26 Feb 09
Originally posted by KellyJayRead DeepThought last post;
"What nonsense!
If that was true then why don’t we ever see that happening today?
Has a mutation or a volcanic eruption ever been observed to kill off ALL life that exists today? -answer, no. Volcanic eruption generally have their bulk of their killing power being LOCAL and, as far as we know, have never eliminated ALL life while “nasty” mutations are c ...[text shortened]... place where
it could grow and spread without being killed off by what was around it.
Kelly
I am not saying it did happen that way but why couldn’t abiogenesis happened multiple times until finally life managed to spread all over the planet?
26 Feb 09
Originally posted by KellyJay….Natural selection is just life playing out; it isn't magical,
…Then you have to keep
getting these changes in the mutations not so bad as to kill off life,
..…
[b]Again, this is because debilitating mutations are constantly being weeded-out by natural selection.
[/b]Natural selection is just life playing out; it isn't magical, if something
really bad happens in a mutation depending on how wide ...[text shortened]... ake any new life very
comfortable, let along the swings of conditions seasons present.
Kelly[/b]
..…
who said it was “magical”? 😛
….if something
really bad happens in a mutation depending on how wide spread, it is
all she wrote.
..…
What on earth does that mean?
Explain the process of how a ‘bad’ mutation can spread to the whole of life and destroy it 😛
…I even
wonder now how life survived changing seasons early on
..…
How do you know that there was significant “seasonal” changes back then when life first started? -that would have depended on the tilt of the Earth on its axis that is known to wobble with time.
Also, if life started on the ocean floor (which is one credible possibility), then since the temperature of the ocean floor doesn’t vary with the seasons, seasonal changes would have been rendered irrelevant there.
But EVEN if life started in a pool of water on land where there was significant seasonal changes, as long as the changes in temperature and moisture don’t cause conditions to go outside the range of conditions that that life can tolerate, why should this cause that life to become ALL extinct?
…it isn't like
sub-zero wind or super hot conditions could make any new life very
comfortable,
..…
How do you know that that must have been the conditions that the first successful life emerged in and not more hospitable conditions?
26 Feb 09
2 edits
Originally posted by KellyJay….Yes, if life evolved improperly for example if blood clots occurred all the time
…Besides getting all the right changes taking
place in the random mutations in an order that would cause it to
evolve PROPERLY….
..… (my emphasis)
[b]You mean there exists some mysteries “order of mutations” that would cause life to evolve in some mysterious sense “IMPROPERLY”!?
What is the difference between “the proper” and “the impr ...[text shortened]... it found itself in, but become more
functionally complex over time while it is doing it.
Kelly
except the time they are required, for as long as they are required you
have dead end results, ….
..…[/b]
I have absolutely no idea why you think that it is credible that life could ‘evolve’ to have inheritable characteristics that would inevitably cause it to die out! 😛 -that is OBVIOUSLY not the way evolution either does work nor is supposed to work.
Explain: what it stopping natural selection from weeding out those inheritable characteristics that would cause a life form to die before it could reproduce?
….Blind processes with
out quality control mechanisms are not prone to always getting it RIGHT more
times than not.
..… (my emphasis)
What it the “RIGHT” way?
If you mean the “perfect” way then I would agree! -for that is why we have our blood vessels in front of our retinas etc thus this is merely additional evidence for evolution because this is predicted by the mere fact that evolution is blind.
26 Feb 09
Originally posted by Andrew HamiltonI'd say before that leap can be made, you'd have to show it could
Read DeepThought last post;
I am not saying it did happen that way but why couldn’t abiogenesis happened multiple times until finally life managed to spread all over the planet?
happen once don't you think?
Kelly
26 Feb 09
Originally posted by Andrew HamiltonThat works for me, you believe it happened on the ocean floor? You
[b]….Natural selection is just life playing out; it isn't magical,
..…
who said it was “magical”? 😛
….if something
really bad happens in a mutation depending on how wide spread, it is
all she wrote.
..…
What on earth does that mean?
Explain the process of how a ‘bad’ mutation can spread to the whole of life and destroy i ...[text shortened]... n the conditions that the first successful life emerged in and not more hospitable conditions?[/b]
have something to show that was the case?
Kelly
26 Feb 09
2 edits
Originally posted by KellyJaybut there is no need for me to “show” it could happen once for if it didn’t happen at least once then life wouldn’t be here!
I'd say before that leap can be made, you'd have to show it could
happen once don't you think?
Kelly
1, we both agree that life had a beginning -yes?
2, so there had to be a time before that when there was no life -yes?
3, so somehow that first life was created -yes?
-it is only a question of exactly what that process was that created that first life.
Now, we don’t yet know what that exact process was just as we once didn’t know how the sun produces so much light energy.
Perhaps before Einstein some people thought some “god” made the sun shine because they used the religious ’logic’ (a misnomer in this case) that if something is not explained then a “god” must have something to do with it. But, if that was the case, then by Einstein showing how the sun shines as a result of nuclear energy he inadvertently demonstrating that religious ‘logic’ to be plain wrong.
Now, I am not saying that one day we will discover exactly how life probably got started -we may or may not ever do so. But, and this is the most critical point here that I am making, just because we do not yet know what that exact process was that created that first life does NOT mean that a “god” had something to do with it nor does it mean that it is even a credible possibility that a “god” had something to do with it -and if you dispute that then I just have to point out that Einstein showed how the sun shines as a result of nuclear energy and this does NOT involve a god/gods and thus discrediting that kind of ‘religious logic’.
-and if the first life was not made by any “god” then, logically, it could have only have been made by natural processes -what other alternative is there?
26 Feb 09
Originally posted by KellyJayobviously, I do not know if the first life got started in a pool of water on land or got started in the ocean and if it got started in the ocean, whether it got started on the floor or higher up and nor did I imply that it MUST have got started on the ocean floor. I can be quite certain that it must have got started where there is liquid water with some organic molecules mixed in but that’s just about it.
That works for me, you believe it happened on the ocean floor? You
have something to show that was the case?
Kelly
Ok, I personally see no reason why it would be impossible for it to have got started and then flourished and spread, say, either near the surface of the ocean or in a pool of water on land because I don’t agree with you suggestion that seasonal changes would make that impossible.
However, hypothetically, lets suppose for a moment you are absolutely right about that! -lets suppose that life CANNOT both get started and then flourish and spread if that first life IS exposed to significant seasonal changes -so what? -I mean, that would simply mean the first life that managed to flourish and spread MUST have got started in one of the places where there is NO significant seasonal changes such as the ocean floor -so what is your argument against this now?
27 Feb 09
Originally posted by Andrew HamiltonEver seen the movie Resident Evil or I am Legend?
….if something
really bad happens in a mutation depending on how wide spread, it is
all she wrote.
..…
What on earth does that mean?
Explain the process of how a ‘bad’ mutation can spread to the whole of life and destroy it 😛
27 Feb 09
1 edit
Originally posted by Andrew Hamiltonbut there is no need for me to “show” it could happen once for if it didn’t happen at least once then life wouldn’t be here!
but there is no need for me to “show” it could happen once for if it didn’t happen at least once then life wouldn’t be here!
1, we both agree that life had a beginning -yes?
2, so there had to be a time before that when there was no life -yes?
3, so somehow that first life was created -yes?
-it is only a question of exactly what that proces ...[text shortened]... ically, it could have only have been made by natural processes -what other alternative is there?
Are you suggesting in a debate that is around design or not, you
are claiming since life is here, it proves your side of the discussion?
I agree there was a time it wasn't here, but how it got here is under
discussion.
Kelly
27 Feb 09
1 edit
Originally posted by jman566wasn’t that a virus in the movie Resident Evil that wiped out most of humanity?
Ever seen the movie Resident Evil or I am Legend?
And not even that virus threatened to destroy all life?
-and aren’t zombies just pure science fiction? 🙂
27 Feb 09
1 edit
Originally posted by KellyJay….Are you suggesting in a debate that is around design or not, you
[b]but there is no need for me to “show” it could happen once for if it didn’t happen at least once then life wouldn’t be here!
Are you suggesting in a debate that is around design or not, you
are claiming since life is here, it proves your side of the discussion?
I agree there was a time it wasn't here, but how it got here is under
discussion.
Kelly[/b]
are claiming since life is here, it proves your side of the discussion?
..…
No, and if you just read my post then you can see that I was not saying this -read my last post again -reminder of the relevant bit here:
“…3, so somehow that first life was created -yes?
-it is ONLY a question of exactly WHAT that process was that created that first life.
…” (my emphasis)
….I agree there was a time it wasn't here, but how it got here is under
discussion. ..…
Right -so that’s discus that? (like I just was in my last post)
So lets do that my going back to my question I asked in my last post which you still haven’t answered:
lets suppose for a moment you are absolutely right! -i.e. lets suppose that life CANNOT both get started and then flourish and spread if that first life IS exposed to significant seasonal changes -so what? -I mean, that would simply mean the first life that managed to flourish and spread MUST have got started in one of the places where there is NO significant seasonal changes such as the ocean floor -so what is your argument against this now?
-do you not even have any counter argument to give!? -I have been repeatedly requesting that you give an actual counter argument and you have given absolutely none so I am wondering if you really have no such argument?
27 Feb 09
2 edits
Originally posted by Andrew Hamilton"…lets suppose for a moment you are absolutely right! -i.e. lets suppose that life CANNOT both get started and then flourish and spread if that first life IS exposed to significant seasonal changes -so what? -I mean, that would simply mean the first life that managed to flourish and spread MUST have got started in one of the places where there is NO significant seasonal changes such as the ocean floor -so what is your argument against this now? "
[b]….Are you suggesting in a debate that is around design or not, you
are claiming since life is here, it proves your side of the discussion?
..…
No, and if you just read my post then you can see that I was not saying this -read my last post again -reminder of the relevant bit here:
“…3, so somehow that first life was created -yes?
- ument and you have given absolutely none so I am wondering if you really have no such argument?[/b]
It would show you now the limitations we need to discuss are now only
found on the ocean floor and or some where that fits an area we could
agree on that would support life, and allow it to flourish. That at least
is a good beginning don't you think? If we start ruling out where it
cannot happen, maybe we will find either a place where it could, or
acknowledge there was no where it could we are aware of it at all. We
would also have to find the first structure too, exactly what would it
take to get non-living material to take on the properties of life, and
then as soon as it occurs start to flourish? Do we know that basic
structure or have any clue what so ever how much work was required to
start it off? If so what processes were in place to allowed it all to
occur?
“-do you not even have any counter argument to give!? -I have been repeatedly requesting that you give an actual counter argument and you have given absolutely none so I am wondering if you really have no such argument?"
[/b]Actually, design would over come both the structure of life and the
environments it started in from the get go! When we design a CPU or
a car we do it so that it operates under the conditions we know it is
going to operate in, and build into it a buffer to go beyond the normal
stress levels what ever we design may encounter in its projected life
cycle.
Kelly
28 Feb 09
3 edits
Originally posted by KellyJay….It would show you now the limitations we need to discuss are now only
[b]"…lets suppose for a moment you are absolutely right! -i.e. lets suppose that life CANNOT both get started and then flourish and spread if that first life IS exposed to significant seasonal changes -so what? -I mean, that would simply mean the first life that managed to flourish and spread MUST have got started in one of the places where there is NO sign normal
stress levels what ever we design may encounter in its projected life
cycle.
Kelly
found on the ocean floor
..…[/b]
that’s a big if. I simply do not accept your assertion that “seasonal changes” would make it impossible because that just doesn't make much sense thus I do not accept that the ocean floor is the only place where it could have got started.
….If we start ruling out where it cannot happen, maybe we will find either a place where it could, or
acknowledge there was no where it could we are aware of it at all.
..… (my emphasis)
How does it logically follow from:
1, If we start ruling out where it cannot happen
That:
2, there is a possibility that there is nowhere where it could happen at all
?
To show that (2) is false, I logically have only have to give just ONE example where it could have happened:
What about the oceans floor? -no significant “seasonal changes” there! And we ARE “aware” of the ocean floor -right?
You have yet to explain why there is no place it could have happened.
…We would also have to find the first structure too,
..…
Why? As I have already repeatedly said over and over again, we don’t need to know exactly what started a process to know that it is extremely unlikely that some “god” had something to do with it. And if we rationally assume no “god“ had anything to do with it, then, in this case, that, by process of elimination, means that the first life must have come from non-life by natural processes -do you deny this logical deduction?
…“-do you not even have any counter argument to give!? -I have been repeatedly requesting that you give an actual counter argument and you have given absolutely none so I am wondering if you really have no such argument?"
Actually, design would over come both the structure of life…
..…
Was I referring to intelligent design here? 😛 -answer, no.
Read my post again; I was referring to your flawed argument that “seasonal changes” would mean that life couldn’t get both started and then spread and my argument that your argument is flawed because, EVEN if your premise is correct (which is very unlikely), there are places where there are no significant seasonal changes where life could have got started.
You have yet to give any kind of counter argument to this.
28 Feb 09
Comment on last couple of posts. In what follows MYA = Million Years Ago, BYA = billion Years Ago.
What has seasonal changes got anything to do with? The crucial factor for abiogenesis is a reducing environment. This means no free oxygen. It´s been suggested that a search of deep sea hydrothermal vents should be made (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/7893414.stm) to try to see if it is happening there now.
The difficulty with this part of the discussion is that the evidence really isn´t that good. We know that photosynthesis started about 2,400 MYA due to the banded iron formations (see eg. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oxygen_Catastrophe) and it is known that the dominant form of life before then were microbial mats - which still form 99% (by mass) of all life on the planet (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microbial_mat) there is good fossil evidence from 3 BYA. There is possible evidence from before then, with biochemical markers found in rocks, and rod shaped holes, but it is not clear that this is evidence of life or of physical processes that just look similar.
Laboratory experiments have shown that some of the steps are possible. It is certainly plausible that life started this way, and that once it starts there are advantages to increased complexity as metabolisms then become more robust. But there is no standard model to early life. Certainly not from before 3,000 MYA.
The reason for the Last Universal Common Ancestor hypothesis is that all current life has a cell membrane, DNA and some other structures in common. The reason that evidence from before then is missing is entirely due to rock recirculation into the mantle - alongside difficulties with interpreting the evidence that has survived. However, the absence of good evidence about the sequence of events connected with the start of life is not a good reason to invoke a design hypothesis.