Do you think Apple should include a copy of the Bible ...

Yet, after 50 years of research by really bright minds has brought people no where nearer to the solution.
Click to expand...
Whatever gave you that idea? We are so very much more advanced since that time that it is becoming increasingly common to refer to all the disciplines on the borderline of Biology, Biochemistry and Medicine as the "Life Sciences" or "Bio-Medical Sciences". All the experiments with respect to clonation, the unraveling of the DNA code and stem-cell research are the direct consequences of more primitive experiments like those of Miller.

3 billion years ago it has been proved in various ways there was next to no loose oxygen, but there was an atmosphere that protected the earth's surface and the seas from the harshest radiation. The percentage of H2O that would break down is so absolutely tiny that it does not influence absolutely anything about the experiment. Remember that the hypothesis was that life developed in water. You do not get much loose oxygen in water and certanly nothing that would generate catastrofical explosions.

The trick of science is that it learns from its flaws and adapts, just like life itself. Religions, once founded and institutionalised, become static and almost incapable of change. This is called dogmatism: religions keep close to their foundations. Science continually challenges previous discoveries and tries to improve them and is ready to abandon earlier positions when proven wrong. Faith cannot do that. This does not imply at all that science or faith would be superior or better one thatn the other. Just that they have a different approach to some matters. All I am trying to argue is that there is a reasonable account of how life can develop spontaneously without need of creation. I am not trying to convince you that this account is the only true and ultimate account. I am trying to convince you that it is a reasonable account. You are trying to argue that it as impossible and false and that your account (I suppose creationism) is the only true account. As our approach is so different, then we agree to disagree.
 
Cat said:
Life itself, either created or evolved, is against you view, as it is intrinsically homeostatic and moreover self-replicating.
Click to expand...
Yeah, until it dies. Call me crazy, but I see obvious intelligent design. And no, the Bible should not be included on the iPod. Stupid thread. :)
 
The point he was making is that a single life will die, but life in general will continue. That's what he meant by Life itself....
 
Darkshadow said:
The point he was making is that a single life will die, but life in general will continue. That's what he meant by Life itself....
Click to expand...
OK, i can understand that.
 
Whatever gave you that idea? We are so very much more advanced since that time that it is becoming increasingly common to refer to all the disciplines on the borderline of Biology, Biochemistry and Medicine as the "Life Sciences" or "Bio-Medical Sciences". All the experiments with respect to clonation, the unraveling of the DNA code and stem-cell research are the direct consequences of more primitive experiments like those of Miller.
Click to expand...

My apologies if this comes across sounding like a personal attack.

Cloning, unraveling of DNA code, stem-cell research have NOTHING to do with the Miller urey experiment. None of these have anything to do with how life began, which is what Miller and Urey sought to prove with their initial experiment. All these experiments that you've brought up are just a smokescreen that only diverts attention from the original issue.

You have just demonstrated that scientists have moved on from the ridiculous and inaccurate experiments of Miller/urey. Your example of the life developing in the seas further solidifies this statement. Incidentally, the idea that life began in the oceans supports the creation account but that's an aside and isn't the issue being discussed.

Science and the Bible aren't in contradiction. The account in Genesis is more concerned with who created, rather than how it was created. Science cannot answer the question of who began the process of life, but it can *try* to understand how it began.

I was interested in the Miller/Urey experiment because I wanted to know how life began. The Miller/Urey experiment fails in that regard, and that line of approach has been abandoned by all researches in life sciences.

I'm argueing against the Miller/Urey experiment not because I'm being dogmatic, but because I think it doesn't work, is a dead end, and is commonly misunderstood by people as demonstrating that life began in that way. The evidence of why it has failed has already been presented in my other posts (methane + hydrogen + oxygen + spark = BOOM, mixture doesn't represent atmosphere, and NO life). This isn't philosophy/public speaking/story telling/etc where a metaphor will suffice. This is hard science, and since the premises of the experiment are wrong coupled with the fact that the experiment has failed to produce anything useful, one must definitely conclude that the experiment has failed and move on to something more useful. In this regard, the attitude of certain scientists and their followers (yes, followers since it all requires elements of faith) fly completely against the standard accepted practice of questioning and abandoning flawed methods/ideas.

That is where we disagree. Not on whether creationism/darwinism holds water, though I believe you are a darwinist and I'm a creationist. But whether this experiment holds any water at all and if anything useful has come out from this experiment. The Miller/Urey experiment does not show how life began eventhough it is often quoted as the Gospel truth by supporters of Darwinism.

Btw, as an evangelical Christian, if Apple wants to include the Bible with the iPod, great. But the decision to ship or not ship lies squarely on their shoulders. That said, if they shipped a Bible on the iPod, that still wouldn't compell me to buy one but it might offend others and kill the sales of iPods. Guess they won't do that then :).
 
that line of approach has been abandoned by all researches in life sciences
Click to expand...
That is not strictly true as far as I know. It depends on how narrow/broad you define "that line of approach". Miller's experiment was one of the most important breakthroughs at that time. It gave an impulse to the field of which we now reap the benefits.

(methane + hydrogen + oxygen + spark = BOOM, mixture doesn't represent atmosphere,
Click to expand...
I already replied that this account is not true. I rarely shout but: THERE WAS NOT THAT MUCH OXYGEN TO CAUSE AN EXPLOSION. 3 billion years ago there was an extremely low level of oxygen in the atmosphere and obviously much less so under water. Miller's experiment mimicked the conditions as far as they knew then. Now we have better data, but not radically different and the experiment has been replicated several times over the course of the years with varying compositions and always with the same results: amminoacids.

Moreover, strictly speaking this has nothing whatsoever to do with Darwinism. I am not a "Darwinist" if people like that even exist anymore. I believe that the theory of evolution as it is being taught now is the most accurate description we have of certain natural processes. It is not a "credo". The chemical account of life, how life originated in an abiotic environment has nothing to do with Darwin and natural selection. It has to do with biochemistry, not evolution.

Currently the most advanced and up to date theories about the origin of life still give (mutatis mutandis) the same account as Miller. You say that "the premises of the experiment are wrong ... the experiment has failed to produce anything useful ... the experiment has failed": on what do you base that? What do you mean? Miller did perform his experiment and he got organic molecules. The account of the primordial seas and atmosphere have not changed that radically and the experiment has been repeated with succes in varying conditions. What is wrong here? You simply contradict the facts. You say there was oxygen and that it would have caused an explosion: that is wrong and even very elementary superficial research will show you that. I'm sorry but I cannot argue with ignorance. There are RNA theories on the origin of life that are significantly related to Miller's experiments and what followed from them. Do some research and then come back with arguments.
 
Look at all the experiments that have been performed. Look at how careful people are in order to remove all trace of oxygen from the apparatuses used. Methane + hydrogen is a very very flammable mixture and the presence of a very small amount of oxygen will be enough to cause an explosion.

This is what all the experiments have in common. They work in the complete absence of oxygen which is impossible since oxygen will exist in a minute amount as long as there is water.

Aside from that, I haven't come across a single experiment mention the consequence of having tar as a by product. I'll leave it to you to go figure out what the implications are.

Amino acids <> life. That is where the experiment fails. None of the fields you've mentioned (DNA decoding, stem cell research, etc) have anything to do with the Miller/Urey experiment at all.

I have done my research. Lots of it. Please do not resort to what all proponents of Darwinism do when confronted with such facts. They either dodge the questions and throw up red herrings into the conversation, or(and) try to call into question the competence/integrity of the person who brought up the point.
 
unwiseman said:
If you can tell me how life happened by accident...
Click to expand...


Quite simply you and your wife, girlfriend or just some lady you met by the quicky mart get drunk on friday night and presto chango you are daddy. Life happens a lot by accident, so does death. It's probably a lot like what happened when G-D create the earth and a few other billion planets. G-D was trying to set up his new home brew beer kit when he wanted to speed up the fermentation process and accidently spilled a few billion grains of hops over a dark black canvas cast the wrong spell and here we are today. A lot of scientific experiments gone wrong have created a lot of inventions by accident.

The true question is not who, what or how we got here. But why the hell, for what purpose? A perfectly black empty space void of any debris is considered perfect! Why mess with it? And who created G-D and why? And where did all that open infinite universal space come from. If something/someone did create us he/she/it/??? would have left a marker, a letter or a sign... no one seems to be able to see it, and it's been right there in front of their faces all this time. Someday we will reach the edge of the universe but we will never reach the center of the sun... because it bears the forbiden fruit that we are not allowed to touch.
 
Miller showed that amino acids can develop in an abiotic environment resembling earth's condition 3b years ago. This inspired a lot of further research and experiments. In the 1960's it was discovered in similar experiments that adenine and the other RNA and DNA bases also can be obtained. Chemicals that have been found in these experiments include all 20 amino acids, sugars, lipids, various bases found in nucleic acids and ATP.

Your allegations about oxygen are simply false: oxygen was essentially absent in the period in which life originated. Scientific data proves that between a twentieth or half of a percent of the atmosphere was composed of oxygen: less than 0.5 %, that is less than 0.005. Moreover, UNDER WATER you get even less FREE (=reactive) oxygen that could have exploded or inhibited the reactions in a significant way.

Do you want me post a list of articles in scientific peer-reviewed journals that discuss the levels of oxygen >3b years ago?

So Miller and subsequent researches proved experimentally that it is possible for the basic building-blocks of life to be formed in an abiotic environment.

By the way, it would be elegant from your side to post what you think the alternative is. Trying to shoot holes into my arguments makes it easy for you to push me into defense. Let's see what your side has to offer. I provide proof and arguments, what do you do except contradicting me without proof?

Amino acids <> life. That is where the experiment fails.
Click to expand...
Amino acids and the other basic building blocks are only the first step. In my first post I didn't just shout "MILLER!". i said that the very first consituents of life can develop in an abiotic environment, then they can form stable chains in a suitable environment, like the fatty cells I mentioned. These become then the first steps on the way to monocellular organisms. Step by step from procariotes to eucariotes to multicellular organisms. All these steps depend on each other. If you cannot prove that life can originate in an abiotic environment you are nowhere. Experiments like tose of Miller have shown that this first step is warranted, tereby validating lots of other research.

Despite many changes and improvements, the Oparin-Haldane hypothesis is still an important part of the model in use today in the life sciences. Miller's experiment was only a part of this larger research program into the basic building-blocks of life. Research on these building-blocks has been so successful that it has enabled us to move on to a deeper level of understanding (DNA, cloning, stem-cells, etc.).
Do you want to claim that research into the origin of DNA is irrelevant to research on DNA?
Do you want to argue that research into the origin af asexuous reproduction by scission is irrelevant to cloning?
Do you want to allege that research into the capacity of DNA to code for the specific development of an organism is irrelevant for stem-cell research?
Be my guest! You're not arguing against science here, but against common sense. Current research is based on and a development of earlier more primitive research. I'll not claim that Aristotle is still relevant to biology, but Miller surely is.
 
It doesn't solve many problems, but it is a legitimate possibility. As I said in the beginning, life ought to be relatively common in the universe, given that little is needed to originate it. Life is very simple at the core. Do you know Giordano Bruno? He speaks of an infinite universe, populated by many planets harboring life. He was burned by the church 17 February 1600.
 
RacerX said:
A better question is why Apple (or any computer company for that matter) should endorse any religion.

Something tells me that those who want the bible on their systems aren't exactly having a hard time finding a copy (for free).

On the other hand, NeXT used to include a ton of great reference material on their systems. This included a Dictionary (with illustrations) and the Complete Works of William Shakespeare. They also included a free copy of Mathematica for systems sold to students. The World Book Encyclopedia included now is nice, but I think Mathematica would be better. :D
Click to expand...

No way :eek: -- better fire up my VPC and look that up!
I knew about the dictionary (have used it) but not Shakespeare! :eek:
 
Cat said:
Do you know Giordano Bruno? He speaks of an infinite universe, populated by many planets harboring life. He was burned by the church 17 February 1600.
Click to expand...
Oooooh, those silly religious people! :rolleyes:
 
Btw. Cat: The change from abiotic to biotic environment still has a lot to do with evolution, since if you understand evolution as the process that it is, it doesn't only 'happen' in a biotic environment, but everywhere (and that's how I see it...). If you happen to 'like' evolution and still want to believe in something (*grin*) you can look at it as the following idea:

"Evolution is an incredibly powerful energy. It's also very dumb. It tries out any possible (and impossible) idea until it finds something useful. Actually, it's SO dumb, it even goes on trying after it HAS found a viable solution to a problem. But because it's so INCREDIBLY powerful, that doesn't matter, as it has all the resources it can find to try again and again and again. The chance that it'll find a solution to every problem that has existed, exists and will exist, is 100 percent. Given enough time. And time is only one of the resources evolution has an incredible amount of."

(Slightly mistranslated excerpt from my yet-to-be-released [German language] book 'StoffHerz', which will probably be finished sooner than at the end of the universe, since _I_ am a writer, not The Evolution.)
 
Well, in that case you would be treating evolution as a metaphor for other domains, for which it was not intended ... you can do that, but be careful to keep the proper (eigentlich) and improper (uneigentlich) use well-distinct in your mind.

Consider Pratchett's idea of Quantum: everything has to happen somewhere! (Lords and Ladies) :D
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top