[/ QUOTE ]
Yeah but you can only drive on the road and the question remains who made the road go the way it does. =P
Just poking around and making a light bit of humor no need to get all deep and theological about it. Besides you can get around it by saying you have 4WD
[ QUOTE ]
Usually delivered with no small amount of irony, I'd imagine.
[/ QUOTE ]
A devout Atheist would ask a devout Theist, "how can you be devoted to something that isn't there". I would ask a devout Atheist, "how can you be devoted to something that isn't there?" So it is ironic.
[ QUOTE ]
They're not yet in tune with their own beliefs, and should not represent the faithless in general.
[/ QUOTE ]
Strongly agree. Infact, the faithless should not organize or be represented. And they shouldn't be too optimistic about the concept of the whole population being able to think for themselves. Although, there are elements of religion that some see as bad, the system itself in it's most basic form does serve a purpose. We only do our part to influence the followers to behave when they get out of hand.
[ QUOTE ]
God
1.
A: being conceived as the perfect, omnipotent, omniscient originator and ruler of the universe, the principal object of faith and worship in monotheistic religions.
[/ QUOTE ]
This defination is flawed, see how it says monotheistic but what about religions with multiple god? I think this definition is christian as it hints that if you belive in multiple god then they are not gods!
And yeah FUCK THIS THREAD but hey i want to increase my post count
The problem with athiests organization is that they attract the most pathetic individuals. Because I live in Oklahoma with so many babtists, I checked out an Athiest group at my school because the atmosphere here is such that I don't feel I comfortable letting the general public know that I am an athiest. It is quite strange after having lived in Seattle (where the attitude was the opposite). I think Dallas is pretty neutral in terms of religeous divisiveness.
It is true what Dfacto says about science. Many people pushing ID don't even know the basics of biology. I get sick of hearing idiots who know nothing about the subject tell me why evolution is impossible on scietific grounds without even knowing the Bio 101 reasons for mutation.
Toomas: As I said I was using the PRIMARY definition for the word. Since I can only use one definition at a time what exactly do you expect me to do? In India they have this god Hanuman, who as far as I can tell is just a dude with a monkey face and tail. In 50 year science will be able to create gods like that by the dozen.
Atheists organizing to share a common disbelief? They should be careful otherwise it might start to look like a religion based on the absence of God. Next you know they will try to bolster membership by recruiting people, engaging in debate and trying to spread their views.
Most "atheists" I know have a bigger problem with organized religion than they do the actual concept of God. They have to be careful not to turn into the one thing they hate the most.
Personally I am of the mindset that no one can prove God exists and no one can prove God doesn't exist. So until someone figures it out I'll go with option B that has something for me more than a pile of worms when I die. See pascal's wager (which someone already mentioned I think) really its flawed logic if you really dig into Christianity but I won't get into that here and now, besides its a good place to start if you are even remotely interested in looking into Christian beliefs.
I think it's only really not a faith-based organization if you ignore the idea of a god completely. I don't see a reason to think about the existence of god any more than I see a reason to think about the existence of invisible flying noodle creatures or that everything is just a dream. As soon as you start arguing about stuff on the far side of Occam's Razor that's pure belief and as such religion. Okay, I've talked about the concept of god on some occassions so I'm not free of belief either. But caring about such theories (unless politicians try to shove them down your throat, see ID debate) should be left to religion. Active atheism ("I choose to believe that there is no god") is a religion, active theism is a religion (obviously), most conspiracy theories are religions ("I choose to believe in lizard men from the planet vulcan"), etc.
Meh, personally I'm opposed to the concept of the church because it's clear from the Bible that the religion itself was meant to be free from such contraptions and churches shouldn't try to claim any exclusive rights. Either way, Jesus clearly didn't intend the organizations we've seen. He was one of the greatest public leaders of his time and the idea that "All I want is that you are nice to each other" is really everything the religion, the law and the people should represent. If that concept was universally understood and heeded we wouldn't need laws, governments or anyone else to lead us and stop us from killing each other. But I guess man will never be more than a fancy monkey, at least not at the rate we're currently advancing (or going backwards).
One thing a lot of Christians don't get is why athiests would organize. My answer: sometimes it is nice to be around people who don't secretly hate you. Maybe I don't want your patronizing prayers that you are going to be making for me. Although it is hard to believe, many Christians have a very hard time following the golden rule.
I have read Pascal's wager in the past. Here is my rebuttal.
Fact: If you don't eat your own feces every day you will face an afterlife of constant pain forever.
Now if our old friend Pascal were here with us today he would be compelled to eat his own shit, every day, after reading my sentence. After all, there is some chance it is true right? You certainly can't prove it is wrong. Do you want to eat your own shit? No? Than I urge you not to accept Pascal's "logic".
[ QUOTE ]
It is true what Dfacto says about science. Many people pushing ID don't even know the basics of biology. I get sick of hearing idiots who know nothing about the subject tell me why evolution is impossible on scietific grounds without even knowing the Bio 101 reasons for mutation.
[/ QUOTE ]
As long as they quote the ones who came up with these arguments correctly, you might learn something from them anyways. Given you know the basics of biology yourself. If you don't, don't even bother
And this is a phenomenon you may have to learn to deal with in a world that is way too complex for one human being to understand in all it's extends. You base your opinion on things you don't understand, upon expert advise as well. propably every single day many times.
[ QUOTE ]
Now if our old friend Pascal were here with us today he would be compelled to eat his own shit, every day, after reading my sentence. After all, there is some chance it is true right? You certainly can't prove it is wrong. Do you want to eat your own shit? No? Than I urge you not to accept Pascal's "logic".
[/ QUOTE ]
Or you die and Anubis takes your heathen ass to school. Not to mention that if a God is worth anything he would be smart enough to see right through anyone who takes Pascal's wager and send them to hell for being self-serving pricks.
[ QUOTE ]
And this is a phenomenon you may have to learn to deal with in a world that is way too complex for one human being to understand in all it's extends. You base your opinion on things you don't understand, upon expert advise as well. propably every single day many times.
[/ QUOTE ]
Just as 2>1, Someone with 1/1000th of the knowledge is better equipped to make a decision on creation than someone with none. I've taken part in the ID debate many times, and creationists seriously have no idea what they are talking about. I have yet to debate with anyone who could keep their pseudo science separate from their science.
Not to mention that if God is worth anything he would be smart enough to see right through anyone who takes Pascal's wager and send them to hell for being self-serving pricks.
Or anyone else who only follows any rules in order to get a better afterlife. I'm sure some christian following the religion for his own benefit would land in a lower level of hell than e.g. a buddhist who acts out of altruism, even if there's a christian system of judgement in place.
I am very familiar with both biology and the ID arguments and I can say without a doubt that ID (as many of the people who came up with it admit) is not science but faith. Many of the people who run ID semenars lie even though they know the facts. I can trash every ID argument I have ever seen. That is, if you know enough about real science to follow my arguments.
This is a NINJAS public service announcement:
Tens of thousands of people die every year because they only listened to their docter and didn't bother to research their condition themselves (http://www.wrongdiagnosis.com/mistakes/common.htm) Do your best to avoid experts who make a living by giving you their opinions on products they sell. It is in their best interest to tell you to take the most expensive option. This may cost you a lot of money, or your life.
[ QUOTE ]
Fact: If you don't eat your own feces every day you will face an afterlife of constant pain forever....Do you want to eat your own shit? No? Than I urge you not to accept Pascal's "logic"
[/ QUOTE ]
Please stop, I can't take much more.
edit: now what does medicine have to do with anything? we've already derailed on the existance of god. If people are willing to believe anything the doctor, preacher, news anchor, politicians tell them, then let them. live and let die. If you try to speak up, and no one listens...their problem.
You both are making me curious. I'm just trying it right now.
1. The second thermodynamical fundamental theorem sais, that entropy spontaneously increases.
2. The only possibility to reverse this is a living cell. A living cell creates a certain order.
3. A cell may not do this unless it has a cell membrane and all the necessary cell organelles (rna, dna, mitochondria,...).
4. They all have to be there at the same time. rna without dna is of no use, dna without the encrypting rna is of no use, both of them are of no use if there is no energy to encrypt the dna.
5. Some sort of energy is needed to turn the available molecules into the needed protein groups. Since the conditions on the earth were pretty rough, there were many possibilities to get this energy. But the same source of energy could destroy the arised molecules again. This was the part of the story that could be reproduced in the laboratory: Creating single elements of proteins.
6. The atmosphere on the earth millions of years ago was to a great extend toxic and even without an additional impact of energy, the cell may be destroyed again. Remember: oxygen is dangerous
If this is all true (feel free to prove me wrong), the chance that a complete cell forms, survives and divides is near zero. The chance that the formed dna or rna (evolution biologists say that the rna was first) contains reasonable data is even smaller. After you have corrected me here, I have some more questions concerning evolution itsself.
This was offtopic, but I don't think this topic serves any special purpose anymore anyway
As far as I know, LordScottish, what you're saying is true. Now consider that you've got about two billion years for this to occur. That's a big window. There are numerous theories of how it happened- science based theories- like the potential for clay-like materials to organize and multiply early forms of 'data'. And then there are non-scientific theories; a giant tortoise created us, a six-headed Santa Claus put us here, etc. We can never know the answer, but to me if you call the scientific theory impossible only to turn to fiction you're not really answering the question.
1. True
2. Wrong. There is an entire branch of chemistry based on self organizing molecules. A crystal is the most obvious example.
3. This is the irruducable complexity argument. It is defeated by saying that some organelles probably had some orginal purpose and adapted to a different role over time. Mitocondria are a perfect example. Current theory says it's likely they were stand alone bacteria originally, before being incorporated by the cell.
5. Yes
6. There wasn't a lot of oxigen in the environment before trees.
Your keys are always in the last place you look. Biology (you and me) only exists where it arose.
1. The second thermodynamical fundamental theorem sais, that entropy spontaneously increases.
2. The only possibility to reverse this is a living cell. A living cell creates a certain order.
No, a living cell turns energy of a higher order (e.g. chemical energy) partially into energy of lower order (heat), which is the entropy thermodynamics is talking about. The heat isn't used and dispersed while new chemical energy must be added regularly or the cell will cease to function. Therefore the cell continuously increases the entropy in a system.
If this is all true (feel free to prove me wrong), the chance that a complete cell forms, survives and divides is near zero.
On the other hand, the time and places for it to happen approach infinity, especially if you believe in multiple universes (especially infinite numbers of them, e.g. the cyclic universe theory that after the collapse comes another big bang), which, coupled with the anthropic principle ("the world is the way it is because if it were different that would be what we'd say it is" or "life exists because if it didn't we wouldn't be here to ask questions about it") mean the chance of life existing is close to one. You don't need to assume multiple universes, just giving that stuff enough time and place to happen (who knows how many planets could possibly host life and how many of those actually do?).
2 billions of years are a very short timeframe if you think about what is asked here. The membrane itsself is astonishing complex and the smallest error will result in the destruction of the cell. This is why most mathematicians don't even argue here.
The chance that someday on a freshly formated harddisk we find a better OS than windows is by multiple factors higher. Hey, maybe I could make a fortune out of this and keep formating my hd and waiting for models to appear instead of constructing them vertex by vertex Just kidding. This alone is for me a reason not to believe in coincidence. As soon as I have heard more opinions I'd like to talk about the other reasons.
The membrane isn't very complex, hydrophobes (like fats) will form similar structures when exposed to hydrophiles (like water). From there on you can have iterative development (i.e. evolution).
@Ninjas: A crystal is already the end of the chain, it cannot decrease entropy again. A living cell on the other hand could have the potential to undo the trend towards thermodynamical balance. I will check this again to make sure I'm not telling something wrong
@KDR_11k: I think your wrong there. joolz8000 and Ninjas agree here too. The thing is I can't quote anything right now, maybe you can to prove you're right?
I wouldn't want to discuss about multiple universes, propably noone has the qualification to do so.
[ QUOTE ]
2. The only possibility to reverse this is a living cell. A living cell creates a certain order.
[/ QUOTE ]
Bam, first error. Entropy is not about order (ie, is something a crystal or is the structure less orderly), entropy is about ENERGY. Within a closed system 1) the amount of energy will remain constant, and 2) the energy will degrade, or lose in quality. It won't do work, or it will do it inefficiently, etc. I'm no physicist, so if anyone here has a better description that would be great, but the grand idea behind it all is that the entire universe is "theoretically" the closed system, and the entropy IS increasing, but since the universe is so huge, we can't notice it that easily. And local structural order (life, etc) does not mean that The second law is being contradicted. The two can work perfectly hand in hand.
In addition to that, a living cell is not the only way to reverse your version of entropy because non-living structures such as crystals, or any structured arrangement of matter would go against the misconceived 2nd law. But in reality, they don't, and it's just bad science that makes it seem that entropy requires everything to be disorderly.
2 is true.
4 is sort of true aside from "encrypting RNA". I'm not sure what "encrypting RNA" is but I'm guessing you are somehow referring to RNA transcription. It is "sort of true" and not true because you assume that a cell HAS to be complete all at once in order to function, but you are forgetting that there are two types of cells today (Eukaryote, Prokaryote) and that there may have been more cells earlier, without the full functionality of today's complex ones. Proto-cells if you will, which were not fully formed, but did have primitive membranes and function. This is all theoretical of course, but you still have to take it into account. Dismissing the possibility of primitive cells is not really an option in this case.
5 is true, sort of. Aside from the rather sketchy direct energy to protein synthesis path (forgetting all of the cell functions necessary to get the energy out of the cell's food.) you assume that the energy is actual HEAT energy. This is simply not possible to the extent that you are thinking of. DNA denatures through heat, and even Thermophilic bacterium can't take all that much (some can go past the boiling point of water I believe, but only by a few degrees Celsius). Either way, they have special proteins which keep their DNA from denaturing, but I would assume that this would not have been the case when life formed, because DNA would have needed to form WITH the stabilizing proteins in order to ever survive, and this shoots the odds way off the chart. More likely DNA formed at a lower temperature (50 degrees C? Not sure what the DNA optimum is, I forgot it, but think it was around 50-55 degrees.), and this temperature would not have been enough to destroy it. Since many proteins denature at that temperature, the earth was most likely cooler before any serious cell development took place. I doubt that the ambient energy would have been enough to wipe out the progress (or hinder it in the first place)
6 is not true imo, relating to a general lack of oxygen in the past, and the fact that lower cells often don't care if the conditions are toxic or not. However, I haven't read up on that in a long time, so I can't say anything about it with any certainty.
[ QUOTE ]
The membrane isn't very complex, hydrophobes (like fats) will form similar structures when exposed to hydrophiles (like water). From there on you can have iterative development (i.e. evolution).
[/ QUOTE ]
True! You can actually fake a simple cell membrane by running a dipstick through a phospholipid layer suspended in water.
One of the structures that can form is a "Black membrane" which is fairly similar to bacterial cell membranes.
LS, Maybe you can explain to me why the arms of a snowflake are the same. Did some microbe create them or have those snowflakes existed exactly like that since the start of time?
Lucky for me I'm right or thousands of chemists would be out of work. The newest work on self organized materials are on carbon nano tubes. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-assembly
we sure can dfacto
2. The cohesion between energy and matter is very close and so is the cohension between balance of energy and order of matter. I'm reading it up again in a script of the university of RheinlandPfalz. I hope I can explain more afterwards. Prof Dr. A.E.W Smith from the university of Oxford uses this as an argument.
4. Thanks, that's what I meant. As you noticed I only listed the very basic needs of a cell, I'm not talking about more complex cell types.
5. There are many more ways of possible energy imputs, not only heat. Especially electrical discharges are used in laboratorys.
6. There was a general lack of oxygene until - according to evolution biologists - cells greated a huge amount of oxygen output. They then had to adapt within a short amount of time to the new toxic and selfcreated atmosphere.
Concerning a cell membrane: I am in the lucky position to be able to ask my dad here A cell membrane is in need of Protein channels in order to allow the cell to interact with it's environment. These have to be aligned in the right manner as well. Beside that, creating the bilayer of lipids is a thing you can achieve with the named means, but I have never read of any experiment that created more than the needed molecules in what we expect the primordial soup to be.
@Ninjas: Oh yes, I bet snowflakes become more complex the longer they are on the ground. As I have stated above: they get more complex and then loose their complexity. Unlike the living cell that divides and at least remains that way as complex as it is.
And something beside the argument itsself: You keep acting the most displeasing way I can even imagine. Could you try and change that? It's what I expect of a good discussion.
I have two hands and two feet. I like to feel them under the sheet, except for my stinky feet. Now moooo for the mother cow or feel my turkey dance of wine glasses. Akachooo mucooo!
Just to add weight to this: I can positivly asure you that Ninjas, dfacto and KDR are pretty much right as far as I know (and I am close to my Masters degree in Molecular Biology).
Basicly a few rna (or other molecules with similar properties) molecules is all it takes to start evolution
[ QUOTE ]
Especially electrical discharges are used in laboratorys.
[/ QUOTE ]
Electricity run through anything will create resistance. Resistance creates heat.
[ QUOTE ]
6. There was a general lack of oxygene until - according to evolution biologists - cells greated a huge amount of oxygen output. They then had to adapt within a short amount of time to the new toxic and selfcreated atmosphere.
[/ QUOTE ]
By short time you mean...? Millions of years? That is more than enough time for evolution.
[ QUOTE ]
Concerning a cell membrane: I am in the lucky position to be able to ask my dad here A cell membrane is in need of Protein channels in order to allow the cell to interact with it's environment. These have to be aligned in the right manner as well. Beside that, creating the bilayer of lipids is a thing you can achieve with the named means, but I have never read of any experiment that created more than the needed molecules in what we expect the primordial soup to be.
[/ QUOTE ]
A full cell membrane will have those properties, but essentially, a black membrane does the job simply because it establishes: 1)a high permeability for lipophilic substances, and 2)a low permeability for hydrophilic substances, such as ions. This is a basic discriminating membrane that will only let certain substances through. While not a true modern cell membrane, it is a membrane of sorts, which may have been enough (in a modified form?) for the first proto-organelle/DNA to call it home.
As for the primordial soup, we can create it I'm sure. After all, it's just a matter of mixing chemicals and adding energy. The problem is getting the soup to create the necessary Amino acids, nucleic acids, and miscellaneous chemical compounds required to get DNA and proteins.
Considering that the average primordial soup experiment didn't last over a year (I would assume that it actually lasted for a far shorter span of time) as compared to billions of years, I wouldn't be at all surprised if it was a total failure. Although I do remember reading that such experiments did produce some amino acids and nuclei acids. Not the full compliment, but pretty good for a quicky effort.
I'll get back to you on the entropy thing tomorrow when I have more time.
LordScottish: Self-ordering materials have a lower energy in their ordered state (because otherwise you could break them up in an exothermous reaction, gaining energy and let them reform again, ready to gain new energy). I'm not a physicist so I can't go into all the details but entropy is the state a system strives towards if left alone, 2. thermodynamics just says that the process is irreversible when looking at the whole system.
Yes they have as far as I know. But they adjusted the energy input exactly towards creating them. You wouldn't find this ideal situation at that time. And constant changing of the conditions is not simulated in these experiments.
I'm curious about your entropy input! The only thing I know which matters here after having read a few pages is, that it's not only restricted to energy itself, especially thermodynamics, but matters in many areas of modern physics. Sound promising.
@KDR_11k: That is comprehensible. But that would also mean that after they reached the ordered state, you need energy to break them up and they won't change by themselfes anymore. This is what I mean by "difference to the living cell".
This is what I'm getting at. There are things that are chaotic, like random noise. And things that are organized which are not random. A snow flake starts as a seed crystal, and from that, the arms self-organize into the same structure. It is an example of increasing (although momentary) order.
In your support there is a close link between energy and order. Energy is required as an input to create order even on the level of individual atoms. At the end of the universe there will be no energy and only random motionless atoms.
I'm sorry to seem like such an ass. I find this stuff obvious and I want you to agree so we can go on to arguing something more interesting.
[ QUOTE ]
Just to add weight to this: I can positivly asure you that Ninjas, dfacto and KDR are pretty much right as far as I know (and I am close to my Masters degree in Molecular Biology).
Basicly a few rna (or other molecules with similar properties) molecules is all it takes to start evolution
[/ QUOTE ]
But where does this matter come from?
I have never been able to answer that, granted I don't spend much time on it because I don't think I could answer it. Mater had to exsist for something to start the whole thing rolling, so how did that matter get there? As far as I know we have never found an example (yet) of matter spontainiously being created. If you have found an example or know of research about something like that I would love to read it. But I'm afraid it's like asking what's outside of space, you'll go insane trying to answer it. Just throw your hands up and say God did it or I don't know but we'll figure it out someday, long after I am gone... Then you'll be able to go back to making art =P
No problem, I just thought I'd bring it up.
My girlfriend studys biology at the university of Bern and they learn, that there are numerous assumptions already in this part of evolution. For example the atmospherical conditions. And JKMakowka said, you need a few rna and, according to her professors, a membrane and a stable energy source for a possible evolution. And the rna does of course have to contain data that is not lethal to the cell if the transcription is done.
With regard to this, I don't think it's that obvious. The fact that renowned scientists like the organic chemistry professor A.E.Wilder Smiths argue on this level clearly shows the uncertainties in this part. I wish I could name more people. I'll be able to name at least another one tomorrow, but right now I can't find the article.
@JKMakowka: Don't you agree that you need ribosomes too to synthesise those polypeptides? RNA itsself is useless. And you also need the DNA as a source for the RNA information. Although it's theoreticaly possible that the mRNA already had by accident the right information.
Well rna is formed out of atoms that are abundantly available on earth.. so that's where it comes from
@lord scottisch: your girl friend is right there is still some uncertainties connected with this entire topic... but over all it isn't very unlikely that the stuff necessary for life formed more or less randomly.
Scottish, I should maybe point out that what we are discussing here is abiogenesis, which evolution is not equipped to handle because it is out of its scope. Evolution only happens when life exists. How a cell came to be in a position to evolve is another matter.
Thanks, I am aware of that. I just didn't know the correct term for it For me this matters too, If I want to find out if our todays life form could be based on coincidence
@JKMakowka: Don't you agree that you need ribosomes too to synthesise those polypeptides? RNA itsself is useless. And you also need the DNA as a source for the RNA information. Although it's theoreticaly possible that the mRNA already had by accident the right information.
[/ QUOTE ]
No first of all RNA is independant of DNA (it is even believed that early organisms only had RNA and DNA only evoled later out of it because it is more stable).
Ribosomes are made made out of RNA, thus they could have evolved out of basic rna.
You are overestimating the information part btw, early on it doesn't really matter what is stored on the rna, all that matters is that it is automaticly duplicating its own sequence, thus making early 'evolution' possible.
So we're talking about evolution as soon as a RNA exists? I though evolution is based on life and life is defined by metabolism.
And doesn't duplicating it's own sequence already require an energy source inside the cell? I thought this energy source is the mitochondrias. But the information needed for a mitochondria is stored in the RNA itsself. Thus, this would mean that you need both, the RNA + the deviced that allow the RNA reproduce itsself?
Technically, all you need to duplicate RNA is a primer, a polymerase and free nucleotides. A ribosome is only needed if you want to make proteins, which an RNA strand doesn't really need to do unless it is part of a cell.
On some level, at one point there was this thing that we would define as chemistry, and the next moment it was something that we called life. I don't even know if the start of life would be included in the evolution debate. It could be that certain chemical constructs self-organized and combined in an unlikely way with other self-organized constructs to make something spontaniously that we would call life (thus no evolution).
One mistake a lot of religious conservatives make is that they think science is like religion. Science doesn't have a ready explanation about everything. Some things about nature may be untestable and so beyond the scope of science. Other things we may never figure out. The important point is that even if science can't explain something, that doesn't mean we have to come up with a supernatural explanation for it. We simply put it into a catagory of things that we don't know.
I find it completely plausable that life came about at random on earth, or that it was seeded by alien microbes that occured randomly somewhere else. Or maybe the origin of life is just something we don't know.
What I find most offensive isn't the micro level ID but the macro level arguments. I have had people tell me that speciation is impossible because "there is only so much genetic deversity in a species so no matter how it combined it could never form a new species.", completely ignoring that mutations in genes is one of the engines of evolution.
Vig is right though. At some point you have a chicken and the egg problem. What came first and how. Science and religion are both stumped on this. I suspect that it is something we can't understand. Linear time says effects follows cause, but I think this is not always true.
I'm not going to argue about that stuff cause it falls solidly in the area of "I don't know".
[Edit]
Interestingly, on a side note. Scientists are on the verge of creating completely synthetic biology out of chemicals. I find it ironic that real science will prove ID right, not by showing we were created by god, but by showing we can create living things from scratch like a god. So in the end both theories will exist side by side. Huh, I think I may have just proven myself wrong.
I hope we'll come back to that Ninjas, Macro evolution is interesting too. I was able to pick up a few bits of knowledge here and there due to my girlfriends study.
But according to the definition of scientific positivism (postulated in the 18th century by David Hiene), Science is able to explain everything, Theology and Metaphysics are not needed anymore, they are imperfect and today redundant. Of course time is something that prevents us from reconstructing certain happenings, but we have to be able to redo them today if they are true.
According to this, in my opinion we can't avoid a discussion about the chances of a self formed cell before we can talk about evolution itsself. You are propably right, as many before us, we'll propably end in a "we don't know exactly, it's propably possible but unlikely(calculus of probability)" situation.
EDIT: What you are refering to is called "building after a licence" among certain christians I know We have yet to find a way to create life outside our organic chemistry, then we can talk about ID the way it's used. I have read articles about people who think if a computer is complex enough, he'll have a consciousness.
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
But where does this matter come from?
[/ QUOTE ]
Well rna is formed out of atoms that are abundantly available on earth.. so that's where it comes from
[/ QUOTE ]
Silly monkey you can't stop the game there you have to keep playing.
[not actual chat log]
Vig: But where did that matter come from?
JKMakowka: The earth came from a giant explosion.
Vig: Where did the explosion come from.
JKMakowka: Gasses and particles mixed together.
Vig: Where did the gasses and particles come from?
JKMakowka: ... not sure but don't you have a model you should be working on.
Vig: yeah...
Replies
r.
I am fucking steering.
[/ QUOTE ]
Yeah but you can only drive on the road and the question remains who made the road go the way it does. =P
Just poking around and making a light bit of humor no need to get all deep and theological about it. Besides you can get around it by saying you have 4WD
Usually delivered with no small amount of irony, I'd imagine.
[/ QUOTE ]
A devout Atheist would ask a devout Theist, "how can you be devoted to something that isn't there". I would ask a devout Atheist, "how can you be devoted to something that isn't there?" So it is ironic.
[ QUOTE ]
They're not yet in tune with their own beliefs, and should not represent the faithless in general.
[/ QUOTE ]
Strongly agree. Infact, the faithless should not organize or be represented. And they shouldn't be too optimistic about the concept of the whole population being able to think for themselves. Although, there are elements of religion that some see as bad, the system itself in it's most basic form does serve a purpose. We only do our part to influence the followers to behave when they get out of hand.
God
1.
A: being conceived as the perfect, omnipotent, omniscient originator and ruler of the universe, the principal object of faith and worship in monotheistic religions.
[/ QUOTE ]
This defination is flawed, see how it says monotheistic but what about religions with multiple god? I think this definition is christian as it hints that if you belive in multiple god then they are not gods!
And yeah FUCK THIS THREAD but hey i want to increase my post count
happy polydays
[/ QUOTE ]
BUT WHAT ABOUT POINTMESHES???? AAAH???
im upgrading to something that not only does sse but sse2 and sse3!!1
[/ QUOTE ]
Gentlemen, hell has officially frozen over. Expect Duke Nukem Forever to be released within the next 7 days.
High entertainment value.
Infact, the faithless should not organize or be represented.
[/ QUOTE ]
True, but on the other hand, it seems to tbe the faithless that first try and keep the faithful from pushing bullshit in place of science.
But either way, atheist organizations are pretty stupid, and that's coming from an atheist.
It is true what Dfacto says about science. Many people pushing ID don't even know the basics of biology. I get sick of hearing idiots who know nothing about the subject tell me why evolution is impossible on scietific grounds without even knowing the Bio 101 reasons for mutation.
Toomas: As I said I was using the PRIMARY definition for the word. Since I can only use one definition at a time what exactly do you expect me to do? In India they have this god Hanuman, who as far as I can tell is just a dude with a monkey face and tail. In 50 year science will be able to create gods like that by the dozen.
Most "atheists" I know have a bigger problem with organized religion than they do the actual concept of God. They have to be careful not to turn into the one thing they hate the most.
Personally I am of the mindset that no one can prove God exists and no one can prove God doesn't exist. So until someone figures it out I'll go with option B that has something for me more than a pile of worms when I die. See pascal's wager (which someone already mentioned I think) really its flawed logic if you really dig into Christianity but I won't get into that here and now, besides its a good place to start if you are even remotely interested in looking into Christian beliefs.
Meh, personally I'm opposed to the concept of the church because it's clear from the Bible that the religion itself was meant to be free from such contraptions and churches shouldn't try to claim any exclusive rights. Either way, Jesus clearly didn't intend the organizations we've seen. He was one of the greatest public leaders of his time and the idea that "All I want is that you are nice to each other" is really everything the religion, the law and the people should represent. If that concept was universally understood and heeded we wouldn't need laws, governments or anyone else to lead us and stop us from killing each other. But I guess man will never be more than a fancy monkey, at least not at the rate we're currently advancing (or going backwards).
Ach, lotsa talk an' heiding noowhere.
I have read Pascal's wager in the past. Here is my rebuttal.
Fact: If you don't eat your own feces every day you will face an afterlife of constant pain forever.
Now if our old friend Pascal were here with us today he would be compelled to eat his own shit, every day, after reading my sentence. After all, there is some chance it is true right? You certainly can't prove it is wrong. Do you want to eat your own shit? No? Than I urge you not to accept Pascal's "logic".
It is true what Dfacto says about science. Many people pushing ID don't even know the basics of biology. I get sick of hearing idiots who know nothing about the subject tell me why evolution is impossible on scietific grounds without even knowing the Bio 101 reasons for mutation.
[/ QUOTE ]
As long as they quote the ones who came up with these arguments correctly, you might learn something from them anyways. Given you know the basics of biology yourself. If you don't, don't even bother
And this is a phenomenon you may have to learn to deal with in a world that is way too complex for one human being to understand in all it's extends. You base your opinion on things you don't understand, upon expert advise as well. propably every single day many times.
Now if our old friend Pascal were here with us today he would be compelled to eat his own shit, every day, after reading my sentence. After all, there is some chance it is true right? You certainly can't prove it is wrong. Do you want to eat your own shit? No? Than I urge you not to accept Pascal's "logic".
[/ QUOTE ]
Or you die and Anubis takes your heathen ass to school. Not to mention that if a God is worth anything he would be smart enough to see right through anyone who takes Pascal's wager and send them to hell for being self-serving pricks.
[ QUOTE ]
And this is a phenomenon you may have to learn to deal with in a world that is way too complex for one human being to understand in all it's extends. You base your opinion on things you don't understand, upon expert advise as well. propably every single day many times.
[/ QUOTE ]
Just as 2>1, Someone with 1/1000th of the knowledge is better equipped to make a decision on creation than someone with none. I've taken part in the ID debate many times, and creationists seriously have no idea what they are talking about. I have yet to debate with anyone who could keep their pseudo science separate from their science.
Or anyone else who only follows any rules in order to get a better afterlife. I'm sure some christian following the religion for his own benefit would land in a lower level of hell than e.g. a buddhist who acts out of altruism, even if there's a christian system of judgement in place.
This is a NINJAS public service announcement:
Tens of thousands of people die every year because they only listened to their docter and didn't bother to research their condition themselves (http://www.wrongdiagnosis.com/mistakes/common.htm) Do your best to avoid experts who make a living by giving you their opinions on products they sell. It is in their best interest to tell you to take the most expensive option. This may cost you a lot of money, or your life.
Fact: If you don't eat your own feces every day you will face an afterlife of constant pain forever....Do you want to eat your own shit? No? Than I urge you not to accept Pascal's "logic"
[/ QUOTE ]
edit: now what does medicine have to do with anything? we've already derailed on the existance of god. If people are willing to believe anything the doctor, preacher, news anchor, politicians tell them, then let them. live and let die. If you try to speak up, and no one listens...their problem.
1. The second thermodynamical fundamental theorem sais, that entropy spontaneously increases.
2. The only possibility to reverse this is a living cell. A living cell creates a certain order.
3. A cell may not do this unless it has a cell membrane and all the necessary cell organelles (rna, dna, mitochondria,...).
4. They all have to be there at the same time. rna without dna is of no use, dna without the encrypting rna is of no use, both of them are of no use if there is no energy to encrypt the dna.
5. Some sort of energy is needed to turn the available molecules into the needed protein groups. Since the conditions on the earth were pretty rough, there were many possibilities to get this energy. But the same source of energy could destroy the arised molecules again. This was the part of the story that could be reproduced in the laboratory: Creating single elements of proteins.
6. The atmosphere on the earth millions of years ago was to a great extend toxic and even without an additional impact of energy, the cell may be destroyed again. Remember: oxygen is dangerous
If this is all true (feel free to prove me wrong), the chance that a complete cell forms, survives and divides is near zero. The chance that the formed dna or rna (evolution biologists say that the rna was first) contains reasonable data is even smaller. After you have corrected me here, I have some more questions concerning evolution itsself.
This was offtopic, but I don't think this topic serves any special purpose anymore anyway
2. Wrong. There is an entire branch of chemistry based on self organizing molecules. A crystal is the most obvious example.
3. This is the irruducable complexity argument. It is defeated by saying that some organelles probably had some orginal purpose and adapted to a different role over time. Mitocondria are a perfect example. Current theory says it's likely they were stand alone bacteria originally, before being incorporated by the cell.
5. Yes
6. There wasn't a lot of oxigen in the environment before trees.
Your keys are always in the last place you look. Biology (you and me) only exists where it arose.
2. The only possibility to reverse this is a living cell. A living cell creates a certain order.
No, a living cell turns energy of a higher order (e.g. chemical energy) partially into energy of lower order (heat), which is the entropy thermodynamics is talking about. The heat isn't used and dispersed while new chemical energy must be added regularly or the cell will cease to function. Therefore the cell continuously increases the entropy in a system.
If this is all true (feel free to prove me wrong), the chance that a complete cell forms, survives and divides is near zero.
On the other hand, the time and places for it to happen approach infinity, especially if you believe in multiple universes (especially infinite numbers of them, e.g. the cyclic universe theory that after the collapse comes another big bang), which, coupled with the anthropic principle ("the world is the way it is because if it were different that would be what we'd say it is" or "life exists because if it didn't we wouldn't be here to ask questions about it") mean the chance of life existing is close to one. You don't need to assume multiple universes, just giving that stuff enough time and place to happen (who knows how many planets could possibly host life and how many of those actually do?).
The chance that someday on a freshly formated harddisk we find a better OS than windows is by multiple factors higher. Hey, maybe I could make a fortune out of this and keep formating my hd and waiting for models to appear instead of constructing them vertex by vertex
@KDR_11k: I think your wrong there. joolz8000 and Ninjas agree here too. The thing is I can't quote anything right now, maybe you can to prove you're right?
I wouldn't want to discuss about multiple universes, propably noone has the qualification to do so.
1 is true.
[ QUOTE ]
2. The only possibility to reverse this is a living cell. A living cell creates a certain order.
[/ QUOTE ]
Bam, first error. Entropy is not about order (ie, is something a crystal or is the structure less orderly), entropy is about ENERGY. Within a closed system 1) the amount of energy will remain constant, and 2) the energy will degrade, or lose in quality. It won't do work, or it will do it inefficiently, etc. I'm no physicist, so if anyone here has a better description that would be great, but the grand idea behind it all is that the entire universe is "theoretically" the closed system, and the entropy IS increasing, but since the universe is so huge, we can't notice it that easily. And local structural order (life, etc) does not mean that The second law is being contradicted. The two can work perfectly hand in hand.
In addition to that, a living cell is not the only way to reverse your version of entropy because non-living structures such as crystals, or any structured arrangement of matter would go against the misconceived 2nd law. But in reality, they don't, and it's just bad science that makes it seem that entropy requires everything to be disorderly.
2 is true.
4 is sort of true aside from "encrypting RNA". I'm not sure what "encrypting RNA" is but I'm guessing you are somehow referring to RNA transcription. It is "sort of true" and not true because you assume that a cell HAS to be complete all at once in order to function, but you are forgetting that there are two types of cells today (Eukaryote, Prokaryote) and that there may have been more cells earlier, without the full functionality of today's complex ones. Proto-cells if you will, which were not fully formed, but did have primitive membranes and function. This is all theoretical of course, but you still have to take it into account. Dismissing the possibility of primitive cells is not really an option in this case.
5 is true, sort of. Aside from the rather sketchy direct energy to protein synthesis path (forgetting all of the cell functions necessary to get the energy out of the cell's food.) you assume that the energy is actual HEAT energy. This is simply not possible to the extent that you are thinking of. DNA denatures through heat, and even Thermophilic bacterium can't take all that much (some can go past the boiling point of water I believe, but only by a few degrees Celsius). Either way, they have special proteins which keep their DNA from denaturing, but I would assume that this would not have been the case when life formed, because DNA would have needed to form WITH the stabilizing proteins in order to ever survive, and this shoots the odds way off the chart. More likely DNA formed at a lower temperature (50 degrees C? Not sure what the DNA optimum is, I forgot it, but think it was around 50-55 degrees.), and this temperature would not have been enough to destroy it. Since many proteins denature at that temperature, the earth was most likely cooler before any serious cell development took place. I doubt that the ambient energy would have been enough to wipe out the progress (or hinder it in the first place)
6 is not true imo, relating to a general lack of oxygen in the past, and the fact that lower cells often don't care if the conditions are toxic or not. However, I haven't read up on that in a long time, so I can't say anything about it with any certainty.
The membrane isn't very complex, hydrophobes (like fats) will form similar structures when exposed to hydrophiles (like water). From there on you can have iterative development (i.e. evolution).
[/ QUOTE ]
True! You can actually fake a simple cell membrane by running a dipstick through a phospholipid layer suspended in water.
One of the structures that can form is a "Black membrane" which is fairly similar to bacterial cell membranes.
Lucky for me I'm right or thousands of chemists would be out of work. The newest work on self organized materials are on carbon nano tubes.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-assembly
2. The cohesion between energy and matter is very close and so is the cohension between balance of energy and order of matter. I'm reading it up again in a script of the university of RheinlandPfalz. I hope I can explain more afterwards. Prof Dr. A.E.W Smith from the university of Oxford uses this as an argument.
4. Thanks, that's what I meant. As you noticed I only listed the very basic needs of a cell, I'm not talking about more complex cell types.
5. There are many more ways of possible energy imputs, not only heat. Especially electrical discharges are used in laboratorys.
6. There was a general lack of oxygene until - according to evolution biologists - cells greated a huge amount of oxygen output. They then had to adapt within a short amount of time to the new toxic and selfcreated atmosphere.
Concerning a cell membrane: I am in the lucky position to be able to ask my dad here
@Ninjas: Oh yes, I bet snowflakes become more complex the longer they are on the ground. As I have stated above: they get more complex and then loose their complexity. Unlike the living cell that divides and at least remains that way as complex as it is.
And something beside the argument itsself: You keep acting the most displeasing way I can even imagine. Could you try and change that? It's what I expect of a good discussion.
Basicly a few rna (or other molecules with similar properties) molecules is all it takes to start evolution
Especially electrical discharges are used in laboratorys.
[/ QUOTE ]
Electricity run through anything will create resistance. Resistance creates heat.
[ QUOTE ]
6. There was a general lack of oxygene until - according to evolution biologists - cells greated a huge amount of oxygen output. They then had to adapt within a short amount of time to the new toxic and selfcreated atmosphere.
[/ QUOTE ]
By short time you mean...? Millions of years? That is more than enough time for evolution.
[ QUOTE ]
Concerning a cell membrane: I am in the lucky position to be able to ask my dad here A cell membrane is in need of Protein channels in order to allow the cell to interact with it's environment. These have to be aligned in the right manner as well. Beside that, creating the bilayer of lipids is a thing you can achieve with the named means, but I have never read of any experiment that created more than the needed molecules in what we expect the primordial soup to be.
[/ QUOTE ]
A full cell membrane will have those properties, but essentially, a black membrane does the job simply because it establishes: 1)a high permeability for lipophilic substances, and 2)a low permeability for hydrophilic substances, such as ions. This is a basic discriminating membrane that will only let certain substances through. While not a true modern cell membrane, it is a membrane of sorts, which may have been enough (in a modified form?) for the first proto-organelle/DNA to call it home.
As for the primordial soup, we can create it I'm sure. After all, it's just a matter of mixing chemicals and adding energy. The problem is getting the soup to create the necessary Amino acids, nucleic acids, and miscellaneous chemical compounds required to get DNA and proteins.
Considering that the average primordial soup experiment didn't last over a year (I would assume that it actually lasted for a far shorter span of time) as compared to billions of years, I wouldn't be at all surprised if it was a total failure. Although I do remember reading that such experiments did produce some amino acids and nuclei acids. Not the full compliment, but pretty good for a quicky effort.
I'll get back to you on the entropy thing tomorrow when I have more time.
I'm curious about your entropy input! The only thing I know which matters here after having read a few pages is, that it's not only restricted to energy itself, especially thermodynamics, but matters in many areas of modern physics. Sound promising.
@KDR_11k: That is comprehensible. But that would also mean that after they reached the ordered state, you need energy to break them up and they won't change by themselfes anymore. This is what I mean by "difference to the living cell".
In your support there is a close link between energy and order. Energy is required as an input to create order even on the level of individual atoms. At the end of the universe there will be no energy and only random motionless atoms.
I'm sorry to seem like such an ass. I find this stuff obvious and I want you to agree so we can go on to arguing something more interesting.
Just to add weight to this: I can positivly asure you that Ninjas, dfacto and KDR are pretty much right as far as I know (and I am close to my Masters degree in Molecular Biology).
Basicly a few rna (or other molecules with similar properties) molecules is all it takes to start evolution
[/ QUOTE ]
But where does this matter come from?
I have never been able to answer that, granted I don't spend much time on it because I don't think I could answer it. Mater had to exsist for something to start the whole thing rolling, so how did that matter get there? As far as I know we have never found an example (yet) of matter spontainiously being created. If you have found an example or know of research about something like that I would love to read it. But I'm afraid it's like asking what's outside of space, you'll go insane trying to answer it. Just throw your hands up and say God did it or I don't know but we'll figure it out someday, long after I am gone... Then you'll be able to go back to making art =P
My girlfriend studys biology at the university of Bern and they learn, that there are numerous assumptions already in this part of evolution. For example the atmospherical conditions. And JKMakowka said, you need a few rna and, according to her professors, a membrane and a stable energy source for a possible evolution. And the rna does of course have to contain data that is not lethal to the cell if the transcription is done.
With regard to this, I don't think it's that obvious. The fact that renowned scientists like the organic chemistry professor A.E.Wilder Smiths argue on this level clearly shows the uncertainties in this part. I wish I could name more people. I'll be able to name at least another one tomorrow, but right now I can't find the article.
@JKMakowka: Don't you agree that you need ribosomes too to synthesise those polypeptides? RNA itsself is useless. And you also need the DNA as a source for the RNA information. Although it's theoreticaly possible that the mRNA already had by accident the right information.
But where does this matter come from?
[/ QUOTE ]
Well rna is formed out of atoms that are abundantly available on earth.. so that's where it comes from
@lord scottisch: your girl friend is right there is still some uncertainties connected with this entire topic... but over all it isn't very unlikely that the stuff necessary for life formed more or less randomly.
@JKMakowka: Don't you agree that you need ribosomes too to synthesise those polypeptides? RNA itsself is useless. And you also need the DNA as a source for the RNA information. Although it's theoreticaly possible that the mRNA already had by accident the right information.
[/ QUOTE ]
No first of all RNA is independant of DNA (it is even believed that early organisms only had RNA and DNA only evoled later out of it because it is more stable).
Ribosomes are made made out of RNA, thus they could have evolved out of basic rna.
You are overestimating the information part btw, early on it doesn't really matter what is stored on the rna, all that matters is that it is automaticly duplicating its own sequence, thus making early 'evolution' possible.
And doesn't duplicating it's own sequence already require an energy source inside the cell? I thought this energy source is the mitochondrias. But the information needed for a mitochondria is stored in the RNA itsself. Thus, this would mean that you need both, the RNA + the deviced that allow the RNA reproduce itsself?
And ATP, can't forget that.
One mistake a lot of religious conservatives make is that they think science is like religion. Science doesn't have a ready explanation about everything. Some things about nature may be untestable and so beyond the scope of science. Other things we may never figure out. The important point is that even if science can't explain something, that doesn't mean we have to come up with a supernatural explanation for it. We simply put it into a catagory of things that we don't know.
I find it completely plausable that life came about at random on earth, or that it was seeded by alien microbes that occured randomly somewhere else. Or maybe the origin of life is just something we don't know.
What I find most offensive isn't the micro level ID but the macro level arguments. I have had people tell me that speciation is impossible because "there is only so much genetic deversity in a species so no matter how it combined it could never form a new species.", completely ignoring that mutations in genes is one of the engines of evolution.
Vig is right though. At some point you have a chicken and the egg problem. What came first and how. Science and religion are both stumped on this. I suspect that it is something we can't understand. Linear time says effects follows cause, but I think this is not always true.
I'm not going to argue about that stuff cause it falls solidly in the area of "I don't know".
[Edit]
Interestingly, on a side note. Scientists are on the verge of creating completely synthetic biology out of chemicals. I find it ironic that real science will prove ID right, not by showing we were created by god, but by showing we can create living things from scratch like a god. So in the end both theories will exist side by side. Huh, I think I may have just proven myself wrong.
But according to the definition of scientific positivism (postulated in the 18th century by David Hiene), Science is able to explain everything, Theology and Metaphysics are not needed anymore, they are imperfect and today redundant. Of course time is something that prevents us from reconstructing certain happenings, but we have to be able to redo them today if they are true.
According to this, in my opinion we can't avoid a discussion about the chances of a self formed cell before we can talk about evolution itsself. You are propably right, as many before us, we'll propably end in a "we don't know exactly, it's propably possible but unlikely(calculus of probability)" situation.
EDIT: What you are refering to is called "building after a licence" among certain christians I know
[ QUOTE ]
But where does this matter come from?
[/ QUOTE ]
Well rna is formed out of atoms that are abundantly available on earth.. so that's where it comes from
[/ QUOTE ]
Silly monkey you can't stop the game there you have to keep playing.
[not actual chat log]
Vig: But where did that matter come from?
JKMakowka: The earth came from a giant explosion.
Vig: Where did the explosion come from.
JKMakowka: Gasses and particles mixed together.
Vig: Where did the gasses and particles come from?
JKMakowka: ... not sure but don't you have a model you should be working on.
Vig: yeah...