LINK The brilliant science that has creationists and the Christian right terrified
Sounds a bit like dressed up lamarckism, but whatever riles the religious
5
Enjoy being online again!
Welcome to the community of good people who base their values on evidence and appreciate civil discourse - the social network you will enjoy.Create your free account
6 comments
Feel free to reply to any comment by clicking the "Reply" button.Kind of. Lamarckism would say the system desired mechanisms to dissapate heat and therefore willed them into existence. Darwinian evolution would prefer to say that the system experimented with varying mechanisms for their dissapting excess heat until organic life was happened upon. Best solution to an aggravating solution by directed trial and error. Directed in the sense that physical limitations of the exant world predicated what options were available.
t1nick
Level 8
Jan 20, 2019
1
I am extremely skeptical of the theory described, but let’s say it’s true. What then do we understand?
Nothing really. Nature in its ultimate form is just as bewildering as ever. You see, those carbon atoms that just HAVE to form themselves into life forms—they are not “things”—they exist only as interactions between covariant quantum fields. if we are going to discuss where things came from, where did the environment come from that enabled these carbon atoms to even exist, let alone arrange themselves into living organisms. From whence came the law of thermodynamics, said not to be violated in this case, along with all the other natural laws?
Anyone sitting smugly, thinking that science explains reality is living a life of self-deception more insidious than that based on any religious dogma. Ascribing nature to God, in some cases, might be nothing but a humble admission that you don’t know or understand ultimate reality, but that you are aware of and appreciate the enormously awe-inspiring mystery with which we are faced.
WilliamFleming
Level 8
Jan 20, 2019
1
I thought it was an interesting theory, but it also seemed, perhaps, too reliant on spontaneous chemical reactions to spur life, which is why I referred to it as dressed up Lamarckism.
Admitting our ignorance of the full history of the origins of life is one thing. To ascribe that origin to a God figure is quite another.
If God created life, then who or what created God? The answer "God" doesn't solve anything, it merely creates a new problem which needs explanation.
"Awe-inspiring mystery"? "Awe" is defined as a feeling of reverential respect mixed with fear or wonder. What exactly is there to fear when we look at the world around us? Who or what are we revering? I can accept the feeling of a sense of wonder, but there is no need for humility. We can be proud that our species has learned so much in our short time here, and we're certain to learn more.
"Ultimate reality"? The ultimate reality is that all things grow, live, and die. Science tells us how. It even tells us why: Because all things strive to survive and reproduce. That is the eternal answer.
@Paul4747 “To ascribe that origin to a God figure is quite another.” I agree, and I do not ascribe anything to a god figure. We are in almost total ignorance of ultimate reality—whatever label we give it will not change that fact, nor does giving something a label constitute such ascribing.
With your second paragraph I am in total agreement. According to quantum gravity theory there’s no such thing as time and particles of matter are not things. Space consists of a finite number of granules. The upshot is that our perception of reality is nothing but illusion. Any question about creation has no meaning from a cosmic perspective. If we don’t know the meaning of “to exist” and there is no such thing as time I think we’d better stop flaunting our grand scientific knowledge.
I agree with your assertion that there’s nothing to fear. As you say awe is wonder OR fear. So a person can feel awe without being fearful. What I revere and respect is nature herself, label it how you please. If you decline to see the beauty, grandeur and mystery of reality, then that is your loss.
I am in total disagreement with your last paragraph. It has been almost universally acknowledged by physicists since the time of Faraday and Maxwell that the world of our perception is not real but is merely symbolic of an underlying realm or ultimate reality. We can not detect or understand ultimate reality with our human based model of matter moving through space and time. Your description of ultimate reality is superficial in the extreme. These “things” that survive and strive to reproduce—we have no idea of how they arose or what they are. We have little understanding of the environment in which they are said to exist.Valuable as they are, the insights provided by science are superficial.
“My religion consists of a humble admiration of the illimitable superior spirit who reveals himself in the slight details we are able to perceive with our frail and feeble mind." Albert Einstein
@WilliamFleming I'll answer your Einstein quote with another from 24 April 1929, Einstein's cable to Rabbi Herbert S. Goldstein:
"Scientific research can reduce superstition by encouraging people to think and view things in terms of cause and effect. Certain it is that a conviction, akin to religious feeling, of the rationality and intelligibility of the world lies behind all scientific work of a higher order. [...] This firm belief, a belief bound up with a deep feeling, in a superior mind that reveals itself in the world of experience, represents my conception of God."
@Paul4747 A very good and inspiring quote. Thanks.
Interesting article. It shows how science builds on older knowledge (which is often, if not always incomplete) to get to new knowledge. It would seem to change the formula needed to answer Fermi’s paradox: Why haven’t we observed other life in the universe? But that is a very good result.
I wonder if the premis explains why only one basic form of life results. So far all higher forms of life use DNA, but other systems might also be possible, RNA for example.
Detritus
Level 7
Jan 20, 2019
1
If our hypotheses are correct and we have interpreted the evidence in the rock record, life began pre-cyano bacteria through RNA, not DNA. You are not too far off.
I tried to think and read about the second law of thermodynamics from their side. Now my brain hurts!
Treehugger
Level 6
Jan 20, 2019
1
Read this article. It’s enlightening. As a scientist and teacher, I am motivated by such progress in our thinking about the origin of life. Darwin spoke of the emergence of species, but did not venture into the origin of life itself. The Miller-Urey experiment attempted to do this in 1952, but until now,it has had not so much physical foundation supporting it. This young scientist’s idea is revolutionary.
DrDJAndy
Level 4
Jan 20, 2019
4
Welcome to the site from another scientist and teacher to another.
Enjoy being online again!
Welcome to the community of good people who base their values on evidence and appreciate civil discourse - the social network you will enjoy.Create your free account
Share this post
Categories
Agnostic does not evaluate or guarantee the accuracy of any content. Read full disclaimer.