On the Origins and Development of Life

[Moonbeam]

CW: Because Occam's Razor doesn't really tell us whether something is actually philosophically correct. IIRC, you're an engineer, so maybe this example will suit you. Consider a solid mechanics problem in which you're attempting to compute the maximum stress in a strangely shaped object. You want to solve the problem using finite element analysis (FEA), which increases the number of degrees of freedom to approximate the exact solution. If you have made incorrect modeling assumptions, the FEA solution will NEVER approach the true solution, even if you increase the dimension of the finite element space to encompass the entire energy space. Thus, while Occam's Razor tells you that you should try to use as few variables as possible, you still must appropriately model your system such that the true solution may be achieved or your results are meaningless. Thus, if you assume that there is no such thing as 'god' but there really is a god, then your model is totally wrong and any results you garner from said model are simply wrong.

M: This makes no sense to me. If there really is a God or not is not something you can know in the way this debate is framed. Therefore you cannot know if your model is right or wrong or find a true solution. And that is why you go with Occam's razor. In our ignorance we choose simplicity over complexity period. We are not modeling; we are stating our lack of knowledge as simply as we can.

 

[Gigantopithecus]

Originally posted by: CycloWizard
Hopefully this will clarify why these debates are truly philosophical or theological debates, NOT scientific debates.

Then stop trying to inject faith-based arguments into scientific threads, and stop letting your religious beliefs color your scientific judgement.

BTW, mutations aren't random. The rates at which they happen are under selection, too.

 

[CycloWizard]

Originally posted by: homercles337
Please just stop.

This image was made for a different ATP&N troll, but it suits your post.

For the troll...

Great. So you have posted how many times in this thread without addressing any points that I made in the OP? Yet I'm the troll? Piss off. Better yet, go get some more diplomas to scan - maybe you'll impress someone eventually.

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
M: This makes no sense to me. If there really is a God or not is not something you can know in the way this debate is framed. Therefore you cannot know if your model is right or wrong or find a true solution. And that is why you go with Occam's razor. In our ignorance we choose simplicity over complexity period. We are not modeling; we are stating our lack of knowledge as simply as we can.

You couldn't be any more right - we cannot know whether there is a God from this debate, nor can we know that there is not a God. This is why Occam's Razor may or may not be used. Simply applying it does not mean you have arrived at the correct solution - only a solution.

Originally posted by: Gigantopithecus
Then stop trying to inject faith-based arguments into scientific threads, and stop letting your religious beliefs color your scientific judgement.

BTW, mutations aren't random. The rates at which they happen are under selection, too.

Please show me one place in this entire forum where I have made a faith-based argument or made any indication that my faith interferes with my science.

 

[Gigantopithecus]

Originally posted by: CycloWizard
Please show me one place in this entire forum where I have made a faith-based argument or made any indication that my faith interferes with my science.

You've claimed multiple times that scientific theories of abiogenesis have no empirical support, which is a position made tenable only by ignorance of omission or ignorance of commission.

I already took you to task on the second line of your sig - you seem to think our understanding of the evolution of complex structures hasn't made any progress since Darwin. (And spare me your e-penis slavering that you're getting degrees in ophthalmological engineering. If I need to know something about contact lenses I'll let you know.)

 

[CycloWizard]

Originally posted by: Gigantopithecus
You've claimed multiple times that scientific theories of abiogenesis have no empirical support, which is a position made tenable only by ignorance of omission or ignorance of commission.

Nice strawman. Maybe if you read up higher in this thread, you'll see where I stated pretty clearly that I think it's laughable when people dismiss the theory of abiogenesis. I also have only stated that it has never been directly observed. Thus, the only ignorance here is yours exerted to make me look foolish when I have presented evidence to the contrary in no unclear terms and in this very thread.

I already took you to task on the second line of your sig - you seem to think our understanding of the evolution of complex structures hasn't made any progress since Darwin. (And spare me your e-penis slavering that you're getting degrees in ophthalmological engineering. If I need to know something about contact lenses I'll let you know.)

You don't know why I put that quote in my sig, though I also clearly stated that in a previous thread. I lifted it from a dissertation I read on ocular accommodation because I think it very succinctly states how complex the eye is, nothing more. I very firmly believe in evolution, as I also clearly stated in this thread. Nice try on the second strawman in one post.

 

[shira]

Originally posted by: CycloWizard

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
M: This makes no sense to me. If there really is a God or not is not something you can know in the way this debate is framed. Therefore you cannot know if your model is right or wrong or find a true solution. And that is why you go with Occam's razor. In our ignorance we choose simplicity over complexity period. We are not modeling; we are stating our lack of knowledge as simply as we can.

You couldn't be any more right - we cannot know whether there is a God from this debate, nor can we know that there is not a God. This is why Occam's Razor may or may not be used. Simply applying it does not mean you have arrived at the correct solution - only a solution.

Okay. Let me propose a different "solution":

I think that at any point in time in the universe, there exists a superbeing who has a "life span" of precisely 10 seconds. At the end of ten seconds, the superbeing creates a new superbeing (who will reign supreme for the next 10 seconds), and then destroys both him/herself and the existing universe. The new superbeing creates a new universe the moment he/she comes into existence. Everything in the new universe is given an "initial condition" that makes it appear that the universe is 14 billion years old. The superbeing also creates within the minds of sentient beings (such as humans) the apparancy of memory; thus we humans believe we have each lived for many years, when in fact we exist for 10 seconds. And because the superbeing creates fossils, mutations, sedimentary layers, and radioactive decay products, we humans see abundant evidence that there are natural processes at work that caused life to begin and to evolve. But it's really all a sham, created by the then-current superbeing.

Now, the above "theory" is quite complex. We have no way of proving or disproving it. Yet except for this specific post, I have NEVER seen it included in a philosphical argument on ultimate cause and the diversity of life. I doubt very much that you will be including it in your next exegesis. Why? Why do you choose to include the "simpler" explanation that involves a single superbeing, but ignore all of the more complex supernatural explanations?

The answer is you're applying Occam's razor. You are ruling out an infinity of supernatural explanations and choosing the simplest supernatural explanation. Why? Couldn't a more complex explanation be the right one? Why are you not troubled by simply ignoring all of the other supernatural explanations, one of which might be correct? And if you CAN simply ignore these other explanations without being troubled, why do you have such a difficult time also ignoring the God-as-cause exlanation, which is far more complex than naturalistic explanations?

I claim you are introducing bias into the discussion, for no reason other than that you have a preference for the supernatural.

 

[Gigantopithecus]

Originally posted by: CycloWizard

Originally posted by: DVK916
I don't hate Christians, but I don't understand how they can accept something like a creator god with no evidence.

You have no evidence that abiogenesis fulfills this role, yet you are calling on the pope to endorse this theory. Hypocrite.

This isn't dismissive of abiogenesis theories?

Originally posted by: CycloWizard

1953 Miller-Urey Experiment
...experiment established that the hypothetical processes could produce some building blocks of life without requiring life to synthesize them first...

I took organic chemistry a while back and remember well the discussion of the synthesis of urea. So what? How does this imply abiogenesis?

Now this one is just plain funny, in itself, but then you followed it up with more e-penis waving ("Go get some degrees and lab experience!"). I can't believe someone getting an MD PhD in anything related to biology would confuse the Urey-Miller experiments with urea synthesis...

As to your quote about the eye, you've certainly found an antiquated quote to express your belief that the eye is complex (which in the light of evolution, really isn't that complex, and in the case of vertebrates, has some serious 'design' flaws).

Finally, it speaks volumes that as a self-labeled scientist, you say you 'believe' in evolution.

 

[Meuge]

Originally posted by: Gigantopithecus
I can't believe someone getting an MD PhD in anything related to biology would confuse the Urey-Miller experiments with urea synthesis...

That's cause he's not.

 

[Gigantopithecus]

Originally posted by: Meuge

Originally posted by: Gigantopithecus
I can't believe someone getting an MD PhD in anything related to biology would confuse the Urey-Miller experiments with urea synthesis...

That's cause he's not.

I'd rather believe someone to be just plain stupid than an outright liar, though his disingenuous argument style and constant attacks on 'elitists' (coming from an 'elite') seem to indicate otherwise.

 

[CycloWizard]

Originally posted by: shira
Okay. Let me propose a different "solution":

I think that at any point in time in the universe, there exists a superbeing who has a "life span" of precisely 10 seconds. At the end of ten seconds, the superbeing creates a new superbeing (who will reign supreme for the next 10 seconds), and then destroys both him/herself and the existing universe. The new superbeing creates a new universe the moment he/she comes into existence. Everything in the new universe is given an "initial condition" that makes it appear that the universe is 14 billion years old. The superbeing also creates within the minds of sentient beings (such as humans) the apparancy of memory; thus we humans believe we have each lived for many years, when in fact we exist for 10 seconds. And because the superbeing creates fossils, mutations, sedimentary layers, and radioactive decay products, we humans see abundant evidence that there are natural processes at work that caused life to begin and to evolve. But it's really all a sham, created by the then-current superbeing.

Now, the above "theory" is quite complex. We have no way of proving or disproving it. Yet except for this specific post, I have NEVER seen it included in a philosphical argument on ultimate cause and the diversity of life. I doubt very much that you will be including it in your next exegesis. Why? Why do you choose to include the "simpler" explanation that involves a single superbeing, but ignore all of the more complex supernatural explanations?

The answer is you're applying Occam's razor. You are ruling out an infinity of supernatural explanations and choosing the simplest supernatural explanation. Why? Couldn't a more complex explanation be the right one? Why are you not troubled by simply ignoring all of the other supernatural explanations, one of which might be correct? And if you CAN simply ignore these other explanations without being troubled, why do you have such a difficult time also ignoring the God-as-cause exlanation, which is far more complex than naturalistic explanations?

I claim you are introducing bias into the discussion, for no reason other than that you have a preference for the supernatural.

You're right - I do apply Occam's Razor. However, I also recognize that there are two possible governing assumptions. I simply choose the one that makes the most sense to me, since I've learned since day one that it's pretty tricky to have a net creation of mass AND energy. So, unless you can put forth some alternative hypothesis explaining how an instantaneous influx of near-infinite mass and energy created the universe, I think I'll stick with what I've got, as reducing the variable (the superior being) out of the equation leaves me with a model that can't explain the data I have.

 

[CycloWizard]

Originally posted by: Gigantopithecus
Now this one is just plain funny, in itself, but then you followed it up with more e-penis waving ("Go get some degrees and lab experience!"). I can't believe someone getting an MD PhD in anything related to biology would confuse the Urey-Miller experiments with urea synthesis...

As to your quote about the eye, you've certainly found an antiquated quote to express your belief that the eye is complex (which in the light of evolution, really isn't that complex, and in the case of vertebrates, has some serious 'design' flaws).

Finally, it speaks volumes that as a self-labeled scientist, you say you 'believe' in evolution.

The synthesis of urea preceded the Miller-Urey experiment, and it was groundbreaking because it was the first synthesis of an organic compound from inorganic reagents. The Miller-Urey experiment simply took this several steps further and showed how it could happen.

And no, I'm not doing anything related to biology. In fact, I'll be the first to admit I don't know much biology, since I haven't taken any biology classes since my freshman year of high school. Thankfully, it's an easy enough subject (after six years of engineering) that reading a single book was enough to get me through. So, if you're done with your personal attacks, maybe we could get back to the actual subject of this thread?

 

[Gigantopithecus]

Originally posted by: CycloWizard
...maybe we could get back to the actual subject of this thread?

Why? You just said it:

Originally posted by: CycloWizard
I don't know much biology.

Thanks for the laughs, as always.

Originally posted by: CycloWizard
...reading a single book was enough to get me through.

Remember what I said about injecting your faith into your science? Reading a single book cuts it for the former, not the latter. Hahahaha...

Wait, maybe instead of laughing, I should be asking which single book it was that simultaneously made biology 'easy compared to engineering' and was so comprehensive it taught you everything you need to know to get into an MD PhD program.

Nah, I'll keep laughing...

 

[Meuge]

Originally posted by: CycloWizard
And no, I'm not doing anything related to biology. In fact, I'll be the first to admit I don't know much biology, since I haven't taken any biology classes since my freshman year of high school. Thankfully, it's an easy enough subject (after six years of engineering) that reading a single book was enough to get me through. So, if you're done with your personal attacks, maybe we could get back to the actual subject of this thread?

OK, now I have to speak up, because this is simply outrageous. I believe that you haven't taken biology since your first year in high school. That does, however, put a firm cork in your claim to be in the MD-PhD program. So kindly do us all a favor and admit you've lied.

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: CycloWizard

Originally posted by: shira
Okay. Let me propose a different "solution":

I think that at any point in time in the universe, there exists a superbeing who has a "life span" of precisely 10 seconds. At the end of ten seconds, the superbeing creates a new superbeing (who will reign supreme for the next 10 seconds), and then destroys both him/herself and the existing universe. The new superbeing creates a new universe the moment he/she comes into existence. Everything in the new universe is given an "initial condition" that makes it appear that the universe is 14 billion years old. The superbeing also creates within the minds of sentient beings (such as humans) the apparancy of memory; thus we humans believe we have each lived for many years, when in fact we exist for 10 seconds. And because the superbeing creates fossils, mutations, sedimentary layers, and radioactive decay products, we humans see abundant evidence that there are natural processes at work that caused life to begin and to evolve. But it's really all a sham, created by the then-current superbeing.

Now, the above "theory" is quite complex. We have no way of proving or disproving it. Yet except for this specific post, I have NEVER seen it included in a philosphical argument on ultimate cause and the diversity of life. I doubt very much that you will be including it in your next exegesis. Why? Why do you choose to include the "simpler" explanation that involves a single superbeing, but ignore all of the more complex supernatural explanations?

The answer is you're applying Occam's razor. You are ruling out an infinity of supernatural explanations and choosing the simplest supernatural explanation. Why? Couldn't a more complex explanation be the right one? Why are you not troubled by simply ignoring all of the other supernatural explanations, one of which might be correct? And if you CAN simply ignore these other explanations without being troubled, why do you have such a difficult time also ignoring the God-as-cause exlanation, which is far more complex than naturalistic explanations?

I claim you are introducing bias into the discussion, for no reason other than that you have a preference for the supernatural.

You're right - I do apply Occam's Razor. However, I also recognize that there are two possible governing assumptions. I simply choose the one that makes the most sense to me, since I've learned since day one that it's pretty tricky to have a net creation of mass AND energy. So, unless you can put forth some alternative hypothesis explaining how an instantaneous influx of near-infinite mass and energy created the universe, I think I'll stick with what I've got, as reducing the variable (the superior being) out of the equation leaves me with a model that can't explain the data I have.

Personally I do not believe this. It strikes me that people who believe in God do so because they have discovered something within themselves that reveals Him, so to speak. In the case of Christ the revelation was total. It is the knowledge of the inner truth that determines the vision and weighing of evidence.

Religion, real religion, is the science of ego death that allows God to step through. But this knowledge is only open to and verifiable by the scientist who does the experiment. God appears to those who are stripped of all that can be taken away. This knowledge is concealed to those who need to believe they know what is in fact information and not real knowledge.

Some notion of God always appears to men in every time and every place because because God's Oneness is the gift that appears when the I disappears. God is that for which we long. Without God we are just machines that hunger and lust and kill and suck the world dry to fill our infinite emptiness. Without God we are the cornucopia turned wrong way round.

 

[Moonbeam]

Nah, I'll keep laughing...

OK, now I have to speak up, because this is simply outrageous. I believe that you haven't taken biology since your first year in high school. That does, however, put a firm cork in your claim to be in the MD-PhD program. So kindly do us all a favor and admit you've lied.


Oh man if I can laugh or demonstrate that somebody is a liar I'm going to win a really big ego prize that I can hang on my mantle like a dead deer. WEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE everybody, look at MMMMMMMMMMMEEEEEEEEEEEEEE!

But all I see is a lack of emotional development, sorry!

 

[Meuge]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Oh man if I can laugh or demonstrate that somebody is a liar I'm going to win a really big ego prize that I can hang on my mantle like a dead deer.

But all I see is a lack of emotional development, sorry!

He's the one who used his supposed status in an argument - I wasn't the one who brought it up. Sorry if that bursts your bubble, but such a gross lie does go towards destroying one's credibility, no?

 

[Gigantopithecus]

How someone would not laugh at the patent absurdity of the statement 'I learned everything I need to know about biology from a single book because it is easy' is beyond me.

But I guess it requires the emotional development of someone who thinks calling a spade a spade is a sign of being emotionally undeveloped.

More laughs!

 

[CycloWizard]

Originally posted by: Gigantopithecus
Remember what I said about injecting your faith into your science? Reading a single book cuts it for the former, not the latter. Hahahaha...

Wait, maybe instead of laughing, I should be asking which single book it was that simultaneously made biology 'easy compared to engineering' and was so comprehensive it taught you everything you need to know to get into an MD PhD program.

Nah, I'll keep laughing...

It was more than enough, since the only thing I needed it for was the MCAT. How much biology do I need to build instruments, develop experimental surgeries, or perform solid mechanics modeling? This is what I'm doing. Oh well, keep laughing it up. No skin off my back, though I would appreciate the occassional reference to the topic at hand. I'll be more than happy to prove where I'm at when I deem you've laughed sufficiently at my expense. Same for Meuge.

Originally posted by: Meuge
He's the one who used his supposed status in an argument - I wasn't the one who brought it up. Sorry if that bursts your bubble, but such a gross lie does go towards destroying one's credibility, no?

I believe you're the one who told me to 'get some degrees and some laboratory experience' and I told you that you didn't want to walk down that path. Keep laughing.

 

[CycloWizard]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Personally I do not believe this. It strikes me that people who believe in God do so because they have discovered something within themselves that reveals Him, so to speak. In the case of Christ the revelation was total. It is the knowledge of the inner truth that determines the vision and weighing of evidence.

Religion, real religion, is the science of ego death that allows God to step through. But this knowledge is only open to and verifiable by the scientist who does the experiment. God appears to those who are stripped of all that can be taken away. This knowledge is concealed to those who need to believe they know what is in fact information and not real knowledge.

Some notion of God always appears to men in every time and every place because because God's Oneness is the gift that appears when the I disappears. God is that for which we long. Without God we are just machines that hunger and lust and kill and suck the world dry to fill our infinite emptiness. Without God we are the cornucopia turned wrong way round.

This is exactly why I said I am putting off the question of why - because it's something I think people need to figure out on their own. The journey is at least as important as arriving at the destination in this case.

 

[Meuge]

Originally posted by: CycloWizard
It was more than enough, since the only thing I needed it for was the MCAT. How much biology do I need to :
- build instruments, SURE
- perform solid mechanics modeling? SURE
- develop experimental surgeries WHOA!!! Where did that come from?

Originally posted by: CycloWizard
This is what I'm doing. Oh well, keep laughing it up. No skin off my back, though I would appreciate the occassional reference to the topic at hand. I'll be more than happy to prove where I'm at when I deem you've laughed sufficiently at my expense.

Go right ahead:
----------------------------------------
From www.engineeringforum.org
Profile For CycloWizard
Date Registered: 01-31-2006
Location WashU (St. Louis)
Occupation PhD student

CycloWizard
I'm a chemical engineering grad student trying to get his feet wet in solid mechanics modeling.

----------------------------------------

If you have to resort to such gross misrepresentations, in order to pursue your argument, can we really take anything you say seriously?

 

[CycloWizard]

Originally posted by: Meuge
- build instruments, SURE
- perform solid mechanics modeling? SURE
- develop experimental surgeries WHOA!!! Where did that come from?

I'm developing solid mechanical models of the lens as they apply to a variety of in vitro characterization methods, including equibiaxial stretching and microindentation. I'm also developing solid mechanical models of a variety of surgical techniques which myself and my advisor have developed for the implanation of lens prosthetic materials that we have developed. Thus far, I have performed about 35 lens refilling surgeries on pigs using a sub-millimeter capsulorrhexis and a proprietary hydrogel formulation. That would be where that came from.

Go right ahead:
----------------------------------------
From www.engineeringforum.org
Profile For CycloWizard
Date Registered: 01-31-2006
Location WashU (St. Louis)
Occupation PhD student

CycloWizard
I'm a chemical engineering grad student trying to get his feet wet in solid mechanics modeling.

----------------------------------------

If you have to resort to such gross misrepresentations, in order to pursue your argument, can we really take anything you say seriously?

What have I misrepresented? I'm a chemical engineer, which means I have an extensive background in fluid mechanics and reacting mass transport systems, not solid mechanics. I'm not allowed to ask mechanical engineers for advice in their own field when I have a very specific problem not covered in my relatively limited solid mechanics coursework? What exactly are you trying to prove here? Obviously nothing to do with this topic. Your posts are nothing but an attempt to perform a character assassination in lieu of any real arguments.

 

[Moonbeam]

Meuge: He's the one who used his supposed status in an argument - I wasn't the one who brought it up. Sorry if that bursts your bubble, but such a gross lie does go towards destroying one's credibility, no?

M: How is his credibility relevant to the truth of his argument? Are you an elitist who thinks truth is a possession, only, of people of pedigree? Why focus on his status in an argument about truth unless you have some fear that his winning makes him better and that therefore, if he has no credibility he can't possibly win? Hehe, do you see your concern is over something which to me is a side issue.

G: How someone would not laugh at the patent absurdity of the statement 'I learned everything I need to know about biology from a single book because it is easy' is beyond me.

But I guess it requires the emotional development of someone who thinks calling a spade a spade is a sign of being emotionally undeveloped.

More laughs!

M: You use the word patent absurdity as if it automatically confers validity to your case when your job is to make the absurdity clear and relevant to bolstering your case. I do not believe your 'mere' propaganda and am not convinced by it. Your argument, I might even counter is patently absurd. There, take that you laughable dog. Hehe. What is beyond you, furthermore, could turn out to be quite a lot..

You may have played a spade, but I played an ace.

Do you see that my merely saying I have the superior argument says nothing about the validity of my case? We need to examine the merits of this argument as conditioned by how many books on biology one has read. Seems to me the points being made are philosophical and intellectual and removed from biological issues. I do know that it is quite common for somebody who has read 100 books to feel superior to somebody who has only read one even though in the area of being essence an ignorant peasant can be a saintly king. This goes to the fact that so much of what we are is a pretense that we don't hate ourselves with almost all of our being. It requires emotional development to practice intense an remorseless self examination. You also fixate, I think, on a side issue.

 

[totalcommand]

Originally posted by: CycloWizard
Since there has recently been a lot of confusion regarding my beliefs on certain subjects and how that jives with my religious beliefs, I thought I would take the time to address these questions. Or, maybe it is more appropriate for me to say why I don't really care about these questions. In this treatment, I will supply basic, generic, informal definitions for certain terms that will serve as a working reference throughout the post. If you take issue with the definition, I don't really care. Call my 'theory' by some other arbitrary name and stick to the ideas rather than piddling over the words. I will also ignore the fundamentalist position of the major religions, instead sticking to the most generic form of religious belief that I can derive. Any diversions to discuss these things which I said I will not address will be ignored.

First, many threads have recently discussed the origin of life on Earth. Two major hypotheses exist to explain this phenomenon: intelligent biogenesis (in which a divinity/intelligent force created life) and abiogenesis (in which life was initiated by a random string of chemical reactions). The former theory is not a scientific theory, while the latter is a scientific theory. However, it is entirely possible that both are correct, and I'll tell you why. If some superior being created life, it could very well appear as abiogenesis: the intelligent power could have set things in motion that would inevitably lead to the necessary configurations of molecules coming together in such a way as to form life, or even created the specific conditions in a lab and dropped the resulting product (life) on Earth. Thus, whether or not abiogenesis is correct has no bearing on the correctness of intelligent biogenesis.

Next, I will discuss another issue appearing in many recent threads: how life has become what it is today. Again, two major hypotheses have been set forth: intelligent design (which, for the purposes of this thread, will take the very generic form of 'intelligent intervention in the development of life from its first forms to what we know today', ignoring the creationist/fundamentalist viewpoint as previously stated) and evolution (that random genetic mutations occur and those critters with favorable mutations will succeed while those with unfavorable mutations will fail and die out). Again, the former is not a scientific theory, while the latter is a scientific theory. However, it is entirely possible that both are correct, and I'll tell you why. If some superior being was guiding the development of life, it could appear as evolution: the intelligent power could set things in motion that would inevitably lead to the appropriate mutations and conditions to promote natural selection and drive life to become what we know today. Thus, whether evolution is correct has no bearing on the correctness of intelligent design as I have defined it.

So, hopefully now you can see why I said I will say why I don't really care about which of these theories is correct. The theories are not conflicting in any scientific sense. Indeed, it is entirely possible that all four theories are correct and even complementary. The question the former theories (intelligent biogenesis/intelligent design) address deal more with why life started and/or why life is what it is today, not how these things happen. Hopefully this will clarify why these debates are truly philosophical or theological debates, NOT scientific debates. Hopefully this post demonstrates why I'm not so interested in the questions of 'how' these things happen, as the 'how' is only of casual interest to me. The 'why' question, which is of substantial interest to me, may be addressed in future topics.

Very well said. You hit my beliefs right on the head.

Ironically, the only part I take issue with is your first paragraph. You can choose to ignore this diversion if you wish.

I believe that the fact that these questions cannot be answered and are purely philisophical does not mean we shouldn't take a stand against political perversions of the questions. For example, the ID spewed by President Bush and the religious right. In fact, I think to preserve the integrity of this issue (though you said you don't care about it), it is important to speak out against those who use these questions with a political or religious agenda in mind. I think where people get confused is that you do not actively speak out against these political/religious perversions, but only speak for these philisophical questions. Personally, I take a different approach where I try to make clear the distinctions between the politics and the philosophy.

Just my two cents.

 

[totalcommand]

Originally posted by: CycloWizard

Originally posted by: Meuge
- build instruments, SURE
- perform solid mechanics modeling? SURE
- develop experimental surgeries WHOA!!! Where did that come from?

I'm developing solid mechanical models of the lens as they apply to a variety of in vitro characterization methods, including equibiaxial stretching and microindentation. I'm also developing solid mechanical models of a variety of surgical techniques which myself and my advisor have developed for the implanation of lens prosthetic materials that we have developed. Thus far, I have performed about 35 lens refilling surgeries on pigs using a sub-millimeter capsulorrhexis and a proprietary hydrogel formulation. That would be where that came from.

Go right ahead:
----------------------------------------
From www.engineeringforum.org
Profile For CycloWizard
Date Registered: 01-31-2006
Location WashU (St. Louis)
Occupation PhD student

CycloWizard
I'm a chemical engineering grad student trying to get his feet wet in solid mechanics modeling.

----------------------------------------

If you have to resort to such gross misrepresentations, in order to pursue your argument, can we really take anything you say seriously?

What have I misrepresented? I'm a chemical engineer, which means I have an extensive background in fluid mechanics and reacting mass transport systems, not solid mechanics. I'm not allowed to ask mechanical engineers for advice in their own field when I have a very specific problem not covered in my relatively limited solid mechanics coursework? What exactly are you trying to prove here? Obviously nothing to do with this topic. Your posts are nothing but an attempt to perform a character assassination in lieu of any real arguments.

So are you in MSTP MD/PhD at WashU or not?

 

[MonkeyK]

"There is a theory which states that if ever anybody discovers exactly what the Universe is for and why it is here, it will instantly disappear and be replaced by something even more bizarre and inexplicable. There is another theory which states that this has already happened." -- Douglas Adams "The Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy"