DNA Code...Proof of a Divine Creator?

[bokonon]

You're amazed that water is wet?

I absolutely am. In my opinion, anyone who isn't is either sadly jaded, or too uneducated to realize just how amazing it is.

Chemical reactions are predictable and dictated by the chemicals' characteristics. Atoms coming in contact with other atoms don't act randomly. They act based on their chemical properties. The question is not settled if my actions are deterministic or by choice.

I see. So in that sense, the precise location and temperature of each and every dust particle on the planet Venus at this moment was "inevitable". I guess in that sense, abiogenesis was inevitable too, but I don't think that's what most people have in mind when they hear such a claim.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

claiming i said something i didn't when it is there for everybody to see if they open their eyes is lying. You are defending the actions of a liar.

Sigh.....

 

[temporalillusion]

The precise location and temperature of every dust particle isn't necessarily "inevitable", but it isn't amazing either. What's absolutely not amazing is that each and every dust particle on the planet Venus has a location and a temperature.

It feels amazing if you win the lottery, but it's not amazing if someone wins it.

Why is it amazing that some compounds are liquid between some temperature and some other temperature?

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

....

I see. So in that sense, the precise location and temperature of each and every dust particle on the planet Venus at this moment was "inevitable". I guess in that sense, abiogenesis was inevitable too, but I don't think that's what most people have in mind when they hear such a claim.

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.

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.

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. How often is not currently known. 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. 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.

The advance of microbial life to multicellular organisms is another probability equation, but it does appear that certain traits evolve repeatedly and once multicellular life evolves, it is likely it would evolve into intelligent beings eventually since intelligence is a successful trait. Vision (and other versions of sensing the environment), locomotion, procreation, self preservation: these are also traits that are naturally selected for.

We do know, that it appears a technologically advanced life form isn't likely residing near enough to us that we've detected any evidence of that technology. One should see radio transmissions and we've yet to detect those. So such emissions are not within a few hundred light years distance. Those more knowledgeable than I could give you a more precise number there.

 

[thaiboxerken]

Bokonon, you're arguments aren't really arguments at all, but your repeated assertion that it's amazing the universe exists at all.

 

[GIBHOR]

If one takes all the elements in the Universe, it is inevitable, for example, some water will form.

Why is it inevitable ?

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.

Was spontaneous creation of information (DNA) also inevitable ?

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.

Do you know all the elements and fine-tuning necessary to create the basic environment, to permit life ?

How often is not currently known. 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. 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.

Its not even explained, if Abiogenesis happened on earth. What makes you think, in the universe it is more likely to happen ?

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Why is it inevitable ?

Because the conditions under which water forms are inevitable.

Was spontaneous creation of information (DNA) also inevitable ?

If by spontaneous, you mean by the actual process that occurred, yes. If by spontaneous you mean an airplane will form eventually if you throw parts into a hangar infinite times, then no.

Do you know all the elements and fine-tuning necessary to create the basic environment, to permit life ?

You need to read the state of the science investigating abiogenesis if you want to carry on a discussion about it. We are well past the, "gee it looks impossible" phase and well into the, "which of these potential mechanisms will turn out to be the mechanism" phase.

Its not even explained, if Abiogenesis happened on earth. What makes you think, in the universe it is more likely to happen ?

Again, these comments suggest you are unaware of the advances in the science of abiogenesis and the knowledge about the Universe we've been accumulating in the last couple decades.

 

[marplots]

We do know, that it appears a technologically advanced life form isn't likely residing near enough to us that we've detected any evidence of that technology. One should see radio transmissions and we've yet to detect those.

I just want to disagree with this part. For if we know anything about intelligence, we know that those who possess it are necessarily sneaky bastards.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

I just want to disagree with this part. For if we know anything about intelligence, we know that those who possess it are necessarily sneaky bastards.

I'm willing to entertain alternate scenarios. Describe one where radio waves from the past that would now be streaming by Earth would end up disguised or blocked (remember the civilization would have to reach out faster than the speed of light to intercept radio waves that left their planet in the past), and for what reason would that have been important to this nearby society?

 

[Belz...]

DNA is not proof of a divine creator. There. Thread over.

 

[Dancing David]

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.

Not true, we can directly measure the rate of synthesis of amino acids and the like.

What do you think abiogenesis is?

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?

you seem very confused, you can measure and detect aminos acids, the measurement of god is a little iffy.

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.

Maybe you do not understand frequency statistics?

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.

So far you are the only one who has mentioned it out of hand.

You can't exactly work backwards, same problem as knowing the initial sate, all along the line.

 

[Dancing David]

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.

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

 

[noreligion]

Do you know all the elements and fine-tuning necessary to create the basic environment, to permit life ?

I'm not quite sure I follow you, are you saying there were elements in the past that were necessary for life that aren't now or do you just not understand the chemical elements that are required for life are present now otherwise there wouldn't be life. The fine tuning bs is totally inane. Can you give me some other values that would permit life as we know it or can you even show that they could be different? Unless you can do that, fine tuning is at best a pipe dream of the fundie crowd.

 

[Complexity]

Was spontaneous creation of information (DNA) also inevitable ?

Edited by LibraryLady: 

Edited for civility.

Asked and answered.

 

[Dancing David]

Why is it inevitable ?

It is not. It is very likely.

Was spontaneous creation of information (DNA) also inevitable ?

Strawman, it wasn't spontaneous. Who said it was?

Do you know all the elements and fine-tuning necessary to create the basic environment, to permit life ?

Do you know the errors of the fine tuning argument?
Which one? Is your preffered FTA?

Its not even explained, if Abiogenesis happened on earth. What makes you think, in the universe it is more likely to happen ?

No theory explains anything, they give likely explanations, do you actually know anything about teh therories of abiogenesis?

 

[noreligion]

It is not. It is very likely.

Tell me, as long as the universe (or Earth) has oxygen, H₂O will be the product of a combustion reaction. Unless one is willing to state no combustion reactions would ever occur, the formation of H₂O is inevitable. Also, considering it is here, it most certainly was an inevitability.

 

[Belz...]

I absolutely am. In my opinion, anyone who isn't is either sadly jaded, or too uneducated to realize just how amazing it is.

 

[marplots]

I'm willing to entertain alternate scenarios. Describe one where radio waves from the past that would now be streaming by Earth would end up disguised or blocked (remember the civilization would have to reach out faster than the speed of light to intercept radio waves that left their planet in the past), and for what reason would that have been important to this nearby society?

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.

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

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

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.

 

[marplots]

Not true, we can directly measure the rate of synthesis of amino acids and the like.

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.

you seem very confused, you can measure and detect aminos acids, the measurement of god is a little iffy.

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.

Maybe you do not understand frequency statistics?

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.

So far you are the only one who has mentioned it out of hand. {about probability}

Apologies then.

 

[Dancing David]

Tell me, as long as the universe (or Earth) has oxygen, H₂O will be the product of a combustion reaction. Unless one is willing to state no combustion reactions would ever occur, the formation of H₂O is inevitable. Also, considering it is here, it most certainly was an inevitability.

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.