SUPER DOUBLE checkmate atheists!
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
28-07-2013, 12:12 AM
RE: SUPER DOUBLE checkmate atheists!
(27-07-2013 08:09 AM)Raptor Jesus Wrote:  We actually share something around 50% of our DNA in common with a banana! The statistical odds required for the banana to have derived for a separate abiogenesis and develop 50% identical DNA with humans really is climbing mount improbable. I'm going to employ occam's razor on this one and call the banana a relative.

There has so far not been any DNA evidence for a separate abiogenesis event. We really do all seem to be linked. That may seem a bit surprising at first that life wouldn't have developed twice, or more times, separately. But if you think about it for a moment it really makes more sense that it wouldn't.

If a new abiogenesis event happened right now, today, it would start out as naturally occurring amino acids coming to arrange themselves as simple nucleic acids, exposed with no membrane to protect them. But those nucleic acids would be surrounded by life, bacteria that would love nothing more than to feed off them. Any new life that might otherwise start to form today would be utilized by already living organisms before it could get off the ground.

That is why we don't find random new life forming itself in jars of peanut butter.

Dude, you don't have enough info to my come to those conclusions with any certainty. As I have said earlier, if life was created at one point, it isn't unreasonable to conclude that the conditions were right for it to happen in nearby locations under VERY similar circumstances. Two, or many early forms of life could have easily mingled with one another over the years, and we (modern forms of life) could have all been descended from the interbred species. If they mingled early on, we would never know (at least there is no technology in the foreseeable that would allow us to access such records, barring the generation of 1.21 Jigawatts in an 80's sports car). It is also possible that there were once many forms of life that was created uniquely, but only one survived (or some combination of the aforementioned hypothesis. Much of our records from that time have mostly been destroyed, and the back up copies are corrupted.

I don't know what happened, because I don't have access to the information, but neither does anyone else. It could have just as easily been that there really was only one place on earth that life was formed.

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
28-07-2013, 12:49 AM (This post was last modified: 28-07-2013 12:56 AM by Rahn127.)
RE: SUPER DOUBLE checkmate atheists!
(27-07-2013 02:18 AM)Dark Light Wrote:  I'm related to a banana, but only distantly. Third cousin, twice removed, but still Big Grin Oh, I know you was preparing to hear something scientific before I dashed your hopes with laser-guider expertise.

Okay, now. Yeah, we cannot say with certainty that we are related to the banana. Technically though we cannot prove beyond all doubt that we are related to apes that share 98.6% similar DNA, though the evidence overwhelmingly suggests it is so. Anyhow, there is a little more credence to a claim that we aren't related to a banana. But very little.

We don't know how life came to be. Many believe the right primordial ooze combined with the right amount of heat, pressure, bombardment of masses hitting earth, yadda, yadda, yadda. If the conditions were right for life to form, why is it not just as possible that multiple forms of life form independently under very similar conditions in close approximation to one another (close in astrological terms). Now, it stands to reason that the hypothesized independent life forms could be very similar, and very simplistic. They could have evolved independent of one another in similar conditions, but it is very likely over time that even if there were independent life forms would eventually 'breed' with one another. Life on earth has been kicking around for quite a while. I saw again, I am related to a banana!

Yes, we can say with overwhelming certainty that we are related to not just bananas and apes, but all life on earth. BTW we are apes.

We have a phylogenetic tree and we have sequenced the genomes of many species, including our own.








Insanity - doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
28-07-2013, 01:34 AM
RE: SUPER DOUBLE checkmate atheists!
(28-07-2013 12:49 AM)Rahn127 Wrote:  
(27-07-2013 02:18 AM)Dark Light Wrote:  I'm related to a banana, but only distantly. Third cousin, twice removed, but still Big Grin Oh, I know you was preparing to hear something scientific before I dashed your hopes with laser-guider expertise.

Okay, now. Yeah, we cannot say with certainty that we are related to the banana. Technically though we cannot prove beyond all doubt that we are related to apes that share 98.6% similar DNA, though the evidence overwhelmingly suggests it is so. Anyhow, there is a little more credence to a claim that we aren't related to a banana. But very little.

We don't know how life came to be. Many believe the right primordial ooze combined with the right amount of heat, pressure, bombardment of masses hitting earth, yadda, yadda, yadda. If the conditions were right for life to form, why is it not just as possible that multiple forms of life form independently under very similar conditions in close approximation to one another (close in astrological terms). Now, it stands to reason that the hypothesized independent life forms could be very similar, and very simplistic. They could have evolved independent of one another in similar conditions, but it is very likely over time that even if there were independent life forms would eventually 'breed' with one another. Life on earth has been kicking around for quite a while. I saw again, I am related to a banana!

Yes, we can say with overwhelming certainty that we are related to not just bananas and apes, but all life on earth. BTW we are apes.

We have a phylogenetic tree and we have sequenced the genomes of many species, including our own.








I never said otherwise. You didn't read carefully. The thing I said about apes was just to demonstrate that we can't prove it. Trillions to one odds we are closely related to apes, but we cannot 'prove' it. The further back you go in the evolution of life the less certain you can be, so when we are talking about the first single-celled organisms to ever live on this planet there is room for serious doubt about how it all got started on this particular rock.

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
28-07-2013, 02:26 AM (This post was last modified: 28-07-2013 02:36 AM by Raptor Jesus.)
RE: SUPER DOUBLE checkmate atheists!
(28-07-2013 12:12 AM)Dark Light Wrote:  
(27-07-2013 08:09 AM)Raptor Jesus Wrote:  We actually share something around 50% of our DNA in common with a banana! The statistical odds required for the banana to have derived for a separate abiogenesis and develop 50% identical DNA with humans really is climbing mount improbable. I'm going to employ occam's razor on this one and call the banana a relative.

There has so far not been any DNA evidence for a separate abiogenesis event. We really do all seem to be linked. That may seem a bit surprising at first that life wouldn't have developed twice, or more times, separately. But if you think about it for a moment it really makes more sense that it wouldn't.

If a new abiogenesis event happened right now, today, it would start out as naturally occurring amino acids coming to arrange themselves as simple nucleic acids, exposed with no membrane to protect them. But those nucleic acids would be surrounded by life, bacteria that would love nothing more than to feed off them. Any new life that might otherwise start to form today would be utilized by already living organisms before it could get off the ground.

That is why we don't find random new life forming itself in jars of peanut butter.

Dude, you don't have enough info to my come to those conclusions with any certainty. As I have said earlier, if life was created at one point, it isn't unreasonable to conclude that the conditions were right for it to happen in nearby locations under VERY similar circumstances. Two, or many early forms of life could have easily mingled with one another over the years, and we (modern forms of life) could have all been descended from the interbred species. If they mingled early on, we would never know (at least there is no technology in the foreseeable that would allow us to access such records, barring the generation of 1.21 Jigawatts in an 80's sports car). It is also possible that there were once many forms of life that was created uniquely, but only one survived (or some combination of the aforementioned hypothesis. Much of our records from that time have mostly been destroyed, and the back up copies are corrupted.

I don't know what happened, because I don't have access to the information, but neither does anyone else. It could have just as easily been that there really was only one place on earth that life was formed.

Life did not sexually reproduce right from the start. Life existed on the earth asexually reproducing for a couple billion years before the advent of sexual reproduction. Genetically we can show that all sexually reproducing organisms share a common ancestor stemming from this first sexually reproducing organism, and this sexual reproductive evolutionary event only occurred once in the history of any currently surviving organisms. If it happened more than once we would not be able to trace the genetic lineages of all sexually reproducing organisms back to the same point. There would genetically be two distinct forms of sexually reproducing organisms, there are not.

Even if you want to consider the idea that there could have been a second abiogenesis event that eventually exchanged genetic material with another completely unrelated lineage of a different abiogenesis event, then they both would have had to be able to survive, competing alongside each other for a couple billions of years before they could have exchanged genetic material and reproduced. I don't think that likely for the reasons already mentioned by myself and others in this thread. Additionally both completely unrelated organisms would, despite having completely non-connected origins, have had to have shared so much genetic material in common that they would have essentially appeared to be the same species of organism independently developing a nearly identical DNA structure in order to be capable of sexual reproduction. The odds of that one are truly astronomical. If you think it’s reasonable to state that odds are “trillion to one” (whatever that actually means) that we are not related to apes, then the odds required here should convince you to not waste your time on this argument.

(28-07-2013 01:34 AM)Dark Light Wrote:  ...The thing I said about apes was just to demonstrate that we can't prove it. Trillions to one odds we are closely related to apes, but we cannot 'prove' it. The further back you go in the evolution of life the less certain you can be, so when we are talking about the first single-celled organisms to ever live on this planet there is room for serious doubt about how it all got started on this particular rock.


The odds of humans and apes sharing a common ancestor would not be "Trillions to one odds". Based on DNA evidence it would at least be greater than 98 percent certain, but actually much better odds than even that indeed. To be sure, we are not simply related to apes…we are apes.

Plus, the further back we go in the evolution of life the more certain we are with it, not less.

...
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Raptor Jesus's post
28-07-2013, 09:29 AM
RE: SUPER DOUBLE checkmate atheists!
(28-07-2013 12:12 AM)Dark Light Wrote:  ...Dude, you don't have enough info to my come to those conclusions with any certainty...

Quick point, you do not know what information I have. However you are making it clear what information you do not have. I'm not trying to be pejorative when I say this. I would just advice perhaps studying a little more before arguing what science can and cannot show.

(28-07-2013 12:12 AM)Dark Light Wrote:  ...I don't know what happened, because I don't have access to the information, but neither does anyone else. It could have just as easily been that there really was only one place on earth that life was formed.

No, we can't prove anything. But that's not really how science works. It's built upon, among other thing, statistical models of probability supported by mountains of predicable evidence, and repeatable experiment that attempts to disprove that evidence and/or model. Understanding those models and the reason for them is key. Arguing for an extraordinarily far less statistically probable event by using the argument "you don't know, you weren't there" is not a compelling argument. It sounds very similar the the type of argument a creationist would invoke about the origins of the earth and universe.

You are right in the sense that for all we know one day scientific evidence may show that it's almost probabilistic certain that there were two abiogenesis events that lead to the creation of modern life, but current evidence strongly do not convey that. If evidence of that displayed itself than that would be new evidence we would use for our models of evolution. But that speculative evidence currently does not exist and our current models do not support that and show it to be probabilistic not realistic. It would only be speculation to make your point as of today, against the mountains of evidence against your claim, and I'm not convinced of the need to fight that fight with you. Again I'll invoke occam's razor. If we go by the model of anything is possible because we can't disprove anything, then science stops and we might have to start believing in faeries, or God, as ridiculous as that may sound.

Despite what you say, I'm still going to go with what the evidence suggest whether you are familiar with that evidence or not. And I would be careful about going around saying to someone "you do not have enough information to base that on"...it might get a little ironic.

...
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Raptor Jesus's post
28-07-2013, 02:05 PM
RE: SUPER DOUBLE checkmate atheists!
I appreciate the in depth reply. I really do. However, you still did not fully understand me on all my points, and frankly, I'm too lazy to go through all of it. Whatever. I admit I didn't know that sexual reproduction was a recent phenomenon, only about a billion years ago apparently. That wipes out part of what I said, and you are right about about an independent lineage needing to survive. Perhaps that is why sex exists, two similar but unique lineages got busy. You definitely misunderstood the whole ape thing. Sorry for my lazy ass response.

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
28-07-2013, 02:53 PM
RE: SUPER DOUBLE checkmate atheists!
My only point in replying to your point is there are many more things we can "know" than you were giving credit for. We are all free to think what we want, I just value acquired scientific knowledge over speculation. Speculation is part of the process of exploring new ideas, but when we have much of that work done I say go view to information that work has produced, and then speculate on a more informed, detailed, knowledge of the subject matter. That would make that speculation more meaningful an relevant. You are still free to disagree with it, but at least look at it first.

(28-07-2013 02:05 PM)Dark Light Wrote:  ...Perhaps that is why sex exists, two similar but unique lineages got busy...

I'm going to let this one go for now, other than to suggest you take a look at Chapter 9 'Battle of the sexes' of Richard Dawkins book "The Selfish Gene".

...
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
28-07-2013, 03:24 PM
RE: SUPER DOUBLE checkmate atheists!
Well, I don't own the book, and don't feel like reading it at the moment. I don't know everything. I know little about the beginnings of life, certainly less than yourself. If I'm wrong, correct me, but say why. This is how I learn. I'm not arrogant enough to think that whatever I speculate is beyond valid criticism, but if I'm wrong, show me I'm wrong. You did that earlier, and I appreciate it. I didn't know what I didn't know, but now I know what I didn't know and know it. Thumbsup. You still misunderstood me about the apes though.

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
28-07-2013, 04:07 PM
RE: SUPER DOUBLE checkmate atheists!
(28-07-2013 03:24 PM)Dark Light Wrote:  Well, I don't own the book, and don't feel like reading it at the moment. I don't know everything. I know little about the beginnings of life, certainly less than yourself. If I'm wrong, correct me, but say why. This is how I learn. I'm not arrogant enough to think that whatever I speculate is beyond valid criticism, but if I'm wrong, show me I'm wrong. You did that earlier, and I appreciate it. I didn't know what I didn't know, but now I know what I didn't know and know it. Thumbsup. You still misunderstood me about the apes though.

I have read chapter 9 of the selfish gene, RJ doesn't want to go into it because while not complicated it takes a bit of explanation. Basically the sexes probably started as identical gametes, eventually started to diversify into two roles (egg/sperm) out of reproductive strategy (a few large investments vs. lots of tiny investments) and then you have a continuation of diversification because the organisms become locked in a male/female paradigm. You can indeed trace back all sexually reproducing species to a common ancestor, plants, animals, all that.

Interestingly enough though there is a chapter about viruses and such actually becoming part of larger organisms if they are codependent on them for reproduction and early organisms possibly being formed from multiple kinds of life.

Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes ridethespiral's post
Post Reply

Possibly Related Threads...
Thread: Author Replies: Views: Last Post
  Newest Accusation For Proof That Atheists Are Evil: Dr. Kevorkian Was Atheist! WindyCityJazz 3 117 22-07-2014 07:54 PM
Last Post: Smercury44
  Check Mate Atheists, You're All Wrong elconquistador 14 345 15-07-2014 11:01 AM
Last Post: kim
  Yes, Atheists Should Be Patient With Theists, But We Also Have The Right To Get Angry WindyCityJazz 19 431 23-06-2014 08:17 AM
Last Post: RobbyPants
  Atheists are no better than Christians gilius2k14 114 1,656 19-06-2014 12:35 PM
Last Post: Rahn127
  [split] I need to rant to other atheists. Jeremy E Walker 492 6,945 15-06-2014 09:47 PM
Last Post: Taqiyya Mockingbird
  I need to rant to other atheists. LadyWallFlower 28 872 11-06-2014 02:25 PM
Last Post: Taqiyya Mockingbird
  Briefly: WHY ARE ATHEISTS CONCERNED ABOUT RELIGION? Forthright Atheist 61 1,736 07-06-2014 03:46 AM
Last Post: One Above All
Forum Jump: