Evidence for God from Science

Here is a news article talking about the Origins of Life.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/space/20060610/ ... leapproach

bizzt wrote:Here is a news article talking about the Origins of Life.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/space/20060610/ ... leapproach

First paragraph

Somewhere on Earth, close to 4 billion years ago, a set of molecular reactions flipped a switch and became life. Scientists try to imagine this animating event by simplifying the processes that characterize living things

Wow! ... And Christians are criticized for basing their faith in an event that hasn't been scientifically substantiated ......

If they find that "switch" and the molecules that were smart enough to flip it, they may be onto something

Canuckster1127 wrote:

bizzt wrote:Here is a news article talking about the Origins of Life.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/space/20060610/ ... leapproach

First paragraph

Somewhere on Earth, close to 4 billion years ago, a set of molecular reactions flipped a switch and became life. Scientists try to imagine this animating event by simplifying the processes that characterize living things

Wow! ... And Christians are criticized for basing their faith in an event that hasn't been scientifically substantiated ......

To be fair the scientists are using the most tentative language possible. These are only suggestions and rough hypothesis. Note the exhaustive us of "could, possible and might"

BGoodForGoodSake wrote:

Canuckster1127 wrote:

bizzt wrote:Here is a news article talking about the Origins of Life.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/space/20060610/ ... leapproach

First paragraph

Somewhere on Earth, close to 4 billion years ago, a set of molecular reactions flipped a switch and became life. Scientists try to imagine this animating event by simplifying the processes that characterize living things

Wow! ... And Christians are criticized for basing their faith in an event that hasn't been scientifically substantiated ......

To be fair the scientists are using the most tentative language possible. These are only suggestions and rough hypothesis. Note the exhaustive us of "could, possible and might"

I don't see any "coulds, possibles or mights" in the opening sentence.

This looks like a statement of fact to me and then the contingencies are all subject to that thesis.

Somewhere on Earth, close to 4 billion years ago, a set of molecular reactions flipped a switch and became life.

Show me where I'm wrong in asserting that?

Everything after that is surmissing contingent understandings under that umbrella of "fact."

Canuckster1127 wrote: I don't see any "coulds, possibles or mights" in the opening sentence.

It's a scenario, I don't see how they are stating it as fact.

Canuckster1127 wrote:This looks like a statement of fact to me and then the contingencies are all subject to that thesis.

The very next paragraph suggests that the scenario is incomplete.

New research suggests the simplification needs to go further.

Canuckster1127 wrote:

Somewhere on Earth, close to 4 billion years ago, a set of molecular reactions flipped a switch and became life.

Show me where I'm wrong in asserting that?

Everything after that is surmissing contingent understandings under that umbrella of "fact."

I don't get the same thing reading it. This is just someone's ideas on what they beleive must have happened, not a fact.

"Life could have started up from the small molecules that nature provided," says Robert Shapiro,a chemist from New York University .

Although debated, these colonial structures appear to have been formed by photosynthesizing cyanobacteria (blue-green algae). Simpler organisms likely came earlier.

Many researchers, therefore, think that RNA—a cousin of DNA—may have been the first complex molecule on which life was based

These are educated guesses, hunches. Not stated as facts.

The main competing theories are hot start vs. cold start.

How can we have such vastly different competing theories, unless we lack any evidence to rule on of them out?

Biologists have devised various scenarios in which this assemblage takes place in tidal pools, near underwater volcanic vents, on the surface of clay sediments, or even in outer space.

Again various hypothesis regarding the origin of life. They don't even know where to concentrate the research efforts.

My goal is not to defend the author of this article. I can see how one might see the first sentence as presenting a fact of science, however knowledge of the scientific method and a cursory backgroud in science in general should be enough to allow one to determine that this is just stating a proposed scenario. Am I off base here?

Somewhere on Earth, close to 4 billion years ago, a set of molecular reactions flipped a switch and became life. Scientists try to imagine this animating event by simplifying the processes that characterize living things.

BGoodForGoodSake wrote:

Canuckster1127 wrote: I don't see any "coulds, possibles or mights" in the opening sentence.

It's a scenario, I don't see how they are stating it as fact.

Canuckster1127 wrote:This looks like a statement of fact to me and then the contingencies are all subject to that thesis.

The very next paragraph suggests that the scenario is incomplete.

New research suggests the simplification needs to go further.

Canuckster1127 wrote:

Somewhere on Earth, close to 4 billion years ago, a set of molecular reactions flipped a switch and became life.

Show me where I'm wrong in asserting that?

Everything after that is surmissing contingent understandings under that umbrella of "fact."

I don't get the same thing reading it. This is just someone's ideas on what they beleive must have happened, not a fact.

"Life could have started up from the small molecules that nature provided," says Robert Shapiro,a chemist from New York University .

Although debated, these colonial structures appear to have been formed by photosynthesizing cyanobacteria (blue-green algae). Simpler organisms likely came earlier.

Many researchers, therefore, think that RNA—a cousin of DNA—may have been the first complex molecule on which life was based

These are educated guesses, hunches. Not stated as facts.

The main competing theories are hot start vs. cold start.

How can we have such vastly different competing theories, unless we lack any evidence to rule on of them out?

Biologists have devised various scenarios in which this assemblage takes place in tidal pools, near underwater volcanic vents, on the surface of clay sediments, or even in outer space.

Again various hypothesis regarding the origin of life. They don't even know where to concentrate the research efforts.

My goal is not to defend the author of this article. I can see how one might see the first sentence as presenting a fact of science, however knowledge of the scientific method and a cursory backgroud in science in general should be enough to allow one to determine that this is just stating a proposed scenario. Am I off base here?

Somewhere on Earth, close to 4 billion years ago, a set of molecular reactions flipped a switch and became life. Scientists try to imagine this animating event by simplifying the processes that characterize living things.

I accept someone else could read this and qualify it based on the material following.

It plays to my bias, but I think it does display where a considerable amount of my concern with methodological naturalism comes into play.

Evolution as a theory technically only concerns the changes that life undergoes. The origin of that life is another matter entirely.

Extending from evolutionary theory and then beyond to the beginnings of life and extrapolating from the scientific method a scenario based upon conjecture, is not science even though it may be dressed up to appear scientific.

The statement of fact at the forefront regardless of any subsequent qualification certainly smacks of a statement of faith in my estimation.

Nothing wrong with such a statement. Just don't dress it up and attempt to present it as in any way qualitiatively different than a creationist's statement of faith unless you have some hard evidence to back it up.

That's my point.

Canuckster1127 wrote: I accept someone else could read this and qualify it based on the material following.

It plays to my bias, but I think it does display where a considerable amount of my concern with methodological naturalism comes into play.

Evolution as a theory technically only concerns the changes that life undergoes. The origin of that life is another matter entirely.

Extending from evolutionary theory and then beyond to the beginnings of life and extrapolating from the scientific method a scenario based upon conjecture, is not science even though it may be dressed up to appear scientific.

Not quite, any ideas developed could then be tested for feasibility. Knowledge of how life operates and conditions under which life may have originated sets up not only a theoretical scenario but a labratory scenario. By studying existing biochemical pathways and by theorizing on posible precursors, it sets the stage for actual testing.

Canuckster1127 wrote:The statement of fact at the forefront regardless of any subsequent qualification certainly smacks of a statement of faith in my estimation.

Nothing wrong with such a statement. Just don't dress it up and attempt to present it as in any way qualitiatively different than a creationist's statement of faith unless you have some hard evidence to back it up.

That's my point.

Creating testable hypothesis is science. By proposing posible mechanisms for early life one is able to study if such biochemistry is feasible.

BGoodForGoodSake wrote:

Canuckster1127 wrote: I accept someone else could read this and qualify it based on the material following.

It plays to my bias, but I think it does display where a considerable amount of my concern with methodological naturalism comes into play.

Evolution as a theory technically only concerns the changes that life undergoes. The origin of that life is another matter entirely.

Extending from evolutionary theory and then beyond to the beginnings of life and extrapolating from the scientific method a scenario based upon conjecture, is not science even though it may be dressed up to appear scientific.

Not quite, any ideas developed could then be tested for feasibility. Knowledge of how life operates and conditions under which life may have originated sets up not only a theoretical scenario but a labratory scenario. By studying existing biochemical pathways and by theorizing on posible precursors, it sets the stage for actual testing.

Canuckster1127 wrote:The statement of fact at the forefront regardless of any subsequent qualification certainly smacks of a statement of faith in my estimation.

Nothing wrong with such a statement. Just don't dress it up and attempt to present it as in any way qualitiatively different than a creationist's statement of faith unless you have some hard evidence to back it up.

That's my point.

Creating testable hypothesis is science. By proposing posible mechanisms for early life one is able to study if such biochemistry is feasible.

Is it customary to present testable hypothesis in a news release? You don't think you might be stretching things, just a teensy, weensy bit?

ps. I never knew teensy, weensy could be a good scientific term, but apparantly, it can be! Who knew?!?!

Canuckster1127 wrote: Is it customary to present testable hypothesis in a news release? You don't think you might be stretching things, just a teensy, weensy bit?

ps. I never knew teensy, weensy could be a good scientific term, but apparantly, it can be! Who knew?!?!

The news release was due to the discovery of a very simple biochemical pathway discovered in a microorganism.

A possible candidate for Shapiro's driver reaction might have been recently discovered in an undersea microbe, Methanosarcina acetivorans, which eats carbon monoxide and expels methane and acetate (related to vinegar).

Biologist James Ferry and geochemist Christopher House from Penn State University found that this primitive organism can get energy from a reaction between acetate and the mineral iron sulfide. Compared to other energy-harnessing processes that require dozens of proteins, this acetate-based reaction runs with the help of just two very simple proteins.

The researchers propose in this month's issue of Molecular Biology and Evolution that this stripped-down geochemical cycle was what the first organisms used to power their growth. "This cycle is where all evolution emanated from," Ferry says. "It is the father of all life."

J. Greg Ferry discovered this organism 20 years ago, and is very high on possible implications from it's study.
See here

BGoodForGoodSake wrote:

Canuckster1127 wrote: Is it customary to present testable hypothesis in a news release? You don't think you might be stretching things, just a teensy, weensy bit?

ps. I never knew teensy, weensy could be a good scientific term, but apparantly, it can be! Who knew?!?!

The news release was due to the discovery of a very simple biochemical pathway discovered in a microorganism.

A possible candidate for Shapiro's driver reaction might have been recently discovered in an undersea microbe, Methanosarcina acetivorans, which eats carbon monoxide and expels methane and acetate (related to vinegar).

Biologist James Ferry and geochemist Christopher House from Penn State University found that this primitive organism can get energy from a reaction between acetate and the mineral iron sulfide. Compared to other energy-harnessing processes that require dozens of proteins, this acetate-based reaction runs with the help of just two very simple proteins.

The researchers propose in this month's issue of Molecular Biology and Evolution that this stripped-down geochemical cycle was what the first organisms used to power their growth. "This cycle is where all evolution emanated from," Ferry says. "It is the father of all life."

J. Greg Ferry discovered this organism 20 years ago, and is very high on possible implications from it's study.
See here

Your points are duly noted. I still think there's a level of presumption there that parallels what creationists are criticized for from the same quarter and that it is worth pointing out.

Canuckster1127 wrote:
Your points are duly noted. I still think there's a level of presumption there that parallels what creationists are criticized for from the same quarter and that it is worth pointing out.

Trust me, if a scientist claimed that life began spontaneously on Earth they would be criticised as well.

However, there is nothing wrong with presuming that, if life did indeed have its start on a primordial Earth that it must meet certain conditions, and might have certain characteristics. This gives one an area to research.

Going even further there is nothing wrong with the researcher even believing that a certain outcome is certain, as long as they are willing to let the results of the experiment be the final judge, and submit the findings to those who may not share in such beleifs, to criticize and scrutinize the research.

The evidence is convincing that there was a universal common ancestor to all life on earth, however it is not definitive. We can operate on those presumptions as long as the theory stands, but only to make hypothesis, not to formulate conclusions.