Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 31

Thread: Origin of life status

  1. #11
    tWebber shunyadragon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Hillsborough, NC
    Faith
    Agnostic
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    13,779
    Amen (Given)
    1458
    Amen (Received)
    943
    Quote Originally Posted by lee_merrill View Post
    And here is a reply to Hurd's attack. But let's not argue by link? Have you watched the video? And do you have comments on it?

    Blessings,
    Lee
    He may not indorse Intelligent Design in that he says this is not falsifiable, on this point I agree, but his arguments against natural abiogenesis and evolution are basically the same. I saw a heavy 'watchmaker' argument. He is as a matter of fact arguing from a Christian creationist perspective.

    He endorsed this in a survey of scientists.

    Source: https://www.jmtour.com/personal-topics/evolution-creation/


    Nonetheless, some are disconcerted or even angered that I signed a statement in ~2001 along with many other scientists:

    We are skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life. Careful examination of the evidence for Darwinian theory should be encouraged.”

    © Copyright Original Source



    Actually most of the claimed scientists that sign this were really not scientists in the fields related to evolution. There were an awful lot of engineers, dentists, philosophers, and others not remotely qualified in the basic sciences related to evolution. Also the statement is vague and misleading. The science of evolution is already under 'careful examination of the evidence. Also the science of evolution is not the 'Darwinian Theory.'

    Despite being a scientist he shows a fundamental lack of understanding of 'randomness' in the cause and effect outcome of natural events, and the classic Creationist misuse of probability and statistics.

    One of the problems is his talk rambled through a lot of 'stuff' not really related to 'abiogenesis.'
    Last edited by shunyadragon; 05-19-2019 at 07:51 AM.
    Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
    Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
    But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:

    go with the flow the river knows . . .

    Frank

    I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.

  2. #12
    tWebber shunyadragon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Hillsborough, NC
    Faith
    Agnostic
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    13,779
    Amen (Given)
    1458
    Amen (Received)
    943
    Sorry I put this in the wrong thread.

    James Tour's view towards abiogenesis and evolution is basically fundamentalist Christian belief, and is a very poor starting point for a scientific discussion on the origins of life.

    Source: https://www.jmtour.com/personal-topics/evolution-creation/



    Based upon my faith in the biblical text, I do believe (yes, faith and belief go beyond scientific evidence for this scientist) that God created the heavens and the earth and all that dwell therein, including a man named Adam and a woman named Eve. As for many of the details and the time-spans, I personally become less clear. Some may ask, What’s “less clear” about the text that reads, “For in six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth”? That is a fair question, and I wish I had an answer that would satisfy them. But I do not because I remain less clear. So, in addition to my chemically based scientific resistance to a macroevolutionary proposal, I am also theologically reticent to embrace it. As a lover of the biblical text, I cannot allegorize the Book of Genesis that far, lest, as Tevye in Fiddler on the Roof said, “If I try and bend that far, I’ll break!” God seems to have set nature as a clue, not a solution, to keep us yearning for him. And if some day we do understand the mechanisms for these macroevolutionary changes, and also the processes that led to the origin of first life, it will not lessen God. As with all discoveries, like when the genetic code in the double-stranded DNA was discovered, they will serve to underscore the magnanimity of God.

    © Copyright Original Source



    The interesting point for discussion without the ambiguous; 'arguing from ignorance,' Gaps within gaps within gaps, and the misuse of randomness and probability, is given the evidence at hand; Is there an alternate hypothesis that fits the evidence and comes up with a different conclusion concerning the 'origin of life'?
    Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
    Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
    But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:

    go with the flow the river knows . . .

    Frank

    I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.

  3. #13
    tWebber Roy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Faith
    Atheist
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    5,526
    Amen (Given)
    602
    Amen (Received)
    1430
    Quote Originally Posted by lee_merrill View Post
    By the way, James Tour is not an intelligent design proponent.
    He is a creationist:

    "Based upon my faith in the biblical text, I do believe (yes, faith and belief go beyond scientific evidence for this scientist) that God created the heavens and the earth and all that dwell therein, including a man named Adam and a woman named Eve."
    Jorge: Functional Complex Information is INFORMATION that is complex and functional.

    mikewhitney: What if the speed of light changed when light is passing through water? ... I have 3 semesters of college Physics.

  4. #14
    tWebber lee_merrill's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Durham, NC
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    1,010
    Amen (Given)
    299
    Amen (Received)
    154
    Quote Originally Posted by shunyadragon View Post
    Despite being a scientist he shows a fundamental lack of understanding of 'randomness' in the cause and effect outcome of natural events, and the classic Creationist misuse of probability and statistics.
    Well, how so?

    One of the problems is his talk rambled through a lot of 'stuff' not really related to 'abiogenesis.'
    What stuff do you mean, though? There was a preface where he established his credentials as a scientist, then the rest of the talk was indeed, abiogenesis.

    Blessings,
    Lee
    "What I pray of you is, to keep your eye upon Him, for that is everything. Do you say, 'How am I to keep my eye on Him?' I reply, keep your eye off everything else, and you will soon see Him. All depends on the eye of faith being kept on Him. How simple it is!" (J.B. Stoney)

  5. #15
    Evolution is God's ID rogue06's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Southeastern U.S. of A.
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    48,766
    Amen (Given)
    1035
    Amen (Received)
    17599
    Quote Originally Posted by shunyadragon View Post
    He may not indorse Intelligent Design in that he says this is not falsifiable, on this point I agree, but his arguments against natural abiogenesis and evolution are basically the same. I saw a heavy 'watchmaker' argument. He is as a matter of fact arguing from a Christian creationist perspective.

    He endorsed this in a survey of scientists.

    Source: https://www.jmtour.com/personal-topics/evolution-creation/


    Nonetheless, some are disconcerted or even angered that I signed a statement in ~2001 along with many other scientists:

    We are skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life. Careful examination of the evidence for Darwinian theory should be encouraged.”

    © Copyright Original Source



    Actually most of the claimed scientists that sign this were really not scientists in the fields related to evolution. There were an awful lot of engineers, dentists, philosophers, and others not remotely qualified in the basic sciences related to evolution. Also the statement is vague and misleading. The science of evolution is already under 'careful examination of the evidence. Also the science of evolution is not the 'Darwinian Theory.'

    Despite being a scientist he shows a fundamental lack of understanding of 'randomness' in the cause and effect outcome of natural events, and the classic Creationist misuse of probability and statistics.

    One of the problems is his talk rambled through a lot of 'stuff' not really related to 'abiogenesis.'
    A lot has been made of the Dissent From Darwin list by various evolution deniers but much about it they don't like talking about.

    For instance, from a post I made on another website a few years ago:

    Many of those "dissenters" are anything but. Rather, like any good scientist they still have unanswered questions. Some were quite shocked to find their names included on the various lists that have been cobbled together.

    Many of those "dissenters" were anything but PhD scientists. Some aren't even scientists except under the loosest definition of the word imaginable.

    Many of those "dissenters" are in fields not even remotely associated with evolution. Many are mathematicians, engineers, philosophers, psychologists, statisticians and the like. One was even a park ranger. It's sort of like asking a sociologist for his opinion about cosmology or physics and then touting it as "expert" dissent.

    Many of the institutes that the "dissenters" are listed as being affiliated with are deliberately misrepresented. They pick out the most prestigious organization or school that they ever attended or were at one time associated with (often distantly) and present it as if that is who they are currently affiliated with. That is not how it is done and is very dishonest.

    There are nearly half a million earth and life scientists (scientists whose work involves the Theory of Evolution) just in the U.S. so even if every single one of those listed as "dissenters" were in those relevant fields (and only a fraction of them are) they would represent approximately 0.01% of them. And again, that list includes many not in the U.S. (IIRC less than 50%) so it represents a much smaller percentage than 0.01%

    It should be noted that with 99.9% of those in the relevant fields supporting evolutionary theory that this represents a higher percentage than of historians who think that there was a Holocaust! Yeah, evolution is facing an imminent demise as all of those scientists are abandoning it. :D

    More to the point, the list has been deliciously ridiculed by Project Steve which consists of a list of scientists with the given name Steven or a variation thereof (like Stephanie, Stefan, Esteban...) who accept evolutionary theory. The last I checked the list has somewhere around 1400 signers making it considerably larger than any of the lists put together by evolution deniers despite being restricted to just people named Steve. IOW, there are many more scientists named Steve who support evolution than all of the scientists (regardless of their name) who question it.

    And there are several things to keep in mind here

    • Only those who have signed on are included unlike some of those "dissenter" lists who also selected folks they think belong on it

    • Scientists with the name "Steve" (or some variant) only constitute something like 1% of the population so the fact that Project Steve has far more signatories really exposes exactly how few "dissenters" there are.

    • Project Steve contains a much higher percentage of biologists than any of the so-called "dissenter" lists meaning they consist of scientists who actually deal with evolution

    • The original goal was to obtain 100 signatories but that was reached in just 10 days including 2 Nobel Prize winners


    Also, as I noted, there have been a number of scientists who were shocked to find that they were included in the Discovery Institute's list of "dissenters." The only biologist on that list who would have qualified for Project Steve was Prof. C. Steve Murphree (Belmont University) who repudiated his association with it in a letter-to-the-editor published in the "Daily News Journal" of Rutherford County, Tennessee saying that he was a Theistic Evolutionist and signed the Project Steve list in January 2012 becoming the 1184th Steve on it.

    William Dembski, a Fellow at the Discovery Institute and signer of the "Dissent From Darwinism" list remarked in response to Project Steve that "if Project Steve was meant to show that a considerable majority of the scientific community accepts a naturalistic conception of evolution, then the National Center for Science Education (NCSE) could have saved its energies – that fact was never in question."

    And Project Steve isn't the only counter-list out there. During a four-day drive while the Kitzmiller v. Dover case was being heard a word-of-mouth campaign garnered the signatures of 7733 verifiable scientists for a "Scientific Support For Darwinism" petition.

    And let's not forget the Clergy Letter Project (which was recently endorsed by The United Methodist Church) has just over 13,000 signers of a petition consisting of American Christian clergy and over 500 Jewish rabbis who "believe that the timeless truths of the Bible and the discoveries of modern science may comfortably coexist."

    Further, I think it would be safe to say that even Darwin would have likely agreed with the central premise that random mutation and natural selection alone don't account for the complexity of life. He wrote a book on the importance of sexual selection demonstrating that from the start that nobody was claiming that those were the only mechanisms involved in evolution. And who wouldn't agree with the idea that "careful examination of the evidence for Darwinian theory should be encouraged"? But leave it to the hard-core evolution deniers to twist and distort it and present it as everyone who signed it think that evolution is invalid.


    I should note that the Clergy Letter Project has expanded to over 15,000 signatories

    I'm always still in trouble again

    "You're by far the worst poster on TWeb" and "TWeb's biggest liar" -- starlight (the guy who says Stalin was a right-winger)

  6. Amen shunyadragon, Seeker amen'd this post.
  7. #16
    tWebber shunyadragon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Hillsborough, NC
    Faith
    Agnostic
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    13,779
    Amen (Given)
    1458
    Amen (Received)
    943
    The current status of 'abiogenesis' is reflected in the hundreds of peer reviewed research published every year. We have cited some of this research, but you brushed it off. I am not sure just citing more would change anything. I doubt it. You actually lack the scientific background to understand it in the context of all the research published every year.

    I will add that in the video by James Tour he referred to the problem of right versus left handed proteins in RNA/DNA, ie chirality. A reference I provided long ago that resolved the problem, or as another reference concluded it was never really a problem.
    Last edited by shunyadragon; 05-21-2019 at 05:21 PM.
    Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
    Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
    But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:

    go with the flow the river knows . . .

    Frank

    I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.

  8. #17
    tWebber lee_merrill's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Durham, NC
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    1,010
    Amen (Given)
    299
    Amen (Received)
    154
    Quote Originally Posted by shunyadragon View Post
    The current status of 'abiogenesis' is reflected in the hundreds of peer reviewed research published every year. We have cited some of this research, but you brushed it off. I am not sure just citing more would change anything. I doubt it. You actually lack the scientific background to understand it in the context of all the research published every year.
    Where did anyone cite abiogenesis research in this thread? I may have missed it. But James Tour's scientific opinion is that origin-of-life research cannot account for even the elemental structures of life, such as a cell membrane.

    I will add that in the video by James Tour he referred to the problem of right versus left handed proteins in RNA/DNA, ie chirality. A reference I provided long ago that resolved the problem, or as another reference concluded it was never really a problem.
    Reference then, please?

    Blessings,
    Lee
    "What I pray of you is, to keep your eye upon Him, for that is everything. Do you say, 'How am I to keep my eye on Him?' I reply, keep your eye off everything else, and you will soon see Him. All depends on the eye of faith being kept on Him. How simple it is!" (J.B. Stoney)

  9. #18
    tWebber shunyadragon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Hillsborough, NC
    Faith
    Agnostic
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    13,779
    Amen (Given)
    1458
    Amen (Received)
    943
    Quote Originally Posted by lee_merrill View Post
    Where did anyone cite abiogenesis research in this thread? I may have missed it. But James Tour's scientific opinion is that origin-of-life research cannot account for even the elemental structures of life, such as a cell membrane.


    Reference then, please?

    Blessings,
    Lee
    I did not say this thread. There have bee may threads over time, and basically you ignored or brushed off the references. I seriously question citing references, because of your attitude, agenda, and lack of knowledge in science.

    You brushed off the previous references, so why bother. Nonetheless references will follow. I will start with high school level references.
    Last edited by shunyadragon; 05-22-2019 at 02:23 PM.
    Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
    Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
    But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:

    go with the flow the river knows . . .

    Frank

    I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.

  10. #19
    tWebber shunyadragon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Hillsborough, NC
    Faith
    Agnostic
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    13,779
    Amen (Given)
    1458
    Amen (Received)
    943
    Quote Originally Posted by lee_merrill View Post
    Where did anyone cite abiogenesis research in this thread? I may have missed it. But James Tour's scientific opinion is that origin-of-life research cannot account for even the elemental structures of life, such as a cell membrane.

    James Tour is not a reliable source, because of his religious agenda, which I cited where he clearly stated this. There is no real science when someone requires that the only science they will accept meets the criteria of their religious beliefs.
    Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
    Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
    But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:

    go with the flow the river knows . . .

    Frank

    I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.

  11. Amen Seeker amen'd this post.
  12. #20
    tWebber shunyadragon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Hillsborough, NC
    Faith
    Agnostic
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    13,779
    Amen (Given)
    1458
    Amen (Received)
    943
    The following reference goes into considerable detail concerning the problem of left and right handed proteins and abiogenesis, and one of the developments that developed a possible solution. This is oe reference on how scientists are working to resolve the problem. It is not a complete unsolvable mystery.

    Source: https://www.quantamagazine.org/chiral-key-found-to-origin-of-life-20141126/



    But if a ribozyme that copies RNA can’t function in a chemically symmetrical world, how could RNA-based life have emerged? “It’s kind of a showstopper,” said Peter Unrau, a biochemist at Simon Fraser University in Canada. In the decades since Joyce’s 1984 experiment, scientists have proposed myriad ways around the problem, from physical and chemical theories to RNA precursors that lack chirality.

    Given the known limitations, Joyce began to focus on creating a simple ribozyme that could copy RNA when only right-handed blocks were around. His group had some success, but none that fulfilled the requirements of the RNA world theory.

    So last year, Joyce and Sczepanski decided to start from scratch. They unleashed a pool of random right-handed RNA molecules and let them react in a test tube with left-handed building blocks. They hoped that within that random pool of RNA molecules was a ribozyme capable of stringing the building blocks together. They then isolated the best candidates — ribozymes that could copy RNA of the opposite handedness — replicated them, and subjected the new pool to the same trial over and over again.

    In just a few short months, they had a surprisingly effective ribozyme. The right-handed version binds to a left-handed RNA template and produces a left-handed copy. The left-handed copy can then go on to produce a right-handed version. “It’s amazing what they did,” said John Chaput, a biochemist at Arizona State University in Tempe. “It really does get to the heart of the question of the origins of chirality and provides some solid evidence to move things forward.”

    Perhaps even more exciting is how well the enzyme works. Other ribozymes created to date are too finicky to have spawned life; they replicate only certain RNA sequences, like soil that will grow potatoes but not carrots or peas. But Joyce’s ribozyme could produce a range of sequences — including its own. And it’s still getting better. The ribozyme in the paper emerged after just 16 rounds of evolution, a shockingly short run for this kind of experiment. Further rounds of evolution have already boosted its abilities, though these findings are not yet published. “The beautiful thing is that this is still a young enzyme,” Lehman said. “There’s lots of room for improvement.”

    The new ribozyme nearly fulfills the most basic properties of life — the ability to replicate and to evolve.

    The reason the new ribozyme works so well lies in the unusual way it operates. A regular ribozyme binds to its target according to its sequence of letters, like two sides of a zipper coming together. Sometimes it works too well, and the targets get stuck. This kind of binding only works with two molecules of the same handedness, which means Joyce’s ribozyme can’t bind this way.

    Instead, it binds based on the molecule’s shape rather than its sequence, an approach that turns out to be much more flexible. “They found something completely novel,” Lehman said. “It goes to show there’s a lot out there we don’t know.”

    Scientists now have an enzyme that doesn’t need a chiral world. Researchers, including Joyce himself, are still trying to understand the implications. The findings open the possibility that chirality emerged after life first evolved. “Maybe we didn’t need to break symmetry,” said Blackmond.

    © Copyright Original Source



    All you have done in the past was the scapegoat 'arguing from ignorance,' because scientists do not know therefor . . .

    More to follow as before . . .
    Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
    Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
    But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:

    go with the flow the river knows . . .

    Frank

    I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •