 |
|
|
AUDIENCE COMMENTS |
|
|
|
|
An opportunity for the audience to have their say on In Our Time. |
|
 |
|
|
|
THE ORIGINS OF LIFE
Terenzio Muri - The Origins of Life.
When musing on Richard Corefields definition of life I thought, for a moment, that I had discovered evidence of "God's Fingerprints". He suggested that life could be recognised as that process which produces 'negative entropy'. Whilst I could understand how self-replication and metabolisation [sic] might have natural selectors, 'negative entropy' would require life to embrace future purpose; a target to aim for; in short: a 'Devine' selector. On further consideration negative entropy, I decided, is not a primary 'attribute of life', (it cannot be selected for, or against; so lies outside the scope of Darwin's theory); but a product of life, like molecular oxygen. "God's Fingerprints"deleted.
Terry Walls - Origin of life.
I was interested to hear the speakers agree that there is a high probability of life having originated in many places throughout the universe; that suitable conditions are unlikely to be limited to just this one planet. If life originated many times extra terrestrially, then it follows that it probably originated on more than one occasion terrestrially. That there now exists a single life tree, using a common four-letter DNA alphabet, has three possible explanations: -1. That all alternative genetic codes were 'competed' into extinction at an early stage. -2. That alternative genetic codes remain undiscovered. -3. Life originated only once on Earth. Option '1' seems the most likely. It also allows for the likelihood of extraterrestrial life. Option '2' may obtain if the isolation of alternatives, over geological timescales, has been possible: i.e. deep within the earth's crust. Option '3' is the most interesting. It means that over hundreds of millions of years, when the conditions for the origin of life must have been at an optimum, only a single, self-replicating, metabolising entity ever came into being. This option might well mean that life is scarce throughout the universe, even unique to a single planet. It will be interesting to see what light future discoveries cast on this question.
Liam,why?
There is great debate on the origin of life but it does seem that we will not be able to find the answer as there are many answers that cannot be discredited, but cannot also be fully proved.
Peter Fisher - The Origin of Life
First let me say that I hugely enjoyed the programme it was very informative. Why is it that when scientifically literate people discuss science it always seems to be hijacked by the kind of religious and pseudoscientific comments that have been propounded on this discussion board? The only good thing that one can say about creationism is that it can't be discredited, but that is only because nothing can be discredited until it gains creditability in the first place. It has never provided any useful or helpful insight that helps our understanding, because it is an entirely negative philosophy. Either evolution happened or it didn't. Any dispassionate examination of the evidence reveals a conclusive case that it did, and as one would expect, all Creationist arguments fall apart spectacularly when they are subjected to an informed examination. The concept of essences seems to be stubbornly rooted in the minds of some people, in spite of the mass of scientific evidence contradicting it. The problem of defining what life is, alluded to in the programme, should be enough to dispel any idea that there is some special essence of life. It should be equally obvious that if evolution happened - it did - and if evolution was a gradual process - it was - then life and consciousness must have emerged incrementally from simpler precursors. Studies of apes have revealed a mass of anecdotal evidence that shows that apes have emotions that are indistinguishable from "human" emotion. This evidence suggests that they have self-awareness, complex social structures, a theory of mind, and even a simple sense of humour. The idea that consciousness is a purely human quality is nonsense, as is the idea that there are no degrees of consciousness: there has to be some level at which a dog is conscious of its master. As Jane Goodall says in one of her books, we differ from apes not in essence but by degree. The idea that the fact that we have never contacted other intelligent beings in the universe somehow implies that we are unique is not credible. As I understand it the SETI project can only listen for messages from the nearest few tens of thousand stars: in other words our own immediate neighbourhood. It is extremely unlikely that we could be aware of any radio-equipped beings on the other side of our own galaxy let alone any other galaxy. Let's say that there are about a million, million stars in our own (pretty average galaxy and about a million million galaxies in the whole universe (a rough estimate but in the ball-park). And let's say that Richard Dawkins is right that intelligent life is vanishingly improbable - lets say it only appears on one in a billion stars - this would mean that there are about a thousand planets in our own galaxy with intelligent life, and about a thousand million million intelligent species in the universe. And if you don't find this argument convincing remember that there aren't just three dimensions there are four. However many intelligent species there are in the universe now, the number that have been, or will be, must be many orders of magnitude greater. The fact that we may not ever be able to contact alien beings means nothing, but it must be certain that there are, have been, or will be, other intelligent species in the universe.
Robert Barlow - The Origins of Life
I cannot let Adam Smith's comment go unchallenged. Richard Dawkins has shown that 'accidents' have nothing to do with it. The essential difference between evolution and blind chance is building on established success, however limited. Dawkins' 'The Blind Watchmaker' covers this in considerable (and fascinating) detail. I have no difficulty in accepting that I am the very distant descendent of a group of molecules in the primordial 'soup' (or whatever it precisely was) and that the only future is the genetic inheritance we leave to our children - much diluted over time.
Jeff Micheals - The Origins of Life
"Darwinism is just a theory" Oh please. A hoary old chestnut from (often otherwise seemingly intelligent) people who don't appear to have even a basic grasp of what science is and how it works.
Evolution - is it all that it's cracked up to be ?
Whilst I lean heavily towards darwinism and accepted evolution theory, I still have some difficulties with the gaps. For example, why is the fossil record so lacking in examples of failed human evolution ? Evolution, as far as I can see, also has some problems in explaining some of the things that we know to be true today. For example, why are humans getting taller - and have been for several hundred years ? Since the tendency has been for humans to get taller over a long period of human social history, it would be reasonable to say that it is unlikely to be a consequence of our recent social framework with better healthcare vs increased pollution etc. So, from a darwinist point of view I would expect there to be a good evolutionary reason. Perhaps the planet is slowing down, gravity getting weaker, so less constraints on height ? Fanciful, but I'm sure you get the gist ?
Tony Chinnery The origins of Life
According to quantum mechanics, a parameter, such as position or velocity, only has a value once it is measured. In the end this must be a conscious measurement, as in any experiment with a measuring apparatus, the measuring apparatus itself can be considered as part of a new experiment: experiment + measuring apparatus. Thus quantum mechanics requires sentient beings, without conscious observers the universe would be in an infinity of parallel states. It is this that distinguishes life from machines, and constitutes the mystery of life. On the other hand to say that "God created the universe" has no meaning at all. It is typical of religions to borrow meaninful words and use them in a context where they have no meaning. If I create a house, I am using energy to rearrange pre-existing atoms or molecules, not creating new matter. What does it mean to "cause" matter to exist? Did God wave his arms and chant an incantation? In fact it is impossible to have a rational discussion with a religious person. To believe is irrational, those who believed in Newton's laws were wrong. Thus Melvyn was quite right to exlude God from the discussion.
Chris Miller - The Origins of Life
Tony Evers is correct that (some) viruses can reproduce using only RNA as their genetic blueprint. However, they achieve this by subverting the reproductive mechanisms of DNA-based cells, and so are not necessarily a good guide to what life would look like in an 'RNA-only' world.
Lynn Saxon Origins
One thing that has always puzzled me about the 'intelligent design' theory as proof for the existence of God:- If life is so 'perfect' (which anyone can see it is not) it must have been created by a god. I assume this god must be even more perfect than the human. How do we get around the next step which must be that a perfect god must have been himself made by an intelligence even more perfect? Where did God come from? If he is eternal and unknowable or whatever surely we can also see that the material world/life/nature/ is potentially just as eternal and needs no creator? How can people say that life needs a creator but god does not?
Robert Barlow - The Origins of Life
My earlier point could have been better expressed, but it in no way invalidates the basic premise - this can be called 'theory' as long as we distinguish between the casual and the scientific definitions, as has already been pointed out. I would revise the probability of life from 'teeming' to 'relatively abundant', in other words life can be expected to exist on any planet where conditons are suitable, but that intelligent, technological life is very rare, with nothing within accessible radio range. Only one species out of the many millions that exits/have existed on earth has developed a technological civilisation.
Peter Smith The Origins of Life
I hope I may be allowed to reply to Andy Bennett's accusation that I misrepresented what was said on the programme. "It must have happened because here we are" was exactly what was said and proves that belief in Darwinism is as much a blind faith as any religion. Far from "giving up and claiming it is unknowable" many contributors to this discussion board are putting forward rational scientific arguments, only to be met by the dismissive "You are just ignorant heretics" cries from the Darwinists that are so reminiscent of religious dogmatism. There may or may not be evidence for "evolution" but there is certainly none at all for an infinite series of beneficial random mutations and natural selection. Indeed, Darwin, who was brought up from a child to believe in "evolution" but had seen Lamark's theory disproved, deliberately conceived a new theory which was incapable of proof or disproof.
Adam Smith The Origins of Life
Robert Barlow cannot fathom out how "vast numbers" of people could "invent" a Creator. Would he believe that a watch, or a radio, came about by a series of accidents? Simple experience tells us that highly organised systems come about by the application of intelligence, whereas the very word "accident" implies the intervention of detrimental chaos. The insistence that the universe and life are the results of millions of random accidents is an Act of Faith in contradiction of all experience.
Tony Evers - Origin of life
Thankyou for another fascinating discussion... though as always my complaint is only the duration - 45 minutes is never enough. One thing is clear. given the right circumstances the appearance of 'Life' seems almost inevitable. How it happened on our planet will probably never be fully understood, unless of course we can manage to pull the trick ourselves at some future point, as technology develops. That life (as we know it) started with the development of RNA was very interesting. I may be wrong but aren't the only examples of 'Life' on our planet which reproduce solely from an RNA blueprint - the Virus? Some Virus's in the modern world only barely make the grade as being 'alive' I do wish this matter had been touched on in the discussion. As a stepping stone between the animate and inanimate.... the Virus seems the most logical 'missing link'
Mr Colin David Hunter
Being a Naturopath & listening to your recent program on 23/9.I wonder if Prof Dawkins, Richard Corfield & prof Partridge have evaluated the RNA & DNA science with our Dietary knowledge in relation to Mitochondria being reliant on natural aerobic enzymes and molecular cells for abosolute correct DNA reproduction. This would provide us with the correct regrowth of our body tissue which would correct our human metabolic deficiency diseases that we are currently falling foul of. With this knowledge this could save our nations health and with it many billions of pounds saved on our NHS.
Irvin Morgan The Origins of Life
Robert Barlow's contribution has reminded me that this program indicated a very significant retreat by the biologist lobby. Hitherto it has been clear that if the generally accepted theories of the universe and evolution are accepted then we should be able to pick up radio signals from much earlier "civilizations" (the sun being young in comparison to many other stars). As we can find none at all, that casts great doubt on the theories. If a theory's predictions are inaccurate, then so is the theory. So the biologists now retreat to, "the beginning of life was an improbable event, possibly even unique, so that would explain the lack of radio signals." But that presents two further questions: Is such an improbable event not more suggestive of intelligent Creation than of random coincidence? How can such a single improbable event lead to a process of beneficial random mutation which is (according to the biologists) as common as dirt?
Terenzio Muri - Origins of Life
It is a shock to me that fellow believers should want to find evidence of God's fingerprints on his creation. That all processes, within the cosmos, should be explicable by succinct,immutable, universal laws-of-nature is, for me, evidence of the perfect anticipation of an omnipotent creator. To suggest that his creation should require his regular intervention - like a builder returning to 'snag' his construction - is to doubt God. To need other than 'scientific' explanations for creation is an attempt to catch God 'red-handed'; to find that he had left his signature on creation - like an artist on a canvas - would be to accuse him of vanity. "In the beginning was the word" and the word contained all the laws-of-nature. How blessed is science that we should have found a route to this revelation.
Mark Williams - intelligent design programme
There was a programme about the opposing viewpoint of intelligent design and God, Look in the In Our Time archives and there was a programme on 13 Feb 2003 "Chance and Design". And I can thoroughly recommend the Lee Strobel book, 'The Case For a Creator'. If you want to see both viewpoints on the origin of life then read 'The Case For a Creator' along with Richard Dawkin's books 'Unweaving the Rainbow' and 'The Devil's Chaplain' and this programme.
Luke Whittaker - Melvin Bragg
Mine never get printed but I've got to say this none-the-less. The guy can rest now in the knowledge that despite accepting a 'Lordship' and working in telly, he (and his researchers/producers) shed real light on Buddhism, Human Nature, Evolutionary Design, Pi, Redemption, Zero, Infinity, Psychoanalysis, The Schism, Duty, The Devil, Adam & Eve, The Examined Life, Quantum, Lamark and even Wittgenstein. In your darkest hour, remember that you committed real knowledge to so many through these shows and the wider web. Every other thing you do may pale in comparison but you folks have achieved more than most. I commend you for it. Keep up the work and encourage others to replace you when you become lazy or rubbish.
Nicco-Origins
what a refreshing programme. it makes a great change not to have a panel that wastes air time by bickering over nonsense. in this case bickering would have been about divine intervention when, as was so lucidly described by the panel, it is that type of muddled thinking that spoils a truely elegant origin of life.
Colin Johnson
I have two: First - in an oxygen free environment where did water come from - if from 'elsewhere', how was it formed there? Second - In my opinion your speakers gave descriptions of life, not definitions (which can be descriptions taken as far as they will go) How about - Life is a bridge between energy and matter, where matter seeks stability and energy avoids entrophy ?
Patrick Saintas- The origins of Life?
I would like to express how interesting it was to listen to this debate driving back from London on Thursday night. I was particularly interested in the speculation of the evolution of multicellularity and the points made about the roles of RNA and DNA. One perplexing issue is that this was not much of a debate as there seems to be agreement with the points being made.
James Baring - ORIGINS OF LIFE
A good discussion, but Richard Dawkins is still obsessed with his idea that the probability of life, and particularly human life, never increases with the passage of time and the physical evolution of the universe and planetary systems. 'Luck' is his philosophical cornerstone. But this kind of luck is inevitable, a far from customary experience. Evolution starts with the moment the non-singular material universe exists. The mutual selection of non-singularity becomes natural selection, as the search for physical mutual compatibility forces first the expansion of the universe as a whole and then consequent local reverse entropy that we call gravity, making the local resolution of forces and forms unavoidable. Life is indeed reverse entropy, brought about by the reverse-entropic environment of local gravity. Corfield picked a poor example though - builders knocking down a house is just as anti-entropic as building it back up. Letting it fall down would demonstrate entropy, as the building has no metabolism. The four chosen criteria to describe life are correct, except Natural Selection is the least applicable as a condition, because it applies to non-life as well.
Zoltan - Origins of Life
Dear Mike Just put some gloving hot lava into the water in the presence of carbon dioxide and nitrogen. You will find the missing gases
Chris Miller - Origins of Life
Melvyn questioned whether life could have evolved in an oxygen-rich atmosphere, rather than the reducing atmosphere actually found on the early Earth. The answer is that (as pointed out by James Lovelock of Gaia fame), an oxygen-rich atmosphere can only exist in the presence of life. If life vanished from the Earth, all oxygen would soon (in geological terms) be locked up in oxides within the Earth's crust. Conversely, identification of free oxygen in the atmosphere of a distant planet would carry a very strong implication of the existence of life there. PS Surely everyone must be aware that the entire Universe was in fact sneezed out of the nose of the Great Green Arkleseizure. I'm living in fear of The Coming of The Great White Handkerchief ...
Lynn Saxon
In answer to Helen Homer - plants make their carbohydrate from water and carbon dioxide releasing oxygen as a waste product. As for all the creationists - in science everything is a theory until proved wrong. Evolution only remains a 'theory' because it has not been proved wrong. It stuns me how people are so afraid of evolutionary theory and have to protect their own egos by creating god myths - the same egos that are causing such horrors around the world today in the name of their gods. Try reading Ursula Goodenoughs 'sacred depths of nature' and discover the greatest wonder that is reality. No need for stories that simply cannot compare with the real facts of life itself.
Phil Crofts
My, what a wonderful collection of perspectives that I had not expected to find outside of American chat rooms. First the 'It is only a theory' line, which can only be used if one conflates the casual use of the word (an idea of how something happened) with the scientific meaning (an explanation of observations which is internally consistent and which has been rigorously tested). Then we get the "Evolution is a religion" line a little later, which is frankly bizarre and shows little more than willful ignorance of evolution. A note for people who feel the need to dispute widely held and tested scientific theories. Go to university, study the subject, devise tests which, if failed, will contradict the predictions of the theory, test the theory, publish your evidence, preferably accompanied by a competing theory which explains existing observations more effectively than the current one and then rake in the Nobel prize. Other than that, thanks for a fascinating program.
David J. Tyler - The Origins of Life
The programme was informative: it was useful to get an insight into the current status of theories and to find that the primordial soup, Miller's experiments and the RNA World scenario still holds sway. However, few listeners would have realised that each of these ingredients has been, and is, strongly contested. There is no physical evidence for a reducing atmosphere or a primordial soup - it is all conjecture. Miller's experiments cannot bear the weight that is put on them, and the more realistic the atmospheric gases, the less the yield of interesting products. The RNA World has a black hole before it - as was acknowledged in the programme. The transition from RNA World to DNA World is equally enigmatic. I thought Fed Hoyle had a raw deal from Richard Dawkins. There are good scientific reasons for Hoyle's skepticism about Darwinism and it is empty logic to insist that "It must have happened because we are here". The missing element in all of these discussions of life's origin is "information" - and your panelists did not get close to addressing this subject this morning.
Mike B - Origin of Life
I'm sure, in the interests of balance Melvin will have similar discussions with theologians at some time - in the meantime can we hear a Darwininian on 'Thought for the Day?' Of course there is evidence of natural selection, it's in the fossils. The fossil record is incomplete because the earth's crust is dynamic and so fossils are lost, but there are enough around to evidence Darwin and evolutionary theory. As for the cry that Darwin's theory is only a theory and there are unproven parts - well, science doesn't know everything yet - but it will get there. The religious extremes, when challenged fall back on the idea of mystery if they don't have an answer. There are still mysteries for science to solve too. Level playing field please.
Andy Bennett - Origins of Life
What a pity to see the creationists taking their usual approach of misrepresenting what the contributors have said ("It (Darwinist natural selection) must have happened because here we are." ) and pretending that there is no evidence for evolution (there is an enormous amount). Faced with something that is unknown we have two choices - look for an understandable mechanism to explain it (and more deeply understand the world) or give up and claim it is unknowable (God did it). I'm glad that the BBC have chosen the former approach.
Robert Barlow - Origins of Life
I have no problem in accepting the basic premise that life originated in a very different environment from the one we have now and that our present environment is itself a product of living things which have evolved by Darwinian principles. Of course, some of the details are unknown and may never be known, but how vast numbers of people can jump from that premise to invent a Creator is beyond me. Surely the key factor in humanity is language, the origin of which was very recent on the geological scale. With hunting and gathering done for the day, early man must have had ample time to think up all sorts of fanciful explanations for natural phenomena, leading to religion, creation myths etc. There is ample evdience that this in fact happened. I agree (as in almost all things) with Richard Dawkins that intelligence is almost certainly a very rare thing in the universe, which is probably teeming with life, ovwerwhelmingly of a rather primitive kind, and that there is likely to be no-one 'out there' to have a dialogue with.
Michael - Originas of Life
How can Melvyn even begin to have a fully rounded debate on the origins of life if his debators are all one-sided ? Where was the religious contribution ? How disappointing that no one seemed to remember that Darwin's theory of evolution is just that - a theory, if it were held out as evidence in a law court today it would be thrown out as there is absolutely no basis upon which to trust this eveidence, this theory. Yet over time we seem to have simply shrugged our shoulders and given in, so theory becomes fact - a fact based on no actual evidence. The BBC has a responsibility as the world's leading media agency and from whom so many millions gain their knowledge and base their opinions to give a trully impartial line. A caveat needs to be broadcast whenever subjects like this are being discussed - "What you are about to hear is one of many theories. It is not actual fact. It is being broadcast in order that you might be able to be better informed to make your own decisions. We are not obviously able to braodcast everyone's opinion, everyone's theory - there are far too many, but do bear in mind that whilst this is a widely believed theory - that's all it is, a theory.
ted rodgers origins of life
Richard Dawkins says that it was lucky that life start on earth, and not, by implication on Mars Venus and Jupiter.So why all the effort to find evidence of (past)life on mars? Equally, life could have started on venus etc only to be extinguished as the temperature increased. As for the impact of meteorites containing simple molecules,these could also be formed by electric discharges in "outer space"
Chris Stillman God and Natural Selection
I am concerned that biologists such as Richard Dawkins so rersolutely refuse to consider the existence of God when the speakers in 'in our time' today discussed a number of major steps forward leading to the accumulation of large molecules, the formation of cell membranes etc - even the possibility of a mineralogical substrate to assist the formation of cells - which are essential to the procedures of natural selection, and indicating that the causes for such conjunctions are not yet understood. If physicists who are conversant with quantum and chaos theory and 'strange attractors' can accept the possibility of God, why not biologists when faced with similar dilemmas. Further, the contributors to the programme asked when and how sentience occurred, the process which distinguishes humankind from the rest of creation. Surely here is another point at which the existance of God is worth discussing. As an aid to Natual Selection, sentience can hardly figure since all its advantages to the biological survival of primitive humankind were already in existance - in the genetically acquired behaviour of both prey and predators species . So again, why not consider the possibility of God's intervention . Yet again, for Christians there is a further imput when Christ's teachings set out a path of cooperation which lifted mankind's endeavours to the level of today's world (and its denial to the problems we all face now).
Daniel Hill -- Origins of Life
Thanks for another vey interesting programme, Melvin. A comment on one point of detail: Richard Dawkins said, with regard to the `lucky' origin of life, that 'luck' simply means `an improbable event'. 'Luck' obviously doesn't mean this: my getting out of bed this morning before 6 am was highly improbable but was nothing to do with luck. `Luck' means `random', i.e. without any guiding intention behind it. This presumes that there was no guiding intention behind the origin of life on earth!
Peter Smith The Origins of Life
The attitude that infused the discussion was summed up by one contributor, "It (Darwinist natural selection) must have happened because here we are." I can say exactly the same about Creation - but I don't pretend that it is science. That is the central fact- Darwinism is not science, it is nothing more than a creation myth dressed up in pseudo scientific terms, but all the intellectuals must praise it just as the courtiers praised the King's New Clothes, lest they appear to be seen as fools - even religious! Today's discussion proved yet again that Darwinism raises more questions that it answers and throws so-called scientists back onto speculation and guesswork. It is tragic that Melvyn Bragg will never allow onto his programme a knowledgeable person who will challenge Darwin. On this subject Melvyn and the BBC in general take the position, "My mind is made up - don't confuse me with facts." With minds as closed as those of an Iranian Ayotollah, I doubt if even this contribution will be published.
Tony Chinnery, the origins of life
Dear Melvyn Bragg, The question you should have asked the scientist is this: Suppose I built a robot that could design and build other improved robots (if necessary mining the materials, building dams to get hydroelectric energy etc.), would these robots be living? They satisfy all of the mechanistic requirements for life of your scientists. I don't believe that robots, or any machine, are alive, and neither do you (Ithink). The fact is that science cannot explain everything, it cannot explain consciousness (which cannot be measured using the scientific parameters: position, velocity, energy etc.). Life is not just a matter of assembling molecules as these scientists would have it. If you believe that we are conscious, but a machine is not, then that is the inevitable conclusion. Science is not omnipotent. You who are not a scientist should be happy, Tony
Andy Cox - Origin of life
I wonder if there is any chance to here the other side of the story, i.e. that there is a creator, an inteligent designer. There are many respected scientist who believe so. May I recomend a book called 'The Case For a Creator' published by Zondervan, by a journalist called Lee Strobel who was the former legal affairs editor of the Chicargo Tribune. In his book he interviews several leading scientist in their own field. eg. Jonathon Wells,Stephen Meyer, William Lane Craig, Robin Collins, Guillermo Gonzalez, Jay Wesley Philips, Michael J Behe. I would like to challenge the bbc to bring together a group of believing scientist to put the other point of view.
helen homer- origins of life
I was intrigued by the idea that the early atmosphere had no oxygen, and that photosynthesising plants produced oxygen as a pollutant. Can anyone explain to me how this happened- I thought plants needed oxygen themselves in order to metabolise the sugars produced by photosynthesis.
John Dixon
Richard Dawkin's primary definition of life as minutely imperfect self replication raises interesting consequences for classifying cloned mammals as actually being part of the living universe ?!
Mike - Creation
Re. the Miller/Urey experiment which was quoted to prove the origin of amino acids on the early earth. This is flawed and here is just one reason:- There is almost universal agreement among specialists that earth's primordial atmosphere contained no methane, ammonia or hydrogen — 'reducing' gases. Rather, most evolutionists now believe it contained carbon dioxide and nitrogen. Miller-type sparking experiments will not work with those gases in the absence of reducing gases.
|
|
|
|
|
