Pink Sasquatch replied: "More importantly, what do hurrricanes, flora fires, and Neptune have to do with the initial formation of life? Nothing."
I am sure I could not do this the justice that could be done if you would read the articles he references at the end. But I will take a meager stab at it. Hurricanes apparently provide a redepositing of certain nutrients upon land masses, forest fires renew and fertilize large areas of land for fresh green oxygen producing flora, and Neptune along with the other planets in our solar system are important in several ways: there orbits cannot interfer with the earth's, and in fact provide gravitational stability, and the outer planets collect a certain amount of cosmic debris which might otherwise bombard planet earth.
As far as the initial formation of life, I think you have made the point that we can't know what conditions were responsible for life getting started, but some similiar list is surely at the bottom of it.
Pink also said: "That is, the planet wasn't created to be compatible for life, life evolved to be compatible with the planet. This is the prediction of evolution.
The very concept behind those 150 criteria is incorrect, they are "probability of the Earth being exactly like the Earth" calculations. Do you know what the real probability of the Earth being exactly like the Earth is?
I am sorry to say that you are wrong here. Dr. Ross, as are many others, is making the point that it is highly improbable we would find ANY planet with these life friendly conditions. To ignore that fact leads to the erroneous conclusion that life is "inevitable". I think the inability of man to produce life in the lab thusfar should be instructive. Life-producing conditions are not a commonality.
quote:I am sorry to say that you are wrong here. Dr. Ross, as are many others, is making the point that it is highly improbable we would find ANY planet with these life friendly conditions.
And PS, as are many many many others, is trying to maker the point that such calculations are GIGO (Garbage In, Garbage Out). Nobody knows the probability of life arising, nobody knows the probability of an environment being suitable for life, nobody has even the vaguest of meaningful approximations to those probabilities. Dr. Ross's numbers (and all similar "analyses") are derived from obviously meaningless guesses tailored to produce the result he wants.
As I said, anything he writes on biology or evolution and related subjects is untrustworthy. For example, CHROMOSOME STUDY STUNS EVOLUTIONISTS, in which he makes the common (among creationists) error of assuming that "mitochondrial Eve" and "Y-chromosome Adam" were the only humans alive in their (widely separated) times. Of course, if we are all can indeed count those two individuals among our ancestors that does not mean that there were not other humans alive at that time, and there is plenty of evidence that other humans were alive.
Hey Jon, thanks for the reply. So are you saying there may be missing DNA? I am not sure how other humans being present 200,000 years aga affects this study he is sighting in the article you reference.
Unless I am missing something, the study is saying that none of these long gone species had any affect on modern man because there was found to be "no nucleotide differences at all in the non-recombinant part of the Y chromosomes of the 38 men. This non-variation suggests no evolution has occurred in male ancestry." quote from the referenced article
quote:So are you saying there may be missing DNA? I am not sure how other humans being present 200,000 years aga affects this study he is sighting in the article you reference.
I'm not saying anyting about DNA, missing or otherwise. It doesn't affect the study, but it affects his interpreatation of it. Many creationists explicitly say that "mitochondrial Eve" is the Eve of the Bible and the scientists have her dating wrong; Ross only implies it. Mitochondrial Eve is not the Eve of the Bible because, when she lived there were thousands of other human females living, scatered across the world.
Here are some of the difficulties in the difference in mathematical maturity between physicists and biologists that I DOUBT, but do not know, if Ross, has or has had them 'under his belt'.
Schordiner narrates TWO ways to think up to quantum mechanically (most probable and average of large numbers) as to the VIRTUAL GIBBS ASSEMBLY under any thermal physics exploration and comes to a crucial cognition that Gibbs, so he thought, was correct to diss duplications in gas sums of a certain entropy INCREASE as being of NO REAL EVENT. If the reason that Fisher/Wright TENSION has not materialized into newer evolutionary theory theoretically (respite Gould's conceputual stepping)is that any math analytics of Fisher is COMPREHENDED QUANTUM MECHANICALLY in Schrodingers bifurcated grammetology then it seemed to me the equivalent theory biologically (with or without attitudes as to the INNERSIGHT(GERMAN WORD) of no-such-event are cellular physiologies (no matter the origin) with the same CODES (and small statistical variations mutationally possible). Thus variation in the criteria to generate these codes IS experimentally into entropy defs but Schrodinger dissing classical thinking worked on the propositional function vs object without the necessity of experimental philosophy of ACUTAL EXPERIMENTALLY DETERMINED EQUILIBRIA. This additional relation between expt and theory is necessary in adjudicating the criticism of evo theory whether coming from a philosophy and religion of creationists or a mistaken belief that only quantum mechanical physics need apply (Hoffman). I have never seen this finessed in the literature so I doubted that Ross had this criterially but I might be proved wrong by links to his literatuer. I doubt it. Of course Provine might have thought that Kantianism will never better itself this way into biology but the philosophical discussion really means that we have had a group of biologists/creationists on the mathematical level between say a Schrodiner and an Einstein but Will was doing nothin to help UWisconsinMadison bring this most likely sophistication into service for the students of biology in US and since I was also treated psychologically it is apparent that this faliure to provide room for release of this "tension" IS CULUTRALY and PEDAGOGICALLY being repressed by secular teachers being hostile to religion but not directly but rather insitutionally else the community of Kantian scholarship would already have provided at least academic space rather than internet bandwidth to the discussion. It is only becuase we allow religous perspective on-line that I have been able to synthesis so much of what must in the final word be the same analytic continuation. It is just that Shrodinger would have been wrong to have said for evo theory that a prior apriori probability was defined. That was how he could bridge the two ways and this indeed might be the only criticism of Wright's behind the writing of "envirnoment" degredation by Fisher (as to the material being other than gas -aka gene) and the consequent ugenic attachment socially past but if I am correct the maths only begin with this level of discussion.
What had not occured in the publishing was a graph of energy level differences regressed on a "plane" of levels of organization and levels of selection. And as levels of selection will roughly scale atomic energy level seperations (whether in supramolecular assembly or less)(or more if you get daring) some guess on the general shape would be possible. Gould might have snuk an infinity in here notionally in his time but we need not make that mistake. First we will needed taxogenic categorizations of the inequalities that would not be but historically the same (no) "real event" that Schrodinger spoke of in this book.
If it can be shown me that Ross had thought these "desgin constraints" into his relation of biology and physics for any biophysics of his nameable I will recant else I rest by Job. So you see THIS IS NOT just a simple difference of Young Earth vs Ross's Sun Creationism. It goes to the feet of the lack of mathematical sophistication needed in biology & I said nothing of the cantorian unicorn lurking in the foreground.
quote:none of these long gone species had any affect on modern man because there was found to be "no nucleotide differences at all in the non-recombinant part of the Y chromosomes of the 38 men. This non-variation suggests no evolution has occurred in male ancestry."
Almsot correct. Only one long-gone individual1 had any affect on the y-chromosome of modern man because there was found to be "no nucleotide differences at all in the non-recombinant part of the Y chromosomes of the 38 men. This non-variation suggests no evolution of the y-chromosome2 has occurred in male ancestry." There's a lot more to human males than y-chromosomes!
1The contemporaries of "Y-chromosome Adam" were the same species as him.
2This is implied in the article, and should go without saying, but I'm just making it explicit.
And here are the explanations offered for the results
quote: The invariance likely results from either a recent selective sweep, a recent origin for modern Homo sapiens, recurrent male population bottlenecks, or historically small effective male population sizes
None of which remotely suggests that humans are unrelated to other species.
I will also point out that the reference ot "other people" is not related to this particular issue - it IS related to other claims Ross makes such as the claim that the ancestors identified by these means represent the first members of our species (a conclusion that cannot be supported based on these studies).
Ah, now we are getting somewhere. So it is the attempt to date Eve or tie into the biblical story that troubles you. What if we were just to say that, yes there were many human like creatures alive, but this "Eve" was the first to be endowed with a spiritual component? Or maybe dating that event at all is problematic?