Geekzone: technology news, blogs, forums
Guest
Welcome Guest.
You haven't logged in yet. If you don't have an account you can register now.


View this topic in a long page with up to 500 replies per page Create new topic
1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16


17603 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

  # 996347 28-Feb-2014 13:15
Send private message

A great example of evolution is the Galapagos Islands. A number of islands, containing the same species, but over time, despite the close proximity, they changed, based on the food, landscape, etc. Now there are new species, where there was one. Colours, nose/mouth changes, and one, a large lizard is now a swimming reptile, eating seaweed. This is a mere glimpse in gegraphic time, expand that to the dawn of early sea life on Earth, and till now

8596 posts

Uber Geek


  # 996348 28-Feb-2014 13:19
2 people support this post
Send private message

KiwiTim:
That the complex molecular machinery required for self-replication could form 'de novo' by chance occurrence is a probability, but in real terms the size of this probability is quite absurd, and of little value in the real world ( a larger probability might be that there is a planet in the universe with seas of lemonade and continents made of toffee; we all know this is quite absurd) . So we are left with a big question mark. Did this first self-replicating cell form by some natural process that we currently know nothing of, or did something with intelligence make it? Since modern humans are yet to create life in the lab via random processes ( Craig Venter has reconstructed life, but he used information from living organisms and human intelligence to do it ), it is highly unlikely that life started spontaneously without some kind of directing intelligence (this is quite uncomfortable for some human ears, but from what we can see of this world it is more probable than life forming 'de novo').

 


I reject that argument, as it attempts to quantify probability of a process as "absurdly small" when the process itself isn't clearly understood, so the probability of it "just happening" can't be determined.
And from observation, we only have one "goldilocks zone" planet to observe - with an apparent "success rate" for abiogenesis of 100%.  Yes sure - that presents a paradox, but nowhere near as large a paradox as presented by a hypothesis that "something with intelligence" created life.

 
 
 
 


333 posts

Ultimate Geek


  # 996349 28-Feb-2014 13:26
Send private message

I agree with you totally that the oceanic islands are great evolutionary laboratories that show the power of natural selection and provide proof for the theory of common descent. I'm not refuting that at all. Please read my previous post more carefully. What I am saying is that some evolutionary pathways are not easily accounted for by gradual change because, for some structures, the intermediates have less function or no function, so it is not so clear standard Neo-Darwinism provides all the answers.

Certainly, it does not explain the start of the first self-replicating cell. I'm sure you can see the issue: without self replication there is no natural selection. The problem then becomes how did self replication molecular machinery appear without natural selection?

1376 posts

Uber Geek


  # 996352 28-Feb-2014 13:29
Send private message

tdgeek: I think there is. Well by definition we are in fact life on another planet, from every other planet out there.

But the odds have to be very very low. Its not just abut being in the goldilocks zone (where water can exist in liquid, solid and gas), there has to be a decent moon, we cannot exist without the moon. There also has to be a rotating iron core as that gives us a magnetic field so we are protected from the Suns radiation. And there has to be a source of water from comets and meteorites bombarding the early planet as we had. So, a formation of a new solar system needs to put all that together for the narrow window of the goldilocks zone.


There doesn't have to be any of those constraints for a definition of "life" - we just look at extremophiles for different ways life can exist. However, if we are saying something like some form of animal life then things like water, C02 and the like come into play.

The other issue we have is the unbelievable bigness of the universe - given that we have only recently discovered technology that allows us to "almost" see nearby planets - I suspect it will be a while before we observe one that has life.  That is to say, we cannot assume that it doesn't exist on a planet that we can't currently see..




Software Engineer

 




17603 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

  # 996354 28-Feb-2014 13:38
Send private message

KiwiTim: I agree with you totally that the oceanic islands are great evolutionary laboratories that show the power of natural selection and provide proof for the theory of common descent. I'm not refuting that at all. Please read my previous post more carefully. What I am saying is that some evolutionary pathways are not easily accounted for by gradual change because, for some structures, the intermediates have less function or no function, so it is not so clear standard Neo-Darwinism provides all the answers.

Certainly, it does not explain the start of the first self-replicating cell. I'm sure you can see the issue: without self replication there is no natural selection. The problem then becomes how did self replication molecular machinery appear without natural selection?


As I undestand from a few docos on astro biology, if you have water, and if you have electricity, and no doubt some other criterias, these can create in a chemical reaction, amino acids. These are the building blocks on life. It was only a few weeks ago there was an article where scientists created DNA using this known or believed method. Artificially created life. Sounds amazing, but its a chemical process, add electricity, and you create another material, in this case one with a biological makeup. 

The earth, 300 milion years after creation, was a molten ball. All that was added were meteorites and comets in a period of bombardment carrying ice (Great Bombardment?)
Earth was silica, then water, weather, thunderstorms added to the mix. Thats the base process I recall, I believe it is proven or at least taken as correct. And water is actuall;y very common in our solar system

8596 posts

Uber Geek


  # 996356 28-Feb-2014 13:40
Send private message

KiwiTim: Please read my previous post more carefully. What I am saying is that some evolutionary pathways are not easily accounted for by gradual change because, for some structures, the intermediates have less function or no function, so it is not so clear standard Neo-Darwinism provides all the answers.


All the answers?  Of course not.
Presuming that "gaps" in understanding might have "unnatural" explanation is at best wishful theistic speculation, at worst, collating "gaps" to argue that as the vast bulk of evidence is incomplete and therefore "suspect" is disingenuous contextomy.



17603 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

  # 996357 28-Feb-2014 13:41
Send private message

TwoSeven:
tdgeek: I think there is. Well by definition we are in fact life on another planet, from every other planet out there.

But the odds have to be very very low. Its not just abut being in the goldilocks zone (where water can exist in liquid, solid and gas), there has to be a decent moon, we cannot exist without the moon. There also has to be a rotating iron core as that gives us a magnetic field so we are protected from the Suns radiation. And there has to be a source of water from comets and meteorites bombarding the early planet as we had. So, a formation of a new solar system needs to put all that together for the narrow window of the goldilocks zone.


There doesn't have to be any of those constraints for a definition of "life" - we just look at extremophiles for different ways life can exist. However, if we are saying something like some form of animal life then things like water, C02 and the like come into play.

The other issue we have is the unbelievable bigness of the universe - given that we have only recently discovered technology that allows us to "almost" see nearby planets - I suspect it will be a while before we observe one that has life.  That is to say, we cannot assume that it doesn't exist on a planet that we can't currently see..


Agree. I think extremophiles need H2O?

 
 
 
 


8596 posts

Uber Geek


  # 996360 28-Feb-2014 13:43
Send private message

tdgeek:
TwoSeven:
tdgeek: I think there is. Well by definition we are in fact life on another planet, from every other planet out there.

But the odds have to be very very low. Its not just abut being in the goldilocks zone (where water can exist in liquid, solid and gas), there has to be a decent moon, we cannot exist without the moon. There also has to be a rotating iron core as that gives us a magnetic field so we are protected from the Suns radiation. And there has to be a source of water from comets and meteorites bombarding the early planet as we had. So, a formation of a new solar system needs to put all that together for the narrow window of the goldilocks zone.


There doesn't have to be any of those constraints for a definition of "life" - we just look at extremophiles for different ways life can exist. However, if we are saying something like some form of animal life then things like water, C02 and the like come into play.

The other issue we have is the unbelievable bigness of the universe - given that we have only recently discovered technology that allows us to "almost" see nearby planets - I suspect it will be a while before we observe one that has life.  That is to say, we cannot assume that it doesn't exist on a planet that we can't currently see..


Agree. I think extremophiles need H2O?


Which is abundant in the universe.

1376 posts

Uber Geek


  # 996361 28-Feb-2014 13:44
Send private message

Klipspringer:
joker97:

No new matter can be formed


You wrong there. Matter is formed all the time. If this was not the case the universe would not be expanding.


No-one has proved that the universe is expanding, so you cannot base arguments based on the fact that it is.  For the very same reason, no-one has proved that it isn't expanding - and likewise their arguments are not based on fact either.

It is an idea to think of these kind of arguments from both sides as both arguments have a equal merit.   Likewise the reliance on light and time being related is also something that often gets challenged - people forget that time really is only relative to a local event - outside of that event horizon, time has a particularly different meaning.




Software Engineer

 


333 posts

Ultimate Geek


  # 996362 28-Feb-2014 13:45
Send private message

Fred99:
KiwiTim:
That the complex molecular machinery required for self-replication could form 'de novo' by chance occurrence is a probability, but in real terms the size of this probability is quite absurd, and of little value in the real world ( a larger probability might be that there is a planet in the universe with seas of lemonade and continents made of toffee; we all know this is quite absurd) . So we are left with a big question mark. Did this first self-replicating cell form by some natural process that we currently know nothing of, or did something with intelligence make it? Since modern humans are yet to create life in the lab via random processes ( Craig Venter has reconstructed life, but he used information from living organisms and human intelligence to do it ), it is highly unlikely that life started spontaneously without some kind of directing intelligence (this is quite uncomfortable for some human ears, but from what we can see of this world it is more probable than life forming 'de novo').

 


I reject that argument, as it attempts to quantify probability of a process as "absurdly small" when the process itself isn't clearly understood, so the probability of it "just happening" can't be determined.
And from observation, we only have one "goldilocks zone" planet to observe - with an apparent "success rate" for abiogenesis of 100%.  Yes sure - that presents a paradox, but nowhere near as large a paradox as presented by a hypothesis that "something with intelligence" created life.


You can get some measure of the size of the probability required by looking at the size and number of the protein molecules required for self replication. You would need to define the minimum amount of molecular machinery required for self-replication, then calculate the probability of the amino acids combining by random chance.

A sample size of one doesn't provide a very good level of statistical proof ("we only have one "goldilocks zone" planet to observe - with an apparent "success rate" for abiogenesis of 100%").

We can't say abiogenesis occurred. If this could be replicated in the lab, then we could make some predication about the probability of abiogenesis, but we have nothing in that department. So far abiogenesis is science fiction.

8596 posts

Uber Geek


  # 996379 28-Feb-2014 13:48
Send private message

TwoSeven:
Klipspringer:
joker97:

No new matter can be formed


You wrong there. Matter is formed all the time. If this was not the case the universe would not be expanding.


No-one has proved that the universe is expanding


Direct observation says it is.

2385 posts

Uber Geek
Inactive user


  # 996381 28-Feb-2014 13:50
Send private message

Fred99:
TwoSeven:
Klipspringer:
joker97:

No new matter can be formed


You wrong there. Matter is formed all the time. If this was not the case the universe would not be expanding.


No-one has proved that the universe is expanding


Direct observation says it is.


Is something in an infinite amount of space really expanding?



17603 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

  # 996389 28-Feb-2014 13:53
Send private message

Fred99:
TwoSeven:
Klipspringer:
joker97:

No new matter can be formed


You wrong there. Matter is formed all the time. If this was not the case the universe would not be expanding.


No-one has proved that the universe is expanding


Direct observation says it is.


Thats what I recall from the many many docos I have watched. It has been measured and extrapolated I believe. 

3344 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted
Vocus

  # 996392 28-Feb-2014 13:55
Send private message

Klipspringer:
Fred99:
TwoSeven:
Klipspringer:
joker97:

No new matter can be formed


You wrong there. Matter is formed all the time. If this was not the case the universe would not be expanding.


No-one has proved that the universe is expanding


Direct observation says it is.


Is something in an infinite amount of space really expanding?


If particles are demonstrably increasing their distance from an epicentre, what else would you call it?



17603 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

  # 996394 28-Feb-2014 13:56
Send private message

Klipspringer:
Fred99:
TwoSeven:
Klipspringer:
joker97:

No new matter can be formed


You wrong there. Matter is formed all the time. If this was not the case the universe would not be expanding.


No-one has proved that the universe is expanding


Direct observation says it is.


Is something in an infinite amount of space really expanding?


If you subscribe to the Big Bang theory, then the universe was as big as a shoebox, fractions of millionths of a nanosecond afterwards. And its been expanding since. Thus, it cannot be defined as inifinite

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16
View this topic in a long page with up to 500 replies per page Create new topic



Twitter and LinkedIn »



Follow us to receive Twitter updates when new discussions are posted in our forums:



Follow us to receive Twitter updates when news items and blogs are posted in our frontpage:



Follow us to receive Twitter updates when tech item prices are listed in our price comparison site:





News »

Amazon Studios announces New Zealand as location for its upcoming series based on The Lord of the Rings
Posted 18-Sep-2019 17:24


The Warehouse chooses Elasticsearch service
Posted 18-Sep-2019 13:55


Voyager upgrades core network to 100Gbit
Posted 18-Sep-2019 13:52


Streaming service Acorn TV launches in New Zealand with selection with British shows
Posted 18-Sep-2019 08:55


Bitcoin.com announces partnership with smartphone manufacturer HTC
Posted 16-Sep-2019 21:30


Finalists Announced for Microsoft NZ Partner Awards
Posted 16-Sep-2019 19:37


OPPO Showcases New CameraX Capabilities at Google Developer Days China 2019
Posted 15-Sep-2019 12:42


New Zealand PC Market returns to growth
Posted 15-Sep-2019 12:24


Home sensor charity director speaks about the preventable death which drives her to push for healthy homes
Posted 11-Sep-2019 08:46


Te ao Maori Minecraft world set to inspire Kiwi students
Posted 11-Sep-2019 08:43


Research reveals The Power of Games in New Zealand
Posted 11-Sep-2019 08:40


Ring Door View Cam now available in New Zealand
Posted 11-Sep-2019 08:38


Vodafone NZ to create X Squad
Posted 10-Sep-2019 10:25


Huawei nova 5T to be available 20th September
Posted 5-Sep-2019 11:55


Kogan.com launches prepay challenger brand Kogan Mobile in New Zealand
Posted 3-Sep-2019 11:42



Geekzone Live »

Try automatic live updates from Geekzone directly in your browser, without refreshing the page, with Geekzone Live now.


Support Geekzone »

Our community of supporters help make Geekzone possible. Click the button below to join them.

Support Geezone on PressPatron



Are you subscribed to our RSS feed? You can download the latest headlines and summaries from our stories directly to your computer or smartphone by using a feed reader.

Alternatively, you can receive a daily email with Geekzone updates.