24 Jul 06
I see that this thread has deviated somewhat from my original question
(not that some of the deviations haven't been interesting or even
tangentally relevant).
I wish to return to my essential question which is:
If humankind was created in God's image, are Neanderthals just
animals and, therefore, not subject to the considerations of humans?
That is, would there be any spiritual/moral penalty for murdering a
Neanderthal? If so, why? If not, why not?
Nemesio
24 Jul 06
Originally posted by NemesioWould the term "murder" be even applicable? I would posit "yes", these are people with feelings, but then I also think that testing on "intelligent" animals, such as primates, dogs, octopi should be banned.
I see that this thread has deviated somewhat from my original question
(not that some of the deviations haven't been interesting or even
tangentally relevant).
I wish to return to my essential question which is:
If humankind was created in God's image, are Neanderthals just
animals and, therefore, not subject to the considerations of humans?
Tha ...[text shortened]... piritual/moral penalty for murdering a
Neanderthal? If so, why? If not, why not?
Nemesio
24 Jul 06
Originally posted by telerionThe difference between chemical reactions and coins is that if a chemical reaction does not give you the right reaction, the wrong
Yes, this was essentially my point. There are a lot of other little things too, but they all basically fall under the same point about bad assumptions.
The essay relies critically upon certain assumptions.
1) Abiogenesis had to begin with proteins as complex as the one described in the essay. If much simpler proteins were possible, then the pro ...[text shortened]... ant that one be very suspicious when Creationists start throwing around numbers.
reaction limits another chance doesn't it, by changing the mix that
was required in the first place? I'd also ask is 20 coins enough to
meet the odds required as you see it, or should we add a few more
throws into the mix? Each new coin flip does add a bit into the odds
against such an event from ever happening, does it not.
Kelly
24 Jul 06
Originally posted by KellyJayMost chemical reactions proceed in both directions. All that is required is (normally) an input of energy into one 'direction' and that same energy being dissipated in the other. For example, the sun put the energy into the plants that became coal, (i.e. CO2 -> cellulose) buring liberates it (coal -> CO2). Sometimes energy is required to start a chemical reaction, but it is afterwards self-sustaining, e.g. fire.
The difference between chemical reactions and coins is that if a chemical reaction does not give you the right reaction, the wrong
reaction limits another chance doesn't it, by changing the mix that
was required in the first place? I'd also ask is 20 coins enough to
meet the odds required as you see it, or should we add a few more
throws into the mix? E ...[text shortened]... p does add a bit into the odds
against such an event from ever happening, does it not.
Kelly
On early earth the sun was still there, and chemicals would still have the opportunity to be hit, or not, by photons.
25 Jul 06
Originally posted by KellyJayOriginally posted by KellyJay
The difference between chemical reactions and coins is that if a chemical reaction does not give you the right reaction, the wrong
reaction limits another chance doesn't it, by changing the mix that
was required in the first place? I'd also ask is 20 coins enough to
meet the odds required as you see it, or should we add a few more
throws into the mix? E ...[text shortened]... p does add a bit into the odds
against such an event from ever happening, does it not.
Kelly
The difference between chemical reactions and coins is that if a chemical reaction does not give you the right reaction, the wrong
reaction limits another chance doesn't it, by changing the mix that
was required in the first place?
Scotty answered this one thankfully (as I am not a chemist).
I'd also ask is 20 coins enough to
meet the odds required as you see it, or should we add a few more
throws into the mix? Each new coin flip does add a bit into the odds
against such an event from ever happening, does it not.
I don't understand. The odds required for what? To answer your other question, each new coin decreases the probabilty by 1/2. Naturally, when you deal with exponents (even with bases as small as 2) numbers get big quick.
The point that I was originally making though with that example is that improbable things become probable with enough trials. Throw a coin 50 times, even a thousand times. Give me 2^1000 people and let them all simultaneously try to get 1000 heads in a row. It's likely that one of those people will get 1000 heads on the first try.
All this coin talk isn't really relevant anyway (that's a problem with the essay). The biggest problem with the essay was that they modeled the interaction of molecules like coin tosses.
25 Jul 06
Originally posted by whodeyNobody knows how many times abiogenesis has occured. We do know it occured at least once, fairly soon after conditions were right for it to do so, ie water was readily available.
For those that think that the odds of abiogenesis are not astronomical let me ask this question. Assuming abiogenesis is correct, how many times has abiogenesis knowingly occured in the billions of years the universe has existed? Considering this little bit of information the odds seem pretty astronomical to me.
I personally think it is possible that abiogenesis occured multiple times, and possibly occurs frequently even today. We just dont know. Is not knowing evidence that it is unlikely? No.
We do not have evidence for life on other planets, but that does not mean it doesnt exist as we do not have evidence that it doesnt either.
As for astronomical odds well that merely implies that on an astronomical scale (ie in this universe somewhere) it is highly likely.
25 Jul 06
Originally posted by twhiteheadI doubt it occurs frequently today - the atmosphere is too oxidising.
Nobody knows how many times abiogenesis has occured. We do know it occured at least once, fairly soon after conditions were right for it to do so, ie water was readily available.
I personally think it is possible that abiogenesis occured multiple times, and possibly occurs frequently even today. We just dont know. Is not knowing evidence that it is unlik ...[text shortened]... erely implies that on an astronomical scale (ie in this universe somewhere) it is highly likely.
25 Jul 06
Originally posted by scottishinnzI don't think I either asked my question so my query was understood,
Most chemical reactions proceed in both directions. All that is required is (normally) an input of energy into one 'direction' and that same energy being dissipated in the other. For example, the sun put the energy into the plants that became coal, (i.e. CO2 -> cellulose) buring liberates it (coal -> CO2). Sometimes energy is required to start a chem ...[text shortened]... was still there, and chemicals would still have the opportunity to be hit, or not, by photons.
or I simply don't see your answer as addressing my point, and it
could be hitting the nail on the head too and I'm just not seeing it.
I'll ask it again in another thread.
Kelly
25 Jul 06
Originally posted by KellyJayRocks older than around 2 billion years old show no signs of atmospheric oxygen, and many hallmarks of an anoxic environment. Since we have fossil stromatolites dated at 3.5 byo, then it'd be a good guess to put it somewhere older than that - probably around 3.8 - 3.9 billion years.
When was the atmosphere not to oxidising so it could occur in your
opinion?
ps
This isn't my question from the other post.
Kelly
25 Jul 06
Originally posted by KellyJayMy point is that even if a "wrong" reaction occurred, it'd probably reverse shortly thereafter, so there would not be a marked decrease in substrate availability. I don't know what the odds are on a self-replicating molecule being spontaneously formed under those conditions are, but it would only have to happen once, then cumulative mutation and selection (perhaps differences in molecular stability?) would drive the simple replicator over the non-life / life boundary.
I don't think I either asked my question so my query was understood,
or I simply don't see your answer as addressing my point, and it
could be hitting the nail on the head too and I'm just not seeing it.
I'll ask it again in another thread.
Kelly
26 Jul 06
KellyJay? FreakKBH? Whodey? Ivanhoe?
Were Neanderthals created for humankind's pleasure and thus
have no rights as we feel we have? Do they have souls? Are they
afforded any moral consideration? Some (like, say as
much as a dog)? As much as humans?
Telerion? AThousandYoung? Amannion?
Same question (minus the created/souls part).
Nemesio
26 Jul 06
Originally posted by Nemesio“The Neanderthal (Homo neanderthalensis) or Neandertal was a species of the Homo genus that inhabited Europe and parts of western Asia. The first proto-Neanderthal traits appear in Europe as early as 350,000 years ago [1], by 130,000 years ago, full blown Neanderthal characteristics had appeared and by 50,000 years ago, Neanderthals disappeared from Europe, although they continued in Asia to 30,000 years ago...
KellyJay? FreakKBH? Whodey? Ivanhoe?
Were Neanderthals created for humankind's pleasure and thus
have no rights as we feel we have? Do they have souls? Are they
afforded any moral consideration? Some (like, say as
much as a dog)? As much as humans?
Telerion? AThousandYoung? Amannion?
Same question (minus the created/souls part).
Nemesio
...For many years, professionals vigorously debated about whether Neanderthals should be classified as Homo neanderthalensis or as Homo sapiens neanderthalensis, the latter placing Neanderthals as a subspecies of Homo sapiens. However, recent evidence from mitochondrial DNA studies have been interpreted as evidence that Neanderthals were not a subspecies of H. sapiens. [3] Some scientists, for example Milford Wolpoff, argue that fossil evidence suggests that the two species interbred, and hence were the same biological species. Others, for example Cambridge Professor Paul Mellars, say "no evidence has been found of cultural interaction".”
—http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neanderthals
I see no reason at all to conclude that Neanderthalensis was not “human”—except, of course, for those who think the earth is only about 6,000 years old, in which case Neanderthals would not really have existed...
27 Jul 06
3 edits
Originally posted by NemesioIt is up to the scientists to determine whether the Neanderthals were human.
KellyJay? FreakKBH? Whodey? Ivanhoe?
Were Neanderthals created for humankind's pleasure and thus
have no rights as we feel we have? Do they have souls? Are they
afforded any moral consideration? Some (like, say as
much as a dog)? As much as humans?
Telerion? AThousandYoung? Amannion?
Same question (minus the created/souls part).
Nemesio
The question of human rights is a bit far fetched I'm afraid, since the issue of human rights was not around when the Neanderthals were and since they now are all extinct the question is mute.
However, if they were human, they would have Human Rights if they would somehow appear in a Jurassic Park sort of way in the streets of our cities and towns.
The question whether the Neanderthals were created for our pleasure is rather enigmatic, I must say.
They have souls if they are human. (See above)
27 Jul 06
1 edit
Originally posted by vistesdVistesd: " ...... and by 50,000 years ago, Neanderthals disappeared from Europe"
“The Neanderthal (Homo neanderthalensis) or Neandertal was a species of the Homo genus that inhabited Europe and parts of western Asia. The first proto-Neanderthal traits appear in Europe as early as 350,000 years ago [1], by 130,000 years ago, full blown Neanderthal characteristics had appeared and by 50,000 years ago, Neanderthals disappeared from Europe, rth is only about 6,000 years old, in which case Neanderthals would not really have existed...
Sometimes I wonder though ........ 😵