I need to add a category “Yet Another Accident of Nature”. 😆
Comments
BTW, in addition jmdc:
"It is awe inspiring, the innumerable complexities in nature and how they all coexist to form extremely fine tuned systems of complexity. That nature has self organizing tendencies should be apparent."
What do yu exactly mean by self-organizing tendencies? As I've said, the nature of nature (if that made any sense) is to actually disorganize. Even if you see spectacular, awe-inspiring sights such as sparkling constellations or the arrangement of stalactites on a cave -- these things are still in a disorganized/random state according to physics. You cannot conclude that those things you mentioned are self-organizing by your mere opinion that they are. You have to study their innate attraction/bonds and how heat flows (thermodynamics) from them.skwayred
April 18, 2007
April
04
Apr
18
18
2007
11:16 AM
11
11
16
AM
PDT
jmdc said: "...From these interactions of interactions of interactions we find everything from life giving water to ordinary rocks, to oxegyn, to stars and all the glories in the heavens. We may be similarly inclined to write off these amazing balancing acts as requiring overt acts of intelligence. You would be a fool to think otherwise..."
This is again the typical snowflake-esqe analogy which has long been addressed and debunked. That is to say, your comparison is inappropriate. The attraction between elementary particles/chemicals (like when an element is formed) follow the 2nd thermodynamic law. Waters form, snowflakes form, elements form because it is their natural tendency (low-energy state). That's the reason why it is so easy to spot these things forming spontaneously.
On the other hand, can you show us molecular machines forming spontaneously? I bet my bottom dollar that you can't. They function and manufacture enzymes/proteins because heat/energy is localized through of course the DNA (coded obviously by an intelligent entity). To give you an example: We have the capacity to localize heat by using up our energy in exchange of stacking books or painting a portrait. Without acting out our "thought" to localize heat, it will always tend to disorganize.
In other words, molecular machines run in contrast to the 2nd law which states that heat tend to disorganize, not localize. That's the reason why the improbability of these forming is so astronomical.
Another thing to note is that "water" or anything you have mentioned do not manufacture anything. To compare them to molecular machines is really naive. It's like saying that just because silver is naturally formed, then a tool made of silver must also have been formed naturally. Not quite.skwayred
April 18, 2007
April
04
Apr
18
18
2007
10:05 AM
10
10
05
AM
PDT
"If we were simply aware of the parts of matter and had little to no idea of the laws that govern matter, I imagine that we would be equally as suspicious of the notion that impossibly small components bonded in different ways to form larger components that when placed in just the right way could form larger molecules with certain properties, and that these larger particles could interact with others in any myriad ofways. From these interactions of interactions of interactions we find everything from life giving water to ordinary rocks, to oxegyn, to stars and all the glories in the heavens. We may be similarly inclined to write off these amazing balancing acts as requiring overt acts of intelligence. You would be a fool to think otherwise."
As soon as you come up with a law-like concept that can account for specified complexity, I'll start to take your idea seriously. Unfortunately, the very concept of law-like forces is anathema to the very idea of information bearing media, such as DNA. As far as we know, you can have one or the other, not both.
Ought we to proceed with caution? Absolutely. Is there any reason to throw out the window two known facts (namely, (i) intelligence is known to produce complex specified information, and (ii) nothing else has been shown to)? I think not.Eric Anderson
February 21, 2007
February
02
Feb
21
21
2007
07:38 PM
7
07
38
PM
PDT
"It is not unreasonable to believe that this machinery evolved . . ."
Meaning what? That the machinery may have been perturbed/modified somewhat during the course of biological history, or that a blind natural process could have produced the machinery in the first place? The former is an intriguing possibility; the latter an absurdity.Eric Anderson
February 21, 2007
February
02
Feb
21
21
2007
07:32 PM
7
07
32
PM
PDT
RNA interference (RNAi) is a specific observation that double-stranded RNA can silence genes. That was the key insight that led to the Nobel prize.
However, the discovery of siRNAs was also key.
One thing the video failed to mention is that the RNAi machinery is also involved in transcriptional silencing. siRNA molecules can also enter the nucleus and lead to the formation of silent chromatin, presumably by targetting mRNA at the site of transcription and recruiting machinery that modifies histones to form silent chromatin.
It is not unreasonable to believe that this machinery evolved because there are homologs of these proteins in prokaryotes and there is nothing akin to RNAi in prokaryotes.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=pubmed&list_uids=15284453&cmd=Retrieve&indexed=google
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pyrococcus_furiosusbdelloid
February 21, 2007
February
02
Feb
21
21
2007
06:11 PM
6
06
11
PM
PDT
Baulcombe is credited with describing siRNA which are molecules involved in the RNA interference process (RNAi). It appears c.elegans research got the Nobel for describing the whole process and finding practical application.DaveScot
February 21, 2007
February
02
Feb
21
21
2007
03:38 PM
3
03
38
PM
PDT
From what I understand RNAi was first discovered in plants Tobacco Rattle Virus not C. elegans, by Professor David Baulcombe. So, maybe he deserves a Nobel Prize? hehe:-)Apoptosis
February 21, 2007
February
02
Feb
21
21
2007
01:05 PM
1
01
05
PM
PDT
Dave,
After viewing the animations in the series you presented one can only conclude that one day people (especially scientists) will shake their heads in amazement that intelligent, educated people actually accepted the notion that Darwinian mechanisms produced these things. Historians of science will point to this phenomenon as the prime example of how scientists can be fooled, conned, or manipulated by groupthink, peer pressure, and philosophical commitments that lead to erroneous assumptions and conclusions.GilDodgen
February 21, 2007
February
02
Feb
21
21
2007
12:37 PM
12
12
37
PM
PDT
It is an effective means of popularizing the intuitive argument that complexity of a certain magnitude requires design. It does not however get into the real issues of why nature is incapable of a certain level of comlexity.
If we were simply aware of the parts of matter and had little to no idea of the laws that govern matter, I imagine that we would be equally as suspicious of the notion that impossibly small components bonded in different ways to form larger components that when placed in just the right way could form larger molecules with certain properties, and that these larger particles could interact with others in any myriad ofways. From these interactions of interactions of interactions we find everything from life giving water to ordinary rocks, to oxegyn, to stars and all the glories in the heavens. We may be similarly inclined to write off these amazing balancing acts as requiring overt acts of intelligence. You would be a fool to think otherwise.
We do however have fairly good notions of the forces that govern nature and we do not need active intelligences pulling the strings behind the curtain to explain what we see in the universe. It is awe inspiring, the innumerable complexities in nature and how they all coexist to form extremely fine tuned systems of complexity. That nature has self organizing tendencies should be apparent. Are these tendencies capable of climbing up the ladder to the complexities and exquisitely intricate workings of matter in life? Well that we do not know, but historically speaking anyways the doubters of nature have always been wrong.
I agree to demand that nature is capable is not justified. To strongly doubt that capability is also not justified. That said it makes sense to me to start with nature as your working hyothesis.
Any practical scientific knowledge requires an understanding of natural forces that we can manipulate. It really is not science as we know it when you run into a higher intelligence manipulating nature.jmcd
February 21, 2007
February
02
Feb
21
21
2007
10:58 AM
10
10
58
AM
PDT
"I need to add a category 'Yet Another Accident of Nature'."
How about a "Videos" category? That way you could see all the videos that have been posted here all together in one place.jb
February 21, 2007
February
02
Feb
21
21
2007
10:18 AM
10
10
18
AM
PDT
Where is the ID research?
All biology research is ID research, and it is making NDE look more ridiculous every day.sagebrush gardener
February 21, 2007
February
02
Feb
21
21
2007
08:35 AM
8
08
35
AM
PDT
That's just incredible. How could anyone in their right mind suggest it "just happened" like that??shaner74
February 21, 2007
February
02
Feb
21
21
2007
06:41 AM
6
06
41
AM
PDT
4 minutes and 40 seconds ago I was an evolutionist :-)Robo