Most British scientists: Richard Dawkins' work misrepresents science

Continuing your stupid game of trying to extract the maximum mileage out of pressing a definition
Like the rest of your tribe, you cannot reason or calculate yourself using probabilities - you don't know how - so you crib from the usual websites and whackjobs, unable to recognize when you are posting simple errors - plain mistakes.

Which is ok, part of the human condition, if you're willing to learn better.

And btw I gave you three links in #305. Noticed you had nothing to say about the third one
The first had the definition of cumulative probability - that's where you begin, if you want to learn where you went haywire. The question is: do you?

And if not, why not?
 
Like the rest of your tribe...
What 'tribe' is that exactly? Better be careful how you answer. The rest of your boots-n-all is not worth the effort to answer. Go whack that effigy again, and again, till all that nastiness dissipates. For a while.
 
. Make sure the missus misses your latest rant against her precious faith - ok?
:( Actually the Mrs has just chided me for contributing to your apparent emotional state as evidenced in your posts.
The prayer she says daily for my conversion, is now offered for the next week for your health and well being. :(
So I'll butt out now and just contribute to the general scientific answers that have been raised in this thread.....
Cheers q-reeus :smile:
 
:( Actually the Mrs has just chided me for contributing to your apparent emotional state as evidenced in your posts.
The prayer she says daily for my conversion, is now offered for the next week for your health and well being. :(
So I'll butt out now and just contribute to the general scientific answers that have been raised in this thread.....
Cheers q-reeus :smile:
That's very touching. Say hello to the missus for me - ok?
 
As I have continually alluded to, with regard to Dawkins and Sagan, both are giving the same scientific message, with regards to the certainty of Evolution and Abiogenisis, of whatever pathway or methodology:
Again in my humble opinion, the big questions are whether Panspermia played a part.
We are here, therefor life must have evolved from non life:
[despite what my wife believes! ;)]
Wonderful stuff that star dust! :)
 
Last edited:
https://www.ted.com/talks/martin_hanczyc_the_line_between_life_and_not_life

In his lab, Martin Hanczyc makes "protocells," experimental blobs of chemicals that behave like living cells. His work demonstrates how life might have first occurred on Earth ... and perhaps elsewhere too.


Why you should listen
Martin Hanczyc is developing novel synthetic chemical systems based on the properties of living systems, in a quest to understand how life forms. These synthetic systems, or "protocells," are model systems of primitive living cells and chemical examples of artificial life. As Rachel Armstrong puts it: "Although the protocell model system is just a chemically modified oil droplet, its dynamics are astonishingly varied and complex."

He's based at the Institute of Physics and Chemistry and the Center for Fundamental Living Technology (FLinT) in Denmark. He is also an Honorary Senior Lecturer at the Bartlett School of Architecture, University College London.

What others say
“Martin Hanczyc of the University of Southern Denmark just spoke on his research on protocells. It was, trust me, an astonishing illumination” — Tom Chatfield
 
https://www.ted.com/talks/martin_hanczyc_the_line_between_life_and_not_life

In his lab, Martin Hanczyc makes "protocells," experimental blobs of chemicals that behave like living cells. His work demonstrates how life might have first occurred on Earth ... and perhaps elsewhere too.


Why you should listen
Martin Hanczyc is developing novel synthetic chemical systems based on the properties of living systems, in a quest to understand how life forms. These synthetic systems, or "protocells," are model systems of primitive living cells and chemical examples of artificial life. As Rachel Armstrong puts it: "Although the protocell model system is just a chemically modified oil droplet, its dynamics are astonishingly varied and complex."

He's based at the Institute of Physics and Chemistry and the Center for Fundamental Living Technology (FLinT) in Denmark. He is also an Honorary Senior Lecturer at the Bartlett School of Architecture, University College London.

What others say
“Martin Hanczyc of the University of Southern Denmark just spoke on his research on protocells. It was, trust me, an astonishing illumination” — Tom Chatfield
Thankfully that bit wasn't edited out. Mandelbrot sets are even more astonishingly varied - and 'evolve' from even simpler underpinnings. Alas, being astonished or astounded etc. at such wonderful variety offers no insights into the huge real issues facing abiogenesis. The likes of James Tour will provide that bucket of cold water - if you're prepared to take the dowsing.
Interesting to see beginning at around 10 minute mark, what seems like an oblique tilt at Peltzer's critique re the red-black ooze/tar issue. Tar/ooze 'comes to life'! Not really, as he admits. Hanczyc is a good orator with flair, but I'm more impressed with the very first, sober comment by Barry Simon below the article:

"I applaud your work but there is something deeply missing. This is another example of trying to explain life with matter alone. There is much projection going on here giving matter living atribute. What is deeply missing is information. Your definition leaves this out. Without the design, design to code, copied code and the machinery carrying out the recipe of the design then reproducing the original abstract design, there is no life. The information process is extremely complex at an incredible magnitude. Information is also the first cause of life, matter is the vehicle.

This is the problem with chemical evolution. The jump from matter to complex abstract information is a gigantic gulf, a vast chasm that cannot be explained in simplistic linking steps."

Indeed. Nice that the Hanczyc's of this world beaver away in an imo futile quest. It's both entertaining, educational in a certain way, and with all the misleading hype stripped away, serves to reinforce the case for ID.
I'd love top see a head-to-head debate between Hanczyc and Tour. Guessing how many minutes it would take for Hanczyc to be tied-up in knots.
That vid link within the link Michael stumbled on in #297:
Quite a contrast. The abiogenesis Faithful will however not be fazed, as always.
 
"I applaud your work but there is something deeply missing. This is another example of trying to explain life with matter alone. There is much projection going on here giving matter living atribute. What is deeply missing is information. Your definition leaves this out. Without the design, design to code, copied code and the machinery carrying out the recipe of the design then reproducing the original abstract design, there is no life. The information process is extremely complex at an incredible magnitude. Information is also the first cause of life, matter is the vehicle.
And you dont think another thread on this most interesting subject is not appropriate.
Is it me or does the above not seek to simply introduce God when the problem is more or less as presented but I put another way... We dont know the whole deal yet..
Slipping in design and code sounds sciency but it does not seem like science to me.
Who presents the design or code?
Alex
 
The abiogenesis Faithful will however not be fazed, as always.
Of course not: They have science and the scientific method on their side, and not hindered by baggage and concrete set mythical ID beliefs. :)

Again, abiogenisis by whatever path is the only scientific solution available, so your objection is dismissed....
Star stuff again! ;)
 
And you dont think another thread on this most interesting subject is not appropriate.
Is it me or does the above not seek to simply introduce God when the problem is more or less as presented but I put another way... We dont know the whole deal yet..
Slipping in design and code sounds sciency but it does not seem like science to me.
Who presents the design or code?
Alex
The issue at its core simply is that ID is just a mythical cop out to give those that desire comfort something to lean on. :)
[Although my Mrs does still lean on me on occasion! ;)]
 
Here's another scientific rundown that will probably raise the hairs of our creationists friends also
http://cosmology.com/AbiogenesisPreface.html

Abstract

The ancient and modern history of the theory of abiogenesis is detailed, including the beliefs of the ancient scientist-philosophers of Greece and Rome and the Catholic Church. "Abiogenesis" has been known by many names, including "spontaneous generation", "vitalism", and the "organic soup". Central to all ancient theories of abiogenesis is the belief that Earth has special life-generating powers. Although some ancient scientists championed the belief that life on Earth came from other planets, this does not answer the question of life's origins. Be it on Earth or some other world, life had to begin via chemical processes known as abiogenesis (Russell and Kanik 2010) and modern theories and their flaws are detailed.
 
And you dont think another thread on this most interesting subject is not appropriate.
Is it me or does the above not seek to simply introduce God when the problem is more or less as presented but I put another way... We dont know the whole deal yet..
Slipping in design and code sounds sciency but it does not seem like science to me.
Who presents the design or code?
Alex
Alex, this will not be the first time to have made my point. The so-called spirit of science means being open to all the evidence. Science is not scientism. It's entirely that kind of TED talk by Hanczyc linked to in #326, that is best termed 'sciency'. Lot's of nice shots of stuff doing dances in petri dishes or whatever, and slick presentation style. But nothing that really suggests the life puzzle is anywhere near even a minor breakthrough that route.
The talk by Tour linked to in #327, IS the real hard-hitting science! Tour never asks to believe in a Divine Intervention, just methodically sets out what are the real issues. You would NEVER get that kind of eye-opening factual critique of what passes for 'abiogenesis theory(s)' or rather hopeful conjecture, from the likes of Sagan or Dawkins. Personally, I'm thankful that extremely competent, hard-headed 'mavericks' like Tour and Peltzer are out there giving the balance that's sorely lacking in general.

Sorry if that upsets but it really shouldn't. This thread has devolved into an abiogenesis ideological battleground - with willing mutual consent all round. Lots of threads at SF go that way, regrettable as that situation may be. Peace.
 
http://www.conservativenewsandviews.com/2015/01/30/creation/abiogenesis-not-fast/


Evolutionists, since Darwin, have based their assumption of a God-less origin of life on abiogenesis. That is, they hold life began from non-life. Now a professor of physics thinks he can show, not exactly how that happened, but that the universe bound it to happen. Even some of his fellow secular scientists find that hard to believe. But even they won’t ask themselves an obvious question he missed.

Professor of abiogenesis?
Meet Jeremy L. England, Professor of Physics at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Like Erwin Schrödinger before him, he knew living systems must stay organized, and organize certain chemicals they take in, even as their surroundings disorganize. Any closed or especially isolated system disorganizes over time. The Second Law of Thermodynamics tells us this. Scientists have a name for the “state property” that measures this disorganization. They call it “entropy,” from the Greek preposition “en-” meaning “within” and the noun “tropos” meaning a way of doing things or even a way of life. In other words, scientists say, “Systems disorganize because that’s the way things happen.”

Before moving forward, let us define our terms. System means any group of things that stand together. Two things exist when one treats any system: the system itself, and the surroundings. Isolated systems do not exchange matter or energy with their surroundings. Closed systems may take energy from the surroundings, or give it back. Open systems may gain or lose energy, matter, or both.




Black smoker in the Mid-Atlantic Ridge. Some scientists suppose this is a source of the primordial soup from which life arose from non-life. Photo: P. Roma/NASA



Any living thing is an open system. The earth itself is also an open system. The sun shines on earth all the time, and comets and meteors fall into it.

Dr. England recognizes the first principle of what happens to energy: it wants to dissipate. And like any spilled liquid, it will follow the path of least resistance when dissipating. Dr. England suggests certain kinds of molecules, with a heat bath (either ocean or atmosphere) to surround them and an outside energy source (like the sun) to drive them, will self-organize to create that path of least resistance. Under the right circumstances, those molecules will then self-replicate.

Dr. England treated two kinds of problem in his paper: self-replicating nucleic acids, and bacterial cell division. Concerning nucleic acids, he concluded RNA, not DNA, formed first in the “primordial soup” (or “biological ylem”) out of which, as he supposes, life arose from non-life.

Dr. England published a detailed mathematical model and argument in the Journal of Chemical Physics nearly two years ago. (See also here.) He also has lectured on the subject around the world. (The video shows him giving one of these lectures.) More recently, Natalie Wolchover at Quanta magazine interviewed England, and several of his supporters and critics, for this article. (Scientific American and Business Insider reprinted this article in the past week.)

Reaction
Everyone, supporter or critic, recognizes one thing above all. Jeremy England claims to have the secret of abiogenesis. Not only did it happen; Dr. England insists it had to happen. He specifically told Ms. Wolchover:

You start with a random clump of atoms, and if you shine light on it for long enough, it should not be so surprising that you get a plant.


He even said as rocks roll downhill, so life will always arise from non-life, under the right kind of sun and in the right kind of “heat bath.” To back up the idea, he pointed to other examples of highly organized objects in the wild. Most notably, he pointed to snowflakes. But perhaps he would cite any kind of crystal or polymer as examples proving his point.







 
Slipping in design and code sounds sciency but it does not seem like science to me.
Who presents the design or code?
Alex
Who designed the designer? And who designed the designer that designed the designer? :rolleyes:
As I said many times Alex, and it is the view held by mainstream in general, ID is totally unscientific and abiogenisis is the only possibility open, and that has been evidenced to certain extents as detailed in the reputable scientific links I have given.
As usual science forums being open to all and sundry, are also open to any quack creationist idea also......and this is afterall just a forum. :)
Need my beauty sleep Alex, seeya tomorrow!
 
Who designed the designer? And who designed the designer that designed the designer? :rolleyes:
As I said many times Alex, and it is the view held by mainstream in general, ID is totally unscientific and abiogenisis is the only possibility open, and that has been evidenced to certain extents as detailed in the reputable scientific links I have given.
As usual science forums being open to all and sundry, are also open to any quack creationist idea also......and this is afterall just a forum. :)
Need my beauty sleep Alex, seeya tomorrow!
Well the big problem with ID is how were the plans recorded. Even a God would need some sort of filing system, and probably a staff, you know fish etc in the West wing, birds, East wind, oh and can you imagine the insect section.
Anyways I am not worried I know how it all works but I wont put it forward and deprive young hopefuls who need something to make their name. Let someone else discover the missing step.
Alex
 
Alex, this will not be the first time to have made my point. The so-called spirit of science means being open to all the evidence. Science is not scientism. It's entirely that kind of TED talk by Hanczyc linked to in #326, that is best termed 'sciency'. Lot's of nice shots of stuff doing dances in petri dishes or whatever, and slick presentation style. But nothing that really suggests the life puzzle is anywhere near even a minor breakthrough that route.
The talk by Tour linked to in #327, IS the real hard-hitting science! Tour never asks to believe in a Divine Intervention, just methodically sets out what are the real issues. You would NEVER get that kind of eye-opening factual critique of what passes for 'abiogenesis theory(s)' or rather hopeful conjecture, from the likes of Sagan or Dawkins. Personally, I'm thankful that extremely competent, hard-headed 'mavericks' like Tour and Peltzer are out there giving the balance that's sorely lacking in general.

Sorry if that upsets but it really shouldn't. This thread has devolved into an abiogenesis ideological battleground - with willing mutual consent all round. Lots of threads at SF go that way, regrettable as that situation may be. Peace.

Yeah, I think some people get panicky at the thought that we still do not even have a worked out hypothesis for the origin of life, as if lack of knowledge somehow lets God into the gaps. So they try to overstate what science has found, in an unnecessarily defensive way.

The objection to ID, of course, is that it isn't a scientific explanation - it is just asserting the origin of life must have been a miracle, so let's stop researching the issue. And that is never going to satisfy any scientist, whether he or she is religious or not.
 
Yeah, I think some people get panicky at the thought that we still do not even have a worked out hypothesis for the origin of life, as if lack of knowledge somehow lets God into the gaps. So they try to overstate what science has found, in an unnecessarily defensive way.

The objection to ID, of course, is that it isn't a scientific explanation - it is just asserting the origin of life must have been a miracle, so let's stop researching the issue. And that is never going to satisfy any scientist, whether he or she is religious or not.
We broadly agree (I think), except for that highlighted part. I'm unaware of any serious ID proponent calling for or even suggesting that we should just give up and cease efforts to find a natural answer.
What alarms the sober members of the ID fraternity is the censorial heavy-handed attitude. That unfairly stigmatizes anyone offering serious critique of abiogenesis (and evolutionary theory more broadly), as 'religious subversives', 'anti-science' etc. etc. The call is for academic freedom - don't rule out alternative research and arguments, just based on dogma as criteria. The pendulum has swung too far the other way imo, since theistic religion ruled the roost.
 
We broadly agree (I think), except for that highlighted part. I'm unaware of any serious ID proponent calling for or even suggesting that we should just give up and cease efforts to find a natural answer.
What alarms the sober members of the ID fraternity is the censorial heavy-handed attitude. That unfairly stigmatizes anyone offering serious critique of abiogenesis (and evolutionary theory more broadly), as 'religious subversives', 'anti-science' etc. etc. The call is for academic freedom - don't rule out alternative research and arguments, just based on dogma as criteria. The pendulum has swung too far the other way imo, since theistic religion ruled the roost.
The trouble is that asserting something is due to miraculous intervention means it has no natural explanation, whereas the goal of science is to find natural explanations.
 
The trouble is that asserting something is due to miraculous intervention means it has no natural explanation, whereas the goal of science is to find natural explanations.

I agree with that. I'll add that science (and common sense) seek to explain things by reducing the unknown to the known. So science will try to explain an unknown event (the origin of life in this case) by explaining it in terms of known chemical processes that are better understood.

The biggest problem with ID (as I see it) is that it moves in the opposite direction. It seeks to explain an unknown event (the origin of life) by citing the intervention of a hypothetical 'designer' (presumably a divinity) about which we know nothing at all.

So in my view, ID doesn't provide an explanation of the original problem, it just mystifies it by compounding the things about which we have no understanding and still need to explain.
 
Back
Top