Re: Origins and Mental Activity
- From: Zoe <muze10@xxxxxxx>
- Date: Sun, 04 Nov 2007 17:55:08 -0500
On 4 Nov 2007 10:39:47 -0800, Inez <savagemouse123@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
but doesn't this indicate a rather imposing
bias? Why are you skeptical of this chemical procedure but not any of
the one's not associated with life? Skepticism is only an admirable
trait if you apply it with an even hand.
I'm not sure I follow you on that. Are you saying I should be equally
skeptical of every idea out there? Some ideas have more evidence to
back them up than others. Should I be even handedly skeptical of all
ideas regardless of the evidence behind them? Why?
That is a really odd thing for you to say. You make a wild claim
based on the concept that if you haven't been innundated with evidence
for a technical chemical procedure happening in pre-biotic earth, it
must not be possible.
I've made no such pronouncements about such a thing not being
possible. That must be a conclusion you have drawn yourself due to
the lack of evidence. All I've done so far is ask for evidence that
chemical elements can self-organize into DNA outside of a genetic
system. The answer is up to you.
I (and a number of other people) provide
evidence that that claim is wrong.
no such evidence has been provided, Inez. If so, point it out. And
not just by glancing at a link and saying "well, I'll be, there's the
information that zoe needs." :-p
You become skeptical of this
my skepticism remains because no evidence has been presented.
This is exactly the reverse of what you state above. You
are skeptical of evidence and not of you own personal conjecture.
there is no personal conjecture on my part as to the ability of mental
activity to create systems.
This is the sort of irritating response that one really gets tired
Such knowledge would be as common as
knowledge about gravity. It would not be hiding in some corner where
I'd have to go and sift through tons of stuff to find it.
I don't see why you think this. Gravity is a force that affects all
of us, the fact that DNA can form outside biological systems is not
relevant to very many people at all.
it is highly relevant to the world of science. DNA formation outside
of a genetic system would be the holy grail of abiogenesis, and
knowledge of its formation would be as common as is knowledge of
What percentage of scientists do you believe are interested in
abiogenesis? Certainly not any outside biology, and only a small
subgroup of the ones inside of biology. And the claim that it would
be the holy grail of abiogenesis does not seem especially robust to
me- as nearly as I can tell few abiogenesisologists (if I may be
allowed to create a word) believe life started with DNA.
and many do not believe RNA is the answer. In other words, the idea
that origins are of a self-starting nature is not yet supported. Yet
this is the foundation of evolutionary theory.
of. As has been written on this board sixty jillion times, evolution
does not rest on abiogenesis. God could have created the first life
form and it could have evolved from there, for instance. Evolution is
about life changing over time; how it got there in the first place
really doesn't affect the theory of evolution. I know you
creationists want evolution to the the centerpiece of atheism, but it
really isn't. Find another boogieman.
Secondly, the issue here is not whether we know if RNA spontaneously
formed the first life form- we don't. The issue, which YOU brought
up, is whether we know if it definitely didn't. You're trying to show
that life couldn't have arisen spontaneously. You have failed to do
that. Scientists have not succeeded in showing how abiogenesis
happened yet either. Are we up to date now?
the last thing I want is for you to become irritated or tired, Inez.
Tell you what, let's call it quits for now on this subject. There are
other interesting areas that can be discussed.