|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total) |
| |
popoi | |
Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 0/0 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Converting raw energy into biological energy | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Rob  Suspended Member (Idle past 5849 days) Posts: 2297 Joined: |
CK:
What is "chiralry"? none of the academic sources I can access have heard of such a term and it doesn't appear in any general web searches I do. Oops! Don't know where I got that spelling actually... I was referring to chiral molecules. It's about handedness. Still learning about it myself... Racemic mixture - Wikipedia Edited by Rob, : No reason given. Edited by Rob, : And if that wasn't bad enough, I then gave the wrong link.... Corected.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Rob  Suspended Member (Idle past 5849 days) Posts: 2297 Joined: |
Chirality... it' Chiralty. those t's and r's are so close together you know?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Chiroptera Inactive Member |
This thread is mostly comprised of a bunch of tiny exchanges with little specific information. Oh, yes! I'm at the edge of my seating waiting for someone to give a detailed description of the current state of research so that Rob can finally answer, "Ha! See? There are still questions that science hasn't answered! That's proof, proof I say, that it must have been divine intervention!" Then we can shut down the thread and move on to other things.
Although I, too, am interested in seeing what people have to say about the current state of research. I've done everything the Bible says, even the stuff that contradicts the other stuff! -- Ned Flanders
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 394 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
Of course, in addition to being totally off topic and irrelevant, chirality is also not much of an issue. We had a thread not all that long ago discussing it and many of the routes through which it could develop.
Aslan is not a Tame Lion
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Wounded King Member Posts: 4149 From: Cincinnati, Ohio, USA Joined: |
Just as a point of information, Leslie Orgel isn't a woman.
For my tuppence worth, chirality is an important point but it is not the case that any prebiotic synthesis must yield a racemic product. Looking in the literature you will find many discussions and analyses of chiral symmetry breaking processes. I'm not sure why Orgel makes such a sweeping blanket statement since some of the work that prebiotic symmetry breaking hypotheses are based on, particularly the Frank chiral amplification model, have been around for some decades. TTFN, WK
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Rob  Suspended Member (Idle past 5849 days) Posts: 2297 Joined: |
Chiroptera:
Ha! See? There are still questions that science hasn't answered! That's proof, proof I say, that it must have been divine intervention!" I really was laughing btw... I pictured it with a poor cartoonish 1950's mafia voice.... 'Proof I say, proof I say, see, see'? There's never going to be proof either way really. It's all theory... To me it boils down to probability. But we must continue the discussion. And you guys (like Lewontin) must proceed because materialism is an absolute. And that is the case even though matter is relative as per Einstein. Of course Godel showed that mathematics are incomplete so maybe Einstein was wrong? You make my head spin. Is this thread going to ammount to anything?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Rob  Suspended Member (Idle past 5849 days) Posts: 2297 Joined: |
WK:
Just as a point of information, Leslie Orgel isn't a woman. Well that's wonderful... So she didn't comment on chiralry at all then. But He did comment on chiralty. Sometimes I am the fool.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Rob  Suspended Member (Idle past 5849 days) Posts: 2297 Joined: |
WK:
I'm not sure why Orgel makes such a sweeping blanket statement since some of the work that prebiotic symmetry breaking hypotheses are based on, particularly the Frank chiral amplification model, have been around for some decades. Isn't it just a mathematical model though?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Chiroptera Inactive Member |
Isn't it just a mathematical model though? Does it matter? What is your point here? What do you want us to say? (a) There is no possible way this could have occurred. (b) There is no known way this could have occurred. (c) There are possibilities, but none with experimental verification. (d) There are experimentally verified possibilities, but all have problems. (e) There are good candidates, but no evidence that this actually occurred in the early earth. (f) There is some evidence of certain mechanisms, but it remains uncertain. (g) It is known exactly what happened 3 1/2 billion years ago in precise detail. I mean, if you want to claim
And you guys (like Lewontin) must proceed because materialism is an absolute. then I think it matters precisely which statement you believe corresponds to what researchers are saying. Added by edit: Personally (and I could be wrong), I think that (d) is closer to the current state of knowledge. But that is enough to have some confidence that natural explanations do exist even if we don't know what they are yet, and this makes it insufficient to postulate an intelligent designer without independent evidence that such a designer exists. And so I think that your accusations of assuming materialism as an "absolute" dogma is unwarranted. Edited by Chiroptera, : No reason given. Edited by Chiroptera, : No reason given. I've done everything the Bible says, even the stuff that contradicts the other stuff! -- Ned Flanders
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Wounded King Member Posts: 4149 From: Cincinnati, Ohio, USA Joined: |
Frank's model was yes, but the subsequent experimental work on chiral amplification has not been purely theoretical, particularly the experimental work of Soai (2001) although these didn't involve amino acids or nucleic acids.
TTFN, WK
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Rob  Suspended Member (Idle past 5849 days) Posts: 2297 Joined: |
Chiroptera:
(d) There are experimentally verified possibilities, but all have problems. I agree with you... I found a relevant section of Behe's book detailing the dillemas, but I tire of simply playing the spoiler. So let's move the debate some... Chiroptera, you and Percy have framed the debate in a manner that may be fruitful. Your earlier comments about finding material causes and systems previously thought 'miraculous' is noteworthy. I think it is a valid observation and inference to further material causes 'as of now' may only be appearently 'miraculous'. The real battle isn't over the unknowns... because they are unknowns. A lot of this thread has been useless because of that fact. What we have, are commitments to a particular philosophical view on both sides of this debate. The question is really one of the definition of science. Though methodological naturalism does not eliminate a designer by necessity, it does require the designer to be appearent in material terms. What is frustrating for folks like me, is that the designer is by definition a spiritual being. So methodological naturalism does effectively eliminate the designer. We infer design because the existence of certain systems are explainable in terms of analogous systems created by human intelligence elsewhere. Why is that not a legitimate inference even without the exact material causes, when methodological naturalism is assuned to be valid without the material causes?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
mark24 Member (Idle past 5195 days) Posts: 3857 From: UK Joined: |
Rob,
What is frustrating for folks like me, is that the designer is by definition a spiritual being. So methodological naturalism does effectively eliminate the designer. Why can't an omnipotent spiritual being materialise & do miracles under lab conditions?
Why is that not a legitimate inference even without the exact material causes, when methodological naturalism is assuned to be valid without the material causes? It is a valid inference, it's just untested. And it's the untested part that makes it null & void. I could make a valid inference that god must be designed, but without evidence it gets put on the same shelf as the fairies, kraken, unicorns & the rest of the gods. Mark Edited by mark24, : No reason given. There are 10 kinds of people in this world; those that understand binary, & those that don't
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22392 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.3 |
Rob writes: I agree with you... I found a relevant section of Behe's book detailing the dillemas, but I tire of simply playing the spoiler. So let's move the debate some... While you've got Behe's book handy you might reread page 5 of the first chapter, Lilliputian Biology, where he says:
Behe writes: Many people think that questioning Darwinian evolution must be equivalent to espousing creationism. As commonly understood, creationism involves belief in an earth formed only about ten thousand years ago, an interpretation of the Bible that is still very popular. For the record, I have no reason to doubt that the universe is the billions of years old that physicists say it is. Further, I find the idea of common descent (that all organisms share a common ancestor) fairly convincing, and have no particular reason to doubt it. I greatly respect the work of my colleagues who study the development and behavior of organisms within an evolutionary framework, and I think that evolutionary biologists have contributed enormously to our understanding of the world. Moving on:
Rob writes: The question is really one of the definition of science. Though methodological naturalism does not eliminate a designer by necessity, it does require the designer to be apparent in material terms. What is frustrating for folks like me, is that the designer is by definition a spiritual being. So methodological naturalism does effectively eliminate the designer. If, a la Behe, the designer performs microbiological redesigns, thereby creating things like the bacterial flagellum and blood clotting, then he is *very* apparent in the material world. Methodological naturalism has no requirement that natural phenomenon be directly apparent to one or more of the five senses. Using electron microscopes and cloud chambers and thermometers and pressure gauges to detect natural phenomena that we can't perceive unassisted is just fine. It is also just fine to detect events that occurred when we weren't around by examining the evidence they left behind, such as geological layers and fossils and ancient starlight and archaeological remains. So it is not a problem if the designer cannot be directly detected as long as we may detect him by his works. The only problem with claims that the designer is responsible for the diversity of life is that the evidence he left behind is identical to that produced by evolutionary processes. Since natural explanations for the diversity of life exist, arguing that a designer is actually responsible is like arguing that the designer also causes other natural phenomena such as lightning and earthquakes and the aurora borealis. --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Rob  Suspended Member (Idle past 5849 days) Posts: 2297 Joined: |
Percy:
If, a la Behe, the designer performs microbiological redesigns, thereby creating things like the bacterial flagellum and blood clotting, then he is *very* apparent in the material world. Methodological naturalism has no requirement that natural phenomenon be directly apparent to one or more of the five senses. Using electron microscopes and cloud chambers and thermometers and pressure gauges to detect natural phenomena that we can't perceive unassisted is just fine. It is also just fine to detect events that occurred when we weren't around by examining the evidence they left behind, such as geological layers and fossils and ancient starlight and archaeological remains. So it is not a problem if the designer cannot be directly detected as long as we may detect him by his works. The only problem with claims that the designer is responsible for the diversity of life is that the evidence he left behind is identical to that produced by evolutionary processes. Since natural explanations for the diversity of life exist, arguing that a designer is actually responsible is like arguing that the designer also causes other natural phenomena such as lightning and earthquakes and the aurora borealis. The diversity of life is only one issue. Perhaps there it is a stalemate. Common ancestry could be a result of theorized evolutionary processes, or it could be the result of the theology of the common creator working within His created common environment using common materials. However, the design inference is not inferred for that reason... It is made because of the presence of the quaternary digital code known as DNA. Analogous languages and digital codes have been shown emperically to have arisen from intelligence. Researchers in SETI search for such analogous complex information as 'proof' of intellignet life. And it would indeed be proof even without seeing the alien intelligence first hand. On the flip side, there is no known natural explanation for such complex arrangements of information. And the attempt to produce them results in multiple difficulties as my questions in this thread are intended to show. Jar may consider this or that off topic, but all of these topics are related, and that is why they are all being discussed at EVC (which stands for Evolution vs Creation) As you said Percy: So it is not a problem if the designer cannot be directly detected as long as we may detect him by his works. Well? The design inference is an inference to a non-material being who manifests Himself in the physical world, so that 'men are without excuse' as per the apostle Paul in Romans 1. It is both emperically testable and an internally coherent theological (or philsophically theoretical) construct. This argument is made with extreme clarity here: Abiogenesis If you scroll down to the man writing on the chaulkboard, and watch the clip (clip 6), you can then watch clip 7 when the menu pops up at the end of clip 6. The two clips together take no more than about 20 minutes to view. Enjoy... Edited by Rob, : No reason given. Edited by Rob, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Chiroptera Inactive Member |
Hi, Rob.
What we have, are commitments to a particular philosophical view on both sides of this debate. Well, I certainly see commitments to a particular philosophical view on one side of the debate. I certainly cannot figure out the behavior of creationists and IDists except that they have a commitment to a particular philosophical view point. In fact, they even tend to admit that they have a commitment to a particular philosophical viewpoint. On the other hand, the people engaged in the biological and geological sciences span far too wide a range of religious, political, and philosophical view points to claim that they are committed to a particular view point. And I find it hard to believe that they can come up with such a remarkably consistent version of history if their work was so biased toward their many, diverse view points, unless their work was somehow accurately describing reality despite their view points. It's possible, I suppose, but someone is going to have to come up with a better demonstration that this is the case besides just complaining that the scientific consensus contradicts their own beliefs. Having had some experience in the sciences and knowing many people who work in the sciences and about what motivates people to go into the sciences, I find it hard to believe that so many different people with so many different view points and so many different backgrounds and so many different personalities are all so biased that they cannot tell when the data indicate a very different reality than the one in which they believe. Again, I suppose it could be true, but someone is going to have to do more to demonstrate this than just complain when the scientific consensus contradicts their beliefs. -
The question is really one of the definition of science. Though methodological naturalism does not eliminate a designer by necessity, it does require the designer to be appearent in material terms. What is frustrating for folks like me, is that the designer is by definition a spiritual being. So methodological naturalism does effectively eliminate the designer. I don't buy this. Some people claim this, but I don't believe it, if for no other reason than I have never come across a definition of "supernatural" or "spiritual" (as opposed to the "natural" or "material") that didn't have some sort of inherent problems. Something either exists or it does not. It either has effects on the portion of the universe that we can observe, or it does not. It's effects either exhibit some sort of regularity or it does not. Science merely recognizes that the world operates with some degree of regularity, and uses this regularity to come to some conclusions as to how the world works. Science operates on the hypothesis-prediction-observation model. One makes a hypothesis, then makes predictions of what she will observe if the hypothesis is true, and then makes the necessarily observations to see whether the predictions are borne out. And this is just common sense, this is just how people act in real life. People are constantly (and sometimes unconsciously) changing their ideas and beliefs based on what they see and experience (even if some of it is second-hand); when those experiences are contrary to what they expect, they naturally analyze those experiences to see whether their beliefs and assumptions need to be adjusted. I mean, how else can we come to any conclusions about the world around us? Divine revelation? Even Gideon required further testing to be able to distinguish true revelation from madness. "Methodological naturalism" does not exclude a designer -- the hypothesis of intelligent (but material) alien beings artificially creating earth-based life and seeding the earth is well within the purview of "methodological naturalism". Science does not exclude a "supernatural" designer. If the "supernatural" (whatever that is) does exist, then it presumably has an effect on the "natural" universe, and these effects can be studied, and conclusions may be drawn from them. The reason these hypotheses are not considered by scientists is that they aren't really hypotheses -- there is no hypothesis of any kind of intelligent designer that makes predictions of definite, distinct phenomena that can then be tested. -
We infer design because the existence of certain systems are explainable in terms of analogous systems created by human intelligence elsewhere. Sure. Just as Thor's thunderbolts and earthquakes were inferred by analogies with known human actions and reactions. The question isn't whether one can make up an analogy, the question is whether there are distinct, observable phenomena that are predicted from the hypothesis. Without being able to test the hypothesis, we are just making stuff up. -
Why is that not a legitimate inference even without the exact material causes, when methodological naturalism is assuned to be valid without the material causes? It's not a scientific inference. And, in my opinion, without being grounded in observation, it it just making stuff up; it is irrational to insist on its truth so strongly without having any real, objective evidence to back it up. Researchers in abiogenesis are doing research right now, right this minute. Do you think that they are just watching soap operas all day? They are performing experiments to actually test which of their ideas are viable and which are not and to come up with new ideas. Do you think that they just dump random chemical in test tubes and heat them up? They design their experiments based on actual theories about various stages in the formation of life. Where do you think they get their money? Their grant proposals have to explain the theories they are investigating and how their experiments will refine their understanding of the underlying processes. I know that you believe that scientists are all biased to some sort of world view, and this bias somehow prevents them from recognizing simple reality; I also know that there is nothing I or anyone can say that is going to change your opinion on this. But I simply do not believe this (and you can chalk this up to my biases, I suppose). There are too many people working in these fields, and they come into these fields from too many different social and cultural backgrounds, and with too many different philosophical and religious beliefs for me to believe that they can all be so thoroughly biased to force some sort of common "materialistic dogma" onto the data, and to come up with such a consistent yet false picture of the world. I believe that if abiogenesis was such an unviable possibility we would have heard all about it by now from the very people in the field, not just from those with an axe to grind. I've done everything the Bible says, even the stuff that contradicts the other stuff! -- Ned Flanders
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024