I think atanu worked you after you had a chance to respond, but I'm sorry for being mean to you. You are a nice guy.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Intelligent Design vs the Methodological Naturalism standard for science
- Thread starter shunyadragon
- Start date
It clearly has theistic implication for belief in God. So does your tagging on the coat tails of Meyer a Christian evangelist scientist? with a theistic agenda without a peer reviewed record of publishing in scientific journals.
More tomorrow.
Last edited:
And what about my argument about ex nihilo creation on the same footing as kicking the can?
Whatever; everyone who knows me well on this forum knows I am an atheist. The verse said, "Creator" and not "God." I am going without Meyers. But 99.99% of Meyer's book is not about "God" either. But I'm not going there; I will give you the satisfaction of me referring to him once more.
And like I said,
We can sleep in our trenches until tomorrow.
And like I said,
We can sleep in our trenches until tomorrow.
I have not responded to this yet. I was going to respond tomorrow, but nonetheless. The ex nihilo argument is the classic theist the only God existed and beyond God was 'absolute nothing' therefore God created from "ex nihilo"
Briefly, the scientific cosmological view is that the nature of our physical existence beyond our universe is the eternal Quantum World of Quantum zero point energy and Quantum Gravity from which all possible universes, the multiverse. This represents a plausible explanation based on 'Quantum Mechanics. Yes it hypothetical and based mostly on math models and limited research, but no other theory at present has any supporting evidence.
More tomorrow . . .
OMG. Too smart. What does falsifiable mean, btw?
The ego sees ignorance everywhere but in itself. That is okay.
Last edited:
A statement is said to be falsifiable if we can conceive of a finding that would demonstrate that the statement is incorrect.
Darwin's theory is falsifiable because it says among other things that there should be no rabbit fossils found in 3 billion year old rock. Find a mammal older than the oldest fish, and you upend that theory.
ID is considered unfalsifiable (and therefore not scientific) because there is no conceivable finding that would disprove it even it if it is wrong.
You do not get off easily on this one. You stated being proved in the positive sense, which methodological naturalism DOES NOT PROVE ANYTHING as @It Aint Necessarily So clarified and corrected your misuse of proof.
What is God? God is a three letter word. Your description of an ultimate 'consciousness' and Creation from 'ex nihilo', and you citation in the Bible concerning a 'Creator' all translate to the Judeo-Christian God no matter how you word it.
The same ploy was shredded in the Dover trail. The ID advocates argued that the ID was not a Theistic proposition, but an alternate scientific hypothesis. It was uncovered that their material without the word God was found in their Christian religious texts word for word, but the word 'God' was inserted.
As far as 'chance' goes it is a layman's word has no meaning in the scientific view of the variability of outcomes of cause and effect events that loses its meaning in science. It is often unethically misused by Creationists to characterize science. Even if 'chance' was observed, at present it is not, in nature it would not be a cause of anything,
Last edited:
Interview: Scripture and Science in Conflict?: An Interview with Stephen C. Meyer by Stephen Meyer
In this interview Meyer definitely used his book and view of 'Intelligent Design' to justify a fundamentalist Christian view. He did acknowledge an Old Earth Creationism (OEC), but supported a Biblical view that humans were unique Created, and not descended from primates as evolution supports.
I am not so sure 'everyone on this site would know your an atheist.' The verse and context in the Bible is "God" without question. Meyer's work and material is only used in fundamentalist Christian science texts, and virtually no one else in secular science will touch his works nor cite is works in academic nor educational materials.
Recent abiogensis research:
From: http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2015/03/researchers-may-have-solved-origin-life-conundrum
The RNA World hypothesis got a big boost in 2009. Chemists led by John Sutherland at the University of Cambridge in the United Kingdom reported that they had discovered that relatively simple precursor compounds called acetylene and formaldehyde could undergo a sequence of reactions to produce two of RNA’s four nucleotide building blocks, showing a plausible route to how RNA could have formed on its own—without the need for enzymes—in the primordial soup. Critics, though, pointed out that acetylene and formaldehyde are still somewhat complex molecules themselves. That begged the question of where they came from.
For their current study, Sutherland and his colleagues set out to work backward from those chemicals to see if they could find a route to RNA from even simpler starting materials. They succeeded. In the current issue of Nature Chemistry, Sutherland’s team reports that it created nucleic acid precursors starting with just hydrogen cyanide (HCN), hydrogen sulfide (H2S), and ultraviolet (UV) light. What is more, Sutherland says, the conditions that produce nucleic acid precursors also create the starting materials needed to make natural amino acids and lipids. That suggests a single set of reactions could have given rise to most of life’s building blocks simultaneously.
Sutherland’s team argues that early Earth was a favorable setting for those reactions. HCN is abundant in comets, which rained down steadily for nearly the first several hundred million years of Earth’s history. The impacts would also have produced enough energy to synthesize HCN from hydrogen, carbon, and nitrogen. Likewise, Sutherland says, H2S was thought to have been common on early Earth, as was the UV radiation that could drive the reactions and metal-containing minerals that could have catalyzed them.
That said, Sutherland cautions that the reactions that would have made each of the sets of building blocks are different enough from one another—requiring different metal catalysts, for example—that they likely would not have all occurred in the same location. Rather, he says, slight variations in chemistry and energy could have favored the creation of one set of building blocks over another, such as amino acids or lipids, in different places. “Rainwater would then wash these compounds into a common pool,” says Dave Deamer, an origin-of-life researcher at the University of California, Santa Cruz, who wasn’t affiliated with the research.
More to follow . . .
From: http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2015/03/researchers-may-have-solved-origin-life-conundrum
The RNA World hypothesis got a big boost in 2009. Chemists led by John Sutherland at the University of Cambridge in the United Kingdom reported that they had discovered that relatively simple precursor compounds called acetylene and formaldehyde could undergo a sequence of reactions to produce two of RNA’s four nucleotide building blocks, showing a plausible route to how RNA could have formed on its own—without the need for enzymes—in the primordial soup. Critics, though, pointed out that acetylene and formaldehyde are still somewhat complex molecules themselves. That begged the question of where they came from.
For their current study, Sutherland and his colleagues set out to work backward from those chemicals to see if they could find a route to RNA from even simpler starting materials. They succeeded. In the current issue of Nature Chemistry, Sutherland’s team reports that it created nucleic acid precursors starting with just hydrogen cyanide (HCN), hydrogen sulfide (H2S), and ultraviolet (UV) light. What is more, Sutherland says, the conditions that produce nucleic acid precursors also create the starting materials needed to make natural amino acids and lipids. That suggests a single set of reactions could have given rise to most of life’s building blocks simultaneously.
Sutherland’s team argues that early Earth was a favorable setting for those reactions. HCN is abundant in comets, which rained down steadily for nearly the first several hundred million years of Earth’s history. The impacts would also have produced enough energy to synthesize HCN from hydrogen, carbon, and nitrogen. Likewise, Sutherland says, H2S was thought to have been common on early Earth, as was the UV radiation that could drive the reactions and metal-containing minerals that could have catalyzed them.
That said, Sutherland cautions that the reactions that would have made each of the sets of building blocks are different enough from one another—requiring different metal catalysts, for example—that they likely would not have all occurred in the same location. Rather, he says, slight variations in chemistry and energy could have favored the creation of one set of building blocks over another, such as amino acids or lipids, in different places. “Rainwater would then wash these compounds into a common pool,” says Dave Deamer, an origin-of-life researcher at the University of California, Santa Cruz, who wasn’t affiliated with the research.
More to follow . . .
more research on abiogenesis . . .
From: https://3c1703fe8d.site.internapcdn.net/newman/gfx/news/hires/2013/rnamolecule.jpg
A new study led by scientists at The Scripps Research Institute (TSRI) offers a twist on a popular theory for how life on Earth began about four billion years ago.
The study questions the "RNA world" hypothesis, a theory for how RNA molecules evolved to create proteins and DNA. Instead, the new research offers evidence for a world where RNA and DNA evolved simultaneously.
"Even if you believe in a RNA-only world, you have to believe in something that existed with RNA to help it move forward," said Ramanarayanan Krishnamurthy, associate professor of chemistry at TSRI and senior author of the new study. "Why not think of RNA and DNA rising together, rather than trying to convert RNA to DNA by means of some fantastic chemistry at a prebiotic stage?"
The study was published recently in the journal Angewandte Chemie.
A Look Back in Time
Researchers have explored the RNA world hypothesis for more than 30 years. The idea behind this theory is that a series of chemical reactions led to the formation of self-replicating RNA molecules. RNA then evolved to create proteins and enzymes that resembled early versions of what makes up life today. Eventually, these enzymes helped RNA produce DNA, which led to complex organisms.
On the surface, RNA and DNA molecules look similar, with DNA forming a ladder-like structure (with nucleobase pairs as the rungs and sugar molecule backbones as the sides) and RNA forming what looks like just one side of a ladder.
If the RNA world theory is accurate, some researchers believe there would have been many cases where RNA nucleotides were mixed with DNA backbones, creating "heterogeneous" strands. If stable, these blended "chimeras" would have been an intermediate step in the transition to DNA.
Problems with Instability
However, the new study shows a significant loss of stability when RNA and DNA share the same backbone. The chimeras do not stay together as well as pure RNA or pure DNA, which would compromise their ability to hold genetic information and replicate.
"We were surprised to see a very deep drop in what we would call the 'thermal stability,'" said Krishnamurthy, who in addition to his position at TSRI has joint appointments with the National Science Foundation (NSF)-National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) Center for Chemical Evolution and the Simons Collaboration on the Origins of Life. This instability appeared to be due to a difference in the DNA sugar molecule structure versus the RNA sugar molecule.
The finding supported previous research from Nobel laureate and Harvard University Chemistry and Chemical Biology Professor Jack Szostak that showed a loss of (nucleotide-binding aptamer) function when RNA mixed with DNA.
Because of this instability, chimeras in the RNA world would have likely died off in favor of more stable RNA molecules. This reflects what scientists see in cells today: If RNA nucleobases mistakenly join a DNA strand, sophisticated enzymes will rush to fix the mistake. Evolution has led to a system that favors more stable, "homogeneous" molecules.
These sophisticated enzymes were probably not around at the time of RNA and DNA's early evolution, so these substitutions may have had a crippling effect on the molecules' ability to replicate and function. "The transition from RNA to DNA would not have been easy without mechanisms to keep them separate," said Krishnamurthy.
Considering a Second Theory
This realization led the scientists to consider an alternate theory: RNA and DNA may have arisen in tandem.
Krishnamurthy emphasized that his lab is not the first to propose this theory, but the findings on chimeric instability give scientists new evidence to consider.
If the two evolved at the same time, DNA could have established its own homogeneous system early on. RNA could have still evolved to produce DNA, but that may have occurred after it first met DNA and got to know its raw materials.
Krishnamurthy added that scientists will never know exactly how life began (barring the invention of a time machine), but by considering circumstances of early evolution, scientists can gain insights into the fundamentals of biology.
In addition to Krishnamurthy, authors of the study "RNA-DNA Chimeras in the Context of an RNA-world Transition to an RNA/DNA-world," were Jesse V. Gavette (first author) and Matthias Stoop of TSRI and the NSF-NASA Center for Chemical Evolution; and Nicholas V. Hud of the Georgia Institute of Technology and the NSF-NASA Center for Chemical Evolution.
Explore further: Missing links brewed in primordial puddles?
More information: Jesse V. Gavette et al. RNA-DNA Chimeras in the Context of an RNA World Transition to an RNA/DNA World, Angewandte Chemie International Edition (2016). DOI: 10.1002/anie.201607919
Read more at: https://phys.org/news/2016-09-scientists-evidence-alternate-theory-life.html#jCp
From: https://3c1703fe8d.site.internapcdn.net/newman/gfx/news/hires/2013/rnamolecule.jpg
A new study led by scientists at The Scripps Research Institute (TSRI) offers a twist on a popular theory for how life on Earth began about four billion years ago.
The study questions the "RNA world" hypothesis, a theory for how RNA molecules evolved to create proteins and DNA. Instead, the new research offers evidence for a world where RNA and DNA evolved simultaneously.
"Even if you believe in a RNA-only world, you have to believe in something that existed with RNA to help it move forward," said Ramanarayanan Krishnamurthy, associate professor of chemistry at TSRI and senior author of the new study. "Why not think of RNA and DNA rising together, rather than trying to convert RNA to DNA by means of some fantastic chemistry at a prebiotic stage?"
The study was published recently in the journal Angewandte Chemie.
A Look Back in Time
Researchers have explored the RNA world hypothesis for more than 30 years. The idea behind this theory is that a series of chemical reactions led to the formation of self-replicating RNA molecules. RNA then evolved to create proteins and enzymes that resembled early versions of what makes up life today. Eventually, these enzymes helped RNA produce DNA, which led to complex organisms.
On the surface, RNA and DNA molecules look similar, with DNA forming a ladder-like structure (with nucleobase pairs as the rungs and sugar molecule backbones as the sides) and RNA forming what looks like just one side of a ladder.
If the RNA world theory is accurate, some researchers believe there would have been many cases where RNA nucleotides were mixed with DNA backbones, creating "heterogeneous" strands. If stable, these blended "chimeras" would have been an intermediate step in the transition to DNA.
Problems with Instability
However, the new study shows a significant loss of stability when RNA and DNA share the same backbone. The chimeras do not stay together as well as pure RNA or pure DNA, which would compromise their ability to hold genetic information and replicate.
"We were surprised to see a very deep drop in what we would call the 'thermal stability,'" said Krishnamurthy, who in addition to his position at TSRI has joint appointments with the National Science Foundation (NSF)-National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) Center for Chemical Evolution and the Simons Collaboration on the Origins of Life. This instability appeared to be due to a difference in the DNA sugar molecule structure versus the RNA sugar molecule.
The finding supported previous research from Nobel laureate and Harvard University Chemistry and Chemical Biology Professor Jack Szostak that showed a loss of (nucleotide-binding aptamer) function when RNA mixed with DNA.
Because of this instability, chimeras in the RNA world would have likely died off in favor of more stable RNA molecules. This reflects what scientists see in cells today: If RNA nucleobases mistakenly join a DNA strand, sophisticated enzymes will rush to fix the mistake. Evolution has led to a system that favors more stable, "homogeneous" molecules.
These sophisticated enzymes were probably not around at the time of RNA and DNA's early evolution, so these substitutions may have had a crippling effect on the molecules' ability to replicate and function. "The transition from RNA to DNA would not have been easy without mechanisms to keep them separate," said Krishnamurthy.
Considering a Second Theory
This realization led the scientists to consider an alternate theory: RNA and DNA may have arisen in tandem.
Krishnamurthy emphasized that his lab is not the first to propose this theory, but the findings on chimeric instability give scientists new evidence to consider.
If the two evolved at the same time, DNA could have established its own homogeneous system early on. RNA could have still evolved to produce DNA, but that may have occurred after it first met DNA and got to know its raw materials.
Krishnamurthy added that scientists will never know exactly how life began (barring the invention of a time machine), but by considering circumstances of early evolution, scientists can gain insights into the fundamentals of biology.
In addition to Krishnamurthy, authors of the study "RNA-DNA Chimeras in the Context of an RNA-world Transition to an RNA/DNA-world," were Jesse V. Gavette (first author) and Matthias Stoop of TSRI and the NSF-NASA Center for Chemical Evolution; and Nicholas V. Hud of the Georgia Institute of Technology and the NSF-NASA Center for Chemical Evolution.
Explore further: Missing links brewed in primordial puddles?More information: Jesse V. Gavette et al. RNA-DNA Chimeras in the Context of an RNA World Transition to an RNA/DNA World, Angewandte Chemie International Edition (2016). DOI: 10.1002/anie.201607919
Read more at: https://phys.org/news/2016-09-scientists-evidence-alternate-theory-life.html#jCp
More references to abiogenesis can be found here:
https://www.quora.com/What-scientific-evidence-exists-for-abiogenesis
https://www.quora.com/What-scientific-evidence-exists-for-abiogenesis
Let's first get off the idea that I believe in God so we can have a pleasant conversation. We are just starting now to discuss it with your posts, but I want to dispel this myth that I am a theist first. Everyone that knows me well on RF knows I am an atheist (ben d, katzpur are two long-term examples). You quoted Vedic scripture but that doesn't make you Hindu. I quoted the Bible once because I believed in that verse which said nothing about God. Think of it as a good meme if you want. Again, to distinguish between something coming from nothing or something always coming from something we need either Big Bang Physics which we probably are both bad at or philosophy; I have a philosophy.
But something always coming from something is not a theist argument. If it was note that everything couldn't come from God (negating that it is a theist argument). The reason is that God would have to have existed before creation. But then God would have to have existed forever too, so why did it take God forever to create the Universe? Therefore, something always from something is not a theist argument; it's actually anti-theist.
Now let's enjoy the debate!
But something always coming from something is not a theist argument. If it was note that everything couldn't come from God (negating that it is a theist argument). The reason is that God would have to have existed before creation. But then God would have to have existed forever too, so why did it take God forever to create the Universe? Therefore, something always from something is not a theist argument; it's actually anti-theist.
Now let's enjoy the debate!
Last edited:
Good! That is new material I haven't seen before. I would have to agree with it. The only problem is that the conclusion itself is still, well, inconclusive. But I'm sure it boosts the odds in favor of it. And it will be important to see what follows. Now I will look at the next article.
After looking at the next post and reading all three it is interesting and I will keep looking at them.
Research into the genetic aspects of abiogenesis will be somewhat inclusive, because for several reasons: (1) Abiogenesis based on genetics research is young. (2) The current research is focusing on the individual mechanisms of the steps from inorganic chemicals to RNA then DNA. (4) Some research focuses on the environment, catalysts, and energy resources.
In the future these individual steps will be linked to demonstrate the different possible routes of abiogenesis. The Mid ocean sea vents are very high on the list as where abiogensis took place, because of the energy source, and catalysts required for the formation of RNA.
The presents of catalysts in creases the probability of the formation of RNA.
more research on abiogenesis . . .
From: https://3c1703fe8d.site.internapcdn.net/newman/gfx/news/hires/2013/rnamolecule.jpg
A new study led by scientists at The Scripps Research Institute (TSRI) offers a twist on a popular theory for how life on Earth began about four billion years ago.
The study questions the "RNA world" hypothesis, a theory for how RNA molecules evolved to create proteins and DNA. Instead, the new research offers evidence for a world where RNA and DNA evolved simultaneously.
"Even if you believe in a RNA-only world, you have to believe in something that existed with RNA to help it move forward," said Ramanarayanan Krishnamurthy, associate professor of chemistry at TSRI and senior author of the new study. "Why not think of RNA and DNA rising together, rather than trying to convert RNA to DNA by means of some fantastic chemistry at a prebiotic stage?"
The study was published recently in the journal Angewandte Chemie.
A Look Back in Time
Researchers have explored the RNA world hypothesis for more than 30 years. The idea behind this theory is that a series of chemical reactions led to the formation of self-replicating RNA molecules. RNA then evolved to create proteins and enzymes that resembled early versions of what makes up life today. Eventually, these enzymes helped RNA produce DNA, which led to complex organisms.
On the surface, RNA and DNA molecules look similar, with DNA forming a ladder-like structure (with nucleobase pairs as the rungs and sugar molecule backbones as the sides) and RNA forming what looks like just one side of a ladder.
If the RNA world theory is accurate, some researchers believe there would have been many cases where RNA nucleotides were mixed with DNA backbones, creating "heterogeneous" strands. If stable, these blended "chimeras" would have been an intermediate step in the transition to DNA.
Problems with Instability
However, the new study shows a significant loss of stability when RNA and DNA share the same backbone. The chimeras do not stay together as well as pure RNA or pure DNA, which would compromise their ability to hold genetic information and replicate.
"We were surprised to see a very deep drop in what we would call the 'thermal stability,'" said Krishnamurthy, who in addition to his position at TSRI has joint appointments with the National Science Foundation (NSF)-National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) Center for Chemical Evolution and the Simons Collaboration on the Origins of Life. This instability appeared to be due to a difference in the DNA sugar molecule structure versus the RNA sugar molecule.
The finding supported previous research from Nobel laureate and Harvard University Chemistry and Chemical Biology Professor Jack Szostak that showed a loss of (nucleotide-binding aptamer) function when RNA mixed with DNA.
Because of this instability, chimeras in the RNA world would have likely died off in favor of more stable RNA molecules. This reflects what scientists see in cells today: If RNA nucleobases mistakenly join a DNA strand, sophisticated enzymes will rush to fix the mistake. Evolution has led to a system that favors more stable, "homogeneous" molecules.
These sophisticated enzymes were probably not around at the time of RNA and DNA's early evolution, so these substitutions may have had a crippling effect on the molecules' ability to replicate and function. "The transition from RNA to DNA would not have been easy without mechanisms to keep them separate," said Krishnamurthy.
Considering a Second Theory
This realization led the scientists to consider an alternate theory: RNA and DNA may have arisen in tandem.
Krishnamurthy emphasized that his lab is not the first to propose this theory, but the findings on chimeric instability give scientists new evidence to consider.
If the two evolved at the same time, DNA could have established its own homogeneous system early on. RNA could have still evolved to produce DNA, but that may have occurred after it first met DNA and got to know its raw materials.
Krishnamurthy added that scientists will never know exactly how life began (barring the invention of a time machine), but by considering circumstances of early evolution, scientists can gain insights into the fundamentals of biology.
In addition to Krishnamurthy, authors of the study "RNA-DNA Chimeras in the Context of an RNA-world Transition to an RNA/DNA-world," were Jesse V. Gavette (first author) and Matthias Stoop of TSRI and the NSF-NASA Center for Chemical Evolution; and Nicholas V. Hud of the Georgia Institute of Technology and the NSF-NASA Center for Chemical Evolution.
More information: Jesse V. Gavette et al. RNA-DNA Chimeras in the Context of an RNA World Transition to an RNA/DNA World, Angewandte Chemie International Edition (2016). DOI: 10.1002/anie.201607919
Read more at: https://phys.org/news/2016-09-scientists-evidence-alternate-theory-life.html#jCp
It is nice that you have new material that I haven't seen. I couldn't read the third article without paying, but as per the first two: unfortunately if you read them close they have found nothing conclusive yet.
Why is a DNA/RNA backbone an intermediate step?
If for DNA we need to come up with sentence A and for RNA we need to come up with sentence B, don't we still need to write "Sentence A. Sentence B?" Where is the use of the second half of sentence A with the first half of sentence B?
They apparently didn't answer this question, IMHO.
Is there more RNA product in the second article? They didn't say so!
"To claim ancestry, we would have to show a mechanism by which these nucleotides we made in the lab could turn into the existing nucleotides in RNA," said Ram Krishnamurthy, Hud's collaborator from the Scripps Research Institute in La Jolla, California. "It's a complex path that we'd have to at least design on paper, and we're not there."
Great. You know what else's research is young? ID. On to https://www.quora.com/What-scientific-evidence-exists-for-abiogenesis