Higher math and Darwin (Introduction)

by xeno6696 , Sonoran Desert, Saturday, April 10, 2010, 15:45 (5340 days ago) @ David Turell

> My largest criticism of David (and ID as a whole) is that they are looking at life as it is now and positing that earliest life had to be at minimum, as complex as what we see now. Ignored, are arguments that suggest that life at the beginning barely resembled the general processes we see now. I've said it before but not this explicitly: I don't think you'll figure out the origin of life by studying life. 
> 
> So what do we study? -Clearly, something else. -We only know the life we know. Life comes from life in our experience. Interested folks have imagined tinier organisms less complex that the existing ones, but it is still based on the paterns we see. Some form of genetics with imbedded information to control and run the mechanisms of life. By definition life is made of organic molecules that can create energy to allow reproduction, by absorbtion of extracellar material. I think your point is specious.-I'm just getting to the point now where say, one of the earlier papers we discussed... (this year, late last year?) where they created and posited a DNA-like structure that could devolve into what we have now is really starting to sink in. -We have it wrong. Completely. -I'm sure you've encountered this: You've been wailing away at the same problem for days. Everything seems "almost there" but your mind just can't connect the pieces. You shelve the problem for... hell, even nearly a year. You pick it up again and magically the answer stares you in the face. -I recently read an article from Bjarne Stroustrop, the inventor of C++ and in general, a living computer science legend. Commenting on the divide in computer science between academia and industry; one of his key observations is that (parap) "...when under this kind of pressure, academia turns in on itself and reverts to what it does best: pushing out small groups of like-minded individuals studying highly specialized problems." Combined with what you yourself have rightly criticized and our good ol' buddy Kuhn--we-have-it-wrong.-Studying life as it is now provides us with tantalizing clues, but I'm saying that it's essentially served all the purpose its going to serve. I'm utterly convinced of this. Creator or not--there IS a physical nature to how life got here, and outside of the greater debate here, THAT should be our focus.

--
\"Why is it, Master, that ascetics fight with ascetics?\"

\"It is, brahmin, because of attachment to views, adherence to views, fixation on views, addiction to views, obsession with views, holding firmly to views that ascetics fight with ascetics.\"