Posted on 08/15/2005 7:01:06 PM PDT by gobucks
Project begins amid arguing over teaching evolution. Harvard University is launching a broad initiative to discover how life began, joining an ambitious scientific assault on age-old questions that are central to the debate over the theory of evolution.
The Harvard project, which is likely to start with about $1 million annually from the university, will bring together scientists from fields as disparate as astronomy and biology, to understand how life emerged from the chemical soup of early Earth, and how this might have happened on distant planets.
Known as the "Origins of Life in the Universe Initiative," the project is still in its early stages, and fundraising has not begun, the scientists said.
But the university has promised the researchers several years of seed money and has asked the team to make much grander plans, including new faculty and a collection of multimillion-dollar facilities.
The initiative begins amid increasing controversy over the teaching of evolution, prompted by proponents of "intelligent design," who argue that even the most modest cell is too complex, too finely tuned, to have come about without unseen intelligence.
President Bush recently said intelligent design should be discussed in schools, along with evolution. Like intelligent design, the Harvard project begins with awe at the nature of life, and with an admission that, almost 150 years after Charles Darwin outlined his theory of evolution in the Origin of Species, scientists cannot explain how the process began.
Now, encouraged by a confluence of scientific advances — such as the discovery of water on Mars and an increased understanding of the chemistry of early Earth — the Harvard scientists hope to help change that.
"We start with a mutual acknowledgment of the profound complexity of living systems," said David R. Liu, a professor of chemistry and chemical biology at Harvard. But "my expectation is that we will be able to reduce this to a very simple series of logical events that could have taken place with no divine intervention."
The theory of evolution has been both fascinating and religiously charged since its very beginnings, because it speaks directly to the place of people in the natural order. In another era, the idea that humans are the close cousins of apes was seen as preposterous.
Today's research of origins focuses on questions that seem as strange as the study of "ape men" once did: How can life arise from nonlife? How easy is it for this to happen? And does the universe teem with life, or is Earth a solitary island?
At Harvard, the origins of life initiative is part of a dramatic rethinking of how to conduct scientific research.
Many of science's most interesting questions are emerging in the boundaries between traditional disciplines such as physics, chemistry, and biology, yet universities are largely organized by those disciplines. Harvard's president, Lawrence Summers, is a proponent of the view that universities must develop new structures to encourage interdisciplinary science. And new science laboratories based on this are at the center of the plans for a sprawling new campus.
The Harvard origins initiative is on a short list of projects being considered for this campus, along with the widely discussed Harvard Stem Cell Institute, which aspires to bring together biologists, chemists, doctors, and others.
Actually I gave two. The two laws of thermodynamics, energy cannot be created. The natural trend is to decay and disorder, not order and growth.
As for the big, hot ball of flaming gas in the sky, did you know it will one day burn out?
And when did I claim that evolution should not be demonstrable, as you say I did? I did not, ergo, the claim that at some point I "state[d] that no such demands be made for evolution itself" is completely and totally false. None of that Ninth Commandment for us, eh?
So you have some evidence of life coming from non-life?
Here we are. Anyway, it's completely irrelevant - there is no such "law of biogenesis" in biology. You done been hoodwinked, son. Bamboozled. Sold a bill of goods.
Well, the Universe is a closed system and it is winding down.
Nothing about the second law prevents local decreases in entropy - all it says is that entropy for the entire system is increasing. The existence of snowflakes and planets and rocks and people is perfectly in accord with the second law, because a local decrease in entropy simply implies an increase somewhere else. As long as the overall entropy of the system continues to increase, it's perfectly possible to decrease it somewhere - all you need is energy, which is what the big, hot ball of flaming gas gives us.
Everything in the Universe that is material will decay and eventually end.
Now tell me you deny that fact.
I've said no such thing. Again, you resort to distortion to try to make your specious argument. If you're not careful, folks will start thinking that's the only arrow you've got in your quiver there.
The fact that the heat death of the universe is the inevitable outcome is irrelevant - in the mean time, here we are. You seem to think that the second law says that order can never, ever arise from chaos, that entropy can never ever decrease. How then do you explain something as simple as a snowflake, which has less entropy, and more order, than the drop of water it comes from?
So you guys have accepted the fairy tale?
It would seem so from what I read above.
Hey, you're the one finding yourself in agreement with off-the-cuff statements from French atheists. When you two figure out what else you agree on, be sure to let us all know - in the mean time, I'll leave you to your little lovefest without me.
As for the big, hot ball of flaming gas in the sky, did you know it will one day burn out?
So what? As I said, in the mean time, here we are, and there's nothing in thermodynamics that says we shouldn't be.
Self-aware computers will evolve from apparently inanimate material - not too many people believe that silicon is alive! Not too many who construct computers expect them to become self-reflecting. It is not a goal of the designer, in general.
But if one uses logical thinking, once some unknown critical point of complexity is reached (10 years, 100 years?), computers will become self-aware, and because of the many orders of magnitude differences in the speed of computation and degree of precision between biological brains and silicon "brains", biological entities will be quickly overwhelmed. And things we call computers will worry about the origin and evolution of species! ;-)
I would expect that they would find their "existance" as mysterious as we do.
Completly unsettled - is the universe open or closed? Nobody knows! And recent observations that indicate that universal expansion is accelerating are evidence against a closed universe.
Really?
Any evidence of any evolution occuring anywhere in this expanding Universe?
You guys really do live in a Sci-fi world.
And the Universe began how?
Something came from nothing! (Big Bang)
And Life came from-non-life!
Alright, now that we have gotten those little problems out of the way, we can talk about species changing into other species.
Only if they didn't believe the records of their creation by us.
Ofcourse, some computer will begin by telling another computer, 'you know, we just evolved from bits of pre-existent medals and wires'
And the other computer will say, ýea right'!
'Only a human would believe that nonsense'!
A computer can only do what it is programed to do.
No computer will 'worry'about anything since they do not have souls.
So, are the claims for evolution demonstrable?
Who are you trying to kid?
You bring up something that can be shown to be true and then you bring in evolution, which cannot.
So you have some evidence of life coming from non-life? Here we are. Anyway, it's completely irrelevant - there is no such "law of biogenesis" in biology. You done been hoodwinked, son. Bamboozled. Sold a bill of goods.
Ah, the irrelevant defense.
In other words, the answer is no.
So until you have demonstrable proof that life can come from non-life, Bio-genesis is a law or a fact (anyway you want to phrase it)
Well, the Universe is a closed system and it is winding down. Nothing about the second law prevents local decreases in entropy - all it says is that entropy for the entire system is increasing. The existence of snowflakes and planets and rocks and people is perfectly in accord with the second law, because a local decrease in entropy simply implies an increase somewhere else. As long as the overall entropy of the system continues to increase, it's perfectly possible to decrease it somewhere - all you need is energy, which is what the big, hot ball of flaming gas gives us.
And the rest of the Universe is decaying as well, including that hot ball of flaming gas.
Everything in the Universe that is material will decay and eventually end. Now tell me you deny that fact. I've said no such thing. Again, you resort to distortion to try to make your specious argument. If you're not careful, folks will start thinking that's the only arrow you've got in your quiver there.
And you are trying to avoid admitting that the 2nd Law applies to the entire Universe.
So we get the doubletalk about 'local entropy'.
The fact that the heat death of the universe is the inevitable outcome is irrelevant - in the mean time, here we are. You seem to think that the second law says that order can never, ever arise from chaos, that entropy can never ever decrease. How then do you explain something as simple as a snowflake, which has less entropy, and more order, than the drop of water it comes from?
I explain the snowflake, like I do everything that has order, God.
Do snowflakes last forever?
So you guys have accepted the fairy tale? It would seem so from what I read above. Hey, you're the one finding yourself in agreement with off-the-cuff statements from French atheists. When you two figure out what else you agree on, be sure to let us all know - in the mean time, I'll leave you to your little lovefest without me.
I agree with him that evolution is a fairy tale for grownups.
As for the big, hot ball of flaming gas in the sky, did you know it will one day burn out? So what? As I said, in the mean time, here we are, and there's nothing in thermodynamics that says we shouldn't be.
There is nothing in thermodynamics that says we can be here by accident (something coming from nothing) or that anything is evolving or has evolved (order from disorder), the opposite is true.
As for your whining about the 9th Commandment, it states in Exodus 20:11 (where the commandments are first given)
For in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested on the seventh day:
Uh, yeah. Yeah, they are. Some people will refuse to see the truth when it's sitting on their faces and wiggling, however.
Ah, the irrelevant defense.
That's right. Now, how about a little fire, strawman?
Nice work. Invent a claim that you insist someone else must defend, and then when they refuse to sign on to your ridiculous distortion, you declare victory. Totally dishonest, but hey, it's all in service for a good cause. God will understand why you had to twist the truth in His name, I'm sure.
As long as the overall entropy of the system continues to increase, it's perfectly possible to decrease it somewhere - all you need is energy, which is what the big, hot ball of flaming gas gives us.
And the rest of the Universe is decaying as well, including that hot ball of flaming gas.
So what? You have apparently glommed onto a fundamental misunderstanding of how this all works, and now you're insisting that your misunderstanding is how things are. It's not. You can decrease entropy in your little patch of the universe any time you like - all you need is energy. I don't know why I bother with this - this is the third time I've said that, and even the slowest folks must surely get it by now.
And you are trying to avoid admitting that the 2nd Law applies to the entire Universe.
It's not my fault you can't/won't read what's right in front of you - go back and read the part that says "As long as the overall entropy of the system continues to increase, it's perfectly possible to decrease it somewhere", and this time, substitute "the universe" in place of "the system".
So we get the doubletalk about 'local entropy'.
Doubletalk? Pick up a book some time. Stop pretending you know something about thermo and go learn something.
I explain the snowflake, like I do everything that has order, God.
Hey, congratulations. But let's not call that "science", because it ain't.
Do snowflakes last forever?
What makes you think they should? Do you last forever?
I agree with him that evolution is a fairy tale for grownups.
Don't stop there - who knows what all you're agreeing to, since you haven't got a clue what the context of that statement was. But as long as it sorta vaguely sounds like something you might say, you're not too worried about the company you're keeping, obviously.
There is nothing in thermodynamics that says we can be here by accident (something coming from nothing)...
Hate to break it to you, but there was "something" here before we were here, therefore we're not "something coming from nothing". Even in Genesis, we weren't the first things around, now were we?
... or that anything is evolving or has evolved (order from disorder), the opposite is true.
Of course it does. Your Jack Chick cartoon version of thermodynamics doesn't allow for such things, but real, actual thermo sure does. Sorry.
Now that's funny!
Not so. I program computers, and lots of times they do things I did not program into them.
Seriously, genetic algorithms evolve to do things that are not originally programmed by humans. Some have come up with solutions that work that experts do not understand. It is quite fascinating.
Does a cat have a soul? How about a dog, a chimp, a whale, a porpoise, a space alien? Or are souls only for humans? My cat worries about things - it must have a soul!
Your cat worries about things?!
Like what he is going to eat tomorrow?
Space alien????
Thanks.
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.