Origin of life

[biotchr]

thanks, i forgot that important bit

[catfishjim]

A scientific hypothesis is a proposal that can be tested and falsified. Using the scientific method hypotheses can then be tested using controllable experimental methods which are repeatable. In doing so this method has historically brought about many successful theories in explaining natural phenomena. The thing to remember is that phenomena do not necessarily have to be visible. We may not be able to "witness" it directly as you alluded to, however, the scientific process can successfully uncover many answers indirectly using inference, math, logic, and commuicable findings. Science does not seek to "prove" as you asked but to support a hypothesis until further findings support or deny its accuracy. This was a quick run-down of basic philosophy of science. I may of made some mistakes because I ran through it so quickly.

So when, for example, Halley predicts, "This comet is coming back on such-and-such a date," is it a a valid test of his hypothesis to wait and see if it really comes back?

[AstusAleator]

By the way in order to study evolution one assumes it passes the scientific method which is a fact that I openly challenge. That is a topic I would be glad to talk about.

Yes lets talk about this, in detail please.
First lets draw a distinction. I get the impression that you are mainly talking about macro-evolution and abiogenesis right? Do you have a problem with the science of microevolution?
Please cite a hypothesis of evolution that you feel is unscientific, and we can analyze it together.

[biotchr]

A scientific hypothesis is a proposal that can be tested and falsified. Using the scientific method hypotheses can then be tested using controllable experimental methods which are repeatable. In doing so this method has historically brought about many successful theories in explaining natural phenomena. The thing to remember is that phenomena do not necessarily have to be visible. We may not be able to "witness" it directly as you alluded to, however, the scientific process can successfully uncover many answers indirectly using inference, math, logic, and commuicable findings. Science does not seek to "prove" as you asked but to support a hypothesis until further findings support or deny its accuracy. This was a quick run-down of basic philosophy of science. I may of made some mistakes because I ran through it so quickly.

So when, for example, Halley predicts, "This comet is coming back on such-and-such a date," is it a a valid test of his hypothesis to wait and see if it really comes back?

Valid testing would involve the proper use of mathematics correlating its target date with its current position. Obviously hyptheses concerning future events could be verified directly when the time came, but until that time the speculation would involve indirect investigation.

[biotchr]

By the way in order to study evolution one assumes it passes the scientific method which is a fact that I openly challenge. That is a topic I would be glad to talk about.

Yes lets talk about this, in detail please.
First lets draw a distinction. I get the impression that you are mainly talking about macro-evolution and abiogenesis right? Do you have a problem with the science of microevolution?
Please cite a hypothesis of evolution that you feel is unscientific, and we can analyze it together.

I obviously would not have a problem with the connection of evolution and change because that is directly observable.

Darwin's hypothesis concerning the origin of species is in question. Abiogenesis is hardly worth debating as it is hardly science at all but part of an athiestic cult. In a nutshell ANY hypotheses of origins, including creationism, I.D., and evolution, are unable to pass through the scientific method due to the demanded causal effect of SOMETHING connected to each investigation. Each supposed phenomenon is forced to have a "creator" that guides the process. The scientific method disallows the study of the supernatural, stupidnatural, or intelligent "beings". Science is much more valuable and useful when studying non-origin topics. Non-origin topics do not run the risk of involving something unnatural. For instance gravity happens, electrons orbit the nucleus, and waves sort pebbles. There is no need for a "creator" as creationism's creator, evolution's breeder, and I.D.'s intelligences all demand. Evolution cant "just happen", neither can creation or design, they all demand SOMETHING to direct, and that SOMETHING would supposedly be responsible for creating everything we see around us using one mechanism or another depending upon one's bias.

[catfishjim]

Valid testing would involve the proper use of mathematics correlating its target date with its current position. Obviously hyptheses concerning future events could be verified directly when the time came, but until that time the speculation would involve indirect investigation.

So the only possible test - in Halley's day, at least - was to wait 76 years and see if it really appeared...

[AstusAleator]

Alright biotchr, lets talk about abiogenesis. I know you said it's not worth talking about, but then you went on to write an entire paragraph about it, so lets go there.
Please avoid referencing any metaphysical causality until we can rule out all scientific possibilities.
As I understand the current commonly-accepted hypothesis of abiogenesis, it is something like this:
Early earth had an anoxic environment, dominated by NH3, CO2, CO, CH4, and several other gasses. 
The classic Miller-Urey experiment showed that with the introduction of electrical current, these gasses could spontaneously form organic molecules such as amino acids.
It is also widely recognized that pre-formed organic molecules, and their core components, can be introduced from interstellar dust, asteroids, and meteors.
So the hypothesis goes on to postulate that you could have accumulated pools of these organic molecules. The monomers of amino acids would randomly bond with each-other, but as often as they would bond, they would break apart as well, due to the laws of chemistry. However, certain combinations of amino acids have catlytic effects, decreasing the amount of energy required to form new bonds. It is hypothesized that many different catalytic combinations of amino acids accumulated strings of amino acids (polymers) that eventually could have formed a funtional ribozyme, or something similar. A self-catalyzing, self-replicating molecule.
Simultaneosly, the lipids that were formed in the "primordial soup" (ps there is also a primordial sandwich hypothesis, having to do with clay, we can discuss that next if you'd like) randomly formed bilayer lipid membrane vessicles that would have been semi-permeable. Whether the ribozymes were incorporated into the vessicles from outside, or if they were randomly formed around a ribozyem, I'm not sure, but it is hypothesized to have happened.
In any case, this would have formed the first proto-cell, and from there natural selection could have taken over.
Now I know it seems like a long reach, and statistically it's a long-shot, but it nevertheless is very scientific. Also, keep in mind that this is my understanding of the issue. For a more detailed description of the current hypothesis(es) visit http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Origin_of_life or do a google search for reputable sources.
I look forward to your scientific response.
Dave

[biotchr]

I talked about abiogenesis in one sentence in my last post, the rest is delegated to the TOE.

Your above information on abiogenesis is deemed invalid using the scientific method. Any origins of life or of species demands the existence of SOMETHING outside the arena of science making all outcomes saturated with bias. Miller-Urey believe in SOMETHING that would choose to create the first cell in the model you described above. I believe that NOTHING would create a cell that way. I happen to believe that NOTHING would choose to breed life forms to make more complex life forms. If you believe differently that is because you believe in SOMETHING that would create using breeding procedures. Science fumbles when investigating orgins because SOMETHING is forced to be responsible and that SOMETHING fails the scientific method every time.

[AstusAleator]

I'm afraid we're just speaking two different languages here.

nothing "caused" abiogenic origins. It just happened. There was no will nor purpose behind the random formations of polymers.
Evolution is not working towards a goal.
If anything, TOE is the closest humans have ever gotten to defining a viable origin of life without associating some meaning or purpose to it.
I get the feeling that you're looking at this issue through a mile-thick lense of bias. I have admitted before, and will always admit that bias occurs in science but ideally science is objective with no other motive than science itself.
Evolution is a viable scientific theory. Some people use it to try to shift or deny metaphysical or spiritual meanings, but that doesn't change the fact that according to the philosophy of science, evolution is a viable scientific theory.
I'm not a PhD either, so maybe that doesn't sound as credible coming from me, but if you were to ask any prominant figure in the scientific community, they would tell you that Evolution is a viable scientific theory and abiogenesis a viable scientific hypothesis.

HAVING SAID ALL THAT:
If you still believe that abiogenesis is based on belief not science, (which I'm sure you do) then please reveal to me the parts of the theory that demonstrate a reliance on belief rather than science.

[biotchr]

Nothing just "happens". That is illogical. Because time, matter, and energy exist there is a creator. Now from that point on is where, according to our beliefs about the creator, things gets fuzzy. But science cannot be used to study the nature of that creator whether it be described as intelligent (God), stupid (Nature/Breeder), or even non-existant (Nothingness). If the creator is called non-existant then we have a "non-existant" creator on our hands whatever that is. Science also is unable to investigate any hypotheses regarding the creative nature of the creator. Since the creator and the creator's mechanism to create are connected, experimentation into both aspects fails the scientific method.

Your statement, the "TOE is the closest humans have ever gotten to defining a viable origin of life without associating some meaning or purpose to it" is absolutely staggering. And then you claim there is no "agenda" behind it? Evolution was introduced by an agnostic and spread by atheists in the beginning until the brainwashing took over. I continue in the cause to brainwash school-children because I am forced to, and, by the way, I do a pretty good job of it.

[biotchr]

[quote="AstusAleator
HAVING SAID ALL THAT:
If you still believe that abiogenesis is based on belief not science, (which I'm sure you do) then please reveal to me the parts of the theory that demonstrate a reliance on belief rather than science.[/quote]

ALL OF IT

[AstusAleator]

Please read my post in the Origins of Life thread, as that has zapped most of my energy tonight. I'll just do a couple of quick responses to what you said above:

Whether or not a creator created the universe is irrelevant to the argument over the TOE.

Science has defined limitations and seeks to explore relationships and properties within those limitations.

Your statement, the "TOE is the closest humans have ever gotten to defining a viable origin of life without associating some meaning or purpose to it" is absolutely staggering.

Do you think that it would be scientific to hypothesize an origins that is directed by some unseen metaphysical (spiritual) hand? Furthermore, do you think it would be scientific to make hypotheses on origins based on the assumption that life has a specific purpose? If so, what purpose would that be?