Should DNA Complexity END the search for Intelligent Alien life?

originally posted by: GetHyped

originally posted by: Astyanax
a reply to: sacgamer25 There are billions, probably trillions of planets, so life is almost certainly widespread in the universe, and quite possibly ubiquitous.

There's approximately 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 planets. That number is simply mind-mindbogglingly big. When people like Op talk about "statistically impossible" without offering up any math to support it I have to laugh because such statements are meaningless when dealing with such astronomically large numbers.

Yea you have to laugh at anyone who does not understand that it is simply impossible that there is not other life out there. It is not just planets but galaxies and even other Universes, not to mention other dimensions.

It simple mathematically impossible. Why would someone continue to argue that point is just silly. They are just in denial. Does not have anything to do with rna or DNA etc.

Definitely agree with you.

The Bot

a reply to: dlbott

I never said it didn't exist, I said intelligent life is not an assumption we should easily make.

I also said unless we find a way to travel much faster than light speed we should consider life so rare that even if it is there we will never find it.

We should stop looking for it until we have some way to actually go somewhere. We can't even get back to the moon and we are thinking about stuff that is so far away its just silly to waste money on it. Unless thier is spiritual significance as well.

This was my point, why are we so sure we will find intelligent alien life even if it does exist? If we only judge based on our own time line it seems unlikely anything could be far more advanced than humans.

If we look at our own history only a few cultures were true builders and scientists. The native Americans may have never advanced materially if left alone. Why does anyone assume advanced alien beings?

a reply to: Astyanax
Very interesting series of links, thank you. I do not know altogether much about the theories surrounding the origins of life, but favoriting links is very easy to do. One thing I'd like to add is the most recent link I've added to my Origins of Life folder has to do with the potential of life having sprung up in our oceans first before spreading elsewhere. How might this tie into an RNA-world theory?

I am not a religion basher. I went from being an agnostic to an agnostic atheist only because I felt it aptly applied to me. However, this term does not describe me if it forbids the existence or knowledge of a God, so I am tolerant of using a more appropriate term if there's one. All I know is, I'd believe in a God if that God would quit being so stubbornly evasive. I GET God is somehow challenging my faith by throwing up road blocks, as I'm expected to believe not through reasoning but through the spirit. What I don't GET is how any of that makes any sense whatsoever! It presuposses the existence of a spirit, and I'm unaware of one existing at this time. Do I have a spirit? Where's it located? Am I supposed to know?

My point in saying hte above? I feel sorry for being the way I am. I do not want to be the bad guy. Maybe I should not ever use the word atheist to describe myself. The problem I have with agnostic is it somehow feels off to me. It feels too 15th century or something. And yet atheist is wearing thin and seems too inflammatory. I do not believe I'm inflammatory when all is said and done.

I was a christian at one time and in many ways I sympathise with them. Like them, I feel sometimes that the universe without a God or higher purpose than what we have is somehow void of soul and stale. Evolutionary theory fails to energise me on a deep level. Instead my reaction is disgust as I imagine the world around me to be little more than a biological battlefield strewn with the remains of past species. On some days I'm terrified by the idea that tomorrow all might be cast into oblivion. It's a chaotic indifferent universe we inhabit, by all accounts. An asteroid could impact Earth and wipe us away from existence, and all would proceed normally in our absence. To some this is agreeable, but to myself, it's an ominous warning, an indication we're just some atoms.

Time is a great teacher, but it kills all its pupils. That's my summing up. I realize through dna and education systems and technology and various other means evolution is able to "teach", but indelibly it must kill individuals of a species to advance the species, so this everpresent thorn in our side shall remain so long as this rule persists. And how we die can be so radical and painful. Death isn't just a peaceful, natural embrace. It's war and disease and suicide and accident and a myriad of other gruesome pathways. It's as though evolution has a repulsive penchant or preference for killing members of a species to advance the species.

There is always a double standard with people who don't understand evolution but believe in the "supernatural".

They always try to sound scientific and claim that science is unreliable and that they won't accept this and that because they require "faith" and that they are just guesses and not fact and that it's impossible and that scientists are always proven wrong and that science requires faith, etc, etc.

But when it comes with the belief of anything supernatural... Noooo that's actually real and testable and fact and proven by science, etc, etc, etc.

I say double standard because the questions asked against science are not used against their supernatural belief.

I have seen it many times, their skepticism is only used for one thing but not the other. Skepticism is fine, but be consistent and use it for everything equally. If you are skeptic of Christianity then be skeptic of all religions. If you are skeptic of science then also be skeptic of the supernatural.

But it's always the same thing. They need proof to believe a scientific theory but they dont require proof to believe in the supernatural.

originally posted by: danielsil18

They need proof to believe a scientific theory but they dont require proof to believe in the supernatural.

I ask myself WHY am I here? If the only reason to be is to obtain as much pleasure before you perish as possible why be at all? If thier is no judgement why not just live according to what is best for you free from guilt?

Since the question why is only relevant if thier is a why, I will continue to believe in a why. And I believe the why to be supernatural, since science cannot answer why I am here only how.

What is your WHY you are here?

a reply to: jonnywhite

I advise thinking about evolution as a subject in its own right rather than getting hung up on its religious implications.

If it is impossible for you to do that, you will never understand evolution. That would be a great shame. Understanding how evolution works helps us understand a myriad of curious and interesting things — how ordinary physical processes deliver local complexity in the face of entropy, how and why animal behaviour evolved, why sex exists, where our ethics and morals come from and much, much more.

Coming to know the world like this is the sovereign remedy for the pointless and debilitating sense of meaninglessness you describe here:

I feel sometimes that the universe without a God or higher purpose than what we have is somehow void of soul and stale.

It will also prevent you from tormenting yourself with silly questions like these:

sacgamer25
I ask myself WHY am I here? If the only reason to be is to obtain as much pleasure before you perish as possible why be at all? If thier is no judgement why not just live according to what is best for you free from guilt?

Evolution is not about whether God exists or whether life has some transcendent meaning. It is about how things work in the real world. People who fixate on the religious implications of evolutionary theory are doomed to be intellectual cripples all their lives.

Good luck with breaking free.

originally posted by: Astyanax
People who fixate on the religious implications of evolutionary theory are doomed to be intellectual cripples all their lives.

Fantastic line.

a reply to: sacgamer25

The possibility of two random incidents occurring separatly and both creating the exact same machine, DNA, we should consider so statistically impossible that it can not happen.

Herein lies the problem with your understanding. Why would you assume that DNA was created by a random incident? Why couldn't it start out as a very simple RNA molecule, and gain complexity over time? Why do folks constantly think that DNA today is the same as DNA was 3 billion years ago. That's a LONG friggin time and no, it's not irreducibly complex, nothing is. If life can go from a single cell to modern humans in 3 billion years, surely it could go from simple RNA to complex DNA. DNA didn't just pop up over night because of a random incident, it probably took millions of years of slow development. And no, it's not statistically impossible for that to happen because the universe is HUGE.

Without a creator this is where we are left. All life, plant and animal, on this planet started from one single self replicating DNA. Out of this one cell, something that has happened only once on earth in 4.5 billion years all life came forth.

Actually that's true, whether there is a creator or not.

The probability of DNA being random is infinitely small

How small is "infinitely" small?

If spontaneous life is possible shouldn't we have found other machines such as ANA actually arising on earth? If life was random wouldn't you expect to see at least a few different types of machines?

Once again, you show that you don't understand the subject you are talking about. Why does it have to spontaneous? Why couldn't it slowly develop over time? It also very possible that DNA could be the only way life is possible, anywhere. That is something we just don't know, so speculating about it is pointless.

What we do have are a few experiments that have duplicated parts of the process, although that alone isn't enough to prove it. Comet impacts as well as certain environmental conditions can create amino acids. Parts of the formation of RNA have been done in a lab.

Either way it doesn't prove anything about god, only that the literal genesis story is not true. It's interesting to ponder about, but chances are there are hundreds of other planets in this galaxy alone that have very similar conditions to earth and could have had a very similar beginning. DNA does not prove god, it proves we don't fully understand its origins. Maybe we will someday, but there's no reason to give up searching for life. It's most likely out there, and chances are there is life more advanced than us. Our technological society only has existed for a few hundred years (1000 tops). Imagine a society on another planet that has existed in that manner for 10,000 years, or even 100,000. You'd have to think they'd be WAAAAY more advanced than we are now. Chances are we'd only find them if they wanted us to find them.

Today's scientists are inflated ego driven fools. They take unproven theory and accept them as facts, and base other theories off these unproven yet accepted facts.

Please name a single scientific theory that is not based on fact.

No additional theory should be perpetrated on top of currently unprovable science. The further one builds on a unprovable foundation the further they usually are from the truth.

Examples of this?

I believe in things that are real and can be proven. And I have faith only in God.

I see a blatant contradiction!

You only believe in things that can be proven, yet believe in god?

There may not be an answer to the philosophical "why" question. You desperately want there to be, so you reach for god, an unprovable entity with zero objective evidence to suggest his/her existence, that gives you no answer whatsoever to your questions aside from guesswork and speculations. That is ego in its purest form. You want to be specifically designed for a purpose in a supreme being's image because it makes you feel special about yourself. Eternal life sounds good, so you buy it hook line sinker. You don't like the idea of sharing a common ancestor with all life on the planet, so you defer to magic instead.

DNA complexity is what encourages scientists to continue to learn more about it and run more experiments, not to throw all of our hard work out the window for a magic creator, just because it's complex and the idea of eternal life sounds awesome. That's not how things work.

a reply to: sacgamer25

If the only reason to be is to obtain as much pleasure before you perish as possible why be at all? If thier is no judgement why not just live according to what is best for you free from guilt?

Are you one of those psychopaths who claim that they would do bad things if it wasn't for the belief of hell?

Us normal humans have empathy. I'm an atheist and I'm studying to be a surgeon. I'll live my life curing and saving lives without the belief of being rewarded after death. I'll do it for empathy, it makes me happy to see other people happy.

If the only reason you don't harm others is because you believe in heaven and hell then continue with your belief. I don't want you to harm other human beings.

What is your WHY you are here?

I don't know, period.

originally posted by: danielsil18
a reply to: sacgamer25

If the only reason to be is to obtain as much pleasure before you perish as possible why be at all? If thier is no judgement why not just live according to what is best for you free from guilt?

Are you one of those psychopaths who claim that they would do bad things if it wasn't for the belief of hell?

No, I am not a psychopath. It is possible not to believe in heaven and hell and be a good person.

Us normal humans have empathy.

If empathy is normal than why is homelessness, hunger, and war also normal? Surely the ones who have the power to change do not seem to display this same empathy that you say is normal.

I'm an atheist and I'm studying to be a surgeon. I'll live my life curing and saving lives without the belief of being rewarded after death.

Thats good, the bible says when a man works with his hands and receives an income he should expect no spiritual reward.

I'll do it for empathy, it makes me happy to see other people happy.

That's good also. What you do from your heart(empathy) is spiritual work, and when one does spiritual work they recive the spiritual reward (happiness) even if they dont understand why.

What is your WHY you are here?

I don't know, period.

Yes you do know your why. You stated it clearly.

You want to help the world because in your heart you have empathy for those less fortunate.

It is not by faith that you choose to serve humanity but because you know that inside yourself you will be rewarded with happiness for helping others.

The only difference between me and you is I believe this happiness comes from God. You do it for love, the bible says God is love so I believe we follow the same internal holy voice.

The bible also says the law to love is written even on the hearts of the unbeliever. This is why I expect to find Atheist that follow what is good within themselves, because they believe in what is within them, wich is love.

The bible says to expect non believes who follow the "light" within. You can call that internal voice, the love within you, but the bible calls it God.

a reply to: sacgamer25

At this time we should assume that the simplest self replicating life forms on earth are based on DNA. Why? Because no other evidence exists to the contrary.

ok - stop right there - your scientific illitereacy is showing :

exhibit # 1 - RNA virus

a reply to: sacgamer25

We will have to agree to disagree.

You have your belief but I don't.

I came here just to say that if you are going to use skepticism then use it for everything equally. If you require proof for scientific theories then proof should be required for your supernatural beliefs.

a reply to: Barcs

Infinitely small, mathematically I don't know. From a timeline scale. It happened once on earth 2 billion years ago and hasn't happened since.

If thier ever existed life that could reproduce without the aid of a cell containing DNA where did it go?

Their is no evidence that any life ever existed, or can exist that is simpler than DNA. You don't get to use your imagination in science, that is the beauty of science.

At ATS we say pics or it didn't happen. Atheist hold onto that card against God with everything they got. But I have to believe in man's imagination of what could have existed prior to DNA. PICS OR IT DIDN'T HAPPEN.

This thread was not about evolution, this thread was about the simplest form of self replicating life. As for evolution and other unproven science.

Big bang - unproven
Age of universe - unproven
Size of universe- unproven
Age of earth - unproven
Carbon Dating - very shaky and unreliable
Origin of life - unproven
Speciation - unproven

Because I believe in God I enjoy the How but am not obsessed with it. I can accept what science can prove, pics or it didn't happen, and allow science to figure out the rest as technology improves.

I like my science fiction kept in the science fiction section.

originally posted by: danielsil18
a reply to: sacgamer25

We will have to agree to disagree.

You have your belief but I don't.

I came here just to say that if you are going to use skepticism then use it for everything equally. If you require proof for scientific theories then proof should be required for your supernatural beliefs.

But you are my proof, as is my own conscious proof.

As is the conscious of all who recognize that loving and giving serve a higher purpose than selfishness and greed.

No one can prove to you that the higher purpose is from God, but the Atheist that by nature follows the higher path is proof of God to me. Because this is what the bible claims I will find.

Science can never eliminate ID. If science someday can prove natural origin, they can claim it to be completely chaotic but the believer in the "light" will never let go of ID.

Science and spirituality do not have to collide, the religious text say very little about science. Most of the references that have been claimed to be scientific by the church appear to be metaphors taken literally in my opinion.

originally posted by: ignorant_ape
a reply to: sacgamer25

At this time we should assume that the simplest self replicating life forms on earth are based on DNA. Why? Because no other evidence exists to the contrary.

ok - stop right there - your scientific illitereacy is showing :

exhibit # 1 - RNA virus

I've already covered this. RNA viruses cannot replicate outside of a cell containing DNA. So the simplest self-replicating life, without needing a DNA host cell, is DNA.

Because RNA cannot self-replicate without a host, it is more likely they are mutations. If they were implications of simpler origins we should expect to find at least some form of it still existing.

We can only go to the simplest self replicating form we can find. And that thst is still DNA. We can imagine whatever we want, but we don't call it fact until we can prove it.

The scientists who spoke against the church didn't risk death for their imagination, they risked death for what they could prove. Scientists are supposed to be held to the highest rearguard when it comes to non biased fact finding.

But they are biased towards evolution. They need to separate themselves from their bias and deliver facts without adding in the fiction.

They claim to understand creation when they do not.

originally posted by: sacgamer25
Science can never eliminate ID.

Nope that's right just like leprechauns will never be eliminated, because its an unfalsifiable claim and they've never been shown to exist in the first place.

If science someday can prove natural origin, they can claim it to be completely chaotic but the believer in the "light" will never let go of ID.

Creationism in a nutshell........geez

Fingers in ears time I guess?

Science and spirituality do not have to collide, the religious text say very little about science.

They say nothing about the scientific method....

a reply to: bitsforbytes

Wait, Drake's equation is dependent upon the number you put in, BUT that doesn't mean you can just put in any numbers you want. There is some flexibility but you can't, for example, put in negative probabilities. Also, many of the numbers are based upon rigrous physical pinciples, that guide the development of the cosmos and the creation of solar systems, yes there is uncertainty, but this uncertainty does not then mean that any number will fit the bill.

Not to mention isn't your reasoning subjective as well, based on a systems of beliefs that have been contradicted and proved incorrect time and time again? Not to mention this is a book that claims that it was inspired by God, which basically means it cannot be wrong. In the Very least science openly admits it could be wrong, but at least it quantifies the level of uncertainty and knows more or less when the theories apply or don't apply, and those theories that are accepted for the most part in limited circumstances works, unlike your faith.

originally posted by: sacgamer25
a reply to: Barcs

Infinitely small, mathematically I don't know. From a timeline scale. It happened once on earth 2 billion years ago and hasn't happened since.

Nothing can be infinitely small. It doesn't make logical sense. That was my point. Infinite means no beginning and no end.

Their is no evidence that any life ever existed, or can exist that is simpler than DNA. You don't get to use your imagination in science, that is the beauty of science.

Nobody is claiming that. They are saying that the original DNA molecule could have been much simpler than it is today.

At ATS we say pics or it didn't happen. Atheist hold onto that card against God with everything they got. But I have to believe in man's imagination of what could have existed prior to DNA. PICS OR IT DIDN'T HAPPEN.

There is no evidence for any god, let alone yours. That is what atheists say. Not knowing the exact answer as to how DNA evolved or originated doesn't prove god.

Big bang - unproven

Proven:

www.schoolsobservatory.org.uk...

Age of universe - unproven

The furthest we can go back is 13.8 billion years. It could be older, but we don't know what happened prior to big bang or what caused it. We know for an absolute fact that all known matter in the universe was originally close together and expanded out.

Also I'm pretty sure there is no scientific theory called "age of universe". It's part of the big bang theory, which has substantial evidence to back it.

Size of universe- unproven

Can you please refer me to the "size of the universe" theory?

Age of earth - unproven

That's a lie. It's beyond proven.

www.talkorigins.org...

Carbon Dating - very shaky and unreliable

Another lie. What do you mean by "shaky and unreliable". Do you forget that there are several methods of dating, and that they all just happen to confirm each other? Carbon dating isn't used for anything over a million years old. That's where radiometric dating of isotopes comes in.

Origin of life - unproven

Scientists don't yet know the answer to this one. There is no scientific theory of the origin of life, there is abiogenesis hypothesis. Nobody claims that the origin of life is known by science or proven.

Speciation - unproven

Another lie. It's been done IN A LAB.

evolution.berkeley.edu...

www.talkorigins.org...

You really need to brush up on your science. Science is a method of fact gathering based on experiment and observation. You don't seem to even understand the difference between a fact, a scientific theory and a hypothesis. Evolution is a scientific theory and is based on verified facts.

Here let me list a few other UNPROVEN things:

god
heaven & hell
angels
spirit or soul
prayer
the bible

Yet, you believe in every single one of them. Don't act like you are using scrutiny by disbelieving science, when you believe all of those things unconditionally with no evidence at all. It's a double standard, especially when you do not have the scientific knowledge necessary to make statements like that about science and what is right and wrong in it.

Because I believe in God I enjoy the How but am not obsessed with it. I can accept what science can prove, pics or it didn't happen, and allow science to figure out the rest as technology improves.

I like my science fiction kept in the science fiction section.

Sorry to hear that. It's too bad you are wrong about the science. Evolution is proven, you just deny it. The big bang is backed by lots of evidence, you just deny it. Radiometric dating is reliable, you just deny it. There is no logical rhyme or reason to your attack on science, aside from a faith based ancient story book. PICS OR IT DIDN'T HAPPEN. Do you have pics from when god created the earth? Do you have any evidence whatsoever that anything in the universe was created by a higher power? We get it, you don't like evolution or science that goes against the bible, but unfortunately evidence wins over unverified myths. Denial of evidence doesn't win debates. You need to specifically break down the science and address it, if you wish to make these claims. You are probably just regurgitating something you found on a creationist website. There's no reason whatsoever to disbelieve evolution, even if you believe in god. God couldn't create life via evolution? Talk about limiting god, somebody you claim is all powerful. Let's be real here. It's not about god, it's about your fundamentalist interpretation of ancient texts, nothing more nothing less.

Science and spirituality do not have to collide, the religious text say very little about science. Most of the references that have been claimed to be scientific by the church appear to be metaphors taken literally in my opinion.

If science and spirituality do not have to collide then why are you pitting them against each other? It's not the science advocates that are starting threads against god. It's the creationists that constantly attack science and evolution and claim science is wrong about dozens of things that they have not researched themselves. It boils down to faith. You believe it blindly and literally, therefor all rationality goes out the window, including science, which has proven itself invaluable to our development as a society for a long time.

Science can never eliminate ID. If science someday can prove natural origin, they can claim it to be completely chaotic but the believer in the "light" will never let go of ID.

Science doesn't need to eliminate ID, because there is absolutely no objective evidence to suggest it. NONE. You have people making assumptions about things like origin of life and DNA complexity to fill in the gaps of knowledge with god. In science, theories are not started without verifiable evidence of whatever the theory is based on. Can you verify that DNA was designed without numerous assumptions? I'd love to see it.

We can only go to the simplest self replicating form we can find. And that thst is still DNA. We can imagine whatever we want, but we don't call it fact until we can prove it.

DNA isn't a form, it is a molecule and I highly doubt it can replicate itself without a cell. If I'm wrong, then so be it, I just don't have the patience to look this up when the majority of your claims about science have been wrong. Please show me evidence of DNA replicating by itself in nature without a cell. Good luck.

a reply to: Barcs

Do you have pics from when god created the earth? Do you have any evidence whatsoever that anything in the universe was created by a higher power?

Well, technically, the universe was created by a higher power. One's opinion of it really depends on how they interpret the so called evidence. Some call it the work of God, others call it the work of a very sudden explosion.

The reality is, neither side has any real proof to firmly back up their claims.

originally posted by: PhotonEffect
a reply to: Barcs

Do you have pics from when god created the earth? Do you have any evidence whatsoever that anything in the universe was created by a higher power?

Well, technically, the universe was created by a higher power. One's opinion of it really depends on how they interpret the so called evidence. Some call it the work of God, others call it the work of a very sudden explosion.

The reality is, neither side has any real proof to firmly back up their claims.

Wrong in so many ways Do you understand why?