|
Real_Solitude -> RE: IC does not support ID (5/2/2008 4:23:08 AM)
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Jhud
I didn’t say anything about points.
No, but you did say "Well I am glad you have come around to my understanding here."
The 'point' in question being convincing me of something that I did not believe, and you did.
quote:
However, the main reason I find this piece compelling is because I've seen the claims (at least the montmorillonite thing) substantiated elsewhere. If I saw all of the components coming together to create life, we wouldn't be having this discussion. Rather, I think that it is a possible mechanism by which life may have arisen. I believe it to be worth investigation.
It’s never been substantiated anywhere, at least not by any ordinary understanding of the word. And these various scenarios are fairly boilerplate for abiogenesis research; if they show the slightest bit of promise they would have no shortage of money or interested researchers.
"3. to affirm as having substance; give body to; strengthen."
It doesn't meant that there has been enough evidence to move it into the realm of scientific theory, but simply that I've read things that strengthen the case for the montmorillonite RNA thing. Basically, "Montmorillonite is also known to cause micelles (lipid spheres) to assemble together into Vesicles. These are structures that resemble cell membranes on many cells. It can also help nucleotides to assemble into RNA which will end up inside the vesicles and, under the right conditions, will replicate themselves."
That being, that if there were nucleotides available, montmorillonite would be a proper vessel to help them become RNA and secrete a lipid coating for protection.
Also, arguing that "if they show the slightest bit of promise they would have no shortage of money," isn't a good argument from your side, considering that IDer's claim that ID shows promise, yet has a great shortage of money. (Perhaps not you specifically, but some IDers.) ... Unless you're saying that if something naturalistic shows promise, money will be thrown at it. In which case this portion of the comment is void.
quote:
Again, you are talking circles again; if the ‘necessary steps’ are unknown, then we can’t say that one proposed scenario is correct while the other is not.
By 'necessary steps' I mean 'processes which would make the naturalistic formation of life more likely.
No matter which side of the debate you're on, "life 'naturally' pops magically into existence is surely to be assigned a lower probability than, "Nucleotides form in montmorillonite clay. Nucleotides join together to make polynuleotides. Polynucleotides become RNA. RNA evolves to become DNA. DNA accrets a protective lipid membrane."
While we don't know how life formed (or, I'll grant, if.), if we're going to hypothesize about it, instantanous complexity is surely less likely than simple-to-complex chemical reactions.
quote:
But, as I have only a brief formal foray into chemistry, I am required to deffer to those who do have extensive knowledge of chemistry for my answers to chemical problems. They might not be right, but without the wherewithal to nay say them, I must defer to consensus. Otherwise I'm relying on my 'gut instinct' which, for thousands of years, told mankind that everything rotates around the Earth.
Actually, the consensus also said everything revolved around the earth. Best to think for oneself.
And that consensus was largely based off of that 'gut feeling'. It took evidence to make the completely counter-intuitive "Earth not the center of things." idea stick.
quote:
Well ok, then; I accept as a defense that you hate history and lack of knowledge on the subject. Perhaps you should differ to those of us who love history and have spent sometime studying it. [;)]
In my defense, the 'rags to rats' form of SG was (from what I can find) the prevalent form of the theory for the greater majority of the theories existence. It is also the most widely known version of the theory.
Am I correct in assuming that even the latest versions of SG basically said non-complex things jumped straight into a form that fits the basic definitions of life?
|
|
|
|