Toronto: Canadian scientists claim to have solved a major mystery about the origins of life on earth.
The claims come at a time when the world is celebrating the bicentennial anniversary of the Father of Evolution, Charles Darwin.
Two Montreal University scientists have proposed a new theory to show how a universal molecular machine, called ribosome, self-assembled or self-organised itself to become a critical step in generating all life on earth.
“While the ribosome is a complex structure, it features a clear hierarchy that emerged based on basic chemical principles,” said biochemistry professor Sergey Steinberg, who made the discovery with student Konstantin Bokov, in a university statement on Thursday.
He said his theory explains what people imagine as “unseen forces at work when such complex structures emerge in nature”.
The Canadian scientist said the ribosome is an enormous molecule responsible for translating the messages (carried in the genetic code of all organisms) into proteins that carry out all functions, including replicating the genome itself.
Compared to biological molecules, he said, ribosomes are immense and very complex.
“Though visible only through lenses of the most powerful microscopes, comparing most other biological molecules to this behemoth (ribosome) is like comparing a tricycle to a jumbo jet,” said Steinberg.
He said he spent years pondering how a complex ribosome could have assembled itself from smaller building blocks that existed on the early earth. His work, he said, led to the discovery that the ribosome must have assembled itself from basic building blocks “in a very specific order; otherwise it would have fallen apart”. AGENCIES
|
||||||
|
Visitors till date:
|
The Christian points towards his elderly, crumbling tutor. “Is there anyone here who has ever heard the professor’s brain… felt the professor’s brain, touched or smelt the professor’s brain?”
No one appears to have done so. The Christian shakes his head sadly. “It appears no-one here has had any sensory perception of the professor’s brain whatsoever. Well, according to the rules of empirical, testable, demonstrable protocol, science says the professor has no brain.” The class is in chaos. The Christian sits… Because that is what a chair is for. The professor, amused at the student’s antics, asks the student whether he’s ever read anything about science. “No,” says the student. “I only know what I’ve heard in church.” “That explains your ignorance about what science is, young man,” says the professor. “Empirical knowledge of something does not always entail direct observation. We can observe the effects of something and know that it must exist. Electrons have not been observed, but they can create an observable trail that can be observed, so we can know they exist.” “Oh,” said the Christian. “No one has observed my heart, but we can hear it beating. We also know from empirical knowledge of people that no one can live without a heart, real or manufactured, or at least not without being also hooked up to some medical equipment. So we can know that I have a heart even though we have not seen it.” “Oh, I see. That makes sense,” said the Christian student. “Similarly, we can know that I have a brain. I wouldn’t be able to talk, walk, and so on unless I had one, would I?” said the professor. “I guess not.” “In fact, if I had no brain I couldn’t do anything at all. Except maybe become a televangelist!” The class broke up with laughter. Even the Christian laughed. “Evolution is known to be true because of evidence,” continued the professor. “It is the best explanation for the fossil record. Even prominent creationists admit that the transition from reptiles to mammals is well documented in the fossil record. A creationist debate panel, including Michael Behe and Philip Johnson, conceded this on a televised debate on PBS. It was on Buckley’s “Firing Line” show. Did you see it?” The Christian student cleared his throat and said in a low voice, “My mom won’t let me watch educational TV. She thinks it will weaken my faith.” The professor shook his head sadly. “Knowledge does have a way of doing that,” he said. “But in any case, evolution is also the best explanation for phenomena that have been observed.” The Christian student sputters, “You–you mean we HAVE seen it?” “Of course. Evolution has occured within recent times, and it continues to occur. Birds and insects not native to Hawaii were introduced just a couple of centuries ago and have evolved to take better advantage of the different flora. So this evolution has taken place within recorded history. Recent history. Did you know that?” “Uh, no.” “Viruses & other diseases evolve to become resistant to medicine. This is not only observed but it is a major problem that science must confront every day. Mosquitoes in the tunnels of London’s underground have evolved to become separate species because of their isolation from other groups of mosquitoes. But enough about evolution. That doesn’t have anything to do with our issue, evil, does it?” “Well…” “What does it have to do with our issue?” asked the professor. “Well, if you don’t believe in god, then you must believe we came from apes.” The professor laughed. “Evolutionists don’t believe that people came from apes or even monkeys. They believe that humans and apes had a common ancestor.” “Wow!” said the Christian. “That’s not what they told me at church.” “I’m sure. They can’t refute evolution so they have to spread misinformation about it. But don’t you know that many Christians believe that god made humans by evolution?” “I didn’t know that.” “In fact, of the four people who debated the evolution side on PBS, on William F. Buckley’s ‘Firing Line,’ which I just mentioned, two of them were theists. One of them is a reverend, in fact.” “Really?” “Really. Many denominations of Christianity embrace evolution. Catholicism, the largest denomination of Christianity, is compatible with evolution. So evolution is not relevant here, is it?” “I guess not.” “Even if it were true that you have to be an atheist to believe evolution, which is not the case, and even if it were the case that evolution was unsupported by evidence, which is also not the case, this would not explain evil at all, would it. It is irrelevant.” “I see that now,” said the Christian. “I don’t even know why I brought it up. I guess I thought it was an example of how you believe something without evidence.” “Well,” said the professor. “As you can see, it is not. There is plenty of evidence for evolution. And even if there were no evidence, this has no bearing on the issue of evil. As we proceed through the philosophy course, you will see how to use your reasoning ability to separate important issues from irrelevant ones.” “I guess I’m learning already,” said the student, looking at the floor. “But back to the problem of evil,” said the professor. “You stated that evil is the absence of good. How does that solve the problem of evil?” The student said lifelessly: “If evil is the absence of good, then god did not create evil.” It was evident that this was something the student had learned by rote and had often repeated. The professor shrugged his shoulders. “Okay, let’s suppose for the moment that this is true. This still does not explain evil. If a tidal wave wipes out a whole town, and 100,000 people die, is that evil?” “There is the absence of good,” said the student. “But so what? The problem is why god did not prevent the disaster. If god is all-powerful he can prevent it, and if he is all-knowing he knows that it is about to happen. So whether he created the tidal wave is not relevant. What we want to know is why he did not do anything to stop it.” The student looked confused. “But why should he prevent it? It’s not his fault.” “If a human being had the power to prevent a tidal wave wiping out a town, and this person intentionally failed to stop it, we would not say that the person is good. Even if the person said, ‘It’s not my fault,’ we would be appalled that someone could stand by and do nothing as thousands die. So if god does not prevent natural disasters, and he is able to do so, we should not say that god is good by the same reasoning. In fact, we would probably say that god is evil.” The Christian student thought for a moment. “I guess I’d have to agree.” “So redefining evil as the absence of good does nothing to solve the problem of evil,” said the professor. “At best it shows that god did not create it, but this does not explain why god does not prevent it.” The Christian student shook a finger at the professor. “But that’s according to our human standards. What if god has a higher morality? We can’t judge him by our standards.” The professor laughed. “Then you just lost your case. If you admit that god does not fit our definition of good, then we should not call him good. Case closed.” “I don’t understand,” said the student, wrinkling his brow. “If I go outside and see a vehicle with four tires, a metal body, a steering wheel, a motor and so on, and it fits the definition of a car, is it a car?” “Of course it is,” said the Christian student. “That’s what a car is.” “But what if someone says that on some other definition it could be considered an airplane. Does that mean it’s not a car?” “No,” said the student. “It still fits the definition of a car. That’s what we mean by saying that it’s a car. It doesn’t fit the definition of an airplane, so we shouldn’t call it that.” “Exactly,” said the professor. “If it fits the definition, then that’s what it is. If god fits the definition of good, then he is good. If he does not, then he is not. If you admit that he does not fit our definition of good, then he is not good. It does no good to say that he could be ‘good’ in some other definition. If we want to know whether he is good by our definition, you have answered that question. God is not good.” “I don’t believe it!” said the Christian student. “A few minutes ago I would have laughed at the suggestion that god is not good, but now I actually agree. God doesn’t fit the definition of good, so he’s not good.” “There you go,” said the professor. “But wait a minute,” said the student. “God could still be good in some other definition even if we don’t call him good. Despite what we think, god could still have his own morality that says he’s good. Even if we couldn’t call him good, that doesn’t mean that he isn’t good on some definition. He could have his own definition anyway.” “Oh, you would not want to push the view that god might be good in some other definition,” said the professor. “Why not?” “Well, if he has definitions of things that are radically different from our own, he might have a different definition of lots of other things. He might have his own definitions of such things as eternal reward, or eternal life. Your supposed eternal life in heaven might just be a year, or it could be a thousand years of torture. God could just say he has a definition of reward that includes excruciating torture as part of the definition.” “That’s right!” said the Christian, jumping up. His eyes were wide open. “If god can redefine any word, then anything goes. God could send all believers to what we call hell and say that it is heaven. He could give us ten days in heaven and say that that’s his definition of eternity!” “Now you’re thinking!” said the professor, pointing a finger at the student. “This is what a philosophy class is supposed to do for students.” The Christian student continued. “God could promise us eternal life and then not give it to us and say that’s his definition of keeping a promise!” “Yes, yes,” said the professor. “I can’t believe I used to fall for this Christianity stuff. It’s so indefensible,” said the student, shaking his head. “Just a few moment’s thought and all the arguments that my church gave me in Sunday school just collapse.” “So it would seem,” said the professor. “I’m going to go to my church tonight and give the pastor a piece of my mind. They never tell me about important stuff like this. And they sure didn’t tell me the truth about evolution!” The student, who stood up as a Christian, now sat down as an atheist. And he started using his brain–because that’s what it’s for. The other students in the class sat there, stunned, for a few moments. They knew they had witnessed the changing of a person’s life, the redirection of a young mind from falsehood and religious dogma to the honest pursuit of truth. The students looked at each other and then began applauding. This soon gave way to cheering. The professor took a bow, laughing. When the students calmed down he continued his lecture, and class attendance was high for the rest of the semester. Atheists use social networking websites to communicate with ilk
Rationalists Offer Scientific Explanation, Say Oil Wasn’t Boiling, It Was An IllusionBangalore/ Hubli: Was it hot or not?
We all know that many theists are so closed-minded about us that they won’t even talk to us, let alone try to understand us. This is usually not their fault, as they are told terrible things about us by people they trust, their preachers, whose whole livelihood depends on their parishioners staying in the flock. It is this prejudice and conflict which is one of the main factors keeping atheists in the closet and theists in ignorance. With dialogue, not prejudice, both sides will benefit and the country will become a freer place. In this article I will therefore mention many of the myths about atheists that are popular among theists, as well as my usual responses. With any luck, this will prepare atheists for future confrontations and therefore make them more confident to announce themselves, as well as allow theist readers to better understand the atheist mentality. Myth 1 ~ “Atheists are all the same” — You can understand why theists believe this, after being told this over and over by their preachers. This belief is reinforced by the fact that believers must be bound by much more than a simple belief in God. For example, Catholics must also have the same stances on abortion, contraception, and homosexuality in order to be called a “good Catholic.” It only goes to follow that atheism must be similar. However, atheism is not a religion, rather the absence of religion. As such, we are bound only by our atheism. We are republicans and democrats, men and women, gays and straights, blacks and whites. We accept every person as they are as equals, and delight in our diversity (not many religions can say that). We disagree with each other on many issues, and discussion is encouraged and common. Above all, atheists demand the right to disagree, even if it means with each other. Myth 2 ~ “Atheists have no morals, since they don’t believe in God” – What a sad world it is when people can seriously say that humans need to fear eternal damnation in order to do good. It is the one statement which at the same time stirs both anger and pity in most atheists; anger because it is a bigoted, prejudicial statement which serves no purpose except to promote intolerance, and pity because it highlights the speaker’s ignorance and willingness to accept such crap without question. At the risk of validating the question, a reply needs to be made in order to expose the speaker to the idea that what they’ve heard is wrong on so many dimensions. It must not be answered with anger, but with compassion. Humans have the idea of right and wrong imbedded in them by their own brains, as well as their upbringing and society. Atheists do good, not out of fear of reprisal, but because it’s the right thing to do. We value family, society, culture, and, of course, freedom. Many of us will – and have – defended these values with our lives. Examples: 1) Many Catholics make judgement calls on moral decisions against their church. For example, some use birth control or have abortions, despite what their church preaches. If these people can make moral decisions despite what their church preaches, then atheists can make similar choices without a church altogether. 2) Slavery was not only acceptable 200 years ago, it was considered a good deed by many, and defended using the bible. The bible was also used to justify the Holocaust, the Crusades, and the Spanish Inquisition. Why is this relevant? Because it shows that the bible can be used to defend even the most immoral and unethical ideals, and is therefore not an adequate yardstick to measure moral or ethical behavior. 3) Finally, mention bad religious people. Remember that Hitler was a religious Catholic, and that Jeffrey Dahmer said grace before he ate his victims. Mention also that one need only open a newspaper to find yet another story about allegations against priests for sexual misconduct, often with children. Don’t forget our good friends Jim Bakker (who swindled millions from his flock) and Jimmy Swaggart (asked for forgiveness only after being caught using prostitutes). 4) Always couple these statements with the fact that, while atheists make up 8-10% of the population at large, we only make up 1% of the population in prison. I mean, think of it, what if 8-10% of the population (on top of all the religious criminals) decided it was OK to steal, rape, and murder? We’d have chaos! These will serve to prove that religion and ethical behavior are not even slightly related. Expect these statements to piss off the theists, and this is where you must mention that what you said is verifiable and that their statement is openly prejudicial against 25 million people. This is the opportunity to open their eyes to the fact that just because we’re different from them doesn’t make us inherently bad. Myth 3 ~ “Atheists believe in evolution, but that doesn’t answer as many questions as creationism”- Atheism is not a scientific theory, rather a lack of religion. We do believe in science, and that all questions will eventually be answered with science if they are not answered today. It’s gone well so far, giving theories regarding evolution, geological movement, and the Big Bang, all supported by evidence, but not necessarily endorsed by all atheists. Creationism does not give all the answers, either. Furthermore, it goes so far as to choose which questions to answer, and discourages the asking of the rest. Believers are loath to discuss where God came from, or what he was doing before the creation. They refuse to give good answers for the many biblical inconsistencies or for the terrible injustices in the world, because they know that no such answers exist. They merely answer with “there are things which we mere humans cannot fully understand” or “the Lord works in mysterious ways”. In the end, religion doesn’t answer as many questions as it raises. Myth 4 ~ “Atheists cannot know there is no God, since you cannot prove he doesn’t exist” – Again, this is a two sided coin, but the theists are loathe to admit the other side. Atheists don’t need to prove the non-existence of God, any more than we need to prove the nonexistence of Zeus or Jupiter. Can theists prove God over any alternatives? Of course not. Nobody can prove God exists, yet they will stand on their heads saying they’re sure. Well, if they can be sure despite evidence to the contrary, we can be sure in light of evidence in support of atheism. Myth 5 ~ “Atheists seek to remove religion from society, and to force all people to be atheists” – Absolutely wrong. We seek only the freedom for people to make their choice on their own, free of intervention from the government or public school system. We seek the freedom not to support religion through taxes, forced participation, or special privileges of any kind. That being said, your thoughts are your rights, and none of our business. Wear your jewelry, celebrate your holidays, and pray in your house, church, or in public if you like. Just don’t force your religion on other people. That’s what we’re all about. This is in direct contrast to many of the world’s religions, including Christianity, which include worldwide expansion as one of their central objectives. Isn’t it amazing that they falsely accuse us of doing what they do openly, only with atheism it’s evil? To try to force atheism would by hypocritical, since we would be placing pressure from the state on people to believe a certain way. But let me give a good analogy to our objectives and at the same time answer this charge using the money we use every day. “In God We Trust,” is the government actively promoting religion. We feel the same way about the rest of the government. It should be the “Switzerland of the religious debate,” while at the same time being the protectorate of the individual. Myth 6 ~ “Atheists are so closed-minded, they can’t see that miracles happen every day!” – Some people look for miracles where none exist (they never do). Allow me to put things in perspective: Someone’s cancer going into remission is no miracle, but we can talk when disease suddenly disappears from the face of the earth overnight without help from medical science. Food getting through to a hungry village: human perseverance. Starvation vanishing from earth without a reason overnight: Miracle. One more time: A child is born – science; The spontaneous end of birth defects – Miracle. Got it? Note: only good things are miracles, so volcanoes, tornadoes, and hurricanes don’t count. Myth 7 ~ “Atheists are pushing a negative sentiment, and have a dreary life” – Wrong We are “pushing” a very positive statement: that living without dependence on a false deity is easy, fulfilling, and positive. We strive to be a positive influence in the world, and think each person can – and must – find their own meaning of life. We are thinkers, philosophers, and we thrive on discussion and diversity. We are proud, happy, and most of all, free. Compare that to original sin and Hell. Myth 8 ~ ” If atheists are right, then religious people are wasting their time, but at least they’re happy. No harm in that! If religious people are right, then atheists are going to hell. It seems logical that atheists should become religious just to be safe.” I like getting this question. I sense another list coming: 1) Drug addicts go through life happy, so would theists suggest we all use drugs and stay home? We would be happy, and not hurting anybody, so where’s the harm? The harm is the same for believers. They go through life happy, but it’s a false, wasteful happiness. Atheists get happiness from family, contribution to society, charity, and truth. 2) Religious people should not be lumped into one category for this question. Remember, religions are also biased against each other (Jews Vs. Catholics Vs. Protestants, etc), so no matter what religion the speaker follows, most of the world think they’re going to hell (or other punishment), just like atheists. Ask them which religion has the worst punishment, and whether they would convert to that religion on that one factor, just in case they’re right. When they tell you how absurd that question is, remind them that they asked it first. 3) To convert and practice a specific religion just to ingratiate yourself with God and avoid going to hell is pure, self-serving greed, which is one of the seven deadly sins. Therefore, by their own thinking, even if they are right and I do convert, I’d go to hell anyway, along with everyone else in the flock whose actions are so motivated (possibly including the speaker). Myth 9 ~ “There are no such things as atheists” a.k.a. “There are no atheists in foxholes” – More fantasy from the believers, that there could never exist a single human whose reason and logical abilities surpass the pressure from society to believe in a deity. This is especially true in a situation of imminent death, where they believe all atheists would drop to our knees and beg God for forgiveness. Wouldn’t it be nice if we could somehow be sure that those who currently disagree with us would come around in the end and know we were right? Just like most other parts of religion, this is blatant fantasy. There are 25 Million atheists in the country, more that Jews and Blacks combined. Many atheists became atheists not because they were born into it (like most theists), rather because we contemplated god in its many forms and decided it just doesn’t make an ounce of sense. This isn’t a choice, it’s fact – a logical proof. We are simply too logical to believe God is anything more than fantasy. As far as foxholes go, when I face death, as we all do sooner or later, I will use the last few remaining seconds of my life to remember my favorite moments, and evaluate my contribution to my family and society. I would definitely not waste precious time praying to a deity “just in case I’m wrong” I’m not. Myth 10 ~ “This country was founded by Christians, on Christian values, and should therefore be a Christian country”. True, some of the founding fathers were Christian, but some were Deists (generally believed in God), and some were outright atheists. But a more important point needs to be made: the founding fathers went out of their way to specify that church and state be separate. They believed that their religion was just that: theirs and theirs alone. They also remembered that they were there trying to be free of the state church of England, and recognized from their first-hand experience that true religious freedom can only come when belief is left to the individual. It is this ideal, among others, for which our forefathers fought and died. Individual religious choice – including the right not to practice – is still under assault in this country. Those who would prefer to make the choice for you have labeled us criminal, evil ne’er-do-wells and launched a massive campaign to keep freethinkers subdued. They have been successful, mainly because atheism is fragmented and closeted. They continue to be successful, but we can reverse the trend. Atheists must make themselves known. If you are reading this, and you are a closet atheist, you owe it to your country, your fellow atheists, and yourself to let people know how you feel. Start by coming to our convention in June, and meeting other people like yourself. You’ll be amazed at how good it feels to speak, listen, and party with people who openly agree with you. Bring a friend. |
|||||
|
Copyright © 2010 Rational Thoughts: Unlimited - All Rights Reserved |
||||||
Jakarta: Chain-smoking at a trendy coffee shop while studiously ignoring the mosque’s evening call to prayer, Indonesian atheists Didi and Dewi have little patience for the beliefs of most of their countrymen.
Recent Comments