Do you believe in other life in the Universe?

[Woobie]

They both feed into a single throat.

More throats would actually increase vulnerability, as well as add needless complexity. Besides, if we needed more throats, wouldn't we have evolved with them? Or is that yet to happen?

 

[Woobie]

Doc has described a very rough calculation of the probability of an accidental combination of amino acids. Now I want to see the math for that happening several more times to that same new amino acid chain. Now we have a protein that might be able to function in a unicellular organism. So now we need more of these proteins interacting constructively at the exact same place and time. And that new organism must have the capacity to reproduce, or else we're going to have to wait a few more billion years.

Sorry, I just don't have that kind of faith.

 

[eldirector]

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.

.
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.

 

[hog slayer]

Yes. I heard that as well. But was Zeus absolutely existent? I don't mean in god form. But was he undeniably a man in history that did numerous things documented about him that also align with the stories you've heard or read? There is one thing that no man can escape: the Jesus of the bible existed. Believing he was God in flesh, well now, that's different. To be Muslim, well that takes more faith. And even they believe in a Jesus with supernatural powers.

Do please assist me with my understanding of the word "prove." I mean this in all sincerity. You see, I do feel like I understand the word. But it's very easily possible I don't.

 

[hog slayer]

There's a lot of things not pertinent to the thread.

such as?

 

[hog slayer]

eldirector

You gave a calculation for length of time between now and big bang. How did you determine when the big bang actually happened? You see, I'm of the belief that the earth is likely much younger than you think. Perhaps ~6000 years. I also believe I can support that belief at least as well as you can support any other or refute it.

 

[eldirector]

eldirector

You gave a calculation for length of time between now and big bang. How did you determine when the big bang actually happened? You see, I'm of the belief that the earth is likely much younger than you think. Perhaps ~6000 years. I also believe I can support that belief at least as well as you can support any other or refute it.

.
Take the Earth out of the equation then. This could be happening anywhere.

My "calculation" was simply converting the current best estimate to seconds. Wikipedia actually has a decent explanation with sources:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_of_the_universe

Likely best saved for the "other" thread, you might be surprised that you and I more closely agree than you may think. Not on the timing, obviously. We just have varying interpretations of what we have read.

 

[Jludo]

eldirector

You gave a calculation for length of time between now and big bang. How did you determine when the big bang actually happened? You see, I'm of the belief that the earth is likely much younger than you think. Perhaps ~6000 years. I also believe I can support that belief at least as well as you can support any other or refute it.

If your defense is the Ken Ham 'historical science' argument then there's nothing to discuss.

 

[Jludo]

But the planet, as far as we know, has always been roughly the same size. You argument is mathematically interesting, but not pertinent to the discussion of life on earth.

-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.

 

[hog slayer]

If your defense is the Ken Ham 'historical science' argument then there's nothing to discuss.

I was not.

Hopefully that wasn't all we were to achieve.

 

[JettaKnight]

This one's about gray people wanting to or not wanting to stick probes in our [orifices]

What if some of us want to be the prober, not the probee?

 

[JettaKnight]

Study anatomy, and tell me how a creature that takes water and air into the same hole is an intelligent design.

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

Not randomly, billions of years of trial and error.

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?

 

[singlesix]

What if some of us want to be the prober, not the probee?

View attachment 55256

Hmmm you are getting close to going over the PG-13 line ... . I more Old School

 

[JettaKnight]

It's also not possible for a virgin teenage girl to give birth.

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?!

There's a lot of things not pertinent to the thread.

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.

 

[JettaKnight]

They've found amino acids outside of earth.

And?

That's the straw you're grasping?

-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 gotta step in for Indiucky.

[video=youtube;5gfU7qXZQhc]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5gfU7qXZQhc[/video]

 

[eldirector]

Clarification on stronger/weaker: it isn't about physical strength, but about reproductive success. If a genotype is passed on with more frequency than others, it is "more fit" for the current selective pressures, and may eventually replace other genotypes altogether.

Google "gliding lizard" for an example of an early "wing". While these are around today (so obviously "successful"), there are also tons of examples in the fossil record. Some even in the lineage leading to modern birds. Each small change allowed that group to out-compete others of their kind just a bit.

 

[halfmileharry]

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

Not to this extent.
I've read of genocide being started by calmer heads.

 

[Jludo]

And?

That's the straw you're grasping?




I gotta step in for Indiucky.

[video=youtube;5gfU7qXZQhc]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5gfU7qXZQhc[/video]

You picked out a single one of my points claiming that was the straw I was grasping at and responded to my other points with a music video.

 

[Jludo]

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.

If evolution were dethroned it would be through science and reasoning. I'm all for continued discovery.

 

[JettaKnight]

You picked out a single one of my points claiming that was the straw I was grasping at and responded to my other points with a music video.

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.