Dna And Its Origins

[Khandro]

In the light of new findings, DNA is even more beautiful and complex than we imagined, considering that it was in existence in the early life-forms on the planet, doesn't any theory of the origin of life by a blind series of chemical accidents seem preposterous ?
Surely only the most unimaginative and feeble-minded could believe in this.

[Zacs-Master]

According to recent research, mathematics makes the multiverse theory a certainty so somewhere Khandro, your scenario is correct. Just not here.

And if you want to quote Hawking, how about agreeing with his stance that scientific study is becoming more and more 'niche'. In other words non of us on here have the requisite expertise to confirm or refute your (our my) postulations. So, as usual in this section, we're all wasting our time.

[jomifl]

/it came up with only two consecutive short words and one of them was misspelt. /
So how do you know which word it was 'supposed' to be? ..I make that only one word.
In fact Khandro you have demonstrated why you dont understand how life could have begun on Earth. An infinite universe of monkeys typing forever is infinitely larger than your computer and infinite time is infinitely longer than the life of your computer.. If you can use your intellect and creativity to imagine billions of molcules under a vast range of conditions (pressure,temperature,irradiation etc.) inter-reacting for billions of years then pehaps you can grasp the possibilities. If not then a GCSE chemistry primer might help.

[Khandro]

Zacs; Hawking has said many things over quite a long time and some of the quotes one reads are from some time ago. What I think is great about him is his open mindedness and that is why most recently he is backing the project to search for extra-terrestrial life.
If some form of life could be found he knows the implications are enormous, because it sure as hell didn't come from here, and so all bets would be off as to where it all came from.

[Zacs-Master]

Some sense at last. I agree. But it's a damn big 'if'.

[Peter Pedant]

Wasnt Hawking the one who said summit like

and so in my universe there is no room for God ? meep-meep booble booble


[ the last bit is meant to convey the mechanical quality of the artifical voice ]

[naomi24]

The bottom line in the Creator argument has to be ‘Who or what created the Creator?’

Khandro?

[jomifl]

/If some form of life could be found he knows the implications are enormous, because it sure as hell didn't come from here, and so all bets would be off as to where it all came from./
I don't follow your argument Khandro, how does the possibility of life developing elsewhere preclude the possibility of life developing on earth. I'd have thought it made no difference whatsoever.

[jomifl]

Naomi, that question has been asked many times ..even at least once in this thread and has been roundly ignored...as ever.

[naomi24]

Jom, I know ... but he who believes that only the most unimaginative and feeble-minded could believe that a creator doesn't exist needs to put his money where his mouth is and enlighten us poor souls.

[Khandro]

jomifl; //how does the possibility of life developing elsewhere preclude the possibility of life developing on earth.//
Not only do you still adhere to your theory of spontaneous dna and life somehow springing from nothing more than a few chemical accidents, are you now saying that this infinitely minute possibility has also happened independently elsewhere too?
If I need a GCSE primer in chemistry, I fear you might need one in common sense!

[naomi24]

... and he's ignored the $64,000 question - again.

[Khandro]

//it's the theory of someone with far more intelligence than you or me.//
What and even Aristotle? He must be some sharp cookie.

[jomifl]

Khandro, you should avoid relying too much on Aristotle he hasn't written any new stuff for some time, and some of his ideas are just a bit old fashioned.

[Khandro]

jomifl; Thanks, I'll bear that in mind :0)

v_e: She comes not when Noon is on the roses.

[jomifl]

So when can we expect replies to our unanswered question?...some time before our feeble minds have forgotten what they were I hope?

[Khandro]

jomifl; You haven't even given a coherent answer to my question and you have completely ignored Aristotle's - (How can there be an effect without a cause?)

The one you believe in, simply isn't acceptable viz. that given a large enough combination of possibilities, anything can happen.
Let me put it to you in a way you might be able to grasp. You see this discovery of natural science stuff is, within the realm of human achievements, pretty low on the list. These scientists are simply learning to understand what is already there, not actually inventing anything.
If Einstein hadn't discovered relativity, someone else sooner or later would have done so because it's "there" to be discovered.
But if Beethoven hadn't written his 16 string quartets, no matter how long you wait, for no matter how may trillions of humans, no one else would come along and do so. That's a fact and you know it is.

[mibn2cweus]

The seeming improbability of something with the complexity of life emerging spontaneously somewhere within a universe of a bazillion stars is eclipsed by the extraordinary appearance of that by far more elusive quality . . . the capacity to reason.

[jim360]

Hmm. They are different achievements. To call one somehow low compared to the other is fairly patronising. Never mind the "that's a fact and you know it is" statement that is, in fact, impossible to know or ever verify. Who is to say how many ideas for melodies that have been created in the past but, subsequently, forgotten or never committed to paper, that were then re-created some time later? Perhaps Mozart had a great idea for a few more pieces that would have looked suspiciously similar to various of Beethoven's own sonatas.

It's unlikely, to be sure. But it is not a "fact" by any stretch of the imagination. Not that it matters all that much, as it seems that people on both sides of this debate are misunderstanding probability. In the first place, you can't really make a statement about how likely or not life/ DNA structure is to emerge spontaneously until far more is understood about the mechanism behind its emergence. It may turn out that, given the right conditions, DNA is basically certain to emerge -- and it may further turn out that these conditions have generous enough margins that they aren't all that unlikely to happen after all. And if the probability is still fairly tiny then it grows that much larger given a large enough Universe with enough places to "try" to create said conditions. One way or another it's only speculation at the moment, but there are better reasons to believe that there is some underlying mechanism that drives its creation than there are to believe that it took the purest of random chance for DNA to be formed.

On the other hand, what happens in probability when you allow an infinite amount of time for things to happen tends to be misunderstood. Suppose you were given a typewriter and an infinite life time to hit keys randomly. Then in principle, an infinite time later, the probability that you have typed every book in the current English lexicon approaches one. In practice this can't happen, but more importantly events of probability one aren't necessarily a certainty if you have infinity to play with. What happens if you keep hitting the "A" key all the time? This is an event that has probability zero after an infinite time, but this doesn't mean that it can't happen. So one has to be careful about the infinite monkey problem.

Anyway, we have had only just over 60 years of human endeavour to understand the structure and origins of human DNA. A bit too early to write off the idea of spontaneous emergence based on only that long. If scientists gave up trying to find an underlying mechanism every time it seemed to complex to be indivisible then we'd still be stuck in the dark ages (and, incidentally, music and art would also have been much worse off for the experience).