15 May 09
2 edits
This link explains the discovery of an observable mechanism of how RNA can spontaneously form in the primordial soup that must have existed in the early Earth’s environment:
http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20227084.200-molecule-of-life-emerges-from-laboratory-slime.html
The said experiment produces RNA bases in the lab using ONLY the same ingredients as existed in the primordial soup.
As far as I am aware, his is the first time this has been done using ONLY the same ingredients as thought to exist in the primordial soup -please someone correct me if that is wrong.
15 May 09
1 edit
This link explains the discovery of an observable mechanism of how RNA can spontaneously form in the primordial soup that must have existed in the early Earth’s environment
I'd say this is would be a Scientific observation.
How the first RNA formed
I'd say this is more of a religious statement in that it can't proven nor disproved.
16 May 09
Originally posted by EladarIt's not religion of the sole reason that it cannot be proved nor disproved.
[b]This link explains the discovery of an observable mechanism of how RNA can spontaneously form in the primordial soup that must have existed in the early Earth’s environment
I'd say this is would be a Scientific observation.
How the first RNA formed
I'd say this is more of a religious statement in that it can't proven nor disproved.[/b]
There are things that we just don't know yet, but well within the laws of nature.
There is no need for a creator in order to explain the formation of RNA.
16 May 09
Originally posted by FabianFnas…It's not religion of the sole reason that it cannot be proved nor disproved. ..…
It's not religion of the sole reason that it cannot be proved nor disproved.
There are things that we just don't know yet, but well within the laws of nature.
There is no need for a creator in order to explain the formation of RNA.
I think you made a misprint there: either you meant “can” from “cannot” above or you meant “It's religion” from “It's not religion” from the above. -either way, I generally agree with what you are saying about what defines religion.
16 May 09
Originally posted by Eladar…I'd say this is more of a religious statement in that it can't proven nor disproved.
[b]This link explains the discovery of an observable mechanism of how RNA can spontaneously form in the primordial soup that must have existed in the early Earth’s environment
I'd say this is would be a Scientific observation.
How the first RNA formed
I'd say this is more of a religious statement in that it can't proven nor disproved.[/b]
..…
Why couldn’t it ever conceivably be proven nor disproved?
If the hypothesis that this is the way the first RNA was formed is wrong, it could potentially be disproved by showing that the conditions back then were different in some respect to that in the physical simulation in the lab (say, because there was a chemical compound in the early Earth’s environment that interferes with the process -traces of such a chemical compound X could be detected in the sedimentary rock dating from that time) and a new the physical simulation in the lab that takes into account of that difference (by, say, including that chemical compound X) proves that the RNA formed back then couldn’t have formed in the way the first the physical simulation in the lab suggested.
If the hypothesis that this is the way the first RNA was formed is right, the hypothesis could be potentially be vindicated by further evidence (such as more refined physical simulation in the lab and, perhaps far into the future, even direct observations of RNA spontaneously forming on primordial Earth-like planets) to such an extent that it is rationally considered ‘proven’ because the probability of it being false is rationally judged to be vanishingly small because, given those early conditions in the early Earth’s environment, it would have been INEVITABLE that RNA would have spontaneously formed that way.
16 May 09
1 edit
Originally posted by Andrew HamiltonYou're right. I made a language error.
[b]…It's not religion of the sole reason that it cannot be proved nor disproved. ..…
I think you made a misprint there: either you meant “can” from “cannot” above or you meant “It's religion” from “It's not religion” from the above. -either way, I generally agree with what you are saying about what defines religion.[/b]
But I don't know how to write it properly. Double negations is never easy...
Thank you for the correction.
18 May 09
Why couldn’t it ever conceivably be proven nor disproved?
Because short of a time machine, there is no way to see exactly what happened and exactly how it happened. There is only assumption.
I don't expect you to agree with me. I was just giving my point of view.
19 May 09
Originally posted by EladarIt will never be possible what happened exacctly when life started, of course.
[b]Why couldn’t it ever conceivably be proven nor disproved?
Because short of a time machine, there is no way to see exactly what happened and exactly how it happened. There is only assumption.
I don't expect you to agree with me. I was just giving my point of view.[/b]
But in a (far) future, when we travel around the galaxy, we will encounter numerous planets with life about to start, life just started, and where evolution starts. From these observations we can deduce how life bagan on Earth.
This is just a guess, nothing more. The comet perhaps will strike tomorrow.
19 May 09
3 edits
Originally posted by Eladar…Because short of a time machine, there is no way to see EXACTLY what happened and EXACTLY how it happened.
[b]Why couldn’t it ever conceivably be proven nor disproved?
Because short of a time machine, there is no way to see exactly what happened and exactly how it happened. There is only assumption.
I don't expect you to agree with me. I was just giving my point of view.[/b]
..… (my emphasis)
Yes -not infinitely “EXACTLY” in every detail with absolute certainty of each and every detail, but, just like in any other science, that doesn’t stop us getting a pretty good estimate of what happened. Why should this RNA hypothesis be treated any differently from any other scientific hypothesis?
I have just given two examples in my last post of how the said RNA hypothesis could conceivably be proven or disproved without the involvement of a time machine;
That would appear to contradict any notion you may have that we cannot conceivably get a pretty good estimate of what happened at least regarding this specific hypothesis.
We don’t need a time machine to study past ice ages despite there being no historical going that far back -we just look at the evidence that we have in the present day. Why should the study of the beginnings of RNA be fundamentally different in that respect? After all, we can find relevant evidence such as from a physical simulation of the conditions that must have existed back then etc.
19 May 09
Originally posted by EladarAh, the good ole "were you there"-argument.
[b]Why couldn’t it ever conceivably be proven nor disproved?
Because short of a time machine, there is no way to see exactly what happened and exactly how it happened. There is only assumption.
I don't expect you to agree with me. I was just giving my point of view.[/b]
You walk into a house. You see a body with multiple stab wounds. You see someone running away with a knife dripping with blood.
Can you prove that the person running away stabbed someone? Were you there? No.
Is it reasonable to assume the person running away stabbed someone? Yes.
20 May 09
2 edits
Originally posted by KazetNagorraYes; it is just a matter of looking at the evidence and whether that evidence is direct or indirect evidence is fundamentally irrelevant.
Ah, the good ole "were you there"-argument.
You walk into a house. You see a body with multiple stab wounds. You see someone running away with a knife dripping with blood.
Can you prove that the person running away stabbed someone? Were you there? No.
Is it reasonable to assume the person running away stabbed someone? Yes.
I often notice how many people dismiss all indirect but perfectly valid evidence because it gives a conclusion that they don’t like -they just choose to overemphasis its indirectness as if it’s indirectness has something to do with it.
Nobody has ever direct seen an electron and there is no completely direct evidence of their existence (e.g. by directly seeing one with your own unaided eyes etc) but the indirect evidence is no less valid than any direct evidence and the indirect evidence happens to be strong in this case (e.g. if there where no electrons then computers wouldn’t work etc) so the fact that nobody has directly seeing electrons with their own unaided eyes etc doesn’t in any way diminish the validity of the hypothesis that electrons exist.
21 May 09
Kazet,
Everything is based on assumptions. If you assume that miracles did not occur, then all you have is physical evidence. Throw in the possibility of a miraculous event and things get a bit more complex.
As far as this thread goes, I have already made the distinction between science and a religious belief about miracles.
21 May 09
Originally posted by EladarI agree. But there are reasonable assumptions and unreasonable ones. Science is about distinguishing the two.
Kazet,
Everything is based on assumptions. If you assume that miracles did not occur, then all you have is physical evidence. Throw in the possibility of a miraculous event and things get a bit more complex.
As far as this thread goes, I have already made the distinction between science and a religious belief about miracles.
22 May 09
I disagree. I'd say science is the attempt to understand how this universe works. Once you try to distinguish between reasonable and unreasonable assumptions about the existance of God, you are dealing with religion. I believe that science and religion are not supposed to mix.
22 May 09
Originally posted by EladarWell, the existence of a god falls into the "irrelevant assumption" category.
I disagree. I'd say science is the attempt to understand how this universe works. Once you try to distinguish between reasonable and unreasonable assumptions about the existance of God, you are dealing with religion. I believe that science and religion are not supposed to mix.