Project on the origins of life launched : Harvard joining debate on evolution

Boston Globe ^ | 08/14/2005 | Gareth Cook

[SirLinksalot]

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 fund-raising 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.

[SirLinksalot]

A little dated,but still worth posting

[Brilliant]

Gee... I wonder what their conclusion will be?

[dynoman]

"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."

Obviously the author does not have a "proper understanding of evolution", because the TOE isn't concerned with the origin of life question in any way, shape, or form.

A "proper understanding of evolution" completely divorces the origin of life question from the TOE.

Why is that so hard to wrap your mind around?

One cannot expect evolution to answer the origin of life question that would be as unfair as asking someone who believes in creation who created the creator!!

Totally unreasonable!

[MineralMan]

This should be interesting. It has been some time since a multi-disciplinary approach has been taken to the question of the origin of life itself. There just hasn't been any funding available for such a project.

Will this group come up with something? Who knows? But, they'll be working on it. That's good.

[Migraine]

A "proper understanding of evolution" completely divorces the origin of life question from the TOE.

I hear this a lot on this forum; but don't necessarily buy it. Case in point: here is the coordinator of the effort at Harvard:

At Harvard, astronomers search for undiscovered planets that may be hospitable to life; planetary astrophysicists study how planets form and survive; geochemists analyze sedimentary rocks on Earth and Mars to uncover planetary processes and environmental changes throughout history; chemists and chemical biologists consider the simple molecules on primitive planets and focus on the route to assemble complex self-replicating molecules; and molecular biologists concentrate on the ultimate leap—how biological evolution can emerge from chemistry.
--(Origins of Life Initiative Director) Dimitar Sasselov, Professor of Astronomy, Faculty of Arts and Sciences

So... Does Professor Sasselov misunderstand the issue, also?

[Louis Foxwell]

It is a stunning admission of intellectual myopia to exclude philosophy from any scientific enquiry. It is a though intellectualization is a given in scientific circles rather than a discipline. This makes the scientific method little more than an expression of pop culture.

[dynoman]

There will be many who do not want that genie out of the bottle connecting with the TOE in any way, and rightfully so.

[Just mythoughts]

Ah but TOE does accept that 'hot bowl of primordial soup' thought.

[Sofa King]

"So... Does Professor Sasselov misunderstand the issue, also?"

No, he's merely working on something that falls outside the scope of the Theory of Evolution. If his research is successful enough, it might become part of TOE one day, but it isn't right now.

[MineralMan]

"So... Does Professor Sasselov misunderstand the issue, also?"

---

No, not really. Evolution doesn't deal with the origins of life, just the processes that cause speciation.

If, and I stress the word "if," the origins of life can be explained or duplicated, then an important question will be answered. It will provide understanding of a starting point...the first lifeform...and the beginnings of the evolution of life.

There isn't a huge amount of research on this particular question. Individual researchers have done experiments, attempting to recreate the conditions under which they think life may have originated, but there hasn't been a full-scale, well-funded attempt to do this.

If this Harvard study actually gets off the ground (which is questionable, since funding is the key), then it's just possible that it will find something. Just possible.

In any case, the theory of evolution doesn't deal with this question. If an answer is found, it will be interesting, but not critical to the theory of evolution.

[aruanan]

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 fund-raising has not begun, the scientists said.

Here's how it will go: Life arose as a result either of A, B, or C. There's no possibility of anything else so we won't even bother to consider it. If we do see something that is not clearly A, B, or C, we will put it down to two things: 1) something inherent in the human mind, produced by evolution, that makes us look at things this way or 2) evidence that we have not clearly enough defined A, B, or C, the only possibilities, so that nothing else can even be considered. If, at the end, we still cannot demonstrate A, B, or C, we'll simply say either that the event was so unique that it was lost in the mists of time or that our puny human minds cannot possibly understand it or that it happened elsewhere in the universe and was transplanted here by alien intelligences who have thus far successfully covered their tracks.

[Sir Francis Dashwood]

Obviously the author does not have a "proper understanding of evolution", because the TOE isn't concerned with the origin of life question in any way, shape, or form.

You make too many illogical assumptions...

Evolutionary theory is more properly entitled the "Origin of Species."

Evolutionary theory is concerned with change over a period of time. It has everything in the world to do with the origin(s) of life, and most particularly human life.

Like the singularity of the Big Bang theory, the singularity of Evolutionary theory is the DNA molecule.

The Earth is not the center of the universe.

There is no more evidence that life evolved here on the earth than there is for it to have been delivered or engineered by extraterrestrials...

How do evolutionists feel about teaching that life came from outer space? They already teach the Big Bang theory...

[Sir Francis Dashwood]

You make too many illogical assumptions...

Evolutionary theory is more properly entitled the "Origin of Species."

Evolutionary theory is concerned with change over a period of time. It has everything in the world to do with the origin(s) of life, and most particularly human life.

Like the singularity of the Big Bang theory, the singularity of Evolutionary theory is the DNA molecule.

The Earth is not the center of the universe.

[dynoman]

Quote;

"The important thing to remember is that evolutionary theory is a scientific theory about how life has developed — this means that it begins with the premise that life already exists. It makes no claims as to how that life got here. It could have developed naturally through abiogenesis. It could have been started by a divine power. It could have been started by aliens. Whatever the explanation, evolutionary explanations begin to apply once life appears and begins to reproduce.

Another related error made by some creationists is the idea that evolutionary theory cannot explain the origin of the universe while creationism does — and, once again, evolution is inferior to creationism. However, the origins of the universe are even further removed from evolutionary theory than is the origin of life. There is some connection in that scientists seek naturalistic explanations for both, but that is simply due to the fact that they are both scientific pursuits and not because of any inherent relationship such that problems with one will undermine the other.

In both instances described above, the creationists spreading this misunderstanding are doing so for one of two reasons. The first possibility is that they simply do not understand the nature of evolutionary theory. In not having a clear idea about what evolution is, they mistakenly include ideas which do not belong. This failure to understand the topic sheds some interesting light on their attempts to critique it, however. "

End quote

---

Any attempt to connect the TOE to the origin of life is a violation of established scientific theory and therefore proof of a lack of higher education/understanding of the TOE.

Why do people insist on entering the playground if they cannot abide by the rules?

[dynoman]

Read post 14

[MineralMan]

Hmm...that is your understanding of it. That's fine with me. I have written my understanding of it.

Everyone is welcome to his or her own opinion, as far as I'm concerned.

[Sir Francis Dashwood]

Evolutionary theory is more properly entitled the "Origin of Species."

Evolutionary theory is concerned with change over a period of time. It has everything in the world to do with the origin(s) of life, and most particularly human life.

Like the singularity of the Big Bang theory, the singularity of Evolutionary theory is the DNA molecule.

The Earth is not the center of the universe.

[MineralMan]

I just noticed that you sent the identical text to another Freeper as you sent me. You can save bandwidth on Free Republic by including multiple names in the To: field, separated by semicolons.

[Just mythoughts]

"Why do people insist on entering the playground if they cannot abide by the rules? "


Ah yes the TOE rules, like I am suppose to believe a myth that any project undertaken on the origins of life would be given the latitudes to dismantle that TOE? HA!!!!

See just how supreme the TOE has become that no longer is it even up for debate least of all criticism. Cause the theory has become 'god' and the only way to debate it must fall under the fenced off higher estate by 'design'.

[Sir Francis Dashwood]

Hmm...that is your understanding of it.

No, "The Origin of Species" is Darwin's name for it...