Religion IS crazy!

[Value Collector]

It all comes down to the point that evolution (as well as the laws of physics) is a set of principles which we have discovered, think we can describe, but we cannot explain how they originated.

.

Yep, and to on the things we dont know, we should say "we don't know". not make up stories and invent characters.

The two choices are a gigantic accident or some sort of design.

or it might not be possible for it to exist any other way, so its not realy an accident or design.

Multiverses may exist, but they still have to come from somewhere.

yep, but any god people care to invent would have had to come from somewhere, and if an infinate god is possible why not an infinite universe or multiverse complex.

People can say that the Universe is the way it is because it could not be any other way. If that is the case then that points much more to the intelligent design scenario rather than to a freak accident where the odds against would be enormous.

How so,

Like it or not, the universe and evolution work to a set of principles, balanced towards life.

Not at all, life is very rare in the universe as far as we can see.

Finding out how these principles arose is the real question, not the details of their operation

The details of their operation is far more interesting, eg the story of how the diversity of life arose through the natural selection is a far bigger more interesing tale than how the first self replicating molecules started. it's like saying the story of the development and application of the wheel over the centuries is not impotant, only the story of how the first wheel was invented is the real question.

I am happy to say I don't know how the first self replicating molecules began, because the really interesting part is what happened after that, offcourse it would be interesting to know how they started replicating, but thats only a small part of the story.

 

[SirRumpole]

Not at all, life is very rare in the universe as far as we can see.

1. And exactly how far can we see compared to the size of the universe ?

2. We have discovered life that can exist in all sorts of conditions that we could not live in. These conditions could parallel millions of planets in the galaxy. Just because we can only see a small part of our galaxy in sufficient detail does not make life elsewhere rare.

The details of their operation is far more interesting, eg the story of how the diversity of life arose through the natural selection is a far bigger more interesing tale than how the first self replicating molecules started.

Maybe to you.

yep, but any god people care to invent would have had to come from somewhere, and if an infinate god is possible why not an infinite universe or multiverse complex.

Our universe is subject to time, so it had a beginning and will have an end. It is not therefore, infinite.

 

[Wysiwyg]

I am happy to say I don't know how the first self replicating molecules began, because the really interesting part is what happened after that, offcourse it would be interesting to know how they started replicating, but thats only a small part of the story.

The environment had/has to be right you agree? The environment on other masses that have been observed by the human mind show their environments will not support life. It would be great to have other places out there with life but the environment has to be exact to support life. This exactness makes planet Earth a statistical impossibility. That is if time is important. Forever is matter?

This way of thinking makes human mind religious belief an extreme dream. ("No dreams, only dreaming")

 

[Biosemiosis org]

The two choices are a gigantic accident or some sort of design.

Eugene Koonin's professional by-line is that he is a Senior Investigator at the National Center for Biotechnology Information, National Library of Medicine, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, Maryland. That mouthful means that he is a recognized expert in the field of evolutionary biology, computational biology, and is exactly the kind of guy that would serve as a reviewer on a Origin of Life paper.

Among many other things, he wrote a paper and a book dealing with "The Logic of Chance", where he gives a back-of-the-envelope estimate of the probability of a "coupled replication-translation" system (like the one I describe on Biosemiosis.org) arising in an "O-region" somewhere in the universe. An O-region is the habitable zone away from a star, suitable for life.

Grab your abacus and follow his remarks, where he describes the calculation:

Appendix

Probabilities of the emergence, by chance, of different versions of the breakthrough system in an O-region: a toy calculation of the upper bounds

General assumptions: an O-region contains 1022 stars and every 10th star has a habitable planet, hence 1021 habitable planets (undoubtedly, a gross over-estimation because, in reality, most stars have no planets at all, let alone habitable ones). Each planet is the size of earth and has a 10 kilometer (106 cm) thick habitable layer; hence the volume of the habitable layer is 4/3π[R3-(R-l)3] ≈ 5 × 1024 cm3, where R is the radius of the planet and l is the thickness of the habitable layer. RNA synthesis occurs in 1% of the volume of the habitable layer, i.e., a volume V ≈ 5 × 1022 cm3 is available for RNA synthesis (undoubtedly, a gross over-estimation because, in reality, there would be very few "RNA-making reactors"). Let the concentration of nucleotides in volume V and the rate of the synthesis of RNA molecules of size n (a free parameter depending on the specific model of the breakthrough stage; hereinafter n-mer) be 1 molecule/cm3/second (a gross overestimate for any sizable molecule; furthermore, the inverse dependence on n, which is expected to be strong, is disregarded). The time available after the Big Bang of the given O-region (as an upper bound) of all planets in it is 1010 years ≈ 3 × 1017 seconds. Then, the number of uniquen-mers "tried out" during the time after the Big Bang is:

S ≈ 5 × 1022 × 1021 × 3 × 1017 ≈ 1.5 × 1061.

Let us assume that, for the onset of biological evolution, a unique n-mer is required. The number of such sequences is N = 4n ≈100.6n.

Then, the expectation of the number of times a unique n-mer emerges in an O-region is: E = S/N = 1.5 × 1061/100.6n and n = log(E × 1.5 × 1061)/0.6.

Substituting E = 1, we get n ≈102 (nucleotides). Note that, because n is proportional to logS, the estimate is highly robust to the assumptions on the values of the contributing variables; e.g., a order of magnitude change in S will result in an increase or decrease of n by less than 2 nucleotides.

A ribozyme replicase consisting of ~100 nucleotides is conceivable, so, in principle, spontaneous origin of such an entity in a finite universe consisting of a single O-region cannot be ruled out in this toy model (again, the rate of RNA synthesis considered here is a deliberate, gross over-estimate).

...and then he tells you what he is actually after:

The requirements for the emergence of a primitive, coupled replication-translation system, which is considered a candidate for the breakthrough stage in this paper, are much greater. At a minimum, spontaneous formation of:

- two rRNAs with a total size of at least 1000 nucleotides

- ~10 primitive adaptors of ~30 nucleotides each, in total, ~300 nucleotides

- at least one RNA encoding a replicase, ~500 nucleotides (low bound)is required. In the above notation, n = 1800, resulting in E <10-1018.

...and then gives you the conclusion:

In other words, even in this toy model that assumes a deliberately inflated rate of RNA production, the probability that a coupled translation-replication emerges by chance in a single O-region is P<10-1018. Obviously, this version of the breakthrough stage can be considered only in the context of a universe with an infinite (or, in the very least, extremely vast) number of O-regions.

P<10-1018 is meaninglessly-large incomprehensible number. There is estimated to be only 1X10-80 fundamental particles in the whole observable universe. And if you look at Koonin's last sentence, he is telling you that spontaneous coupled-translation only makes sense if we can posit an infinite multiverse, because this universe just doesn't have the mathematical resources to make the proposition viable - i.e. your "gigantic accident or design" observation. Thus the title of Koonin's paper:"The cosmological model of eternal inflation and the transition from chance to biological evolution in the history of life"

There is an interesting side road to this story. The multi-verse is a non-falsifiable proposition, which would make it (in ANY other situation) a non-scientific proposition, since falsifiability is a requirement of science. But we cannot allow such a thing, so, believe it or not, there are actually grumblings already to perhaps let off on that whole "non-falsifiable thing". After all, we cannot let go of such a satisfying idea as spontaneous life, can we? What will those unscientific ID people say?

The hypocrisy is stunning, and scary.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Meanwhile, we can physically identify an act of intelligence in the coupled-translation system required for life to exist. And we can do so using a methodology that is explicitly endorsed by NASA, the National Academy of Sciences, the National Science Foundation, the British Royal Society, and university science departments around the world.

Biosemiosis.org

Why is this Important
.

 

[Value Collector]

1. And exactly how far can we see compared to the size of the universe ?

2. We have discovered life that can exist in all sorts of conditions that we could not live in. These conditions could parallel millions of planets in the galaxy. Just because we can only see a small part of our galaxy in sufficient detail does not make life elsewhere rare.
.

to say the universe is "balanced towards life", would seem to be a gross over exaggeration.

Maybe to you.

I am just saying it's a much smaller part of the story, I when we eventually find out how those self replicating molecules started replicating, it could probably be explained and understood in a minute or two to a laymen.

Much like explaining how the first wheel was invested, it would be a short story. But the story of what happened to the self replicating molecules after that is a huge story, much like what has happened to wheels over the centuries, you could spend a life time studying wheels in their various forms and applications, how the first will came about would be an interesting story, but not the most important or interesting part of the big picture.

Our universe is subject to time, so it had a beginning and will have an end. It is not therefore, infinite

Its not something that is as clear cut as you seem to think, an infinite universe has not been ruled out. what makes you think it is not infinite.

 

[SirRumpole]

Its not something that is as clear cut as you seem to think, an infinite universe has not been ruled out. what makes you think it is not infinite.

Because it began a finite time ago within a very small point and expanded at a finite rate.

 

[Value Collector]

The environment had/has to be right you agree?

Yes

The environment on other masses that have been observed by the human mind show their environments will not support life.

Well, we have only really observed our solar system, its a very limited sample size compared to the number of planets out there orbiting stars, you are talking about billions of planets in each galaxy and there a billions of galaxies, so there are trillions and trillions of chances to get the environment right.

It would be great to have other places out there with life but the environment has to be exact to support life.

Yes, it does.

This exactness makes planet Earth a statistical impossibility.

Why, how can you say that, do you know how likely it is for earth like planets to form?

even if its 1 in a billion, the sheer number of planets out there mean that its going to happen, and it may be a statistical impossibility for it not to happen, I mean people will the lotto every day some where in the world, even though its statistically unlikely any one individual will win, the sheer number of tickets sold mean that some one will win, planet earth is a lotto winner.

This way of thinking makes human mind religious belief an extreme dream.

sure, people invoke gods as explanations for things we don't have answers for, so far everything that gods were used to explain, when we found the real answer it turns out it wasn't a god, so I see not point in invoking a god.

I have heard people say things like "only 1 in a thousand people survive XYZ, and I survived, so its a miracle from god" I feel like saying "No, your just the 1 in a 1000, 999 other people will probably die, saying your gods chosen one is a bit rich isn't it"

 

[Value Collector]

Because it began a finite time ago within a very small point and expanded at a finite rate.

yeah but it's not clear what was around before that, what if what you are describing was just the universe collapsing on itself, and what we are witnessing now is the aftermath of the expanding/ exploding shock wave?

the "very small point" might have just been a brief part of the universes history, I sure don't know enough to rule that out.

watch the ak47 get fired under water, and see the expand, contract, expand, contract,expand, contract cycle of the gas bubble, imagine if the universe acted like that.

at the 5 minute mark the effect is shown
At the 6 minute mark the effect is explained.

 

[Value Collector]

Eugene Koonin's professional by-line is that he is a Senior Investigator at the National Center for Biotechnology Information, National Library of Medicine, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, Maryland. That mouthful means that he is a recognized expert in the field of evolutionary biology, computational biology, and is exactly the kind of guy that would serve as a reviewer on a Origin of Life paper.

Among many other things, he wrote a paper and a book dealing with "The Logic of Chance", where he gives a back-of-the-envelope estimate of the probability of a "coupled replication-translation" system (like the one I describe on Biosemiosis.org) arising in an "O-region" somewhere in the universe. An O-region is the habitable zone away from a star, suitable for life.

Grab your abacus and follow his remarks, where he describes the calculation:



...and then he tells you what he is actually after:




...and then gives you the conclusion:



P<10-1018 is meaninglessly-large incomprehensible number. There is estimated to be only 1X10-80 fundamental particles in the whole observable universe. And if you look at Koonin's last sentence, he is telling you that spontaneous coupled-translation only makes sense if we can posit an infinite multiverse, because this universe just doesn't have the mathematical resources to make the proposition viable - i.e. your "gigantic accident or design" observation. Thus the title of Koonin's paper:"The cosmological model of eternal inflation and the transition from chance to biological evolution in the history of life"

There is an interesting side road to this story. The multi-verse is a non-falsifiable proposition, which would make it (in ANY other situation) a non-scientific proposition, since falsifiability is a requirement of science. But we cannot allow such a thing, so, believe it or not, there are actually grumblings already to perhaps let off on that whole "non-falsifiable thing". After all, we cannot let go of such a satisfying idea as spontaneous life, can we? What will those unscientific ID people say?

The hypocrisy is stunning, and scary.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Meanwhile, we can physically identify an act of intelligence in the coupled-translation system required for life to exist. And we can do so using a methodology that is explicitly endorsed by NASA, the National Academy of Sciences, the National Science Foundation, the British Royal Society, and university science departments around the world.

Biosemiosis.org

Why is this Important
.

hang on, has this guy solved the riddle of what the first self replicating molecules were? Or how they were formed?

If not how can he know the probability of them forming?

Has he solved the riddle of how big the universe is? If not how can he say the universe isn't big enough.

Sounds like this guy should be winning some Nobel prizes for answering those questions before we can take his probability formula for granted.

 

[SirRumpole]

watch the ak47 get fired under water, and see the expand, contract, expand, contract,expand, contract cycle of the gas bubble, imagine if the universe acted like that.

Someone had to fire the gun though.

 

[Value Collector]

Someone had to fire the gun though.

when we are talking about ak47's in pools yes, but I am just showing it as an example of something that explodes and contracts in a cycle, whos to say our universe began at the start of the expansion we are currently witnessing.

 

[Biosemiosis org]

Amazing, isn't it.

None of the editors or reviewers at the journal that published the paper were able to just hone in on the problem like you. The improbabilities of abiogenesis can be safely dismissed for all rational thinkers. Poof.

 

[Wysiwyg]

Why, how can you say that, do you know how likely it is for earth like planets to form?

You're right. Stretching my thought allows the expanse of space and infinite time to birth another place capable of supporting life. Excluding those which may exist now and those that may have come and gone as this planet will. Nothing is the same, nothing stays the same.

Back to small mind now like paying the internet connection fee, trading securities and organising food to continue existence. What a glitch. :frown:

 

[Value Collector]

Amazing, isn't it.

None of the editors or reviewers at the journal that published the paper were able to just hone in on the problem like you. The improbabilities of abiogenesis can be safely dismissed for all rational thinkers. Poof.

And where was his paper published?

Well look, all we know is that at some point a certain type of self replicating molecule formed, and this self replicating process eventually lead to simple self replicating life forms, which then went on to evolve into more complex life.

Now as far as I know, nobody has discovered what these first self replicating molecules were, So how in the world can we put a number on the probability of them forming???

Also even if the were only a 1 in a trillion trillion chance willing lotto does that mean it's impossible to win? Offcourse not, especially if you have close to infinite tickets.

------------

We both believe at some point life came from non life, you believe a god clicked his fingers and made it from dust, I think it probably happened through some natural process.

People like you have given gods credit for lots of unknown things, so far they have all turn out to be natural when we discover their real cause.

 

[SirRumpole]

when we are talking about ak47's in pools yes, but I am just showing it as an example of something that explodes and contracts in a cycle, whos to say our universe began at the start of the expansion we are currently witnessing.

The cyclic universe is a possibility, we can't say that our universe hasn't expanded and contracted many times but the fact is that the matter and energy must have come from somewhere, something must have started it off once.

 

[Wysiwyg]

but the fact is that the matter and energy must have come from somewhere, something must have started it off once.

That is crazy to think about. The very beginning in an empty space of nothing with no boundaries.

 

[Value Collector]

The cyclic universe is a possibility, we can't say that our universe hasn't expanded and contracted many times but the fact is that the matter and energy must have come from somewhere, something must have started it off once.

Well it's hard for our brains to grasp, but the universe could be infinite and eternal.

You can't really escape an infinite assumption by saying it "must have come from somewhere" because where did the somewhere(insert favorite god concept) come from.

If you insert an external force or creator, all you have done is add another layer, now we have the problem of where did the creator come from, and the assumption that it must be infinite and eternal, so I can't see how swapping the concept of an eternal universe for an eternal God gets us anywhere, if a god can be eternal in your model why can't the universe.

Either way somthing has to come from nothing, without a first cause or it has to be eternal and infinite. The religious folk love to say "the universe must have come from somewhere" and "well something can't come from nothing" but they fail to see that even there own god story relies on the premise that their God did in fact come from nothing.

 

[Value Collector]

That is crazy to think about. The very beginning in an empty space of nothing with no boundaries.

Even empty space is something, I can't even picture nothing.

 

[SirRumpole]

if a god can be eternal in your model why can't the universe.

You keep confusing a material universe where time is a parameter with something that is outside space and time.

I think I've tried to explain this before. If something can create time then it is not subject to time because it didn't have to create time in the first place.

If God exists then time means nothing to it. Try thinking of a simulation designer. He designs the simulation then sets the program running. t=0 FOR THE ENTITIES IN THE SIMULATION, but the designer its outside that time frame. He didn't have to create the simulation, and if he didn't then all the creatures in that simulation would not exist.

He can speed up the simulation so the whole thing is over in a few seconds, or slow it down so it takes years.

His choice.

 

[Value Collector]

You keep confusing a material universe where time is a parameter with something that is outside space and time.

I think I've tried to explain this before. If something can create time then it is not subject to time because it didn't have to create time in the first place.

If God exists then time means nothing to it. Try thinking of a simulation designer. He designs the simulation then sets the program running. t=0 FOR THE ENTITIES IN THE SIMULATION, but the designer its outside that time frame. He didn't have to create the simulation, and if he didn't then all the creatures in that simulation would not exist.

He can speed up the simulation so the whole thing is over in a few seconds, or slow it down so it takes years.

His choice.

Firstly I don't know if anything could exist outside space and time.

But either way, this designer sitting outside our universe tinkering with our universe, is sitting inside his own universe and his own reality, so the question stands where did the designer and his universe come from.

See, either way you have to inject an eternal someone into the calculation, I don't see a reason to make it a god rather than just say the universe is eternal.

--------

If you designed a program, that program would still be part of this universe, so our universe is still part of the designers universe, we haven't got any closer to answering where or when the universe came from, we just made the model bigger and included a programmer.