What if god...

[Luc Turpin]

49 minutes ago, iNow said:

That’s a feature of science, not a bug

Science is partly rooted in skepticism, yes, but it should not be adversarial. Adversarial approaches often devolve into emotion rather than reasoned debate.

[m_m]

Just now, Phi for All said:

Ah, so your god has a Plan, but it's not aligned with its Will? People die because of other people, your god didn't will it, but it's part of its plan?! You've got this figured out where you never have to give a straight answer and you can always claim you're right!

We are not robots, we have our free will. 

[Luc Turpin]

1 hour ago, swansont said:

Scientists say a lot of things, and it’s not always about science. Argument by quotation is pretty lame, as I think I’ve mentioned before (it’s the argument from authority fallacy) and it’s even worse when there’s no context or even an actual quote.

Using quotations to support an argument is a valid approach. However, you have extracted a single element from the broader context I’ve been presenting across several posts. That said, I acknowledge that I could have articulated my point more clearly. I maintain that the search for universal laws, among other things, is an integral part of understanding reality.

[iNow]

28 minutes ago, Luc Turpin said:

Adversarial approaches often devolve into emotion rather than reasoned debate.

That’s a fault of humans not of science 

21 minutes ago, m_m said:

We are not robots, we have our free will. 

Depends on how one defines free will. Also off-topic 

[swansont]

57 minutes ago, Luc Turpin said:

Using quotations to support an argument is a valid approach

Not this kind of argument. It’s fallacious, and perhaps worse, it’s lazy. You can’t make the case yourself, so you find others who said something that has a keyword or two  in it, but if you don’t know the circumstances of their statement you don’t really know what point they were making. I’ve seen quotes pulled out of context that meant the opposite of what the poster implied. So color me unimpressed by quote-mining. If you’ve got an argument, learn the details yourself and make it.

[zapatos]

4 hours ago, Luc Turpin said:

I have not encountered any mention that the food itself becomes "alive" within the body.

So you acknowledge that the body is alive, but cannot accept that any of the things that compose the body (heart, lung, cells) are alive. Again, you are only leaving the possibility that "life" has nothing to do with the actual body, and if that is the case, what option do you have but to believe that life is a non-physical entity floating around somewhere waiting to inhabit a physical body? 

Your argument is not convincing.

[Luc Turpin]

3 hours ago, iNow said:

That’s a fault of humans not of science 

I agree, but that is not an excuse for unchecked or unrestrained commenting.

2 hours ago, swansont said:

Not this kind of argument. It’s fallacious, and perhaps worse, it’s lazy. You can’t make the case yourself, so you find others who said something that has a keyword or two  in it, but if you don’t know the circumstances of their statement you don’t really know what point they were making. I’ve seen quotes pulled out of context that meant the opposite of what the poster implied. So color me unimpressed by quote-mining. If you’ve got an argument, learn the details yourself and make it.

Taking several days to prepare a single post is not lazy.

Accompanying citations with arguments is not fallacious.

I maintain that most scientists are driven by a genuine desire to understand how the world works, whether or not this is explicitly acknowledged in science is a matter for debate. When looking at science across various fields, it’s evident that we are making significant progress in deepening our understanding of the world. I’m not suggesting that our comprehension is complete, but that it is an ongoing process. Discovery is crucial, but without a general sense of intent, it becomes data without much meaning.

1 hour ago, zapatos said:

So you acknowledge that the body is alive, but cannot accept that any of the things that compose the body (heart, lung, cells) are alive. Again, you are only leaving the possibility that "life" has nothing to do with the actual body, and if that is the case, what option do you have but to believe that life is a non-physical entity floating around somewhere waiting to inhabit a physical body? 

Your argument is not convincing.

The heart, lungs, and cells are undeniably alive, but proteins, despite being essential for bodily functions, are not considered "alive." Life is intricately linked to the body; more precicely to cells in the body. The question of how inert matter transforms into living cells remains unresolved, leaving us with two possibilities: either we have not yet uncovered the full mechanism, or there is something beyond our current scientific understanding that we have yet to identify. What this missing something might be remains unknown and speculative. 

Edited Monday at 06:57 PM by Luc Turpin

[iNow]

18 minutes ago, Luc Turpin said:

that is not an excuse for unchecked or unrestrained commenting.

No excuse required. I’ll comment wherever and however I please (until I’m restrained by group norms and enforcers of them)

[Luc Turpin]

Just now, iNow said:

No excuse required. I’ll comment wherever and however I please (until I’m restrained by group norms and enforcers of them)

Yup! And you complain about the internet age!

[exchemist]

44 minutes ago, Luc Turpin said:

 

The heart, lungs, and cells are undeniably alive, but proteins, despite being essential for bodily functions, are not considered "alive." Life is intricately linked to the body; more precicely to cells in the body. The question of how inert matter transforms into living cells remains unresolved, leaving us with two possibilities: either we have not yet uncovered the full mechanism, or there is something beyond our current scientific understanding that we have yet to identify. What this missing something might be remains unknown and speculative. 

It is not clear what you are talking about here. It is perfectly obvious how inanimate matter (e.g. food substances, oxygen) become incorporated into living tissue. Do you really think we don't know how that happens? 

Or are you saying we don't know how abiogenesis occurred?  That is undeniably true, since it is one of the hardest problems in modern science, due to the lack of direct evidence from almost 4bn years ago when it took place. However considerable progress has been made.

Contrary to what you seem to be trying to insinuate, there is no reason to think there is some special magic ingredient, beyond the scope of biochemistry, involved. Life is quite evidently a process of biochemical reactions and biophysical processes, occurring within cells. 

Can you clarify what it is you are suggesting is missing? 

Edited Monday at 07:24 PM by exchemist

[Genady]

1 hour ago, Luc Turpin said:

I maintain that most scientists are driven by a genuine desire to understand how the world works, whether or not this is explicitly acknowledged in science is a matter for debate. When looking at science across various fields, it’s evident that we are making significant progress in deepening our understanding of the world. I’m not suggesting that our comprehension is complete, but that it is an ongoing process. Discovery is crucial, but without a general sense of intent, it becomes data without much meaning.

I maintain that this is preaching, which is against the rules.

[swansont]

2 hours ago, Luc Turpin said:

Taking several days to prepare a single post is not lazy.

Argument by quote-mining is intellectually lazy. Admitting you spend lots of time assembling your posts is an admission of inefficiency rather than assuring quality.

“I worked on this a long time” is one of the items in crackpot bingo (i.e. it’s a red flag in discussions) because people who peddle such nonsense think it matters, rather than the result.

 

2 hours ago, Luc Turpin said:

Accompanying citations with arguments is not fallacious.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_authority

People aren’t right just because they say something, and it is especially dangerous to assume they’re right outside their area of expertise. It’s also important to discern whether they are stating an opinion, which is not a claim that something is objectively true.

[Genady]

Scientific writing guidelines, "Using Quotations in Scientific Writing":

Quote

Unlike other styles of writing, scientific writing rarely includes direct quotations. Why?

• Quotations usually detract from the point you want to communicate.

• Quotations do not reflect original thinking.

Inexperienced writers may be tempted to quote, especially when they don’t understand the content. However, the writer who understands her subject can always find a way to paraphrase from a research article without losing the intended meaning – and paraphrasing shows that the writer knows what she is talking about.

Etc. quotes_082014

Quote

In academia, quotes should be used sparingly; many academic papers don’t use them at all.

_quoting_and_paraphrasing.pdf

 

Quote

Scientists often use the ideas and findings of other scientists in our writing, but it is rare in scientific writing to use direct quotations from previously published work. When writers incorporate the ideas or findings of others in their writing, rather than quote, they paraphrase (and cite), taking great care to avoid any hint of plagiarism.  

An adage in scientific writing is “focus on the science, not on the scientists.” In other words, scientists generally avoid using quotations.

Using Literature – Write Like A Scientist

[Luc Turpin]

1 hour ago, exchemist said:

It is not clear what you are talking about here. It is perfectly obvious how inanimate matter (e.g. food substances, oxygen) become incorporated into living tissue. Do you really think we don't know how that happens? 

Or are you saying we don't know how abiogenesis occurred?  That is undeniably true, since it is one of the hardest problems in modern science, due to the lack of direct evidence from almost 4bn years ago when it took place. However considerable progress has been made.

Contrary to what you seem to be trying to insinuate, there is no reason to think there is some special magic ingredient, beyond the scope of biochemistry, involved. Life is quite evidently a process of biochemical reactions and biophysical processes, occurring within cells. 

Can you clarify what it is you are suggesting is missing? 

The lack of observed abiogenesis in both nature and the lab suggests that our understanding of how life arises from non-living matter may be incomplete. This gap implies that there might be key mechanisms we have yet to identify. One emerging possibility is quantum biology, which explores whether quantum mechanics could play a role in biological processes. While quantum effects may offer new insights, these ideas remain speculative.

1 hour ago, Genady said:

I maintain that this is preaching, which is against the rules.

I beg to differ, the text is not preaching, but rather an expression of an opinion about the nature of scientific inquiry. I am not imparting a moral or doctrinal message. I am just conveying what reputable scientists have said about understanding reality. I am trying to share a perspective.

51 minutes ago, swansont said:

Argument by quote-mining is intellectually lazy. Admitting you spend lots of time assembling your posts is an admission of inefficiency rather than assuring quality.

“I worked on this a long time” is one of the items in crackpot bingo (i.e. it’s a red flag in discussions) because people who peddle such nonsense think it matters, rather than the result.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_authority

People aren’t right just because they say something, and it is especially dangerous to assume they’re right outside their area of expertise. It’s also important to discern whether they are stating an opinion, which is not a claim that something is objectively true.

I wouldn’t call myself intellectually lazy, though I may not be the sharpest, as I honestly don’t know where to begin with this. 

 

[exchemist]

28 minutes ago, Luc Turpin said:

The lack of observed abiogenesis in both nature and the lab suggests that our understanding of how life arises from non-living matter may be incomplete. This gap implies that there might be key mechanisms we have yet to identify. One emerging possibility is quantum biology, which explores whether quantum mechanics could play a role in biological processes. While quantum effects may offer new insights, these ideas remain speculative.

 

 

No it doesn't at all. This is reminiscent of creationist claptrap. There are many fields of scientific knowledge that are acquired by observation without anything at all being done in a laboratory, and many natural processes that we have understood even through they cannot be observed to take place on a human timescale, for instance star formation, or plate tectonics.

It is trivially obvious that our knowledge of abiogenesis is incomplete, so sure, there are key steps to be elucidated, but this is true of any active area of scientific research. There is nothing unique about life in that respect. There is no evidence of a qualitative "gap" that is somehow unique to the understanding of how life arose. It is just a question of the obvious difficulty of piecing together something very complex by extrapolating from present biochemistry back 4bn years and fitting it to what we know of pre-biotic chemistry on the Earth at that time.  

As for quantum biology, this is nothing special either, really. All chemistry depends on quantum mechanics. Quantum effects are everywhere in biochemistry, though we are finding (or speculating about) new processes in some of which relatively exotic QM phenomena, such as tunnelling, have been invoked. There is no way I can see that considering  such QM effects would materially alter the challenge of understanding abiogenesis. 

Understanding abiogenesis is just a very, very big jigsaw to assemble.  I don't understand why you keep harping on about some mystical missing element - unless you are creationist who doesn't want to admit it, of course.😁  

Edited Monday at 10:46 PM by exchemist

[Luc Turpin]

21 minutes ago, exchemist said:

No it doesn't at all. This is reminiscent of creationist claptrap. There are many fields of scientific knowledge that are acquired by observation without anything at all being done in a laboratory, and many natural processes that we have understood even through they cannot be observed to take place on a human timescale, for instance star formation, or plate tectonics.

It is trivially obvious that our knowledge of abiogenesis is incomplete, so sure, there are key steps to be elucidated, but this is true of any active area of scientific research. There is nothing unique about life in that respect. There is no evidence of a qualitative "gap" that is somehow unique to the understanding of how life arose. It is just a question of the obvious difficulty of piecing together something very complex by extrapolating from present biochemistry back 4bn years and fitting it to what we know of pre-biotic chemistry on the Earth at that time.  

As for quantum biology, this is nothing special either, really. All chemistry depends on quantum mechanics. Quantum effects are everywhere in biochemistry, though we are finding (or speculating about) new processes in some of which relatively exotic QM phenomena, such as tunnelling, have been invoked. There is no way I can see that considering  such QM effects would materially alter the challenge of understanding abiogenesis. 

Understanding abiogenesis is just a very, very big jigsaw to assemble.  I don't understand why you keep harping on about some mystical missing element - unless you are creationist who doesn't want to admit it, of course.😁  

If there is no evidence of a qualitative "gap" in our understanding, then why have some turned to quantum biology as a potential venue for the origin of life? Concepts like quantum superposition and entanglement have been proposed as possible influences on life. Again, speculative I concur. And quantum biology has nothing to do with creationist claptrap.

Edited Monday at 11:05 PM by Luc Turpin

[iNow]

1 hour ago, Luc Turpin said:

then why have some turned to quantum biology as a potential venue for the origin of life?

Gullibility? Ignorance? Preference for simple falsehoods over hard truths? I could go on 

[exchemist]

10 hours ago, Luc Turpin said:

If there is no evidence of a qualitative "gap" in our understanding, then why have some turned to quantum biology as a potential venue for the origin of life? Concepts like quantum superposition and entanglement have been proposed as possible influences on life. Again, speculative I concur. And quantum biology has nothing to do with creationist claptrap.

Haha, now you are arguing in bad faith - curiously, another common tactic of creationists. It is quite clear from my previous post that the "creationist claptrap" I referred to is the silly notion that just because we have not directly observed life arising from non-life, or reproduced it in the lab, therefore science will be unable to account for how it took place. I also made it clear that quantum biology is an established field of science - and therefore obviously I do not consider that to be  creationist claptrap.

Is it your normal practice to misrepresent what your interlocutors say in this way? If so, it is going to be hard to have a constructive conversation with you.    

As for your claim that some have turned to quantum biology as a potential "venue" (whatever that may mean) for life, who are these people?  As I say, quantum effects are normal in biochemistry. What is in my admittedly non-expert view unlikely is any significant role for quantum entanglement, given the "warm, wet, noisy" environment of the cell. The only attempt at invoking entanglement I'm aware of is the largely discredited Orch OR hypothesis of Penrose and Hameroff to account for consciousness. Consciousness ≠ life, needless to say.

So who are these people you have in mind? Can you give names and provide links to information about their hypotheses?

Edited 15 hours ago by exchemist

[Luc Turpin]

3 hours ago, exchemist said:

Haha, now you are arguing in bad faith - curiously, another common tactic of creationists. It is quite clear from my previous post that the "creationist claptrap" I referred to is the silly notion that just because we have not directly observed life arising from non-life, or reproduced it in the lab, therefore science will be unable to account for how it took place. I also made it clear that quantum biology is an established field of science - and therefore obviously I do not consider that to be  creationist claptrap.

Is it your normal practice to misrepresent what your interlocutors say in this way? If so, it is going to be hard to have a constructive conversation with you.    

As for your claim that some have turned to quantum biology as a potential "venue" (whatever that may mean) for life, who are these people?  As I say, quantum effects are normal in biochemistry. What is in my admittedly non-expert view unlikely is any significant role for quantum entanglement, given the "warm, wet, noisy" environment of the cell. The only attempt at invoking entanglement I'm aware of is the largely discredited Orch OR hypothesis of Penrose and Hameroff to account for consciousness. Consciousness ≠ life, needless to say.

So who are these people you have in mind? Can you give names and provide links to information about their hypotheses?

You seem to be reading more into what I said than I intended. My point was simply to highlight that quantum biology is not a "creationist claptrap," not that you considered it as such. The key idea is that quantum biology offers an alternative to abiogenesis that does not carry a creationist agenda. Our communication difficulties seem to arise more from misunderstandings than from any intent on my part to misrepresent my interlocutors.

Regarding your comment on the idea that "just because we have not directly observed life arising from non-life, or reproduced it in the lab, therefore science will be unable to account for how it took place," I want to reiterate my earlier point: the absence of observed instances where lifeless matter becomes living organisms, without the involvement of pre-existing life, does not invalidate the theory of abiogenesis, it simply makes it more subject to scrutiny and further investigation.

As for quantum biology, several scientists, including Nicholas Gisin, Jim Al-Khalili, Vlatko Vedral, Michael Terry and Johnjoe McFadden have explored it as a potential avenue of research. Again, my intention is not to assert that quantum biology is a fully validated theory, but rather to point out that it is one of several alternative ideas being considered in place of abiogenesis. I am not advocating for it nor promoting any specific hypotheses from these scientists, so I will not be providing informaton on them. Similarly, I mention theories like the holographic principle and panspermia as other possible alternatives to explain the emergence of life, though I personally see panspermia as merely shifting the problem further down the timeline.

Edited 11 hours ago by Luc Turpin

[swansont]

22 minutes ago, Luc Turpin said:

The key idea is that quantum biology offers an alternative to abiogenesis

No, that’s not the idea. 

[Luc Turpin]

4 minutes ago, swansont said:

No, that’s not the idea. 

Substantiate

[swansont]

Just now, Luc Turpin said:

Substantiate

It’s not being suggested as an alternative to abiogenesis. I don’t know what part of this you misunderstand. Perhaps you could explain - in your own words - what you think abiogenesis is, and how quantum biology would be an alternative to it.

[Luc Turpin]

 

 

 

 

27 minutes ago, swansont said:

It’s not being suggested as an alternative to abiogenesis. I don’t know what part of this you misunderstand. Perhaps you could explain - in your own words - what you think abiogenesis is, and how quantum biology would be an alternative to it.

'No, that’s not the idea', can be interpreted in many ways.

Abiogenesis is a theory that explains the origin of life from non-living matter through simple chemical processes.

Quantum biology, on the other hand, suggests that quantum processes could play a role in the origin of life from non-living matter.

While both theories propose that life emerged from non-living matter, they suggest different mechanisms for how this transition occurred.

Thus, quantum biology is not an alternative to the idea of life arising from non-living matter, but rather an alternative explanation for the process by which non-living matter became life.

Edited 10 hours ago by Luc Turpin

[dimreepr]

15 minutes ago, Luc Turpin said:

'No, that’s not the idea', can be interpreted in many ways.

Abiogenesis is a theory that explains the origin of life from non-living matter through simple chemical processes.

Quantum biology, on the other hand, suggests that quantum processes could play a role in the origin of life from non-living matter.

While both theories propose that life emerged from non-living matter, they suggest different mechanisms for how this transition occurred.

Thus, quantum biology is not an alternative to the idea of life arising from non-living matter, but rather an alternative explanation for the process by which non-living matter became life.

Quantum stuff must have had an effect on abiogenesis, and one day when we understand quatum stuff a bit better, we'll be able to take a stab at what effect that quantum stuff might have had.

Just saying quantum did it, is no explanation ATM. 

[exchemist]

28 minutes ago, Luc Turpin said:

 

 

 

 

'No, that’s not the idea', can be interpreted in many ways.

Abiogenesis is a theory that explains the origin of life from non-living matter through simple chemical processes.

Quantum biology, on the other hand, suggests that quantum processes could play a role in the origin of life from non-living matter.

While both theories propose that life emerged from non-living matter, they suggest different mechanisms for how this transition occurred.

Thus, quantum biology is not an alternative to the idea of life arising from non-living matter, but rather an alternative explanation for the process by which non-living matter became life.

This is nonsense. Abiogenesis is simply a term meaning the natural processes by which biochemistry and thus life arose from pre-biotic chemistry. Quantum biology is just one, existing, small subset of the biochemical processes that science already considers, when investigating the chemical processes within cells. Quantum biology is not some magical extra alternative to biochemistry: it's part of it.  

1 hour ago, Luc Turpin said:

You seem to be reading more into what I said than I intended. My point was simply to highlight that quantum biology is not a "creationist claptrap," not that you considered it as such. The key idea is that quantum biology offers an alternative to abiogenesis that does not carry a creationist agenda. Our communication difficulties seem to arise more from misunderstandings than from any intent on my part to misrepresent my interlocutors.

Regarding your comment on the idea that "just because we have not directly observed life arising from non-life, or reproduced it in the lab, therefore science will be unable to account for how it took place," I want to reiterate my earlier point: the absence of observed instances where lifeless matter becomes living organisms, without the involvement of pre-existing life, does not invalidate the theory of abiogenesis, it simply makes it more subject to scrutiny and further investigation.

As for quantum biology, several scientists, including Nicholas Gisin, Jim Al-Khalili, Vlatko Vedral, Michael Terry and Johnjoe McFadden have explored it as a potential avenue of research. Again, my intention is not to assert that quantum biology is a fully validated theory, but rather to point out that it is one of several alternative ideas being considered in place of abiogenesis. I am not advocating for it nor promoting any specific hypotheses from these scientists, so I will not be providing informaton on them. Similarly, I mention theories like the holographic principle and panspermia as other possible alternatives to explain the emergence of life, though I personally see panspermia as merely shifting the problem further down the timeline.

I can't find evidence that Nicholas Gisin has interests in quantum biology, but I see Jim Al Khalili and Johnjoe McFadden co-authored a book on quantum biology. But this does not, so far as I can see, suggest anything special to do with abiogenesis. It seems to be about recent  discoveries of things such as QM tunnelling by protons in certain biochemical processes and the possible presence of QM coherence effects in the process of photosynthesis. This is all just a subset of biochemistry, not some magical extra ingredient that somehow enabled life to form. 

If you can provide a citation from any of these researchers specifically involving a quantum biology process in abiogenesis I would be interested to read it. But I doubt you will be able to. As far as I can see none of these people has a background or expertise in abiogenesis research. (Michael Terry seems to be either an actor or a serial killer, according to my search engine).