86 replies to this topic

[Izzy]

sounds awesome - where can we get hold of these babies. Actually there maybe a couple of groups or so that may be offended - yet again I am sure we can round up a few quid to purchase some from the poor and needy
Can you rationalize theory so that we may all diss it . I hink it has no merit on the usual basis that nature acts better when ready otherwise it upsets other facets of nature, just as if a temperature rise of 1 or 2 degrees and the ice-burgs melt, water where there as none before, fine balanced animals that are out of there comfort settings die etc.

nb When God made man - she was only joking.

The statement bolded confused me. Reiterate please?

Getting the babies is probably the most intricate problem we have. I was watching this finance show with my mom a few days ago, and apparently it only costs $100 000 to clone your dog. I'm thinking donations/black mailing/hacking Bill Gates' bank account a spankin' way to commence.. Assuming we can pull off getting some kids, obviously if any of them are getting hurt or we can noticed a trend that may lead to some long-term psychological damage, we call the whole thing off.

I love nature for everything it has done for our planet, our race, and well, everything else. However, today I realized fully how pointless life is. There's no divine purpose for me here; assuming I reproduce and my childlings reproduce until the day the human race days out, the human race has still died out and there was no point in me reproducing; There were other examples I had, but I'm venturing off-topic. Basically, it's all pretty depressing. Nature will stay forever, but we humans only have so long to make our mark on the planet before a much more advanced and capable species evolves. Well, why not speed the process up a bit? Create a super-human race. If I screw anything up, nature will just make it right again - that's what it does. It's fun and makes me feel important.

Lmao at the quote btw.

[octopuppy]

First of all, where are you coming up with this idea the theists believe that "God excercises free will on gravity"? NO theists I know, nor myself, believe that is what is happening. Gravity is very real, and has little to nothing to do with evolution.

I never said anybody believes that. Why would you? It's absurd! I was merely demonstrating that failing to recognise the reality of evolution is equally absurd (arguably more so, since with evolution you can see the mechanism as well as consistently observe its effects)

God created gravity, of course he can control it at any point he feels the need, but its not like he is the one pulling objects onto the earth at all times, and if he wanted to "trick"(????) us, he could move objects around with inconsistent behavior. That's not how God works.

You'd hope not. That would be a pretty wierd sort of god. Why does he offer us such consistent evidence of the process and history of evolution then?

Charles Darwin in fact gave his heart to the Lord on his deathbed. Will all of his reason used throughout his life and science, did he in fact use reason in his choice to except Jesus into his heart, and except Creation as the basis of our complex human world? By deduction, he had to of. He WAS a man of reason.

That's wrong in so many ways. Firstly, that particular myth was put about by an evangelist who claimed to have visited Darwin on his deathbed, though Darwin's family denied that she had ever been present. Another fine upstanding Christian lying for Jesus.
But even if it were true, it would mean nothing. There is no such thing as a man of reason. Men are men. Sometimes we use reason. Sometimes we don't. I have the greatest respect for Darwin but I would be surprised if he didn't have moments of weakness. We all do. But I won't say any more along those lines for fear of lending credibility to that rather pernicious tale.

[bociniki]

Mathematics and probability, on the other hand, are much more up my street. Let's just say for the sake of argument that abiogenesis is, as you say, unbelievably improbable. Suppose it requires very specific conditions and a crazy amount of luck. Given a planet suitable for life, let's say the chances of it happening within any given year, over the space of the entire planet, are one in a trillion (picking an arbitrarily big number out of the air here). Not good odds, you might say. Estimates of the number of habitable planets in the Milky Way vary, but taking a conservative figure of 10 million, the probability of abiogenesis occurring within the Milky Way in any given year would then be 1 in 100,000. So you'd expect life to pop up somewhere in the Milky Way roughly once every 100,000 years (in that case you'd expect there to be several thousand worlds currently supporting life in our galaxy alone). And of course I haven't even considered all the other galaxies out there yet. But hey, maybe it's less likely than that. Doesn't matter really. In order for the development of life not to be an absolute certainty, it must be completely impossible. Unbelievably improbable just doesn't cut it. Any possible event will happen, given enough chances. And it's a big universe.

There are a few problems with this that I see.
#1 a trillion seems like a tad bit to small of a number here. a better number might be something like 1*10^{10000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
0000000000000000000} (If it is even possible which I still have doubts about) and I am not quite sure where you get 10 million, but that seems a little bit to high to me, seeing as, to the best of my knowledge, we haven't seen one so far.
#2 In this argument, you assume that we have an infinite, or at least a very large amount of time, which is not necessarily true. Why should this earth, this solar system, or this universe exist for trillions of years?
#3 You are also assuming that anything that is possible will eventually happen, which is not true.

QUOTE (bociniki @ Dec 10 2008, 10:33 PM) *
Also, since you insist that evolution is still happening, why isn't life being generated anew?

blink.gif A friend of mine had a baby last week. There you go.

Are you saying that babies being born is evolution?

QUOTE (bociniki @ Dec 10 2008, 10:33 PM) *
There are many, many, many more unanswered questions and downright impossibilities in this theory.

Unanswered questions are the lifeblood of science. Scientist seek them out, and in such a complex field, you would hope to find a few questions currently unanswered. But downright impossibilities? Name one.

DNA arising from a random stew of molecules that can code for thousands of proteins with extremely small amount of errors.

QUOTE (bociniki @ Dec 10 2008, 10:33 PM) *
Although you have already been warned against Intelligent design, I believe that there is some merit in the theory. Here is a fairly in depth article about it. I know that it is long, but if you believe that Intelligent design is stupid, this might change your opinion.

I just get a blank screen there, so I'll have to stay out of that one for now. sad.gif

It should try and download a file. Anybody else having trouble downloading it?

[Lost in space]

The statement bolded confused me. Reiterate please?

Uhm is that iterate and iterate again - confusing iterate/reiterate the dictionary needs tidying up there

Getting the babies is probably the most intricate problem we have. I was watching this finance show with my mom a few days ago, and apparently it only costs $100 000 to clone your dog. I'm thinking donations/black mailing/hacking Bill Gates' bank account a spankin' way to commence.. Assuming we can pull off getting some kids, obviously if any of them are getting hurt or we can noticed a trend that may lead to some long-term psychological damage, we call the whole thing off.

So you not serious then
too bad that was looking interesting on paper.

I love nature for everything it has done for our planet, our race, and well, everything else. However, today I realized fully how pointless life is. There's no divine purpose for me here; assuming I reproduce and my childlings reproduce until the day the human race days out, the human race has still died out and there was no point in me reproducing; There were other examples I had, but I'm venturing off-topic. Basically, it's all pretty depressing

there is more fun to life than that - just think what it wld be like to snowbaord into the back of a truck and laugh about it???

. Nature will stay forever, but we humans only have so long to make our mark on the planet before a much more advanced and capable species evolves. Well, why not speed the process up a bit? Create a super-human race. If I screw anything up, nature will just make it right again - that's what it does. It's fun and makes me feel important.

no need to iterate/reiterate now - I was after your deeper theory about it so I could 'diss' it - but I can see you pulled my leg!

Lmao at the quote btw.

there are many more i'm sure

[dawh]

That's wrong in so many ways. Firstly, that particular myth was put about by an evangelist who claimed to have visited Darwin on his deathbed, though Darwin's family denied that she had ever been present. Another fine upstanding Christian lying for Jesus.
But even if it were true, it would mean nothing. There is no such thing as a man of reason. Men are men. Sometimes we use reason. Sometimes we don't. I have the greatest respect for Darwin but I would be surprised if he didn't have moments of weakness. We all do. But I won't say any more along those lines for fear of lending credibility to that rather pernicious tale.

I agree and I would like to add that putting famous people's names on stories (whether they be true or false) really are just appeals to Authority, which are logical fallacies (I'd make links to define that, but Octopuppy and ADParker are much better at that sort of thing than I am ) In any case, it's usually bad to try to support an argument with "evidence" that is hotly contested. There are people who declare that the event is true and others who adamantly deny it. While the truth-value is in question, it is extremely weak support for an argument. I can't come up with an appropriate analogy right now, but to look at it in logical terms:

Goal: prove q is true.

If you have the premise:

If p is true, then q is true

and then assert:

p is true (and provide some "evidence" to support it)

then you can conclude:

q is true

However, if someone else comes along and says:

p is false (and provides his own "evidence" to the contrary)

then it doesn't matter what q is or that "if p is true, then q is true," since the truth-value of p has been called into question. It does not help the conversation as it provides no conclusive evidence in either direction. Some will agree with the first person because they believe his evidence and others will agree with the second person because they find his evidence more persuasive and for those of us in the middle, it does no good since there is insufficient evidence to verify the claim in either direction.

Attempting to use such "evidence" seems at best ignorant of the facts and at worst a disingenuous act. If someone truly wishes to convince someone of something, they should try to find facts that both sides can agree upon to work from. Anecdotes rarely fit the bill as different people will tell the same story differently. In short, it is always a good idea to fact-check yourself before you start trying to put words into the mouths of others.

[octopuppy]

There are a few problems with this that I see.
#1 a trillion seems like a tad bit to small of a number here. a better number might be something like 1*10^{10000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
0000000000000000000} (If it is even possible which I still have doubts about) and I am not quite sure where you get 10 million, but that seems a little bit to high to me, seeing as, to the best of my knowledge, we haven't seen one so far.

I got 10 million by checking a few astronomy websites and going for a low figure. It's a big galaxy, we can't see planets in other star systems because they are a long way away. That doesn't mean they aren't there.

#2 In this argument, you assume that we have an infinite, or at least a very large amount of time, which is not necessarily true. Why should this earth, this solar system, or this universe exist for trillions of years?

If (as in the example), abiogenesis occurred in every Milky Way - sized galaxy once every 100,000 years, why would you need trillions of years?

#3 You are also assuming that anything that is possible will eventually happen, which is not true.

Given unlimited chances for things to happen, that is exactly the case. Too counterintuitive for you?

Are you saying that babies being born is evolution?

That's how it works. The baby was born because its parents (and all their ancestors) survived and reproduced. Lucky little blighter got all those tried and tested genes. A natural selection success story.

DNA arising from a random stew of molecules that can code for thousands of proteins with extremely small amount of errors.

That probably happened in smaller stages, though I'll leave it to someone more qualified to explain the details. Or you can look it up.

[Izzy]

Uhm is that iterate and iterate again - confusing iterate/reiterate the dictionary needs tidying up there

I meant say it again, but clarify what you meant, 'cos I was confused.

So you not serious then
too bad that was looking interesting on paper.

Oh no, I'm completely serious. You'll have to excuse my somewhat joking attitude. It's meant to be taken lightly; it's just kind of way to mask my frustrations. In all honestly, I have no idea how to get the money to fund any of this, which, sucks. Right now I'm 14, have no sort of formal education that looks good on paper, and I'm unemployed. A.k.a., Ican'tdoafudgingthing syndrome. I'll totally pursue this every/any chance I get, but I think it'll be at least another 4 years until any of this has even a chance of going into action. Help/support appreciated though.

there is more fun to life than that - just think what it wld be like to snowbaord into the back of a truck and laugh about it???

Hey - no using my memories against me! I'm not saying life isn't good, I totally love my life. I've done so many fun things and I've still got so much time to do many more, I'm just saying, what I do doesn't matter. It matters for humanity, but not the planet. Humanity's eventually going to die out, so in the end, it doesn't really matter. And.. that kind of bothers me.

no need to iterate/reiterate now - I was after your deeper theory about it so I could 'diss' it - but I can see you pulled my leg!

Aww, you were going to diss my theory? That's not very nice. I'm open to criticism, but.. don't be too harsh? ?

[andromeda]

Let me just state right off the bat that I don't believe in Evolution. I know of several holes picked in this theory, and there are many more that I have either forgotten or never heard. Lets look at the origins of life on earth. Lets not go before the point of matter since there is really nothing that we can know from then. But after the earth was, then we can have some more definite guesses. I am not to clear on the most excepted theory in evolution about how life began, but aside from the unbelievable improbability of even the simplest chromosomes being formed from random molecules floating around and all the organelles needed for this cell to live, how could it survive and reproduce? Possibly asexually, but even if it did that, how, after there are many asexual organisms, could they some how become organisms that reproduce sexually. There are so many organs, cell parts, and other building blocks that serve no purpose if they are even the tiniest bit different. Also, since you insist that evolution is still happening, why isn't life being generated anew? There are many, many, many more unanswered questions and downright impossibilities in this theory.
Although you have already been warned against Intelligent design, I believe that there is some merit in the theory. Here is a fairly in depth article about it. I know that it is long, but if you believe that Intelligent design is stupid, this might change your opinion.

You don't need to believe in evolution for it to be real

While with God you need to believe that he exists otherwise he wouldn't because the idea of God was created by people

Evolution happened on it's own... people were merely observing and putting all the facts together, of course there will always be unanswered questions..

Think about it why would God create the world like it evolved instead of just randomly creating living beings?

In order to understand how life was created you need to know biochemistry, molecular genetics and population genetics just to ask questions (not to make conclusions) and you are making your assumptions based on what? You are just probably repeating the same questions that other narrow minded people with no basic knowledge of the subject are asking!

Let me help you with that one - IT'S ABSOLUTELY IMPOSSIBLE that a chromosome can be created from random molecules!

Life was created and became more complex in time... it didn't happen over night and you need specific conditions to generate life anew. Those conditions were FAR from perfect even back then when life was created, but somewhere, somehow in a tiny pocket of optimum conditions life was ignited.

One more question don't you think that it's highly improbable that an unbroken chain of ancestors (and I don't mean 2000 years but millions) eventually produced you? What were the odds for all of them to stay alive to reproduce and bring up that offspring to do the same thing. How many obstacles they had to overcome for you to sit in front of your computer and bash the very same process that enables you to live your life right now? Think about it!

Edited by andromeda, 11 December 2008 - 12:51 AM.

[octopuppy]

I'm just saying, what I do doesn't matter. It matters for humanity, but not the planet. Humanity's eventually going to die out, so in the end, it doesn't really matter. And.. that kind of bothers me.

What you do matters to you. And since your own experience is the only experience you will ever experience, why should it matter whether what you do matters beyond that? The planet doesn't give a hoot about anything anyway. I don't matter. I don't mind. (is that mind over matter, or never mind over doesn't matter? I dunno)

[dawh]

There are a few problems with this that I see.
#1 a trillion seems like a tad bit to small of a number here. a better number might be something like 1*10^{10000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
0000000000000000000} (If it is even possible which I still have doubts about) and I am not quite sure where you get 10 million, but that seems a little bit to high to me, seeing as, to the best of my knowledge, we haven't seen one so far.
#2 In this argument, you assume that we have an infinite, or at least a very large amount of time, which is not necessarily true. Why should this earth, this solar system, or this universe exist for trillions of years?
#3 You are also assuming that anything that is possible will eventually happen, which is not true.

blink.gif A friend of mine had a baby last week. There you go.

Are you saying that babies being born is evolution?

Unanswered questions are the lifeblood of science. Scientist seek them out, and in such a complex field, you would hope to find a few questions currently unanswered. But downright impossibilities? Name one.

DNA arising from a random stew of molecules that can code for thousands of proteins with extremely small amount of errors.

I just get a blank screen there, so I'll have to stay out of that one for now. sad.gif
It should try and download a file. Anybody else having trouble downloading it?

First off, while the accuracy of the Drake Equation is debated, it does indicate that the possibility of life developing on other planets is not as unlikely as you seem to think. We already know of a lot of planets around other stars and I remember reading about a planet that appeared to share a number of traits with the Earth discovered a couple years ago, but I can't find the link right now. Suffice to say, I don't see the likelihood of life developing on other planets to be negligible (or even remote.)

As for the DNA aspect, there are numerous arguments and counter arguments, but fundamentally it is, in some form, the argument of "irreducible complexity." I liked one article I found previously refuting the argument (but I can't find it right now, <_< ) but I hope that this one will suffice in its stead: Reducible Mousetrap. The other argument that I read talked about how if you removed the clasp from a mousetrap, you may not have a very good mousetrap anymore, but you'd have a decent tie-clip and if you only had the base, you'd still have a working paper-weight. The point being, that while we don't necessarily know how it all came together and while it may seem irreducibly complex, with some imagination and conjecture, we can find other uses for portions of these things that allowed them to develop separately, and then, once all the pieces were assembled, the final product was possible.