|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Building life in a lab - Synthetic Biologists | |||||||||||||||||||||||
iano Member (Idle past 1941 days) Posts: 6165 From: Co. Wicklow, Ireland. Joined: |
ooook writes: Aha! I think I've got the analogy now. But I've still got the same kind of questions about when we should declare the 'rim' is or whether it's possible to define where the spokes will end at all. Thanks for helping me develop it. I'm clearer on what I meant too You don't have to define where the spokes end. They'll do it for you. It becomes a question of whether you accept the spoke has ended. Its about whether you accept the Scientism view which kicks the ball into perpetual touch by saying "we don't know but we have no reason to think we won't - even if we're totally flummoxed and can't even begin to think of how we might progress"Take first cause of the universe. It seems obvious to me anyway, that to try and find out what happened before the laws of nature came to being and how they came into being is an impossibility given that all our science just observes laws of nature in action. No laws no science. And it's science that has to travel along the spoke - not science fiction. According to traditional creationism God and only God could explain the diversity of species on this planet. Only God can explain the diversity of the species completely, Science does so tentively. That a tiny fraction of the total possible observations are explained by a particular hypothesis does not mean that (much spannered on) hypothesis can't be turned on its head. There is nothing unscientific about a flat earth if the science is limited to the observational methods that were available then. Nor is there any thing unscientific about geocentrism (lurkers please hold off on the irrelevant "that was down to theism" remarks) given the observational methods available then. Both have been completely turned on their heads by subsequent observations.There is an understandable tendency to think that this cannot happen again. That our tentitive theories are somehow concrete steps along the path. But recently we thought that light was a particle until we discovered it was also a wave. As far as we know we don't know what it is. If the actual answer is discovered we can be pretty certain that neither wave nor particle it will be. The same can happen with Evolution. Evolution is not fact. And no matter how close to fact folk think it is, on its head it most certainly can go. And science which is humble will accept that. It's the fundemental religion call scientism which doesn't This message has been edited by iano, 01-Sep-2005 03:46 PM This message has been edited by iano, 01-Sep-2005 03:48 PM Romans 10:9-10: " if you confess with your mouth the Lord Jesus, and believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead, you will be saved....."
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
LauraG Inactive Member |
iano writes: Only God can explain the diversity of the species completely, God-of-the-gaps again, with a bit on No-True-Scotsman thrown in for good measure.
iano writes: The same can happen with Evolution. Evolution is not fact. And no matter how close to fact folk think it is, on its head it most certainly can go. Yes it can. If and when we find a better, evidence-supported theory to explain observations, on its head it goes. That's the beauty of it. With that in mind, explain to me two things: 1 - Your wheel analogy makes god (the rim) finite and provable. According to you and to avoid a continuous god-of-the-gaps argument, how can god be turned on its head? 2 - How does turning evolution on its head immediately point to god?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Brad McFall Member (Idle past 5033 days) Posts: 3428 From: Ithaca,NY, USA Joined: |
the "rim" is geodesic & the reference punts to physical teleology denied by BEST"" elite philosophy of biology as not necessary.
Sure something can be sufficient but not necessary. If the rim is a geodesic it might be necessary also. It is a lot harder to imagine the spherical symmetry in Russell's view on perception but I'll bet a discontinuous aggregate might demand such a one and would answer your questions a bit better.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
iano Member (Idle past 1941 days) Posts: 6165 From: Co. Wicklow, Ireland. Joined: |
LauraG writes: 1 - Your wheel analogy makes god (the rim) finite and provable. According to you and to avoid a continuous god-of-the-gaps argument, how can god be turned on its head? It doesn't make God finite, it makes explainable nature finite ( although that wouldn't be apparent from our current standpoint - there is plenty to keep us occupied for a long time to come: we are nowhere near having a solid disc of knowledge. Thank God...science is good. Science cannot turn God on his head. Whenever science manages to fill in the disc there will be a ring of mystery enclosing it. What depth the ring extends to no-one will be able to find out -because there will be no way to penetrate it to know. Personally I don't think the disc will get filled in (the world won't, I think, be able to sustain itself long enough to get that far) Which leads me to modify the hub/spoke/rim analogy (without changing it in any material way). It is hub/spoke/sphere. We will be enclosed in every direction we go. And the thickness of the sphere 'wall' will not be determinable Hmmm...that's better
2 - How does turning evolution on its head immediately point to god? It doesn't. I was pointing out the nature of scientific endeavor and that humility (due to everything is tentitive) was more appropriate that declaring things to be fact (scientism) which you hear so often Romans 10:9-10: " if you confess with your mouth the Lord Jesus, and believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead, you will be saved....."
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
iano Member (Idle past 1941 days) Posts: 6165 From: Co. Wicklow, Ireland. Joined: |
Hey Brad..
Just posted a 'spherical rim' then you posted geodesic. Like is that sychronistic or what.... Edit: hey Brad you got there before me! I hadn't read your post first (I'm sure I could dig up the Google-log of me looking up what geodesic means) Man. This IS freaky. Edit: By the way - what do you think of hub/spoke/sphere as a representation of science vs mystery This message has been edited by iano, 01-Sep-2005 05:28 PM This message has been edited by iano, 01-Sep-2005 05:35 PM Romans 10:9-10: " if you confess with your mouth the Lord Jesus, and believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead, you will be saved....."
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
iano Member (Idle past 1941 days) Posts: 6165 From: Co. Wicklow, Ireland. Joined: |
LauraG writes: I can't believe you're arguing unknowables in science, only to turn to an unknowable to explain why there are unknowables. Really, this isn't a case were "fighting fire with fire" works. There are no unknowables within science (which investigates the natural world - spokes eventually becoming disc). It may be difficult it may take a long time but if it is natural then it cannot hide from science indefinitely. No unknowables in science If you say (as you appear to) that there are no unknowables - period, then you are making a philosophical statement: there is only the natural, the objective, the empirically investigatable. The objective evidence appears to be against that philosophy: eg: First cause/abiogenesis/"I am". If you like I can post some quotes of eminent scientists who hold the position that there are things outside science. Things which science will not be able to comment on. Mystery. But first could you show how natural/objective/empirical is all there is (scientism)...in a natural, objective and empirical way of course... Romans 10:9-10: " if you confess with your mouth the Lord Jesus, and believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead, you will be saved....."
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
LauraG Inactive Member |
Hi, iano. I'm in a bit of a hurry here, so I'll ask this and post the rest of my comments later.
iano writes: LauraG writes: 1 - Your wheel analogy makes god (the rim) finite and provable. According to you and to avoid a continuous god-of-the-gaps argument, how can god be turned on its head? Science cannot turn God on his head. Whenever science manages to fill in the disc there will be a ring of mystery enclosing it. What depth the ring extends to no-one will be able to find out -because there will be no way to penetrate it to know. Personally I don't think the disc will get filled in (the world won't, I think, be able to sustain itself long enough to get that far) You'll notice that you didn't answer my question. I didn't ask how science could turn god on its head, I asked how god could be turned on its head. Also, please provide me with an answer to the following: If we fill all the gaps in your wheel, we know everything that is to be known in the natural world. Why are you so sure there is a rim? Why do you suppose there will still be mystery after we know everything there is to know in the natural world... or are you just assuming the supernatural to defend the supernatural? ...'cause that would be circular reasoning, you know. More later.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Brad McFall Member (Idle past 5033 days) Posts: 3428 From: Ithaca,NY, USA Joined: |
creation and evoltion thinking is not hard. One just has to have the mind for it. I guess it is becoming more the norm that two posters want to post the same thought at the same time as we are getting quite good on evc in the facts.
It is taking me some time to get a good handle or hook on your posting so it might take a few days to a week say before I really start in on your rather voluminous recent amounts of posts. I needed to say something to LauraG so as to try to keep this thread in its own weave. You seem to be presenting enough details to enable me to push my own converstation here on evc further. as for spoke and hub well it seems that one synthetic biologist might try to be Aristophanes' tailor. Plato wrotequote:from Plato's Symposium. Let's eat!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Ooook! Member (Idle past 5815 days) Posts: 340 From: London, UK Joined: |
Hi,
iano writes: There is an understandable tendency to think that this cannot happen again. That our tentitive theories are somehow concrete steps along the path. Well I think that shows why analogies can only be stretched so far. If we were to try and fully incorporate the tentative, changable nature of science into your 'Wheel of knowledge' then we would end up with a flippin' wierd looking wheel . But I think it is fair to simplify things a bit and say that theories grow on top of each other as we understand more about the universe. Good bits of theories are kept, less useful parts discarded, but understanding increases no matter what gets flipped on it's head because any new theory will have to explain all of the data that the old one did and then some (progress is always away from the hub if you like).
Only God can explain the diversity of the species completely, Science does so tentively. If you're saying that the ToE as a whole is classified as a 'gap', or worse still 'on the rim', then debating the evidence required for abiogenesis seems a little premature. Your non-empirical 'knowledge' would be contradicted by the truckloads of evidence and your beliefs would be in direct confrontation with science, despite your protestations that you're happy to let science do it's own thing.
You don't have to define where the spokes end. They'll do it for you. It becomes a question of whether you accept the spoke has ended. But that's exactly my point. How do you know when it stops? You've asserted that it will stop, and claimed that we will know when we've reached that point, but how will we know for sure? Gut-feeling? Faith? Counting rhymes? What specifically makes you so sure that we've reached the edge of the scientific investigation with regards to abiogenesis? Si hoc signum legere potes, operis boni in rebus Latinis alacribus et fructuosis potiri potes!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
iano Member (Idle past 1941 days) Posts: 6165 From: Co. Wicklow, Ireland. Joined: |
LauraG writes: Your wheel analogy makes god (the rim) finite and provable. According to you and to avoid a continuous god-of-the-gaps argument, how can god be turned on its head?
iano writes: Science cannot turn God on his head. Whenever science manages to fill in the disc there will be a ring of mystery enclosing it. What depth the ring extends to no-one will be able to find out -because there will be no way to penetrate it to know. Personally I don't think the disc will get filled in (the world won't, I think, be able to sustain itself long enough to get that far) LauraG writes: You'll notice that you didn't answer my question. I didn't ask how science could turn god on its head, I asked how god could be turned on its head. Also, please provide me with an answer to the following: If we fill all the gaps in your wheel, we know everything that is to be known in the natural world. Why are you so sure there is a rim? Why do you suppose there will still be mystery after we know everything there is to know in the natural world... or are you just assuming the supernatural to defend the supernatural? ...'cause that would be circular reasoning, you know. As I was trying to point out my anaology didn't make God finite and provable. The rim depth cannot be known so it cannot be said to be finite. Everything from the end of the spoke outwards is just mystery - (edit) not God. That naturalistic knowledge is finite would, I argue appear to have merit - given current mysteries where science (not scientism) holds it's hands up and says "we can't know". edit: once the natural was a mystery. Science is the tool to comprehend that mystery. At the end of natural, science is no use, The mystery encountered there needs a different tool. Edit:Sorry. You asked how can God be turned on his head. Simple answer: if he is the mystery he can't be turned on his head. If he is not we'll never know whether he can be turned on his head or not As to what happens at the end of knowledge?. I don't presume the supernatural (although I know it is there - but that's neither here nor there). I use examples such as First Cause to show that something exists and whilst we may travel down a path in our understanding of it we run out of the ability to know before we get to know. A point is reached where we can go no further. What was there before the laws of nature came into operation and how did/does it work is something at which science stops short. Philosophy takes over - but that is not objective or empirical nor observational thus is not knowledge in the sense I think you mean it. This message has been edited by iano, 02-Sep-2005 12:22 PM This message has been edited by iano, 02-Sep-2005 03:01 PM This message has been edited by iano, 02-Sep-2005 04:00 PM Romans 10:9-10: " if you confess with your mouth the Lord Jesus, and believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead, you will be saved....."
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Brad McFall Member (Idle past 5033 days) Posts: 3428 From: Ithaca,NY, USA Joined: |
quote: quote: AEA, dont think I dont know how to play the glass bead game. here is the link that I did not get in in time as it was not on-line at the time The Institute for Creation Research
quote: The question is what would change for the creationists given the existence of synthetic biology. Yes, it is indeed true that the two model approach c/e or e/c etc leads to "seperate and distinct tools" given our currently original science and thus "these scientists know" as you said, but as Henery Morris was reporting there has been a change IN THE SCIENCE from a tendency to look into waters to looking into rocks. You may feel free to think that this reporting is just playing into ICR rated hands and feel free to so comment. I also assume that this is the STATE of origin/synthetic biology research as I have not found Dr. Morris to misreport BUT one must also understand that the consensus science that appears in front of creationist speakers IS science that matters first and mostly only for different positions being taken by creationists themselves, scientists, as you said. Using the case of TIME is just NOT what is relevant in this thread as the issue is where practical results will substitute for where ethical invariances currently reside, unless the times were correlated for anyone to see to actual chemical rxns in or out of water or in or out of rocks. Why cant we see someone next saying all this is in the atmosphere? or deep space?? By filtering through what IS creationist product in Dr. Morris well takeable article I can not conclude that "debate" starts AFTER consensus science finds contra evidence, we have NO IDEA"" on origins really but we do know or could know where the labs are or will be that are trying to make synthetic life, and the TOOLS themselves will not be seperable in the sense we are discussing. It is true that they "are" seperable to the extent that ICR can START GENE
quote:link The Institute for Creation Research but it is how the research will be done and what other reasearch it entails (much like RATEI->RATEII) that pudding is proof of or QED has been defined and presented for the seperation you wrote. Think of it as a priority QUEUE not a check board!!!!!!!!!! This message has been edited by Brad McFall, 09-02-2005 08:43 AM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Brad McFall Member (Idle past 5033 days) Posts: 3428 From: Ithaca,NY, USA Joined: |
quote:Page Not Found: 404 Not Found - I am maintaining propositionally, that this strategy, as cited in the opening link above "engineering strategies" ARE NOT sufficient where current ethical concerns are concerned. I also think that creationist who might work with the same tools/resources COULD end up with DIFFERENT enginerring structures. It is true that it seems more likely that making DNA Computers might not come from creationists to begin with but these applications which DO abstract computer strategies etc into life only bear on implementations of secondary applications in biology unless some notion of what synthetic life really was is. As I see the literature there is consistent writing that creationists did not forsee the exisitence of poorly desinged shapes in organsims, ("why cant god produce mal formed things on purpose?") and that what will change is the perception of consensus scientists that this was really only an adaptive oversight on the part of non religous folk and those that later agreed the modern evolutionary synthesis entialed a "hardening" of adaptationism etc. I could be wrong but I do see changes in the creationist work accompanying changes in evos sociality not the other way around. Evos seem to change if forced but not willingly. Of course this is sort of guessing the future for there are many science criticisms of just such attempts to build life with current mole bio tools and fix disease that way. It plays rather into macroeconomic concerns than the ethical ones that the original question in this thread remands. If you think that creationism can not rewrite our understanding of "current genetic code" then simply think about the difference of stack (LIFO vs FIFO) abstracted by an array vs a linked list. I guess it is all just par for the course. This message has been edited by Brad McFall, 09-02-2005 09:27 AM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
AnEmpiricalAgnostic Inactive Member |
quote: I think we are suffering from debating separate points also. I understand that abiogenesis is a fledgling theory and as such will be subject to many revisions and corrections in it’s refinement. I also hold out for the possibility that abiogenesis may be completely wrong in it’s current incarnation. It still may be possible that life (on this planet at least) could have been seeded by a comet impact or some yet unknown event. I am talking about the Theory of Evolution (ToE). Regardless of how the first life started on this planet, it is obvious at this point that biological evolution is the explanation for the current state of all life on this planet (including man). Yet there are still theistic philosophers that would deny the validity of the ToE simply due to their cognitive dissonance. I understand it is hard to reevaluate a belief (especially when the potential stakes are so high) but at this point to do so would be to deny reality.
quote: I see creationists make fantastical assertions like this all the time. The strange thing is that when pressed for details all I get is hand waving. I see claims that recent advances in the field of genetics (genomics) appear to offer a stunning opportunity to advance the concept of a recent, supernatural creation. (emphasis added) but no clarification on how that can even theoretically happen. All I see is the classic modus operandi of the creationist to seek evidence to fit their philosophical conclusions. This, I will maintain, is not how it should be done and is why science is the authority in these matters. Scientific hypotheses are based on evidence and are only as strong as the evidence that supports them. In cases like the ToE, the evidence supports the theory beyond a reasonable doubt. In cases like abiogenesis, the jury is still out while evidence is collected. It is important to note that, in the case of the hypothesis that are not well supported yet, the fact that they are not well supported yet is not positive evidence in support of theistic philosophy. "I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours." -- Stephen Roberts
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
iano Member (Idle past 1941 days) Posts: 6165 From: Co. Wicklow, Ireland. Joined: |
Yo!
ooook writes: But I think it is fair to simplify things a bit and say that theories grow on top of each other as we understand more about the universe.Good bits of theories are kept, less useful parts discarded, but understanding increases no matter what gets flipped on it's head because any new theory will have to explain all of the data that the old one did and then some (progress is always away from the hub if you like). Whenever we get to having a single piece of knowledge that can be traced back to the hub without relying on an unestablished theory along the way then we could say "it is a process of two steps forward and one back....but we're getting there" It seems to me that everything we 'know' sits in space, not attached to a hub (question) or to the rim (answer). A screwdriver (intermediate knowledge) may be usefully employed as a lever (complete knowledge). But without complete knowledge we won't know it was a lever we should have been using all along.
If you're saying that the ToE as a whole is classified as a 'gap', or worse still 'on the rim', ToE can only at best be seen as a screwdriver
truckloads of evidence We're not here to discuss ToE per say but it is worth nothing that this statement would be more accurate if you were to add that the vessel the truckloads would need to fill in order to provide a complete picture - is the size of an ocean. I've heard ToE adherents accept that if the stages of development of a particular species from start to present day was represented by a sequence of 1 to 1000, the eg: fossil evidence available would go something like; ...290...297....501..543...687..910..1000.
How do you know when it stops? As soon as you find out there is no way you can ever know for sure. That it will always remain a mystery. That the theory will always remain a theory never an answer. ToE suffers from this too. There can never be an observation that it happens as it takes too long to happen. A species mutating but remaining the same species is not macro-evolution. It can be said to fit the theory that's all. The fossil record has massive gaps and there is no sign of them being bridged. Despite millions of fossils being found there are no clear connecting links. There is some stuff that "could have come from here...and is headed towards there". It would be handy if these links in the chain could be attached to something concrete at either end. But they aren't. How many million more fossils need to be found to demonstrate something that should be straightforward given that everything has evolved from something else?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
AnEmpiricalAgnostic Inactive Member |
quote:Excuse me for barging in on your conversation with Ooook but I think it’s important to correct you on this point. You are confusing a layman’s theory with a scientific theory. You are using theory in this case to mean:
The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition writes: An assumption based on limited information or knowledge; a conjecture. The Theory of Evolution is a scientific theory:
The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition writes: a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world; an organized system of accepted knowledge that applies in a variety of circumstances to explain a specific set of phenomena The ToE is a scientific theory and can not be promoted to anything higher. This does not mean it is not a fact.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolution-fact.html writes: Let me try to make crystal clear what is established beyond reasonable doubt, and what needs further study, about evolution. Evolution as a process that has always gone on in the history of the earth can be doubted only by those who are ignorant of the evidence or are resistant to evidence, owing to emotional blocks or to plain bigotry. By contrast, the mechanisms that bring evolution about certainly need study and clarification. There are no alternatives to evolution as history that can withstand critical examination. Yet we are constantly learning new and important facts about evolutionary mechanisms. - Theodosius Dobzhansky
"I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours." -- Stephen Roberts
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024