27 ms·

My understanding is that this process didn't really come into existance but stayed in existance. Countless other arrangements failed to replicate and endure.

by rapala 9y ago

jtbayly 9y ago
And that seems to require quite a bit of faith.
- yequalsx 9y ago
  We both agree the process exists. The overwhelming evidence is that species evolve over time. We can conclude that this is the process that won out evolutionarily or that God did it. I suggest God did it requires the most faith and incidentally more likely leads to a stifling of curiosity. God did it might possibly be true but it is the refuge of the incurious. It can be used at every turn. It can be used to answer all 'why?' questions. And thus it is singularly the most incorrect answer in history. That's why God did it requires the most faith. It has been wrong so often that I wonder why it hasn't been discarded for the intellectual crutch that it is.
  - jtbayly 9y ago
    Actually, this was a "how" question.
    - ethbro 9y ago
      How does "natural selection of sufficiently reliable reproductive methods" not describe the most likely pathway?
      - jcims 9y ago
        I think this is more around the mechanisms of abiogenesis rather than how a single celled organism became Brock Lesnar. The process detailed here (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OjPcT1uUZiE https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OjPcT1uUZiE) no doubt has been refined through evolutionary pressures, but even the earliest of organisms must have had something similar take place in order for the traits encoded into DNA to be passed from generation to generation. This mechanism is something we can barely observe with the most advanced technology available to us, let alone reproduce or synthesize on our own. I think this is what the original question was about, where did that first process come from?
        ethbro 9y ago
        I was under the impression that RNA replication was simpler and therefore likely to be the predecessor of DNA-copying organisms. As for how: chance. Given a bubbling stew of organic compounds with chemical energy gradients available, eventually a random reaction created something with the ability to self-replication. Almost irrelevant of how simple / ineffective / unreliable that method was, it represented a huge advantage (in the numerical offspring sense) over sheer random reactions. This life therefore dominated and exploited the available energy to reproduce. Then mutation begat mutation, as selection picked favorable traits and more and more complex systems of encoding and reproducing traits developed. I'm not saying it's been proven (to my knowledge), but it seems reasonable given what we know. And moreover I don't see any "the beginning must have been fundamentally different than business as usual" requirement for whatever happened. As Ian Malcolm says, "Life finds a way."
        ricksharp 9y ago
        What do you think of the point made in this video about the mathematical improbability of making a single protein by chance? https://youtu.be/W1_KEVaCyaA https://youtu.be/W1_KEVaCyaA I've always heard people just assume it would happen given enough time, but I haven't seen anybody actually calculate the probabilities and deal with the real numbers. Also, beyond the video, the simplest bacteria we have been able to discover/modify requires around 200 different types of proteins to function (numbering in the 100,000s all together in their specific arrangement inside a cell membrane.) This is the minimal viable life form we know, yet just to randomly construct a single protein from amino acids would take a practically infinite amount of time given all the resources of the known universe. Then 100,000s of those proteins have to randomly find themselves inside a cell membrane... People are quick to dismiss complexity philosophically, but it just avoids the reality of it. The numbers are so far beyond astronomical they make astronomical numbers look like basic arithmetic. Anyway, I was hoping you could provide some feedback on whether you think the math is accurate and why it should or should not be considered.
        yequalsx 9y ago
        Flip a coin 100,000 times. Make a list of the results. Now go to someone and say, "what's the probability of me ever flipping this sequence?" It's quite close to zero. But you did flip it. Calculating probabilities for things that have happened by asking what's the probability of it ever occurring again can be misleading.
      - yellowapple 9y ago
        That doesn't describe the pathway; it describes the result.
  - ricksharp 9y ago
    (I apologize for the long post. I hope it is thought provoking nonetheless.) I think it is useful to consider the difference between "Who made this?" and "How was this made?" As a coder, when I see a program that achieves something I didn't know was possible, it makes me very interested in how it was accomplished. I say, "Great job, that is awesome. How did you do that? Where is the source code?" In the same way, I see the complexity of life: the required components and all the intricate processes (Search for ""Inner Life of a Cell" on Youtube, it's really amazing). I try to comprehend the level of complexity and I quickly realize that even Scientific Notation cannot express it appropriately. So, when I appreciate the Creator and say, "Well done, that is insanely awesome!" I also say, "How did you do that?" "How was that made?" "How does this work?" "What can I do with it?" "Can I hack it to do something else?" --- As far as complexity of faith, the difference is a matter of simple set theory: Define 2 Sets: - All things that are made (the Universe) (U) - All things that are not made (the Eternal) (E) You have stated that it requires more faith to believe that there are 2 sets (U,E). However, it could be argued that absolutely denying the possibility of the existence of one set (E) requires a stronger choice of faith. Also, the 2 sets (U,E) makes sense to me, but I see a contradiction in the single set (U only). It's simple logic: If (U only) is the set of all things that are made, then the question begs to be answered: "Where did it come from?" If (U,E), then the answer is obvious: The set of all things that was made (U), came from the set of things that were never made (E). I often hear: "Ok, where did E come from then?" Well, by definition E was not made. E is not U. Also, beyond basic logic, if we consider the theory of the big bang which fits with out measurements of an infinitely accelerating expanding universe: The big bang itself points to a specific point in time where the Universe began (or at least was transformed from a singleton to an accelerating expansion). So if you limit the choice to only (U), again you are faced with a question, "What prompted the initial bang?" One possibility is that (U=E). Another words, the universe itself must be eternal. In that case, we would expect an eternal cycle to be observed (something like the Bang-Bang Theory). However, our best measurements indicate an expanding universe that will never collapse and bang again. There is no support for a Bang-Bang theory which would indicate an eternally cyclic universe. Everything we can measure indicates the universe had a beginning and that it will continue to accelerate it's expansion infinitely. So the most logical explanation I see is (U,E): that the universe was created (by something that was not created i.e. The Eternal One - aka God). And that makes me even more curious: I want to explore all the beauty inside the box because now I have someone to direct my appreciation to say, "Well done! That's amazing!".
- rapala 9y ago
  No, not really. Quite the contrary actually. It would be very unlikely that a volatile and nonreplicating molecule would be the carrier of biological information through billions of years.

My understanding is that this process didn't really come into existance but stayed in existance. Countless other arrangements failed to replicate and endure.

by rapala 9y ago

My understanding is that this process didn't really come into existance but stayed in existance. Countless other arrangements failed to replicate and endure.

jtbayly 9y ago

And that seems to require quite a bit of faith.

yequalsx 9y ago
We both agree the process exists. The overwhelming evidence is that species evolve over time. We can conclude that this is the process that won out evolutionarily or that God did it. I suggest God did it requires the most faith and incidentally more likely leads to a stifling of curiosity. God did it might possibly be true but it is the refuge of the incurious. It can be used at every turn. It can be used to answer all 'why?' questions. And thus it is singularly the most incorrect answer in history. That's why God did it requires the most faith. It has been wrong so often that I wonder why it hasn't been discarded for the intellectual crutch that it is.
- jtbayly 9y ago
  Actually, this was a "how" question.
  - ethbro 9y ago
    How does "natural selection of sufficiently reliable reproductive methods" not describe the most likely pathway?
    - jcims 9y ago
      I think this is more around the mechanisms of abiogenesis rather than how a single celled organism became Brock Lesnar. The process detailed here (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OjPcT1uUZiE https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OjPcT1uUZiE) no doubt has been refined through evolutionary pressures, but even the earliest of organisms must have had something similar take place in order for the traits encoded into DNA to be passed from generation to generation. This mechanism is something we can barely observe with the most advanced technology available to us, let alone reproduce or synthesize on our own. I think this is what the original question was about, where did that first process come from?
      - ethbro 9y ago
        I was under the impression that RNA replication was simpler and therefore likely to be the predecessor of DNA-copying organisms. As for how: chance. Given a bubbling stew of organic compounds with chemical energy gradients available, eventually a random reaction created something with the ability to self-replication. Almost irrelevant of how simple / ineffective / unreliable that method was, it represented a huge advantage (in the numerical offspring sense) over sheer random reactions. This life therefore dominated and exploited the available energy to reproduce. Then mutation begat mutation, as selection picked favorable traits and more and more complex systems of encoding and reproducing traits developed. I'm not saying it's been proven (to my knowledge), but it seems reasonable given what we know. And moreover I don't see any "the beginning must have been fundamentally different than business as usual" requirement for whatever happened. As Ian Malcolm says, "Life finds a way."
        ricksharp 9y ago
        What do you think of the point made in this video about the mathematical improbability of making a single protein by chance? https://youtu.be/W1_KEVaCyaA https://youtu.be/W1_KEVaCyaA I've always heard people just assume it would happen given enough time, but I haven't seen anybody actually calculate the probabilities and deal with the real numbers. Also, beyond the video, the simplest bacteria we have been able to discover/modify requires around 200 different types of proteins to function (numbering in the 100,000s all together in their specific arrangement inside a cell membrane.) This is the minimal viable life form we know, yet just to randomly construct a single protein from amino acids would take a practically infinite amount of time given all the resources of the known universe. Then 100,000s of those proteins have to randomly find themselves inside a cell membrane... People are quick to dismiss complexity philosophically, but it just avoids the reality of it. The numbers are so far beyond astronomical they make astronomical numbers look like basic arithmetic. Anyway, I was hoping you could provide some feedback on whether you think the math is accurate and why it should or should not be considered.
        yequalsx 9y ago
        Flip a coin 100,000 times. Make a list of the results. Now go to someone and say, "what's the probability of me ever flipping this sequence?" It's quite close to zero. But you did flip it. Calculating probabilities for things that have happened by asking what's the probability of it ever occurring again can be misleading.
    - yellowapple 9y ago
      That doesn't describe the pathway; it describes the result.
- ricksharp 9y ago
  (I apologize for the long post. I hope it is thought provoking nonetheless.) I think it is useful to consider the difference between "Who made this?" and "How was this made?" As a coder, when I see a program that achieves something I didn't know was possible, it makes me very interested in how it was accomplished. I say, "Great job, that is awesome. How did you do that? Where is the source code?" In the same way, I see the complexity of life: the required components and all the intricate processes (Search for ""Inner Life of a Cell" on Youtube, it's really amazing). I try to comprehend the level of complexity and I quickly realize that even Scientific Notation cannot express it appropriately. So, when I appreciate the Creator and say, "Well done, that is insanely awesome!" I also say, "How did you do that?" "How was that made?" "How does this work?" "What can I do with it?" "Can I hack it to do something else?" --- As far as complexity of faith, the difference is a matter of simple set theory: Define 2 Sets: - All things that are made (the Universe) (U) - All things that are not made (the Eternal) (E) You have stated that it requires more faith to believe that there are 2 sets (U,E). However, it could be argued that absolutely denying the possibility of the existence of one set (E) requires a stronger choice of faith. Also, the 2 sets (U,E) makes sense to me, but I see a contradiction in the single set (U only). It's simple logic: If (U only) is the set of all things that are made, then the question begs to be answered: "Where did it come from?" If (U,E), then the answer is obvious: The set of all things that was made (U), came from the set of things that were never made (E). I often hear: "Ok, where did E come from then?" Well, by definition E was not made. E is not U. Also, beyond basic logic, if we consider the theory of the big bang which fits with out measurements of an infinitely accelerating expanding universe: The big bang itself points to a specific point in time where the Universe began (or at least was transformed from a singleton to an accelerating expansion). So if you limit the choice to only (U), again you are faced with a question, "What prompted the initial bang?" One possibility is that (U=E). Another words, the universe itself must be eternal. In that case, we would expect an eternal cycle to be observed (something like the Bang-Bang Theory). However, our best measurements indicate an expanding universe that will never collapse and bang again. There is no support for a Bang-Bang theory which would indicate an eternally cyclic universe. Everything we can measure indicates the universe had a beginning and that it will continue to accelerate it's expansion infinitely. So the most logical explanation I see is (U,E): that the universe was created (by something that was not created i.e. The Eternal One - aka God). And that makes me even more curious: I want to explore all the beauty inside the box because now I have someone to direct my appreciation to say, "Well done! That's amazing!".
rapala 9y ago
No, not really. Quite the contrary actually. It would be very unlikely that a volatile and nonreplicating molecule would be the carrier of biological information through billions of years.