Uncertainity and information

@sonhouse said
So how many mutations do you expect say per century? And I think you mean they have to add up to 30 trillion? Where did that number come from?
Life forms have different mutation rates so what is a number for one is not a number for another.
There are for instance sharks with very low cancer rates and very long lifespans, and cancer rates are tied to the number of mutations ...[text shortened]... u said it was not possible and we are therefore back to my thesis, you are trying to prove Goddidit.

This is simply a find X problem, which is the number of mutations per year to reach 30 trillion.  If we know 30 trillion is the goal, we need to know the start date to determine how many years are needed to find X. 

@KellyJay said
The human body is supposed to have 30 trillion cells; there are about 200 different types, but they are all the same for this number exercise. Stop worrying about anything but the numbers; who cares about cancer in this? Are you just stalling? If you are unwilling or unable,, just tell me when you think life started.

It matters little what I would say OR what scientific evidence shows up, you will ALWAYS poo poo any new science just reiterating your permanent stance, Goddidit. NOTHING will change that in you.

@sonhouse said
It matters little what I would say OR what scientific evidence shows up, you will ALWAYS poo poo any new science just reiterating your permanent stance, Goddidit. NOTHING will change that in you.

You say that as if it only goes one way, as if I were the only one who would refuse to accept evidence showing me I'm wrong. Don't you think you are also stuck on what you think is true that no matter what, you too will cling to it? Since we are both there, don't you think it is not our starting opinions that matter but what the evidence is showing us?

People can be very reluctant to change their minds, myself included; that is true for us all, so it should not be the reason to reject something someone says because you or I think they are stuck in their ways. We are stuck in our ways, so let the evidence speak for itself.

We have hard-headed people on both sides. Some, by definition, want to avoid contrary evidence, so they define it in such a way that it doesn't have to be considered. That is not taking evidence where it leads; that is shielding evidence from being considered right off the bat. That is intellectually lazy. If you are going to dismiss what someone says is evidence, then by the same rules applied to all other evidence, accept or reject it.

@KellyJay said
You say that as if it only goes one way, as if I were the only one who would refuse to accept evidence showing me I'm wrong. Don't you think you are also stuck on what you think is true that no matter what, you too will cling to it? Since we are both there, don't you think it is not our starting opinions that matter but what the evidence is showing us?

People can be ver ...[text shortened]... someone says is evidence, then by the same rules applied to all other evidence, accept or reject it.

I just saw a report showing there was an earlier version of DNA using sulfur in its makeup and making for simpler proteins and such but if I showed you the article you would just go SO WHAT, I KNOW GODDIDIT.

@sonhouse said
I just saw a report showing there was an earlier version of DNA using sulfur in its makeup and making for simpler proteins and such but if I showed you the article you would just go SO WHAT, I KNOW GODDIDIT.

You play out both sides of our discussions and announce your side and mine to the world. You don't need me. You are so convinced you know what I would do or say that you rob me of making any independent choice or statement an individual has. That is very condescending of you. You're sure to come out on top because, by your rules, you alone are the arbiter of all truth; even the opinions of those you disagree with are bound by what you think of them.

@KellyJay said
You play out both sides of our discussions and announce your side and mine to the world. You don't need me. You are so convinced you know what I would do or say that you rob me of making any independent choice or statement an individual has. That is very condescending of you. You're sure to come out on top because, by your rules, you alone are the arbiter of all truth; even the opinions of those you disagree with are bound by what you think of them.

So tell me the truth: If science proved that GodDIDN'Tdo it, would you accept that? And I know that has not been proved, just think about the possibility and tell me if you could ever accept that?

Here is one such paper describing a much earlier version of our kind of DNA but incorporating sulfur which ours does not.

https://scitechdaily.com/scientists-may-have-found-traces-of-an-extinct-genetic-code-that-came-before-dna/

@sonhouse said
So tell me the truth: If science proved that GodDIDN'Tdo it, would you accept that? And I know that has not been proved, just think about the possibility and tell me if you could ever accept that?

Here is one such paper describing a much earlier version of our kind of DNA but incorporating sulfur which ours does not.

https://scitechdaily.com/scientists-may-have-found-traces-of-an-extinct-genetic-code-that-came-before-dna/

Show me the science that proves anything about God, anything at all, true or false!?

Science is limited to the material world, and anything beyond that will be due to inductive reasoning, not objective fact. Give a branch of science that you think I'm ignoring when it comes to God, and highlight the mystery that shows God isn't real if it is solved by science.

So here you are again, directing all truths of the universe by you; my arguments are only here because of what you say; the things brought up are meaningless because you don't engage with them. When asked for you to support something you say, you go silent, and I'm the one with the issue with science, not you. I'm not scared of taking any question on, but you rather not engage, you may get exposed to something you prefer to deny without talking about it openingly.

@sonhouse said
So tell me the truth: If science proved that GodDIDN'Tdo it, would you accept that? And I know that has not been proved, just think about the possibility and tell me if you could ever accept that?

Here is one such paper describing a much earlier version of our kind of DNA but incorporating sulfur which ours does not.

https://scitechdaily.com/scientists-may-have-found-traces-of-an-extinct-genetic-code-that-came-before-dna/

I am not sure what you think that paper proves. The information-driven process is still the information-driven process, early or late. What caused those specific informational sequences to appear? Information is very specific, which is why it is information. An unspecified formation will not direct anything specific to occur.

@KellyJay said
I am not sure what you think that paper proves. The information-driven process is still the information-driven process, early or late. What caused those specific informational sequences to appear? Information is very specific, which is why it is information. An unspecified formation will not direct anything specific to occur.

First off, you didn't answer my question and second, the gist of that paper says life formed with much simpler molecular structures than we see today so basing our analysis on how long it takes for X life form to arise from mud is wrong since there was early on a much simpler form of DNA to produce much simpler proteins so the timeline for origins can be much faster than we suppose it is today.

@KellyJay said
Show me the science that proves anything about God, anything at all, true or false!?

Science is limited to the material world, and anything beyond that will be due to inductive reasoning, not objective fact. Give a branch of science that you think I'm ignoring when it comes to God, and highlight the mystery that shows God isn't real if it is solved by science.

...[text shortened]... not engage, you may get exposed to something you prefer to deny without talking about it openingly.

Life IS the material world. Can you say what kind of physical force a god would have at its disposal to manipulate quadrillions of planetary prebiotic material all at once so all these planets gets a life force mod by this deity?
Even if you limit your deity's work to Earth it would have to have the ability to manipulate individual atoms by the trillions or quadrillions of atoms. Ever try to quantize such a situation?

@sonhouse said
First off, you didn't answer my question and second, the gist of that paper says life formed with much simpler molecular structures than we see today so basing our analysis on how long it takes for X life form to arise from mud is wrong since there was early on a much simpler form of DNA to produce much simpler proteins so the timeline for origins can be much faster than we suppose it is today.

Yes, if science could prove it, I'd accept it. Which discipline of science do you think could do that? If you want me to accept that, can you point to the one to pay attention to?

@sonhouse said
Life IS the material world. Can you say what kind of physical force a god would have at its disposal to manipulate quadrillions of planetary prebiotic material all at once so all these planets gets a life force mod by this deity?
Even if you limit your deity's work to Earth it would have to have the ability to manipulate individual atoms by the trillions or quadrillions of atoms. Ever try to quantize such a situation?

There is more to life than material makeup. Are you declaring the immaterial world nonexistent?

@KellyJay said
There is more to life than material makeup. Are you declaring the immaterial world nonexistent?

A non answer. Of course there are non material aspects to the universe, like strong and weak and electroweak forces and gravity which we know is just the bending of space and warping of time flow, the faster you go the slower time flows so you get to 99.99% of c your apparent journey to say Alpha Centauri takes only a few months Vs 4 years you would see if not for relativity.
But that is only real for the people and the craft going that speed.
When they get to AC, Earth still notes 4 years went by from Earths perspective.
So space AND time are malleable and that means there may be means which we at our kindergarten level of science now is an impossible task which may not be that impossible to some civilization a million years ahead of us scientifically speaking.
So one cannot rule out such beings but they might even have the ability to make their own universes with physics allowing for conditions amenable to life.
but given that, they would still not be gods, just a LOT more advanced scientifically than us.
Try this: How much energy would be expended by a real god who can manipulate quadrillions of atoms to molecules it knows leads to life?
How much energy does that require and where would it come from and what would be the consequences of such energy being used by said god, like would that energy heat up the atoms next to the experiment said god is running? Does said god put a shield up around each atom where no energy can get out? What would keep such energy from getting out and disrupting the atoms not in the experiment?
For instance, say said god has a pile of mud containing lithium and it needs say iron, then it has to force the light lithium to fuse together to make the much heavier iron atom and the like but that takes a LOT of force to get the protons inside lithium to combine with other lithium atoms to make iron.
Where would that energy come from and what would we call that energy and what would that energy be? micro ultrasonics? ultra short wavelength gamma radiation short enough to nudge two lithium ions together to overcome the strong force to make a higher proton count element?

@KellyJay said
Yes, if science could prove it, I'd accept it. Which discipline of science do you think could do that? If you want me to accept that, can you point to the one to pay attention to?

science results like this, of course following where this new paper could lead.

https://scitechdaily.com/scientists-may-have-found-traces-of-an-extinct-genetic-code-that-came-before-dna/

That suggests early life forms could happen a lot faster than we think today simply because the molecular constructions are so much simpler therefore less energy intense to make and therefor can happen a lot faster which says our present timeline is too slow leading to these calculations you suggest there there is not enough time in the entire age of the universe for life to develop without the prodding of a god.

Maybe that would lead us say 50 years hence to find even simpler types of DNA that would require even less energy inputs to make simper proteins.
Which is of course conjecture but this latest paper is solid science. Now we KNOW there were simpler forms arising from interactions with sulfur and ammonia.

Here is a new result from the asteroid sample and return analysis:

https://phys.org/news/2025-01-aliens-nasa-asteroid-samples-ingredients.html

This is the goop on the surface of an asteroid having been in orbit in the outer system for literally billions of years with nothing but other asteroids and comets and meteors slam into it but it shows organic kinds of materials there even in that environment of the blast of radiation and light from the sun and the utter vacuum of space but in spite of all that, complex molecules are present.

You say if science proves god did not start life here you would *wink wink* accept it.
Kind of like Hegseth saying he will go off alcohol if he gets the Defsec job.
It could happen......

Methinks you don't WANT to follow the latest science results for fear of losing your faith.
Everyone has faith and I can't knock yours but my faith is more like I have faith an asteroid is not going to slam into Allentown and possibly ruin my day🙂
BTW, I am now up to 456 tracks on Soundcloud, a friend of ours who was my wife Susan's dulcimer teacher way back in the depths of the 20th century, Ruth Barrett, wrote a tune back in 1992 or so, in honor of her cats called Romp of the canyon kittens, a dulcimer piece, dual dulcimer, with cynthia smith on dulcimer 2, anyway it is a hard piece to learn and it took me a week to get it down well enough I could do a half ass version of it so I posted that and then a tune I wrote in Ruthies honor called Romp of Ruthies kittens, so those are my latest tunes, and instrumentals only of course.

@sonhouse said
science results like this, of course following where this new paper could lead.

https://scitechdaily.com/scientists-may-have-found-traces-of-an-extinct-genetic-code-that-came-before-dna/

That suggests early life forms could happen a lot faster than we think today simply because the molecular constructions are so much simpler therefore less energy intense to make and th ...[text shortened]... onor called Romp of Ruthies kittens, so those are my latest tunes, and instrumentals only of course.

Mis wrote the name of my tune, it is SONG of Ruthies Kittens.