Posted on 08/16/2005 11:23:20 AM PDT by woodb01
That's weird.
But funny!
Thanks.
Amen.
Me: Imagine their elation when they were told that it’s just a matter of a few years and the existence of God will be definitively disproved, and that it will be known authoritatively that we all came from a mud puddle.
You: Who in the hell told them this? I've never heard anyone claim that we're anywhere close to demonstrating that the latter is true, and science could never, ever, do the former. Anyone who claims that science could disprove God is a liar or a moron.
Well . . . that lying moron David R. Liu, professor of chemistry and chemical biology at Harvard ‘told them this,’ apparently (by ‘them’ I assume you mean the liars and the morons of the press).
"My expectation is that we will be able to reduce this [origin of life] to a very simple series of logical events that could have taken place with no divine intervention." That’s a quote - professor Liu said it; he’s responsible for it (the part about the mud puddle is my responsibility - more about that later). According to professor Liu, not only can we disprove the existence of God, it’s going to be a rather simple matter to do so.
Professor Liu has a bit of wiggle room if the heat gets a little intense, and he has to squirm out of what he said (it won’t so he won’t). He did reference ‘logical events that could have taken place,’ indicating there might be various possibilities (including ‘divine intervention’). He could claim that God may have created the universe, and therefore might be indirectly responsible for the origins of life. He could simply flat-out deny the quote, or claim that he was quoted ‘out of context.’ He could declare his utter neutrality in the matter, leaving his prior quote hanging in midair with no context.
I imagine you’re tempted to come to Professor Liu’s defense. I really wish you wouldn’t. The professor is not worthy of your defense. Surely, he does understand that the Origins of Life in the Universe Initiative was not instituted to logically demonstrate that origin of life is part of the theory of evolution. Yet the connection is made in the article. More to the point, surely he must know that the Initiative is incapable of delving into value judgments such as declaring God either dead or alive (or irrelevant). Yet, he says what he undeniably said. But then, perhaps it’s just that he knows an Atlantic City Boardwalk stripper named ‘Devine Intervention.’ Undoubtedly, she would have nothing to do with the origin of life, even though she may have more than her share to do with its perpetuation.
That little bit of humor aside, the question remains why would a science professor make such an irrational statement. In the first instance, if the professor was not concerned with science in that statement, it ceases to be irrational. In the second instance, it’s not science, it’s Harvard with an atmosphere where huge amounts of wealth float around looking for a hook-up. In the third instance, it’s not science, it’s Harvard, with an atmosphere where agendas float around looking for wealth to hook-up with. In the forth instance, it’s not science, it’s Harvard, with an atmosphere where professors float around looking for opportunities where their particular discipline can go “Ta-ta for money.” Understand this, and what was obscure and perplexing becomes suddenly very clear.
On Mud Puddles where little children and scientists love to play:
Scientists like to posit that it’s in places like tidewater basins and wetlands where life most likely originated. Loaded with nutrients and lots of readily available sunlight. Yes or no, true?
Second best option: the bottom of a sea. Sunlight is a problem, but hot water vents are thought an adequate substitute. Yes or no, true?
Very well, then. Mud Puddles. If you don’t like my analogy, then Mr. Madison &c, more than two hundred years ago, said you have a perfect right to sneer. In the interim you’ll know what I mean even if you don’t like it.
I think that you're reading into this things that are simply not there.
That’s always a possibility. On the other hand, there may be just a whole lot of things there that you’re not seeing.
Harvard is doing a study on life origins. Many people mistakenly think that life origins is part of the theory of evolution.
I’m not one of those people. And, this story did not do one thing to clear up the misconceptions of people who do hold that mistaken belief.
The theory of evolution has recently come under attack by a group of hacks pushing "Intelligent Design", thus from a study on origins we get an article mentioning the evolution vs. ID issue.
You can’t reasonably blame everything on LD ‘hacks.’ This story is the responsibility of the Boston Globe and of Harvard. We’re dealing with the original story, not with blowbacks.
I don't see how this is the fault of Harvard, . . .
It’s their story. In fact, it reads like a press release originally written by the Harvard PR department (and, yes, they’re not scientists, so they’re morons too, but these morons should be smart enough to get feed-back from the Science Dpt). Better than half of these kinds of stories are press releases. You and several other posters noted the stories from different sources were virtually identical, but you apparently missed the vital connection: the parts that are identical from news outlet to news outlet are part of the original press release. It looks like The Globe did follow-up (probably with some telephone interviews - it’s doubtful there was any face-to-face), but apparently most of the outlets basically printed the release as is. Some did throw in a little bit of information from other sources.
. . . nor do I see how this logically demonstrates that life origins actually is part of the theory of evolution.
I don’t see that it does. But, it does seem that someone in Harvard PR perceives an advantage to leaving others with that impression.
Theology and philosophy can certainly address the matter of origins, but that doesn't mean that science can't investigate the matter.
Apparently two lines of evolutionist thought on this issue. There are others who say that origins is not a fit study for science because any conclusion/hypothesis/theory arising from this study would not be falsifiable and, therefore, not genuinely scientific. You’re the first I’ve encountered to say differently. Elaborate a little on this, if you wish to take the trouble.
Me: Personally, I think the articles are probably accurate.
You: On what basis?
I explained once, but let me try again. Coming at it from a little different angle, and in addition to that written above:
Recollection may bring to mind that several years ago four or five college students made up an environmental logo letterhead with an impressive-sounding scientific-like title. They set themselves up in an off-campus apartment, with a copier, and a fax. They then begin sending phoney environmental studies and bulletins to newspapers, wire services and various other news outlets. Unbelievably, some of the news organizations published their crap without checking out either the information or the supposed organization, despite the outlandishness of much of the material being produced. Once that happened, then everyone else was more that pleased to chime right in and add to the mist of misinformation. Eventually, of course, the whole little scam was uncovered and the jig was up. But, the question is, why did any journalist ever fall for this nonsense in the first place?
The answer is simple. The stuff these kids were putting out fit the political and ideological agenda of the press. It also fit their prejudices and their ignorance. All the right people were being flayed. The press had no hint of the truth of the matter, and could have cared less. It was so very much emotionally satisfying that they were thrilled to pass on whatever they were told. When the game was finally up and the scam exposed, then all the press simply dropped the whole matter without so much as a sheepish grin. Why should they feel sheepish? They didn’t believe they had done anything particularly wrong, and it had served a good purpose in their minds.
This present situation is very similar. The press gets to stick a thumb in the eye of those evil Christians and those dumb knuckle-dragging conservatives. What else do they need to know.
Me: Imagine their elation when they were told that it’s just a matter of a few years and the existence of God will be definitively disproved, and that it will be known authoritatively that we all came from a mud puddle.
You: Who in the hell told them this? I've never heard anyone claim that we're anywhere close to demonstrating that the latter is true, and science could never, ever, do the former. Anyone who claims that science could disprove God is a liar or a moron.
Well . . . that lying moron David R. Liu, professor of chemistry and chemical biology at Harvard ‘told them this,’ apparently (by ‘them’ I assume you mean the liars and the morons of the press).
"My expectation is that we will be able to reduce this [origin of life] to a very simple series of logical events that could have taken place with no divine intervention." That’s a quote - professor Liu said it; he’s responsible for it (the part about the mud puddle is my responsibility - more about that later). According to professor Liu, not only can we disprove the existence of God, it’s going to be a rather simple matter to do so.
Professor Liu has a bit of wiggle room if the heat gets a little intense, and he has to squirm out of what he said (it won’t so he won’t). He did reference ‘logical events that could have taken place,’ indicating there might be various possibilities (including ‘divine intervention’). He could claim that God may have created the universe, and therefore might be indirectly responsible for the origins of life. He could simply flat-out deny the quote, or claim that he was quoted ‘out of context.’ He could declare his utter neutrality in the matter, leaving his prior quote hanging in midair with no context.
I imagine you’re tempted to come to Professor Liu’s defense. I really wish you wouldn’t. The professor is not worthy of your defense. Surely, he does understand that the Origins of Life in the Universe Initiative was not instituted to logically demonstrate that origin of life is part of the theory of evolution. Yet the connection is made in the article. More to the point, surely he must know that the Initiative is incapable of delving into value judgments such as declaring God either dead or alive (or irrelevant). Yet, he says what he undeniably said. But then, perhaps it’s just that he knows an Atlantic City Boardwalk stripper named ‘Devine Intervention.’ Undoubtedly, she would have nothing to do with the origin of life, even though she may have more than her share to do with its perpetuation.
That little bit of humor aside, the question remains why would a science professor make such an irrational statement. In the first instance, if the professor was not concerned with science in that statement, it ceases to be irrational. In the second instance, it’s not science, it’s Harvard with an atmosphere where huge amounts of wealth float around looking for a hook-up. In the third instance, it’s not science, it’s Harvard, with an atmosphere where agendas float around looking for wealth to hook-up with. In the forth instance, it’s not science, it’s Harvard, with an atmosphere where professors float around looking for opportunities where their particular discipline can go “Ta-ta for money.” Understand this, and what was obscure and perplexing becomes suddenly very clear.
On Mud Puddles where little children and scientists love to play:
Scientists like to posit that it’s in places like tidewater basins and wetlands where life most likely originated. Loaded with nutrients and lots of readily available sunlight. Yes or no, true?
Second best option: the bottom of a sea. Sunlight is a problem, but hot water vents are thought an adequate substitute. Yes or no, true?
Very well, then. Mud Puddles. If you don’t like my analogy, then Mr. Madison &c, more than two hundred years ago, said you have a perfect right to sneer. In the interim you’ll know what I mean even if you don’t like it.
I think that you're reading into this things that are simply not there.
That’s always a possibility. On the other hand, there may be just a whole lot of things there that you’re not seeing.
Harvard is doing a study on life origins. Many people mistakenly think that life origins is part of the theory of evolution.
I’m not one of those people. And, this story did not do one thing to clear up the misconceptions of people who do hold that mistaken belief.
The theory of evolution has recently come under attack by a group of hacks pushing "Intelligent Design", thus from a study on origins we get an article mentioning the evolution vs. ID issue.
You can’t reasonably blame everything on LD ‘hacks.’ This story is the responsibility of the Boston Globe and of Harvard. We’re dealing with the original story, not with blowbacks.
I don't see how this is the fault of Harvard, . . .
It’s their story. In fact, it reads like a press release originally written by the Harvard PR department (and, yes, they’re not scientists, so they’re morons too, but these morons should be smart enough to get feed-back from the Science Dpt). Better than half of these kinds of stories are press releases. You and several other posters noted the stories from different sources were virtually identical, but you apparently missed the vital connection: the parts that are identical from news outlet to news outlet are part of the original press release. It looks like The Globe did follow-up (probably with some telephone interviews - it’s doubtful there was any face-to-face), but apparently most of the outlets basically printed the release as is. Some did throw in a little bit of information from other sources.
. . . nor do I see how this logically demonstrates that life origins actually is part of the theory of evolution.
I don’t see that it does. But, it does seem that someone in Harvard PR perceives an advantage to leaving others with that impression.
Theology and philosophy can certainly address the matter of origins, but that doesn't mean that science can't investigate the matter.
Apparently two lines of evolutionist thought on this issue. There are others who say that origins is not a fit study for science because any conclusion/hypothesis/theory arising from this study would not be falsifiable and, therefore, not genuinely scientific. You’re the first I’ve encountered to say differently. Elaborate a little on this, if you wish to take the trouble.
Me: Personally, I think the articles are probably accurate.
You: On what basis?
I explained once, but let me try again. Coming at it from a little different angle, and in addition to that written above:
Recollection may bring to mind that several years ago four or five college students made up an environmental logo letterhead with an impressive-sounding scientific-like title. They set themselves up in an off-campus apartment, with a copier, and a fax. They then begin sending phoney environmental studies and bulletins to newspapers, wire services and various other news outlets. Unbelievably, some of the news organizations published their crap without checking out either the information or the supposed organization, despite the outlandishness of much of the material being produced. Once that happened, then everyone else was more that pleased to chime right in and add to the mist of misinformation. Eventually, of course, the whole little scam was uncovered and the jig was up. But, the question is, why did any journalist ever fall for this nonsense in the first place?
The answer is simple. The stuff these kids were putting out fit the political and ideological agenda of the press. It also fit their prejudices and their ignorance. All the right people were being flayed. The press had no hint of the truth of the matter, and could have cared less. It was so very much emotionally satisfying that they were thrilled to pass on whatever they were told. When the game was finally up and the scam exposed, then all the press simply dropped the whole matter without so much as a sheepish grin. Why should they feel sheepish? They didn’t believe they had done anything particularly wrong, and it had served a good purpose in their minds.
This present situation is very similar. The press gets to stick a thumb in the eye of those evil Christians and those dumb knuckle-dragging conservatives. What else do they need to know.
Some who always have had a motive and a philosophy may have found science.
This is why I find the Boston Globe article rather fascinating. It has fallen into the chasm. In human affairs this is often the case. The story coming out of Harvard seems to be different from what we are told by our friends who defend science. Let us not flail them for this, however. Science is worth defending. A re-ordering and a re-alignment may be in the offing, but it will take years to unfold.
bluepistolero
Actually, you missed my point entirely. I was talking about the people who use the article to promote the false claim that the scientists had linked abiogenesis with evolution. I would not have used the term shyster though; I think the term I used was liar.
No, I took your point. But, I was talking about what was actually in the article, whether you like it or not; whether you agree or not (I don’t - you don’t, I would guess).
It was either an ignorant claim, or a calculated claim. What it also was positively was an unfounded claim.
Unfounded and calculated, in my opinion. Like the article or not, there it is, like an elephant in the room. You can grumble about liars, fools and ignorami all you wish, but the fact is sometimes people use you for their own ends and then are perfectly content to leave you holding the bag. As I mentioned in my message to Dimensio, this is one of those times, IMO.
The Boston Globe article, what I could read of it online without paying, said the same things as the AP article.
The Globe article is much more extensive and elaborates considerably more than does the AP article. But then, AP gets bored easily. Check your private box after a bit. It looks like maybe we can call it the Allston Project.
They are trying to find a natural process that could have led to life. The fact they are not going to use supernatural causes as *evidence* only means they are doing what EVERY other field of science does.
But then professor Liu mentions ‘Devine Intervention.’ Why would he do that? According to you, and even me, supernatural causes have no relevance; zip, zero, nada. Not worthy of the least mention. And still, he mentions it. The million/yr Harvard is kicking in won’t be sufficient to fund this project. My guess is that there will be fund raising activities. What puts a zip in fund raising? CONTROVERSY!
Just a thought.
Gosh, I thought that was the topic generally at hand.
Also, the quote from Liu does NOT say he will be disproving God. He says his theory will only use natural causes to explain the origins of life on earth. That doesn't mean there is no God, as a theist can be perfectly comfortable with the idea that God created the laws of nature and those laws of nature are sufficient to run the Universe. God doesn't have to keep meddling at every turn.
But the good professor doesn’t say that, oh ye of the cut’em-no-slack school of discourse. Unlike many whom you oppose, you’ll cut Dr. Liu all the slack he needs to fully explain what he really means. Well, it so happens that I agree in this case. Cutting Dr. Liu some slack is not a matter of science; it’s a matter of simple justice. I let your personality disorder affect my judgment in refusing Dr. Liu even a little simple justice (and, after reading some of your more poisonous posts, I promised myself I wouldn’t do that ). My fault - not yours. So I looked up young Dr. Liu.
David Liu: born in Riverside, California; graduated first in his class at Harvard in 1994 with a bachelor's degree in chemistry; entered the Ph.D. program at U. C. Berkeley; studied tRNAs and the enzymes that aminoacylate them; initiated the first general effort to expand the genetic code in living cells; earned his Ph.D. in chemistry in 1999; became Assistant Professor of Chemistry and Chemical Biology at Harvard University the same year.
Professor Liu: head of the Liu Group; the group’s research applies evolutionary principles to the creation and evaluation of small molecules and macromolecules; research areas include;
“(i) the development and application of new approaches to the evolution of biological macromolecules, and (ii) the application of evolutionary principles to the discovery of synthetic small molecules, synthetic polymers, and new chemical reactions.”
Other research include; “evolution in living cells of RNA molecules with biological activities from random libraries, and the evolution of proteins with novel catalytic and regulatory activities,”leading to “the laboratory evolution of new macromolecular tools for studying biology,” and also the dissection of “the structural and functional requirements of natural proteins and small RNA (sRNA) molecules.”
Second area of interest; Professor Liu's group has developed “a new approach to the synthesis and discovery of synthetic molecules that captures fundamental advantages of biological evolution.”
So it seems Professor Liu’s plate is full without a project studying the origins of life. Also, it looks like Dr. Liu isn’t far enough up the food-chain to be involved with the politics of fund raising, faculty recruitment, and facility development on a new campus. So, I was wrong to go after Dr. Liu. It’s that politically correct gang who run Harvard like a re-education camp that I should have been pursuing. You have to wonder why Dr. Liu was even in the story unless Harvard PR turned to him to fill in for higher ups. It is summer and people are gone.
But, it is Harvard’s story and it is The Globe’s story, and it’s their responsibility to get it right. You’re supposed to be a no excuses - no slack kind of guy, but in falling all over yourself trying to excuse Harvard and The Globe and blaming this on evil-intentioned little people, you sound like the Clinton Administration: “I never worked so hard in my life trying to make those little weasels get this story straight, and their incompetence is not my fault! Now, I want you to listen close because I’m going to say this just once; I never, not once, ever had sexual relations with the Boston Globe, and neither did Harvard or Hilary. There’s some little evil-intentioned incompetent running around down there trying to torpedo my legacy, and that’s all there is to that story (in Rush’s best Bill Clinton voice).
So, you don’t like my interpretation of Dr. Liu’s remarks (or The Globe’s reporting thereof), huh? Scientifically illiterate, you call me. Yeah . . . that’s largely correct. And content I would have been to remain so (with a few notable exceptions) the rest of my life. But scientists are messing around in my areas of interest (natural rights, natural law, the rights of man, the theory of liberal republican government, the right of free inquiry, etc.), so I’m obliged to find out more about science than I really otherwise care to do. But, it looks like I’ll need to go somewhere else where I won’t need to deal so much with over-hormoned stuffed shirts.
Many scientists seem so self-absorbed in their own interests that I doubt it ever occurs to them there might be other understandings or applications. Or maybe they’re just plain scared. Do scientists actually think they have ultimate control over their work product if their work excites the interest of the politically correct who run most American college campi? Oh, scientists will bravely man the ramparts against the IDers (it’s pretty easy to tear into most IDers - there are some who can bite back), but they’ve allowed a nest of vipers to flourish within their academic walls without doing scarce a thing. The environmental lunatics and the ideological brown shirts have control of the campus administration and the ear of the conventional press, and they can hurt any academic who crosses them.
This thread has gone to dust and hot wind. If you wish, the last word is yours. I’m done.
I'm not claiming it would make sense. Apparently, you are completely missing the point, or it's just fun for you to go in circles.
As I have stated, evolutionists fit every piece of evidence into their theory, whether it makes sense or not. Your response has been to claim that you think evolutionists wouldn't try to fit some imaginary fossil you've dreamed up into the theory.
So basically, we have my opinion (which is based on examples I provided previously) and your conjecture about what might happen if something that hasn't been found is ever found.
Have a nice day. I'm getting off the merry-go-round.
You mentioned "The so called 'refutations' of Behe's book. It's all embraced by evols whether it makes sense or not."
This has nothing to do with the fossil record, Behe does not produce any fossil that contradicts the tree of evolution. Please stay on topic.
I stand by the facts. One fact is that a rabbit fossil found in the cambrian is an example of a find that would majorly contradict the established evolutionary tree of life. Another fact is that no such majorly contradicting find has ever been made.
I don't think you grasp how contradictory a modern mammal fossil in the cambrian would be. It would totally demolish evolution. The general pattern of the fossil record is known, and it is an observable fact that cannot be manipulated. A modern rabbit found in the cambrian cannot be moved, nor can it be explained by evolution.
We know that primitive life existed in the cambrian about 550 million years ago, with traces of even more primitive life existing beforehand. The origin of mammals from synapsid reptiles about 300 million years ago is also pinned down in the fossil record. These mammals are primitive and not like modern mammals.
Modern mammals appear quite a bit later. The fossil record indicates that rabbits for example appeared just 65 million years ago, and even then these were "primitive" rabbits and not like modern rabbits.
So to have a modern rabbit fossil found all the way back in the cambrian 550 million years ago would be totally irreconcilable with evolution.
Not only would it show a modern rabbit existed before primitive rabbits, but it would show a modern rabbit had existed before mammals, and existed even before the earliest known land vertebrates.
If you cannot see this would be irreconcilable with evolution then frankly you don't understand evolution.
You are the one limiting it to the 'fossil record.' I never did.
Please stay on topic.
You first.
I don't think you grasp how contradictory a modern mammal fossil in the cambrian would be.
I see you are still riding that merry go round. I state my point, you come back with your opinion of what might happen if some fictional thing were found.
When you get off the ride, let me know.
Actually, the creationists do know this, which is why they bring up fossilized spark plugs and human/dino footprints when nobody is watching.
But I suppose you are referring to a genuine anachronism and not a hoax.
Person A says that finding a boulder on earth that falls upwards would be irreconcilable with the theory of gravitation.
Person B responds that it is just Person A's "opinion of what might happen if some fictional thing were found". Person B further claim that no matter what observation is found, physicists "would just make it fit. They always do."
Person A tries to explain that a boulder falling upwards would be totally irreconcilable with the theory of gravitation.
Person B claims "this is just your opinion", and links to a book detailing the problem of dark matter as an example of how physicists ignore data that doesn't fit.
Peron A points responds that that is off topic.
Person B claims "You are the one limiting it to 'boulders' I never did."
So far, that is the case. All you have is speculation about what they would do with some fictional thing if it were found. Until my premise is proven wrong by actual change in behavior in the 'evol community,' then my premise is just as valid as that of evolution at this point. :)
Have a nice ride.
Remember that all theories must be potentially falsifiable to qualifiy as scientific. You seem to be attacking all of science here.
Until my premise is proven wrong
[sarc]Surely it can't be proven wrong. Nothing that happens can disprove your premise. That is the flaw in your premise. No matter what changed in the 'evol community' you would just incorperate it into your premise. Go on describe an example which would disprove your premise[/sarc]
Uh, it could be because I was responding on a thread about ID and evolution, and you'd already commented on ID. (Sheesh.)
Surely it can't be proven wrong.
It hasn't been so far. (Similar to your stance on evolution, it seems.)
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.