News4 mins ago
Impossible Abiogenesishttp://youtu.be/numvrexazaw
54 Answers
http://
Seems the maths is against abiogenesis.
How do atheist evolutionists explain this?
Seems the maths is against abiogenesis.
How do atheist evolutionists explain this?
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by Theland. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
@O_G
I've not followed the research in any detail but, allegedly, prion proteins are capable of stringing amino-acids together so as to make copies of themselves. They do not fit the conditions for the adjective 'alive' and are actively harmful, in the brain.
The fact that a structure other than a ribosome can build proteins should be remarkable enough (random polymerisations have yet to be experimentally demonstrated) but it could be taken as a sign that, if there is/was a design process then it was not mistake-free.
p.s. I can't believe I spelled 'physicists' incorrectly, earlier.
I've not followed the research in any detail but, allegedly, prion proteins are capable of stringing amino-acids together so as to make copies of themselves. They do not fit the conditions for the adjective 'alive' and are actively harmful, in the brain.
The fact that a structure other than a ribosome can build proteins should be remarkable enough (random polymerisations have yet to be experimentally demonstrated) but it could be taken as a sign that, if there is/was a design process then it was not mistake-free.
p.s. I can't believe I spelled 'physicists' incorrectly, earlier.
OG; Many times on many threads you have amazed me by saying things like // I'd suggest that inorganic matter was so plentiful and had so much time that it managed, on at least one occasion, to form something still not alive but with a tendency to replicate itself.//
I'm amazed, because you are an intelligent person and yet you seem to be so laid-back in accepting this proposition as if it was problem-less. as jim's link and my 'Mathematicians view' seems to indicate there seems to be mounting evidence that there wasn't after all so much time as you suggest.
But notwithstanding these matters, what you always fail to address and is, to my mind, the most important question of all, and that is not how, but WHY should something have a "tendency to replicate itself" ?
I'm amazed, because you are an intelligent person and yet you seem to be so laid-back in accepting this proposition as if it was problem-less. as jim's link and my 'Mathematicians view' seems to indicate there seems to be mounting evidence that there wasn't after all so much time as you suggest.
But notwithstanding these matters, what you always fail to address and is, to my mind, the most important question of all, and that is not how, but WHY should something have a "tendency to replicate itself" ?
Why wouldn't it ? Given all the ways matter can form sooner or later surely a replicating version must arise. So your important question seems trivial to me. In general terms it does seem problemless. The trick is to discover the detail as some won't accept it until every t is crossed and every i dotted.
Given the size of the universe I don't see any reason to believe that there isn't plenty of time. Evidence is gathering that the building blocks are probably quick to form and common in the universe, so everywhere could be seeded early in its existence.
Given the size of the universe I don't see any reason to believe that there isn't plenty of time. Evidence is gathering that the building blocks are probably quick to form and common in the universe, so everywhere could be seeded early in its existence.
Considered and answered. No reason why it shouldn't. It's not from prior intent. It's a natural inevitable occurace.
As for videos hoping to blind the viewer with odds for & against something: there are equations "proving" how everywhere in the universe must be teeming with intelligent life that we must be aware of; and I believe their argument might be flawed also.
What we find we have no need to assume is not the result of natual process. No interventions necessary.
As for videos hoping to blind the viewer with odds for & against something: there are equations "proving" how everywhere in the universe must be teeming with intelligent life that we must be aware of; and I believe their argument might be flawed also.
What we find we have no need to assume is not the result of natual process. No interventions necessary.
I feel that there is a fundamental contradiction in your two positions, OG. On the one hand it seems as if you feel that life is pretty much a natural consequence of the conditions here on Earth at the time. That's fair enough -- and I agree with it, although I'm not claiming that it's definitive. On the other, though, if life is a natural consequence of the conditions here, then there should be every reason to expect that it's equally natural in plenty of other places beside.
The Drake Equation is a numerological argument in similar fashion to the video in OP, and the numbers are guesses at best. All the same, it's reasonable to expect that, if life is the result of a natural process, then life forms wherever it can. This is probably in a fair few places in our galaxy.
The Drake Equation is a numerological argument in similar fashion to the video in OP, and the numbers are guesses at best. All the same, it's reasonable to expect that, if life is the result of a natural process, then life forms wherever it can. This is probably in a fair few places in our galaxy.
Unsure I see a contradiction.
The building blocks of life I'd expect to be plentiful throughout the universe wherever it can survive. Conditions to create life itself mush less common but still fairly common (it'd need a planet in it's Goldilocks zone and possibly other triggers too).
Life that evolves rudimentary intelligence as opposed to simple viruses/bacteria/ (mosses maybe ?) very much less common as it has to do more than just survive & replicate, it needs to combine sufficiwently to be very efficient.
Life with intelligence at our level (low thought that is) very very much rarer as it would need many things to be just so. Maybe something to stir up the planet like a large moon. Perhaps a large planet attracting most of the asteroids/comets/etc. protecting the live bearing world. etc. etc. etc.
One needs to define what level of life and/or pre-life we are considering. But in any case I see no reason to assume a need for ID, nor recognise any reasonable questions on the basic processes which eventually results in life. Most problems seem to relate to being unable to come to grips with the idea that there need be no intent, that given enough variation sooner or later something "useful" will inevitably happen to form: and survive to replicate. For sure if there are natural forces that cause this, maybe because it is a lowest energy option for example, so much the better; but that would be part of the detail we have yet to fill in.
The building blocks of life I'd expect to be plentiful throughout the universe wherever it can survive. Conditions to create life itself mush less common but still fairly common (it'd need a planet in it's Goldilocks zone and possibly other triggers too).
Life that evolves rudimentary intelligence as opposed to simple viruses/bacteria/ (mosses maybe ?) very much less common as it has to do more than just survive & replicate, it needs to combine sufficiwently to be very efficient.
Life with intelligence at our level (low thought that is) very very much rarer as it would need many things to be just so. Maybe something to stir up the planet like a large moon. Perhaps a large planet attracting most of the asteroids/comets/etc. protecting the live bearing world. etc. etc. etc.
One needs to define what level of life and/or pre-life we are considering. But in any case I see no reason to assume a need for ID, nor recognise any reasonable questions on the basic processes which eventually results in life. Most problems seem to relate to being unable to come to grips with the idea that there need be no intent, that given enough variation sooner or later something "useful" will inevitably happen to form: and survive to replicate. For sure if there are natural forces that cause this, maybe because it is a lowest energy option for example, so much the better; but that would be part of the detail we have yet to fill in.
O.G. // For sure if there are natural forces that cause this, maybe because it is a lowest energy option for example, so much the better; but that would be part of the detail we have yet to fill in.//
There seems to be no doubt of the existence of 'natural forces' but as I keep asking, what are they and from what do they arrive? - accident again?
Your idea that all we need do is 'fill in the details' is like saying, 'We've invented the wheel, now all we need do is fill in the details, and we'll have a Mercedes'
There seems to be no doubt of the existence of 'natural forces' but as I keep asking, what are they and from what do they arrive? - accident again?
Your idea that all we need do is 'fill in the details' is like saying, 'We've invented the wheel, now all we need do is fill in the details, and we'll have a Mercedes'
It is nothing like saying we have a wheel we'll now have a Mercedes; as I am sure you appreciate. There are no replications for a wheel, nor any filtering out of that created but not fit for the environment. This is just going over the evolution discussion all over again which I thought was agreed to exist.
I'll let the science experts explain how things seem to find their way to low energy minimum states, suffice to know that is what occurs. And was only one suggestion as to what might be involved. Other suggestions welcomed.
Aside from that you seem to be asking for someone to explain all the details that we are still trying to discover before you will accept that the process is a valid explanation. No one yet has that sort of information, it's not a reasonable requrest. 't's will be crossed and 'i's dotted in due course.
I'll let the science experts explain how things seem to find their way to low energy minimum states, suffice to know that is what occurs. And was only one suggestion as to what might be involved. Other suggestions welcomed.
Aside from that you seem to be asking for someone to explain all the details that we are still trying to discover before you will accept that the process is a valid explanation. No one yet has that sort of information, it's not a reasonable requrest. 't's will be crossed and 'i's dotted in due course.
you could equally well question the existance of snowflakes using the same reasoning. What is the chance of each water molecule arriving at the exactly correct point in space and time to form a snowflake when it could be almost antwhere else on earth? And yet we have evidence that a snowflake has occurred more than once...Either there is a god or I don't quite understand something..... :-)
/ Bumblebees shouldn't be able to fly therefore because they can they are divine.//
hi Doug - I am not suprised you didnt look this up
and I agree this is in the set of arguments eppure si muove !
Galileo on the earth going around the sun
or
solvitur ambulando ( it is solved by walking ) as an answer to Zeno's paradoc on the impossibility of movement
so the atheists evolutionists ( or any evolutionists actually ) would explain this by rejigging the model
I mean you know can you imagine designing a car with square wheels
and then saying grandly I have proven that cars are impossible as they whizz past you on the motorway - o pleez !
It is not bumble bees - they actually reinforce evolution
non social and furry they have an evolutionary advantage of hairiness and this give them an edge on the span of operating temperatures
bumble bees can work when it is too cold for others ( tick evolution proven )
It is the OTHER ones .... and they can fly as the wings and thorax vibrate as a unity ( rather than the wings vibrating on an immobile thorax ) and this gives a higher beat rate and more lift - hence flight .....
so you just rejig the math model until you get something that makes sense see above
hi Doug - I am not suprised you didnt look this up
and I agree this is in the set of arguments eppure si muove !
Galileo on the earth going around the sun
or
solvitur ambulando ( it is solved by walking ) as an answer to Zeno's paradoc on the impossibility of movement
so the atheists evolutionists ( or any evolutionists actually ) would explain this by rejigging the model
I mean you know can you imagine designing a car with square wheels
and then saying grandly I have proven that cars are impossible as they whizz past you on the motorway - o pleez !
It is not bumble bees - they actually reinforce evolution
non social and furry they have an evolutionary advantage of hairiness and this give them an edge on the span of operating temperatures
bumble bees can work when it is too cold for others ( tick evolution proven )
It is the OTHER ones .... and they can fly as the wings and thorax vibrate as a unity ( rather than the wings vibrating on an immobile thorax ) and this gives a higher beat rate and more lift - hence flight .....
so you just rejig the math model until you get something that makes sense see above
Khandro, Just because the spekar doesn't understand that evolution is a continuous process from the first molecule to the present day diversity of life forms, it doesn't follow that the bits of which he and everbody else is ignorant didn't happen. If you look at the illustration of evolution visible in the fossil record then a pattern emerges ie. things get more complex and diverse with time. If you imagine following the pattern back through time then with a little imagination it is not difficult to come to the tentative conclusion that one chance meeting of a few simple molecules (of which there would have been countless billions) could have started the whole process. It only needed to happen once. It didn't need the ridiculously unlikely spontaneous appearence of a fully formed self replicating protein.
I find it strange that someone such as Goodlife resorts to science in order to try and prove that evolution doesn't happen or that Abiogenesis does not and cannot occur. It seems to have escaped his (and other theist's) attention that science determines probable truth by observation whereas religion just asserts that it is true by evoking tautological argument. It is correct to say that scientific theories do not rely on arguments from authority nor on other logical fallacies. It is equally correct to say that religion relies entirely upon arguments from authority and logical fallacies.
It is a peculiar trait of the religious that they seem to have a great deal of scepticism about scientific claims regarding evolution and its related subjects even though those claims can be checked and validated by observable empirical data. Yet they immediately disengage their scepticism when religion is under the microscope and accept as a given truth that which cannot, even in principal, be checked or validated.
It is a peculiar trait of the religious that they seem to have a great deal of scepticism about scientific claims regarding evolution and its related subjects even though those claims can be checked and validated by observable empirical data. Yet they immediately disengage their scepticism when religion is under the microscope and accept as a given truth that which cannot, even in principal, be checked or validated.
Latest Posts
News5 mins ago
Would The Uk Have Been Better Off If It...
News11 mins ago
Gary Glitter Told To Pay Victim...
News15 mins ago
Crosswords17 mins ago
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.