Ben Stien's new movie EXSPELLED

rosborne979 wrote:

real life wrote:

Dr. Shapiro, an award winning chemist, has given up on the absurdly improbable task of proving that a self replicating molecule could have assembled itself.

That's not what the article says. But you just keep telling yourself that.

Actually it is what it says. He cites Nobel Laureate Christian de Duve, who has called for

Quote:

a rejection of improbabilities so incommensurably high that they can only be called miracles, phenomena that fall outside the scope of scientific inquiry

http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=a-simpler-origin-for-life

Nobel Laureate Christian de Duve has called for "a rejection of improbabilities so incommensurably high that they can only be called miracles, phenomena that fall outside the scope of scientific inquiry." DNA, RNA, proteins and other elaborate large molecules must then be set aside as participants in the origin of life. Inanimate nature provides us with a variety of mixtures of small molecules, whose behavior is governed by scientific laws, rather than by human intervention.

Fortunately, an alternative group of theories that can employ these materials has existed for decades

We shall understand the origin of life within the next 5 years

Two very different groups will find this development dangerous, and for different reasons, but this outcome is best explained at the end of my discussion.

Just over a half century ago, in the spring of 1953, a famous experiment brought enthusiasm and renewed interest to this field. Stanley Miller, mentored by Harold Urey, demonstrated that a mixture of small organic molecules (monomers) could readily be prepared by exposing a mixture of simple gases to an electrical spark. Similar mixtures were found in meteorites, which suggested that organic monomers may be widely distributed in the universe. If the ingredients of life could be made so readily, then why could they not just as easily assort themselves to form cells?

In that same spring, however, another famous paper was published by James Watson and Francis Crick. They demonstrated that the heredity of living organisms was stored in a very large large molecule called DNA. DNA is a polymer, a substance made by stringing many smaller units together, as links are joined to form a long chain.
The clear connection between the structure of DNA and its biological function, and the geometrical beauty of the DNA double helix led many scientists to consider it to be the essence of life itself. One flaw remained, however, to spoil this picture. DNA could store information, but it could not reproduce itself without the assistance of proteins, a different type of polymer. Proteins are also adept at increasing the rate of (catalyzing) many other chemical reactions that are considered necessary for life. The origin of life field became mired in the "chicken-or-the egg" question. Which came first: DNA or proteins? An apparent answer emerged when it was found that another polymer, RNA (a cousin of DNA) could manage both heredity and catalysis. In 1986, Walter Gilbert proposed that life began with an "RNA World." Life started when an RNA molecule that could copy itself was formed, by chance, in a pool of its own building blocks.
Unfortunately, a half century of chemical experiments have demonstrated that nature has no inclination to prepare RNA, or even the building blocks (nucleotides) that must be linked together to form RNA. Nucleotides are not formed in Miller-type spark discharges, nor are they found in meteorites. Skilled chemists have prepared nucleotides in well-equipped laboratories, and linked them to form RNA, but neither chemists nor laboratories were present when life began on the early Earth. The Watson-Crick theory sparked a revolution in molecular biology, but it left the origin-of-life question at an impasse.

Fortunately, an alternative solution to this dilemma has gradually emerged: neither DNA nor RNA nor protein were necessary for the origin of life. Large molecules dominate the processes of life today, but they were not needed to get it started. Monomers themselves have the ability to support heredity and catalysis. The key requirement is that a suitable energy source be available to assist them in the processes of self-organization. A demonstration of the principle involved in the origin of life would require only that a suitable monomer mixture be exposed to an appropriate energy source in a simple apparatus. We could then observe the very first steps in evolution.

Some mixtures will work, but many others will fail, for technical reasons. Some dedicated effort will be needed in the laboratory to prove this point. Why have I specified five years for this discovery? The unproductive polymer-based paradigm is far from dead, and continues to consume the efforts of the majority of workers in the field. A few years will be needed to entice some of them to explore the other solution. I estimate that several years more (the time for a PhD thesis) might be required to identify a suitable monomer-energy combination, and perform a convincing demonstration.

Who would be disturbed if such efforts should succeed? Many scientists have been attracted by the RNA World theory because of its elegance and simplicity. Some of them have devoted decades of their career in efforts to prove it. They would not be pleased if Freeman Dyson's description proved to be correct: "life began with little bags, the precursors of cells, enclosing small volumes of dirty water containing miscellaneous garbage."

A very different group would find this development as dangerous as the theory of evolution. Those who advocate creationism and intelligent design would feel that another pillar of their belief system was under attack. They have understood the flaws in the RNA World theory, and used them to support their supernatural explanation for life's origin. A successful scientific theory in this area would leave one less task less for God to accomplish: the origin of life would be a natural (and perhaps frequent) result of the physical laws that govern this universe. This latter thought falls directly in line with the idea of Cosmic Evolution, which asserts that events since the Big Bang have moved almost inevitably in the direction of life. No miracle or immense stroke of luck was needed to get it started. If this should be the case, then we should expect to be successful when we search for life beyond this planet. We are not the only life that inhabits this universe.

In a piece written for Edge, Shaprio goes on to say this:

http://www.edge.org/q2006/q06_9.html#shapiro
ROBERT SHAPIRO
Professor Emeritus, Senior Research Scientist, Department of Chemistry, New York University. Author, Planetary Dreams

Quote:

We shall understand the origin of life within the next 5 years

Pauligirl wrote:

In a piece written for Edge, Shaprio goes on to say this:

http://www.edge.org/q2006/q06_9.html#shapiro
ROBERT SHAPIRO
Professor Emeritus, Senior Research Scientist, Department of Chemistry, New York University. Author, Planetary Dreams

Quote:

We shall understand the origin of life within the next 5 years

I wonder when he wrote that? Do we still have 5 years to go, or are we almost there?

I'm anxious to know how natural chemistry led to the precursors of replicative molecules (and eventually, life).

baddog1 wrote:

Diest TKO wrote:

baddog1 wrote:

rosborne979 wrote:

I would say so. But in my original quote I wasn't talking about the possible and the impossible, I was talking about the probable and the improbable, and what science should spend time researching.

And therein lies the issue. Who decides what is probable and improbable? There was a day when personal flight, communication by wire, underwater welding, teaching via interconnected computers, hair replacement, bone fusing, etc. etc. etc. were all considered impossible. The impossible then became improbable, which then became possible by imagination, then possible by science...

It simply astounds me that anyone with a science background would so casually discount the possibility of a topic that approximately 1/3 of the world population believes in (Christianity). And nearly 85% of the world believes in some sort of God.

Given those facts; deductively it can only come down to an emotion-based decision to be totally closed to the possibility of something that billions of others believe.

How are emotion-based decisions viewed in the science-community?

BD1 - Let's say that all we have is probability and statistics to work with. Let's say that probability of one event is 99.9999%, while the probability of all other alternative events combined is 0.0001%.

The only emotion-based decision is to disregard the overwelming probability of one event for one other alternate which is only arbitrarily different than the other alternatives.

T
K
O

Deist:

I have to ask you as well. Who is determining these probabilities?

For instance:

Long before man utilized any form of transportation other than walking; what was the probability of personal flight? Who determined that science should do the related research?

Before communication by any means other than face-to-face began; what was the probability of today's forms of communication? Who determined that science should do the related research?

And so on...

Hi baddog1.

In probability and statistics, we can evaluate things in a number of ways. Take flight for instance. The probability of flight being possible is the same now as it was in the stone age. That is constant. This probability of a event happening is evaluated such that the actual answer may only be approximate with limited info. I.e. - I'm sure cavemen thought flight was impossible (zero probability) but their analysis was based on what information was available to them at the time. Not really a fault of theirs.

Looking at evolution, you see that it started out with a lower amount of probability due to a lack of information, and since has had an asymptotic trend towards absolute as science continued to make new finds. Many finds which might I add were NOT in effort to actually prove evolution.

I'm sure most of us are familiar with pascals wager. This approach to P&S would say that there is a 50-50 chance there is a God. Unfortunately, even with this approach, the 50% that says there is god must be divided into thousands to account for the incontinuities of who/what/where. Certainly the side with no god must be divided to in this approach, but even the most creative mind won't be able to divide it into thousands of naturalistic possibilities. In addition to that, natural events have continuity.

If you want to believe that God created the universe, fine. But do so knowing that this belief defies scientific, statistical and logical analysis. Additionally, acknowledge that others prefer to base their beliefs on what is concrete.

I'm sure their are people who make emotional based desicions to believe in evolution, however...

1) I don't think they represent a majority
2) Being right for the wrong reasons still has some merit
3) The scientific community at large actively seeks out to test it's conclusions, and validate it's claims. No emotional decisions needed, if we look at the facts, we can make an educated opinion.

In Stein's movie he should have had a control subject to validate scientific suppression. He should have found one (as in a single) person in academia who was doing scientific research on...

Magic
Unicorns
Elves
Dragons
etc

To see if these ideas were unfairly being suppressed, and to have something to evaluate against the scientists he was pushing forth. I think that if you are honest, you'll see immediately that using the same criteria you'd deny a researcher money to study dragons, you'd disqualify the researchers in Stein's movie.

T
K
O

real life wrote:

rosborne979 wrote:

real life wrote:

Dr. Shapiro, an award winning chemist, has given up on the absurdly improbable task of proving that a self replicating molecule could have assembled itself.

That's not what the article says. But you just keep telling yourself that.

Actually it is what it says. He cites Nobel Laureate Christian de Duve, who has called for

Quote:

a rejection of improbabilities so incommensurably high that they can only be called miracles, phenomena that fall outside the scope of scientific inquiry

http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=a-simpler-origin-for-life

He did cite de Duve, but you cut it short...

Quote:

Nobel Laureate Christian de Duve has called for "a rejection of improbabilities so incommensurably high that they can only be called miracles, phenomena that fall outside the scope of scientific inquiry." DNA, RNA, proteins and other elaborate large molecules must then be set aside as participants in the origin of life. Inanimate nature provides us with a variety of mixtures of small molecules, whose behavior is governed by scientific laws, rather than by human intervention.

Fortunately, an alternative group of theories that can employ these materials has existed for decades

DNA, RNA, proteins and other elaborate large molecules must then be set aside as participants in the origin of life.

We can all read the article RL, we know what it says. We don't need you to interpret it for us.

That's not what the article says. But you just keep telling yourself that.

Dr. Shapiro, an award winning chemist, has given up on the absurdly improbable task of proving that a self replicating molecule could have assembled itself.

The probability that a living organism (on the order of the very simplest life on Earth) could assemble itself from dead chemicals is MUCH smaller than the 0.0001% figure that you used.

rosborne979 wrote:

Pauligirl wrote:

In a piece written for Edge, Shaprio goes on to say this:

http://www.edge.org/q2006/q06_9.html#shapiro
ROBERT SHAPIRO
Professor Emeritus, Senior Research Scientist, Department of Chemistry, New York University. Author, Planetary Dreams

Quote:

We shall understand the origin of life within the next 5 years

I wonder when he wrote that? Do we still have 5 years to go, or are we almost there?

I'm anxious to know how natural chemistry led to the precursors of replicative molecules (and eventually, life).

Send him an email. [email protected]

neologist wrote:

rosborne979 wrote:

Pauligirl wrote:

In a piece written for Edge, Shaprio goes on to say this:

http://www.edge.org/q2006/q06_9.html#shapiro
ROBERT SHAPIRO
Professor Emeritus, Senior Research Scientist, Department of Chemistry, New York University. Author, Planetary Dreams

Quote:

We shall understand the origin of life within the next 5 years

I wonder when he wrote that? Do we still have 5 years to go, or are we almost there?

I'm anxious to know how natural chemistry led to the precursors of replicative molecules (and eventually, life).

Send him an email. [email protected]

Maybe I can get him to join our thread.

But the last time I convinced a real scientist to join our discussion, he read the thread and saw some spendi posts and decided we were all a bunch of fruitcakes. I don't want to go through that again.

However until/unless the same effort is made (from the point of "lower amount of probability") for any of the possibilities that you listed or I listed; there is no way to empirically conclude that any of the possibilities do not exist.

If the same effort is not put forth - then any conclusion that magic, elves, dragons, et al do not exist/never existed is emotion-based and logically inconclusive when compared to the study of evolution.

Your "real" scientist friend should not be so critical of fruitcakes in the science world. Historically there are many called crazy, then later revered. Ohm, Prusiner, Goddard, Doppler, etc. are just a few and the list is actually quite large. Perhaps your friend realized that he/she couldn't keep up. :wink:

rosborne979 wrote:

We can all read the article RL, we know what it says. We don't need you to interpret it for us.

If you actually had read it, you would have known that your statement:

rosborne979 wrote:

That's not what the article says. But you just keep telling yourself that.

real life wrote:

rosborne979 wrote:

We can all read the article RL, we know what it says. We don't need you to interpret it for us.

If you actually had read it, you would have known that your statement:

rosborne979 wrote:

That's not what the article says. But you just keep telling yourself that.

was false.

Dr. Shapiro is comparing the probability of one scientific theory with another scientific theory.

The article says that likelihood of a replicative molecule originating life is akin to believing in miracles and is outside the purview of science.

real life wrote:

The article says that likelihood of a replicative molecule originating life is akin to believing in miracles and is outside the purview of science.

He's saying that the likelihood of replicative molecules being the first step in originating life, as a direct result of raw chemistry, is unlikely. And I agree with that.

baddog1 wrote:

Your "real" scientist friend should not be so critical of fruitcakes in the science world. Historically there are many called crazy, then later revered. Ohm, Prusiner, Goddard, Doppler, etc. are just a few and the list is actually quite large. Perhaps your friend realized that he/she couldn't keep up. :wink:

Yeh, I'll tell the Cornell professor that he can't keep up with us.

And for the few fruitcakes through history who turned out to be right, I'm sure you realize there were billions who were just fruitcakes. Real theories will win out in the end. Bullshit gets kicked to the side and trampled.

rosborne979 wrote:

real life wrote:

The article says that likelihood of a replicative molecule originating life is akin to believing in miracles and is outside the purview of science.

He's saying that the likelihood of replicative molecules being the first step in originating life, as a direct result of raw chemistry, is unlikely. And I agree with that.

Without replicative ability, isn't any first step in the 'circle of life' also going to be the last?

The sudden appearance of a large self-copying molecule such as RNA was exceedingly improbable.

In this episode Ben Stein is taken to task over his inability to distinguish science from free speech. Stein claims that those who question evolution are discriminated against, whereas in reality this 'discrimination' is merely people getting held accountable for demonstrating their pathetic grasp of both the scientific method and scientific literature.

In simple parody terms it would be like a medic claiming that 'I don't believe in sterilizing medical instruments, and if you say otherwise you are discriminating against me, and censoring my free speech.'

The scientific literature is an open arena. Anyone who can sustain their claim with research and reason will get a fair hearing.

Creationists think the only reason they cannot compete in this arena is due to prejudice, when in reality it is merely the fact that they don't do ANY research, let alone anything worthy of being published.

Ben Stien Exposed
Ben Stien Expose 2

Ben Stien is obviously an idiot.