Most British scientists: Richard Dawkins' work misrepresents science

[Michael 345]

Is that 2 ton?
I would think it may be more.
Who weighed them?
Alex

I am going to take a stab in the dark here and presume most in this thread know we have a form of iron in our blood, hemoglobin.

Iron tablets are available from numerous outlets for those who are low on hemoglobin.

Question:-

When does the non organic iron tablet become alive?

 

[Q-reeus]

Is that 2 ton?
I would think it may be more.
Who weighed them?
Alex

paddoboy has always been too lazy and indifferent to edit a simple cut and paste to restore the original exponent form missing when careless cut and paste is employed. I can read that and see it really means 2*10^14 i.e. 200 trillion, where the US trillion = a thousand billion is implied.

 

[Q-reeus]

I am going to take a stab in the dark here and presume most in this thread know we have a form of iron in our blood, hemoglobin.

Iron tablets are available from numerous outlets for those who are low on hemoglobin.

Question:-

When does the non organic iron tablet become alive?

Is that 'deep' question suggesting that hemoglobin is 'alive'?

 

[Xelasnave.1947]

When does the non organic iron tablet become alive?

I hope you are asking a question that you already know the answer because I don't know...would it ever become alive or would it become a part of something that is alive?
Alex

 

[Xelasnave.1947]

can read that and see it really means 2*10^14 i.e. 200 trillion, where the US trillion = a thousand billion is implied.

Thank you but now that seems too high, but if correct how extordinary.
Alex

 

[Q-reeus]

I hope you are asking a question that you already know the answer because I don't know...would it ever become alive or would it become a part of something that is alive?
Alex

The latter and I'm surprised you would even ask Alex. No single molecule not even DNA could ever qualify as 'life' but such do qualify as distinctly of biological origin.
Incidentally, just one short line in your #636: "Showing complexity does not establish a designer.", is indicative of just how woefully ignorant you are of the true ID position and arguments.

 

[Q-reeus]

Thank you but now that seems too high, but if correct how extordinary.
Alex

The planet is a big place, so in that perspective, all of biology is a very tenuous though persistent film on the surface layer.

 

[paddoboy]

The planet is a big place, so in that perspective, all of biology is a very tenuous though persistent film on the surface layer.

Yes the planet is a big place, and the solar system even bigger, and further to the galaxy and the universe as a whole...Take in the time factor, and the odds are abiogenisis in whatever form and method took place here and probably elsewhere to boot.
Far more likely then any mythical ID position that they rammed into your head as a kid, don't you agree.

 

[paddoboy]

Moving away from the nonsense.......
http://rsob.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/3/3/120190

The origin of life: what we know, what we can know and what we will never know:


Abstract:
The origin of life (OOL) problem remains one of the more challenging scientific questions of all time. In this essay, we propose that following recent experimental and theoretical advances in systems chemistry, the underlying principle governing the emergence of life on the Earth can in its broadest sense be specified, and may be stated as follows: all stable (persistent) replicating systems will tend to evolve over time towards systems of greater stability. The stability kind referred to, however, is dynamic kinetic stability, and quite distinct from the traditional thermodynamic stability which conventionally dominates physical and chemical thinking. Significantly, that stability kind is generally found to be enhanced by increasing complexification, since added features in the replicating system that improve replication efficiency will be reproduced, thereby offering an explanation for the emergence of life's extraordinary complexity. On the basis of that simple principle, a fundamental reassessment of the underlying chemistry–biology relationship is possible, one with broad ramifications. In the context of the OOL question, this novel perspective can assist in clarifying central ahistoric aspects of abiogenesis, as opposed to the many historic aspects that have probably been forever lost in the mists of time.

The above paper concludes.........

In conclusion, it seems probably that we will never know the precise historic path by which life on the Earth emerged, but, very much in the Darwinian tradition, it seems we can now specify the essence of the ahistoric principles by which that process came about. Just as Darwin, in the very simplest of terms, pointed out how natural selection enabled simple life to evolve into complex life, so the recently proposed general theory of evolution [1,7] points out in simplest terms how simple, but fragile, replicating systems could have complexified into the intricate chemical systems of life. But, as discussed earlier, a detailed understanding of that process will have to wait until ongoing studies in systems chemistry reveal both the classes of chemical materials and the kinds of chemical pathways that simple replicating systems are able to follow in their drive towards greater complexity and replicative stability.

• Received December 31, 2012.
• Accepted February 11, 2013.
• """"""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""

 

[Xelasnave.1947]

I'm surprised you would even ask Alex.

I come from the don't ask a question unless you know the answer school.

I had hoped to gently guide Michael to an answer to his question.

But the fact that you seize upon just makes me think just how amazing life really is ... What is the "magic" ingredient that causes chemicals that we regard as lifeless to assemble in a community and present as life.

is indicative of just how woefully ignorant you are of the true ID position and arguments.

In my defence I am reading all that I can find but you know how surfing can be informative sometimes and other times you don't find everything.

It does appear so far that there is somewhat of a focus upon the aspect of complexity however from your comment you seem to suggest there is more to find out.

But I must say so far the material I have read seems short on reasons why ID should be considered as science and I note I rely upon and am using my limited understanding of the philosophy of science as how to approach science.

I have read that ID holds that certain arrangements found in living things, on IDs view, could not have arisen thru natural process via selection or mutation.

I have read a little about perceived problems with "evolution" of the eye.

So far I am not convinced my initial impressions are in any way flawed.

I do think not to find any speculation on where a designer could fit in is a problem as it would seem as even ID admits there is little hope to establish the existence, scientifically, of a designer.

It is almost saying even if we establish there is evidence of a designer all will need to be thrown out because of the brick wall we encounter.
It seems like a no win in terms of science and whatever is accumulated can only go in the belief box.

Alex

 

[Q-reeus]

Yes the planet is a big place, and the solar system even bigger, and further to the galaxy and the universe as a whole...Take in the time factor, and the odds are abiogenisis in whatever form and method took place here and probably elsewhere to boot.
Far more likely then any mythical ID position that they rammed into your head as a kid, don't you agree.

Some take the Drake 'equation' seriously, as though it's anything more than 'educated' guesswork. Meanwhile, the SETI folks maintain their long lonely vigil with a mix of hope and faith. Sounds faintly Biblical.

 

[Sarkus]

Thank you but now that seems too high, but if correct how extordinary.

The study quoted in that report was from 1992. Per wiki, a much-quoted 1998 study puts the figure at 350-550 billion tonnes of carbon, and more recent estimates have put the bacterial biomass at anywhere between 10 and 550 billion tonnes. So quite considerably less.
That said, this latest figure is in terms of tonnes of carbon (which is how biomass is generally measured). Not sure what the 1992 figure was quoted in but I assume it was the same.

 

[Q-reeus]

I come from the don't ask a question unless you know the answer school.

I had hoped to gently guide Michael to an answer to his question.

But the fact that you seize upon just makes me think just how amazing life really is ... What is the "magic" ingredient that causes chemicals that we regard as lifeless to assemble in a community and present as life.



In my defence I am reading all that I can find but you know how surfing can be informative sometimes and other times you don't find everything.

It does appear so far that there is somewhat of a focus upon the aspect of complexity however from your comment you seem to suggest there is more to find out.

But I must say so far the material I have read seems short on reasons why ID should be considered as science and I note I rely upon and am using my limited understanding of the philosophy of science as how to approach science.

I have read that ID holds that certain arrangements found in living things, on IDs view, could not have arisen thru natural process via selection or mutation.

I have read a little about perceived problems with "evolution" of the eye.

So far I am not convinced my initial impressions are in any way flawed.

I do think not to find any speculation on where a designer could fit in is a problem as it would seem as even ID admits there is little hope to establish the existence, scientifically, of a designer.

It is almost saying even if we establish there is evidence of a designer all will need to be thrown out because of the brick wall we encounter.
It seems like a no win in terms of science and whatever is accumulated can only go in the belief box.

Alex

I don't wish to be unkind anymore than I think you do. But am more and more convinced the real issue brought out in a thread like this one is the psychological one of ideological commitment. Once a strong position is taken, it's hugely unlikely an opposing argument or evidence will ever seem reasonable let alone persuasive. I reproduce here something I found quite fascinating:
Mere facts unfortunately count for little in a thoroughly subverted society. Yuri Bezmenov, a former Soviet spy puts it oh so well in this ~ 1984 interview with G Edward Griffin:

Dated in some ways but the basic message very relevant. No need to view it all, but worthwhile to study passage from ~ 1:07:30 to 1:13

 

[Xelasnave.1947]

Some take the Drake 'equation' seriously, as though it's anything more than 'educated' guesswork.

I tend to agree simply because have insufficient data.
However it is clear that if one holds a religious conviction there is a belief that humans are special and we are what everything is about.
I think that could not be correct.
If we are not special it would be reasonable to assume life exists throughout the Universe.
However until we can visit many other world's and find life we have nothing to go on.
And no matter how many world's we visit there will be an uncountable number that can never be investigated, so it will remain impossible to rule out the possibility of life elsewhere.
Alex

 

[Xelasnave.1947]

So quite considerably less.

Thank you.
Nevertheless interesting numbers that one does not really think about.
Its much like the apparent fact there are more ants (mass) than humans. I don't know but it would not surprise me.
Alex

 

[Q-reeus]

I tend to agree simply because have insufficient data.
However it is clear that if one holds a religious conviction there is a belief that humans are special and we are what everything is about.
I think that could not be correct.
If we are not special it would be reasonable to assume life exists throughout the Universe.
However until we can visit many other world's and find life we have nothing to go on.
And no matter how many world's we visit there will be an uncountable number that can never be investigated, so it will remain impossible to rule out the possibility of life elsewhere.
Alex

You are projecting something certain fundamentalists believe onto the ID crowd in general. And it just aint so.

 

[Xelasnave.1947]

But am more and more convinced the real issue brought out in a thread like this one is the psychological one of ideological commitment. Once a strong position is taken, it's hugely unlikely an opposing argument or evidence will ever seem reasonable let alone persuasive.

I agree.
Facts will never change belief.
That why I have said and try to read without going with a particular view.
But it is difficult and even on this subject I have formed a view and all future evidence will be accepted or rejected dependent on how it fits my preformed view.
Even being aware it seems we deal with information in that way.
Alex

 

[Xelasnave.1947]

You are projecting something certain fundamentalists believe onto the ID crowd in general. And it just aint so.

I know what they think they fit perfectly the stereo type I have set aside for them.
You may be right but given what you say does not fit my preconceived views I can only reject your view.
I have fallen into the trap of generalising which we do when we think we know everything.
I say the proposition I set out is the rule and if there are people who don't fit my outline I declare them to be simply exceptions to the rule.
Neat and all we need is another box.
Alex

 

[Xelasnave.1947]

Dated in some ways but the basic message very relevant. No need to view it all, but worthwhile to study passage from ~ 1:07:30 to 1:13

Sorry I can't access this at the moment.
Alex

 

[Q-reeus]

I know what they think they fit perfectly the stereo type I have set aside for them.
You may be right but given what you say does not fit my preconceived views I can only reject your view.
I have fallen into the trap of generalising which we do when we think we know everything.
I say the proposition I set out is the rule and if there are people who don't fit my outline I declare them to be simply exceptions to the rule.
Neat and all we need is another box.
Alex

Well at least you do recognize the trap. Escaping from the Hall of Mirrors conundrum is another thing.