Well, I’m back. First of all, I don’t know who Phaedurs is, but I can assure you that I am not one and the same. I’ve been reading The Straight Dope for quite awhile, just never got around to registering. But I never posted under any other name. Since you can’t prove a negative, I’ll guess you’ll just have to take my word for it. I didn’t fill out any of the personal info because one never knows what kind of people one will meet over the internet and as a new user I wanted to err on the side of caution. This is not meant to be an insult to anyone at The Straiht Dope; but you must admit that it’s wise to be careful. I’m a little uncomfortable knowing that someone’s been looking up me up in the employee directory.
Don’t know why my job title is wrong - I will call Human Resources today. It isn’t the first thing they’ve gotten wrong. They’re still confused because I worked here from 1987-1989 under my maiden name and different social security number. Ditto on the date of my dissertation. I know I defended July 1996 (one doesn’t forget those things) but took awhile to finish the paperwork.
I’ve read Dr. Schroder’s book, although it was a few years ago. I’ve also read some of Dr. Goldfinger’s work and heard him lecture. It tend to confuse which one said what, but I know that between the two of them they have a lot of very interesting comments on Genesis ? age of the universe, etc.
I just got in and have to get some coffee and my get a gel running, then I will start working on Ben’s questions about protein homology.
The comment made no reference to grammar. It did mention spelling. Now, my history of typos and spoonerisms matches that of nearly any other poster, and I have never slammed someone for either offense. I have also never boasted about my academic credentials in one breath while in the next demonstrating that I do not care enough to look up the spelling of a word which I know that I cannot spell. I found such a juxtaposition amusing, and it made me comment upon the state of the educational system in this country. You do remember that part, right? The part where I failed to insult batgirl or call her names for misspelling carburetor but instead made a tongue-in-cheek remark about a thread on educational standards?
Whatever else may be said about batgirl on this thread, she at least seems able to understand and accept a light-hearted comment. It is a skill far too rare on this board.
Now, on a slightly more relevant note:
Batgirl, my comment about alternative hypotheses for abiogenesis relates directly to the specific nature of your statements. You said, “in order to believe the evolutionists I would have to believe that a series of highly unlikely events all happened in a precise order for the world to come into being.” (emphasis mine). That is an inaccurate statement given your knowledge of competing hypotheses. In fact, there are several different chains of events which have been proposed as potentially producing life. I raised the point, small though it might be, simply because I so often find such overstatements employed by people who want to argue from probability without having a strong background in probability theory. In the same vein, it is simple to point out that neither you nor anyone else that I am aware of has a firm basis for assigning any probability for the specific chains of events which have been proposed for abiogenesis. Most people accept that the individual steps are in some sense unlikely, but we simply do not have the empirical results to assign specific probabilities with any confidence. Determining a likelihood for the chain, of course, is even more problematic, since we have no way of knowing what dependencies exist among the events.
I am not arguing, of course, that abiogenesis is more likely than the Cubs winning the World Series. I am simply pointing out that most people who use the “too unlikely to believe” argument fail to provide any the reasoning to back up that position. If you have some hard (or even semi-hard) numbers, I would be very iterested in seeing them.
The best lack all conviction
The worst are full of passionate intensity.
*
I took your comment about my bad spelling as a “light hearted comment” and was not at all upset by it. As I said, I can’t spell to save my life. I SHOULD have looked it up, but I work in a research lab and we don’t have dictionaries lying around. I guess I could have gone into Word Perfect and tried to find it in the spell checker, but I’m not great at multi-tasking either. I agree with you about the state of the educational establishment.
I don’t have any numbers about the probability of any of the steps of abiogenesis and would be skeptical of any such numbers myself. By the way, the Cubs did win the World Series in either 1906 or 1908 (the White Sox won it the other year) and the won the pennant in 1945. I haven’t seen abiogenesis documented at all, so I guess you could say that based on experience (I think that’s called experimental probability, as opposed to theoretical probability) the probability of the Cubs winning a World Series is greater than the probability of abiogenesis.
My basis for saying that the probability of abiogenesis occurring is extermely low is based on actual, real-life experience working with DNA, RNA, cells, etc. Oligonucleotide synthesis has gotten to be pretty routine but PCR is still as much art as it is science, and nothing works right all the time, even under controlled conditions. So I find it very hard to believe that a piece of DNA capable of encoding a functional protein could just spontaneously assemble in the primordial ooze. And if it did, that would be only one of the many steps that would have to take place. I think it takes more faith to believe that it could all happen by accident than by design.
I want to check a few things before answering your question about proteins that share function but not homology. When you say that they don’t share homology, how much difference are we talking about, i.e. are there differences in amino acids but the amino acids the same type (e.g. a glutamic acid instead of an aspartic acid) or are they completely different (e.g. a glutamic acid instead of an isoleucine) You also mentioned homologous proteins with different functions; could you provide an example?
As for minor differences (rat hemoglobin, chimp hemoglobin, etc.) could at least partially be explained by random mutation since creation. I don’t think anyone disputes that mutation occurrs and in 6000 years one could expect to see a number of non-letal mutations appearing. If one knew the spontaneous mutation rate one could even calculate approximately how many mutations one would expect to see.
Simple answer: G-d created the universe with consistent physical laws because the predictability of science enables better service of G-d. Therefore, when he created the universe, he created it with evidence consistent with “oldness” in order that we can learn science to aid in our future use of those principles. In the same sort of way, G-d created Adam and Eve as adults rather than as newborn babies; he created an adult universe rather than an infant universe.
Why, then, do I believe that G-d created the world 5760 years ago to reflect an age oif 15 billion years rather than the universe actually having been in existence for 15 billion years? Because the Torah says so, and my ancestors, some million-plus people, were witness to the revelation at Sinai, telling them that the words Moses was abouot to descend the mountain with were all true.
That’s the pedigree of my beliefs: Sinai. Of course, many people here will chalk it up to some form of mass illusion, or urban legend, or whatever. But that’s where I come from…not from a faith that science can’t prove evolution, or whatever.
Well said, Chaim. I wish everyone with your faith also coupled it with your wisdom.
Faith is faith. Faith, by definition, defies proof. Conversely, science rejects faith in favor of fact and replicability. Chaim, for example, accepts science as being correct–our science has soundly extablished the age of the Earth at a zillion and a half years (plus or minus a zillion). However, that’s irrelevant to his faith in an omnipotent and ineffable Deity.
The problem, batgirl arises when people attempt to prove faith with science (or vice versa; remember Pons and Fleischmann?). If you want to be a scientist, do science. Just don’t let your faith alter your science, or both will suffer. If you cannot reconcile your belief in the usefulness and veracity of science with your religios faith, one or the other is flawed.
Sorry if you felt uneasy with my looking you up on the web, but you provided plenty of info for me to start with. Surely you know that every Ph.D. dissertation defended in this country is listed in UMI’s Dissertation Index once the final copy has been deposited with the school’s library. You provided a precise title, which I was able to look up without difficulty; additional info given included your name, school, length of the dissertation, year of deposit, and an abstract (some entries will also include the Ph.D. advisor’s name). From there it was a simple matter to check the phone directory at Washington U. Med. School.
I felt compelled to look, and then note discrepancies, because there are obviously people who post to this board and provide bogus info. If you’ve been watching the SDMB for a while, you’re well aware of that.
Some folk feel the need to reconcile their religious beliefs with scientific thought, and you clearly fit that bill. I myself agree wholeheartedly with cmkeller (and disagree strongly with Stephen Jay Gould) that one can, and should, view matters of faith as independent of matters of science. Attempting to force one to reconcile with the other (or to use one as the basis for the other) is a recipe for personal anguish or profesional suicide.
There is no question that Chaim speaks very eloquently about his faith. I, however, took a different path than Chaim did. That’s not to say that one path is right and the other is wrong, or even that one path is better; they’re just different. Far from having difficulty reconciling my science and my faith, the two re-inforce each other. As I mentioned earlier, I didn’t become religious until about half way through graduate school. For me, it was a logical decision made after careful consideration of a number of pieces of data.
I read the reviews long after I read the book. As I mentioned, the primary point of the book is that the Bible and Science need not be seen as being in disagreement. I believe it is clear that Schroeder is not suggesting that his answer is necessarily correct but an example of a reconciliation.
(I recognize that the Amazon readers disagree with that. But if you go back, you’ll see that he brings this up repeatedly.)
I, however, don’t mind being enlightened. Is review by The Skeptical Inquirer online?
I’m sorry, but you missed my point. Science and religion DO NOT mix at the intimate level you’ve been discussing, because they DO NOT reinforce one another unless you engage in some heavy-duty rationalization. Matters of faith cannot be logically considered. (This discussion has popped up in a number of other threads, and I don’t have the time today to hunt them down. Can anyone else pitch in?)
I was not implying that you had to make a distinction between science and faith in the same manner as Chaim does; he simply provided an eloquent example I could readily cite. Your path may suit you fine personally, and it probably wouldn’t matter too much if you were in any non-scientific profession. But since you are in the science biz, your style of mixing faith and science is eventually going to present major professional problems, because your beliefs will inevitably influence HOW you approach your research.
You state “matters of faith cannot be logically considered.” I would be interested to see the previous discussions on this, because I really have to disagree. I’m not talking about people who want to design a test - e.g. if God exists let him prove it by giving me the winning lottery numbers; or a roommate I had in college who used to say “Thank you Jesus” everytime she found a good parking place (I was always tempted to ask her if she would stop believing one day she didn’t find one). But one can certainly approach questions like “Who wrote the Bible?” with logic and reason.
As far as your dire predictions for my scientific career, the only way I’ve seen my beliefs impact on my work is that I’m not able to work on Shabbos or holidays so I have to time my experiments accordingly.
I cannot accept abiogenesis because it requires a number of highly unlikely events - it has nothing to do with my being there or not being there.
No, I wasn’t there when the Bible was written (I may be getting old but I’m not that old). I wasn’t there when Shakespere wrote his plays either: does that mean I can’t discuss that with logic and reason?
BTW, I gotta leave work early today so please don’t get all excited if you don’t see another post from me until tomorrow. I’m not hiding and I haven’t jumped off the edge, I’m just not in the office.
Sure. And reason dictates that it wasn’t God. Reason and science have only the barest hints of evidence one way or the other. Did Saul of Tarsus live? Did he schlep to Damascus? Did he write a bunch of letters later? Probably. Did Moses write the pentateuch? Maybe. Faith says so. Science reserves judgement, as there’s no real evidence one way or 'tother.
What’s your point? Sure, the Bible can be approached with logic, reason, and science (bot all the same thing, of course). And it has been, repeatedly. And has repeatedly been found lacking.
Does that make it less valid? Not if you don’t want it to. But to say one has “scientific” evidence of something only to reveal said evidence as being purely faith-based is disingenuous at best and can only harm science and erode faith.
For example:
I believe the Bible is true.
I believe the Bible is the Word of God.
I take the existence of sentient life on earth to be evidence for the existence of God.
Therefore, since I’ve shown scientifically that God exists, the Bible must be true.
If you aren’t willing to accept at face value the results of other scientists, why should they accept yours? I am very sure that you are very careful with your work, accounting for every anomaly and discrepency.
Don’t you think that scientists that have been radioactively dating since the 1950’s are not just as careful? They know all about the assumptions and use isochrons, multiple-dating techniques and other methods of checking the results.
Like Baxter Black, the cowboy poet, former large animal veterinarian and commentator for NPR said, though this is not an exact quote: When I see how well that the scientific method works in the field I know [veterinary science] it helps me to accept the fact that what other scientists, using the same methods discover, is the truth.
I am not asking you to accept what other scientists say as the gospel truth, (pun intended), but if you have no scientific reason to doubt them, then you should give them the courtesy of taking what they say seriously instead of dismissing it.
There seems to be a misunderstanding concerning abiogenesis. People study the elegance and efficiency of a DNA molecule and rightfully assume that it would not spontaneously assemble.
What seems to be overlooked, is that there is no need for it to have done so.
Before it had life the primordial ooze was noncompetitive (since there was nobody to compete.) Simple, inneficcient molecules capable of reproduction would have lumbered along there retarded way until there were enough of them that they began to compete for resources. At this point evolution would have favored efficiency, your elegant DNA-like molecules evolve, and the simple brethren are forgotten.
By the way:
Dr. Fidelius said:
“Given enough time and enough space, the most improbable things are inevitable.”
Good point. It’s also why I think Panspermia is a valid mechanism.
Improbable is not the same as impossible (a thousand monkeys on a thousand typewriters…)
Plurality should not be posited without necessity. (i.e. why require a third party (god) when existing mechanisms suffice to explain events (laws of nature, physics, chemistry, etc.). Logically it is far more complex and undesirable to introduce third parties, than it is to use what you’ve already got.)
Why were you so quick to discount all theories of evolution and abiogenesis, just because they were “unlikely?” I mean, the odds of winning the lottery are something like 1 in 30 billion, but someone always wins. The Earth happened to win the big lottery, in my view.
[QUOTE]
Originally posted by Abner Normal:
**Because God made it happen!
Of course!!! It is so easy to answer every complex question with: God made it happen!Instead of blindly answer everyting with this all too simplistic statement, why don’t you ask yourself a few more questions?
What if there was no God? What if God was not the type of creature you think make things happen…What if God was something completely different than everything you have ever imagined? How pretencious to pretend with confidence that you have THE answer. The one and only. Does that mean you have come to a complete understanding of the universe we live in?
