Do you believe in other life in the Universe?

[Jludo]

Yup. I had a lot of post to get through, couldn't belabor any one point.


The straw you're grasping as "proof" of evolution is ET amino acids. To this, I can only say that it is a really tenuous thread to support evolution.

Never claimed it was 'proof' of evolution, pointing out that their existence outside of earth shows it's not unlikely for them to form on their own.

 

[Woobie]

-life most likely evolved in the water, making the volume of the ocean more relevant.
- It doesn't take into account the number of amino acids or time, it assumes 2 acids exist for a split second on the entire planet. Also the surface area number for earth is nearly incalculable if you're looking at a nm scale. If earth were a perfect sphere the original calculation was still off by orders of magnitude.
-We're talking about the likelihood of life in the universe, that we happen to be on a planet where life evolved doesn't mean this is the only place it could.

I want to see formation of multiple amino acids, within seconds of each other, in the same nm. Then I want to see them successfully combine into complex proteins. Then I want to see these miraculous proteins form a unicellular organism. All of this needs to be spontaneous, and there needs to be a way for this organism to reproduce itself.

Good luck. There is a reason this theory is falling out of favor in the evolutionary community.

 

[Jludo]

I want to see formation of multiple amino acids, within seconds of each other, in the same nm. Then I want to see them successfully combine into complex proteins. Then I want to see these miraculous proteins form a unicellular organism. All of this needs to be spontaneous, and there needs to be a way for this organism to reproduce itself.

Good luck. There is a reason this theory is falling out of favor in the evolutionary community.

Hey if we could just see it happen that'd make this discussion a whole lot simpler wouldn't it. Exactly which theory is falling out of favor in the evolutionary community?

 

[hoosierdoc]

Again, I just posted numbers of the odds of an interaction about 12 steps downstream in biosynthesis from occurring. You would have to hit those odds thousands of times in a row, in the same brief moment, to have a hope of a sustainable protein. Just not going to happen.

A protein randomly touching another protein speaks nothing to whether anything happens when they touch. And as said upstream, how do you replicate the protein?

and el director surely you can acknowledge the earth as a primordial goo state did not instantly exist when the sonic boom heard round the universe occured. I'll need to remove at least 75% of your time you allocated yourself.

.
4.35 x 10^17 seconds since the Big Bang.
Using the good doctor's number of 7 x 10^33... looks like closer to a 50/50 chance of the interaction. I'll take those odds.

In any case, self-replicating compounds exist. No cells, no organelles, no external help. The right compound, in the right mix, and you get more of that compound. How did those first compounds come about? Don't think anyone really knows yet, but smart folks are noodling the problem.

Additionally, we have found amino acids on "space rocks". There is even a hypothesis that THAT is how life started here on Earth. So, no reason to think some of those same rocks couldn't have dropped into another suitable environment at some point. Hence my Io and Europa comment. If Earth was bombarded with organic compounds, there is a really good chance much of the solar system did as well. If our solar system was, why not other systems? There are, after all, just a FEW others in the vast Universe.

 

[hoosierdoc]

The numbers don't increase, that's my point. Proteins are not heat stabile. They fall apart. If one randomly forms, it needs to be able to be stabilized and then reproduced by several molecules that don't exist

you don't get to create a scenario where random protein generation banks up stable proteins until enough of them exist that they can start generating life. That's ludicrous.

http://chemistry.elmhurst.edu/vchembook/568denaturation.html

JLudo is correct. Your formula would increase the chance as the area shrank.

You seem to be accounting for only one of each in your calculations. As the numbers of each increase, the odds of them meeting increase. Then you would have to take time into account, as your formula would account for a chance at a moment in time. Make it millions of proteins over millions of years and the odds increase greatly.

 

[WebSnyper]

Test tube?!

That sounds like a very naturalist/deist view. Biblical theology would lead us to believe we are more important to the creator than the product of one of many laboratory tests. Would a scientist send his own son to die to lab sample in test tube #12F alive?

Here's the hubris of mankind - "that's dumb, why would...", then scientist figure out why.



Trial and error implies that there was a hypothesis, i.e. a reasoned guess, and then an experiment was undertaken to prove or disprove.

However, without a scientist to conduct this trial and error, it's simply a series of changes (e.g. DNA mutations), somewhat randomly, that are either accepted because it makes things stronger or rejected because it makes things weaker.



What always gets me stuck is the "big" changes... like wings and stuff. In order for something that complex, there'd have to be a whole lot of intermediate steps where the organism was weaker. And if changes happen slowly (billions of years), why weren't these weaker organisms wiped out?

Seems like earlier you dismissed my test tube reference but now you are ok with using the term scientist/hypothesis, etc. You also seemed to indicate that any theory of evolution was the opposite of a belief based in theology, but sounds like now you are using some of those same references/arguments.

I don't believe I stated that there was or wasn't " a creator" but you disregarded that it could be anything but what was stated directly in the bible, but just in the post above you seemed to go another way.

When you believe in a God that created the universe, virgin birth isn't out of the realm of possibility.

--- or ---

You can believe that all life around us is a formed from nothing through a series of mutations and you're stuck on virgin birth?!





You can't tell me you didn't see this coming.

Basically, if you're an evolutionist, then the logical step is, yes, life exist elsewhere, because, you know, probability. You really don't have the option of dismissing ET life. A theist has that option.


Evolution is the current prevailing theory on the origin of life... until it's dis-proven and another theory comes along.


Question: what did atheist cling to before the theory of evolution was posited?

It seems like atheism depends on evolution now. Without it, there's no explaining the origins, and the faith in science and reasoning crumbles.

I guess I don't equate evolution and atheism. Seems a little too black and white. I guess I just wonder if the bible, or other such works (not to offend, but there are other religions with other books, and I'm not sure I'd be the one to declare one right or wrong) may not have been simplified... I mean we all love our children, but don't our explanations of things to them evolve as their understanding grows? I'm just not of the mind that a literal interpretation of whichever of these works I happen to believe in is the answer to all questions.


Update:

We're not alone - there's a Creator.

I had this conservation with a devout atheist during a long car ride. He was flabbergasted that I didn't believe other life existed off of earth.


The issue was our worldviews - mine, being monotheistic, his being atheistic. As an atheist, he believes that life is created through a random process, therefore the logical conclusion is that there is other life. As a theist, I believe that life was created through a specialized external intervention, therefore other life probably doesn't exist.

I say "probably" because I don't see any theological reasoning for other life, but I also don't see any specific exclusion of it.


FTR, I don't hold to the six day creation theory.

I re-read and saw this, so I see that we are a bit closer than I thought from your initial response to my post... basically I don't see any reason to exclude it either, but I also think if there is a grand designer, that he may not have started or ended with us, etc.

 

[eldirector]

Again, I just posted numbers of the odds of an interaction about 12 steps downstream in biosynthesis from occurring. You would have to hit those odds thousands of times in a row, in the same brief moment, to have a hope of a sustainable protein. Just not going to happen.

A protein randomly touching another protein speaks nothing to whether anything happens when they touch. And as said upstream, how do you replicate the protein?

and el director surely you can acknowledge the earth as a primordial goo state did not instantly exist when the sonic boom heard round the universe occured. I'll need to remove at least 75% of your time you allocated yourself.

Everything is impossible. Until it isn't.
Can't remember who made that quote. Seems fitting.

Self-replicating "simple" RNA has been observed.

We are discussing life ANYWHERE in the universe. Just because WE didn't come along until the last few billion years, doesn't mean it didn't get started SOMEWHERE a lot sooner. I'll grant you though, the first several hundred million years would have been a little inhospitable. I'll edit my odds to be 60/40.

 

[BugI02]

The smaller you make the planet the more likely you're saying the event is.

I am saying nothing about size, other than using the radius of the earth as 6,371[STRIKE] meters[/STRIKE] kilometers, and small proteins being 1nm in size.
My saying the random event several events down a random event having a 7 x 10 ^ 33 chance of happening does not sound very likely to me. And even then, that's not the chance of life. That's the chance of two proteins touching, not that they were coded to do anything when they touch. And even if they did, how do you replicate that beneficial protein? There are no ribosomes. There is no DNA/RNA. Now we're talking 7 x 10 ^ 33 multiplied a few times.
Just. Not. Possible.

No fair making the radius that small in order to increase the likelihood

 

[T.Lex]

No fair making the radius that small in order to increase the likelihood

Hey now, speaking of intelligent life....

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mars_Climate_Orbiter

 

[singlesix]

Anyone's mind get changed yet?

 

[churchmouse]

Anyone's mind get changed yet?

 

[Route 45]

Hey now, speaking of intelligent life....

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mars_Climate_Orbiter

I find it instructive that the same god that made such a ruckus about the Tower of Babel hasn't said a peep about us having a couple of SUVs rolling around taking pictures on Mars.

 

[T.Lex]

I find it instructive that the same god that made such a ruckus about the Tower of Babel hasn't said a peep about us having a couple of SUVs rolling around taking pictures on Mars.

haha

The Tower of Babel is a worthy metaphor for mixing up English and Metric units.

 

[ATM]

Where is your evidence that any of these things happened? Other than a book that says that it's true because the book says it is true....the gold standard of circular reasoning.

The descriptions and reactions of those who witnessed the miracles, same as most everything else recorded throughout history. Are you suggesting that all witness recollections are circular reasoning?

 

[femurphy77]

Anyone's mind get changed yet?

Go look at the 911 truther thread and get back to us.

 

[Route 45]

The descriptions and reactions of those who witnessed the miracles, same as most everything else recorded throughout history. Are you suggesting that all witness recollections are circular reasoning?

Certainly not. But coming from the criminal justice field where I've worked for almost 30 years, I can tell you that the least reliable evidence is eyewitness testimony.

 

[ATM]

Certainly not. But coming from the criminal justice field where I've worked for almost 30 years, I can tell you that the least reliable evidence is eyewitness testimony.

Yet still evidence rather than circular reasoning.

Do the claims only exist because of the books, or might those books only have been written because of the claims? Perspective.

 

[Alpo]

It is quite astounding when one goes backwards into origins. Certainly there are arguments along the way to cell formation and molecule replication. All of that seems to take an incredible amount of time and some would argue against it (Doc). However, one also needs to factor in the data supporting our solar system being a second generation system. Cosmic dust as the result of a prior supernova (s) had to coalesce out of the expanding space fabric to create our star and planetary system.

All the while moving at a rate of 32 million miles per day.

Is there life elsewhere in the universe? How arrogant to believe you are its most important creation.

 

[ATM]

...How arrogant to believe you are its most important creation.

How arrogant to believe it created you.

 

[Alpo]

Losing arguments for a living now, ATM? Please get back to your detonation thread. Oh. CM locked it. No wonder you're carrying vitriol to other places.