• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Scientific advances in abiogenesis

Astrophile

Active Member
Five generations per year. 5,000 years back to Noah. 25,000 generations. The odds of YOU existing are 1 in 200,000,000^25,000. And yet, here YOU are.

So much for operationally impossible odds.

Shouldn't this be five generations per century, so 50 centuries back to Noah it would come to 250 generations. Of course, in practical terms, it doesn't make any difference; 1 in 200,000,000^250 is just as impossible as 1 in 200,000,000^25,000.
 

ecco

Veteran Member
Shouldn't this be five generations per century, so 50 centuries back to Noah it would come to 250 generations. Of course, in practical terms, it doesn't make any difference; 1 in 200,000,000^250 is just as impossible as 1 in 200,000,000^25,000.
Duh! I've done this example before. When I did it this time, something seemed off but I couldn't figure out quite what.

Thanks for the fact check or should I say thanks for the brainfart check.
 

shunyadragon

shunyadragon
Premium Member
Shouldn't this be five generations per century, so 50 centuries back to Noah it would come to 250 generations. Of course, in practical terms, it doesn't make any difference; 1 in 200,000,000^250 is just as impossible as 1 in 200,000,000^25,000.
The problem is both these figures are Intelligent Design probability foolishness from the Discovery Institute, and not science.

Probability Theory does not work here because there are at present too many unknowns, or computer programmers with limited knowledge of science. One example is if catalysts are involved in RNA chemical evolution as some research indicates, the simplistic probability fail. The problem with probability is it requires assumptions of unknowns,
 
Last edited:

atanu

Member
Premium Member
Is the dopey grin there because you don't understand the word "who"? Please re-read my comment. Please try to understand what I am asking for when I use the word "who".

Ha. Ha. Don’t you understand that abiogenesis becomes all? Why the anger?
 

ecco

Veteran Member
Ha. Ha. Don’t you understand that abiogenesis becomes all? Why the anger?
Don't you understand the difference between anger and derision?


You posted (#224)
Ontological naturalists believe in a story of creation of life-intelligence from 'dust' just as creationists believe.​

I asked (#227)
Can you give some examples of Ontological naturalists who believe in a story of creation of life-intelligence from 'dust' just as creationists believe.​

Twice you responded. Twice you failed to give an answer.

Why do you make nonsensical comments that you cannot support? That seems childish.
 

OrtaYol

Member
Shouldn't this be five generations per century, so 50 centuries back to Noah it would come to 250 generations. Of course, in practical terms, it doesn't make any difference; 1 in 200,000,000^250 is just as impossible as 1 in 200,000,000^25,000.

I'm no mathematician but if calculated correctly I think the chances of him existing should be 1 in 1.
 

Bear Wild

Well-Known Member
^ He exists, therefor if all variables are taken into account the correct math would confirm this.
He exists meaning he is here so we can ask him? Or do you mean you want to believe he existed in the past and have no proof other than what you have read in the bible. With this type of mathematical analysis Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny are in a 1 in 1 probability to those who believe in them.
 

OrtaYol

Member
Sorry, but what variables are you talking about?

Can you be specific or give a few examples?


This got taken more seriously than I had intended, few years ago something strange happened and I said "what are the chances of that?" My friend replied "since it just happened... 100%". Similarly the odds of someone who currently exists, existing is 1:1 or 100%... No? :D
 

gnostic

The Lost One
This got taken more seriously than I had intended, few years ago something strange happened and I said "what are the chances of that?" My friend replied "since it just happened... 100%". Similarly the odds of someone who currently exists, existing is 1:1 or 100%... No? :D
Er...I don’t know... :(

I still don’t know what you are talking about.

I ask you to be more “specific”, so you should have clarified what you were saying. Instead, you have just confused me some more. :shrug:
 

Kelly of the Phoenix

Well-Known Member
I’m sorry, but the scientists in the laboratory have intelligence
Intelligence that had to go at it a few times before getting it right. Is that how God did it?

This only proves that it takes intelligence to even begin the steps!
No, nature does the steps. What "intelligence" did was figure out what it was doing.

Furthermore, the fact that DNA-based replication still relies on RNA as an intermediary is highly suggestive that an earlier RNA-only process was later upgraded by adding the DNA process on top.
I wouldn't think it'd be complicated. It would only take one RNA strand being copied, but instead of now having 2 RNA, they just remained stuck and BOOM -- DNA.

Isn't it a natural evolution of a claim that RNA is equal to life, since EVERYTHING EVOLVED, YOU KNOW?
Life =/= consciousness.

I do not agree to this conclusion since consciousness is true here and now. So, when you generate life through RNA-DNA the outcome is evolution created us and our consciousness.
Our DNA is less responsible as it's more a neurological anatomical kind of thing. DNA just tells you where the cell goes, what it does, and how long it lasts. Consciousness seems to require some kind of complex network, neural or otherwise.

Then how do you explain our arrival/emergence, with our subjective awareness?
I wasn't aware most people were truly aware. :p

My considered understanding is that meme that brain is THE consciousness or is its source is a dogma that does not help anyone to attain peace.
Brains might not be the sole proprietor of consciousness, though, as it could be argued some fungi and slime molds might represent a kind of consciousness when their networks are viewed as a whole. Then there's AI.

For me, I concede the medical obvious part where if you hurt the brain you hurt your conscious self, but I also think we are kinda like rocks you study and determine magnetic fields. Like, something in reality "records" "us". This would be why the afterlife is often seen as timeless and eternal: it would be if you were just a recording and not an active person.

RNA and then DNA and bacteria, and then numerous forms are forms of Prakriti-Nature and have no life-consciousness of their own.
I would argue that can't be determined because we have no way of ascertaining either way.

All chemicals and all organs existing, a life-less body does not say "I exist".
The dead begin breakdown really quickly, so, no, the chemicals and organs will soon be mush, not as they were during life.

If I claim I have created first sparks of life in laboratory, it will imply that sentience will be the inevitable product.
Why inevitable? Things only evolve into something that fits the environment. If the environment has no real need of sentience, it won't be there.

One conclusion is water is essential to the state called life.
On Earth it seems to be, at least. It cannot be generalized to every other part of the universe.

When last I was looking at what we know about consciousness, the >Global Workspace< hypothesis, was comfortably leading the pack.
I can see that, even the "movie" one. I think I might have some frames missing. :p

Not to be too picky, and obviously off topic, but when a person flat-lines in a hospital setting the heart can be massaged to send oxygen-carrying blood to the brain.
And bypassed entirely with machines until a better solution presents itself. :)
 
Top