“An obscure compound known as pyrophosphite could have been a source of energy that allowed the first life on Earth to form, scientists now say.
“From the tiniest bacteria to the complex human body, all living beings require an energy-transporting molecule called ATP to survive. Often likened to a ‘rechargeable battery,’ ATP stores chemical energy in a form that can be used by organic matter.
" 'You need enzymes to make ATP, and you need ATP to make enzymes,' said researcher Terence Kee of the University of Leeds in England. 'The question is: Where did energy come from before either of these two things existed? We think that the answer may lie in simple molecules, such as pyrophosphate, which is chemically very similar to ATP, but has the potential to transfer energy without enzymes.'" (Macintosh, 12 June 2010, LiveScience.com)
a. Stated in Other Words: Let’s recast Zoë Macintosh’s initial sentence, “An obscure compound known as pyrophosphite could have been a source of energy that allowed the first life on Earth to form...,” into a generalized popular science formula, thus:
[wildcard] + [subjunctive operator] + [necessary condition] >[(filter) result]
In this instance: a) “Pyrophosphite” is the [wildcard];
b) “could have been” is the [subjunctive operator];
c) “source of energy” is the [necessary condition];
d) “first life on Earth” is the [result].
b. The Unstated Assumption: When considering explanations in modern science, all explanations of substances, processes, or methods must pass through the [filter] of purely physical explanations - please do not drag God or supernatural beings or the Bible into these “explanations.” Necessarily, all explanations gravitate toward this physical basis, and explanations of any other sort are rejected out of hand as “unscientific.”
In this instance: e) “purely physical explanations” is the [filter];
Notice however, that on the sole basis of physical explanation, the statement, 1) “The moon is made of vanquished dreams,” is considered “unscientific; whereas, the statement, 2) “The moon is made of green cheese,” is considered scientific (albeit somewhat fanciful and open to further investigation). Unfortunately, the scientific “filter” often leads to absurd and/or unsatisfactory results, as the second example appears to indicate.
c. The inherent Shakiness of the Subjunctive: The far greater problem with using the subjunctive in science is the ease with which a person can render the argument totally moot: one only has to affirm the contrary in order to put the “scientist” in a rather unenviable spot. Consider this: Zoë Macintosh’s sentence, “An obscure compound known as pyrophosphite could have been a source of energy that allowed the first life on Earth to form...,” can be instantly contradicted by saying, “An obscure compound known as pyrophosphite could not have been a source of energy that allowed the first life on Earth to form...” Then Ms. Macintosh would be forced to present...evidence...for her assertion, which is, of course, a rather heartless thing to demand of that poor, struggling science writer. For, you see, the subjunctive is always used when, 1) There is no presentable evidence worthy of the name, or, 2) There is no possibility of falsifying the assertion being made, or, 3) When it’s impossible to know when we “have arrived at our destination of truth.” In short, the subjunctive is used to spout nonsense - “scientific” or otherwise - in the guise of a reasoned argument, and it is another way for a scientist to say, “I don’t know.”
d. Deus-Ex-Machina and Other Quandaries: The question all scientists must answer about first life on earth is one of genesis without the deus ex machina: how is it possible to account for life as we know it without resorting to creation-by-God (or whatever other deity/magic/process you might want else to consider)? Somehow, many modern scientists regularly shun God-as-creator as an inadequate explanation; instead they settle for highly improbable explanations as more “scientific.” Go figure. But that’s what happens when they swim in the pond of knowledge wearing the leaden jacket of the physical world.
Even if one pretends that pyrophosphite is the magic bullet that allowed energy-transportation in the primordial soup, how does life itself arise from that? Energy transportation by means of ATP is a process of life. But it is not life itself. Do you see the difference? How does this one tiny sliver of process integrate with the countless other slivers of process to create the life of an organism? What is missing here is the matrix of the organism itself. ATP energy transportation, as assisted by pyrophosphites or other [wildcard] substances, does not occur with any meaningful use outside of the organism. Instead, one relatively useless organic compound is changed into another relatively useless organic compound. The primordial soup just gets a little thicker, friends.
There is a principle involved here: the discovery of a single rivet does not an Eiffel Tower make. And you can try as hard as you may, but you can’t get that ATP energy transportation process to stand up and salute the flag by itself.
e. Improbable Beliefs Riding on Horseback While Walking on Stilts, and Other Nonsensical Things: We are dealing here with the extrapolation of principles from known processes to probable origins based upon those processes or upon fugues of vivid imagination. And, of course, both are always silly endeavors. For example, observing people crossing the street at a busy intersection does not say anything about the origin of life from some primordial soup eons ago. Each one of us understands that intuitively. It is always a mistake to pretend that it is possible to look at something we think we know (say, energy transportation via ATP), and then make suppositions about something we actually do not know (say, the origins of first life).
The two things are not only different in kind; they are different in teleology. Notice the difference in kind: one is a process (energy transportation via ATP) and the other is a genesis of origin (life from simple chemistry alone). Then notice the difference in teleology: ATP as a means of transporting energy for life processes, and the origin of life itself for [wildcard] reasons (which may be unstated, or random, or deus-ex-machina, or as fanciful as gilded unicorns crossing the Rainbow Bridge to prance in the Field of Dreams on the other side). Pick one and run with it. However, it is always acceptable to say, “It beats the hell out of me,” when dealing with questions about the origin of life by purely physical means.
“From the tiniest bacteria to the complex human body, all living beings require an energy-transporting molecule called ATP to survive. Often likened to a ‘rechargeable battery,’ ATP stores chemical energy in a form that can be used by organic matter.
" 'You need enzymes to make ATP, and you need ATP to make enzymes,' said researcher Terence Kee of the University of Leeds in England. 'The question is: Where did energy come from before either of these two things existed? We think that the answer may lie in simple molecules, such as pyrophosphate, which is chemically very similar to ATP, but has the potential to transfer energy without enzymes.'" (Macintosh, 12 June 2010, LiveScience.com)
a. Stated in Other Words: Let’s recast Zoë Macintosh’s initial sentence, “An obscure compound known as pyrophosphite could have been a source of energy that allowed the first life on Earth to form...,” into a generalized popular science formula, thus:
[wildcard] + [subjunctive operator] + [necessary condition] >[(filter) result]
In this instance: a) “Pyrophosphite” is the [wildcard];
b) “could have been” is the [subjunctive operator];
c) “source of energy” is the [necessary condition];
d) “first life on Earth” is the [result].
b. The Unstated Assumption: When considering explanations in modern science, all explanations of substances, processes, or methods must pass through the [filter] of purely physical explanations - please do not drag God or supernatural beings or the Bible into these “explanations.” Necessarily, all explanations gravitate toward this physical basis, and explanations of any other sort are rejected out of hand as “unscientific.”
In this instance: e) “purely physical explanations” is the [filter];
Notice however, that on the sole basis of physical explanation, the statement, 1) “The moon is made of vanquished dreams,” is considered “unscientific; whereas, the statement, 2) “The moon is made of green cheese,” is considered scientific (albeit somewhat fanciful and open to further investigation). Unfortunately, the scientific “filter” often leads to absurd and/or unsatisfactory results, as the second example appears to indicate.
c. The inherent Shakiness of the Subjunctive: The far greater problem with using the subjunctive in science is the ease with which a person can render the argument totally moot: one only has to affirm the contrary in order to put the “scientist” in a rather unenviable spot. Consider this: Zoë Macintosh’s sentence, “An obscure compound known as pyrophosphite could have been a source of energy that allowed the first life on Earth to form...,” can be instantly contradicted by saying, “An obscure compound known as pyrophosphite could not have been a source of energy that allowed the first life on Earth to form...” Then Ms. Macintosh would be forced to present...evidence...for her assertion, which is, of course, a rather heartless thing to demand of that poor, struggling science writer. For, you see, the subjunctive is always used when, 1) There is no presentable evidence worthy of the name, or, 2) There is no possibility of falsifying the assertion being made, or, 3) When it’s impossible to know when we “have arrived at our destination of truth.” In short, the subjunctive is used to spout nonsense - “scientific” or otherwise - in the guise of a reasoned argument, and it is another way for a scientist to say, “I don’t know.”
d. Deus-Ex-Machina and Other Quandaries: The question all scientists must answer about first life on earth is one of genesis without the deus ex machina: how is it possible to account for life as we know it without resorting to creation-by-God (or whatever other deity/magic/process you might want else to consider)? Somehow, many modern scientists regularly shun God-as-creator as an inadequate explanation; instead they settle for highly improbable explanations as more “scientific.” Go figure. But that’s what happens when they swim in the pond of knowledge wearing the leaden jacket of the physical world.
Even if one pretends that pyrophosphite is the magic bullet that allowed energy-transportation in the primordial soup, how does life itself arise from that? Energy transportation by means of ATP is a process of life. But it is not life itself. Do you see the difference? How does this one tiny sliver of process integrate with the countless other slivers of process to create the life of an organism? What is missing here is the matrix of the organism itself. ATP energy transportation, as assisted by pyrophosphites or other [wildcard] substances, does not occur with any meaningful use outside of the organism. Instead, one relatively useless organic compound is changed into another relatively useless organic compound. The primordial soup just gets a little thicker, friends.
There is a principle involved here: the discovery of a single rivet does not an Eiffel Tower make. And you can try as hard as you may, but you can’t get that ATP energy transportation process to stand up and salute the flag by itself.
e. Improbable Beliefs Riding on Horseback While Walking on Stilts, and Other Nonsensical Things: We are dealing here with the extrapolation of principles from known processes to probable origins based upon those processes or upon fugues of vivid imagination. And, of course, both are always silly endeavors. For example, observing people crossing the street at a busy intersection does not say anything about the origin of life from some primordial soup eons ago. Each one of us understands that intuitively. It is always a mistake to pretend that it is possible to look at something we think we know (say, energy transportation via ATP), and then make suppositions about something we actually do not know (say, the origins of first life).
The two things are not only different in kind; they are different in teleology. Notice the difference in kind: one is a process (energy transportation via ATP) and the other is a genesis of origin (life from simple chemistry alone). Then notice the difference in teleology: ATP as a means of transporting energy for life processes, and the origin of life itself for [wildcard] reasons (which may be unstated, or random, or deus-ex-machina, or as fanciful as gilded unicorns crossing the Rainbow Bridge to prance in the Field of Dreams on the other side). Pick one and run with it. However, it is always acceptable to say, “It beats the hell out of me,” when dealing with questions about the origin of life by purely physical means.
Just don’t say, “An obscure compound known as pyrophosphite could have been a source of energy that allowed the first life on Earth to form...”
No comments:
Post a Comment