Science is not in a position to accept or deny believed views as reality, but there are many scientists that have religious beliefs.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
New discoveries and research in abiogenesis
- Thread starter shunyadragon
- Start date
My observation that people creating life does not demonstrate the religion of intelligent design is a fact and not an opinion that can be considered optimistic. Are you using the optimistic rating correctly?
It simply provides more evidence, that intelligence is required for life to exist.
It doesn’t hurt it!
Science is neutral and does not accept any belief nor non-belief in God. The sole purpose of science is to understand the nature of our physical existence through Methodological Naturalism.
No, they aren’t, I agree....
But the biological sciences do deny a Designer!
Where you been?
It would not show that intelligence is required for life to exist. It would show that an intelligent species that developed technology could create life. Sorry.
The belief in a designer is religious belief and science, fortunately, is neutral and do not deny nor accept as to whether a designer, ie God, or maybe aliens, exists or not.
There is no reference in the Bible that refers to God as a designer nor an engineer. All the Theistic religions including the Baha'i Faith refer to God as the Creator. No design needed.
There is no evidence for a designer for biological sciences to accept. Based on the evidence we do have, the claims of a designer can be rightly and correctly rejected. It is science.
His God? Isn't that the Judeo Christian God? I am confused.
rational experiences
Veteran Member
Science says what is relative to own everything is basically one answer.
What science says the source from where all things came.
And said it is God...otherwise the Bible and religious science creation themes would not exist, which include self talking to self about self claiming I know how I personally got created.
Then comparing self to his machines, now claims so in knowing that bio genetic circumstance I will give it a machine reaction for where I came from is electrical.
Is virtually what science with new relativity claims.
So in doing genetic bio comparisons to status that we are not...such as a meteorite being a meteorite and having substances on it, that science claims is comparable to our life beginnings.
Which is in human bio sciences sperm and an ovary from 2 human being parents.
So then you should see the coercion occurring as the mind psyche of the Destroyer male scientific community, together in a cult/Occult cosmological UFO theme....how to remove us by comparing our life on Earth to a meteorite.
In factual statements and religious themes, such as human population moving around a stone body that fell to Earth. Science then says...oh look at the messenger of God that saved us......must have created us he says.
Yet the whole time consciousness equating all reasoning is self present whole human being, just a human.
Ask science why it is studying human genetics whose information that correlate in science to biblical inferences? And yet then pretend that they are not studying the concepts of God in a cosmology?
Real conscious coercive reasoning, if I told humans about the particle of God in space they will know I am lying.
Origin, one place, one mass and one equals sign for a formula.
Out of space cosmological presence multi masses of variations in a huge diversity of multi bodies in the one and only one same body....space.
How come the variations...it should all only equal what you say...self conscious human thinker highest life form....for that is what you are doing comparisons from and via...bio organics....yet totally ignore that relative conscious advice.
In comparisons in science it is cosmological theme to God the O planet stone....not self.
Yet if you stopped in that condition...no science would be practiced or even exist....for the atmosphere that is present that allows life to exist on that O God one planet does exist. Yet science in the cosmos is comparing to stone O God the end.
Why science in relative self awareness said...the Sun was once stone.....it rejected stone..and blew it out into the Universe then converted into a lower destroyer form that attacks stone and forces it to be removed/disappears.
What is relative that you coerce about.
Therefore science says the exact same spiritual use of memory....o O God bodies historically eternal mass separation...space owned the separation. o O bodies exploded as eternal mass, burnt and changed form...via burning and bursting incidences.
Lots of bodies in the same one space body would be affecting each other body by conditions of change.....how diversity in the exact same one body occurred.
For science to say one answer, one formula, one beginning for everything.....I am trying to understand what it was he says...and claims he is correct just because he can think about it.
Science tells all of the information first. Science then tells science, but you are wrong, for we are in a changed/lower form...the higher form is gone. Science ignores science and does whatever science wants. Science however says I told you so.....the too late scenario for human existence.
Reality, science was once outlawed as relative self advice about how evil it is.
True history about life on Planet Earth.
What science says the source from where all things came.
And said it is God...otherwise the Bible and religious science creation themes would not exist, which include self talking to self about self claiming I know how I personally got created.
Then comparing self to his machines, now claims so in knowing that bio genetic circumstance I will give it a machine reaction for where I came from is electrical.
Is virtually what science with new relativity claims.
So in doing genetic bio comparisons to status that we are not...such as a meteorite being a meteorite and having substances on it, that science claims is comparable to our life beginnings.
Which is in human bio sciences sperm and an ovary from 2 human being parents.
So then you should see the coercion occurring as the mind psyche of the Destroyer male scientific community, together in a cult/Occult cosmological UFO theme....how to remove us by comparing our life on Earth to a meteorite.
In factual statements and religious themes, such as human population moving around a stone body that fell to Earth. Science then says...oh look at the messenger of God that saved us......must have created us he says.
Yet the whole time consciousness equating all reasoning is self present whole human being, just a human.
Ask science why it is studying human genetics whose information that correlate in science to biblical inferences? And yet then pretend that they are not studying the concepts of God in a cosmology?
Real conscious coercive reasoning, if I told humans about the particle of God in space they will know I am lying.
Origin, one place, one mass and one equals sign for a formula.
Out of space cosmological presence multi masses of variations in a huge diversity of multi bodies in the one and only one same body....space.
How come the variations...it should all only equal what you say...self conscious human thinker highest life form....for that is what you are doing comparisons from and via...bio organics....yet totally ignore that relative conscious advice.
In comparisons in science it is cosmological theme to God the O planet stone....not self.
Yet if you stopped in that condition...no science would be practiced or even exist....for the atmosphere that is present that allows life to exist on that O God one planet does exist. Yet science in the cosmos is comparing to stone O God the end.
Why science in relative self awareness said...the Sun was once stone.....it rejected stone..and blew it out into the Universe then converted into a lower destroyer form that attacks stone and forces it to be removed/disappears.
What is relative that you coerce about.
Therefore science says the exact same spiritual use of memory....o O God bodies historically eternal mass separation...space owned the separation. o O bodies exploded as eternal mass, burnt and changed form...via burning and bursting incidences.
Lots of bodies in the same one space body would be affecting each other body by conditions of change.....how diversity in the exact same one body occurred.
For science to say one answer, one formula, one beginning for everything.....I am trying to understand what it was he says...and claims he is correct just because he can think about it.
Science tells all of the information first. Science then tells science, but you are wrong, for we are in a changed/lower form...the higher form is gone. Science ignores science and does whatever science wants. Science however says I told you so.....the too late scenario for human existence.
Reality, science was once outlawed as relative self advice about how evil it is.
True history about life on Planet Earth.
Please!
Have you read Gerd Müller’s “The Explanatory Deficits of the Modern Synthesis”?
You believe it’s all been explained satisfactorily, huh?
Arguing from ignorance and misquoting and misrepresenting Gerd Muller does not help you argument based on a religious agenda and not science. Gerd Muller does not address abiogenesis in this reference, OFF TOPIC, but nonetheless.
Gerd Muller does not reject the concept of natural evolution, but presents an alternative natural explanations for natural evolution. Cited others out of context to justify your religious agenda is your modus operendi including misquoting and misrepresenting me. Out of context quote mining for self justification is not ethical nor honest. I doubt you have read it and fully understood.
Gerd B. Müller | Evolution scientist | The Third Way of Evolution
Müller's primary scientific interest is the relationship between development and evolution in the generation of organismal form (EvoDevo). In his integrative approach he combines experimental, bioinformatic, and theoretical work. The latter is focused on evolutionary innovation, EvoDevo theory, and the extension of the Evolutionary Synthesis.
Müller is on the editorial boards of several scientific journals, including Biological Theory, where he serves as an Associate Editor. He is also the leading editor of the Vienna Series in Theoretical Biology, a book series devoted to theoretical developments in the biosciences, published by MIT Press.
In his book, Origination of Organismal Form, edited together with Stuart Newman, he describes generative mechanisms that were plausibly involved in the origination of disparate body forms during pre-Cambrian periods. He proposes epigenetic factors, such as physical determinants and environmental parameters, that may have led to the spontaneous emergence of bodyplans and organ forms during a period when multicellular organisms had relatively plastic morphologies. He argues that similar tissue based mechanisms were also responsible for the emergence of structural novelty during later periods of organismal evolution.
Quote
"The entrenched concentration on a restricted repertoire of evolutionary factors had stifled theoretical progress for a long time, but finally these limitations are overcome."
(Beyond Spandrels: S.J. Gould, EvoDevo, and the Extended Synthesis, p. 8)"
- Evolution - the extended synthesis
In the six decades since the publication of Julian Huxley’s Evolution: The Modern Synthesis, spectacular empirical advances in the biological sciences have been accompanied by equally significant developments within the core theoretical framework of the discipline. As a result, evolutionary theory today includes concepts and even entire new fields that were not part of the foundational structure of the Modern Synthesis. In this volume, sixteen leading evolutionary biologists and philosophers of science survey the conceptual changes that have emerged since Huxley’s landmark publication, not only in such traditional domains of evolutionary biology as quantitative genetics and paleontology but also in such new fields of research as genomics and EvoDevo.
Most of the contributors to Evolution—The Extended Synthesis accept many of the tenets of the classical framework but want to relax some of its assumptions and introduce significant conceptual augmentations of the basic Modern Synthesis structure—just as the architects of the Modern Synthesis themselves expanded and modulated previous versions of Darwinism. This continuing revision of a theoretical edifice the foundations of which were laid in the middle of the nineteenth century—the reexamination of old ideas, proposals of new ones, and the synthesis of the most suitable—shows us how science works, and how scientists have painstakingly built a solid set of explanations for what Darwin called the “grandeur” of life.
Contributors: John Beatty, Werner Callebaut, Jeremy Draghi, Chrisantha Fernando, Sergey Gavrilets, John C. Gerhart, Eva Jablonka, David Jablonski, Marc W. Kirschner, Marion J. Lamb, Alan C. Love, Gerd B. Müller, Stuart A. Newman, John Odling-Smee, Massimo Pigliucci, Michael Purugganan, Eörs Szathmáry, Günter P. Wagner, David Sloan Wilson, Gregory A. Wray
-
Origination of Organismal Form. Beyond the Gene in Developmental and Evolutionary Biology.
The field of evolutionary biology arose from the desire to understand the origin and diversity of biological forms. In recent years, however, evolutionary genetics, with its focus on the modification and inheritance of presumed genetic programs, has all but overwhelmed other aspects of evolutionary biology. This has led to the neglect of the study of the generative origins of biological form.
Drawing on work from developmental biology, paleontology, developmental and population genetics, cancer research, physics, and theoretical biology, this book explores the multiple factors responsible for the origination of biological form. It examines the essential problems of morphological evolution—why, for example, the basic body plans of nearly all metazoans arose within a relatively short time span, why similar morphological design motifs appear in phylogenetically independent lineages, and how new structural elements are added to the body plan of a given phylogenetic lineage. It also examines discordances between genetic and phenotypic change, the physical determinants of morphogenesis, and the role of epigenetic processes in evolution. The book discusses these and other topics within the framework of evolutionary developmental biology, a new research agenda that concerns the interaction of development and evolution in the generation of biological form. By placing epigenetic processes, rather than gene sequence and gene expression changes, at the center of morphological origination, this book points the way to a more comprehensive theory of evolution.
Endorsements
“This volume challenges the primacy of both neo-Darwinian evolutionary theory and developmental genetics as complete explanations for the phenomena of evolutionary developmental biology. The contributors take a refreshing variety of approaches to classic problems such as homology, developmental constraints, modules, and roles for environmental factors in development. This original and well-argued contribution is essential reading for anyone interested in the evolution-development synthesis.”
—Rudolf A. Raff, Distinguished Professor of Biology, Indiana University
Last edited:
Have you? I mean more than that abstract you posted.
You are misrepresenting me. I did not claim that anything was all explained satisfactorily. But that it is not, is not evidence the theory is rejected in science. You are the one that is trying to build that house of straw.
Yazata
Active Member
LOTS of unknowns. I'm reasonably confident that life arose naturally from chemistry, at least as a working hypothesis. However getting from natural synthesis of simple organic compounds to fully functioning biological cells, even relatively simple prokaryotic ones, is still an extraordinarily large leap. Nobody really knows how it happened.
What's more, just by the nature of the thing, it might be very difficult to ever know what happened. We can't directly observe the past, we can only speculate about conditions on the early Earth on the basis of fragmentary evidence. Then researchers speculate about the kind of chemical processes that might have occurred in those conditions. And finally, many of those hypothetical processes are compounded together in various combinations to try to provide an account for the origin of some plausible candidate for LUCA (or its first cellular ancestor).
Sequencing the DNA of many organisms has contributed tremendously to evolutionary biology. Many relationships that were invisible to comparative anatomy are revealed on the genomic level. However at the same time it's revealed how incredibly complex the regulatory mechanisms are that control how and when genes express. So in that sense it's burdened us with even more that needs explaining.
Though I will happily agree that this is a great time to be a molecular biologist. Molecular biology is where a lot of the excitement is in the natural sciences these days. Kind of a golden age of that science.
Last edited:
It's been known for a long time that space contains some of the basics of biochemistry.
Thanks for this update.
Now to include these pieces in the jigsaw that became the first self-reproducing cell and ...
TagliatelliMonster
Veteran Member
An absurd statement, akin to saying that ice being formed in a freezer "proves" that the north pole is a giant designed freezer.
Perhaps you should look up what "controlled conditions" are.
No, you're talking about magic because you are talking about a being that isn't subject to natural law, performing actions that violate / suspend / ignore natural law.
That is magic.
Furthermore, you assume engineering and design without demonstrating it.
And to top it off, you willfully remain ignorant and/or reject any and all evidence to the contrary. Which incidently is literally all evidence.
TagliatelliMonster
Veteran Member
No, it doesn't, actually...
It does not include a designer.
Sure, for practical intents and purposes, not including a factor is pretty much the same as actively excluding it.
But it's not the same in principle.
For example, I don't include undetectable pixies in the the explanatory model of why my grass grows.
The explanatory model is by itself a sufficient explanation for why my grass grows. I don't need any undetectable pixies to make it work. So I don't include them.
Can I prove that such pixies don't exist? No.
Can I prove that these pixies don't play some role in the process of graw growth? No.
Notice the negatifs in these claims though. The words "don't".
You can't prove, or support, that pixies DO NOT have a role.
You can't prove, or support, that pixies DO NOT exist.
You can only prove / support that they DO exist or that they DO play a role.
And that's the time to include them in the explanatory model: when they are shown to actually play a role in whatever process you are modeling.
So... your god designer finds himself in the situation of these pixies.
If you wish to include that god in the biological sciences, you are going to have to scientifically demonstrate that
1. this god exists
and
2. that this god plays a detectable, quantifiable role in the processes in question.
(Good luck with that, btw)
If you fail in this exercise, then it will only show that science is rationally justified in NOT including this god as a factor in anything.
TagliatelliMonster
Veteran Member
Even if we bend over backwards and pretend as if evolution is completely false and disproven, that wouldn't advance your "designer" claim by even only an inch.
There still would be no evidence for it.
When the credibility of your idea is completely dependend on showing another idea wrong, then your idea is pretty void of meaning and reality.
It also ultimatly amounts to an argument from ignorance.
TagliatelliMonster
Veteran Member
And it doesn't even matter.
Even if evolution is rejected by consensus, with no alternative explanation whatsoever, it simply wouldn't be relevant to the credibility / probability of the designer claims.
Claims fall and stand on their own merrit... not on the fall or merrit of other claims.
Today, there is no evidence for any designing in life.
If tomorrow all we know about biology is rejected, there still would be no evidence for any designing in life.
TagliatelliMonster
Veteran Member
If nobody knows how it happened, then you can't make any real determiniations about how "extraordinary" a leap it would be. Also, more then likely, what seems like a "complex big leap", might in reality very well be the result of a series of simple small leaps... Lots of small steps make up for a big jump, after all.
Let's also not forget that about 70-80% of life's history, only single celled organisms existed.
That makes up for more then 3 billion years of evolution of single-celled organisms. 3 billion years worth of ever more specialisation in staying alive and reproducing and that with relatively short generation times as well. Cells don't take 20 years to reproduce, after all. So it's the accumulation of micro-changes introduced through many, many, many, MANY,... subsequent generations.
The cells like we know them today, had a really LOOOOOOOONG time to develop into the marvelous machines that they are.
Indeed!
In fact, chances are rather high that there are multiple chemical paths from "non-living" organic molecules to "living" compounds of such molecules. So when abiogenesis research comes up with "a way" by which this process can demonstrably unfold.... it's going to be quite hard to show that THAT is the way by which it happened on this planet.
Unless perhaps we also discover something like a "chemical signature"... like some configuration or some marker in life on earth, which we can only reproduce through a single specific method of abiogenesis or something. But that seems unlikely (and would be quite hard to demonstrate also that that process would then be the ONLY way by which such configurations / markers arise).
But barring that or something similar... Indeed, it would be close to impossible to "prove" which method actually took place in life's history. At best, we could brand some methods "more probable" then others, based on for example environmental factors: processes happening in environments that are a closer match to early earth would be more probable candidates then processes from environments that aren't close matches.