Abiogenesis and Evolution

[Frenzy]

There are no Gods or ultimate goals for anything, unless of course someone somewhere can show otherwise?
I don't mean say it I mean show it, faith only shows desperation and a need.

 

[AV1611VET]

There are no Gods or ultimate goals for anything, unless of course someone somewhere can show otherwise?
I don't mean say it I mean show it, faith only shows desperation and a need.

Hi, consol.

 

[Frenzy]

Hi, consol.

Still struggling with life AV1611VET? I ask about life because I guess you think you have death all figured out by now.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Deductive reasoning and empirical observations show Asian mates with Asian and produces Asian. African mates with African and produces African.

Husky mates with Husky and produces Husky. Mastiff mates with Mastiff and produces Mastiff.

Yet when Asian mates with African we get Afro-Asian. And when Husky mates with Mastiff we get the Chinook.

We all agree variation in the species took place. What the two sides differ on is the "how". Some claim one thing creates two new things - others claim two separate things create one new thing.

Only one of those two beliefs has any empirical backing - and it isn't that one thing makes two new things. The rest is just Fairie Dust.


Now if anyone has any actual scientific evidence or empirical observations to show otherwise - please present it?

But I predict only claims will be made and ad-hominem attacks engaged in because they will be unable to present any actual science that one thing becomes two new things. While every single observation of the natural world will indeed support that two separate things become something new.

 

[Frenzy]

Deductive reasoning and empirical observations show Asian mates with Asian and produces Asian. African mates with African and produces African.

Husky mates with Husky and produces Husky. Mastiff mates with Mastiff and produces Mastiff.

Yet when Asian mates with African we get Afro-Asian. And when Husky mates with Mastiff we get the Chinook.

We all agree variation in the species took place. What the two sides differ on is the "how". Some claim one thing creates two new things - others claim two separate things create one new thing.

Only one of those two beliefs has any empirical backing - and it isn't that one thing makes two new things. The rest is just Fairie Dust.


Now if anyone has any actual scientific evidence or empirical observations to show otherwise - please present it?

But I predict only claims will be made and ad-hominem attacks engaged in because they will be unable to present any actual science that one thing becomes two new things. While every single observation of the natural world will indeed support that two separate things become something new.

You're right, deductive reasoning and empirical observations show that magic is the answer.
If it's not then I can't see any other alternative, can you?

 

[Justatruthseeker]

You're right, deductive reasoning and empirical observations show that magic is the answer.
If it's not then I can't see any other alternative, can you?

No one suggested magic but you - that of one thing magically producing two new things - instead of accepting the observation that it takes two different things to produce one new thing. That one thing only produces the same thing over and over again.

Promote magic if you like - just don't ask me to believe in it. Magic is "your" strawman, not mine.

So like I asked - do you just got strawmen or do you have any actual evidence?

 

[ecco]

materialistic (non-theistic) determinism. In such determinism, you don't have random atoms choosing to randomly go places.

I would not deny that there are people who believe in determinism. That does not make it scientific theory. It is a philosophical theory.

If you examine the way people conduct scientific experiments, they don't posit randomness as the reason for some observed phenomena.
I've quoted some people with good points:
- from https://afshinpsychology.wordpress....obots-how-does-determinism-impact-psychology/

https://afshinpsychology.wordpress....obots-how-does-determinism-impact-psychology/

A quote from your article:

The scientific method assumes determinism, in the way it assumes that the same set of conditions will result in the same consequence, kinda like reliability. ​

Uh huh. That sounds very scientific. How is posting from a psychology site supporting your case?

To make matters worse you then post from an entry someone made in some forum...

- from http://www.rationalskepticism.org/physics/randomness-is-unscientific-t40188.html

Well here is a response from that same forum:

According to several standard interpretations of quantum mechanics, microscopic phenomena are objectively random.[6] That is, in an experiment that controls all causally relevant parameters, some aspects of the outcome still vary randomly. For example, if you place a single unstable atom in a controlled environment, you cannot predict how long it will take for the atom to decay—but only the probability of decay in a given time.[7] Thus, quantum mechanics does not specify the outcome of individual experiments but only the probabilities.

Hidden variable theories are inconsistent with the view that nature contains irreducible randomness: such theories posit that in the processes that appear random, properties with a certain statistical distribution are somehow at work "behind the scenes" determining the outcome in each case.
​

Is the post I referenced better than the post you referenced?

The question remains, if Determinism is real, what causes the Determinizing?

It's like, if Creationism is real, what is the Creator?

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Deductive reasoning and empirical observations show Asian mates with Asian and produces Asian. African mates with African and produces African.

Husky mates with Husky and produces Husky. Mastiff mates with Mastiff and produces Mastiff.

Yet when Asian mates with African we get Afro-Asian. And when Husky mates with Mastiff we get the Chinook.

We all agree variation in the species took place. What the two sides differ on is the "how". Some claim one thing creates two new things - others claim two separate things create one new thing.

Only one of those two beliefs has any empirical backing - and it isn't that one thing makes two new things. The rest is just Fairie Dust.


Now if anyone has any actual scientific evidence or empirical observations to show otherwise - please present it?

But I predict only claims will be made and ad-hominem attacks engaged in because they will be unable to present any actual science that one thing becomes two new things. While every single observation of the natural world will indeed support that two separate things become something new.

You cannot apply terms used for animal breeds to humans. They are not transferable!
The human populations of the world are not breeds.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

I would not deny that there are people who believe in determinism. That does not make it scientific theory. It is a philosophical theory.

I would not deny that there are people that believe random events bring about order either. That does not make it a scientific theory. Especially when they are called "laws" of nature for a reason. Because the outcome is determined solely by specific factors - no random chance involved. Just like billiard balls, particle behavior is determined solely upon the speed, angle of contact - or no contact depending on the electromagnetic forces involved at the atomic scale.

A quote from your article:

The scientific method assumes determinism, in the way it assumes that the same set of conditions will result in the same consequence, kinda like reliability. ​

Uh huh. That sounds very scientific. How is posting from a psychology site supporting your case?

Even Einstein taught determinism and psychology...

http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/quotes/a/alberteins133991.html

"Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results. ~ Albert Einstein"

In science one does not expect random results from experiments - but consistency time after time or it isn't a theory.

The problem is that people confuse "conscious choice" with physical laws. Free will means that human actions cannot be pre-determined, but that everything in existence was created upon a pre-determined path - that you are free to follow or free to ignore.

For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. Science considers no randomness - but that all actions can in the end be attributed to known causes. Causes that follow pre-determined outcomes and can be reliably repeated time and time again. To discover randomness in science is to find a gap in knowledge where the theory is lacking. Because science does not believe in miracles - and believes that every effect has a cause - and that both cause and effect can be explained as our knowledge increases. To then deny determinism in nature is unrealistic and unscientific. But man was set above nature - given free-will to determine his own destiny - even if it leads to his ultimate destruction - or ultimate salvation - depends if when one looks one sees the glass is half empty or half full I guess????

 

[Justatruthseeker]

You cannot apply terms used for animal breeds to humans. They are not transferable!
The human populations of the world are not breeds.

Are you saying we aren't animals????

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Are you saying we aren't animals????

In the simplest biological sense, yes, we are animals. But not in the way you are trying to say we are.
Human life do not come as 'breeds'. All humans on Earth alive now are the same species, Homo Sapiens. We are not divided in to 'breeds' because we do not create something new when one population mates with another. A human will still give birth to a human.

 

[ecco]

I would not deny that there are people that believe random events bring about order either. That does not make it a scientific theory. Especially when they are called "laws" of nature for a reason. Because the outcome is determined solely by specific factors - no random chance involved. Just like billiard balls, particle behavior is determined solely upon the speed, angle of contact - or no contact depending on the electromagnetic forces involved at the atomic scale.

Yes, but nothing predetermines how hard I hit the cue ball.

Even Einstein taught determinism and psychology...

http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/quotes/a/alberteins133991.html

"Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results. ~ Albert Einstein"

I guess this is where I'm supposed to laugh and say WOW!

In science one does not expect random results from experiments - but consistency time after time or it isn't a theory.

Radioactive decay. Ever hear of it?

The half-life of a radioactive isotope describes the amount of time that it takes half of the isotope in a sample to decay. In the case of radiocarbon dating, the half-life of carbon 14 is 5,730 years.​

Thousands of test have determined that the half life of carbon 14 is 5730 years. There is consistency that has been observed over thousands of experiments. However... (my emphasis).

http://education.jlab.org/qa/radelement_03.html

Let's take carbon as an example. The most common (and stable) form has 6 neutrons. This is called "carbon-12" from the fact that there are 6 protons plus 6 neutrons. There is a variety called "carbon-14" which has 8 neutrons. Every once in a while, a carbon 14 atom emits an electron (and yes, that pesky anti-neutrino too). Since the neutron that did this is now a proton, you have 7 protons and 7 neutrons. Remember that the type of atom is determined by the number of protons. So now the carbon-14 atom has transformed into a very stable nitrogen atom (which is identified by its 7 protons). The rate at which this happens is a "stochastic" process - it happens when it happens and you can't predict exactly when THAT atom over in the corner there will transform. However one usually works with many, many atoms, and, in that case, one can use a very reliable average time called the"half-life." This is the time that it takes for half (50%) of a bunch of unstable atoms to decay. For carbon-14, this number is 5,730 years. ​

Random events resulting in consistency.

The problem is that people confuse "conscious choice" with physical laws. Free will means that human actions cannot be pre-determined, but that everything in existence was created upon a pre-determined path - that you are free to follow or free to ignore.

Created by whom? It seems I keep asking that question and not getting an answer.

For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. Science considers no randomness -

Wrong. See above.

but that all actions can in the end be attributed to known causes. Causes that follow pre-determined outcomes and can be reliably repeated time and time again.

Randomness. Consistent results. All without predetermination. See above again.

To discover randomness in science is to find a gap in knowledge where the theory is lacking.

Wrong again. See above.

Because science does not believe in miracles - and believes that every effect has a cause - and that both cause and effect can be explained as our knowledge increases. To then deny determinism in nature is unrealistic and unscientific.

A predetermined universe would indeed miraculous, unrealistic and unscientific.

But man was set above nature - given free-will to determine his own destiny - even if it leads to his ultimate destruction - or ultimate salvation - depends if when one looks one sees the glass is half empty or half full I guess????

So, man is not a part of nature? Who or what set man above nature and gave him this free will? It really is starting to sound a lot like theism at this point.

 

[SkyWriting]

obviously, the rules that apply to living things evolving didn't exist until there were living things.

Physics and chemistry? Yes. The same rules apply completely at all times.
Are you getting religious now? Does your religion have it's own chemical rules?
Horse hockey.

 

[PsychoSarah]

Physics and chemistry? Yes. The same rules apply completely at all times.
Are you getting religious now? Does your religion have it's own chemical rules?
Horse hockey.

I am sorry, but do rules apply to things that do not exist? Not really. My point was that the properties life configured like ours would have would most certainly be consistent even prior to their existence, but would be impossible to measure and would apply to nothing before examples of such life came into existence. We can, to an extent, predict what certain chemical configurations would do, even if they do not exist or have not been made/found yet, but the accuracy is less than desireable, though still better than chance.

 

[Near]

The atheistic worldview is that there is no evidence for a deity. That is backed by the science since there is no scientific evidence for a deity doing anything in the natural world.

In cases in which we have insufficient evidence we shouldn't make either claim from a scientific view point that God exists or doesn't exist. Suspension of judgement ought to be held. Claiming that science backs an atheistic worldview is nonsense.
In order to say that science supports atheism you need evidence that there are no deities.

Of course you can believe what you want. However, just believing something doesn't make it scientific, rational, reasonable, logical, or true.
(...)You can believe that the Moon is made of cheese. That doesn't cause the Moon to turn into cheese. I am talking about what is supported by evidence, not what you believe.

You're making metaphysical claims, with philosophical add-ons to scientific data which you yourself seem to be ignorant of. Atheism is not supported by any evidence.

In other words, the mutations that confer antibiotic resistance were occurring randomly with respect to fitness, whether the antibiotic was present or not.

Apparently, you assume randomness is a real thing, just like the people who conducted the experiments in the article. Are you making the claim that there was no physical cause affecting the conditions of the experiments? If there are physical causes, then the results were not random.

If evolution were guided, then we would expect 100% of the bacteria to get that mutation, and only when antibiotics were introduced. That is not what we see.

I don't need to say that evolution was guided. I can say that God created life with a purpose. I also see no reason to think that if evolution was guided we would expect 100% of the bacteria to get that mutation. You are inserting in your own beliefs about what some god would do or wouldn't do into the equation. Effectively, you want to make the claim since evolution shows us such phenomena, God doesn't exist.

If life were guided, then we wouldn't see this pattern.

That's quite a leap, and it's unconvincing.

I describe the experiment above and why it supports random mutations with respect to fitness.

I read the articles, neither demonstrate that randomness exists. They only assume that randomness exists.

"A creator would be able to put the same sequences in very distantly related species, but that isn't what we see."

Would have, or would be able? I am able to walk to the gas station, but you don't see me walking there, I drive there. So which is it? Obviously, an omnipotent creator would be able to do such. I also don't see your point, aren't fruit-flies and humans distantly related species? The article mentions how the Pax6 gene is shared among many species, distantly related.

Why? Evolution explains this. Design does not.

I remain unconvinced. Your arguments are non sequiturs. They do not follow.

Please support your claim.

I made the claim that experimenters presuppose randomness. It's a part of their worldview.
You can read the article yourself.

In fact everyone can, here's the link: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC169282/pdf/jbacter00003-0114.pdf

In no way is true randomness shown as the cause of mutation, nor is it the goal of the experiment to show that randomness exists. The experiment shows that organisms didn't merely adapt to survive as a response, rather there were already "pre-adaptive" qualities they had which allowed some of them to better grow. That doesn't show me that mutations are random, as in purposeless, without method, without aim. To say that mutations are random is to say that atoms behave randomly. Rather than stopping at a biological level, the position and velocity of atoms is what ought to be considered. Get to the physics of it.

 

[PsychoSarah]

Hi, consol.

Is it consol? Usually consol is more insulting and aggressive.

 

[Near]

I would not deny that there are people who believe in determinism. That does not make it scientific theory. It is a philosophical theory.

In-determinism is also a philosophical theory. So what?

To make matters worse you then post from an entry someone made in some forum...

Problem? I posted it because I liked the way he described it.

According to several standard interpretations of quantum mechanics, microscopic phenomena are objectively random.[6] That is, in an experiment that controls all causally relevant parameters, some aspects of the outcome still vary randomly. For example, if you place a single unstable atom in a controlled environment, you cannot predict how long it will take for the atom to decay—but only the probability of decay in a given time.[7] Thus, quantum mechanics does not specify the outcome of individual experiments but only the probabilities.
Hidden variable theories are inconsistent with the view that nature contains irreducible randomness: such theories posit that in the processes that appear random, properties with a certain statistical distribution are somehow at work "behind the scenes" determining the outcome in each case.
(...)
Is the post I referenced better than the post you referenced?

No, here's why: "According to several standard interpretations of quantum mechanics, microscopic phenomena are objectively random." That's a quote from wikipedia, (but that's not why it's bad), I checked the link, and read the brief description of the full-text article. The experiment actually aims to go against realism.
Quoting:

Most working scientists hold fast to the concept of 'realism'—a viewpoint according to which an external reality exists independent of observation. But quantum physics has shattered some of our cornerstone beliefs. According to Bell's theorem, any theory that is based on the joint assumption of realism and locality (meaning that local events cannot be affected by actions in space-like separated regions) is at variance with certain quantum predictions. Experiments with entangled pairs of particles have amply confirmed these quantum predictions, thus rendering local realistic theories untenable. Maintaining realism as a fundamental concept would therefore necessitate the introduction of 'spooky' actions that defy locality. Here we show by both theory and experiment that a broad and rather reasonable class of such non-local realistic theories is incompatible with experimentally observable quantum correlations. In the experiment, we measure previously untested correlations between two entangled photons, and show that these correlations violate an inequality proposed by Leggett for non-local realistic theories. Our result suggests that giving up the concept of locality is not sufficient to be consistent with quantum experiments, unless certain intuitive features of realism are abandoned.
see more at http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v446/n7138/abs/nature05677.html

Ready to give up the concepts of realism and locality.
Anyways, what is described as random in the text you quoted deals with our knowledge. Just because we are ignorant of something does not mean that the cause is "random". The wikipedia quote says, "if you place a single unstable atom in a controlled environment, you cannot predict how long it will take for the atom to decay", which deals with our predictions, not causation. As for the following, "Hidden variable theories are inconsistent with the view that nature contains irreducible randomness: such theories posit that in the processes that appear random, properties with a certain statistical distribution are somehow at work "behind the scenes" determining the outcome in each case", that means, hidden variables don't line up with randomness. No problem, since randomness has not been established as a casual factor.

The question remains, if Determinism is real, what causes the Determinizing?
It's like, if Creationism is real, what is the Creator?

Determinism can be both atheistic and theistic.
The determining can be through physical necessity, but I see no reason to think so.
This brings us to the cosmological argument, since we're dealing with matter, the beginning of it might as well be mentioned.
The universe either came about by:
1) chance
2) physical necessity
3) a causal agent which transcends the universe

I think 3 makes the most sense.

 

[Near]

There are no Gods or ultimate goals for anything, unless of course someone somewhere can show otherwise?
I don't mean say it I mean show it, faith only shows desperation and a need.

If it's the case that God has been revealed to people, there has been evidence.
Do you claim that God has never been revealed to people at any time in the past?
If yes, how would you know that?
If not, then you should drop the claim that "There are no Gods or ultimate goals for anything".
If you're an agnostic, you should claim to have no knowledge on whether or not God exists. Yet, you claim you have knowledge that there is no god.

Yes, but nothing predetermines how hard I hit the cue ball.

Physical and biological determinism does.
Another thing, what form of identity theory do you subscribe to?
Don't tell me you're a mind-body dualist endowed with free-will!
What do you even mean by "I". What if there is no "I", and that all there are are clusters of information processed in brains, which carry no actual person through time.
I quote David Hume:

There are some philosophers, who imagine we are every moment conscious of what we cal our self; that we feel its existence and continuance in existence; and are certain, beyond the evidence of a demonstration, both of its perfect identity and simplicity. . . . [But] from what impression could this idea be deriv’d? . . . For my part, when I enter most intimately into what I call myself, I always stumble on some particular perception or other, of heat or cold, light or shade, love or hatred, pain or pleasure. I never can catch myself at any time without a perception, and never can observe anything but the perception. . . . I may venture to affirm . . . that [persons] are nothing but a bundle or collection of different perceptions, which succeed each other with an inconceivable rapidity, and are in perpetual flux and movement.”

Perhaps you subscribe to the mind-brain identity. If so, it's all physically determined. The processes in your brain are biological ones which are in turn governed by physical laws, which are not random.

 

[AV1611VET]

Is it consol? Usually consol is more insulting and aggressive.

Maybe the Holy Spirit is getting to him?

 

[SkyWriting]

I am sorry, but do rules apply to things that do not exist?

The rules of chemistry and physics apply to matter before life was present and
unless one slips sideways into another dimension through the Twilight Zone
they apply afterwards as well.

So, what properties of dead matter lead to life?