilize?
First, I didn’t write the first sentence that you attributed to me.
Second, we know because competition is the basis for natural selection. As for the labs, are you not aware that sterilization doesn’t inactivate ribonuclease?
1 Like
Yes, it is as logical as “I’m rubber, you’re glue …”
History is filled with one-time events that do not re-occur, let alone every day.
2 Likes
So “not wrong” and “sun is in fact not the center of the solar system”. Why are you complaining then? Earth and Sun are two bodies that interact with one another. If Earth does an ellipse in the Sun’s system of reference, the Sun also does an ellipse in the Earth’s system of reference (I think). Another example: take Singapore and Russia that also provides a lot of energy - both are the center of the world in their reference. Get it?
Anyway, this is not the topic here. I was just pointing out the excessive dogmatism on this blog site.
There is a huge deal here. And yes, it’s not the topic but it is very relevant to your ability to read, evaluate and understand scientific information.
Either the Earth is rotating on our axis at a tilt of 23 some degrees orbiting the sun every 365 or so days OR the entire universe is rotating around the Earth, with even stars relatively close moving at blazing fast speeds that oscillate where they end up each night with a period of 365 days. One of these is really happening. The other was once a neat idea, but is utter rubbish that does not describe reality.
4 Likes
The hypothesis is possible pathways for abiogenesis. As stated in previous posts, it is impossible to say how life started on Earth, so scientists are limited to testing hypotheses that test how life can come about through abiogenesis.
3 Likes
That is false. The entire goal of their project was to see if biomolecules could form from simple chemicals. Their experiments were a glowing success.[quote=“NonlinOrg, post:91, topic:36540”]
We do have all the building blocks of life and we know the initial conditions supporting abiogenesis would have to be compatible with life as we know it. If it happened once it should happen again and in fact we should see it every day. How is this not logic to you?
[/quote]
It may be happening again, but the presence of highly evolved life would almost immediately outcompete and destroy such primitive life.[quote=“NonlinOrg, post:91, topic:36540”]
The expectation of information out of chaos without external intervention is the materialistic magic you and others support.
[/quote]
That’s not magic. That is how nature works.
2 Likes
Why are you here if not to learn?
This is a demonstration of Natural Selection - - forced onto two populations of bacteria.
Natural selection has also been repeatedly replicated with aquariums and fish … where one aquarium has random-sized fish removed regularly, while the other 2 tanks have the smallest or the largest fish removed regularly.
The end result is that when the smallest or largest fish are removed regularly, “selection” leaves us with a population that is unusually larger sized or smaller sized than expected.
Please do not repeat the same error by claiming natural selection is meaningless.
This has been my point from the beginning, and yet some state that there is a testable hypothesis for the origin of life. This is the cause of such confusion, and this spills over into ToE and faith arguments.
On a slightly humorous note, I am amused by the analogy between fiction of putting dead peoples parts to form a human and animating this with electricity, and some of these experiments in which parts of non-living bio-parts and mixed together to test some “life related” events.