@kellyjay saidTime matters. Time determines the probability of certain events occurring or not occurring.
No, it doesn’t matter you are being asked a very simple question suggesting primitive is either easier or harder isn’t true. Can mindlessness do all we we?
There are only about 100 naturally occurring elements, and not all of them are components of very primitive life forms. If only 20 or so elements go into the self-replicating molecules of primitive life, then random stirring fully accounts for how very primitive life got started. It’s simply a question of how much time elapses before the combinations occur.
If only six days are granted for certain chemicals to combine, the probability is nearly zero that this will (or did) occur. If only about 10,000 years are granted, the probability is non-zero, but still very low. If 10 billion years are granted, the probability is 1 (= 100% certain) that every possible naturally occurring chemical compound will in fact occur. Chemistry alone accounts for the origin of very primitive life forms (essentially nothing more than self-replicating molecules, still much simpler than bacteria or cells with membranes).
Now, about evolution and complex life forms (all the diversity of life forms we see on the planet today ), which is a distinct issue from the origin of life: the available evidence is massively in favor of incremental gradualism over long periods of time.
There is no known natural process which would account for the appearance of many fully-formed complex species in a short period of time. I suppose that, for you, this is proof that only a mind could account for this. On the contrary, it is proof that a large number of complex fully-formed species did not appear in a short period of time.
So, yes, mindless processes (chemistry, natural selection, genetics, environmental change, competition for resources among species, etc.) fully account for both the origin of very primitive life forms, and for speciation.
21 Jun 23
1 edit
@KellyJay
You do realize that Professor Tour does not believe the universe is only 6000 years old. You are the one who is cherry picking: you applaud if he says he thinks a mind must have been involved, but you disregarded or ignore him as soon as he says or implies that the universe is billions of years old.
21 Jun 23
@moonbus saidSince I don’t argue time I don’t care, I can not prove a young earth with those who accept scripture only. If it isn’t clear there why should I buy that? I argue process not time, if the mechanisms can show how things are done we know by looking at the mechanisms. That isn’t the main question since none of us accept everything from nothing (if I am wrong speak up) a first cause is required.
@KellyJay
You do realize that Professor Tour does not believe the universe is only 6000 years old. You are the one who is cherry picking: you applaud if he says he thinks a mind must have been involved, but you disregarded or ignore him as soon as he says or implies that the universe is billions of years old.
Suggesting an eternal universe presents new questions of the same type.
21 Jun 23
@kellyjay saidWell then, here is what real evidence looks like: human remains have been discovered in caves, undisturbed for nearly 90,000 years.
Since I don’t argue time I don’t care, I can not prove a young earth with those who accept scripture only. If it isn’t clear there why should I buy that? I argue process not time, if the mechanisms can show how things are done we know by looking at the mechanisms. That isn’t the main question since none of us accept everything from nothing (if I am wrong speak up) a first cause is required.
Suggesting an eternal universe presents new questions of the same type.
https://edition.cnn.com/2023/06/13/asia/laos-cave-early-human-fossils-scn/index.html
If those humans had appeared along with all the rest of the animals and plants in a sudden 'creation event' over a short period of time, we would not see stratified layers with different plants and animals, getting more and more primitive the farther back one goes. If there had been a sudden 'creation event', all the same plants and animals would be present in all layers at all times. The physical evidence therefore supports two specific contentions: 1. that time matters, and 2. that primitive life forms came first and the complex ones came later (whatever the process was).
21 Jun 23
@moonbus saidHere is what you got remains dated, that has nothing to do with process. You are not anywhere near mind or mindlessness.
Well then, here is what real evidence looks like: human remains have been discovered in caves, undisturbed for nearly 90,000 years.
https://edition.cnn.com/2023/06/13/asia/laos-cave-early-human-fossils-scn/index.html
If those humans had appeared along with all the rest of the animals and plants in a sudden 'creation event' over a short period of time, we would not see ...[text shortened]... 2. that primitive life forms came first and the complex ones came later (whatever the process was).
21 Jun 23
2 edits
@kellyjay saidYour interest in a "first cause" means that you do indeed care about time. A chain of events by definition occurs in some chronological order, and it is intellectually crippling to dismiss the sheer immensity of the time scale of Earth's existence. It would take at least 32 years to count to 1 billion nonstop, and Earth has existed for 4.5 billion years.
Since I don’t argue time I don’t care, I can not prove a young earth with those who accept scripture only. If it isn’t clear there why should I buy that? I argue process not time, if the mechanisms can show how things are done we know by looking at the mechanisms. That isn’t the main question since none of us accept everything from nothing (if I am wrong speak up) a first cause is required.
Suggesting an eternal universe presents new questions of the same type.
It is the numbers involved here that I believe Creationists never truly come to grips with, so much so that they find any proposition that life arose by natural means to be viscerally untenable, and so it is denied out of hand.
What we do see is that living organisms maintain a highly complex structure for periods of time ranging from hours to centuries, with chemical reactions operating in concert to maintain metabolic processes and withstand environmental challenges.
Life is empirically observed to be highly adaptable, with the ability in a short time to develop resistance to any toxin that does not kill off the whole population outright. However, speciation in particular is a mechanism that happens to require time intervals much, much longer than a human lifespan. It is erroneous, if not outright dishonest, to deny speciation occurs merely because it has not been observed occurring in the laboratory or the field. We know it occurs because of the fossil record, among other areas of inquire such as fetal development and genetic analysis.
There is a continuum of life that flows down to protozoa, bacteria, and finally viruses. It shades off into things like viroids, prions, coacervates, and other complex chemical entities that seem to self-replicate, cause disease, or sustain themselves (I hesitate to say "live") symbiotically within cells as organelles, like mitochondria and chloroplasts. Somewhere along the line we find ourselves dealing with things that are decidedly "nonliving," but where the cut-off is between living and nonliving is quite fuzzy.
But things like viruses and viroids are comparatively simple, and something like the simplest of these must have arisen in Earth's early days. Just because we do not know all the intermediate stages leading to their initial development does not mean it must be impossible. Indeed, to believe it impossible merely on account of a lack of information is to surmount the summit of anthropocentric arrogance. There is nothing humble or godly about that.
So, what I see is you arguing against natural abiogenesis whilst dismissing the time scales involved, the innumerable shades of gray between chemistry and biology, and the manner in which random processes may give rise to order in an open thermodynamic system. This last point is most important. Though mutations in chemical as well as biological systems are random in the wild, the environment in some sense directs things, and complexity may increase over time. After all, complexity tends to translate into an increased ability to cope with environmental changes as well as "competing" molecules or organisms. Yet you seem to fully dismiss the very idea that a natural selective process can exist, though the concept is quite simple.
Consider that even Brownian motion can turn a wheel that can only rotate one way. There are things called Brownian nanomachines that can perform useful work using the random motion of fluid particles. In this way a random process animates an ordered system to perform useful work.
Just one randomly chosen paper about a biological example of a Brownian nanomachine:
"Trajectories of the ribosome as a Brownian nanomachine"
https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.1419276111
22 Jun 23
@soothfast saidThe process of progress is a funny thing, progress means there is a target being shot for, no target, no progress, nothing is being done to reach some solution. I'm interested in the first cause because the processes we see in life depending on our worldviews fall into one or two camps, mind or mindlessness.
Your interest in a "first cause" means that you do indeed care about time. A chain of events by definition occurs in some chronological order, and it is intellectually crippling to dismiss the sheer immensity of the time scale of Earth's existence. It would take at least 32 years to count to 1 billion nonstop, and Earth has existed for 4.5 billion years.
It is the nu ...[text shortened]... ctories of the ribosome as a Brownian nanomachine"
https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.1419276111
With a mind directing the processes targets being hit throughout time is just part of life it explains redundant systems, interacting systems, and error checking all moving life to move on. We don't think twice about seeing writing spelling out words with meaning that we can read and understand, a mind is at work at the root, even if we look at AI, a mind setup AI.
Mindlessness, what are the traits we find in operating systems when mindlessness was involved, anyone, anyone, Bueller? We don't go there because ultimately we know there are no operating systems designed, or error checked, with targets needing to be reached when nothing is there directing, maintaining, and so on. Yet, how many have hope that is the case in the face of reality?
Time does NOT add to your argument, it isn't more time that is an issue, you can have all the time you want or think you need. The thing isn't more time, it is timing, things have to happen at the right time, all the material required has to be in the same place, in the right amounts, in the proper environment, and a host of other game-ending events along the way. Adding more time when requirements are not being met just means there is more time where nothing is being done moving the material world toward life.
- Joined
- 16 Feb 08
- Moves
- 121429
22 Jun 23
@kellyjay saidAs you don’t want to talk about your religion, then what alternative is it that you are offering to origins of life on earth?
I'm getting that nothing even remotely has been said concerning mindlessness and mind but a lot of jabber about mythology and religion. You'd think with the gusto you have about knowing what is and isn't real you'd be able to at least at a minimum, come up with something that could explain how a mindless process could build what we see in life.
I mean, do you even have one?
22 Jun 23
5 edits
@kellyjay saidIn one sense you are right, but in the more important one you are mistaken. Adding more times does not move matter towards life, or towards anything else, for that matter. In this respect you are right. Nature knows no towards.
Time does NOT add to your argument, it isn't more time that is an issue, you can have all the time you want or think you need. The thing isn't more time, it is timing, things have to happen at the right time, all the material required has to be in the same place, in the right amounts, in the proper environment, and a host of other game-ending events along the way ...[text shortened]... met just means there is more time where nothing is being done moving the material world toward life.
The sense in which you are mistaken is this: adding more time is what makes the difference between bunches of chemicals which live and bunches of chemicals which are rock formations or oceans. Adding more time moves matter more often, and sooner or later, molecular strings become complex enough to self-replicate. This really is just a matter of how often the chemicals are mixed. Mix them for six days and it won't gel; mix them for 4 billion years and it eventually will. This has been observed to happen and it can be re-produced in laboratories. Once matter is capable of self-replication (we are not talking about life yet), then adding still more time and more mixing adds complexity to self-replicating molecules. From there, adding more time and more stirring of the mix, proto-life forms arise (soothfast has listed a few of them), and because they are already self-replicating, they tend to persist through time and undergo further development (instead of starting over from zero again). There is however still no movement towards anything, life or otherwise; it's just cumulative complexity and continuous self-replication, some of which may later develop into life but much of which won't.
There is no such thing as "the right time" or "the right place"; you are anthropomorphizing again. "Right" and "wrong" make sense only under an assumption that there is some intention to produce a specific result. In nature, there is no intention to produce a specific result. In nature, there is no "right time" or "right place"; there is no "wrong" either. That is why there is no such thing as error checking in nature. What is correct is: something happens, or something else happens; some of the bunches of chemicals live, most do not, that is all.
Now, about timing: adding more time (a whole lot more time, not a few thousand, but billions, of years) is what increases the probability that the timing of some mix will develop from proto-life (viroids or whatever) into life which is truly self-sustaining and self-replicating. Get it now?
If you deal only six poker hands, the likelihood of getting a royal flush is very low. Deal 6 billion poker hands, and the likelihood is very high, even to getting the cards in order (i.e., timing): ace of spades first, then king of spades second, then queen of spades third and so on--deal enough hands, and it happens, with timing and everything. Life is the royal flush of chemistry. Now don't take this literally -- it's just an example of how time alters the probability of an event occurring or not occurring. It does not mean there is The Big Dealer in the Grand Casino of the universe.
22 Jun 23
1 edit
@moonbus saidYou realize that all the time you want doesn't alter the limited amount of opportunities you have with the material present do you not? You can have all the right material, but once they start reacting with themselves and other things, every reaction either moves towards life or it limits any other opportunity there is for another chance with that material, so opportunities diminish.
In one sense you are right, but in the more important one you are mistaken. Adding more times does not move matter towards life, or towards anything else, for that matter. In this respect you are right. Nature knows no towards.
The sense in which you are mistaken is this: adding more time is what makes the difference between bunches of chemicals which live an ...[text shortened]... ring or not occurring. It does not mean there is The Big Dealer in the Grand Casino of the universe.
22 Jun 23
1 edit
@KellyJay
You are still anthropomorphizing, projecting your own mindful intentionality where there isn't any. Nothing in nature moves towards anything, neither life nor anything else. Either something happens (call it "life" ), or something else happens (not life), that's all there is.
Given that less than 100 elements go into life-chemistry, no 'opportunities' are limited by mixing them up multiple times. Elements don't disappear, you know.
22 Jun 23
@moonbus saidIt is simply putting things into terms you can relate to. If you have ever worked in manufacturing you would know the work starts when you have what is required on a build of material, or at a construction site the building isn’t started unless what is needed is there. When you have what is required you can work towards the goals that can be accomplished at that moment.
@KellyJay
You are still anthropomorphizing, projecting your own mindful intentionality where there isn't any. Nothing in nature moves towards anything, neither life nor anything else. Either something happens (call it "life" ), or something else happens (not life), that's all there is.
Given that less than 100 elements go into life-chemistry, no 'opportunities' are limited by mixing them up multiple times. Elements don't disappear, you know.
You are pushing a system that has no goals, hasn’t any list of necessary items, without any plans on what to do.
You have to be pushing magic without magical 🧙♀️ beings preforming the tasks!
23 Jun 23
@moonbus saidExcept what you are looking for is not a Royal Flush but several of them, in a row.
In one sense you are right, but in the more important one you are mistaken. Adding more times does not move matter towards life, or towards anything else, for that matter. In this respect you are right. Nature knows no towards.
The sense in which you are mistaken is this: adding more time is what makes the difference between bunches of chemicals which live an ...[text shortened]... ring or not occurring. It does not mean there is The Big Dealer in the Grand Casino of the universe.
23 Jun 23
@kellyjay saidThis is either nonsense or a false premise. If I understand it rightly, it's the latter.
You realize that all the time you want doesn't alter the limited amount of opportunities you have with the material present do you not? You can have all the right material, but once they start reacting with themselves and other things, every reaction either moves towards life or it limits any other opportunity there is for another chance with that material, so opportunities diminish.