Evolution and the Origin of Life

[manu1959]

People really should listen to us more often, we have impeccable tastes in women as well.

it is a "clay" thing

 

[no1tovote4]

sorry my kids are 2 and 7....shrek, shrek 2, bugs life, monsters inc., incredibles, tim burton's christmas thing, toy story, toy story 2...over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over

Mine are 8, 4, and 2. I just watch my movies later in the evening while they are in bed.

 

[5stringJeff]

Actually, that is not entirely, but mostly correct.
Good science involves the creation, through observing and imagination, of a hypothesis to explain the observed.
hypothesis = a tentative theory about the natural world; a concept that is not yet verified but that if true would explain certain facts or phenomena; "a scientific hypothesis that survives experimental testing becomes a scientific theory"
Taken from google, define: hypothesis
Now, it is common practice to create two opposing hypothesy to describe the observed event, that contradict one another in absolute terms. Then, through experimentation, one would have to choose the better hypothesis and lift it to the status of a theory. That is, until an alternative hypothesis comes along.

For evolution in it's primal state, that would basically put the "hypothesis of evolution" versus the "hypothesis of creation".

But since this is such a controversial subject, that is rooted deep in humanity's history of mythology and religion that precedes science by thousands of years this has not been objectively stated.

To say that the religious explanation of the world around us is a mere "hypothesis" has resulted in the sacrifice of many a medieval scientist. It is just not accepted as such, since religion is rooted not only in the phylosophical, but also in the emotional aspect of humanity.

That is I think a major reason why there is so much controversy still.
Science has therefore, since an alternative was not to be debatable at all, let alone provable, chosen to lift the hypothesis of evolution to a theory.

And although you are correct in stating that there is no direct repeatable proof of the most critical steps involved, a lot of information has been gathered that does not disprove the hypothesis, and in fact seems to support it. As for the first living organism, that is yet to be experimentally verified.
As for "micro-evolution" as opponents call it, that is, speciation within a certain genus - all the different species of dogs created by man from the ancestral wolf for example - do fit into the hypothesis of evolution.

We're not there yet, and both hypothesis still hold to this day.
Keep an open mind, is my advice. And remember that even if evolution is to be proven in all its facets, that still does not exclude the existence of a creator.

I would be perfectly happy with labeling the evolutionary explanation of the origin of life as a hypothesis. I think that fits perfectly. I don't think you can give it the status of "theory" just because no one has come up with anything better.

And I don't know anyone who does not recognize microevolution as a valid scientific theory. It, unlike macro-evolution, has been observed and verified.

 

[5stringJeff]

Single-celled organisms aren't the simplest form of organic life. Single-celled organisms, despite their name, are actually very complex organisms when you take into account the genetic and atomic information that is strung together to produce them. The theory is that life started out as a structure similar to a virus or RNA/DNA type thingy. Science just hasn't figured it out yet, but 50 years ago, nobody knew what a microwave was either. Give it time and the human race's knowledge base will continue to grow. We'll eventually figure it out.

All I'm saying is that, as it stands now, evolution does not meet the "independently verifiable and repeatable" criterion of scientific theories; it should be labeled a hypothesis. Even the "theory" that life began as a strand of RNA is only a hypothesis.

ID isn't science, it's philosophy. It doesn't seek to prove anything, rather it takes a defeatist approach to science, attributing complex systems to a magical creator, building upon an old philosophical argument based on the same thing--if you find a pocket watch in a field, you assume it has a creator, and apply the same analogy to the universe. That's not science! This is a good over view of ID:How Stuff Works - ID

I'm familiar with ID. Because ID uses both science and philosophy, everyone likes to say that it's not science. But science and philosophy are both valid means of determining truth; they just use different means to arrive at their conclusions.

 

[5stringJeff]

True, but it's more rational than a belief in a magical deity/creator because it puts faith into tried and true and physically observable institutions like biology, chemistry and physics. Ever heard of Ockham's Razor? All things being equal, the simplest answer is correct. What's more plausible, that a magical being that has never been physically witnessed to exist by anyone and of which no physical evidence exists created the universe? Or that the universe has been formed through physical processes, the evidence of which can be recorded and studied by scientists?

Given Occam's razor, the more plausible answer would be the simpler act of creation, rather than the more complex acts of spontaneous creation of organic materials, combination of these materials into life, and then endless genetic mutations that, over billions of years, formed life as we know it.

 

[sitarro]

As a designer I have to believe that a duckbill platypus has absolutely no reason to evolve that way, where did it come from? Why has the shark not evolved? Why do alligators still look prehistoric. Where do bees and Mosquitoes come from? Insects in general, are we really suppose to believe that they evolved from a water ceature? Are we really suppose to believe that the incredibly diverse population of fish, mammals, birds, reptiles and humans evolved from a single cell? Why are humans 1000% more capable of thought and ability to create than the most gifted animal?

I believe in survival of the fittest and the design changes that happen in this weed out process but really. All of these different species points to a creator with an amazing sense of humor. . .have you ever seen a Duckbill Platypus?

 

[5stringJeff]

To me, the closeness among species points towards intelligent design, not away from the concept. Speaking of leaps of faith:

Wysong (1976) wrote that the most basic living organism would require 124 proteins of properly sequenced amino acids. The odds of even the simplest living organism forming by chance was 10^-78,436. Furthermore, the total probability of the chance formation of the proteins and DNA required by the smallest self-replicating entity is 10^-167,626 (Hadd, 1979).

This is huge. If the earth has been in existence for 5 billion years, that equals roughly 1.6*10^11 seconds. If you say that the odds of the simplest living organism forming by chance are 10^-78,436 every second, you still make the odds of one forming over a 5 billion year period only roughly 1/10^-78,420. That is so small as to be infitesimal.

This, for me, is the basis of making the following argument:

1. Either life arose via natural processes or it did not arise via natural processes. (Law of Non-Contradiction)
2. The chances of life arising by natural processes are so small as to be infitesimal. (See above)
3. Therefore, life must not have arisen via natural processes.

 

[The ClayTaurus]

This is huge. If the earth has been in existence for 5 billion years, that equals roughly 1.6*10^11 seconds. If you say that the odds of the simplest living organism forming by chance are 10^-78,436 every second, you still make the odds of one forming over a 5 billion year period only roughly 1/10^-78,420. That is so small as to be infitesimal.

This, for me, is the basis of making the following argument:

1. Either life arose via natural processes or it did not arise via natural processes. (Law of Non-Contradiction)
2. The chances of life arising by natural processes are so small as to be infitesimal. (See above)
3. Therefore, life must not have arisen via natural processes.

But if there is a chance of something happening, no matter how small, doesn't that imply that, given enough chances, it will happen?

I don't think you can say the chances of something happening are small, therefore it won't happen.

 

[manu1959]

But if there is a chance of something happening, no matter how small, doesn't that imply that, given enough chances, it will happen?

I don't think you can say the chances of something happening are small, therefore it won't happen.

exactly....the chances of bedding selama hayek are small but the chances is still there....so there is hope and i have faith

 

[The ClayTaurus]

exactly....the chances of bedding selama hayek are small but the chances is still there....so there is hope and i have faith

Thoughts on Jessica Alba?

 

[Hagbard Celine]

Thoughts on Jessica Alba?

HOT! She makes me say "MOMMA!"

 

[5stringJeff]

But if there is a chance of something happening, no matter how small, doesn't that imply that, given enough chances, it will happen?

I don't think you can say the chances of something happening are small, therefore it won't happen.

Again, the chance of that happening is ridiculously small. It's so small that it would take me 4 posts, at the maximum of 20,000 characters per post, to type all those zeros. I can't attach a file, because the zeros take up 126 KB of information. It's that ludicrously small. And, if you reread the article, you'll find that statistical impossibility occurs at odds of 1 to 1000000000 0000000000 0000000000 0000000000 0000000000.

 

[Hagbard Celine]

Again, the chance of that happening is ridiculously small. It's so small that it would take me 4 posts, at the maximum of 20,000 characters per post, to type all those zeros. I can't attach a file, because the zeros take up 126 KB of information. It's that ludicrously small. And, if you reread the article, you'll find that statistical impossibility occurs at odds of 1 to 1000000000 0000000000 0000000000 0000000000 0000000000.

Well, obviously it happened.

 

[The ClayTaurus]

Again, the chance of that happening is ridiculously small. It's so small that it would take me 4 posts, at the maximum of 20,000 characters per post, to type all those zeros. I can't attach a file, because the zeros take up 126 KB of information. It's that ludicrously small. And, if you reread the article, you'll find that statistical impossibility occurs at odds of 1 to 1000000000 0000000000 0000000000 0000000000 0000000000.

But isn't all that's saying that for every 126 kb's of zero's, something will happen once? I'm not trying to approach this from the light of the article, but merely claiming that the chance of something happening being a certain level of small meaning that it won't happen. If it won't happen, there's zero chance of it happening. Right? Why would they make the chance one in a googabillion if there really was no chance? Why not just say there is no chance?

I'm splitting hairs, I realize. I can stop if I'm diverting too much...

 

[5stringJeff]

Well, obviously it happened.

Which was the point of my conclusion: life could not have arisen from natural means. Therefore, life must have arisen from supernatural means.

 

[5stringJeff]

But isn't all that's saying that for every 126 kb's of zero's, something will happen once? I'm not trying to approach this from the light of the article, but merely claiming that the chance of something happening being a certain level of small meaning that it won't happen. If it won't happen, there's zero chance of it happening. Right? Why would they make the chance one in a googabillion if there really was no chance? Why not just say there is no chance?

I'm splitting hairs, I realize. I can stop if I'm diverting too much...

The number is so small that it can be said to approach zero. I understand your point, and if the number was on the order of magnitude of say, 1 in a googol, I might concede that it could happen. But this is on the order of a googol to the 784th power.

 

[The ClayTaurus]

The number is so small that it can be said to approach zero. I understand your point, and if the number was on the order of magnitude of say, 1 in a googol, I might concede that it could happen. But this is on the order of a googol to the 784th power.

It's still 1 in something, not 0 in something... :tng:

 

[5stringJeff]

It's still 1 in something, not 0 in something... :tng:

I'm still not conceding the point!

 

[The ClayTaurus]

I'm still not conceding the point!

Classic stalemate. My king stares down yours.

 

[manu1959]

Thoughts on Jessica Alba?

met her.....she is also proof that there is a god.....no way that is a random accident....same for michelle pieffer