|
Your evidence being .... ? What you portray as 'inconceivable' is entirely conceivable by others making your evidence your personal opinion.
|
|
|
|
|
I stated my evidence already. Precedent. Unless your are claiming that there is some divine element to the creation of DNA it is merely chemistry. As we know of no other chemical process which has occurred literally uniquely on this planet there is no reason whatever to support the claim that this particular one did. If it is not literally inconceivable it is bordering on infinitely improbable.
Not that the argument that conceivability equals possibility has much going for it in any case. Isn't that what creationists use in defence of the accuracy of Genesis? Creation by God is not inconceivable so doesn't that make all that evolution stuff merely an opinion by your argument? Unless, of course, that's what you were trying for?
|
|
|
|
|
Member 9082365 wrote: I stated my evidence already. Precedent. Unless your are claiming that there is some divine element to the creation of DNA it is merely chemistry. As we know of no other chemical process which has occurred literally uniquely on this planet there is no reason whatever to support the claim that this particular one did. If it is not literally inconceivable it is bordering on infinitely improbable.
It's not that the creation of DNA necessarily happened once, but that we *only* have DNA. If life arose multiple times, the odds of each of those origins using the same set of molecules seems unlikely. Thus, the usual conclusion that the event only happened once.
Of course, multiple sets of chemical systems like DNA-RNA-protein may have happened, but that none of the life currently ... alive ... uses it. So again, everything alive today came from the "single" origin.
TTFN - Kent
|
|
|
|
|
I'm no expert in this area, but to say that life started at a single point in a single place seems a bit unlikely to me. Thinking about how large the planet is with many diverse environments, could one single flicker of life have spread so far and wide (if that's actually what they mean)?
My money would be on multiple events happening all around the world over a reasonably long period of time, but hey, what do I know? 
How do you know so much about swallows? Well, you have to know these things when you're a king, you know.
modified 31-Aug-21 21:01pm.
|
|
|
|
|
Brent Jenkins wrote: could one single flicker of life have spread so far and wide
Well, humans started in a small region of Africa, and we've been to the moon.
A single life source had a spectacularly long time to spread out, particularly if it had no competition and could reproduce itself - look at the ChessBoard Problem[^] for an example of just 64 generations.
Bad command or file name. Bad, bad command! Sit! Stay! Staaaay...
|
|
|
|
|
Like I said, I'm no expert, but what seems more logical to you?
a) Life is extremely difficult to start off, bu somehow a single "messiah" lifeform came into existence all by itself and evolved into every single living thing on the planet (bacteria, trees, humans, flies, etc) - capable of living in every environment from the deepest parts of the sea to the highest altitude, and the ability to survive in temperatures from -100C to +70C.. or,
b) Life is relatively easy to start off and it did so around the planet in forms already capable of surviving (by necessity) in the locality it happened to live in and evolved from there.
b) sounds a lot more feasible than a) to me, but hey-ho, I'm just a programmer 
It's like asking where did wheels come from - did one guy invent the wheel and export it worldwide, or did many different people come up with the same solution to the problem of moving things around?
How do you know so much about swallows? Well, you have to know these things when you're a king, you know.
modified 31-Aug-21 21:01pm.
|
|
|
|
|
c). God created the earth.
I go with c. 
It's much more logical that something created the earth and the inhabitants of it than having life spring forth out of nothing.
There are only 10 types of people in the world, those who understand binary and those who don't.
|
|
|
|
|
Quote: c). God created the earth
But then what created the creator? How did a being capable of creating all matter and existence come to be? Something with such complexity would demand even more explanation than something very simple coming into existence.
"There are two ways of constructing a software design: One way is to make it so simple that there are obviously no deficiencies, and the other way is to make it so complicated that there are no obvious deficiencies. The first method is far more difficult." - C.A.R. Hoare
Home | LinkedIn | Google+ | Twitter
|
|
|
|
|
Dominic Burford wrote: But then what created the creator?
Good question.
There are only 10 types of people in the world, those who understand binary and those who don't.
|
|
|
|
|
Ok, I'll own up: it was me!
How do you know so much about swallows? Well, you have to know these things when you're a king, you know.
modified 31-Aug-21 21:01pm.
|
|
|
|
|
No need for a creator creator - it's turtles all the way down!
Bad command or file name. Bad, bad command! Sit! Stay! Staaaay...
|
|
|
|
|
But consider the awesomeness of a creator who sets up the laws of physics and then, using entropy (i.e., chaos) as the driving force, gives the universe a push and see how it unfolds.
Certainly more realistic then thinking everything was per-configured and even worse, predestined.
Consider the creator as far more intelligent then not considering that creatures should evolve to adapt to the changing environment - and if one allows for this concept, why not start at a single point and see what happens?
| "The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits." - Albert Einstein | | "As far as we know, our computer has never had an undetected error." - Weisert | | "If you are searching for perfection in others, then you seek disappointment. If you are seek perfection in yourself, then you will find failure." - Balboos HaGadol Mar 2010 |
|
|
|
|
|
W∴ Balboos wrote: and if one allows for this concept, why not start at a single point and see what happens?
Sounds fun. It just isn't what happened.
There are only 10 types of people in the world, those who understand binary and those who don't.
|
|
|
|
|
RyanDev wrote: It just isn't what happened.
Well then . . . please give us your first-person account of what did happen. Some of us may have missed the event.
| "The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits." - Albert Einstein | | "As far as we know, our computer has never had an undetected error." - Weisert | | "If you are searching for perfection in others, then you seek disappointment. If you are seek perfection in yourself, then you will find failure." - Balboos HaGadol Mar 2010 |
|
|
|
|
|
There are only 10 types of people in the world, those who understand binary and those who don't.
|
|
|
|
|
I know what you mean, but if one "spot" got in there first, it would have an advantage over late comers - which could easily be definitive - in numbers if nothing else. Remember the speed with which primitive life forms can reproduce (bacteria can reproduce every 15 minutes, not that they are that simple) and how fast they could fill an area, particularly if the the seas are very "active" - which they probably were given the Earth was rotating every 12 hours or so in those days - and how quickly they could be distributed over a wide range. Add in evolution on those really short breeding times, and it wouldn't take much for a single seed to go global.
And we would see massive differences at the bottom levels if modern life did come from different initial solutions, I'd have thought.
Bad command or file name. Bad, bad command! Sit! Stay! Staaaay...
|
|
|
|
|
OriginalGriff wrote: if one "spot" got in there first, it would have an advantage over late comers
Logically, that would be possible. But if that were the case we'd be a planet full of a single dominant predator and nothing else.
Nature always finds a balance and doesn't always follow our logic.
OriginalGriff wrote: And we would see massive differences at the bottom levels if modern life did come from different initial solutions, I'd have thought.
Number of species on Earth tagged at 8.7 million[^]
..with the subtitle: "Most precise estimate yet suggests more than 80% of species still undiscovered." - there are massive differences across all levels.
How do you know so much about swallows? Well, you have to know these things when you're a king, you know.
modified 31-Aug-21 21:01pm.
|
|
|
|
|
Brent Jenkins wrote: if that were the case we'd be a planet full of a single dominant predator and nothing else
No - because evolution is random.
One organism mutates this way, another mutates that way. Because there is effectively no competition there is space for all but the most anti-survival mutations to thrive, until the available "living spaces" start to fill up. Then you get competition driving evolution, and "fitter" versions doing well at the expense of "less fit" ones. The rapid breeding rate helps here by speeding up the production of mutants, and thus of diversification.
Bad command or file name. Bad, bad command! Sit! Stay! Staaaay...
|
|
|
|
|
Yes, evolution does appear random - which kind of goes against the idea of life springing up solely (uniformly, you might say) in one form in one place.. 
How do you know so much about swallows? Well, you have to know these things when you're a king, you know.
modified 31-Aug-21 21:01pm.
|
|
|
|
|
Not really - Evolution is a process (a directionless process) which can't even start until there is something reproducing, and "making mistakes" when it does so. If the first organism always produced an identical copy of itself with no changes at all then there is nothing to start the process going.
If you have two independent sources then it's probably easier - but in a surprisingly short number of generations mutations can make two variants sufficiently different that they might have well have started from different "seeds" to begin with! 
Bad command or file name. Bad, bad command! Sit! Stay! Staaaay...
|
|
|
|
|
OriginalGriff wrote: If you have two independent sources then it's probably easier - but in a surprisingly short number of generations mutations can make two variants sufficiently different that they might have well have started from different "seeds" to begin with!
In nature, the simplest answer is usually the closest to being correct
How do you know so much about swallows? Well, you have to know these things when you're a king, you know.
modified 31-Aug-21 21:01pm.
|
|
|
|
|
But which is the "simplest"?
That probably depends on how complicated it was to produce "life" from scratch - and I suspect it isn't trivial - but it's not likely we will ever know for sure.
Bad command or file name. Bad, bad command! Sit! Stay! Staaaay...
|
|
|
|
|
|
Brent Jenkins wrote: Logically, that would be possible. But if that were the case we'd be a planet full of a single dominant predator and nothing else.
Not true. As a species spreads, environmental factors have a large impact on how they adapt over time to the point where you get a different species. Over a long period of time, a predator may not even be a predator any more because of a lack of the food it considers normal. You get different species with a common ancestor.
|
|
|
|
|
Dave Kreskowiak wrote: You get different species with a common ancestor.
True, but saying that every species has the same, single ancestor doesn't make sense. We're basically back at a 21st century equivalent of "God".
How do you know so much about swallows? Well, you have to know these things when you're a king, you know.
modified 31-Aug-21 21:01pm.
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
