DNA Code...Proof of a Divine Creator?

[Dancing David]

But it isn't just the rate of reactions you are interested in. It is the conditions that led to these reactions in the first place.

So you look in the universe that we can see, the abundance of organics in molecular clouds is well known and they are well distributed in our galaxy. The goal of science is approximate models, never exacting recreation.

That is why people who are careful use terms like 'seems likely' rather than 'it happened this way.'

Your criticism would strip away almost all of astronomy and physics in one fell swoop. We can’t know anything about the conditions in the past, we can only theorize and draw some tentative conclusions from the evidence.

It still seems likelier than not the earth’s moon was formed in a huge collision.

Where did the earth come from, what was it like, where did the impactor comes from, what was it like? We will never know, it is still a very valid theory.

A much grander and deeper picture. My point about probabilities was meant to reflect this lack of knowledge.

Exact knowledge is not needed, we do now what Jupiter looks like and Triton.

If we want to extract a model and assign probabilities, we ought to have a basis for making the simplifications and enough understanding to say our model represents something real.

Um all theories are approximate models, now it seems likely that at some point abiogenesis theories will reach the point where particulars can be falsified, that is the nature of science.

I agree, you can measure and detect amino acids. But the question is about abiogenesis verses creation, isn't it? How are these two statements different without knowing more about abiogenesis:

We don't know the mechanism of gravity either, should we throw out Kepler's laws?

1) I believe that chemistry is a good explanation for how life arose on Earth, but right now, I cannot elucidate the details.

I never made an absolute statement, now did I, so of course I agree.

2) I believe an intelligent designer created life on Earth, but I cannot elucidate the details.

It is the very lack of fundamental, detailed models that brings up the questions.

There is no evidence of any design in the first place and they haven't even got a theory, so one far out strips the other.

The gaps in one do not equal the gaps in the other. There is no equality of gaps to hide in.

When ID is a coherent theory let me know, will you?

That is correct, I do not understand frequency statistics. I suspect if they are valid you have to show some reason why they apply to the case you are using them to analyze.

Nope they exist in an of them selves.

You speak in too many absolutes, abiogenesis is a science theory , not a dogma.

Apologies then.

No problemo.

 

[bokonon]

If one takes all the elements in the Universe, it is inevitable, for example, some water will form. It may not be inevitable where that water forms, but it is certainly inevitable it will form somewhere.

I agree with this. Hydrogen is ubiquitous, oxygen was formed in numerous early stars which exploded and distributed the element, given hydrogen and oxygen there are a number of cosmically commonplace situations in which they will combine to form water. The keys to me are that the elements are commonly found together, and there are a number of fairly likely ways we know the two elements will combine to form water.

So expanding on that analogy, it was inevitable that the chemicals and their locations and relationships resulted in the conditions in which life would eventually emerge somewhere in the Universe, given all the conditions in the Universe. We know that because it happened.

No. We know it happened; we do not know it was inevitable. Unlike in the case of water, we do not know a single way to create the conditions which would cause life to emerge. Perhaps there is only one, and it was so unlikely as to have happened only once in the whole history of the universe.

And if one considers the size of the Universe and the fact there are a lot of repeating conditions, it's very likely that abiogenesis has occurred more than once.

We know there are a lot of repeating conditions. We do not know what conditions are required for abiogenesis. If we did, we could create those conditions today, and observe abiogenesis in the lab.

Since we do not know what conditions are required, we have no way to evaluate how common those conditions are in the universe, even if we had a comprehensive catalog of planets, which we also don't have. Thus, your statement that it's "very likely" that abiogenesis has occurred more than once seems to me to be unsupported by anything other than an emotional desire that it be so.

How often is not currently known.

As far as we know today: once.

If we find any microbial life, or evidence of past microbial life anywhere in the solar system, then the frequency of abiogenesis would be tremendously high.

I agree. If we find evidence that abiogenesis has happened more than once within our solar system (either on Earth, or on some extraterrestrial body) then we're likely to find that it's commonplace in the universe.

Even if we don't find any microbial life in the solar system, but detect it in nearby solar systems, the likelihood of abiogenesis would be very high.

Yes. This is especially true if "other life" employs some method other than DNA to reproduce. Just as "there are many ways to create water from hydrogen and oxygen" makes it more likely that water will be created, so "there are many ways that life can begin" makes it more likely that life will begin.

Since we can't currently offer even one way, though, I consider claims of inevitability to be premature at best.

 

[bokonon]

What is the density is a star or molecular clouds? Oh that is right they don't exist because space is mostly empty.

I don't believe I'm getting your point here.

The context for this discussion was how likely a certain chemical reaction would be: that somewhere in the bowels of space, hydrogen would meet oxygen and form water.

Obviously, if there is only one atom per cubic mile, it will be rare for atoms to come together to react. In the example I gave, of one atom per cubic inch, there is no matter in the cubic inch outside the single atom, so it is true that 99% of that cubic inch contains no matter. I discount "neutrinos" because we are talking about matter which might contribute to the chemical reaction under discussion.

Skeptic Ginger provided a link which described gas clouds that had a temperature of 200^oF. I don't know how dense those clouds are, but the fact that the temperature is fairly high would seem to make chemical reactions within such clouds fairly likely. With the atoms moving with enough energy to maintain such temperatures, it is to be expected that they will often collide and perhaps react with one another.

 

[noreligion]

There are some contorted and unrealistic configurations where it would not occur, it is neutrality to avoid dogmatism.

I think the likelyhood is very high like 99.99999999% that water would form, but any absolute is usually not always accurate.

In this case it is. Tell me is water here? If it is, it was inevitable that it formed. As far as appearing dogmatic, who cares what people who believe a sky daddy created life think?

 

[noreligion]

1) I believe that chemistry is a good explanation for how life arose on Earth, but right now, I cannot elucidate the details.

2) I believe an intelligent designer created life on Earth, but I cannot elucidate the details.

It is the very lack of fundamental, detailed models that brings up the questions.

How about we take this foolishness one step further to show how dumb it really is.

1} I believe that physics is a good explanation for the details of my car crash but right now I can't elucidate the details.

2) I believe an intelligent designer is responsible for the details of my car crash but I can't elucidate the details.

What a load of feces.

 

[marplots]

How about we take this foolishness one step further to show how dumb it really is.

1} I believe that physics is a good explanation for the details of my car crash but right now I can't elucidate the details.

2) I believe an intelligent designer is responsible for the details of my car crash but I can't elucidate the details.

What a load of feces.

Naw, that's a poor example. A better one would be claiming your car crashed because the road was slippery and it was likely verses your car crashed because the driver was drunk. Everyone agrees it happened, but without knowing more, we can't say which explanation is more likely.

I have never been able to pin down Creationists as to when God intervened and when plain old physics and biology took over, but I assume they would agree that God's hand isn't required for every little step.

As regards "God did it," the whole stance, the whole argument from incredulity, revolves around this gap in knowledge. If we knew how it happened or could even demonstrate a pretty fair guess, it would ruin all these goofy probability based arguments and close another God of the gaps.

 

[bokonon]

Naw, that's a poor example. A better one would be claiming your car crashed because the road was slippery and it was likely verses your car crashed because the driver was drunk. Everyone agrees it happened, but without knowing more, we can't say which explanation is more likely.

Doesn't matter. According to noreligion, if it happened, it was inevitable. Dry road, sober driver, irrelevant details. It was inevitable. Because it happened.

 

[Dancing David]

In this case it is. Tell me is water here? If it is, it was inevitable that it formed. As far as appearing dogmatic, who cares what people who believe a sky daddy created life think?

I don't, I care what I say.

It sure has a probability of 1!

 

[Dancing David]

I don't believe I'm getting your point here.

The context for this discussion was how likely a certain chemical reaction would be: that somewhere in the bowels of space, hydrogen would meet oxygen and form water.

Obviously, if there is only one atom per cubic mile, it will be rare for atoms to come together to react. In the example I gave, of one atom per cubic inch, there is no matter in the cubic inch outside the single atom, so it is true that 99% of that cubic inch contains no matter. I discount "neutrinos" because we are talking about matter which might contribute to the chemical reaction under discussion.

Skeptic Ginger provided a link which described gas clouds that had a temperature of 200^oF. I don't know how dense those clouds are, but the fact that the temperature is fairly high would seem to make chemical reactions within such clouds fairly likely. With the atoms moving with enough energy to maintain such temperatures, it is to be expected that they will often collide and perhaps react with one another.

Maybe you should consider that the frequency of water and ice is something that can be measured.

And that the distribution of matter is not even.

So one atom per cubic meter might be an average but the actual concentration will vary.

 

[noreligion]

I have never been able to pin down Creationists as to when God intervened and when plain old physics and biology took over, but I assume they would agree that God's hand isn't required for every little step.

You assume wrong then. If it isn't in the bible, a creationist doesn't believe it. An IDiot, on the other hand, doesn't exactly believe the bible (as far as creation).

As regards "God did it," the whole stance, the whole argument from incredulity, revolves around this gap in knowledge. If we knew how it happened or could even demonstrate a pretty fair guess, it would ruin all these goofy probability based arguments and close another God of the gaps.

Not true by any means as synthetic life was created in a lab and quite a few IDiots claimed that since man is intelligent it is proof of an intelligent designer. Creotards claimed that it proved that life can not happen itself. They both contort evidence to fit their preconceived bias.

 

[Dancing David]

Naw, that's a poor example. A better one would be claiming your car crashed because the road was slippery and it was likely verses your car crashed because the driver was drunk. Everyone agrees it happened, but without knowing more, we can't say which explanation is more likely.

I have never been able to pin down Creationists as to when God intervened and when plain old physics and biology took over, but I assume they would agree that God's hand isn't required for every little step.

As regards "God did it," the whole stance, the whole argument from incredulity, revolves around this gap in knowledge. If we knew how it happened or could even demonstrate a pretty fair guess, it would ruin all these goofy probability based arguments and close another God of the gaps.

God is all gaps, the gaps in abiogenesis are getting smaller, false parity.

There is no evidence for god. There is plenty of evidence for abiogenesis.

 

[noreligion]

actual concentration will vary.

This quote would fit well among Christians.

 

[marplots]

Doesn't matter. According to noreligion, if it happened, it was inevitable. Dry road, sober driver, irrelevant details. It was inevitable. Because it happened.

Sure, inevitable, but curious monkeys still want to know why. We have this idea that it will help us reduce the inevitable down the road.

 

[marplots]

I find myself agreeing with everyone. I hate the way that kills conversation.

 

[thaiboxerken]

Bokonon.. what is the probability that 2+2 = 1 ?

 

[bokonon]

Bokonon.. what is the probability that 2+2 = 1 ?

Two quarters plus two quarters equals one buck. Why do you ask?

 

[thaiboxerken]

Two quarters plus two quarters equals one buck. Why do you ask?

What is the probability that 2 units + 2 units = 4 units, whereas each unit is equal?

 

[bokonon]

What is the probability that 2 units + 2 units = 4 units, whereas each unit is equal?

If the "units" are proton masses, I suppose you could add 2 and 2 and get something other than four. Again, why do you ask?

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

First, I am required to state that I can neither confirm nor deny the existence of extra-terrestrial life of any kind.

1) That said, how about an underwater civilization? I'm not enough of a physicist to know if radio waves are useful in that situation or what happens at the water/atmosphere interface.

A technologically advanced civilization wouldn't be very advanced if they didn't explore their planet above the water just as we've explored below the water's surface.

I think you are confusing intelligent life with advanced technological life. I'd have to look into the escape from the planet of underwater transmissions, but any technologically advanced civilization would be using some form of communication and it's my understanding basic forms would leak off the planet. Again, I'm open to alternatives here but I need the specifics.

2) A planet that doesn't revolve and the 'good side' faces away from us.

Again, advanced societies would explore their planet.

3) Something between us and them? Some astronomical feature. Could also be a natural planetary feature like cool magnetic storms or other scrambling mechanism.

I need the specifics. Are there planets like this we've detected? As for something blocking the transmissions, electromagnetic waves would spread back out after passing the blocking object.

But here's my main candidate -- they've advanced past the point of sending radio waves out randomly and haven't for many thousands of years because they are sneaky and clever and don't want to give their location away.

I'm not saying we can rule anything out that is something we've yet to encounter so have no way of knowing about. However, I am going by the likely scenarios and I'm not the person who first suggested we should be receiving transmissions from planets near enough to reach if advanced technological life forms inhabited them. I happen to agree with this hypothesis and think the evidence (our own technology which is not entirely based on how we evolved, but rather is based on the technology we've discovered and invented) and logic make sense.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

But it isn't just the rate of reactions you are interested in. It is the conditions that led to these reactions in the first place. A much grander and deeper picture. My point about probabilities was meant to reflect this lack of knowledge. If we want to extract a model and assign probabilities, we ought to have a basis for making the simplifications and enough understanding to say our model represents something real.



I agree, you can measure and detect amino acids. But the question is about abiogenesis verses creation, isn't it? How are these two statements different without knowing more about abiogenesis:

1) I believe that chemistry is a good explanation for how life arose on Earth, but right now, I cannot elucidate the details.

2) I believe an intelligent designer created life on Earth, but I cannot elucidate the details.

It is the very lack of fundamental, detailed models that brings up the questions.



That is correct, I do not understand frequency statistics. I suspect if they are valid you have to show some reason why they apply to the case you are using them to analyze.




Apologies then.

Apology accepted.

From your answers here you appear to be making the typical mistake of making statements about intelligent design and abiogenesis based on years old knowledge.

Intelligent design was argued to be supported by the claim one could find irreducible complexity. Hypothesized irreducible complexity challenges to evolution theory have all been debunked. In addition, genetic science discoveries demonstrated all life examined genetically to date fit evolution theory. There's overwhelming genetic evidence. Evolution theory is not in doubt. Period.

We are past the testing the hypothesis for the theory as a whole and have used the theory to make multiple successful predictions. That's the step that totally clinches a theory.

As for a designer being needed to fine tune evolution theory, that can be debunked as well, if you look at the evidence. For example, when it comes to something designed, like a transistor radio, if you take out one resistor, the radio fails.

Living organisms, OTOH, have a lot of room for defects and missing parts and the organism is likely to still function perfectly well. And natural selection, a confirmed piece of evolution theory, is overwhelmingly supported by the evidence. It is also not in doubt. No designer is needed anywhere along the process.

That includes the evidence there was no need for a designer to get abiogenesis to occur. The fact you "cannot elucidate the details" does not reflect the state of the science. While we don't have the specifics exactly fine tuned, scientists at least have a general idea how abiogenesis could have occurred. Researchers actually have some pretty detailed options consistent with the conditions abiogenesis occurred under. It's been a while since the research was at the phase of testing RNA hypotheses but not having an hypothesis for how the RNA molecules formed.

And there are some good hypotheses supported by evidence for how the first cell walls might have formed.