The influence of science on society

Originally posted by frogstomp
DNA exists
DNA consists of chemicals compounds.
a medium such as water , assorted chemical and heat will produce varying chemical reactions , varied by Brownian motion1)
chemical reactions create compounds

now that being said : if you apply probability distribution2) you will clearly see the resultant answer ...[text shortened]... g Brownian motion, or the diffusion of one fluid in another fluid, or the diffusion of heat.

Cool... But if this is possible then why hasn't DNA ever been created by chance? Maybe you should ask those that have studied this to give you the probability of this happening.

By the way, this is what Edward Conklin, a biologist, has stated: "The probability of life originating from accident (or chance) is comparable to the probability of an unabridged dictionary resulting from an explosion in a print shop." In other words, the universe originating by chance has NO CHANCE!

Originally posted by dj2becker
Cool... But if this is possible then why hasn't DNA ever been created by chance? Maybe you should ask those that have studied this to give you the probability of this happening.

By the way, this is what Edward Conklin, a biologist, has stated: "The probability of life originating from accident (or chance) is comparable to the probability of an unabrid ...[text shortened]... plosion in a print shop." In other words, the universe originating by chance has NO CHANCE!

And by the way, other scientists have made some calculations of the probability of life originating by chance. Sir Fred Hoyle, one of the leading scientists of this age, has computed the number of chances necessary for even the simplest life imaginable to have evolved by chance to be one chance in 10 to the power 40,000. (That is roughly comparable to the probability of rolling double sixes, 12 on two dice, 50,000 times in a row!) Statistically, scientists consider 1 chance in 10 to the power 50 to be impossible

Dr. Harold Morowitz, professor of Molecular Chemistry at Yale University, has concluded that the odds of life creating itself by chance are one in 10 followed by one billion zeroes! Yet any chance with less than one chance in 10 followed by 110 zeroes has NO CHANCE!

Read all about it: http://www.doesgodexist.org/JanFeb05/HowDidTheUniverseBegin.html

Originally posted by dj2becker
I think that the standard TOE is generally defined as a theory which claims that the current diversity of life on Earth is a result of a process of evolution acting on the original form of life.

So you agree that the TOE cannot exp ...[text shortened]... t that proves the formation of RNA molecules by random chance. [/b]

It depends on what "theory of evolution" we're talking about here. If we're talking about the diversity of life, then the origin of life is a different topic. If we're talking about the evolution of RNA, then yes, the TOE explains the origin of life; where the original form of life came from.

Do you agree that the TOE is based on the presupposition that matter has always existed

No, it is not based on this presupposition.

I would like to remind you that there is no scientific experiment that proves the formation of RNA molecules by random chance.

As far as I am aware, this is correct. Are you really claiming that a solution of nucleotide triphosphates could not polymerize?

Originally posted by dj2becker
[b]Look, what you are tryng to do is shoehorn something into TOE that just doesn't belong there. It doesn't seek to explain the origin of matter, it seeks to explain how that matter became life.

Many people accept that the TOE as being a scientific theory that explains the origin of life. What I am trying to show is that this is clearly not the ca ...[text shortened]... o you believe it? Only because it would be unthinkable to believe that God created everything?
[/b]

Many people accept that the TOE as being a scientific theory that explains the origin of life.

One variation of the TOE does explain the origin of life.

Would you agree with me that 'science' is the field of study that follows the 'scientific method'?

Sure.

In particular, speculations which propose no genuine means of experimental confirmation are not scientific. Untestable speculation cannot be considered "science". Furthermore, extrapolation beyond the range of actual experiment, especially into the distant past or the distant future is unscientific.

Is it a scientific statement to claim that you had at least one ancestor 1000 years ago? If so, then your argument does not hold. Extrapolation is absolutely scientific. It's the basis of all science. Newton's Laws of Mechanics are an extrapolation - if things happened a certain way 5,000,000 times, they will happen that way again.

Correct. But as you have said the TOE does not explain this. So what does?

Creationism does. The argument that matter has always existed does. I don't know what other theories and hypotheses physicists have come up with. I'm a biologist.

Is the Big Bang scientific? No. Has it ever been proved scientifically to have happened? No. Agree? So why do you believe it? Only because it would be unthinkable to believe that God created everything?

I don't know if the Big Bang is scientific. Has it been scientifically proven? I don't know. Why do I believe it? Because scientists came up with it, and as I haven't investigated it myself, I am willing to take the word scientists over religious people, as the process of science I have found to be far more reliable and to make more sense than claims of religious revelation. My belief is very tentative though. I'd need to investigate the issue myself to have more confidence. It is not unthinkable to believe God created everything. I think it's unlikely he did so 6000 years ago via the mechanism explained in Genesis. He might have done it billions of years ago in a way consistent with the sciences of biology, geology, astronomy etc.

Originally posted by dj2becker
The simplest reason for this, is that the laws of physics we can percieve did NOT exist until just after the big bang.

You are contradicting what Thousand Young said earlier... By the way, how can anyone know this for sure?

...[text shortened]... Thus it is illogical to say that something must have created God.

You are contradicting what Thousand Young said earlier

She is? What did I say?

Correct. There is just a slight technical error... The universe can be proved to have had a begining. God by definition is an eternal being.

What is that proof, and what is the definition of God? You do realize that just because something is defined a certain way doesn't mean it exists with those characteristics, right?

No one can prove that he has a begining or an end. Thus it is illogical to say that something must have created God.

No one can prove he exists either. Therefore it must be illogical to say he created anything. If the universe can be proven to have a beginning, and if all things that begin need a cause, then the universe has a cause. I see no reason to include the Christian God in this chain of logic.

Originally posted by dj2becker
Cool... But if this is possible then why hasn't DNA ever been created by chance? Maybe you should ask those that have studied this to give you the probability of this happening.

By the way, this is what Edward Conklin, a biologist, has stated: "The probability of life originating from accident (or chance) is comparable to the probability of an unabrid ...[text shortened]... plosion in a print shop." In other words, the universe originating by chance has NO CHANCE!

Nobody knows if DNA has been created by chance. Regardless, the hypothesis of the evolution of nucleic acids that explains life involved RNA, not DNA.

I don't know of anyone who has done this experiment and submitted it for scientific peer review - either evolutionist or creationist. If the creationists are so gung-ho to prove this possibility impossible they should run the experiment in a properly scientific manner and submit it for peer review.

The creationist probability arguments are fatally flawed. They do not take into account that the laws of nature act on chemicals in very specific ways. They assume complex molecules or cells 'poof' into existence instead of evolving step by step. Related is the concept of 'irreducable complexity' which ignores the factor of exaption.

"intelligent design theory" is utterly useless. It makes no testible predictions. It answers no scientific questions. It opens no new area sof investigation, and enables no new experiments that could not be performed without it. In fact, there has not been any scientific discovery, of any note, in any area of science, made in the last 20 years as the result of "intelligent design theory". "Intelligent design theory", it appears, consists solely of the assertions (1) we think there is an Intelligent Designer, (2) we don't know what it is, (3) we don't know what it does, (4) we don't know how it does it, and (5) we don't know how to go about answering any of those questions, but (6) we want you to teach about it anyway. Intelligent design "theory" is religious apologetics, nothing more and nothing less.

http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Hangar/2437/design.htm

Originally posted by dj2becker
And by the way, other scientists have made some calculations of the probability of life originating by chance. Sir Fred Hoyle, one of the leading scientists of this age, has computed the number of chances necessary for even the simplest l ...[text shortened]... : http://www.doesgodexist.org/JanFeb05/HowDidTheUniverseBegin.html

Read my post again .... It does not say any particular set will be produced but rather that ANY combination is randomly possible.

The good doctor most certainly knows that an eventual outcome will be a certainity once its instantiated.
And he ought to know that predicting a particular outcome raises the odds of success quite significantly.
Once instiantiated DNA becomes a catalyst does it not ?

Originally posted by AThousandYoung
Nobody knows if DNA has been created by chance. Regardless, the hypothesis of the evolution of nucleic acids that explains life involved RNA, not DNA.

I don't know of anyone who has done this experiment and submitted it for scientific peer review - either evolutionist or creationist. If the creationists are so gung-ho to prove this possibility i ...[text shortened]... re and nothing less.

http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Hangar/2437/design.htm[/b]

In a way we do know:

We know it exists.
We know random probability could have made it exist

That's a pretty strong scientific argument for chance.

Far stronger than "intelligent design" which is only a semantics argument. ( word game)

Originally posted by dj2becker
How do you know this?

I don't know that the universe spontaneously came into existence. Nobody knows how the universe came into existence. There are many creation myths that postulate mechanisms for the universe. Perhaps the best one is that it was sneezed out of the nose of the Great Green Arkleseizure:

"Many races believe that it was created by some sort of God, though the Jatravartid people of Viltvodle VI believe that the entire Universe was in fact sneezed out of the nose of a being called the Great Green Arkleseizure.

The Jatravartids, who live in perpetual fear of the time they call The Coming of The Great White Handkerchief, are small blue creatures with more than fifty arms each, who are therefore unique in being the only race in history to have invented the aerosol deodorant before the wheel." - from Douglas Adams, "Restaurant at the End of the Universe"

I think this story has great credibility, and much more so that the Fundies view of creation.

Originally posted by dj2becker
Dr. Harold Morowitz, professor of Molecular Chemistry at Yale University, has concluded that the odds of life creating itself by chance are one in 10 followed by one billion zeroes!

As usual, this datum is poorly utilized. Yes, the number posted is
correct, but it assumes that you only try once. Once you
multipy it by the number of times in history that the conditions were
correct for creating life over the period of time when these conditions
were present, that number decreases markedly. In fact, the number
approaches zero.

It's like playing the lottery. If you only play once, it's a one in a billion
shot. But if you play 5000 tickets every day for 50 years, your chances
of hitting it are much, much better.

Nemesio

Originally posted by Nemesio
As usual, this datum is poorly utilized. Yes, the number posted is
correct, but it assumes that you only try once. Once you
multipy it by the number of times in history that the conditions were
correct for creating life over th ...[text shortened]... ars, your chances
of hitting it are much, much better.

Nemesio

actually those large numbers always astound me since there are each piece of DNA is can vary is only 4 ways.. my point is and has been you are going to get some DNA what the content of it's string is alot more complicated however you are going to get the larger strings.
That we wind up with primate or insect DNA is just the way the Brownie Balls Bounced.

an brief update on space chemicals


http://library.thinkquest.org/C003763/index.php?page=origin03

http://www.abc.net.au/science/news/stories/s387111.htm


seems the odds are really shifting toward chance.