It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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 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.
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.
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???
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.""