Irreducible Complexity - If you believe this, what's your main example?

[shinbits]

That depends upon what you mean by "very very special". If life only occurs in one out of 100,000 stars, for instance, it would be very very special. But it would still occur on over a billion stars in our galaxy alone, not even counting the other hundred billion galaxies we can see from Earth, let alone the unknown (though possibly absurdly massive) number of galaxies further out that we can't see.

As far as we know right now, earth is the only place in the universe that supports. Furthermore, earth is the only place in the universe that we know of with water in liquid form. Earth also has the mildest temperature range of any planet or moon that we know of. In other words, earth is the only planet we know of, where life is even possible.

We can assume that life must be out there, somewhere, based solely on the sheer vastness of the universe, and the innumeral amount of stars which can act as a sun. But's that's all we can do. All our knowledge of the universe shows that there's nowhere close to having conditions like earth, so life may be possible. And apart from the lone fact that the universe is so fantastically vast, there currently is no reason to believe that is even is possible anywhere else.

So, how special, precisely, is a very important thing to clarify. I strongly suspect that we'll find that life isn't all that uncommon. But we'll see.

our current knowledge of the universe shows that we are one of a kind. can't get any more special than that.

 

[gaara4158]

our current knowledge of the universe shows that we are one of a kind. can't get any more special than that.

Our current knowledge of the universe says that we know of no other planet that can sustain life, not that one doesn't exist. There are more stars in the universe than there are grains of sand on all the world's beaches. We haven't even scratched the surface in searching these stars for earthlike planets, but what we have found suggests that there are probably thousands of planets similar to ours.

 

[shinbits]

We haven't even scratched the surface in searching these stars for earthlike planets, but what we have found suggests that there are probably thousands of planets similar to ours.

no, we haven't. there's no indication anywhere that a planet like earth exists.

 

[gaara4158]

no, we haven't. there's no indication anywhere that a planet like earth exists.

Even in our own solar system, there's a moon orbiting Jupiter that we suspect has a saline ocean beneath a thick layer of ice. Taking into account all the stars that exist, it's simply a statistical likelihood that there are other planets orbiting other suns on which water can exist in all 3 forms.

 

[LightHorseman]

no, we haven't. there's no indication anywhere that a planet like earth exists.

Mars and Venus are both quite Earthlike. If Venus had a large moon, it would be virtually indisinguishable from Earth. So thats 2 in this solare system alone. The chance that this is the only solar system where one of the rocky inner planets has a significant lunar body is, well, so remote as to be ludicrous.

Thats assuming that life requires an Earth like planet for life to begin, and fails to take into account the multiple possible scenarios for abiogenesis to occur, or the multiple potential environments for it to occur.

 

[shinbits]

Even in our own solar system, there's a moon orbiting Jupiter that we suspect has a saline ocean beneath a thick layer of ice. Taking into account all the stars that exist, it's simply a statistical likelihood that there are other planets orbiting other suns on which water can exist in all 3 forms.

True.

But I don't know. Some talking about statistical likelyhood like you are, who also believes random chance is responsible for the entire of the universe seems contradictory.

 

[shinbits]

Mars and Venus are both quite Earthlike. If Venus had a large moon, it would be virtually indisinguishable from Earth. So thats 2 in this solare system alone. The chance that this is the only solar system where one of the rocky inner planets has a significant lunar body is, well, so remote as to be ludicrous.

Why is Earth similar to those planets? Because of size? That's it?

There is a HUGE difference in atmosphere, temperature, and gasses on earth, which make life as we know it impossible on those planets. Similar size does NOT mean similar conditions for life.

Thats assuming that life requires an Earth like planet for life to begin, and fails to take into account the multiple possible scenarios for abiogenesis to occur, or the multiple potential environments for it to occur.

As far as scientists currently know, it does.

 

[LightHorseman]

Why is Earth similar to those planets? Because of size? That's it?

Size and composition. And in the case of Venus, atmospheric similarities. Actually, Mars has atmopspheric similarities too, just that its very thin.

There is a HUGE difference in atmosphere, temperature, and gasses on earth, which make life as we know it impossible on those planets. Similar size does NOT mean similar conditions for life.

Um... actually... you are wrong. There is life on Earth that is theoretically suitable for colonisation of both Mars and Venus. Extremophiles, maybe, but extant life nontheless.

As far as scientists currently know, it does.

Depends who's abiogenesis theory to which you subscribe. Personally, I think the crystaline surface at hydrothermal vents hypothesis is the most likely, though of course, I stand ready to be corrected when better information comes along.

So, you tell me... what is the possibility of their ever having been hydrothermal vents on Mars or Venus? Or Europa, for that matter?

 

[gaara4158]

True.

But I don't know. Some talking about statistical likelyhood like you are, who also believes random chance is responsible for the entire of the universe seems contradictory.

It's not random chance. Technically, true randomness can hardly be said to exist except in quantum physics. The universe is following certain rules; just as soap is apt to form bubbles, the universe is apt to assemble in certain ways. Stars are apt to collect planets, which are apt to become spherical. Planets the right distance away from the central star just need the right chemical reaction to take place and bang, there's life.

 

[shinbits]

It's not random chance. Technically, true randomness can hardly be said to exist except in quantum physics. The universe is following certain rules; just as soap is apt to form bubbles, the universe is apt to assemble in certain ways. Stars are apt to collect planets, which are apt to become spherical. Planets the right distance away from the central star just need the right chemical reaction to take place and bang, there's life.

but doesn't the presence of rules indicate to you some sort of cosmic order?

 

[shinbits]

Um... actually... you are wrong. There is life on Earth that is theoretically suitable for colonisation of both Mars and Venus. Extremophiles, maybe, but extant life nontheless.Depends who's abiogenesis theory to which you subscribe. Personally, I think the crystaline surface at hydrothermal vents hypothesis is the most likely, though of course, I stand ready to be corrected when better information comes along.

Venus has an average surface temp of 872 degrees F. far as I know, there's no extremophile living anywhere above 170 degrees F. This is a HUGE difference. There's no life as we know it anywhere capable of living in such an environment.

So, you tell me... what is the possibility of their ever having been hydrothermal vents on Mars or Venus? Or Europa, for that matter?

If the surface temp on Venus is hot enough to melt lead, I can't imagine it's thermal vents. Mars, I have no idea about thermal vents. All I know, is that no where on earth is as cold as the hottest place available on Mars. Life as we know it is not possible on Mars.

 

[LightHorseman]

but doesn't the presence of rules indicate to you some sort of cosmic order?

Try not to think of it as rules. Think of it as "natural tendency".

What you are falling for is the "anthropic principal", and the best way I've seen to defeat it is this:

You: Look how wonderfully all of creation fits our humanity. Thus we can see that all of creation was designed with us in mind

Counter: If a puddle of water became sentient, and observed how perfectly its surrounds appeared to fit it, would it be logical for the pouddle to conclude that the hole it exists in was made to custom fit it, or would it be logical to conclude that the puddle had flowed to match the shape of the surroundings in which it found itself?

Yes, the universe does appear to be geared in such a way that life is formed, or, at least, the possibility exists for life to be formed. But one could suggest that if the universe had slightly different fundamental values, then maybe that different universe would appear just as custom made to the different sort of life that might arise in THAT universe.

If the universe is to exist, it HAS to have certain principles governing its formation. That the principals we observe in our own universe are conducive to life does not necesarily follow that those principles were "custom set" for the benefit of life.

 

[LightHorseman]

Venus has an average surface temp of 872 degrees F. far as I know, there's no extremophile living anywhere above 170 degrees F. This is a HUGE difference. There's no life as we know it anywhere capable of living in such an environment.

I wasn't aware that we were only discussing surface dwelling bacteria... I was actually thinking of high altitude bacteria or deep subterrainean bacteria... both of which exist on Earth now.

If the surface temp on Venus is hot enough to melt lead, I can't imagine it's thermal vents. Mars, I have no idea about thermal vents. All I know, is that no where on earth is as cold as the hottest place available on Mars. Life as we know it is not possible on Mars.

Um... well, there are parts of Siberia that are as cold as the Martian tropics... I would not go as far as to say "life as we know it" is not possible on Mars. Again there are extremophiles that could make a go of it. Many antarctic microbes would be possible contenders.

It is also important to note that Mars has not always been the way it is now. It once had flowing water and volcanic activity, both indicating an environment far more conducive to life.

 

[gaara4158]

but doesn't the presence of rules indicate to you some sort of cosmic order?

Well, the presence of rules is undeniable. However, I don't see this to be an indication that some kind of intelligent designer made these rules.

If you want to get into my personal beliefs, I think it's most likely that there is indeed some incredibly powerful force out there beyond our comprehension, but I wouldn't call it intelligent or even conscious. It probably has many traits you attribute to God, such as transcendence of time and exemption from the need for a cause. Also probably similar to the Eastern concept of Om, being an all-encompassing "everything" entity.

But that's just me, and it's incomplete. I'm just saying, the designer doesn't have to be a conscious entity.

 

[gaara4158]

If the universe is to exist, it HAS to have certain principles governing its formation.

Hey lighthorseman,

I've used that argument myself, and I do agree with it, but I find myself unable to answer the response, "or else what?"

 

[MoonLancer]

shinbits. You use the word 'imply' to describe design. implication is not evidence. You haven't even shown that complexity necessitates a designer, you have simply made the assertion that it does.

humans create things that are also very simple like the paper clip. paper clips are deigned, thus using your line of reasoning, simplicity shows design?

 

[shinbits]

Try not to think of it as rules. Think of it as "natural tendency".

What you are falling for is the "anthropic principal", and the best way I've seen to defeat it is this:

You: Look how wonderfully all of creation fits our humanity. Thus we can see that all of creation was designed with us in mind

Counter: If a puddle of water became sentient, and observed how perfectly its surrounds appeared to fit it, would it be logical for the pouddle to conclude that the hole it exists in was made to custom fit it, or would it be logical to conclude that the puddle had flowed to match the shape of the surroundings in which it found itself?

First of all, I'm not big on the anthropic princaple. That's more of a creationist stance. To me, it's sufficient to say that the earth is contructed in a way to house a diverse biosphere.

Second, a puddle of water doesn't need much to exist. It only needs the correct temperature. Living beings need much more than that, including specific nourishment, and gasses for respiration. The fact that such specific conditions are provided for a such a diverse biosphere, teemig with organisms that need it's own specific conditions for survival,is more good evidence for ID.

Yes, the universe does appear to be geared in such a way that life is formed, or, at least, the possibility exists for life to be formed. But one could suggest that if the universe had slightly different fundamental values, then maybe that different universe would appear just as custom made to the different sort of life that might arise in THAT universe.

I understand what you're saying. But the current fundemental values in THIS universe necessary for life, as far as we know, exist only on earth.

If the universe is to exist, it HAS to have certain principles governing its formation. That the principals we observe in our own universe are conducive to life does not necesarily follow that those principles were "custom set" for the benefit of life.

Things like the water cycle (which I went into detail about a page ago) show that systems indeed exist that cater to life. The earth does seem custom built for life.

 

[shinbits]

I wasn't aware that we were only discussing surface dwelling bacteria... I was actually thinking of high altitude bacteria or deep subterrainean bacteria... both of which exist on Earth now.

still. I'm not aware of any bacteria that could live in 800 degrees F. like on Venus.

Um... well, there are parts of Siberia that are as cold as the Martian tropics... I would not go as far as to say "life as we know it" is not possible on Mars. Again there are extremophiles that could make a go of it. Many antarctic microbes would be possible contenders.

you're probably right.

It is also important to note that Mars has not always been the way it is now. It once had flowing water and volcanic activity, both indicating an environment far more conducive to life.

Well, that's not known for sure. The land markings that indicate possible "river" could've been the result of flowing magma. Unless of course, if waters marks have been spotted on the surface of Mars, in which case I'd gladly retract my statement.

 

[shinbits]

Well, the presence of rules is undeniable. However, I don't see this to be an indication that some kind of intelligent designer made these rules.

If you want to get into my personal beliefs, I think it's most likely that there is indeed some incredibly powerful force out there beyond our comprehension, but I wouldn't call it intelligent or even conscious. It probably has many traits you attribute to God, such as transcendence of time and exemption from the need for a cause. Also probably similar to the Eastern concept of Om, being an all-encompassing "everything" entity.

But that's just me, and it's incomplete. I'm just saying, the designer doesn't have to be a conscious entity.

That's food for thought.

 

[shinbits]

shinbits. You use the word 'imply' to describe design. implication is not evidence.

um, yes it is.

if a corpse was found by police in house, and everything around was smashed and thrown on the floor, it could imply a struggle took place, and be evidence of foul play.

You haven't even shown that complexity necessitates a designer, you have simply made the assertion that it does.

wrong. go back two pages and read my post about water.

humans create things that are also very simple like the paper clip. paper clips are deigned, thus using your line of reasoning, simplicity shows design?

again, go back 2 pages, and read my post about water. in it, I mentioned how INTERCONNECTED systems are, and how they need each other to accomplish certain goals, such as spreading water around.

Complexity structure alone doesn't imply design. But a complex SYSTEM does.