DNA Code...Proof of a Divine Creator?

[tsig]

You know, I went and checked, and it turns out this (only left-handed amino acids used by earth life) is almost true, but not quite. Some bacteria use right-handed amino acids in their cell walls, which apparently does just what I speculated it would do: helps protect them from being eaten by the stuff that's keyed to the left-handed variety.

And "so what" is what I already said: if life had started multiple times independently on earth, I'd expect that SOME of those independent beginnings would have gone down the right-handed amino acid path. The fact that that's not what we observe leads me to conclude that it probably only started once, even here on this planet where the conditions are seemingly favorable. Which leads me to conclude that life is not only not "inevitable", but is quite likely unlikely.

The chance that life would originate on Earth is 1.

 

[tsig]

He doesn't think very well, does he?

I have yet to see any evidence of thought. It's all been regurgitation of religious sites.

 

[bokonon]

I'm not going to play your moving the goal posts game. I was reponding to the reaction between H and O.

I think if you'll go back and check the statement to which you replied, your reply was the first mover of the goalposts, and I was only moving them back. But setting that aside...

I've been unable to verify your assertion that UV light causes H2 and O2 to form water. I've found statements that UV light can split water in the upper atmosphere into H2 and O2, or can transform water in the presence of oxygen into H2O2, but I haven't found one which confirms that it causes H2 and O2 to combine to form water. I'm not saying that it doesn't, just that I'd like a reference. It's really beside the point, but I always welcome an opportunity to learn something new.

 

[marplots]

This whole likely-unlikely thing is a dead end.

Granted, no one knows exactly how life arose on Earth. But that is precisely why we don't know how likely or not it was. The discussion is fantastical -- how likely would it be that Babe Ruth would have been a great baseball player if his name had been Schwartz and he grew up in New Delhi? Beats me, there's no way to tell much with these too-many-unknowns cases.

I should ask the Creationists how likely God is. Are there many, many other Universes where God never arose? What are the chances of God verses no God? What are the chances of only one God instead of hundreds? How about just one additional God with different-handed amino acids?

It's the same type of question. If you don't have a solid idea where God came from, you can't just tack on probabilities willy-nilly. Probability comes after knowledge, not before.

The way to approach this is by working backwards from what we know and see where that leads, not just start making up probabilities out of hand.

 

[temporalillusion]

What it isn't full of is doggie life. Even though it contains billions of doggie cells which are packed with amino acids and DNA and rhibosomes and mitochondria -- all of the essential ingredients, and all the essential structures for life to be happening -- those doggie cells are not alive. They're a handy place for things that ARE alive to refuel, but the "essentials" are not sufficient (even with a bit of UV light, or lightning strike, or magic incantations) to make a single one of those cells come alive.

Well the cells were alive until they stopped getting what they needed to live... oxygen, nutrients, etc. Then the cells died. Providing them UV or lightning isn't going to undo the damage that occurred when the cell stopped getting what it needed, so the expectation is unrealistic.

 

[Ron_Tomkins]

Aaahhh here we go again with the old "Nature has a meaning" crap.

Yes, yes... we get it. Because we happen to have lots of creatures that have been "properly" designed, and every part of such design works coherently with each other part, then it "must have a meaning"

Of course, when we say "lots" of creatures, we are obviously ignoring the vast emptiness of the Universe, which is dark and dead, and where no life has ever arisen and probably never will.

But to us, the ones who are alive and who are surrounded by "lots" of creatures in this tiny, insignificant planet, in the middle of a huge, vast, empty, dark and dead universe, that WE exist and that we share this small planet with other living creatures must have a meaning.

Humans and their never ending argument from "meaning" are really getting on my nerves.

 

[bokonon]

Well the cells were alive until they stopped getting what they needed to live... oxygen, nutrients, etc. Then the cells died. Providing them UV or lightning isn't going to undo the damage that occurred when the cell stopped getting what it needed, so the expectation is unrealistic.

Right. I think it's just as unrealistic to argue that a lot of amino acids in a primordial ocean + millions of years = "life was pretty inevitable" which is what noreligion was saying.

99.9% of space contains no matter at all. Of the miniscule fraction which DOES contain matter, 99% of it is hydrogen. It's amazing that water exists at all. It's amazing that such a small molecule is liquid rather than gas at such warm temperatures, and that it expands when it freezes. Earth is mostly iron and silicon; life on earth is not.

I don't know how life managed to bootstrap itself on this planet. I assume the process will be understood some day, though I doubt I'll be alive long enough to see it myself. I just think dismissing it as "inevitable" is facile and lazy. It's no such thing.

 

[thaiboxerken]

I just think dismissing it as "inevitable" is facile and lazy. It's no such thing.

But insisting it was designed, even though there is no evidence, isn't intellectually lazy?

 

[noreligion]

Right. I think it's just as unrealistic to argue that a lot of amino acids in a primordial ocean + millions of years = "life was pretty inevitable" which is what noreligion was saying.

Where did I say anything other than life was an inevitable product of a series of chemical reactions? What you are doing is called lying. Expect no further replies from me since I do not play well with liars.

 

[arthwollipot]

Is it just me, or does it seem that the conversation's over the moment someone drops the L word?

 

[noreligion]

Earth is mostly iron and silicon

Oxygen: 46.6 %
Silicon: 27.7%
Aluminum: 8.1%
Iron: 5%
Calcium: 3.6%
Sodium: 2.8%
Potassium: 2.6%
Magnesium: 2.1%
Other: 1.5%

Mostly Iron and Silicon?

 

[noreligion]

Is it just me, or does it seem that the conversation's over the moment someone drops the L word?

Why do some people find a need to add, subtract or otherwise embellish what other people say and then claim they said it?

 

[Mirrorglass]

Why do some people find a need to add, subtract or otherwise embellish what other people say and then claim they said it?

Because that's what they did? There are no new ideas. Everything you've ever thought of or said is built upon something said or written by someone else. It's impossible to create a completely new text. All we can do is add, substract or otherwise embellish and hope that the result is more than the sum of it's parts. That doesn't mean our words aren't our own.

Or did I read too much into what wasn't meant as a philosophical question?

 

[noreligion]

Because that's what they did? There are no new ideas. Everything you've ever thought of or said is built upon something said or written by someone else. It's impossible to create a completely new text. All we can do is add, substract or otherwise embellish and hope that the result is more than the sum of it's parts. That doesn't mean our words aren't our own.

Or did I read too much into what wasn't meant as a philosophical question?

You read to much into it nor did you read the post I was replying to and the post that prompted it.

 

[Mirrorglass]

You read to much into it nor did you read the post I was replying to and the post that prompted it.

Ah. Now I get it.

I don't think you did, though.

 

[bokonon]

I think it's [...] unrealistic to argue that a lot of amino acids in a primordial ocean + millions of years = "life was pretty inevitable" which is what noreligion was saying.

Where did I say anything other than life was an inevitable product of a series of chemical reactions? What you are doing is called lying. Expect no further replies from me since I do not play well with liars.

I expect no further replies from you because you know when you've been spanked and you're anxious to avoid being spanked again. In your brief time on this forum and in this thread, I've observed your propensity to pigeonhole your adversary as an excuse to take your face and go home -- creotards, IDiots, fundagelicals, "fundies with no intellect", people who don't understand that the writers at talkorigins may make statements which are not scientifically valid, and now "liar".

I don't really think I've misrepresented your idea, but I'll be happy to amend my statement to "I think it's [...] unrealistic to argue that life was an INEVITABLE product of a series of chemical reactions, which is what noreligion was saying." Better?

Oxygen: 46.6 %
Silicon: 27.7%
Aluminum: 8.1%
Iron: 5%
Calcium: 3.6%
Sodium: 2.8%
Potassium: 2.6%
Magnesium: 2.1%
Other: 1.5%

Mostly Iron and Silicon?

What's this, another reply? You are such a liar! Oh, wait, you didn't say you WOULDN'T reply again, just that I shouldn't EXPECT you to. Clever boy!

And AAAAArgh, ya got me, Ace. Iron and silicon, what was I thinking? Oh, wait, I see what you did there. In your mind, you added "'s crust" to what I wrote, and then went and gave me a breakdown of THAT as a way to -- to what? Argue that there was a flaw in my reasoning? Life is mostly composed of carbon, nitrogen, hydrogen, and oxygen, of which only one (oxygen) is on your list. So MY POINT -- that the earth (or the earth's crust) is mostly composed of elements other than the elements which compose life -- is still valid. Care to address that?

And by the way, I was still wrong. Earth is mostly iron (35%), oxygen (30%) and silicon (15%). The fact that most of the iron is not in the crust, but rather in a molten core which helps to protect the fragile molecules necessary for life from the radiation which would otherwise likely destroy them, is one of those fortunate accidents that helped nudge this planet toward biosphere. Even though I got the details a bit wrong, I think my point is still valid.

Why do some people find a need to add, subtract or otherwise embellish what other people say and then claim they said it?

Yeah, when a guy says "earth" why do some people find a need to add "'s crust" to it and then respond as though they said THAT? Oh, wait, I know, it's to avoid addressing the gist of the argument by pointing out an immaterial error.

 

[thaiboxerken]

I don't believe you spanked anyone, Bokonon. No-religion simply became upset because of the straw-men you've made of his positions. He called it a lie, but that doesn't make you right.

 

[bokonon]

I don't believe you spanked anyone, Bokonon. No-religion simply became upset because of the straw-men you've made of his positions. He called it a lie, but that doesn't make you right.

Calling me a liar doesn't make me one, and calling my arguments straw men doesn't make them that. Noreligion continues to claim that life was inevitable; I've tried to explain why I don't believe it was.

I accept that there is a vocal element here which prefers name calling and labeling to substantive discussion, but if you decide to support your opinion with actual examples of straw man arguments you believe I've made, I'll be happy to address them.

 

[temporalillusion]

99.9% of space contains no matter at all.

Not really, even intergalactic expanses have some matter in them, just not a lot. Plus there's dark energy, neutrinos, etc out there. But this fact isn't amazing or have any meaning really, since the matter is all going to clump together due to gravity leaving spaces between the clumps.

Of the miniscule fraction which DOES contain matter, 99% of it is hydrogen.

Less than 75% of it is hydrogen.. it was ~75% in the early universe (and 25% helium), and stars convert hydrogen and helium into heavier elements.

It's amazing that water exists at all.

Why? There are atoms and those atoms combine into molecules according to a set of rules. I don't see how the word amazing applies.

It's amazing that such a small molecule is liquid rather than gas at such warm temperatures, and that it expands when it freezes.

No more amazing than other molecules being a solid rather than a liquid at such warm temperatures, and there are other things that expand when they freeze.. not many, but some. I still don't understand the use of the word amazing, why these things happen is well understood.

Earth is mostly iron and silicon; life on earth is not.

Life will use whatever substances that are both available and meet the needs of it, how abundant something is is only one factor in that, so one wouldn't expect life to reflect the ratio of elements of an entire planet..

I don't know how life managed to bootstrap itself on this planet. I assume the process will be understood some day, though I doubt I'll be alive long enough to see it myself. I just think dismissing it as "inevitable" is facile and lazy. It's no such thing.

True, someday we'll probably know or at least have plausible scenarios. And I think inevitable is a closer description than anything else, given the size of even just the observable universe, but until we have a better idea (or better yet other examples of life), hard to say for sure. But I find it far harder to believe that it happened only once, that's like balancing on the edge of a knife.. far more like that if it happened once it happened many times which puts it in the inevitable category.

 

[bokonon]

Not really, even intergalactic expanses have some matter in them, just not a lot.

Yes, really. Even one atom per cubic inch would be 99.9999999% empty, and intergalactic expanses are a lot emptier than that. InterPLANETARY expanses are a lot emptier than that.

But this fact isn't amazing or have any meaning really, since the matter is all going to clump together due to gravity leaving spaces between the clumps.

Well, no, it's still amazing, since the matter didn't all clump together in one big clump, or a few big clumps that were nothing but black holes, or a few more slightly smaller clumps that were just humongous stars that subsequently became black holes when they burned out and collapsed, etc. It's amazing that the clumping formed galaxies composed of stars of varying sizes about which rotated planets of various sizes and compositions at various distances. It's amazing that stars could digest the hydrogen and helium which composed the early universe, and then puke it out to become OTHER stars and planet systems instead of just burning out and going cold. It's amazing that a cloud of hydrogen and helium of sufficient size could collapse under its own gravity to the point where it became a floating nuclear furnace in the first place.

Less than 75% of it is hydrogen.. it was ~75% in the early universe (and 25% helium), and stars convert hydrogen and helium into heavier elements.

I stand corrected. 99% of the universe TODAY still consists of nothing but hydrogen and helium, so I consider myself extremely fortunate to be living on this tiny oasis of elements OTHER than hydrogen and helium. Especially since, as far as we know, hydrogen and helium are not capable of the kinds of chemistry required to kick-start (or even sustain) life.

Why? There are atoms and those atoms combine into molecules according to a set of rules. I don't see how the word amazing applies.

The fact that such rules exist is amazing to me. The fact that atoms exist is amazing to me. You're free to adopt a ho-hum attitude toward it all, but don't pretend you know why it happened.

The fact that hydrogen atoms formed is amazing, and you don't understand why that happened.

The fact that hydrogen can transform itself into oxygen using nothing but gravity and more hydrogen is amazing.

The fact that such oxygen, once formed, can OVERCOME that immense gravity and blast itself into interstellar space is amazing.

The fact that, once floating in the immense emptiness of interstellar space, oxygen molecules can find hydrogen molecules and talk them into a menage-a-trois is amazing.

But set all that aside, and just tell me the "set of rules" which would cause the O2 molecule to split into a pair of O atoms, and a pair of H2 molecules to split into 4 H atoms, and the six of them somehow arrange themselves into two water molecules, way out there in the near-vacuum of interstellar space.

Or, if that's not how you think it happened, explain how you think all those ice-drenched comets got to be ice-drenched comets. I think it's amazing.

No more amazing than other molecules being a solid rather than a liquid at such warm temperatures, and there are other things that expand when they freeze.. not many, but some. I still don't understand the use of the word amazing, why these things happen is well understood.

By you? Okay, explain to me why water is a liquid at 70^oF, but CO₂ (a much heavier molecule) is a gas. I find it amazing.

Life will use whatever substances that are both available and meet the needs of it, how abundant something is is only one factor in that, so one wouldn't expect life to reflect the ratio of elements of an entire planet.

You speak of "life" as though it's an agent recruiting members for its team. I agree, how abundant something is is only one factor, which is why I found noreligion's challenge to "list the abundance of elements in the universe/air/crust" to be not only wrongheaded (since what we end up with is very much different than the elements of life) but kind of pointless (since the raw elements are a necessary but far from sufficient condition for life to begin).

True, someday we'll probably know or at least have plausible scenarios. And I think inevitable is a closer description than anything else, given the size of even just the observable universe, but until we have a better idea (or better yet other examples of life), hard to say for sure. But I find it far harder to believe that it happened only once, that's like balancing on the edge of a knife.. far more like that if it happened once it happened many times which puts it in the inevitable category.

I disagree, but I could certainly be wrong. I think "happened only once" is a very plausible scenario.