Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : View from the Center and Left -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Katelew who wrote (101842)	1/25/2009 6:47:41 PM
From: Tom C	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 542957

Hence, the central problem of origin-of-life research Why are you changing the subject? I don't think I've seen anyone advocating that there is an accepted theory on the origin-of-life. The biggest problem with lay people sticking there nose into the biology curriculum is that don’t even have a clue about what teaching evolution means. There’s no accepted theory on the origin of life. Yes, there is plenty of speculation but until a scientist reproduces life in a laboratory it’s just speculation. What is it about evolutionary theory (which BTW assumes life and tries to explain the world as we see it now) people don’t get? A big problem with ID adherents and creationist is that they always change the subject to origin-of-life instead of actually understanding and criticizing the actual theory which has to do with the origin of species.

To: Katelew who wrote (101842)	1/25/2009 7:42:00 PM
From: JohnM	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 542957

Kate, I think several levels of discussion are confused in that post. 1. As I understand evolution is not about the origins of life; but rather about how "life" evolves. 2. Whatever one thinks of the argument is this piece, it wouldn't count as serious scientific work unless the argument itself had been translated into falsifiable propositions--operationalizations. 3. Whatever this is, I don't see how it relates to the question of including ID in high school science classes, or, even the less strong version, the proposal to each the weaknesses.

To: Katelew who wrote (101842)	1/25/2009 8:51:53 PM
From: spiral3	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 542957

Anyone trying to solve this puzzle immediately encounters a paradox. Nowadays nucleic acids are synthesized only with the help of proteins, and proteins are synthesized only if their corresponding nucleotide sequence is present. It is extremely improbable that proteins and nucleic acids, both of which are structurally complex, arose spontaneously in the same place at the same time. Yet it also seems impossible to have one without the other. And so, at first glance, one might have to conclude that life could never, in fact, have originated by chemical means. Kate I'd suggest that it's only a paradox if you make it into a binary proposition, that this persons conclusion doesn't follow from the premise. Why couldn't they just be interdependently arisen, with reciprocal causality, like a chicken and egg, chemicals and all.