Announcement

Collapse

Natural Science 301 Guidelines

This is an open forum area for all members for discussions on all issues of science and origins. This area will and does get volatile at times, but we ask that it be kept to a dull roar, and moderators will intervene to keep the peace if necessary. This means obvious trolling and flaming that becomes a problem will be dealt with, and you might find yourself in the doghouse.

As usual, Tweb rules apply. If you haven't read them now would be a good time.

Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less

New advances in abiogenesis

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Diogenes
    replied
    Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post

    Excellent self description for avoiding responding to posts, and ah
    It is an excellent self-description of me not fitting into preconceived notions.

    . . . failing to be honest about one's beliefs..
    Your failure to see past your preconceived notions does not entail that I have failed in being honest about my beliefs.

    Fin, again.

    Leave a comment:


  • shunyadragon
    replied
    Originally posted by Diogenes View Post

    Watching an infant try to put an oversized cube into a round hole is more cute, and much more apt a description.
    Excellent self description for avoiding responding to posts, and ah . . . failing to be honest about one's beliefs..

    Leave a comment:


  • Diogenes
    replied
    Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post

    Removing your superficial veneer revealing your true agenda is ah . . . real cute.
    Watching an infant try to put an oversized cube into a round hole is more cute, and much more apt a description.

    Leave a comment:


  • shunyadragon
    replied
    In a previous post Bertrand Russell was cited out of context nor explanation that: "Was the universe created created 5 minutes ago?" I believe a better more complete explanation of the citation is necessary.


    Source: URL="https://reasonsforgod.org/was-the-universe-created-five-minutes-ago/"



    Recently I heard someone object to the idea that we can know anything at all by saying, "How do you know the universe wasn't created five minutes ago?" I responded: "What in the world do you mean? Why think that?" "Well, it could be true, and you can't prove that…

    Was the Universe Created Five Minutes Ago?
    by Carson Weitnauer

    Recently I heard someone object to the idea that we can know anything at all by saying, “How do you know the universe wasn’t created five minutes ago?”
    I responded: “What in the world do you mean? Why think that?”
    “Well, it could be true, and you can’t prove that it isn’t true.”
    Perhaps you have heard someone make a similarly grandiose claim. There are many different kinds of unsupportable, evidence-free assertions that purport to discourage us from thinking we have knowledge of the world (“we are all brains in a vat,” and so forth).
    Interestingly, the humanist Bertrand Russell originally proposed The Five Minute Hypothesis. As he put it:

    In investigating memory-beliefs, there are certain points which must be borne in mind. In the first place, everything constituting a memory-belief is happening now, not in that past time to which the belief is said to refer. It is not logically necessary to the existence of a memory-belief that the event remembered should have occurred, or even that the past should have existed at all. There is no logical impossibility in the hypothesis that the world sprang into being five minutes ago, exactly as it then was, with a population that “remembered” a wholly unreal past. There is no logically necessary connection between events at different times; therefore nothing that is happening now or will happen in the future can disprove the hypothesis that the world began five minutes ago. Hence the occurrences which are CALLED knowledge of the past are logically independent of the past; they are wholly analysable into present contents, which might, theoretically, be just what they are even if no past had existed.
    I am not suggesting that the non-existence of the past should be entertained as a serious hypothesis. Like all sceptical hypotheses, it is logically tenable, but uninteresting. All that I am doing is to use its logical tenability as a help in the analysis of what occurs when we remember.


    In other words, Russell knew that this was not a hypothesis worthy of serious consideration. He brought it up only to clarify a point in his discussion of memory. But despite Russell’s restraint and logical clarity, apparently some people are now taking this idea seriously. And so it is appropriate to consider a thoughtful response.

    First, when Christians argue this way, it looks equally absurd.
    Imagine: “Christianity COULD be true, and since you can’t PROVE that it is false, why not believe it?”
    That’s hardly convincing, right?
    To say this is to make a huge assertion – that Christianity could be true.
    But then there is an avoidance of any rational support for such an important idea.
    Finally, the burden of proof is completely reversed: unless you can disprove my big idea, you should accept it. Wait a second – you came up with the idea, so you have the responsibility to explain why it is persuasive!
    This kind of non-argument for Christianity rightly frustrates atheists, agnostics, and people of other religions. (A better approach: offer good reasons for the truth of Christianity).
    So the Five Minute Hypothesis involves two critical mistakes: it is 1) a huge assertion without any evidence in its favor and 2) it involves unfairly reversing the burden of proof.

    Second, the hypothesis is incapable of ever being proven.
    Let’s say you offer some good evidence in favor of the Five Minute Hypothesis. (What kind of evidence, I have no idea!)
    Now, presumably, I have to remember that evidence while I think about whether or not it is convincing. Let’s say it takes you a good hour to explain all the evidence to me and about one more hour for me to properly think about what you have said. At this point, two hours have passed since the creation of the world, “with a population that “remembered” a wholly unreal past.”
    I would have the experience of two hours of genuine memories – and an apparent memory of a few decades that are entirely false and illusory. On balance, I would now have good reason to doubt that my memory is a very accurate source of knowledge! The vast majority of it is entirely false, though it appears to be real.
    Given how unreliable my memory would appear to be, I would have to doubt that I had really heard good evidence for the Five Minute Hypothesis or ever really thought about the evidence seriously. All I have is my unreliable memory to go on!
    Furthermore, though I don’t have any idea what kind of evidence could be given, I wonder if it would not be the kind of evidence which would be equally good at proving that the Five Minute Hypothesis is true of a universe that began at 12pm yesterday, or at 12pm a week ago, or at 12pm a year ago.
    In other words, once you try to show that our memories are fundamentally flawed and wrong, it becomes quite difficult to remember whether or not you are right about that!
    Third, it leads to unrealistic conversations.
    If we accept the process of persuading each other here – giving unsupported hypothesis, reversing the burden of proof, doubting all of our memories – then we should be open to other, similar claims. For instance:
    • Best I can remember, about two minutes ago, you promised to give me 30% of your net income, payable the 1st of every month. Remember that? I sure do.
    • As I recall, just a minute ago you said your life dream was to spend your life pretending to be a statue of Elvis Presley. When do you plan to get started with that?
    • If memory serves me well here, it COULD BE TRUE that you have promised to do my laundry every weekend. Since YOU CAN’T DISPROVE that you promised to do so, why not believe it is true?
    If your friend is willing to take these silly ideas seriously, then at least he or she is consistent, and you’ll have some extra income and free laundry service. But more likely is that the absurdity of the idea becomes clearer and your friend is willing to move on.
    Fourth, if no claim is being made, then the hypothesis becomes irrelevant.
    Another way this can be approached is to say:
    • “Oh, I’m not saying the world WAS created five minutes ago, just that it COULD have been.”
    • “All that The Five Minute Hypothesis shows is that we COULD be wrong about everything.”
    • “I’m just asking a question here, not making a point that has to be defended.”
    In all of these cases, the attempt is being made to get out of defending an actual point. The next step: ask for a commitment to a particular truth claim. Then ask for reasons to believe the claim is true. If they want to avoid this, then…
    Sometimes, you just have to reach disagreement…
    In the worst case scenario, your friend might say, “No, I don’t think the world was created five minutes ago, but it could have been, and that would mean our beliefs about the past are false. I don’t know if it is true or false – I don’t even care if it is – because I don’t think we can know anything at all.”
    You respond: “But that’s absurd and self-contradictory! You are claiming to know how to use English, what the ‘world’ is, the meaning of the phrase ‘five minutes’, and much more! How can you say you don’t know anything at all?”
    They respond: “Because I can. I know it is absurd and I am okay with absurdity.”
    Perhaps this sounds like an outlandish conversation, but I have had a number of conversations like this at Harvard.
    In this situation, reaching disagreement is the best you can do. “Ok, you affirm absurdity, I seek to be reasonable, at least we know what we both believe.”
    Questions for Reflection:
    1. How would you respond to The Five Minute Hypothesis or a similar scenario?
    2. How do you keep a conversation going when it reaches the place of self-acknowledged absurdity?

    © Copyright Original Source

    Last edited by shunyadragon; 02-21-2024, 09:17 AM.

    Leave a comment:


  • shunyadragon
    replied
    Originally posted by Diogenes View Post

    Ahhh, isn't that cute.
    Removing your superficial veneer revealing your true agenda is ah . . . real cute.

    Leave a comment:


  • Diogenes
    replied
    Originally posted by whag View Post

    If molecules didn’t self assemble in certain environments, abiogenesis would be in big trouble. What Diogenes doesn’t understand is that the precedent of complex organics coming together in space and on earth drives research here.
    Ahhh, isn't that cute.

    Leave a comment:


  • whag
    replied
    Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post
    Source: [URL unfurl="true"

    https://www.nist.gov/news-events/news/2021/03/scientists-create-simple-synthetic-cell-grows-and-divides-normally[/URL]\]



    Scientists Create Simple Synthetic Cell That Grows and Divides Normally

    New findings shed light on mechanisms controlling the most basic processes of life.


    March 29, 2021




    Credit: Copyright Emily Grace

    Five years ago, scientists created a single-celled synthetic organism that, with only 473 genes, was the simplest living cell ever known. However, this bacteria-like organism behaved strangely when growing and dividing, producing cells with wildly different shapes and sizes.

    Now, scientists have identified seven genes that can be added to tame the cells’ unruly nature, causing them to neatly divide into uniform orbs. This achievement, a collaboration between the J. Craig Venter Institute (JCVI), the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) Center for Bits and Atoms, is described in the journal Cell.

    Identifying these genes is an important step toward engineering synthetic cells that do useful things. Such cells could act as small factories that produce drugs, foods and fuels; detect disease and produce drugs to treat it while living inside the body; and function as tiny computers.

    But to design and build a cell that does exactly what you want it to do, it helps to have a list of essential parts and know how they fit together.

    “We want to understand the fundamental design rules of life,” said Elizabeth Strychalski, a co-author on the study and leader of NIST’s Cellular Engineering Group. “If this cell can help us to discover and understand those rules, then we’re off to the races.”

    Scientists at JCVI constructed the first cell with a synthetic genome in 2010. They didn’t build that cell completely from scratch. Instead, they started with cells from a very simple type of bacteria called a mycoplasma. They destroyed the DNA in those cells and replaced it with DNA that was designed on a computer and synthesized in a lab. This was the first organism in the history of life on Earth to have an entirely synthetic genome. They called it JCVI-syn1.0.

    Since then, scientists have been working to strip that organism down to its minimum genetic components. The super-simple cell they created five years ago, dubbed JCVI-syn3.0, was perhaps too minimalist. The researchers have now added 19 genes back to this cell, including the seven needed for normal cell division, to create the new variant, JCVI-syn3A. This variant has fewer than 500 genes. To put that number in perspective, the E. coli bacteria that live in your gut have about 4,000 genes. A human cell has around 30,000.

    “We want to understand the fundamental design rules of life. If this cell can help us to discover and understand those rules, then we’re off to the races.” —Elizabeth Strychalski, a co-author on the study and leader of NIST’s Cellular Engineering Group

    Identifying those seven additional genes took years of painstaking effort by JCVI’s synthetic biology group, led by co-author John Glass. Co-lead author and JCVI scientist Lijie Sun constructed dozens of variant strains by systematically adding and removing genes. She and the other researchers would then observe how those genetic changes affected cell growth and division.

    NIST’s role was to measure the resulting changes under a microscope. This was a challenge because the cells had to be alive for observation. Using powerful microscopes to observe dead cells is relatively easy. Imaging live cells is much harder.

    Holding these cells in place under a microscope was particularly difficult because they are so small and delicate. A hundred or more would fit inside a single E. coli bacterium. Tiny forces can tear them apart.

    To solve this problem, Strychalski and MIT co-authors James Pelletier, Andreas Mershin and Neil Gershenfeld designed a microfluidic chemostat — a sort of mini-aquarium — where the cells could be kept fed and happy under a light microscope. The result was stop-motion video that showed the synthetic cells growing and dividing.

    This video shows JCVI-syn3.0 cells — the ones created five years ago — dividing into different shapes and sizes. Some of the cells form filaments. Others appear to not fully separate and line up like beads on a string. Despite the variety, all these cells are genetically identical.

    © Copyright Original Source

    If molecules didn’t self assemble in certain environments, abiogenesis would be in big trouble. What Diogenes doesn’t understand is that the precedent of complex organics coming together in space and on earth drives research here.

    Leave a comment:


  • shunyadragon
    replied
    Originally posted by Diogenes View Post

    At no point did I express such an egocentric view of my opinions. It's certainly a "fool's errand" when I'm constantly being strawmanned and ascribed views or labels I do not hold. If anything, much like the instance I was called a Christian by others, including you, when I didn't profess faith in Christ is evidence for individuals holding egocentric views of their opinions.

    Fin
    In previous posts you express a distinct Theist view with attacks associating science with atheism as in post #4, beside your lack of knowledge of geochemistry that can accurately determine the environment rocks form. You also in this post specifically express support for 'Intelligent Design' in reference to science, which is a distinct Theist Christian and Islamic religious belief.

    I find it quite humorous Man goes to so much trouble intelligently designing experiments when the crux of rejecting intelligent design (of any sort) is lack of agency. Of course, the broader problem is that the experiments are done under the assumption of early conditions. The hard empiricism often employed by atheists has to be jettisoned to smuggle in "best guesses" of early Earth environment.

    . . . and post #7


    I have no problem with assumptions or best guesses, merely the inevitable incredulousness of using intelligently designed experiments to try to argue there is no God. The problem is not the science but rather the intentional distortion and abuse of the science.

    Is this theism you profess here in opposition to atheism associated with science Christian or Islamic?

    Will the real Diogenes please stand up and admit to his religious beliefs.
    Last edited by shunyadragon; 02-20-2024, 10:20 AM.

    Leave a comment:


  • shunyadragon
    replied
    Source: [URL unfurl="true"

    https://www.nist.gov/news-events/news/2021/03/scientists-create-simple-synthetic-cell-grows-and-divides-normally[/URL]\]



    Scientists Create Simple Synthetic Cell That Grows and Divides Normally

    New findings shed light on mechanisms controlling the most basic processes of life.


    March 29, 2021




    Credit: Copyright Emily Grace

    Five years ago, scientists created a single-celled synthetic organism that, with only 473 genes, was the simplest living cell ever known. However, this bacteria-like organism behaved strangely when growing and dividing, producing cells with wildly different shapes and sizes.

    Now, scientists have identified seven genes that can be added to tame the cells’ unruly nature, causing them to neatly divide into uniform orbs. This achievement, a collaboration between the J. Craig Venter Institute (JCVI), the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) Center for Bits and Atoms, is described in the journal Cell.

    Identifying these genes is an important step toward engineering synthetic cells that do useful things. Such cells could act as small factories that produce drugs, foods and fuels; detect disease and produce drugs to treat it while living inside the body; and function as tiny computers.

    But to design and build a cell that does exactly what you want it to do, it helps to have a list of essential parts and know how they fit together.

    “We want to understand the fundamental design rules of life,” said Elizabeth Strychalski, a co-author on the study and leader of NIST’s Cellular Engineering Group. “If this cell can help us to discover and understand those rules, then we’re off to the races.”

    Scientists at JCVI constructed the first cell with a synthetic genome in 2010. They didn’t build that cell completely from scratch. Instead, they started with cells from a very simple type of bacteria called a mycoplasma. They destroyed the DNA in those cells and replaced it with DNA that was designed on a computer and synthesized in a lab. This was the first organism in the history of life on Earth to have an entirely synthetic genome. They called it JCVI-syn1.0.

    Since then, scientists have been working to strip that organism down to its minimum genetic components. The super-simple cell they created five years ago, dubbed JCVI-syn3.0, was perhaps too minimalist. The researchers have now added 19 genes back to this cell, including the seven needed for normal cell division, to create the new variant, JCVI-syn3A. This variant has fewer than 500 genes. To put that number in perspective, the E. coli bacteria that live in your gut have about 4,000 genes. A human cell has around 30,000.

    “We want to understand the fundamental design rules of life. If this cell can help us to discover and understand those rules, then we’re off to the races.” —Elizabeth Strychalski, a co-author on the study and leader of NIST’s Cellular Engineering Group

    Identifying those seven additional genes took years of painstaking effort by JCVI’s synthetic biology group, led by co-author John Glass. Co-lead author and JCVI scientist Lijie Sun constructed dozens of variant strains by systematically adding and removing genes. She and the other researchers would then observe how those genetic changes affected cell growth and division.

    NIST’s role was to measure the resulting changes under a microscope. This was a challenge because the cells had to be alive for observation. Using powerful microscopes to observe dead cells is relatively easy. Imaging live cells is much harder.

    Holding these cells in place under a microscope was particularly difficult because they are so small and delicate. A hundred or more would fit inside a single E. coli bacterium. Tiny forces can tear them apart.

    To solve this problem, Strychalski and MIT co-authors James Pelletier, Andreas Mershin and Neil Gershenfeld designed a microfluidic chemostat — a sort of mini-aquarium — where the cells could be kept fed and happy under a light microscope. The result was stop-motion video that showed the synthetic cells growing and dividing.

    This video shows JCVI-syn3.0 cells — the ones created five years ago — dividing into different shapes and sizes. Some of the cells form filaments. Others appear to not fully separate and line up like beads on a string. Despite the variety, all these cells are genetically identical.

    © Copyright Original Source


    Leave a comment:


  • shunyadragon
    replied
    Originally posted by Diogenes View Post

    At no point did I express such an egocentric view of my opinions. It's certainly a "fool's errand" when I'm constantly being strawmanned and ascribed views or labels I do not hold. If anything, much like the instance I was called a Christian by others, including you, when I didn't profess faith in Christ is evidence for individuals holding egocentric views of their opinions.

    Fin
    Still no coherent response,

    Leave a comment:


  • Diogenes
    replied
    Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post

    Then your egocentric view of your 'opinions' will have to stand without adequate explanations. At present you consider everyone else's views a 'fool's errand,' but your own,
    At no point did I express such an egocentric view of my opinions. It's certainly a "fool's errand" when I'm constantly being strawmanned and ascribed views or labels I do not hold. If anything, much like the instance I was called a Christian by others, including you, when I didn't profess faith in Christ is evidence for individuals holding egocentric views of their opinions.

    Fin

    Leave a comment:


  • shunyadragon
    replied
    Originally posted by Diogenes View Post

    It's an exceedingly adequate response to a fool's errand.
    Then your egocentric view of your 'opinions' will have to stand without adequate explanations. At present you consider everyone else's views a 'fool's errand,' but your own,

    Leave a comment:


  • Diogenes
    replied
    Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post

    "Whatever you wish to think." is not an adequate response to whag.
    It's an exceedingly adequate response to a fool's errand.

    Leave a comment:


  • shunyadragon
    replied
    Originally posted by Diogenes View Post

    As I told whag, I barely recognize Geisler's name, let alone have I read any of his work.
    That does not answer the questions in the previous post, and where whag cited you.

    "Whatever you wish to think." is not an adequate response to whag. When you make statements and claims in your post you should be able to defend and expalian them.


    Lie??? You were confusing in your statements questioning science. You expressed skepticism questioning the ability to date ancient rocks and determine the environment of ancient rocks without the knowledge of the geochemistry and dating methods used to determine the environment and dating of ancient tocks.

    It is odd that cited dead philosophers when questioning science. How is this remotely relevant? The fact is both philosophers were atheist naturalists. You made a citation that the universe may be five minutes old. Relevance???

    Your comments about experiments bing "intelligently designed" is confusing. What purpose is this statement as to the validity of science.

    Last edited by shunyadragon; 02-16-2024, 06:30 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • Diogenes
    replied
    Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post

    Lie??? You were confusing in your statements questioning science. You expressed skepticism questioning the ability to date ancient rocks and determine the environment of ancient rocks without the knowledge of the geochemistry and dating methods used to determine the environment and dating of ancient tocks.

    It is odd that cited dead philosophers when questioning science. How is this remotely relevant? The fact is both philosophers were atheist naturalists. You made a citation that the universe may be five minutes old. Relevance???

    Your comments about experiments bing "intelligently designed" is confusing. What purpose is this statement as to the validity of science.

    Yes, your comments bears distinct resemblance to Norman Geisler's line of reasoning.

    This is only part of your confusing statement you have made in previous posts.
    As I told whag, I barely recognize Geisler's name, let alone have I read any of his work.

    Leave a comment:

Related Threads

Collapse

Topics Statistics Last Post
Started by eider, 04-14-2024, 03:22 AM
9 responses
33 views
0 likes
Last Post Sparko
by Sparko
 
Started by Ronson, 04-08-2024, 09:05 PM
41 responses
163 views
0 likes
Last Post Ronson
by Ronson
 
Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 03-18-2024, 12:15 PM
48 responses
139 views
0 likes
Last Post Sparko
by Sparko
 
Working...
X