SCIENTIFIC HUMILITY: SCIENTIFIC HONESTY - Hypothesis and Science
8 views
Skip to first unread message
Dr. Sushen Krishna das
Jan 31, 2016, 10:19:13 AM1/31/16
to Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com
(Find the post on group page in HTML format at:
http://groups.google.co.in/group/Online_Sadhu_Sanga/web/scientific-humility-scientific-honesty
)
------------------------------------
---------------------------------------
SCIENTIFIC HUMILITY: SCIENTIFIC HONESTY
Hypothesis and Science
by
Sripad Bhakti Madhava Puri Maharaja, Ph.D.
Bhaktivedanta Institute
It is not that scientists make an hypothesis first, [1] and then try
to find the data to fit that hypothesis. Rather, the process is first
observation, then an hypothes is made to describe the data, then
conclude that the data has been described by the hypothesis. But this
is not an explanation of the phenomenon. It is merely a description of
the data in different terms, usually mathematics. It is essentially a
tautology.
Thus to observe various points and connect them by a line or curve,
then to find the mathematical formula that will construct that curve
is said to be the law of the curve or the law governing the data
points. If those data points happen to be the positions of a planet in
space at different times, then the mathematical equation that produces
the points on that curve is called the law of motion of the planets.
Now, in origin of life studies, observation reveals that life comes
from life only. There is no evidence whatsoever to indicate that life
is produced out of non-living matter. It was Louis Pasteur who
disproved this theory of abiogenesis. From a purely empirical
viewpoint, therefore, we have no justification for stating that life
comes from inanimate matter. The evidence is that throughout the
entire history of modern science such a production of life from matter
has never been observed.
The question is: Why make an hypothesis about something that has never
been observed? If we want to be scientific, then our hypothesis must
match the data. Life comes from life is observed all over the Earth,
and we might say, all over the universe as far as we have observed it.
So where is the justification for claiming otherwise? Rather, we must
conclude that the claim that life comes from matter is completely
unscientific because it is not a conclusion based on any empirical
observation at all. It is purely wishful thinking -- a "naturalistic"
or materialistic ideology that is masquerading as science. It is thus
doubly decietful since it is not only an unproven belief but an
ideology that poses as a scientific theory.
Another area where ideology overrules scientific observation is the
hypothesis of Darwinian evolution. A variety of different species is
observed, but what has never been observed is one species producing
another. Dogs give birth to dogs, however many breeding varieties may
be produced. We have never in the course of human history observed a
dog give birth to a horse. We have never observed populations of
plants giving rise to a population of insects, etc.
For the sake of a hypothesis based on no conclusive evidence
whatsoever, the evolutionary ideology has taken control of biology to
such severe degree that any other conception of the nature of life and
its origin is not even considered part of science. But as we have
noted here, ideology is not science. Or if we assume that ideology is
part of science, then we must be willing to accept other ideological
premises that at least agree with observed empirical facts.
The facts are: the Cambrian explosion [2] occurs in which (a) species
appear suddenly without any precursor species, and (b) no transitional
forms have ever been observed being produced from any species in the
history of mankind.
The conclusion from the data should be: there is no such thing as
evolution of species. This should be the working hypothesis based on
observation. If such data is found that this hypothesis must be
changed, then we will have to deal with that. But the data available
at present has never supported evolution.
The original idea of Darwin was based on specious reasoning only. The
change in the size of bird beaks, does not indicate a drastic
evolution of giraffes from zebras. Adaption within a species is a well
known phenomenon. But this adaptability does not encompass a complete
change of species.
Modern advances in biology since the time of Darwin, that have allowed
observation of the inner workings of simple cells, have created
another great hurdle to Darwinian evolutionary thinking. The vast
complexity of even the smallest cell shows that such organisms have no
conceivable chance of ever having arisen by a random combination of
chemical or biological parts.
Thus advancement of science has provided more substantial evidence
against evolution than ever before. The so-called tree-of-life has
been completely chopped down to a very tenuous bush [3] due to the
tracing of genetic lines through various species. The root of this
bush is merely posited an extra, without any evidence whatsoever or
even a plausible hypothesis for how a supposed original cell created
the bush.
The whole idea that we bring to the study of Nature, is that living
organisms are each independent, self-subsisting life forms that
somehow evolve or transmutate from one form to another. However, this
viewpoint completely ignores the well-known interdependence of life
forms on one another and on their environment. The true ecological
unity of life on Earth, which is known as the Gaia principle (called
Bhumi in Sanskrit texts), is not acknowledged in the insular concept
of cellular life that is maintained today.
We propose that Life is an organic unity that appears in a myriad of
forms throughout the planet displaying its inherently determinate
nature (as a unity in difference) as a varigated display of species
from the lowly microbe to the dominate Bhumi conception, and beyond to
encompass the rest of the universe. This is in keeping with the
Vedantic worldview. Thus Life is a universal organic unity that
exhibits itself as a complete spectrum of living unities, as much as
white light when passed through a prism exhibits itself as a rainbow
of colors. One color does not evolve from another, and so too does
Life exhibit itself in a variety of forms that constitute the
wholeness of Life in its full determinateness.
Since the beginning of time, Veda has plainly stated the obvious that
has always been observed by every man, woman and child who ever lived.
“janmady asya yato” - the origin of everything is “abhijnah svarat” -
the independent Supreme Cognizant Being, as given in the very first text
of Bhagavat Purana. [4] Consciousness, in other words, comes from
consciousness. It does not come from unconscious matter, as
materialism dogmatically avers without trace of even the slightest
logical reasoning. Where there is cognition or consciousness, there is
life. So life comes from life. This is the Vedic conclusion “janmady
asya yatah” - the conclusion of Vedanta-sutra. [5] And it is
scientific. This implies that whatever contradicts such conclusion
must be unscientific, based purely on dogmatic ideology, or misguided
ideology.
Our position is that real scientific knowledge is based on the
Vedantic viewpoint. And we are engaged in presenting that from a
purely scientific and rational viewpoint for all the world to confirm
and accept, and to overthrow the misconceived materialist ideology
that has gained hegemony over the modern mind and soul of Man. This is
the aim of the Bhaktivedanta Institute and We are ready to debate any
challengers to convince them in the clearest way that Vedanta and
Bhagavatam is to be the paradigm to guide future humanity toward
genuine scientific knowledge. We request all scientists to learn this
wisdom and verify it in their scientific research in order to
establish the Vedanta and Bhagavatam as the authentic scientific
knowledge by which humanity can make real progress in understanding
the true nature of material nature and the spiritual self.
________________________________________
[1] Of course today, the mathematical system that is adopted for
explaining physical phenomena is used to make predictions that are
only later observed as proof of the validity of the mathematical
equations. Thus the mathematical system of physics has its own
symmetry laws that govern its validity without reference to the
empirical data. The assumption is that the a priori system yields
results that can be verified by empirical observation. But this is the
reverse of the original observation-hypothesis-conclusion method of
empirical science.
[2] Much has been written about the Cambrian explosion or Biological
Big Bang. See for example, Simon Conway-Morris, "The Cambrian
explosion of metazoans and molecular biology: would Darwin be
satisfied?" Cambridge Earth Sciences Publication ES 7550.
[3] See for example, Graham Lawton, "Why Darwin was wrong about the
tree of life", "New Scientist," Issue 2692, 21 January 2009. Also,
Eugene V Koonin, “Darwinian evolution in the light of genomics”, a
review in "Nucleic Acid Research," 2009.
[4] Srimad Bhagavatam 1.1.1 (see http://srimadbhagavatam.com/1/1/1/en1)
[5] Vedanta-sutra 1.1.2
--------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------
On Nov 27, 10:48 am, "Dr.V.JagadeeshKumar" <vjku...@ee.iitm.ac.in>
wrote:
> Hello
> If science can not answer questions then definitely hypotheses (assuming
> transcedental/spiritual... qualities to life, which are only imagined and
> not provable) can not answer them.
> vjkumar
>
> On Thu, 26 Nov 2009 09:31:31 -0800 (PST), Dr. Sushen Krishna das wrote> Dear PJD:
>
> > Thank you for your interesting question. Actually on 2nd March 2008
> > Sripad Bhakti Madhava Puri Maharaja, Ph.D. from Bhaktivedanta
> > Institute discussed this topic in one of the weekly online Skype
> > meetings (to join online Skype meeting please add our Skype ID:
> > sushen_das to your Skype address list). We have prepared a video
> > presentation from the online audio discussion as a response to your
> > question.
>
> > The video presentation can be found at:
>
> http://www.archive.org/details/ArtificialLife
>
> > Download the video at
>
> http://www.archive.org/download/ArtificialLife/DidScientistsCreateArt...
> ife.wmv
>
>
>
>
>
> > J. Craig Venter Institute (JCVI) first synthesized and assembled the
> > synthetic version of the M. genitalium chromosome by resequencing the
> > native M. genitalium genome. After that, they produced the specially
> > designed fragments of chemically synthesized DNA to build 101
> > [WINDOWS-1252?] cassettes of 5,000 to 7,000 base pairs of genetic code.
> They have
> > followed five step assembly process to synthesize M. genitalium.
>
> > It is mentioned in Science Daily News
> > (http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/01/080124175924.htm) that
> > [WINDOWS-1252?] From here, the team devised a five stage assembly process
> where the
> > cassettes were joined together in subassemblies to make larger and
> > larger pieces that would eventually be combined to build the whole
> > synthetic M. genitalium genome. In the first step, sets of four
> > cassettes were joined to create 25 subassemblies, each about 24,000
> > base pairs (24kb). These 24kb fragments were cloned into the
> > bacterium Escherichia coli to produce sufficient DNA for the next
> > steps, and for DNA sequence validation.
>
> > The next step involved combining three 24kb fragments together to
> > create 8 assembled blocks, each about 72,000 base pairs. These 1/8th
> > fragments of the whole genome were again cloned into E. coli for DNA
> > production and DNA sequencing. Step three involved combining two
> > 1/8th fragments together to produce large fragments approximately
> > 144,000 base pairs or 1/4th of the whole genome.
>
> > At this stage the team could not obtain half genome clones in E.
> > coli, so the team experimented with yeast and found that it
> > tolerated the large foreign DNA molecules well, and that they were
> > able to assemble the fragments together by homologous recombination.
> > This process was used to assemble the last cassettes, from 1/4
> > genome fragments to the final genome of more than 580,000 base
> > pairs. The final chromosome was again sequenced in order to validate
> > the complete accurate chemical structure.
>
> > The synthetic M. genitalium has a molecular weight of 360,110
> > kilodaltons (kDa). Printed in 10 point font, the letters of the M.
> > genitalium JCVI-1.0 genome span 147 pages.
>
> > [WINDOWS-1252?] This is an exciting advance for our team and the field.
> However, we
> > continue to work toward the ultimate goal of inserting the synthetic
> > chromosome into a cell and booting it up to create the first
> > synthetic [WINDOWS-1252?]organism, said Dan Gibson, lead [WINDOWS-1252?]
> author.
>
> > The claims made by J. Craig Venter Institute (JCVI) sounds very
> > exciting, in News columns but the reality is that they are presenting
> > only the old news. In this connection Dr. T. D. Singh, founder
> > director of Bhakivedanta Institute, attended a lecture on the origin
> > of life by the world-renowned reductionist, Professor Stanley Miller.
> > Dr. T. D. Singh asked Professor Stanley Miller during the question
> > and answer session, "Suppose I were to give you all of the ready
> > made bio- molecules -- DNA, proteins, lipids, sugars, etc. -- would
> > you be able to produce life within a test-tube by combining these
> molecules?"
> > Professor Miller replied, "That I don't know."
>
> > We know that DNA is a dead matter and is not life. The dead matter
> > follows the laws of physics and chemistry which modern science has
> > figured out. But life and the body that has life violate the laws of
> > physics and chemistry. We can take a simple example: it is possible
> > to accurately predict the projectile motion of a dead bird by utilizing
> > the laws of mechanics, but we have no way to predict the motion of a
> > living bird by any mathematical law.
>
> > Scientists have to think seriously that whether it is possible to
> > produce life (which is transcendental to the laws of physics and
> > chemistry) from a dead matter (which follows the laws of physics and
> > chemistry). Louis Pasteur made a similar argument, [WINDOWS-1252?] How do
> you know
> > that the incessant progress of science will not compel scientists ...
> > to consider that life has existed during eternity, and not matter?
> > ... How do you know that in 10,000 years one will not consider it
> > more likely that matter has emerged from [WINDOWS-1252?]life?
>
> > To study life we have the department of Biology. However, the present
> > Biology seems to be focusing only on the physics and chemistry of the
> > body of a living being. Consciousness is the prime symptom of a
> > living body that is absent in dead body/matter. We have to study
> > that element
> > (living being or soul), which is making a body living or dead. Hence,
> > we have to make a serious examination to the present Biological
> > studies to make a distinction between Department of Biology and
> > Department of Physics/Chemistry.
>
> > We also request the group members to share their thoughts and studies
> > on the topic.
>
> > Thanking you.
>
> > Sincerely,
> > Sushen Krishna das
>
> > [This message can also be found in HTML format on group pages at:
> >http://groups.google.com/group/Online_Sadhu_Sanga/web/artificial-life
> > ]
>
> > On Nov 15, 2:28 pm, PJD <purushottama.narasin...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > I am very pleased to be a part of this e-group, which wants to discuss
> > > the difficult question in science from an eastern perspective. The
> > > recent message, [WINDOWS-1252?] Chemical concept of life and [WINDOWS-
> 1252?]it s
> > > [WINDOWS-1252?]limitation
>
> (http://groups.google.com/group/Online_Sadhu_Sanga/web/chemical-concep...> > ) gives a critic of some of the concepts of life from a physico-
> > > chemical perspective. The message concludes that [WINDOWS-1252?] Thus
> the chemical
> > > concept of life does not seem to be very [WINDOWS-1252?]promising.
> However, the
> > > scientists are continuing to conduct many interesting researches in
> > > the line of chemical evolution of life.
>
> > > For example, I would like to share with the group the recent article
> > > that was published in [WINDOWS-1252?] Science [WINDOWS-1252?]Daily in
>
> 2008 (see,http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/01/080124175924.htm). The
>
>
>
> > > news cliamed that [WINDOWS-1252?] A team of 17 researchers at the J.
> Craig Venter
> > > Institute (JCVI) has created the largest man-made DNA structure by
> > > synthesizing and assembling the 582,970 base pair genome of a
> > > bacterium, Mycoplasma genitalium JCVI-1.0. This work, published online
> > > today in the journal Science by Dan Gibson, Ph.D., et al, is the
> > > second of three key steps toward the [WINDOWS-1252?]team s goal of
> creating a fully
> > > synthetic organism. In the next step, which is ongoing at the JCVI,
> > > the team will attempt to create a living bacterial cell based entirely
> > > on the synthetically made [WINDOWS-1252?]genome.
>
> > > This seems to be quite interesting. Can we expect the claim of J.
> > > Craig Venter Institute that they will be able to create artificial
> > > living bacterial cell materialize?
>
> > > -pjd
>
> > > On Nov 12, 10:02 pm, "Dr. Sushen Krishna das" <jaga.sur...@gmail.com>
> > > wrote:
>
> > > > CHEMICAL CONCEPT OF LIFE AND IT'S LIMITATION
>
> > > > by
>
> > > > Srila Bhaktisvarupa Damodara Maharaj, (T. D. Singh, Ph.D.)
>
> > > > Founding Director of Bhaktivedanta Institute
>
> > > > Introduction
>
> > > > What is life? Everyone is curious about life-whether a scientist, a
> > > > philosopher, a poet, an artist or a religious man or woman. We all
> > > > want to know about the reality and purpose behind our existence--"Why
> > > > are we born?", "why do we die?", "why do we suffer with diseases and
> > > > old age?", "what is our ultimate destination?" The Austrian physicist
> > > > Erwin Schr dinger, although not a biologist, wrote a classic monograph-
> > > > What is life? in 1944.
>
> > > > In the last few decades, there has been a rapid advancement in the
> > > > study of genetics and molecular biology, which has provided us
> > > > additional insights into the questions of life and evolution.
> > > > Scientists have unraveled many mysteries behind various life
> > > > processes, structures and functions of biomolecules. However, the
> > > > answer to the question -- 'what is life?' still seems far away. In this
> > > > regard Karl Popper, one of the greatest philosophers of science of the
> > > > 20th century, also remarked, "The undreamt-of breakthrough of
> > > > molecular biology has made the problem of the origin of life a greater
> > > > riddle than it was before: we have acquired new and deeper
> > > > problems."[1]
>
> > > > A sincere attempt to have a clear understanding of life either
> > > > scientifically, philosophically and religiously is of foundational
> > > > importance and it will have important impact on our life and our world-
> > > > view. In this paper, the author first presents an overview of modern
> > > > scientific theories of life and evolution and their incompleteness to
> > > > explain life.
>
> ...
>
> read more »- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
http://groups.google.co.in/group/Online_Sadhu_Sanga/web/scientific-humility-scientific-honesty
)
------------------------------------
---------------------------------------
SCIENTIFIC HUMILITY: SCIENTIFIC HONESTY
Hypothesis and Science
by
Sripad Bhakti Madhava Puri Maharaja, Ph.D.
Bhaktivedanta Institute
It is not that scientists make an hypothesis first, [1] and then try
to find the data to fit that hypothesis. Rather, the process is first
observation, then an hypothes is made to describe the data, then
conclude that the data has been described by the hypothesis. But this
is not an explanation of the phenomenon. It is merely a description of
the data in different terms, usually mathematics. It is essentially a
tautology.
Thus to observe various points and connect them by a line or curve,
then to find the mathematical formula that will construct that curve
is said to be the law of the curve or the law governing the data
points. If those data points happen to be the positions of a planet in
space at different times, then the mathematical equation that produces
the points on that curve is called the law of motion of the planets.
Now, in origin of life studies, observation reveals that life comes
from life only. There is no evidence whatsoever to indicate that life
is produced out of non-living matter. It was Louis Pasteur who
disproved this theory of abiogenesis. From a purely empirical
viewpoint, therefore, we have no justification for stating that life
comes from inanimate matter. The evidence is that throughout the
entire history of modern science such a production of life from matter
has never been observed.
The question is: Why make an hypothesis about something that has never
been observed? If we want to be scientific, then our hypothesis must
match the data. Life comes from life is observed all over the Earth,
and we might say, all over the universe as far as we have observed it.
So where is the justification for claiming otherwise? Rather, we must
conclude that the claim that life comes from matter is completely
unscientific because it is not a conclusion based on any empirical
observation at all. It is purely wishful thinking -- a "naturalistic"
or materialistic ideology that is masquerading as science. It is thus
doubly decietful since it is not only an unproven belief but an
ideology that poses as a scientific theory.
Another area where ideology overrules scientific observation is the
hypothesis of Darwinian evolution. A variety of different species is
observed, but what has never been observed is one species producing
another. Dogs give birth to dogs, however many breeding varieties may
be produced. We have never in the course of human history observed a
dog give birth to a horse. We have never observed populations of
plants giving rise to a population of insects, etc.
For the sake of a hypothesis based on no conclusive evidence
whatsoever, the evolutionary ideology has taken control of biology to
such severe degree that any other conception of the nature of life and
its origin is not even considered part of science. But as we have
noted here, ideology is not science. Or if we assume that ideology is
part of science, then we must be willing to accept other ideological
premises that at least agree with observed empirical facts.
The facts are: the Cambrian explosion [2] occurs in which (a) species
appear suddenly without any precursor species, and (b) no transitional
forms have ever been observed being produced from any species in the
history of mankind.
The conclusion from the data should be: there is no such thing as
evolution of species. This should be the working hypothesis based on
observation. If such data is found that this hypothesis must be
changed, then we will have to deal with that. But the data available
at present has never supported evolution.
The original idea of Darwin was based on specious reasoning only. The
change in the size of bird beaks, does not indicate a drastic
evolution of giraffes from zebras. Adaption within a species is a well
known phenomenon. But this adaptability does not encompass a complete
change of species.
Modern advances in biology since the time of Darwin, that have allowed
observation of the inner workings of simple cells, have created
another great hurdle to Darwinian evolutionary thinking. The vast
complexity of even the smallest cell shows that such organisms have no
conceivable chance of ever having arisen by a random combination of
chemical or biological parts.
Thus advancement of science has provided more substantial evidence
against evolution than ever before. The so-called tree-of-life has
been completely chopped down to a very tenuous bush [3] due to the
tracing of genetic lines through various species. The root of this
bush is merely posited an extra, without any evidence whatsoever or
even a plausible hypothesis for how a supposed original cell created
the bush.
The whole idea that we bring to the study of Nature, is that living
organisms are each independent, self-subsisting life forms that
somehow evolve or transmutate from one form to another. However, this
viewpoint completely ignores the well-known interdependence of life
forms on one another and on their environment. The true ecological
unity of life on Earth, which is known as the Gaia principle (called
Bhumi in Sanskrit texts), is not acknowledged in the insular concept
of cellular life that is maintained today.
We propose that Life is an organic unity that appears in a myriad of
forms throughout the planet displaying its inherently determinate
nature (as a unity in difference) as a varigated display of species
from the lowly microbe to the dominate Bhumi conception, and beyond to
encompass the rest of the universe. This is in keeping with the
Vedantic worldview. Thus Life is a universal organic unity that
exhibits itself as a complete spectrum of living unities, as much as
white light when passed through a prism exhibits itself as a rainbow
of colors. One color does not evolve from another, and so too does
Life exhibit itself in a variety of forms that constitute the
wholeness of Life in its full determinateness.
Since the beginning of time, Veda has plainly stated the obvious that
has always been observed by every man, woman and child who ever lived.
“janmady asya yato” - the origin of everything is “abhijnah svarat” -
the independent Supreme Cognizant Being, as given in the very first text
of Bhagavat Purana. [4] Consciousness, in other words, comes from
consciousness. It does not come from unconscious matter, as
materialism dogmatically avers without trace of even the slightest
logical reasoning. Where there is cognition or consciousness, there is
life. So life comes from life. This is the Vedic conclusion “janmady
asya yatah” - the conclusion of Vedanta-sutra. [5] And it is
scientific. This implies that whatever contradicts such conclusion
must be unscientific, based purely on dogmatic ideology, or misguided
ideology.
Our position is that real scientific knowledge is based on the
Vedantic viewpoint. And we are engaged in presenting that from a
purely scientific and rational viewpoint for all the world to confirm
and accept, and to overthrow the misconceived materialist ideology
that has gained hegemony over the modern mind and soul of Man. This is
the aim of the Bhaktivedanta Institute and We are ready to debate any
challengers to convince them in the clearest way that Vedanta and
Bhagavatam is to be the paradigm to guide future humanity toward
genuine scientific knowledge. We request all scientists to learn this
wisdom and verify it in their scientific research in order to
establish the Vedanta and Bhagavatam as the authentic scientific
knowledge by which humanity can make real progress in understanding
the true nature of material nature and the spiritual self.
________________________________________
[1] Of course today, the mathematical system that is adopted for
explaining physical phenomena is used to make predictions that are
only later observed as proof of the validity of the mathematical
equations. Thus the mathematical system of physics has its own
symmetry laws that govern its validity without reference to the
empirical data. The assumption is that the a priori system yields
results that can be verified by empirical observation. But this is the
reverse of the original observation-hypothesis-conclusion method of
empirical science.
[2] Much has been written about the Cambrian explosion or Biological
Big Bang. See for example, Simon Conway-Morris, "The Cambrian
explosion of metazoans and molecular biology: would Darwin be
satisfied?" Cambridge Earth Sciences Publication ES 7550.
[3] See for example, Graham Lawton, "Why Darwin was wrong about the
tree of life", "New Scientist," Issue 2692, 21 January 2009. Also,
Eugene V Koonin, “Darwinian evolution in the light of genomics”, a
review in "Nucleic Acid Research," 2009.
[4] Srimad Bhagavatam 1.1.1 (see http://srimadbhagavatam.com/1/1/1/en1)
[5] Vedanta-sutra 1.1.2
--------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------
On Nov 27, 10:48 am, "Dr.V.JagadeeshKumar" <vjku...@ee.iitm.ac.in>
wrote:
> Hello
> If science can not answer questions then definitely hypotheses (assuming
> transcedental/spiritual... qualities to life, which are only imagined and
> not provable) can not answer them.
> vjkumar
>
> On Thu, 26 Nov 2009 09:31:31 -0800 (PST), Dr. Sushen Krishna das wrote> Dear PJD:
>
> > Thank you for your interesting question. Actually on 2nd March 2008
> > Sripad Bhakti Madhava Puri Maharaja, Ph.D. from Bhaktivedanta
> > Institute discussed this topic in one of the weekly online Skype
> > meetings (to join online Skype meeting please add our Skype ID:
> > sushen_das to your Skype address list). We have prepared a video
> > presentation from the online audio discussion as a response to your
> > question.
>
> > The video presentation can be found at:
>
> http://www.archive.org/details/ArtificialLife
>
> > Download the video at
>
> http://www.archive.org/download/ArtificialLife/DidScientistsCreateArt...
> ife.wmv
>
>
>
>
>
> > J. Craig Venter Institute (JCVI) first synthesized and assembled the
> > synthetic version of the M. genitalium chromosome by resequencing the
> > native M. genitalium genome. After that, they produced the specially
> > designed fragments of chemically synthesized DNA to build 101
> > [WINDOWS-1252?] cassettes of 5,000 to 7,000 base pairs of genetic code.
> They have
> > followed five step assembly process to synthesize M. genitalium.
>
> > It is mentioned in Science Daily News
> > (http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/01/080124175924.htm) that
> > [WINDOWS-1252?] From here, the team devised a five stage assembly process
> where the
> > cassettes were joined together in subassemblies to make larger and
> > larger pieces that would eventually be combined to build the whole
> > synthetic M. genitalium genome. In the first step, sets of four
> > cassettes were joined to create 25 subassemblies, each about 24,000
> > base pairs (24kb). These 24kb fragments were cloned into the
> > bacterium Escherichia coli to produce sufficient DNA for the next
> > steps, and for DNA sequence validation.
>
> > The next step involved combining three 24kb fragments together to
> > create 8 assembled blocks, each about 72,000 base pairs. These 1/8th
> > fragments of the whole genome were again cloned into E. coli for DNA
> > production and DNA sequencing. Step three involved combining two
> > 1/8th fragments together to produce large fragments approximately
> > 144,000 base pairs or 1/4th of the whole genome.
>
> > At this stage the team could not obtain half genome clones in E.
> > coli, so the team experimented with yeast and found that it
> > tolerated the large foreign DNA molecules well, and that they were
> > able to assemble the fragments together by homologous recombination.
> > This process was used to assemble the last cassettes, from 1/4
> > genome fragments to the final genome of more than 580,000 base
> > pairs. The final chromosome was again sequenced in order to validate
> > the complete accurate chemical structure.
>
> > The synthetic M. genitalium has a molecular weight of 360,110
> > kilodaltons (kDa). Printed in 10 point font, the letters of the M.
> > genitalium JCVI-1.0 genome span 147 pages.
>
> > [WINDOWS-1252?] This is an exciting advance for our team and the field.
> However, we
> > continue to work toward the ultimate goal of inserting the synthetic
> > chromosome into a cell and booting it up to create the first
> > synthetic [WINDOWS-1252?]organism, said Dan Gibson, lead [WINDOWS-1252?]
> author.
>
> > The claims made by J. Craig Venter Institute (JCVI) sounds very
> > exciting, in News columns but the reality is that they are presenting
> > only the old news. In this connection Dr. T. D. Singh, founder
> > director of Bhakivedanta Institute, attended a lecture on the origin
> > of life by the world-renowned reductionist, Professor Stanley Miller.
> > Dr. T. D. Singh asked Professor Stanley Miller during the question
> > and answer session, "Suppose I were to give you all of the ready
> > made bio- molecules -- DNA, proteins, lipids, sugars, etc. -- would
> > you be able to produce life within a test-tube by combining these
> molecules?"
> > Professor Miller replied, "That I don't know."
>
> > We know that DNA is a dead matter and is not life. The dead matter
> > follows the laws of physics and chemistry which modern science has
> > figured out. But life and the body that has life violate the laws of
> > physics and chemistry. We can take a simple example: it is possible
> > to accurately predict the projectile motion of a dead bird by utilizing
> > the laws of mechanics, but we have no way to predict the motion of a
> > living bird by any mathematical law.
>
> > Scientists have to think seriously that whether it is possible to
> > produce life (which is transcendental to the laws of physics and
> > chemistry) from a dead matter (which follows the laws of physics and
> > chemistry). Louis Pasteur made a similar argument, [WINDOWS-1252?] How do
> you know
> > that the incessant progress of science will not compel scientists ...
> > to consider that life has existed during eternity, and not matter?
> > ... How do you know that in 10,000 years one will not consider it
> > more likely that matter has emerged from [WINDOWS-1252?]life?
>
> > To study life we have the department of Biology. However, the present
> > Biology seems to be focusing only on the physics and chemistry of the
> > body of a living being. Consciousness is the prime symptom of a
> > living body that is absent in dead body/matter. We have to study
> > that element
> > (living being or soul), which is making a body living or dead. Hence,
> > we have to make a serious examination to the present Biological
> > studies to make a distinction between Department of Biology and
> > Department of Physics/Chemistry.
>
> > We also request the group members to share their thoughts and studies
> > on the topic.
>
> > Thanking you.
>
> > Sincerely,
> > Sushen Krishna das
>
> > [This message can also be found in HTML format on group pages at:
> >http://groups.google.com/group/Online_Sadhu_Sanga/web/artificial-life
> > ]
>
> > On Nov 15, 2:28 pm, PJD <purushottama.narasin...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > I am very pleased to be a part of this e-group, which wants to discuss
> > > the difficult question in science from an eastern perspective. The
> > > recent message, [WINDOWS-1252?] Chemical concept of life and [WINDOWS-
> 1252?]it s
> > > [WINDOWS-1252?]limitation
>
> (http://groups.google.com/group/Online_Sadhu_Sanga/web/chemical-concep...> > ) gives a critic of some of the concepts of life from a physico-
> > > chemical perspective. The message concludes that [WINDOWS-1252?] Thus
> the chemical
> > > concept of life does not seem to be very [WINDOWS-1252?]promising.
> However, the
> > > scientists are continuing to conduct many interesting researches in
> > > the line of chemical evolution of life.
>
> > > For example, I would like to share with the group the recent article
> > > that was published in [WINDOWS-1252?] Science [WINDOWS-1252?]Daily in
>
> 2008 (see,http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/01/080124175924.htm). The
>
>
>
> > > news cliamed that [WINDOWS-1252?] A team of 17 researchers at the J.
> Craig Venter
> > > Institute (JCVI) has created the largest man-made DNA structure by
> > > synthesizing and assembling the 582,970 base pair genome of a
> > > bacterium, Mycoplasma genitalium JCVI-1.0. This work, published online
> > > today in the journal Science by Dan Gibson, Ph.D., et al, is the
> > > second of three key steps toward the [WINDOWS-1252?]team s goal of
> creating a fully
> > > synthetic organism. In the next step, which is ongoing at the JCVI,
> > > the team will attempt to create a living bacterial cell based entirely
> > > on the synthetically made [WINDOWS-1252?]genome.
>
> > > This seems to be quite interesting. Can we expect the claim of J.
> > > Craig Venter Institute that they will be able to create artificial
> > > living bacterial cell materialize?
>
> > > -pjd
>
> > > On Nov 12, 10:02 pm, "Dr. Sushen Krishna das" <jaga.sur...@gmail.com>
> > > wrote:
>
> > > > CHEMICAL CONCEPT OF LIFE AND IT'S LIMITATION
>
> > > > by
>
> > > > Srila Bhaktisvarupa Damodara Maharaj, (T. D. Singh, Ph.D.)
>
> > > > Founding Director of Bhaktivedanta Institute
>
> > > > Introduction
>
> > > > What is life? Everyone is curious about life-whether a scientist, a
> > > > philosopher, a poet, an artist or a religious man or woman. We all
> > > > want to know about the reality and purpose behind our existence--"Why
> > > > are we born?", "why do we die?", "why do we suffer with diseases and
> > > > old age?", "what is our ultimate destination?" The Austrian physicist
> > > > Erwin Schr dinger, although not a biologist, wrote a classic monograph-
> > > > What is life? in 1944.
>
> > > > In the last few decades, there has been a rapid advancement in the
> > > > study of genetics and molecular biology, which has provided us
> > > > additional insights into the questions of life and evolution.
> > > > Scientists have unraveled many mysteries behind various life
> > > > processes, structures and functions of biomolecules. However, the
> > > > answer to the question -- 'what is life?' still seems far away. In this
> > > > regard Karl Popper, one of the greatest philosophers of science of the
> > > > 20th century, also remarked, "The undreamt-of breakthrough of
> > > > molecular biology has made the problem of the origin of life a greater
> > > > riddle than it was before: we have acquired new and deeper
> > > > problems."[1]
>
> > > > A sincere attempt to have a clear understanding of life either
> > > > scientifically, philosophically and religiously is of foundational
> > > > importance and it will have important impact on our life and our world-
> > > > view. In this paper, the author first presents an overview of modern
> > > > scientific theories of life and evolution and their incompleteness to
> > > > explain life.
>
> ...
>
> read more »- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Dr.V.JagadeeshKumar
Dec 8, 2009, 11:56:27 AM12/8/09
to online_sa...@googlegroups.com
Dear Dr. Sushen Krishna das
First I thought I will not answer. But after looking at your title "Dr" I
Thought I shall. I am sure you have obtained your doctorate after a
literature survey and adding atleast delta x more than what is existing in
your chosen area. Now my answers to your wrong surmises!
You have quoted
theory on transistors ... all these preceded before they are
all "experimentally" verified. In 1970 Professor Chua derived that along
with resistor capacitor and inductor, a fourth element namely "memristor"
must exist. Only in 2009 IBM engineers found that elusive element!
You also quote
of "life". Rest will follow.
Your quote
still be looking for the elusive "ether". Thanks to him we now can enjoy
radio, television and the mobile phone.
If only Schockley didnot postulate about the transistor I will not be
sending this email.....
Life comes from life is observed all over the Earth, and we might say, all
over the universe as far as we have observed it. So where is the
justification for claiming otherwise? Rather, we must conclude that the
claim that life comes from matter is completely unscientific because it is
not a conclusion based on any empirical observation at all. It is purely
wishful thinking -- a "naturalistic" or materialistic ideology that is
masquerading as science. It is thus doubly decietful since it is not only an
unproven belief but an ideology that poses as a scientific theory.
Atlast you agree that "ideology" is unscintific in that sense it is
not "proved". Thus ends the idea of a "creater".
You have quoted
understand and make proper comments. Also should read all the orecent
inventions and discoveries. The above paragraph shows that you have not
read "The origin of species" nor you have understood the basic theory which
is now proved to be a fact. Evolution is not that a "cat gives birth to a
dog". A species slowly mutates and over several generations become a new
one. In the 1800s when Darwin discovered, the data we had was sketchy. Today
with the gene structure we no longer need to look at the "beaks" as Darwin
did.
All "creationists" argument can be put in two categories
1. Life is too complex to have appeared on its own. Take a look at our eye
it is so complex how can its evole?
My answer: No eye did not appear as it exists now. It also evolved. Please
take alook at the lecture by Professor Dawkins.
2. Irreducible complexity.
Parts of a complex structure does not make sense. All of them must be
together to make "life"
Please google "Flagellum". You will find the answer.
Now let me give an example of evolution at work. Nylon was invented 65 years
ago. At that time, nylon was immune to bacteria. No bactera could break the
polymer and digest it (There are bacteria which can eat iron!). Today we
have special bacteria "Nylanaise" that has evolved to synthesize a protein
that not only breaks nylon but also can digest the broken parts! You should
take one look at the complex structure of the protein that the bacteria
nylanaise produces. Oh you may say that God helped the bacteria to
synthesize the protein! If God is such a jobless character to "rule over"
and guide bacteria how come he/she/it can not look after the 99.9 % of
species that have become extinct?
vjkumar
On Mon, 7 Dec 2009 07:19:44 -0800 (PST), Dr. Sushen Krishna das wrote
> lived. [WINDOWS-1252?]�ｿｽjanmady asya [WINDOWS-1252?]yato�ｿｽ - the origin of
everything is [WINDOWS-1252?]�ｿｽabhijnah
> [WINDOWS-1252?]svarat�ｿｽ - the unitary Supreme Cognizant Being, as given in
conclusion of Vedanta-
> Eugene V Koonin, [WINDOWS-1252?]�ｿｽDarwinian evolution in the light of
[WINDOWS-1252?]genomics�ｿｽ, a
> > read more �ｿｽ- Hide quoted text -
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the
> "Transcendental Nectar of Sadhu-Sanga" e-group. To post to this e-
> group, send email to Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com To
> unsubscribe from this e-group, send email to
Online_Sadhu_Sa...@googlegroups.com
> To submit your manuscript for review and publication visit:
> http://groups.google.co.in/group/Online_Sadhu_Sanga/web/submit-manuscript
> For more options, visit this e-group at
> http://groups.google.co.in/group/Online_Sadhu_Sanga?hl=en
--
Open WebMail (http://www.ee.iitm.ernet.in)
First I thought I will not answer. But after looking at your title "Dr" I
Thought I shall. I am sure you have obtained your doctorate after a
literature survey and adding atleast delta x more than what is existing in
your chosen area. Now my answers to your wrong surmises!
You have quoted
It is not that scientists make an hypothesis first, [1] and then try to
find the data to fit that hypothesis. Rather, the process is first
observation, then an hypothes is made to describe the data, then conclude
that the data has been described by the hypothesis.
No. Not always. Maxwells equations, Bohrs atomic theory, William Shokleys
find the data to fit that hypothesis. Rather, the process is first
observation, then an hypothes is made to describe the data, then conclude
that the data has been described by the hypothesis.
theory on transistors ... all these preceded before they are
all "experimentally" verified. In 1970 Professor Chua derived that along
with resistor capacitor and inductor, a fourth element namely "memristor"
must exist. Only in 2009 IBM engineers found that elusive element!
You also quote
Now, in origin of life studies, observation reveals that life comes from
life only. There is no evidence whatsoever to indicate that life is produced
out of non-living matter. It was Louis Pasteur who disproved this theory of
abiogenesis. From a purely empirical viewpoint, therefore, we have no
justification for stating that life comes from inanimate matter. The
evidence is that throughout the entire history of modern science such a
production of life from matter has never been observed.
Scientists have already synthesized the RNA, the basic building block
life only. There is no evidence whatsoever to indicate that life is produced
out of non-living matter. It was Louis Pasteur who disproved this theory of
abiogenesis. From a purely empirical viewpoint, therefore, we have no
justification for stating that life comes from inanimate matter. The
evidence is that throughout the entire history of modern science such a
production of life from matter has never been observed.
of "life". Rest will follow.
Your quote
The question is: Why make an hypothesis about something that has never been
observed? If we want to be scientific, then our hypothesis must match the
data.
If Maxwell has followed this edict (in your words "scientific") we will
observed? If we want to be scientific, then our hypothesis must match the
data.
still be looking for the elusive "ether". Thanks to him we now can enjoy
radio, television and the mobile phone.
If only Schockley didnot postulate about the transistor I will not be
sending this email.....
Life comes from life is observed all over the Earth, and we might say, all
over the universe as far as we have observed it. So where is the
justification for claiming otherwise? Rather, we must conclude that the
claim that life comes from matter is completely unscientific because it is
not a conclusion based on any empirical observation at all. It is purely
wishful thinking -- a "naturalistic" or materialistic ideology that is
masquerading as science. It is thus doubly decietful since it is not only an
unproven belief but an ideology that poses as a scientific theory.
not "proved". Thus ends the idea of a "creater".
You have quoted
Another area where ideology overrules scientific observation is the
hypothesis of Darwinian evolution. A variety of different species is
observed, but what has never been observed is one species producing
another. Dogs give birth to dogs, however many breeding varieties may be
produced. We have never in the course of human history observed a dog give
birth to a horse. We have never observed populations of plants giving rise
to a population of insects, etc.
Stop. Stop. Before you critic a previous work you must read the work,
hypothesis of Darwinian evolution. A variety of different species is
observed, but what has never been observed is one species producing
another. Dogs give birth to dogs, however many breeding varieties may be
produced. We have never in the course of human history observed a dog give
birth to a horse. We have never observed populations of plants giving rise
to a population of insects, etc.
understand and make proper comments. Also should read all the orecent
inventions and discoveries. The above paragraph shows that you have not
read "The origin of species" nor you have understood the basic theory which
is now proved to be a fact. Evolution is not that a "cat gives birth to a
dog". A species slowly mutates and over several generations become a new
one. In the 1800s when Darwin discovered, the data we had was sketchy. Today
with the gene structure we no longer need to look at the "beaks" as Darwin
did.
All "creationists" argument can be put in two categories
1. Life is too complex to have appeared on its own. Take a look at our eye
it is so complex how can its evole?
My answer: No eye did not appear as it exists now. It also evolved. Please
take alook at the lecture by Professor Dawkins.
2. Irreducible complexity.
Parts of a complex structure does not make sense. All of them must be
together to make "life"
Please google "Flagellum". You will find the answer.
Now let me give an example of evolution at work. Nylon was invented 65 years
ago. At that time, nylon was immune to bacteria. No bactera could break the
polymer and digest it (There are bacteria which can eat iron!). Today we
have special bacteria "Nylanaise" that has evolved to synthesize a protein
that not only breaks nylon but also can digest the broken parts! You should
take one look at the complex structure of the protein that the bacteria
nylanaise produces. Oh you may say that God helped the bacteria to
synthesize the protein! If God is such a jobless character to "rule over"
and guide bacteria how come he/she/it can not look after the 99.9 % of
species that have become extinct?
vjkumar
On Mon, 7 Dec 2009 07:19:44 -0800 (PST), Dr. Sushen Krishna das wrote
everything is [WINDOWS-1252?]�ｿｽabhijnah
> [WINDOWS-1252?]svarat�ｿｽ - the unitary Supreme Cognizant Being, as given in
the very
> first text of Bhagavat Purana. [4] Consciousness, in other words,
> comes from consciousness. It does not come from unconscious matter,
> as materialism dogmatically avers without trace of even the
> slightest logical reasoning. Where there is cognition or
> consciousness, there is life. So life comes from life. This is the
> Vedic conclusion [WINDOWS-1252?]�ｿｽjanmady asya [WINDOWS-1252?]yatah�ｿｽ - the
> first text of Bhagavat Purana. [4] Consciousness, in other words,
> comes from consciousness. It does not come from unconscious matter,
> as materialism dogmatically avers without trace of even the
> slightest logical reasoning. Where there is cognition or
> consciousness, there is life. So life comes from life. This is the
conclusion of Vedanta-
[WINDOWS-1252?]genomics�ｿｽ, a
> >
> > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
> >
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> --
> > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
> >
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the
> "Transcendental Nectar of Sadhu-Sanga" e-group. To post to this e-
> group, send email to Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com To
> unsubscribe from this e-group, send email to
Online_Sadhu_Sa...@googlegroups.com
> To submit your manuscript for review and publication visit:
> http://groups.google.co.in/group/Online_Sadhu_Sanga/web/submit-manuscript
> For more options, visit this e-group at
> http://groups.google.co.in/group/Online_Sadhu_Sanga?hl=en
--
Open WebMail (http://www.ee.iitm.ernet.in)
Bala subramanian
Jan 31, 2016, 10:19:42 AM1/31/16
to Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com, online_sa...@googlegroups.com
Dear Dr.Das and Dr.Kumar,
The question of one species giving rise to another is not clearly explained in either of your mails.It is true that none of us heard of a dog giving birth to a horse.But when there is a mutation, how do you account for the creation of a new species?. Obviosly the mutated one should have come from the parent species.This concept is not well understood and needs more indepth study.
S.Balasubramanian
Dr.S.Balasubramanian
Dept. of Inorganic Chemistry
University of Madras
Chennai-600025
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
New Email addresses available on Yahoo!
Get the Email name you've always wanted on the new @ymail and @rocketmail.
Hurry before someone else does!
Dr. Sushen Krishna das
Dec 10, 2009, 12:22:35 PM12/10/09
to Transcendental Nectar of Sadhu-Sanga
Dear Dr. V. J. Kumar:
Please note that the comments you have sent to the post entitled
"SCIENTIFIC HUMILITY: SCIENTIFIC HONESTY - Hypothesis and Science" is
an article by Sripad Bhakti Madhava Puri Maharaja, Ph.D. from
Bhaktivedanta Institute. Sripad Bhakti Madhava Puri Maharaja, Ph.D.
from Bhaktivedanta Institute has sent his response to your comments as
below:
--------------------
In your last post you wrote:
>
You have quoted:
>>It is not that scientists make an hypothesis first, [1] and then try to
>>find the data to fit that hypothesis. Rather, the process is first
>>observation, then an hypothes is made to describe the data, then conclude
>>that the data has been described by the hypothesis.
>No. Not always. Maxwells equations, Bohrs atomic theory, William Shokleys
>theory on transistors ... all these preceded before they are
>all "experimentally" verified. In 1970 Professor Chua derived that along
>with resistor capacitor and inductor, a fourth element namely "memristor"
>must exist. Only in 2009 IBM engineers found that elusive element!
If you carefully read the accompanying note [1] referenced above, you
will find that I made the exact same point. Thank you for confirming
it. But you only emphasize one side of the argument.. I try to point
out that the conclusion-observation approach is ideological, since it
states the conclusion/theory first before obtaining evidence, versus
the emprically based observation-conclusion approach, which is the way
science was traditionally performed.
I have addressed your RNA comment in a separate post. (see:
http://groups.google.co.in/group/Online_Sadhu_Sanga/browse_thread/thread/390be4b3398a0b8c#
)
Then you write:
>
Atlast you agree that "ideology" is unscintific in that sense it is
not "proved". Thus ends the idea of a "creater".
>
The "idea" of a Creator, as you call it, is not ideological. It is a
philosophical conclusion, based on rational deduction. There are many
such proofs, such as ontological, teleological, cosmological, etc. It
has nothing to do with empirical scientific evidence since the Creator
precedes all empirical existence. However, that does not mean that the
subject is unscientific in the sense of being rationally systematic.
Furthermore, the indirect evidence provided by the Anthropic
principle, the numerous fine tuned constants of the universe, that
have been found by modern physicists, makes it very difficult to
conceive of a massive explosion having produced such fine tuned
constants, leading scientists to conclude that the universe shows a
deliberate intelligence must have been behind such carefully arranged
principles that could never arise from a random aggregation or
detonation.
Next, you wrote concerning my paragraph on evolution of species:
>
The above paragraph shows that you have not
read "The origin of species" nor you have understood the basic theory
which
is now proved to be a fact. Evolution is not that a "cat gives birth
to a
dog". A species slowly mutates and over several generations become a
new
one. In the 1800s when Darwin discovered, the data we had was sketchy.
Today
with the gene structure we no longer need to look at the "beaks" as
Darwin
did.
>
Darwin's hypothesis of evolution, has been overthrown by the neo-
Darwinian synthesis, since Darwin wrote his book before Mendelian
genetics and DNA were discovered. I have certainly read the "Origin of
Species" but a 150 year old book is hardly to be considered a basis
for what modern science has discovered since then. It is obviouse,
however, that you failed to read the references which I gave in my
post regarding the fact that geneology disproves the fundamental idea
of a Tree of Evolution that had been propagated for years before a
more detailed study of geneology was made.
Thus there is no substantiated "fact" of evolution anywhere to be
found, even if we consider the geneological structure only, heedless
of the morphological forms. Previously morphology was the basis for
evolutionary claims, only recently has geneology become sophisticated
enough to provide a basis for study. Yet, still, neither geneology nor
morphology confirms any evidence for the verity of the evolution
hypothesis.
Finally, regarding your nylanaise bacteria, kindly note that although
bacteria may adapt to various situations, and that is a well known
factor contributing to their STABILITY as a species, you will never
find a bacterium evolving into some other species. The adaptability
and stability of species militates AGAINST evolution, not FOR it. A
bacterium remains a bacterium, no matter how many adaptions it
undergoes, and there is a limit. See Michael Behe's "The Edge of
Evolution" to understand this.
---------------------------------------------
Sincerely,
Sushen Krishna das
On Dec 8, 9:56 pm, "Dr.V.JagadeeshKumar" <vjku...@ee.iitm.ac.in>
wrote:
> ...
>
> read more »
Please note that the comments you have sent to the post entitled
"SCIENTIFIC HUMILITY: SCIENTIFIC HONESTY - Hypothesis and Science" is
an article by Sripad Bhakti Madhava Puri Maharaja, Ph.D. from
Bhaktivedanta Institute. Sripad Bhakti Madhava Puri Maharaja, Ph.D.
from Bhaktivedanta Institute has sent his response to your comments as
below:
--------------------
In your last post you wrote:
>
You have quoted:
>>It is not that scientists make an hypothesis first, [1] and then try to
>>find the data to fit that hypothesis. Rather, the process is first
>>observation, then an hypothes is made to describe the data, then conclude
>>that the data has been described by the hypothesis.
>No. Not always. Maxwells equations, Bohrs atomic theory, William Shokleys
>theory on transistors ... all these preceded before they are
>all "experimentally" verified. In 1970 Professor Chua derived that along
>with resistor capacitor and inductor, a fourth element namely "memristor"
>must exist. Only in 2009 IBM engineers found that elusive element!
will find that I made the exact same point. Thank you for confirming
it. But you only emphasize one side of the argument.. I try to point
out that the conclusion-observation approach is ideological, since it
states the conclusion/theory first before obtaining evidence, versus
the emprically based observation-conclusion approach, which is the way
science was traditionally performed.
I have addressed your RNA comment in a separate post. (see:
http://groups.google.co.in/group/Online_Sadhu_Sanga/browse_thread/thread/390be4b3398a0b8c#
)
Then you write:
>
Atlast you agree that "ideology" is unscintific in that sense it is
not "proved". Thus ends the idea of a "creater".
>
philosophical conclusion, based on rational deduction. There are many
such proofs, such as ontological, teleological, cosmological, etc. It
has nothing to do with empirical scientific evidence since the Creator
precedes all empirical existence. However, that does not mean that the
subject is unscientific in the sense of being rationally systematic.
Furthermore, the indirect evidence provided by the Anthropic
principle, the numerous fine tuned constants of the universe, that
have been found by modern physicists, makes it very difficult to
conceive of a massive explosion having produced such fine tuned
constants, leading scientists to conclude that the universe shows a
deliberate intelligence must have been behind such carefully arranged
principles that could never arise from a random aggregation or
detonation.
Next, you wrote concerning my paragraph on evolution of species:
>
The above paragraph shows that you have not
read "The origin of species" nor you have understood the basic theory
which
is now proved to be a fact. Evolution is not that a "cat gives birth
to a
dog". A species slowly mutates and over several generations become a
new
one. In the 1800s when Darwin discovered, the data we had was sketchy.
Today
with the gene structure we no longer need to look at the "beaks" as
Darwin
did.
>
Darwinian synthesis, since Darwin wrote his book before Mendelian
genetics and DNA were discovered. I have certainly read the "Origin of
Species" but a 150 year old book is hardly to be considered a basis
for what modern science has discovered since then. It is obviouse,
however, that you failed to read the references which I gave in my
post regarding the fact that geneology disproves the fundamental idea
of a Tree of Evolution that had been propagated for years before a
more detailed study of geneology was made.
Thus there is no substantiated "fact" of evolution anywhere to be
found, even if we consider the geneological structure only, heedless
of the morphological forms. Previously morphology was the basis for
evolutionary claims, only recently has geneology become sophisticated
enough to provide a basis for study. Yet, still, neither geneology nor
morphology confirms any evidence for the verity of the evolution
hypothesis.
Finally, regarding your nylanaise bacteria, kindly note that although
bacteria may adapt to various situations, and that is a well known
factor contributing to their STABILITY as a species, you will never
find a bacterium evolving into some other species. The adaptability
and stability of species militates AGAINST evolution, not FOR it. A
bacterium remains a bacterium, no matter how many adaptions it
undergoes, and there is a limit. See Michael Behe's "The Edge of
Evolution" to understand this.
---------------------------------------------
Sincerely,
Sushen Krishna das
On Dec 8, 9:56 pm, "Dr.V.JagadeeshKumar" <vjku...@ee.iitm.ac.in>
wrote:
>
> read more »
Bhakti Madhava Puri
Dec 11, 2009, 2:11:49 PM12/11/09
to online_sa...@googlegroups.com
Do we have a theory of evolution?
Dr A Balasubramanian wrote (Dec. 9, 2009):
>
But when there is a mutation, how do you account for the creation of a new
But when there is a mutation, how do you account for the creation of a new
species?. Obviosly the mutated one should have come from the parent
species.This concept is not well understood and needs more indepth study.
>
>
The neo-Darwinian theory of genetic random mutation and Natural Selection,
does nothing to explain speciation as you have rightly pointed out. Thus,
what has been called "natural selection" has come under much scrutingy and
critique in recent times. [1]
The problem is that natural selection requires the existence of a stable
array of species from which selection can be made. So natural selection does
not perform the speciation, only the selection after speciation has
occurred. The activity of creating new species must therefore lie in the
random mutations of the genome. But this raises the problem that such
mutations are generally always fatal to the organism, plus a whole host of
other problems that modern advances in molecular biology have revealed about
the detailed mechanisms occuring in DNA replication processes, including
such things as intrinsic error correcting mechanisms during DNA transcription. [2]
Thus a theory of how species arise (speciation) does not currently exist in
biology.
The Vedantic/Bhagavat pardigm rejects the objectivist theory of evolution as
not only wrong but an impediment to the actual scientific comprehension of
Nature. As explained in a previous post, the Vedantic conception of Life is
a fully differentiated/determinate one that displays its variety in and as
an dynamic organic whole. The crucial element of interdependence that is
missing in modern theories of insular organismic life is fully embraced in
what we may call the post-Darwian, post-reductionist, post-modern conception
of Life the Vedantic/Bhagavat conception offers. Organic wholism is a
conception that has its inception as far back as the writings of Sri
Isopanishad, where the first aphorism states: om purman adhah purnam idam,
purnat purnam udachyate [3]. The Organic Whole produces organic wholes. An
organic whole cannot arise from parts that have to be assembled. That process
can only produce inorganic, mechanical machines or chemical processes, not
living organisms. [4]
In order to understand this new conception, one only has to consider the
empirical evidence that is apparent to all ordianary observation, namely,
that a developing organism shows that an obvious pattern or blueprint exists
at the most fundamental level of embryonic development, or ontology, which
guides the formation of the adult organism. We may call this the soul, or
concept of the individual organism, which belongs to a particular species,
which in turn corresponds to a universal concept or genus to which the
organism belongs. In this UPI (universal, particular, individual) structure
we have the fundamental features of every rational Concept.[5]
Here we find a nested hierarchy in which the individual organism is fully
determined endogenously and exogenously. This system has to be studied in
detail before one can understand the great utility and scientific value it
has for explaining individuality. Sankhya and Vedantic philosophy go to
great length in explaining these details, which we hope to bring to modern
scientific understanding. This is one of the current projects of the
Bhaktivedanta Institute in which we encourage the participation of all
interested scientists, philosophers, etc.
The idea of predetermined forms establishing teleological processes to
actualize such forms has been found to be an acceptable premise by numerous
scientists, although such views have generally been ignored and unreported
by the evolution-obsessed hegemony that has taken hold of western science.
Here we give quotes by a few of those who reject the random chance scenario
and have come to accept the more determinitive view.
------------------------------------
John A Davison (2005)
"There is no question that artificial selection can significantly alter the
phenotype as demonstrated with dogs, goldfish, and a host of other
domesticated forms, both plant and animal. Nevertheless, the products of the
most intensive selection have not exceeded the species barrier. It seems
that sexual reproduction is incapable of transforming species even to new
members of the same genus. Even if this could be demonstrated, it seems very
unlikely that such a process could ever produce the higher categories of
genus, family, order or class."
"It is the responsibility of the scientist to expose failed hypotheses, but
it is equally his responsibility to offer a replacement for them.... I
propose that the information for organic evolution has somehow been
predetermined in the evolving genome in a way comparable to the way in which
the necessary information to produce a complete organism is contained within
a single cell, the fertilized egg....Viewed in this way, ontogeny and
phylogeny become part of the same organic continuum utilizing similar
mechanisms for their expression."
J.A. Davidson, "A Prescribed Evolutionary Hypothesis" [2005]
http://www.uncommondescent.com/dr-john-davison-biologist/a-prescribed-evolut
http://www.uncommondescent.com/dr-john-davison-biologist/a-prescribed-evolut
ionary-hypothesis/
-------------
-------------
Leo S Berg ;
"Evolution is in a great measure an unfolding of pre-existing rudiments.”
([1969],page 406)
Berg, L.S. [1969], Nomogenesis or Evolution Determined by Law. M.I.T. Press,
Cambridge. (original Russian edition, 1922)
----------------------
----------------------
Otto Schindewolf [1993]
“At most, the environment plays only a similar role with regard to
organisms; it can only provoke and set in motion some potential that is
already present.”
Schindewolf, O. [1993], "Basic Questions in Paleontology." The University of
Chicago Press, Chicago and London. (original German edition, 1950).
----------------
A.R. Wallace finally abandoned the whole scheme of contingent evolution as
is so obvious from the title of his last book, "The World of Life: A
Manifestation of Creative Power, Directive Mind and Ultimate Purpose."
(Wallace [1911]).
Wallace, A.R. [1911], The World of Life: A Manifestation of Creative Power,
Directive Mind and Ultimate Purpose. Moffat Yard and Co., New York.
-------------
-------------
Pierre Grasse commented on the Darwinian view as follows:
“A cluster of facts makes it very plain that Mendelian, allelomorphic
mutation plays no part in creative evolution."
"...the existence of internal factors affecting evolution has to be accepted
by any objective mind."
“Directed by all-powerful selection, chance becomes a sort of providence
which, under the cover of atheism, is not named but which is secretly
worshipped. We believe that there is no reason for being forced to choose
between “either randomness or the supernatural,” a choice into which the
advocates of randomness in biology strive vainly to back their opponents. It
is neither randomness nor supernatural power, but laws which govern living
things; to determine these laws is the aim and goal of science, which should
have the final say. (Grasse, page 107)
Grasse, P.P. [1977], Evolution of Living Organisms. Academic Press, New
York. (original French edition 1973).
------------------------------------------
References:
1. "The Scientific Revolution in Evolution," Science and Scientist [Jan-Mar
2008]. Bhaktivedanta Institute.
http://scienceandscientist.org/download.php?get=Science_and_Scientist-2008_Issue-1.pdf
http://scienceandscientist.org/download.php?get=Science_and_Scientist-2008_Issue-1.pdf
2. J. Shapiro, "Bacteria are small but not stupid:cognition, natural genetic
engineering and socio-bacteriology." Studies in History and Philosophy of
BIological and Biomedical Science 38 (2007) 807–819.
"My own view is that we are witnessing a major paradigm
shift in the life sciences in the sense that Thomas Kuhn (1962)
described that process. Matter, the focus of classical molecular
biology, is giving way to information as the essential
feature used to understand how living systems work. Informatics
rather than mechanics is now the key to explaining
cell biology and cell activities. The traditional mechanistic
view held that the structure of biological molecules determines
the actions of cells in some kind of linear fashion.
But today we know that biological molecules change their
structures as they interact with other molecules and that
these structural changes contain information about the
external environment and conditions within the cell.
{At present] .... we have abundant results showing that
what a cell does is a function of the information it has
about itself and its surroundings (i.e. about past molecular
interactions). Much contemporary research aims to understand
how cellular processes are controlled adaptively to
guarantee survival and reproduction in response to the
millions of molecular events that occur in each cell cycle.
This informatic approach is richer than a mechanistic one
because it allows us to discuss complex, non-linear,
goal-oriented processes with all kinds of feedbacks and
decision points.."
shift in the life sciences in the sense that Thomas Kuhn (1962)
described that process. Matter, the focus of classical molecular
biology, is giving way to information as the essential
feature used to understand how living systems work. Informatics
rather than mechanics is now the key to explaining
cell biology and cell activities. The traditional mechanistic
view held that the structure of biological molecules determines
the actions of cells in some kind of linear fashion.
But today we know that biological molecules change their
structures as they interact with other molecules and that
these structural changes contain information about the
external environment and conditions within the cell.
{At present] .... we have abundant results showing that
what a cell does is a function of the information it has
about itself and its surroundings (i.e. about past molecular
interactions). Much contemporary research aims to understand
how cellular processes are controlled adaptively to
guarantee survival and reproduction in response to the
millions of molecular events that occur in each cell cycle.
This informatic approach is richer than a mechanistic one
because it allows us to discuss complex, non-linear,
goal-oriented processes with all kinds of feedbacks and
decision points.."
3. A.C. Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada, "Sri Isopanisad," Bhaktivedanta Book
Trust [1969].
4. Hannah Ginsborg Journal of the History of Philosophy, vol. 42, no. 1 (2004) 33–65.
5. G.W.F. Hegel, "Science of Logic," translated by A.V. Miller,
London: George Allen & Unwin [1969].
London: George Allen & Unwin [1969].
From: Bala subramanian <bala...@yahoo.com>
To: online_sa...@googlegroups.com
Sent: Wed, December 9, 2009 4:05:47 AM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
New Email addresses available on Yahoo!
Get the Email name you've always wanted on the new @ymail and @rocketmail.
Hurry before someone else does!
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the "Transcendental Nectar of Sadhu-Sanga" e-group.
To post to this e-group, send email to Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this e-group, send email to
Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages