Is There Proof That God Exists?

[onycho]

Originally posted by ahrkron

My two cents, I have often seen variants of the pocket watch argument. In essence, what religious people say is that the universe is "so perfect" that it had to be made by an intelligent agent.
This is, however, a selfish view of things, since it assumes that our own existence is somehow especial. "In order for the universe to create us", they say, "things had to work exactly as they are".

Your two cents... In essence you may leave the religious people and perspective out of this equation. You must look at the reality your senses assume exists in this universe and all it contains. Nothing is selfish in this perspective of the complexity of things around us and in our universe. Take for example, the mitrochonria of each livng cell in your body. Current knowledge of the events that occur in these organelles constitute a cascading chain of events and mollecular availability and uses, that if during each event, one of them were altered, the entire system would fail. Do you have any idea of the statistical probability of these events happening in exactly the right sequence one after another for this little system to work without flaw? It is -0% and when you extrapolate this not so simple function to all things you have to be not only selfish in your view of things but you have to ignore overwhelming evidence to the contrary. I don't believe in impossibilities occurring within the enormity of the university.

This may sound good, but it is a non-sequitur.

Really, what is your own evidence in these realities that do not follow logically from what preceded each irreducible complexity in the universe and its myriad of functions?

It can be the case that the universe goes on doing its thing, its size and laws allowing (or, rather, implying) the development of some locally stable domains.

Could you kindly explain what you mean by 'locally stable domains?'
Are you saying that everything works by some kind of random entropy?

Think of it as a swimming pool with lots of whirlpools. Some of them disappear too quickly to allow any further substructures to develop, but some (the really stable ones) keep their general shape long enough for smaller whirlpools to appear within them. If some of the smaller ones are capable of self-replicating, they will rather soon dominate the scene of the stable whirlpool.

Sorry but it appears that your logic is flawed. You first must detail the origin and sudden appearance of this swimming pool with lots of whirlpools. You must have Something or Unseen Hand which first formed your initial construct for these stable substructure whirlpools to follow in a chaotic chain of abstract events to perfection.

Then, if this small, self-replicating, whirlpools develop the ability of asking things, the could start deluding themselves into thinking that the whole universe was set up precisely for them to exist

Why do you think that the whole universe was formed precisely for humans alone to exist? Remember that long ago mankind gave up the idea that the stars and planets rotated around our world and us being the center of things? Step outside of your box for one minute and look from the perspective of why all things were formed in such irreducible complexity and then subtract us humans and your belief that everything was created for us little fleas.

"Otherwise, why would we exist in a stable big whirlpool?"

One can only guess as there is no explanation of which I am aware.

You would'n be asking anything if your planet was not a stable structure, "Why then is it that all natural constants are tuned so perfectly for us to exist" They are't tuned. If they were different, a different kind of life and intelligence would have asked the question.

Exactly on point...

"Why is my whirlpool so beautiful?" Your word for "beautiful" (and all other "nice" words) can only refer to what you see. It can only refer to the only reality you know.

Again you make my point. To be more precise, you can refer to the reality as we assume it exists. Personally I believe that all we observe and conjecture about is nothing more or less than a giant hologram in a dimension of timelessness. Take a look at the following Scientific American site which I believes should be examined more thoroughly and would explain things like what does the border of our supposed universe look like and what is on the other side of same...

http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?articleID=000AF072-4891-1F0A-97AE80A84189EEDF

As with evolution, it is not pure chance, but complexity plus dynamically stable (and, in a way, unavoidable) configurations.

Unfortunately the theory of evolution has bascially been debunked. Example: The fossil record over the past 100 years or so has somehow failed to find those pesky evolutionary flow from one species to another. Not one and that includes the winged lizard. The earliest fossil records demonstrate single celled soft body fossils until the Cambrian period when in a short period of a couple of million years all the species suddenly appeared. Yep, the palentologists and scientific world glosses over this little fact. Check it out for yourself. Evoluntionary changes do occur within species such as a gray moth evolving into a different speckle or colored moth but sudden jumps from earlier species into newer species are mysteriously absent.

The human mind is finite in it's ability to comprehend such complexity.

 

[onycho]

Originally posted by Visitor

Would God make a pocket watch that HAD screws to fall out? (that was an analogy by the way referring to the fact that EVERYTHING, no matter how complex, is deeply flawed. In fact, the greater the complexity, they more numerous the flaws.)

Sorry vistor but that fact that EVERYTHING no matter how complex is not basically flawed. Otherwise neither you nor I would be here to discuss this topic. In fact, except for rare exception everything works out in such a complex manner that everything continues from second to second instead of falling apart into basic particles and flying off into space.

 

[Zero]

Originally posted by onycho
Originally posted by Visitor

Would God make a pocket watch that HAD screws to fall out? (that was an analogy by the way referring to the fact that EVERYTHING, no matter how complex, is deeply flawed. In fact, the greater the complexity, they more numerous the flaws.)

Sorry vistor but that fact that EVERYTHING no matter how complex is not basically flawed. Otherwise neither you nor I would be here to discuss this topic. In fact, except for rare exception everything works out in such a complex manner that everything continues from second to second instead of falling apart into basic particles and flying off into space.

Sorry, onycho, but everything is falling apart, generally. We can have this conversation because things are being built up at the same time that they are falling apart, but eventually the decay overwhelms us all, and we keel over and die.

 

[onycho]

Originally posted by pallidin

I'll take a stab at this. Since I assume that all of us here are humans, I suppose my opinion is as right or wrong as anyone else's.

CORRECT...

I have never seen, heard or otherwise experienced God in any way that I could share with others because, for me, it has never happened.

Do you really think that any others have except in their own mind's eye?

Furthermore, I have never experienced a dramatic paranormal event(such as a ghost, demon, household objects flying around, etc...) that might cause me to consider. Well, there was one event. About 10 years ago I helped this old lady with some chores and refused to be paid. Not sure why, but I just felt like doing it. When I got back home there was a strong odor of roses in my house. No-one was there previous to me as I lived alone at that time. That was weird, and I must admit I think of it from time-to-time.

You had an olfactory experience. Your correlation between doing a good deed and smelling roses is nice but does not prove anything.

Anyway, apart from that I suppose I have not had any unsual situations which would lead me to believe in a "spiritual" component to reality. Even still, I do believe in a God. Why? I don't know. It's just an impression I have without any proof.

Your statement is based upon several factors. One of which is your parent imprinting and the other is because everyone in reality fears the unknown and our mortality. The evidence I have is in the fact that all things are totally impossible without something or someone holding the laws of the universe stable or we would fly apart into basic particles the second that that Creator turned His perception off from His own creation.

Scientifically I have thought about it and have reached certain suppositions: a) If dimensions above the 4th exist, I do not see it as all that improbable that "life" in those dimensions exist, and "intelligent" life as well. b) In nature, we often see a "hierarchael" order, either establised or struggled towards. So, I suppose there might be "leaders" in those "other dimensions" if they exist as stated. c) For some reason(probably wrong), I have always felt that the very fact that anything exists at all is rather strange, as it would seem that the perfect scientific scenario for reality is that nothing at all should exist. After all, that concept entirely validates itself. Yet, here we are.

To see my opinion, take a look at the same Scientific American site I recently posted to someone else.

http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?articleID=000AF072-4891-1F0A-97AE80A84189EEDF

This premise would explain a lot of things that our scientific world finds so baffling and with so many very esoteric theories.

Anywhoes, just my meager thoughts.

You are at least thinking about this stuff...

 

[onycho]

Originally posted by Zero

Sorry, onycho, but everything is falling apart, generally. We can have this conversation because things are being built up at the same time that they are falling apart, but eventually the decay overwhelms us all, and we keel over and die.

Sorry but everything is not falling apart but simply progressing in an orderly manner from one second to another. In the human body, our cells are continually dying while new ones are being formed to replace the old ones.

There are X times for our cells to die off (try not taking a bath for a week and watch your dead skin cells make you look like a lizard) and then form new ones in which your life force within your body continues on its merry way. I believe that you are exactly you were before your conception and continues after this vessel we call a body ends its normal cycle. The same thing applies to everything in this universe. But then that is just my opinion.

 

[onycho]

Originally posted by FZ+

Really. So then, it IS possible for something to appear out of nothing, so long as it follows certain guidelines. And so, the argument is invalid. Before you start criticising logic itself, note that the argument we are talking about has also been constructed in the same sort of logic. Hypocrisy is such an ugly thing...

You have described your own thought process perfectly. Exactly whose logic are you talking about? When you fail to present your logic as credible you find HYPROCRISY... Interesting point of your personal view.

I am talking about the scientific definition of photons, plus the well confirmed conclusions of special relativity. Go ask Einstein.

Einstein once told me that he was not happy with his own theory of 'special relativity.' What makes you think that the scientific definition of photons is either well confirmed or the final current authorized conclusion of the nature of either a particle or a wave. In Bell's theory, all particles including photons are aware of every other particle in the universe all at the same time. Even that every particle effects every other particle in the universe at the same time. Did you know that the proven fact that individual particles have some form of intelligence and choice. Look up the split screen experiment in which particles fired through one slit sometimes CHOOSE to go to another slit further down a front lead screen.

So now, we pit intuition, against the fact that it has actually happened. As in all evolutionary events, it is hard to characterise a definite beginning, and to be true to the classic monkey-keyboard, it is hard to define a set population. All in all, it took about 2000 years for the knowledge and design to appear randomly by chance discoveries. And as for monkeys, we will have to include the huamn population through that time, all of whom could have made a contribution. Important contributions were made by monkeys such as Leonardo Da Vinci, and so on. The fact of it was that through the watch's development, there was never a goal to aim for, there was never a single intent, and there is no sign of predestination. Ideas popped up, and were weeded out - just as in evolution.

Interesting non-cogent thinking here. Difficult to follow your line of thought. So FZ+ says "there was never a single intent and no sign of predestination." Is that your own theory? WOW...

That is a question you need to ask yourself. I have observed your posting habits - and my observations are not good.

Now I am really worried! Your negative observations of my posting habits is of great concern to me. While I think your posting habits are really excellent and your validating your own concepts is flawless.

Why do you only ever dip into offer obscure, and usually irrelevant arguments? Why do you cloud yourself in vagueness? Why is it that the only time you made a clear statement was when you were talking about stellar mechanics, and were talking completely contrary to observed facts? Don't confuse ignorance with profundity.

So you are saying that everything is only correct from your observation of facts or science's current theories about stellar mechanics or things. How do you come to the conclusion that the universe is so clear cut and to your understanding instead of a vagueness that seems to change scientific thinking from day to day. You are truly funny...

 

[FZ+]

You have described your own thought process perfectly. Exactly whose logic are you talking about?

Your logic. Your solution to the triplet is to introduce a loophole clause. This loophole clause means that it is possible to break the initial chain. This is sufficient to collapse the argument.

Einstein once told me that he was not happy with his own theory of 'special relativity.'

This would be Albert Einstein, you know... the dead man... If Bell talks about "at the same time", then he is wrong - as far as special relativity is concerned. If you wish to argue this, then do it in theory development.

So FZ+ says "there was never a single intent and no sign of predestination." Is that your own theory?

No sir. That would be fact. No cavemen stood up and said "Hey, we need a pocket watch to exist at a certain point in the future, and on that basis, we are going to guide the entire future of our race." When Hooke stated his law of elasticity, pocket watches were not what he was thinking of. History is filled with chance happening from which order arises.

Now I am really worried! Your negative observations of my posting habits is of great concern to me. While I think your posting habits are really excellent and your validating your own concepts is flawless.

Not talking to you. Notice the quote just before it. If you are interested, look through Tenyears' posts and you will see what I mean.

 

[onycho]

Originally posted by FZ+

Your logic. Your solution to the triplet is to introduce a loophole clause. This loophole clause means that it is possible to break the initial chain. This is sufficient to collapse the argument.

What are you talking about? There is no loophole (triplet?) or illogic when you are talking about that which cannot be proved absolutely. Everything is couched with 'in my personal opinion.'

This would be Albert Einstein, you know... the dead man... If Bell talks about "at the same time", then he is wrong - as far as special relativity is concerned. If you wish to argue this, then do it in theory development.

Chill out FZ+. Do you not understand sarcaism when referencing talking to a dead man? See the following Nature Science Journal, Exorcising Einstein's spooks. You want to argue logic and yet you dismiss what you do not understand.

http://www.nature.com/nsu/011129/011129-15.html

No sir. That would be fact. No cavemen stood up and said "Hey, we need a pocket watch to exist at a certain point in the future, and on that basis, we are going to guide the entire future of our race." When Hooke stated his law of elasticity, pocket watches were not what he was thinking of. History is filled with chance happening from which order arises.

Do you really think so? You spoke with these DEAD CAVEMEN, did you? Chance is more like the mother of invention or necessity. Who made the cavemen?

Not talking to you. Notice the quote just before it. If you are interested, look through Tenyears' posts and you will see what I mean.

Why don't you give me Tenyear's post site as I have never seen his name.

 

[FZ+]

What are you talking about? There is no loophole (triplet?) or illogic when you are talking about that which cannot be proved absolutely. Everything is couched with 'in my personal opinion.'

I think you are miles away from the source of the issue, now.

Chill out FZ+. Do you not understand sarcaism when referencing talking to a dead man? See the following Nature Science Journal, Exorcising Einstein's spooks. You want to argue logic and yet you dismiss what you do not understand.

The article refers to QM, not to special relativity. Velocity related time dilation is experimentally very real, and that is the reason why photons do not experience time. Add physics on to the list of thing you do not understand, together with mechanics, history, biology...

Do you really think so? You spoke with these DEAD CAVEMEN, did you?

So, okay. Cavemen envisioned pocket watches. The ultimate goal of science has always been to produce pocket watches. Probabilistic laws of physics were made with pocket watches in mind. The shape of pocket watches were determined by divine writ. The doctors in white coats are here to help you.

Unfortunately the theory of evolution has bascially been debunked. Example: The fossil record over the past 100 years or so has somehow failed to find those pesky evolutionary flow from one species to another.

Hahaha... Define "evolutionary flow", and I'll point out the straw man. Cascades are only meaningful with a given target, and there is no such thing as a failure since in evolution, there is no preset goal.

Why don't you give me Tenyear's post site as I have never seen his name.

On the previous page:

FZ, what are you afraid of? Over a decade ago I saw the living god not a vision or in the sky, but the god of all gods. It leaves you with two options to believe I am a liar or mad or is there another explanation? God is a scary experience, the unknown. Leave your fear and go forward, you will find things you cannot beleive, you will do things you cannot believe.

 

[ahrkron]

Originally posted by onycho
Take for example, the mitrochonria of each livng cell in your body. Current knowledge of the events that occur in these organelles constitute a cascading chain of events and mollecular availability and uses, that if during each event, one of them were altered, the entire system would fail.

But that is not amazing at all, since you are starting off by looking at a successful self-replicator, one out of a species that has kept going for many, many generations.

To put it in a different way: yes, if one piece was missing, then the full thing would not work. It is then just natural that the systems (cells) you see after a very long time are those that work fine and that do reproduce those (successful) mechanisms.

Do you have any idea of the statistical probability of these events happening in exactly the right sequence one after another for this little system to work without flaw?

That is a formally incorrect way to look at it.
What you are doing here is similar to throwing a coin and, once obtaining the result (say, tails), exclaiming: "do you have any idea of the probability of every single atom to be in that particular position right now?"

When computing the probability of an event, you need to specify the property of the system that is under study (which, in turn, specifies the denominator for the probability). In the case of the coin, we are usually concerned only with the face that ends up up. This allows only one out of two configurations.

If you want to get the probability of a particular atom-by-atom configuration, the probability of each event is surely much smaller, but that is not surprising given the size of the system.

In the case of the probability you want to construct, you would need to count of how many ways "life" arises given the known amount of time and the existent interactions between matter. The fact that, in this particular instance of living systems, things work in one particular way is akin to the atom-by-atom flaw I mentioned.

I don't think such probability would be so small, but even if it was, what does it prove?

Imagine a container with some gas on it. At every moment, gas molecules are moving and colliding. If you take a picture of it, the specific position and velocity of all molecules shown in your picture is one out of a huge amount of possible configurations.

Should you conclude anything from the fact that they have the specific configuration you photographed? The probability for such is clearly extremely small.

You may answer "yes, but it has no life and no conscience on it", but so what? why should we treat it differently? if natural laws allow for life and intelligence, then the configuration we have is as "good" or "bad" as any other. We just happen to be especially interested in us.

I'll get back to the rest of your post later.

 

[onycho]

Originally posted by ahrkron

But that is not amazing at all, since you are starting off by looking at a successful self-replicator, one out of a species that has kept going for many, many generations.

There is only a small flaw in your proposition. To even consider self-replicated systems or organisms, you must initially explain the probability of magically organizing inorganic material into the very first life form on planet earth. Then if you stop to determine the probability of such an event occurring after many accidental events, it has been determined that the time required for same would be 10 (200) times of all the time estimated from the origin of the universe (Big Bang) until now.

To put it in a different way: yes, if one piece was missing, then the full thing would not work. It is then just natural that the systems (cells) you see after a very long time are those that work fine and that do reproduce those (successful) mechanisms.

You are correct in your first sentence in the fact that in each successful successive mutation, any single flaw at any point would result in a dead-end. Then you state a living cell appearing after a long period of time that works just fine and which reproduces those successful characteristics to the next generation has no error or flaw along the way.

Let me digress for a second to give you a small sample of the problems encountered in such a successful event without any error resulting in a dead-end.

In 1957 Arthur Kornberg demonstrated that a certain enzyme could polymerize the activated forms of deoxynecleotides into a new DNA molecule that was an exact copy of whatever “template” DNA Kornberg threw into the reaction mixture. He called the enzyme DNA polymerase I (Pol). The scientific community was ecstatic about the find. Over the years, however, it has been shown that Pol I’s primary role is not to synthesize DNA during cell division; rather, it is to repair DNA that has been damaged by exposure to ultraviolet light, chemical mutagens, or other environmental insults. Two other DNA polymerases, Pol II and Pol III, were later discovered. The role of Pol II remains murky: mutant cells lacking the enzyme exhibit no observable defects. Pol III has been identified as the major enzyme involved in DNA replication in prokaryotes.

DNA polymerase III is actually a complex of seven different sub units, ranging in length from about 300 to about 1,100 amino acid residues. Only one of the subunits does the actual chemical joining of nucleotides; the other subunits are involved in critical accessory functions. For instance, the polymerizing subunit tends to fall off the template DNA after joining only ten to fifteen nucleotides. If this happens in the cell the polymerase would have to hop back on hundreds of thousands of times before replication was complete, slowing replication enormously. However; the complete Pol III – with all seven subunits – does not fall off until the entire template DNA (which can be more than a million base pairs long) is copied.

And this single task becomes more complex with subunits in a myriad of complex interactions that I could describe which would bore you to no end. But the point is made relative to your successful traits following in that first successful life form. This is just a pinpoint of irreducible complexity in just one tiny part of DNA which you must multiply by a factor that would make any accidental or chance event to be IMPOSSIBLE.

That is a formally incorrect way to look at it. What you are doing here is similar to throwing a coin and, once obtaining the result (say, tails), exclaiming: "do you have any idea of the probability of every single atom to be in that particular position right now?" When computing the probability of an event, you need to specify the property of the system that is under study (which, in turn, specifies the denominator for the probability). In the case of the coin, we are usually concerned only with the face that ends up up. This allows only one out of two configurations.

If you want to get the probability of a particular atom-by-atom configuration, the probability of each event is surely much smaller, but that is not surprising given the size of the system.

This statement doesn’t make much sense. You seemingly intimate that the larger size if a given system allows for more readily organizing of individual atoms in a specific way. Using your analogy of coin tossing or the more complex system resulting in a greater probability of organization does not make logical sagacity.

In the case of the probability you want to construct, you would need to count of how many ways "life" arises given the known amount of time and the existent interactions between matter. The fact that, in this particular instance of living systems, things work in one particular way is akin to the atom-by-atom flaw I mentioned. I don't think such probability would be so small, but even if it was, what does it prove?

Okay, how many ways does “life” arise in all the time since the Big Bang multiplied by a factor of 100. It simply would not happen.

Imagine a container with some gas on it. At every moment, gas molecules are moving and colliding. If you take a picture of it, the specific position and velocity of all molecules shown in your picture is one out of a huge amount of possible configurations. Should you conclude anything from the fact that they have the specific configuration you photographed? The probability for such is clearly extremely small.

You may answer "yes, but it has no life and no conscience on it", but so what? why should we treat it differently? if natural laws allow for life and intelligence, then the configuration we have is as "good" or "bad" as any other. We just happen to be especially interested in us.

Your “natural laws” which allow for life and intelligence are based on what? Chaos or chance….. Whether we are interested in us or in the formation of super nova, where does life and consciousness derive? Gas bubbles banging into each other creating random chances for my very limited description above are meaningless.

I'll get back to the rest of your post later.

Great...

 

[onycho]

Originally posted by FZ+

I think you are miles away from the source of the issue, now.

Sorry FZ+ but it is impossible to debate subjects with you as apparently you have no concept or understanding of the basic topics. Your 'thinking' on these subjects are rudimentary best. Continued discussion with you is futile as you make many declarative statements that are obviously without basis as you get off into tangents or fables that have nothing to do with the subject at hand.

Have a great day...

 

[TENYEARS]

FZ, this is for you bud, wisdom is a state where I one need not have others to be wrong in order to be right. These words were born tonight. You have the capacity and the intelligence to find the truth, so find it. It goes for the rest of you who have the need to convince another. A war does not determine a winner, only a temporary flux in power. The balance always reestabilishes itself over time, so what is the point of this foolishness?

 

[ahrkron]

Originally posted by onycho
To even consider self-replicated systems or organisms, you must initially explain the probability of magically organizing inorganic material into the very first life form on planet earth.

No magic needed. Things are much easier than "Intelligent Design" advocates usually portray it.

This is why: In order to start the chain, we don't need to start with a full blown complex organism (multicelled, or with multiple organelles). All that is needed is that, among the millions of possible chemical combinations on a primitive planet, one (yes, one!) turns out to have a primitive self-replicating ability. It is not even an "ability" as much as a property, since it basically depends on the geometry of the molecule and how it accommodates aminoacids that it grabs on the way.

Once you have a molecule that can attach itself to other molecules in such a way that, after some time, it releases a well-fitting "negative" of its own shape, a sort of snowball effect is in place, since it will naturally (inevitably) produce more and more duplicates of itself. The number of these primitive self-replicators will of course increase exponentially, limited only by the available resources.

How probable is it to make one of these primitive mechanisms? Maybe small, but you only need (at least) one of them, and you have 3 billion years and a planet's oceans full of water, heat and Carbon molecules to allow for combinations.

Once you have the first replicator, a primitive one, prone to errors and failures, the variations among them and the natural proliferation of those that are better at the task is a very difficult process to stop.

You are correct in your first sentence in the fact that in each successful successive mutation, any single flaw at any point would result in a dead-end.

Not at all.

If a replicator gets too attached to its second helix, so that it never releases its "negative" version, then yes, its "family branch" is doomed.

However, it is not hard to imagine (especially among the first self-replicating molecules) that some would pick up a "wrong" piece (wrong in the sense that it was not the usual "mirror reflection" of its molecules) precisely because that piece fits even better than its own original components. From that generation on, its "descendants" will have an advantage over other, less stable molecules around, and you can logically expect to have more of these in the long run.

As time passes, these small changes do add up. The process exponentially favors the continuity of the better replicators, and nobody would expect ineffective replicators to be around for too long.

Then you state a living cell appearing after a long period of time that works just fine and which reproduces those successful characteristics to the next generation has no error or flaw along the way.

Nobody states that a cell just "appeared" out of random combinations. As I said, the first organic molecules were just that, molecules able to do the neat trick of getting copies of them. As time passed, you get enough of them, and enough variations, to "test" many different approaches to do the tast of producing copies. Those that had a primitive shield were better equipped (prokaryots (sp?)), then those that had a somewhat centralized
section for the replicating core processes (eukariots). The fact that copies of those better at making copies stayed around more than those that were not so good should be no surprise.

I'll try to get back to more of you points (boy, I didn't expect to spend this much time! this is fun ).

 

[onycho]

Originally posted by ahrkron

No magic needed. Things are much easier than "Intelligent Design" advocates usually portray it.

This is fun, as you say, and you are apparently paraphrasing Nobel laureate and Harvard University biology professor George Wald and was actually published in the widely read Journal Scientific American.

However improbable we regard this event (the start of life), or any of the steps which it involves, given enough time it will almost certainly happen at least once. And for life as we know it….. once may be enough.

Time is in fact the hero of the plot. The time with which we have to deal is of the order of two billion years. What we regard as impossible on the basis of human experience is meaningless here. Given so much time the “impossible” becomes the possible, the possible probable, and the probable virtually certain. One has only to wait: time itself performs the miracles.

For decades leading biologists had promulgated the position, stated so well by Wald, that time and chance were the forces behind the miracle of life. It was logically correct. After all, what else could be operating?

Wald’s definitive statement, made on behalf of the scientific community rested firmly on research completed the previous year. In 1953, Stanley Miller, then a graduate student at the University of Chicago, had produced amino acids by a series of totally random reactions. His experiment was simple but brilliant.

Miller evacuated a glass flask and then filled in it with the gasses thought to have been present in Earth’s atmosphere 3.8 billion years ago: ammonia, methane, hydrogen, and water vapor. Free oxygen was not present. It appeared only billions of years later, the product of life itself: photosynthesis. Using electrodes placed through the walls of the flask, Miller discharged electric sparks, simulating lightning, into the gases. Their energy induced random chemical reactions among the gases. After a few days, a reddish slime appeared on the inner walls of the apparatus. Upon analysis, the slime was found to contain amino acids!

The importance of Miller’s experiment was at once apparent. Amino acids the building blocks of proteins and proteins are the building blocks of life. As Wald pointed out, two billion years had passed between the appearance of water on Earth and the appearance of life. If random reactions in a small flask can produce amino acids in just two days, given two billion years of reactions throughout the Earth’s vast atmosphere and oceans, the first forms of life, bacteria and algae, must have been the product of similar random reactions during those eons. The impossible had become the probable and the probable certain. You and me and all other members of the biosphere are living proof of the theory’s accuracy.

The new media worldwide reported the significance of Miller’s seminal experiment. The public had been told the truth: life had started by CHANCE.

Or had it?

Wald’s article was such an important statement that twenty-five years later, in 1979, Scientific American reprinted it in a special publication titled Life: Origin and Evolution. The only difference was that this time it appeared with a retraction. I have seen no other retraction by a journal of a Nobel laureate’s writings. The reaction was unequivocal:

Although stimulating, this article probably represents one of the very few times in his professional life when Wald has been wrong. Examine his main thesis and see. Can we really form a biological cell by waiting for chance combinations of organic compounds? Harold Morowitz, in his book “Energy Flow and Biology,” computed that merely to create a bacterium would require more time than the Universe might ever see if chance combinations of its molecules were the only driving force.

C. Folcome, Life: Origin and Evolution, Scientific American Special Publication, 1979

In short, life could not have been started by pure chance…..

Lest you think that the scientific community has changed its opinion since 1979, the following appeared in the same journal in February 1991, in a review article by John Hogan on the origins of life. “Some scientists have argued that, given enough time, even apparently miraculous events become possible – such as the spontaneous emergence of a single-cell organism from random couplings of chemical. Sir Fred Hoyle, the British astronomer, has said such an occurrence is about as likely as the assemblage of a 747 by a tornado whirling though a junkyard. Most researchers agree with Hoyle on this point.”

Ahkron for your information, since 1979, articles based on your premise that life arose through chance random reactions over billions of years are not accepted in any reputable journals. Articles authored by Nobel laureates are not lightly retracted. The statistical computations by Morowitz may have cast a shadow of doubt over Wald’s claims for the power of chance, but I question whether Scientific American would have actually retracted the article with letters disagreeing with Miller’s and Wald’s thesis on the random origins of life. Scientific opinion of the day was that life had started via a series of random reactions.

The article was withdrawn because research performed by another Harvard professor proved Wald wrong. In the 1970s, Elso Baghoorn, a paleontologist, discovered micro-fossils of bacteria and algae in rocks close to 3.5 billion years old. That is also when the first liquid water appeared on Earth, and hence the first time that life could survive. All life on Earth is water based. No water, no life, but with water, life was possible. It had only to develop, and develop it did, immediately in the presence of water. There were no “billions of years’ for the amino acids to combine randomly into life.

Hence, your premise of sudden life on Earth that, the theoretical biologist Francis Crick wrote, “Given the weakness of all theories of terrestrial genesis [the origin of life on Earth], directed panspermia [the deliberate planting of life on Earth] should still be considered a serious possibility. Crick apparently understood the complexity of life.

As time passes, these small changes do add up. The process exponentially favors the continuity of the better replicators, and nobody would expect ineffective replicators to be around for too long.

The reality is a little bit different than continuity by better replicators as I have previously stated. The magnitude of events of cascading interactions will ‘always’ have at least one flawed or ineffective replicator which always leads to a dead end for that first hoped for positive result. Not to mention that for a life form itself, the numbers for that magnitude of events are again zero.

 

[TENYEARS]

onycho, this was a good post and informative. I did not know the exact experiment which was done in order to create the amino acids, but I sense it may have been as you worded with potentially high probability. You are right on the money, because this is how life formed. Wald though, you misunderstand his stance. That is all I will tell you. He was correct and I will not tell you why, even though your post is correct. How can they both be correct? This is your riddle, everyone gets a different kind. What I do not find amazing is that the scientific community does not understand the nature of his words. I am saving the explaintion for a chapter in an unwritten book. Maybe it will be a different kind of book. One without pages.

 

[onycho]

Originally posted by TENYEARS

onycho, this was a good post and informative. I did not know the exact experiment which was done in order to create the amino acids, but I sense it may have been as you worded with potentially high probability. You are right on the money, because this is how life formed. Wald though, you misunderstand his stance. That is all I will tell you. He was correct and I will not tell you why, even though your post is correct. How can they both be correct? This is your riddle, everyone gets a different kind. What I do not find amazing is that the scientific community does not understand the nature of his words. I am saving the explaintion for a chapter in an unwritten book. Maybe it will be a different kind of book. One without pages.

Tenyears I am not certain of your meaning relating to misinterpreting Wald's stance.

First you agree with me that life could not have begun by random chance, then you say that Wald's perspective of random chance formation of life was correct and finally you say both are correct?

Darwin, himself, knew that his theory of gradual evolution by natural selection carried a heavy burden:

"If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely breakdown."

-Eldridge, N. (1995) Reinventing Darwin, Wiley, New York. pg. 95

It is safe to say that most of the scientific skepticism about Darwinism in the past century has centered on this requirement. From Mirvart's concern over the incipient states of new structures to Marguilis's dismissal of grandual evolution, critics of Darwin have suspected that his criterion of failure have been met. But how can we be confident? What type of biological system could not be formed by 'numerous, successive, slight modifications"?

Well for starters, a system that is irreducibly complex.

I hope that your book without pages is not as mysterious as your riddle...

 

[Zero]

Irreducable complexity has never been shown to exist. Further, even if it were shown, it is absolutely no proof of mythological beings.

Mostly, though, it is a fancy-sounding term with little else going for it...brought to you by the Discovery Institute.

 

[onycho]

Originally posted by Zero

Irreducable complexity has never been shown to exist. Further, even if it were shown, it is absolutely no proof of mythological beings. Mostly, though, it is a fancy-sounding term with little else going for it...brought to you by the Discovery Institute.

Zero, first of all, get the spelling correct before you make such sweeping unsubstantiated statements.

The fact remains that you are an irreducibly complex organism closely related to a sea slug.

If you can concentrate and cease drooling for more than a second or two, you might want to take a peek at the following site.

http://www.arn.org/behe/mb_ic.htm

 

[TENYEARS]

A man walks down street and is struck by a small meteor from the sky. Was it planned? No. Could it have happened any other way? No. How can this be? This is the key to the question to understand this...

Some of you are melting, I can see it.

If you answer the question you get an ice cold old fashion coke in a glass longneck bottle on a warm sunny day.

 

[onycho]

Originally posted by TENYEARS

A man walks down street and is struck by a small meteor from the sky. Was it planned? No. Could it have happened any other way? No. How can this be? This is the key to the question to understand this... Some of you are melting, I can see it. If you answer the question you get an ice cold old fashion coke in a glass longneck bottle on a warm sunny day.

You seem to be referencing the conundrum between predetermination (causality) and freewill.

How can they both be in effect while seemingly at opposite ends of the pole?

 

[TENYEARS]

onycho, why do you place these things in boxes of arguments? Is not the question of predermination the same as which you speak of Wald and evoulution. Is it the same argument? There is one question for all of this, but it's answer is everywhere. To ask one single question, will yeild more than you can every imagine. It does come at a price, nothing is free.

 

[onycho]

Originally posted by TENYEARS

onycho, why do you place these things in boxes of arguments? Is not the question of predermination the same as which you speak of Wald and evoulution. Is it the same argument?

Actually there is no argument, neither in nor out of boxes. Predetermination nor causality contradicts 'directed creation' or QM.

There is one question for all of this, but it's answer is everywhere. To ask one single question, will yeild more than you can every imagine. It does come at a price, nothing is free.

If you will illucidate your enigma, everyone may be able to help you with the answer.

 

[TENYEARS]

I figured out gravity and universal theory in 1991. I will never need answers again, and yet new questions arise all the time. From this one understanding, all things may be derived.

 

[onycho]

Originally posted by TENYEARS

I figured out gravity and universal theory in 1991. I will never need answers again, and yet new questions arise all the time. From this one understanding, all things may be derived.

So you've figured it all out in 1991. You know everything and the nature of gravity is understood by no one other than yourself in the entire galaxy.

 

[FZ+]

Since you deemed me ignorant, you might ignore this.

But irreducible complexity has indeed been fully falsified.

The critical error made is to once again implant the creationist idea of set goals to work to. It doesn't happen like that. The production of many "irreducibly complex" organs have been demonstrated by either peripherals shifting to different functions, or by the development of redundant systems that disappear, in the same way as scaffolding is removed. In the analogy of the watch, in constructing the watch, additional features like clamps exist, and then are removed. Many of these redundant features that are disappearing can still be seen. (eg. the appendix)

Behe is a laughing stock of the biological community.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/behe.html

 

[ahrkron]

Originally posted by FZ+
Behe is a laughing stock of the biological community.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/behe.html [/B]

Excellent link FZ!

 

[Zero]

No, Behe's cool! So what if he's got no credibility with real scientists? He sells books, which finances the political movement, and gets mentioned in print, which helps with the propaganda machine.

 

[onycho]

Originally posted by FZ+

Since you deemed me ignorant, you might ignore this.
But irreducible complexity has indeed been fully falsified.
The critical error made is to once again implant the creationist idea of set goals to work to. It doesn't happen like that. The production of many "irreducibly complex" organs have been demonstrated by either peripherals shifting to different functions, or by the development of redundant systems that disappear, in the same way as scaffolding is removed. In the analogy of the watch, in constructing the watch, additional features like clamps exist, and then are removed. Many of these redundant features that are disappearing can still be seen. (eg. the appendix) Behe is a laughing stock of the biological community.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/behe.html

Since you seem to be less belligerant and appear to be using some restraint, I will reply.

Your discrediting the obvious complexity of life form biology and biochemistry of life with this meaningless nonsense. Did you take a close look at your site post and its own reliability? The content of this copied paragarph simply says 'it ain't so' with no attempt to validate or give proof of the premise that irreducible complexity is non-existant.

Your erroneous paragraph came from the University of Ediacara (E.U.) which is an on-line virtual university at the center of the academic world on the Galapagos Islands. The faculty of this on-line virtual school reads like a whos who of the unknown. Take a look at two of the faculty credentials.

James A. (Chris) Acker
Professor of Hypothetical Geophysics.

J. Harlan Bretz Chair of Unlikely
Geophysical Scenarios
U of E Swimming Coach

If you really want a good laugh take a look at this 'universities' faculty and their departments.

http://www.ediacara.org/fac03.html

If you are going to refute well established and reputable information, you might want to use scientific journals rather than dodo bird and turtle islands.




http://www.ediacara.org/ediacara2.html

 

[Zero]

Originally posted by onycho

If you are going to refute well established and reputable information, you might want to use scientific journals rather than dodo bird and turtle islands.

Nothing about ID is established at all...and there is no real effort to establish anything scientific anyways. The point of ID is to convince people who already believe in creationism that their religious beliefs have a scientific basic. Behe has never, to my knowledge, done any research in a biological field. Instead, he cuts and pastes other people's work selectively, and then draws false conclusions from them.