science does not know the cause of life.

science does not know the cause of life. — Wayfarer

Are you saying that science does not know how life started? I think you're right, but so what? Science does not know the cause of many things. I don't see that as a criticism or a problem. The scientific method is a process for finding out things we do not know.

I think you're right, but so what? — T Clark

It's germane, given the topic. Any number of insoluble problems might be solved "one day". The idea that this is something that science might solve "one day" already embodies assumptions about the kind of issue it is.

It's germane, given the topic. Any number of insoluble problems might be solved "one day". The idea that this is something that science might solve "one day" already embodies assumptions about the kind of issue it is. — Wayfarer

I'm not sure if we are agreeing or disagreeing. As I said to BitterCrank in an earlier post, I think it is likely that the life began as the result of relatively mundane physical and chemical processes. Unsolved is not the same as insoluble.

I think it is likely that the life began as the result of relatively mundane physical and chemical processe — T Clark

Without a shred of evidence to support such an assumption, one can classify this as faith - which is fine as long as it is understood that this is all that science offers. At least it provides insight into the nature of faith: unremitting hope followed by a strong belief.

As I said to BitterCrank in an earlier post, I think it is likely that the life began as the result of relatively mundane physical and chemical processes. Unsolved is not the same as insoluble. — T Clark

Sure! It's just a matter of finding The Right Stuff! Give me the atomic table, and lab, and I'll show you how simple it is. So likely as to be almost trivial.










not

science does not know the cause of life. — Wayfarer

But in 100 years, it has narrowed down the options vastly. Which can't be said of any other approach to "knowing".

Perhaps you ought to read some up to date account, like Nick Lane's books, before making such pronouncements.

If you don't find his team's theory of abiogenesis convincing, you are of course free to tell us why.

Yes. The options are "it just happened". Not bad for the hundreds of billions of dollars spent discovering this. I suppose it will just require just a few $trillion more and we'll have it, right along with a cure for cancer and alzheimer's and just about everything else.

Another approach might be the 10% tithe.

Hope and faith spring eternal.

Of course, we can save ourselves a while bunch of money and simply acknowledge the obvious that consciousness is fundamental.

I have no doubt there are many plausible ideas but I happen to think that the question is not a scientific one.

Hi Apokrisis, what are the primary reasons given in support of abiogenesis in Nick Lane's books? Can you give a quick overview? Thanks.

'“It would be possible to describe everything scientifically, but it would make no sense; it would be without meaning, as if you described a Beethoven symphony as a variation of wave pressure.” - Albert Einstein

Without a shred of evidence to support such an assumption, one can classify this as faith - which is fine as long as it is understood that this is all that science offers. At least it provides insight into the nature of faith: unremitting hope followed by a strong belief. — Rich

How did my "I think it is likely" turn into your "unremitting hope followed by a strong belief?" My thoughts come from two sources 1) In the absence of other evidence, I admit a preference for explanations based on simple processes operating under ordinary conditions and 2) I have read discussions of self-organizing minerals and speculation that these could have a role in the transition from non-living to living. Those speculations seem plausible.

Sure! It's just a matter of finding The Right Stuff! Give me the atomic table, and lab, and I'll show you how simple it is. So likely as to be almost trivial.

not — Wayfarer

How do you know it's not? Why wouldn't it be? Why would you expect that a common phenomenon of nature such as life would have to have an exotic explanation?

Let's be clear. Whatever is happening is the laboratory, and it isn't much, is being created by the existing mind. it is that mind that has to be explained.

What someone needs to observe is some chemicals sitting on a beach miraculously springing to life to a chorus of Hallelujah. At some point, after spending $hundreds of billions, we have to step back and acknowledge what a monumental waste of money this experiment had been, and use the money when it can do the most good: providing healthy food to people who need it.

I have read discussions of self-organizing minerals and speculation that these could have a role in the transition from non-living to living. Those speculations seem plausible. — T Clark

Yes, it's a good point. Its a bit like a forest for the trees way of thinking though. For me the question is why are they doing that? Why are atoms forming molecules forming cycles and systems?

How do you know it's not? Why wouldn't it be? Why would you expect that a common phenomenon of nature such as life would have to have an exotic explanation? — T Clark

Again forest for the trees. By skipping over intentionality or directional design and simply observing what you can measure, you miss the whole show.

'“It would be possible to describe everything scientifically, but it would make no sense; it would be without meaning, as if you described a Beethoven symphony as a variation of wave pressure.” - Albert Einstein — Wayfarer

But we're not talking about a Beethoven symphony. We're talking about physical, chemical, and biological processes and how they relate to each other. In what way is that not a scientific question?

But we're not talking about a Beethoven symphony. We're talking about physical, chemical, and biological processes and how they relate to each other. In what way is that not a scientific question? — T Clark

That's where I disagree.

Your faith in science is no more or less than that exhibited by the average Church goers faith in God. Lots of hope, lots of beliefs. Pretty strong.

Nothing wrong with faith but I guess it is difficult for some to acknowledge it, because science is all about evidence even when there is none.

But we're not talking about a Beethoven symphony. We're talking about physical, chemical, and biological processes and how they relate to each other — T Clark

Such is your faith, because there is zero evidence of this.

Again forest for the trees. By skipping over intentionality or directional design and simply observing what you can measure, you miss the whole show. — MikeL

I didn't "skip over" intentionality, I reject it because there is no evidence for it or need for it. Why complicate a simple understanding with unnecessary decoration?

Such is your faith, because there is zero evidence of this. — Rich

Evidence of what? Are you denying that life is a physical, chemical, and biological process?

If you want to limit your understanding to what you can measure then your findings will suit you completely.

For example, we may ask "Why did the train start moving?" It was because the wheels turned on the track. They turned on the track because the pistons drove them. The pistons drove them because of steam pressure from the furnace boiling the water. The fire in the furnace was caused by burning wood. Problem solved. That explains how the train started to move, but not why. It started to move because someone released the breaks and pushed the throttle forward. Intentionality is not needed for how, but it is needed for why. If you don't ask why then current theories will fill you with understanding.

That's where I disagree. — MikeL

Explain please. What in my statement do you disagree with?

Life is a symphony.

Intentionality is not needed for how, but it is needed for why. If you don't ask why then current theories will fill you with understanding. — MikeL

Science cannot answer why and I don't care why. How is what matters and what I want to know.

Evidence of what? Are you denying that life is a physical, chemical, and biological process? — T Clark

Surprise! Someone doesn't share your faith. But that is the way life is. Some have this faith and others that. You have faith that life miraculous springs from chemicals. Poof! Others have faith that Gof created life. Chemicals vs God. It's a standoff.

Me? I believe mind created both of these stories and the accompanying faith.

Surprise! Someone doesn't share your faith. — Rich

You didn't answer my question. Are you denying that life is a physical, chemical, and biological process?

How is what matters and what I want to know. — T Clark

It sounds like you already know. Atoms self-organised into molecules, molecules self-organised into cycles, cycles self-organised into systems, complex systems self-organised into cells and cell groups. Cell groups self-organised into tissues, tissues self-organised into organs, organs self-organised into organisms. Whalla, here we both are.

You didn't answer my question. Are you denying that life is a physical, chemical, and biological process? — T Clark

Life is fundamental. Those terms you use are scientific labels for different types observations of life.