Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 64 (9038 total)
232 online now:
dwise1 (1 member, 231 visitors)
Newest Member: Barry Deaborough
Post Volume: Total: 885,690 Year: 3,336/14,102 Month: 277/724 Week: 35/91 Day: 3/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Murchison Meteor Questions
RAZD
Member (Idle past 306 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 106 of 216 (423009)
09-19-2007 9:18 AM
Reply to: Message 105 by Ken
09-19-2007 9:03 AM


Re: Good science bad denial
Just to be clear you are actually claiming that the byproducts of nuclear fission found at Oklo are not really the result of nuclear fission?

Your denial of evidence is that deep? Or have you just not looked at it.

Enjoy.


Join the effort to unravel AIDS/HIV, unfold Proteomes, fight Cancer,
compare Fiocruz Genome and fight Muscular Dystrophy with Team EvC! (click)


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 105 by Ken, posted 09-19-2007 9:03 AM Ken has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 113 by Ken, posted 09-19-2007 10:00 AM RAZD has responded
 Message 115 by Rob, posted 09-19-2007 10:06 AM RAZD has responded

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 20113
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 4.2


Message 107 of 216 (423013)
09-19-2007 9:34 AM
Reply to: Message 100 by Rob
09-19-2007 12:04 AM


Re: Good science
Rob writes:

Percy:

You are correct that abiogenesis, the development of life from non-life, assumes natural processes, but that is true of all science.

The empirical world cannot assume such a thing. And that's why people have concluded all sorts of different things from the empirical evidence. Francis Crick believes in panspermia, and he's a Nobel Laureate!

Rather than untangling this jumble of claims to put them all in the proper context, I'll just focus on the important issue for this thread, which is that science focuses on the natural. You cannot single out abiogenesis for criticism about something that is true of all science.

The more general argument that science is misguided in its focus on the natural world should be taken to another thread.

There is nothing wrong with invoking natural causation, but we don't have the necessary evidence to conclude that material causation is the only valid explanation for every phenomenon. Nature cannot be shown to be strictly material. It is a philosophical imposition based on a materialistic philosophy, and not upon empirical evidence.

This is true. But science is defined as the study of the material world that is apparent to our senses. If there are aspects of reality that lie outside the material world, they are beyond the reach of science.

So while it is a valid to argue that there is more to the universe than is dreamt of by science, it isn't valid to argue this point in this thread. We're discussing abiogenesis, not how science should be changed.

I personally don't believe our universe precludes intelligence from designing self replicating life. I am very suprised you don't find any evidence for the ability of intellignence to do such things.

What makes you think that I don't think there's any evidence for the intelligent design (and implementation) of life? We're getting closer every day to creating artificial life in the lab. A recent news item estimated that success is only ten years away.

The objection to the argument that only an intelligence could have designed life, which is what you're using the Murchison meteorite to argue in this thread, is not based upon any misguided notion that intelligence cannot design life. If scientists didn't believe life could be created in the lab they wouldn't be trying to do it. Obviously we believe intelligence can create life.

The objection to the assertion that conditions on the early earth were insufficient for abiogenesis addresses three main possibilities:

  1. The possibility that some supernatural agent created life on earth. This possibility cannot be considered scientifically because science is focused on the natural, not the supernatural.

  2. The possibility that a race of intelligent beings created life on earth. This possibility fails immediately because of an infinite regression, which goes like this:
    1. If life was created by intelligent beings, where did those intelligent beings come from?
      1. If from a supernatural agent, see point 1.
      2. If from a previous race of intelligent beings, then return to (a).

  3. The possibility that life on earth was seeded by material that drifted in from outer space. This is known as panspermia and is certainly a possibility, but it suffers from the same regression as point 2. If the early environment on earth was incapable of providing the necessary materials for the first life such that that material had to come from outer space, then where was that material originally produced? If it had a supernatural origin, see point 1. If it was produced somewhere else in the universe before drifting here, then there must have been sufficient conditions in that other place for the production of the necessary material. And if the conditions in that other place were insufficient, then where did those materials ultimately come from?

The approach you're taking in this thread is to argue that there are no natural sources of adenine on the early earth, and that therefore it must have come from some other source. As has already been pointed out over and over again, you can't prove a negative. You can't prove there were no sources of adenine on the early earth, and many or your arguments are just expressions of incredulity. And if you're advocating a supernatural origin then that's just not a scientific alternative.

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 100 by Rob, posted 09-19-2007 12:04 AM Rob has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 111 by Rob, posted 09-19-2007 9:56 AM Percy has responded

  
Rob 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4750 days)
Posts: 2297
Joined: 06-01-2006


Message 108 of 216 (423014)
09-19-2007 9:35 AM
Reply to: Message 104 by kuresu
09-19-2007 3:44 AM


Nuclear fission
Rob:
but we don't have the necessary evidence to conclude that material causation is the only valid explanation for every phenomenon

Kukresu:

Oh, and I called it. You do want to bring in god, don't you?

I have before. But not here. (you can't call shotgun when I'm already in the passenger seat).

I mean you already know where I am coming from. But this thread is a critique of you and your 'science', not me...

Here I have a different agenda other than evangelism. To show that it is you who want to bring materialism in, without due cause. And we all know where you are coming from too!

Kuresu:

Nuclear fusion is one of the types of nuclear bombs.
Also, nuclear fission is following the rules of physics. Turns out we've split atoms as far back as 1917. Rutherford did it--with naturally occuring alpha particles from radioactive material. Real world fission, observed. We didn't create the alpha particles. We didn't create the radioactive material. We didn't create the nitrogen. At best, Rutherford aimed the particles, but if you left radioactive material emitting alpha particles around nitrogen, you'll get fission.

Oklo is interesting because it involves the fission of uranium.
As to nuclear fusion, check out stars. That's how they produce light and "burn" their fuel. They smash hydrogen atoms together, and once hydrogen is out, they smash the next step up. Unless I'm mistaken, our sun is capable of producing iron through fusion.

I was never talking about fusion... only fission. But let's make a syllogism as per Kuresu and Razd.

Some nuclear bombs are fission bombs. Nuclear fission is natural and follows the laws of physics. Therefore all fission is a bomb.

All life replicates. Life is natural and follows the laws of physics. Therefore all replications are life.

Now those are sloppy syllogisms, but I think they show that it does not follow.

You see, the bomb didn't prove that bombs are natural. It only proved that fission is. In the same way, replicating molecules do not prove that replicating molecules are natural, only that replication is.

It takes more than a molecule to get natural selection up and running.

Kuresu:

So where is you evidence for the divine? How do you tell the difference? Important questions if you're going to start positing "God did it" as a valid response.

Completely off topic... if you didn't notice, the thread topic is 'Murchison meteor questions'. Although all of these other questions, designed to get the attention off of materialism and onto the design inference have helped me to make some other points as well, it is very distracting to the audience as a whole.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 104 by kuresu, posted 09-19-2007 3:44 AM kuresu has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 110 by Percy, posted 09-19-2007 9:55 AM Rob has responded
 Message 122 by kuresu, posted 09-19-2007 2:33 PM Rob has not yet responded
 Message 123 by bluegenes, posted 09-19-2007 2:39 PM Rob has responded

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 20113
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 4.2


Message 109 of 216 (423016)
09-19-2007 9:47 AM
Reply to: Message 105 by Ken
09-19-2007 9:03 AM


Re: Good science
Ken writes:

kuresu writes:

Further, Ken's missing one thing. You said:
The nuclear bomb and the self replicating molecules you eluded to, do not exist in nature


Just to clarify, I did not say that. And my correction to myself about the by-products of fission being found, not observed, were pertaining to Oklo. Sorry if that was unclear.

Thanks for the attempted clarification, but this just confuses things further. You say fission by-products at Oklo were found but not observed? How does one find something and then fail to observe it? Were you trying to say that while fission by-products were found at Oklo, the actual fission process itself was not observed and therefore can't be said to have happened? So what if it wasn't observed? Where do you think the fission by-products came from? Dinosaur dung?

If that's what you're arguing then this is just the fallacy of "we can't know anything about unobserved events," and if you can make such arguments stick then there are many criminals in jail due to forensic evidence who would love to hear how to do it.

By the way, since you've figured out how to include names in quotes, perhaps you can explain it to Rob.

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 105 by Ken, posted 09-19-2007 9:03 AM Ken has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 131 by Rob, posted 09-19-2007 10:18 PM Percy has responded

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 20113
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 4.2


Message 110 of 216 (423018)
09-19-2007 9:55 AM
Reply to: Message 108 by Rob
09-19-2007 9:35 AM


Re: Nuclear fission
Rob replying to Kuresu writes:

Here I have a different agenda other than evangelism. To show that it is you who want to bring materialism in, without due cause. And we all know where you are coming from too!

...

Although all of these other questions, designed to get the attention off of materialism...

Rob, what I've quoted above from you reveals that, just as I've been arguing all along, your real agenda in this thread is arguing against the materialistic nature of science, not against the Murchison meteorite as a source of adenine on the early earth.

Whether you accept the material presented to you or not, your questions about the Murchison meteorite have been answered. If you want to discuss the nature of science you should propose a new thread for the Is It Science? forum.

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 108 by Rob, posted 09-19-2007 9:35 AM Rob has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 112 by Rob, posted 09-19-2007 9:59 AM Percy has not yet responded

  
Rob 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4750 days)
Posts: 2297
Joined: 06-01-2006


Message 111 of 216 (423019)
09-19-2007 9:56 AM
Reply to: Message 107 by Percy
09-19-2007 9:34 AM


Re: Good science
Percy:
The approach you're taking in this thread is to argue that there are no natural sources of adenine on the early earth, and that therefore it must have come from some other source.

No I'm not!

There is a natural source for adenine. It is synthesized in the living machinery. That is the empirical reality (science).

I am not trying to prove that nature cannot produce it in some other way. Intelligence can sysnthesize it under the laws of physics. so it is possible!

The point is... that you guys haven't shown conclusively (empirically) that it can be produced other than in the living machinery. You only believe that it can.

Maybe your right, but there is no evidence. You do think evidence is important don't you Percy? So that we can't just make things up?

Your next response will be... we haven't found it yet, but there are many possible paths to adenine production in nature (you've said that at least three times already). And it certainly is possible...

But it is also possible that the pink unicorn 'pooped' the universe into existence. I would just like some evidence.

And that makes me wonder... how do you know or assume that something (material explanation) exists, when there is no evidence? Because you assume there is a material explanation for everything.

How is that any different from me assuming the is a supernatural explanation for some things? The difference is clear and bold.

Do you want to continue to argue philosophy as a means of refuting my asking for material evidence f adenine in the meteor?

Your defending against my material questions, by questioning my philosophy. You only have to answer the question...

Got any evidence that the Murchison extractions are legit? Can you defend the results and show them to be conclusive?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 107 by Percy, posted 09-19-2007 9:34 AM Percy has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 116 by Percy, posted 09-19-2007 10:14 AM Rob has not yet responded

  
Rob 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4750 days)
Posts: 2297
Joined: 06-01-2006


Message 112 of 216 (423020)
09-19-2007 9:59 AM
Reply to: Message 110 by Percy
09-19-2007 9:55 AM


Re: Nuclear fission
Percy:
Rob, what I've quoted above from you reveals that, just as I've been arguing all along, your real agenda in this thread is arguing against the materialistic nature of science

I am all for material (empirical) evidence Percy.

Got any?

Percy:

Whether you accept the material presented to you or not, your questions about the Murchison meteorite have been answered.

Well then please do tell Percy. They were answered with material assumptions, not evidence.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 110 by Percy, posted 09-19-2007 9:55 AM Percy has not yet responded

  
Ken 
Inactive Suspended Member


Message 113 of 216 (423022)
09-19-2007 10:00 AM
Reply to: Message 106 by RAZD
09-19-2007 9:18 AM


Re: Good science bad denial
razd writes:

Just to be clear you are actually claiming that the byproducts of nuclear fission found at Oklo are not really the result of nuclear fission?
Your denial of evidence is that deep? Or have you just not looked at it.

Ken writes:

(regarding Oklo)the science involved in making a working bomb predicted accurately that real world natural fission was possible, which was then observed. Correction, real world fission was not observed, the by-products of fission were found.

I'm not sure how you made the leap to say that I said that the by-products of nuclear fission were not the result of nuclear fission. I don't see that anywhere in what I emailed to Rob. Did you look at it?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 106 by RAZD, posted 09-19-2007 9:18 AM RAZD has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 117 by RAZD, posted 09-19-2007 10:31 AM Ken has not yet responded

  
Rob 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4750 days)
Posts: 2297
Joined: 06-01-2006


Message 114 of 216 (423023)
09-19-2007 10:01 AM


Perhaps now would be a good time for those of you defending the Murchison extractions to recap what you have thus far...

  
Rob 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4750 days)
Posts: 2297
Joined: 06-01-2006


Message 115 of 216 (423024)
09-19-2007 10:06 AM
Reply to: Message 106 by RAZD
09-19-2007 9:18 AM


Re: Good science bad denial
Razd:
Just to be clear you are actually claiming that the byproducts of nuclear fission found at Oklo are not really the result of nuclear fission?

I certainly didn't take it that way. He was only pointing out the distinction. Neither of us is contending that fission is unnatural. Only that fission bombs are.

Bombs are necessarily designed with a purpose; to kill and destroy. Nuclear fission is not.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 106 by RAZD, posted 09-19-2007 9:18 AM RAZD has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 118 by RAZD, posted 09-19-2007 10:45 AM Rob has responded
 Message 120 by Percy, posted 09-19-2007 12:53 PM Rob has responded

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 20113
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 4.2


Message 116 of 216 (423026)
09-19-2007 10:14 AM
Reply to: Message 111 by Rob
09-19-2007 9:56 AM


Re: Good science
Hi Rob,

As I've said before, "I don't know" is a valid scientific answer. No one is claiming conclusive evidence exists for the origin of adenine on the early earth, or that conclusive evidence exists for the presence of adenine in the Murchison meteorite.

So if the ultimate scientific answer for the origin of adenine turns out to be, "I don't know," what can you conclude from that? You seem to believe that a valid answer is, "Science's focus on the natural world is insufficient." That's a topic for a thread in the Is It Science? forum.

As far as the Murchison meteorite goes, if I understood the posts in this thread, the analyses were inconclusive as to the possible presence of adenine.

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 111 by Rob, posted 09-19-2007 9:56 AM Rob has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 119 by RAZD, posted 09-19-2007 12:08 PM Percy has not yet responded

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 306 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 117 of 216 (423029)
09-19-2007 10:31 AM
Reply to: Message 113 by Ken
09-19-2007 10:00 AM


Re: Good science bad denial
I'm not sure how you made the leap to say that I said that the by-products of nuclear fission were not the result of nuclear fission. I don't see that anywhere in what I emailed to Rob. Did you look at it?

In other words the distinction you made is pointless. Thank you for that clarification.

Enjoy.


Join the effort to unravel AIDS/HIV, unfold Proteomes, fight Cancer,
compare Fiocruz Genome and fight Muscular Dystrophy with Team EvC! (click)


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 113 by Ken, posted 09-19-2007 10:00 AM Ken has not yet responded

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 306 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 118 of 216 (423032)
09-19-2007 10:45 AM
Reply to: Message 115 by Rob
09-19-2007 10:06 AM


Back to self-replication then ...
I certainly didn't take it that way. He was only pointing out the distinction. Neither of us is contending that fission is unnatural.

So the point stands then that this destroys your argument:

Message 94
The problem for you is that our nuclear technology was also developed without observation of natural phenomena -- which would put it in the same class as the replicating molecules in your mind -- but now we DO have observation of the natural phenomena -- so NOW it is in the same class as the rock. The (false) dichotomy that you have in your mind does not in fact exist. It is a fantasy that is contradicted by the Oklo reactors.

This is what demolishes your argument. Both logically and rationally.

Thank you for clarifying that this argument is valid.

Now that we have clarified that there is no difference between things proceeding according to natural laws (chemistry, physics, etc) when they occur in nature and things proceeding according to natural laws (chemistry, physics, etc) when they occur in experiments, we can validly conclude that self-replicating molecules do in fact exist.

These self-replicating molecules are not some kind of artifact of the experiment, but the result of things proceeding according to natural laws (chemistry, physics, etc) once the initial conditions have been met.

This, of course, does not mean that abiogenesis happened, or even that these molecules were in any way involved. All this shows is that self-replicating molecules are possible under certain condition.

Enjoy.


Join the effort to unravel AIDS/HIV, unfold Proteomes, fight Cancer,
compare Fiocruz Genome and fight Muscular Dystrophy with Team EvC! (click)


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 115 by Rob, posted 09-19-2007 10:06 AM Rob has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 128 by Rob, posted 09-19-2007 9:55 PM RAZD has responded

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 306 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 119 of 216 (423039)
09-19-2007 12:08 PM
Reply to: Message 116 by Percy
09-19-2007 10:14 AM


Summary of the case for adenine
As far as the Murchison meteorite goes, if I understood the posts in this thread, the analyses were inconclusive as to the possible presence of adenine.

The experiments on Murchison, Murray, Orgueil, and Tagish meteors show that either adenine was there on Murchison, Murray, and Orgueil, OR that the materials needed for the ready formation of adenine with a simple acid bath (similar to the extraction process) were on the Murchison, Murray, and Orgueil meteors but not on Tagish.

Rob has essentially conceded this point:

Message 45
Further, IF it was formed, THEN there were still the molecules from which it was formed available for the formation of adenine.

Now that I can agree with...

and

Message 65
That is true... And good evidence to support the potential of adenine undiscovered. But it still doesn't preclude the adenine from being synthesized rather than extracted.

And we still don't know how the unknown material, or unique composition of substances in the meteor would affect the reactions, if at all.

Material that was shown to be "adenine-phylic" enough to prevent extraction of adenine with water, and material from which, logically, the adenine was synthesized IF it did not exist as complete adenine molecules, as the extraction process chemicals (formic acid, for example) are inadequate for forming adenine on their own.

Furthermore, hypoxanthine, and xanthine were also identified on the meteor, and these are products of degradation of adenine (xanthine is also a product of degradation of guanine). Thus the existence of these on the meteor can be taken as evidence that adenine used to be on the meteor in greater quantity than today. Note that it is extremely highly unlikely that the extraction process both synthesized and degraded adenine ... leading to the conclusion that adenine was on the meteor in the past if it is not there today.

AND we have seen the production of adenine in space modeled to show how it can occur naturally, providing the source of adenine for the meteors.

Any way you cut the evidence, this is a large step away from saying that adenine was not available during the formation of early life on this planet.

Nor does this in any way rule out the possibility of adenine being on meteors during the period of heavy meteor bombardment of the early earth.

Enjoy.


Join the effort to unravel AIDS/HIV, unfold Proteomes, fight Cancer,
compare Fiocruz Genome and fight Muscular Dystrophy with Team EvC! (click)


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 116 by Percy, posted 09-19-2007 10:14 AM Percy has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 127 by Rob, posted 09-19-2007 9:40 PM RAZD has responded

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 20113
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 4.2


Message 120 of 216 (423047)
09-19-2007 12:53 PM
Reply to: Message 115 by Rob
09-19-2007 10:06 AM


Re: Good science bad denial
Rob writes:

I certainly didn't take it that way. He was only pointing out the distinction. Neither of us is contending that fission is unnatural. Only that fission bombs are.

With regard to fission, the difference between controlled fission and a fission bomb is one of degree only. A little fission and things warm up and you get some neutrons. More fission and things melt and you get lots of neutrons. Too much fission and things go boom with radioactivity everywhere.

Ken got some of his science history wrong:

Rob quoting Ken writes:

The bomb was hypothesized, theorized, experimented with, built, tested, and it succeded. Afterwards, the science involved in making a working bomb predicted acurately that real world natural fission was possible, which was then observed.

That sustained fission was possible was predicted long before the first nuclear bomb. It's why Einstein wrote the 1939 letter to Roosevelt advocating an atomic bomb effort. Going from memory, the first controlled fission experiment took place at the University of Chicago in 1942 in an experiment conducted by Enrico Fermi under some bleachers.

So sustained nuclear fission as a process of the natural world was first predicted by theory, then demonstrated by experiment prior to testing of the first atomic bomb, not afterwards.

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 115 by Rob, posted 09-19-2007 10:06 AM Rob has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 129 by Rob, posted 09-19-2007 9:57 PM Percy has responded

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2021