Abandon reason all ye who enter here. Well, not completely. You will find not far below here all too typical examples of unreason, science denial, common nonsense, and excrement slinging when minds and words fail. Not pretty, or enlightening, but surfing on this tsunami of unreason, there are some choice bits of reason, if you can discern them.
In retrospect, this brouhaha was to be expected as response to an opinion article written by a non-scientist, indeed a promoter of evangelical religion, who fallaciously tries to use science and probability theory to leap illogically to his conclusion that science makes a case for a god, a supreme intelligent creator of life, the universe and everything.
It is sadly funny, and ironic, that the response amounts to a last gasp revival of believers in a very specific God, of the Bible and Christianity, most of them science deniers or with little science education, all possessors, of course, of hugely common sense, and all grasping at a straw, a proof of their God, which they now think has been thrown to them by their old nemesis science, and a fake straw at that.
In retrospect, this brouhaha was to be expected as response to an opinion article written by a non-scientist, indeed a promoter of evangelical religion, who fallaciously tries to use science and probability theory to leap illogically to his conclusion that science makes a case for a god, a supreme intelligent creator of life, the universe and everything.
It is sadly funny, and ironic, that the response amounts to a last gasp revival of believers in a very specific God, of the Bible and Christianity, most of them science deniers or with little science education, all possessors, of course, of hugely common sense, and all grasping at a straw, a proof of their God, which they now think has been thrown to them by their old nemesis science, and a fake straw at that.
(cont'd)
The conversation has of course splintered into Bible quoting and sectarian spatting, and the only thing common to all religious sects, spitting at atheists. And, of course, the inevitable common sense thoughts on evolution, common nonsense profundities, e.g., such a complicated thing as life could never have evolved randomly, any fool can see that. Wrong. Any good scientist knows you are a fool for saying that.
To any educated scientist without a religious bias, i.e., the vast majority of scientists, especially those familiar with the chemistry of natural products, that is blatant ignorance, pure and simple. There are many examples of complex structures arising out of randomness. One that you can witness any day of the week is formation of highly symmetical (read: complex, organized) crystals, on their own. Or catalytic hardening of liquid resins in the process of building fiberglass reinforced structures. The liquid resin consists of small molecules moving randomly in constant motion, then introduction of a drop of catalyst leads to formation of very large, structured molecules forming a structured solid.
The conversation has of course splintered into Bible quoting and sectarian spatting, and the only thing common to all religious sects, spitting at atheists. And, of course, the inevitable common sense thoughts on evolution, common nonsense profundities, e.g., such a complicated thing as life could never have evolved randomly, any fool can see that. Wrong. Any good scientist knows you are a fool for saying that.
To any educated scientist without a religious bias, i.e., the vast majority of scientists, especially those familiar with the chemistry of natural products, that is blatant ignorance, pure and simple. There are many examples of complex structures arising out of randomness. One that you can witness any day of the week is formation of highly symmetical (read: complex, organized) crystals, on their own. Or catalytic hardening of liquid resins in the process of building fiberglass reinforced structures. The liquid resin consists of small molecules moving randomly in constant motion, then introduction of a drop of catalyst leads to formation of very large, structured molecules forming a structured solid.
(cont'd)
I'd better hurry now to head some folks off at the pass, the creationists/IDers who are already opening their mouths before they think, have already leapt to the conclusion that what I just mentioned is not life and by the way, who provided the starting materials, especially the catalyst? The above analogy is meant only as an explanation of how small molecules in random motion, due only to their mutual attractions which line them up to react with one another, can combine on their own, with no external guidance, to form a much larger and more complex structure.
Abiogenesis experiments, especially beginning with the Miller-Urey experiments of the 1950s, are ongoing. You can read about them by Googling abiogenesis, and Miller-Urey experiment in abiogenesis, and then reading the two Wikipedia articles. BUT, it will take you some 2 to 4 years of instructed and concentrated study and lab experience in basic inorganic and organic chemistry, biology, then synthetic organic chemistry and natural products chemistry, in order to understand even these Wikipedia articles.
I'd better hurry now to head some folks off at the pass, the creationists/IDers who are already opening their mouths before they think, have already leapt to the conclusion that what I just mentioned is not life and by the way, who provided the starting materials, especially the catalyst? The above analogy is meant only as an explanation of how small molecules in random motion, due only to their mutual attractions which line them up to react with one another, can combine on their own, with no external guidance, to form a much larger and more complex structure.
Abiogenesis experiments, especially beginning with the Miller-Urey experiments of the 1950s, are ongoing. You can read about them by Googling abiogenesis, and Miller-Urey experiment in abiogenesis, and then reading the two Wikipedia articles. BUT, it will take you some 2 to 4 years of instructed and concentrated study and lab experience in basic inorganic and organic chemistry, biology, then synthetic organic chemistry and natural products chemistry, in order to understand even these Wikipedia articles.
(cont'd)
Abiogenesis experiments have made a fair amount of progress over the past 60+ years, yielding all of the essential amino acids necessary for proteins and life, as well as other components of RNA and DNA, purines and pyrimidines, which are quite complex. Self-replicating life, depending on your definition, hasn't happened yet in an experimental context. Self-replicating or self catalyzing RNA has happened, apparently. I am not a specialist in the field, but have had extensive education and experience in organic and natural products chemistry as well as in general science, including years of experience employed as a staff science writer and editor for the American Chemical Society, covering science news for the membership, which is international and includes scientists from all fields. When I was a student in the 1960s and learned of the Miller-Urey experiments, my classmates and professors all saw clearly that abiogenesis is plausible and what remains is a question of time and the right conditions for it to be conclusively demonstrated.
Abiogenesis experiments have made a fair amount of progress over the past 60+ years, yielding all of the essential amino acids necessary for proteins and life, as well as other components of RNA and DNA, purines and pyrimidines, which are quite complex. Self-replicating life, depending on your definition, hasn't happened yet in an experimental context. Self-replicating or self catalyzing RNA has happened, apparently. I am not a specialist in the field, but have had extensive education and experience in organic and natural products chemistry as well as in general science, including years of experience employed as a staff science writer and editor for the American Chemical Society, covering science news for the membership, which is international and includes scientists from all fields. When I was a student in the 1960s and learned of the Miller-Urey experiments, my classmates and professors all saw clearly that abiogenesis is plausible and what remains is a question of time and the right conditions for it to be conclusively demonstrated.
(cont'd)
Re detractors of science, such as Martin Kurlich here below: Martin I understand is a retired financial analyst with an MBA and admits to no education in science other than the past 10 years or so of "fairly intensive reading" apparently mostly of creationist websites and the Bible, judging from his quote mining. His vision apparently ends at 60 years out, so he defines abiogenesis as the longest of long shots, ain't gonna happen, we can't explain it, ergo the God of the Roman Catholic Church did it. But apparently he's also a proponent of another example of a failed belief system, socialism, because here he is below proclaiming that the masses, the proletarians, know best, and he's obviously trying to rouse them. Such science deniers should be considered knats on the window screen of life, who have no idea of the source of the light within or how to get to it. I agree with Martin's assessment of evolution, to a certain extent, in that one microscopic result of evolution is indeed awful, to wit: the lack of intelligence resulting from the evolution of his brain based on genetics and molded by his environment.
Re detractors of science, such as Martin Kurlich here below: Martin I understand is a retired financial analyst with an MBA and admits to no education in science other than the past 10 years or so of "fairly intensive reading" apparently mostly of creationist websites and the Bible, judging from his quote mining. His vision apparently ends at 60 years out, so he defines abiogenesis as the longest of long shots, ain't gonna happen, we can't explain it, ergo the God of the Roman Catholic Church did it. But apparently he's also a proponent of another example of a failed belief system, socialism, because here he is below proclaiming that the masses, the proletarians, know best, and he's obviously trying to rouse them. Such science deniers should be considered knats on the window screen of life, who have no idea of the source of the light within or how to get to it. I agree with Martin's assessment of evolution, to a certain extent, in that one microscopic result of evolution is indeed awful, to wit: the lack of intelligence resulting from the evolution of his brain based on genetics and molded by his environment.
(final)
Such a short-sighted view as Martin's of science and evolution is tantamount to saying, as was said as recently as 150 years ago, that if man was meant to fly then God would have given him wings. Abiogenesis is now at a pre-Wright brothers stage of development but on a different time frame, meaning that it could still take 100 years or more to be demonstrated to the satisfaction of the most recalcitrant. But there are some interesting experiments happening. Watch "Those Magnificent Men and their Flying Machines" if you haven't, and consider that that's about the kind of stage of development I'm talking about. It's never wise to sell science short.
Such a short-sighted view as Martin's of science and evolution is tantamount to saying, as was said as recently as 150 years ago, that if man was meant to fly then God would have given him wings. Abiogenesis is now at a pre-Wright brothers stage of development but on a different time frame, meaning that it could still take 100 years or more to be demonstrated to the satisfaction of the most recalcitrant. But there are some interesting experiments happening. Watch "Those Magnificent Men and their Flying Machines" if you haven't, and consider that that's about the kind of stage of development I'm talking about. It's never wise to sell science short.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.