August 01, 2022
The Problem of Life
Roy W. Spencer
From what little I know about the subject, having an Earth-like planet is not sufficient for Earth-like life. Life is not a product of matter, but it instead rides upon matter. Any time you have heard "life has been created" by scientists, it is inevitably just taking pieces of pre-existing life components and re-assembling them. The information content of DNA and RNA is so vast that only a philosophical aversion to a creator would keep one from believing life was not created by a superior being, rather than a chance assemblage of matter. The more that this issue is studied, the more impossible it seems that life arose by chance from unthinking matter. For example, check out some of the writings of Stephen Meyer. https://www.discovery.org/p/meyer/
John Lees adds:
I don't believe in God (likely to my detriment, I admit). And yet, I also would agree that the self-creation of life is on the verge of impossible, based upon what we know.
It's not simply matter of dumping some chemicals on a warm ball of rock and giving it all a shake!!
There's a long uphill haul against entropy before you arrive at the emergence of even the most basic self-replicatin
Real science doesn't know the answer. Only glib pop-science pretends that we have any conclusive insights into how these early pre-life molecular construction projects were completed, and by what?
Tim adds:
I couldn't agree more Dr. Spencer! I made that point once in an argument with a group of materialists who sneered "what about retroviruses?" as though that was creating life! We have never created life, just rearranged it some. I would argue until we find some truly alien life based on a radically different chemistry than is our own (and not things like ocean thermal vent bacteria which are just pumped up versions of other life forms on Earth) we cannot claim there is any other life and cannot make the case. I remember a few years ago when a bacteria was discovered that could metabolize some arsenic. The media was full of talk of "alien life found" and "arsenic based life" beither of which were even remotely true. These were arsenic tolerating life forms which could use arsenic like phospherous to a degree (which is why arsenic is so poisonous; it is next to phosphorous on the periodic table and the body is tricked into trying to use it as such.) This was just a variant of a life form already here, one based on carbon and suited to life on Earth. It just evolved a niche where it could live in a rather exotic environment.
Hoyle calculated the possibility of life forming spontaneously as 1x10 exp 40,000, which made abiogensis impossible in the time frame of the Universe. It's why Hoyle developed the Steady State theory and also why he believed in directed panspermia. He was desperate to get around the obvious. Granted, those odds drop (and the time required) if you assume evolution of each function of a cell simultaneously,
I agree completely John Lees. We don't really have a theory of
evolution, contrary to pop science which claims we have it all figured
out. You can't quantify anything and you can't follow any sort of chain
of logic beyond "well, it's there because it's there". Abiogenesis is a
huge hole in Darwinian theory as you can't possibly explain the
evolution of cells much less DNA.
John Lees adds:
Claims that the "Drake Equation" tells us anything about how common life may be, are completely bogus. Since it is based on multiplying a series of guesses the error also multiplies into the result.
And we do not have the foggiest idea how likely it would be for life to emerge on a planet, even given ideal conditions. We simply have no idea whatsoever.
One unknown in a multiplicative equation renders the result - also unknown.
From what little I know about the subject, having an Earth-like planet is not sufficient for Earth-like life. Life is not a product of matter, but it instead rides upon matter. Any time you have heard "life has been created" by scientists, it is inevitably just taking pieces of pre-existing life components and re-assembling them. The information content of DNA and RNA is so vast that only a philosophical aversion to a creator would keep one from believing life was not created by a superior being, rather than a chance assemblage of matter. The more that this issue is studied, the more impossible it seems that life arose by chance from unthinking matter. For example, check out some of the writings of Stephen Meyer. https://www.discovery.org/p/meyer/
John Lees adds:
I don't believe in God (likely to my detriment, I admit). And yet, I also would agree that the self-creation of life is on the verge of impossible, based upon what we know.
It's not simply matter of dumping some chemicals on a warm ball of rock and giving it all a shake!!
There's a long uphill haul against entropy before you arrive at the emergence of even the most basic self-replicatin
Real science doesn't know the answer. Only glib pop-science pretends that we have any conclusive insights into how these early pre-life molecular construction projects were completed, and by what?
Tim adds:
I couldn't agree more Dr. Spencer! I made that point once in an argument with a group of materialists who sneered "what about retroviruses?" as though that was creating life! We have never created life, just rearranged it some. I would argue until we find some truly alien life based on a radically different chemistry than is our own (and not things like ocean thermal vent bacteria which are just pumped up versions of other life forms on Earth) we cannot claim there is any other life and cannot make the case. I remember a few years ago when a bacteria was discovered that could metabolize some arsenic. The media was full of talk of "alien life found" and "arsenic based life" beither of which were even remotely true. These were arsenic tolerating life forms which could use arsenic like phospherous to a degree (which is why arsenic is so poisonous; it is next to phosphorous on the periodic table and the body is tricked into trying to use it as such.) This was just a variant of a life form already here, one based on carbon and suited to life on Earth. It just evolved a niche where it could live in a rather exotic environment.
Hoyle calculated the possibility of life forming spontaneously as 1x10 exp 40,000, which made abiogensis impossible in the time frame of the Universe. It's why Hoyle developed the Steady State theory and also why he believed in directed panspermia. He was desperate to get around the obvious. Granted, those odds drop (and the time required) if you assume evolution of each function of a cell simultaneously,
John Lees adds:
Claims that the "Drake Equation" tells us anything about how common life may be, are completely bogus. Since it is based on multiplying a series of guesses the error also multiplies into the result.
And we do not have the foggiest idea how likely it would be for life to emerge on a planet, even given ideal conditions. We simply have no idea whatsoever.
One unknown in a multiplicative equation renders the result - also unknown.
Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at
08:37 AM
| Comments (2)
| Add Comment
Post contains 686 words, total size 4 kb.
1
Kanpur Matka! Day chart Matka ! Kanpur Satta Chart ! kanpur Matka Result ! Kanpur Satta Result ! Dubai Matka Result ! Dubai Satta Matka ! Dubai Satta matka ! Dubai Matka Chart ! Kanpur Panel Chart ! Kanpur Bazar satta Matka ! Birbal matka ! Birbal satta Matka ! Taj Morning matka ! Bombay Morning Matka ! Kalyan Matka ! Kalyan Matka Result ! Kanpur satta Matka ! Kanpur Satta Result ! Gulam day Matka ! Gokul day Satta Matka ! Satta Matka ! CHARMINAR SATTA ! Kanpur matka Result Today Fixx Result !
Posted by: Kanpur Matka at September 20, 2022 05:00 AM (MbKbv)
2
all the savings on power you had for 15 years goes up in smoke when you have to buy new panels.
Posted by: Fake Watches at July 26, 2023 08:09 PM (Btm9A)
26kb generated in CPU 0.104, elapsed 0.41 seconds.
37 queries taking 0.3945 seconds, 187 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.
37 queries taking 0.3945 seconds, 187 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.
