The Origin of Life

[DOTR]

Religion and science is not incompatible. After all, the Creator has rules, like the Laws of Physics. .

Absolutely not. The greatest scientists in history were informed by their Christian faith. The Expansion Theory and then the Big Bang were both discovered by a Catholic monk named Georges Lemaître who was being paid by the Vatican to do his research. Not many liberals today know they are spouting Catholic discoveries when they slobber over the Big Bang. Gerego Mendel yet another monk we can thank for a fundamental discovery...genetics.

“I have a fundamental belief in the Bible as the Word of God, written by those who were inspired. I study the Bible daily.” I Newton

 

[DOTR]

Think about it. The greatest engineering marvel in the history of the universe with complexity unrivaled by anything in the universe just randomly assembled itself?

As opposed to a super being that randomly assembled itself?

Sounds ridiculous...except that all theories sound ridiculous when it comes to the beginning of time and space. As someone mentioned here before you have three choices..(1)matter existed eternally or {2}matter created itself or (3) mattered was created ex nihlo by a Creator.

Was it Leweis or Chesterson who said "when science climbs the last mountain it will find a philosopher sitting at the peak"?

Another thoguht, very close to the above, from Max Planck. "“Both religion and science require a belief in God. For believers, God is in the beginning, and for physicists He is at the end of all considerations… To the former He is the foundation, to the latter, the crown of the edifice of every generalized world view.”

 

[BreezeWood]

Until then we only know what we know and right now we only know that there life on earth.

Which is not good evidence or good argument to declare or even suspect that there is not life elsewhere. If I showed you 1 housecat out of 100,000,000,000,000 in existence, and it was black...would you then say, "it's maybe the only black housecat"? No. While it may be technically possible that is is the only black housecat, such an idea would never gain any traction in your mind.

Unless, of course, you were already subscribed to some sort of magical paradigm that declared black cats to be unique, or that there was only one black housecat in the universe. THEN, perhaps, you would try to peddle such an idea.

So, in your opinion, statistics produces life?

We need more than one data point in order to make assumptions about probability. If you ever took a course in statistics you would know that.

Right now we only have one data point on life.

Come up with the next data point and then we can talk.

We know that life exist on one planet, in one solar system, in one galaxy and in one universe.

As far as we know that is unique.

Once (if ever) we come up with another data point then we can start making assumptions on the probability of life existing elsewhere. Until then we have nothing..

Until then we are only guessing, hoping, wishing and making things up.

We like to do that a lot in cosmology because we have all been brainwashed with science fiction our entire lives.

.

Right now we only have one data point on life.

Come up with the next data point and then we can talk.

We know that life exist on one planet, in one solar system, in one galaxy and in one universe.

As far as we know that is unique.

non of the above is true, there was a period when life did not exist on planet Earth - no data point from the initial evolvement leaves your (1) data point irrelevant being non homogeneous in its origin - life formed on Earth is not Earth centric. the life that began is extraterrestrial. obviously not unique.

That worthless incompetent asshole Obama put the richest country on earth $10 trillion in additional debt so it will be a long time before we can spare the money to send people either back to the Moon or on to Mars, won't it?

staying on course - the economic expansion since the 09 republican depression would as envisioned by the central bank, Bernanke pay down the deficit as presently possible if left intact and would be accomplished. however those same republicans responsible for the 09 depression are now again using gimmickry, "tax cuts" to redirect the expansion from settling the deficit to instead line their own pockets ... history repeating itself is solely the byproduct of republican duplicity.

 

[Flash]

I have a complete collection of all of Heinlein's books and stories.

Science Fiction has changed the way we view science and not necessarily in a good way.

Our expectations because of the SF influence is not even close to reality.

Religion and science is not incompatible. After all, the Creator has rules, like the Laws of Physics. .

It is about to get worse. Science fiction has been taken over by Marxist Feminists these days. Hugo and Nebula awards now have quotas and the protagonist gets points for being female/trans/homosexual/whatever-other-weird-provlivity-is-faddish. Several writers have been banned. Larry Correi, Vox Day, Kate Paulk, Sarah Hoyt and Brad Torgerson led a rearguard fight to keep Science Fiction Fiction free of political correctness but they lost and were expelled from the WSFS.

I recently reread "The Moon is a Harsh Mistress". Last time was in high school (many moons ago as Elizabeth Warren would say). I hadnt remembered it as such a strident libertarian work. Of course when it was written Marxism hadn't made such inroads into an more innocent America but I guess it illustrates that politics were always around to some extent.
Its is just that before these last few years the politics were more American and less Soviet.

I gave a copy of "The Moon is a Harsh Mistress" to my Liberal daughter-in-law and told her that she read that book she would never vote Democrat again. After all, there ain't no such thing as a free lunch.

 

[Flash]

[Q life formed on Earth is not Earth centric.

Proof?

 

[BreezeWood]

[Q life formed on Earth is not Earth centric.

Proof?

.
the physiology is dependent on universal metaphysical axioms proven through evolution.

 

[Flash]

[Q life formed on Earth is not Earth centric.

Proof?

.
the physiology is dependent on universal metaphysical axioms proven through evolution.

That is a bullshit answer. Show me the proof that life formed on earth is not Earth centric.

The best way would be to show me some life elsewhere. I'll await your proof. Let me know when you have it.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

We have more than one data point on the frequency of occurrence for brain cancer, don't we?

Irrelevant, as we agree that "statistics do not cause brain cancer or formation of life".

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

How can you say that is earth is not unique to life until you have found at least one other planet with life?

I am not claiming with absolute certainty that earth is "not unique to life". I am claiming we do not know if it is or not. And I am also claiming that it likely is not, for a number of reasons.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

How and where else would you suggest searching?

We can just keep searching where we are already searching. The earth is immense. we have barely searched any of it, in relative terms. And, even if we didn't find other types of life, it still would not be definitive proof that other types did not evolve, if even only with a population of a handful of individuals.

 

[BreezeWood]

[Q life formed on Earth is not Earth centric.

Proof?

.
the physiology is dependent on universal metaphysical axioms proven through evolution.

That is a bullshit answer. Show me the proof that life formed on earth is not Earth centric.

The best way would be to show me some life elsewhere. I'll await your proof. Let me know when you have it.

.

That is a bullshit answer. Show me the proof that life formed on earth is not Earth centric.

the physiology representing life on earth is earth centric, what the physiology requires to exist is consistent with the initial singularity that made all existence possible. metaphysical axioms, purity ... is / are required.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Then lets hear no more tales of imaginary life that arose and then dies off with no trace. Or extraterrestrial life. Unless you can provide a test for it with positive results.

That's bad science and bad logic. We do not rule out the possibility that something exists, when everything we know tells us it is possible, just because we have not found it, yet. Thank goodness scientists don't give up so easily or employ such poor logic!

 

[BreezeWood]

Then lets hear no more tales of imaginary life that arose and then dies off with no trace. Or extraterrestrial life. Unless you can provide a test for it with positive results.

That's bad science and bad logic. We do not rule out the possibility that something exists, when everything we know tells us it is possible, just because we have not found it, yet. Thank goodness scientists don't give up so easily or employ such poor logic!

.
That's bad science and bad logic.

We do not rule out the possibility that something exists, when everything we know tells us it is possible, just because we have not found it, yet.

That's untestable nonsense not required to explain anything.

make up your mind ....

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Then lets hear no more tales of imaginary life that arose and then dies off with no trace. Or extraterrestrial life. Unless you can provide a test for it with positive results.

That's bad science and bad logic. We do not rule out the possibility that something exists, when everything we know tells us it is possible, just because we have not found it, yet. Thank goodness scientists don't give up so easily or employ such poor logic!

.
That's bad science and bad logic.

We do not rule out the possibility that something exists, when everything we know tells us it is possible, just because we have not found it, yet.

That's untestable nonsense not required to explain anything.

make up your mind ....

You need to slow down, i think maybe you read too fast. He demanded POSITIVE results from tests, not merely that the idea be testable. The idea IS testable. Your metaphysical voodoo is not.

 

[IsaacNewton]

Keep in mind, odds and probabilities are only predictions. You could pick up a penny and flip it a hundred times and get heads a hundred times. There is nothing to say an event needs billions of instances to produce something. One may have been enough, or fifty. It is most likely there were pools with trillions of amino acids floating around, which are produced naturally in the universe, where countless interactions could have occurred to produce self-replicating life.

But the point is it could have happened with the first interaction as easily as the trillionth. It may have taken one day or a million years of chemical reactions, bonds, broken bonds, reformed bonds, over and over. It may have happened and that life died the same day. The reactions continued until it happened again. All is possible. The only thing we know is at least one of the events led to a never ending self-replicating single prokaryote cell with no nucleus, just chemicals in an enclosed reaction that replicates itself.

DNA says you need billions of instances to produce something other than what is coded. DNA would have to make a mistake, and not self correct as it is coded to do, and then make the exact same mistake consistently, for millions of years to create new species. We would be walking on the bones of so many transitional missing links...
If you think DNA happened by chance then you don't understand the complexity of DNA. It is not that there are amino acids floating around, it is that they find the exact left handed ones that the code tells it to attach to, that you are leaving out of the scenario. All is not possible. DNA is specific. How would an amino acid know if it was right or left handed without a code to follow?

Take a working eye. Millions of optic nerves head from the brain toward the eye. Millions of optic nerves head from the eye, through the flesh to the optic center in the brain, where each one has to find it's match for the eye to see. Without a code for them to follow, sight would be a rare crap shoot.
And here is the icing on the evolution cake:

"To suppose that the eye with all it's inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to difference distances, for admitting different amounts of light, AND for the CORRECTION of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by chance, seems, I freely confess, ABSURD IN THE HIGHEST DEGREE." ~ Charles Darwin

.

The hearing ear, and the seeing eye, the Lord hath made even both of them. Proverbs 20:12

First off you are talking about evolution, not how life started. DNA doesn't have to continually mutate. One mutation that produces a benefit to the organism is all that is needed for it to change permentantly. And a simple search online will produce endless examples of how organisms radically changed over time and we have fossils documenting the change.

And arguing from the end is a classical fallacy. When things began they were far simpler. And you fail to grasp what I said. If you have trillions of amino acids in a water matrix and they interact they are likely to form bonds and break bonds at astronomical levels. But it could have been that the very first bonding created a viable life form. Odds and probabilities are only rough predictors. They are not even close to laws. You can drop a basketball from a helicopter and try to put it through a hoop 500 times before you do it. Or it could happen the first time.

As for the ridiculous eye theory we have abundant fossil progression from simple lumps of cells more sensitive to light than others that progress to more complex forms over millions of years.

Honestly people you need to get a degree or at least read something other than the Watch Tower or listen to Pat Robertson to get a real grasp on evidence for evolution and the origin of life.

Apparently you don't understand what Darwin understood. That it would be absurd to believe that the eye's design was not a design. A design would work in all things that have eyes.
If it was a random act, what caused the same randomness that occurred in the first seeing eye, to happen in the second seeing eye?

Your assumption that we went from simple to complex was shattered with the discovery of DNA. The first living thing had a complex code inside of it. Code is not spontaneous. It is purposeful.

You try to argue without facts and you try to use Darwin as the all knowing authority on evolution forever. We've learned a lot since then, specifically we've found tens of thousands of fossils he never saw, he also noted at the time that evidence would be found that he didn't have available to him.. Opinion isn't going to cut it sorry. Do some reading on how the eye evolved and we might have something to talk about, until then no.

 

[IsaacNewton]

As far as we know there is a finite universe. In any finite model unique things can exist.

And a person could technically run blindfolded across a shooting range or a busy interstate at rush hour and not get hurt. But it would be stupid to believe that would be the case, wouldn't it?

Bizarre how people make statements like this "As far as we know there is a finite universe. In any finite model unique things can exist."

Drive down the road and see if you can find any two wheel designs that are the same.

Nature produces planets. If conventional wisdom is correct Nature can't even produce two snowflakes or grains of sand that are exactly the same.

Mars, Earth and Venus are are all similar planet design but vastly different, aren't they?

You argue from a position of a folk tale that no two snowflakes are alike? LOL. Show the experiment that put a million of them under a microscope to confirm or dispel that.

Again, read something other than 'what you heard'.

 

[Flash]

[Q life formed on Earth is not Earth centric.

Proof?

.
the physiology is dependent on universal metaphysical axioms proven through evolution.

That is a bullshit answer. Show me the proof that life formed on earth is not Earth centric.

The best way would be to show me some life elsewhere. I'll await your proof. Let me know when you have it.

.

That is a bullshit answer. Show me the proof that life formed on earth is not Earth centric.

the physiology representing life on earth is earth centric, what the physiology requires to exist is consistent with the initial singularity that made all existence possible. metaphysical axioms, purity ... is / are required.

You don't know jackshit. Show me where life exist elsewhere or shut the fuck up.

The universe was created with the building blocks of life are else we wouldn't be here. However, we have absolutely no proof whatsoever that the conditions resulting in those building blocks creating our biosphere ever existed elsewhere. It may or may not. We just don't know.

We only have one data point on the existence of life and that is here on earth. Until we get another data point we can't make extrapolations. Just wishing or hoping that life exist elsewhere because it does here may satisfy our desire to believe in something else but it is not scientifically supported.

 

[DOTR]

I gave a copy of "The Moon is a Harsh Mistress" to my Liberal daughter-in-law and told her that she read that book she would never vote Democrat again. After all, there ain't no such thing as a free lunch.

Good economics as well. Remember the brass cannon?

 

[DOTR]

We can just keep searching where we are already searching. The earth is immense. we have barely searched any of it, in relative terms. And, even if we didn't find other types of life, it still would not be definitive proof that other types did not evolve, if even only with a population of a handful of individuals.

We have searched much of it. There will always be more searching to do but we have covered quite a bit of it. Down to electron microscopy of 3.77 billion year old rocks in Greenland.
But you misunderstand basic science. Not Nobel science...basic science. We don't prove other life doesn't exist. That is simply a fact...until proven otherwise.
Weren't you going to limit yourself to "testable" theories?

 

[DOTR]

Then lets hear no more tales of imaginary life that arose and then dies off with no trace. Or extraterrestrial life. Unless you can provide a test for it with positive results.

That's bad science and bad logic. We do not rule out the possibility that something exists, when everything we know tells us it is possible, just because we have not found it, yet. Thank goodness scientists don't give up so easily or employ such poor logic!

You are now done with "testable" theories? You were going to limit yourself to such...remember? Any tests result in life outside out family tree? I know plenty that result in a negative.

And no we dont rule it out. We simply act on the evidence..."testable" evidence if you like. Keep looking if you like because that is what we do. But there is a reason to keep looking. Namely that nothing has been found yet.

And nothing we "know tells us it is possible". In fact, from what we know (that searching high and low finds none) it is looking if not impossible then very unlikely.