E-mail updates
Follow on Twitter
Subscribe to RSS
Henry Bortman / 2010
Astrobiology researcher Felisa Wolfe-Simon works with samples at California's Mono Lake.
Last updated 8:30 p.m. ET
After five months of battles in the blogosphere, the debate over whether life can be based on an alternate biochemistry is playing out on the highest levels of peer-reviewed research.
Back in December, the journal Science sparked a ruckus by publishing an online report from researchers who claimed that they had coaxed bacteria from California's Mono Lake to live on arsenic rather than phosphorus. That's a big deal, because phosphorus is thought to be one of the six elements essential for life as we know it (along with carbon, hydrogen, nitrogen, oxygen and sulfur). Arsenic, on the other hand, is typically seen as a potent poison.
The researchers, led by astrobiologist Felisa Wolfe-Simon at the U.S. Geological Survey, suggested that such an alien biology could exist in environments beyond Earth that are traditionally thought to be inimical to life — for example, the hydrocarbon seas of Titan, Saturn's largest moon.
That sounds like a wonderful vision, but the claims from Wolfe-Simon and her team instantly came under attack from other chemists and microbiologists. In a flurry of blog postings and Twitter tweets, the critics took aim at what they saw were fatal flaws in the team's methodology. Wolfe-Simon and her colleagues defended their work in a Q&A issued via Science, but said they preferred to pursue the debate through the traditional peer-review process.
Now that process has taken a great leap forward. Today Science posted eight peer-reviewed technical comments from the critics to its Web site, along with a response from the original research group. The journal said all these papers would be printed, along with the original study (which has so far been available only online), in next week's edition.
Dec. 2, 2010: NBC's Lee Cowan reports on the arsenic-life research.
"There's a lot of stuff that's happened," Wolfe-Simon told me today. "It's been a real challenge for me and my co-authors. ... We think this is evidence that, really, science is moving forward faster."
She held to the original claim that molecules of arsenic were incorporated into the machinery of life, replacing at least some of phosphorus. "We would argue that our conclusion is still viable," she said. "We never claimed 100 percent substitution, and in a way that point was misconstrued."
Wolfe-Simon said more evidence has been amassed to back up the arsenic-life claims over the past five months. However, the fresh evidence had to be held back for future publication. Wolfe-Simon said she was constrained from reporting new data in today's online response to the critics, which was a source of frustration for her. Science insisted on that to keep the cycle of response and counter-response from spinning out of control.
It's not unheard of to publish technical comments and responses in the wake of a controversial paper. Science did exactly that this week, with regard to a study claiming that microbes consumed all the methane that leaked from last year's Deepwater Horizon spill in the Gulf of Mexico. But it's very unusual to publish a research paper, eight critiques of that paper and a follow-up response to those critiques in the same issue of a scientific journal.
Science's editors said they did not expect their data dump "to be the final word on the subject."
"The fact that we received so much feedback to the Wolfe-Simon paper suggests to us that science is proceeding as it should," the editors said in a statement. "The study involved multiple techniques and lines of evidence, and the authors felt their conclusion was the most plausible explanation for these results when considered as a whole. We hope that the study and the subsequent exchange being published today will stimulate further experments — whether they support or overturn this conclusion."
The criticisms — and the responses from Wolfe-Simon and her colleagues — thus set the ground rules for the debate, which will likely continue for months and years to come. Here's a quick rundown of some of the issues involved:
Criticism: The "arsenic-eating" bacteria, known as GFAJ-1, were grown under conditions that still had trace amounts of phosphorus, and it's more likely that the microbes used that trace phosphorus rather than the arsenic. The arsenic-life researchers claimed there was so little phosphorus left that the bacteria couldn't possibly have survived on it — but under extreme conditions, some individual microbes have been found to survive on that little.
Response from the team: They point out that they checked bacteria under three conditions: high phosphorus and low arsenic; high arsenic and low phosphorus; low arsenic and low phosphorus. If the "arsenic-eating" bacteria were actually living off the low levels of phosphorus, they should have done as well in the low-arsenic / low-phosphorus environment. But they didn't. The team also says the survival rate on an ultra-low-phosphorus level should be compared based on wider populations, and not based on individual extremophile microbes.
Criticism: In the course of breeding bacteria to make them live in a high-arsenic environment, the team might have actually created bacteria that adapted to the low-phosphorus concentrations by processing the chemicals differently. That would explain why the high-arsenic / low-phosphorus bacteria did so much better than the low-arsenic / low-phosphorus bacteria.
Response from the team: They saw no evidence that the bacteria's biochemistry processed phosphorus in the way that was suggested, but acknowledged that the chemical pathways used by GFAJ-1 "are important avenues for future investigation."
Criticism: The molecular bonds involving arsenic would simply not be strong enough to hold up in alternate forms of DNA and other biochemical building blocks. What's more, phosphorus is far more abundant than arsenic in the solar system, and most of the arsenic available on rocky planets would be available in a form that is structurally quite different from phosphorus. These considerations point to the unlikelihood of life arising on Earth or elsewhere with an arsenic-based biochemistry.
Response from the team: It's conceivable that the arsenic bonds in large biomolecules are more resistant to a breakdown than the bonds in smaller molecules. "GFAJ-1 may have evolved specific strategies to cope with this issue, such as stabilizing structures," the team wrote.
Criticism: The team didn't devote enough attention to guarding against contamination of their samples and purifying the DNA that they analyzed. What's more, the uncertainties surrounding the measurements may not allow the team to make definite conclusions.
Response from the team: Wolfe-Simon and her colleagues recap the procedures they used and say they "were sufficient to remove any impurities." They also cite multiple techniques that cross-checked their results, through radiolabeling as well as high-resolution mass spectroscopy. They agree that further analysis of the DNA "would be a useful future experiment" because it could shed further light on the chemistry involved. They reworked their calculations on some of the analysis to respond to some of the criticisms about averaging, and said the data still supported their conclusions.
The bottom line is that the debate will continue, with more researchers getting into the act. Wolfe-Simon's team says samples of GFAJ-1 are being made available to other labs upon request, through the Oremland Laboratory at the U.S. Geological Survey.
"We look forward to working with our peers to replicate our observations and to test our hypotheses along the lines suggested by [one of the critics, Stefan] Oehler and others," the team writes.
One of the most vocal critics, University of British Columbia microbiologist Rosie Redfield, said today that she was still unconvinced:
"The authors don't report any new experiments. Most of their responses take the form of 'our interpretation could be correct on this point if...' In many cases there is indeed a small possibility that it could, but there are so many of these points of interpretation, each with only a very small probability of being correct, that I don't think anyone will find the arguments convincing."
Redfield said the team's responses to her comments about contamination were "in some ways the most scientifically valid, as they provide information about their media and DNA purification." She promised to have more about that on her blog later today.
So the blogosphere beat goes on. What do you think? Are you intrigued by this latest chapter in the grand scientific debate, or has the whole subject of arsenic life lost its appeal? Either way, please feel free to add your comments below.
Update for 8:30 p.m. ET: I've added some comments from Wolfe-Simon above after chatting with her this afternoon. She said she and her colleagues took Redfield's concerns about potential contamination very seriously. "Her criticisms are definitely valid," she said. "One of the first things we went back and did was look at all the ways we can get [phosphorus levels] down to zero."
But she said the key observations would come when scientists look at GFAJ-1's molecular machinery, to confirm that arsenic really is being incorporated into DNA, lipids and other molecules where phosphorus is usually found. "The question that people are really asking is, 'Show me the money. Let's see those biomolecules,'" she said.
Wolfe-Simon said she and her co-authors have been getting offers of help from other researchers in fields ranging from molecular biology to astronomy. She's also been getting supportive messages from lots of folks, including a 7-year-old girl who told her she wants to do research at Mono Lake when she grows up. "If I can put my peg on the wall, if we can ask the right questions ... she's going to answer the questions," Wolfe-Simon said.
Meanwhile, Redfield has posted an additional blog item that details her concerns about contamination. She's not satisfied with the response that Wolfe-Simon and her colleagues provided. "Overall, the most striking aspect of the authors' formal response is that they never admit to having made any mistakes or having done anything badly," she writes. "This is a bit disconcerting, given how many concerns were raised."
Update for 9:30 p.m. ET: An additional post from Rosie Redfield addresses how to test arsenic-life claims. Meanwhile, science writer Carl Zimmer looks at the big role that online discussion played in the arsenic-life debate, and Nature's Erika Check Hayden rounds up reactions from other researchers. One theme: Is it worth spending time and effort to try replicating the findings?
The story so far:
- December 2010: Life as we don't know it ... on Earth?
- 'Weird life' claims spark a backlash
- 'Weird life' reveals science at work
- 'Weird life' researchers answer critics
- February 2011: Arsenic debate just won't die
- April 2011: Alien life revisited
Science is making all 10 papers accessible with free online registration. You can see the whole list on Science Express, the journal's rapid-publication website, and here's an item-by-item menu:
- Comment by James Cotner and Edward Hall
- Comment by Rosemary Redfield
- Comment by B. Schoepp-Cothenet, W. Nitschke, L.M. Barge, A. Ponce, M.J. Russell and A.I. Tsapin
- Comment by Istvan Csabai and Eors Szathmary
- Comment by Stefan Oehler
- Comment by David Borhani
- Comment by Steven Benner
- Comment by Patricia Foster
- Response by Felisa Wolfe-Simon, Jodi Switzer Blum, Thomas Kulp, Gwyneth Gordon, Shelley Hoeft, Jennifer Pett-Ridge, John Stolz, Samuel Webb, Peter Weber, Paul Davies, Ariel Anbar and Ronald Oremland
- "A Bacterium That Can Grow by Using Arsenic Instead of Phosphorus" by Felisa Wolfe-Simon et al.
You can connect with the Cosmic Log community by "liking" the log's Facebook page or following @b0yle on Twitter. Also, give a look to "The Case for Pluto," my book about the controversial dwarf planet and the search for new worlds.
Leave a Comment:
this is finally science with importance
All science is science with importance: to understand more about the great mysteries of the existence of everything. Some science just happens to be more popular because it challenges what we think we know.
Importance in an alternate universe. People, this is a high school science project!
A high school science project? Did you read the article? Alternate universe? You are aware arsenic is an actual chemical in our universe?
This is just so very interesting. Like I keep saying, just because what we know says something like this is not possible, does not mean that it is not possible. For everything we know, just imagine how much there is that we don't know, about life, the universe, and everything in it. I for one would like to belive that arenic based life is possible, but I also think that very difference conditions would have to exsist for life to evolve using such an element.
Scientist publishes paper stating controversial claims. Other scientists question those claims. Questions and rebuttals will published along with additional data. Other scientists will try to replicate the results or do similar but slightly different experiments. Eventually, the original claims will either be conclusively confirmed or conclusively refuted. Ain't science grand?
On the other hand... 3,000 years ago a bunch of nomadic shepherds publish their tribe's oral traditions in written form. Other nomadic groups question those claims and publish their own versions with additional historical stories. Theologians argue as to the correct interpretation of the ancient stories. 1,000 years later, several supposedly miraculous events occur in the life of a compassionate teacher and more stories are added to the publication. Other theologians argue at great length as to which stories are the correct and true stories, since many of the stories regarding the compassionate teacher conflict with each other. Many stories are rejected and not included in the publication. 500 years later, another teacher writes a bunch of additional stories which are related to the first bunch of stories, but add many new details. Theologians loyal to original stories completely reject the new teachings and as a result the two groups fight many wars, killing as many of the opposition as possible. 1400 years later, both groups are still fighting each other as to whose version of the stories are correct, but no conclusive resolution can be achieved since none of the stories in any of the various published versions can be verified and they all make fantastical claims about things which are not part of reality as we know it. Ain't religion a mess?
Funny to be reading this comment... I literally just finished watching a little independent film call "Man from Earth". Highly relevant to part two of your post. Check it out.
Scientists of 3,000 years ago thought the universe was composed of four elements. Science was convinced that lead could be transmuted to gold for thousands of years. The scientific opinion was that disease was transmitted by bad air and odors. The theory of phlogiston was scientific fact for hundreds of years. Today's theory of the atom is just a little over 100 years old. DNA was not understood 60 years ago, less than one human lifetime. All these scientific 'facts' of history were discussed, tested, and peer reviewed using the same methodology you discribe for review and selection of religious tracts.
The foundation of science is philosophy and religion, like it or not. Many scientists throughout history believed that a better understanding of the universe was a pathway to better understand God. To discount the belief that the universe contains many phenomena that we do not understand is to discount scientific exploration.
Nerm_L - Your comment is bascially agreeing that science grows with new information, whereas religion often does not. To be fair, many "believers" are nevertheless capable of incorporating modern thinking (including science) into their world view, but religious fundamentalists are not. Yes, people believed all sorts of weird things 3000 years ago. And the fundamentalists still do. THAT is the difference.
"Science", exploration of the natural world divorced from metaphysical concepts, didn't really exist until maybe 400 years ago. Scientific ideas require some kind of replication and confirmation that are understandable to anyone regardless of their culture or religion. This latter point is what many religious people of all flavors don't understand, most notably both christian and moslem fundamentalists.
You are comparing rigorous science to 'pop' religion. A more apt comparison of religious fundamentalists (of any faith) would be to scientists that study extraterrestrial UFOs or scientists that pursue perpetual motion. Reading a textbook on chemistry does not make the individual a scientist. Reading a religious tract does not make the individual a philosopher or theologian. There are as many 'pop' scientists as there are 'pop' theologians.
Approaching a subject with a preconceived conclusion is bad science. Declaring superiority based on flawed observation is disingenuous and, frankly, lazy thinking. You are discounting a basic reason for studying alternate chemistries in biological systems. The underlying basis for these types of studies is one of the core areas of philosophical and religious study - "Are we alone in the universe?" and "What is our place in that universe?" Science may qualitatively and quantitively describe life and provide insights as to how life came into existence and evolved. Science can never answer the basic question "What is the purpose of life?"
Nerm-L,
I think your idea of what science is, what science isn't, and the history of its developement are... imperfect. It sounds more like you're projecting what you'd like it to be, perhaps in order to make it less threatening? I think you'd be hard pressed to find any scientists or institutions of merit who support alchemy or pre-germ-theory ideas. You say these things were based on the same scientific method we use today, but this just is not the case. And UFOs? Have you never heard a "Ufologist" rail against the scientific community for the way they refuse to give UFOs any serious acknowledgement? They'll tell you it's prejudice or fear, but the bottom line is that to date, there hasn't been any evidence that meets the stringent requirements of the scientific community.(And to the UFO proponents, please don't take that the wrong way and start badgering me. I'm only trying to point out that science is the OPPOSITE of what Nerm-L is suggesting: it demands a level of proof that, if anything, err's on the side of caution, rather than just believing any old thing as Nerm-L suggests.)
I don't know why you feel the way you do about science, but I think it probably has more to do with your personality than with how science works. The purpose of life? That's not even a quantifiable question, and therefore not a question that science is concerned with. (Unless you can figure out a definite, measurable definition for "The Purpose of Life," and I doubt you could do so because it's more a matter of opinion than anything else.)
Matt -- You are not examining my statements carefully. I am not discounting or dismissing science at all. Science has evolved throughout history and continues to evolve. So has philosophy and religion. I am pointing out that discounting and dismissing religion and philosophy based on faulty observations and preconceived conclusions is misguided. That is the definition of 'bad' science.
Science should NOT be used to diminish societal or cultural beliefs. Science does NOT provide a quantifiable measure of the superiority of one belief system over another. Science CANNOT make cultural or societal judgements. Scientific research is based on FACTS. Societal and cultural choices are based on TRUTHS. Proclaiming the superiority of science over religion is presented as a TRUTH; which is outside the realm of science and presents science as a alternate religion. That is a misunderstanding of the role of science. The role of science is to provide FACTS that can help a society or culture to develop a belief system, a TRUTH. Science is and always will be a servant to cultural decision making.
As a scientist, I have not observed anything that leads me to easily dismiss the concept of a 'God'. As a scientist, I understand the limitations of science and understand that science cannot answer all questions. Science cannot provide truth; that is not what science is about.
Nerm, what you deem as "science" having roots in religion or philosophy is only partially correct. I know where you are coming from in your thinking, however without the scientific method... it isn't science. Implying that philosophers who speculated about the earth only containing 4 elements was once what science was is a gross misunderstanding and misrepresentation of what scientists have done and continue to do. If you are indeed a scientist, you should already know that you'll NEVER find anything that will allow you to dismiss God the way you can a hypothesis. Science is the study of the physical and natural world, backed by volumes of experiments showing empirical support. Science doesn't care to answer metaphysical and supernatural questions... these cannot be tested.
"Science CANNOT make cultural or societal judgements" ... Well, perhaps. Cultural or societal judgements should never be allowed to dismiss science. The role of science is NOT to develop better belief systems... belief requires no independent verification. The role of science is to provide KNOWLEDGE via providing explanations for the physical and natural world.
It seems quite plausible that a lifeform would evolve that contains toxicity (arsenic) for other things (carbon based lifeforms) wanting to devour it. This in itself does not make it alien.
If it has an ecosystem that supports it and a hierarchy of lifeforms with it, that makes it more plausibly terrestrial. Is it existing alone? If you find it on Mars, then maybe.
Until they replicate it, this is pure speculation....but quite interesting.
As usual, these attacks are nit personal...but logic based...in order to trandpsfer to a new logic system, the previous ine must be convincingly dismantled. This requires a lot of puzzle pieces. This issue will be settled in 10 years. No side wins, only logic.
Its about consensus. But not for consensus's sake. All parties must agree through a methodology, like math,for this to become established fact. Since they are all professionals, they all know the language, and they square the puzzle pieces according toctheir perceptions. In end, the puzzle is completed, and that becomes the fact, which might be contrary to any initial sides perception....it could be entirely unexpected...
And that remains established fact...until it is challenged again, and the process repeats itself.
Think of it as...evolution...but of thought and understanding. Its almost like a religious discipline but of thought. Scientific method.
Criticsm makes science stronger...because It makes the "entity" (knowledge) stronger over time, and hence. Mire authoritative. If there is no criticism, an organism becomes complacent and fails. You know, it fails to anticipate predictable criticism and so it becomes less authoritative over time. Hence the monicker "logic is the greatest tyrant. Truth the greatest communist"
And that's why science is the strongest methodology and philosophy on the planet. It does not claim answers. Just a method to attaining them that improves over time as it approaches whatcis actually going on. It uses math as the language, and science as a methodology, so it kind of improves and approaches most accurate descriptions. And since all strong systems adopt this evolutionary method. All strong systems can be appropriately called "scientific" because it's inception comes from the Greek philosophy of skepticism...
Science. As presented today, really started with them. Natural science and philosophy were once one...when they started answering more questions, that is when science diverged from philosophy....philosophy is at the forefront of that which cannot be -yet- quantified. As things become known, they become "science"
When things are more complex and not yet quantifiable, they become "philosophy"
This encompasses religions and secular ideologies like Marxism.
Althougj we do know there are comparable economic trade offs for systems. But no one can yet be defined as "best"
For example, communism is more equitable, but less efficient, with less average accumulated wealth for a society.
A capitalist society is more efficient, with more average accumulated wealth and standard of living...but not necessarily happier or good for resources if you are to take "good" as slow usage....people work to but bigger houses they don't need to "keep up" with the jonses...in other words, its not happier. It cooped just be more stressed out. Happiness does not come, after a certain point, from material possession....if people were less exposed to the evils of advertising or pressured to keep up withvthe jonses...a different "narrative" if you will, they might be happy with a small house, a porch and some good vacations.
Is any society necessarily "better" in absolute terms? Yes with communism. (capitalism is better) But no for socialism.
However,cone does have more advantages when it comes to techcprogress and innovation over another...which one day might lead to a new social order through robotics that might make all these discussions irrelevant and solve the problem....
Nevertheless, from an atheist perspective it might not matter....its better to have the most utilitarian system and have slower scientific progress...the most people are happy and what difference is 50 and 100 years anyway?
However someone might object that socialism will only lead to collapse due to competition, and hence it's utilitarian to be more capitalist...not to mention if you are going to go with "what is good for thr most number" and the "end justifies the means"
You might as well speed up the process of innovation, make some people suffer now, but, over time. Have more happy people later....faster...and hence accomplish the original goal of your atheistic perspective....more competition and technology will in any case lead to a global perfect market. An organic socialism,that will be both more efficient and equitable than any such system achieved through imposition..
Which is better? There is no absolute measure. Some economists might say a more capitalist society, some social scientists a more socialist society, leading to a more happy, less stressed out, society.
This is science. This arguement, is philopshy.
Consensus builds through the arguement. But first you must be honest.
Not true about all things with methodology being science. Science has the scientific method. History is not a science, but it has its own methodology, leading to something similar to theory vs. hypothesis. Philosophy is not a science in general (though there are small amounts of experimental philosophers). In a historical sense, great philosophers fueled the birth of science... when does one stop thinking (however logically) and start testing? However, science was born via scientific method and the concept of TESTING a hypothesis. There was no science before the concept of testing.
All science is skeptical. Original philosophy, "Greek" philosophy was. But not always.
I think its pretty self evident that orwelianism is the principle of marketing and of today's philosophy . The same philosophy of collective ideologies that has always ruled man. Lack of skepticism is it's game, and although powerful for short term gain it loses out to long term loss, as it's authority is lost for the illusion of consensus,
The only authority over time is logic and the philosophy of skepticism for logic is the greatest tyrant, and truth the greatest communist.
This is kind of absolute. It doesn't matter how much one team scores over another at any given time, over the integral of time, one philosophy dies and another one gets stronger. Why? It's about best fit systems. A system that survives through self censorship is weaker than one that constantly improves itself through criticism. One will die, the other will not. One pretends to be utilitarian, the other one actually is utilitarian.
Collectivsm and individualism are actually the same.the more you oppress the individual for the good of the whole, the more
L the individuals that make up the whole feel insecure, and so the whole is worse off....similarly, a system,that is only about the individual will see iindividual liberty over time go down, because without some foresight and planning resources dwindle quickly when they could otherwise be extended with minimal costs to freedom.
In reality, they are one and the same.
One reaches this equilibrium through a grid. Not through any actor. It's about deigning a good system that plays out in a good way, not about intervening. Then you become a player, and unintended consequences arise by which the system does not allow evolutionary strength.
You weaken the system because the system adapts around your intervention. And does not solve the original problem, but creates new problems.
Of course I'm still interested in this debate. This team is just barely scratching the surface of the types of lifeforms that could have evolved not just here on Earth but across the universe. It's positively amazing what is going on with this study. I understand that people don't/won't want to believe their findings for quite a while. While I do think that further research needs to be conducted by them and others; I am a bit appalled that other teams in the scientific community did not follow proper procedure when questioning this team. Instead they let their fear rule them, and they berated the group.
Unfortunately, if you look at the actual data from the study, the case for the bacteria incorporating and using arsenic in it's biomolecules becomes sketchy at best. It almost looks like it was purposely deceptive. It's not that I don't want to believe. I was as excited as anyone else when I read about this in the news, but drat bad methodology, they pulled the wool over our eyes for a while there.
We shall see if the independent studies bear your logic out.
Skepticism towards a scientist's experiment is only flatering as it proves that their work is being looked at with serious thought. In the end of a scientific debate only a better understanding is reached regardless of the experiment proven to be valid or not.
I just want to know if old colonies of these bacteria in arsenic grow in a lacy pattern. ;-D
Beware of little old ladies and their bacterial colonies!
She had better watch out. The Church of Science will excommunicate her if she isn't careful. It's done it before, it will do it again. Blasphemy will NOT be tolerated.
No one is excommunicating her. They are challenging her, which is how science should be done. She is being allowed to publish a response, is she not. And she will publish her new findings later. And others will challenge those as well. And if in the end she can't defend her findings sufficiently with logic and evidence, they will be discredited, as they should be. It's called science.
Yes, her results could be partially correct, under certain circumstances, and it's a very important finding. Certainly time will tell.
It could also be a false positive due to confounds, which is exactly why any solid experiment requires replicability, in addition to further tests that try to weed out any potential confounds. Meanwhile... an actual church isn't so rigorous indeed.
Im really far more concerned about the sequencing of proteins and the spontaneous emmergence of some kind of replication system. Im far too underwhelmed everytime nasa gets a hard=on everytime it sees liquid water. These people are clowns. Life has a lot of unbelievable odds to overcome to exist in a spontaneous fashion. Grow up children.
Who is saying replication was spontaneous?
In other words, if Nasa discovers the existence of silicon on another world, does it speculate that there may be extraterrestrial computers, or the existence of iron means possible competition for Ford and Toyota. The existence of extraterrestrial life is so much more unlikely that Ive got to laugh.
Wait what? Okay how bout this. You tell us what a living thing does and then YOU describe how a Ford pickup is living.
First of all have you figured into the account of how vaste the universe and if so do you really think extraterrestrial life is still really unlikey?
Science has nothing to do with religion. God is made to believe, not to be understood. How would you understand the way the God made Eve? There must be gazillion ways to make Eve given the power of God.
@gl88...believing or having faith in God is not simply blindly following someones set of rules. That can go anywhere...
Man made God because he desparately needed something to believe in.
Mikey...the strong desire of 'desperately needing somthing to believe in' didn't come in from out in the blue. Perhaps it's part of the scaffolding of the universe and inherent to our lifes. Least we not understate..to quote..."Included in the entirety is the observer.-Paul Davies"
the Universe continually reflects variations of life. Whatsa big deal?
Almost everyone wants their opinion or belief to be heard as true by others so they'll be noticed.
@Analyst... not true my friend. Just being 'heard to be true' - just to be 'noticed' is certainly one mans experience but thats a rather limited viewpoint. Many communicate to educate themselves as well as find some support that ones chosen lifes path has some merrit in truth. This is a journey you know.
Science is never dogma. If you don't believe science has it right, you keep testing. Anyone can go back to the original experiment and do it themselves. Dogma comes from the untestable passages from religions, they can't test the bible. They can't even get first hand accounts of the things, which are written in the bible/Koran. Opinion comes from things without a testable system/a way to prove something. You may have a beef about how the scientist came to his conclusion, but the data isn't wrong, if it is repeatable.
Science doesn't have opinion. It works with testable facts. Therefore, Science can't be dogma.
@ reason "Science is never dogma"
this is a statement that is dogmatic and unscientific. Not religious (cardinal) dogma but 'science dogma' because it is simply not true (trying isnt doing).. Todays major science groups have become elite hense dogmatic.
No... one side tries, the other doesn't bother. Thus... diametrical opposites. You still don't get it.
Being skeptical is being a true scientist. With more work and data, these scientists will either prove to be right or wrong. That is the way science works.
science dogma works best when in touch with outside life.
Science is the diametrical opposite of dogma.
Dogma...(of a statement, opinion, etc.) forcibly asserted as if authoritative and unchallengeable
@climp...your statement is dogmatic sir.
“Human life is driven forward by a dim understanding of notions too general for its existing language.” Alfred North Whitehead
Lol... ok...
DOGMA
1.
a system of principles or tenets, as of a church.
2.
a specific tenet or doctrine authoritatively laid down, as by a church: the dogma of the assumption.
3.
prescribed doctrine: political dogma.
Science is explanations of the natural, physical world, provided by empirical evidence via experimental testing.
Diametrical opposites. Care to espouse any more ignorance?
They are diametrically opposed because science SEEKS answers, always knowing that every answer leads to more questions. Dogma ASSUMES they already have the answer. Opposites.
climp...this word is typically confused to mean 'cardnial or from the holy See' which is only a poor subset of its history.
how much of your science is supported by intelligent intuition? that is faith my friend. The quote from Whitehead (a world class math guy) is not authoritative and can be comfortably challenged. Your post , it should be noted , violates both of these basic science-speak guidlines.
Violates how? You have to back a claim with something. I'd be happy to rebut, except you just said "it is" with no explanation, I won't respond "is not".
Violates in that I find your statements to be authoritative and uncomfortable to challenge which in my experience is poor science grammar on your part. My initial post stated this notion, its base and an example of good science grammar... and the fact that we've already taken to this much chatter supports my point.
I didn't ask how it violated your sensibilities. I meant how did my post violate anything scientific.
You and several on this blog keep making these grandious statements about the scientific approach yet spill out the same ilk as religious preachers. Certainly science atempts objectivity however simply stating the words is only spouting 'science-dogma'. Specifically I find your syntax less than adequate.
Doesn't matter if you do or not. That simply indicates a rather low level of literacy :) . If you cannot respond to specifics in a debate... why do you even try?
Self replicating RNA developed for the first time. We are getting closer and closer to proving the evolutionary origin of life, which in my opinion should be still be occurring in our own world today. - RC
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/01/090109173205.htm
PS - At some point existing life tends to put a damper on the development of new life, but I believe the primordial processes which lead up to the origin of life should still be present in various locations throughout our own world today. - RC
I agree...while there appears to be a built-in limiting factor to individual species developement, the primordial processes seem to be part of the base scaffolding of the direction of the universe.
Interesting thought. However, I can't think of any isolated sanctuary on our planet that life hasn't already settled on. That would provide the conditions and materials, as we understand it to be of course, for chemical properties to take on replaction and life like behaviour. I do agree though that if a form of life, seperate from our evolutionary tree, tried to "sprout" it would be devoured before it even really had a chance.
The problem is more than just being devoured by the ubiquitous bacteria and other live already in existence. The main problem is oxygen. As one of the most reactive substances in the universe, oxygen would instantaneously compromise any unprotected life form trying to emerge.
Eventually, if we, as a species, don't extinct ourselves, we will go out into space and I suspect that what we find will be stranger than any sci-fi we can imagine. I'd just like to be around when the sceptics have to eat their words. But that is far more unlikely than the existence of alien life.