Intelligence/Information - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

constant · 08-21-2003, 01:19 AM

I am sorry if this has been posted before but:

There is a movement among scientists today that is growing in popularity. It is the realization that we, and all life, were designed. Before we knew about DNA and the inner workings of a cell, even the most primitive one celled organism, we either believed in God or that there was some sort of natural chemical selection (natural selection does not exist without life) or life was a freak accident (basically impossible).

Once we saw how complex DNA was and how complex the inner workings of our cells were, scientists realized that we were designed somehow (it can be "proven" using mathematical logic). They always dance around the implications of these statements though, never talking about a supreme being. It is comforting to know that the universe isn't irrational and that there is intelligence in the universe though.

Some are even proposing because of a mathematical/physics oddity involving black holes and their areas that we are living in a two-dimensional world and that this third dimension is a product of our brains.

Life still seems complicated, but like I said, it is comforting to know that there is intelligence out there, wherever that may "be". I guess the meaning of life, well for scientists anyways, is to improve the quality of human life and to figure out the huge set (rational) of puzzles and riddles that is our universe.

The other implication of these relatively new findings is that God seems like a more logical conclusion than it was before.

Do you think this theory is credible? I think it is definately here to stay and the implications of it are so huge and interesting, it will be fiercly debated until it is disproved.

bermuDa · 08-21-2003, 02:14 AM

sounds like the intelligent design theory, which is an unfortunate christian attempt to scientifically prove a god created us. I'm still unconvinced.

I do believe there's probably life elsewhere in the galaxy, to quote the movie 'contact', "if there wasn't, it'd be an awful waste of space"...

I think humanity has a lot of maturing to do before any alien cultures expose their existence to us.

Loki · 08-21-2003, 02:17 AM

One thing that is interesting is that whenever people claim that we were created, it does not necessarily mean a superior species genetically engineering us.

In fact, its possible that we were "created" entirely by accident, perhaps a group of aliens dropping off some rubbish on our lovely Earth.

Admittedly, that is just as possible as life coming from non-life =)

P.S - Science has never really accepted the whole we've been designed arguement... id say for every one scientist that accepts the we were created argument, youd find hundreds who refuse to accept it.

constant · 08-21-2003, 02:26 AM

Bermuda, no offense, but I don't think shows on PBS and KCSM about scientific theory are funded by Christian groups. I also don't think the multiple books and scientific journals about the subject are the work of Christian advocates.

I'm not saying that intelligent beings created us, it is a possibility, I am just saying we were PROBABLY (as of now, it looks this way to me) designed.

The one-celled organism of Earth could not have possibly "happened" on accident. To give an amazingly simple analogy.. If you have a near infinite amount of scrabble tiles, no matter how many times you drop them, you probably are not going to get Hamlet's soliloquoy. If you were able to do that, that freak accident would be nothing compared to random chemicals randomly forming the incredibly complex code of life, aka DNA, and the one-celled organisms with all its molecular machines, etc, etc..

I don't see why you people are making it out to be some Christian conspiracy to prove the existence of God.

I realize some people have used this new movement to justify their religious beliefs, but believe me, I am no Christian. I think that the intelligent design theory is the most logical explanation, as of now, for the BEGINNINGS of life. I still "believe" in evolution, I accept it as pretty much fact.

Loki, I don't know one scientist that knows how life started or has any idea how life started. I don't know any scientist who would accept the random chemical formation theory or the natural selection of lifeless chemical theory.

Most scientists probably reject all theories explaining life, and with good reason, none of them are even close to explaining it or sound enough to be accepted/rejected.

Quote:

http://speakout.com/activism/opinions/3116-1.html
We now have a reliable scientific method, formalized by mathematician and philosopher William Dembski (in The Design Inference, Cambridge University Press, 1998), for detecting designed objects and distinguishing them from the products of chance and impersonal laws. Scientists already use the design inference intuitively in fields such as cryptography, archaeology and forensics. When applied to nature's fine-tuned laws, DNA sequences and Behe's irreducibly complex biochemical systems, the clear conclusion is that they are intelligently designed.

Not surprisingly, these matters are provoking fierce debate. Many guardians of current scientific orthodoxy are casting aspersions to prevent these new insights from gaining a hearing, and even threatening the freedom of scientists to follow the evidence wherever it leads. Their furor is understandable, for they realize that intelligent design in the natural sciences, like scientific materialism, would have profound social consequences. No longer would science seem to underwrite a materialistic world view, in which human beings are neither accountable nor responsible.

What Darwinism and scientific materialism have dismantled, intelligent design theory could help restore.

Quote:

One example of such a complex system is bacteria flagellum, a microscopic motor-like force that gives bacteria the ability to move from place to place, spinning at about 15,000 revolutions per minutes. It's such an efficient motor that some engineers are trying to copy its design for industrial applications, according to Roger Christianson, head of Southern Oregon University's biology department. "It's a pretty elaborate device, especially for bacteria, which have a fairly simple kind of cell construction," said Christianson, explaining the complexity of bacterial flagella. He is not a design theorist. "You look at something like this and say, 'Where did it come from? There is really no fossil record showing the fine structure of ancient bacterial flagella. On one side you've got people who say, 'It evolved over time; we just don't know the process.' On the other side you've got people who say, 'It's so complex, it's impossible to imagine how it could have evolved, therefore that's evidence for design.' "

I don't strongly believe in either intelligent design or random unknown Darwinist theory. I do think that intelligent design is much more interesting, and I didn't want to really defend myself, I wanted to talk about it because of the philisophical implications and because it is so interesting. There is barely any evidence for both sides, one just seems a little more interesting than the other and right now, a little more logical.

Here is a pretty cool image, although I don't really think the "god" parts are neccessary or have any real bearing on the scientific theory behind these "paths"

constant · 08-21-2003, 02:46 AM

This article appears to be credible and have a lot of answers too, interesting:

Quote:

http://www-news.uchicago.edu/releases/98/980331.origin.of.life.shtml
evolution on mineral surfaces

How did life begin on Earth? University of Chicago geophysicist Joseph V. Smith, in a Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences paper published Tuesday, March 31, provides a theory for how small organic molecules may have been able to assemble on the surfaces of minerals into self-replicating biomolecules--the essential building blocks of life.

"The problem with most theories on the origin of life is that there is too much water around for the kind of organic chemistry that needed to take place," said Smith, Louis Block Professor in the Geophysical Sciences. "Synthesis of biomolecules from organic compounds dispersed in aqueous `soups' require a mechanism for concentrating the organic species next to each other, and biochemically significant polymers--like polypeptides and ribonucleic acids--must be protected from photochemical destruction by solar radiation."

Smith postulates that this chemistry could have been facilitated by silica-rich minerals resembling zeolites, porous crystals with channels running through them. Most zeolites are hydrophilic--water-loving--and tend to absorb water from their surroundings. But certain synthetic zeolites are organophilic, preferentially absorbing organic materials out of water.

A naturally occurring organophilic zeolite--called mutinaite--was recently discovered in Antarctica, and Smith thinks that this mineral could provide the key to the chemical evolution that led to the origin of life. It's possible that mutinaite, which has aluminum in place of silica, loses aluminum at its surface to become silica-rich through weathering, Smith said. A small amount of remaining aluminum would provide the catalytic centers for assembling organic molecules into polymers.

"For many years, I've wondered if such a material could occur in nature," said Smith. If small organic molecules, like amino acids, could accumulate in the pores of a zeolite, the mineral surface could have provided the catalytic framework for assembling them into polymers and protecting them from destruction by the sun.

A famous experiment performed at the University of Chicago in 1954 by then-graduate student Stanley Miller and his advisor, the Nobel laureate chemist Harold Urey, showed that amino acids, which make up the proteins found in all living organisms, could form from chemicals in the atmosphere combined with water and lightening.

No experiment has yet demonstrated how the amino acids assembled into protein and ribonucleic-acid (RNA) chains, but Smith is planning such experiments using a synthetic, silica-rich organophilic zeolite.

Amino acids occur naturally in right-handed and left-handed forms, but only the left-handed forms are found in the proteins of living organisms. Smith said, "It's probably an accident that only the left-handed form is used, but it may have started in a zeolite with a left-handed channel." Zeolites with one-dimensional channels could have provided the template for assembly of only one version of the amino acids into the first primitive proteins.

Smith plans a trip to Australia, where some of the oldest and least-metamorphosed rocks and minerals are found, to look for more naturally occurring organophilic zeolites like the mutinaite found in Antarctica. He's hoping these minerals still contain evidence of primary biocatalysis. Further research will include chemical experiments to see if the zeolites actually carry out the chemistry he proposes, and the use of computer models to study the structure of the channels.

Smith's work on zeolites was funded by Union Carbide Corporation/UOP, the National Science Foundation, the American Chemical Society, Exxon Educational Foundation, Mobil Research Foundation and Chevron Corporation.

http://mines.unr.edu/able/GEOL100Spr...-19/sld010.htm

shAzb0t · 08-22-2003, 08:18 AM

The last article makes the most sense to me, complete random chance that the right ingredients were in the right rock at the right time.
The analogy "If you have a near infinite amount of scrabble tiles, no matter how many times you drop them, you probably are not going to get Hamlet's soliloquy." tends to be followed up by the analogy of not dropping the tiles at random, but instead placing them down so they best fit together (say in the sentence TO BE OR NOT TO BE, placing a T, then continuing until you got an O and so on) it would not be that difficult a task to form the soliloquy (I forget the exact number of tries, it is in the book “Darwin’s Dangerous Idea” if you want to look it up, it’s only a couple of thousand I believe). This same thing happens when chemicals best suited to be together will most likely stay together, and eventually over time form more complex proteins and possibly DNA.

Arc101 · 08-22-2003, 08:43 AM

My brain hurts - I think I will leave now and go and read a comic.

bermuDa · 08-22-2003, 11:43 AM

no offense taken, because i simply said it "sounded" like the IDT, not that your post was some sneaky attempt to prove creationism or anything... I think it's an interesting notion that aliens set our evolution in motion; but I don't find it plausible that humans alone were designed, or a foreseeable outcome from a particular design.

If the very first life on earth was designed, that's a possibility I could come around to... but the environment and interaction with other evolving lifeforms have shaped the evolution of all species on earth, and those are variables that couldn't be accounted for or controlled in any experiment.

08-21-2003, 01:19 AM	#1 (permalink)
constant Upright Location: San Francisco, CA	The Origin of Life I am sorry if this has been posted before but: There is a movement among scientists today that is growing in popularity. It is the realization that we, and all life, were designed. Before we knew about DNA and the inner workings of a cell, even the most primitive one celled organism, we either believed in God or that there was some sort of natural chemical selection (natural selection does not exist without life) or life was a freak accident (basically impossible). Once we saw how complex DNA was and how complex the inner workings of our cells were, scientists realized that we were designed somehow (it can be "proven" using mathematical logic). They always dance around the implications of these statements though, never talking about a supreme being. It is comforting to know that the universe isn't irrational and that there is intelligence in the universe though. Some are even proposing because of a mathematical/physics oddity involving black holes and their areas that we are living in a two-dimensional world and that this third dimension is a product of our brains. Life still seems complicated, but like I said, it is comforting to know that there is intelligence out there, wherever that may "be". I guess the meaning of life, well for scientists anyways, is to improve the quality of human life and to figure out the huge set (rational) of puzzles and riddles that is our universe. The other implication of these relatively new findings is that God seems like a more logical conclusion than it was before. Do you think this theory is credible? I think it is definately here to stay and the implications of it are so huge and interesting, it will be fiercly debated until it is disproved. __________________ life makes me cry Last edited by constant; 08-21-2003 at 02:47 AM..

08-21-2003, 02:14 AM	#2 (permalink)
bermuDa don't ignore this--> Location: CA	sounds like the intelligent design theory, which is an unfortunate christian attempt to scientifically prove a god created us. I'm still unconvinced. I do believe there's probably life elsewhere in the galaxy, to quote the movie 'contact', "if there wasn't, it'd be an awful waste of space"... I think humanity has a lot of maturing to do before any alien cultures expose their existence to us. __________________ I am the very model of a moderator gentleman. Last edited by bermuDa; 08-21-2003 at 02:16 AM..

08-22-2003, 11:43 AM	#8 (permalink)
bermuDa don't ignore this--> Location: CA	no offense taken, because i simply said it "sounded" like the IDT, not that your post was some sneaky attempt to prove creationism or anything... I think it's an interesting notion that aliens set our evolution in motion; but I don't find it plausible that humans alone were designed, or a foreseeable outcome from a particular design. If the very first life on earth was designed, that's a possibility I could come around to... but the environment and interaction with other evolving lifeforms have shaped the evolution of all species on earth, and those are variables that couldn't be accounted for or controlled in any experiment. __________________ I am the very model of a moderator gentleman.

08-21-2003, 02:17 AM	#3 (permalink)
Loki Psycho Location: Drifting.	One thing that is interesting is that whenever people claim that we were created, it does not necessarily mean a superior species genetically engineering us. In fact, its possible that we were "created" entirely by accident, perhaps a group of aliens dropping off some rubbish on our lovely Earth. Admittedly, that is just as possible as life coming from non-life =) P.S - Science has never really accepted the whole we've been designed arguement... id say for every one scientist that accepts the we were created argument, youd find hundreds who refuse to accept it.

08-22-2003, 08:18 AM	#6 (permalink)
shAzb0t Psycho Location: whereever my portable hard drive takes me	The last article makes the most sense to me, complete random chance that the right ingredients were in the right rock at the right time. The analogy "If you have a near infinite amount of scrabble tiles, no matter how many times you drop them, you probably are not going to get Hamlet's soliloquy." tends to be followed up by the analogy of not dropping the tiles at random, but instead placing them down so they best fit together (say in the sentence TO BE OR NOT TO BE, placing a T, then continuing until you got an O and so on) it would not be that difficult a task to form the soliloquy (I forget the exact number of tries, it is in the book “Darwin’s Dangerous Idea” if you want to look it up, it’s only a couple of thousand I believe). This same thing happens when chemicals best suited to be together will most likely stay together, and eventually over time form more complex proteins and possibly DNA.

08-22-2003, 08:43 AM	#7 (permalink)
Arc101 Addict Location: Nottingham, England	My brain hurts - I think I will leave now and go and read a comic.