|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 64 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,889 Year: 4,146/9,624 Month: 1,017/974 Week: 344/286 Day: 65/40 Hour: 1/5 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
|
Author | Topic: What I have noticed about these debates... | |||||||||||||||||||||||
Quetzal Member (Idle past 5900 days) Posts: 3228 Joined: |
Hi Mr. D:
quote:Ahh well, there's the rub as it were. In my personal opinion, there's a grey area where organic chemical molecules start taking on the properties we associate with life: replication, heritable modification, etc. The problem, again in my opinion, resides in how we define "life" - a question to which I have no good answer to be honest. Are virii alive? Are prions alive, for that matter? Are self replicating inorganics like certain clay matrices or crystals "alive"? Abiogenesis deals with the transition between non-living organic chemistry and living systems - however you define "living". I will state, unequivocally, that biological evolution deals with what happens AFTER you have a living system, and in spite of the titles of the three articles I referenced (i.e., "biochemical evolution"), doesn't relate at all to the pure organic chemistry of abiogenesis. Give me an organic self-replicator, and I'll be happy to proclaim it "alive", and hence subject to evolution and evolutionary biological study.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Mr. Davies Inactive Member |
Thank you Quetzal.
Yes, that is something that is an interesting topic. Are Virii or Prions alive. If they are, were they on the Ark? If so then which cow had the "mad cow" disease? ------------------When all else fails, check the manual
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
wj Inactive Member |
quote: So, jcgirl, will you back soon to resume this thread?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Mammuthus Member (Idle past 6503 days) Posts: 3085 From: Munich, Germany Joined: |
quote: LOL! There was only one cow on the ark and a bull...both had mad cow..but the pair of "British government kind" denied there was a problem On a more serious note, ahem, why would a prion be defined as alive or not? They are a product of an endogenous gene and hence a component of a living being (though with an as yet uknown function)..thought to be copper transport but not clearly established. Whether a virus could be considered alive or not is an interesting question.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Quetzal Member (Idle past 5900 days) Posts: 3228 Joined: |
quote:On prions - well, yeah, it is a gene product. However, the way that a mutant PrPsc can transform normal PrPc versions of the same protein into the infectious version exponentially is sort of like some of the ideas about how early macromolecules reproduced - err, replicated - in abiogenesis. So a prion falls squarely into that grey area between "living" and "non-living" (c.f., the "Lipid World" hypothesis). A better case can be made for virii, of course - they're really just a form of endoparasite with all the bells and whistles removed.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Mammuthus Member (Idle past 6503 days) Posts: 3085 From: Munich, Germany Joined: |
On prions - well, yeah, it is a gene product. However, the way that a mutant PrPsc can transform normal PrPc versions of the same protein into the infectious version exponentially is sort of like some of the ideas about how early macromolecules reproduced - err, replicated - in abiogenesis. So a prion falls squarely into that grey area between "living" and "non-living" (c.f., the "Lipid World" hypothesis). A better case can be made for virii, of course - they're really just a form of endoparasite with all the bells and whistles removed.[/QUOTE]
Hi QuetzalI still think prions are distinct. The PrPc version is a normal transcribed and translated gene product with tissue specificity. In sporadic cases of CJD, by unknown mechanisms, enough PrPc is converted to PrPsc to produce pathogenesis. The only way the PrPsc in an infected individual is going to "reproduce" is if someone eats the infected individual. And even then, at least with human prion diseases, infection has a low probability of pathogenesis. But most important, the PrPc to PrPsc conversion is not reproduction or heritable mutation. It is merely converting existing protein from one form to another without generation of more overall prion protein. It is in effect not living..it is more like a catalytic reaction between two states. This is distinct from viruses. The contention that viruses are not alive is based on their inability to reproduce without a host. However, once host transcription and translation machinery have been co-opted the virus can reproduce itself, is subject to heritable mutation, and is subject to all the constraints of population genetics. So in principle I see a virus as a living entity. As for lacking all the bells and whistles..that is true from some viruses. But others are really really complicated with all sorts of bells and whistles..like HIV for example. cheers,M
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
nator Member (Idle past 2198 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: |
quote: The Theists are the one making a positive claim, "God exists." It is up to them to provide evidence for this claim.
quote: The Atheist doesn't have to prove god's non-existence. The non-existence of God is the default option because there isn't any evidence for God, only personal faith and belief.
quote: mmmm, I think it is actually a question of evidence and faith. Belief without evidence = faith. It is also not accurate to say that Atheists do not believe in God because they perceive the Bible to be false.
quote: Einstein didn't believe in God like you probably think he did. He for sure did not believe in a personal god, and also called himself an Agnostic. He did not accept any of the traditional arguments for the existence of God. [This message has been edited by schrafinator, 12-05-2002]
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
nator Member (Idle past 2198 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: |
quote: Wow, you do really need to look into some anger-management therapy or something. Wow, being a Christian makes some people really furious and abusive and abrasive.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
nator Member (Idle past 2198 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: |
quote: No, not "just as much", TB. There are far, far more "If man evolved from monkeys, why are monkeys still around?" folks around than the opposite.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22502 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 4.9 |
Hi Allison!
I agree with TB that the uneducated, uninformed and biased populate both sides in great numbers, but I agree with you that those representing the two sides at discussion boards like this are clearly different in their degree of familiarity with science. And I think I know why. On the one hand, uneducated but sincerely religious people who accept the Creationist perspective are frequent visitors to discussion boards because of the perceived threat of evolution to their religious beliefs. On the other hand, the main reason evolutionists come here is because of the perceived threat of Creationism to science and/or science education, and it takes a certain degree of scientific knowledge and interest just to perceive this threat. This means that on average, at discussion boards like this the number of evolutionists with good scientic backgrounds will always well outnumber Creationists with equally good backgrounds. I don't believe that one can conclude from this that in the general population those who accept Creationism are in general less informed about science than those who accept evoution, because this is just one little bit of evidence. You'd need more evidence from broader sources to reach the more general conclusion. --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
nator Member (Idle past 2198 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: |
quote: quote: Almost none. It almost never happens in science that someone lies or fakes data, because the peer review system is so stringent and the culture demands honesty and integrity. Remember, just because a scientist says something doesn't mean that everyone automatically believes her. Other scientists immediately begin work to replicate the experiments to see if the results are the same. ...and if they do lie or cheat, they are found out by other Scientists, and their entire careers are ruined. The scientific community holds professional integrity to be extremely important. What happens to all of those hundreds of Creationists who lie about their credentials or who make up data or do shoddy work? Nothing, usually, because within the Creation "science" community, it doesn't so much matter if you do these things as long as what you are saying supports the dogma. Here are a couple of links; the first is about questionalble Creationist credentials, and the second is a discussion of how creationists handle their errors compared to real science. http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/credentials.htmlScientific Creationism and Error quote: Oh, for heaven's sake, this is from over a hundred years ago!
quote: You still don't get it. Science begins with the evidence. It observes what is in nature. It then creates explanations,called theories, which explain the evidence. Everything in science is subject to change in the light of new evidence. Creation "science" does not begin with the evidence. It begins with inviolate religious dogma. This dogma can never change, so the evidence must be ignored or forced into the unchangeable dogma. It is not a simple matter of a different interpretation of the evidence. It is a matter of Creation science claiming the authority of science when they don't even come close to actually doing science. When the evidence leads them down a certain path, the scientist says, "OK, this is where the evidence leads." When the evidence lead a Creationist down the same path, they say something like, "The evidence LOOKS like it leads us here, but it really doesn't because the Bible says that it can't. I'll just come up with ANY explanation for this phenomena that fits the Bible no matter how it contradicts the evidence."
quote: Fear of thought. A sad but common quality of many Creationists. Why do you fear thinking about Theistic Evolution? ------------------"We will still have perfect freedom to hold contrary views of our own, but to simply close our minds to the knowledge painstakingly accumulated by hundreds of thousands of scientists over long centuries is to deliberately decide to be ignorant and narrow- minded." -Steve Allen, from "Dumbth" [This message has been edited by schrafinator, 12-05-2002] [This message has been edited by schrafinator, 12-05-2002]
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
nator Member (Idle past 2198 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: |
quote: What ways?
quote: You are assuming that the Bible is true, and that Jesus existed, and if he existed, was actuallythe son of god, of course.
quote: But what if the Bible is wrong and it doesn't fit?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
nator Member (Idle past 2198 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: |
quote: Yep, you sure do fear women.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
nator Member (Idle past 2198 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: |
quote: Hey Percy! How is this for some evidence? The "Yes But" problem It pretty clearly correlates level of education with the liklihood of disbelief of evolution; the less education one has, the more likely it is that you disbelieve evolution, AND the more likely it is that you do believe that God created the Earth and everything in it 10,000 years ago. [Fixed quoting. --Admin] [This message has been edited by Admin, 12-05-2002]
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Mammuthus Member (Idle past 6503 days) Posts: 3085 From: Munich, Germany Joined: |
On the one hand, uneducated but sincerely religious people who accept the Creationist perspective are frequent visitors to discussion boards because of the perceived threat of evolution to their religious beliefs. On the other hand, the main reason evolutionists come here is because of the perceived threat of Creationism to science and/or science education, and it takes a certain degree of scientific knowledge and interest just to perceive this threat. This means that on average, at discussion boards like this the number of evolutionists with good scientic backgrounds will always well outnumber Creationists with equally good backgrounds.
I don't believe that one can conclude from this that in the general population those who accept Creationism are in general less informed about science than those who accept evoution, because this is just one little bit of evidence. You'd need more evidence from broader sources to reach the more general conclusion.*********************** I disagree. Why wouldnt "professional creationists" (if you can take that seriously)not be equally compelled to defend their ideas in this kind of forum or try to forward their agendas? Other than Behe, are there any creationist "scientists" that even have a background in sceintific fields remotely related to evolution? From everything I have read of them or from them (including Behe), they cling to the same cartoonish versions of science and the same fallacies as their less informed confederates. On the one hand, one cannot conclude that all creationists are less informed about some aspects of science i.e. maybe there are some excellent creationist physicists or engineers etc....but when it comes to evolution, they turn off the part of their brains that is capable of scientific inquiry...thus far, I have never seen or heard of an informed creationist population geneticist, zoologist, etc etc. and if they do exist, they certainly do not appear to be representative of the movement. Do you have evidence of a greater scientific understanding among creationists from a wider sampling than EvC? cheers,M
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024