Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Peez · 03-08-2002, 01:56 PM

Quote:

luvluv:
So I want to ask you guys what you think of him and of his claim of the "fine-tuning" of the universe.

ps418:
I think Ross is fine - as long as he is talking about physics. Once he ventures into geology and biology, he tends to make some pretty absurd statements.

Coragyps:
The whole exercise seems to be pulling fractions out of some bodily orifice! Sell it to The Weekly World News- not to me.

ex-robot:
He is actually an astronomer, but no biggy. I am not very high on Ross. He and his kind seem to think they are so much better than YECs, but they (he) are as pathetic as YECs in the eyes of evolutionists.

Peez:
Ross's probabilities are useless, based on numerous arbitrary numbers and unfounded assumptions.

Asha'man:
Looks like Ross is entirely full of it.

Quote:

hezekiahjones:
Seriously though, where does Ross come up with those "probabilities" he's got posted on the page you linked?
luvluv:
hezikiah, I came over here to ask you folks that.

Asha'man:
At first glance, this probability chart appears to be numbers pulled at random. Notice how many values are 0.1, or 10%. This indicates a pure guess, at best.

Quote:

luvluv:
Furthermore, what do you folks think of the arguments against evolution from probability?

ps418:
I think they're mostly pretty ridiculous, since they are based on assumptions that "evolutionists" do not hold in the first place (e.g. the assumption that genes originate via the random combination of individual nucleotides, the assumption that every loci in a gene or protein can only be occupied by one specific nucleotide or amino acid, etc.).

Quote:

luvluv:
Has anyone ever created or seen created a self-replicating molecule? Are there any experiments going on now to try to see one?

ps418:
I remember hearing something about self-replicating proteins a while back.

<a href="http://w3.mit.edu/newsoffice/tt/1990/may09/23124.html" target="_blank">Self-Reproducing Molecules Reported by MIT Researchers</a>
<a href="http://www.scripps.edu/chem/ghadiri/html/selfrepli.html" target="_blank">Peptide Self-Replication</a>
<a href="http://www.santafe.edu/sfi/People/kauffman/sak-peptides.html" target="_blank">SELF-REPLICATION: Even peptides do it. By Stuart A. Kauffman</a>

Quote:

luvluv:
Okay, but couldn't it also not happen at all?

ps418:
Sure. The point of the article was to address a specific set of arguments that it could not happen.

Quote:

luvluv:
ps418, what do you think of this:
Fungus Paints Darker Picture of Permian Catastrophe

Such a vast extinction event as the Permian catastrophe poses a formidable challenge to any strictly naturalistic interpretation of life. Given the extent and characteristics of the Permian devastation, natural selection and mutations fall far short of adequately explaining the rapid, widespread, and diverse speciation that occurred as soon as conditions on Earth improved.

ps418:
Ross is mostly correct in his description of the event. The fungal spike has subsequently been found in several additional P-Tr boundary sections. And in general the P-Tr extinction on land is now thought to be more severe than once thought.

However, Ross is incorrect to portray the post-extinction radiation as "rapid, widespread."

Quote:

luvluv:
okay, but could you answer any of my questions?

Peez

[ March 08, 2002: Message edited by: Peez ]

[ March 08, 2002: Message edited by: Peez ]</p>

ps418 · 03-08-2002, 02:28 PM

A new review of Hugh Ross. Haven't read much or it yet, but it looks decent:

<a href="http://www.glenn.morton.btinternet.co.uk/rtbanthro.htm" target="_blank">The Flawed Anthropological Views of RTB</a>

Patrick

luvluv · 03-09-2002, 09:26 PM

Peez, THESE questions:

1) Do we know that the right chemicals to make the first self-replicating molecules were actually present under the correct conditions for a self-replicating molecule to form, or do we just assume this is true because we now see life?

2) Is there a CONSENSUS model for what all biologists specifically believe to be the 1st self replicating organism/molecule?

3) Doesn't the fact that we don't know (I'm assuming we don't know, maybe you guys know) the exact conditions of earth during the time when life was originating kind of give the edge to a naturalist explanation? I mean, certainly given completely stable favorable condtions, all of these probability equations work out neatly. But what if it's just really hot for a few thousand years? Or if a metor crashes into the earth (which didn't have an atmosphere back then, correct?). Or if there was an earthquake? Wouldn't even a strong wind be enough to undo a few hundred years worth of microbiotic advancement?

4) Also, assuming that a lake medium sized lake could produce one self-replicating molecule in tens of years, wouldn't we need a lot more than one to really get life up and going? As I mentioned before, a relatively minor event (a rock falling into said lake) could start the whole process over again. Isn't there such a thing as a minimum sustainable population? How many self-replicating molecules would have had to have formed by chance in order for the lot of them to have numbers to deal with the slings and arrows of outrageous fortune?

Thanks for the lesson in cutting and pasting, though.

Peez · 03-11-2002, 10:29 AM

Quote:

luvluv:
Peez, THESE questions:

Okay, but since you posted

Quote:

okay, but could you answer any of my questions?

(emphasis mine), it should be understandable that we were a little confused.

Quote:

1) Do we know that the right chemicals to make the first self-replicating molecules were actually present under the correct conditions for a self-replicating molecule to form, or do we just assume this is true because we now see life?

You will need to define the following if I am going to be able to answer this:
1) "know"
2) "the right chemicals to make the first self-replicating molecules"
3) "the correct conditions for a self-replicating molecule to form"

Quote:

2) Is there a CONSENSUS model for what all biologists specifically believe to be the 1st self replicating organism/molecule?

No.

Quote:

3) Doesn't the fact that we don't know (I'm assuming we don't know, maybe you guys know) the exact conditions of earth during the time when life was originating kind of give the edge to a naturalist explanation?

Please restate this question, I am not sure what you are asking.

Quote:

I mean, certainly given completely stable favorable condtions [sic], all of these probability equations work out neatly.

What do you mean by "completely favourable" conditions? What probability equations are you referring to, and what do you mean by them working out "neatly"?

Quote:

But what if it's just really hot for a few thousand years? Or if a metor [sic] crashes into the earth (which didn't have an atmosphere back then, correct?). Or if there was an earthquake? Wouldn't even a strong wind be enough to undo a few hundred years worth of microbiotic advancement?

If you are asking "could an effectively random event destroy the first self-replicating molecules before they had a chance to spread around?" then the answer is yes, that is possible. Of course it seems unlikely, but in any event that might, indeed, have happened. Perhaps the first self-replicating molecules were wiped out, and the second, and the third. Maybe we all evolved from the fourth self-replicating molecules to appear.

Quote:

4) Also, assuming that a lake [sic] medium sized lake could produce one self-replicating molecule in tens of years, wouldn't we need a lot more than one to really get life up and going? As I mentioned before, a relatively minor event (a rock falling into said lake) could start the whole process over again. Isn't there such a thing as a minimum sustainable population? How many self-replicating molecules would have had to have formed by chance in order for the lot of them to have numbers to deal with the slings and arrows of outrageous fortune?

As far as I can tell, this is the same question as #3, and so the answer is the same too.

Quote:

Thanks for the lesson in cutting and pasting, though.

My pleasure. By the way, what has this got to do with evolution?

Peez

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

03-08-2002, 02:28 PM	#42
ps418 Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2001 Location: Louisville, KY, USA Posts: 1,840	A new review of Hugh Ross. Haven't read much or it yet, but it looks decent: <a href="http://www.glenn.morton.btinternet.co.uk/rtbanthro.htm" target="_blank">The Flawed Anthropological Views of RTB</a> Patrick

03-09-2002, 09:26 PM	#43
luvluv Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: Planet Lovetron Posts: 3,919	Peez, THESE questions: 1) Do we know that the right chemicals to make the first self-replicating molecules were actually present under the correct conditions for a self-replicating molecule to form, or do we just assume this is true because we now see life? 2) Is there a CONSENSUS model for what all biologists specifically believe to be the 1st self replicating organism/molecule? 3) Doesn't the fact that we don't know (I'm assuming we don't know, maybe you guys know) the exact conditions of earth during the time when life was originating kind of give the edge to a naturalist explanation? I mean, certainly given completely stable favorable condtions, all of these probability equations work out neatly. But what if it's just really hot for a few thousand years? Or if a metor crashes into the earth (which didn't have an atmosphere back then, correct?). Or if there was an earthquake? Wouldn't even a strong wind be enough to undo a few hundred years worth of microbiotic advancement? 4) Also, assuming that a lake medium sized lake could produce one self-replicating molecule in tens of years, wouldn't we need a lot more than one to really get life up and going? As I mentioned before, a relatively minor event (a rock falling into said lake) could start the whole process over again. Isn't there such a thing as a minimum sustainable population? How many self-replicating molecules would have had to have formed by chance in order for the lot of them to have numbers to deal with the slings and arrows of outrageous fortune? Thanks for the lesson in cutting and pasting, though.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.