[Guest]

This was always going to be a difficult topic to introduce. Here's my second attempt! Through the magic of spoilers I can at least give the illusion of brevity...

In discussions with theists in the "religious discussion" topic, a theme which often occurs is that many theists feel that God is the best or only explanation for certain phenomena. I refute this, but agree that there are many apparently unlikely aspects of the world for which it is reasonable to seek explanation.

In principle it could work, provided that we allow for this possibility to be tested and the rationality behind it to be examined. Typically, this is where the theist plays the "supernatural" card and says that rationality does not apply in this area (unless it is convenient for supporting theist argument).

Spoiler for So what's wrong with that?:

This way of thinking only embraces ignorance. That which we consider to be "natural" is only that for which there is evidence, the sum total of things which can potentially be understood. If God exists then God is real, a part of nature. We could study God and understand God better. But the word "supernatural" is used as an excuse for not doing that, and centuries of living under the influence of religion have conditioned humankind not to question that excuse.

If you believe in God then God may seem like a likely explanation for all sorts of things, and your use of God as an explanation may then seem like evidence of God's existence. This is circular reasoning (an all too common fallacy).

Spoiler for What if there was something which could have no natural explanation?:

.getElementsByTagName('div')[0].style.display != '') { this.parentNode.parentNode.getElementsByTagName('div')[1].getElementsByTagName('div')[0].style.display = ''; this.innerText = ''; this.value = 'Hide'; } else { this.parentNode.parentNode.getElementsByTagName('div')[1].getElementsByTagName('div')[0].style.display = 'none'; this.innerText = ''; this.value = 'Show'; }">

This is another way of saying "what if impossible things happen?". Impossible things do not happen by definition. If there were something which could have no other explanation than "God did it", then that is still a natural explanation. But since the God explanation is intrinsically unlikely, we would have to reliably exclude all other explanations. You may not know that another explanation is correct, but the possibility that it might be (or that some other, as yet unknown explanation might be) is enough to negate something as evidence for God.

The desire for explanation is only human. We may not have all the answers, but in my opinion there are few questions for which we do not have at least potential answers. I (and I suspect, other atheists) have avoided discussing such potential answers in the "religious debate" topic as it would muddy the waters and encourage the misconception that such explanations form part of an "atheist belief" and underpin atheism in some way. Just for the avoidance of doubt,

THE TITLE OF THIS TOPIC IS A JOKE

intended to act as a reminder of what this topic is not.

Spoiler for So what do atheists believe?]Atheism is (typically) not a belief, but a lack of one. Neither does it imply beliefs. Recognising the irrationality of positing God as an explanation for anything does not imply that one is convinced by any other explanation.

For example, various theories exist concerning the origin of the universe. Atheism does not demand that you "believe" any of them, though obviously a knowledge that plausible natural explanations exist can help us to satisfy our desire for explanation, so we don't feel the need to invoke the supernatural (not that we should anyway).

Natural selection is a more established principle. So does atheism require a "belief" in this? Not really, though many atheists do consider natural selection to be a good theory. Still, a theory is only ever as good as the evidence that supports it, and there, in my opinion, it differs from a belief (though that depends on precisely how you define a belief). Natural selection happens to be supported by a mountain of evidence, hence its popularity. Nevertheless, an atheist position does not directly imply acceptance of any theory about anything, other than the fact that you can find no good reason to believe in God. You might simply say "I don't know about anything else" and leave it at that.

Human beings like to have explanations for things, but when we don't know it is far better to accept that we don't know than to say "it's supernatural!" and act as if that were an answer. Fortunately science has explained so much that there are now few gaps in our knowledge for God to fill. 200 years ago there were far more things which science could not explain. Consequently religion was more ubiquitous. The rationale behind it was no more sound then than it is now, but it was more convincing and thus more popular. But believing in God just because you don't understand something was never a good idea.

What this topic is, is a chance for theists to put forward what they consider to be unexplainable by any means other than "God did it", and for atheists and anyone else who fancies it to propose possible other explanations. This is not within the "religious debate" topic because belief or disbelief in God should not hinge on these things, for reasons already explained.

Please excuse my blathering on at length, but I feel it necessary to put the topic in context. Even if we have no explanation for anything, invoking the supernatural is irrational and flawed thinking. Ignorance is better than irrationality. It is important to stress that disbelief in God does not depend on having definitive explanations for all things.

Where to begin? Origins of the universe? Universal fine tuning? Origins of life? Aspects of human consciousness? I'd like a theist to kick things off but if no suggestions are forthcoming I'll go with the first of those...

[Guest]

I don't really have anything to add just yet

but I just kind of wanted to let you know that you're not blathering and people are reading this even if no one has posted yet

I also would like a theist to kick this discussion off

So I'll be waiting

[Guest]

I like it Octopuppy, and I look forward to participating. I've been swamped with work lately due to preparation for a trade show, but I hope to rejoin the action soon. I see you atheists didn't disappoint in the past few days.

Oh, and I liked your use of spoilers. I hope you don't mind if I borrow that approach at some point.

Edit: And just to kick it off, why don't we start off with a popular, comparatively simple item: the "irreducibly complex" bacterial flagellum. You know, the same ones Michael Behe and the ID folks tout as a flagship example of intelligent design. It doesn't take much googling to realize just how un-simple the topic actually is, but I still think it will probably be better than trying to discuss nebulous subjects like human consciousness, and it will give many of you atheists the warm fuzzies since most evolutionists already consider it sufficiently debunked.

Edited April 2, 2008 by Duh Puck

[Guest]

THANK GOD, I AM AN ATHEIST

[Guest]

THANK GOD, I AM AN ATHEIST

Keeping your options open for holidays MG?

[Guest]

THANK GOD, I AM AN ATHEIST

That just struck me as good seed for an anagram ... THANK GOD!? IS IT ANATHEMA?

[unreality]

Glad to join in

I dont know about other atheists here, but I don't believe in any supernatural- sure there may be undiscovered things or species or whatever- but then they would natural, not supernatural. Anyway- so all that kind of stuff- like luck, destiny, etc.

I think people that don't understand evolution ("how could a fish turn into a dog?" or whatever, probably not that exactly, but you know what I mean, lol) don't understand the TIME involved. They say "we believe in micro-evolution, like different species of horses"- but there is no microevolution or macroevolution. "Microevolution" would just be the more recent evolving of things- a fish doesnt just give birth to a dog (I dont even know if those are on a direct relation, I doubt it, I'm just saying this for clarity's sake), TIME TIME TIME. Think of the billions of years that our earth has gone through.

anyway, yeah, so this isnt a debate, right? It's like a 'discussion'?

[Guest]

I think people that don't understand evolution ("how could a fish turn into a dog?" or whatever, probably not that exactly, but you know what I mean, lol) don't understand the TIME involved. They say "we believe in micro-evolution, like different species of horses"- but there is no microevolution or macroevolution. "Microevolution" would just be the more recent evolving of things- a fish doesnt just give birth to a dog (I dont even know if those are on a direct relation, I doubt it, I'm just saying this for clarity's sake), TIME TIME TIME. Think of the billions of years that our earth has gone through.

anyway, yeah, so this isnt a debate, right? It's like a 'discussion'?

Heh heh. Is there a difference?

Evolutionary theory inevitably requires large amounts of time, since the whole idea is that many small changes, when added together, result in very large changes, and the small changes have to happen sequentially, and each takes time. Fine and good, and I'm not arguing against the principle. Two questions arise, however:

1) Is it reasonable to conclude that all features of living creatures can be explained as the result of successive small changes, each one of which had to confer a selectable advantage?

2) Has there really been enough time to accommodate all of the necessary changes?

Let's consider a popular example of evolution in action: albino blind cavefish. Apparently, millions of years ago, populations of the fish were trapped in underground caves, where their eyes and skin pigment served no purpose, and in fact could be detrimental (eyes as a point of infection, pigment (melanin) as a wasteful use of protein). It is not hard to understand how natural selection would result in the eyeless fish we can now study (scales actually grow over the holes where the eyes used to be). This is what we would call microevolution. No new genetic code describing new features appeared. In fact, there was only a loss of genetic information, which is why this example is usually only used to illustrate natural selection, not as serious support for evolutionary theory.

Years ago, when I first heard about the cavefish, my gut feeling was that there wasn't actually a loss of genetic information, but rather a deactivation of code. We know that environmental factors and events during embryonic development can trigger the activation/deactivation of genes, and I figured that the dark environment probably caused a deactivation of the genes that trigger the growth of the eye. I found it very interesting, then, to discover this article. So it turns out that millions of years of separation and evolution only altered the development of a few features, but you still have a fish which can become a parent to normal fish. Huh.

Regarding the need for TIME ... life on this planet is estimated to have appeared around 3.8 billions years ago, not long after the earth itself was formed (4.5 billion years ago). Let's ignore the coincidence of life spontaneously arising so soon after the earth's formation, and consider that amount of time: 3.8 billion years. Is that really so much time? An Intel Core Duo processor can execute 59 billion instructions in one second. If you actually break down the number of individual changes that would have had to happen sequentially to arrive at a modern human, then I think you'd find that evolution would have to clip along at a pretty good pace. Since there is obviously going to be a huge spectrum of rate of change, you have to figure that some changes would happen exponentially faster than other changes. In the hundred-plus years that scientists have been examining the natural world*, you'd think we'd have at least ONE clear-cut, irrefutable example of complicated new features arising as the result of sequential mutations which introduced new genetic instructions.

And so ... back to the bacterial flagellum. The reason I suggested that one to start with is because it immediately gets to the heart of the first question I proposed: Can all features of living beings result from successive individual changes, each of which provided a selectable advantage?

*edit: Obviously they've been examining longer than that, but you know what I mean.

Edited April 3, 2008 by Duh Puck

[Guest]

Heh heh. Is there a difference?

Nope. Just as long as nobody disagrees with me. Then it gets nasty

I should probably stay out of this since it's not my field, but I can't help wondering what the problem is with these time scales?

Regarding the need for TIME ... life on this planet is estimated to have appeared around 3.8 billions years ago, not long after the earth itself was formed (4.5 billion years ago). Let's ignore the coincidence of life spontaneously arising so soon after the earth's formation, and consider that amount of time: 3.8 billion years. Is that really so much time?

First, why is it a "coincidence" that life started to get underway when the earth was just 700 million years old? The actual process of forming the building blocks of life may have been very quick. Perhaps conditions needed to be perfect, perhaps it even required a hugely improbable set of conditions and events. Still, a planet-sized pot of primordial soup and millions of years allow for a great many false starts. Perhaps it appears coincidental because that time period is dwarfed by the period that has passed since, the time it took life to get from its basic beginnings to where it is now. But that just agrees with what unreality has said: evolution is slooowww.

But then you seem to think 3.8 billion years isn't enough! How many generations of development is that? It's hard to say because the more complex life gets the longer it takes to get from one generation to the next. The human generation span of 20 years or so is more the exception than the rule: many complex life forms can do it in under 5 years. So lets say (very rough model based on guessing) human beings have come from 500,000 generations at average 20 years each (10 million years), previously 1 million generations of average 10 years (10 million years), 2 million of 5 years (10 million years), 75 million generations of average 2 years (1.5 billion years), and 2 billion generations of 1 year. So that's about 2,078,500,000 generations. If it takes a thousand generations for a major functional development to occur, you've got time for just over 2 million of these (more if you count ones that happen simultaneously). Nobody's claiming that's an accurate model but I'm just illustrating that a lot can happen in 3.8 billion years.

In the hundred-plus years that scientists have been examining the natural world*, you'd think we'd have at least ONE clear-cut, irrefutable example of complicated new features arising as the result of sequential mutations which introduced new genetic instructions.

If it takes (say) a thousand generations for that to happen, you'd think not. The lifespan of a human being, and indeed the history of modern science, is less than the blink of an eye in evolutionary timescales. Not much time for anything to happen. But I bet someone can dig up some good examples of evolution in action anyway. I might even do it myself in a day or two, though like I say it's not my field. No more time today...

[Guest]

Regarding the need for TIME ... life on this planet is estimated to have appeared around 3.8 billions years ago, not long after the earth itself was formed (4.5 billion years ago). Let's ignore the coincidence of life spontaneously arising so soon after the earth's formation

Actually, let's not ignore it - because this statement illustrates - I believe - a flaw in the way you're thinking about it all.

On all those planets where this amazing coincidence didn't happen, is it the case that there are people sitting around complaining that there hasn't been enough time for them to come into existence? It is only possible to make the observation that 'wow, everything seems just about right for me to be alive!', in conditions where that is already true. So it's not really an amazing coincidence at all. It's just evidence that under the right conditions, life tends to arise fast.

3.8 billions years ago there was more energy and building blocks around to start life.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Origin_of_life

Origin of organic molecules

There are three sources of organic molecules on the early Earth:

1. organic synthesis by other energy sources (such as ultraviolet light or electrical discharges) (eg.Miller's experiments).

2. delivery by extraterrestrial objects (eg carbonaceous chondrites);

3. organic synthesis driven by impact shocks.

Recently estimates of these sources suggest that the heavy bombardment before 3.5 Gyr ago within the early atmosphere made available quantities of organics comparable to those produced by other energy sources

Add to that a world that was radioactive (a power source that I think it is mostly ignored when attempting to recreate conditions to test for possible origins of life) and with volcanoes and water coming in. Taking all that into account it would seem to me that life would not lose a chance to appear then.

Microscopic life that is, because only after the planet cooled down was that then multicellular organisms could develop.

Can all features of living beings result from successive individual changes, each of which provided a selectable advantage?

Yes. 3.8 billion years is plenty of time. Remember that humans are unusually long-lived. Most of the lifeforms in the chain leading to us produced a new generation every year or two, if not sooner.

If the diversity of life did not arrive from a succession of changes, what alternate mechanism are you proposing? Are you suggesting that different life forms on Earth do not share a common ancestor?

Is that really so much time? An Intel Core Duo processor can execute 59 billion instructions in one second. If you actually break down the number of individual changes that would have had to happen sequentially to arrive at a modern human, then I think you'd find that evolution would have to clip along at a pretty good pace.

Bad analogy. Evolution not only has had a huge amount of time to work; it's been doing so in a massively parallel fashion. Like a computer with quadrillions ( or more, probably ) processors.

And 3.8 billion years is a HUGE amount of time.

Since there is obviously going to be a huge spectrum of rate of change, you have to figure that some changes would happen exponentially faster than other changes. In all the years that scientists have been examining the natural world, you'd think we'd have at least ONE clear-cut, irrefutable example of complicated new features arising as the result of sequential mutations which introduced new genetic instructions.

They probably do, not that it matters. Mutations are a fairly minor part of evolution; reshuffling of existing genes is more common. Claiming that you need new genetic instructions for a new species to appear is like claiming you can't write a new book without inventing a new word.

1) Is it reasonable to conclude that all features of living creatures can be explained as the result of successive small changes, each one of which had to confer a selectable advantage?

2) Has there really been enough time to accommodate all of the necessary changes?

Yes and yes.

http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/n...1/fulltext.html

Since the late 1970s Gingerich has collected fossil specimens of early whales from remote digs in Egypt and Pakistan. Working with Pakistani colleagues, he discovered Pakicetus, a terrestrial mammal dating from 50 million years ago, whose ear bones reflect its membership in the whale lineage but whose skull looks almost doglike. A former student of Gingerich's, Hans Thewissen, found a slightly more recent form with webbed feet, legs suitable for either walking or swimming, and a long toothy snout. Thewissen called it Ambulocetus natans, or the "walking-and-swimming whale." Gingerich and his team turned up several more, including Rodhocetus balochistanensis, which was fully a sea creature, its legs more like flippers, its nostrils shifted backward on the snout, halfway to the blowhole position on a modern whale. The sequence of known forms was becoming more and more complete. And all along, Gingerich told me, he leaned toward believing that whales had descended from a group of carnivorous Eocene mammals known as mesonychids, with cheek teeth useful for chewing meat and bone. Just a bit more evidence, he thought, would confirm that relationship. By the end of the 1990s most paleontologists agreed.

Meanwhile, molecular biologists had explored the same question and arrived at a different answer. No, the match to those Eocene carnivores might be close, but not close enough. DNA hybridization and other tests suggested that whales had descended from artiodactyls (that is, even-toed herbivores, such as antelopes and hippos), not from meat-eating mesonychids.

In the year 2000 Gingerich chose a new field site in Pakistan, where one of his students found a single piece of fossil that changed the prevailing view in paleontology. It was half of a pulley-shaped anklebone, known as an astragalus, belonging to another new species of whale.

A Pakistani colleague found the fragment's other half. When Gingerich fitted the two pieces together, he had a moment of humbling recognition: The molecular biologists were right. Here was an anklebone, from a four-legged whale dating back 47 million years, that closely resembled the homologus anklebone in an artiodactyls. Suddenly he realized how closely whales are related to antelopes.

This is how science is supposed to work. Ideas come and go, but the fittest survive. Downstairs in his office Phil Gingerich opened a specimen drawer, showing me some of the actual fossils from which the display skeletons upstairs were modeled. He put a small lump of petrified bone, no longer than a lug nut, into my hand. It was the famous astragalus, from the species he had eventually named Artiocetus clavis. It felt solid and heavy as truth.

Seeing me to the door, Gingerich volunteered something personal: "I grew up in a conservative church in the Midwest and was not taught anything about evolution. The subject was clearly skirted. That helps me understand the people who are skeptical about it. Because I come from that tradition myself." He shares the same skeptical instinct. Tell him that there's an ancestral connection between land animals and whales, and his reaction is: Fine, maybe. But show me the intermediate stages. Like Charles Darwin, the onetime divinity student, who joined that round-the –world voyage aboard the Beagle instead of becoming a country parson, and whose grand view of life on Earth was shaped by attention to small facts, Phil Gingerich is a reverant empiricist. He's not satisfied until he sees solid data. That's what excites his so much about pulling shale fossils out of the ground. In 30 years he has seen enough to be satisfied. For him, Gingerich said, it's "a spiritual experience."

"The evidence is there," he added. "It's buried in the rocks of ages."

BTW, that classic National Geographic article had a great intro, the cover of the magazine asked:

Was Darwin wrong?

I opened the magazine with the fear that some creationists had gotten a hand of the editorial board of the magazine and it was going to be a sickening "let us give a chance to the other side." kind of article.

The answer in page 3:

NO

In an even bigger font size.

[Guest]

My argument that 3.8 billion years is not enough time was based on a gut feeling and, even though I don't think it's wrong, I probably won't have the ability to defend it, so I withdraw it from the discussion. However, both responses jumped on the weakest link of my argument. Can you please move on to discussing bacterial flagellum, or, if you prefer, present to me clear examples of the development of complex new features using evidence other than presumptions based on the fossil record?

Actually, let's not ignore it - because this statement illustrates - I believe - a flaw in the way you're thinking about it all.

On all those planets where this amazing coincidence didn't happen, is it the case that there are people sitting around complaining that there hasn't been enough time for them to come into existence? It is only possible to make the observation that 'wow, everything seems just about right for me to be alive!', in conditions where that is already true. So it's not really an amazing coincidence at all. It's just evidence that under the right conditions, life tends to arise fast.

Add to that a world that was radioactive (a power source that I think it is mostly ignored when attempting to recreate conditions to test for possible origins of life) and with volcanoes and water coming in. Taking all that into account it would seem to me that life would not lose a chance to appear then.

You're describing the anthropomorphic principle, which is often used to counter creationist arguments involving fine tuning, or the extreme improbability of life spontaneously originating. The atheist argument usually makes the point that anything which occurs was actually a highly improbable outcome. For example, what are the odds that every molecule of air in the room will be in its current position? Almost infinitely small, right? So is there no value in pointing out the unlikelihood of a particular event? What if you instead ask: What are the odds that the molecules will be in positions such that my next breath will supply me with oxygen? Pretty good, close to 1:1, I suspect. So when the creationist argues that it is highly improbable that life would emerge, he has to be careful not to assume dependencies that aren't really there. We can't say that the odds of the random combination of all 26 amino acids (I forget the number and don't feel like checking at the moment) being left handed is 2^26, and therefore the odds of life arising are at least that small, because who's to say right-handed amino acids wouldn't work? That would be inserting the bias of our current viewpoint. While I understand the trap that lies in using this type of reasoning, that does not mean the argument is fundamentally flawed. The theist simply needs to be careful not to include factors which are not true contingencies.

So is it possible to estimate a probability for life spontaneously arising, assuming ideal conditions (whatever those are)? To start with, it is very difficult to define what constitutes the minimum criteria for "life," but it seems reasonable to me to use the simplest forms of life we can observe today as a starting point. That doesn't mean there couldn't be simpler life forms, but it's useful to examine these organisms to determine what features are necessary to support life. In regards to even the simplest organisms having self-replicating DNA, I found point 5 interesting on this page from Science Week. Now, I'm certainly no scientist, but from what I've read about the makeup of the simplest self-replicating life forms we can observe today, to even use the word "simple" is a stretch. They have DNA with a genome containing several hundred genes, cell membranes, metabolism, and so on. It's pretty clear that these structures could not have formed as-is from a blind combination of available proteins and amino acids, radiated or otherwise. There would have had to be simpler organisms capable of self-replication and metabolism, which in turn could lead to the current mechanism of DNA replication, without using natural selection, since the genetic mechanism for passing on traits would not yet be in place.

So, my point is that, anthropomorphic principle aside, it is possible to demonstrate the difficulty of life spontaneously arising, without knowing all the details of how such a thing might happen. For some more points in this regard, the following were interesting:

http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/196.asp

http://creationwiki.org/index.php/(Talk.Or...redibly_complex

If the diversity of life did not arrive from a succession of changes, what alternate mechanism are you proposing? Are you suggesting that different life forms on Earth do not share a common ancestor?

That is correct. I believe natural selection takes place and leads to incredible variety, but that an intelligent creator is responsible for progressively adding new features and functions (i.e., new complex sets of genetic instructions) throughout the history of life on the planet. In that case, whether or not evolution is an otherwise viable explanation is pretty much irrelevant, since any such intervention would be outside the bounds of a naturalistic definition of evolution.

Edited April 6, 2008 by Duh Puck

[Guest]

So is it possible to estimate a probability for life spontaneously arising, assuming ideal conditions (whatever those are)?

Not with any degree of accuracy. We only know that it happened at least once (assuming we leave out supernatural explanations).

What are the odds of a creator arising existing without antecedent since you're concerned about probabilities? Frankly, though, I find the idea of postulating a creator (or intelligent agent who tinkers with genes) to be a cop out. That's not how science is done. You don't throw your hands up proclaiming you can't understand something and then just say "it must be by design". If you want to good science and postulate some sort of intelligent agent, then give me some actual evidence of this agent. Tell me something about what it is and how it does what it does.

That is correct. I believe natural selection takes place and leads to incredible variety, but that an intelligent creator is responsible for progressively adding new features and functions (i.e., new complex sets of genetic instructions) throughout the history of life on the planet. In that case, whether or not evolution is an otherwise viable explanation is pretty much irrelevant, since any such intervention would be outside the bounds of a naturalistic definition of evolution.

What physical evidence is there of this intelligent creator?

Can you please move on to discussing bacterial flagellum, or, if you prefer, present to me clear examples of the development of complex new features using evidence other than presumptions based on the fossil record?

Why not the eye? Or blood clotting? Or the bombadier beetle? Or anything else out of the Behe/ICR/Gish catalog of stuff that's been dealt with before?

Everything you ever wanted to know about the evolution of bacterial flagellum, but were afraid to ask.

[Guest]

My argument that 3.8 billion years is not enough time was based on a gut feeling and, even though I don't think it's wrong, I probably won't have the ability to defend it, so I withdraw it from the discussion.

Fine, but it is plenty, at least according to the science types who actually study that kind of thing, but what do they know eh? - You've got a gut feeling!

Can you please move on to discussing bacterial flagellum, or, if you prefer, present to me clear examples of the development of complex new features using evidence other than presumptions based on the fossil record?

The bacterial Flagellum? Okay then, but that is now considered something of a joke on the Intelligent Design movement and it's main proponents; The Discovery Institute.

Okay some reading for you:

Talk Origins: Claim CB200.1:

Talk Origins: Irreducible Complexity and Michael Behe

Talk Design: Evolution in (Brownian) space: a model for the origin of the bacterial flagellum

And to give you a rest from all that reading; a video:

Here is the whole video, it is well worth watching the whole thing

You can find the entire transcript on the Kitzmiller/Dover Trial (and more) in which this claim was demolished (ad nauseum) right here:

Kitzmiller et al. v. Dover Area School District

Happy?

And what was it? Oh yes; complex new features. Well the problem with this is - What does one define as complex or even new for that matter?

So lets start with Nylonase:

Nylon-eating bacteria

You can read the link, but long story short; these little buggers evolved the ability to digest Nylon, a synthetic material invented in 1935! And examinations have revealed that this was indeed a new mutation and development, not an old one that happens to work on this new material as well. That's certainly new! Complex? That all depends on your definition.

How about entirely new species seen to evolve literally before our eyes (well not our eyes, but modern scientists). Would that count as New and complex? Because we have that as well:

Observed Instances of Speciation

----------------------------------

By the way octopuppy offered a scenerio of evolutionarey generations. And reached a huge number of generations. Now consider, if you will, that the generation times get much smaller than that! (He went down to one a year).:

Drosophila pseudoobscura (fruit flies) - an example of lab-observed speciation, produce new generations in 14 days or less. Many bacteria do it in mere hours or less! Far less; this from Wikipedia:

"bacterial populations can double as quickly as every 9.8 minutes."

[Guest]

Not with any degree of accuracy. We only know that it happened at least once (assuming we leave out supernatural explanations).

Yeah, I would agree with that assessment. Trying to assign a single probability to the event would be meaningless since it would be based on many unsubstantiated presumptions. However, that doesn't mean we can't show the extreme improbability of contingent factors of the advent of life, which is what I was trying to point out. I'll break it down in more detail:

PA1. The simplest forms of life today are too complex (cell membranes, DNA with more than 400 genes and 50,000 base pairs, metabolism, etc.) to be formed directly from an unguided combination of available composite elements.

PA2. The simplest forms of life arose naturally.

CA. There must have been much simpler forms of life than today's simplest organisms.

PB1. There must have been simpler forms of life.

PB2. Two intrinsic qualities that distinguish living organisms from non-living are growth through metabolism and reproduction.

CB. There must be a minimum set of coordinated chemical interactions necessary to cause an assemblage of bio-chemicals to have these qualities.

PC1. To evolve from simpler organisms into the more complex kind we observe today, there needs to be a method to achieve greater complexity.

PC2. According to evolutionary biology, this method is genetic mutation in combination with natural selection.

PC3. Mutation and natural selection rely on the presence and transmission of genetic information via DNA or RNA.

PC4. Even in its simplest form, the genetic system used to transmit information which directs biological functions is too complex to arise by an unguided combination of available composite elements.

CC. The current understanding of molecular biology does not explain how the complex organisms we observe today could evolve from proposed "simpler forms of life."

PD1. The minimum number of genes needed to provide instructions for vital biological functions (growth, metabolism, reproduction) is estimated to be over 200.

PD2. Instructions for these biological functions are meaningless without supporting structures to utilize them (viruses are a good example of DNA without supporting structures; they are inherently dependent on the metabolic and reproductive functions of other organisms).

CD. It is highly improbable that both the system for transmitting instructions and the supporting structures which utilize them would arise from an unguided combination of available composite elements.

Putting it together ...

PE1. Life arose naturally.

PE2. The first life forms must have been much simpler than today's simplest organisms.

PE3. There is a minimum set of coordinated chemical interactions necessary to cause an assemblage of bio-chemicals to grow via metabolism and reproduce.

PE4. The current understanding of molecular biology does not explain how the complex organisms we observe today could evolve from proposed "simpler forms of life."

PE5. It is highly improbable that both the system for transmitting instructions and the supporting structures which utilize them would arise from an unguided combination of available composite elements.

Conclusion: Current scientific knowledge does not provide an adequate explanation for how even the simplest conceivable living organisms could arise without guidance from an intelligent designer and then evolve into more complex life forms.

What are the odds of a creator arising existing without antecedent since you're concerned about probabilities?

What are the odds of our natural universe existing without antecedent? Isn't that the same question? We've already been over how the cosmological argument proposes the need for a first cause, particularly since our universe clearly had a beginning. You can argue until you're blue that there's simply no need for the first cause (because "something is more stable than nothing," or any other variety of explanations), but there's just no evidence whatsoever to back up any theories of what happened prior to the Big Bang, and you certainly haven't ruled out the notion of a first cause as impossible, merely "unscientific." I understand that the atheist is taking the "humble" approach of saying "hey, we just don't know," but why is it so unacceptable, especially in view of the multitude of other reasons for which people posit a creator (innate religious belief, need for intelligent design, claimed supernatural experiences, etc.), to consider an intelligent first cause as a possibility, and then examine whether or not the evidence supports it? If we were to present an ironclad, irrefutable argument that spontaneous generation of life is so remotely improbable as to be considered impossible, would you still be satisfied with saying "by the same criteria, your proposed God is similarly impossible, so I therefore accept neither explanation, and I'll just have to wait until science finds something else."? Is that really reasonable?

Or is it more reasonable to consider a variety of possibilities and see which best fits the available evidence, without ruling out an option based on a strict logical argument that doesn't allow for possibilities that haven't actually been ruled out (for example, "God would require a designer" doesn't consider the possibility of necessary entities, or entities which do not have to be caused, as any "first cause" would inherently be). In other words, the argument that intelligent design doesn't require a designer because the designer would require a designer presupposes that the cosmological argument is false, rather than simply accepting that it may or may not be valid. After all, doesn't the atheist generally argue that he's simply not convinced that there's reason to believe in a god, not that such an idea is impossible? Open-mindedness to the available options would therefore require considering possible explanations. You've used the "should I believe in fairies?" argument to counter this, but this is a strawman response because I'm not suggesting that fairies exist, I'm suggesting that there's an intelligent designer, and the evidence for that starts with what we're discussing right now.

Frankly, though, I find the idea of postulating a creator (or intelligent agent who tinkers with genes) to be a cop out. That's not how science is done.

You are correct. Since, by definition, this creator is supernatural (refer to the other thread if you're still unclear what I mean by that), then it follows that science, which only deals with natural explanations, would not be able to explain it. There seems to be confusion between that which is explainable, and that which is explainable by science. Obviously, science could not explain such a creator, but the creator could explain himself. The atheist argument that "god did it" is not an explanation is only true from a completely naturalistic viewpoint. If there is in fact a supernatural creator, then "god did it" is the only conceivable explanation, and science would never lead you directly to it (although I believe it would steer you in that direction if you did not rule out the possibility from the outset).

What physical evidence is there of this intelligent creator?

That's what we're discussing right now. Since evidence for an intelligent creator inevitably takes the form "this could not have happened otherwise," we are now discussing that evidence. I believe there is a lot of other, non-physical evidence, but I realize that isn't very convincing to the skeptic who doesn't accept any supernatural explanations in the first place.

Why not the eye? Or blood clotting? Or the bombadier beetle? Or anything else out of the Behe/ICR/Gish catalog of stuff that's been dealt with before?

Because the bacterial flagellum is comparatively simple, and I already had in mind an idea for how to counter it. Unfortunately, I'm just about to leave for the airport to catch a flight back to the U.S., so I won't be able to continue unless I find an internet connection at the airport. To be continued ...

[Guest]

However, that doesn't mean we can't show the extreme improbability of contingent factors of the advent of life, which is what I was trying to point out.

But why?! What's the point? To demonstrate that it could have been a case of GODDIDIT? You realise that you are building up nothing short of yet another Argument from Ignorance, another God of the Gaps argument, don't you?

What are the odds of our natural universe existing without antecedent? Isn't that the same question? We've already been over how the cosmological argument proposes the need for a first cause, particularly since our universe clearly had a beginning. You can argue until you're blue that there's simply no need for the first cause (because "something is more stable than nothing," or any other variety of explanations), but there's just no evidence whatsoever to back up any theories of what happened prior to the Big Bang, and you certainly haven't ruled out the notion of a first cause as impossible, merely "unscientific." I understand that the atheist is taking the "humble" approach of saying "hey, we just don't know," but why is it so unacceptable, especially in view of the multitude of other reasons for which people posit a creator (innate religious belief, need for intelligent design, claimed supernatural experiences, etc.), to consider an intelligent first cause as a possibility, and then examine whether or not the evidence supports it?

And how long have we been doing just that?! Sure God, a Creator, an Intelligent Designer is possible! So it goes in the Possible pile, along with; Extra-dimensional aliens, Being deceived by an "Evil Genius" (Descartes), I'm just a Brain in a Vat, or in the "Matrix".... All possible, but also lacking anything remotely suggesting any plausibility either! It's a big pile, also including Russel's Celestial Teapot, The Flying Spaghetti Monster, Fairies, and on it goes.

If we were to present an ironclad, irrefutable argument that spontaneous generation of life is so remotely improbable as to be considered impossible, would you still be satisfied with saying "by the same criteria, your proposed God is similarly impossible, so I therefore accept neither explanation, and I'll just have to wait until science finds something else."? Is that really reasonable?

Uh, yes, yes it is. It is the most rational position to take in fact. What alternative are you suggesting? The childish concept that it better to believe in something, anything, rather than to admit a complete lack of any plausible solutions (at present)?

This is revealing your use of the God of the Gaps ploy (for that is what it is, a ploy, and a logical fallacy of course) in all it's glory. You are suggesting in that question, that the God-Hypothesis is somehow strengthened by the failure of any natural ones. This is simply not the case.

Or is it more reasonable to consider a variety of possibilities and see which best fits the available evidence, without ruling out an option based on a strict logical argument that doesn't allow for possibilities that haven't actually been ruled out (for example, "God would require a designer" doesn't consider the possibility of necessary entities, or entities which do not have to be caused, as any "first cause" would inherently be).

But there is absolutely no reason to consider it at all plausible that this "God" was this supposed first cause. Unless you use "God" to mean "whatever the first cause might have been". No reason to consider this cause in any way to be an entity or intelligence or even anything remotely complex. It could have been an as yet unknown "natural" force, or a minute simple action (or whatever) that sparked off the whole thing. Who the hell knows? There is also no actual argument or even claim as to WHY it should be accepted or considered plausible that this "God" was the First cause, why not just the "cause of the universe" with things that caused it/him/whatever? No reason at all is given why it should be postulated that God is one of these purported "necessary entities". The common response holds; If God needs no cause then why not simply postulate that The Universe needs no cause (as Stephen Hawking has suggested might indeed be the case, based on the nature of time and so forth.) All we get is "Maybe God did it", "maybe God doesn't need a cause", "maybe he always was"... With zero evidence or reasoning to back these maybes up! Without this, these "Maybes" are intellectually worthless", we could play the Maybe game all day

In other words, the argument that intelligent design doesn't require a designer because the designer would require a designer presupposes that the cosmological argument is false, rather than simply accepting that it may or may not be valid.

No it doesn't! The Cosmological argument claims that the universe had a cause, other versions have it that there had to be a first cause (not exactly "cosmological" though, that one). The thing is we need some reason to suppose that any postulated cause, including God or any cause of the universe, actually constitutes a "First Cause". Why that one, what reasoning or evidence is there to think that it all stops (or starts) there? What is there to tell us that this had no cause and didn't need one? you don't just get to declare that your chosen thing is the first cause, completely without justification - Serious justification in fact, it is a big declaration to make!

It is you (and fellow God is the First cause claimants) that make the baseless assumption! In claiming that "God" is that one thing that requires no cause.

It would seem far more reasonable to postulate that, assuming the cosmological argument and that there was a First Cause, that that which is most likely to satisfy that First cause (and thus itself uncaused) status would be a most simple thing indeed. Far far simpler than anything remotely resembling any concept of a God-entity.

After all, doesn't the atheist generally argue that he's simply not convinced that there's reason to believe in a god, not that such an idea is impossible? Open-mindedness to the available options would therefore require considering possible explanations. You've used the "should I believe in fairies?" argument to counter this, but this is a strawman response because I'm not suggesting that fairies exist, I'm suggesting that there's an intelligent designer, and the evidence for that starts with what we're discussing right now.

No that is avoiding the issue. Possibilities are endless, and weak without something to back them up, to render them more than simply possible but plausible. Fairies are just as possible as God. As such there is as much reason to believe in them as in God, from these arguments at least.

You have so far offered ZERO evidence for any gods so far.

What we have here is arguments on how unlikely natural abiogenisis is - this is not an argument FOR god, it is not even about god!

Let's say you are right. Where does that leave us? With Abiogensis, the origin of life as a complete and utter question mark. We have no "natural" explanation. Then what? A "supernatural"one? No, that is no argument at all (as I explained on that other thread ) What we have is no plausible explanation at all. Not "No natural explanation" but "No explanation, period!"

"Oh well back to the drawing board", not "oh well then GODDIDIT."

But that doesn't happen to be the current situation. Scientists who are actually well versed in the subjects involved and working on the abiogenisis problem are learning and discovering more all the time (and I mean All the time, it's really heating up...Oooh it's so exciting ) Current estimates suggest that we may have a real answer on how life could have first arisen (complete with some "created" in the lab) as soon as 10 years or less away!

Here's some stuff on it:

Wikipedia: Abiogenisis (description of a number of theories there)

Talk Origins; links to a number of Articles on the subject.

It's an exciting cutting-edge field of study, always a subject of attack from Cdesign Proponentsists. Seen as an easy target or something

Abiogenesis, Origin of the Universe, deep-time evolution. All favourite God-of-the-Gaps arguments from Cdesign Proponentsists. BUT the God-of-the-Gaps Argument, being a Logical Fallacy to begin with, is a NON-STARTER!

Grrr!! Freakin' Quote limitations! Sigh, to be continued...again!

[Guest]

Part 2

You are correct. Since, by definition, this creator is supernatural (refer to the other thread if you're still unclear what I mean by that),

And see my responses to that.

then it follows that science, which only deals with natural explanations, would not be able to explain it. There seems to be confusion between that which is explainable, and that which is explainable by science. Obviously, science could not explain such a creator, but the creator could explain himself.

My responses in the "Religious Debate" covers dispenses with all of this.

And what kind of weak apologetics is "science could not explain such a creator, but the creator could explain himself.""?! That smacks of the ultimate theistic cop-out - The "Mysterious" card

The atheist argument that "god did it" is not an explanation is only true from a completely naturalistic viewpoint.

No, it is only true from a Rational viewpoint. GODDIDIT isn't an argument its simply a Claim, often a Mere Assertion. And "Science doesn't have the answer" in no way suggests that Theology does!

In fact I like the way Christopher Hitchens put it (paraphrasing wildly from memory): Religion was the first, and by extension; Worst, attempt at explaining the world, universe and our place in it. If "Science" can not fond the answer, there's no way in hell that religion can either! (He does tend to be a bit blunt, but the message stands.)

If there is in fact a supernatural creator, then "god did it" is the only conceivable explanation,

Nice Tautology there sunshine

and science would never lead you directly to it (although I believe it would steer you in that direction if you did not rule out the possibility from the outset).

And Science never has. And no, to date it has been steering us rather unerringly directly in the opposite direction.

That's what we're discussing right now. Since evidence for an intelligent creator inevitably takes the form "this could not have happened otherwise," we are now discussing that evidence.

So you are admitting that the only arguments for God are Arguments from Ignorance?! Duly noted

I believe there is a lot of other, non-physical evidence, but I realize that isn't very convincing to the skeptic who doesn't accept any supernatural explanations in the first place.

Well evidence is evidence Duh Puck, if you've got it then lay it on the table. We will happily assess it like everything else. It will stand or fall based on its scientific and rational value.

I am getting sick and tired (not just from you, it's an all to common canard) of this implication of anti-supernatural bias! It is the theist who has a supernatural bias if anything! Not accepting supernatural explanations, which to a "man", if not, as I suspect, by their very definition, are no explanations at all. Instead being mere assertions, wholly unfounded claims, and weak arguments based squarely on (all too obvious) logical fallacies!

[Guest]

PC4. Even in its simplest form, the genetic system used to transmit information which directs biological functions is too complex to arise by an unguided combination of available composite elements.

Why?

PE5. It is highly improbable that both the system for transmitting instructions and the supporting structures which utilize them would arise from an unguided combination of available composite elements.

Conclusion: Current scientific knowledge does not provide an adequate explanation for how even the simplest conceivable living organisms could arise without guidance from an intelligent designer and then evolve into more complex life forms.

Sorry, but none of this is true.

The current understanding of molecular biology does not explain how the complex organisms we observe today could evolve from proposed "simpler forms of life.

This is false. There are a number of hypothetical models. You are misinformed. That's what you get for reading Behe.

That's what we're discussing right now. Since evidence for an intelligent creator inevitably takes the form "this could not have happened otherwise," we are now discussing that evidence. I believe there is a lot of other, non-physical evidence, but I realize that isn't very convincing to the skeptic who doesn't accept any supernatural explanations in the first place.

There is no such thing as "non-physical evidence." If it's not physical, it's not evidence. Evidence is physical by definition. If you want to posit supernatural explanations for something, you first have to prove that natural explanations are inadequate. So far you have not come close to doing hat but have only tried to argue from assertion it has to be magic.

You are correct. Since, by definition, this creator is supernatural (refer to the other thread if you're still unclear what I mean by that), then it follows that science, which only deals with natural explanations, would not be able to explain it. There seems to be confusion between that which is explainable, and that which is explainable by science. Obviously, science could not explain such a creator, but the creator could explain himself. The atheist argument that "god did it" is not an explanation is only true from a completely naturalistic viewpoint. If there is in fact a supernatural creator, then "god did it" is the only conceivable explanation, and science would never lead you directly to it (although I believe it would steer you in that direction if you did not rule out the possibility from the outset).

OK, but you do seem to be confusing:

We (or, more specifically, you) do not fully understand how "X" could come about by naturalistic causes.

with:

X cannot have a naturalistic cause.

The cosmological argument proposes the need for a first cause, particularly since our universe clearly had a beginning. You can argue until you're blue that there's simply no need for the first cause (because "something is more stable than nothing," or any other variety of explanations)

Nobody argues that. The Cosmological argument is countered in much better ways than that. On a quantum level, no "cause" is needed.

but there's just no evidence whatsoever to back up any theories of what happened prior to the Big Bang

There is no such thing as "before the Big bang." Time is a property of the universe itself. There are no theories about "what happened before the Big Bang." There are hypotheses as to the cause (which include things like multiverse theory). What we have not seen is any need for magic.

and you certainly haven't ruled out the notion of a first cause as impossible, merely "unscientific."

What it is is unproven. It has not been proven that the universe requires a first cause (or that the universe is the first effect).

but why is it so unacceptable, especially in view of the multitude of other reasons for which people posit a creator (innate religious belief, need for intelligent design, claimed supernatural experiences, etc.), to consider an intelligent first cause as a possibility, and then examine whether or not the evidence supports it?

Because it multiplies entia beyond their necessity, because there isn't the slightest bit of evidence for it and because it hypothesizes an entity even more complex than the thing you're trying to argue needs a designer.

[Guest]

If we were to present an ironclad, irrefutable argument that spontaneous generation of life is so remotely improbable as to be considered impossible, would you still be satisfied with saying "by the same criteria, your proposed God is similarly impossible, so I therefore accept neither explanation, and I'll just have to wait until science finds something else."? Is that really reasonable?

Science does not posit that life, as such, arose "spontaneously." You're arguing from a false premise. There were many intermediate steps between non-life and life.

Or is it more reasonable to consider a variety of possibilities and see which best fits the available evidence

That's exactly what scientists already do. Magic just isn't a hypothesis necessitated by any of the evidence.

without ruling out an option based on a strict logical argument that doesn't allow for possibilities that haven't actually been ruled out (for example, "God would require a designer" doesn't consider the possibility of necessary entities, or entities which do not have to be caused, as any "first cause" would inherently be).

This is logical gibberish. If your wizard doesn't need a designer, then neither does the universe. You can't just remove your argued necessity for a designer by fiat. You actually have to explain how an all powerful wizard can arise from nothing. You can't just wave the question away.

In other words, the argument that intelligent design doesn't require a designer

The argument is that there is no such thing as any sort of demonstrated Intelligent Design.

because the designer would require a designer presupposes that the cosmological argument is false

The Cosmological Argument IS false, or at least unconvincing, and by positing an uncreated creator, you yourself are contradicting the Cosmological argument.

rather than simply accepting that it may or may not be valid.

There are an infinite number of hypothetical, magical scenarios which "may or may not be valid." Scientific method is not about "accepting" what sort of magical scenarios may or may not be valid, but about finding out where the actual evidence leads.

After all, doesn't the atheist generally argue that he's simply not convinced that there's reason to believe in a god, not that such an idea is impossible? Open-mindedness to the available options would therefore require considering possible explanations. You've used the "should I believe in fairies?" argument to counter this, but this is a strawman response because I'm not suggesting that fairies exist

Actually,. you are suggesting EXACTLY that. What is God, but a giant invisble fairy? What's the difference? Why is your conception of a creator God any more likely than an invisible magic fairy in a tutu waving a wand?

I'm suggesting that there's an intelligent designer, and the evidence for that starts with what we're discussing right now.

You have yet to present any evidence. Show us an actual example of demonstrable ID and maybe well get somewhere.

Because the bacterial flagellum is comparatively simple, and I already had in mind an idea for how to counter it.

What do you find problematic about flagella? Are you under the impression that it arose intact? That it is "irreducible?" It is not. Behe's argument from bacterial flagella is a complete canard.

[Guest]

Duh Puck, you're moving the goalposts.

To the question: "Does the universe require a creator?"

You reply: "You can't prove that it doesn't!"

To the question: "Does the creator require a creator?"

You reply: "You can't prove that it does!"

You can't have it both ways, my friend. Either everything has a cause, including a creator. Or some things do not have causes -- in which case the Universe may be one of those things.

Ultimately, metaphysics gets us nowhere. All we can do is look at the physical evidence. So far we have observed no evidence of a creator. Therefore, such a hypothesis is a unnecessary complication.

[Guest]

Part of Duh Puck's argument is that life's genetic machinery is very complex. Since evolution requires some form of inheritance, how could that complex set of genetic machinery evolve without some sort of complex genetic machinery?

The answer is that evolution doesn't require genes as we know them today.

When considering the origin of life, stop thinking about genes and start thinking about replicators. The simplest replicators are autocatalyzing molecules, and we know that certain types of RNA are autocatalytic...these RNA molecules create more RNA molecules like themselves when they have the necessary raw materials. They aren't genes, they aren't alive, but they can undergo a process of natural selection in the sense that any error in catalysis will either produce an RNA molecule that is more effective at autocatalysis or less effective. Guess which sorts of molecules will be overrepresented over time, and which molecules will be underrepresented?

Other sorts of molecules are self-organising. They aren't organized by genes, they organize themselves simply due to their physical properties. Drops of oil form bubbles in water, simply because non-polar molecules don't dissolve in a polar solvent.

And so it is very likely that the first prebiotic replicators weren't alive, but rather were various sorts of self-organizing and autocatalyzing molecules. So we know that the early Earth had lots of different organic molecules that formed naturally, we know that some molecules are self organizing, we know that some molecules are autocatalytic. And there we have the first ingredients for prebiotic natural selection. And once we reach the stage where one of those prebiotic replicators could be called "alive" it quickly begins to eat all the other prebiotic replicators and in short order the prebiotic world has vanished.

[Guest]

Well here I go again wading into the biology discussion when all I have to offer is maths. Personally I consider it the only relevant factor because of the anthropic principle. Let's break it down:

Duh Puck sez, in a nutshell, that it is unlikely that life would have developed at all. Let's say he's right. Lets say the chances of life developing on earth are 1 in x, where x is a Very Big Number. Then when you factor in the probability of a random planet being suitable for life, the chances of life occurring on any given planet are 1 in y, where y is an Even Bigger Number. Then if you think the development of intelligent self-aware life on any given planet is yet more unlikely you could give it odds of 1 in z where z is a Seriously Big Number. You could argue the toss about exactly how big z is, but the point is it's finite.

Now how many planets are there in the universe? As far as we know, infinitely many. So what is the probability that at least one of them would carry intelligent self-aware life? It's a certainty! In fact, at finite odds, it's a pretty safe bet that there would be infinitely many such planets. And we're one of them. Where's the unlikelihood?

The mistake is to ask the question "what are the chances of it happening here?". Here is nowhere special, except for the fact that intelligent self-aware life does exist here. It must do, in order to ask the question. It's like a lottery winner thinking that God exists because they won the lottery ("what are the chances of it happening to me?") Take a step back and you realise that with lots of people playing the lottery, there are bound to be some winners, so such occurrences are not miraculous but exactly what you would expect. Infinitely many planets play the "life lottery". So of course there are winners.

[Guest]

you mean I win the life lottery?

WOO HOO!

I never win anything!

[Guest]

You could argue the toss about exactly how big z is, but the point is it's finite.

I wouldn't agree with that. That's the logic for which the monkeys-typing-shakespeare response was born. If there's a finite chance of something, then given enough time, it's bound to happen? Simply not true. If I take a box full of parts for a radio, and shake it for a hundred years, is it likely that at some point I'll have a working radio? What about a thousand, million, trillion years? Of course that's an overly simplistic example, but it shows that the theory behind the "lottery" explanation is lacking. You could use the "everything will eventually happen" explanation for anything you might want to explain. Isn't it possible that, given an infinite amount of time, a powerful intelligent being will be formed by cosmic forces? I didn't think so.

Incidentally, I'm not sure what the basis is for presuming an infinite number of planets. Of course we don't have a solid answer to the "size of the universe" question, but the fact that it's expanding and started doing so 14.5 billion years ago would suggest that it's not realistic to assume an infinite number. Incidentally, although it's currently impossible to identify planets outside our galaxy, the fact is they're curiously uncommon; only a few hundred have been identified, and of those, only one or two provide conditions anywhere close to earth-like.

P.S. I just returned home and only have an internet connection at work, so my commenting will be a bit reduced for the next week or so. I responded to octopuppy's comment because it was short, but I will definitely reply to the rest when I have time. It's true that I "moved the goalposts," somewhat intentionally. I'm sure we're all getting tired of rehashing the same arguments, and I'm trying to converge a variety of related topics into a single explanation, while y'all insist that each piece be considered entirely on its own where it can be individually dissected and shown to be insufficient. I find this approach to be both counter-intuitive and unreasonable, and I think it could be used to argue against any conceivable explanation. I will continue to discuss the bacterial flagellum because I brought it up and I'm totally unsatisfied with the logic presented on TalkOrigins and by Ken Miller (I had already reviewed a lot of that information, including watching the entire Ken Miller video, before suggesting the flagellum topic), but in general, it's obvious that nobody has convinced anybody of anything, so on we go. At least I've learned something.

Edited April 10, 2008 by Duh Puck

[Guest]

Just to say, I'm listening and enjoying the discussion and learning from it. Keep up the sporting fair play chaps. That IS cricket!

Personally I am not looking for a winner, my beliefs are related to humanity - no use on this topic.

Still watching, waiting and learing!

[Guest]

Of course we don't have a solid answer to the "size of the universe" question, but the fact that it's expanding and started doing so 14.5 billion years ago would suggest that it's not realistic to assume an infinite number. Incidentally, although it's currently impossible to identify planets outside our galaxy, the fact is they're curiously uncommon; only a few hundred have been identified, and of those, only one or two provide conditions anywhere close to earth-like.

A couple of points of interest on this:

The "observable universe" is about 93 Billion Light years across, just saying

As to the planets thing - Actually no, the increasing numbers of planets being found is rapidly convincing astrophysicists that perhaps planets are in fact very common. The reason we have only found so few (well a few hundred isn't anything to snicker at) is that we are just now coming upon the technology that allows us to do so. The planets, of necessity for now, that have been discovered are Huge (as in multiples of Jupiter's size huge) and very very close to their respective suns. We know this because that is what is needed to produce the required effects/shifts of the star's light to tell us that a planet is there. Only recently was discovered the first case of two known planets around a star. Who knows how many smaller and/or more distant planets there are? We will have to wait until we are capable of looking deeper and further.

The thing is, what with the rather extreme requirements of these first spotted planets (extremely large AND extremely close) one would have expected (and many scientists in question did expect) to find relatively few, for it to be a needle in a haystack type situation. But there they are popping up all the time - It is almost as if damn near everywhere you look there one is! It has already been postulated by some that perhaps Solar planetary systems are the rule and not the exception, that perhaps almost all star's have planets around them. And thus the Lone star should be considered the surprising find (when/if we get that good at spotting them.)

I will continue to discuss the bacterial flagellum because I brought it up and I'm totally unsatisfied with the logic presented on TalkOrigins and by Ken Miller (I had already reviewed a lot of that information, including watching the entire Ken Miller video, before suggesting the flagellum topic), but in general, it's obvious that nobody has convinced anybody of anything, so on we go. At least I've learned something.

Well we will have to wait for you to actually provide the reasons for being "unsatisfied", I have my suspicions, but will wait and see.

[Guest]

The "observable universe" is about 93 Billion Light years across, just saying

As to the planets thing - Actually no, the increasing numbers of planets being found is rapidly convincing astrophysicists that perhaps planets are in fact very common.

I love how we can look at exactly the same information and draw completely different conclusions. Just goes to show the power of "prior probability" based on preexisting worldviews.

The reason we have only found so few (well a few hundred isn't anything to snicker at) is that we are just now coming upon the technology that allows us to do so. The planets, of necessity for now, that have been discovered are Huge (as in multiples of Jupiter's size huge) and very very close to their respective suns.

I haven't seen anything show up since last year, but there is at least one found planet with similar size and temperature to Earth, although it's 13 times closer to its "Sun," but it's a much wimpier star (a humble red dwarf).

In any case, I was merely responding to the argument that an infinite number of planets would make the origin of life likely, which doesn't resonate with me at all, since it trivializes the probability associated with life arising unguided from a naturally occurring combination of components that just happen to coalesce from cosmic shrapnel and get snagged in the gravitational field of a star, with an orbital path and planetary rotation that maintains hospitable temperatures, with an atmosphere that sufficiently reduces the harmful effects of solar radiation, and so on. That scientists get excited about the possibility of finding life on one of a few hundred planets they've discovered so far says a lot about the lack of perspective and wishful thinking that can develop within the community.

However, regarding my statement that planets are "curiously uncommon," I was trying to counter the notion that planets similar in nature to Earth are to be found anywhere you look, but it wasn't a good choice of words since yes, given what we can presently observe, I would say it's likely that there are indeed a great number of planets, just not infinite; unless, that is, somebody can provide some pretty solid evidence why an expanding universe would be infinite. I'm not ruling it out, but it seems a rather extraordinary claim to me. It's a little too easy to trot out the word infinite as an explanation for things we can't explain.