I need you to attack this argument
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
30-10-2013, 02:37 AM
RE: I need you to attack this argument
(30-10-2013 01:41 AM)Chippy Wrote:  That's what he is saying is happening. But regardless of whether that is in fact occurring no one is arguing that the emergence of a high-fidelity self-replicator (something even simpler than a bacterium) is a routine occurrence. It is improbable that is why you will not see it in your lifetime. But over the course of several thousand years it will likely occur again and if we learn where to look we will find it.

If life originated on this planet via some natural process, it should have originated several times and we should observe multiple lineages of life. We observe only one lineage.

I don't accept the hypothesis that other lineages emerged but were outcompeted and went extinct. Such a hypothesis would only make sense if conditions on the planet were uniform everywhere(not likely) or if one lineage was the fittest across all conditions(again not likely). Further we simply have no proof whatsoever this was the case.

The fact that we observe only one lineage of life on this planet is an observation crying out for a credible explanation. Abiogenesis, if it exists, is a chemical process and no chemical process occur just once. There is another element to the puzzle.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
30-10-2013, 05:25 AM
RE: I need you to attack this argument
(30-10-2013 02:26 AM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  The diet of a species of microbe isn't that varied.

Well yes, in the sense that from a biochemical perspective they all need the same compounds and elements but it is more complicated than that. For example, many bacteria secrete proteases so that expands the range of things they can obtain nourishment from.

Quote:We haven't observed any that feed on self replicating molecules so I think it is safe to say that none exists.

Any bacterium that secretes proteases can use a self-replicating peptide molecules as a source of nourishment.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
30-10-2013, 05:59 AM
RE: I need you to attack this argument
(30-10-2013 02:37 AM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  If life originated on this planet via some natural process, it should have originated several times and we should observe multiple lineages of life.

No, not necessarily. Sometimes no one wins the lottery jackpot, sometimes one person wins it and other times more than one person wins it. There is a strong elements of randomness in abiogenetic processes.

Quote:I don't accept the hypothesis that other lineages emerged but were outcompeted and went extinct. Such a hypothesis would only make sense if conditions on the planet were uniform everywhere(not likely) or if one lineage was the fittest across all conditions(again not likely).

Not necessarily. It is entirely plausible that candidate self-replicating peptides were food for bacteria.

Quote:Further we simply have no proof whatsoever this was the case.


But our background knowledge does not preclude that possibility.

Quote:The fact that we observe only one lineage of life on this planet is an observation crying out for a credible explanation.

Introducing engineering by some intelligence is not a credible explanation. If that account of abiogenesis has any merit then aliens (as per the Raelians) is more credible than God even though it doesn't explain how the aliens arrived.

Quote:Abiogenesis, if it exists, is a chemical process and no chemical process occur just once. There is another element to the puzzle.

Just because it is a chemical process doesn't mean that it should be a commonplace.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
30-10-2013, 06:27 AM
RE: I need you to attack this argument
(30-10-2013 05:59 AM)Chippy Wrote:  
(30-10-2013 02:37 AM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  If life originated on this planet via some natural process, it should have originated several times and we should observe multiple lineages of life.

No, not necessarily. Sometimes no one wins the lottery jackpot, sometimes one person wins it and other times more than one person wins it. There is a strong elements of randomness in abiogenetic processes.

This is beautiful!

8000 years before Jesus, the Egyptian god Horus said, "I am the way, the truth, the life."
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
30-10-2013, 07:03 AM
RE: I need you to attack this argument
(30-10-2013 01:01 AM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  
(29-10-2013 02:02 PM)Chas Wrote:  "One off events are not natural"? Are you serious? Unique configurations of matter are the norm.

One off events of natural chemical processes are not the norm. You don't know what you are talking about.

Oh, that's a resounding argument.

This is about probability. An unlikely event might happen only once in a finite time.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
30-10-2013, 07:37 AM
I need you to attack this argument
(29-10-2013 06:07 PM)Revenant77x Wrote:  
(29-10-2013 05:59 PM)black_squirrel Wrote:  Intelligent Design is the opposite of science. It goal is not to find things that can be explained by science, but
to find things that cannot be explained by science. In practice this endeavor is impossible, because for that we need
to know everything that future scientists know.

Intelligent Design is the Antiscience.

ID is creationism in a new suit. Same rhetoric, same "textbooks", same "ideas" slight name change because creationism was ruled unconstitutional as ID has been in the Dover case. It is a total non-starter and is just going to cost taxpayers money when their districts get dragged to federal court and then lose.

Yes, the ID people are wolves in sheep's clothes or rather, creationists in lab coats.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
30-10-2013, 11:59 AM
RE: I need you to attack this argument
(30-10-2013 02:05 AM)Revenant77x Wrote:  Well Scientists have had Amino Acids form under Early earth conditions in a lab. Those are the basic building blocks of life but the conditions required are very exact.
Are you talking about the Miller–Urey experiment?
I heard that scientists consider that the early Earth conditions where not as this experiment assumed.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
31-10-2013, 12:43 AM
RE: I need you to attack this argument
(30-10-2013 11:59 AM)Stevil Wrote:  
(30-10-2013 02:05 AM)Revenant77x Wrote:  Well Scientists have had Amino Acids form under Early earth conditions in a lab. Those are the basic building blocks of life but the conditions required are very exact.
Are you talking about the Miller–Urey experiment?
I heard that scientists consider that the early Earth conditions where not as this experiment assumed.

I heard this as well. But in other experiments at least 2 necleobases in DNA have been shown to emerge in conditions which may have been found on early earth. That's more significant IMO.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
31-10-2013, 01:12 AM
RE: I need you to attack this argument
(30-10-2013 05:59 AM)Chippy Wrote:  No, not necessarily. Sometimes no one wins the lottery jackpot, sometimes one person wins it and other times more than one person wins it. There is a strong elements of randomness in abiogenetic processes.

Many natural phenomena have elements of randomness yet of all the natural phenomena that exist/have existed, abiogenesis is the only one that happened once? That's just too much of a stretch for me to believe.

The only other natural phenomena that I can think of that happened once was the big bang....and I don't count that because its kinda a special case. If abiogenesis happened on this planet, its much more likely it happened many...many...times.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
31-10-2013, 06:40 AM
RE: I need you to attack this argument
(31-10-2013 01:12 AM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  
(30-10-2013 05:59 AM)Chippy Wrote:  No, not necessarily. Sometimes no one wins the lottery jackpot, sometimes one person wins it and other times more than one person wins it. There is a strong elements of randomness in abiogenetic processes.

Many natural phenomena have elements of randomness yet of all the natural phenomena that exist/have existed, abiogenesis is the only one that happened once? That's just too much of a stretch for me to believe.

The only other natural phenomena that I can think of that happened once was the big bang....and I don't count that because its kinda a special case. If abiogenesis happened on this planet, its much more likely it happened many...many...times.

I don't understand your argument. If you win the lottery once, can you conclude
that you must win the lottery many times?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like black_squirrel's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: