Comments on: “We can know nothing about the origin of life”

By: buy intrusta antivirus subscription

buy intrusta antivirus subscription — Wed, 17 Apr 2019 02:02:43 +0000

Creationism and science both have holes and flaws in their theory. I’d like to think the truth lies somewhere in both.

By: ghhome healthcare agency in lanham md restaurants week san diego

ghhome healthcare agency in lanham md restaurants week san diego — Sat, 14 Jul 2018 08:59:51 +0000

home health care agency in miami dade

By: Jarle Kotsbak

Jarle Kotsbak — Sun, 18 Dec 2016 18:27:15 +0000

“All we need to know is how it COULD have happened and demonstrate that.” Yes. If we have shown that life is created by a certain process, then that would probably be enough. But that is not very easy. Every attempt so far has been unsuccessful. I have my own thoughts about how the first processes of life created the most basic molecules, the RNA molecules. I have presented these thoughts at http://sandwalk.blogspot.no/2009/05/metabolism-first-and-origin-of-life.html

By: Wow

Wow — Mon, 21 Nov 2016 16:51:04 +0000

“I believe that God is not susceptible to the network of causality that contains the subject matter of science.”

Demonstrate that this is true.

PROVE god is not susceptible in that way. The only one that can is the deist one that is no different from god not existing.

By: Wow

Wow — Mon, 21 Nov 2016 16:49:44 +0000

“The problem is to know how the first RNA and replication were first generated.”

WHY is that a problem, though? All we need to know is how it could have happened and demonstrate that.

Unlike creation, which we haven’t ever seen happen.

By: Jarle

Jarle — Mon, 21 Nov 2016 11:20:58 +0000

It is one thing we can know fore sure: there was a period when both metabolism and replication were controlled by RNA. The problem is to know how the first RNA and replication were first generated. But I think we are all the time getting closer to the solution to these questions.

By: Marc Tessera

Marc Tessera — Mon, 23 Jan 2012 13:47:07 +0000

As the concept of life cannot be considered as scientifically sound but on the contrary is a metaphysical concept, litterally speaking, it is true to say that â??We can know nothing about the origin of lifeâ? (as it is true to say that â??We can know nothing about the origin of the soul, of God etc.â?). However it is not true that we can know nothing about the origin of the primordial ancestor on Earth and of the processs at the origin of all the terrestrial systems with the property of Darwinian evolution: we can know much more about the origin of Darwinian evolution. For instance, within the paradigm of open, far from equilibrium systems that should maintain their level of organization, it is possible to only envisage three conditions that would permit the systems to get the property of Darwinian evolution:
– 1. Local conditions that allow the emergence of open non-equilibrium structural systems, organized on a macroscopic level, generated by a flow of matter and energy that is continuously supplied. These open far-from-equilibrium systems can maintain themselves far-from-equilibrium because they are able to use the matter and energy supplied by the favourable local environment;
– 2. The systems must be able to self-reproduce;
– 3. The systems must be capable of acquiring heritable structure/function properties that are relatively independent from the local environment, i.e., the fact that they belong to a specific lineage should not depend on the nature of the nutriments they receive from the local environment. This last condition is required for the emergence of distinct lineages allowing Darwinian natural selection.
I do not mention an interesting fourth condition:
– 4. These properties may change sporadically while remaining transmissible to the descendants.
This fourth condition, although favouring a much more efficient and faster evolution, is not mandatory to allow room for selection if the potential of the systems is very large for the emergence of new distinct lineages. One interesting feature of this set of three conditions is that it does not necessarily involve a genetic component related to nucleic acids. For example there is at least one model, a lipidic vesicle-based model, which can be proposed to address the issues raised by the three conditions above, without involving nucleic acids (Tessera 2011).

Reference:
M. Tessera. Origin of Evolution Versus Origin of Life: A Shift of Paradigm. Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2011,12,3445-3458.

By: igaming

igaming — Wed, 28 Dec 2011 16:32:55 +0000

I believe in God, I believe God created the entire universe and everything about it. I believe that God is not susceptible to the network of causality that contains the subject matter of science.

By: Raging Bee

Raging Bee — Tue, 16 Aug 2011 14:52:50 +0000

MadSciKat, I agree 100% with the implication that if the Universe is alive, then OoL and the Big Bang are coincident, However, framing it that way doesn’t help anyone on any side of this discussion.

Right — it’s a nice enough thing to believe, but it doesn’t help in any kind of scientific discourse because once you’ve asserted that the entire Universe is “alive,” the word “alive” loses its meaning and descriptive value. And you’re still stuck with the question of how the self-sustaining chemical reactions that make up our particular subgroup of “life” got started.

By: bks

bks — Tue, 16 Aug 2011 01:57:24 +0000

MadSciKat, I agree 100% with the implication that if the Universe is alive, then OoL and the Big Bang are coincident, However, framing it that way doesn’t help anyone on any side of this discussion. You might just as well ask, as did Einstein: “Why is gravitational mass equal to inertial mass?”

I pointed out above that Panspermia just pushes the OoL problem offworld, as you state.

As to Pantheism, please read:
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/pantheism/#PaT

I think you’ll find it much more comfortable than Atheism.

–bks