And Slaters Go Plop
The Bloggery of Damian Peterson
-
Recent Comments
- AskAnAtheist.org on Making Ciabatta
- Damian on Making Ciabatta
- Damian on Do Egg Shells Deter Snails?
- AskAnAtheist.org on Do Egg Shells Deter Snails?
- AskAnAtheist.org on Making Ciabatta
- Iain on Do Egg Shells Deter Snails?
- Damian on Do Egg Shells Deter Snails?
- Damian on Do Egg Shells Deter Snails?
- Dale Campbell on Do Egg Shells Deter Snails?
- Dale Campbell on Do Egg Shells Deter Snails?
- Damian on Making Ciabatta
- Dale Campbell on Making Ciabatta
- Dale Campbell on Education vs Indoctrination
- Damian on Education vs Indoctrination
- Dale Campbell on Education vs Indoctrination
Archives
- November 2008 (9)
- October 2008 (4)
- September 2008 (7)
- July 2008 (14)
- June 2008 (7)
- May 2008 (8)
- April 2008 (5)
- March 2008 (11)
- February 2008 (9)
- January 2008 (8)
- December 2007 (8)
- November 2007 (11)
- October 2007 (7)
- September 2007 (11)
- August 2007 (10)
- July 2007 (10)
- June 2007 (3)
- May 2007 (3)
- April 2007 (8)
- March 2007 (2)
Categories
- Astronomy (21)
- Design (7)
- Entertainment (26)
- Environment (19)
- General (2)
- Ideas (26)
- Linux (9)
- Nature (58)
- Open Source (13)
- Philosophy (22)
- Politics (19)
- Programming (13)
- Religion (39)
- Skepticism (25)
- Technology (19)
- Wacky (10)
March 14th, 2008 at 2:06 pm
Certainly (to me, at least), it’s a category mistake to attempt to ‘use’ the current uncertainty around abiogenesis to try and debate against evolutionary theory. Did such a conversation actually take place? Surely Wishart know’s the difference between the two!?
On that, one of my ‘big questions’ regarding evolutions is how a single-celled organism would evolve over time into a multi-celled organism? Are there more than one main theory? Is this transition imagined in more than one way?
-d-
March 14th, 2008 at 2:23 pm
This gives a good overview of early evolution (as best as they understand it).
March 15th, 2008 at 11:33 am
Great cartoon Damian - but the third frame is, unfortunately, very unlikely to happen.
On your question Dale, I imagine there must be some controversy because the evidence of the initial transformations must be very difficult to find, or deduce. I was fascinated to read about the origins of cell bodies like mitochondria - effectively one cell absorbing another and finding this to be a more efficient way of living.
Just today I cam across this site: http://www.askabiologist.org.uk/ where there is a pool of biologists who will answer questions like this. Its apparently aimed at schools so hopefully the answers would not be too confusing. It could be worth posing this question there.
March 15th, 2008 at 11:58 am
Ken, that site is a great find. I had a look and, lo and behold, someone called ‘Mike’ asked just that question a day ago. It wasn’t someone reading Dale’s question was it?
March 15th, 2008 at 4:33 pm
Thanks heaps for the links guys…
Fascinating stuff…
A follow-up question I’ve got is:
…if “All living things reproduce, copying their genetic material and passing it on to their offspring”, how did living, one-celled organisms ‘learn’ to do this? I’m thinking it’s amazing enough just for the parts to come together at all, let alone reproduce!
-d-
March 16th, 2008 at 8:31 am
I don’t know the answer to this one but as I understand it things were replicating before the advent of cells (or, at least, some form of membrane that surrounds the RNA/DNA). The original article I linked to seemed to suggest that replication was happening at a molecular level and that RNA was further down the track (then cells then dna then Dale
).
I’ll look further into it to try to get an understanding of how they think these very early stages might have worked.
March 16th, 2008 at 10:44 am
I agree, replication must have started before living cells arose. There are a lot of speculative models describing evolution of replicating chemicals. When you look at in terms of starting with evolution of non-living chemical species it no longer seem amazing.
I guess some of these possible mechanisms be demonstrated eventually - it may be impossible to know for sure what actually happened here on earth. Or originally on Mars. Or elsewhere - the whole origin of life question is still so wide open.
March 16th, 2008 at 10:48 am
I’ve asked for an explanation of the early stages in replication over on the Ask A Biologist website. Let’s see what they come up with.
March 16th, 2008 at 2:28 pm
Thanks guys,
Yes, Damian, the article you linked to was what had provoked that question (which is really just a more detailed enquiry into the general abiogenesis question).
Further, and I may be showing my ignorance with this question!, I’m interesed in the following: whatever replication that took place ‘before’ the single-cell stage; should not this replication (according to recapitulation theory - “ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny”) still be possible –or even still happen– today???
And Ken, just a warning…
“When you look at in terms of starting with evolution of non-living chemical species it no longer seem amazing.”
…but haven’t you said that ‘unweaving the rainbow’ need not take away our amazement?
-d-
March 16th, 2008 at 2:58 pm
Dale,
I’m afraid I don’t know what this means.
If it was just a fancy way of saying “why doesn’t it still happen today” then the answer is that it still does (technically). As far back as 1953 there have been experiments where chemists have replicated how they think the early stages of evolution may have occurred in Earth’s primitive conditions. The problem is that this is just an experimental test of a hypothesis and we still don’t have any good evidence that life started out this way. These experiments only prove that it was possible. Most of this early evolution stuff is only hypothetical because there is very little evidence in the fossil record that gives clues as to what really happened way back then.
What we can observe is that living organisms evolve over time and we can see that natural selection is the mechanism that creates the complexity we see around us. The mechanisms of early evolution (and abiogenesis for the matter) might never be fully understood but as you know that’s how science works and everyone is welcome to contribute new ideas that can be put through the usual rigorous testing processes.
As far as being able to observe this same process in today’s environment goes I’m not sure whether we can’t or, if we can’t, whether it’s due to a very different environment or harsh competition from the vast numbers of already-efficient microbes and other small organisms. Good question though - if you find out whether or not we are still able to observe these early processes please let me know.
(And I agree with your criticism of Ken’s “not amazing” statement; this stuff is mind-blowing. But knowing Ken’s appreciation of this kind of stuff I suspect he didn’t mean it in the ‘awe’ context, just in the gradual mechanistic way it works.)
March 16th, 2008 at 3:04 pm
Dale, I’ve just looked up this “recapitulation theory - ‘ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny’” thing you mentioned and it appears that it’s an old idea that was found to be faulty but is “perhaps partly fruitful” that deals with how organisms can resemble each other as they develop.
I’m still not sure what this means in the context of your question though. Please elaborate.
March 16th, 2008 at 3:53 pm
Yep the ‘ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny’ is the idea (to use humans as an example) that the development from a single cell at fertilisation to a baby represents the stages that have happened in evolution from single celled to humans, in that an embryo goes through a stage of looking like a fish with gills etc. And like you said Damian, the idea was found to be wrong but kinda interesting all the same.
March 16th, 2008 at 3:59 pm
Damian,
I just wanted to stop on by and see how you’re doing. What kind of Christian would I be if you were another person that came down my path that I forgot about. Well, I haven’t forgot about you and I hope everything is going fine for you. I was glad to see your explanation on why you read the Bible on askanatheist.org. That helped me to understand where you’re coming from. Thank you.
March 16th, 2008 at 4:43 pm
Hi Uknown and welcome! I remember you from our conversation about voting (among other things). I’ve just gone back and revisited that conversation and see that you ended with a question that I didn’t answer… and, yes, I suppose what I wrote on A3’s website pretty well covers your question.
Thanks for stopping by.
March 18th, 2008 at 9:26 am
Actually, Dale I should apologise because I may have misrepresented you in the use of “amazing.”
I thought you were saying “I’m thinking it’s amazing enough just for the parts to come together at all, let alone reproduce!” in the sense of improbable or impossible. The “accidental” formation of proteins, etc.
No, getting an understanding doesn’t remove the awe or amazement for me. If anything it increases it - the fact that humanity has this ability to comprehend and build a model of reality. That’s the other side of the feeling of awe about the fact that reality is ordered and rational.
March 18th, 2008 at 2:11 pm
No worries, Ken…
Like you, I suspect, the notion of ‘that’s impossible’ is silly. The obvious reply is, “Well, ’something’ happened, and therefore that ’something’ certainly IS possible!”
In addition to this, I think it’s important to be able to ’sit’ with the tension or discomfort of not ‘knowing’ –or not even, perhaps, having the models or concepts to even begin to do so!– how certain things might have happened. This, of course, need not ever deter or discourage vigorous enquiry, testing, hypothesising, etc.
I’m still wondering about the pre-cell stages of life. I’m fascinated by the idea (and it’s undisputed, is it not?) that living things must reproduce. It follows that it is not only life that sprung from non-life, but life which ‘knew’ how to reproduce. It would not seem silly to me to imagine that there could have been (perhaps) millions and/or billions (LOTS) of times where life could have emerged from non-life, but was not able to sustain any ‘life momentum’, because it had not ability to reproduce… Make sense?
Damian,
Yeah, the ‘ontogeny recapitulates phlyogeny’ thing was me simply asking ‘can it still happen today’? We say life is still evolving today - and not just at the ‘top of the food chain’, but presumably at every level of complexity, right? Even (my question probes) at the foundational (abiogenetic) level? It’s kind of a muddled question, but I think you’ve rightly understood me…
And as for the conditions being different now, I take that point, but I wonder…
…Should we assume that it would be ‘harder’ for life (reproductive or otherwise) to emerge from non-life now than it would have then? Could it not be said that our rich diversity of environment would make the chances better and not worse? Could the ‘harsh competition’ actually be ‘helpful cooperation’???
Cheer E O…
-d-
March 18th, 2008 at 2:54 pm
Hmmm, good question. I really don’t know enough about the really early stages of life. I’ve heard people say that the environment (as best they can tell) back in the early stages of the formation of the earth was very different to what we see today. Lots of harsh chemicals and so on. Perhaps even without the earth’s vast seas of living organisms the environment might not be suitable for those initial stages?
I could well imagine that if you were a very simple chemical substance that was starting on the road to ‘life’ you’d be a great candidate for predation with the billions of different bacteria and microbes out there. We can see evolution happening in bacteria - there is a strain of bacteria that has evolved to eat nylon! - but from what I understand a bacterium is still quite a complex organism relatively speaking.
Like I say, I don’t know much about this area - perhaps you’d like to ask the folks across at Ask A Biologist and enlighten us all? (I still haven’t received an answer to my question yet).
March 28th, 2008 at 7:42 am
I’ve come up with an analogy that might be useful to do with the difference between the study of the process of evolution vs the question of abiogenesis:
Imagine a group of ants in a car who are trying to figure out how it works. Some of the ants make the observation that the car can swerve left and right while it’s moving and they also notice that the steering wheel has some part to play in it. They do a lot of experiments and even make some more important discoveries by crawling through to the engine compartment where they discover a steering rack and some interesting hydraulics. All this information is added to their theory and gives them a better and better idea of how a car can steer.
I see the abiogenesis question as an important question to do with the operation of the car (we’ll say for the sake of argument that in this analogy it’s the ignition but none of the ants have discovered this yet). The car swerving left and right depends on the ignition but for the sake of the ‘theory of swerving’ they don’t need to know anything about the ‘theory of ignition’.
It would be nice to know but regardless of how the ignition works all of the observations and experiments done on steering are valuable and stand in their own right. The ‘ants’ who might use the lack of knowledge about ignition or gaps in the steering process (like the as-yet-undiscovered power steering hydraulic cable ["there's no way the force used at the steering wheel could turn those wheels!" I hear them cry]) to try to discredit the ‘theory of swerving’ have missed the point or have a dishonest agenda. They are welcome to join in and try to fill in the missing bits of knowledge or perhaps go off on a journey of discover for the source of the ‘theory of ignition’ but their ill-directed attacks only really point to a lack of substance in whatever it is that motivates them.
The ‘theory of steering’ is the observation of a fact. The lack of a ‘theory of ignition’ doesn’t change the fact. The ants need to work together.
March 28th, 2008 at 9:38 am
Good analogy, Damian. You should publish that as a children’s book.
In terms of science (evolution + abiogenesis), you’re right - you don’t need one to know about the other…
In terms of philosophy and religion, however, it seems quite natural (as we ‘ants’ have basically always done) to ask, “so why is there a car anyway?”, etc.
March 28th, 2008 at 9:58 am
Dale, very true. Although some questions that we think will always be in the domain of the philosophical can end up being observed and answered with bog-standard science.
March 28th, 2008 at 10:14 am
I’m very curious as to what you mean by this…
Are you suggesting something that contradicts what you’ve said here?
[edit: fixed link]
March 28th, 2008 at 10:44 am
Dale, when we look back in history there have been many things that haven’t been understood that have been confined to the realm of philosophy and mind experiments. Every once in a while someone makes a discovery that puts this ‘philosophical’ issue firmly in the physical realm and hence, bog-standard science.
The meaning of philosophy has changed over the years though. It used to be that the word ‘philosophy’ was used instead of the word ’science’ but recently philosophy has sometimes been used as a kind of a holding-pen for everything we don’t yet understand.
I think Ken touched on this recently when he mentioned something to do with neuroscience and some other area that has moved from a philosophical concept to an empirical one.
Science covers everything in the natural universe. It can help out with questions like “why are we here?” by giving us an explanation of the process of how we got here and may even lead us to the conclusion that “why” might be a non-valid question if by “why” we mean “what is the reason or purpose”.
In the comment you referenced I said “Science is really just a process. The best process we know of for discovering the truth about the workings of the natural universe.”. Sometimes we’ve categorised a natural but not understood phenomenon as a philosophical one when really all that was needed was more observation.
March 28th, 2008 at 12:43 pm
Interesting, Damian,
I hope I’ve not mis-led you to think I’m saying that science can’t help and enhance our search for the answers to the ‘why’ questions… I think it can. But science doesn’t raise these questions, and it cannot answer them on its own…
So, yes, scientifically speaking, the ‘why’ questions don’t have (scientific) meaning…
However, philosophically speaking, they do have (philosophical) meaning…
The next thing I would want to say, has to do with the relationship between philosophy and science (or any field of enquiry). You mention that philosophy is used as a ‘holding-pen’ for not-yet-understood things. I would (big surprise) say it differently…
I think every field of study (be it mathematics, biology, history, etc.) is, as it were, under-girded by philosophical views. The philosophical ‘law’ of non-contradiction is behind our scientific expectation that the same laws (gravity, etc.) that govern ‘things’ in this corner of the universe will also govern ‘thing’ at another. This law of non-contradiction could turn out to be philosophically wrong, but it nonetheless still undergirds much (all?) of our observation and consideration in all kinds of rational fields of study… Make sense?
You wrote:
“Science covers everything in the natural universe. It can help out with questions like “why are we here?” by giving us an explanation of the process of how we got here and may even lead us to the conclusion that “why” might be a non-valid question if by “why” we mean “what is the reason or purpose”.
I guess it depends on what you mean by ‘covers’. It attemps to explain (by observation and description) what is happening, and has nothing at all to say about why. Sure, scientific explanations can and do challenge other explanations which have been built on a ‘why’ explanation, but they can offer no ‘why’ explanation in reply. This is significant to note, and it goes further. Scientific explanations of the ‘what’ is not only unable to provide a ‘why’ answer, but it also is unable (contra to your above quote) to “lead us to the conclusion” that the ‘why’ questions are themselves not valid - it cannot comment on the issue.
It’s a very precise statement, and I want to be clear: science (like anything) can help with all kinds of discussions, so I’m not trying to be dis-daining of science at all. Science’s involvement in all kinds of discussions is invaluable. But because it is a tool for observing and re-explaining, and not a tool for discovering value(s), it cannot say anything as to the value of the ‘why’ questions…
March 28th, 2008 at 12:46 pm
In short, the validity of the ‘why’ questions is a philosophical question, not a scientific one…
…though I’m committed to the idea that science can –and must– play a part in discussing the ‘why’ questions…
March 29th, 2008 at 1:24 pm
Dale, I think we’re talking past each other here but I think we’re in general agreement. The definition of philosophy has changed over time and strictly speaking these days it should only really cover (from Wikipedia) “questions of how one should live (ethics); what sorts of things exist and what are their essential natures (metaphysics); what counts as genuine knowledge (epistemology); and what are the correct principles of reasoning (logic)”.
Some people still use philosophy as a ‘holding pen’ for natural phenomena not yet understood which is what they used to do in days gone by but it’s not really the done thing these days.
There are many questions that you can come to a dead end in with philosophy that the addition of a little more empirical evidence can make all the difference with. And there are many aspects of science that you’ll end up going off on a complete tangent with if you ignore the fundamentals of philosophy.
Paraphrasing Kant: “philosophy without science is empty; science without philosophy is blind” - I suspect we both agree with this.