Abiogenesis and life on Earth - thoughts and pet theories?

[Oddish]

You can think of me as unintelligent or uneducated, but in all honesty I really don't care. I read various things and come to my own conclusions, the same as you do. It seems to me that you're just upset because I don't share your view.

I've seen a lot of that from atheists, and find it strangely amusing. What exactly are they trying to "save" us from?

No one is upset at you for holding your own view points lad - people are frustrated that in a discussion about science your contribution is “I didn’t do well at school in maths or science” followed by “I think DNA is too complex to not come from God” (paraphrasing obviously)

I am mathematically adept (I was doing algebra in 7th grade), and I also am of the mind that DNA is too complex to occur randomly, to say nothing of actual evolution-capable unicellular life.

Evolution is fueled by mutation, reproduction, and death. So before it can kick in, a being capable of both self-replicating and dying must exist. Even basic bacteria have billions of precisely placed atoms. Statistically, the odds of such a thing just "happening" are so unimaginably huge, it's best to just say "impossible" and leave it at that. Flip 300 pennies and it's theoretically possible that you can get all heads... but you won't.

It's not making a claim to understanding, it's just a term to refer to the origin of life from lifelessness - as the thread demonstrates, we don't know what that process was.

Your typical non-believer seeks to find a way to redefine science so that it explains what it currently says is statistically impossible. I find it more realistic to look for origins that lie beyond the scientific. I respect their right to believe as they choose, but I'm not going to be fooled: they're running on faith, just like me.

 

[BillJ]

I've seen a lot of that from atheists, and find it strangely amusing. What exactly are they trying to "save" us from?

I have no interest in saving you, from anything. If the loyalty oath makes you feel better about life, the universe and everything, have at it. Just don't try to push it on me or others who don't share your views.

Before getting high and mighty, remember you are proselytizing in the Science and Technology forum. A place to talk about science and technology.

 

[cultcross]

what it currently says is statistically impossible

I mean, it doesn't. It doesn't have zero probability. As we don't yet understand the mechanism, it would not be possible to calculate a probability. Once you're in the realms of "possible but very unlikely" then we are in danger of a logical fallacy - even unlikely things happen, and arguing that they can't in the face of evidence that they have already happened is weak. Odds of winning Euromillions is 1 in 139 million; yet we don't arrest the winners as obvious conmen. In an inconceivably large universe the very unlikely has many chances to occur, and only where it does can people look back and think "wow that was fucking unlikely"

 

[CorporalCaptain]

A consequence of the assumption that the evolution of intelligent life is statistically unlikely would be that the number of extraterrestrial civilizations would be small compared to the number of worlds where life might evolve. We don't seem to have observed any extraterrestrial civilizations so far.

 

[Oddish]

I have no interest in saving you, from anything. If the loyalty oath makes you feel better about life, the universe and everything, have at it. Just don't try to push it on me or others who don't share your views.

I have never tried to push my faith on anyone here. I have simply and frankly explained why I utterly refuse to adopt yours. And in topics where it is relevant, I will continue to do so.

Before getting high and mighty, remember you are proselytizing in the Science and Technology forum. A place to talk about science and technology.

Uhhh... check the topic title. It says "Abiogenesis". That means that all views on that subject should be permitted. Including my scientifically based belief that abiogenesis is statistically impossible.

Odds of winning Euromillions is 1 in 139 million; yet we don't arrest the winners as obvious conmen. In an inconceivably large universe the very unlikely has many chances to occur, and only where it does can people look back and think "wow that was unlikely"

I don't think you understand the sheer magnitude of the odds we're talking about. You can scientifically notate a googol with five numbers, write it with 101... and even if you and the rest of the human race count cooperatively and without stopping from now until the Big Chill, you'll never reach it. And these odds make a googol look minuscule.

If one person wins the Euromillions, that's within the realms of possibility, based on the sheer number of tickets sold.

If one person wins the Euromillions 20 times in a row, you don't figure he was just super lucky. You figure he cheated.

 

[Moviefan2k4]

I've seen a lot of that from atheists, and find it strangely amusing. What exactly are they trying to "save" us from?

From the limited interactions I've had, they seem to believe that metaphysical beliefs are inherently harmful, while their own are not. As such, it appears they almost think of traditional science as a "cure" for some kind of willful illusion.

Flip 300 pennies and it's theoretically possible that you can get all heads... but you won't.

An excellent example. I've heard a similar one where you take a wristwatch apart, place all the pieces in a bag, and shake it for six billion years. What are the odds that after all of that, whoever still has the bag pulls out a properly-constructed wristwatch, that's both ticking and on time? Both our illustrations make no sense.

Your typical non-believer seeks to find a way to redefine science so that it explains what it currently says is statistically impossible. I find it more realistic to look for origins that lie beyond the scientific. I respect their right to believe as they choose, but I'm not going to be fooled: they're running on faith, just like me.

I've heard it said, more than once - "Religion and evolution are very much alike, the main difference being that evolution is tax-supported". Those who trust Darwin's theories are just as adamant about their views as the average person of faith, but society mostly gives them a free pass, and calls us crazy by contrast.

 

[HotRod]

 

[BillJ]

Odds that seem extreme to us, may not be extreme on a universal scale.

 

[cultcross]

I don't think you understand the sheer magnitude of the odds we're talking about. You can scientifically notate a googol with five numbers, write it with 101... and even if you and the rest of the human race count cooperatively and without stopping from now until the Big Chill, you'll never reach it. And these odds make a googol look minuscule.

How are we calculating this?

 

[BK613]

How are we calculating this?

Great question. Let's see the math. @Oddish

 

[Moviefan2k4]

Odds that seem extreme to us, may not be extreme on a universal scale.

I find it somewhat interesting, that you can accept such an idea with regard to the physical, but deny the same when addressing the metaphysical in practically the same breath. I don't claim to have all the answers, but I do think having a truly open mind allows for the possibility of certain notions being correct which may bother me emotionally. My main objection to Darwinism isn't just due to my faith - its also because I don't see any conclusive visual evidence backing it up.

 

[Asbo Zaprudder]

Well if you don't look, you won't see. There is plenty of evidence.

 

[cultcross]

My main objection to Darwinism isn't just due to my faith - its also because I don't see any conclusive visual evidence backing it up

Origin of Species is largely about the evidence. That's how he came up with the theory.

 

[HotRod]

I find it somewhat interesting, that you can accept such an idea with regard to the physical, but deny the same when addressing the metaphysical in practically the same breath. I don't claim to have all the answers, but I do think having a truly open mind allows for the possibility of certain notions being correct which may bother me emotionally. My main objection to Darwinism isn't just due to my faith - its also because I don't see any conclusive visual evidence backing it up.

Why not just keep this bullshit out of a forum devoted to SCIENCE?

That's why you're getting such pushback. You've brought religion into a topic of scientific merit.

You might as well just say that "a Wizard did it." That would hold as much value as what you're actually saying.

 

[Moviefan2k4]

Origin of Species is largely about the evidence. That's how he came up with the theory.

First, its called "On the Origin of Species", and that's not even its full title. Second, Darwin originally began it while noticing the minor differences between various finch traits - he made several broad generalizations past that point. The book itself even contains this sentence: “If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed, which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down.”

 

[cultcross]

As I hoped was obvious from my previous recommendation, I have read the book

 

[Asbo Zaprudder]

I am greatful we have not been asked to debate Darwinian evolution.

Matthew 7:6

 

[BK613]

Wallace doesn't get enough credit.

 

[Asbo Zaprudder]

Wallace doesn't get enough credit.

Darwin was actually supportive of Wallace as he probably recognised he could bring more insight and evidence to the table. Darwin was far from egomaniacal. Wallace shunned publicity and rejected Darwin's suggestion that the theory be named for both of them.

 

[Moviefan2k4]

As I hoped was obvious from my previous recommendation, I have read the book

Well, I personally find it both sad and interesting that Darwin was actually studying to become a priest, until a Bible-hating lawyer named Charles Lyell talked him out of it. They soon became close friends, though Lyell never fully accepted Darwin's evolution theory.