Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 122 (8773 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 07-26-2017 8:43 PM
355 online now:
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: Tom Larkin
Post Volume:
Total: 814,695 Year: 19,301/21,208 Month: 2,060/3,111 Week: 281/574 Day: 77/46 Hour: 3/2

Announcements: Reporting debate problems OR discussing moderation actions/inactions


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
RewPrev1
...
23242526
27
28Next
Author Topic:   Transition from chemistry to biology
Peepul
Member (Idle past 2491 days)
Posts: 206
Joined: 03-13-2009


Message 391 of 415 (514839)
07-13-2009 9:38 AM
Reply to: Message 390 by greentwiga
07-13-2009 9:37 AM


e: Eternal Life
you've just re-iterated your argument without commenting on mine!
This message is a reply to:
 Message 390 by greentwiga, posted 07-13-2009 9:37 AM greentwiga has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 392 by greentwiga, posted 07-13-2009 9:45 AM Peepul has not yet responded

  
greentwiga
Member (Idle past 900 days)
Posts: 213
From: Santa
Joined: 06-05-2009


Message 392 of 415 (514840)
07-13-2009 9:45 AM
Reply to: Message 391 by Peepul
07-13-2009 9:38 AM


Re: e: Eternal Life
You were making the assumption that the progress of science will find an answer which may or may not be the same as the hypothesis. I was pointing out that there may not be an answer and therefore in those cases, my statement held true.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 391 by Peepul, posted 07-13-2009 9:38 AM Peepul has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 394 by CosmicChimp, posted 07-13-2009 2:38 PM greentwiga has responded

  
onifre
Member (Idle past 424 days)
Posts: 4854
From: Dark Side of the Moon
Joined: 02-20-2008


Message 393 of 415 (514857)
07-13-2009 1:08 PM
Reply to: Message 388 by greentwiga
07-11-2009 9:09 PM


Re: Eternal Life
Currently, though, it is a faith step to say that the long self replicating molecule formed spontaneously, just as it is a faith step to say that God guided the formation of the combination that became self replicating. Until we have proof, either statement is a faith step (or an unproven hypothesis, if you will.)

If both god and abiogenesis are unproven hypothesis, would evidence of abiogenesis disprove god?

Would you also say that planet formation, since we haven't replicated it, is a faith-based theory?

- Oni


This message is a reply to:
 Message 388 by greentwiga, posted 07-11-2009 9:09 PM greentwiga has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 395 by greentwiga, posted 07-13-2009 6:28 PM onifre has responded
 Message 396 by greentwiga, posted 07-13-2009 6:33 PM onifre has not yet responded

  
CosmicChimp
Member
Posts: 305
From: Muenchen Bayern Deutschland
Joined: 06-15-2007


Message 394 of 415 (514862)
07-13-2009 2:38 PM
Reply to: Message 392 by greentwiga
07-13-2009 9:45 AM


hypothesis
You seem to be confused about the meaning of hypothesis; as you imply it means something that it does not. There's a good discussion of that on another thread actually: Is My Hypothesis Valid???
This message is a reply to:
 Message 392 by greentwiga, posted 07-13-2009 9:45 AM greentwiga has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 397 by greentwiga, posted 07-13-2009 6:45 PM CosmicChimp has responded

greentwiga
Member (Idle past 900 days)
Posts: 213
From: Santa
Joined: 06-05-2009


Message 395 of 415 (514884)
07-13-2009 6:28 PM
Reply to: Message 393 by onifre
07-13-2009 1:08 PM


Re: Eternal Life
You are extending the idea too far. I know that the combination of events that created a stable earth are extremely rare. It is only the double planet system of the earth and moon that makes it stable enough for complex life. We have shown how that happened on the computer. There is so much more that is unique about our solar system that had to happen to allow complex life like mammals. Still, is that just random events that pop up around the rare star? I was reading on the multiverses in Discover magazine. where they were discussing this problem. If it is just random, that does not affect my faith in God. If God guided the collision, PTL. In the same way, proving abiogenesis would not prove or disprove God. At the moment, we can just say, "I believe it was random events." or "I believe it was guided by God." Some of the hypothesis will never be proven and they will stay at this belief level. Some things, like the RNA
This message is a reply to:
 Message 393 by onifre, posted 07-13-2009 1:08 PM onifre has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 398 by onifre, posted 07-13-2009 6:53 PM greentwiga has responded

  
greentwiga
Member (Idle past 900 days)
Posts: 213
From: Santa
Joined: 06-05-2009


Message 396 of 415 (514885)
07-13-2009 6:33 PM
Reply to: Message 393 by onifre
07-13-2009 1:08 PM


Re: Eternal Life
...RNA building block (cytosine?) have recently been proven that they can self assemble, as I stated.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 393 by onifre, posted 07-13-2009 1:08 PM onifre has not yet responded

  
greentwiga
Member (Idle past 900 days)
Posts: 213
From: Santa
Joined: 06-05-2009


Message 397 of 415 (514886)
07-13-2009 6:45 PM
Reply to: Message 394 by CosmicChimp
07-13-2009 2:38 PM


Re: hypothesis
I am a chemist. I have a very good idea what a hypothesis is. Until proven, if possible, it can be stated "My hypothesis is that RNA self assembled around black smokers." This might or might not be faith. Many people might really be saying, "It could have happened here or at tide pools, but I don't know." Once you decide that it must be one way, you are saying, "I believe it happened this way." Saying, it could not have happened with God's guidance, is such a belief statement.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 394 by CosmicChimp, posted 07-13-2009 2:38 PM CosmicChimp has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 399 by lyx2no, posted 07-13-2009 7:18 PM greentwiga has not yet responded
 Message 402 by CosmicChimp, posted 07-13-2009 7:51 PM greentwiga has not yet responded
 Message 404 by Peepul, posted 07-14-2009 7:48 AM greentwiga has responded

  
onifre
Member (Idle past 424 days)
Posts: 4854
From: Dark Side of the Moon
Joined: 02-20-2008


Message 398 of 415 (514887)
07-13-2009 6:53 PM
Reply to: Message 395 by greentwiga
07-13-2009 6:28 PM


Re: Eternal Life
You are extending the idea too far.

We'll see...

I know that the combination of events that created a stable earth are extremely rare.

How do you know that?

In fact, it is currently beleived that terrestrial planets, such as ours, are quite common throughout the galaxy.

We have shown how that happened on the computer.

It's still based off of a theory.

Still, is that just random events that pop up around the rare star?

Is there any evidence that shows otherwise?

If it is just random, that does not affect my faith in God.

It should if one makes the claim that god was needed for planets to form. If I held to that belief, and someone showed me planets forming naturally, I'd question why I believe in god in the first place.

In the same way, proving abiogenesis would not prove or disprove God.

If one is using god in the same manner as the planets, then abiogenesis would make me question why I believe in god.

"I believe it was random events." or "I believe it was guided by God."

Since there is no evidence for god, supernatural guidance doesn't seem necessary. The only evidence for god would be by inference. But that would mean that the evidence for god is tenative and what god is inferred to, once proven to be natural, would remove god from the equation.

At that point one would have to question why one believes in god to begin with.

It's the god of the gaps argument.

Some of the hypothesis will never be proven and they will stay at this belief level.

Which hypothesis specifically?

- Oni


If it's true that our species is alone in the universe, then I'd have to say that the universe aimed rather low and settled for very little.
~George Carlin
This message is a reply to:
 Message 395 by greentwiga, posted 07-13-2009 6:28 PM greentwiga has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 400 by greentwiga, posted 07-13-2009 7:25 PM onifre has responded

  
lyx2no
Member (Idle past 2189 days)
Posts: 1277
From: A vast, undifferentiated plane.
Joined: 02-28-2008


Message 399 of 415 (514888)
07-13-2009 7:18 PM
Reply to: Message 397 by greentwiga
07-13-2009 6:45 PM


Re: hypothesis
" Saying, it could not have happened with God's guidance, is such a belief statement.
So If I say Santa made the Tooth Fairy from one of the Easter Bunny's llavicce bones you can only deny that on faith? Are you not allowed to consider the lack of confirming evidence for Santa, the Tooth Fairy, the Easter Bunny or llavicce bones? It was the straw man that didn't have a brain, not the farmer who made it.

No one is claiming to know the steps, even approximately, that brought about life on Earth. If someone claims to know it is not an act of faith, it is an act of delusion. That you wish to equate faith with hypothesis in this way is desperate apologetics at best. It doesn't put faith in a good light.


Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. Ideas must be distinct before reason can act upon them.
Thomas Jefferson

This message is a reply to:
 Message 397 by greentwiga, posted 07-13-2009 6:45 PM greentwiga has not yet responded

greentwiga
Member (Idle past 900 days)
Posts: 213
From: Santa
Joined: 06-05-2009


Message 400 of 415 (514890)
07-13-2009 7:25 PM
Reply to: Message 398 by onifre
07-13-2009 6:53 PM


Re: Eternal Life
First, we need a sun producing a habitable amount of light, not red dwarfs or the Blue giants. Then, Terrestrial planets need to be in the habitable zone. So far, we have done a better job of showing Jovian planets in the hot zone but too close to the habitable zone to allow a terrestrial planet there. The solar system also needs a flyswatter, ie Jupiter, in the right place to sop up comets, else we would still be getting too many dinosaur killer comet strikes to allow the more complex life, according to planet scientists. The main problem is that the planet to moon ratio is usually on the order of Mars to Phobos. It is extremely difficult for an earth to capture a moon the size of ours. It computer simulation is the only one so far that does so and agrees with the rest of the facts, such as the moon having no heavy core. Without the moon, the earth would wobble from upright to lying on its side and scientists say that would make complex life impossible. I have a feeling that we will find extremely few systems with all these qualities. All I have seen on planetary statistics says the chances are very small.
Which hypothesis specifically?

I can't state which ones will remain unprovable. One can guess. The assemblage of all the building blocks into a self-replicating chain looks like a better candidate. You could call it a gaps theory, but I am not going so far. I am just stating that we don't know and can't say at this time. We can just say, "I believe it happened this way."
This message is a reply to:
 Message 398 by onifre, posted 07-13-2009 6:53 PM onifre has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 401 by onifre, posted 07-13-2009 7:42 PM greentwiga has responded
 Message 405 by Perdition, posted 07-14-2009 12:22 PM greentwiga has responded

  
onifre
Member (Idle past 424 days)
Posts: 4854
From: Dark Side of the Moon
Joined: 02-20-2008


Message 401 of 415 (514893)
07-13-2009 7:42 PM
Reply to: Message 400 by greentwiga
07-13-2009 7:25 PM


Re: Eternal Life
First, we need a sun producing a habitable amount of light, not red dwarfs or the Blue giants. Then, Terrestrial planets need to be in the habitable zone. So far, we have done a better job of showing Jovian planets in the hot zone but too close to the habitable zone to allow a terrestrial planet there. The solar system also needs a flyswatter, ie Jupiter, in the right place to sop up comets, else we would still be getting too many dinosaur killer comet strikes to allow the more complex life, according to planet scientists. The main problem is that the planet to moon ratio is usually on the order of Mars to Phobos. It is extremely difficult for an earth to capture a moon the size of ours. It computer simulation is the only one so far that does so and agrees with the rest of the facts, such as the moon having no heavy core. Without the moon, the earth would wobble from upright to lying on its side and scientists say that would make complex life impossible.

For the purpose of abiogenesis, which is what this thread is about, none of those specifics are needed. All that would be needed is a terrestrial planet with a given amount of elements. A single cell, that's all we are regarding as life...for the purpose of this thread.

It's like Woodpeckers. There have been billions of species on this planet, how many wood pecking birds have there been? However, how many birds that can fly are there? Wood pecking isn't a pre-qualifier to being considered a bird, just as specifics about moons and "zones" aren't a pre-qualifier for a terrestrial planet that can produce life. A terrestrial planet has the potential for life, the right type of setting can extend that simple life to where we are now.

And what we know about the universe, when it comes to terrestrial planets, is very little.

I can't state which ones will remain unprovable. One can guess. The assemblage of all the building blocks into a self-replicating chain looks like a better candidate. You could call it a gaps theory, but I am not going so far. I am just stating that we don't know and can't say at this time. We can just say, "I believe it happened this way."

Let me ask the question this way. Do you believe "God did it" is a good hypothesis? If so, what objective evidence is being used to support it as a hypothesis?

- Oni


If it's true that our species is alone in the universe, then I'd have to say that the universe aimed rather low and settled for very little.
~George Carlin
This message is a reply to:
 Message 400 by greentwiga, posted 07-13-2009 7:25 PM greentwiga has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 403 by greentwiga, posted 07-13-2009 8:47 PM onifre has responded

  
CosmicChimp
Member
Posts: 305
From: Muenchen Bayern Deutschland
Joined: 06-15-2007


Message 402 of 415 (514896)
07-13-2009 7:51 PM
Reply to: Message 397 by greentwiga
07-13-2009 6:45 PM


Re: hypothesis
I put up a response on another thread. That topic here on this thread, is off topic.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 397 by greentwiga, posted 07-13-2009 6:45 PM greentwiga has not yet responded

greentwiga
Member (Idle past 900 days)
Posts: 213
From: Santa
Joined: 06-05-2009


Message 403 of 415 (514902)
07-13-2009 8:47 PM
Reply to: Message 401 by onifre
07-13-2009 7:42 PM


Re: Eternal Life
Back to the transition from chemistry to biology. Scientists have done an amazing job of showing the self assemblage of a variety of chemicals. I was not stating that the next transition, from the building blocks of RNA to self replicating RNA was done by God. I was just challenging you to prove that it could not have had God's touch in that event, or even show that you have a chance to prove that it did not.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 401 by onifre, posted 07-13-2009 7:42 PM onifre has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 407 by onifre, posted 07-14-2009 1:10 PM greentwiga has not yet responded

  
Peepul
Member (Idle past 2491 days)
Posts: 206
Joined: 03-13-2009


Message 404 of 415 (514935)
07-14-2009 7:48 AM
Reply to: Message 397 by greentwiga
07-13-2009 6:45 PM


Re: hypothesis
Many people might really be saying, "It could have happened here or at tide pools, but I don't know." Once you decide that it must be one way, you are saying, "I believe it happened this way." Saying, it could not have happened with God's guidance, is such a belief statement.

This is confused thinking. The level of belief in science is not the same as religious belief. Once there is a favoured theory, it does not mean that science believes it to be true in the same sense as a religious tenet. Conclusions are tentative and open to revision in the light of further evidence.

Science cannot say it could not have happened with God's guidance, and it does not claim that. All it can say is that there is no objective evidence of God's existence or involvement in this process.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 397 by greentwiga, posted 07-13-2009 6:45 PM greentwiga has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 406 by greentwiga, posted 07-14-2009 1:08 PM Peepul has not yet responded

  
Perdition
Member (Idle past 711 days)
Posts: 1593
From: Wisconsin
Joined: 05-15-2003


Message 405 of 415 (514955)
07-14-2009 12:22 PM
Reply to: Message 400 by greentwiga
07-13-2009 7:25 PM


Re: Eternal Life
First, we need a sun producing a habitable amount of light, not red dwarfs or the Blue giants.

Why? Scientists have recently begun searching red dwarfs for habitable planets because it has been shown that red dwarfs do have habitable zones (and this is just for life as we know it, not even some exotic kind of life).

Linky

So far, we have done a better job of showing Jovian planets in the hot zone but too close to the habitable zone to allow a terrestrial planet there.

This is because our planet finding techniques are skewed toward being able to find these easier. It's like using a computer that counts red flashes on the highway as a car, and then concluding that all cars are red. With Kepler now in orbit, we'll begin to find more terrestrial sized planets in the habitable zone. Keep your eyes and ears open for news on this in the next few years.

The solar system also needs a flyswatter, ie Jupiter, in the right place to sop up comets, else we would still be getting too many dinosaur killer comet strikes to allow the more complex life, according to planet scientists.

For our solar system, Jupiter was very beneficial to us. For one, in the early solar system, Jupiter shot a lot of comets and things at us and helped give us water, and perhaps even caused the crahs that formed our moon. Since that time, Jupiter acts as a "flyswatter" as you say, but in a solar system with less debris, this would be unnecessary.

The main problem is that the planet to moon ratio is usually on the order of Mars to Phobos.

Evidence? There are some massive moons in our solar system: Titan and the Gallilean moons around Jupiter for 5. And speaking of moons, who says life couldn't form on a massive moon around a gas giant?

Without the moon, the earth would wobble from upright to lying on its side and scientists say that would make complex life impossible. I have a feeling that we will find extremely few systems with all these qualities.

True, but if it wobbled as slowly as Mars, that would still leave more than enough time for life to evolve a migratory pattern, or if it evolved at the bottom of an ocean near a hot vent, the tilting wouldn't matter as much. Again, a massive moon around a gas giant wouldn't woble as much. A planet close around a red dwarf wouldn't wobble as much.

All I have seen on planetary statistics says the chances are very small.

And these statistics are very preliminary considering the skewed data set we're working with. But even "very few" means billions of possible planet sout there considering the shear number of planetary systems and moons available to us in the entire universe.

I am just stating that we don't know and can't say at this time. We can just say, "I believe it happened this way."

But we can also say that as yet, there is no evidence for a god working at all, so bringing one into the equation is at best a violation of parsimony and at worst a hindrance to actually figuring out how it worked.

Edited by Perdition, : clicked Submit instead of Preview


This message is a reply to:
 Message 400 by greentwiga, posted 07-13-2009 7:25 PM greentwiga has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 409 by greentwiga, posted 07-14-2009 1:41 PM Perdition has responded

  
RewPrev1
...
23242526
27
28Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2015 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2017