You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Atheists Prevaricating
- Thread starter mike oxbig
- Start date
what a bunch of sophistry and misdirection....
how did your beloved amino acids evolve into life by random chance that is the question.... something had to be a precursor substance... you attempt to make a big deal out of the fact scientists took some compounds and made amino acids. your are stuck in 1950s science mode... you need to adjust to current understandings.
the question is the creation of life... not amino acids.
you have no proof life evolved from non life here on earth by chance.... because...
a... science does not know how life began..
b... science does not know if the drive for life was coded into the substances or the environment.
many top scientists, including nobel winners speculate we may have had "directed" evolution... because in their opinion it is very unlikely life evolved by random chance given the time and the environment on earth...
---
how many fricken times do we have to go over this...
http://web.mit.edu/rog/www/papers/does_origins.pdf
We now know that the probability of life arising by chance is far too low to
be plausible, hence there must be some deeper explanation that we are yet to
discover, given which the origin of life is atleastreasonably likely. Perhaps we
have little idea yet what form this explanation will takeâalthough of course it
will not appeal to the work of a rational agent; this is would be a desperate
last resort, if an option at allâbut we have every reason to look for such an
explanation, for we have every reason to think there is one.
In a detailed survey of the field, Iris Fry (1995, 2000) argues that although
the disagreements among origin of life theorists run very deep, relating to the
most basic features of the models they propose, the view sketched above is a
fundamental unifying assumption (one which Fry strongly endorses). Some
researchers in the field are even more optimistic of course. They believe that
they have already found the explanation, or at least have a good head start
on it. But their commitment to the thesis above is epistemically more basic,
in the sense that it motivated their research in the first place and even if their
theories were shown to be false, they would retain this basic assumption.
3
There is a very small group of detractors, whom Fry (1995) calls the âAlmosta Miracle Campâ including Francis Crick (1981), ErnstMayr (1982),
and Jaques Monod (1974), who appear to be content with the idea that life
arose by chance even if the probability of this happening is extremely low.
4
According to Crick âthe origin of life appears at the moment to be almost a
miracle, so many are the conditions which would have had to been satisfied
to get it goingâ (1981: 88); the emergence of life was nevertheless a âhappy
accidentâ (p. 14).
5
According to Mayr, âa full realization of the near impossibility of an origin of life brings home the point of how improbable this
event was.â (1982: 45). Monod famously claimed that although the probability of life arising by chance was âvirtually zero. . .our number came up in the
Monte Carlo gameâ (1974: 137). Life, as Monod puts it, is âchance caught
on a wingâ (p. 78). That is, although natural selection took over early to produce the diversity of life, its origin was nothing but an incredibly improbable
fluke.Does Origins of Life Research Rest on a Mistake? 459
However, the vast majority of experts in the field clearly define their work
in opposition to this view. The more common attitude is summed up neatly
by J. D. Bernal.
[T]he question, could life have originated by a chance occurrence of atoms,
clearly leads to a negative answer. This answer, combined with the knowledge
that life is actually here, leads to the conclusion that some sequences other than
chance occurrences must have led to the appearances of life. (quoted in Fry 2000:
153)
Having calculated the staggering improbability of lifeâs emergence by chance,
Manfred Eigen (1992) concludes,
The genes found today cannot have arisen randomly, as it were by the throw of
a dice. There must exist a process of optimization that works toward functional
efficiency. Even if there are several routes to optimal efficiency, mere trial and
error cannotbe one of them. (p. 11)
It is from this conclusion that Eigen motivates his search for a physical principle that does not leave the emergence of life up to blind chance, hence
making itreproducible in principle:
The physical principle that we are looking for should be in a position to explain
the complexity typical of the phenomena of life at the level of molecular structures and syntheses. It should show how such complex molecular arrangements
are able to form reproducibly in Nature. (p. 11)
According to Christian de Duve (1991),
. . .unless one adopts a creationist view,. . .life arose through the succession of an
enormous number of small steps, almost each of which, given the condition at
the time had a very high probability of happening. . .the alternative amounts to
a miracle. . .were [the emergence of life] not an obligatory manifestation of the
combinatorial properties of matter, it could not possibly have arisen naturally.
(p. 217)
Not all theorists follow De Duve so far as suggesting that lifeâs emergence
mustbe inevitable. While nota specialistin the area, Richard Dawkins (1987)
captures the attitude that appears to dominate scientific research into lifeâs
origin. According to Dawkins,
All who have given thought to the matter agree that an apparatus as complex as
the human eye could not possibly come into existence through [a single chance
event]. Unfortunately the same seems to be true of at least parts of the apparatus
of cellular machinery whereby DNA replicates itself (p. 140)460 NOUS Ë
In considering how the first self-replicating machinery arose, Dawkins asks
âWhatis the largestsingle eventof sheer naked coincidence, sheer unadulterated miraculous luck, that we are allowed to get away with in our theories,
and still say that we have a satisfactory explanation of life?â (p. 141) And
he answers that there are strict limits on the âration of luckâ that we are
allowed to postulate in our theories.
6
According to Dawkins, an examination
of the immense complexity of the most basic mechanisms required for DNA
replication is sufficient to see that any theory which makes its existence a
highly improbable fluke is unbelievable, quite apart from what alternative
explanations are on the table
http://web.mit.edu/rog/www/papers/does_origins.pdf
how did your beloved amino acids evolve into life by random chance that is the question.... something had to be a precursor substance... you attempt to make a big deal out of the fact scientists took some compounds and made amino acids. your are stuck in 1950s science mode... you need to adjust to current understandings.
the question is the creation of life... not amino acids.
you have no proof life evolved from non life here on earth by chance.... because...
a... science does not know how life began..
b... science does not know if the drive for life was coded into the substances or the environment.
many top scientists, including nobel winners speculate we may have had "directed" evolution... because in their opinion it is very unlikely life evolved by random chance given the time and the environment on earth...
---
how many fricken times do we have to go over this...
http://web.mit.edu/rog/www/papers/does_origins.pdf
We now know that the probability of life arising by chance is far too low to
be plausible, hence there must be some deeper explanation that we are yet to
discover, given which the origin of life is atleastreasonably likely. Perhaps we
have little idea yet what form this explanation will takeâalthough of course it
will not appeal to the work of a rational agent; this is would be a desperate
last resort, if an option at allâbut we have every reason to look for such an
explanation, for we have every reason to think there is one.
In a detailed survey of the field, Iris Fry (1995, 2000) argues that although
the disagreements among origin of life theorists run very deep, relating to the
most basic features of the models they propose, the view sketched above is a
fundamental unifying assumption (one which Fry strongly endorses). Some
researchers in the field are even more optimistic of course. They believe that
they have already found the explanation, or at least have a good head start
on it. But their commitment to the thesis above is epistemically more basic,
in the sense that it motivated their research in the first place and even if their
theories were shown to be false, they would retain this basic assumption.
3
There is a very small group of detractors, whom Fry (1995) calls the âAlmosta Miracle Campâ including Francis Crick (1981), ErnstMayr (1982),
and Jaques Monod (1974), who appear to be content with the idea that life
arose by chance even if the probability of this happening is extremely low.
4
According to Crick âthe origin of life appears at the moment to be almost a
miracle, so many are the conditions which would have had to been satisfied
to get it goingâ (1981: 88); the emergence of life was nevertheless a âhappy
accidentâ (p. 14).
5
According to Mayr, âa full realization of the near impossibility of an origin of life brings home the point of how improbable this
event was.â (1982: 45). Monod famously claimed that although the probability of life arising by chance was âvirtually zero. . .our number came up in the
Monte Carlo gameâ (1974: 137). Life, as Monod puts it, is âchance caught
on a wingâ (p. 78). That is, although natural selection took over early to produce the diversity of life, its origin was nothing but an incredibly improbable
fluke.Does Origins of Life Research Rest on a Mistake? 459
However, the vast majority of experts in the field clearly define their work
in opposition to this view. The more common attitude is summed up neatly
by J. D. Bernal.
[T]he question, could life have originated by a chance occurrence of atoms,
clearly leads to a negative answer. This answer, combined with the knowledge
that life is actually here, leads to the conclusion that some sequences other than
chance occurrences must have led to the appearances of life. (quoted in Fry 2000:
153)
Having calculated the staggering improbability of lifeâs emergence by chance,
Manfred Eigen (1992) concludes,
The genes found today cannot have arisen randomly, as it were by the throw of
a dice. There must exist a process of optimization that works toward functional
efficiency. Even if there are several routes to optimal efficiency, mere trial and
error cannotbe one of them. (p. 11)
It is from this conclusion that Eigen motivates his search for a physical principle that does not leave the emergence of life up to blind chance, hence
making itreproducible in principle:
The physical principle that we are looking for should be in a position to explain
the complexity typical of the phenomena of life at the level of molecular structures and syntheses. It should show how such complex molecular arrangements
are able to form reproducibly in Nature. (p. 11)
According to Christian de Duve (1991),
. . .unless one adopts a creationist view,. . .life arose through the succession of an
enormous number of small steps, almost each of which, given the condition at
the time had a very high probability of happening. . .the alternative amounts to
a miracle. . .were [the emergence of life] not an obligatory manifestation of the
combinatorial properties of matter, it could not possibly have arisen naturally.
(p. 217)
Not all theorists follow De Duve so far as suggesting that lifeâs emergence
mustbe inevitable. While nota specialistin the area, Richard Dawkins (1987)
captures the attitude that appears to dominate scientific research into lifeâs
origin. According to Dawkins,
All who have given thought to the matter agree that an apparatus as complex as
the human eye could not possibly come into existence through [a single chance
event]. Unfortunately the same seems to be true of at least parts of the apparatus
of cellular machinery whereby DNA replicates itself (p. 140)460 NOUS Ë
In considering how the first self-replicating machinery arose, Dawkins asks
âWhatis the largestsingle eventof sheer naked coincidence, sheer unadulterated miraculous luck, that we are allowed to get away with in our theories,
and still say that we have a satisfactory explanation of life?â (p. 141) And
he answers that there are strict limits on the âration of luckâ that we are
allowed to postulate in our theories.
6
According to Dawkins, an examination
of the immense complexity of the most basic mechanisms required for DNA
replication is sufficient to see that any theory which makes its existence a
highly improbable fluke is unbelievable, quite apart from what alternative
explanations are on the table
http://web.mit.edu/rog/www/papers/does_origins.pdf
Quote from stu:
I know.... and you are very weird. Especially about this stuff. That much is also well known.
I said inorganic non-life. As in - non living material. As in - having non of life's charcteristics.
Funny how you invariably display confusion with a post in which you've managed to cut & paste something basically supporting what I was saying.
All of life relies on amino acids. The organic molecules that define life itself. Without them there is not life.
It is a known fact that inorganic non life, non living inorganic materials, give rise to life giving organic amino acids. Protein developing living organisms. How exactly they synthesize is the question in research.
So there is the discipline of science, step by step putting together an enormous biochemical jigsaw, showing how non organic non life matter in the form of reacting chemicals, make amino acids, make proteins, make life.
Then there is you... with some crazed creationist imaginings for a mythical sky beastie, magic dust, a sneeze, then poof, life.
Weird and a bit fkd up too.
No it isn't the question. You're confused. The scientific question is how do compounds synthesize via known chemical and physical processes.Quote from jem:
how did your beloved amino acids evolve into life by random chance that is the question....
Using the creationist mindset you're for ever trying to fit magic somewhere/anywhere in between, no life - inorganic matter - chemical reaction - amino acids - protein - life; as the reason for life. It's just very dumb of you.
Indeed. How many times until the penny drops and you understand non scientific philosophical pontificating like that is no type of argument except a bad one.Quote from jem:
how many fricken times do we have to go over this...
http://web.mit.edu/rog/www/papers/does_origins.pdf
when caught bullshiting the troll changes the topic once again.
Stu you are so predictable.
and you are so full of shit..
in the end it is possible is that all life is, is just a synthesis... but if it were so simple you would not have just about every noted scientists in the field doubting it could have happened by random chance.
you need to read the scientists surveyed by that MIT paper...
you are stuck in 1950s thought.
Stu you are so predictable.
and you are so full of shit..
in the end it is possible is that all life is, is just a synthesis... but if it were so simple you would not have just about every noted scientists in the field doubting it could have happened by random chance.
you need to read the scientists surveyed by that MIT paper...
you are stuck in 1950s thought.
Quote from stu:
No it isn't the question. You're confused. The scientific question is how do compounds synthesize via known chemical and physical processes.
Using the creationist mindset you're for ever trying to fit magic somewhere/anywhere in between, no life - inorganic matter - chemical reaction - amino acids - protein - life; as the reason for life. It's just very dumb of you.
Indeed. How many times until the penny drops and you understand non scientific philosophical pontificating like that is no type of argument except a bad one.
You have misunderstood this. Of course almost every noted scientist in the field doubts that life could have happened by random chance because it didn't, and no one claimed that.Quote from jem:
in the end it is possible is that all life is, is just a synthesis... but if it were so simple you would not have just about every noted scientists in the field doubting it could have happened by random chance.
There are about 10 different theories of abiogenesis. None of them says that life "happened by random chance". All theories are based on different self organizing processes that in the end under certain environment conditions lead to replicating RNA. Some of such processes, such as the spontaneous building of peptids, have been verified in the lab.
Quote from jcl:
You have misunderstood this. Of course almost every noted scientist in the field doubts that life could have happened by random chance because it didn't, and no one claimed that.
There are about 10 different theories of abiogenesis. None of them says that life "happened by random chance". All theories are based on different self organizing processes that in the end under certain environment conditions lead to replicating RNA. Some of such processes, such as the spontaneous building of peptids, have been verified in the lab.
You are now crossing over it to my lane... but I will play...
Don't some scientists including prize winners state it is possible (some might say likely) the "self organizing processes" were baked in to the DNA or the environment? You only had about 3 billion years for all this to happen...
I'm not sure what you mean with baked in to the DNA. An example for a self organizing process is the symmetric pattern of a snowflake. An overview of the theories I mentioned can be found here:Quote from jem:
You are now crossing over it to my lane... but I will play...
Don't some scientists including prize winners state it is possible (some might say likely) the "self organizing processes" were baked in to the DNA or the environment? You only had about 3 billion years for all this to happen...
http://student.science.uva.nl/~jckastel/html/abiogenesis.pdf
Quote from stu:
....so what's your problem ?
...self organizing processes baked in by the environment...
it is possible but very unlikely the synthesis was accomplished by random chance.
you realize if it was baked in by the environment... then the question is who baked the environment to be this way? you just consented to the idea that if not random chance... must be something else.