|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,913 Year: 4,170/9,624 Month: 1,041/974 Week: 368/286 Day: 11/13 Hour: 0/0 |
Thread ▼ Details |
Member (Idle past 2543 days) Posts: 2544 From: boulder, colorado Joined: |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Abiogenesis | |||||||||||||||||||||||
Doddy Member (Idle past 5939 days) Posts: 563 From: Brisbane, Australia Joined: |
Rob writes: In one area we are talking definition. In the other we are talking about purpose. Yeah, I agree with that.
Rob writes: The purpose is simply part of the definition. Nope, can't agree with that. Purpose is intelligence. Purpose is something we, as intelligent agents, assign to things. There is no purpose in the universe without us. But, you may say, is not the purpose of a lac inhibitor protein to inhibit transcription of the lac operon? Is not the purpose of a neuron to convey action potentials? Is not the purpose of the strong nuclear force to hold electrons together? Is not the purpose of the sun rising to give light and energy to the life of the earth? The answer is, no. That's what they do, that is not the purpose. It is the 'what' and 'how', not the 'why'. The purpose of a bike is for someone to ride it, but what it does is transfer kinetic energy. This can be hard to understand, because our brains operate based upon purposes, but consider that the purpose of an object is not actually 'real' in the sense that mass and energy are real, but implied by us. Consider the scenario mentioned by Richard Dawkins in his book, Climbing Mount Improbable. He asked his daughter, I think it was, what the purpose of a flower was. Her answer was along the lines of "To look pretty and give the bees something to eat". Now, Richard was at the time I believe thinking along the lines of flowering being a good survival strategy for the plant's genes. But neither are in fact true. Plants do not flower for a purpose. There is no answer to 'Why do plants flower?'. There is an answer to "How do plants flower?", and "What is flowering?" and "What uses are there for flowers?" and even "How did flowering evolve?", but not to why. There was no intelligence involved in the flowering process, and so any purpose is only implied by intelligence in retrospect. As evident in that Dawkins initially implied a different purpose to flowering than his daughter did - why would that be, if purpose was as obvious as mass or energy? Edited by Doddy, : grammar Contributors needed in the following fields: Physical Anthropology, Invertebrate Biology (esp. Lepidopterology), Biochemistry, Population Genetics, Scientific Illustration, Scientific History, Philosophy of Science, Logic and others. Researchers also wanted to source creationist literature references. Register here!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Rob  Suspended Member (Idle past 5879 days) Posts: 2297 Joined: |
Dr A
"Talk about" is a far cry from "support", isn't it? Abiogenesis? Yes that's what they do. They talk about abiogenesis.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Rob  Suspended Member (Idle past 5879 days) Posts: 2297 Joined: |
Hi Doddy. You've raised questions that belong in another thread. Though they are in response to things brought up here, I have proposed a new thread on this one issue (information purpose and meaning).
My response to your post can be found there: http://EvC Forum: Information and purpose or no purpose. -->EvC Forum: Information and purpose or no purpose.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Rob  Suspended Member (Idle past 5879 days) Posts: 2297 Joined: |
Dr A
Well, he's just saying stuff. And it's a whole lot of crazy Actually, he is saying words. And words have meaning. Kuresu actually took the time to pick at the ideas. All you have done is attack the character of the author. It is far easier to crucify someone, than to get down off your pedastal, and learn what is being said. You'd have to lower yourself.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Fosdick  Suspended Member (Idle past 5530 days) Posts: 1793 From: Upper Slobovia Joined: |
kuresu wrote:
what do you mean by "genetic encryption"? I can't seem to figure that part of your post out.
Nothing more than the fact that a gene is a linear digital code that is encrypted on one nucleic acid and translated by another.
HM wrote:
do genes really need a purpose to exist? here must have been an operational role for pure information when abiogenesis occurred ”HM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Rob  Suspended Member (Idle past 5879 days) Posts: 2297 Joined: |
Hoot Mon:
Does an operational role necessarily imply purpose? Does the operational role of a sperm”to fertilize an egg”mean that the sperm has a purpose to do so? No! As Bertrand Russel said of the universe in general, 'it's just there'! What's good for the goose, is good for the goose egg... right? What I'd like to know... is what the purpose is for such ideas as Kuresu's. I have proposed a new thread on the subject... Edited by Rob, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Rob  Suspended Member (Idle past 5879 days) Posts: 2297 Joined: |
I was just thinking... And perhaps this belongs in a new thread. But would the processes preceding biology really be A-bio?
Seems to me that whatever these processes were (be it divine or mere material) they would not be antithetical to biology, but rather systemically inseperable from bio. The foundation is part of the house after all. I think the term Prebiogenesis or something akin to it is more suitable.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
kuresu Member (Idle past 2543 days) Posts: 2544 From: boulder, colorado Joined: |
abiogenesis = life created from non-life.
prebiogenesis = before the genesis of life do you see why prebiogenesis would not work? (hint--pre meaning before, and, when coupled with biogenesis, would never cover the genesis of life. because once you start the genesis, you have left the realm of "before".) also, while biology may depend upon physics and chemistry, it is a subject of its own--it deals with organisms, essentially. biology is basically bio=life ology = study of. this category is wholly separate from physics, chemistry, geology, and whatnot, which do not deal with organisms. I'll grant you that some cross--such as biochemistry (studying the chemistry that runs life) and paleontolgy (studying ancient life with geology mixed in). However, it is a separate field of its own. abiogenesis is the domain of biochemistry, specifically. and the "A" part of abiogenesis does not mean that those processes are antithetical to biology (see above break-down).
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 314 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
Kuresu actually took the time to pick at the ideas. All you have done is attack the character of the author. If you were capable of understanding plain English, you'd know what I actually said. Good luck with that.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 314 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
Abiogenesis? Yes that's what they do. They talk about abiogenesis.
Go back and read my post again until you understand it.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 314 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
Nothing more than the fact that a gene is a linear digital code that is encrypted on one nucleic acid and translated by another. But this is not true.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 314 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
Consider Websters 2004 definition #3 for information. Why did you have to pick definition number #3? Oh, oh, I know, because the definition of information which would apply to genetic information would for that very reason not prove your point. --- The White House has a lawn. Definition #2 of "lawn" from the Oxford English Dictionary: a fine linen or cotton fabric used for making clothes. Hence, the White House has a fine linen or cotton fabric used for making clothes. This is all your dishonest word-twisting comes down to.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Rob  Suspended Member (Idle past 5879 days) Posts: 2297 Joined: |
Dr. A:
Consider Websters 2004 definition #3 for information. Why did you have to pick definition number #3? The White House has a lawn. Hence, the White House has a fine linen or cotton fabric used for making clothes. This is all your dishonest word-twisting comes down to. Your example would be applicable If I were using a definition of information that is not in the context of Biology. But I did. And you are more than confounded. We all drop the ball now and then. Me too, but not here. In this case your analysis is Inadequate. you've reversed the perspective. So can we stop with the pissing contest? Most of us are easily tempted to play it on our own. We need not encourage it. And btw... assuming I had been dishonest (which I was not)... is there anything wrong with dishonesty? Or is such moralizing useless convention and ultimately meaningless? Please don't reply to that, I am only making a point.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Chiroptera Inactive Member |
Please don't reply to that, I am only making a point. That pretty much makes you a dick, then, doesn't it? Actually, if their god makes better pancakes, I'm totally switching sides. -- Charley the Australopithecine
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Rob  Suspended Member (Idle past 5879 days) Posts: 2297 Joined: |
I see your point Kuresu. 'Non' is not equal to 'antithetical'. Very good response.
I still like the idea of the overlap. But to do so, I am smuggling in a theistic worldview that spiritual life gave way to physcal life. The whole ID thing. For the record, I think the alternate worldview smuggles in another assumption; that science as it stands is adequate in answering such questions. It's a single method of discovery. There are things we intuitively believe are real and expect others to as well that cannot be proven to exist with a microscope or mathematical equations.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024