Ahhh, finally. The beginning of evolution!

Randwolf said:
I wonder how far scientists will have to take the process before a few of the "intelligent design" types will begin scratching their collective heads, pondering the possibility of a "natural" origin for life... Hypothetically, would transforming inert chemicals to RNA to DNA to "animal" in the lab do it?

I suspect the anti evolutionary crowd will have fun, as many seem to object to evolution on the grounds that it does not explain abiogenisis (although the two are totally unrelated)

(Don't worry, there was still plenty to do to keep your gods busy...) :rolleyes:

Comments?
Click to expand...
I haven't read thru the entire thread, so forgive me if I'm being repetitive, but I really fail to see how any such discovery can disprove the "intelligent design" theory. All this discovery does is help elucidate the process that gave rise to life. Who set up the rules of the universe in such a way as to allow these processes to take place? Change one or two universal constants ever so slightly and the universe never would have given rise to life.
 
Change one or two universal constants ever so slightly and the universe never would have given rise to life.
Click to expand...

Impossible to say. Stenger has shown that certain constants can be altered as much as 20%, and the model still produces stars. We don't know if some other kind of life can evolve in a different universe. Finally, that life did evolve in this universe doesn't mean it was designed to do that.
 
spidergoat said:
Impossible to say. Stenger has shown that certain constants can be altered as much as 20%, and the model still produces stars. We don't know if some other kind of life can evolve in a different universe. Finally, that life did evolve in this universe doesn't mean it was designed to do that.
Click to expand...
So some could be different (by as much as 1/5!), and other's couldn't. The point is simply that if you believe in a Deist/ID type God you believe that he arranged things so that life (and even mankind) would be the inevitable result. Is it possible that the universe could have arisen as it did completely by chance? Of course. There's really no way to decide the issue, that's why religion (which is what we're talking about with Intelligent Design) involves faith. Science helps us understand the nature and origin of the universe. But mankind has a natural desire to go beyond the how and know why. It's possible that there is no why, so we just invented one. On the other hand, perhaps God does exist and left clues. Clues that we would discover as we matured as a species and our knowledge grew. Things like the low probability of certain events occuring naturally. Either way, it makes for an interesting topic to discuss.
 
SAM said:
If anyone knows more, feel free to jump in
Click to expand...
There's a large discussion on the possible role of clays and crystals as substrates for the formation of pre-biotic nitrogen and carbon compounds - the relevance here is that such substrates would be often both chiral and self-replicating, as well as supplying friendly nooks and complex electrochemical environments.

So the amplification of a rare event could easily produce a chiral irruption of the lucky innovation.

One of the intuitive barriers we face is that complex clay and crystal morphology seldom survives the assault of the oxygenated atmosphere and biological entities in the modern world - the prebiotic world undoubtedly saw some spectacular formations on this planet.

madanth said:
Is it possible that the universe could have arisen as it did completely by chance?
Click to expand...
Not only possible but possibly inevitable. And whenever it happened, the residents could be looking at the sky wondering how they got so lucky.
 
Last edited:
This is rather as if you imagine a puddle waking up one morning and thinking, 'This is an interesting world I find myself in - an interesting hole I find myself in - fits me rather neatly, doesn't it? In fact it fits me staggeringly well, must have been made to have me in it!' This is such a powerful idea that as the sun rises in the sky and the air heats up and as, gradually, the puddle gets smaller and smaller, it's still frantically hanging on to the notion that everything's going to be alright, because this world was meant to have him in it, was built to have him in it; so the moment he disappears catches him rather by surprise. - Douglas Adams
 
That is how things develop. Laws can be mistaken. Of course, they are tested by experiment.
 
Repo Man said:
This is rather as if you imagine a puddle waking up one morning and thinking, 'This is an interesting world I find myself in - an interesting hole I find myself in - fits me rather neatly, doesn't it? In fact it fits me staggeringly well, must have been made to have me in it!' This is such a powerful idea that as the sun rises in the sky and the air heats up and as, gradually, the puddle gets smaller and smaller, it's still frantically hanging on to the notion that everything's going to be alright, because this world was meant to have him in it, was built to have him in it; so the moment he disappears catches him rather by surprise. - Douglas Adams
Click to expand...
I love Douglas Adams, and the point he is making here is clear. Nevertheless, working within the context of his little metaphor, would the puddle have been happier not believing what he did? As things were, the puddle went on happily existing until, quite by surprise, it entirely evaporated. It's demise was inevitable. There was nothing the puddle could do to save itself. Why not go about its existence believing everything is fine, rather than spending its time in a panic worrying about a fate that can't be altered?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top