Evolution
Re: DNA
How life originated is still an open question*. That life did originate and evolve is not.
For some that can't deal with not knowing how life originated, the "god of the gaps" provide a metaphysical story.
_____
*A bit more specific for the curious.
Life is a non-linear dynamic system far from thermodynamic equilibrium with emergent self-organizing structure.
Current physical theory is not able to describe such systems.
For some that can't deal with not knowing how life originated, the "god of the gaps" provide a metaphysical story.
_____
*A bit more specific for the curious.
Life is a non-linear dynamic system far from thermodynamic equilibrium with emergent self-organizing structure.
Current physical theory is not able to describe such systems.
May the gods preserve and defend me from self-righteous altruists; I can defend myself from my enemies and my friends.
-
- Posts: 16973
- Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2011 9:35 am
Re: DNA
As interesting a phenomenon are people who believe in the spontaneous generation of life abiotically and yet condemn the use of faith in other people believing other things. Faith for me and not for thee. Particularly when spontaneous generation of DNA appears to be impossible.
Censorship isn't necessary
Re: DNA
Who is condemning?Mr. Perfect wrote:As interesting a phenomenon are people who believe in the spontaneous generation of life abiotically and yet condemn the use of faith in other people believing other things.
If the evolutionary history points to an physical, as opposed to metaphysical, origin of life, then that is what one investigates.
One could similarly argue that gravity is a host of angels beating their wings, but it does not get one very far*.
Nope. It is only certain Protestant sects, based mostly in the US, and Islam that have an issue with evolution as far as I'm aware.Mr. Perfect wrote: Faith for me and not for thee.
For example, Buddhists and Shintoists don't care and, notably, the Roman Catholic church accepts the theory.
Don't know the position of the various Orthodox churches. Or that of the many varieties of the Hindu religion.
Life on earth is an existence argument that such events took place.Mr. Perfect wrote:Particularly when spontaneous generation of DNA appears to be impossible.
*In fact, the Big Bang model based on Einstein's theory of General Relativity was first developed by a Catholic priest, Georges Lemaître
May the gods preserve and defend me from self-righteous altruists; I can defend myself from my enemies and my friends.
-
- Posts: 16973
- Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2011 9:35 am
Re: DNA
I already covered it in the OP. Atheists of the stripe of Dawkins, Harris, Tyson, etc.Typhoon wrote: Who is condemning?
That's the whole point of this thread. The investigations point to the impossibility of spontaneous random generation of DNA, or cells.If the evolutionary history points to an physical, as opposed to metaphysical, origin of life, then that is what one investigates.
WTH does this have to do with anything.One could similarly argue that gravity is a host of angels beating their wings, but it does not get one very far*.
We are not talking about evolution. We are talking about the random spontaneous generation of DNA, which appears to be impossible, yet people who condemn faith exercise faith in it.Nope. It is only certain Protestant sects, based mostly in the US, and Islam that have an issue with evolution as far as I'm aware.
This has nothing to do with my thread.For example, Buddhists and Shintoists don't care and, notably, the Roman Catholic church accepts the theory.
Don't know the position of the various Orthodox churches. Or that of the many varieties of the Hindu religion.
No, it is not. Just as there is no reason to believe key fobs spontaneously generate, also there is no reason to believe that DNA spontaneously generates. It is impossible.Life on earth is an existence argument that such events took place.
Again, that has nothing to do with the spontaneous, random generation of DNA, which is impossible. This was all covered in the OP. My thread had nothing to do with the big bang, Catholics, or Muslims, rather that the random spontaneous generation of DNA is completely unsupported by science and is as possible as E=MC^2 spontaneously being written on a piece of paper.*In fact, the Big Bang model based on Einstein's theory of General Relativity was first developed by a Catholic priest, Georges Lemaître
That's why I started a new thread, because it is about a very narrow topic. It has nothing to do with speciation or the Big Bang.
Censorship isn't necessary
Re: Evolution
their is bit of strawman required to get excited by this
some high profile atheist evangalists talk smack but we hardly judge christians by the activity of the west baptists (or whatever they are called)
for most science/atheist types ive known their is no great metaphysical attachment to the origins of DNA - plenty of curiosity and research but i doubt many will "lose the faith" if some new facts show it up to be bollox, so you cant compare it on a faith basis.
if it turns out to be aliens playing science experiments im sure christians and atheists alike might suffer from crisis of identity hah.
i wouldnt be surprised if its turtles all the way down, infinity is an awfully large box.
some high profile atheist evangalists talk smack but we hardly judge christians by the activity of the west baptists (or whatever they are called)
for most science/atheist types ive known their is no great metaphysical attachment to the origins of DNA - plenty of curiosity and research but i doubt many will "lose the faith" if some new facts show it up to be bollox, so you cant compare it on a faith basis.
if it turns out to be aliens playing science experiments im sure christians and atheists alike might suffer from crisis of identity hah.
i wouldnt be surprised if its turtles all the way down, infinity is an awfully large box.
ultracrepidarian
-
- Posts: 16973
- Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2011 9:35 am
Re: Evolution
I would say no, the reason I was even prompted to do any of this is in America now it is almost illegal to not believe in what atheists think. If a public person today were to question the atheist explanation of DNA or anything else they indeed would be driven from public life. That is the fascism we are seeing from the social justice warriors across the board these days, from lgbt to mmgw to matters related to evolution. They have indeed gone too far and indeed the time has come to push back.
Censorship isn't necessary
Re: DNA
Why impossible?Mr. Perfect wrote:[...]the spontaneous, random generation of DNA, which is impossible.
Remember that properties like "random" or "spontaneous" are human inventions seeing faces in the skies.
But if one insists using such descriptors, it would only be fair to apply them to a much wider range of phenomena that then ought to be deemed impossibile as well. Endless!
1. The amazing structure of snowflakes, crystals, atoms.. where is the designer?
2. The magic of "force fields" where things don't really touch but nevertheless influence each other.. who/what does the trick? There must be a magic hand somewhere.
3. Take any existing and functioning organism, a human being always a good start.
Assume that all structure and function of the human body is a collection of "random, spontaneous" processes that all just occur following "natural law" that does not need metaphysical add-ons of sorts. How does such a collection of blind processes suddenly become "alive, goal directed and endowed with a u8nique conscious experience/mind?" If not impossible, it does not make make much sense. Rabbits out of magic hats. Like DNA from a primordial dead soup.
4....
Point of the above: everything is in a way "magic" and descriptors like "random" or "spontaneous" more likely describe our knowledge, how we perceive things which is controlled by our body-brain. Remove our interpreting body-brains from the equation and poof... gone are "random" "spontaneous" and all the other properties we see "in the world out there". What is it like, what is it doing when we are not watching dead and gone?
What may (necessarily) seem magic to our eyes.. might be simple business as usual and a piece of cake. And what appears to be simple and obvious.. might be an incredible complex stunt behind the scenes that only looks very easy.
When freed from the false dichotomy of "dead" versus "alive" matter and the idiotic claim the a complex DNA based organism needs a creator but a complex atom that is "dead" wouldn't need one... it becomes easier to talk about the evolution of DNA unconstrained by irrelevant terminologies and without false claims on what is possible or impossible.
Deep down I'm very superficial
- Nonc Hilaire
- Posts: 6235
- Joined: Sat Dec 17, 2011 1:28 am
Re: DNA
If your theory requires billions of years that is one heck of a gap. A gap big enough to make the entire existence of humanity irrelevant.noddy wrote:they have actually got quite good evidence on the 4 RNA bases being able to form from primal sludge with lightning. viewtopic.php?f=4&t=2046&start=75
irreducable complexity is not a truth, its just gaps in knowledge.
the old anti evolution argument was irreducible complexity on the eyeball, yet the evolutionists showed a step by step increase in complexity was there.
i personally havent kept up with the newest theories on the first DNA, it always was the weakest part of the argument with the least real proof to it.
still, this is god of the gaps stuff if all the arguments after the first DNA are being dropped.
the claim that DNA has to be full complexity from the start doesnt seem true to me - a very simple first version that does nothing but replicate (like a primitive virus) and then slowly acquires new features one at a time over billions of years is not out of bounds.
Science itself defines any theory which postulates "billions of years" as an axiom to be not scientific as it is beyond the ability of science to even construct a falsifiable null hypothesis.
“Christ has no body now but yours. Yours are the eyes through which he looks with compassion on this world. Yours are the feet with which he walks among His people to do good. Yours are the hands through which he blesses His creation.”
Teresa of Ávila
Teresa of Ávila
Re: DNA
So they don't believe in your story of a metaphysical being. So what? Why should they?Mr. Perfect wrote:I already covered it in the OP. Atheists of the stripe of Dawkins, Harris, Tyson, etc.Typhoon wrote: Who is condemning?
More to the point, Dawkins and others have looked at creationism and exposed its conceptual flaws.
You can continue to assert this belief, however, it will have no impact on the scientists who will continue to investigate and make progress in our understanding.Mr. Perfect wrote:That's the whole point of this thread. The investigations point to the impossibility of spontaneous random generation of DNA, or cells.If the evolutionary history points to an physical, as opposed to metaphysical, origin of life, then that is what one investigates.
It is a useful and instructive analogy. Just as one could claim that current in a wire is due to angels pushing electrons, but it does not get one very far in designing a transformer or an electronic circuit.Mr. Perfect wrote:WTH does this have to do with anything.One could similarly argue that gravity is a host of angels beating their wings, but it does not get one very far*.
The point of the analogy is that if a physical origin of life was "impossible" as you assert, then there would be no point in investigating further.
As the origin of life on earth occurred nearly 4 billion years ago, this is an exceptionally difficult problem, but a very interesting question.
Non-equilibrium systems exhibit spontaneous emergent formation of coherent ordered structures, even very simple chemical reactions:
qjibvTPK_Po
WgzIcHCVTFo
so there are plenty of reasons to continue investigating despite assertions to the contrary.
A belief based on evidence; if one runs the clock backwards on evolution, a physical origin of life is suggested.Mr. Perfect wrote:We are not talking about evolution. We are talking about the random spontaneous generation of DNA, which appears to be impossible, yet people who condemn faith exercise faith in it.Nope. It is only certain Protestant sects, based mostly in the US, and Islam that have an issue with evolution as far as I'm aware.
For scientists working in the field and others, the "god of the gaps" is not a useful or sufficient explanation.
Nature is indifferent to your assertions.Mr. Perfect wrote:No, it is not. Just as there is no reason to believe key fobs spontaneously generate, also there is no reason to believe that DNA spontaneously generates. It is impossible.Life on earth is an existence argument that such events took place.
May the gods preserve and defend me from self-righteous altruists; I can defend myself from my enemies and my friends.
-
- Posts: 16973
- Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2011 9:35 am
Re: DNA
[Mod note. Hit Edit instead of Quote. Sorry.]
Where is the video of DNA self originating.
Nature is indifferent to your assertions.
They don't have to. They just don't get to believe their creation myths are anything other a faith either. And if they get to have a faith they need to let others have a faith,Typhoon wrote:
So they don't believe in your story of a metaphysical being. So what? Why should they?
This is entirely irrelevant to this thread. They have flaws that they need to address of their own, and if they are allowed to believe in flaws they need to allow others to believe in flaws.More to the point, Dawkins and others have looked at creationism and exposed its conceptual flaws.
If it's impossible it will without question impact their investigations.You can continue to assert this belief, however, it will have no impact on the scientists who will continue to investigate and make progress in our understanding.
Good point. Investigating further will yield the same results as before. Impossibility.It is a useful and instructive analogy. Just as one could claim that current in a wire is due to angels pushing electrons, but it does not get one very far in designing a transformer or an electronic circuit.
The point of the analogy is that if a physical origin of life was "impossible" as you assert, then there would be no point in investigating further.
Not really. Every thing can be repilcated.As the origin of life on earth occurred nearly 4 billion years ago, this is an exceptionally difficult problem, but a very interesting question.
Non-equilibrium systems exhibit spontaneous emergent formation of coherent ordered structures, even very simple chemical reactions:
3JAqrRnKFHo
Where is the video of DNA self originating.
Do you know why they don't investigate anymore.so there are plenty of reasons to continue investigating despite assertions to the contrary.
A belief based on no evidence whatsoever. There is no evidence anywhere under the sun that DNA spontaneously and randomly generated itself. Absolutely none.A belief based on evidence;
Actually that is called a post hoc fallacy, or a tautology, or logic lool. Either war a fallacy in reasoning. There is currently no suggested method for how DNA came into existence. Believing in spontaneous random generation is religious faith, and when you get to exercise faith you have to let other people exercise faith.if one runs the clock backwards on evolution, a physical origin of life is suggested.
Great story, however spontaneous random generation is not sufficient or useful.For scientists working in the field and others, the "god of the gaps" is not a useful or sufficient explanation.
Nature is indifferent to your assertions.
And there is the problem.And yours. However I am quite confident that you will assert that key fobs cannot spontaneously and randomly generate. Then, when we analyze you assertion we will find that the same reasoning would apply to DNA.
Censorship isn't necessary
-
- Posts: 16973
- Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2011 9:35 am
Re: DNA
Can a key fob spontaneously or randomly come into existence.Parodite wrote: Why impossible?
Remember that properties like "random" or "spontaneous" are human inventions seeing faces in the skies.
This is a non sequitor. Science demands an explanation for all these things, which it has some of. Eg, we still don't know what gravity is, but we see it's operation and laws it follows. The point of this thread is that the spontaneous generation of DNA is impossible.But if one insists using such descriptors, it would only be fair to apply them to a much wider range of phenomena that then ought to be deemed impossibile as well. Endless!
1. The amazing structure of snowflakes, crystals, atoms.. where is the designer?
2. The magic of "force fields" where things don't really touch but nevertheless influence each other.. who/what does the trick? There must be a magic hand somewhere.
3. Take any existing and functioning organism, a human being always a good start.
Assume that all structure and function of the human body is a collection of "random, spontaneous" processes that all just occur following "natural law" that does not need metaphysical add-ons of sorts. How does such a collection of blind processes suddenly become "alive, goal directed and endowed with a u8nique conscious experience/mind?" If not impossible, it does not make make much sense. Rabbits out of magic hats. Like DNA from a primordial dead soup.
4....
Again, sort of strawman argument. I'm not arguing for or against a god of any sort. Rather, the possibility of a chemical structure more complex than an operating system spontaneously coming into being. It isn't possible, and people who believe in it are exercising faith in the same manner as a child in Sunday School.Point of the above: everything is in a way "magic" and descriptors like "random" or "spontaneous" more likely describe our knowledge, how we perceive things which is controlled by our body-brain. Remove our interpreting body-brains from the equation and poof... gone are "random" "spontaneous" and all the other properties we see "in the world out there". What is it like, what is it doing when we are not watching dead and gone?
What may (necessarily) seem magic to our eyes.. might be simple business as usual and a piece of cake. And what appears to be simple and obvious.. might be an incredible complex stunt behind the scenes that only looks very easy.
When freed from the false dichotomy of "dead" versus "alive" matter and the idiotic claim the a complex DNA based organism needs a creator but a complex atom that is "dead" wouldn't need one... it becomes easier to talk about the evolution of DNA unconstrained by irrelevant terminologies and without false claims on what is possible or impossible.
Censorship isn't necessary
Re: DNA
Why should there be one. It is still an open question.Mr. Perfect wrote:
Where is the video of DNA self originating.
Google Scholar is a useful tool. I can highly recommend it to you:Mr. Perfect wrote:Do you know why they don't investigate anymore.so there are plenty of reasons to continue investigating despite assertions to the contrary.
https://scholar.google.ca/scholar?q=%22 ... s_ylo=2016
Anyways, your "god of the gaps" argument is a "no go" belief that immediately hits a dead end by asserting that the physical origin of life is not possible.
As scientists in the field do not share your belief, they will continue to investigate and discover.
May the gods preserve and defend me from self-righteous altruists; I can defend myself from my enemies and my friends.
Re: DNA
I propose that nature's insensitivity to human feelings (Yuge Macro-Aggression) is the Big Bang of Faith.Typhoon wrote:
Nature is indifferent to your assertions.
The two most powerful gods of the gaps are the Mouth to Ear Gap God, and the Brain to Mouth Gap God.
If anyone disagrees with the above assertions, fine, come up with your own!
Last edited by Simple Minded on Sun May 07, 2017 12:03 am, edited 1 time in total.
Re: DNA
Well said, who gets to define random or spontaneous? Hopefully not the same people who define liberal and conservative.Parodite wrote:Why impossible?Mr. Perfect wrote:[...]the spontaneous, random generation of DNA, which is impossible.
Remember that properties like "random" or "spontaneous" are human inventions seeing faces in the skies.
But if one insists using such descriptors, it would only be fair to apply them to a much wider range of phenomena that then ought to be deemed impossibile as well. Endless!
1. The amazing structure of snowflakes, crystals, atoms.. where is the designer?
2. The magic of "force fields" where things don't really touch but nevertheless influence each other.. who/what does the trick? There must be a magic hand somewhere.
3. Take any existing and functioning organism, a human being always a good start.
Assume that all structure and function of the human body is a collection of "random, spontaneous" processes that all just occur following "natural law" that does not need metaphysical add-ons of sorts. How does such a collection of blind processes suddenly become "alive, goal directed and endowed with a u8nique conscious experience/mind?" If not impossible, it does not make make much sense. Rabbits out of magic hats. Like DNA from a primordial dead soup.
4....
Point of the above: everything is in a way "magic" and descriptors like "random" or "spontaneous" more likely describe our knowledge, how we perceive things which is controlled by our body-brain. Remove our interpreting body-brains from the equation and poof... gone are "random" "spontaneous" and all the other properties we see "in the world out there". What is it like, what is it doing when we are not watching dead and gone?
What may (necessarily) seem magic to our eyes.. might be simple business as usual and a piece of cake. And what appears to be simple and obvious.. might be an incredible complex stunt behind the scenes that only looks very easy.
When freed from the false dichotomy of "dead" versus "alive" matter and the idiotic claim the a complex DNA based organism needs a creator but a complex atom that is "dead" wouldn't need one... it becomes easier to talk about the evolution of DNA unconstrained by irrelevant terminologies and without false claims on what is possible or impossible.
If I do not like random or spontaneous, kicking in imagination or faith is a nice rationalization.
As Mr. Perfect asserts, every does it, but some don't admit doing it.
Re: DNA
I have no theory, i am not proposing a new theory, i am not an evolutionary scientist - i did a quick thought experiment on if i considered DNA irreducibly complex and my sense of things disagreed with the premise.Nonc Hilaire wrote:If your theory requires billions of years that is one heck of a gap. A gap big enough to make the entire existence of humanity irrelevant.noddy wrote:they have actually got quite good evidence on the 4 RNA bases being able to form from primal sludge with lightning. viewtopic.php?f=4&t=2046&start=75
irreducable complexity is not a truth, its just gaps in knowledge.
the old anti evolution argument was irreducible complexity on the eyeball, yet the evolutionists showed a step by step increase in complexity was there.
i personally havent kept up with the newest theories on the first DNA, it always was the weakest part of the argument with the least real proof to it.
still, this is god of the gaps stuff if all the arguments after the first DNA are being dropped.
the claim that DNA has to be full complexity from the start doesnt seem true to me - a very simple first version that does nothing but replicate (like a primitive virus) and then slowly acquires new features one at a time over billions of years is not out of bounds.
Science itself defines any theory which postulates "billions of years" as an axiom to be not scientific as it is beyond the ability of science to even construct a falsifiable null hypothesis.
billions of years is relevant to a thought experiment on if unlikely things can happen, that is all.
having DNA powered by chemistry is mighty big gap filler on life being physically based so looking for the first chemistry is not a waste of time, even if it ends up being a waste of time.
i understand the politics in amerca is quite toxic between progressives and conservatives but this doesnt change science for everyone else.
i still think trying to declare evolution faith based is wrong headed outside the most childish atheists.
its not faith if i dont care if the story changes, more so, if someone proves the origins of DNA have nothing to do with the current theories i will have more reasons to accept its getting closer to the truth, not less.
it still wont be faith, it will just be an explanation that matches the known facts better than the previous one did.
ultracrepidarian
Re: Evolution
Quite.
May the gods preserve and defend me from self-righteous altruists; I can defend myself from my enemies and my friends.
Re: DNA
Your question suggests you think a key fob has a more complex inner structure than say a subatomic particle, or is in some other way different that allows or even compels you to ask that question. More precision is needed.Mr. Perfect wrote:Can a key fob spontaneously or randomly come into existence.Parodite wrote: Why impossible?
Remember that properties like "random" or "spontaneous" are human inventions seeing faces in the skies.
In the mean time I will make a case and ask equal rights for key fobs and subatomic particles. Will claim that the inner structure of the smallest measurable subatomic particle (10^-16cm) is most likely way more complex than the relative complexity of a simple key fog. That in fact the complexity of a key fog would be the fingerprint of a rather low-grade juvenile creator having a bad day, whereas the infinitely more complex inner structure and function of a subatomic particle that exists on the range of scales between 10^-16cm to 10^-33cm (planck scale) would be the fingerprint of an engineers Godhead on one of his best days.
Deep down I'm very superficial
Re: Evolution
The term "emergent" is currently used, somewhat loosely, in the physical sciences to describe the phenomena that very complex collective behaviour can arise from very simple interactions between some collection of material stuff.
P. W. Anderson | More is different
The material stuff under study can be elementary particles, atoms, molecules, or even populations.
Quanta Mag | Swirling Bacteria Linked to the Physics of Phase Transitions
P. W. Anderson | More is different
The material stuff under study can be elementary particles, atoms, molecules, or even populations.
Quanta Mag | Swirling Bacteria Linked to the Physics of Phase Transitions
May the gods preserve and defend me from self-righteous altruists; I can defend myself from my enemies and my friends.
-
- Posts: 16973
- Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2011 9:35 am
Re: DNA
To claim it does so requires video. Otherwise you are exercising pure faithTyphoon wrote: Why should there be one. It is still an open question.
I don't debate off site linked articles.Google Scholar is a useful tool. I can highly recommend it to you:
https://scholar.google.ca/scholar?q=%22 ... s_ylo=2016
I am in no way arguing a god of the gaps concept, in fact I have gone out of my way to not argue that, to put that on me when I have not done it only illustrates the fallacy of whatever you are arguing.Anyways, your "god of the gaps" argument is a "no go" belief that immediately hits a dead end by asserting that the physical origin of life is not possible.
Nature could care less about what scientists believe, for example they could investigate whether key fobs spontaneously come into existence, they will have as much luck.As scientists in the field do not share your belief, they will continue to investigate and discover.
Last edited by Mr. Perfect on Sun May 07, 2017 10:28 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Censorship isn't necessary
-
- Posts: 16973
- Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2011 9:35 am
Re: DNA
Ok, but given billions of years could a key fob be created on the moon.noddy wrote: I have no theory, i am not proposing a new theory, i am not an evolutionary scientist - i did a quick thought experiment on if i considered DNA irreducibly complex and my sense of things disagreed with the premise.
billions of years is relevant to a thought experiment on if unlikely things can happen, that is all.
having DNA powered by chemistry is mighty big gap filler on life being physically based so looking for the first chemistry is not a waste of time, even if it ends up being a waste of time.
i understand the politics in amerca is quite toxic between progressives and conservatives but this doesnt change science for everyone else.
i still think trying to declare evolution faith based is wrong headed outside the most childish atheists.
its not faith if i dont care if the story changes, more so, if someone proves the origins of DNA have nothing to do with the current theories i will have more reasons to accept its getting closer to the truth, not less.
it still wont be faith, it will just be an explanation that matches the known facts better than the previous one did.
Censorship isn't necessary
-
- Posts: 16973
- Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2011 9:35 am
Re: Evolution
Where are the emergent soda cans. Or, another question would be, is there a limit on what can be emergent.Typhoon wrote:The term "emergent" is currently used, somewhat loosely, in the physical sciences to describe the phenomena that very complex collective behaviour can arise from very simple interactions between some collection of material stuff.
P. W. Anderson | More is different
The material stuff under study can be elementary particles, atoms, molecules, or even populations.
Quanta Mag | Swirling Bacteria Linked to the Physics of Phase Transitions
Censorship isn't necessary
Re: Evolution
Suggest reading the articles.
May the gods preserve and defend me from self-righteous altruists; I can defend myself from my enemies and my friends.
Re: DNA
Pointing out that yourMr. Perfect wrote:Mr. Perfect wrote:Do you know why they don't investigate anymore.so there are plenty of reasons to continue investigating despite assertions to the contrary.I don't debate off site linked articles.Google Scholar is a useful tool. I can highly recommend it to you:
https://scholar.google.ca/scholar?q=%22 ... s_ylo=2016
"Do you know why they don't investigate anymore"
claim is not even wrong.
The field has never been more active.
May the gods preserve and defend me from self-righteous altruists; I can defend myself from my enemies and my friends.
Re: DNA
key fobs have less to do with evolution than colonel suns angels do with gravity, so it seems their is a case of absurdity for thee but not for he.Mr. Perfect wrote:Ok, but given billions of years could a key fob be created on the moon.noddy wrote: I have no theory, i am not proposing a new theory, i am not an evolutionary scientist - i did a quick thought experiment on if i considered DNA irreducibly complex and my sense of things disagreed with the premise.
billions of years is relevant to a thought experiment on if unlikely things can happen, that is all.
having DNA powered by chemistry is mighty big gap filler on life being physically based so looking for the first chemistry is not a waste of time, even if it ends up being a waste of time.
i understand the politics in amerca is quite toxic between progressives and conservatives but this doesnt change science for everyone else.
i still think trying to declare evolution faith based is wrong headed outside the most childish atheists.
its not faith if i dont care if the story changes, more so, if someone proves the origins of DNA have nothing to do with the current theories i will have more reasons to accept its getting closer to the truth, not less.
it still wont be faith, it will just be an explanation that matches the known facts better than the previous one did.
in recap, you are right that their is no proof of the first DNA and how it came to be and if you want to dispute evolution thats the best place to shout at.
i doubt you will get many atheists buying into your faith analogy and you will only get raw ignorami buying into the keyfob thing.
ultracrepidarian
- NapLajoieonSteroids
- Posts: 8473
- Joined: Fri Dec 23, 2011 7:04 pm
Re: Evolution
Argument-from-design is done in by paleontology straight up, not evolution. Every dead end, cross up, atavistic reemergence, divergence, and those critters which spring up out of nowhere that we've found under our feet are harder to square away with the means to an end argument from design than celestial Shakespeare composing itself in a void. It doesn't have a solid answer for extinction.
Ultimately, it goes awry by the contrivance that we can claim to know the designer's purpose beyond the instructions and condescension he gives to man.
Why presuppose that the Good Lord's purpose is perseverance and patience or edification for all that is created and especially man, all done out of a divine love&mercy? I wouldn't doubt any of those bits in the general, but all the mercy in the world still doesn't give us any insight into the ends to why a sloth survives but not a mastodon.
We've now dug up enough to make it unlikely that nature reveals a certain, plain teleology to us that some hoped it would; especially one centered around a fixity of animal types with a harmonious proportion of endowments ensconced in nice environments in which they had to live.
Ultimately, it goes awry by the contrivance that we can claim to know the designer's purpose beyond the instructions and condescension he gives to man.
Why presuppose that the Good Lord's purpose is perseverance and patience or edification for all that is created and especially man, all done out of a divine love&mercy? I wouldn't doubt any of those bits in the general, but all the mercy in the world still doesn't give us any insight into the ends to why a sloth survives but not a mastodon.
We've now dug up enough to make it unlikely that nature reveals a certain, plain teleology to us that some hoped it would; especially one centered around a fixity of animal types with a harmonious proportion of endowments ensconced in nice environments in which they had to live.