Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest
Limitations of Science?
-
13-10-2012 10:17pm#1The problem with Dawkins is he is as reactionary and closed minded as those he opposes. Science is an evolving aspect of human endeavour and to draw such 99% certain conclusions from limited information as he has is sheer arrogance. The world simply cannot be explained simply in materialistic terms as anyone would even a rudimentary understanding of quantum mechanics accepts. Science is based on what we can objectively describe with our 5 senses but who knows what lies beyond our sensory ability. Science as it currently stands simply cannot answer the big questions; what is consciousness and where does it derive from? where are memories stored or retrieved from say after a concussion? how is knowledge passed on from generation to generation withour direct communication as it clearly is?
We are supposed to believe that the sheer perfection of the laws of nature that led to the beautiful world we percieve around us happened by chance, just atoms banging into each other and making DNA. As Fred Hoyle said regarding life developing randomly "like believing a tornado sweeping through a junkyard and making a 747". Genetics as currently understood explains only a fragment of life and how life evolved and continues to evolve. We have a very incomplete understanding of reality and to say that science as we know it today will explain reality to us in time is the height of arrogance.
None of the above postulates a God or the lack of a God. Life could have come here from outer space via a comet but then you have to wonder where that life came from. Populist scientists like Dawkins will not lead us towards furthering our understanding of reality, it will be evolutionary giant steps in our species whose minds are more open, people like Einstein who did not feel the need to wage war on those with a belief in a God and was humble enough to accept the possibility of a God.2
Comments
-
The problem with Dawkins is he is as reactionary and closed minded as those he opposes. Science is an evolving aspect of human endeavour and to draw such 99% certain conclusions from limited information as he has is sheer arrogance. The world simply cannot be explained simply in materialistic terms as anyone would even a rudimentary understanding of quantum mechanics accepts. Science is based on what we can objectively describe with our 5 senses but who knows what lies beyond our sensory ability. Science as it currently stands simply cannot answer the big questions; what is consciousness and where does it derive from? where are memories stored or retrieved from say after a concussion? how is knowledge passed on from generation to generation withour direct communication as it clearly is?
We are supposed to believe that the sheer perfection of the laws of nature that led to the beautiful world we percieve around us happened by chance, just atoms banging into each other and making DNA. As Fred Hoyle said regarding life developing randomly "like believing a tornado sweeping through a junkyard and making a 747". Genetics as currently understood explains only a fragment of life and how life evolved and continues to evolve. We have a very incomplete understanding of reality and to say that science as we know it today will explain reality to us in time is the height of arrogance.
None of the above postulates a God or the lack of a God. Life could have come here from outer space via a comet but then you have to wonder where that life came from. Populist scientists like Dawkins will not lead us towards furthering our understanding of reality, it will be evolutionary giant steps in our species whose minds are more open, people like Einstein who did not feel the need to wage war on those with a belief in a God and was humble enough to accept the possibility of a God.
Science explains what it explains, and doesn't proclaim to explain what it cannot yet explain. It just so happens, science explains a lot.
Also, Einstein was so open minded he thought QM was bullshít, and Dawkins does accept the possibility of a God.
But yeah, rant away my good fellow.0 -
A dishonest, stupid argument that even creationists have long abandoned because it makes it so obvious that the person using it either doesn't understand evolution, or is deliberately misrepresenting it.As Fred Hoyle said regarding life developing randomly "like believing a tornado sweeping through a junkyard and making a 747".
What does genetics no explain exactly?Genetics as currently understood explains only a fragment of life and how life evolved and continues to evolve.
Lol, but people researching psychic dogs will?Populist scientists like Dawkins will not lead us towards furthering our understanding of reality, it will be evolutionary giant steps in our species whose minds are more open, .....0 -
Maybe you're right, nagirrac, our five senses aren't enough to discover the reality of existence. We should use our chest-based blood pumping organ instead.
Science is the only honest method of enquiry because it's the only one that recognises it doesn't have the answers. And when it does suggest an answer it is never accepted as fact until absolutely shown to be so.
Science is not atheism, it's simply the method of inquiry that has brought us from living in caves to living in space stations.0 -
Maybe you're right, nagirrac, our five senses aren't enough to discover the reality of existence. We should use our chest-based blood pumping organ instead.
Science is the only honest method of enquiry because it's the only one that recognises it doesn't have the answers. And when it does suggest an answer it is never accepted as fact until absolutely shown to be so.
Science is not atheism, it's simply the method of inquiry that has brought us from living in caves to living in space stations.
I have spent my whole working career in science so I am anything but anti-science. I am anti dogmatic atheist scientists like Dawkins, when in my view being dogmatic on the question of whether there is an intelligence behind the evolution of the universe as it appears to us is unjustified given our current comprehension of reality. I can argue based on my understanding of quantum physics that our true reality is a computer simulation which is essentially no different to the core beliefs of a theist. Dawkins could not effecytively disprove my beliefs as modern physics is much closer aligned to my view than the view that the universe as we observe it evolved randomly.
What we need to use to understand the nature of reality is our minds, and those that do, such as the leading theoretical physicists, have concluded that describing the world in "direct realism" terms is wrong. If anything the emerging truth is that the universe is like a hologram and our brains simply describe the observed world in 3 dimensions as this is the easiest way for us to function. Accepting quantum mechanics means accepting a very strange world.
As for bringing us from living in caves to space stations, true, but it also brought us to developing and delivering the atom bomb.0 -
MagicMarker wrote: »
Also, Einstein was so open minded he thought QM was bullshít, and Dawkins does accept the possibility of a God.
But yeah, rant away my good fellow.
Einstein came from the classical physics world and could not accept one aspect of quantum mechanics, non locality. He died before it was proven by Bell and others. The world is indeed a much stranger place than even Einstein could accept but that does not diminish his standing as the greatest scientific mind since Newton. Anyone thinking Einstein was closed minded should go through the mental challenge of understanding his issues with non-locality and how they were finally resolved by Bell's and later experiments. The answers are rather mind blowing to say the least.
Dawkins on Bill Maher's show described himself as a 6.9 on his own scale of 1-7 in terms of being an atheist. Most scientists are agnostics and almost all theoretical physicists are agnostics. Dawkins appeals to the current anti-religion new atheists who in reality equate science with atheism, most of whom have no real understanding of either subject.0 -
Advertisement
-
Dawkins on Bill Maher's show described himself as a 6.9 on his own scale of 1-7 in terms of being an atheist. Most scientists are agnostics and almost all theoretical physicists are agnostics. Dawkins appeals to the current anti-religion new atheists who in reality equate science with atheism, most of whom have no real understanding of either subject.
Dawkins is agnostic too. He doesn't claim to know no god exists.0 -
Dawkins is agnostic too. He doesn't claim to know no god exists.
No he is not. He is an affirmed atheist so he should nail his colors to the mast and prove his position. Strong atheists have it handy asking others to prove an all encompassing intelligence that we do not understand exists but have nothing but black holes in their own argument. Science is forever filling in dots but increasingly not making much real progress. Compared to the early 20th century science is extremely inefficient i.e. buried up its own ass.0 -
He's an arrogant fanatical zealot. Using teenage logic.0
-
A dishonest, stupid argument that even creationists have long abandoned because it makes it so obvious that the person using it either doesn't understand evolution, or is deliberately misrepresenting it.
Just wanted to correct you on this point. Hoyle's argument has nothing to do with evolution. It's to do with how life itself originated.0 -
Cavehill Red wrote: »Just wanted to correct you on this point. Hoyle's argument has nothing to do with evolution. It's to do with how life itself originated.
+1
Precisely dear Watson. How did it origintate, that is the question. Did random collisions of carbon, hydrogen, nitrogen, oxygen and the odd phosphorous atom lead to DNA. Fair play if it did, about as believable as a dozen blind men solving Rubik's cubes simultaneously.0 -
Advertisement
-
No he is not. He is an affirmed atheist so he should nail his colors to the mast and prove his position. Strong atheists have it handy asking others to prove an all encompassing intelligence that we do not understand exists but have nothing but black holes in their own argument. Science is forever filling in dots but increasingly not making much real progress. Compared to the early 20th century science is extremely inefficient i.e. buried up its own ass.
0 -
Still even if he is referring to abiogenesis, it's still a stupid, dishonest argument which ignores the ideas of natural selection working on small incremental changes.Cavehill Red wrote: »Just wanted to correct you on this point. Hoyle's argument has nothing to do with evolution. It's to do with how life itself originated.
If someone claims that claiming something does not involve magic/aliens/intelligence is random, that person either has no idea what he's talking about or is feigning ignorance.
Here's a great video detailing a simplified version of one of the current theories of abiogensis:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6QYDdgP9eg
Exactly nowhere in that described process is something impossible, requires the intervention of magic, or is "random".0 -
Still even if he is referring to abiogenesis, it's still a stupid, dishonest argument which ignores the ideas of natural selection working on small incremental changes.
I'm not interested in defending Hoyle's argument. It's not my argument. I was simply pointing out that you had completely misunderstood it. There is no evolution at the biopoietic point. There is no increment. It goes from off to on.0 -
Still even if he is referring to abiogenesis, it's still a stupid, dishonest argument which ignores the ideas of natural selection working on small incremental changes.
If someone claims that claiming something does not involve magic/aliens/intelligence is random, that person either has no idea what he's talking about or is feigning ignorance.
Here's a great video detailing a simplified version of one of the current theories of abiogensis:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6QYDdgP9eg
Exactly nowhere in that described process is something impossible, requires the intervention of magic, or is "random".
Yes, Hoyle was a critic of abiogensis and a firm believer that life originated in space and was transferred by viruses riding on comets to earth. Nonsense you say, but unfortunately he is right, even back in those dastardely 1980s. There simply isn't enough time since earth's evolution, life had to have originated long ago somewhere else.
The constant use of hysterical words like magic and aliens just weakens your already weak argument.0 -
So you didn't watch the video then I take it since it shows you exactly how wrong that statement is.Cavehill Red wrote: »I'm not interested in defending Hoyle's argument. It's not my argument. I was simply pointing out that you had completely misunderstood it. There is no evolution at the biopoietic point. There is no increment. It goes from off to on.
And this is a valid theory.Yes, Hoyle was a critic of abiogensis and a firm believer that life originated in space and was transferred by viruses riding on comets to earth.
The argument however either applied to abiogenesis or evolution is still stupid and dishonest.
You're welcome to prove his theory. Or address the points I made against his dishonest argument.Nonsense you say, but unfortunately he is right, even back in those dastardely 1980s.
Ok, prove that then.There simply isn't enough time since earth's evolution, life had to have originated long ago somewhere else.0 -
So you didn't watch the video then I take it since it shows you exactly how wrong that statement is.
I don't need to watch a powerpoint. I'm already familiar with the work of Jack Szostak.And this is a valid theory.
All theories are valid until disproven. There are currently dozens if not hundreds of theories pertaining to the origin of life. Only a very few relate it to supernatural causes. The majority are competing, and incompatible, scientific theorems. The simple answer is that we don't know the origin of life on this planet, so for you to suggest it is definitively an evolutionary process at the point of biopoiesis is the only actual dishonest statement on this entire thread so far.0 -
So you didn't watch the video then I take it since it shows you exactly how wrong that statement is.
And this is a valid theory.
The argument however either applied to abiogenesis or evolution is still stupid and dishonest.
You're welcome to prove his theory. Or address the points I made against his dishonest argument.
Ok, prove that then.
Hoyle calculated that the chance of obtaining the required set of enzymes to build the simplest of living cells was 10^40,000 dwarfing the # of atoms in the known universe calculated at 10^80. No way life originated here or made the huge evolutionary steps it did here without outside help. What's wrong with a virus spreading a "meme", you believe in the common cold right?0 -
Where did I say that?Cavehill Red wrote: »so for you to suggest it is definitively an evolutionary process at the point of biopoiesis is the only actual dishonest statement on this entire thread so far.
I am only presenting this theory to show that there are well supported, logical and plausible theories for abiogenesis that don't rely on "randomness" or something comparable to the dishonest analogy of a tornado built plane.
So do you think that the model I presented is "random"?
Do you think that it is fair to describe that as "as likely as a tornado in a junkyard making a 747"?
Can it be described as not being incremental or being "off then on"?0 -
Where did I say that?
Post 7 above.I am only presenting this theory to show that there are well supported, logical and plausible theories for abiogenesis that don't rely on "randomness" or something comparable to the dishonest analogy of a tornado built plane.
Logical, yes. Well supported or plausible, not so much.So do you think that the model I presented is "random"?
Don't you? To suggest otherwise would be to imply the hand of a designer.Do you think that it is fair to describe that as "as likely as a tornado in a junkyard making a 747"?
I'm not qualified to do the maths on that. It's possible that no one is, given the variables, including Hoyle. Certainly the probability of either occurring is quite lengthy though.Can it be described as not being incremental or being "off then on"?
This will, I imagine, depend somewhat on your definition of what life consists of. If you think that replicating polymers qualify as life, you may believe this model describes an incremental process. Most biologists wouldn't concur with that definition of life though.0 -
I say no such thing there.Cavehill Red wrote: »Post 7 above.
So what is implausible about it?Cavehill Red wrote: »Logical, yes. Well supported or plausible, not so much.
No it's not "random" but it's not directed by an intellegence either.Cavehill Red wrote: »Don't you? To suggest otherwise would be to imply the hand of a designer.
All of the processes in it are just following laws of simple chemistry and physics.
So even thought the statement can't be supported, and is not an accurate comparison to this and other theories he made it anyway...Cavehill Red wrote: »I'm not qualified to do the maths on that. It's possible that no one is, given the variables, including Hoyle. Certainly the probability of either occurring is quite lengthy though.
Seems a bit ignorant and dishonest don't you think...?
And these processes could not have produced want we now consider life down the line using natural selection on incremental changes because....?Cavehill Red wrote: »This will, I imagine, depend somewhat on your definition of what life consists of. If you think that replicating polymers qualify as life, you may believe this model describes an incremental process. Most biologists wouldn't concur with that definition of life though.0 -
Advertisement
-
Ah yes, plumbing the depths of old creationist canards...Hoyle calculated that the chance of obtaining the required set of enzymes to build the simplest of living cells was 10^40,000 dwarfing the # of atoms in the known universe calculated at 10^80. No way life originated here or made the huge evolutionary steps it did here without outside help. What's wrong with a virus spreading a "meme", you believe in the common cold right?
I believe this one was a favourite of JC.
You're again welcome to back those numbers up.
Particularly in reference to the model I presented that shows the above to be nonsense. Or at least to something other than a modern simple cell.
And then go back and support the other statments of fact you've made:There simply isn't enough time since earth's evolution, life had to have originated long ago somewhere else.0 -
I say no such thing there.
Um, yes you did.So what is implausible about it?
Bottom-up models posit, as here, very simple proto-cells. Yet no one has ever been able to synthesise one. That would be the main implausibility. This model requires a step that ought to be simple, yet has proved utterly elusive to the top biochemical labs in the world.No it's not "random" but it's not directed by an intellegence either.
It's not random in that it is a logical theory, in that it has an inherent logic. But you shouldn't confuse that with likely, or plausible, or definitive.All of the processes in it are just following laws of simple chemistry and physics.
It's also wildly speculative and hypothetical.So even thought the statement can't be supported, and is not an accurate comparison to this and other theories he made it anyway...
Seems a bit ignorant and dishonest don't you think...?
Again, I reiterate, I'm not seeking to defend Hoyle. He can do that for himself. But no, I don't think it is reasonable to suggest he is either ignorant nor dishonest. He clearly believes what he writes, and his scientific credentials likely vastly exceed your own.And these processes could not have produced want we now consider life down the line using natural selection on incremental changes because....?
I didn't say they couldn't. I agreed the theory was logical. I stated it wasn't particularly plausible, and that it was only one of many, many theories relating to abiogenesis. Personally, I'm agnostic on the issue as it doesn't exactly keep me awake at night. But exogenesis is a perfectly plausible theorem too.0 -
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=81234042&postcount=7Cavehill Red wrote: »Um, yes you did.
Here is post 7. Please highlight exactly what you are reffering to as there's nothing in there that could possibly be inferred as what you claimed I said.
And? Up until recently they couldn't produce a higgs boson in the lab. That didn't make the higgs field theory implausible.Cavehill Red wrote: »Bottom-up models posit, as here, very simple proto-cells. Yet no one has ever been able to synthesise one. That would be the main implausibility. This model requires a step that ought to be simple, yet has proved utterly elusive to the top biochemical labs in the world.
So leaving aside that you think it's implausible, you agree it's possible.Cavehill Red wrote: »It's not random in that it is a logical theory, in that it has an inherent logic. But you shouldn't confuse that with likely, or plausible, or definitive.
It's also wildly speculative and hypothetical.
The fact it does exist and is possible and does not rely on any of the nonsense nagirrac says science says the argument he is making is invalid.
But again, he made an unsupported incomparable analogy. If he wasn't ignorant of how incomparable or unsupported it was, then he's being dishonest.Cavehill Red wrote: »Again, I reiterate, I'm not seeking to defend Hoyle. He can do that for himself. But no, I don't think it is reasonable to suggest he is either ignorant nor dishonest. He clearly believes what he writes, and his scientific credentials likely vastly exceed your own.
The idea is indeed valid but that just pushes the question back a needless step. I was referring specifically to the dishonest tornado argument.Cavehill Red wrote: »I didn't say they couldn't. I agreed the theory was logical. I stated it wasn't particularly plausible, and that it was only one of many, many theories relating to abiogenesis. Personally, I'm agnostic on the issue as it doesn't exactly keep me awake at night. But exogenesis is a perfectly plausible theorem too.
There's no reason to assume that life was seeded here, there's no reason to assume that life could not have started on Earth.
And even if we do, life must have started somewhere, somehow...0 -
A dishonest, stupid argument that even creationists have long abandoned because it makes it so obvious that the person using it either doesn't understand evolution, or is deliberately misrepresenting it.http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=81234042&postcount=7
Here is post 7. Please highlight exactly what you are reffering to as there's nothing in there that could possibly be inferred as what you claimed I said.]And? Up until recently they couldn't produce a higgs boson in the lab. That didn't make the higgs field theory implausible.
The Higgs Boson has not been proposed as the basic building block from which life generated in a primordial ocean. Are you seriously unaware of the ridiculousness of this comparison?So leaving aside that you think it's implausible, you agree it's possible.
It's possible until it's disproven. That's how science works. But possible isn't the same as likely, or plausible. It's just a hypothesis, one of very many.The fact it does exist and is possible and does not rely on any of the nonsense nagirrac says science says the argument he is making is invalid.
No, the existence of a theory doesn't disprove other theories. The proof of a theory is what disproves other theories.But again, he made an unsupported incomparable analogy. If he wasn't ignorant of how incomparable or unsupported it was, then he's being dishonest.
ALL theories relating to the origins of life are unsupported currently. I don't understand what you're trying to convey by the word 'incomparable' in this context.The idea is indeed valid but that just pushes the question back a needless step. I was referring specifically to the dishonest tornado argument.
I must take issue with your accusing an extremely eminent astronomer and scientist repeatedly of dishonesty. Whether he is right or wrong, there is no evidence to suggest that he was being dishonest, and it is sly and disingenuous of you to keep repeating this slur like some redtop lowlife hack, in the hope it will stick.There's no reason to assume that life was seeded here, there's no reason to assume that life could not have started on Earth.
And even if we do, life must have started somewhere, somehow...
Well, obviously. There is life, therefore it had to begin somewhere. Duh. Did that somewhere have to be here, though? Not necessarily. The galaxy is big, and stuff is spinning around it all the time, impacting hither and thither. We already know that Mars and Earth have regularly swapped rock as a result of impacts. Our planet, indeed our solar system, is young compared to other parts of the galaxy. It is likely that life evolved elsewhere, and likely too that it evolved there before it had a chance to evolve here.
There is at this moment in time no reason to presume life commenced here, since there is no evidence to confirm that as a fact. Nor is there evidence to prove an exogenetic origin either. This is why I am agnostic on the whole issue. It seems to me that there would be much greater theological fallout than scientific fallout if an exogenetic origin was proven, actually.0 -
You claimedCavehill Red wrote: »A dishonest, stupid argument that even creationists have long abandoned because it makes it so obvious that the person using it either doesn't understand evolution, or is deliberately misrepresenting it.
I said no such thing. There's no way to get what you got from what I did say without some sort of confusion.so for you to suggest it is definitively an evolutionary process at the point of biopoiesis is the only actual dishonest statement on this entire thread so far.
It's a good comparision because you are arguing that the model I pointed to was implausible because they had not yet produced this basic building block. Not pointing to flaws in the theory or anything.Cavehill Red wrote: »The Higgs Boson has not been proposed as the basic building block from which life generated in a primordial ocean. Are you seriously unaware of the ridiculousness of this comparison?
My point was this is exactly like saying last year that the higgs field theory is implausible because they had not yet produced the Higgs boson.
But I didn't say it disproved theories, I said it invalidated his argument.Cavehill Red wrote: »It's possible until it's disproven. That's how science works. But possible isn't the same as likely, or plausible. It's just a hypothesis, one of very many.
No, the existence of a theory doesn't disprove other theories. The proof of a theory is what disproves other theories.
His argument is: that the mechanisms science proposes rely on chances comparable to <insert ridiculous analogy here>, or rely on impossible steps.
I showed him a theory that does not require astronomical chances or impossible steps.
Because it's not a fair analogy. The model I proposed is not equatable to tossing components together and producing something complex and modern.Cavehill Red wrote: »ALL theories relating to the origins of life are unsupported currently. I don't understand what you're trying to convey by the word 'incomparable' in this context.
It is a process of small incremental changes regulated by natural selection.
It's exactly the same as if it was used as an argument against evolution.
Lol. I like it when some people are self contradictory in the same breath.Cavehill Red wrote: »I must take issue with your accusing an extremely eminent astronomer and scientist repeatedly of dishonesty. Whether he is right or wrong, there is no evidence to suggest that he was being dishonest, and it is sly and disingenuous of you to keep repeating this slur like some redtop lowlife hack, in the hope it will stick.
Again, if he used an unsupported, incomparable analogy, he is being dishonest. If he didn't know it was unsupported or incomparable he was being ignorant.
And it is more likely that the life here arose here.Cavehill Red wrote: »It is likely that life evolved elsewhere, and likely too that it evolved there before it had a chance to evolve here.
There's no reason to conclude it could not or did not. and there's no reason to conclude that life here must have come from elsewhere.
So using Occam's razor...0 -
Yes, you did. You stated that Hoyles misunderstood the process of evolution when he rejected abiogenesis, thereby implying that the origin of life was definitively evolutionary.I said no such thing.It's a good comparision because you are arguing that the model I pointed to was implausible because they had not yet produced this basic building block. Not pointing to flaws in the theory or anything.
My point was this is exactly like saying last year that the higgs field theory is implausible because they had not yet produced the Higgs boson.
It's a profoundly sh1t comparison because the one experiment required the recreation of the conditions a micromoment after the Big Bang, whereas the other merely seeks to replicate the basic conditions of a primordial sea. If you cannot see how these ought to be leagues of magnitude of difficulty apart, I can't help you.But I didn't say it disproved theories, I said it invalidated his argument.
His argument is: that the mechanisms science proposes rely on chances comparable to <insert ridiculous analogy here>, or rely on impossible steps.
I showed him a theory that does not require astronomical chances or impossible steps.
I'm not going to speak on behalf of anyone else, but I don't believe that is a fair rendition of what he said.
The insertion of incremental steps doesn't make Hoyle's assertion a fallacy, since it has thus far proved impossible for the best biolabs in the world to replicate the generation of a protocell that ought to be one of the simplest things possible to make in theory.Because it's not a fair analogy. The model I proposed is not equatable to tossing components together and producing something complex and modern.
It is a process of small incremental changes regulated by natural selection.
It's exactly the same as if it was used as an argument against evolution.Lol. I like it when some people are self contradictory in the same breath.
Again, if he used an unsupported, incomparable analogy, he is being dishonest. If he didn't know it was unsupported or incomparable he was being ignorant.
You still haven't explained what you mean by 'incomparable'. Nor have you demonstrated how Hoyle is being dishonest. And you continue to ignore the fact that all theories on the origins of life are unsupported, which either by your definition makes all such theorists, including Szostak, ignorant, or much more likely, it makes you ignorant for adhering to such a ridiculous definition.And it is more likely that the life here arose here.
Care to demonstrate the mathematics proving the relative probabilities of that?There's no reason to conclude it could not or did not. and there's no reason to conclude that life here must have come from elsewhere.
So using Occam's razor...
This razor slices both ways, which is something you don't seem to acknowledge. The youth of Earth predicates against abiogenesis, which is just as Occamian a logic as that which suggests we are here therefore life began here. The reality is: No one knows.
You reveal a distinctly unscientific closed mind in refusing to countenance the existence of opposing theorems with (currently) equal validity.
I don't generally like debating with ideologues, so I'm going to leave this debate now. Clearly you are a proponent of a particular unproven theorem. Bully for you. It's only one of very many. If and when definitive proof of the origins of life does emerge, there is only one of us can possibly be disappointed, and it won't be me.
I do look forward to seeing Dawkins's show though.0 -
I am anti dogmatic atheist scientists like DawkinsNo he is not. He is an affirmed atheist so he should nail his colors to the mast and prove his position. Strong atheists have it handy asking others to prove an all encompassing intelligence that we do not understand exists but have nothing but black holes in their own argument. Science is forever filling in dots but increasingly not making much real progress. Compared to the early 20th century science is extremely inefficient i.e. buried up its own ass.Yes, Hoyle was a critic of abiogensis and a firm believer that life originated in space and was transferred by viruses riding on comets to earth. Nonsense you say, but unfortunately he is right, even back in those dastardely 1980s. There simply isn't enough time since earth's evolution, life had to have originated long ago somewhere else.Hoyle calculated that the chance of obtaining the required set of enzymes to build the simplest of living cells was 10^40,000 dwarfing the # of atoms in the known universe calculated at 10^80. No way life originated here or made the huge evolutionary steps it did here without outside help. What's wrong with a virus spreading a "meme", you believe in the common cold right?
The irony is strong in this one.
You say you are anti-dogmatic scientists. That Dawkins is an "affirmed atheist" and so should prove his position. Then you go on to say that there's no way life originated on Earth and in fact originated in Space.
If you really are anti-dogmatic scientists, then you really must suffer from self-loathing.0 -
Religion draws 100% certain conclusion without any evidence.The problem with Dawkins is he is as reactionary and closed minded as those he opposes. Science is an evolving aspect of human endeavour and to draw such 99% certain conclusions from limited information as he has is sheer arrogance. The world simply cannot be explained simply in materialistic terms as anyone would even a rudimentary understanding of quantum mechanics accepts. Science is based on what we can objectively describe with our 5 senses but who knows what lies beyond our sensory ability. Science as it currently stands simply cannot answer the big questions; what is consciousness and where does it derive from? where are memories stored or retrieved from say after a concussion? how is knowledge passed on from generation to generation withour direct communication as it clearly is?
We are supposed to believe that the sheer perfection of the laws of nature that led to the beautiful world we percieve around us happened by chance, just atoms banging into each other and making DNA. As Fred Hoyle said regarding life developing randomly "like believing a tornado sweeping through a junkyard and making a 747". Genetics as currently understood explains only a fragment of life and how life evolved and continues to evolve. We have a very incomplete understanding of reality and to say that science as we know it today will explain reality to us in time is the height of arrogance.
None of the above postulates a God or the lack of a God. Life could have come here from outer space via a comet but then you have to wonder where that life came from. Populist scientists like Dawkins will not lead us towards furthering our understanding of reality, it will be evolutionary giant steps in our species whose minds are more open, people like Einstein who did not feel the need to wage war on those with a belief in a God and was humble enough to accept the possibility of a God.0 -
Again, not sure how you could have possible gotten any of that from what i wrote...Cavehill Red wrote: »Yes, you did. You stated that Hoyles misunderstood the process of evolution when he rejected abiogenesis, thereby implying that the origin of life was definitively evolutionary.
But we have experiments not having the ability to produce component of a particular theory. You say that it makes one theory improbable, but not the other...Cavehill Red wrote: »It's a profoundly sh1t comparison because the one experiment required the recreation of the conditions a micromoment after the Big Bang, whereas the other merely seeks to replicate the basic conditions of a primordial sea. If you cannot see how these ought to be leagues of magnitude of difficulty apart, I can't help you.
Yet can't point out how. Convenient.Cavehill Red wrote: »I'm not going to speak on behalf of anyone else, but I don't believe that is a fair rendition of what he said.
But it does. The only way Hoyle's comparison would be comparable was if someone was claiming that life started by a tornado spontaneously smashing together proteins together to produce a modern single cell. No one is claiming anything even close to that. The theory I presented shows that there are good theories that can explain the origin of life without invoking massive probabilities or magic.Cavehill Red wrote: »The insertion of incremental steps doesn't make Hoyle's assertion a fallacy, since it has thus far proved impossible for the best biolabs in the world to replicate the generation of a protocell that ought to be one of the simplest things possible to make in theory.
You still haven't explained what you mean by 'incomparable'. Nor have you demonstrated how Hoyle is being dishonest.
You're either fundamentally misunderstanding my point or really desperate to do so.Cavehill Red wrote: »And you continue to ignore the fact that all theories on the origins of life are unsupported, which either by your definition makes all such theorists, including Szostak, ignorant, or much more likely, it makes you ignorant for adhering to such a ridiculous definition.
For life to have began on Earth we must hypothesise that life arose on it's own.Cavehill Red wrote: »Care to demonstrate the mathematics proving the relative probabilities of that?
For life to have began elsewhere and seeded earth we must first hypothesise that life arose on it's own.
Then the planet it was on was struck by a disaster large enough to hurl rocks and other debris out of it's solar system.
Then that some class of life just happened to be on the right spot on the right rock to hitch a ride.
Then that life has to survive the event, millions of years of the cold vacuum of space, radiation and eventually re-entry and probable explosion in the atmosphere.
But first it has to find Earth in the vast vast vast vast emptiness of space, being on the right trajectory at the right speed at the right time to hit Earth.
And then it has to land in the right environment that would allow it to survive in an alien world...
Don't really need the math for this one.
Why? According to who and what evidence?Cavehill Red wrote: »The youth of Earth predicates against abiogenesis
Again, where have I rejected any theorems that are science based and not simply supernatural?Cavehill Red wrote: »The reality is: No one knows.
You reveal a distinctly unscientific closed mind in refusing to countenance the existence of opposing theorems with (currently) equal validity.0 -
Advertisement
-
"For life to have begun on earth we must hypothesis that life arose on its own"
This is a very typical statement from a dogmatic atheist and is as ridiculous from a reasoning standpoint as a dogmatic theist stating that life had to come from God. The standard dogmatic atheist point of view is that (i) there is no scientific evidence for a creator, (ii) science has proven there is no need for a creator, and (iii) everything can be explained by naturalistic explanations. All three statements are scientifically inept.
For (i) and (ii) to be true science would have to be actively engaged in research to prove or disprove a creator. No dogmatic atheist can point to such research because none is going on. Since no such research is going on, stating that science has proven there is no need for a creator is not just inept but also stupid. Dogmatic atheists argue they have no Burden of Proof when of course they have the same Burden of Proof as theists. If you hypothesis that life arose on its own then the Burden of Proof is on you to prove it. Show us how self replicating molecules developed on their own. When you have done that then you can start talking about no need for a creator with some validity.
(iii) All things have a naturalistic explanation is a particularly inept statement as there is far more unknown about nature than known as any honest scientist would admit. What was the origin of the big bang? Not a clue. What was the origin of the first self replicating molecule? Not a clue. A Creator outside our space time universe who created our physical world and created biological life is just as credible a hypothesis as any others out there.
In the words of Carl Sagan: "A dogmatic atheist is someone who is certain that God does not exist, someone who has compelling evidence against the existance of God. I know of no such compelling evidence. We would need to understand a great deal more about the universe than we do now to be sure that no such God exists".0 -
-
MagicMarker wrote: »What about a dogmatic scientist stating that life had to come from outer space?
Hoyle argued that life could not have randomly originated on earth given the age of the earth and that far more likely was that life developed elsewhere in much older parts of the universe and was distributed by comets, meteorites and asteroids. Hoyle did the math, check it out and disagree if you like. Its just one of many hypotheses on how life began on earth, nothing dogmatic about it.0 -
-
Eh.... writing?
Yes, certain knowledge is passed on via the written and oral traditions. However, that is not what I am talking about. A few examples:
There is a species of wasp that lays its eggs in mud flats. They build an inverted funnel (with slippery surfaces to keep predators out) to get in and out while making the nest and then when complete they lay their eggs, fill their tunnel with food, break off the funnel and seal the entrance. It is very sophistocated. There are obviously thousands of examples like this in nature but the question is where did the individual wasp building the nest get this detailed knowledge (from a book? a guide to wasp nest building for wasps). There no evidence they learned it from older wasps as wasps bred under a controlled environment do exactly the same thing.
I have chickens in my backyard. They were all procured as day old chicks so have no adults to teach them anything. One night I forget to lock them into their coup and they roosted on braches about 15ft off the ground. How did they know to do this to avoid predators? The obvious response is instinct but what the hell is instinct?0 -
Again, not sure how you could have possible gotten any of that from what i wrote...
Explain why the word 'evolution' is in that sentence you wrote if the sentence has nothing to do with evolution then.But we have experiments not having the ability to produce component of a particular theory. You say that it makes one theory improbable, but not the other...
Because the simplest least implausible element of the cycle described in that model cannot be replicated.
It's not my place to point out how your misrepresenting another poster. I'll leave it to them to take you up on that.Yet can't point out how. Convenient.
Well, since you have failed to demonstrate the mathematical probabilities despite being asked, I don't know you're in a position to assert that.But it does. The only way Hoyle's comparison would be comparable was if someone was claiming that life started by a tornado spontaneously smashing together proteins together to produce a modern single cell. No one is claiming anything even close to that. The theory I presented shows that there are good theories that can explain the origin of life without invoking massive probabilities or magic.You're either fundamentally misunderstanding my point or really desperate to do so.
Go again then. You assert Hoyle is wrong to propose exogenesis. Exogenesis has the exact same amount of evidence for and against it as all other proposed theories relating to the origin of life on Earth. Therefore, if you assert that Hoyle is ignorant for proposing a theory in this area with no evidence, you are required for consistency's basis to think likewise of everyone else who has done likewise.For life to have began on Earth we must hypothesise that life arose on it's own.
For life to have began elsewhere and seeded earth we must first hypothesise that life arose on it's own.
Then the planet it was on was struck by a disaster large enough to hurl rocks and other debris out of it's solar system.
Then that some class of life just happened to be on the right spot on the right rock to hitch a ride.
Then that life has to survive the event, millions of years of the cold vacuum of space, radiation and eventually re-entry and probable explosion in the atmosphere.
But first it has to find Earth in the vast vast vast vast emptiness of space, being on the right trajectory at the right speed at the right time to hit Earth.
And then it has to land in the right environment that would allow it to survive in an alien world...
Don't really need the math for this one.
Let me offer you some guiding math anyway. The galaxy is huge compared to tiny old earth by many factors of magnitude. It is also much, much older. The likelihood of life occuring elsewhere is almost infinitely greater than it occurring here by abiogenesis alone. Add the fact that Earth is impacted DAILY by debris from space, and you have a mathematical model that more than permits an exogenetic model. Note I don't rule out abiogenesis. I remain agnostic on the issue because there is no evidence for ANY of the current theorems. What I'm objecting to is your unscientific attachement to ONE of VERY MANY abiogenetic models and insistence that it must have been that without any evidence.Why? According to who and what evidence?
Again, this is a numbers game. For most of Earth's history it was hostile to life of any kind. For another long period, it could only accommodate plant life. Only after sufficient time was the planet oxygenated sufficiently to support animal life (I'm ignoring, for the purposes of argument, shadow biosphere models and extreme climate options, since they didn't lead to us). So there is actually a relatively small window in which life either developed here all by itself, or else was accidentally seeded here by some of the space debris that arrives daily.Again, where have I rejected any theorems that are science based and not simply supernatural?
You're dogmatically attached to a single theory without any supporting evidence. That in itself is a profoundly superstitious and anti-scientific mindset. Incidentally, try looking up, among many others, Adams's 'radioactive beach' model of abiogenesis. It's one of the many scientific theorems that you have rejected. Exogenesis itself is perfectly scientific and does not posit anything supernatural either.0 -
Advertisement
-
MagicMarker wrote: »What about a dogmatic scientist stating that life had to come from outer space?
Hoyle wasn't dogmatic about it. His argument was based on his own mathematical probability estimates for both possibilities. He retained the possibility of abiogenesis. I think it is more than reasonable to query the mathematical guesstimates Hoyle used, of course, and doing so reduces the spectacular gap in likelihood he proposed. But of course everyone else's mathematics are also guesstimates too in this context.0 -
-
Pre-programmed behaviour, written into the genetic code of the organism, acquired through natural selection of mutations. DNA carries information, just as writing and binary code do.
I think a more honest answer is "we don't know". What you say sounds good but there is currently no plausible mechanism for genetic inheritance of complex behaviors. The only thing we know for certain about DNA is that it contains the blueprint for expressing proteins.0 -
-
I'm seriously doubting you are actually reading what I've written.
Because it's a common quote (mis)used against evolution, and that's what the Op was using it as.Cavehill Red wrote: »Explain why the word 'evolution' is in that sentence you wrote if the sentence has nothing to do with evolution then.
And a year ago that was true of the Higgs Boson...Cavehill Red wrote: »Because the simplest least implausible element of the cycle described in that model cannot be replicated.
Dodged the point.Cavehill Red wrote: »Well, since you have failed to demonstrate the mathematical probabilities despite being asked, I don't know you're in a position to assert that.
Hoyle uses the analogy to compare it with the idea of abiogenesis. However no one is claiming that a bunch of random proteins were randomly smashed together to produce a modern cell.
His analogy is a strawman.
I never said any such thing.Cavehill Red wrote: »Go again then. You assert Hoyle is wrong to propose exogenesis.
Never said any of that.Cavehill Red wrote: »Therefore, if you assert that Hoyle is ignorant for proposing a theory in this area with no evidence, you are required for consistency's basis to think likewise of everyone else who has done likewise.
I said that he would be ignorant if he didn't realise his statement was a strawman.
It's impacted daily by debris that originated in our solar system.Cavehill Red wrote: »Let me offer you some guiding math anyway. The galaxy is huge compared to tiny old earth by many factors of magnitude. It is also much, much older. The likelihood of life occuring elsewhere is almost infinitely greater than it occurring here by abiogenesis alone. Add the fact that Earth is impacted DAILY by debris from space, and you have a mathematical model that more than permits an exogenetic model.
For the exogenetic model, especially if you are insisting that life did not have time to develop on Earth requires material from outside our solar system.
Then we have to factor in the chances of life from another planet being able to survive an event powerful enough propel it out of it's solar system and to ours, as well as surviving the millions of years of vacuum and radiation as it travels across interstellar space.
Then we have to factor in the chances that it actually hits Earth in a way that the life can survive and in a place it could live.
And this is before we factor in the equal chance of life developing on a different planet as it does on Earth.
For the exogenesis theory you must postulate all of these other really unlikely events on top of the chances of life developing by itself.
But for plain abiogenesis you just have to postulate life developing by itself.
The Earth is 4.5 billion years old. Life has been on it for at least 3.6 billion years.Cavehill Red wrote: »Again, this is a numbers game. For most of Earth's history it was hostile to life of any kind.
For most of Earth's history it's had life.
Again, never indicated any such thing.Cavehill Red wrote: »You're dogmatically attached to a single theory without any supporting evidence.
Never once claimed otherwise.Cavehill Red wrote: »Exogenesis itself is perfectly scientific and does not posit anything supernatural either.0 -
Advertisement
-
Sounds like you're giving up when it gets complicated. Evolution programs behaviours by setting preferences in the brain.I have relatively little experience in biology but I can use biological facts I know to be true to incrementally explain big questions, and maybe there's some truth in the logic. For instance humans are programmed to have preferences for certain orders, colours and textures. Common specific traits can be seen in large unrelated populations so we know there must be some instinctiveness to them. These preferences can be set by certain structures and connections of neutrons in the brain. If you can have your mother's eyes or father's nose then it's not too big a push to say that these structures in the brain can be passed on through DNA from one generation to the next.Pre-programmed behaviour, written into the genetic code of the organism, acquired through natural selection of mutations. DNA carries information, just as writing and binary code do.
I think a more honest answer is "we don't know". What you say sounds good but there is currently no plausible mechanism for genetic inheritance of complex behaviors. The only thing we know for certain about DNA is that it contains the blueprint for expressing proteins.0 -
Hoyle argued that life could not have randomly originated on earth given the age of the earth and that far more likely was that life developed elsewhere in much older parts of the universe and was distributed by comets, meteorites and asteroids. Hoyle did the math, check it out and disagree if you like. Its just one of many hypotheses on how life began on earth, nothing dogmatic about it.
Yes, it's just one of many hypothesis, hypothesis being the key word. Has it been proven? No, it has not, so you may want to be less dogmatic about it.Cavehill Red wrote: »Hoyle wasn't dogmatic about it. His argument was based on his own mathematical probability estimates for both possibilities. He retained the possibility of abiogenesis. I think it is more than reasonable to query the mathematical guesstimates Hoyle used, of course, and doing so reduces the spectacular gap in likelihood he proposed. But of course everyone else's mathematics are also guesstimates too in this context.
I'm referring to nagirrac when I refer to dogmatic scientists (at least he calls himself a scientist), not Hoyle.
BTW I have no issue with the hypothesis itself, just with the outrageous hypocrisy being displayed by nagirra.0 -
DNA codes proteins and cells which build brains which encode neural pathways which determine behavior.[...] there is currently no plausible mechanism for genetic inheritance of complex behaviors. The only thing we know for certain about DNA is that it contains the blueprint for expressing proteins.
It's fairly straightforward.0 -
Because it's a common quote (mis)used against evolution, and that's what the Op was using it as.
Neither the OP nor Nagirrac referred to evolution. You did. You subsequently acknowledged you were wrong to do so and had misunderstood. Why you're rolling back on that now, I don't know.And a year ago that was true of the Higgs Boson...
The HB was neither simplistic, nor necessarily plausible. If you can't see the difference between trying to recreate the conditions microseconds after the Big Bang under 30 km of Switzerland and France, as opposed to generating a protocell from primordial hydrocarbons in a lab, then as I said before, there's no helping you.Dodged the point.
Hoyle uses the analogy to compare it with the idea of abiogenesis. However no one is claiming that a bunch of random proteins were randomly smashed together to produce a modern cell.
His analogy is a strawman.
It's not an analogy. You've misunderstood it entirely. It's an illustration of relative probabilities. Which means we're back waiting for you to offer your own relative probablistic guesstimates.
Really?I never said any such thing.
But it isn't a strawman. It is an illustration of relative probabilities.Never said any of that.
I said that he would be ignorant if he didn't realise his statement was a strawman.It's impacted daily by debris that originated in our solar system.
For the exogenetic model, especially if you are insisting that life did not have time to develop on Earth requires material from outside our solar system.
Not necessarily. Life may have developed elsewhere within the solar system first, such as Mars, with whom we swap material all the time. Furthermore, there are no end of comets, etc which traverse in and out of our solar system.Then we have to factor in the chances of life from another planet being able to survive an event powerful enough propel it out of it's solar system and to ours, as well as surviving the millions of years of vacuum and radiation as it travels across interstellar space.
One word. Microbes.Then we have to factor in the chances that it actually hits Earth in a way that the life can survive and in a place it could live.
And this is before we factor in the equal chance of life developing on a different planet as it does on Earth.
For the exogenesis theory you must postulate all of these other really unlikely events on top of the chances of life developing by itself.
But for plain abiogenesis you just have to postulate life developing by itself.
And the factors you keep conveniently forgetting - the relative ages of earth versus everywhere else. The time element. The relative size of earth versus everywhere else. The size element.The Earth is 4.5 billion years old. Life has been on it for at least 3.6 billion years.
For most of Earth's history it's had life.
Not animal life though. When did aquatic life form? The paleozoic. That's about 600 million years ago.Again, never indicated any such thing.
You've never indicated anything else. You're insistent upon a single hypothesis, not even the most plausible abiogenetic hypothesis, I would argue, at the expense of all the others, and all the exogenetic hypotheses, despite there being, and let me say this slowly for you - NO. EVIDENCE. WHATSOEVER. TO. SUPPORT. ANY. HYPOTHESIS. ON. THE. ORIGIN. OF. LIFE. OVER. ANY. OTHER. AT. THIS. TIME.Never once claimed otherwise.
LOL. I'm done with this.0 -
You've misunderstood the point of that. Please do not quote what I write as an excuse to post a silly, nonsensical rant.
Care to explain the point of your statement then? You're very good at dissecting what others write and putting your own spin on it, not so good at explaining your own statements as Cavehill has repeatedly demonstrated.0 -
MagicMarker wrote: »I'm referring to nagirrac when I refer to dogmatic scientists (at least he calls himself a scientist), not Hoyle.
BTW I have no issue with the hypothesis itself, just with the outrageous hypocrisy being displayed by nagirra.
I am expressing an opinion, is every opinion dogmatic?
Hoyle's work has credibility in that he did the math that shows the statistical inprobability of life originating on earth. As King Mob stated, life at least at a basic level originated relatively early in earth's history. Hoyle demonstrated mathematicallly that there simply isn't time for self replicating molecules to develop from random chemical events. I find his work reasonable if unproven. The hypothesis of viruses / microbes from a comet for example as the origin of life on earth is far more reasonable to me given the age of the universe relative to the age of the earth.
By the way no need for the snide remark "at least he calls himself a scientist". Most scientists are very strong in their opinions, regardless of whether they are eventually proven right or wrong. There is a difference however between someone with strong opinions and someone who is dogmatic. Dogmatic means refusing to consider anything outside your world view. I may have an opinion that Hoyle is credible given his work but am alsao completely open to being proven wrong when someone shows how a self replicating molecule can be formed from basic organic molecules in the environment of early earth.0 -
I am expressing an opinion, is every opinion dogmatic?
You have expressed your opinion as fact, so in your case, I find it dogmatic, and hypocritical.Most scientists are very strong in their opinions, regardless of whether they are eventually proven right or wrong. There is a difference however between someone with strong opinions and someone who is dogmatic. Dogmatic means refusing to consider anything outside your world view. I may have an opinion that Hoyle is credible given his work but am alsao completely open to being proven wrong when someone shows how a self replicating molecule can be formed from basic organic molecules in the environment of early earth.
Well then you incorrectly refer to Dawkins as a dogmatic atheist, as he is also completely open to being proven wrong about the existence of a deity.0 -
MagicMarker wrote: »You have expressed your opinion as fact, so in your case, I find it dogmatic, and hypocritical.
Well then you incorrectly refer to Dawkins as a dogmatic atheist, as he is also completely open to being proven wrong about the existence of a deity.
If I did then I assure you on the origin of life issue it was unintentional misuse of words. There is no current explanation for the origin of life on earth that has any compelling evidence to support it. I happen to agree with Hoyle's calculations on the improbability of life emerging in the timeframe available on earth and believe it is far more likely that life in the form of a rudimentary virus or microbe made its way to earth from space. Its a big place out there and lots of time involved.
As for Dawkins, he has the Burden of Proof to show there is no creator given his incessant attacks on those that believe in such a hypothesis. He has a completely closed mind when it comes to anything remotely smelling of "paranormal" and on occasions when presented data that suggests paranornal activity he has refused to even look at it. If you refuse to even look at data then how else could you describe that person other than dogmatic?0 -
As for Dawkins, he has the Burden of Proof to show there is no creator given his incessant attacks on those that believe in such a hypothesis. He has a completely closed mind when it comes to anything remotely smelling of "paranormal" and on occasions when presented data that suggests paranornal activity he has refused to even look at it. If you refuse to even look at data then how else could you describe that person other than dogmatic?
What data would you like Dawkins to look at? What data is there?0 -
No, I said that I did not realise that the quote was originally about abiogenesis by an actual scientist.Cavehill Red wrote: »Neither the OP nor Nagirrac referred to evolution. You did. You subsequently acknowledged you were wrong to do so and had misunderstood. Why you're rolling back on that now, I don't know.
However it is still misused by creationists and by the op and in addition I think that the scientist was wrong.
Primordial hydrocarbons that had millions of year and billions of iterations to develop....Cavehill Red wrote: »The HB was neither simplistic, nor necessarily plausible. If you can't see the difference between trying to recreate the conditions microseconds after the Big Bang under 30 km of Switzerland and France, as opposed to generating a protocell from primordial hydrocarbons in a lab, then as I said before, there's no helping you.
But the "relative probabilities" rely on the assumption of 1) the process producing a modern cell and 2) being entirely random, neither of which are seriously claimed by anyone and is directly refuted by the model I presented which shows a process that does not end up with a modern cell and is not random.Cavehill Red wrote: »It's not an analogy. You've misunderstood it entirely. It's an illustration of relative probabilities. Which means we're back waiting for you to offer your own relative probablistic guesstimates.
So again, he is either misrepresenting the actual theories or didn't understand them.
But Mars isn't older than Earth and is smaller, which your own claims make it less likely to have life.Cavehill Red wrote: »Not necessarily. Life may have developed elsewhere within the solar system first, such as Mars, with whom we swap material all the time. Furthermore, there are no end of comets, etc which traverse in and out of our solar system.
Same with comets which are smaller still, only with the addition of the complication of being more hostile to the development of life than a stable planet with an atmosphere.
Which are susceptible to heat and radiation, which they'd experience a lot of being launched at interstellar speeds and travelling between solar systems.Cavehill Red wrote: »One word. Microbes.
But you've yet to explain how either of those are actually a factor at all.Cavehill Red wrote: »And the factors you keep conveniently forgetting - the relative ages of earth versus everywhere else. The time element. The relative size of earth versus everywhere else. The size element.
Though your theory runs into issues with them as well, the earth being a tiny target with only a tiny window of history for the seeding to take place.
But you didn't specify "animal life" and such a distinction is ridiculous especially for your theory. You claim that only microbes would be able to survive the trip. And since we know that microbes existed on earth for 3.6ish billion years, your theory requires that is what was seeded from space.Cavehill Red wrote: »Not animal life though. When did aquatic life form? The paleozoic. That's about 600 million years ago.
So for the majority of it's history the Earth was able to and did support life, exactly contrary to your claim.
Again, you are ascribing a lot of stuff to me I never said or indicated. Please stop doing that. Please show exactly where I said this theory was the only theory? Please show me where exactly I said that other theories, even exogenesis are impossible?Cavehill Red wrote: »You've never indicated anything else. You're insistent upon a single hypothesis, not even the most plausible abiogenetic hypothesis, I would argue, at the expense of all the others, and all the exogenetic hypotheses, despite there being, and let me say this slowly for you - NO. EVIDENCE. WHATSOEVER. TO. SUPPORT. ANY. HYPOTHESIS. ON. THE. ORIGIN. OF. LIFE. OVER. ANY. OTHER. AT. THIS. TIME.
Yup, you've said that before too.Cavehill Red wrote: »LOL. I'm done with this.0 -
Advertisement
![[Deleted User]](/applications/dashboard/design/images/defaulticon.png)
Advertisement