- Jan 10, 2010
- 37,281
- 8,501
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Non-Denom
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Others
Upvote
0
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
That's the razor's edge, isn't it? Recently I've been criticized for too much exposition, so I was trying to be brief. I understand it's not an argument. Rather, I suppose I could have been even more brief and simply said, "I disagree."
Bradskii - can you reassure JB that I'm not a monster.
Also a rebuttal with no content at all.
Its a joke.
The lesson - don't assume that the problems you see haven't been envisaged by others.
OK. Ha, ha. But Americans are pretty relaxed when considering the spectrum of world cultures. You want people who can't laugh at themselves? Try being married to a German.
Um. The point was that my list was not novel. Let me quote from the OP:
Identify if there is accepted research that would support an alternative view - not ideas of your own making, but ideas currently accepted by biology.
Second, it doesn't matter if biologists accept or reject the alternative. The science goes where it goes. Again, quoting from OP:
They wouldn't need to accept my ideas about LUCA. They can fully support LUCA and all of evolution.
Am I getting too wordy, or can I make one final clarification? It's not as if I just heard about LUCA yesterday. I've known about, and disagreed with it for years. I just never spent the time to look into alternatives. I was occupied elsewhere. I'm familiar with Theobald's paper, etc. ad nauseum.
So yes, others have investigated multiple origins followed by parallel evolution. But as I recall, it's not that it was discounted, but that nothing has been found to support it. Still, as was emphatically stated in the LUCA thread, deep history is a lot of fuzzy noise that's very difficult to sort out.
I mean, have you ever listened to biologists talk about LUCA? I have. For example, here. Put on your best skeptic's hat, watch that, and then tell me you find the argument convincing. I mean, even Brandon Canfield, the guy talking, seems soft on the idea. Every time I've seen LUCA argued, it's the same argument, as if they all sat in biology class together and copied each other's notes so they could recite the party line.
Compare it to, say, arguments about ERVs. Now that is a good, convincing argument.
It seems to me that you have adopted a religious view of biological origins (Missouri Synod Biblical literalism?) and are desperately trying to shoehorn it into a scientific framework while simultaneously trying to distance your self from a religious interpretation.
Part of this process appears to be some attempt to satisfy a cognitive bias by quoting vague sources which do little to advance your argument. In fact your Theobald link actually strongly supports the single LUCA concept.
Frankly @J_B_ I see you as yet another Creationist desperately looking for some scientific cred.
I'm also not sure that you haven't confused LUCA and abiogenesis. While Evolution is a fully fledged theory, abiogenesis remains as an hypothesis so the chemistry, I'll grant you, has a certain fuzziness. You appear to have injected religion into the fog.
You said in your post "The science goes where it goes" My impression is that the science goes where it will satisfy your confirmation bias.
OB
I'm not surprised you're suspicious. You have been from the first time you posted in one of my threads.
It's not what I might say that will change anyone's mind. It's what I would do. The true test would come if funds became available as I specified and if an established biology research institution accepted the funds. If, at the end of that experiment, biologists felt the cooperation worked, things would change. If they felt it was only an attempt at manipulation, there wouldn't be a second project.
But I don't have access to those kinds of funds, so it will remain an unresolved thought experiment.
It's not quite what you're looking for since it doesn't have a research focus but it does an excellent job of marrying science (particularly evolution) and religion and is well regarded by both sides of the aisle.
I know who Francis Collins is, though I was remiss in not adding him to the list - Lilly Endowment, etc.
You'll have to clarify what you mean that it lacks a research focus. How is xenobiology (for example), not a research focus?
Regardless, I think the better hope is that two hormonal teenagers (Say Romeo Biologist and Juliet Christian), who think their parent's machinations are lame, bring the two sides together. Who are you? Apparently I'm Friar Lawrence.
Which Romeo & Juliet Character Are You?! - ProProfs Quiz
As far as I know BIOLOGOS focus is on public education, I wasn't aware they were researching xenobiology.
I didn't mean to imply they did. I misunderstood your post. Now I get it.
You're not going to play along with Romeo & Juliet? Not an Australian brand of humor
I did. I'm also a Friar Whatsisname.
There are 2 friars: Lawrence & John. If we ended up as the same friar, that's a little disconcerting.
Oops
Don't worry. These toys are hardly a Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory.
OB
Who is going to be doing the research? " DI" has no capacity to doIf you have off topic questions or comments, please post them here. Or, if I think your question/comment is off topic, I'll answer it there.
This is just a rough idea with obvious room for improvement, so I hope the concept gets across even if the specifics fail. If the Discovery Institute (or the Koch brothers, Lilly Endowment, Pew Trust, etc.) listened to me, I would suggest they spend their funds as follows:
1. Clearly articulate your theological issues with evolutionary science. For example, I accept the traditional Lutheran interpretation of Genesis 1-2, which puts me at odds with LUCA. Scientists can then decide whether or not they think that position will be a problem for them.
2. Identify if there is accepted research that would support an alternative view - not ideas of your own making, but ideas currently accepted by biology. For example, I think current biological data could be interpreted in a manner different than LUCA.
3. Provide no-strings-attached funding support for specific research. For example, researchers would not be required to pass a litmus test. They wouldn't need to accept my ideas about LUCA. They can fully support LUCA and all of evolution. The only stipulation is that the funds be applied to research in the specified area.
What might some of those areas be?
* non-coding DNA, e.g.
Non-coding RNAs: New Players in the Field of Eukaryotic DNA Replication
Torsten Krude
Genome Stability and Human Diseases, Dec 2009
* Transformation/Transfection, e.g.
Lateral gene transfer and the nature of bacterial innovation
Howard Ochman, Jeffrey G. Lawrence & Eduardo A. Groisman
Nature, May 2000
* Spontaneous multicellular organization, e.g.
Experimental evolution of an alternating uni- and multicellular life cycle in Chlamydomonas reinhardtii
William C. Ratcliff, et. al.
Nature Communications, 2013
* Xenobiology environments, e.g.
Prebiotic materials from on and off the early Earth
Max Bernstein
Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society, 2006
* Noah's Ark Problem, e.g.
The Noah's Ark Problem
Martin L Weitzman
Econometrica, Nov 1998
* Parallel & Convergent Evolution, e.g.
billions of examples
* Interspecies friendship, e.g.
Animal Friendships
Anne Innis Dagg
Cambridge University Press, 2011
* Teaching/learning in animals, e.g.
Identifying teaching in wild animals
Alex Thornton & Nichola J. Raihani
Learning & Behavior, 2010
You're implying that those affiliated with the Discovery Institute hold some monolithic theological position. They say this isn't the case, and I have no reason to think it is.
As John Lennox has pointed out, a wild-eyed naturalistic atheist and a wild-eyed Christian creationist should reach exactly the same results if scientific inquiry is performed properly. I think it is essential for ID proponents to stick with science and the inference to the best explanation separate and apart from any theological considerations. When a Christian is a Nobel laureate in physics or chemistry, is his Christianity somehow relevant?
As you surely know, and has been amply demonstrated, peer-review is a bit of a stacked deck when academic tenure, grant funding and continued employment hinge on adhering to philosophical naturalism. I believe most of the ID proponents would welcome the opportunity to be publish in truly secular peer-reviewed journals, but they are excluded. This has been demonstrated beyond any question. See The Smithsonian/Sternberg controversy - creation.com.
Why should Christians be required to "confess" their theology when doing science, any more than atheists or Buddhists are?
Who is going to be doing the research? " DI" has no capacity to do
these things.
Owing to their bad reputation, no reputable researcher would
work with them.
Maybe they could offer grants?
But why would they do that?
They would not like the results that came back.
And surely they know that
You should not conflate creationism with Christianity. Yes, many uneducated Christians make the error of believing Genesis literally. But there are still many educated Christian scientists that are honest. They greatly outnumber the few frauds that the DI, AiG, ICR and other nonscience sources hire.The whole thread is a thought experiment, an example. I listed some public influencers with a Christian background. More than just DI has been mentioned. I didn't suggest they do it themselves, but provide grants as you say. The whole thread is about finding common ground, building trust, and making a difference in scientific institutions.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?