![]() ![]() ![]() |
|
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').
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.
Software Engineer
(the practice of real science, engineering and management)
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?
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.
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..
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?
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.
Software Engineer
(the practice of real science, engineering and management)
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.
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
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.
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.
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?
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?
|
![]() ![]() ![]() |