dark4181 Posted November 16, 2006 Share Posted November 16, 2006 the atmosphere used in the miller experiment has been shown not to match the atmosphere of early earth. that's the point... even if it did match, cyanide and formeldahyde are hardly conductive to life and even when you have amino acids, organising them into proteins and then cells would take more than simple random chance and time. binding pairs would need to be lined up the right way, with the right types of strings, wrong types would have to be specifically excluded... the time requirements alone are ridiculous. even with millions of seperate soup units lining themselves up (which they can't physically do) in a completely different manner, the odds are astronomical that you'd end up with even a single cell by chance... then add to that the time for that one cell to split into 98 cells (for each of the original phylea) and more time for each of those 98 cells to evolve into multicelled organisms... more time for each of those multicelled organisms to microevolve into all the millions of species on the earth today... it's mindboggling for me to imagine that there's nothing behind that process but random chance. my rational mind rejects the idea. there must be a cause more than random chance and natural selection.. the logical assumption in my view is a directing force of intelligence i don't claim my thoughts to be science though. it is philosophical reasoning through and through, but the point is that it's still based on scientific evidence Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gwprod12 Posted November 16, 2006 Share Posted November 16, 2006 Well, we cant have it both ways. If we cant "know what happened without traveling back in time" then how can we know the atmosphere wasnt as they claimed? That's just a little fun. On to your question. Aside from the fact that the early earth's atmosphere composition isnt "known" with any degree of certainty, the experiment has been performed with the "now thought of" early earth atmospheric composition, with similar results. Which is totally irrelevant in every respect, as the question was not "Did organic molecules spontaneously generate in the early earth?" or "Could organic molecules spontaneously generate with the atmosphere of the early earth?". The question was "Can organic molecules be spontaneoulsy generated". Yes, they can. As for organic molecules being made into cells as monkeys turned into humans (tongue in cheek). That wasnt the experiment. If you want to attack the experiment, go do the experiment and see for yourself. Dont revise reality to make the experiment non-functional. It worked, it works, and it will continue to work. The conclusion drawn from the findings of that experiment is debatable. The findings themselves arent. As for philosophy vs science. The two arent compatible, except where philosophy may lead to a hypthesis, which science can test. Philosophy cant be tested. No amount of reasoning will make a baseball hang in mid-air. If you're interested in science, you should go down to the local college (or highschool, as the case may be) and take a science class! On that note, I need to say, that people who dont know anything about science arent qualified to judge whether science is factual or not. Your personal opinion may guide you when working with science, but it doesnt replace the scientific method. Having a belief in Intelligent Design doesnt make it science. If you want to make it science, you have to actually DO the science. (Of which there currently is none, but if IDers were actually willing to do some science instead of running with torches and pitchforks after those who are willing to do science, ID might have some scientific background. It isnt some global atheistic conspiracy which prevents ID or Creation-Science from having a peer-reviewed paper.) EDIT: In response to the logical conclusion that there is an Intelligent Designer. Logic is a somewhat subjective thing. So it's possible for you to have perfectly formed logic/intuition/feelings about whether or not Intelligent Beings created life on Earth. However, these feelings arent science. But, they could lead to science. EDIT 2: It should be pointed out that the simpler the life-form, the faster it mutates. Eukaryotes have very little capability for repairing genetic damage, and they divide quite rapidly. 100 generations for a bacterium is enough to create large discrepancies between genetic individuals (100 generations isnt very long; depending on the species, a few hours to a few weeks). This mutation is even more extreme in the smaller biological machines, or protein factories. They have no capability of self-repair, and mutate wildly. So, to say that it would take a hundred billion years for a few amino acids to evolve into a protein is a wild exageration. A few hundred years is more likely. If you want to attack Evolution on that basis, it is less likely that Reptiles could evolve into Mammals in 65 million years than it is that a single amino acid could self-replicate to the point where protein chains were formed all over the world in under a million years. A few more million years for the development of the cell wall, etc. That's why originists believe that cellular life appeared on the earth about 4 billion years ago. Because it doesnt take very long. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dark4181 Posted November 16, 2006 Share Posted November 16, 2006 i understand your points. i've taken a few college level biology classes. my problem is with the initial leap from amino acids to proteins... evolution very nearly requires amino acids to be self ordering, something that science says isn't so... and the proposition that evolution would require vast amounts of time is Darwin's own, not just mine as far as science and philosophy being incompatible... only if you don't have an open mind what i'm saying is, the majority of evolution experiments seem to test what happen during circumstances that we construct, whether or not they have any placement on, or bearing in, nature... in short, you can't test nature in a test tube because the test tube cuts out nearly all stimuli that would have an effect in nature i'm just rambling now. and using philosophy against science usually results in a stalemate. this isn't an arguement i'm even expecting to win. i'm not likely to change your mind any more than you're likely to change mine. it's just a debate for the sake of debate Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gwprod12 Posted November 16, 2006 Share Posted November 16, 2006 That's true. You'll never find amino acids self-generating in real-world conditions, because the process necessary is interrupted by life that already exists. It's a tough pickle, that's why it's approached from "Can this happen" perspective, rather than a "Did this happen" perspective. Could organic molecules have spontaneously generated in a place not teaming with life? Yes. Can Amino Acids form proteins spontaneously? Maybe (I'm not that familiar with those experiments). Did they? Who knows? But, when asking the question "Did that happen?", if you cant make it happen yourself, you can assume that it probably didnt happen. If you can, it might have. Again, Origin of Life and Evolution are different things. And frankly, Darwin is only the father of Evolution, he isnt the foremost expert on it. (he's dead) DNA and other modern contrivances werent known of when he was alive. If what you're asking is "Did this happen?" Well, it looks like it did, depending on your perspective. But if you're asking "Can it have happened", the answer is a resounding yes. So far. When I say that science and philosophy are incompatible, I mean that Science doesnt allow for logic or reason as evidence. Only things you can see and interact with directly. Logic and reason are good for creating the premise, science is good for seeing if it's correct. So, assuming that Intelligent Design is a valid premise, how would you test it? Obviously chaining up god and putting him to the question is out. As is asking a Martian. But, if ID is science, there must be some evidence that not only is consistent with ID, but is also inconsistent with Organic Evolution. Since Organic Evolution as a set of theories is constantly evolving, it's hard to find actual evidence that is inconsistent. Or even think up evidence that is inconsistent. But I can tell you one piece of evidence that would definitely be inconsistent with the theory of evolution as it stands now: That is finding life forms on another planet that are similar enough to those on earth to have come from the same source. While this evidence isnt necessarily consistent with ID, it is consistent with Panspermia, and partially inconsistent with Organic Evolution (as we see it today). Panspermia is totally inconsistent with the current Origin of Life theory, however. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dark4181 Posted November 16, 2006 Share Posted November 16, 2006 as far as amino acids being self ordering when no life is around to interfere. there are still other factors in nature that would be detrimental to their formation... weather, geological shifts (early earth is said to have been a rapidly changing place, earthquakes, volcanoes, etc etc) climate changes, even formational issues left over from the original cooling of the planet (earth is currently accepted to be about 5 billion years old) ...the conditions then were at least as wild as nature is now, if not more so, due to the chaotic nature of what we call natural 'disasters' and the frequency with which they would likely have occured as the earth cooled from it's molten state... also, let's not forget that said cooling would also take a goodly amount of time... about a billion years or so; decreasing evolution's working time by quite a lot... as far as science not allowing logic and reason as evidence... why then, when people offer ID or creationism are they accused of being irrational and/or unintelligent? if logic and reason have no place in science, then science cannot claim dominion over all intellect Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gwprod12 Posted November 16, 2006 Share Posted November 16, 2006 Well, free amino acids cannot form now for sure. It's unclear whether or not they could have billions of years ago. If you genuinely dont understand what I'm saying, I guess I cant explain it better. "Invisible Elephants exist all around us, because they're pink. If we could see them, they wouldnt be invisible." is a perfectly logical statement. But in no way is the unseable/unknowable a part of science. Science doesnt claim domain over all intellect. But the scientific method is a good way of synthesizing knowledge that can be shared. So, you can call Intelligent Design anything you want, from philosophy to an ice cream cone. But dont call it science, because it isnt. (It isnt an ice cream cone either, but I'm not part of the Ice Cream establishment, so I dont care). People who offer Intelligent Design or Creationism just in general are students of philosophy. People who offer Intelligent Design or Creationism as Science dont have a single clue what Science is, so, are therefore irrational AND "underinformed". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dark4181 Posted November 16, 2006 Share Posted November 16, 2006 i get what you're saying. totally. like i said, i know that ID/creationism is philosophy. no argument there. and i understand your other arguments, though my schooling is still incomplete. all i can offer now is that perhaps someday someone will think of an experiment that will test the ID hypothesis.. on the other hand, though, maybe we'll never know until judgement day... until one of those two things happens, it remains philosophy.. even so, philosophy has value as well personally, i guess i'm just more interested in the "why" than i am the "how" If you genuinely dont understand what I'm saying, I guess I cant explain it better. "Invisible Elephants exist all around us, because they're pink. If we could see them, they wouldnt be invisible." is a perfectly logical statement. But in no way is the unseable/unknowable a part of science. i had to laugh at this bit though... by this reasoning, the "multiple universes" theory has no place in science either... since we can't see/have no access to "other universes" then they aren't part of science... yet scientists propose that in a supposedly infinite number of universes that *might* exist, this one happens to support life... and hold this view up as evidence for OoL/evolution strictly speaking though.. invisible elephants can't be pink because pink is a color in the visible light spectrum... therefore it's not logical to say that an invisible entity could be pink no point to this, just thought it was funny Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gwprod12 Posted November 16, 2006 Share Posted November 16, 2006 The multiple universes hypothesis is a mathematical construct based on General Relativity. It is a prediction that evidence has yet to be found for. So, we keep the multiple universes hypothesis on the back burner until we find evidence outside of our universe. Multiple universes arent unseable, just unseen. But being unseen, cannot be tested against, and are therefore non-scientific. True. Lots of hypotheses predicting unseen results have been made. Most have been discarded when evidence contradicts them. Some have bourne fruit, such as the Black Hole hypothesis. But, you point out an interesting fact. Albert Einstein didnt deal in the realm of science, he dealt in the realm of Theoretical Physics (Math), which is a form of philosophy. Philosophy makes the predictions, Science tests them. Not the other way around. Maybe someone someday will think of a scientific experiment that will prove or disprove Intelligent Design (or Creationism), in which case, ID will go from the realm of Philosophy into Science. Hasnt happened yet, but it might. Until then, why would we teach non-science in a science classroom? Science is about How. Philosophy is about Why. Many religionists believe that Organic Evolution is God's way of creating life. How -> Organic Evolution; Why -> God made it that way so he could have more free time. Who's to say that Invisible Elephants cant be Pink? Can YOU see them? I thought not. Back to multiple universes. There is no evidence of multiple universes. Period. Yet the mathematical construct that allows for multiple universes also applies in our universe, and we use it ever day. So, it's worth examining whether or not there are multiple universes. Even if we cant see them. The theoretical physicist will do his n-space mathematics until he's blue in the face, and hopefully come up with a material prediction that can be tested in some way. Another example of what you're talking about is the dimension phenomena. While we can only see 3 (or possibly 4, depending on who you ask) dimensions, quantum theory, along with string theory (both logically proven mathematical models) suggest that for those theories to be consistent with our universe, dimensions over 4 must exist. When someone quantitatively proves that there is a 5th dimension, then those theoretical predictions will start to become hard science. Just as Isaac Newton's calculus was nothing more than a mathematical model of the movement of the planets until he got into his observatory and matched math to reality. Just as Pi is just a number until you start comparing real radius to real circumference. (The Pi we know today isnt calculated that way, btw). Just as Intelligent Design is a little idea, until you find yourself an Intelligent Designer. (or whatever). Just as Evolution is just a hypothesis until you can find a length and breadth of hard evidence which is consistent with the theory (done). All theories may be wrong. In fact, most probably are. But until we find a theory that fits the facts better than what we have, we keep fitting the facts to the existing theory. (Or, we find lots of facts that dont fit anywhere, then we realize our theory is incorrect). If you've taken Algebra, you can find the equation of a line (or parabola) by substituting data points together. When a new data point is consistent with the equation, the equation stays the same. When a new data point is inconsistent with the equation, the equation must either bend, or break. Some scientists, I'm sure, ignore data points that arent consistent. But those are bad scientists. A note for Evolution. The vast majority of the fossil record and studies on live creatures is consistent with variation, natural selection, and punctuated equilibrium (another concept added in to revise a non-functional theory of evolution). Very little is not consistent with the current theory. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dark4181 Posted November 16, 2006 Share Posted November 16, 2006 invisible elephants = not seeable... visible light spectrum = what we see... pink is in the visible light spectrum.. therefore we can see it... something that is invisible cannot be seen. like invisible elephants therefore, invisible =\= visible (pink) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gwprod12 Posted November 16, 2006 Share Posted November 16, 2006 Color is the level of light something reflects vs absorbs. An invisible blue t-shirt is still blue. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dark4181 Posted November 17, 2006 Share Posted November 17, 2006 if something is invisible, it doesn't reflect light if the t-shirt is invisible, how do you know it would be blue if it were visible? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gwprod12 Posted November 17, 2006 Share Posted November 17, 2006 But it would reflect light if it were visible. Invisible isnt it's color. Air is clear, because it is not dense enough to obstruct light. But Air is not invisible. It can be seen, when applying the right sort of tool. An invisible object cannot be seen by using any sort of tool. It's invisible. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dark4181 Posted November 17, 2006 Share Posted November 17, 2006 not necessarily true... certain wavelengths of energy can be filtered out while still letting visible light through... radar can be filtered out, but the object could still be seen with the naked eye, for example... the right tool for seeing, in that case, would be the eye, and not the radar equipment. so logically it follows that the opposite could also be true http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12961080/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gwprod12 Posted November 17, 2006 Share Posted November 17, 2006 Fine fine. You just had to ruin a perfectly good statement. Let's clarify for every petty lawyer out there: "An inperceivable pink elephant". Is that better?! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dark4181 Posted November 17, 2006 Share Posted November 17, 2006 if it's imperceivable, how do you know it's pink and an elephant? maybe it's a blue elephant, or a pink dog? maybe amino acids can self order in the absense of life, maybe they have to be directed... if we can't actually perceive the difference, what determines what matters and what doesn't? logic and reason Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gwprod12 Posted November 17, 2006 Share Posted November 17, 2006 We've already gone over the logic and reason bit. Since there's no way of seeing the imperceivable pink elephant, there's no way of knowing that it actually exists, or is an elephant, or is pink. That's the point ;-p Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dark4181 Posted November 17, 2006 Share Posted November 17, 2006 agreed here's an interesting quote "wouldn't it be strange if nature created without purpose human beings who are so obsessed with purpose?" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gwprod12 Posted November 17, 2006 Share Posted November 17, 2006 It is strange. But you know what they say: Truth is stranger than fiction. Strange isnt necessarily inexplicable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dark4181 Posted November 17, 2006 Share Posted November 17, 2006 they also say that fact and truth aren't always the same thing but that's a different topic either way, i've already said everything i care to say about this topic, so i probably won't be back in here it's been a nice debate though Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts