It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

The Odds of Life Occurring by Random Chance and The Odds of Sexual Reproduction and Genetics

page: 6
11
<< 3  4  5    7  8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 26 2016 @ 05:49 PM
link   
a reply to: AlienView

Who is this comment directed at? There are a number of non atheists involved in the side you are debating against. So why bring atheism into this?




posted on Jul, 26 2016 @ 06:00 PM
link   

originally posted by: Noinden
a reply to: AlienView

Who is this comment directed at? There are a number of non atheists involved in the side you are debating against. So why bring atheism into this?


True. So let me be more specific in meaning.

A few of the posters on this debate take a solidly materialistic view of science and I am taking the liberty in categorizing this view as atheistic.

Is it possible that someone may take a solidly materialistic view of science and the universe and not be an atheist?
That is possible





“We are a way for the cosmos to know itself.”
― Carl Sagan, Cosmos



"Carl Edward Sagan (/ˈseɪɡən/; November 9, 1934 – December 20, 1996) was an American astronomer, cosmologist, astrophysicist, astrobiologist, author, science popularizer, and science communicator in astronomy and other natural sciences. He is best known for his contributions to the scientific research of extraterrestrial life, including experimental demonstration of the production of amino acids from basic chemicals by radiation. Sagan assembled the first physical messages sent into space: the Pioneer plaque and the Voyager Golden Record, universal messages that could potentially be understood by any extraterrestrial intelligence that might find them. Sagan argued the now accepted hypothesis that the high surface temperatures of Venus can be attributed to and calculated using the greenhouse effect.[2] He published more than 600 scientific papers and articles and was author, co-author or editor of more than 20 books........"
See whole article here:
en.wikipedia.org...



posted on Jul, 26 2016 @ 06:02 PM
link   
Odds are anyone who tries to give you an exact number for the odds doesn't much know what he's talking about.

Odds are if he's confident in his assumption he's also a bit of a jackass.



posted on Jul, 26 2016 @ 06:15 PM
link   

originally posted by: pl3bscheese
Odds are anyone who tries to give you an exact number for the odds doesn't much know what he's talking about.

Odds are if he's confident in his assumption he's also a bit of a jackass.


For now that might, and probably is, true.

But science continues to progress - Man learns more and more about himself and the universe he exists in.

So if not today, how about fify or a hundred years from now ?

So far no other life forms are known to exist besides those on Earth.

But one day in the future, when and if, Man goes into deep space far from Earth, other life forms may be found,
greater perspective of the origins of life may be found - And the odds, if not inevitability, of life's occurrence
under different circumstances may be understood.



posted on Jul, 26 2016 @ 07:18 PM
link   
a reply to: AlienView

I take a solidly materialistic view (to use your words) of science, which is my profession FYI (I work in the Pharma industry). Yet I'm solidly pre-Christian Gaelic Polytheistic in spiritual view. I know we have a Jew, several Christians, and a number of agnostics on this side of the debate (depending on the thread) as well.



posted on Jul, 26 2016 @ 08:08 PM
link   
a reply to: Noinden

Then let me ask you what you think of this theory:

Minds Everywhere: 'Panpsychism' Takes Hold in Science

"SAN FRANCISCO — Are humans living in a simulation? Is consciousness nothing more than the firing of neurons in the brain? Or is consciousness a distinct entity that permeates every speck of matter in the universe? Several experts grappled with those topics at a salon at the Victorian home of Susan MacTavish Best, a lifestyle guru who runs Living MacTavish, here on Feb. 16. The event was organized by "Closer to Truth," a public television series and online resource that features the world's leading thinkers exploring humanity's deepest questions. The answer to the question "what is consciousness" could have implications for the future of artificial intelligence (AI) and far-out concepts like mind uploading and virtual immortality, said Robert Lawrence Kuhn, the creator, writer and host of "Closer to Truth." [Superintelligent Machines: 7 Robotic Futures]"

"Materialism to panpsychism: Philosophers have put forward many notions of consciousness. The materialist notion holds that consciousness can be fully explained by the the firing of neurons in the human brain, while mind-body dualism argues that the soul or mind is distinct from, and can potentially outlive, the body. Under the notion of panpsychism, a kind of re-boot of ancient animistic ideas, every speck of matter has a kind of proto-consciousness. When aggregated in particular ways, all this proto-consciousness turns into a sense of inner awareness. And other, Eastern philosophies have held that consciousness is the only real thing in the universe, Kuhn said. Neuroscientists and many philosophers have typically planted themselves firmly on the materialist side. But a growing number of scientists now believe that materialism cannot wholly explain the sense of "I am" that undergirds consciousness, Kuhn told the audience. One of those scientists is Christof Koch, the president and chief scientific officer of the Allen Institute for Brain Science in Seattle............"
See whole article here:
www.livescience.com...





“I regard consciousness as fundamental. I regard matter as derivative from consciousness. We cannot get behind consciousness. Everything that we talk about, everything that we regard as existing, postulates consciousness."
– Max Planck
[One of the giants of physicists of the 20th Century]
edit on 26-7-2016 by AlienView because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 26 2016 @ 08:16 PM
link   
a reply to: AlienView

I feel that it is a rather fluffy idea, which is not very well attested by the evidence. I speak as a person who commits science every day. I produce kilogram quantities of experimental pharmaceuticals for clients, to a level which the FDA, or equivalent call "good" Viz cGMP standards. This is science. As is sequencing DNA, as is trying to reach zero kelvin ec


Anything else is supernatural, and outside the realm of science. Its also impossible to prove. So you can say some silly things, and be free from the burden of proof. Same goes for the Gaia hypothesis.



posted on Jul, 27 2016 @ 08:51 PM
link   

originally posted by: SLAYER69
a reply to: swanne



Atmospheric Gaseous floating/flying Jelly Fish type beings, could for example theoretically evolve and thrive in gaseous Giants outside of said 'Goldilocks" zones.



Flying spaghetti monsters, pink unicorns, Santa Claus, walking whales, ape-men, aquatic ape-men (a.k.a. mermaids), our mysterious unnamed (other than a generic name, not specific) undiscovered single-celled common ancestor, our mysterious unnamed (other than a generic name) undiscovered closest common ancestor with apes, or chimpanzees, or the common ancestor for mammals, amphibians, fish, vertebrates, etc.
Don't stop now, keep it coming...

Perhaps someone can find a way to fit the term La La Land in a comment rather than the term "Goldilocks". It might make ATS more useful in terms of its educational value.
edit on 27-7-2016 by whereislogic because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 28 2016 @ 11:38 AM
link   

originally posted by: AlienView

originally posted by: GetHyped
a reply to: AlienView

Instead of quote mining, actually provide scientific evidence for your arguments. Yeah, I know, crazy idea, huh?


"In Internet slang, a troll (/ˈtroʊl/, /ˈtrɒl/) is a person who sows discord on the Internet by starting arguments or upsetting people, by posting inflammatory,[1] extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community (such as a newsgroup, forum, chat room, or blog) with the deliberate intent of provoking readers into an emotional response[2] or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion,[3] often for their own amusement.
Quote source:
en.wikipedia.org...



So you are admitting it now or accusing somebody else of using your tactics? I'm confused by what you mean here.


A few of the posters on this debate take a solidly materialistic view of science and I am taking the liberty in categorizing this view as atheistic.


Why? This is a liberty you should not take because it is pigeonholing all atheists based on a single non belief without any consideration that they may have other beliefs. That is fallacious logic, I'm sorry.


edit on 7 28 16 by Barcs because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 28 2016 @ 05:00 PM
link   
a reply to: Barcs

Barcs wrote:


Why? This is a liberty you should not take because it is pigeonholing all atheists based on a single non belief without any consideration that they may have other beliefs. That is fallacious logic, I'm sorry.

And you should be sorry - As apparently taking statements out of context [a form of trolling] and then using them to generate
one's own agenda - And just what is that agenda ? Argument, debate for its own sake.?
Obviously it is not for generating knowledge nor intelligence - As you possess little of either




“The worst readers are those who behave like plundering troops: they take away a few things they can use, dirty and confound the remainder, and revile the whole.”
― Friedrich Nietzsche



All things are subject to interpretation whichever interpretation prevails at a given time is a function of power and not truth.
-Friedrich Nietzsche



posted on Jul, 28 2016 @ 06:43 PM
link   

originally posted by: whereislogic

originally posted by: SLAYER69
a reply to: swanne



Atmospheric Gaseous floating/flying Jelly Fish type beings, could for example theoretically evolve and thrive in gaseous Giants outside of said 'Goldilocks" zones.



Flying spaghetti monsters, pink unicorns, Santa Claus, walking whales, ape-men, aquatic ape-men (a.k.a. mermaids), our mysterious unnamed (other than a generic name, not specific) undiscovered single-celled common ancestor, our mysterious unnamed (other than a generic name) undiscovered closest common ancestor with apes, or chimpanzees, or the common ancestor for mammals, amphibians, fish, vertebrates, etc.
Don't stop now, keep it coming...

Perhaps someone can find a way to fit the term La La Land in a comment rather than the term "Goldilocks". It might make ATS more useful in terms of its educational value.



i liked that video - But to be fair, in the same way so called Evolutionists jump to unprovable conclusions, Creationists
also have a habit of jumping to an unprovable religions view of which there is also little evidence or proof.

What is lacking in both theories is an explanation of 'intelligence' - Where did intelligence come from?

Evolutionists might surmise that it just happened as form of adaptation for survival - a poor man's explanation if there ever ws one.

What I've liked and espoused even before I was aware that one of the giants of theoretical physics of the 20th Century,
Max Planck, had already done so maybe a hundred years ago, is the concept of Intelligent Design [he did not use those words]
but in a 'non-religious' sense - Intelligence and/or mind always exists and always existed - Hypothetical yes - but not
requiring 'faith' as would be required in religion.

Carl Sagan a most famous scientist of the later part of th 20th Century put it this way:

“We are a way for the cosmos to know itself.”
― Carl Sagan, Cosmos


And to repeat some of Max Planck's philosophy:

"All matter originates and exists only by virtue of a force... We must assume behind this force the existence of a conscious and intelligent Mind. This Mind is the matrix of all matter."
- Max Planck



"There can never be any real opposition between religion and science; for the one is the complement of the other."
- Max Planck



“I regard consciousness as fundamental. I regard matter as derivative from consciousness. We cannot get behind consciousness. Everything that we talk about, everything that we regard as existing, postulates consciousness.”
– Max Planck



And to sum up my view - I am not a Theist, nor an Atheist, and call myself a "ScienceFictionalist" and will entertain
any and all ideas that are interesting and conceivable - Until there can be proven an absolute truth as to origins,
Creation and'/or Evolution - anything is possible - until proven otherwise.





"ScienceFictionalism - the way of the Future"
universalspacealienpeoplesassociation.blogspot.com...



posted on Jul, 28 2016 @ 06:51 PM
link   
In terms of calculating the odds, the problem is that we only really have a sample of one.

However, within that sample, life certainly does progress as though the following were true:

1) Single celled life is probably a common feature of many worlds given the right organic compounds, and likely doesn't take long (in geologic time) to start.
2) However, the jump from simple organisms to complex organisms takes a long, long time in most cases. That's because with such a simple genetic composition, there is very little possible in terms of meaningful variation.
3) After a few billion years of nothing but single celled life, multi-cellular life came about, suggesting that given enough time and the right conditions, it certainly can happen. And from that point forward, life exploded in variety at an increasing clip because diversity breeds diversity.
edit on 28-7-2016 by Greggers because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 28 2016 @ 08:11 PM
link   
a reply to: Greggers

BUT this does not take into consieration the "Odds of Sexual Reproduction and Genetics".

I would agree that life may occur, and may occur often, throughout the universe - But, at least on this planet much of the
variety of life, and Evolution if you believe in it, occurs via having two sexes breeding together with genetic variation being involved in the process providing varieties of life - Where did the sex/gentic matrix come from ?

It almost seems like, and again this is hypothetical, that an intelligence still not definable in an exact sense, is at work.

Another words I can accept life occurring according to natural processes and having no conscious necessity for its occurrence but sex shows an intelligent process - nature can not devise an experiment without an intelligence behind it.
edit on 28-7-2016 by AlienView because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 28 2016 @ 08:52 PM
link   
a reply to: AlienView

Can you demonstrate how there is this "intelligence" involved? I ask because speaking as someone who's mucked around in the science of genomics, there is no evidence to me (and yes I am spiritual). If intelligence was involved it is a terrible workman!



posted on Jul, 28 2016 @ 09:03 PM
link   

originally posted by: AlienView
a reply to: Greggers

BUT this does not take into consieration the "Odds of Sexual Reproduction and Genetics".

I would agree that life may occur, and may occur often, throughout the universe - But, at least on this planet much of the
variety of life, and Evolution if you believe in it, occurs via having two sexes breeding together with genetic variation being involved in the process providing varieties of life - Where did the sex/gentic matrix come from ?

It almost seems like, and again this is hypothetical, that an intelligence still not definable in an exact sense, is at work.

Another words I can accept life occurring according to natural processes and having no conscious necessity for its occurrence but sex shows an intelligent process - nature can not devise an experiment without an intelligence behind it.


Not all life reproduces sexually. However, all animals, plants and fungi that reproduce sexually are thought to have originated from a common single-celled eukaryote species, which reproduced sexually.

Sexual reproduction has become the predominate mode of procreation among life because the diversity it affords offers tremendous competitive advantages.

There are, however, a few organisms that lost their ability to reproduce sexually -- in those cases, due to environmental factors, the costs of sexual reproduction evidently did not outweigh the benefits.
edit on 28-7-2016 by Greggers because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 28 2016 @ 09:15 PM
link   
a reply to: Noinden

The simple answer is no - If I could explain an intelligence driving nature and/or the universe, and do it in such a way that
I wasn't advocating a religious ideology I'd be writing a book and then they would be quoting me instead of me having to quote the leading thinkers and their opinions.

For now I will leave you again with a quote from my new found favorite physicist/philosopher Max Planck explaining why
the problem is so difficult.


"Science cannot solve the ultimate mystery of nature. And that is because, in the last analysis, we ourselves are a part of the mystery that we are trying to solve."
- Max Planck



posted on Jul, 28 2016 @ 10:48 PM
link   
a reply to: AlienView

I was not thinking you were taking a religious POV. I was simply pointing out, that things seem a certain way, until you look harder. One of the biggest evidences against intelligent design is that we're horribly designed



posted on Jul, 29 2016 @ 05:39 AM
link   
a reply to: AlienView
Perhaps regarding the subject of "intelligence" a study of the brain and the conclusions from a brain surgeon and molecular biologist may be of help if the dictionary doesn't give enough information to reason on (inductive reasoning).

How We Can Know There Is a God: Does God Care

...molecular biologist Michael Denton states:...

“In terms of complexity, an individual cell is nothing when compared with a system like the mammalian brain. The human brain consists of about ten thousand million nerve cells. Each nerve cell puts out somewhere in the region of between ten thousand and one hundred thousand connecting fibres by which it makes contact with other nerve cells in the brain. Altogether the total number of connections in the human brain approaches . . . a thousand million million.”

Denton continues: “Even if only one hundredth of the connections in the brain were specifically organized, this would still represent a system containing a much greater number of specific connections than in the entire communications network on Earth.” He then asks: “Could any sort of purely random process ever have assembled such systems?” Obviously, the answer has to be no. The brain must have had a caring Designer and Maker.

The human brain makes even the most advanced computers look primitive. Science writer Morton Hunt said: “Our active memories hold several billion times more information than a large contemporary research computer.” Thus, brain surgeon Dr. Robert J. White concluded: “I am left with no choice but to acknowledge the existence of a Superior Intellect, responsible for the design and development of the incredible brain-mind relationship—something far beyond man’s capacity to understand. . . . I have to believe all this had an intelligent beginning, that Someone made it happen.” ...

Oh, btw, what you described is a variation on the 'nature=God' -philosophy (Pantheism), it has the same source as most evolutionary philosophies that claim '(Mother) Nature did it'. Through the Babylonian empire > Egyptian, Hindu and Medo-Persian territories > Greek empire (Plato, Aristotle, etc.) > ...skipping a bit > Spinoza > modern intellectuals and philosophers (usually calling themselves scientists at this point in time). The philosophies are modified and branch out into multiple philosophies as time passes and new philosophers add their own ideas/philosophies to the core philosophy of 'Gaia/Mother Nature did it'. Most evolutionary philosophers will strip off all religious aspects from the philosophies to hide this and give it more of a "science" label (or jacket). Hence my expression of Mother Nature worshippers in the closet that I use from time to time (not too much because I'm afraid it's a bit too figurative or far-fetched to describe it that way, I try to be fair in describing things, but their arguments and the way they think makes me say it like that, I've run across the 'nature did its' often enough; sometimes even spelled out).


Mother Nature worship in or out of the closet remains popular. New Age philosophers love spreading the same stuff.
edit on 29-7-2016 by whereislogic because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 29 2016 @ 06:41 AM
link   
a reply to: Noinden
Note his 2nd and 3rd points starting at 4:03 - 5:58. The introduction is useful allthough some things could have been phrased better and it's perhaps best to ignore his first point starting at 3:15 - 4:03.

More importantly is perhaps this part that is more related to the 2nd and 3rd points made in the video above. No need to watch beyond 3:50, I actually recommend against it:




edit on 29-7-2016 by whereislogic because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 29 2016 @ 09:30 AM
link   

originally posted by: whereislogic
a reply to: AlienView
Perhaps regarding the subject of "intelligence" a study of the brain and the conclusions from a brain surgeon and molecular biologist may be of help if the dictionary doesn't give enough information to reason on (inductive reasoning).

How We Can Know There Is a God: Does God Care

...molecular biologist Michael Denton states:...

“In terms of complexity, an individual cell is nothing when compared with a system like the mammalian brain. The human brain consists of about ten thousand million nerve cells. Each nerve cell puts out somewhere in the region of between ten thousand and one hundred thousand connecting fibres by which it makes contact with other nerve cells in the brain. Altogether the total number of connections in the human brain approaches . . . a thousand million million.”

Denton continues: “Even if only one hundredth of the connections in the brain were specifically organized, this would still represent a system containing a much greater number of specific connections than in the entire communications network on Earth.” He then asks: “Could any sort of purely random process ever have assembled such systems?” Obviously, the answer has to be no. The brain must have had a caring Designer and Maker.

The human brain makes even the most advanced computers look primitive. Science writer Morton Hunt said: “Our active memories hold several billion times more information than a large contemporary research computer.” Thus, brain surgeon Dr. Robert J. White concluded: “I am left with no choice but to acknowledge the existence of a Superior Intellect, responsible for the design and development of the incredible brain-mind relationship—something far beyond man’s capacity to understand. . . . I have to believe all this had an intelligent beginning, that Someone made it happen.” ...

Oh, btw, what you described is a variation on the 'nature=God' -philosophy (Pantheism), it has the same source as most evolutionary philosophies that claim '(Mother) Nature did it'. Through the Babylonian empire > Egyptian, Hindu and Medo-Persian territories > Greek empire (Plato, Aristotle, etc.) > ...skipping a bit > Spinoza > modern intellectuals and philosophers (usually calling themselves scientists at this point in time). The philosophies are modified and branch out into multiple philosophies as time passes and new philosophers add their own ideas/philosophies to the core philosophy of 'Gaia/Mother Nature did it'. Most evolutionary philosophers will strip off all religious aspects from the philosophies to hide this and give it more of a "science" label (or jacket). Hence my expression of Mother Nature worshippers in the closet that I use from time to time (not too much because I'm afraid it's a bit too figurative or far-fetched to describe it that way, I try to be fair in describing things, but their arguments and the way they think makes me say it like that, I've run across the 'nature did its' often enough; sometimes even spelled out).


Mother Nature worship in or out of the closet remains popular. New Age philosophers love spreading the same stuff.



Out of context quote mines from a Jehovahs Witness website aren't evidence of anything except that the JW's are adept at quote mining to serve their own purposes. I'll stick with deductive reasoning and actual evidence.




top topics



 
11
<< 3  4  5    7  8 >>

log in

join