How close are you in believing ?

originally posted by: Phantom423
Regarding your article, I think it's really intended for scientists who actually do this sort of work and are familiar with the references. It's interesting but it touches on many different aspects of self organization as it relates to evolutionary biology. I don't do that sort of work in the lab so it's hard for me to say that everything in the article is valid.

Hmm..

originally posted by: Phantom423
That said, the authors do emphasize the importance of physics in understanding self organization. And this is what I mentioned in a previous post with regard to self assembly.

Yes, I mentioned this being a matter biophysics in my first [or second] reply to you.

originally posted by: Phantom423
The difference between self assembly and self organization can be considered external and internal - external like the viral coat which they mentioned and internal like protein folding and intracellular organization. However, in essence, I think the same physical dynamics are in play.

Well, a self-assembled structure is said to correspond to thermodynamic equilibrium of a closed system, where a structure formed by self-organization is considered far from equilibrium and is possible only in open systems with an external energy source. Which one does the eye fall into?

originally posted by: Phantom423
The point is that systems can form dynamically in nature. It's structure/function. The most stable structure will be selected to perform a particular function.

Why is that point in all of this? To me that's a blasé statement. It doesn't explain how you self-assembled/organized into your thinking self.

a reply to: PhotonEffect

originally posted by: Phantom423 That said, I don't have a clue why the authors decided to use those particular words. I don't think it's worth the time and effort to try to figure out what was going on in their heads at the time. We would have to ask them. Didn't you read the paper you posted?

Yes I read the paper. I don't appreciate being insulted. Do you know why they used those particular words? I don't. If you have some insight, I would appreciate your interpretation.

a reply to: PhotonEffect

originally posted by: Phantom423 That said, the authors do emphasize the importance of physics in understanding self organization. And this is what I mentioned in a previous post with regard to self assembly. Yes, I mentioned this being a matter biophysics in my first [or second] reply to you.

And???? So what???

a reply to: PhotonEffect

originally posted by: Phantom423 The point is that systems can form dynamically in nature. It's structure/function. The most stable structure will be selected to perform a particular function. Why is that point in all of this? To me that's a blasé statement. It doesn't explain how you self-assembled/organized into your thinking self.

I'm sorry that science doesn't accommodate your questions. If you can't think through the problem, then perhaps you should drop it. If you think that systems which can form dynamically in nature is a blase idea, perhaps you should get out of your armchair and get into a real lab to know how science really works. And therein lies the problem - armchair philosophers and would-be scientists have no appreciation of what it takes to get to that statement.

Your responses suggest to me that you can't discuss the essence of the science behind the articles. And that's fine. But please don't ask me to compensate for your lack of knowledge in the field.

originally posted by: Phantom423
Yes I read the paper. I don't appreciate being insulted. Do you know why they used those particular words? I don't. If you have some insight, I would appreciate your interpretation.

I didn't mean to insult you, but if we're going to be honest here, you didn't seem to have a problem calling me out and asking the same question of me with 5 question marks after it.

I thought with your science background and having posted that paper that you would have come across this and understood what it meant, or that it might cause someone to question those terms. As you said - in this forum 'them's is fightin' words".

originally posted by: PhotonEffect
Yes, I mentioned this being a matter biophysics in my first [or second] reply to you.

originally posted by: Phantom423
And???? So what???

Is the question mark key stuck on your key board?

I was the first to suggest this being a matter of biophysics, to see if you'd build upon it with your knowledge. Instead you seem to keep insisting that it's connected to natural selection. Biophysics is a matter of systems biology, a very interesting field of study. Systematics is a subdiscipline of modern biology. So this whole thing about self-assembly being a sub category to evolutionary biology doesn't seem accurate.

originally posted by: Phantom423
I'm sorry that science doesn't accommodate your questions. If you can't think through the problem, then perhaps you should drop it. If you think that systems which can form dynamically in nature is a blase idea, perhaps you should get out of your armchair and get into a real lab to know how science really works. And therein lies the problem - armchair philosophers and would-be scientists have no appreciation of what it takes to get to that statement.

Your responses suggest to me that you can't discuss the essence of the science behind the articles. And that's fine. But please don't ask me to compensate for your lack of knowledge in the field.

So now you have to resort to ad hominem as well? Pity, I thought you were better than that

My problem is not and had never been with science. I love science and what the discipline uncovers. My problem is with people who claim to practice science but then use it to sway biases. That's not what it's for.

I'm 100% arm chair, you are right. It's why I ask a lot of questions and can be a stickler for verbiage. There are a lot of gaps in what is known, and it seems that folks like to fill those gaps with terms like "self assembly". As if that's a a real answer with explanatory power. Same with your claim about "systems forming dynamically in nature". How does this answer anything? Where's the science behind that statement? The explanatory power?

I read a lot of the material, digest what I can, research terms and concepts I don't fully understand and reread it again if time allows. Sometimes the science can get lost in the context by which it is disseminated to the public. Metaphors are used to paint some kind of a picture of how things work to make it easier for the lay person to understand it. This is nice and all but I think a lot of times it can cause people to draw the wrong conclusions or leaves room for misinterpretation, or even question the veracity of the science itself.

No problem, I will keep exploring for the answers I seek. I should know better than trying to find them here.

a reply to: PhotonEffect

My problem is not and had never been with science. I love science and what the discipline uncovers. My problem is with people who claim to practice science but then use it to sway biases. That's not what it's for.

I completely understand that and I agree. Good science is objective and pragmatic - it doesn't care what your opinion is - it only cares about evidence.

Well, a self-assembled structure is said to correspond to thermodynamic equilibrium of a closed system, where a structure formed by self-organization is considered far from equilibrium and is possible only in open systems with an external energy source. Which one does the eye fall into?

You apparently want answers in toto - a complete schematic of the process of building the eye from scratch. Well, we don't have all that information. There are limitations as to how much information you can extract from lab experiments and the fossil record. It's very much dependent on instrumentation and technology. As new technology is developed, we'll extract more pieces of the puzzle. It's never a finished book.

I understand that you're very interested in science and you have a good grasp of how it works - but the big key to really understanding science comes from experience at the bench - getting your hands dirty, working with instruments, analyzing real results, etc. That's the wake-up call because you realize what you can do as well as what you can't do. There are limitations. You really don't get that from research papers.

Just as an aside, I have a friend who home schools her son - he's getting a good education, is very smart. But when we discussed science, 90% of what he learns is from books. They only go into a "lab" to cut up a frog once in a while. So I told her what I'm telling you - books are great, research papers are a key source of new information - but hands-on experience in the lab is the most crucial, and unfortunately, he doesn't really get that.

I really don't want to ramble on about this. I understand you can't go into a lab and acquire that first-hand knowledge. But one thing you can do is read the Materials and Methods sections of the research papers - learn about how they actually got the results.

BTW, you mentioned Dawkins earlier in a post. I don't like the man nor do I agree with his position on hard science vs religion. He's an avowed atheist - which is fine - his personal beliefs are his own. But as a scientist, he falls very short because he's hell-bound to prove that there isn't a god when, in fact, that's totally impossible because there's no evidence either way. You can't prove it; you can't disprove it. People like Dawkins are politicians, not scientists - they want to sell their wares which amounts to selling his ego which is huge.

Apologies- I briefly got involved in another thread and forgot about this one.

originally posted by: Phantom423
I completely understand that and I agree. Good science is objective and pragmatic - it doesn't care what your opinion is - it only cares about evidence.

Yes, true to a degree I think. Although scientists will have opinions on the data/evidence they are interpreting. After a paper is written, it is not blindly accepted. It must be peer reviewed, where opinions are imposed on whether the evidence and science in that paper is sound.

originally posted by: Phantom423
You apparently want answers in toto - a complete schematic of the process of building the eye from scratch. Well, we don't have all that information. There are limitations as to how much information you can extract from lab experiments and the fossil record.

Not really a schematic, just a better understanding of the inherent nature of certain kinds of matter to arrange itself into ultra complex intelligent ordered biological structures.

originally posted by: Phantom423
I understand that you're very interested in science and you have a good grasp of how it works - but the big key to really understanding science comes from experience at the bench - getting your hands dirty, working with instruments, analyzing real results, etc.

Fair enough, I get what you're saying. The research papers are the derivative of the lab experiments and I think do a good enough job of painting a picture for us arm chair types. But then there's the bold type.

originally posted by: Phantom423
BTW, you mentioned Dawkins earlier in a post. I don't like the man nor do I agree with his position on hard science vs religion.

I don't care for him either. He's taken science and turned into a tool of ignorance in some ways. He's a good story teller, Ill give him that, and there's a mass of folks who eat up his bs. But there are far better quality scientists out there in my humble opinion.

Got a new vid up on Trinity PC ..."What if you believe in Christianity, and it’s false? Have you lost much, really? On the other hand, if you believe it and it’s true – eternal life!

What if you don’t believe it, and it’s true? No eternal life, and maybe something way worse. What if you don’t believe it, and it’s false? You’ve successfully avoided wasting your time and money on church, and have avoided believing a falsehood. A little gain, to be sure, but nothing extreme.

If you think the most compelling options are Christianity or naturalism, these are the possibilities you must weigh. Just compare them. Isn’t the prudent choice to do whatever it takes to believe Christianity, adopting the lifestyle of a participating seeker, and hoping that Christian beliefs will eventually follow?

In this episode Dr. Michael Rota of the University of St. Thomas discusses his new book Taking Pascal’s Wager: Faith, Evidence and the Abundant Life. This is an accessible, well-written, and carefully argued book which makes good use of much recent work by philosophers of religion. In my view, it’s better than C.S. Lewis’s classic Mere Christianity. In this first part of our conversation, Dr. Rota presents the basics of part 1 of the book, a practical argument for taking up a religious life. It turns out that the social sciences have strengthened the argument in some ways which Pascal couldn’t have anticipated.""

a reply to: the2ofusr1

Pascal's Wager was debunked some 400 years ago. Why am I not surprised to find a creationist thinking a logically unsound argument from hundreds of years ago is somehow new and compelling.

originally posted by: the2ofusr1
Got a new vid up on Trinity PC ..."What if you believe in Christianity, and it’s false? Have you lost much, really? On the other hand, if you believe it and it’s true – eternal life!

What if you don’t believe it, and it’s true? No eternal life, and maybe something way worse. What if you don’t believe it, and it’s false? You’ve successfully avoided wasting your time and money on church, and have avoided believing a falsehood. A little gain, to be sure, but nothing extreme.

If you think the most compelling options are Christianity or naturalism, these are the possibilities you must weigh. Just compare them. Isn’t the prudent choice to do whatever it takes to believe Christianity, adopting the lifestyle of a participating seeker, and hoping that Christian beliefs will eventually follow?

In this episode Dr. Michael Rota of the University of St. Thomas discusses his new book Taking Pascal’s Wager: Faith, Evidence and the Abundant Life. This is an accessible, well-written, and carefully argued book which makes good use of much recent work by philosophers of religion. In my view, it’s better than C.S. Lewis’s classic Mere Christianity. In this first part of our conversation, Dr. Rota presents the basics of part 1 of the book, a practical argument for taking up a religious life. It turns out that the social sciences have strengthened the argument in some ways which Pascal couldn’t have anticipated.""

The same reason I don't hang garlic above my doors and windows to ward off vampires.