158 replies to this topic

[luv2increase]

Let us piece together a scenario.


Go back in time about 200 years. Imagine there were no computers. Imagine a guy in a laboratory trying to create a homo sapien being. He has at his disposal an abundant supply of every element known to man. He has at his disposal all the petri dishes, agar, non-electric scales, latex gloves, goggles, tweezers, an abundant supply of all the amino acids, devices to emit every type of radiation known and not known to current 2008 man, light sources that can emit all frequencies possible, etc... Even though they didn't have some of these items even 200 hundred years ago, just imagine that he had for the fun of it.


This guy wants to create a homo sapien being as I had already stated.



How should he go about it WITHOUT using any cells of any kind of a homo sapien. Let's just also say for the sake of it that he has every single-celled organism known to this Earth that has ever been here.

How should he go about creating a human being? If you want to really broaden the scope of this scenario, how would he go about creating any time of living creature OTHER THAN one of its own kind because remember he does have every single-celled organism available at his disposal and/or use as well? How would he go about programming DNA sequences. How would he go about telling the single-celled organisms to congregate and change into a multi-cellular organism? Let's even say this scientist has all the knowledge of the most intelligent and versed geneticist known today, November 11, 2008.


Let's here it.

[brokenportal]

Conduct gene splicing experiments with different animals, marking down successes in different areas until you finally build up to a human or not I guess right?

Since that would probably take a long time they would also want to build the biggest most comprehensive, every avenue of experimentation persuing team too.

Name the project maybe, SEHS, Strategies for Engineering Human Sentience, and support a world wide effort (of robots and monkeys I guess) to get it done.

[luv2increase]

Conduct gene splicing experiments with different animals, marking down successes in different areas until you finally build up to a human or not I guess right?

Since that would probably take a long time they would also want to build the biggest most comprehensive, every avenue of experimentation persuing team too.

Name the project maybe, SEHS, Strategies for Engineering Human Sentience, and support a world wide effort (of robots and monkeys I guess) to get it done.

Robots? Remember, there are no computers allowed. Robots would essentially run from a computer, so it would be prohibited.


Also, to make it even easier, let's say that you would have to make the homo sapien out of an ape since that is where evolution says we originated from


If that is too easy for some unknown reason that I'm not seeing, how about imagining you were just trying to create the first multi-cellular organism from only single-celled organisms to work from?

If that is too easy for some unknown reason that I'm not seeing, how about imagining you were just trying to create a single-celled organism from just inorganic matter?

Let's go with the latter one since it is much simpler. Even now, with computers and a vast amount of intelligence, we cannot reproduce a single-celled organism with only inorganic matter. So really, these are all trick questions because they cannot be done. I'll quit beating around the bush. We cannot even create a single-celled organism with what we have today in our arsenal, so what makes you think my first scenario could have been done 200 years ago? Here we go; what makes you think it could have been done without any intelligence whatsoever billions of years ago? If you the the former scenarios are foolish and improbable, surely you must agree that believing in this last statement of mine would be foolish as well because it also is improbable?

Can you all get where I am getting at here? If you can't, I'm sure someone else would love to chime in and explain it.

Edited by luv2increase, 12 November 2008 - 01:38 AM.

[Moonbeam]

Magic?

[brokenportal]

Just because we cant figure out how inorganic material may have evolved into the simplest of simple organic material on up doesnt mean it cant happen. There are a lot of things we cant figure out yet but we are getting there. Of course maybe we cant, and it never did happen, and that organic material got here from a meteor or something. This topic reminds me a bit of my last blog here: http://www.imminst.o...p;showentry=311

[luv2increase]

Just because we cant figure out how inorganic material may have evolved into the simplest of simple organic material on up doesnt mean it cant happen. There are a lot of things we cant figure out yet but we are getting there. Of course maybe we cant, and it never did happen, and that organic material got here from a meteor or something. This topic reminds me a bit of my last blog here: http://www.imminst.o...p;showentry=311

Meteor or something? Then how did it happen where it came from? On Earth or somewhere else; it doesn't change anything.


If single-celled organisms came to Earth from a meteor, and we discarded my last point of the origin not mattering, then we are left with how it changed into a multi-cellular organism.

Then, we are left with even a bigger puzzle which is how a multi-cellular organism formed to create complex lifeforms such as mammals, reptiles, amphibians, etc.......... dot dot dot dot dot

Edited by luv2increase, 12 November 2008 - 04:02 AM.

[Richard Leis]

We cannot even create a single-celled organism with what we have today in our arsenal, so what makes you think my first scenario could have been done 200 years ago? Here we go; what makes you think it could have been done without any intelligence whatsoever billions of years ago? If you the the former scenarios are foolish and improbable, surely you must agree that believing in this last statement of mine would be foolish as well because it also is improbable?

Can you all get where I am getting at here? If you can't, I'm sure someone else would love to chime in and explain it.

Ask a synthetic biologist how they are attempting to create a single-celled organism from just inorganic matter and when they expect this to be completed. Better yet, look it up; there is a wealth of information available on this topic. I will get you started: search for "J. Craig Venter synthetic biology." While exploring the results of this search, you will discover the pace of progress and the lessons learned from nature. "Dumb" nature performed amazing feats over billions of years, but just wait until you see what intelligent humans can do over a few decades...

I am curious why you keep returning to these "grand" unknowns? You have only subscribe to the RSS feed at http://www.physorg.com/ for a time to see that these might be grand but are certainly not unknown.

[Richard Leis]

Then, we are left with even a bigger puzzle which is how a multi-cellular organism formed to create complex lifeforms such as mammals, reptiles, amphibians, etc.......... dot dot dot dot dot

Just because a topic remains one of active scientific research does not imply it is completely unresolved. How did multicellular organism originally organize? http://en.wikipedia....llular_organism

One hypothesis is that a group of function-specific cells aggregated into a slug-like mass called a grex, which moved as a multicellular unit. Another hypothesis is that a primitive cell underwent nucleus division, thereby becoming a syncytium. A membrane would then form around each neucleus (and the cellular space and organelles occupied in the space), thereby resulting in a group of connected and specialised cells in one organism (this mechanism is observable in Drosophila). A third theory is that, as a unicellular organism divided, the daughter cells failed to separate, thereby resulting in a conglomeration of identical cells in one organism which could each then specialize.

Which one is it or are there alternative theories with compelling evidence to back them up? Scientists will let us know when they find out.

[Shepard]

Also, to make it even easier, let's say that you would have to make the homo sapien out of an ape since that is where evolution says we originated from

The replacement of the "common ancestor" bit of evolutionary theory with "we came from apes" is a great disservice to such a beautiful theory, as it is a disservice to convincing others of ID.

[niner]

Let's here it.

You mean hear it?

Sure. Abiotic biogenesis has not been researched very much at all. There is nothing like a widely held theory or a practical demonstration of it. Therefore... God did it. No other conclusion is possible. It's an airtight case.

Logic is the awesome.

[sumphilosopheô]

Logic is the awesome.

argumentum ad ignorantiam.

[luv2increase]

Let's here it.

You mean hear it?

Sure. Abiotic biogenesis has not been researched very much at all. There is nothing like a widely held theory or a practical demonstration of it. Therefore... God did it. No other conclusion is possible. It's an airtight case.

Logic is the awesome.

If you believe elements have intelligence then I guess you are about as dumb as a box of rocks...


edit: I was just pondering some rational thoughts, and I think that phrase "dumber than a box of rocks" needs to be reassessed for it may not be such a bad thing to have that statement thrown at oneself? Since rocks are made of elements, and those elements "created" life, then maybe rocks are smarter than we have previously thought?

If it does hold true to its original meaning, then how could something so utterly dumb have "created" something so masterful and intricate such as life?

Edited by luv2increase, 12 November 2008 - 06:05 PM.

[cyborgdreamer]

If that is too easy for some unknown reason that I'm not seeing, how about imagining you were just trying to create a single-celled organism from just inorganic matter?

Let's go with the latter one since it is much simpler. Even now, with computers and a vast amount of intelligence, we cannot reproduce a single-celled organism with only inorganic matter. So really, these are all trick questions because they cannot be done. I'll quit beating around the bush. We cannot even create a single-celled organism with what we have today in our arsenal, so what makes you think my first scenario could have been done 200 years ago? Here we go; what makes you think it could have been done without any intelligence whatsoever billions of years ago?

Trail and error. Given this unimaginably vast universe, filled with unimaginably many atoms banging around for billions upon billions of years, it isn't that surprising that a few would find a configuration that can replicate itself.

[Shepard]

I think that phrase "dumber than a box of rocks" needs to be reassessed for it may not be such a bad thing to have that statement thrown at oneself? Since rocks are made of elements, and those elements "created" life, then maybe rocks are smarter than we have previously thought?

If it does hold true to its original meaning, then how could something so utterly dumb have "created" something so masterful and intricate such as life?

But how did the rocks create the box around themselves? That's the real question.

[luv2increase]

If that is too easy for some unknown reason that I'm not seeing, how about imagining you were just trying to create a single-celled organism from just inorganic matter?

Let's go with the latter one since it is much simpler. Even now, with computers and a vast amount of intelligence, we cannot reproduce a single-celled organism with only inorganic matter. So really, these are all trick questions because they cannot be done. I'll quit beating around the bush. We cannot even create a single-celled organism with what we have today in our arsenal, so what makes you think my first scenario could have been done 200 years ago? Here we go; what makes you think it could have been done without any intelligence whatsoever billions of years ago?

Trail and error. Given this unimaginably vast universe, filled with unimaginably many atoms banging around for billions upon billions of years, it isn't that surprising that a few would find a configuration that can replicate itself.

Oh, not the "Time" argument again... When you do this, you attribute intelligence to "Time". That is the same so-called scapegoat as saying a Higher Power "created" everything. If you can't explain it, "Time" can. If you can't explain it, point towards a Higher Power.

But how did the rocks create the box around themselves? That's the real question.

How did the material which makes up the rocks and the box itself come into fruition? Yes.




Do all you aficionados of the absence of a Higher Power believe that all matter, physical and otherwise, was always here, and the subatomic particles and their constituents were always here?

[cyborgdreamer]

If that is too easy for some unknown reason that I'm not seeing, how about imagining you were just trying to create a single-celled organism from just inorganic matter?

Let's go with the latter one since it is much simpler. Even now, with computers and a vast amount of intelligence, we cannot reproduce a single-celled organism with only inorganic matter. So really, these are all trick questions because they cannot be done. I'll quit beating around the bush. We cannot even create a single-celled organism with what we have today in our arsenal, so what makes you think my first scenario could have been done 200 years ago? Here we go; what makes you think it could have been done without any intelligence whatsoever billions of years ago?

Trail and error. Given this unimaginably vast universe, filled with unimaginably many atoms banging around for billions upon billions of years, it isn't that surprising that a few would find a configuration that can replicate itself.

Oh, not the "Time" argument again... When you do this, you attribute intelligence to "Time". That is the same so-called scapegoat as saying a Higher Power "created" everything. If you can't explain it, "Time" can.

You're assuming what you're trying to prove: namely that 'intelligence' is required to create something. I never said anything about intelligence. I'm saying that, enough atoms moving under the laws of physics for a long enough time will go through an enourmous number of configurations. And you only need for one of those configurations to be capable of self replication in order to jump start evolution.

If you can't explain it, point towards a Higher Power.

Why? Just because we can't understand something (yet?) doesn't mean a Higher Power did it. The ancient Greeks didn't understand lightning, but we know now that they were wrong to assume it was Zeus was throwing thunder bolts.

Edited by cyborgdreamer, 12 November 2008 - 11:56 PM.

[luv2increase]

If that is too easy for some unknown reason that I'm not seeing, how about imagining you were just trying to create a single-celled organism from just inorganic matter?

Let's go with the latter one since it is much simpler. Even now, with computers and a vast amount of intelligence, we cannot reproduce a single-celled organism with only inorganic matter. So really, these are all trick questions because they cannot be done. I'll quit beating around the bush. We cannot even create a single-celled organism with what we have today in our arsenal, so what makes you think my first scenario could have been done 200 years ago? Here we go; what makes you think it could have been done without any intelligence whatsoever billions of years ago?

Trail and error. Given this unimaginably vast universe, filled with unimaginably many atoms banging around for billions upon billions of years, it isn't that surprising that a few would find a configuration that can replicate itself.

Oh, not the "Time" argument again... When you do this, you attribute intelligence to "Time". That is the same so-called scapegoat as saying a Higher Power "created" everything. If you can't explain it, "Time" can.

You're assuming what you're trying to prove: namely that 'intelligence' is required to create something. I never said anything about intelligence. I'm saying that, enough atoms moving under the laws of physics for a long enough time will go through an enourmous number of configurations. And you only need for one of those configurations to be capable of self replication in order to jump start evolution.

If you can't explain it, point towards a Higher Power.

Why? Just because we can't understand something (yet?) doesn't mean a Higher Power did it. The ancient Greeks didn't understand lightning, but we know now that they were wrong to assume it was Zeus was throwing thunder bolts.

So, I am assuming that you, cyborgdreamer, believe that all subatomic particles were always here in this dimension or otherwise?

[cyborgdreamer]

So, I am assuming that you, cyborgdreamer, believe that all subatomic particles were always here in this dimension or otherwise?

Well, according to quantum physics, subatomic particles are popping in and out of existence all the time, but since the big bang the amount of matter in the universe has been more or less stable on macroscopic level. What exactly are you getting at?

Edited by cyborgdreamer, 13 November 2008 - 03:31 PM.

[luv2increase]

So, I am assuming that you, cyborgdreamer, believe that all subatomic particles were always here in this dimension or otherwise?

Well, according to quantum physics, subatomic particles are popping in and out of existence all the time, but since the big bang the amount of matter in the universe has been more or less stable on macroscopic level. What exactly are you getting at?

Where to they pop in from? What is their origin? How was that origin created?



People ask who created God, and we say that he always was just like it says in the Bible. Then people don't believe this because they would say something would have created God. Something can't come from nothing.


So, from this, I ask you once again; do you believe subatomic matter always was?

[Richard Leis]

So, from this, I ask you once again; do you believe subatomic matter always was?

Science is not about belief. It is about investigation. It is about compelling evidence. Your questions have no answers because they are not appropriate questions.

As someone else has reminded you, just because we don't know the answer to a question this doesn't mean there are celestial teapots or intelligent designers. We simply do not know yet. That is why there are disciplines like astrophysics, particle physics, and others to take us step by step toward potential answers for grand questions.

You keep taking us back in time and down in scale to realms that are only just beginning to be explored by cutting-edge technologies. Be patient. Better yet, become a scientist and help out.

[Richard Leis]

Where to they pop in from? What is their origin? How was that origin created?

That is what science is for, to try to find out. Answers are not cheap; they require hard work, time, and technology.

[Mind]

Do all you aficionados of the absence of a Higher Power believe that all matter, physical and otherwise, was always here, and the subatomic particles and their constituents were always here?

That is the philosophy that I subscribe to. Everything has always been here. There was no beginning and there will be no end. It might not be as comforting and tidy as "there was a beginning and there will be an end", and it is hard to get your mind around, but it is elegant. It removes the questions of "what was here before the beginning?" and "how were things created?". Intriguingly, this is also the philosophy of most religions, as it is proposed that the god or gods were always here and will always be here.

[Shepard]

Do all you aficionados of the absence of a Higher Power believe that all matter, physical and otherwise, was always here, and the subatomic particles and their constituents were always here?

That is the philosophy that I subscribe to. Everything has always been here. There was no beginning and there will be no end. It might not be as comforting and tidy as there was a beginning and there will be an end, and it is hard to get your mind around, but it is elegant. It removes the questions of "what was here before the beginning?" and "how were things created?". Intriguingly, this is also the philosophy of most religions, as it is proposed that the god or gods were always here and will always be here.

It's a fairly simple answer. The term always implies time and time would not have existed before the Big Bang. So, yeah.

[Mind]

I view this philosophy as independent of whether or not there was a big bang and the definition of time. Multiverse, cyclical big bangs, gods and creators, etc...it is all much simpler just to assume there was no beginning and there will be no end, that way you can put aside the "grand questions" and get on with what really matters - the present (and near future).

[luv2increase]

I view this philosophy as independent of whether or not there was a big bang and the definition of time. Multiverse, cyclical big bangs, gods and creators, etc...it is all much simpler just to assume there was no beginning and there will be no end, that way you can put aside the "grand questions" and get on with what really matters - the present (and near future).

Wouldn't this constitute as being unscientific? Ignoring the how and why is completely opposite as to what science and people in general want to know.


The subscribe to this philosophy would be to subscribe to ignorance, wouldn't it? It is removing and suppressing our history and that of the world as well. To have a successful future, do we not need to successfully know our past?

[luv2increase]

Where to they pop in from? What is their origin? How was that origin created?

That is what science is for, to try to find out. Answers are not cheap; they require hard work, time, and technology.

Science may find out their origin, but then that will just lead to another origin, and that origin to yet another. It will be never ending unfinished cycle, therefore, one can safely extrapolate that science will fail in that regard no matter how much time elapses.

Edited by luv2increase, 15 November 2008 - 09:34 PM.

[Moonbeam]

Science may find out their origin, but then that will just lead to another origin, and that origin to yet another. It will be never ending unfinished cycle, therefore, one can safely extrapolate that science will fail in that regard no matter how much time elapses.

Conveniently, we can be sure of one thing--there will never be a discovery which disproves the existence of God. So your delusion is safe.

If you have a belief that cannot be changed no matter what facts come to light (which does not describe any belief based on science, and which does seem to describe your belief in god), you are being irrational.

If you make up something to explain things that you don't understand, you can't use the lack of scientific explanation as supporting evidence. Think about how little sense that makes.

Edited by Moonbeam, 15 November 2008 - 10:12 PM.

[sumphilosopheô]

I view this philosophy as independent of whether or not there was a big bang and the definition of time. Multiverse, cyclical big bangs, gods and creators, etc...it is all much simpler just to assume there was no beginning and there will be no end, that way you can put aside the "grand questions" and get on with what really matters - the present (and near future).

Wouldn't this constitute as being unscientific? Ignoring the how and why is completely opposite as to what science and people in general want to know.


The subscribe to this philosophy would be to subscribe to ignorance, wouldn't it? It is removing and suppressing our history and that of the world as well. To have a successful future, do we not need to successfully know our past?

Good grief. The scientific method is a tool that can't always be applied whenever we want. That leaves us philosophical attempts to come to rational assumtions. Perhaps that can be tested later.

Rational assumptions....Ockhams razor? We ALL 'know' of our universe but no one can rationally make a knowledge claim about any deities that is repeatably demonstratable. Deities exist in the realm of belief only. Beliefs are not necessarily rational assumptions. Alleged Creator allegedly has no beggining or end but there is no rational way to demonstrate that any Creator exist in the first place.

Minds approach suffers from fewer assumptions making his philosophical approach more rational. We know of the universe and so it is more rational to assume that the universe had no begining and has no end than it is to insert any eternal deities. Intelligence in no way implies eternalness. Eternalness in no way implies intelligence. In physics and chemistry we can observe creation or destruction in things of material. We observe no deity in such processes. As far as we can tell energy can not be created or destroyed.

We observe nature as limitations within limitations. Limitations interacting with limitations making change. So in existence limitations constantly change. In order for any kind of specific function or action there must be specific limitations for such to happen. Moreover, naturally ,complex things are made of less complex things...everything that exists has a nature i.e. limitations. That is all we can say we observe and know. Is everything made of something? Does everything have a nature that is limitations? Does all this make any sense? Enough that we can survive and flourish through navigating and changing nature to our benefit. There is nothing else can be demonstrated beyond that.

Is God limited? If not then God has no nature and can not exist. Is God complex? We observe complex things being made of less complex things. If you try to describe God outside of our understanding of nature then you shoot yourself in the foot when it comes to knowledge of any real God. If you describe God by what he is not without any universe of discourse...without something to point to in what he actualy is then you are being incoherent. Concepts like outside of nature is incoherent. God like supernatural is a broken concept.

I would rather be as reasonable as I can even if I might later discover I was wrong. To believe or assume without good reason is to be unreasonable. It is more rational to be agnostic when it comes to knowledge claims about any deities and atheist when it comes to action in this life. Theism is much less rational. Much less credible.

[sumphilosopheô]

Where to they pop in from? What is their origin? How was that origin created?

That is what science is for, to try to find out. Answers are not cheap; they require hard work, time, and technology.

Science may find out their origin, but then that will just lead to another origin, and that origin to yet another. It will be never ending unfinished cycle, therefore, one can safely extrapolate that science will fail in that regard no matter how much time elapses.

Our tools of reason unlike religion makes no promises of complete knowledge of everything. No promise that we will know everything. If God is eternal but can not be demonstrated yet the universe can be demonstrated to exist and you give credit to the concept of eternal then...

hehe.

[luv2increase]

Science may find out their origin, but then that will just lead to another origin, and that origin to yet another. It will be never ending unfinished cycle, therefore, one can safely extrapolate that science will fail in that regard no matter how much time elapses.

Conveniently, we can be sure of one thing--there will never be a discovery which disproves the existence of God. So your delusion is safe.

If you have a belief that cannot be changed no matter what facts come to light (which does not describe any belief based on science, and which does seem to describe your belief in god), you are being irrational.

If you make up something to explain things that you don't understand, you can't use the lack of scientific explanation as supporting evidence. Think about how little sense that makes.

On the contrary, we can be assured of the fact that science has yet to show how life came out of inorganic matter, and that this is the least of them all.


Also, it is more supernatural to believe in the absence of a Higher Power than the presence of a Higher Power. All the marvels of this world we live in are without a doubt a grand testimony to that.