Possible key human evolution genes identified

[Phenomanul]

Correct.

The implications that hypothesis has on this argument are still relevant.

IF the there are an infinite number of universes, then there is an infinite amount of life, and putting a massively small number on the probability of self-replicating proteins arising is irrelevant.

If there aren't, I think the numbers still point to a MUCH stronger possibility than hemagoal (sp?) has admitted so far.


Except you are talking about this universe... and the simple calcs I posted were in reference to life in this universe.

Wanting to use mathematical factors from a multiverse model (which is by no means a law) is a stretch.

BTW your reasoning behind having billions upon billions of molecules bumping up against each as a motive for increasing the odds is also a stretch. Once the sequence starts --- say part 10 out of 200 --- the other 190 molecules need to converge on that one location (reaction site). You can't increase those odds simply because the world's oceans contain a 'seemingly' infinite sea of molecules.

[Phenomanul]

Which further beckons the question whether the first self replicating proteins were prions. Something simpler and more likely to be randomly thrown together in a tidal pool?

You say prions are so complicated that they couldn't be randomly generated. Ok.

I am no bio-chemist, but how complicated does a protein, or whatever, need to be in order for self-replication?


The NASA article you posted earlier referenced an 'inorganic' replication process that happened to use organic molecules. Unfortunately, said process would be the unlikely precursor of genetically relevant material. For one, the amino acids used were all the same. Not one single protein is made from a homo-amino-acid sequence. At least 4 different amino acids are required to twist the chain sufficiently to the point where the protein can subsist without wanting to revert (or be chemically attacked) into smaller constituent molecules. To the article's defense, the process was very unique and still highly significant.

Remember the 200 base system I calculated earlier. Said sequence can code for a polypeptide chain that is comprised by a total of 66 amino-acids (the building blocks of proteins). The simplest proteins are roughly that small. And so if you consider the fact that the replicative process of DNA/RNA requires about 190 different proteins to complete a replicative cycle, everyone should be amazed at exactly how much 'code' is required just to enable DNA/RNA replication. DNA/RNA is both the means and the causality of replication. This means that certain highly specialized proteins, like transcriptase, various nucleases, polymerase, helicase, ligase etc... would already have to exist before any significally relevant DNA strand could even replicate. So if one says... "well then those proteins likely formed first" your odds of having created them would be much lower because using amino-acid based odds (1 out of 20) instead of DNA-base odds (1 out of 4) would further decrease an already infintessimally small number.

[Extra Stout]

Correct.

The implications that hypothesis has on this argument are still relevant.

IF the there are an infinite number of universes, then there is an infinite amount of life, and putting a massively small number on the probability of self-replicating proteins arising is irrelevant.

If there aren't, I think the numbers still point to a MUCH stronger possibility than hemagoal (sp?) has admitted so far.
On the question of biology and abiogenesis, if there are an infinite number of universes, and if events progress chaotically in each one independent of the others, then any event with a nonzero probability is certain to occur in at least one of them.

Then there remains the cosmological evidence, and to discount that, you have to assume 1) multiple universes, 2) random chaotic timelines, and 3) random properties of matter and energy and so forth.

And so what if hegamboa's numbers are off by an order of magnitude or two, or twenty? Are you saying that if there is a 99.99999999999999999999999999999999999999999% chance that God exists you would be convinced, but not if there is only a 99.99% chance?

[RandomGuy]

Except you are talking about this universe... and the simple calcs I posted were in reference to life in this universe. Wanting to use mathematical factors from a multiverse model (which is by no means a law) is a stretch.


You can’t consider one universe apart from the multiverse. The isolation defies logic and science.

If you play enough poker, a royal flush, although unlikely, is a statistical certainty based on the number of poker hands played since the beginning of time. It is more likely that you will come up with a royal flush at least once rather than never.

Isolating one result from all the others ignores simple statistical science. How can you say that this isn't the one(or "a") time where a (or “the”) universe drew a “royal flush” and came up with some form of self-replicating molecule?


BTW your reasoning behind having billions upon billions of molecules bumping up against each as a motive for increasing the odds is also a stretch. Once the sequence starts --- say part 10 out of 200 --- the other 190 molecules need to converge on that one location (reaction site). You can't increase those odds simply because the world's oceans contain a 'seemingly' infinite sea of molecules.

It is not a stretch. It addresses your probability concerns exactly.

You say the “odds of this happening once is X”. This has the same logical structure as “the odds of getting a royal flush are one in (whatever)” and holding out that probability as effectively impossible.

It is far from “impossible” if you play enough poker.

The odds are indeed slim that chance would assemble a self-replicating protein, or whatever. But the more molecules you have bumping up against each other, the greater the odds of that happening somewhere, yes or no?

[RandomGuy]

On the question of biology and abiogenesis, if there are an infinite number of universes, and if events progress chaotically in each one independent of the others, then any event with a nonzero probability is certain to occur in at least one of them.

Then there remains the cosmological evidence, and to discount that, you have to assume 1) multiple universes, 2) random chaotic timelines, and 3) random properties of matter and energy and so forth.

This is exactly what quantum theory says. You can only pin down where an electron probably is or where it is going, never both for certain, and similar randomness exists for other particles and happenings.

Everything has a chance of happening, however small, and therefore DOES happen somewhere, sometime.

(reference the "walk across the street and end up on mars" bit from an earlier post.)


And so what if hegamboa's numbers are off by an order of magnitude or two, or twenty? Are you saying that if there is a 99.99999999999999999999999999999999999999999% chance that God exists you would be convinced, but not if there is only a 99.99% chance?

Not at all. I am saying that life is possible without the active participation of God.

[boutons_]

I get the impression that boa and creationist/ID fellow-travellers, the "good", assume that if someone doesn't believe in the 6-day Genesis cosmology and/or believes in evolution, then those persons are the "bad" who don't believe in God at all and/or that God doesn't exist. A very "ugly" black-white simplification.

[sabar]

RandomGuy is on the right track here. While the chances of this "replicator" occuring are very small, it is still very much possible, and we are living proof. We arethe royal flush. There could have been 800 trillion universes that created NO life before this current one, assuming this universe collpases and starts all over.

And stop thinking is such literal terms people.

The first replicator was obviously not DNA. Nor was it some protein that looks like this. (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/e/e7/Hexokinase_ball_and_stick_model%2C_with_substrates _to_scale_copy.png) It was something very simple. It only takes two amino acids to create a chain, you don't need 1200 of them linked into a super complex structure for the very first self-replicating thing.

There is the possibility that is wrong too. The first human being could have very well spontaneously formed in the air when a lightning bolt hit a swamp, by sheer chance of the molecules being rearranged. Haven't you ever heard?

A million monkeys typing on a million typewriters would eventually produce the works of Shakespeare by sheer chance.

It then follows:

An infinite number of monkeys typing on an infinite number of typewriters would produce the works of Shakespeare instantly.

Think about it.

[Extra Stout]

This is exactly what quantum theory says. You can only pin down where an electron probably is or where it is going, never both for certain, and similar randomness exists for other particles and happenings.

Everything has a chance of happening, however small, and therefore DOES happen somewhere, sometime.
1) Why do you take determinism for granted?
2) Why do you take decoherence for granted?

There are at least half a dozen popular interpretations of QM out there. You are jumping upon one of them and speaking as if it were the only one. QM is scientific. The interpretations are not, because their predictions are not observable. MWI by definition is not scientific, since decoherence prevents observation of all other wavefunction solutions.

[Lebowski Brickowski]

You are all missing the point entirely. There is a SERIOUS AND IMMEDIATE reson why

"Possible key human evolution genes identified"

should cause anxiety in all of us and the reason for that anxiety is worse than an encroachment on our religious beliefs. The reason should strike mortal fear in all of you, fear for your rights as an individual, a citizen, a sovereign human being, a Child of God, etc,etc.....................










Every time a scientific research corp. "discovers" a new gene, said corporation can PATENT that gene, effectively giving it exclusive legal OWNERSHIP of that gene and all the rights over that gene that come with private property (for example:buying and selling, manipulating/changing, marketing, killing, just to name a very few) . More and more of the human genome is becoming branded and owned by government chartered corporations which have practically ZERO accountability for they use their private property.

Some facts about patented Human Genes:

A study reveals that more than 4,000 genes, or 20 percent of the almost 24,000 human genes, have been claimed in U.S. patents.

Of the patented genes, about 63 percent are assigned to private firms and 28 percent are assigned to universities.

The top patent assignee is Incyte, a Palo Alto, California-based DRUG COMPANY whose patents cover 2,000 human genes.

--Stefan Lovgren
for National Geographic News
October 13, 2005 --


If an institution owns all the rights to one or more genes, it could work to introduce a new product for profit, and it may also BLOCK OTHER USES, including research.

[Phenomanul]

You can’t consider one universe apart from the multiverse. The isolation defies logic and science.

If you play enough poker, a royal flush, although unlikely, is a statistical certainty based on the number of poker hands played since the beginning of time. It is more likely that you will come up with a royal flush at least once rather than never.

Isolating one result from all the others ignores simple statistical science. How can you say that this isn't the one(or "a") time where a (or “the”) universe drew a “royal flush” and came up with some form of self-replicating molecule?



It is not a stretch. It addresses your probability concerns exactly.

You say the “odds of this happening once is X”. This has the same logical structure as “the odds of getting a royal flush are one in (whatever)” and holding out that probability as effectively impossible.

It is far from “impossible” if you play enough poker.

The odds are indeed slim that chance would assemble a self-replicating protein, or whatever. But the more molecules you have bumping up against each other, the greater the odds of that happening somewhere, yes or no?


Maybe this is why you don't see the fallacy of that line of thinking... Molecular genetics is nothing like poker. It is bound by many physical parameters, reaction kinetics, a balance of energies S, G, H, and U, and not chance processes alone. Otherwise we would be discussing the probability that a book such as Hamlet could assemble itself letter by letter... easier yet... word by word from a 'sea' of trillions upon trillions of words. <-- the probability of said event occuring would be infintessimally zero.

[Phenomanul]

I get the impression that boa and creationist/ID fellow-travellers, the "good", assume that if someone doesn't believe in the 6-day Genesis cosmology and/or believes in evolution, then those persons are the "bad" who don't believe in God at all and/or that God doesn't exist. A very "ugly" black-white simplification.


Exhibit A: read your own comment and then assess yourself.

:lol :lol :lol :wakeup

[Phenomanul]

RandomGuy is on the right track here. While the chances of this "replicator" occuring are very small, it is still very much possible, and we are living proof. We arethe royal flush. There could have been 800 trillion universes that created NO life before this current one, assuming this universe collpases and starts all over.

And stop thinking is such literal terms people.

The first replicator was obviously not DNA. Nor was it some protein that looks like this. (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/e/e7/Hexokinase_ball_and_stick_model%2C_with_substrates _to_scale_copy.png) It was something very simple. It only takes two amino acids to create a chain, you don't need 1200 of them linked into a super complex structure for the very first self-replicating thing.

There is the possibility that is wrong too. The first human being could have very well spontaneously formed in the air when a lightning bolt hit a swamp, by sheer chance of the molecules being rearranged. Haven't you ever heard?

A million monkeys typing on a million typewriters would eventually produce the works of Shakespeare by sheer chance.

It then follows:

An infinite number of monkeys typing on an infinite number of typewriters would produce the works of Shakespeare instantly.

Think about it.


Interesting but... no. The 'event' has to occur in the same place. The multiverse model is not as widely accepted as you think. And again, he is hinging his number crunching on said model.

[Phenomanul]

This is exactly what quantum theory says. You can only pin down where an electron probably is or where it is going, never both for certain, and similar randomness exists for other particles and happenings.

Everything has a chance of happening, however small, and therefore DOES happen somewhere, sometime.

(reference the "walk across the street and end up on mars" bit from an earlier post.)



Not at all. I am saying that life is possible without the active participation of God.

DNA was GOD's fingerprint on life. He was there from the beginning.

Also consider the fact that DNA alone does not constitute the essence of life - it is merely information... otherwise all corpses would have a chance of coming back to life. There is an esoteric metaphysical aspect of 'life', 'spirituality' and 'consciousness' that cannot be empirically described by our current scientific methods.

[Phenomanul]

You are all missing the point entirely. There is a SERIOUS AND IMMEDIATE reson why

"Possible key human evolution genes identified"

should cause anxiety in all of us and the reason for that anxiety is worse than an encroachment on our religious beliefs. The reason should strike mortal fear in all of you, fear for your rights as an individual, a citizen, a sovereign human being, a Child of God, etc,etc.....................










Every time a scientific research corp. "discovers" a new gene, said corporation can PATENT that gene, effectively giving it exclusive legal OWNERSHIP of that gene and all the rights over that gene that come with private property (for example:buying and selling, manipulating/changing, marketing, killing, just to name a very few) . More and more of the human genome is becoming branded and owned by government chartered corporations which have practically ZERO accountability for they use their private property.

Some facts about patented Human Genes:

A study reveals that more than 4,000 genes, or 20 percent of the almost 24,000 human genes, have been claimed in U.S. patents.

Of the patented genes, about 63 percent are assigned to private firms and 28 percent are assigned to universities.

The top patent assignee is Incyte, a Palo Alto, California-based DRUG COMPANY whose patents cover 2,000 human genes.

--Stefan Lovgren
for National Geographic News
October 13, 2005 --


If an institution owns all the rights to one or more genes, it could work to introduce a new product for profit, and it may also BLOCK OTHER USES, including research.

This will be fought in the courts when the time is right.

[sabar]

Interesting but... no. The 'event' has to occur in the same place. The multiverse model is not as widely accepted as you think. And again, he is hinging his number crunching on said model.

It doesn't need to be a multiverse. If our universe is closed then there have been an (in)finite number of universes preceding this one and there will be an infinite number afterwards.

[Phenomanul]

It doesn't need to be a multiverse. If our universe is closed then there have been an (in)finite number of universes preceding this one and there will be an infinite number afterwards.


OK and in said model do you realize the amount of energy that would have to be contained and released by each of those convergences and subsequent explosions? We're talking trillions upon trillions of degrees of heat, and a fusion of every type of known energy ... atoms as we know them would not exist in such an agglomeration of 'matter' -- any semblance of life would also have to end in each iteration of this closed, cyclical, universe theory.

[sabar]

That is irrelevant. The point is each new universe is another roll of the dice. The fundamental forces and time itself will be recreated with each iteration of the universe. Physical laws are assumed to be universally constant in any model of the big bang. Even if that was random, it would be irrelevant. Anything that is impossible is possible, anything that is possible is likely and anything possible is certain given time.

Of course this is all rather abstract, but true. There is a certain probability corralated to time where mathematicians declare the odds impossible and if it occurs a miracle. Can a lightning bolt kill a man and by pure chance rearrange the molecules around into a perfect clone of the killed man? Yes.

This all reminds me of Contact. Both religion and science take blind faith to believe. Some would argue that one is based in observable fact, and the other myth. Keep up the debates, fun stuff.

[Phenomanul]

That is irrelevant. The point is each new universe is another roll of the dice. The fundamental forces and time itself will be recreated with each iteration of the universe. Physical laws are assumed to be universally constant in any model of the big bang. Even if that was random, it would be irrelevant. Anything that is impossible is possible, anything that is possible is likely and anything possible is certain given time.

Of course this is all rather abstract, but true. There is a certain probability corralated to time where mathematicians declare the odds impossible and if it occurs a miracle. Can a lightning bolt kill a man and by pure chance rearrange the molecules around into a perfect clone of the killed man? Yes.

This all reminds me of Contact. Both religion and science take blind faith to believe. Some would argue that one is based in observable fact, and the other myth. Keep up the debates, fun stuff.

Have it that way then.... I still believe those odds are essentially zero. Not to mention that it is a very bad attempt at trying to 'naturistically' explain the necessary complexity that is required for life to subsist.

[RandomGuy]

1) Why do you take determinism for granted?
2) Why do you take decoherence for granted?

There are at least half a dozen popular interpretations of QM out there. You are jumping upon one of them and speaking as if it were the only one. QM is scientific. The interpretations are not, because their predictions are not observable. MWI by definition is not scientific, since decoherence prevents observation of all other wavefunction solutions.


Capital gains/(losses), other than those arising at the time of couterparty default, on the derivative component of a replication (synthetic asset) transaction that is not a swap of propectively-determined interest rates should be categorized as interest-rate related or credit related and as to sub-component within the Asset Valuation Reserve as if they were gains and losses on the replicated (sythethic) asset(s).

[RandomGuy]

The odds are indeed slim that chance would assemble a self-replicating protein, or whatever. But the more molecules you have bumping up against each other, the greater the odds of that happening somewhere, yes or no? --RG


Maybe this is why you don't see the fallacy of that line of thinking... Molecular genetics is nothing like poker. It is bound by many physical parameters, reaction kinetics, a balance of energies S, G, H, and U, and not chance processes alone. Otherwise we would be discussing the probability that a book such as Hamlet could assemble itself letter by letter... easier yet... word by word from a 'sea' of trillions upon trillions of words. <-- the probability of said event occuring would be infintessimally zero.

You did not answer my question.

[RandomGuy]

Maybe this is why you don't see the fallacy of that line of thinking... Molecular genetics is nothing like poker. It is bound by many physical parameters, reaction kinetics, a balance of energies S, G, H, and U, and not chance processes alone. Otherwise we would be discussing the probability that a book such as Hamlet could assemble itself letter by letter... easier yet... word by word from a 'sea' of trillions upon trillions of words. <-- the probability of said event occuring would be infintessimally zero.

Not infinitessimally. You use that word too loosely.

By your own admission the number, although very small, was still larger than 1/infinity.

That makes is infinitely larger than infinessimally small.

But that is semantics.

The number is not infinitessimally small, it is greater than zero, making it possible.

Molecular chemistry is very much like poker.
If I take a molar sample of Xenon or any other element for that matter, do I have 6X10^23 identical atoms?

[RandomGuy]

Interesting but... no. The 'event' has to occur in the same place. The multiverse model is not as widely accepted as you think. And again, he is hinging his number crunching on said model.

Not really.

Go back and read what I was saying. I introduced the multiverse concept to simply widen the perspective.

Even within one single universe, the chances are greater than you admit.

[Phenomanul]

Not infinitessimally. You use that word too loosely.

By your own admission the number, although very small, was still larger than 1/infinity.

That makes is infinitely larger than infinessimally small.

But that is semantics.

The number is not infinitessimally small, it is greater than zero, making it possible.

Molecular chemistry is very much like poker.
If I take a molar sample of Xenon or any other element for that matter, do I have 6X10^23 identical atoms?

Avogadro's number just describes a quantity... it doesn't describe how those molecules interact with each other. You're assuming that just because they brush up against each other that it automatically favors your odds. Reaction kinetics however should not be simplified in that manner.

Many molecules avoid each other and others attract each other. Many molecules need stabilizing mediums to subsist. Some do not require it. Some require an alkaline pH to exist, others an acidic one. And yet the very simple question of how enough amino acids agglomerated together to form appreciable concentrations is not yet answered. If the amino-acids did so on their own, some process had to be adding enough work to the system in order to lower its pH. Only in that medium would amino acids subsist in great concentrations. If you buffered it with ammonia in order to stabilize the molecules only 8 of the 20 amino acids would be able to subsist. And yet most amino-acid creation models require ammonia as a constituent medium. What gives? How were the other 12 created?

I don't care if the sea contains trillions upon trillions of moles. It doesn't matter where the sequence that began biological complexity started; that's the only place where said 'flush' could be finalized. Be it in a pool of water here or in Japan. You can't claim that a 'King' off the coast of California, a 'Queen' off of the coast of Chile, a 'Jack' off of the coast of Australia and so forth would constitute a Royal Flush. All of that sequential order would have to be created at one spot only. And it's an uphill battle no matter where it begins. In other words, that King off of the Californian coast would somehow have to be coupled with a Queen, a Jack, a 10 and an Ace... conversely the Queen off of the Chilean coast would have to assemble a King, a Jack, a 10 and an Ace. Those two odds are independent of each other and should not be coupled. True, the location of the 'flush' can be completely random... but not the mechanism to create it.

Rembember the flux limitation for entropy? With molecules that small, how do you transfer that much order to such a small location. What process other than an enzyme catalyzed process is able to do that -- enzymes of course being created by DNA and not before?

That's why the obvious chemistry omission from that NASA article is important... OK so we have a piece of calcite that is selectively binding amino acid molecules. How did enough amino-acids even concentrate in the area to begin with? If ammonia was around it would be selectively interacting with the calcite not the amino-acids. So if no ammonia were around, how then were the amino-acids formed? How was their very presence stabilized?

[Phenomanul]

Not really.

Go back and read what I was saying. I introduced the multiverse concept to simply widen the perspective.

Even within one single universe, the chances are greater than you admit.


You introduced it to broaden the time scale I had given you. There is not enough time even with 30 Billion year old universe model to create the necessary complexity required for life's most basic molecule.

[RandomGuy]

If I take a molar sample of Xenon or any other element for that matter, do I have 6X10^23 identical atoms?--RG


a long technical avoidance of the above question

That is TWO questions that you have yet to answer.

Let's go back to the other question again, just in case you honestly missed it.

The odds are indeed slim that chance would assemble a self-replicating protein, or whatever. But the more molecules you have bumping up against each other, the greater the odds of that happening somewhere, yes or no? --RG

I am waiting.

[Phenomanul]

If I take a molar sample of Xenon or any other element for that matter, do I have 6X10^23 identical atoms?--RG

Technically because Xenon is a Noble gas, Yes.




That is TWO questions that you have yet to answer.

Let's go back to the other question again, just in case you honestly missed it.

The odds are indeed slim that chance would assemble a self-replicating protein, or whatever. But the more molecules you have bumping up against each other, the greater the odds of that happening somewhere, yes or no? --RG

I am waiting.

Yes... I admitted that the location would indeed be random. The assmbly of the product (in this case a complex biological molecule) however is still bound to other forces that negate the use of a simple statistical model. I've been trying to explain this, but you seem to want to drive a point home based on my admission of these questions. OK... Fine... your basic premise is still assuming that every molecule in the sea was bent on creating DNA -- and I'm suggesting the contrary. That naturalistically speaking, the creation of DNA, RNA or proteins would not be anywhere on the agenda of a random chance process.

It doesn't matter that trillions of molecules are continuallly brushing up against each other; that truth doesn't automatically mean that the odds for the formation of DNA would be greater. It's like suggesting that if I took every single component of a car (assuming that they were all indestructable and not capable of being deformed) and stuck them in a huge mixing vat, and that given an infinite amount of time, that they would eventually assemble to form a fully functional vehicle. Random movement alone could not generate the correct assembly order that would be needed in order to create the car; some parts like bolts would require counter-rotative motion against a fixed element and its nut. Wires would require exact source and end points of contact. Not to mention that the other pieces flying around would actually inhibit some of the assembly processes not help them out.

Again, the world of molecular biology does not work off of numbers alone, and as such cannot be compared to the statistically simple poker model.

[Extra Stout]

Capital gains/(losses), other than those arising at the time of couterparty default, on the derivative component of a replication (synthetic asset) transaction that is not a swap of propectively-determined interest rates should be categorized as interest-rate related or credit related and as to sub-component within the Asset Valuation Reserve as if they were gains and losses on the replicated (sythethic) asset(s).

Are you making some kind of opaque analogy between the synthetic assets and parallel universes? That might actually bring up an interesting philosophical point. Some scientific philosophers question whether artificial universes constructed by man in computer models, etc., should count as parallel universes within the multiverse. In that vein, does the synthetic asset exist in a parallel universe? :spin

[Spurminator]

http://media.urbandictionary.com/image/large/asplode-23972.jpg

[RandomGuy]

Are you making some kind of opaque analogy between the synthetic assets and parallel universes? That might actually bring up an interesting philosophical point. Some scientific philosophers question whether artificial universes constructed by man in computer models, etc., should count as parallel universes within the multiverse. In that vein, does the synthetic asset exist in a parallel universe? :spin
Yeah, only to them it is a REAL asset (que freaky music)... :smokin

[sickdsm]

I just read the first few pages but i have a question regarding giants mentioned in the bible. Can you elaborate on that a little bit? I've always found interesting the similarities between religions and, embarrased to say this, i bought God of War for PS2 and learned a few things from it and doing a little googling after it raised my intersest.


Pandora's box and Eve's incident in the Garden of Eden are shockingly similar. Everything was perfect until God/God's created woman and her curisity caused us to deal with disease, hunger, death........

Wasn't there also something with a huge flood by Posideon wiping out the world?


The whole Titans's incident reminded me of the giants.

[Extra Stout]

I just read the first few pages but i have a question regarding giants mentioned in the bible. Can you elaborate on that a little bit?
That story, mentioned barely in passing, said that angels found human women so hot that they could not resist coming down from heaven and having carnal relations with them, and the resultant offspring were giants, some evil, some heroic.

This episode is alluded to in 1 Corinthians, where Paul exhorts godly women to dress modestly, because their innate hotness gives angels the celestial equivalent of blueballs.

I swear I am not making this up. I am not sure of the degree to which that story in Genesis is meant to be taken literally.

[Extra Stout]

Certain sects of the Orthodox church, on the other hand, say that the "sons of God" were a nation of godly men living in covenant with God, and that they began intermingling with the "daughters of men," supposedly the nation descended from Cain, and that their intermingling eventually brought apostasy from the covenant and descent into lawlessness.

The Hebrew word translated "giants" is Nephilim, and according to this interpretation, the offspring, rather than being actual giants, were notable and heroic men, the type legends are written about.

However, the traditional Jewish understanding involves angels getting it on with human women.

[Extra Stout]

Yeah, only to them it is a REAL asset (que freaky music)... :smokin
So would this universe's real asset be a synthetic asset in the parallel universe of the computer model used to develop the synthetic asset in this universe? In that parallel universe, is there an actuary whose computer model, used to create the synthetic asset that here is a real asset, is this universe?

I think Schödinger's cat just exploded.

[Zunni]

Certain sects of the Orthodox church, on the other hand, say that the "sons of God" were a nation of godly men living in covenant with God, and that they began intermingling with the "daughters of men," supposedly the nation descended from Cain, and that their intermingling eventually brought apostasy from the covenant and descent into lawlessness.

The Hebrew word translated "giants" is Nephilim, and according to this interpretation, the offspring, rather than being actual giants, were notable and heroic men, the type legends are written about.

However, the traditional Jewish understanding involves angels getting it on with human women.
Were Nick Cage and Meg Ryan involved somehow? :spin

[Phenomanul]

So would this universe's real asset be a synthetic asset in the parallel universe of the computer model used to develop the synthetic asset in this universe? In that parallel universe, is there an actuary whose computer model, used to create the synthetic asset that here is a real asset, is this universe?

I think Schödinger's cat just exploded.


Reminds me of the movie "The Thirteenth Floor"....

[RandomGuy]

That story, mentioned barely in passing, said that angels found human women so hot that they could not resist coming down from heaven and having carnal relations with them, and the resultant offspring were giants, some evil, some heroic.

This episode is alluded to in 1 Corinthians, where Paul exhorts godly women to dress modestly, because their innate hotness gives angels the celestial equivalent of blueballs.

I swear I am not making this up. I am not sure of the degree to which that story in Genesis is meant to be taken literally.


A lot of the background bits for this were thrown out when the bible was edited and written in the 14th century.

[Extra Stout]

A lot of the background bits for this were thrown out when the bible was edited and written in the 14th century.
You mean 4th century. The "background" book I believe is Enoch, which was written 2nd century BC. The book was excluded from the canon because the Jewish Sanhedrin had expelled it from the Jewish canon around AD 90.

[RandomGuy]

You mean 4th century. The "background" book I believe is Enoch, which was written 2nd century BC. The book was excluded from the canon because the Jewish Sanhedrin had expelled it from the Jewish canon around AD 90.

Thank you for the correction.

[Phenomanul]

The Nephalim are still the subject of much controversy.... They are also mentioned in the Dead Sea Scrolls and in other old texts... Others believe them to be of extra-terrestrial origin. They have also become a great source of Fiction Novels.

[RandomGuy]

The odds are indeed slim that chance would assemble a self-replicating protein, or whatever. But the more molecules you have bumping up against each other, the greater the odds of that happening somewhere, yes or no? --RG

Yes.

Is it reasonable to assume that our planet is not the only planet this universe with liquid water?

[Extra Stout]

The odds are indeed slim that chance would assemble a self-replicating protein, or whatever. But the more molecules you have bumping up against each other, the greater the odds of that happening somewhere, yes or no? --RG


Is it reasonable to assume that our planet is not the only planet this universe with liquid water?
Probably, but in fact how common is it?

[RandomGuy]

Probably, but in fact how common [are earthlike planets with water]?

Funny you should ask...


Earthlike planets may be common: study

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Earthlike planets covered with deep oceans that could harbor life may be found in as many as a third of solar systems discovered outside of our own, U.S. researchers said on Thursday.

These solar systems feature gas giants known as "Hot Jupiters," which orbit extremely close to their parent stars -- even closer than Mercury to our sun, University of Colorado researcher Sean Raymond said.

The close-orbiting gassy planets may help encourage the formations of smaller, rocky, Earthlike planets, they reported in the journal Science.

"We now think there is a new class of ocean-covered, and possibly habitable, planets in solar systems unlike our own," Raymond said in a statement.

The team from Colorado, Penn State University and NASA's Goddard Space Flight Center Maryland ran computer simulations of various types of solar systems forming.

The gas giants may help rocky planets form close to the suns, and may help pull in icy bodies that deliver water to the young planets, they found.

"These gas giants cause quite a ruckus," Raymond said.

Water is key to life as humans define it.

"I think there are definitely habitable planets out there," Raymond said. "But any life on these planets could be very different from ours. There are a lot of evolutionary steps in between the formation of such planets in other systems and the presence of life forms looking back at us."

As many as 40 percent of the 200 or so known planets around other stars are Hot Jupiters, the researchers said.

[RandomGuy]

I will wait for solid O to actually answer the question, before proceding.

[Extra Stout]

Funny you should ask...
Well we shall see how the observations of the exoplanet project match up with that model. :spin

[RandomGuy]

Well we shall see how the observations of the exoplanet project match up with that model. :spin

Well either way, it makes it a reasonable assumption that since a good percentage, 10%+, of all stars have planets and a further good percentage of those have earthlike planets with liquid water, it can be reasonable to assume that the number of places in the universe similar to earth is a pretty big number.

Do you agree?

[Extra Stout]

Well either way, it makes it a reasonable assumption that since a good percentage, 10%+, of all stars have planets and a further good percentage of those have earthlike planets with liquid water, it can be reasonable to assume that the number of places in the universe similar to earth is a pretty big number.

Do you agree?
There's more to making a planet earth-like than size and existence of liquid water. :spin :spin :spin

[RandomGuy]

Well either way, it makes it a reasonable assumption that since a good percentage, 10%+, of all stars have planets and a further good percentage of those have earthlike planets with liquid water, it can be reasonable to assume that the number of places in the universe similar to earth is a pretty big number.

Do you agree?
--RG

There's more to making a planet earth-like than size and existence of liquid water. :spin :spin :spin

Such as?

[Extra Stout]

Such as?
Atmospheric makeup, atmospheric pressure, magnetic field, radioactive activity in the core, moon number, size, and distance (tidal effects), plate tectonics, axis tilt, both rocky crust AND oceans exposed to atmosphere (CO2 cycle).

And so on.

Lots goes into this whole life thing.

[Yonivore]

Atmospheric makeup, atmospheric pressure, magnetic field, radioactive activity in the core, moon number, size, and distance (tidal effects), plate tectonics, axis tilt, both rocky crust AND oceans exposed to atmosphere (CO2 cycle).

And so on.

Lots goes into this whole life thing.
Pish-posh; we all know this planet Earth is a lesser form than billions of others, in far-flung galaxies, already teeming with super intelligent life.

[RandomGuy]

Atmospheric makeup, atmospheric pressure, magnetic field, radioactive activity in the core, moon number, size, and distance (tidal effects), plate tectonics, axis tilt, both rocky crust AND oceans exposed to atmosphere (CO2 cycle).

And so on.

Lots goes into this whole life thing.

Again, all you need is a few simple, self-replicating organisms, and liquid water.

Life will adapt to all the other aspects. Funny thing that.

Either way, you are talking about billions of billions of planets with liquid water at the very least.

1% of billlions of billions is still millions of billions.

Again, I ask the question that you have STILL avoided answering:

Is it a reasonable assumption, based on current scientific evidence that there is a very large number of planets with liquid water?

[Phenomanul]

Again, all you need is a few simple, self-replicating organisms, and liquid water.

Life will adapt to all the other aspects. Funny thing that.

Either way, you are talking about billions of billions of planets with liquid water at the very least.

1% of billlions of billions is still millions of billions.

Again, I ask the question that you have STILL avoided answering:

Is it a reasonable assumption, based on current scientific evidence that there is a very large number of planets with liquid water?


Yes.... But let's expand my model too... If I had several of the large aforementioned mixing vats... say an infinite amount... and they were all whirling around with the car parts inside... do you still believe that one of those vats would produce a fully functional car? I don't believe so. Again, it's not a simple statistical model we're dealing with here... and even when one uses a simple model that doesn't factor the uphill constraints placed by kinetics, the odds still end up being for all intents and purposes zero.

For example, here is a computer generated image of the human prion molocule.... it is an amazingly complex protein and is constructed in the same specialized and sequencial fashion that is utilized by all other proteins in all organisms... the DNA/RNA pathway.

http://i55.photobucket.com/albums/g138/hegamboa/1hjn_bio_r_500.jpg

[RandomGuy]

The odds are indeed slim that chance would assemble a self-replicating protein, or whatever. But the more molecules you have bumping up against each other, the greater the odds of that happening somewhere, yes or no? --RG

Yes.

Is it reasonable to assume that our planet is not the only planet this universe with liquid water?

Yes..

Is it then reasonable to assume, based on currently available data, that the number of planets with liquid water is very large?

[Phenomanul]

The odds are indeed slim that chance would assemble a self-replicating protein, or whatever. But the more molecules you have bumping up against each other, the greater the odds of that happening somewhere, yes or no? --RG


Is it reasonable to assume that our planet is not the only planet this universe with liquid water?


Is it then reasonable to assume, based on currently available data, that the number of planets with liquid water is very large?

I'd already answered your question.... (I had to change my name yet again because Solid D was getting confused with my other name :spin )....

[RandomGuy]

The odds are indeed slim that chance would assemble a self-replicating protein, or whatever. But the more molecules you have bumping up against each other, the greater the odds of that happening somewhere, yes or no? --RG

Yes.

Is it reasonable to assume that our planet is not the only planet this universe with liquid water?

Yes..

Is it then reasonable to assume, based on currently available data, that the number of planets with liquid water is very large?


Yes..

Then that number of planets, both past and present also provide chances for simple organic molecules to form?

[Phenomanul]

The odds are indeed slim that chance would assemble a self-replicating protein, or whatever. But the more molecules you have bumping up against each other, the greater the odds of that happening somewhere, yes or no? --RG


Is it reasonable to assume that our planet is not the only planet this universe with liquid water?


Is it then reasonable to assume, based on currently available data, that the number of planets with liquid water is very large?



Then that number of planets, both past and present also provide chances for simple organic molecules to form?

How many times must I repeat.

Molecular genetics is nothing like a poker model...
Molecular genetics is nothing like a poker model...
Molecular genetics is nothing like a poker model...
Molecular genetics is nothing like a poker model...
Molecular genetics is nothing like a poker model...
Molecular genetics is nothing like a poker model...
Molecular genetics is nothing like a poker model...

I've known where you were taking this line of thinking about 30 posts ago. But with all due respect, having infinite time, and infinite earth-like worlds, doesn't mean biological complexity was a statistical certainty. DNA or proteins were not the eventuality of some random process... if anything random processes lead to disorder not order.

[RandomGuy]

How many times must I repeat.

Molecular genetics is nothing like a poker model...
Molecular genetics is nothing like a poker model...
Molecular genetics is nothing like a poker model...
Molecular genetics is nothing like a poker model...
Molecular genetics is nothing like a poker model...
Molecular genetics is nothing like a poker model...
Molecular genetics is nothing like a poker model...

I've known where you were taking this line of thinking about 30 posts ago. But with all due respect, having infinite time, and infinite earth-like worlds, doesn't mean biological complexity was a statistical certainty. DNA or proteins were not the eventuality of some random process... if anything random processes lead to disorder not order.


The earth is not a closed system. Does entropy does apply to non-closed systems?

[RandomGuy]

How many times must I repeat.

Molecular genetics is nothing like a poker model...



Only because you do not understand statistics.

How many times must I play a raffle in which I have a 1 in 1000 chance to win before I actually win?

[Phenomanul]

Only because you do not understand statistics.

How many times must I play a raffle in which I have a 1 in 1000 chance to win before I actually win?


You may win it on the first try... or you may never win.

[RandomGuy]

Which of those two options is more likely?

[Phenomanul]

The earth is not a closed system. Does entropy does apply to non-closed systems?

Not enough constraints to properly answer the question. I know as long as dS>0 anything is possible. But I guess you also feel that you have a statistical probability of forming a fully functional car inside that vat of mine?

[RandomGuy]

Heh, you are arguing about randomness with "RandomGuy".

Does anyone else find that a bit... amusing?

[Phenomanul]

Which of those two options is more likely?

Based on the odds... the first one.

The only difference is that in our example... no one is 'giving' us the odds to suggest the most probable eventuality. That's exactly what we are calculating.

Again though, you still fail to see the inherently distinctive and highly significant differences between reaction kinetics and statistics.

[RandomGuy]

Not enough constraints to properly answer the question. I know as long as dS>0 anything is possible. But I guess you also feel that you have a statistical probability of forming a fully functional car inside that vat of mine?

Does entropy apply to closed systems?

[johnsmith]

I still have no fucking clue what you guys are talking about in this one.

[RandomGuy]

Based on the odds... the first one.

The only difference is that in our example... no one is 'giving' us the odds to suggest the most probable eventuality. That's exactly what we are calculating.

Again though, you still fail to see the inherently distinctive and highly significant differences between reaction kinetics and statistics.

"Based on the odds..."

The odds don't matter.

You said "never".

Never implies infinity.

You have just contradicted yourself.

Please explain to those reading why you have just done that, so they understand what you just admitted.

[RandomGuy]

I still have no fucking clue what you guys are talking about in this one.

Heh, it takes an understanding of a few different disciplines of science and mathematics.


:nerd

[Phenomanul]

I can sit here and wait all day long... no, for all infinity... waiting to turn into gold... can it happen? Sure. Is there a known process or mechanism that would want to do that? Or why would the molecular structure in my body feel the need for that change? In anycase, I don't see it happening.
No 'Goldmember' references please.

Again, what environment drove the need to create a molecule that would 'want' to just keep getting more and more and more and more ordered.

Assuming that biological complexity was the eventual causality of 'pre-cambrian' inorganic earth is fools gold.

[RandomGuy]

I can sit here and wait for all infinity waiting to turn into gold... can it happen? Sure. Is there a known process that would want to do that? Or why would the molecular structure in my body feel the need for that change? In anycase, I don't see it happening.
No 'Goldmember' references please.

Again, what environment drove the need to create a molecule that would 'want' to just keep getting more and more ordered. Assuming that biological complexity was the eventual causality of 'pre-cambrian' inorganic earth is fools gold.

You say "biological complexity".

Does that mean that a fully developed human being sprang up?

Or does that mean that a much simpler organism than a human being?

[Phenomanul]

Does entropy apply to closed systems?


Sure... say the entire universe.


For all your harping about getting your questions answered you sure do seem to avoid the questions I ask.

Do you still feel you can produce a fully functional vehicle by mixing up all the car's individual parts in a big vat? Again, assuming they are all indestructable and non-deformable?

[Phenomanul]

You say "biological complexity".

Does that mean that a fully developed human being sprang up?

Or does that mean that a much simpler organism than a human being?


One just like the prion I showed you earlier.

[Phenomanul]

"Based on the odds..."

The odds don't matter.

You said "never".

Never implies infinity.

You have just contradicted yourself.

Please explain to those reading why you have just done that, so they understand what you just admitted.

You wrote down the answer by asking the question, remember (1 in 1000). And yet the answer I gave you was not incorrect... how could that be??? hmmmm

Maybe cause there was no contradiction brother. How'd you like dem apples?

[RandomGuy]

I will outline it since you are naturally reluctant to admit you just logically contradicted yourself.

You said that
But with all due respect, having infinite time, and infinite earth-like worlds, doesn't mean biological complexity was a statistical certainty.

Meaning that infinite time and chances does not make for "statistical certainty".

You have also admitted that the odds are greater than zero.

Then when pressed, you admit that the odds of "winning the lottery" are greater than the odds of NEVER winning.

Is this not a statistical certainty?

[johnsmith]

I will outline it since you are naturally reluctant to admit you just logically contradicted yourself.

You said that

Meaning that infinite time and chances does not make for "statistical certainty".

You have also admitted that the odds are greater than zero.

Then when pressed, you admit that the odds of "winning the lottery" are greater than the odds of NEVER winning.

Is this not a statistical certainty?


Finally, some hope for winning the lottery.

[RandomGuy]

It does not matter whether the odds are 1 in a 1000 or one in 1*10^-100

Once you have a fair estimation of the odds you can then start inferring.

A large number of molecules increases the odds. Planets are big places, and again, by your own admission, there are a LOT of them.

The universe is also REALLY old. The amount of time also increases the amount of chances, further increasing the odds of any improbable event.

Your analogy of a fully assembled car is a good example. Although improbable it is still possible.

A hundred billion billion vats over tens of billions of years...

One doesn't need a fully functioning vehicle, one needs something roughly analogous to the brake system.

[RandomGuy]

All it really takes is a self-replicating amino acid.

You say prions are TOO complex, I will say that what is needed is simpler than even a prion.

[RandomGuy]

I would further point out that simpler prions from unicellular organisms like, say yeast, are almost entirely composed of just TWO of the four components of DNA, further bolstering the inference that the first self-replicating molecules were simpler than you want to admit AND this simpler form INCREASES the odds MASSIVELY that they would randomly form.

This by your own admission.

If you will recall you said "bla bla it's too complex because if you muliply 4 times the number of sequences needed for prions to replicate you get this really small number".

Reduce the base from 4 to 2 and keep the same number of sequences. Then does that really improbable number get more or less improbable?

[Phenomanul]

I will outline it since you are naturally reluctant to admit you just logically contradicted yourself.

You said that

Meaning that infinite time and chances does not make for "statistical certainty".

You have also admitted that the odds are greater than zero.

Then when pressed, you admit that the odds of "winning the lottery" are greater than the odds of NEVER winning.

Is this not a statistical certainty?


Semantics...

Reminds me of a joke...

Someone tells a mathmatician and an engineer that they are allowed to walk up to a completely naked woman on the opposite side of the room but that they can only do so by taking steps that are half the size of the previous one.
The mathmatician indignantly replies, "But I'll never get there!!! :madrun "
The engineer then says, "It doesn't matter... I'll get close enough :eyebrows ."

But OK by your own admission the exact same principle applies to the notion that there is a 'statistical certainty' that GOD created the universe and everything therein.

Except that the 'odds' of this notion being true are much much higher than the chance that a 200 part DNA could be built by random chance. How so? Do a number crunching of how many people have physically seen GOD and then divide that by earth's all-time population... and for the sake of generosity throw in a 10^-100 factor that maybe those people were lying... The 'odds' are still greater.

[Phenomanul]

I would further point out that simpler prions from unicellular organisms like, say yeast, are almost entirely composed of just TWO of the four components of DNA, further bolstering the inference that the first self-replicating molecules were simpler than you want to admit AND this simpler form INCREASES the odds MASSIVELY that they would randomly form.

This by your own admission.

If you will recall you said "bla bla it's too complex because if you muliply 4 times the number of sequences needed for prions to replicate you get this really small number".

Reduce the base from 4 to 2 and keep the same number of sequences. Then does that really improbable number get more or less improbable?


And yet those smaller proteins still use the DNA/RNA pathway to replicate.... how come? Because they still need an assortment of highly complex enzymes to do this for them.... they can't do it on their own.. Let's not forget that.

[RandomGuy]

Semantics...

Reminds me of a joke...

Someone tells a mathmatician and an engineer that they are allowed to walk up to a completely naked woman on the opposite side of the room but that they can only do so by taking steps that are half the size of the previous one.
The mathmatician indignantly replies, "But I'll never get there!!! :madrun "
The engineer then says, "It doesn't matter... I'll get close enough :eyebrows ."

But OK by your own admission the exact same principle applies to the notion that there is a 'statistical certainty' that GOD created the universe and everything therein.

Except that the 'odds' of this notion being true are much much higher than the chance that a 200 part DNA could be built by random chance. How so? Do a number crunching of how many people have physically seen GOD and then divide that by earth's all-time population... and for the sake of generosity throw in a 10^-100 factor that maybe those people were lying... The 'odds' are still greater.


I think god may have gotten the ball rolling, but had nothing to do with anything since that time.

As I have said, all he has to do is set up a certain set of rules, and let time do the rest.

You want "intelligent" design, look to the beginning rules, not human evolution.

I would go a step further.

Go back to the "multiverse" and God doesn't even have to do that. Somewhere within an infinite number of universes life WILL emerge.

[Phenomanul]

All it really takes is a self-replicating amino acid.

You say prions are TOO complex, I will say that what is needed is simpler than even a prion.


We can't even create a successful batch of amino acids that will stay in solution? These molecules are created and within millionths of a second want to revert to smaller constituent molecules. We have to physically alter the environment immediately after creating them just to keep them around. That sounds alot like guided creation processes if you ask me. Furthermore, the other basic constituent molecules like simple sugars and inorganic phosphate substrates don't form under the same conditions that form amino acids. Yet they are also needed....

[Phenomanul]

I think god may have gotten the ball rolling, but had nothing to do with anything since that time.

As I have said, all he has to do is set up a certain set of rules, and let time do the rest.

You want "intelligent" design, look to the beginning rules, not human evolution.

I would go a step further.

Go back to the "multiverse" and God doesn't even have to do that. Somewhere within an infinite number of universes life WILL emerge.


Yes because all cadavers can instantly come back to life... they already have all the organic and biological elements necessary to subsist and live.... but they don't.

LIFE is more than just what we see in the physical realm.

[Phenomanul]

I have to go... I'll be back tomorrow.

[RandomGuy]

Reduce the base from 4 to 2 and keep the same number of sequences. Then does that really improbable number get more or less improbable?--RG


Another non-answer.

The answer that you purposefully avoided was the number gets bigger.

So we have evidence that the probablilty is much greater than you would care to admit.

You would not care to admit it because all of what I have mentioned reinforces the hypothesis that life, as improbable as it is, happened randomly.

Is that a fair assessment?

[Phenomanul]

Reduce the base from 4 to 2 and keep the same number of sequences. Then does that really improbable number get more or less improbable?--RG



The answer that you purposefully avoided was the number gets bigger.

So we have evidence that the probablilty is much greater than you would care to admit.

You would not care to admit it because all of what I have mentioned reinforces the hypothesis that life, as improbable as it is, happened randomly.

Is that a fair assessment?

You are rather aggressively confrontational for someone that dodges a fair share of questions. You will and have only seen this as a game of numbers. But chemistry is not governed by odds. You still have failed to find a suitable explanation as to why you keep harping on your statistical background to try and answer questions that are related to a field in which you have only limited grasp of?

Under your odds (and with infinite universes) the probality would always be 99.9999999999%. In fact, the probability that anything could happen would always be 99.999999999999%. But that's not how the universe works. So no, it is not a fair assessment.

OK I really have to go... I'm late.

[Yonivore]

I don't even need to see RandomGuy's side of the argument (excepting where he is quoted) to enjoy watching him have his ass handed to him.

[Extra Stout]

Again, all you need is a few simple, self-replicating organisms, and liquid water.
Funny, how you throw that out as if it were an axiom. I think you lost this argument a while back, and simply have retreated into repeating yourself.

[smeagol]

I think god may have gotten the ball rolling, but had nothing to do with anything since that time.

As I have said, all he has to do is set up a certain set of rules, and let time do the rest.

You think but you don't really know it. And most important of all, you can't prove it. Your explanation, a la boutons, cannot be explained.

It cannot explain the origin of life and it certainly cannot explain how men came to be, how a microorganism was transformed by chance into a human being.

[Extra Stout]

Since RandomGuy has been so thoroughly routed, I am going to switch sides and debate hegamboa.

Why do certain non-living thermal proteins organize themselves into self-replicating protocells? Could these not have been a primitive form of life?

[Guru of Nothing]

Since RandomGuy has been so thoroughly routed, I am going to switch sides and debate hegamboa.

Why do certain non-living thermal proteins organize themselves into self-replicating protocells? Could these not have been a primitive form of life?

Cliff Notes please - Is Jesus the son of God?

That's all I want to know.

[smeagol]

Cliff Notes please - Is Jesus the son of God?

That's all I want to know.
In my book he is.

But I'm just a stupid 'ol Christian . . .

[RandomGuy]

You are rather aggressively confrontational for someone that dodges a fair share of questions.


You have not asked me a question yet.

[RandomGuy]

Again, what environment drove the need to create a molecule that would 'want' to just keep getting more and more and more and more ordered.



By your own admission, once again the earth is not a closed system. New energy is constantly put into the system from our star, making local entropy kind of meaningless.

The thing about evolutionary processes is that the best adaptation wins. If that adaptation allows for more successful competition for resources it will win out, even if that adaptation is more complex.

[sabar]

Evolution is a consequence of natural selection and adaptation, nothing more. Such a clever system too.

Let's get away from prions and look at something more plausible. Lets start with some facts.

1. Amino acids can be randomly produced in the old Earth;s atmosphere, as proved by Stanley Miller in the 50's.
2. The created amino acids cannot survive in the primordial soup of the ocean; they are immediately broken down.
3. The amino acids have to be created in the atmosphere and fall as acid rain, creating the "catching" system that Miller used. We now have the building blocks of life, not destroyed.

Anyways, we have a missing link here, how these things, even if formed into simple proteins replicated. We will look at some important lab observations and how they might have created life.

First, It has been shown that phospholipid bilayers spontaneously form. This is a consequence of how the phospholipids themselves get arranged, and is very plausible. This would create the membrance of a cell, but how this is combined with some kind of "replicator" is unknown.

Next, nucleotides can randomly form into simple RNA. An interesting thing here is the Ribozyme, which in labs have been shown that they can catalyze their own creation. Ribozymes are quite rare today, but in the early earth there would have been a huge consequence as a result of natural selection. Ribozymes that catalyze the fastest and most efficient are replicated by themselves. Mistakes will occur that allow the catalyzation of peptides: the first proteins are cretaed and the first Ribosome. Proteins are more efficient at catalyzing, making them the building blocks of life. Ribosomes will exist to take RNA information to create more proteins, and RNA exists only for the genome, as simple as this first one will be.

The only problem with the whole model?
We have a missing link. It would have taken some serious mutations for a simple randomly produced RNA to be able to catalyze itself and replicate, mutations not possible with current theories on what substances were in the atmosphere. This problem is being worked on as we speak. The theories on the origin of life are not old, this is all modern stuff. Miller only solved one problem 50 years ago, there are many more holes to iron out.

And for some interesting reading and further analysis, check out this linky. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Origin_of_life)

[Yonivore]

In my book he is.

But I'm just a stupid 'ol Christian . . .
Don't misunderstimate your position; there are smart Christians who believe the same thing.

[Phenomanul]

Evolution is a consequence of natural selection and adaptation, nothing more. Such a clever system too.

Let's get away from prions and look at something more plausible. Lets start with some facts.

1. Amino acids can be randomly produced in the old Earth;s atmosphere, as proved by Stanley Miller in the 50's.
2. The created amino acids cannot survive in the primordial soup of the ocean; they are immediately broken down.
3. The amino acids have to be created in the atmosphere and fall as acid rain, creating the "catching" system that Miller used. We now have the building blocks of life, not destroyed.

Anyways, we have a missing link here, how these things, even if formed into simple proteins replicated. We will look at some important lab observations and how they might have created life.

First, It has been shown that phospholipid bilayers spontaneously form. This is a consequence of how the phospholipids themselves get arranged, and is very plausible. This would create the membrance of a cell, but how this is combined with some kind of "replicator" is unknown.

Next, nucleotides can randomly form into simple RNA. An interesting thing here is the Ribozyme, which in labs have been shown that they can catalyze their own creation. Ribozymes are quite rare today, but in the early earth there would have been a huge consequence as a result of natural selection. Ribozymes that catalyze the fastest and most efficient are replicated by themselves. Mistakes will occur that allow the catalyzation of peptides: the first proteins are cretaed and the first Ribosome. Proteins are more efficient at catalyzing, making them the building blocks of life. Ribosomes will exist to take RNA information to create more proteins, and RNA exists only for the genome, as simple as this first one will be.

The only problem with the whole model?
We have a missing link. It would have taken some serious mutations for a simple randomly produced RNA to be able to catalyze itself and replicate, mutations not possible with current theories on what substances were in the atmosphere. This problem is being worked on as we speak. The theories on the origin of life are not old, this is all modern stuff. Miller only solved one problem 50 years ago, there are many more holes to iron out.

And for some interesting reading and further analysis, check out this linky. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Origin_of_life)

Only when one assumes that about 1.9 billion years ago the earth's atmosphere was a reducing mixture of nitrogen (N2), methane (CH4), water vapor (H2O), and possibly ammonia (NH3)...

This has since been demonstrated to be a false assumption based on geology...

[Phenomanul]

Since RandomGuy has been so thoroughly routed, I am going to switch sides and debate hegamboa.

Why do certain non-living thermal proteins organize themselves into self-replicating protocells? Could these not have been a primitive form of life?


It's possible. One cannot dismiss that conclusion outright. The odds against the formation of thermal proteins (non-polypetide polymers of pure amino acids) are still insanely small. NOT because their formation is not possible, simply because the requisite factors needed for their creation are an unlikely mix, and because the the starting recipe (a mixture of dry, pure amino acids) has no natural explanation.

I remembered reading awhile back an article that expained the incongruencies of Sydney Fox's thermal proteins (many of them pointed out by Miller; the one who formed amino-acids in a famous 1953 experiment with Urey):


http://www.icr.org/article/79/

[sabar]

Only when one assumes that about 1.9 billion years ago the earth's atmosphere was a reducing mixture of nitrogen (N2), methane (CH4), water vapor (H2O), and possibly ammonia (NH3)...

This has since been demonstrated to be a false assumption based on geology...

Good point, but the atmosphere of CO/CO2/N2, which is what is thought it was now is just as suitable as CH4 and NH3. [1 (http://www.science.siu.edu/microbiology/micr425/425Notes/14-OriginLife.html)] . The key is the lack of O2, which should not have come up until photosynthetic organisms did.

Also check out the Murchison meteorite. Assuming these were common in the early solar system, amino acids could have very well have come from space. Theoretically a molecular cloud could create the building blocks of life, but these theories are all as recent as 2004.

Also, this is not to say Mr. Miller was a genius and solved everything in a simple experiment. His experiments have been redone countless times with different atmospheres. Also, there are indications that there may have been a significantly higher amount of H in the atmosphere, which would have seriously hindered any natural creation.

[RandomGuy]

You are rather aggressively confrontational for someone that dodges a fair share of questions. You will and have only seen this as a game of numbers. But chemistry is not governed by odds. You still have failed to find a suitable explanation as to why you keep harping on your statistical background to try and answer questions that are related to a field in which you have only limited grasp of?

Under your odds (and with infinite universes) the probality would always be 99.9999999999%. In fact, the probability that anything could happen would always be 99.999999999999%. But that's not how the universe works. So no, it is not a fair assessment.

OK I really have to go... I'm late.

Logic.
a=somthing happens on 1 in 100,000,000,000 planets.
b=there are 100,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 planets

If something only happens on 1 in 100,000,000,000 planets, then there are 100,000,000,000 planets that thing has happened on.

Is this argument logically consistant?

[RandomGuy]

Since RandomGuy has been so thoroughly routed, I am going to switch sides and debate hegamboa.

Why do certain non-living thermal proteins organize themselves into self-replicating protocells? Could these not have been a primitive form of life?

If by "thoroughly routed", you mean "took his 3 year old to the park, spent the weekend doing housework, homework, and having a beer with friends" I guess you are right about that. :lol

I think have actually made my point rather well, and extracted, albeit reluctantly, an admission about the nature of the universe.

Going on to chemistry and randomness.

In a hypothically pure glass of water, are all the molecules identical?

[Phenomanul]

Logic.
a=somthing happens on 1 in 100,000,000,000 planets.
b=there are 100,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 planets

If something only happens on 1 in 100,000,000,000 planets, then there are 100,000,000,000 planets that thing has happened on.

Is this argument logically consistant?


The problem being that there is no reciprocal amount of life bearing planets totaling 10^-121.

Before you go on reposting your question (thus having ignored my responses to your posts).

Logically consistent -- yes.
Statistically relevant -- no.

BTW do you realize how unique the physical constants in this universe are?

Here is an excerpt from the Francis Collins' book I linked earlier:

In the early moments of the universe following the Big Bang, matter and antimatter were created in almost equivalent amounts. At one millisecond of time, the universe cooled enough for quarks and anti-quarks to "condense out." Any quark encountering an antiquark, which would happen quickly at this high density, resulted in the complete annihilation of both and the release of a photon of energy. But the symmetry between matter and antimatter was not quite precise; for about every billion pair of quarks and antiquarks, there was one extra quark. It is that tiny fraction of the initial potentiality of the entire universe that makes up the mass of the universe as we now know it.

Why did this asymmetry exist? It would seem more "natural" for there to be no asymmetry. But if there had been complete symmetry between matter and antimatter, the universe would quickly have devolved into pure radiation, and people, planets, stars, and galaxies would never have come into existence.

The way in which the universe expanded after the Big Bang depended critically on how much total mass and energy the universe had (and the precise asymmetry between matter and antimatter pointed out above), and also on the strength of the gravitational constant. The incredible degree of fine-tuning of these physical constants has been a subject of wonder for many experts.

Steven Hawking writes: "Why did the universe start out with so nearly the critical rate of expansion that separates modes that recollapse from those that go on expanding forever, that even now, 10 thousand million years later, it is still expanding at nearly the critical rate? If the rate of expansion one second after the Big Bang had been smaller by even one part in 100 thousand million million, the universe would have recollapsed before it ever reached its present size."

If on the other hand, the rate of expansion had been greater by even one part in a million, stars and planets could not have been able to form. Recent theories involving an incredibly rapid expansion (inflation) of the universe at very early times appear to offer a partial explanation for why the present expansion is so close to the critical value. However, many cosmologists would say that this simply pushes the question back to why the universe had just the right properties to undergo such an inflationary expansion. the existence of a universe as we know it rests upon a knife edge of improbability.

The same remarkable circumstance applies to the formation of heavier elements. If the strong nuclear force that holds together protons and neutrons had been even slightly weaker, then only hydrogen could have formed in the universe. If, on the other hand, the strong nuclear force had been slightly stronger, all the hydrogen would have been converted to helium, instead of the 25% that occured early in the Big Bang, and thus the fusion furnaces of stars and their ability to generate heavier elements would never have been born.

Adding to this remarkable observation, the nuclear force appears to be tuned just sufficiently for carbon to form, which is critical for all life forms on Earth. Had the force been just slightly more attractive, all the carbon would have been converted to oxygen.

Altogether, there are fifteen physical constants whose values current theory is unable to completely predict. They are givens: they simply have the value that they have. This list includes the speed of light, the strength of the weak and strong nuclear forces, various parameters associated with electromagnetism (such as Coulomb's constant), the gravitational constant etc... The chance that all of these constants would have taken on the values necessary to result in a stable universe capable of sustaining complex life forms is almost infintesimal. And yet those are exactly the parameters that we observe.

In sum, our universe is wildly improbable, and not as probable as you make it out to be... and also a reason why the multiverse model has encountered so much resistance of late.

[Phenomanul]

Good point, but the atmosphere of CO/CO2/N2, which is what is thought it was now is just as suitable as CH4 and NH3. [1 (http://www.science.siu.edu/microbiology/micr425/425Notes/14-OriginLife.html)] . The key is the lack of O2, which should not have come up until photosynthetic organisms did.

Also check out the Murchison meteorite. Assuming these were common in the early solar system, amino acids could have very well have come from space. Theoretically a molecular cloud could create the building blocks of life, but these theories are all as recent as 2004.

Also, this is not to say Mr. Miller was a genius and solved everything in a simple experiment. His experiments have been redone countless times with different atmospheres. Also, there are indications that there may have been a significantly higher amount of H in the atmosphere, which would have seriously hindered any natural creation.

Meteorites entering the earth would have boiled off any organic matter. It is more likely that meteorites became contaminated with earth bacteria after having landed. Consider the fact that some of the Murchison meteorites from 1969 lay in a field 4 to 5 months before being collected.

I do however believe that certain gas clouds in the universe have just the right mixtures of compounds necessary to create amino acids (from solar radiation). The closest such cloud however, is in the Andromeda galaxy.

Ever heard of the 'garbage theory'... one that states that aliens came to earth, had a picnic and inadvertantly left some food crumbs around before their departure... and bam!! the origin of life. There are many theories out there.

[RandomGuy]

The problem being that there is no reciprocal amount of life bearing planets totaling 10^-121.

Before you go on reposting your question (thus having ignored my responses to your posts).

Logically consistent -- yes.
Statistically relevant -- no.

BTW do you realize how unique the physical constants in this universe are?



I ignored the responses to my posts because I was seeking yes or no answers, not "yes, but..." answers. I will get to those eventually, but wanted to make sure that some things were agreed on before continuing.

The number 10^-121 is derived from what calculation?

Yes, I realize how unique the physical constants in the universe are. If they were not, we would not be having this conversation. :lol

[RandomGuy]

Also, this is not to say Mr. Miller was a genius and solved everything in a simple experiment. His experiments have been redone countless times with different atmospheres. Also, there are indications that there may have been a significantly higher amount of H in the atmosphere, which would have seriously hindered any natural creation.

Would H, being less dense than the rest of the gases, over time simply rise to the top of the atmosphere and get blown off by the solar wind?

Just curious.

It is my understanding that planets slowly lose atmosphere over time.

[Yonivore]

Francis Collins. Isn't he Phil's younger brother? Smart guy, that Frankie.

[Phenomanul]

I ignored the responses to my posts because I was seeking yes or no answers, not "yes, but..." answers. I will get to those eventually, but wanted to make sure that some things were agreed on before continuing.
Except I was already giving you reasons for you not to continue down that path. Reasons you completely ignored.




The number 10^-121 is derived from what calculation?

About 4 pages ago.... remember the 1/(4^200)? -- simple odds for the formation of a DNA molecule with 200 bases...



Yes, I realize how unique the physical constants in the universe are. If they were not, we would not be having this conversation. :lol
Ah yes.... The Anthropic Principle...

[Extra Stout]

If by "thoroughly routed", you mean "took his 3 year old to the park, spent the weekend doing housework, homework, and having a beer with friends" I guess you are right about that. :lol

I think have actually made my point rather well, and extracted, albeit reluctantly, an admission about the nature of the universe.

Going on to chemistry and randomness.

In a hypothically pure glass of water, are all the molecules identical?
Of course not. 1 x 10-7 molecules per mole exist as H3O+, and another 1 x 10-7 exist as OH-. A small number of hydrogen atoms exist as deuterium, and an even smaller number exist as tritium.

About your earlier point about the likelihood of life emerging by random on a given planet versus the number of planets, nobody can evaluate the Drake equation to a sufficient resolution so as to say with any confidence whether it is statistically expected for life to emerge on 100,000,000 planets or 10 planets or 1 or 0.00000000000001. So your point is speculative.

Oh, I forgot something else you're going to need for life: something to make it out of. We like carbon. Boro-nitrogen structure could be feasible.

[RandomGuy]

4^200? -- simple odds for the formation of a DNA molecule with 200 bases...



So this assumes that

1) The sequence for self replication uses all 4 nucleotides, and
2) is 200 bases long.

An interesting aspect of the coding for amino acids is that many of them can be coded for using only two nucleotides.

Let's go with the assumption that self-replication is simpler by half than the prion given, and that this molecule uses only two nucleotides.

What would the number 2^100 be in base ten?

[RandomGuy]

Of course not. 1 x 10-7 molecules per mole exist as H3O+, and another 1 x 10-7 exist as OH-. A small number of hydrogen atoms exist as deuterium, and an even smaller number exist as tritium.

Good.

So if I were to be able to follow a molecule of water for a billion years in this glass of water, would that molecule always be H2O, or would it occasionally break apart and then become an OH-, float around for a while, then bump into an H30+ and go back to its former identity as an H2O molecule?

[Phenomanul]

Of course not. 1 x 10-7 molecules per mole exist as H3O+, and another 1 x 10-7 exist as OH-. A small number of hydrogen atoms exist as deuterium, and an even smaller number exist as tritium.

About your earlier point about the likelihood of life emerging by random on a given planet versus the number of planets, nobody can evaluate the Drake equation

to a sufficient resolution so as to say with any confidence whether it is statistically expected for life to emerge on 100,000,000 planets or 10 planets or 1 or 0.00000000000001. So your point is speculative.

Oh, I forgot something else you're going to need for life: something to make it out of. We like carbon. Boro-nitrogen structure could be feasible.


For those who may not know...

Another excerpt from Francis Collins' book:

The Drake equation is most useful as a way of documenting the state of our ignorance. Frank Drake noted, simply and logically that the number of communicating civilizations in our own galaxy must be the product of seven factors:

--- the number of stars in the Milky Way galaxy (about 100 billion) times

--- the fraction of stars that have planets around them, times

--- the number of planets per star that are capable of sustaining life, times

--- the fraction of those planets where life actually evolves, times

--- the fraction of these where the life that evolves is intelligent, times

--- the fraction of these that actually developed the ability to communicate, times

--- the fraction of these planets' life during which the ability to communicate overlaps with ours...

We have been able to communicate beyond Earth for less that a hundred years. So if we assume the earth is 4.5 billion years, Drake's last factor reflects only a tiny fraction of Earth's years of existence: 0.000000022

Drake's formula is interesting but essentially useless, because of our inability to state with any degree of certainty the value of almost all of the terms except for the number of stars in the Milky Way galaxy. Certainly other stars have been discovered with planets around them, but the rest of the terms remain hidden in mystery.

[Yonivore]

For those who may not know...

Another excerpt from Francis Collins' book:

The Drake equation is most useful as a way of documenting the state of our ignorance. Frank Drake noted, simply and logically that the number of communicating civilizations in our own galaxy must be the product of seven factors:

--- the number of stars in the Milky Way galaxy (about 100 billion) times

--- the fraction of stars that have planets around them, times

--- the number of planets per star that are capable of sustaining life, times

--- the fraction of those planets where life actually evolves, times

--- the fraction of these where the life that evolves is intelligent, times

--- the fraction of these that actually developed the ability to communicate, times

--- the fraction of these planets' life during which the ability to communicate overlaps with ours...

We have been able to communicate beyond Earth for less that a hundred years. So if we assume the earth is 4.5 billion years, Drake's last factor reflects only a tiny fraction of Earth's years of existence: 0.000000022

Drake's formula is interesting but essentially useless, because of our inability to state with any degree of certainty the value of almost all of the terms except for the number of stars in the Milky Way galaxy. Certainly other stars have been discovered with planets around them, but the rest of the terms remain hidden in mystery.
Yeah, but can he play drums like his bro?

[Phenomanul]

So this assumes that

1) The sequence for self replication uses all 4 nucleotides, and
2) is 200 bases long.

An interesting aspect of the coding for amino acids is that many of them can be coded for using only two nucleotides.

Let's go with the assumption that self-replication is simpler by half than the prion given, and that this molecule uses only two nucleotides.

What would the number 2^100 be in base ten?


I'll answer your question first... 1/(2^100) = 7.89 x 10^-31

And then explain why this is less relevant than the first number...

If anything the prion base pair requirement should not have been halved... it should have been quintupled... i.e. the simplest one is still 1000 pairs long.

So even when we assume that only two nucleotides are used.
1/(2^1000) ends up being a much smaller number than 1/(4^200)....

try.... 9.33 x 10^-302

Now consider where 200 base-pair figure came from: This figure allows for the coding of one of the smallest known proteins; albeit, using the DNA/RNA pathway that requires the existence of roughly 120 other proteins (rather large ones at that).

Even some of the simpler (self catalyzing) ribozymes mentioned earlier by sabar are at least 350 polypeptides long.

[temujin]

If I'm wrong... nothing will happen.

But if 'belief in salvation through GOD' was right... some of you all (I don't know who -- only you do) will not get the chance to remediate or recant your decisions.

So will you.

Imperscrutabilis Deus.

[temujin]

not to mention being good for the sake of being good is moraly superior to being good to please your god.

hence the eventual good man.
Denis Bergamp.

[temujin]

Lots of mistakes but remarkable discussion anyway.

And don't forget the key issue.

Why is Nothing (Pure emptyness, Non-Being) non-existent?
And why all sensible "things" exist at all?

[LaMarcus Bryant]

but the christian god designed it, intelligently!

[boutons_]

"Pure emptyness, Non-Being ... non-existent"

Eastern thought disagrees. Existence and non-existence .... co-exist

[Phenomanul]

"Pure emptyness, Non-Being ... non-existent"

Eastern thought disagrees. Existence and non-existence .... co-exist


It is the concept that lies behind the emergence of 'zero' as a number.... which was introduced by the much saner and more progressive Islamic era.... <--- a distant cry from today's version...

[Extra Stout]

Good.

So if I were to be able to follow a molecule of water for a billion years in this glass of water, would that molecule always be H2O, or would it occasionally break apart and then become an OH-, float around for a while, then bump into an H30+ and go back to its former identity as an H2O molecule?

More likely, it would evaporate. :spin

[Extra Stout]

"Pure emptyness, Non-Being ... non-existent"

Eastern thought disagrees. Existence and non-existence .... co-exist
If we were all schooled in Eastern thought... this discussion would be moot. :elephant

[Phenomanul]

So will you.

Imperscrutabilis Deus.


Yes indeed... I'm accountable before GOD as well - there's no denying that.... except I have One who fights for me, my Just Lawyer -- Jesus Christ.

In either case, the point was that if I'm wrong nothing will happen... I will just die and never again be of any relevance. Nothing negative from my perspective considering I would not be around to perceive that feeling anyways. However if I'm right, I will be glad I chose to place my trust and faith in He who redeemed my inadequacies and shortcomings.

[sabar]

On an off-topic note.

I'd like to think the reason we debate on this thread is to find the truth, to become wise and not push our own points of view.

Now if only politics worked the same.

Keep it up people!

[Phenomanul]

I'd like to think the reason we debate on this thread is to find the truth, to become wise and not push our own points of view.

Now if only politics worked the same. Hand our leaders a copy of Plato's Republic.


The original comment was made in response to the question of whether or not GOD's existence is relevant to the transcendence of our own. It wasn't made to belittle discussion or repress beliefs.

In other words... If GOD does exist, how does my life fit into a scheme that may have ramifications in the afterlife. And if He doesn't... does it even matter what we believe?

[sabar]

Sorry, wasn't clear, that wasn't in response to anything.
I'll get to the question in a moment. Temp answer then I need sleep to think.

[sabar]

Temporary answers while I think and sleep.

If God does exist, how does your life fit?
This depends on one of two things. Either God does not care what you do, or he expects something of you. If it is the first, it is as if he does not exist. There is no meaning to life and there may or may not be an afterlife. Thus, it does not matter if this is the truth. Your life is as you define it and you must find something to please yourself.

If there is no God?
Then we die, there is no afterlife, there is no reason to life or to live or for anything to exist. This does not matter if this is the truth. Your life is whatever you define it to be, and only you can find your own personal truth to get the most pleasure from life.

So if there is a God and he expects something? What does he expect?
To live a moral life? To just believe in him? To prove his existance and find the meaning of life?

The problem with this subject is that it branches off in a thousand directions.

So to get to the original question.
We should live a just and moral life regardless of the existance of a God. God helps justify this life, but is not required. If he exists, it reinforces my statement. If he doesn't, my statement still stands, as is argued by Plato on why a just life is worth living. It matters what be believe regardless, otherwise people would walk around killing eachother and just doing whatever pleasures them the most.

[RandomGuy]

So this assumes that

1) The sequence for self replication uses all 4 nucleotides, and
2) is 200 bases long.

An interesting aspect of the coding for amino acids is that many of them can be coded for using only two nucleotides.

Let's go with the assumption that self-replication is simpler by half than the prion given, and that this molecule uses only two nucleotides.

What would the number 2^100 be in base ten?

--RG


I'll answer your question first... 1/(2^100) = 7.89 x 10^-31
["but"... part of answer truncated--RG]


So by changing the two basic assumptions in your calculation, most of those zeros that made this "infinitesmally small" just went away.

Fascinating.

I gotta get to work, but I will get back to this bit later.

[RandomGuy]

Good.

So if I were to be able to follow a molecule of water for a billion years in this glass of water, would that molecule always be H2O, or would it occasionally break apart and then become an OH-, float around for a while, then bump into an H30+ and go back to its former identity as an H2O molecule? --RG


[no answer]

Yes or no, is this or is this not an accurate description?

[RandomGuy]

We should live a just and moral life regardless of the existance of a God. God helps justify this life, but is not required. If he exists, it reinforces my statement. If he doesn't, my statement still stands, as is argued by Plato on why a just life is worth living. It matters what be believe regardless, otherwise people would walk around killing eachother and just doing whatever pleasures them the most.

I agree.

[Phenomanul]

So this assumes that

1) The sequence for self replication uses all 4 nucleotides, and
2) is 200 bases long.

An interesting aspect of the coding for amino acids is that many of them can be coded for using only two nucleotides.

Let's go with the assumption that self-replication is simpler by half than the prion given, and that this molecule uses only two nucleotides.

What would the number 2^100 be in base ten?

--RG



So by changing the two basic assumptions in your calculation, most of those zeros that made this "infinitesmally small" just went away.

Fascinating.

I gotta get to work, but I will get back to this bit later.


My you are stubborn. I was refraining from having to say it.

Molecular genetics, or reaction kinetics cannot be constrained to a model of statistical chance and probability. And yet you keep insisting on trying to define those fields with that language alone... tsk, tsk, tsk....


Example A.

Polyurethane... does this compound exist. Yes. Does it exist in nature... No. Can one assume then that given all the time in the universe that this polymer would arise on its own? No. There is no natural mechanism for it. The polymer was designed and created by humans...

Your model however wishes to imply that many planets out there have just the right conditions to make it happen... it's pure speculation on your part. You then insist that having infinite universes to do it in will increase your odds... you think so without realizing how unique and improbable this universe actually is, and how the use of said factor in your calcs is again speculative. You further wish to simplify the problem by assuming that reaction kinetics are not relevant. Your simple 'poker' model in no way reflects the reality of the subjectmatter at hand.



So when I read,


["but"... part of answer truncated--RG]

The message I'm really reading is that you are reluctant to address the flaws in your model.

[Yonivore]

My you are stubborn. I was refraining from having to say it.
Yeah, well, you'll be saying much worse if you continue trying to reason with him. That's why I have Random Guy on ignore.

[Phenomanul]

Temporary answers while I think and sleep.

If God does exist, how does your life fit?
This depends on one of two things. Either God does not care what you do, or he expects something of you. If it is the first, it is as if he does not exist. There is no meaning to life and there may or may not be an afterlife. Thus, it does not matter if this is the truth. Your life is as you define it and you must find something to please yourself.

If there is no God?
Then we die, there is no afterlife, there is no reason to life or to live or for anything to exist. This does not matter if this is the truth. Your life is whatever you define it to be, and only you can find your own personal truth to get the most pleasure from life.

So if there is a God and he expects something? What does he expect?
To live a moral life? To just believe in him? To prove his existance and find the meaning of life?

The problem with this subject is that it branches off in a thousand directions.

So to get to the original question.
We should live a just and moral life regardless of the existance of a God. God helps justify this life, but is not required. If he exists, it reinforces my statement. If he doesn't, my statement still stands, as is argued by Plato on why a just life is worth living. It matters what be believe regardless, otherwise people would walk around killing eachother and just doing whatever pleasures them the most.

That's nice and all... but none of this addresses the afterlife... nor does it factor in the fact that if GOD did exist, and has revealed enough of His Nature to establish a moral code, that we are and would be held accountable for our actions according to said code.

Without an establishment of moral guidelines... what is 'just' and 'moral' for one man, may not be for another. Moralistic relativism is inherently incompatible with the existence of GOD... think about it.

The interpretation of GOD's 'moral code' therefore, is what should be (and is) subject for much debate.

Also, Plato's thinking was incomplete because it ignored the above permutation; one that should have been derived by that very same logic.

[Extra Stout]

Good.

So if I were to be able to follow a molecule of water for a billion years in this glass of water, would that molecule always be H2O, or would it occasionally break apart and then become an OH-, float around for a while, then bump into an H30+ and go back to its former identity as an H2O molecule? --RG



Yes or no, is this or is this not an accurate description?

They would exchange protons once every 11 hours.

Actually, dissociation and association are taking place constantly every few femtoseconds because of electrical field fluctuations, but on great occasion this fluctuation will coincide with the disruption of a hydrogen bond network, so that rapid recombination cannot occur.

This is assuming ambient pressures, of course.

[RandomGuy]

The message I'm really reading is that you are reluctant to address the flaws in your model.

Honestly, I would love to, had I the time to adequately do so. I have to fit this in when I can, and since the beginning of the semester, and since my wife has gone back to work, requiring me to pull more weight around the house, that time is limited.

Honestly, economics interests me more than this thread, so I have thus far limited myself timewise for this thread, for that you have my sincere apologies. You deserve better.

[RandomGuy]

They would exchange protons once every 11 hours.

Actually, dissociation and association are taking place constantly every few femtoseconds because of electrical field fluctuations, but on great occasion this fluctuation will coincide with the disruption of a hydrogen bond network, so that rapid recombination cannot occur.

This is assuming ambient pressures, of course.

Once every eleven hours, now we are getting somewhere. So following this molecule around would be something that I could set my watch by? Like a radium clock? It would exchange protons every 11 hours for a billion years?

[Extra Stout]

Once every eleven hours, now we are getting somewhere. So following this molecule around would be something that I could set my watch by? Like a radium clock? It would exchange protons every 11 hours for a billion years?
No. The 11 hours is an average.

[Yonivore]

This has got to be one of the most entertaining threads in the history of this forum.

[RandomGuy]

No. The 11 hours is an average.

An average then. That would imply a mean would it not?

[Extra Stout]

An average then. That would imply a mean would it not?
As opposed to a mode? OK. (Since this would be a perfect normal distribution, it would be the median too.)

[Phenomanul]

As opposed to a mode? OK. (Since this would be a perfect normal distribution, it would be the median too.)


And here are the properties which RG has yet to factor in....

Temperature, Pressure, Electric Field Strength, Radiation Field Strength (gamma, x-ray, ultra-violet etc...)

Unless all of these parameters are fixed, every one of those glasses of water will be different.

[RandomGuy]

As opposed to a mode? OK. (Since this would be a perfect normal distribution, it would be the median too.)

A perfect normal distribution. Doesn't that only happen in random phenomena?

[RandomGuy]

And here are the properties which RG has yet to factor in....

Temperature, Pressure, Electric Field Strength

Unless all of these parameters are fixed, every one of those glasses of water will be different.

Then when the parameters are changed, will each glass of water have a mean time too, depending on those factors?

[Phenomanul]

Then when the parameters are changed, will each glass of water have a mean time too, depending on those factors?

There will be a multitude of permutations you would have to consider... many of which would change the state of the water into ice, or vapor. Not surprisingly, upon conversion to vapor the molecules would never behave the same. Which reminds me... I forgot to mention time.

The dynamics of these parameter permutations would probably yield more non-steady states than steady ones. Only the steady ones would subscribe to your 'normal distribution' theory.

[Extra Stout]

A perfect normal distribution. Doesn't that only happen in random phenomena?
It has to do with the sample size as opposed to the "randomness." In 11 hours, that water molecule will have undergone something like 1E19 electron field fluctuations, and 1E16 hydrogen bond rearrangements.

[Phenomanul]

Which beckons the question??? Is anything in nature completely steady?

[Extra Stout]

Oh, all these numbers are assuming standard temperature and pressure. As pressure increases, the mean time for dissociation decreases.

[Extra Stout]

Which beckons the question??? Is anything in nature completely steady?
Scientists make simplifying assumptions.

[Phenomanul]

Scientists make simplifying assumptions.


And why simple statistical models don't reflect reality.

[RandomGuy]

Then when the parameters are changed, will each glass of water have a mean time too, depending on those factors? --RG


There will be a multitude of permutations you would have to consider... many of which would change the state of the water into ice, or vapor. Not surprisingly, upon conversion to vapor the molecules would never behave the same. Which reminds me... I forgot to mention time.

The dynamics of these parameter permutations would probably yield more non-steady states than steady ones. Only the steady ones would subscribe to your 'normal distribution' theory.

I will take that is "yes", right?

[RandomGuy]

A perfect normal distribution. Doesn't that only happen in random phenomena? --RG


It has to do with the sample size as opposed to the "randomness." In 11 hours, that water molecule will have undergone something like 1E19 electron field fluctuations, and 1E16 hydrogen bond rearrangements.

And these field fluctuations are perfectly predictable phenemona?

Each field fluctuation represents a seperate occurance that may or may not produce an OH- or H3O+ ?

[RandomGuy]

Which beckons the question??? Is anything in nature completely steady?


Nope. They are subject to random variations. There is that "random" word again. :angel

[Extra Stout]

And these field fluctuations are perfectly predictable phenemona?Well, to the degree that quantum theory can explain them, yes.


Each field fluctuation represents a seperate occurance that may or may not produce an OH- or H3O+ ?
Well, strictly speaking, each field fluctuation does produce an OH- and and H30+. The hydrogren bonds create sort of a "wire" where the electrons can flow back and forth analogous to what they do in metal. The bonds along the "wire" are kind of a hybrid between a covalent bond and a hydrogen bond shared among all the molecules in that "wire." You know how in a benzene ring the bonds are neither single nor double, but a hybrid?

So all the molecules in that "wire" are halfway between being ions and not. But then every picosecond or so, the hydrogen bond networks shift, and one of the molecules somewhere in the middle of the old wire ends up either with an extra proton or ends up a proton short.

And all these "shifts" are caused by the excitement of electrons by their interaction with the environment.

[Phenomanul]

Then when the parameters are changed, will each glass of water have a mean time too, depending on those factors? --RG


I will take that is "yes", right?

Nope....

Not where you keep trying to take the logic. Ever heard of Brownian motion... or the Heisenberg Uncertainty principle? There are certain random processes that are not subjectable to precise predictability.

Anyways the few permutations that would allow for a steady state. Would still not be 'identical'.

[RandomGuy]

Nope....

Not where you keep trying to take the logic. Ever heard of Brownian motion... or the Heisenberg Uncertainty principle? There are certain random processes that are not subjectable to precise predictability.

Anyways the few permutations that would allow for a steady state. Would still not be 'identical'.

So it is impossible to measure anything and it is impossible for anybody to replicate anybody else's experiments?

How did we get physical constants and equations that describe physics?

[RandomGuy]

Well, to the degree that quantum theory can explain them, yes.


Well, strictly speaking, each field fluctuation does produce an OH- and and H30+. The hydrogren bonds create sort of a "wire" where the electrons can flow back and forth analogous to what they do in metal. The bonds along the "wire" are kind of a hybrid between a covalent bond and a hydrogen bond shared among all the molecules in that "wire." You know how in a benzene ring the bonds are neither single nor double, but a hybrid?

So all the molecules in that "wire" are halfway between being ions and not. But then every picosecond or so, the hydrogen bond networks shift, and one of the molecules somewhere in the middle of the old wire ends up either with an extra proton or ends up a proton short.

And all these "shifts" are caused by the excitement of electrons by their interaction with the environment.

So each molecule has a chance of being at the end of the wire and becoming an ion?

[RandomGuy]

Ok, spidey fans follow the methods of obfuscation here.


I'll answer your question first... 1/(2^100) = 7.89 x 10^-31

And then explain why this is less relevant than the first number...

If anything the prion base pair requirement should not have been halved... it should have been quintupled... i.e. the simplest one is still 1000 pairs long.

So even when we assume that only two nucleotides are used.
1/(2^1000) ends up being a much smaller number than 1/(4^200)....
try.... 9.33 x 10^-302

By your own admission present day organisms are more complex than past organisms.
Based on the observed fact that organisms become more complicated over time, would a prions 4 billion years ago be more or less complex than observed ones today?


Even some of the simpler (self catalyzing) ribozymes mentioned earlier by sabar are at least 350 polypeptides long.

So here is actually a more relevant tidbit as, to my understanding, prions aren't entirely self-replicating.

How long is the simplest self-catalyzing ribozyme?

[Phenomanul]

So it is impossible to measure anything and it is impossible for anybody to replicate anybody else's experiments?

How did we get physical constants and equations that describe physics?


Don't digress... that's not what you're looking for... you've been keying this whole repetitive conversation in order to justify the basis for using speculative parameters in a simple statistical model? One that implies that the odds for the formation of complex biological molecules is independent of kinetic limitations. That's the gist of it no?

When confronted about the fact that the existence of multiple factors precludes the use of simple mathematical models, you then go on to say that 'randomness' becomes the basis for your calculations.

When confronted about the fact that 'randomness' cannot be predicted without first having to assume constants for factors that are actually changing... you then question the validity of physical constants; these, of course being derived from data and multiple equations that eliminate as many of the degrees of freedom as possible... this elimination in turn allowed by incorporating as many functions as possible (none of which include any of the typcial 'random' functions).

The key point in all this being that by trying to use a simplified model your calculated odds are much higher than would be calculated if all the kinetic limitations were factored in. How would you? One would have to know exactly which path led to the formation of proteins... otherwise it would all be pure speculation. One thing is for certain though... the odds get smaller; not greater by factoring in the limitations. Wanting thus, to factor in a corrolary of Drake's equation into the mix is also highly speculative in nature since you would have no 'earthly' clue for deriving the amount of earth-like-life-sustaining planets/moons in our universe. Claiming then that multiple universes solved the problem was also far fetched considering that the emergence of this one was highly improbable to begin with.

[Phenomanul]

Ok, spidey fans follow the methods of obfuscation here.

By your own admission present day organisms are more complex than past organisms.
Based on the observed fact that organisms become more complicated over time, would a prions 4 billion years ago be more or less complex than observed ones today?

I promise to give you an answer if you would at least read the fallacy of your logic first.

Based on the behavior of prions today... it is unlikely that they developed before DNA/RNA... which makes the question moot and thus the answer becomes .... irrelevant.



So here is actually a more relevant tidbit as, to my understanding, prions aren't entirely self-replicating.

How long is the simplest self-catalyzing ribozyme?

About 95 base pairs (using all 4 bases) but with the additional incorporation of 4 functional groups not found in any of the amino acids (some small, some complex):

SO4 SULFATE ION
O4 S 2-

P1P 3-{[OXIDO(OXO)PHOSPHINO]OXY}PROPAN-1-OLATE
C3 H6 O4 P -

NCO COBALT HEXAMMINE ION
H18 N6 Co 3+

A2M 2'-METHYL-ADENOSINE-5'-MONOPHOSPHATE
C11 H16 N5 O7 P


So although the 4 others functional groups are located at specific junctions of the chain we would have to assume that their incorporation could have developed anywhere.

What this all means is that you would end up having to use the following number:

1/(8^95) = 1.6 x 10^-86 <--- a number which only gets smaller once kinetic limitations are factored in.



Crystal Structure of a minimal, all-RNA hairpin ribozyme with a propyl linker (C3) at position U39

http://i55.photobucket.com/albums/g138/hegamboa/humanhairpinribozyme.jpg

http://i55.photobucket.com/albums/g138/hegamboa/humanhairpinribozyme2.jpg

Top view
http://i55.photobucket.com/albums/g138/hegamboa/humanhairpinribozyme3.jpg

Yeah it's pretty complex... for being the simplest one we have found so far.

[temujin]

Ok, spidey fans follow the methods of obfuscation here.



By your own admission present day organisms are more complex than past organisms.

Proofs of that, please.


Based on the observed fact that organisms become more complicated over time, would a prions 4 billion years ago be more or less complex than observed ones today?

Essentially impossible to telle.
Hence irrelevant.




So here is actually a more relevant tidbit as, to my understanding, prions aren't entirely self-replicating.

How long is the simplest self-catalyzing ribozyme?

[temujin]

I promise to give you an answer if you would at least read the fallacy of your logic first.

Based on the behavior of prions today... it is unlikely that they developed before DNA/RNA...

Proofs of that.

which makes the question moot and thus the answer becomes .... irrelevant.

Yes.




About 95 base pairs (using all 4 bases) but with the additional incorporation of 4 functional groups not found in any of the amino acids (some small, some complex):

SO4 SULFATE ION O4 S 2-
P1P 3-{[OXIDO(OXO)PHOSPHINO]OXY}PROPAN-1-OLATE C3 H6 O4 P -
NCO COBALT HEXAMMINE ION H18 N6 Co 3+
A2M 2'-METHYL-ADENOSINE-5'-MONOPHOSPHATE C11 H16 N5 O7 P

So although the 4 others functional groups are located at specific junctions of the chain we would have to assume that their incorporation could have developed anywhere.

Proofs of that.


What this all means is that you would end up having to use the following number:

1/(8^95) = 1.6 x 10^-86 <--- a number which only gets smaller once kinetic limitations are factored in.



Crystal Structure of a minimal, all-RNA hairpin ribozyme with a propyl linker (C3) at position U39

http://i55.photobucket.com/albums/g138/hegamboa/humanhairpinribozyme.jpg

http://i55.photobucket.com/albums/g138/hegamboa/humanhairpinribozyme2.jpg

Top view
http://i55.photobucket.com/albums/g138/hegamboa/humanhairpinribozyme3.jpg

Yeah it's pretty complex... for being the simplest one we have found.

It's pretty, right.
And dead boring simple.

[temujin]

So it is impossible to measure anything and it is impossible for anybody to replicate anybody else's experiments?

It sure is possible for most people to repeat most experiments.
It's impossible for some people to replicate most experiment.
Unfortunately, it's impossible for all people to repeat some experiments.


How did we get physical constants and equations that describe physics?

It was a matter of actually doing the experiments, rather chatting about them.

[Phenomanul]

Based on the behavior of prions today... it is unlikely that they developed before DNA/RNA... Proof of that

No proof... just based on observation that the only way prions can replicate is by borrowing several large and complex proteins that exist only because DNA/RNA exists. Hence if DNA/RNA did not exist first... those proteins would have needed independent formation mechanisms of their own (and outside of the DNA/RNA pathway the probability would actually decrease because odds calculated using 20 amino acids as the basis would be lower than odds calculated using 4 base pairs as the basis).

[temujin]

No proof... just based on observation that the only way prions can replicate is by borrowing several large and complex proteins that exist only because DNA/RNA exists.

That is today. How do you that the biological landscape -and even rules-were the same 4 billions years ago?

Hence if DNA/RNA did not exist first...

Likely. Yet, what is the proof of that?

those proteins would have needed independent formation mechanisms of their own

Very unlikely.
(and outside of the DNA/RNA pathway the probability would actually decrease because odds calculated using 20 amino acids as the basis would be lower than odds calculated using 4 base pairs as the basis).

For the AA/bp relationship, one has to calculate a triplet for each AA, so formally 64. Actually less, considering the degeneracy of the code.
>20, anyway.

[Extra Stout]

So it is impossible to measure anything and it is impossible for anybody to replicate anybody else's experiments?

How did we get physical constants and equations that describe physics?
Because certain simplifying assumptions come in handy.

[Extra Stout]

So each molecule has a chance of being at the end of the wire and becoming an ion?
Er... in the middle. Yeah.

[Phenomanul]

For the AA/bp relationship, one has to calculate a triplet for each AA, so formally 64. Actually less, considering the degeneracy of the code.
>20, anyway.


Are you agreeing or disagreeing?? It's hard to decipher your overall stance with some of the incomplete sentence fragments you sparsed around in my quote...

I didn't bother assuming that the protein was a reverse-transcribed in its formation... otherwise you would flat-out need DNA/RNA.

The logic then follows that if relevant proteins were made without the use of DNA/RNA... then that would mean that their formation was dependent on the union of amino acids by some other process... if the proteins grew simply by the addition of AA with each other then one would be forced to use the number 20.

Of course from observations today we know that polypeptide bonds are created with the use of enzymes. Without them the growing protein would encounter more and more resistance the larger it grew (in solution of course). In eithercase, that's why the odds if one included kinetic limitations would have to fall further.

As far as rules being different 4 billion years ago; radiation was higher (less ozone in the atmosphere), earths magnetic field was slightly stronger, atmospheric pressure was lower, and temperatures depending on the era were all over the place. So yeah they were different. But again, these factors aren't even being incorporated... how would we be able to anyhow? It's moot.

[Phenomanul]

.

[RandomGuy]

Er... in the middle. Yeah.

You want some syrup with that waffle?

You know exactly where this is going, but don't want to admit it.

[RandomGuy]

I promise to give you an answer if you would at least read the fallacy of your logic first.

Based on the behavior of prions today... it is unlikely that they developed before DNA/RNA... which makes the question moot and thus the answer becomes .... irrelevant.

You might notice that I never really said prions were *the* thing, but rather a good example of some simple organisms.

I *did* say, however, that the culprit was probably simpler in terms of the number of sequences needed.

The self-replicating ribozymes fit the bill.



Yeah it's pretty complex... for being the simplest one we have found
so far.

So if tomorrow we find a self-replicating ribozyme that only has 25 base pairs a lot of those zeros disappear, don't they?

[Extra Stout]

You want some syrup with that waffle?

You know exactly where this is going, but don't want to admit it.
What?

You intimated something about an ion at the end of a chain. I corrected you, since the ion is formed somewhere in the middle, and said "yeah," as in, "other than that detail, you get the gist. Continue."

And while I'm interested in seeing where your point is going, I haven't figured it out yet.

[Phenomanul]

You might notice that I never really said prions were *the* thing, but rather a good example of some simple organisms.

I *did* say, however, that the culprit was probably simpler in terms of the number of sequences needed.

The self-replicating ribozymes fit the bill.




So if tomorrow we find a self-replicating ribozyme that only has 25 base pairs a lot of those zeros disappear, don't they?

Yes... and people in your camp would irrelevantly shout with glee.... what type of question is that?

That is the overall pursuit of science no? To learn as much about our natural world as possible.

Did you even see the structure? Some of the kinetic limitations I've been constantly bringing up arise from the complexity of the three-dimensional structure that is being created. The functionality of the molecule depends on the exact three-dimensional stability of the molecule, and on the fact that some parts of the proteins are rigid, and other parts shift and 'move' while interacting with other biological molecules. They are highly specialized.

[temujin]

Yes... and people in your camp would irrelevantly shout with glee.... what type of question is that?

That is the overall pursuit of science no? To learn as much about our natural world as possible.

Yes, and measure it.

Everything else is left to philosophy and religion.
And then, of course, anybody can say just about anything.

[RandomGuy]

Yes... and people in your camp would irrelevantly shout with glee.... what type of question is that?

That is the overall pursuit of science no? To learn as much about our natural world as possible.

Did you even see the structure? Some of the kinetic limitations I've been constantly bringing up arise from the complexity of the three-dimensional structure that is being created. The functionality of the molecule depends on the exact three-dimensional stability of the molecule, and on the fact that some parts of the proteins are rigid, and other parts shift and 'move' while interacting with other biological molecules. They are highly specialized.

Here we have the crux of the argument.

Your "infinitessmally small probability" is a lot more probable than you like to put forth.

The "car parts in a vat" analogy is put forth a lot, as is the "jet plane/tornado" thing. Let's break that analogy here.

In the beginning of evolutionary theory, people who wanted to disprove it, would say "you have animal A that you allege evolved into animal C, but you can't find animal B, the link between the two, so HA! you must be wrong about the whole theory".

Then some enterprising archeologist finds animal B, and then the same argument shifts to "you have animal A that you allege evolved into animal B, but you can't find animal A.1, the link between the two, so HA! you must be wrong about the whole theory!"

Now since this tack doesn't really cut it any more intellectually, we see a very similar line of point/counterpoint here.

"It's impossible for a single cell to spontaneously appear because the gene coding is so complex, and even so, there wasn't enough time for earth to make such a thing"

Then, surprise, we can reasonably assume our earth isn't the only place in the universe with the capacity to support life. Not only that there is a good chance that the universe has LOTS of places similar to our own.

Then "impossible" becomes "really really improbable", then the "really really improbable" assumption hinges on spontaneously developing a complex cell. Then suddenly some enterprising bio-chemist finds a self-replicating molecue that doesn't require a cell, and then the "really really improbable" assumption suddenly becomes "really improbable".

By your own admission, if someone finds a really simple self-replicating molecule, that "really improbable" assumption will come to "improbable" or (gasp) "probable".

You are right about pursuit of science, in that it is to learn as much as possible about the natural world as possible.

Everything we have learned so far points to that simple self-replicating molecule, even though we haven't found it exactly yet (to my knowledge).

So, let me ask you this:

Would it deminish your faith any less to learn the method that God used was simple random probablilty, as opposed to active particpation?

Assume I am right about everything here. The universe has a LOT of earth-like planets, and that spontaneous generation of life is commonplace.

Would you believe in God any less?

[Extra Stout]

Would it deminish your faith any less to learn the method that God used was simple random probablilty, as opposed to active particpation?

Assume I am right about everything here. The universe has a LOT of earth-like planets, and that spontaneous generation of life is commonplace.

Would you believe in God any less?

Oh, is that where you are going? OK, I see now.

Yeah, I have a problem when Christians turn this argument into an either/or thing. As in, "Either my dogma is correct or science is correct. It can't be both." So then of course, they've already decided their dogma is correct, so they simply will disregard readily identifiable facts.

In doing so, they raise the stakes unreasonably. If they accept mainstream science, their entire faith system becomes shattered. Their entire identity becomes shattered.

And to what lengths do you think people will go to prevent that from happening?

That goes a long way to explaining the rampant anti-intellectualism in American evangelicalism.

Few ever consider, "Hey, maybe my faith is correct but my dogma is flawed." Perhaps this has something to do with a reaction against liberal theology's emasculation of Christianity. Nevertheless, the Bible states quite clearly that there is such a thing as "natural revelation," and that it informs man about the nature of God. Why can it not inform one's reading of Scripture?

Besides all that, though, one can have a philosophical debate about the degree to which science is going to be able to explain some of these complex and precise phenomena in the universe. Just because it wouldn't disprove the existence of God does not mean it is so.

[Phenomanul]

Here we have the crux of the argument.

Your "infinitessmally small probability" is a lot more probable than you like to put forth.

The "car parts in a vat" analogy is put forth a lot, as is the "jet plane/tornado" thing. Let's break that analogy here.

In the beginning of evolutionary theory, people who wanted to disprove it, would say "you have animal A that you allege evolved into animal C, but you can't find animal B, the link between the two, so HA! you must be wrong about the whole theory".

Then some enterprising archeologist finds animal B, and then the same argument shifts to "you have animal A that you allege evolved into animal B, but you can't find animal A.1, the link between the two, so HA! you must be wrong about the whole theory!"

Now since this tack doesn't really cut it any more intellectually, we see a very similar line of point/counterpoint here.

"It's impossible for a single cell to spontaneously appear because the gene coding is so complex, and even so, there wasn't enough time for earth to make such a thing"

Then, surprise, we can reasonably assume our earth isn't the only place in the universe with the capacity to support life. Not only that there is a good chance that the universe has LOTS of places similar to our own.

Then "impossible" becomes "really really improbable", then the "really really improbable" assumption hinges on spontaneously developing a complex cell. Then suddenly some enterprising bio-chemist finds a self-replicating molecue that doesn't require a cell, and then the "really really improbable" assumption suddenly becomes "really improbable".

By your own admission, if someone finds a really simple self-replicating molecule, that "really improbable" assumption will come to "improbable" or (gasp) "probable".

You are right about pursuit of science, in that it is to learn as much as possible about the natural world as possible.

Everything we have learned so far points to that simple self-replicating molecule, even though we haven't found it exactly yet (to my knowledge).

So, let me ask you this:

Would it deminish your faith any less to learn the method that God used was simple random probablilty, as opposed to active particpation?

Assume I am right about everything here. The universe has a LOT of earth-like planets, and that spontaneous generation of life is commonplace.

Would you believe in God any less?



For one, I believe you have oversimplified the problem into irrelevance once again.



By your own admission, if someone finds a really simple self-replicating molecule, that "really improbable" assumption will come to "improbable" or (gasp) "probable".

More like by "my interpretation of Phenomanul's comment...." -- I didn't suggest what you just wrote, I said people in your camp would irrelevantly shout with glee... The number I gave you was still extremely 'improbable' -- and even then, I still haven't factored in any of the kinetic limitations that would oppose a stepwise growth to form said molecule. And even if I could factor these in, as this is not an easy task, they would exponentially hinder the molecule's creation altogether.

Back to the point though, finding a smaller self-replicating ribozyme is irrelevant considering the fact that all the ones we have found interact with proteins and DNA in order to subsist (much like everything else - imagine that). Ribozymes placed out of this environment would sit there and do nothing - not replicate. So like your prion example before, I believe ribozymes are actually a product of an RNA splicing event gone awry, a living example that the genetic language tends to break down, not get more structured. A 'genetic bastard' if you will. Consider this: ribozymes don't do anything other than copy themselves in a DNA based biological environment. And so what many poeple like yourself would love to overlook is the fact that they require DNA based proteins to stabilize their own replicative process because they aren't stable enough to propagate them on their own. That ribozymes can self-catalyze a replicative cycle when one feeds them an unnatural amount of amino acids is a bad conclusion drawn from garbage science.

Basically, you would have to prove that these molecules existed before DNA/RNA. So given that a ribozyme existed (in reality far from given), you would have to provide mechanisms that would allow for these molecules to subsist on their own -- a highly difficult task. You would have to provide sufficient mechansims to create the necessary amino acids, adenosine phosphate back-bone molecules, organic sugars and the other random functional groups that are necessary for the ribozyme's replication. You would have to provide protective mechanisms that would keep the molecule from being attacked by any ions or small molecules in solution -- meaning, the molecule would have to survive long enough to even replicate.

Earlier I placed emphasis on the fact amino acids are required in substantial amounts in order for DNA/RNA to use them as building blocks. The specialized proteins that fabricate each of the 20 amino acids would then have to exist to drive the localized order in any given location higher than what was dictated by brownian flux and thermodynamic balance. The agglomeration of amino acids is crucial. The sun model or lightning model cannot account for this molecule specific concentration shift, so don't even bring it up.

The logical conclusion then is that genetically relevant RNA or DNA strands would have to be the first organic molecules in a DNA/RNA run world. Every other molecule stems from it, subsists from it, takes order and directions from it -- the catch? Well, it would have to be long enough to carry genetically relevant code. Long enough to produce viable proteins; proteins necessary for the stability of the DNA/RNA strands themselves, proteins essential to the replicative functions of the molecule.

So why would your example be irrelevant? Because you are wishing to explain life's complexity by trying to derive the smallest possible source. In doing so you're inadvertantly attempting to eliminate the inherent interactions that are required for biological function. All for what? Because smaller molecules have higher odds of formation? And that is supposed to prove that life started as a mixture of simple chemicals? Far more is needed to even make that claim.

Earlier you gave a counter argument to my 'form a functional vehicle inside a whirling vat" analogy... You suggested that all that was needed to justify your line of thinking was the formation of the car's breaking system. Though that too would be unlikely, the premise is erred; A breaking system would serve no purpose without a car much like a any other organic molecule would serve no purpose without the full and complete functionality of the genetic code.



Would it deminish your faith any less to learn the method that God used was simple random probablilty, as opposed to active particpation?

I don't agree with your conclusion... but nothing would diminish my faith. Why? First of all, my faith is not placed on Science. Second of all, I fully understand that Science will not explain everything (the purpose of life, consciousness, sentience of past-present-future etc...). I understand that there is more to this life than the understanding of our natural world. Wishing to diminish GOD's power then, by reducing His Creator role with one suggesting that He was the 'perpetrator of an accident' really serves no purpose. Most importantly, whether you choose to believe me or not, I know that GOD does actively participate in our lives today. And if He has forever been the same, logically, He has always participated.



Assume I am right about everything here. The universe has a LOT of earth-like planets, and that spontaneous generation of life is commonplace.

Would you believe in God any less?


I can't answer that question because it is based on assumptions that don't describe what I do know. It reminds me of a quote by Princeton's Freeman Dyson, a highly respected physicist, who once wrote about the uniqueness of life on earth, "It's as if the universe knew we were coming." Life everywhere else is not as commonplace as you wish it to be.



When you view man from the universe’s perspective man seems pretty unimportant. We live on a small planet circling an ordinary middle-aged star on the outskirts of an ordinary galaxy; one of millions of other ordinary galaxies. It is not hard to see why many people misinterpret this to mean GOD does not exist. If you are willing to open your eyes to the possibilities there are many signs of GOD’s hand at work in the creation. Examine the fine-tuning seen throughout our universe. Consider the fine-tuning of our solar system. Even our earth and moon show signs of fine-tuning. Non-theistic scientists do not deny this, but they see it as an incredible set of coincidences.

The universe is not eternal. It had a beginning. The big bang is an interesting explanation of origins but upon closer examination it can’t adequately explain how you came to be a part of it. It can’t explain how you happened by merely natural means. The universe is too young and too small for life to have developed from the primordial soup of the big bang on its own. The earliest forming rocks on Earth contain fossils of life. Insufficient time has passed for evolution to explain life's abundant presence on earth. The fossil record shows species suddenly appearing and remaining stable throughout their existence on earth. The conclusion I came to by studying the scientific record is that GOD must have been active in the creation of the universe.


Feel free to disagree with my conclusion, but do ask yourself how the universe knew to give you the intelligence to make that decision.

[Extra Stout]

Phenomanul, I think I get where RG is going.

He is trying to caution against the "God of the Gaps" fallacy.

He is trying to make sure people don't put themselves in a theological trap where they have to believe that up is down and balck is white in order to maintain their faith.

As long as you are not doing that, then you two are just having a nice philosophical discussion about how you think God created the universe.

[RandomGuy]

Phenomanul, I think I get where RG is going.

He is trying to caution against the "God of the Gaps" fallacy.

He is trying to make sure people don't put themselves in a theological trap where they have to believe that up is down and [black] is white in order to maintain their faith.

As long as you are not doing that, then you two are just having a nice philosophical discussion about how you think God created the universe.

You got it exactly.

That is essentially what I see the whole thing as being. I see a few things in science and common sense that he is ignoring, and actively so, in order to preserve what he conceives of as his faith.

[RandomGuy]

For one, I believe you have oversimplified the problem into irrelevance once again.

I think you have overcomplicated it.


More like by "my interpretation of Phenomanul's comment...." -- I didn't suggest what you just wrote, I said people in your camp would irrelevantly shout with glee... The number I gave you was still extremely 'improbable' --

Again, improbable based on YOUR assumptions. When I ask specifically about different assumptions, you repeatedly admit that given different assumptions, your theory starts to break down. (the "yes, but..." answers)


Back to the point though, finding a smaller self-replicating ribozyme is irrelevant considering the fact that all the ones we have found interact with proteins and DNA in order to subsist (much like everything else - imagine that).

Ok, great. It's not a self-replicating ribozyme. The exact mechanism isn't central to my point.

Is it a reasonable assumption that given the fact that we know that organisms have gotten more and more complex over time, that the first "organism" had to be pretty simple?


... nothing would diminish my faith.

Good. I just wanted to make sure that you hadn't tied your faith to any particular theory of how we came to be. :angel


Why? First of all, my faith is not placed on Science. Second of all, I fully understand that Science will not explain everything (the purpose of life, consciousness, sentience of past-present-future etc...). I understand that there is more to this life than the understanding of our natural world. Wishing to diminish GOD's power then, by reducing His Creator role with one suggesting that He was the 'perpetrator of an accident' really serves no purpose.

Does it diminish God's power to think that he is "the perpetrator of an accident"? If anything it manifies it.

Gotta go.

[Extra Stout]

Wishing to diminish GOD's power then, by reducing His Creator role with one suggesting that He was the 'perpetrator of an accident' really serves no purpose.
I had to pull this line out of your post, once I saw it in RG's reply.

If you follow RG's thought experiment, that would require God to construct a universe in such a way that his entire will for man for all of history be executed in such a way that it appears to us to be random probabilities.

I fail to see how that would diminish God. If anything, it would be a triumphant demonstration of his omniscience.

[Phenomanul]

You got it exactly.

That is essentially what I see the whole thing as being. I see a few things in science and common sense that he is ignoring, and actively so, in order to preserve what he conceives of as his faith.

hmmmm.... like what? There are about 15 disciplines that I actively incorporate and reconcile with my whole belief structure whereas you only seem to 'see' one: statistical probability... When did you decide that said field trumped everything else? Does this mean that my beliefs are full-proof or flawless? No... far from it; they are however supported by theories from many fields and not hinged on any one.

Who then, is ignoring more?

[Phenomanul]

I had to pull this line out of your post, once I saw it in RG's reply.

If you follow RG's thought experiment, that would require God to construct a universe in such a way that his entire will for man for all of history be executed in such a way that it appears to us to be random probabilities.

I fail to see how that would diminish God. If anything, it would be a triumphant demonstration of his omniscience.

Nothing can diminish Him, other than our own incredulence. When we belittle GOD He cannot interact with us. Is he able? Most definitely. Will He? Not when we have made that choice.

RG's view is that GOD is simply a spectator.

My personal experience with GOD would dictate otherwise. And so if He participates now, why would that preclude Him from having participated from the get-go?

GOD participates in a more personal manner than RG is willing to accept. All of creation cries 'purpose,' a facet that would be in complete disconnect from anything implied by random chance.

GOD knows us from before we were born. While we were yet in our mothers' wombs. That to me is more amazing than suggesting I just 'showed up', and that GOD had to find out another creature had entered His domain.

[Phenomanul]

I think you have overcomplicated it.

Life is complicated; certainly not defined by probability alone.

I disagree; everything around you disagrees....



Again, improbable based on YOUR assumptions. When I ask specifically about different assumptions, you repeatedly admit that given different assumptions, your theory starts to break down. (the "yes, but..." answers)


That you interpret my responses that way is your problem. A "yes, but..." answer implied your question was not the right one or adequate. Did you consider that? No... in fact you became more and more and more stubborn. Posting the same question over and over again, even though it had already been addressed. You've yet to admit that the kinetically limited formation of biological molecules does not conform to the 'poker model' that you keep trying to subject them to. But suddenly you're suggesting it's my model that is falling apart...... :lol :lol

The only thing I admitted was that your model only works if you factor in infinite universes, and time -- a notion that is not widely accepted by most astronomers and physicists today. But that was hardly a concession to the argument; in fact, it showed your numbers relied heavily on that suggestion.




Ok, great. It's not a self-replicating ribozyme. The exact mechanism isn't central to my point.

Is it a reasonable assumption that given the fact that we know that organisms have gotten more and more complex over time, that the first "organism" had to be pretty simple?


Prove it.



Good. I just wanted to make sure that you hadn't tied your faith to any particular theory of how we came to be. :angel

Does it diminish God's power to think that he is "the perpetrator of an accident"? If anything it manifies it.


It's far more magnificent to know that the GOD who created the universe loves me enough, this insignificant spec of matter in the time/space continuum, to care for my every need; be it physical, emotional, and above all: spiritual. To know that I and everyone else was created for a purpose. Moreso, that our 'purpose' is magnified when GOD is behind it; when we attribute the manifest Glory to Him... how is He magnified when the glory is being stripped away from Him?

[Extra Stout]

Nothing can diminish Him, other than our own incredulence. When we belittle GOD He cannot interact with us. Is he able? Most definitely. Will He? Not when we have made that choice.

RG's view is that GOD is simply a spectator.

My personal experience with GOD would dictate otherwise. And so if He participates now, why would that preclude Him from having participated from the get-go?

It is left, then, for RG to clarify this statement below:


I think god may have gotten the ball rolling, but had nothing to do with anything since that time.

RG, was that statement meant to regard just the act of creation, or do you deny the idea of God personally involved in people's lives?

If it is the former, then Phenom is misrepresenting your position. If it is the latter, then you are a Deist.

[Phenomanul]

With everything else I wrote in response to the original post I forgot to address this part:



In the beginning of evolutionary theory, people who wanted to disprove it, would say "you have animal A that you allege evolved into animal C, but you can't find animal B, the link between the two, so HA! you must be wrong about the whole theory".

Then some enterprising archeologist finds animal B, and then the same argument shifts to "you have animal A that you allege evolved into animal B, but you can't find animal A.1, the link between the two, so HA! you must be wrong about the whole theory!"

Now since this tack doesn't really cut it any more intellectually, we see a very similar line of point/counterpoint here.



Umm actually... not one transitional species has been found. Not one. Evolution would have it that millions of these fossilized species would have been found by now... and yet the reality is that none have.

After a century and a half of claims by evolutionary proponents that just a little more time would produce the necessary fossil evidence and the missing links between species that would confirm the theory of evolution, we find there is an astonishing and total lack of fossil evidence to confirm any indisputable transitional forms (missing links) that must exist if the theory of evolution were actually true. However, in over one hundred and fifty years of a massive global search by scientists that has catalogued over one hundred million fossil specimens, they have failed to discover a single ''missing link'' fossil.

In 1859, Darwin acknowledged that the utter lack of fossil evidence for these missing links between one species and another provided 'an unanswerable objection' to the theory of evolution. However, Darwin assumed that the search for fossils that would establish the truth of evolution was just beginning and that, given sufficient time and effort, scientists would soon discover the millions of transitional fossils required to prove that one species gradually transformed itself by natural selection into a new species.

To date, though... every species discovered in the fossil record appears perfectly formed. Paleontologists have never discovered a fossil showing a partially formed species. When the entire fossil record is carefully examined, we find that is reveals both extinct species and existing organisms with clearly defined gaps between them and no transitional forms.

As far as our supposed lineage goes... I've done some more research there...



Piltdown Man and Piltdown Man II, discovered at the Piltdown quarry in England in 1912 and 1917, were revealed years later to have been complete hoaxes. A detailed examination of the skull fragments using a test based on fluoride absorption proved that someone had purposely and fraudulently planted a modern human skull fragment on top of the jaw of an orangutan.

Despite the Piltdown Man being a scientific hoax, the damage was done. Hundreds of university researchers and scientists wrote hundreds of doctoral treatises about Piltdown Man as the direct ancestor of modern man during the decades between its ''discovery'' in the quarry and its final determination as a fraud in 1953.

Ramapithecus, was another supposedly important hominid fossil discovery in 1932 from India and Africa. This species was presented by evolutionists as the primary missing link between apes and humans for nearly fifty years. However, few people understood that the whole imaginary skeleton of Ramapithecus was based solely on a few fossilized teeth. Unfortunately for the evolutionary theory, scientists later closely examined the teeth and discovered that they were actually the teeth of a modern orangutan, not the teeth of an evolutionary ape-man. Ramapithecus is now totally rejected by the scientific community.

Nebraska Man discovered in 1922, and the source of Clarence Darrow's staunchiest evidence in the Scopes 'Monkey Trial' in 1925 was a complete fraud. Astonishingly, the only eveidence the scientists actually found was a single fossilized tooth! The scientific illustrator then created his drawings of this ancient and supposed primitive ape-man and his family based on nothing more that pure artistic imagination and the desire to draw an ancient caveman. Virtually everyone who observed these renditions actually believed that the discovered fossil remains must have actually supported such an artistic re-creation. The punch-line to this sad evolutionary joke is that the single fossil tooth that composed the sole real evidence of Nebraska Man finally turned out to be that of an extinct pig.

Southwest Colorado Man --- much like Nebraska man, this was based solely upon another tooth; but this time of an ancient horse.

Peking Man

Lucy

and Cro Magnon Man all have similar stories...


Why are paleontologists trying to decieve people?

As far as some of the other animals? Ever heard of the duck billed platypus or even whales?

The platypus is clearly a mammal and has no relationship with birds...
Whales are not fish, but have been around as long as they have.... how so?

We are constantly being told to accept the fact that because the Archaeopteryx fossil contained teeth that somehow it was a transitional form between reptiles and birds... Yet everything else about the fossil reveals that it is a true bird, complete with fully developed (and hollow-boned) wings and feathers. Although the presence of the teeth is unusual, this in no way proves that this fossil was partly a bird and partly a reptile -- as most school textbooks now proudly declare. Some other fossil birds display teeth and some reptiles have no teeth at all.

ooooh also, the punctuated evolution theory is a far stretch.... so let's not even discuss that despairing attempt to reconcile evolutionary theory with the fossil record.

Anyways.... don't believe everything you read in your school textbooks when you were in high-school.



edit: forgot to place the quotes around the published material

[Extra Stout]

Umm actually... not one transitional species has been found. Not one.That was true... back in like 1900.

But I'll start with one... Osteolepsis.

[Phenomanul]

That was true... back in like 1900.

Umm no.

Link an article that shows a full fledged hominid fossil that would suggest our ape ancestry...

Not just bone fragments...



But I'll start with one... Osteolepsis.

OK... let's start with the data.... Just how many of these fossils were found?

But let's not let the fact that modern day Coelacanths are still around get in the way....

[boutons_]

Gaps in the fossil record prove that the gaps will never be filled because there's nothing to fill the gaps.

Gaps in the fossil disprove definitively that evolution is total bullshit. The only other possible explanation is 6-day Genesis.

Gaps in the fossil record prove that the only possible way life arrived on earth was from God creating fully mature species in 6 days. Adam from clay or dust, Eve from Adam's rib, then He blew in their noses to bring them to life.

Gaps in the fossil record prove there were multiple, repeated Genesis, separated by 1000s, 100s of 1000s, milions of years, witn God in each separate Geneis producing a new set of fauna and flora. oops! Which Bible version has Genesis repeated many times?

[Phenomanul]

Gaps in the fossil record prove that the gaps will never be filled because there's nothing to fill the gaps.

Gaps in the fossil disprove definitively that evolution is total bullshit. The only other possible explanation is 6-day Genesis.

Gaps in the fossil record prove that the only possible way life arrived on earth was from God creating fully mature species in 6 days. Adam from clay or dust, Eve from Adam's rib, then He blew in their noses to bring them to life.

Gaps in the fossil record prove there were multiple, repeated Genesis, separated by 1000s, 100s of 1000s, milions of years, witn God in each separate Geneis producing a new set of fauna and flora. oops! Which Bible version has Genesis repeated many times?

Gaps in the fossil record just prove ('indicate' would be a better word than your absolutist trend above) that evolution just doesn't cut it.... it isn't as sound and full-proof as everyone is led to believe. Darwin himself admitted his theories hinged on the premise that millions of transitional species would be found... I don't see them.

That I believe GOD created the Universe and Life itself is irrelevant... don't confuse the two arguments.

[boutons_]

So all the evidence for evolution, the explanatory/predictive power of the theory of eveolution, is what? To be ignored as entertaining, ridiculous curiousities?

And if you are so sure that evolution is bullshit, do you have any alternative scientfic explanation?

[Phenomanul]

So all the evidence for evolution, the explanatory/predictive power of the theory of eveolution, is what? To be ignored as entertaining, ridiculous curiousities?

And if you are so sure that evolution is bullshit, do you have any alternative scientfic explanation?

re-read my post.... I was following your trend when I realized your word choice was too absolutist.

[Phenomanul]

So all the evidence for evolution, the explanatory/predictive power of the theory of eveolution, is what? To be ignored as entertaining, ridiculous curiousities?

And if you are so sure that evolution is bullshit, do you have any alternative scientfic explanation?


But if you really care for my answer:

GOD created diversity as a demonstrative power of His creativity. That many animals share similar features doesn't necessarily follow they had to share a common ancestor... that would just be one explanation. It sounds logical, but that doesn't necessarily make it correct.

Furthermore, I believe organisms adapt... but they do so within the genetic wealth already contained by that species.

Not everything needs a naturalistic explanation you know (i.e. consciousness).

[boutons_]

"GOD created diversity as a demonstrative power of His creativity."

A statement faith, cannot be proven or disproven, beyond the realm of science. I personally don't think God needs to aggrandize Himself by impressing a bunch of nervous systems on a one planet among millions of planets and nervous systems with dog-and-pony show of "diversity".

"That many animals share similar features doesn't necessarily follow they had to share a common ancestor."

When humans and other simians have 98+% commonality in DNA, the simplest explanation is very often the correct one. It at least is the best working hypothesis.

Consciousness is clearly dependent on complexity of a certain type in a nervous system, esp in the brain. Remove that complexity and I think most people would say you remove consciousness, and remove the humanity. That much of consciousness remains a mystery doesn't mean we can locate its naturalistic, physiological origin.

[Phenomanul]

"GOD created diversity as a demonstrative power of His creativity."

A statement faith, cannot be proven or disproven, beyond the realm of science. I personally don't think God needs to aggrandize Himself by impressing a bunch of nervous systems on a one planet among millions of planets and nervous systems with dog-and-pony show of "diversity".

OK... that is your opinion.


"That many animals share similar features doesn't necessarily follow they had to share a common ancestor."

When humans and other simians have 98+% commonality in DNA, the simplest explanation is very often the correct one. It at least is the best working hypothesis.

Full genomes have been mapped for how many species? Yeah... we can count them with our hands, and even then half of them belong to E. Coli and Drosophilia fly variants.

The published accounts of genomic matches are all wrong in the sense that splicing methods don't factor where the codes are found; a highly important facet of the code itself. We will have to wait, who knows how long before we can begin conducting true 'genetic match' experiments.

Again though, it is a logical explanation but it doesn't make it correct.


Consciousness is clearly dependent on complexity of a certain type in a nervous system, esp in the brain. Remove that complexity and I think most people would say you remove consciousness, and remove the humanity. That much of consciousness remains a mystery doesn't mean we can locate its naturalistic, physiological origin.

Yet consciousness is also a spiritual attribute that remains even when the 'body' is not alive. I don't know that a scientific endeavor could even study such a phenomena.

[Extra Stout]

Umm no.

Link an article that shows a full fledged hominid fossil that would suggest our ape ancestry...

Not just bone fragments...

It looks as though the best specimens they have are skulls, rather than full skeletons.

But that's not what I was arguing. You said there were no "transitional" fossils in the record, a common creationist argument stemming from Darwin's observations in Origin of Species. That was 150 years ago, and obviously since then the fossil record has been filled in a great deal.


OK... let's start with the data.... Just how many of these fossils were found?

But let's not let the fact that modern day Coelacanths are still around get in the way....
There have been quite many of that particular one found in Scotland.

Your point about Coelacanths makes the false assumption that evolution teaches that species A turns into species B and then into species C, and so on. What it actually teaches is that species diverge over time, but can still coexist contemporaneously.

Getting back into hominid fossils, that is why evolutionists have no problem saying, based upon the most recent evidence, that the austrolopithecines are not direct human ancestors.

[RandomGuy]

Getting back into hominid fossils, that is why evolutionists have no problem saying, based upon the most recent evidence, that the austrolopithecines are not direct human ancestors.


Yup. It can be likened a bit to modern business.

Successful adaptations tend to spawn "me too"s.

Upright-walking tool users became fairly successful, and produced offshoots that lived concurrently.

[Phenomanul]

It looks as though the best specimens they have are skulls, rather than full skeletons.

But that's not what I was arguing. You said there were no "transitional" fossils in the record, a common creationist argument stemming from Darwin's observations in Origin of Species. That was 150 years ago, and obviously since then the fossil record has been filled in a great deal.


There have been quite many of that particular one found in Scotland.

Your point about Coelacanths makes the false assumption that evolution teaches that species A turns into species B and then into species C, and so on. What it actually teaches is that species diverge over time, but can still coexist contemporaneously.

I know that... my point was focusing on the fact that we don't have a single complete fossil specimen to base our assumption that it is a transitional species to begin with. Inconclusive data cannot be used to make such a definitive claim.

If Mini-me's fossilized remains were found... It wouldn't be a correct suggestion to conclude that he was one of our ancestral species. Yet we make those conclusions all the time. These assessments aren't science any more than me proclaiming GOD created the Universe is.



Getting back into hominid fossils, that is why evolutionists have no problem saying, based upon the most recent evidence, that the austrolopithecines are not direct human ancestors.

Where are our decendants???

Anyhow, just so my stance is made perfectly clear... I wouldn't reject the notion that GOD created animals with a 'fast-forward' evolutionary model.... And when the time was right... He created humans. There's no way that this can be proven or disproven however.

And yet I will, reject the notion that humans were part of that model. Be it literal or poetic, Genesis makes a transcendent pause to address the creation of man. We were made in GOD's image.

[boutons_]

"We were made in GOD's image."

so your intepretation is that God is a human?

It's impossible with you OT-Bible-obsessed-thumpers to know when you're strictly literal with 6-day, 144-hour creation, or when you pick-and-chose what is literal and what is not.

It's interesting, and revealing, that the evangelical Christian seem to be more obssessed with the OT and its literalness, while Christ introduced a whole new set of concepts, without really insisting on a cosmology or obsessing over the OT.

[RandomGuy]

Here is another question:

What happens to the "infintesmally small" theory of life, if we find evidence of life on Mars?

...or for that matter, life on one or more of Jupiter or Saturn's moons?

I guess it would be "God did that too"? :spin

I guess that would make it an "infinitessmally small" chance times two? or three or four?

(contemplates infinity times 4)
:smchode: :smchode: :smchode: :smchode:

[RandomGuy]

[Extra Stout]
It looks as though the best specimens they have are skulls, rather than full skeletons.

But that's not what I was arguing. You said there were no "transitional" fossils in the record, a common creationist argument stemming from Darwin's observations in Origin of Species. That was 150 years ago, and obviously since then the fossil record has been filled in a great deal.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Phenom




OK... let's start with the data.... Just how many of these fossils were found?

But let's not let the fact that modern day Coelacanths are still around get in the way....


There have been quite many of that particular one found in Scotland.

Your point about Coelacanths makes the false assumption that evolution teaches that species A turns into species B and then into species C, and so on. What it actually teaches is that species diverge over time, but can still coexist contemporaneously.

This is exactly what I was talking about. We have filled in the gaps and yet the ID-types want the sub-types of the types and when the sub-types have been found, they will say, "well you need the sub-sub-sub types".

At least some of them admit that they ignore proof to keep faith in a theory which conforms to their belief system. Good for them.

[Phenomanul]

"We were made in GOD's image."

so your intepretation is that God is a human?

It's impossible with you OT-Bible-obsessed-thumpers to know when you're strictly literal with 6-day, 144-hour creation, or when you pick-and-chose what is literal and what is not.

It's interesting, and revealing, that the evangelical Christian seem to be more obssessed with the OT and its literalness, while Christ introduced a whole new set of concepts, without really insisting on a cosmology or obsessing over the OT.

bot alert bot alert.....

[Phenomanul]

This is exactly what I was talking about. We have filled in the gaps and yet the ID-types want the sub-types of the types and when the sub-types have been found, they will say, "well you need the sub-sub-sub types".

At least some of them admit that they ignore proof to keep faith in a theory which conforms to their belief system. Good for them.

So just ignore my concern right RG???

If you want to accept the fact that a transitional species exists simply from a tooth... (a single tooth!!!!!) you go ahead and get duped. I won't buy it.


As an aside, whenever full genomes are completed for multiple species you will see just how distinct every species is from the others. Meaning I can't get a toucan from a flamingo just by tweaking a couple 100 DNA bases here and there.... I would need to tweak millions of bases for this to occur. And said iterations would have to produce 1000's of species between a flamingo and a toucan. Instead species we have found either look like one species or the other.... but not like a species that is mixture of both (i.e. transitional).

[Phenomanul]

Here is another question:

What happens to the "infintesmally small" theory of life, if we find evidence of life on Mars?

...or for that matter, life on one or more of Jupiter or Saturn's moons?

I guess it would be "God did that too"? :spin

I guess that would make it an "infinitessmally small" chance times two? or three or four?

(contemplates infinity times 4)
:smchode: :smchode: :smchode: :smchode:

Still stuck on your statistical probability premise... I guess you will never be able to see it any different than a game of numbers...

[Phenomanul]

"We were made in GOD's image."

so your intepretation is that God is a human?

No.... I've directly answered this question to you on at least one other occasion. But if your mentally impaired memory can't go back that far I'll refresh it again:

GOD is three in one just as we are three in one (body, spirit, and soul)

Animals or plants don't have that attribute.

Also, from the moment we are conceived we are endowed with an immortal spirit.


It's impossible with you OT-Bible-obsessed-thumpers to know when you're strictly literal with 6-day, 144-hour creation, or when you pick-and-chose what is literal and what is not.

That is why we have a brain. More importantly, that is why we have free will. I'm allowed to determine what I want to believe in just like you. As for the other.... try and keep up.


It's interesting, and revealing, that the evangelical Christian seem to be more obssessed with the OT and its literalness, while Christ introduced a whole new set of concepts, without really insisting on a cosmology or obsessing over the OT.

The Bible was never meant to be a science book. But I can sense you know very little about the OT... It all points to Christ. That is the importance of that particular compilation of writings.

[RandomGuy]

Still stuck on your statistical probability premise... I guess you will never be able to see it any different than a game of numbers...

Still dodging questions... :angel

Seriously though.

What happens to your theory if we find evidence of life on Mars?

[RandomGuy]

The Bible was never meant to be a science book.

Heh, on that we can both agree, but tell that to the Christian church a thousand years ago, heretic. (j/k)

[Phenomanul]

Still dodging questions... :angel

Seriously though.

What happens to your theory if we find evidence of life on Mars?

Nothing.... cause you nor anybody else would have a way of proving that it didn't land there from outer space and had originated from earth.

But you know something else.... I already believe in aliens... just not in the conventional way.... I believe that aliens are really demons set out to 'confuse the nations'. One of these days they will really 'show up', make first contact and allow themselves to be seen when they have been dodging official notice for the past 200 years or so.... People like yourself may take that as final proof that GOD doesn't exist. I would realize that the plan was perfectly executed seeing how more than half of the world will come to that same conclusion. But my faith will not waver.

"For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places." Ephesians 6:12 KJV

[Extra Stout]

If you want to accept the fact that a transitional species exists simply from a tooth... (a single tooth!!!!!) you go ahead and get duped. I won't buy it.
For a lot of these "transitional species" (not the hominids), they have several examples of full skeletons. The fossil record has expanded exponentially starting around 1990.



As an aside, whenever full genomes are completed for multiple species you will see just how distinct every species is from the others.
And yet how similar they are as well.


Meaning I can't get a toucan from a flamingo just by tweaking a couple 100 DNA bases here and there....
Which would make sense, because given that a bird genome contains around 1 billion letters of information, that would indicate 99.99999% similarity between the two organisms, and probably would mean they are two toucans or two flamingos.


I would need to tweak millions of bases for this to occur.
Which still would make them 99.9% similar. I don't think a flamingo and a toucan are 99.9% similar, so there may be quite a few more base pairs different.


And said iterations would have to produce 1000's of species between a flamingo and a toucan.
Well, first of all, the idea that there should intermediate species between a flamingo and a toucan is entirely inconsistent with what evolution teaches, unless you can show that a toucan is an offshoot from a flamingo or vice versa.

Second of all, natural selection would mandate that not every single permutation of genetic pairs is going to exist. Certain permutations in each generation are going to be favored for reproduction. So those permutations are going to determine the range of variability in the next generation, and so on.

Your line of thinking actually strengthens the argument for evolution. Since the number of gene pairs that can vary within the "genetic richness" of a species is limited within one generation, within a particular reproducing population, you're simply going to be stirring the same genetic pot, and the features of that population are going to remain stable.

But when populations become isolated from one another, over several generations that limited degree of variability within each generation is going to be multiplied over several generations. Over time, you can have a significant degree of potential genetic variability between the two populations.


Instead species we have found either look like one species or the other.... but not like a species that is mixture of both (i.e. transitional).
This is a curious argument you are making, and one that would seem to be refuted quite easily, with any trio of related species, one having some features of the first, and some features of the last. But in any regard, it is based upon a wrong assumption about what evolution teaches about speciation.

Your assumption would be the same as arguing that if my mother had a third son, he should split the difference in appearance between my brother and I. Any of us with multiple siblings understand this is not the case.

Any successful species is going to be a fully-formed species adapted to its environment. It is not going to be half-formed, looking forward to future generations in which it will be fully formed.

You are right that variations in the genetic code allow species to adapt to changes in the environment. Where I heartily disagree with you is in assuming that there are hard walls of "kinds" that species do not cross because God decreed it so. As you say, the Bible is not a science book. We are not supposed to hold God to Western standards of literality when it has not been written in that idiom (as in most of the OT). "Kinds" is simply the ready observation that in stable environments, the genomes of life settle into stable equilibria that we call "species."

[Phenomanul]

For a lot of these "transitional species" (not the hominids), they have several examples of full skeletons. The fossil record has expanded exponentially starting around 1990.



And yet how similar they are as well.


Which would make sense, because given that a bird genome contains around 1 billion letters of information, that would indicate 99.99999% similarity between the two organisms, and probably would mean they are two toucans or two flamingos.


Which still would make them 99.9% similar. I don't think a flamingo and a toucan are 99.9% similar, so there may be quite a few more base pairs different.


Well, first of all, the idea that there should intermediate species between a flamingo and a toucan is entirely inconsistent with what evolution teaches, unless you can show that a toucan is an offshoot from a flamingo or vice versa.

It was just an example.

I don't know where the 'evolutionary tree' places the two birds with relation to each other. I was just making a point that they are very defined species both physically and genetically (the latter a pretty good assumption as I am not aware that their genomes have been mapped out yet).


Second of all, natural selection would mandate that not every single permutation of genetic pairs is going to exist. Certain permutations in each generation are going to be favored for reproduction. So those permutations are going to determine the range of variability in the next generation, and so on.

Your line of thinking actually strengthens the argument for evolution. Since the number of gene pairs that can vary within the "genetic richness" of a species is limited within one generation, within a particular reproducing population, you're simply going to be stirring the same genetic pot, and the features of that population are going to remain stable.

No... my line of thinking suggests that for one species to drift into another, tens of millions of bases would have to change. And yet we continue to attribute random mutations (as picked through natural selection) as that process.

Do you then believe that millions of changes occur in gradual steps or in a huge punctuated one? The first model would have to leave many transitional species in the fossil record -- not the 'rare' quantity we have found... The other would have to overcome a huge biological replication dilemma -- but wouldn't necessarily leave fossil evidence of the change.


But when populations become isolated from one another, over several generations that limited degree of variability within each generation is going to be multiplied over several generations. Over time, you can have a significant degree of potential genetic variability between the two populations.

True... but science has lately concluded that they are still the same 'kind'... How so? Well although two apparently distinct species may not mate in the wild due to the incompatibility of their sense of attraction, pheromones, etc.... If they are crossfertilized in a lab the 'two' species still manage to produce viable offspring... imagine that. For example, several of Darwin's finches from the Galapagos were actually still interfertile with each other.

I brought this point up awhile back using canines as the example. Canines (all breeds of dogs, wolves, coyotes, foxes, dingoes, jackals etc...) are all the same 'kind,' despite the fact that we have chosen to categorize them as different species.



This is a curious argument you are making, and one that would seem to be refuted quite easily, with any trio of related species, one having some features of the first, and some features of the last. But in any regard, it is based upon a wrong assumption about what evolution teaches about speciation.

Here's a counter example: Yao Ming, Mini-me, and for the sake of glamour Eva Longoria. All very distinct (phenotypically they are all very different). All very human (genotypically highly similar). Still interfertile. But they must be different species, they have to be... because they look so disimilar!!!

Another example: My sister, my brother, and myself. Phenotypically all very disimilar, but our genomes would match (by at least an order of 10000) more than any set in the more 'famous' trio above.



Your assumption would be the same as arguing that if my mother had a third son, he should split the difference in appearance between my brother and I. Any of us with multiple siblings understand this is not the case.

That was not my assumption.


Any successful species is going to be a fully-formed species adapted to its environment. It is not going to be half-formed, looking forward to future generations in which it will be fully formed.

The theory of natural selection requires progressive development at every successive step. However, random evolution and mutations cannot themselves possess intelligent understanding and planning. Unthinking evolutionary processes could never produce a half-formed eye as a transition in order to ultimately form a fully functioning eye. How could the complete eye have been produced by evolution through natural selection by step-by-step random mutations in gradual stages? Obviously until the eye was fully formed and functional it was of no value whatsover.

Although on this ground many speculate that minor changes here and there to the eye over millions of years across several phylums, improved on its functionality. What that model fails to show is that many bodily systems are affected by any significant change to such an organ. In the case of the eye, the skin would have to 'know' over time how to best shield the eye from the sun (eye lashes, eye brows), wind and the environment (eyelids). The balanced occular structure in the skull would have to 'know' that recessed eyes would be better protected but at the cost of over exposing the brain's own protection. The veins in the retina would have to 'know' that although they were getting in between light rays and the rods & cones and hence diminishing our visual resolution (on the surface not 'perfect' design) that they were actually shielding them from a rate of decay that would actually render them useless, that they would be more optimally located to remove the radical intermediates produced by the rods before they had a chance to poison the vitreous humor. etc... And I haven't even talked about the neurological features of eyes that inverts the image produced by our own lenses.

It seems that evolutionary proponents (not necessarily you), whether consciously or not, have regarded the blind and inanimate forces of the environment, or nature, as having the ability to create and think.

In other words, despite their denial of the possibility that intelligent design may be a valid theory, the theory of evolution actually requires an intelligent, purposeful mind directing the process at every one of the supposed millions of imaginary intermediate stages as if these incremental changes were following a plan to produce a new life form.

The theory of ID notwithstanding... has many flaws of its own. I just wish people weren't so quick to harp on my disapproval of evolution on the grounds that they felt I was being naive. Especially when they realize how many times we have been lied to by supposedly 'objective' scientists.


You are right that variations in the genetic code allow species to adapt to changes in the environment. Where I heartily disagree with you is in assuming that there are hard walls of "kinds" that species do not cross because God decreed it so. As you say, the Bible is not a science book. We are not supposed to hold God to Western standards of literality when it has not been written in that idiom (as in most of the OT). "Kinds" is simply the ready observation that in stable environments, the genomes of life settle into stable equilibria that we call "species."


It's all a matter of perspective... when I suggest that many of the pheonotypic manifestations of a species are already contained within the 'genetic richness' of that species, I get lambasted for confusing the concepts of adaptation with evolution.

Whether or not you admit it the above dynamics you explained above are still only theories because our laboratories do not spread across sufficient eras that would allow us to 1) obtain complete viable genomes for any given unearthed species, 2) observe and verify the supposed linearities and divergences found in the branched tree of the evolutionary model.

[RandomGuy]

Seriously though.

What happens to your theory if we find evidence of life on Mars? ---RG




Nothing.... cause you nor anybody else would have a way of proving that it didn't land there from outer space and had originated from earth.

The artful dodge yet again. What if life on earth sprang from mars then? Doesn't that make all the "but the atmosphere on early earth wouldn't have had the right composition to allow for life to develop"

Basically, you are saying that you would not change your mind about your theory no matter what evidence you are presented with. Is this a correct assessment?

What if the life we find on other planets/moons in our solar system happens to be biologically incompatible with life on Earth? Do you then lose the "infinitessmally small" assumption?


But you know something else.... I already believe in aliens... just not in the conventional way.... I believe that aliens are really demons set out to 'confuse the nations'. One of these days they will really 'show up', make first contact and allow themselves to be seen when they have been dodging official notice for the past 200 years or so.... People like yourself may take that as final proof that GOD doesn't exist. I would realize that the plan was perfectly executed seeing how more than half of the world will come to that same conclusion. But my faith will not waver.


"people like yourself"

You know for a fact that my belief in God does not preclude such beings. Your prejudices about people you perceive as secularists wins over reason.

Based on this and other hints, I would be willing to bet that your ommission of the word "radical" from in front of "muslim terrorists" wasn't innocent. I think that you really believe that Islam is a violent religion. Do you believe Islam is, by its nature, violent?



"For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places." Ephesians 6:12 KJV

http://z.about.com/d/politicalhumor/1/0/i/k/cheney_drevil.jpg

Methinks the evil lurks closer to home than demons from another star.

[Phenomanul]

Seriously though.

What happens to your theory if we find evidence of life on Mars? ---RG

The artful dodge yet again. What if life on earth sprang from mars then? Doesn't that make all the "but the atmosphere on early earth wouldn't have had the right composition to allow for life to develop"

I answered the question buddy.

That your reading comprehension skills are not up to par with a 5th grader's is not my problem.



Basically, you are saying that you would not change your mind about your theory no matter what evidence you are presented with. Is this a correct assessment?

No. <--- did you see the answer this time??? I don't have the 'walking ants' feature on this applet but if I did maybe you will see this better.

Regarding the other.... your assumption is based on the fact that you can't convince me your statistical model defines the origin of life... Oh that is rich!!! :lol :lol



What if the life we find on other planets/moons in our solar system happens to be biologically incompatible with life on Earth? Do you then lose the "infinitessmally small" assumption?

I refuse to answer your question, because no matter what I answer you still believe I've somehow dodged your question.... so what's the point? Until you acknowledge why it is I raise concerns around the wording and purpose of your questions... then and only then will it be worthwhile to answer.

Besides you still haven't addressed any of my concerns, you just keep asking questions of your own.

But just an example of what I mean.... Your above question is still very speculative. You are basing it on a 'what if'.




"people like yourself"

You know for a fact that my belief in God does not preclude such beings. Your prejudices about people you perceive as secularists wins over reason.

Hold on now.... You asked me if finding life on Mars would change my belief structure. I answered no. I then went on to say, by one-uping your suggestion, that I already believed in 'aliens.' -- except not in the conventional way.

If I'm misinterpreting your attempts to discredit GOD's active participation in Creation... show me where you've stated otherwise. Your ambivalent stance is rather shaky if you are now claiming to play both sides. Which is it?

BTW since you never answered ES's question from a couple posts ago... your stance has remained rather one sided. At least I know where ES stands on many of these issues even though he may many at times play the 'devil's advocate.'

My characterization of your arguments is justified given the highly skewed nature of your naturalistic posts. I'm not ashamed to post that I believe GOD created the Universe, and that He still interacts with His creation on a daily basis... I'll say this even if it causes a barrage of scornful rebuttals (many coming from a certain bot).

You've been trying to simplify creation as a game of numbers and in doing so you have been stripping GOD of the glory His more than amazing act deserves.

Believe what you will.... just don't be afraid to state exactly where you stand.



Based on this and other hints, I would be willing to bet that your ommission of the word "radical" from in front of "muslim terrorists" wasn't innocent. I think that you really believe that Islam is a violent religion.

What does this topic have to do with the other? Quit digressing.


Do you believe Islam is, by its nature, violent?
But I'll answer your question: per the Q'uran - No. Per the Hadiths - most definitely.

The hadiths' condone actions Jesus would not have condoned.
They condone lies, murder and theft.
Hardly 'moral' behavior even by the loosest of interpretations.

One of the Hadiths recounts the story of how Mohammed once had a traveller dismembered by horses on the suspicion that he 'felt' that the man was a spy. On a suspicion!

That has EVERYTHING, absolutely everything to do with how various muslims interpret and live out their religion. Many who live by the standards in the Q'uran are peaceful and tend to be more tolerant. Those placing more emphasis on the Hadiths are less inclined to deal with westerners.

When was the last time you read the Q'uran?
The last time you visited a mosque?
The last time your college roomate was a muslim?

Unlike your trend of very similar posts and ideas, my response on that other thread, did not merit your characterization of what I may or may not believe on the subject of Islam.

:wakeup

[Extra Stout]

You've been trying to simplify creation as a game of numbers and in doing so you have been stripping GOD of the glory His more than amazing act deserves.
I must continue to disagree with you on this point.

In no way does a totally naturalistic explanation of the universe rob God of any glory whatsoever.

As an example, let's take the occurrence where somebody involved in ministry needs funding to realize some vision they believe God has placed upon them, like building a church or feeding poor kids in Guatemala or something. Many of us have personally observed cases like this where nobody knows where the money is going to come from, but nevertheless somehow it shows up.

A rigorous investigation of each of these phenomena could provide a systematic, natural explanation of how the money shows up. In none of these cases does God independent of a human actor write out a check or conduct a wire transfer.

In spite of that, we understand that God is at work and we marvel at it.

[RandomGuy]

What happens to your theory if we find evidence of life on Mars?


Nothing.... cause you nor anybody else would have a way of proving that it didn't land there from outer space and had originated from earth.

What if we find evidence of life on mars a billion years earlier than the first evidence of life on earth?

The planet is smaller and would have cooled faster, so this is a distinct possibility.

You would then have to assert that life on earth traveled back in time to maintain that life on earth created it.

[RandomGuy]

What would you think if we find evidence of silicon based life, or someother life form completely incompatible with life on earth, on one of Jupiters many moons?

Would this not also preclude the "originated on earth" theory?

Your response will be "yeah this is all speculative", and yes, at the moment it is. In 25 years, it may not.

[Extra Stout]

Phenom and RG are engaging in two different arguments. Phenom is arguing in favor of his viewpoint on creation. RG is engaging in a philosophical discussion about the robustness of one's theology in the face of scientific advance. There is a disconnect between them.

[RandomGuy]

I must continue to disagree with you on this point.

In no way does a totally naturalistic explanation of the universe rob God of any glory whatsoever.

As an example, let's take the occurrence where somebody involved in ministry needs funding to realize some vision they believe God has placed upon them, like building a church or feeding poor kids in Guatemala or something. Many of us have personally observed cases like this where nobody knows where the money is going to come from, but nevertheless somehow it shows up.

A rigorous investigation of each of these phenomena could provide a systematic, natural explanation of how the money shows up. In none of these cases does God independent of a human actor write out a check or conduct a wire transfer.

In spite of that, we understand that God is at work and we marvel at it.

That is also a good point.

If god actively causes all good, what responsibility does that imply for evil?

[Extra Stout]

That is also a good point.

If god actively causes all good, what responsibility does that imply for evil?
Ah, the sovereignty of God question.

The Jonathan Edwards answer, which I like, is that God allows the existence of evil, which he hates, in order to accomplish the greater good of his plan.

[RandomGuy]

Ah, the sovereignty of God question.

The Jonathan Edwards answer, which I like, is that God allows the existence of evil, which he hates, in order to accomplish the greater good of his plan.

Still leaving the responsibility for evil to God, yes?

[Extra Stout]

Still leaving the responsibility for evil to God, yes?
Well, he alone is sovereign, so yes.

Just keep in mind that without the possibility of the presence of evil, the full nature of God, his longsuffering and patience, as well as his wrath, cannot be revealed to man.

Without evil among mankind, the contrast between man's fallenness and God's holiness cannot be seen, and the full measure of the God's unreasonable grace towards man cannot be seen.

So then if the greatest good that can be given to man is to know God in all the fullness that man can conceive, then allowing men to commit evil acts, and allowing suffering, works toward that end.

[Phenomanul]

I must continue to disagree with you on this point.

In no way does a totally naturalistic explanation of the universe rob God of any glory whatsoever.

As an example, let's take the occurrence where somebody involved in ministry needs funding to realize some vision they believe God has placed upon them, like building a church or feeding poor kids in Guatemala or something. Many of us have personally observed cases like this where nobody knows where the money is going to come from, but nevertheless somehow it shows up.

A rigorous investigation of each of these phenomena could provide a systematic, natural explanation of how the money shows up. In none of these cases does God independent of a human actor write out a check or conduct a wire transfer.



In spite of that, we understand that God is at work and we marvel at it.


Though I see the point of your analogy... it does not measure up to suggesting that the Universe just 'happened' because it was an eventuality in some random continuum and POOF! the Universe showed up.

GOD created the Universe with a purpose - the creation of man. He is an active participant.

[Phenomanul]

What happens to your theory if we find evidence of life on Mars?



What if we find evidence of life on mars a billion years earlier than the first evidence of life on earth?

The planet is smaller and would have cooled faster, so this is a distinct possibility.

You would then have to assert that life on earth traveled back in time to maintain that life on earth created it.

What if.... what if.... what if.... :blah :blah :blah

You want me to answer that? You realize it would all be speculation, right?

[Extra Stout]

Though I see the point of your analogy... it does not measure up to suggesting that the Universe just 'happened' because it was an eventuality in some random continuum and POOF! the Universe showed up.

GOD created the Universe with a purpose - the creation of man. He is an active participant.
Whether God created the universe by the means you espouse or the means RG espouses, what difference does that make with regard to his purpose in creating the universe?

And, no, he did not create the universe in order to create man. He created the universe in order to glorify himself, and he created man in order to glorify himself. This is a God-centered universe, not a man-centered universe.

[Phenomanul]

Phenom and RG are engaging in two different arguments. Phenom is arguing in favor of his viewpoint on creation. RG is engaging in a philosophical discussion about the robustness of one's theology in the face of scientific advance. There is a disconnect between them.

ES, I have multiple viewpoints on creation.... NONE are set in stone, precisely because there is still much we don't know. I don't claim to know something that is by all accounts unknowable. As science advances whatever discoveries are made will have to be reconciled with everything we already know... if they can't; then there will be challenges -- but not necessarily problems. Why? Because those challenges do not imply that my faith is somehow hinged on science... it isn't.

RG needs to realize however, that not everything revolves around naturalistic explanations. He has attempted to use statistical probability, as a way of proving that the creation of Life by random chance would be possible, but can't provide any mechanisms; only assumptions that having infinite universes, infinite time, imaginary building blocks proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that his claim is plausible. He then proceeds to question why I don't buy his numbers and insists on repeating questions that have already been answered only for the sake of pushing his points. When I force him to question the validity of using statistics as a means of modeling kinetically driven chemical reactions he digresses and suggests that Life came from Mars, or brings up my viewpoint on Islam : :huh All the while he maintains that his probabilities are high...

While I may believe signs of life will eventually be found on Mars that doesn't mean that the Bible was forced to address that find. Yet you consider the dynamics of his arguments a 'philosophical discussion about the robustness of one's theology in the face of scientific advance'? <--- that may sound nice, but that's not how he has presented them.

I believe GOD is the quinessential definition of the Supernatural. So I try not to constrain Him to the naturalistic or physical limitations of this world. Science will not explain the existence of spirits, consciousness, GOD's miracles, GOD's omniscience, or His omnipresence -- they belong to a realm and dimension which cannot be measured. You may feel inclined to believe that GOD isn't robbed of any glory when we assume He just got creation rolling -- that is your perogative. I would however encourage you to re-read Romans Chapter 1 (as I'm sure you have read it before - in fact, I believe I've already posted it here before...):

Romans 1 (KJV)
18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness;

19 Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed [it] unto them.

20 For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, [even] his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:

21 Because that, when they knew God, they glorified [Him] not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened.

22 Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,

23 And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things.

24 Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves:

25 Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen.

26 For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature:

27 And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.

28 And even as they did not like to retain God in [their] knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient;

29 Being filled with all unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, debate, deceit, malignity; whisperers,

30 Backbiters, haters of God, despiteful, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents,

31 Without understanding, covenantbreakers, without natural affection, implacable, unmerciful:

32 Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them.

This passage also addresses why GOD has allowed for evil to exist in this world.

[Phenomanul]

Whether God created the universe by the means you espouse or the means RG espouses, what difference does that make with regard to his purpose in creating the universe?

And, no, he did not create the universe in order to create man. He created the universe in order to glorify himself, and he created man in order to glorify himself. This is a God-centered universe, not a man-centered universe.



My comment did not imply that....

[Extra Stout]

You may feel inclined to believe that GOD isn't robbed of any glory when we assume He just got creation rolling -- that is your perogative. I would however encourage you to re-read Romans Chapter 1...
What Romans 1 there is saying is that knowledge of God is self-evident from creation, yet in spite of that, men choose not to glorify God (i.e., not to acknowledge Him), and not to be thankful towards Him, or to reduce Him into a human idol.

How does RG's suggestion either:
1) Fail to acknowledge God
2) Fail to show thankfulness to God
3) Reduce him to a human idol?

And I still don't think RG is trying to have a scientific discussion with you. All of his arguments are of the form, "If scientists prove X is true about the universe, what does that do to your faith?" That is a philosophical/theological question.

[Extra Stout]

My comment did not imply that....
You said that God created the universe in order to create man.

We are not the central focus of God's plan. You will read a lot of Bible teachers who say that we are. It's the ultimate form of humanist arrogance. God is the central focus of God's plan.

[Phenomanul]

You said that God created the universe in order to create man.

We are not the central focus of God's plan. You will read a lot of Bible teachers who say that we are. It's the ultimate form of humanist arrogance. God is the central focus of God's plan.


Semantics... in my heart that's not what was implied.

[Yonivore]

You said that God created the universe in order to create man.

We are not the central focus of God's plan. You will read a lot of Bible teachers who say that we are. It's the ultimate form of humanist arrogance. God is the central focus of God's plan.
Speaking of semantics and, to be precise, I actually believe you'll find it is the glorification of God that is the central focus of God's plan.

[Extra Stout]

Speaking of semantics and, to be precise, I actually believe you'll find it is the glorification of God that is the central focus of God's plan.
See post #472, in which I precisely agree with you. :spin

[Phenomanul]

What Romans 1 there is saying is that knowledge of God is self-evident from creation, yet in spite of that, men choose not to glorify God (i.e., not to acknowledge Him), and not to be thankful towards Him, or to reduce Him into a human idol.

How does RG's suggestion either:
1) Fail to acknowledge God
2) Fail to show thankfulness to God
3) Reduce him to a human idol?

Ding ding ding....

Random Chance not equal to GOD...

Not even his only GOD referencing comment can get him out of that one...


I believe GOD may have got the ball rolling... but had nothing to do with anything since that time.


Again from my previous post...


The theory of natural selection requires progressive development at every successive step. However, random evolution and mutations cannot themselves possess intelligent understanding and planning.

It seems that evolutionary proponents (not necessarily you), whether consciously or not, have regarded the blind and inanimate forces of the environment, or nature, as having the ability to create and think.

In other words, despite their denial of the possibility that intelligent design may be a valid theory, the theory of evolution actually requires an intelligent, purposeful mind directing the process at every one of the supposed millions of imaginary intermediate stages as if these incremental changes were following a plan to produce a new life form.

If GOD did guide evolution across a multi-billion year old model... He inherently guided it along several steps of the way... He Designed, He Created, He Diversified.... that implies participation -- For us to see and realize that then implies 'acknowledgement'. RG's stance doesn't.



And I still don't think RG is trying to have a scientific discussion with you. All of his arguments are of the form, "If scientists prove X is true about the universe, what does that do to your faith?" That is a philosophical/theological question.

But only to try and get me to admit was that GOD was possibly not involved in the creation of Life, biological molecules, etc...

Not to mention his math is still wrong, because it excludes limitations he has been unwilling to factor in (not that anyone could), and because he factors in assumptions that are highly speculative and unprovable (i.e. the existence of infinite universes).

[LaMarcus Bryant]

but god is a proven scientific fact!

[Extra Stout]

Not even his only GOD referencing comment can get him out of that one...
RG still does need to clarify his position there. Based upon his reticence, I suppose we should assume he is a Deist until he states otherwise.

[Yonivore]

See post #472, in which I precisely agree with you. :spin
Oh, Gosh! I quit following this thread with anything more than faint interest so long ago.

472? Wow! Now that's stamina.

[temujin]

Take 400mg of genetics.
Pour in some Physics (I didn't know F.Collins was writing astrophysiscs books, too! He better focus on his basics, considering the latest stuff he's produced).

Stir for 10/12 pages, occasionally adding some biochemistry and plain chemistry.

On the side, chop up a hefty amount of maths and statistics (it always helps).

Put evething in the owen for 4 additional pages, while showing a 3D structure, and adding some prions from time to time.

Finally serve with a side dish of paleonthology, zoology, evolutionary genetics (back to the original).

It's all good, although QUITE heavy, except the wine.

The 4000BC Chateau des Bushittons just kills the receipt.
A tragedy.


Better drink it alone.

.

[RandomGuy]

RG needs to realize however, that not everything revolves around naturalistic explanations. He has attempted to use statistical probability, as a way of proving that the creation of Life by random chance would be possible, but can't provide any mechanisms; only assumptions that having infinite universes, infinite time, imaginary building blocks proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that his claim is plausible. He then proceeds to question why I don't buy his numbers and insists on repeating questions that have already been answered only for the sake of pushing his points. When I force him to question the validity of using statistics as a means of modeling kinetically driven chemical reactions he digresses and suggests that Life came from Mars, or brings up my viewpoint on Islam : :huh All the while he maintains that his probabilities are high...

They have found very very simple self-replicating molecules. (http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn16382-artificial-molecule-evolves-in-the-lab.html?DCMP=OTC-rss&nsref=online-news)

The "God in the gaps" bit won't hold up forever.

Sooner or later they will discover the most likely way that we went from very simple, naturally occuring molecules with the ability to self replicate given a soup of components to single-celled organisms.

The research linked above is yet another step in that direction.

Once it is shown that such simple chemistry can lead to self replication, the whole "it's just too impossible for life to begin with simple organic chemistry and progress to complex organisms" will cease having any real validity for any but the most blind zealots.

By the way, I never said the "probabilities are high" of such reactions. Individually, such things are like winning a lottery with very very long odds.

The distinction you fail to grasp or simply ignore, I can't tell which, is that if you play this long-odds lottery times in enough places the odds of winning do actually approach one.

All it takes is that one winning ticket, and we are the result.

[Fabbs]

http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2011/11/17/article-2062514-0ED4586A00000578-580_634x556.jpg

[Blake]

The atheist nightmare.....the banana

2z-OLG0KyR4

I lol every time