Posted on 01/11/2009 2:16:04 PM PST by Free ThinkerNY
One of life's greatest mysteries is how it began. Scientists have pinned it down to roughly this:
Some chemical reactions occurred about 4 billion years ago — perhaps in a primordial tidal soup or maybe with help of volcanoes or possibly at the bottom of the sea or between the mica sheets — to create biology.
Now scientists have created something in the lab that is tantalizingly close to what might have happened. It's not life, they stress, but it certainly gives the science community a whole new data set to chew on.
The researchers, at the Scripps Research Institute, created molecules that self-replicate and even evolve and compete to win or lose. If that sounds exactly like life, read on to learn the controversial and thin distinction.
(Excerpt) Read more at livescience.com ...
The problem is that the ToE comes to a dead screeching halt when the question of what the first cell evolved from.
The other thing that throws a monkey wrench into the matter is that variation within species is well recognized by everyone. Extrapolating it to assume that enough variation can occur to give rise to completely different species is only suggested but not demonstrated beyond the shadow of a doubt by the fossil record.
All the lab work only indicates that wide variation can occur, but the populations produced are still recognizable as being identified with the populations from which they occur.
IOW, they're still fruit flies, bacteria, whatever.
The lab work also in no way demonstrates that naturalistic explanations are even possible. The lab work is all the result of intelligent manipulation.
Yes, the ToE is the best science has, if you want to postulate a naturalistic, God free theory of how life got here. But it doesn't mean it's right because it's the only one science has, and it doesn't mean that we have to accept it because it's the only one science has, and it doesn't mean that we're ignorant, stupid, uneducated, ungodly, creatards, or IDiots because we don't agree with those who think it has value.
If you are talking about CAMD, then the so-called "genetic algorithms" are merely a restricted form or monte-carlo search algorithms--that is, they rely on luck. There are millions of AI search algorithms out there that could easily stand in with similar if not better results. One reason why is because genetic algorithms suffer from the same difficulties as neural networks, in that they get stuck in local maxima as the "population" is pruned. Increasing your mutation rate is analogous to larger weight adjustments with neural networks and the result is the same: a much longer search period.
In my graduate AI class, my professor remarked that genetic algorithms simply moved the difficult part of the search to the fitness measure. If you had a good enough fitness function, then many search algorithms could do just as well or better. The algorithm itself was inconsequential by comparison.
One thing that supports the notion that slight variation is just as easy as large variation is our completely misguided (and now outdated) view of genetics. Biologists tend to be fuzzy and non-deterministic about inheritance and variation, but harder scientists and engineers squirm at their handwaving. The simple matter is that right now multicellular body structure from DNA may as well be magic as far as our understanding goes. The "magic" is made into "science" by invoking "evolution". The problem with this is that genetically-based evolutionary trees disagree to the point of falling apart entirely, and without a huge increase in knowing what the regulatory regions of DNA actually do, that's all we have. Okay, it's not all we have--we also have macro-level eyeball-judgment similarities between species that we categorize pretending the categories mean something more than the similarities themselves.
The point is, until there is a huge amount more work done on the molecular biology side, biology remains a very soft science that takes itself way too seriously especially when the issue of evolution pops up.
"Not quite sure what lie to which you refer. The report is quite hopen and honest about what it does and does not conclude."
Not saying it should be off limits to scientific pursuit. I don't think we are able to do it, that's all. Go on, keep trying. No skin off my nose.
There is a lot of hype about this issue. The media insist on implying that scientists can create life, have created it, are creating it, just one more test, and we can make superman from the ooze. Eugenics will be so much easier when we're god and create some life here. We can clean up all of God's mistakes. That's a lie designed to upset people who believe that creating life is the power of God alone.
As I keep repeating, it's a little thing by itself, but added to all the rest of the "news stories" that are designed to cause anger, fear, and confusion, it becomes a destructive force for our culture and our people.
Yes, I look like a stupid old fool for raising this issue because it's only one small thing, but if a lot of us had slapped stuff like this down during the past 30 years, we wouldn't be in the pickle we're in now. 'sall I'm saying.
Using Eugenics in terms of scientific pursuit is like saying math shouldn't be pursued because Hitler used it. It adds heat but no light and is a little silly.
As I keep repeating, it's a little thing by itself, but added to all the rest of the "news stories" that are designed to cause anger, fear, and confusion, it becomes a destructive force for our culture and our people.
There is no desire nor agenda to cause fear, anger, etc. here. This is an investigation and it leads where it leads. It is interesting in its own right and the report is clear that is just a tantalizing step in expanding mankind's knowledge of abiogenesis. Which is a good thing in any and all contexts.
Yes, I look like a stupid old fool for raising this issue because it's only one small thing, but if a lot of us had slapped stuff like this down during the past 30 years, we wouldn't be in the pickle we're in now. 'sall I'm saying.
Yes, "slapping down" such scientific pursuits would have ensured we didn't have Metformin (which I need to live), Plavix, non-chemo-based Cancer therapy, Lipitor and the like.
But before I go on, what "pickle" do you speak of? I can only see good from our aggressive pursuit of science, and abiogenesis may produce results that we can not imagine. Self-replicating molecules! Can you imagine what that may mean for things like generating skin or even whole organs some day? Bio-computers that can emulate the human brain? Mass modeling with the ability to control for variables?
And that is just off the top of my head...
Except that the question of the first cell isn't part of TToE, any more than the first atom is part of the astronomy or geometry. That old strawman is so torched there isn't even carbon residue.
The other thing that throws a monkey wrench into the matter is that variation within species is well recognized by everyone. Extrapolating it to assume that enough variation can occur to give rise to completely different species is only suggested but not demonstrated beyond the shadow of a doubt by the fossil record.
Sorry. mm -- you are not "everyone." Speciation -- scientific speciation -- has been observed many times. Your assertion doesn't really carry scientific weight.
All the lab work only indicates that wide variation can occur, but the populations produced are still recognizable as being identified with the populations from which they occur.
The fossil record is clear that over time evolution has carried species into other species -- ones that cannot breed. Unless you think billions of fossils are "not enough data." That is why evolution is known as a stochastic process.
IOW, they're still fruit flies, bacteria, whatever.
Until some become something else.
The lab work also in no way demonstrates that naturalistic explanations are even possible. The lab work is all the result of intelligent manipulation.
Back to my original point -- simulating the environment merely mimics nature.
Yes, the ToE is the best science has, if you want to postulate a naturalistic, God free theory of how life got here. But it doesn't mean it's right because it's the only one science has, and it doesn't mean that we have to accept it because it's the only one science has, and it doesn't mean that we're ignorant, stupid, uneducated, ungodly, creatards, or IDiots because we don't agree with those who think it has value.
Science must deal with the physical Universe. When you say you don't "agree" with TToE it is the same as saying you don't "agree" with TToG or you don't "agree" with Quantum Physics. They are all shoulder to shoulder in the scientific community.
I asked you a simple question about some very fundamental, if a bit esoteric, principles based on mathematics and knowledge theory. If you are qualified to come to conclusions on science which you admit minimal knowledge of, then you are qualified to come to conclusions on other areas of knowledge in which you are equally qualified.
Google "stochastic."
I know what stochastic is. I have created stochastic ANNs. I don't think you understand the problem of genetic algorithms with this respect.
Who doesn’t recognize variation within species?
Who can’t look at different individuals within each species and see that they are not clones of one another?
Then what is your take on this:
If suffering, death and extinction are inevitable components of the evolutionary process, then it follows that the doctrine of Original Sin makes no sense. Firstly, as I’ve already noted, there is no way that humankind can be held responsible for bringing suffering and “evil” into the world. The world is not imperfect because people did something really bad and messed up what had been a perfect place and a perfect way of life. Humans evolved into a world that was already filled with suffering and other forms of imperfection, such as hurricanes, floods and Ice Ages. Secondly, death is not a punishment for sin; death has always been part of the cycle of life and evolution on earth. If humans are not responsible for suffering and evil, and death is simply a natural process rather than a punishment, then what need is there for atonement and redemption? Once I reached the right conclusion to that question, that there is no such need, I only needed a short, quick mental step to advance from discarding theistic evolution to discarding theism in its entirety.Source
Darwin proposed his theory and then told what would falsify it and people have been looking for fossils to do that.
It’s gotten to the point where some people are so convinced of the truth of theory that whatever they see, they interpret as evidence supporting it.
Similarities between fossil remains are just that, similarities. Some creatures are related to others, that is true.
But to demonstrate common descent to a reasonable degree, one would have to see direct *father to son* every generation descent and catalog it. Otherwise, it’s assuming that what you want to see is what happened because of similarities.
Otherwise, it’s just analysis and deduction based on forensic evidence.
I’ve see people who look like about twins to other people they’ve never even met and are not related to and seen wider variation within families.
Anyone who wants to replace their logic with faith is welcome to do so. It has no effect on my faith nor my understanding of what science is and how it works.
I just ask they not sully the waters of the youth with such thinking as it muddies the waters and makes children think that they are interchangeable.
And there has never been a fossil to falsify it. Not a modern equine in the Jurassic period.
It’s gotten to the point where some people are so convinced of the truth of theory that whatever they see, they interpret as evidence supporting it.
I once again invite you to provide an alternative scientific theory.
Similarities between fossil remains are just that, similarities. Some creatures are related to others, that is true.
And my cousin looks a lot like me. Your point?
But to demonstrate common descent to a reasonable degree, one would have to see direct *father to son* every generation descent and catalog it. Otherwise, it’s assuming that what you want to see is what happened because of similarities.
Over millions of years producing billions of artifacts.
Otherwise, it’s just analysis and deduction based on forensic evidence.
By millions of scientists, most of them brilliant, analyzing billions of artifacts which together have produced one of the most solid Theories in the scientific world.
I’ve see people who look like about twins to other people they’ve never even met and are not related to and seen wider variation within families.
And your 2 or 3 anecdotal lay observations mean exactly what?
Is your logic more real than your faith?
There is no problem -- the numbers game is an old and defeated "argument."
I have created stochastic ANNs.
This is at odds with your earlier post. I invite you to repost to consolidate them.
And please post a sample ANN -- I have been a developer for over 30 years and am fluent in about 10 programming languages -- for our purposes meta-code will suffice. Syntax is not an issue -- the algorithmic intent will be clear. If you have the sophistication you intimate I will certainly invite some friends to look at your work.
If your code bears out your contention I will be the first to concede defeat (although what the rest of the millions of physical scientists will do is unknown).
They are independent. I believe that God gave us this wonderful Universe to learn and explore. And since He is not a trickster, He gave it rules that, once understood, would execute the same way every time within the dynamic parameters.
He also gave us His Son, who could cast aside those rules as needed, to show us he did, indeed, create all this and, more importantly, to show us that He loves us more than we can imagine -- or deserve.
The God I love is so awesome he makes a Universe of such incredible complexity mankind will work on fathoming it until the end times.
I will not demean God by simplifying His wonders.
Not going to continue this apples/oranges discussion with you. If you can’t see my point no matter how many times I explain it, talking to you is fruitless. If you continue to examine your navel while missing the big picture, this conversation will continue to be one-sided, but without me.
My responses to you are direct, crystal clear and on point. If you don’t like that, there is nothing I can do.
Have a good day and may God bless you and yours.
Now where did you get that figure (if the term ‘figure’ can be used on such a loosely constructed proposition)? Seat-of-the-pants estimate? Informal survey? A detailed, statistically valid, study conducted by professionals? What?
I don’t believe that I’ve ever seen the premise expressed exactly the way you posit it, “The percentage of scientists who understand TTOE.” What percentage of the total are the scientists who understand the TOE? Some of my scientist acquaintances are given to insist that anyone who does not understand the TOE, is not really a scientist (they do allow for a slight variation from a categorical totality, accounting for the very few who do understand the theory but do not subscribe to it, but they also view such individuals with suspicion). So, does your study make any distinction with respect to who is considered a real scientist (aside from the obvious criteria)?
My scientist acquaintances, rather than express who are Judaeo-Christian and Scientist in terms of percentages, usually use the less precise terms “many”, or “most.” Do you understand the percentage who are Judaeo-Christian to be fairly uniform in its distribution across the various branches of science, or is there a fairly large percentage difference from one discipline to another? Does your study account for the relatively large number (or so I've been told) of Jews who are "secular" and without real religious ties? My understanding is that from 80 to 90 % of the American population is nominally Christian. What numbers does your study work with?
Anyhow, on what basis do you make your assertion?
Absent specific data to the contrary, distributions remain the same across populations.
If you are saying the science community is somehow skewed from the general populace, it is YOUR responsibility to show statistics I am wrong. And I probably know many more scientists than you do and have found no predilection away from the USA norm. My anecdotes match yours so that is a wash.
Are you just looking for a "gotcha?"
Is there a point to your post? Are you asserting that scientists have less faith than non-scientists?
As far as the "who understand TToE, I put that in there to exclude the extreme and tiny population of non-Life Sciences scientists who do not understand TToE. It is there for clarity.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.