Origin of Earth Life, Belief/Disbelief in Supernaturalism


		Origin of Earth Life, Belief/Disbelief in Supernaturalism (Top Posts - Philosophy (FREELOVER) - 031208 to 032108) - - - Some comments and responses in a series of posts from March 12-21, 2008: Someone wrote ... > What empirical evidence would you accept? > To wit: You believe that Hamlet was the intentional > product of a mind, rather than simply a product of > time plus chance. Whether or not you like the story, > you can see the evidence of purpose and creative > intelligence in the arrangement of the letters into > a message. Strictly speaking, the origins of Hamlet are well-documented, but the murky ori- gins of most religious texts, not well- documented, dominated by anonymous authors, and oft-times claimed to be the words of a deity (different religions have different deities claimed to be behind the competing religious texts). Also, the origins of Shakespeare, we can expose relevant information regarding his biological parents, and the environment he was raised in and influenced by, but it's when you get to his grand-parents, and their parents, and so on and so forth back through history, the origins begin to get harder to 'nail down' regarding compre- hensive details, giving way to generalized information ... ... back to the origins of all the lineages which contributed to his ancestry and to all the events that transpired since homo sapiens left Africa ... ... and before, back to all the evolution that occurred after -and- prior to the split with the chimpanzee line ... ... and before (so on and so forth back to over 500 million years ago, into the area of the origin of complex multi-cellular life, and before, back to all the evolutionary stages that transpired for billions of years on earth, and before, -if- one wishes to explore the theories regarding a signifi- cant part of the origin of life transpiring naturalistically in regions of space far removed from earth). - - - Someone wrote: > But within your own DNA is a message far more > complex - the product of a greater creative intelli- > gence, the result of which arguably has a greater > purpose. So, your claim is that in my DNA is a far more complex language which is the pro- duct of a greater creative intelligence. I assume your claim is related to all DNA, not just mine, and includes the DNA of viruses, bacteria, roaches, mites, mos- quitoes, flies, fungi, spores, rats, weeds, and all other life on planet earth. Any evidence to support your claim? Any evidence of a greater creative intelli- gence? Certainly, you must realize that the theories regarding DNA do not include any mention of a greater creative intelligence, and that, in fact, the greater creative intelli- gence assertions derive directly from an- cient religious myths, created when the existence of viruses was unknown, when the existence of and profound impact of bacteria was unknown, when the existence of DNA (discovered in 1952) was unknown. As for the origins of the supposed greater creative intelligence, any evidence to pre- sent in that regard? I didn't think so. Regarding the origins of DNA, perhaps your greater creative intelligence claims should evolve to include the likely precursor of DNA, RNA, and while you're at it, do try to include something along the lines of any evidence whatsoever that a life-(on earth)- origins' greater creative intelligence was at play on earth, won't you? Note, religious almighty beings claims won't be considered as evidence -for- your suppos- edly creative intelligence claims, but instead, will be considered evidence that it's religious myth that resides at the core of your 'theory'. Cautionary note -- the following requires the reader to actually think about the matter, and as there are no references to magic beings or greater creative intelligences, you're simply left with a natural causation residing at the core of the life origin issues. Keep in mind, we're talking about billions of years since the innumerated events occurred as well as innumerable extinction events oc- curring prior to now, quite far removed from the mythical 'creations' of ancient religious texts (one of which, the biblical one, was once claimed to have occurred slightly over 6,000 years ago) ... - - - March 10, 2008 How Did Life Get Started? Astrobiology Magazine http://tinyurl.com/yopwu7 - - - Excerpts: How did life get started? A growing body of evidence favors an "RNA World" as an early stage of life, before DNA assumed its present role as the molecule that stores genetic information. The origin of life remains the deepest of enigmas: How did this supremely complex phenomenon get started? The explanation historically has revolved around DNA, the genetic molecule that serves as a pattern for building proteins. Proteins, in turn, form enzymes, which catalyze, or facilitate, bio- chemical reactions, including the construc- tion of DNA. And thus the paradox: Genes require enzymes, but enzymes require genes. Which came first? After a long focus on DNA, many life scien- tists are coalescing around a concept called the RNA World, which postulates that life began with RNA, which, like DNA, is built of chains of molecules called nucleotides. Our understanding of RNA has come a long way since the 1960s, when the "central dogma" of molecular biology held that RNA was a simple messenger-boy that carried DNA's information to ribosomes, the cellular factor- ies where proteins get built. Around 1980, biologists realized that not only could RNA transfer information, but, like pro- teins, it could also process chemicals - it could catalyze reactions. That ability to do both jobs suggested that RNA, not DNA, could be the primary molecule in life. DNA stores information "like a computer hard drive," says Niles Lehman, professor of chem- istry at Portland State University, "but beyond that, DNA doesn't do anything. RNA, on the other hand, can fold into a 3-D structure, that also allows it to catalyze a chemical reaction." (As Lehman indicates, to perform its catalytic function, an enzyme requires a specific three- dimensional shape.) Still, even if RNA can catalyze reactions, in modern cells it gets its information from DNA. So how could RNA have been assembled in a epoch before DNA existed? In a series of recent experiments, Lehman may have found an answer: Individual units, or "nucleotides," of the RNA chain can "self-assemble" spon- taneously. Lehman and colleagues started their experi- ments by removing from a bacterium an RNA molecule that works as a self-replicating en- zyme, cut it into four chunks, each about 50 nucleotides long, and then watched the chunks reassemble themselves into a working enzyme. "We mix the fragments together in salt water at 48 degrees, have lunch, and come back, and we have self-replicating RNAs in the test tube," Lehman says. Obviously, reassembling an enzyme you have stolen from a bacterium and then diced into pieces does not prove that a working enzyme could have formed in the prebiotic world, but there was a method to Lehman's madness. Fifty bases is something of a "magic number," says Lehman, noting that chemist James Ferris of Renssalaer Polytechnic Institute has been able to string together 40 to 50 individual RNA nucleotides using clay as the catalyst. It's conceivable that this could have happened in the prebiotic world as well. Ferris said that Lehman's self-assembly exper- iment answered a big unknown remaining from his study, which produced strings of RNA that were still too short to function as a catalyst. "One of the big questions is how we would get these longer RNAs that will be needed to catalyze reactions, and this sounds like an inter- esting possibility." If, as these experiments suggest, the RNA world begins with three steps (prebiotic synthesis of the individual RNA nucleotides, assembly of the intermediate chains, and then final assembly into longer chains) Ferris and Lehman have demonstrated steps two and three. However Ferris notes that nobody has yet demonstrated a prebiotic synthesis for the individual nucleo- tide bases from which he constructed the RNA strands. Still, Lehman says the new results suggest that RNA can achieve enough complexity to transi- tion into the biological realm, especially since the RNA begins to replicate itself. At first, the RNA fragments join end to end, but the com- pleted strands then begin to catalyze further assembly of RNA. This "autocatalysis" accel- erates the reaction, but even more important, Lehman notes, "Forming more of itself is a critical essence of life." William Scott, an associate professor of chem- istry and biochemistry who works on RNA at the University of California at Santa Cruz, commented that the self-assembly of fragments brings the RNA World one step closer to ac- ceptance. "I think the idea that complex mole- cules can be assembled from RNA fragments instead of just RNA nucleotides is a very rea- sonable one." As the RNA World hypothesis becomes more plausible, RNA is gaining more respect. For one thing, it's known to be ubiquitous, both as a temporary storehouse for information, and since 1980, as a catalyst. "The core of the ribo- 'some, which makes proteins, is catalytic RNA," says Lehman, "and all cells have ribosomes, so it's absolutely fair to say that catalytic RNA is manifest in every single cell that we know." Lehman's work was funded by a grant from NASA's Exobiology and Evolutionary Biology program. - - - end of article - - - - - - Someone wrote: > What evidence. [...] God fans (ecumenical ones, the ones that believe that any God will do, and the ones dedicated to a particular God or God group) often sight their belief that belief for the sake of belief (aka 'faith'), no evi- dence required, is OK with them, so long as it supports their religious 'faith'. Also, rather than citing nature as the causality regarding aspects of being they like, they'll cite God and issue claims that "God did it." Regarding aspects of being they dislike, some of the religious cite God, some cite nature, and many blame human sin as the religious oft-times tend to be into guilt trips. The fact that there's no evidence that any God exists outside of human imagination? Doesn't seem to register with them, as their fallback, "believe and get eternal life" tends to override skepticism, doubt, disbelief, and need for evidence. Speaking of evidence, here's a primer on the evidence for nature underlying all that exists: - - - Science and Creationism (A View from the National Academy of Sciences) http://www.nap.edu/html/creationism/index.html Introduction http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=6024&page=1 Excerpt: ... the claims of creation science lack empirical support and cannot be mean- ingfully tested. ... the teaching of evolution should be an integral part of science instruc- tion, and creation science is in fact not science and should not be presented as such in science classes. ... The Origin of the Universe, Earth, and Life http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=6024&page=3 Excerpt: ... For those who are studying the origin of life, the question is no longer whether life could have originated by chemical processes involving nonbiological components. The ques- tion instead has become which of many pathways might have been followed to produce the first cells. ... Evidence Supporting Biological Evolution http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=6024&page=9 Excerpt: ... The following list presents the order in which increasingly complex forms of life appeared: Life Form ... Millions of Years Since First Known Appearance (Approximate) Microbial (procaryotic cells) ... 3,500 Complex (eucaryotic cells) ..... 2,000 First multicellular animals ......... 670 Shell-bearing animals ............... 540 Vertebrates (simple fishes) ....... 490 Amphibians ............................. 350 Reptiles ................................... 310 Mammals ................................ 200 Nonhuman primates ................... 60 Earliest apes ............................. 25 Australopithecine ancestors of humans .................... 5 Modern humans ........................... 0.15 (150,000 years) ... Human Evolution http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=6024&page=23 Excerpt: ... Based on molecular and genetic data, evolutionists favor the hypothesis that modem Homo sapiens, individuals very much like us, evolved from more archaic humans about 100,000 to 150,000 years ago. They also believe that this transition oc- curred in Africa, with modem humans then dispers- ing to Asia, Europe, and eventually Australasia and the Americas. Discoveries of hominid remains during the past three decades in East and South Africa, the Middle East, and elsewhere have combined with advances in mol- ecular biology to initiate a new discipline—molecular paleoanthropology. This field of inquiry is providing an ever-growing inventory of evidence for a genetic affinity between human beings and the African apes. ... Conclusion http://www.nap.edu/html/creationism/conclusion.html Excerpt: ... Creationism, intelligent design, and other claims of supernatural intervention in the origin of life or of species are not science because they are not testable by the methods of science. These claims subordinate observed data to state- ments based on authority, revelation, or religious belief. Documentation offered in support of these claims is typically limited to the special publi- cations of their advocates. These publications do not offer hypotheses subject to change in light of new data, new interpretations, or demonstration of error. This contrasts with science, where any hypothesis or theory always remains subject to the possibility of rejection or modification in the light of new knowledge. No body of beliefs that has its origin in doctrinal material rather than scientific observation, inter- pretation, and experimentation should be admis- sible as science in any science course. Incorporating the teaching of such doctrines into a science curriculum compromises the objectives of public education. Science has been greatly successful at explaining natural processes, and this has led not only to increased understanding of the universe but also to major improvements in technology and public health and welfare. The growing role that science plays in modern life requires that science, and not religion, be taught in science classes. - - - end excerpts - - - - - - Someone wrote: > [Pascal's Wager + attempts at estimating > happiness levels for persons not himself.] Pascal's Wager simply errs due to the fact there is no evidence any afterlife exists, and there's no evidence that doing X gets one to such a desirable afterlife place, and there's no evidence that not doing X gets one to a fate else- where. Mohammed's Wager likewise fails, as does any Hindu's Wager simply due to the fact the overwhelming evidence is that mythical beings and places are 'make believe', not realities, and that people cry at funerals not because they're going to have to spend time away from people they plan to meet up with later, but in- stead, because they deeply miss the dearly departed, and they fear that the deaths of others, + their own death, end up in the same exact place for everyone, that being non-existence. As for the hope for an alternative, the efforts of the faithful to prop that notion up fails when the realities of life prove there is no evidence of any escape, for anyone, no matter what kind of life they've led or how many nice things people say about them after they've died, and are, in my estimation, far removed from comfort for the bereaved when preacher's assert the deceased are in a better place. Pretense doesn't yield happiness, it yields delusion and deceit. As for my happiness, I appreciate your concern for my lot in life, but my fate, bettered by a couple of drugs, is not one of unhappiness, presently, even though I haven't taken the drugs for some time. Happiness? I was happiest when married, and perhaps, some day, I'll take that risk again, but in any case, I do expect that when (if) my type 1 diabetes is cured, my happiness will improve, but I cannot know that 'til it happens. Hopefully, with the efforts of scientists who are endeavoring to cure type 1 dia- betes and other diseases, millions will some day proclaim "Free at last, Free at last, thanks to science, we're Free at last!" - - - Someone wrote: > You could include everyone and pray that the doctors > and scientists discover a cure. :) Positive thoughts and actions regarding finding a cure (which do not support thoughts and actions opposed to finding a cure), appreciated. One would be justified to wonder if the efforts of (some/many of) the religious which have been opposed to scientific advances in some areas places their thoughts and actions in an area of net opposition. Bush, for example, his religious views killed off U.S. government funding of embryonic stem cell research, drastically curtailing research in an area many deem critical towards finding a cure. His effort did nothing to 'save' all the discarded em- bryos from fertilization clinics from being tossed into trash bins -or- from being ter- minated as a result of the effort to have a successful fertilization (as a high number of embryos fail to implant during an artifi- cial fertilization process). [by the way, others, like the state of California, have stepped in where the U.S. government, via Bush, have not] - - - Someone wrote: > The irony here is that people like you [...] as "religious" in > propagating your non-religious views as the people you > despise. I aspire to love everyone, although some are much more of a challenge to love, at times, and in that, I am not as strong, yet, as I desire to be. People that harm others, for example, I struggle to love them, while at the same time I understand that their actions simply result from their genetic make-up + the manner in which their memes led to their actions. I oppose anti-humanism wherever it exists, and in ancient religious texts and in many modern-day sermons leveraged off of those ancient texts, anti-humanism is a persisting problem. - - - Someone wrote: > [...] accuses us of being "religious" in propogating our > non-religious beliefs > First of all, a valid definition of religious is: the rules, forms > of worship etc of a religion. We Atheists do not follow rules, > forms or worship, we are free thinkers. The term 'religious' is also defined as "relating to or manifesting faithful devotion to an ack- nowledged ultimate reality or deity". Strictly speaking, of course, we have no devo- tion to any deity, and we reject the pontifica- tions of religions which devote extraordinary energy towards belief in such a creator/insti- gator/punishing/rewarding ultimate being (or beings). As for 'ultimate reality', I suspect most deity disbelievers perceive that 'ultimate reality' resides in the realm of the natural, -but- some (agnostics, most notably) leave room for some kind of deity maybe existing in some form, be it close to a traditional religion -or- far removed from any traditional religion. Any positive interpretation of the word 'religious', along the lines of loving, giving, caring, sharing, noting the revelations of science albeit acknow- ledging that the door to discovery is never closed, admiration for search for truth unhindered by dog- matic close-mindedness, disrespect for and oppo- sition to anti-humanism, acceptance of the core principle that naturalism shapes us and binds us to a fate by which only knowledge, understand- ing, exploration, discovery, and invention can lead to a betterment of the human condition ... ... all that and much more (see FREELOVER Principles and Faith in Pro-Humanism), -if- one wishes to call that 'religious', I accept that acco- lade -if- the word is defined in that way. -If- defined in a traditional religious way, pertaining to worship, prayer, immortality promises, ancient threats, obviously I wouldn't fit within that defini- tion. - - -