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
Quote from stu:
Quite so! Natural processes have inevitable outcomes depending on environment. No question of random chance.
Self organizing natural processes have no necessity for 'something else'.
you are being very misleading, to the point of lying. Nobody knows that self organizing processes came about by random chance... that is speculation without any substance.
show us one bit of proof that says theses self organizing processes which directed our evolution to life were created by random chance.
You should have actually written that self organizing processes include the concept that the drive to evolve to life was coded in by someone or something.... but almost definitely not random chance.
By definition, anything self organizing is not being organized by something else. Otherwise it is not self organizing. Nothing speculative about it.Quote from jem:
Nobody knows that self organizing processes came about by random chance... that is speculation without any substance.
Chemical processes are self directing, self organizing. It is observed how and why they do what they do. No random chance. Why do you keep repeating the phrase 'random chance' like a broken record when 'random chance' has nothing to do with it?Quote from jem:
show us one bit of proof that says theses self organizing processes which directed our evolution to life were created by random chance.
No, I should not have written what you say. I see no reason to purposely write something that's incorrect.Quote from jem:
You should have actually written that self organizing processes include the concept that the drive to evolve to life was coded in by someone or something.... but almost definitely not random chance.
There is no evidence whatsoever that self organizing chemical processes start with any inclusion of a so called, drive to life concept, as you suggest.
The outcome of self organizing chemical processes that result in life are observed as an inevitable process, not random chance.
There's no need or necessity for anything else but natural self organizing chemical processes.
almost 100% pure bullshit, invented by Stu.
1. your definition is ridiculous and a complete lie... I just read a very recent paper on this... no one has any idea why or how the right amount of energy is paired with the right tools and the area is held stable.... you are fraudulent as ever.
1. your definition is ridiculous and a complete lie... I just read a very recent paper on this... no one has any idea why or how the right amount of energy is paired with the right tools and the area is held stable.... you are fraudulent as ever.
Quote from stu:
By definition, anything self organizing is not being organized by something else. Otherwise it is not self organizing. Nothing speculative about it.
Chemical processes are self directing, self organizing. It is observed how and why they do what they do. No random chance. Why do you keep repeating the phrase 'random chance' like a broken record when 'random chance' has nothing to do with it?
No, I should not have written what you say. I see no reason to purposely write something that's incorrect.
There is no evidence whatsoever that self organizing chemical processes start with any inclusion of a so called, drive to life concept, as you suggest.
The outcome of self organizing chemical processes that result in life are observed as an inevitable process, not random chance.
There's no need or necessity for anything else but natural self organizing chemical processes.
Quote from jem:
almost 100% pure bullshit, invented by Stu.
1. your definition is ridiculous and a complete lie... I just read a very recent paper on this... no one has any idea why or how the right amount of energy is paired with the right tools and the area is held stable.... you are fraudulent as ever.
Going by what you post, the papers you like to read are more often than not highly dubious and full of nonsense.
'Why or how' does not have already self organizing processes requiring "something else".
It is obvious simply by definition, that self organizing processes organize themselves.
Quote from stu:
Going by what you post, the papers you like to read are more often than not highly dubious and full of nonsense.
'Why or how' does not have already self organizing processes requiring "something else".
It is obvious simply by definition, that self organizing processes organize themselves.
are you actually trying to argue these things learned to self organize by random chance... yet you have no proof, no science and no scientist supporting you.
Obviously I'm not trying to argue any such thing. Are you trying to suggest I am?Quote from jem:
are you actually trying to argue these things learned to self organize by random chance...
I don't need any proof to support something I'm not saying.Quote from jem:
yet you have no proof, no science and no scientist supporting you.
Non life chemical reaction, makes amino acids, makes proteins, makes life.. is what I said.
Makes life inevitable where suitable environmental conditions prevail.
No wonder you're confused if you can only think chemicals learned to self organize using that hoary old chestnut random chance.
Self-organizing (chemistry).
May I suggest you look the basics up to better educate yourself first? It may help you stop jumping to so many phoney conclusions.
you have no proof life came for non life...
you then made up a bunch of shit about self organization and when I called out your bullshit, you backed your ass down to writing a bunch of meaningless sentences with buzz words.
you then made up a bunch of shit about self organization and when I called out your bullshit, you backed your ass down to writing a bunch of meaningless sentences with buzz words.
Quote from stu:
Obviously I'm not trying to argue any such thing. Are you trying to suggest I am?
I don't need any proof to support something I'm not saying.
Non life chemical reaction, makes amino acids, makes proteins, makes life.. is what I said.
Makes life inevitable where suitable environmental conditions prevail.
No wonder you're confused if you can only think chemicals learned to self organize using that hoary old chestnut random chance.
Self-organizing (chemistry).
May I suggest you look the basics up to better educate yourself first? It may help you stop jumping to so many phoney conclusions.
this is the bottom line and none of your b.s. wiill change the facts.
Arguing for self organization does not change the fact that the probability life came about by chance is too low to be plausible.
Arguing for self organization does not change the fact that the probability life came about by chance is too low to be plausible.
Quote from jem:
--
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
There is no PROOF life came from non-life, but there are plenty of facts, theories and observations that support it. A logical mind, educated in the basics of protobiology and biology must conclude it does. Someone who places God somewhere between a sterile earth and 2.5 billion years of single-celled life is desperately grasping at insubstantial straws.