Starmer In Jobs Push.....right Oh!
News4 mins ago
Impossible Abiogenesishttp://youtu.be/numvrexazaw
54 Answers
http://
Seems the maths is against abiogenesis.
How do atheist evolutionists explain this?
Seems the maths is against abiogenesis.
How do atheist evolutionists explain this?
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by Theland. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
This is the same old misunderstanding that leads to the daft creation if an aircraft in a whirlwind tale isn't it. The two things being compared are not comparable. Evolution is guided by what did and what didn't work.
And there is also the failure to understand the number that arises when one multiplies the number of quantum sized spaces in the universe with the number of infinitesimal times slots since time began where thus could be kicked off. And that's not even considering the possible infinite number of universes that might exist to produce a thinking creature able to ponder the question.
This idea that the odds are against it rather than it being a virtual certainty, is nonsense.
And there is also the failure to understand the number that arises when one multiplies the number of quantum sized spaces in the universe with the number of infinitesimal times slots since time began where thus could be kicked off. And that's not even considering the possible infinite number of universes that might exist to produce a thinking creature able to ponder the question.
This idea that the odds are against it rather than it being a virtual certainty, is nonsense.
The key word in the video is "undirected". It's evident that this means that the calculation has assumed that a cell is nothing more than its constituent components, that have to fall into a particular pattern with nothing -- literally nothing -- to guide it. Natural processes are capable, to some extent, of guiding themselves though. Take any basic chemical reaction as an example. This often involves the disassembling of 10^23-odd molecules and the reassembling of the same number. If that were viewed as an "undirected natural process" in the same way as the video then the probability of the reaction taking place might be regarded as something close to 1 in 10^23 or even smaller (depending on the precise assumptions). But the probability of the reaction taking place is far higher than that -- indeed in many cases it's so certain that all molecules will react within a second, almost instantaneously. This is because there is a natural drive towards the reaction that makes it favourable to occur.
The same, by extension, could well be true of the cell. It is a highly complex object, to be sure. But the idea that it must be formed entirely spontaneously if not "directed" (by some higher power, the unspoken assumption here) is indeed ludicrous, as the numbers (or similar ones) quoted at the start of the video do follow by assuming perfect spontaneity.
Instead, Intelligent Design theorists apparently overlook the middle ground -- that there is a process involved in the formation of a cell that makes it energetically favourable for formation to occur if all (or most) of the constituent parts are present. This would change the odds dramatically.
The same, by extension, could well be true of the cell. It is a highly complex object, to be sure. But the idea that it must be formed entirely spontaneously if not "directed" (by some higher power, the unspoken assumption here) is indeed ludicrous, as the numbers (or similar ones) quoted at the start of the video do follow by assuming perfect spontaneity.
Instead, Intelligent Design theorists apparently overlook the middle ground -- that there is a process involved in the formation of a cell that makes it energetically favourable for formation to occur if all (or most) of the constituent parts are present. This would change the odds dramatically.
Creationists always use the "spontaneous 21st century Ferrari" as the improbable example, never the Model T Ford or the construction on Nikolaus Otto's workbench.
Pre-cellular biological processes simply aren't given a thought. Cell membranes made these processes vastly more efficient (concentration directly affects reaction rates) but that does not mean they didn't occur at all.
Indeed, you need to consider how and why phospholipid molecules formed, prior to their involvement in membranes. They require energy input to build, from simpler components, like sugars and sugars are energy-stores in their own right. Clearly energy transduction was well in train long before cells came into being.
Just as physisists split the atom and try to work out what the bits do, in isolation, so do biologists have to work out how biosynthetic reactions were possible prior to the existence of cell (or organelle) membranes.
We have to learn to walk before we learn how to run. Creationists need to make the most of this knowledge hole while they still can.
Pre-cellular biological processes simply aren't given a thought. Cell membranes made these processes vastly more efficient (concentration directly affects reaction rates) but that does not mean they didn't occur at all.
Indeed, you need to consider how and why phospholipid molecules formed, prior to their involvement in membranes. They require energy input to build, from simpler components, like sugars and sugars are energy-stores in their own right. Clearly energy transduction was well in train long before cells came into being.
Just as physisists split the atom and try to work out what the bits do, in isolation, so do biologists have to work out how biosynthetic reactions were possible prior to the existence of cell (or organelle) membranes.
We have to learn to walk before we learn how to run. Creationists need to make the most of this knowledge hole while they still can.
What counts as an answer, Khandro? I'm going to hazard a guess that if I actually had the "answer" that you might be looking for with regards to this question, I wouldn't be wasting so much time talking about it on AB -- I'd be the most famous biologist in history.
It's enough to point out that a basic numerical argument assuming that there is no mechanism that might drive the formation of a cell (eg because structure is generally related to some underlying symmetry/ energetically-favourable arrangement) is flawed from the start. That doesn't mean that life had to emerge spontaneously from such a law, or that a law necessarily exists -- merely that the argument advanced by theland and the video above is broken and a more sophisticated one is needed.
It's enough to point out that a basic numerical argument assuming that there is no mechanism that might drive the formation of a cell (eg because structure is generally related to some underlying symmetry/ energetically-favourable arrangement) is flawed from the start. That doesn't mean that life had to emerge spontaneously from such a law, or that a law necessarily exists -- merely that the argument advanced by theland and the video above is broken and a more sophisticated one is needed.
Theland - //How do atheist evolutionists explain this? //
They don't need to - there is plenty of scientific evidence that backs up the notion that we were created by a series of coincidences involving atomic matter.
We have now evolved to a level where questioning becomes our default position, and as I have averred many times previously, massive situations demand massive explanations. Earth? God!
That makes it human nature - it does not make it real.
They don't need to - there is plenty of scientific evidence that backs up the notion that we were created by a series of coincidences involving atomic matter.
We have now evolved to a level where questioning becomes our default position, and as I have averred many times previously, massive situations demand massive explanations. Earth? God!
That makes it human nature - it does not make it real.
"It seems to me that if you view the cell as a machine..."
Well, obviously if you start out by describing something as a machine then it will lead you to inferring a designer. That's what machines are. Doesn't make the initial assumption valid.
It's true that the apparent interconnectedness of various basic biological systems is remarkable and difficult to explain. Perhaps even it will never be explained. Better that way, though, than by assuming an equally remarkable explanation that leads to an immediate end to meaningful investigation.
"God" ought to be the very last resort to explain things when all other avenues have been exhausted -- and not the first thing you jump to.
Well, obviously if you start out by describing something as a machine then it will lead you to inferring a designer. That's what machines are. Doesn't make the initial assumption valid.
It's true that the apparent interconnectedness of various basic biological systems is remarkable and difficult to explain. Perhaps even it will never be explained. Better that way, though, than by assuming an equally remarkable explanation that leads to an immediate end to meaningful investigation.
"God" ought to be the very last resort to explain things when all other avenues have been exhausted -- and not the first thing you jump to.
jim; Unless you can present a serious theory of how life originated on this planet, - (evolution of it is a given). I find the most compelling view is that it originated elsewhere, and we will probably as a species not survive long enough to learn (if it is indeed humanly learnable) from where, and using words like creationism particularly linking it to 'young earth' creationism, and the literal interpretations of the biblical God only muddies the water.
I have/t watched the OP link all through but in mine above all that is mentioned is ID and no attempt is made for a description, I think we can rule out the simplistic idea of a humanlike architect sitting at a drawing board. I prefer the cosmic symbolism of the dancing Shiva; Nataraja ;
http://
And until I learn otherwise, will leave it at that.
I have/t watched the OP link all through but in mine above all that is mentioned is ID and no attempt is made for a description, I think we can rule out the simplistic idea of a humanlike architect sitting at a drawing board. I prefer the cosmic symbolism of the dancing Shiva; Nataraja ;
http://
And until I learn otherwise, will leave it at that.
" I find the most compelling view is that it originated elsewhere..."
That's fair enough -- and indeed allows an extra few billion years or so for life to emerged and come to Earth. The main problem is that this doesn't really answer the question of how life began in the first place. Here, or elsewhere, it makes little difference if there doesn't exist the mechanism required to drive the emergence of life by natural means. Still, it's worth exploring as perhaps the conditions elsewhere are more suitable for life to start up. And indeed if life came from space then it would follow that we are probably not alone in the Universe, which would be a huge discovery.
But life coming from beyond our planet isn't the same thing at all as intelligent design.
What does appears to be the case in favour of abiogenesis is that the time between Earth being "ready" for life, and life emerging, is perhaps very short indeed. A recent study ( http://
That's fair enough -- and indeed allows an extra few billion years or so for life to emerged and come to Earth. The main problem is that this doesn't really answer the question of how life began in the first place. Here, or elsewhere, it makes little difference if there doesn't exist the mechanism required to drive the emergence of life by natural means. Still, it's worth exploring as perhaps the conditions elsewhere are more suitable for life to start up. And indeed if life came from space then it would follow that we are probably not alone in the Universe, which would be a huge discovery.
But life coming from beyond our planet isn't the same thing at all as intelligent design.
What does appears to be the case in favour of abiogenesis is that the time between Earth being "ready" for life, and life emerging, is perhaps very short indeed. A recent study ( http://
jim; Fascinating stuff, and // the time between Earth being "ready" for life, and life emerging, is perhaps very short indeed.// In fact this leads one to ponder the concept, that the differences between organic life and inorganic matter are perhaps not as wide as we think - perhaps the Earth is alive and 'animal, vegetable and mineral' definitions are but human constructs, extending the 'Gaia Principle', which proposes that organisms interact with their inorganic surroundings on Earth to form a self-regulating, complex system that helps to maintain the conditions for life on the planet, to the proposal that they are all part of one and the same thing?
How life originated ? I'd suggest that inorganic matter was so plentiful and had so much time that it managed, on at least one occasion, to form something still not alive but with a tendency to replicate itself.
After that it is just a question of time before a flawed reproduction process ensured variation and many such things. In this situation it is only a matter of time when some merge to produce more complex things, and eventually the basic building blocks of life.
This can happen elsewhere in the universe it need not be local, but I'd suspect that the chances are it'd happen in multiple places anyway. Can't see any reason why not: it's a big universe. Then further time before these come together to create basic life. Which in turn evolves to more complex life
I don't see there is an issue to explain. Details, yes for sure. That needs further investigation, but the basic process is fairly obvious isn't it ?
After that it is just a question of time before a flawed reproduction process ensured variation and many such things. In this situation it is only a matter of time when some merge to produce more complex things, and eventually the basic building blocks of life.
This can happen elsewhere in the universe it need not be local, but I'd suspect that the chances are it'd happen in multiple places anyway. Can't see any reason why not: it's a big universe. Then further time before these come together to create basic life. Which in turn evolves to more complex life
I don't see there is an issue to explain. Details, yes for sure. That needs further investigation, but the basic process is fairly obvious isn't it ?
Re the second video link.
One can have evolution before life depending on one's definition. A process that creates variation of an initial prototype through replication and a filtering of what survives to replicate further is basically evolution; living or not.
The only reason he sees process information is always to be related to an intelligence elsewhere is because he only chooses to see the many examples from where humans have deliberately created something to perform a function. This blinds him to the idea that there are other ways a useful function may be created.
Chance only needs to stumble across a useful function through imperfect replication once for it to be retained and spread as it duplicates.
He has no idea how long the changes needed will take; but I stress it is a large universe, and it's been around a long time. I see no reason to dismiss chance due to some's lack of open mindedness and need to have a deity do it for us.
One can have evolution before life depending on one's definition. A process that creates variation of an initial prototype through replication and a filtering of what survives to replicate further is basically evolution; living or not.
The only reason he sees process information is always to be related to an intelligence elsewhere is because he only chooses to see the many examples from where humans have deliberately created something to perform a function. This blinds him to the idea that there are other ways a useful function may be created.
Chance only needs to stumble across a useful function through imperfect replication once for it to be retained and spread as it duplicates.
He has no idea how long the changes needed will take; but I stress it is a large universe, and it's been around a long time. I see no reason to dismiss chance due to some's lack of open mindedness and need to have a deity do it for us.
Latest Posts
Quizzes & Puzzles6 mins ago
Time For A Limit On Angry Posts
ChatterBank7 mins ago
News18 mins ago
News20 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles28 mins ago
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.