T_aquaticus
(The Friendly Neighborhood Atheist)
61
That’s something we can never know, unfortunately. Individual cells and biochemistry don’t leave the types of fossils we can use to answer those questions. At best, we can find possible natural pathways that could lead to life. Another interesting possibility is discovering life elsewhere in our own solar system, be it in some salty underground reservoir on Mars or in the oceans of a moon orbiting a gas giant (e.g. Europa). We may very well find life with biochemistry that differs greatly from what we see on Earth, and at the same time it may give us clues as to which pathways hold the most promise.
What I do know is that we have never discovered something new about nature by saying “God did it”, shutting down our labs, and returning home to never research the question again.
4 Likes
T_aquaticus
(The Friendly Neighborhood Atheist)
62
I’ve never liked this description of transcription and translation. Rather, I’ve always seen DNA as a chemical substrate or template that chemically reacts with the molecules in the cell. The reason a specific amino acid is put at the end of an extending polypeptide is because the next three bases of the mRNA are complementary to the anti-codon on the tRNA that is charged with that amino acid. There are no orders given.
Knowledge and understanding are more cerebral and involve the ego and human vanity. Being right (thinking you ae right) and knowing is way beyond curiosity.
Richard
T_aquaticus
(The Friendly Neighborhood Atheist)
64
I would disagree. Curiosity is satiated by getting an answer.
Then you experience curiosity in a very, very different fashion than I do. If I am curious as to how something works I want to know how it works and also know that I am right. Curiosity isn’t satiated until I am convinced I have something approaching the right answer.
T_aquaticus
(The Friendly Neighborhood Atheist)
67
Why is science valuable to human society? Are you serious with this question?
Is it valuable to us to know how germs work, and know we are right?
You seem to be so defensive about your own worldview that it can’t exist in a world where people seek out knowledge, sometimes just for acquiring knowledge itself. That is rather unfortunate.
God…a creator God…you might consider that possibility. It has profound implications for you and humanity. That doesn’t mean to shut down the labs and explorations, and stop asking where the cell came from.
But lets not kid ourselves in believing a bacteria cell is a primitive cell and so much different than one of our human cells.
Good luck on coming up with a model for a protocell.
T_aquaticus
(The Friendly Neighborhood Atheist)
71
I am more impressed by realities than possibilities, but to each their own.
In the last 6 months we have seen scientific research shut down based on ideology instead of scientific merit. Let’s just hope this doesn’t continue.
Biologists are quite aware of this. The bacteria we see today are the product of 3+ billion years of evolution, a process that is known to increase complexity. Biologists are also keenly aware of the differences between prokaryotes and eukaryotes.
Great question! I think because God is a programmer. If you look at the history of life, it looks remarkably like the history of software releases. After the programmer develops some new ideas, they need to be tested. There are major releases (appearance of phyla), minor updates, and everything in between.
Ultimately, God is in no “hurry.” It’s only billions of years from our perspective, inside time, looking back.
If I state that 2+2=11 you know instantly how I ca think it, even though to some it would seem stupid or impossible. However, when I say that self Knowledge is not atruistic, you do not understand how i can think it, but instead of trying to understand why I said it you just reject it out of hand as stupid or impossible.
The same applies when I claim that Evolution is not like other sceince.
You do not want to know why I think it. You do not care why I think it I must be wrong!
That is the core of most our our arguments.
You cannot accept that I can think it. You cannot allow me to think it. You must teach me not to think it.
Richard
T_aquaticus
(The Friendly Neighborhood Atheist)
74
If you say 2+2=11 I know that you are wrong. It doesn’t matter how you arrived at that wrong conclusion. It’s wrong. It’s demonstrably wrong.
And you are wrong, no matter how you got to that wrong conclusion.
I can accept that you come to wrong conclusions.
Besides, you already admitted that you only say things to push peoples’ buttons. For all I know you are wrong on purpose just to get a rise out of people.
You do not dictate what is right and wrong in such matters.
You have shown to be inflexible and dismissive…
I have been “discussing” for most of my life.
You appear to only assert and argue your case.
The net difference is that i understand you and you cannot understand me.
You seem to think that if i understood you I would agree with you. Wrong.
i understnad you. I know why you think what you do. Therefore iknow what answers you are going to give even before youwrite them (usually. iwas wrong about your grasp of mathematics)
I also have no problem playing devil’s advocate.
Which means that i can make an argument wthout actually believing it or needing it to be true. You cannot.
I do not only say things to push peoples’ buttons. I do not live in a binary world.
Richard
T_aquaticus
(The Friendly Neighborhood Atheist)
76
Base 10 is the default.
And now you are just making stuff up to push peoples’ buttons. Nothin you say is reliable.
Does that mean Base 3 is invalid and has no value or truth?
No, but if that makes you happy, go on and beleive it.
Perhaps one day you will learn that people do not all think the same, and that such diversity is beneficial.
In the mean time you can waste your time trying to teach me how to think like you do.
I am giving up trying to show you how I think, because you could not give a ~@~!!
Richard
T_aquaticus
(The Friendly Neighborhood Atheist)
78
Why should anyone believe you?
“What I learn is not what people think it is. Oh, there are some interesting Scientific discoveries that I have missed, but in general, what I really learn is how people think and how to answer them. It is amazing how ignorant people here think I am, and I am happy for them to continue to do so. It lets their guard down. They reveal more about themselves than I do about me, and i know exactly what buttons to press.”–RichardG
Correct, not all people think the same. Some are wrong. Or do you think Flat Earthers are right?
I am not asking anyone to agree with me or to think like i do.
An argument is weighed on its own erit, or at least it should be but Ad hominum rules her. You seem to think that who said it makes a difference.
I have let you ito a secret. Tkae it or eave it and draw your own conclusions. Nothng ese changes.
Perhaps yu will consder your words to me mre carefully> But i doubt it. In fact, from your record, I do not expect you to remember this at all.
True to form.
Button pushed.
Richard
T_aquaticus
(The Friendly Neighborhood Atheist)
80
False. You are claiming that every argument is true no matter its merits. You want to have everyone treat everything you say as true, and not challenge it. Richard is infallible, and we all just have to just deal with it.
When you understand why something can be false, and how, then you may have a better understanding of where we are coming from.
