Post Reply
Page 16 of 18  •  Prev 1 ... 13 14 15 16 17 18 Next
Switch to Forum Live View Scientist: Evolution debate will soon be history
2 years ago  ::  May 31, 2012 - 3:45PM #151
MMarcoe
Posts: 16,201

May 31, 2012 -- 2:01PM, williejhonlo wrote:


The reason I believe the debate will always continue is because back in the 80's I remember reading an article in "time"  magazine  about evoluton, it was about 16 pages long, and at the end of the article, it asked, what is life? and the answer was, "we don't know what life is, but in the future we hope for discoveries". And I'm thinking too myself, "well, if you don't even know what something is, how can you present a process about how it evolved?"


We have ideas about what life is but no certainties





We can wait on the definition of life if need be; it won't hobble our science of evolution at all.


But creationism as an explanatory mechanism for life is truly doomed, because its tenets and claims are easily discredited.


Theistic evolution will likely continue on, though.


 

There are three sides to every story: your side, my side, and the truth.

God is just a personification of reality, of pure objectivity.
Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  May 31, 2012 - 5:33PM #152
rsielin
Posts: 4,292

May 31, 2012 -- 2:13PM, williejhonlo wrote:

I remember a tv interview with him and some other scientist at the time of his achievement, no one was claiming he created life.


It has been referred to as creating "synthetic life". 


Mr T wants to stubbornly discount this achievement because an existing vesicle was used. And he insists by his "authority" that this particular vesicle is a requirement. He's closed his mind, I'm still open and interested. Who knows what we'll eventually find from the Sargasso Sea?



Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  May 31, 2012 - 5:40PM #153
rsielin
Posts: 4,292

May 31, 2012 -- 2:01PM, williejhonlo wrote:

 "we don't know what life is, but in the future we hope for discoveries". And I'm thinking too myself, "well, if you don't even know what something is, how can you present a process about how it evolved?"


We have ideas about what life is but no certainties.


The problem with a definintion for life is less about what life is but defining the point between life and non-life. It's not all or nothing, but a continuum between one and the other. That's why we will not find our answers if we continue to stubbornly hold on to historical definitions as T does. 

Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  May 31, 2012 - 5:54PM #154
upsala81
Posts: 2,440

What has been discussed is indeed a great step forward.  But in a sense it is using "parts" that we know already work.


What would be interesting would be to create life from elements that we do not see in the life that we have.


Back when I read alot of sci-fi there was a buzz on silicon based life, as carbon and silicon have much in common.  Maybe that.


Or perhaps as silicon is what computer chips are made up, maybe a self replicating computer.  Although I don't think I'd like to see two mac books get in on and give birth to an I phone.


Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  May 31, 2012 - 6:06PM #155
wohali
Posts: 10,227

Willie:


"The reason I believe the debate will always continue is because back in the 80's I remember reading an article in "time"  magazine  about evoluton, it was about 16 pages long, and at the end of the article, it asked, what is life? and the answer was, "we don't know what life is, but in the future we hope for discoveries". And I'm thinking too myself, "well, if you don't even know what something is, how can you present a process about how it evolved?""


Well that settles it, doesn't it?! Articles in Time magazine are definitive science, especially those from 30 + years ago..............


academic.wsc.edu/mathsci/hammer_m/life.h...

Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  May 31, 2012 - 6:06PM #156
rsielin
Posts: 4,292

May 31, 2012 -- 5:54PM, upsala81 wrote:

What has been discussed is indeed a great step forward.  But in a sense it is using "parts" that we know already work.


How finely grained parts do you suggest one start with? Molecules, atoms, quarks or even strings? You can always go down one turtle further.


Being realistic, one is always going to start with some kind of part aren't they. And isn't this part argument merely moving the goalposts exercise? Even Frankenstein, the archetype of life creation, was used parts.  


Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  May 31, 2012 - 6:16PM #157
d_p_m
Posts: 9,835

May 31, 2012 -- 6:06PM, wohali wrote:


Willie:


"The reason I believe the debate will always continue is because back in the 80's I remember reading an article in "time"  magazine  about evoluton, it was about 16 pages long, and at the end of the article, it asked, what is life? and the answer was, "we don't know what life is, but in the future we hope for discoveries". And I'm thinking too myself, "well, if you don't even know what something is, how can you present a process about how it evolved?""


Well that settles it, doesn't it?! Articles in Time magazine are definitive science, especially those from 30 + years ago..............


academic.wsc.edu/mathsci/hammer_m/life.h...




One of the things you have to realize, Willie, is that by the time it makes it to a book, science has moved on to learn even more.


Peer reviewed journals publish millions of papers every year, reporting new data and experimental results. What was new 5 years ago is old hat now... and 20 years ago, in fast moving fields, is ancient history.


Today we have answers to questions we didn't know enough to ask, ten years ago.


We'll have this whole 'what is life and how do we build it?' question sorted out, never fear.

"If you aren't confused by quantum physics, you haven't really understood it."

― Niels Bohr


“Extinguished theologians lie about the cradle of every science as the strangled snakes beside that of Hercules; and history records that whenever science and orthodoxy have been fairly opposed, the latter has been forced to retire from the lists, bleeding and crushed if not annihilated; scotched, if not slain.”

― Thomas Henry Huxley, Lay Sermons, Addresses, and Reviews


“The science, the art, the jurisprudence, the chief political and social theories, of the modern world have grown out of Greece and Rome—not by favour of, but in the teeth of, the fundamental teachings of early Christianity, to which science, art, and any serious occupation with the things of this world were alike despicable.”

― Thomas Henry Huxley, Agnosticism and Christianity and Other Essays
Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  May 31, 2012 - 6:23PM #158
upsala81
Posts: 2,440

How finely grained parts do you suggest one start with? Molecules, atoms, quarks or even strings? You can always go down one turtle further.
Being realistic, one is always going to start with some kind of part aren't they. And isn't this part argument merely moving the goalposts exercise? Even Frankenstein, the archetype of life creation, was used parts.



Think I kinda suggested silicon atoms- for instance.  We really can't manipulate anything smaller.


Here is my point.  If there is a God.  And if God created life.  Then he used the parts that make up life.  We know that works.


If humans can create life from "parts" that God did not use, then that would be something totally new and not just riding on God's coat tails.


Don't exobiologists suggest that life can be made from different atoms, elements etc?

Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  May 31, 2012 - 7:39PM #159
rsielin
Posts: 4,292

May 31, 2012 -- 6:23PM, upsala81 wrote:

If there is a God.  And if God created life.  Then he used the parts that make up life.  We know that works.


IMO life is not like building an automobile or anything humans have ever made. That's the mistake most folks make. So it's stupid to argue since you didn't make your own wheels thus you didn't make a car. 


Life is a chemical process, not just parts and building blocks as some insist. Understand and factor to the common denominator for the simplest but sufficient of life's processes is how it will be understood and eventually created.


Venter is on the right track. It's foolish to discount it as some here have. 


Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  May 31, 2012 - 7:57PM #160
williejhonlo
Posts: 3,591

May 31, 2012 -- 3:45PM, MMarcoe wrote:


May 31, 2012 -- 2:01PM, williejhonlo wrote:


The reason I believe the debate will always continue is because back in the 80's I remember reading an article in "time"  magazine  about evoluton, it was about 16 pages long, and at the end of the article, it asked, what is life? and the answer was, "we don't know what life is, but in the future we hope for discoveries". And I'm thinking too myself, "well, if you don't even know what something is, how can you present a process about how it evolved?"


We have ideas about what life is but no certainties





We can wait on the definition of life if need be; it won't hobble our science of evolution at all.


But creationism as an explanatory mechanism for life is truly doomed, because its tenets and claims are easily discredited.


Theistic evolution will likely continue on, though.


 



Yes, both will continue to carry on because you will always have differences in perception.

Quick Reply
Cancel
Page 16 of 18  •  Prev 1 ... 13 14 15 16 17 18 Next
 
    Viewing this thread :: 0 registered and 1 guest
    No registered users viewing
    Advertisement

    Beliefnet On Facebook