jimmie,stu, you are quite aware that's a tautology
That's not a tautology. That's that is a tautology.
Last edited:
Why do atheist's fear God?
- Thread starter FortuneTeller
- Start date
That's not a tautology. That's that is a tautology.
piezoe...
with respect to chemistry... was there a drive for life coded into the chemistry? if not, (according to current science) were not the odds virtually impossible in the limited amount of time and the conditions in which life evolved from non life? That we have not found even a plausible pathway from non life to life should give you pause to wonder how we got here without a Creator. if you wish to come up to speed on this subject... I cited a paper from MIT on one of these threads...
with respect to physics... I am sure you understand that our universe appears so incredibly tuned to allow life... many top scientists will tell you, you either have to have faith in a Tuner or in a Multiverse.
So either way you have faith. You could say having faith in the multiverse is essentially the same as having faith in God.
So piezoe, I respect you too, but unlike you I would never say your views on this subject are silly... I would just say you probably need to come up to speed.
with respect to chemistry... was there a drive for life coded into the chemistry? if not, (according to current science) were not the odds virtually impossible in the limited amount of time and the conditions in which life evolved from non life? That we have not found even a plausible pathway from non life to life should give you pause to wonder how we got here without a Creator. if you wish to come up to speed on this subject... I cited a paper from MIT on one of these threads...
with respect to physics... I am sure you understand that our universe appears so incredibly tuned to allow life... many top scientists will tell you, you either have to have faith in a Tuner or in a Multiverse.
So either way you have faith. You could say having faith in the multiverse is essentially the same as having faith in God.
So piezoe, I respect you too, but unlike you I would never say your views on this subject are silly... I would just say you probably need to come up to speed.
Last edited:
for piezoe... here is a place to start...
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
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
It's pretty funny listening to someone who denies the simple obvious and well known science of AGW try to convince us that abiogenesis cannot happen without "God". Just lol
First off....Hey "God" !.....blow me ! You bite the big one !
OK, sorry, now that's out of the way...
Metabolic processes that underpin life on Earth have arisen spontaneously outside of cells. The serendipitous finding that metabolism – the cascade of reactions in all cells that provides them with the raw materials they need to survive – can happen in such simple conditions provides fresh insights into how the first life formed. It also suggests that the complex processes needed for life may have surprisingly humble origins.
"People have said that these pathways look so complex they couldn't form by environmental chemistry alone," says Markus Ralser at the University of Cambridge who supervised the research.
But his findings suggest that many of these reactions could have occurred spontaneously in Earth's early oceans, catalysed by metal ions rather than the enzymes that drive them in cells today.
http://www.newscientist.com/article...ppears-in-lab-without-cells.html#.VZwVSvlVhBc
OK, sorry, now that's out of the way...
Metabolic processes that underpin life on Earth have arisen spontaneously outside of cells. The serendipitous finding that metabolism – the cascade of reactions in all cells that provides them with the raw materials they need to survive – can happen in such simple conditions provides fresh insights into how the first life formed. It also suggests that the complex processes needed for life may have surprisingly humble origins.
"People have said that these pathways look so complex they couldn't form by environmental chemistry alone," says Markus Ralser at the University of Cambridge who supervised the research.
But his findings suggest that many of these reactions could have occurred spontaneously in Earth's early oceans, catalysed by metal ions rather than the enzymes that drive them in cells today.
http://www.newscientist.com/article...ppears-in-lab-without-cells.html#.VZwVSvlVhBc
nice analogy troll. and your article makes my point... that is speculation about how life could have formed from non life. just like your age nutter speculation that man made co2 may cause warming on earth.
a. no science showing man made co2 warms the earth. (you and nitro and all the rest of you lefties have not produced one peer reviewed paper showing man made co2 causes warming.
(there may be a few old ones, based on failed models... but nitro would not produce those because he understands models need to be verified on real time data.)
b. no science showing life evolved from non life here on earth. (or anywhere else for that matter) Science is working on plausible plausible pathways including panspermia but as of the last time we had this debate here... so far non exists.
and note... those are just a search for plausible pathways like the search reviewed in your new scientist article... as of now science certainly does not know that how it actually happened.
a. no science showing man made co2 warms the earth. (you and nitro and all the rest of you lefties have not produced one peer reviewed paper showing man made co2 causes warming.
(there may be a few old ones, based on failed models... but nitro would not produce those because he understands models need to be verified on real time data.)
b. no science showing life evolved from non life here on earth. (or anywhere else for that matter) Science is working on plausible plausible pathways including panspermia but as of the last time we had this debate here... so far non exists.
and note... those are just a search for plausible pathways like the search reviewed in your new scientist article... as of now science certainly does not know that how it actually happened.
Last edited:
so was mine..'quite aware'.
one is either aware, or not
yep, good one. Somewhat unique
Isn't it kind of silly to be shouting obscenities at something you don't believe in?