Mindsets that Bind
by BradfordA Scientific American article by Paul Davies entitled Are Aliens Among Us? raises some good origin of life issues. I'll focus only on the first page of the linked article in this blog entry and reserve the right to target the remainder of the article in the future.
Davies notes that the origin of life has remained resistent to scientific attempts to solve its mysteries. In fact we are unable to answer basic related questions such as how life originated and precisely when this happened. It is true that there is a consensus that puts the earthly figure at about three and a half billion years ago give or take a couple hundred million years. However, an absence of hard evidence does not lend encouragement.
Davies points out two schools of thought. Life could be the result of some extremely unlikely circumstances. So unlikely as to mean earth could be the only place in the universe where life is found. But alas there are many other universes some argue and this would change the implications of the odds existing in this particular universe.
There is another school of thought that argues the exact opposite. According to this school laws of physics make life inevitable; an amazing dichotomy of views given the scientific nature of the underlying issues. How do scientists come to polar opposite conclusions when they have access to the same data? Perhaps there is more to this than dispassionate scientific objectivity.
Looking for answers may mean looking at other planets. If life could arise on earth then the most reasonable inference is that it would do so wherever conditions are favorable. But this raises some practical difficulties having to do with technological limitations and the vast expanses of our universe. Davies raises the surprising idea that life may have arisen on multiple occasions on the only planet we know. And the search has begun. The focus is microbes whose independent genesis would be revealed in fundamental biological differences from other life forms.
Davies cites a general agreement that living organisms would have to have the capacity to convert nutrients, extracted from the environment, into energy while excreting the waste. Then of course there is the need to reproduce. Underlying these capacities is a need for a mechanism that generates, stores and retrieves the information needed to synthesize biomolecular machinery as well as molecules serving as information storage structures. Unless causal pathways to biological information systems are revealed the basic questions previously alluded to will remain unanswered. A way out of the OOL treadmill lies in abandoning an approach that restricts us to traditional reductionist thinking. That means invoking alternative top down models indicating information control of basic mechanisms by more complex layers. It would also entail a means of distinguishing this type of causal model from reductionist interpretations. That must be accomplished through experimental outcomes.
November 24th, 2007 at 12:13 pm
Or perhaps, because there is effectively no data, a wide variety of hypotheses may be drawn, including ones which are antithetical to others.
Indeed if there were little variance in the hypotheses brought forth, that would indicate something is amiss. We should have the widest variety that the evidence permits. Since there is basically no evidence, we should expect the hypotheses to be all over the place. And that is what we have.
You appear to be outlining your own OOL hypothesis. If you are serious about this, then the first thing to do is to write it up in a clear, complete, and detailed manner. Solicit feedback from as many scientists as you can. Refine your ideas. Solicit opinions again; repeat. Just do it. Don't simply talk about it.
Your blog entry is written as if there was such a paper to talk about. Is there one? Am I missing something here?
Comment by Frostman — November 24, 2007 @ 12:13 pm
November 24th, 2007 at 12:19 pm
Frostman:
There is a published paper from which my inspiration was drawn. I intend to explore it here in some detail. Before I do that I will flesh out my own thoughts and hopefully get some input from others including the authors themselves.
Comment by Bradford — November 24, 2007 @ 12:19 pm
November 24th, 2007 at 1:26 pm
What is the paper?
Comment by Frostman — November 24, 2007 @ 1:26 pm
November 24th, 2007 at 2:55 pm
Frostman:
One paper (unrelated to Bradford's source, Paul Davies in SciAmM) in yesterday's issue of Science by Clark, Nakata and Jones from CU-Boulder, Zanchetta and Bellini of the University of Milan, Chapman and Pindak of Brookhaven and Cross of Argonne.
These researchers are still convinced that life originated here, apparently.
Tiny DNA Molecules Show Liquid Crystal Phases, Pointing to New Scenario for First Life on Earth.
Comment by Joy — November 24, 2007 @ 2:55 pm
November 24th, 2007 at 3:41 pm
Bradford, when you said "there is a published paper," were you referring to the Davies paper? I was looking for a paper describing in detail your OOL hypothesis or a related hypothesis thereof, so at least we could discuss something specific.
You are suggesting here that the objectivity of scientists has been unduly compromised (beyond that of typical human frailties) and/or that scientists are bound in a mindset. You are obligated to show why you believe this to be the case. You must provide a specific hypothesis, described thoroughly and clearly in a paper, which you believe scientists have been ignoring due to their mindset. What is it?
Comment by Frostman — November 24, 2007 @ 3:41 pm
November 24th, 2007 at 3:52 pm
Joy, what is your position and how does this paper you mentioned support or oppose your position?
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/...
Comment by Frostman — November 24, 2007 @ 3:52 pm
November 24th, 2007 at 4:17 pm
Frostman:
I'm not referring to the Davies paper and as I already indicated the paper will be introduced for comments when I'm ready for it. As for the objectivity of scientists, they are no different than the rest of humanity in that they have their own personal views. They are not "unduly compromised" to quote the phrase you used. But lack of results over a long period of time, that has witnessed great advances in other fields, calls for consideration of new approaches.
Comment by Bradford — November 24, 2007 @ 4:17 pm
November 24th, 2007 at 5:20 pm
Bradford:
Then I wonder why you would even make the blog entry, as there is nothing to discuss. No specific hypothesis, no paper, nothing to justify the bombastic title.
The results have been sparse, minimal, and preliminary, which is exactly what one would expect given immense difficulty — almost intractability — of the field. However the results are not quite as lacking as one might assume. A case in point would be the paper Joy mentioned, for which I previously gave the abstract.
http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_...
Comment by Frostman — November 24, 2007 @ 5:20 pm
November 24th, 2007 at 5:25 pm
Frostman:
Position? I strongly suspect life is intelligently designed, possibly on a universal scale (where possible) as an outworking of universal laws, guided by consciousness as a fundamental parameter of reality. The concentration of consciousness in living organisms, and the evolution (where possible) of ever more concentrated and self-aware consciousness in ever more sophisticated living organisms. IOW, life as front-loaded in this reality, accomplishing (in this reality) the existence of intelligent organisms with high-level consciousness who could become intelligent designers themselves.
I offered the link because I saw it (and its headline) on ScienceDaily this morning. Liquid crystal phases are fairly ubiquitous in cytoplasm and in water molecules in and around certain cellular structures. I'm not surprised that "columnar phases" of loose DNA in solution can do this.
Comment by Joy — November 24, 2007 @ 5:25 pm
November 24th, 2007 at 5:41 pm
I already indicated the paper will be introduced for comments when I'm ready for it.
Nothing to discuss? Davies would not agree with you. He went to some effort to write the linked article. Did I touch a nerve Frostman? Decades of research and still no hard evidence but hush we don't want to insult the sensibilities of OOL enthusiasts do we?
But lack of results over a long period of time, that has witnessed great advances in other fields, calls for consideration of new approaches.
The immense difficulty is a signal that the expectations are out of whack. It is indeed intractable to expect cells to arise based on laws of physics alone.
That's a nice finding but crystals of ultrashort DNA molecules immersed in water, is not a new scenario for a key step in the emergence of life on Earth. At least not based on any information provided here. The part of the blog entry that escapes OOLers is the need to account for the emergence of biological information. The generation of nucleic acids has no more relevance to the emergence of information than does the existence of an ink blot to the emergence of a coherent news article. But it is difficult to see these things clearly when one has a binded mindset.
Comment by Bradford — November 24, 2007 @ 5:41 pm
November 24th, 2007 at 5:43 pm
Joy:
On the other hand, the authors of the research paper found it to be a "remarkable result." If only you were there to tell them that it's "not surprising," you could have spared them the trouble of doing the research and publishing the paper.
I am reminded of this story of a conversation between an experimental physicist and a theoretical physicist, based on real events:
Comment by Frostman — November 24, 2007 @ 5:43 pm
November 24th, 2007 at 6:17 pm
This is mere name-calling. As I said earlier, the onus is on you to tell us the detailed hypothesis, formally put forth with supporting evidence — the thing which scientists cannot see because of their "binded mindset". There is nothing of this sort present in this blog entry. I asked for it. Your reply was, effectively, "hang on." In the meantime, your claim remains unsupported.
Comment by Frostman — November 24, 2007 @ 6:17 pm
November 24th, 2007 at 6:59 pm
Frostman:
LOL!!! Now, why in the world would I want to do that? They're professional researchers, aren't they? They have to eat just like the rest of us.
Seriously, Frostman. Why should I be surprised by the behavior of biological molecules? They do all sorts of amazing things. DNA is almost as amazing as the molecules that facilitate its translation into functional, semi-durable life forms. I have read some cool findings about chromatin dynamics over the years, including biophysical dynamics that could contribute quite a bit to design-based research in materials science as well as nanotechnology.
I don't see anything wrong with the approach, some great possibilities for knowledge. I certainly don't see any reason to bind my mindset just because some ideologically motivated charlatains are afraid of the implications of design. That's not science, so there's no reason to pretend it's science.
Comment by Joy — November 24, 2007 @ 6:59 pm
November 24th, 2007 at 7:44 pm
Frostman:
What noone has been able to see, despite more than a century of effort, is the origin of life. But keep on doing the same things that have failed to produce results. That was Einstein's definition of insanity.
I'm hardly concerned about your allegations of an unsupported claim when the alternative has remained unsupported despite millions invested and many man hours spent over decades. I note you did not support the claim that the referenced research produced a scenario for the emergence of life.
Comment by Bradford — November 24, 2007 @ 7:44 pm
November 24th, 2007 at 11:40 pm
Interesting topic. Too bad we're seeing pre-emptive attacks - geez, whatever happened to patience and open-mindedness? Just goes to show that even if no target shows up, some folks will just invent a shadow to box with.
As an aside, I wonder if people realize that if a full-blown lifeform is created from scratch in a lab, they'll have at once shown A) a pathway to life, and B) that such a thing can be orchestrated by a conscious entity.
Comment by nullasalus — November 24, 2007 @ 11:40 pm
November 25th, 2007 at 12:27 am
nullasalus:
Seems our critics are a bit grumpy this holiday weekend. I suspect either contentious gatherings or no T-day feast at all.
Comment by Joy — November 25, 2007 @ 12:27 am
November 25th, 2007 at 12:42 am
Nullasalus:
The patience is limitless for origin of life results. The selective impatience with ID is par for the course.
The holiday season is stressful for some and a handy excuse for critics.
Comment by Bradford — November 25, 2007 @ 12:42 am
November 25th, 2007 at 12:21 pm
Bradford:
Tell us your hypothesis in detail in a formal paper, accompanied by detailed evidence. You can blog until the cows come home, and maybe you are satisfied with that. But until you put in the hard work involved in presenting scientific research to your peers, your ideas will rightly be ignored by scientists. Note — and if you remember anything about this conversation then remember this — that scientists will ignore you not because of their "blinded mindset," but because you have nothing to offer.
Do not let the prospect of not getting published deter you. You can still make your paper accessible on the Internet. If you truly have a solid case, and yet it still does not receive recognition, then that alone is significant for us to consider. However this should not concern you now, as you are not at that stage yet. Write your paper and then we may have something to talk about.
Comment by Frostman — November 25, 2007 @ 12:21 pm
November 25th, 2007 at 12:50 pm
Frostman:
What the heck are you doing hanging around a blog bitching about people posting ideas to blogs? Surely you have some real scientific criticisms to offer to the many scientists who publish in the many journals you police with your mindset.
This is the dumbest argument I've ever seen anywhere, much less on a blog you signed up to participate in. Congratulations!
Comment by Joy — November 25, 2007 @ 12:50 pm