DNA Code...Proof of a Divine Creator?

[thaiboxerken]

I have no idea how what you wrote follows from what I wrote, but since this thread isn't about me, it would be off-topic in any case.

Perhaps because you said you don't believe in any of those things.

At any rate, what you keep arguing is very incosistent and silly. I was trying to figure out where you're coming from. If it's not a scientific model, or an ID model.....what?

 

[noreligion]

Perhaps because you said you don't believe in any of those things.

At any rate, what you keep arguing is very incosistent and silly. I was trying to figure out where you're coming from. If it's not a scientific model, or an ID model.....what?

M0del of...I am going to argue with everybody no matter how sound their position is just to show what an intellectual idiot I am.

 

[Dancing David]

Actually you did, since I started the 'inevitable' piece of the discussion and you want to turn that into 'likely inevitable'.

On other issues we have a high degree of agreement.

Um, so you are Marplots?

Now I am really confused, you responded to something I said to them.
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6124215&postcount=261

So I do not see where I said anything about what you should say.

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.

And this the post of Marplots that i first responded to...

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6118691&postcount=204

I would have a hard time sorting your contribution from noreligion, bokonon and jasonpatteron myself, and seriously I thought I was responding to Marplots ... but if it makes you happy...

 

[bokonon]

Perhaps because you said you don't believe in any of those things.

I see, you have a bit of a reading comprehension problem. My syntax was a bit complicated, but perhaps I can rephrase it so you can correctly grasp my meaning:

I don't believe intel design
made DNA with plans divine!
I don't believe it made a cell!
I don't believe it could propel
A cell down evolution's path.
I don't believe it taught us math,
Or laid down all the other rules
You clearly never learned in school,
Like rules of physics, chemistry,
Or rules that rule biology!

Did unintelligent design
Compose your post of taibo whine?

 

[thaiboxerken]

So you don't have a problem with abiogenesis theory then?

 

[bokonon]

I'd say it's more at the "abiogenesis hypotheses" stage, but I think life on earth began naturally. My "problem" in this thread has been that I don't believe the evidence is there to justify calling abiogenesis "inevitable". Perhaps when it is better understood, the case for such a characterization will be stronger.

 

[phantomb]

So, anybody read Habitable Planets for Man, the 1964 RAND paper? It only touches on the likelihood of life arising in the universe, but it does discuss the various requirements that would make a planet habitable for our kind of life such as age, mass, rate of rotation, etc. as well as the estimated probability of a given star in our galaxy having a planet that meets those requirements. The conclusion was that there should be roughly 645 million habitable planets in our galaxy, and about 50 habitable planets within 100 light-years of the Earth.

 

[Belz...]

So you have no beliefs based in science, mathematics, logic, reason or faith?!

Talk about misreading a post...

 

[bokonon]

So, anybody read Habitable Planets for Man, the 1964 RAND paper? It only touches on the likelihood of life arising in the universe, but it does discuss the various requirements that would make a planet habitable for our kind of life such as age, mass, rate of rotation, etc. as well as the estimated probability of a given star in our galaxy having a planet that meets those requirements. The conclusion was that there should be roughly 645 million habitable planets in our galaxy, and about 50 habitable planets within 100 light-years of the Earth.

I think they're talking through their hats, and have no basis for claiming "habitability" anywhere other than Earth.

As far as we know today, "habitability" (the ability to support human life right out of the box) would require that life began on the planet in question, because as far as we know today that's the only way the planet could have acquired the oxygen-rich atmosphere we need.

If they're using a broader definition of habitablity (and your "age, mass, rate of rotation" suggests they may be), like "you can survive there, if you carry your own air with you and shield yourself from radiation by living underground", then Mars is "habitable", and there may well be 50 more such planets within 100 light years of us.

In 1964, we had very little information about the conditions on other planets, having barely managed Earth orbit. The only way we had of gathering information about other planets at that time was through Earth-bound telescopes, and that was limited to the planets orbiting our own Sun. I seriously doubt an informed scientist would be making such bold claims today, when we're actually beginning to acquire knowledge about planets outside our solar system.

 

[Dancing David]

I'd say it's more at the "abiogenesis hypotheses" stage, but I think life on earth began naturally. My "problem" in this thread has been that I don't believe the evidence is there to justify calling abiogenesis "inevitable". Perhaps when it is better understood, the case for such a characterization will be stronger.

I mostly agree, it does to be a very reasonable hyothesis.

 

[phantomb]

If they're using a broader definition of habitablity (and your "age, mass, rate of rotation" suggests they may be), like "you can survive there, if you carry your own air with you and shield yourself from radiation by living underground", then Mars is "habitable", and there may well be 50 more such planets within 100 light years of us.

Correct. The number they arrived at was with the assumption that life always appears on planets with the right combination of conditions and that free oxygen in the atmosphere will always accompany the appearance of life. However, I imagine that number is still useful as a rough foundation when attempting to assess the likelihood of life arising in our galaxy, wouldn't you say? In other words, don't use that number as the number of planets that develop life, use it as the number of planets that could potentially develop our kind of life.

In 1964, we had very little information about the conditions on other planets, having barely managed Earth orbit. The only way we had of gathering information about other planets at that time was through Earth-bound telescopes, and that was limited to the planets orbiting our own Sun. I seriously doubt an informed scientist would be making such bold claims today, when we're actually beginning to acquire knowledge about planets outside our solar system.

I'm not arguing with you, I just thought I would mention it as something that people here might be interested in. As far as I know, nobody has put together another paper on this topic since then that provides its own comprehensive tables of data and can be read by a layman.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Um, so you are Marplots?

Now I am really confused, you responded to something I said to them.
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6124215&postcount=261

So I do not see where I said anything about what you should say.


And this the post of Marplots that i first responded to...

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6118691&postcount=204

I would have a hard time sorting your contribution from noreligion, bokonon and jasonpatteron myself, and seriously I thought I was responding to Marplots ... but if it makes you happy...

Goodness, David, could you get more pedantic.

You objected to language I also used. I objected to your objection. Are you saying your objection was only to Marplots using said language but everyone else using said language was exempt from your criticism?

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

I'd say it's more at the "abiogenesis hypotheses" stage, but I think life on earth began naturally.

Care to give us an alternate hypothesis where life evolved naturally through some mechanism other than abiogenesis?

My "problem" in this thread has been that I don't believe the evidence is there to justify calling abiogenesis "inevitable". Perhaps when it is better understood, the case for such a characterization will be stronger.

This has been replied to in the abiogenesis thread.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

I mostly agree, it does to be a very reasonable hyothesis.

I can't quite figure out how your typo here should have read.

 

[Dancing David]

Goodness, David, could you get more pedantic.

You objected to language I also used. I objected to your objection. Are you saying your objection was only to Marplots using said language but everyone else using said language was exempt from your criticism?

... but if it makes you happy...

 

[Dancing David]

I can't quite figure out how your typo here should have read.

hpothesis
hypthesis

hypothesis!

 

[bokonon]

Care to give us an alternate hypothesis where life evolved naturally through some mechanism other than abiogenesis?

No.

The term "abiogenesis hypotheses" means there are many hypotheses for the mechanisms abiogenesis might have used. None of the hypotheses, in my opinion, have enough supporting evidence or predictive power to merit being called a theory. At this point, each hypothesis is a suggestion for future research, rather than an explanation for how life on earth actually began.

 

[John Jones]

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.

It took some doing, but I found one in the Journal of the American Chemical Society from 1935.



http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/ja01308a014

"The products of the reaction produced by the absorption of ultraviolet light by hydrogen-oxygen mixtures are ozone, hydrogen peroxide and water."

 

[John Jones]

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.

From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abundance_of_the_chemical_elements

"Hydrogen and helium are estimated to make up roughly 74% and 24% of all baryonic matter in the universe respectively"

In our galaxy, H and He are the two most abundant elements. Oxygen is #3, carbon is #4, and nitrogen is #7, so it would be amazing if water and organic compounds DIDN'T exist.

ETA: Water is a liquid at 'such a warm temperature' at a given pressure. Water vapor (gas) is also present at room temperature, and water will boil away in a vacuum at room temp.

Expansion upon freezing is a rare quality that water possesses, but is by no means unique in that respect.

 

[bokonon]

It took some doing, but I found one in the Journal of the American Chemical Society from 1935.

"The products produced by the absorption of ultraviolet light by hydrogen-oxygen mixtures are ozone, hydrogen peroxide and water."

Thanks!

From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abundance_of_the_chemical_elements

"Hydrogen and helium are estimated to make up roughly 74% and 24% of all baryonic matter in the universe respectively"

Okay, so I guess I should have said "98% is either hydrogen or helium" instead of "99% is hydrogen". Thanks again!