| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"david ford" |
| Date: |
02 Oct 2003 12:21:26 PM |
| Object: |
Wald on spontaneous generation |
In "The Origin of Life," _Scientific American_ (August 1954),
45-53, George Wald states that the question of how life began has
been of interest to humans throughout history. In the years
around 1850, there were 2 proposed possibilities:
1) life arose from a supernatural entity's active creation, and
2) life arose and arises from non-life.[45]
"There is no third position."[46]
Possibility 1 appears in many culture's "mythical accounts of a
supernatural creation of life." One of those mythical accounts
of creation appears in _Genesis_. Possibility 1 is "an
understandable confusion": "Men are used to making things; it is
a ready thought that those things not made by men were made by a
superhuman being."[45]
In the 1800s, possibility 2 was shown to be not credible.[45]
First Redi showed that meat protected by a screen from egg-laying
flies did not develop maggots. Then Spallanzani demonstrated
that a nutritive broth brought to a boil while sealed off from
outside air did not rot. One critic, Needham, charged that
boiling made the inside air and broth hostile to life. In reply,
Spallanzani showed the _broth_ was not hostile to life, for upon
breaking the seal the broth promptly went to pot. Pasteur showed
in 1860 that the _air_ was not hostile to life by letting outside
air reach the broth through a long, contorted passageway
(bacteria and mold rarely made it all the way through the
passageway and into the broth, contaminating it, but instead
usually stuck on the passageway's walls). Pasteur's opponent,
Pouchet, drove Pasteur to conduct ever-more exacting experiments.
"When he[Pasteur] had finished, nothing remained of the belief in
spontaneous generation."[46]
Wald opines that "a scientist has no choice but to approach the
origin of life through a hypothesis of spontaneous
generation."[46] He critiques the above-described experiments for
dealing with _current_ conditions, and not examining whether
"different conditions in some former period" allow for
spontaneous generation.[46]
Wald observes that "the most complex machine man has devised...
is child's play compared with the simplest of living
organisms."[46] The complexity exists on a nano-scale, at the
molecular level. He notes that "one has only to contemplate the
magnitude of this task to concede that the spontaneous generation
of a living organism is impossible"[46] within a time period as
short as the extent of "recorded human history."[47]
However unlikely an event's occurrence, the more opportunities
there are for an event to occur, the more likely it is that the
event _will_ occur. For example, to use an illustration Wald
provides but not precisely in this context, the longer a table's
molecules move around randomly, the more likely it is that the
table's molecules will happen to move in one direction whereupon
the table "suddenly and spontaneously rise[s] into the air."[47]
So also with spontaneous generation: "However improbable we
regard this event, or any of the steps which it involves, given
enough time it will almost certainly happen at least once."[48]
Wald opines that 2 billion years is a sufficiently-long period of
time for a sufficiently-large number of trial runs for
spontaneous generation to occur with virtual certainty:
"Time is in fact the hero of the plot. The time with which we
have to deal is of the order of two billion years. What we
regard as impossible on the basis of human experience is
meaningless here. Given so much time, the "impossible" becomes
possible, the possible probable, and the probable virtually
certain. One has only to wait: time itself performs the
miracles."[48]
He provides no calculations in support of this fantasy-land
opinion. A strong desire that his fantasy-land opinion be true
does not make it so.
There are many smart people in these newsgroups, some of whom are
reading this right now. I invite some of these smart people to
present some calculations of the probability of the following
events occurring in the universe within 2 billion years:
1) the molecules in a table happening to move in one direction
and the table suddenly lifting into the air,
2) the most complex machine intelligent men have ever devised
appearing apart from the input of an intelligence(s), and
finally,
3) spontaneous generation, i.e. the simplest possible form of
life arising from non-life apart from the input of an
intelligence(s).
Oh, and it is erroneous to claim that 2 billion years is the
amount of time available for spontaneous generation. The time
available is actually much shorter:
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=Pine.SGI.3.91.960716004349.25182J-100000%40umbc8.umbc.edu
.
|
|
| User: "Mike Painter" |
|
| Title: Re: Wald on spontaneous generation |
02 Oct 2003 05:57:53 PM |
|
|
"david ford" <dford3@gl.umbc.edu> wrote in message
news:Pine.LNX.4.44L.01.0310021326030.23080-100000@linux3.gl.umbc.edu...
<Snip>
There are many smart people in these newsgroups, some of whom are
reading this right now. I invite some of these smart people to
present some calculations of the probability of the following
events occurring in the universe within 2 billion years:
1) the molecules in a table happening to move in one direction
and the table suddenly lifting into the air,
2) the most complex machine intelligent men have ever devised
appearing apart from the input of an intelligence(s), and
finally,
3) spontaneous generation, i.e. the simplest possible form of
life arising from non-life apart from the input of an
intelligence(s).
Oh, and it is erroneous to claim that 2 billion years is the
amount of time available for spontaneous generation. The time
available is actually much shorter:
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=Pine.SGI.3.91.960716004349.25182J-100000%4
0umbc8.umbc.edu
The probability for number three is one. It happened.
But there is no relationship between one and two which have to do with
randomness and number three which does not.
Life is based on chemisrty. Chemistry is not random. If it were random we
might indeed see odd things happening H2O might well be water or beer or
kill us if we happened to be alive at the time.
If this was such a world you could compare your apples and oranges to get
grapess and my chemistry grades would have probably been much better.
(Contrary to what science says WRT titration there is NO PINK. It is clear
or it is red with no inbetween state. Chemistry is why I switched to math.)
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Denis Loubet" |
|
| Title: Re: Wald on spontaneous generation |
02 Oct 2003 03:15:13 PM |
|
|
"david ford" <dford3@gl.umbc.edu> wrote in message
news:Pine.LNX.4.44L.01.0310021326030.23080-100000@linux3.gl.umbc.edu...
(Snip some idiocy)
There are many smart people in these newsgroups, some of whom are
reading this right now. I invite some of these smart people to
present some calculations of the probability of the following
events occurring in the universe within 2 billion years:
1) the molecules in a table happening to move in one direction
and the table suddenly lifting into the air,
1 in 1. I did it just now by lifting the table.
2) the most complex machine intelligent men have ever devised
appearing apart from the input of an intelligence(s), and
finally,
1 in 1. Civilization. It's the biggest and most complex machine we've ever
built, and it's an emergent property, not planned. Oh, sure, people arrange
rules and governments, but they never operate as intended and the
consequences are always unpredictable. The actual operation is an unplanned
emergent property.
3) spontaneous generation, i.e. the simplest possible form of
life arising from non-life apart from the input of an
intelligence(s).
1 in 1. It happened or we wouldn't be here talking about it.
Now, a question for you:
What are the odds of an infinitely complex universe creating entity just
appearing out of nothing?
--
Denis Loubet
dloubet@io.com
http://www.io.com/~dloubet
.
|
|
|
| User: "Parallax" |
|
| Title: Re: Wald on spontaneous generation |
02 Oct 2003 10:43:41 PM |
|
|
"Denis Loubet" <dloubet@io.com> wrote in message news:<9T-dneBHest6FeGiU-KYuQ@io.com>...
"david ford" <dford3@gl.umbc.edu> wrote in message
news:Pine.LNX.4.44L.01.0310021326030.23080-100000@linux3.gl.umbc.edu...
(Snip some idiocy)
There are many smart people in these newsgroups, some of whom are
reading this right now. I invite some of these smart people to
present some calculations of the probability of the following
events occurring in the universe within 2 billion years:
1) the molecules in a table happening to move in one direction
and the table suddenly lifting into the air,
1 in 1. I did it just now by lifting the table.
2) the most complex machine intelligent men have ever devised
appearing apart from the input of an intelligence(s), and
finally,
1 in 1. Civilization. It's the biggest and most complex machine we've ever
built, and it's an emergent property, not planned. Oh, sure, people arrange
rules and governments, but they never operate as intended and the
consequences are always unpredictable. The actual operation is an unplanned
emergent property.
3) spontaneous generation, i.e. the simplest possible form of
life arising from non-life apart from the input of an
intelligence(s).
1 in 1. It happened or we wouldn't be here talking about it.
Now, a question for you:
What are the odds of an infinitely complex universe creating entity just
appearing out of nothing?
There is a discussion of this very issue at:
www.panspermia.org
under the "RNA World"
where they make some assumptions about the number of protein
combinations and useful combinations and a reasonable rate of
production of combinations and arrive at a veeeeeeeeeeeeeerrrrrrrry
long time for even a single one to occur.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Denis Loubet" |
|
| Title: Re: Wald on spontaneous generation |
03 Oct 2003 02:04:48 AM |
|
|
"Parallax" <dbohara@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:792abaf9.0310021949.5b6b86f1@posting.google.com...
"Denis Loubet" <dloubet@io.com> wrote in message
news:<9T-dneBHest6FeGiU-KYuQ@io.com>...
"david ford" <dford3@gl.umbc.edu> wrote in message
news:Pine.LNX.4.44L.01.0310021326030.23080-100000@linux3.gl.umbc.edu...
(Snip some idiocy)
There are many smart people in these newsgroups, some of whom are
reading this right now. I invite some of these smart people to
present some calculations of the probability of the following
events occurring in the universe within 2 billion years:
1) the molecules in a table happening to move in one direction
and the table suddenly lifting into the air,
1 in 1. I did it just now by lifting the table.
2) the most complex machine intelligent men have ever devised
appearing apart from the input of an intelligence(s), and
finally,
1 in 1. Civilization. It's the biggest and most complex machine we've
ever
built, and it's an emergent property, not planned. Oh, sure, people
arrange
rules and governments, but they never operate as intended and the
consequences are always unpredictable. The actual operation is an
unplanned
emergent property.
3) spontaneous generation, i.e. the simplest possible form of
life arising from non-life apart from the input of an
intelligence(s).
1 in 1. It happened or we wouldn't be here talking about it.
Now, a question for you:
What are the odds of an infinitely complex universe creating entity just
appearing out of nothing?
There is a discussion of this very issue at:
www.panspermia.org
under the "RNA World"
where they make some assumptions about the number of protein
combinations and useful combinations and a reasonable rate of
production of combinations and arrive at a veeeeeeeeeeeeeerrrrrrrry
long time for even a single one to occur.
I'm not sure I'm willing to trust a bunch of assumptions, especially
concerning human judgments about what constitutes a "useful combination".
--
Denis Loubet
dloubet@io.com
http://www.io.com/~dloubet
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Mekkala" |
|
| Title: Re: Wald on spontaneous generation |
03 Oct 2003 01:47:24 PM |
|
|
On 02 Oct 2003, (Parallax) screwed up his face,
groaned, pushed hard, and farted out the following message in
news:792abaf9.0310021949.5b6b86f1@posting.google.com:
"Denis Loubet" <dloubet@io.com> wrote in message
news:<9T-dneBHest6FeGiU-KYuQ@io.com>...
"david ford" <dford3@gl.umbc.edu> wrote in message
news:Pine.LNX.4.44L.01.0310021326030.23080-100000
@linux3.gl.umbc.edu..
. (Snip some idiocy)
There are many smart people in these newsgroups, some of whom are
reading this right now. I invite some of these smart people to
present some calculations of the probability of the following
events occurring in the universe within 2 billion years:
1) the molecules in a table happening to move in one direction
and the table suddenly lifting into the air,
1 in 1. I did it just now by lifting the table.
2) the most complex machine intelligent men have ever devised
appearing apart from the input of an intelligence(s), and
finally,
1 in 1. Civilization. It's the biggest and most complex machine we've
ever built, and it's an emergent property, not planned. Oh, sure,
people arrange rules and governments, but they never operate as
intended and the consequences are always unpredictable. The actual
operation is an unplanned emergent property.
3) spontaneous generation, i.e. the simplest possible form of
life arising from non-life apart from the input of an
intelligence(s).
1 in 1. It happened or we wouldn't be here talking about it.
Now, a question for you:
What are the odds of an infinitely complex universe creating entity
just appearing out of nothing?
There is a discussion of this very issue at:
www.panspermia.org
under the "RNA World"
where they make some assumptions about the number of protein
combinations and useful combinations and a reasonable rate of
production of combinations and arrive at a veeeeeeeeeeeeeerrrrrrrry
long time for even a single one to occur.
Studies such as that make the unwarranted assumption that we're talking
about random combinations of atoms and molucules. They don't take into
account the effect of the early conditions on our planet. They don't
figure in the possibility (indeed, the *probability*) that early
conditions on Earth tended to directly cause the formation of the
molucules and proteins in question.
They work out the statistics based on a cloud of atoms hanging in empty
space, and the probability of those atoms spontaneously bumping into
each other in such a way as to create simple lifeforms.
--
Mekkala, Atheist #2148
"When did I realize I was God? Well, I was praying and I suddenly
realized I was talking to myself!"
--Peter O'Toole.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Denis Loubet" |
|
| Title: Re: Wald on spontaneous generation |
03 Oct 2003 07:08:22 PM |
|
|
"Mekkala" <joremovedathiskimtoreply@attbi.com> wrote in message
news:Xns94098F0B631B8Mekkala@199.45.49.11...
On 02 Oct 2003, (Parallax) screwed up his face,
groaned, pushed hard, and farted out the following message in
news:792abaf9.0310021949.5b6b86f1@posting.google.com:
"Denis Loubet" <dloubet@io.com> wrote in message
news:<9T-dneBHest6FeGiU-KYuQ@io.com>...
"david ford" <dford3@gl.umbc.edu> wrote in message
news:Pine.LNX.4.44L.01.0310021326030.23080-100000
@linux3.gl.umbc.edu..
. (Snip some idiocy)
There are many smart people in these newsgroups, some of whom are
reading this right now. I invite some of these smart people to
present some calculations of the probability of the following
events occurring in the universe within 2 billion years:
1) the molecules in a table happening to move in one direction
and the table suddenly lifting into the air,
1 in 1. I did it just now by lifting the table.
2) the most complex machine intelligent men have ever devised
appearing apart from the input of an intelligence(s), and
finally,
1 in 1. Civilization. It's the biggest and most complex machine we've
ever built, and it's an emergent property, not planned. Oh, sure,
people arrange rules and governments, but they never operate as
intended and the consequences are always unpredictable. The actual
operation is an unplanned emergent property.
3) spontaneous generation, i.e. the simplest possible form of
life arising from non-life apart from the input of an
intelligence(s).
1 in 1. It happened or we wouldn't be here talking about it.
Now, a question for you:
What are the odds of an infinitely complex universe creating entity
just appearing out of nothing?
There is a discussion of this very issue at:
www.panspermia.org
under the "RNA World"
where they make some assumptions about the number of protein
combinations and useful combinations and a reasonable rate of
production of combinations and arrive at a veeeeeeeeeeeeeerrrrrrrry
long time for even a single one to occur.
Studies such as that make the unwarranted assumption that we're talking
about random combinations of atoms and molucules. They don't take into
account the effect of the early conditions on our planet. They don't
figure in the possibility (indeed, the *probability*) that early
conditions on Earth tended to directly cause the formation of the
molucules and proteins in question.
They work out the statistics based on a cloud of atoms hanging in empty
space, and the probability of those atoms spontaneously bumping into
each other in such a way as to create simple lifeforms.
It's better than the arguments they put forth to indicate the universe is
"fine tuned" for life. They assign this astronomical probability for the
values and constants of the universe being what they are, when I know for a
fact that they haven't examined so much as ONE other universe to determine
the odds of any value or constant being different from what it is in this
universe. How the hell can they assign a probability from a sample of ONE?
They got nothing, they're just making it up.
It's hard to imagine a more bald-faced lie.
--
Denis Loubet
dloubet@io.com
http://www.io.com/~dloubet
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Bobby D. Bryant" |
|
| Title: Re: Wald on spontaneous generation |
04 Oct 2003 01:44:41 AM |
|
|
On Fri, 03 Oct 2003 03:43:41 +0000, Parallax wrote:
"Denis Loubet" <dloubet@io.com> wrote in message
news:<9T-dneBHest6FeGiU-KYuQ@io.com>...
"david ford" <dford3@gl.umbc.edu> wrote in message
news:Pine.LNX.4.44L.01.0310021326030.23080-100000@linux3.gl.umbc.edu...
(Snip some idiocy)
There are many smart people in these newsgroups, some of whom are
reading this right now. I invite some of these smart people to
present some calculations of the probability of the following events
occurring in the universe within 2 billion years:
1) the molecules in a table happening to move in one direction and
the table suddenly lifting into the air,
1 in 1. I did it just now by lifting the table.
2) the most complex machine intelligent men have ever devised
appearing apart from the input of an intelligence(s), and finally,
1 in 1. Civilization. It's the biggest and most complex machine we've
ever built, and it's an emergent property, not planned. Oh, sure,
people arrange rules and governments, but they never operate as
intended and the consequences are always unpredictable. The actual
operation is an unplanned emergent property.
3) spontaneous generation, i.e. the simplest possible form of life
arising from non-life apart from the input of an intelligence(s).
1 in 1. It happened or we wouldn't be here talking about it.
Now, a question for you:
What are the odds of an infinitely complex universe creating entity
just appearing out of nothing?
There is a discussion of this very issue at:
www.panspermia.org
under the "RNA World"
where they make some assumptions about the number of protein
combinations and useful combinations and a reasonable rate of production
of combinations and arrive at a veeeeeeeeeeeeeerrrrrrrry long time for
even a single one to occur.
Did they consider every possible mechanism, calculate the probabilities
for each, and combine them to get an overall probability?
--
Bobby Bryant
Austin, Texas
.
|
|
|
| User: "Denis Loubet" |
|
| Title: Re: Wald on spontaneous generation |
02 Nov 2003 08:11:01 AM |
|
|
"Bobby D. Bryant" <bdbryant@mail.utexas.edu> wrote in message
news:pan.2003.10.04.06.51.38.906975@mail.utexas.edu...
On Fri, 03 Oct 2003 03:43:41 +0000, Parallax wrote:
"Denis Loubet" <dloubet@io.com> wrote in message
news:<9T-dneBHest6FeGiU-KYuQ@io.com>...
"david ford" <dford3@gl.umbc.edu> wrote in message
news:Pine.LNX.4.44L.01.0310021326030.23080-100000@linux3.gl.umbc.edu...
(Snip some idiocy)
There are many smart people in these newsgroups, some of whom are
reading this right now. I invite some of these smart people to
present some calculations of the probability of the following events
occurring in the universe within 2 billion years:
1) the molecules in a table happening to move in one direction and
the table suddenly lifting into the air,
1 in 1. I did it just now by lifting the table.
2) the most complex machine intelligent men have ever devised
appearing apart from the input of an intelligence(s), and finally,
1 in 1. Civilization. It's the biggest and most complex machine we've
ever built, and it's an emergent property, not planned. Oh, sure,
people arrange rules and governments, but they never operate as
intended and the consequences are always unpredictable. The actual
operation is an unplanned emergent property.
3) spontaneous generation, i.e. the simplest possible form of life
arising from non-life apart from the input of an intelligence(s).
1 in 1. It happened or we wouldn't be here talking about it.
Now, a question for you:
What are the odds of an infinitely complex universe creating entity
just appearing out of nothing?
There is a discussion of this very issue at:
www.panspermia.org
under the "RNA World"
where they make some assumptions about the number of protein
combinations and useful combinations and a reasonable rate of production
of combinations and arrive at a veeeeeeeeeeeeeerrrrrrrry long time for
even a single one to occur.
Did they consider every possible mechanism, calculate the probabilities
for each, and combine them to get an overall probability?
Don't be silly, that would sink their own point.
--
Denis Loubet
dloubet@io.com
http://www.io.com/~dloubet
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Arne Vogel" |
|
| Title: Re: Wald on spontaneous generation |
03 Oct 2003 12:49:11 PM |
|
|
Parallax wrote:
[snip]
There is a discussion of this very issue at:
www.panspermia.org
under the "RNA World"
where they make some assumptions about the number of protein
combinations and useful combinations and a reasonable rate of
production of combinations and arrive at a veeeeeeeeeeeeeerrrrrrrry
long time for even a single one to occur.
I quote:
"After making some helpful assumptions we can get the ratio of actual,
useful proteins to all possible random proteins up to something like one in
10^500 (ten to the 500th power)."
Hey that's nice, let me try that:
After making some helpful assumptions (which I won't tell you), I get a
99.99999999% probability of abiogenesis in 100 million years. Any
questions?
Since alpha-hemoglobin differs among organisms in as much as 80%
of its amino acids, and there are much less than 10^500 amino acid
sequences as long as alpha-hemoglobin (counting only the 20 found
in most life) *in total*, somethink stinks in their calculation.
But maybe they want to suggest that hemoglobin is not "useful".
(It certainly wasn't required for first life)
--
Arne Vogel
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Mark K. Bilbo" |
|
| Title: Re: Wald on spontaneous generation |
02 Oct 2003 09:20:25 PM |
|
|
On Thu, 02 Oct 2003 20:15:13 +0000, Denis Loubet wrote:
What are the odds of an infinitely complex universe creating entity just
appearing out of nothing?
Won't work. It'll just go back to the "always there"...
--
Mark K. Bilbo
From alt.atheism only
.
|
|
|
| User: "John Wilkins" |
|
| Title: Re: Wald on spontaneous generation |
04 Oct 2003 03:00:25 AM |
|
|
..utexas.edu>
Organization: Race towards an early grave
User-Agent: MacSOUP/2.5b2 (Mac OS X version 10.2.8)
NNTP-Posting-Host: machine193.wehi.edu.au
X-Original-NNTP-Posting-Host: machine193.wehi.edu.au
X-Trace: news.unimelb.edu.au 1065254840 128.250.252.193 (4 Oct 2003 18:07:20 +1000)
X-Original-Trace: 4 Oct 2003 18:07:20 +1000, machine193.wehi.edu.au
Lines: 19
Bobby D. Bryant <bdbryant@mail.utexas.edu> wrote:
On Fri, 03 Oct 2003 02:20:25 +0000, Mark K. Bilbo wrote:
On Thu, 02 Oct 2003 20:15:13 +0000, Denis Loubet wrote:
What are the odds of an infinitely complex universe creating entity just
appearing out of nothing?
Won't work. It'll just go back to the "always there"...
OK, what are the odds of such an entity just always being there?
Infinitely small...
--
John Wilkins wilkins.id.au
For long you live and high you fly,
and smiles you'll give and tears you'll cry
and all you touch and all you see is all your life will ever be
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Mekkala" |
|
| Title: Re: Wald on spontaneous generation |
03 Oct 2003 01:43:25 PM |
|
|
On 02 Oct 2003, "Mark K. Bilbo" <iskanipa-y@hoo.com> screwed up his face,
groaned, pushed hard, and farted out the following message in
news:pan.2003.10.03.02.25.23.223318@eac.org:
On Thu, 02 Oct 2003 20:15:13 +0000, Denis Loubet wrote:
What are the odds of an infinitely complex universe creating entity just
appearing out of nothing?
Won't work. It'll just go back to the "always there"...
And ain't it just wonderful, the way Gawd's so speshul that the rules that
so *obviously* apply to the universe just as *obviously* don't apply to him
(her/it)!
--
Mekkala, Atheist #2148
"When did I realize I was God? Well, I was praying and I suddenly realized
I was talking to myself!"
--Peter O'Toole.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Bobby D. Bryant" |
|
| Title: Re: Wald on spontaneous generation |
04 Oct 2003 01:42:10 AM |
|
|
On Fri, 03 Oct 2003 02:20:25 +0000, Mark K. Bilbo wrote:
On Thu, 02 Oct 2003 20:15:13 +0000, Denis Loubet wrote:
What are the odds of an infinitely complex universe creating entity just
appearing out of nothing?
Won't work. It'll just go back to the "always there"...
OK, what are the odds of such an entity just always being there?
--
Bobby Bryant
Austin, Texas
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mark K. Bilbo" |
|
| Title: Re: Wald on spontaneous generation |
04 Oct 2003 06:23:38 AM |
|
|
On Sat, 04 Oct 2003 06:42:10 +0000, Bobby D. Bryant wrote:
On Fri, 03 Oct 2003 02:20:25 +0000, Mark K. Bilbo wrote:
On Thu, 02 Oct 2003 20:15:13 +0000, Denis Loubet wrote:
What are the odds of an infinitely complex universe creating entity just
appearing out of nothing?
Won't work. It'll just go back to the "always there"...
OK, what are the odds of such an entity just always being there?
Funny isn't it that they yammer about how astronomical the odds are for
ordinary complexity "just happening." What would that mean for the odds of
infinite complexity just being there?
--
Mark K. Bilbo
From alt.atheism only
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Dale" |
|
| Title: Re: Wald on spontaneous generation |
02 Oct 2003 01:36:54 PM |
|
|
"david ford" <dford3@gl.umbc.edu> wrote in message
news:Pine.LNX.4.44L.01.0310021326030.23080-100000@linux3.gl.umbc.edu...
[...]
There are many smart people in these newsgroups, some of whom are
reading this right now. I invite some of these smart people to
present some calculations of the probability of the following
events occurring in the universe within 2 billion years:
1) the molecules in a table happening to move in one direction
and the table suddenly lifting into the air,
2) the most complex machine intelligent men have ever devised
appearing apart from the input of an intelligence(s), and
This part of your unstated challenge has no relevance to your unstated goal.
finally,
3) spontaneous generation, i.e. the simplest possible form of
life arising from non-life apart from the input of an
intelligence(s).
Here you go http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/abioprob/abioprob.html.
Oh, and it is erroneous to claim that 2 billion years is the
amount of time available for spontaneous generation. The time
available is actually much shorter:
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=Pine.SGI.3.91.960716004349.25182J-100000%40umbc8.umbc.edu
Yes, the first life forms appeared about 3.85 billion years ago. And your
point would be...?
So answer me this: stochastic processes are good enough to make snowflakes,
to make "micro" evolution, to make everything in your body work, to make
everything in nature work without divine intervention, then why aren't they
good enough to make abiogenesis and "macro" evolution work? Do you get what
I'm driving at? If God made everything to run off of stochastic processes,
why couldn't He make it so abiogenesis would happen without His intervention
on the early Earth?
What are you guys trying to prove anyway, that God is weak and stupid?
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Lane Lewis" |
|
| Title: Re: Wald on spontaneous generation |
02 Oct 2003 01:12:28 PM |
|
|
"david ford" <dford3@gl.umbc.edu> wrote in message
news:Pine.LNX.4.44L.01.0310021326030.23080-100000@linux3.gl.umbc.edu...
snip
There are many smart people in these newsgroups, some of whom are
reading this right now. I invite some of these smart people to
present some calculations of the probability of the following
events occurring in the universe within 2 billion years:
1) the molecules in a table happening to move in one direction
and the table suddenly lifting into the air,
2) the most complex machine intelligent men have ever devised
appearing apart from the input of an intelligence(s), and
finally,
3) spontaneous generation, i.e. the simplest possible form of
life arising from non-life apart from the input of an
intelligence(s).
Oh, and it is erroneous to claim that 2 billion years is the
amount of time available for spontaneous generation. The time
available is actually much shorter:
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=Pine.SGI.3.91.960716004349.25182J-100000%40umbc8.umbc.edu
Life started approximately 3.7 billion years ago, not long after the
earth cooled and became hospitable to life as we know it.
It is impossible to calculate the probabilities of life starting on
earth until we get more information on the subject. But we do know that it
is one to one as it now stands.
Remember that in science "Absence of evidence does not prove evidence of
absence" So even though we have no evidence on how life started does not
mean that a metaphysical explanation is necessary.
And what a table flying into the air has to do with this is beyond me.
It seems your trying to rely on sensationalism to prove a point, but I
suppose you have a even more fantastic tale to tell on how life started on
earth.
Care to explain what that is and any evidence to support it.
Lane
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Rick Russell" |
|
| Title: Re: Wald on spontaneous generation |
02 Oct 2003 03:17:23 PM |
|
|
In article <Pine.LNX.4.44L.01.0310021326030.23080-100000@linux3.gl.umbc.edu>,
david ford <dford3@gl.umbc.edu> wrote:
He provides no calculations in support of this fantasy-land
opinion. A strong desire that his fantasy-land opinion be true
does not make it so.
True, although his inability to support the idea of spontaneous
generation does not imply that life was created by intelligent
artifice of some sort. That's a separate theory that demands its own
evidence.
It's kind of funny to watch people defend abiogenesis.
Philosophically, it's an appealing idea. But abiogenesis is barely
approachable from a scientific perspective, and I think that really
_annoys_ some scientists.
Rick R.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mekkala" |
|
| Title: Re: Wald on spontaneous generation |
02 Oct 2003 03:25:24 PM |
|
|
On 02 Oct 2003, (Rick Russell) screwed up his face,
groaned, pushed hard, and farted out the following message in
news:bli1g9$mfk$1@joe.rice.edu:
In article
<Pine.LNX.4.44L.01.0310021326030.23080-100000@linux3.gl.umbc.edu>,
david ford <dford3@gl.umbc.edu> wrote:
He provides no calculations in support of this fantasy-land
opinion. A strong desire that his fantasy-land opinion be true
does not make it so.
True, although his inability to support the idea of spontaneous
generation does not imply that life was created by intelligent
artifice of some sort. That's a separate theory that demands its own
evidence.
It's kind of funny to watch people defend abiogenesis.
Philosophically, it's an appealing idea. But abiogenesis is barely
approachable from a scientific perspective, and I think that really
_annoys_ some scientists.
Abiogenesis has been observed under experimental conditions (do a Google
search on protein microspheres and Sidney Fox). That's truly amazing,
since as we all know (having been informed by you in your great wisdom
and infinite life experience) abiogenesis is impossible!
--
Mekkala, Atheist #2148
"When did I realize I was God? Well, I was praying and I suddenly
realized I was talking to myself!"
--Peter O'Toole.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Rick Russell" |
|
| Title: Re: Wald on spontaneous generation |
02 Oct 2003 07:29:09 PM |
|
|
In article <Xns94089FA07143AMekkala@199.45.49.11>,
Mekkala <joremovedathiskimtoreply@attbi.com> wrote:
Abiogenesis has been observed under experimental conditions (do a Google
search on protein microspheres and Sidney Fox). That's truly amazing,
since as we all know (having been informed by you in your great wisdom
and infinite life experience) abiogenesis is impossible!
I won't claim to be an expert (except that I watched Sidney Fox on an
episode of NOVA in the early 80s :-). But to quote the talk.origins
FAQ,
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/abioprob/abioprob.html
"For the hypercycle->protobiont transition, the probability here is
dependent on theoretical concepts still being developed, and is
unknown."
Presumably, the next step (protobiont -> bacteria) is even harder to
formulate theorertically.
Abiogenesis is difficult to approach scientifically. The evidence is
extremely sparse for the actual abiogenesis event, and the theory
leading to Earth-like life has not been developed. This fact annoys
some scientists to the point that they start making bold assertions
that are sheer speculation. To say that abiogenesis of life on Earth
is the only answer is a philosophical position, not a skeptical or
scientific position.
Even if we developed a working theory of abiogenesis with steps
replicable in the laboratory, we'll never really know the exact
process that led to life on Earth. The evidence has been erased by
several billion years of vulcanism, plate tectonics and erosion.
Laboratory abiogenesis would be a very cool thing, for sure.
Rick R.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mark K. Bilbo" |
|
| Title: Re: Wald on spontaneous generation |
02 Oct 2003 09:19:38 PM |
|
|
On Fri, 03 Oct 2003 00:29:09 +0000, Rick Russell wrote:
Abiogenesis is difficult to approach scientifically. The evidence is
extremely sparse for the actual abiogenesis event, and the theory
leading to Earth-like life has not been developed. This fact annoys
some scientists to the point that they start making bold assertions
that are sheer speculation. To say that abiogenesis of life on Earth
is the only answer is a philosophical position, not a skeptical or
scientific position.
As there's no evidence *at *all for any other origin at this point,
abiogenesis is the stronger.
--
Mark K. Bilbo
From alt.atheism only
.
|
|
|
| User: "AC" |
|
| Title: Re: Wald on spontaneous generation |
02 Oct 2003 09:52:55 PM |
|
|
On Fri, 3 Oct 2003 02:19:38 +0000 (UTC),
Mark K. Bilbo <iskanipa-y@hoo.com> wrote:
On Fri, 03 Oct 2003 00:29:09 +0000, Rick Russell wrote:
Abiogenesis is difficult to approach scientifically. The evidence is
extremely sparse for the actual abiogenesis event, and the theory
leading to Earth-like life has not been developed. This fact annoys
some scientists to the point that they start making bold assertions
that are sheer speculation. To say that abiogenesis of life on Earth
is the only answer is a philosophical position, not a skeptical or
scientific position.
As there's no evidence *at *all for any other origin at this point,
abiogenesis is the stronger.
Our fine Creationist friend is under the delusion that falsifying any
particular theory of abiogenesis automatically propels his mythology to the
top of the heap, when, in fact, it wouldn't matter if we had no theory of
abiogenesis, because his "theory" is nothing more than "goddidit".
--
Aaron Clausen
taocow@alberni.net
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Bobby D. Bryant" |
|
| Title: Re: Wald on spontaneous generation |
04 Oct 2003 01:45:30 AM |
|
|
On Thu, 02 Oct 2003 20:17:23 +0000, Rick Russell wrote:
In article
<Pine.LNX.4.44L.01.0310021326030.23080-100000@linux3.gl.umbc.edu>, david
ford <dford3@gl.umbc.edu> wrote:
He provides no calculations in support of this fantasy-land opinion. A
strong desire that his fantasy-land opinion be true does not make it
so.
True, although his inability to support the idea of spontaneous
generation does not imply that life was created by intelligent artifice
of some sort. That's a separate theory that demands its own evidence.
It's kind of funny to watch people defend abiogenesis. Philosophically,
it's an appealing idea. But abiogenesis is barely approachable from a
scientific perspective, and I think that really _annoys_ some
scientists.
In what sense is it "barely approachable"?
--
Bobby Bryant
Austin, Texas
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "AC" |
|
| Title: Re: Wald on spontaneous generation |
02 Oct 2003 03:29:51 PM |
|
|
On Thu, 2 Oct 2003 20:17:23 +0000 (UTC),
Rick Russell <rickr@is.rice.edu> wrote:
In article <Pine.LNX.4.44L.01.0310021326030.23080-100000@linux3.gl.umbc.edu>,
david ford <dford3@gl.umbc.edu> wrote:
He provides no calculations in support of this fantasy-land
opinion. A strong desire that his fantasy-land opinion be true
does not make it so.
True, although his inability to support the idea of spontaneous
generation does not imply that life was created by intelligent
artifice of some sort. That's a separate theory that demands its own
evidence.
It's kind of funny to watch people defend abiogenesis.
Philosophically, it's an appealing idea. But abiogenesis is barely
approachable from a scientific perspective, and I think that really
_annoys_ some scientists.
While it is a more difficult field of inquiry because the events and
circumstances that produced life on this planet will likely never be known
with any degree of accuracy, I don't see why it is any less approachable
than any other. You try to gather as much evidence as you can about the
Earth at that period of time, you apply the scientific method and probe for
at least possible routes by which self-replicating molecules could have come
about. I don't think any researcher into abiogenesis actually believes that
they will ever discover the exact means by which self-replicating molecules
got their start, but at least we can narrow it down to a few distinct
possibilities.
Even if abiogenesis were to occur in the lab, that wouldn't actually clinch
it because there could be numerous means by which the event could have
occured. Who knows, maybe the Universe is teeming with life, each having
been produced by a different set of circumstances.
--
Aaron Clausen
taocow@alberni.net
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Mekkala" |
|
| Title: Re: Wald on spontaneous generation |
02 Oct 2003 02:50:57 PM |
|
|
On 02 Oct 2003, david ford <dford3@gl.umbc.edu> screwed up his face,
groaned, pushed hard, and farted out the following message in
news:Pine.LNX.4.44L.01.0310021326030.23080-100000@linux3.gl.umbc.edu:
In "The Origin of Life," _Scientific American_ (August 1954),
45-53, George Wald states that the question of how life began has
been of interest to humans throughout history. In the years
around 1850, there were 2 proposed possibilities:
1) life arose from a supernatural entity's active creation, and
2) life arose and arises from non-life.[45]
"There is no third position."[46]
Possibility 1 appears in many culture's "mythical accounts of a
supernatural creation of life." One of those mythical accounts
of creation appears in _Genesis_. Possibility 1 is "an
understandable confusion": "Men are used to making things; it is
a ready thought that those things not made by men were made by a
superhuman being."[45]
In the 1800s, possibility 2 was shown to be not credible.[45]
First Redi showed that meat protected by a screen from egg-laying
flies did not develop maggots. Then Spallanzani demonstrated
that a nutritive broth brought to a boil while sealed off from
outside air did not rot. One critic, Needham, charged that
boiling made the inside air and broth hostile to life. In reply,
Spallanzani showed the _broth_ was not hostile to life, for upon
breaking the seal the broth promptly went to pot. Pasteur showed
in 1860 that the _air_ was not hostile to life by letting outside
air reach the broth through a long, contorted passageway
(bacteria and mold rarely made it all the way through the
passageway and into the broth, contaminating it, but instead
usually stuck on the passageway's walls). Pasteur's opponent,
Pouchet, drove Pasteur to conduct ever-more exacting experiments.
"When he[Pasteur] had finished, nothing remained of the belief in
spontaneous generation."[46]
Wald opines that "a scientist has no choice but to approach the
origin of life through a hypothesis of spontaneous
generation."[46] He critiques the above-described experiments for
dealing with _current_ conditions, and not examining whether
"different conditions in some former period" allow for
spontaneous generation.[46]
Wald observes that "the most complex machine man has devised...
is child's play compared with the simplest of living
organisms."[46] The complexity exists on a nano-scale, at the
molecular level. He notes that "one has only to contemplate the
magnitude of this task to concede that the spontaneous generation
of a living organism is impossible"[46] within a time period as
short as the extent of "recorded human history."[47]
However unlikely an event's occurrence, the more opportunities
there are for an event to occur, the more likely it is that the
event _will_ occur. For example, to use an illustration Wald
provides but not precisely in this context, the longer a table's
molecules move around randomly, the more likely it is that the
table's molecules will happen to move in one direction whereupon
the table "suddenly and spontaneously rise[s] into the air."[47]
So also with spontaneous generation: "However improbable we
regard this event, or any of the steps which it involves, given
enough time it will almost certainly happen at least once."[48]
Wald opines that 2 billion years is a sufficiently-long period of
time for a sufficiently-large number of trial runs for
spontaneous generation to occur with virtual certainty:
"Time is in fact the hero of the plot. The time with which we
have to deal is of the order of two billion years. What we
regard as impossible on the basis of human experience is
meaningless here. Given so much time, the "impossible" becomes
possible, the possible probable, and the probable virtually
certain. One has only to wait: time itself performs the
miracles."[48]
He provides no calculations in support of this fantasy-land
opinion. A strong desire that his fantasy-land opinion be true
does not make it so.
There are many smart people in these newsgroups, some of whom are
reading this right now. I invite some of these smart people to
present some calculations of the probability of the following
events occurring in the universe within 2 billion years:
1) the molecules in a table happening to move in one direction
and the table suddenly lifting into the air,
Quite small, I'd imagine.
2) the most complex machine intelligent men have ever devised
appearing apart from the input of an intelligence(s), and
finally,
Quite small, I'd imagine.
3) spontaneous generation, i.e. the simplest possible form of
life arising from non-life apart from the input of an
intelligence(s).
It depends on what conditions you're talking about. The probability of
life arising from non-life in outer space (not on/near any planets or
suns)? Virtually impossible. The probability of life arising on Earth?
Well, 100% obviously... after all it happened.
Let me ask you something -- what do you consider to be the "simplest
possible form of life"? A bacterium? A virus? An amino acid? Or, let us
ask for the basic requirements of earthly life -- let us assume an entity
composed of biological molecules that is self-replicating. Is that
acceptable?
Check out:
http://www.siu.edu/~protocell/
You may find it interesting. If miracles are still possible in this world,
you may even be able to work it through your thick skull what the
implications are.
Oh, and it is erroneous to claim that 2 billion years is the
amount of time available for spontaneous generation. The time
available is actually much shorter:
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=Pine.SGI.3.91.960716004349.25182J-100
000%40umbc8.umbc.edu
--
Mekkala, Atheist #2148
"When did I realize I was God? Well, I was praying and I suddenly realized
I was talking to myself!"
--Peter O'Toole.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Mark K. Bilbo" |
|
| Title: Re: Wald on spontaneous generation |
02 Oct 2003 09:18:08 PM |
|
|
On Thu, 02 Oct 2003 17:21:26 +0000, david ford wrote:
I invite some of these smart people to
present some calculations of the probability of the following
events occurring in the universe within 2 billion years:
In fact, why do you people *do this? Chemistry isn't "random." Not every
chemical will combine with every other. You can't do the calculation as if
they could.
And there is no basis for a calculation without knowing what the first
life *was. You can't do probability starting with a "dunno."
Where does this crap *come from?
--
Mark K. Bilbo
From alt.atheism only
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Mark K. Bilbo" |
|
| Title: Re: Wald on spontaneous generation |
02 Oct 2003 09:07:54 PM |
|
|
On Thu, 02 Oct 2003 17:21:26 +0000, david ford wrote:
There are many smart people in these newsgroups, some of whom are
reading this right now. I invite some of these smart people to
present some calculations of the probability of the following
events occurring in the universe within 2 billion years:
1) the molecules in a table happening to move in one direction
and the table suddenly lifting into the air,
Has nothing to do with abiogenesis.
2) the most complex machine intelligent men have ever devised
appearing apart from the input of an intelligence(s), and
finally,
Also irrelevant.
3) spontaneous generation, i.e. the simplest possible form of
life arising from non-life apart from the input of an
intelligence(s).
We don't know how life arose.
Yet.
--
Mark K. Bilbo
From alt.atheism only
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Bobby D. Bryant" |
|
| Title: Re: Wald on spontaneous generation |
04 Oct 2003 01:36:22 AM |
|
|
On Thu, 02 Oct 2003 17:21:26 +0000, david ford wrote:
There are many smart people in these newsgroups, some of whom are
reading this right now. I invite some of these smart people to present
some calculations of the probability of the following events occurring
in the universe within 2 billion years:
....
3) spontaneous generation, i.e. the simplest possible form of life
arising from non-life apart from the input of an intelligence(s).
We know the universe was once incapable of supporting life, and we know
that at least one niche now teems with life. Ergo, at some point life
arose from non-life with probability 1.0.
BTW, what makes you think intelligence has anything to do with it? Every
time we discover what makes some biological feature tick, it turns out to
be nothing but stupid molecules doing stupid molecule stuff.
--
Bobby Bryant
Austin, Texas
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "LP" |
|
| Title: Re: Wald on spontaneous generation |
03 Oct 2003 12:15:40 AM |
|
|
On Thu, 2 Oct 2003 17:21:26 +0000 (UTC), david ford
<dford3@gl.umbc.edu> wrote:
In "The Origin of Life," _Scientific American_ (August 1954),
45-53, George Wald states that the question of how life began has
been of interest to humans throughout history.
You have so many misconceptions about evolution,
I am not sure where to begin.
How about this article for starters.
From:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-misconceptions.html
A large part of the reason why Creationist arguments against
evolution can sound so persuasive is because they don't address
evolution, but rather argue against a set of misunderstandings that
people are right to consider ludicrous. The Creationists wrongly
believe that their understanding of evolution is what the theory of
evolution really says, and declare evolution banished. In fact, they
haven't even addressed the topic of evolution. (The situation isn't
helped by poor science education generally. Even most beginning
college biology students don't understand the theory of evolution.)
The five propositions below seem to be the most common misconceptions
based on a Creationist straw-man version of evolution. If you hear
anyone making any of them, chances are excellent that they don't know
enough about the real theory of evolution to make informed opinions
about it.
Evolution has never been observed.
Evolution violates the 2nd law of thermodynamics.
There are no transitional fossils.
The theory of evolution says that life originated, and evolution
proceeds, by random chance.
Evolution is only a theory; it hasn't been proved.
Explanations of why these statements are wrong are given below. They
are brief and therefore somewhat simplified; consult the references at
the end for more thorough explanations.
"The theory of evolution says that life originated, and evolution
proceeds, by random chance."
There is probably no other statement which is a better indication that
the arguer doesn't understand evolution. Chance certainly plays a
large part in evolution, but this argument completely ignores the
fundamental role of natural selection, and selection is the very
opposite of chance. Chance, in the form of mutations, provides genetic
variation, which is the raw material that natural selection has to
work with. From there, natural selection sorts out certain variations.
Those variations which give greater reproductive success to their
possessors (and chance ensures that such beneficial mutations will be
inevitable) are retained, and less successful variations are weeded
out. When the environment changes, or when organisms move to a
different environment, different variations are selected, leading
eventually to different species. Harmful mutations usually die out
quickly, so they don't interfere with the process of beneficial
mutations accumulating.
Nor is abiogenesis (the origin of the first life) due purely to
chance. Atoms and molecules arrange themselves not purely randomly,
but according to their chemical properties. In the case of carbon
atoms especially, this means complex molecules are sure to form
spontaneously, and these complex molecules can influence each other to
create even more complex molecules. Once a molecule forms that is
approximately self-replicating, natural selection will guide the
formation of ever more efficient replicators. The first
self-replicating object didn't need to be as complex as a modern cell
or even a strand of DNA. Some self-replicating molecules are not
really all that complex (as organic molecules go).
Some people still argue that it is wildly improbable for a given
self-replicating molecule to form at a given point (although they
usually don't state the "givens," but leave them implicit in their
calculations). This is true, but there were oceans of molecules
working on the problem, and no one knows how many possible
self-replicating molecules could have served as the first one. A
calculation of the odds of abiogenesis is worthless unless it
recognizes the immense range of starting materials that the first
replicator might have formed from, the probably innumerable different
forms that the first replicator might have taken, and the fact that
much of the construction of the replicating molecule would have been
non-random to start with.
(One should also note that the theory of evolution doesn't depend on
how the first life began. The truth or falsity of any theory of
abiogenesis wouldn't affect evolution in the least.)
"Evolution is only a theory; it hasn't been proved."
First, we should clarify what "evolution" means. Like so many other
words, it has more than one meaning. Its strict biological definition
is "a change in allele frequencies over time." By that definition,
evolution is an indisputable fact. Most people seem to associate the
word "evolution" mainly with common descent, the theory that all life
arose from one common ancestor. Many people believe that there is
enough evidence to call this a fact, too. However, common descent is
still not the theory of evolution, but just a fraction of it (and a
part of several quite different theories as well). The theory of
evolution not only says that life evolved, it also includes
mechanisms, like mutations, natural selection, and genetic drift,
which go a long way towards explaining how life evolved.
Calling the theory of evolution "only a theory" is, strictly speaking,
true, but the idea it tries to convey is completely wrong. The
argument rests on a confusion between what "theory" means in informal
usage and in a scientific context. A theory, in the scientific sense,
is "a coherent group of general propositions used as principles of
explanation for a class of phenomena" [Random House American College
Dictionary]. The term does not imply tentativeness or lack of
certainty. Generally speaking, scientific theories differ from
scientific laws only in that laws can be expressed more tersely. Being
a theory implies self-consistency, agreement with observations, and
usefulness. (Creationism fails to be a theory mainly because of the
last point; it makes few or no specific claims about what we would
expect to find, so it can't be used for anything. When it does make
falsifiable predictions, they prove to be false.)
Lack of proof isn't a weakness, either. On the contrary, claiming
infallibility for one's conclusions is a sign of hubris. Nothing in
the real world has ever been rigorously proved, or ever will be.
Proof, in the mathematical sense, is possible only if you have the
luxury of defining the universe you're operating in. In the real
world, we must deal with levels of certainty based on observed
evidence. The more and better evidence we have for something, the more
certainty we assign to it; when there is enough evidence, we label the
something a fact, even though it still isn't 100% certain.
What evolution has is what any good scientific claim has--evidence,
and lots of it. Evolution is supported by a wide range of observations
throughout the fields of genetics, anatomy, ecology, animal behavior,
paleontology, and others. If you wish to challenge the theory of
evolution, you must address that evidence. You must show that the
evidence is either wrong or irrelevant or that it fits another theory
better. Of course, to do this, you must know both the theory and the
evidence.
"Evolution has never been observed."
Biologists define evolution as a change in the gene pool of a
population over time. One example is insects developing a resistance
to pesticides over the period of a few years. Even most Creationists
recognize that evolution at this level is a fact. What they don't
appreciate is that this rate of evolution is all that is required to
produce the diversity of all living things from a common ancestor.
The origin of new species by evolution has also been observed, both in
the laboratory and in the wild. See, for example, (Weinberg, J.R.,
V.R. Starczak, and D. Jorg, 1992, "Evidence for rapid speciation
following a founder event in the laboratory." Evolution 46:
1214-1220). The "Observed Instances of Speciation" FAQ in the
talk.origins archives gives several additional examples.
Even without these direct observations, it would be wrong to say that
evolution hasn't been observed. Evidence isn't limited to seeing
something happen before your eyes. Evolution makes predictions about
what we would expect to see in the fossil record, comparative anatomy,
genetic sequences, geographical distribution of species, etc., and
these predictions have been verified many times over. The number of
observations supporting evolution is overwhelming.
What hasn't been observed is one animal abruptly changing into a
radically different one, such as a frog changing into a cow. This is
not a problem for evolution because evolution doesn't propose
occurrences even remotely like that. In fact, if we ever observed a
frog turn into a cow, it would be very strong evidence against
evolution.
"Evolution violates the 2nd law of thermodynamics."
This shows more a misconception about thermodynamics than about
evolution. The second law of thermodynamics says, "No process is
possible in which the sole result is the transfer of energy from a
cooler to a hotter body." [Atkins, 1984, The Second Law, pg. 25] Now
you may be scratching your head wondering what this has to do with
evolution. The confusion arises when the 2nd law is phrased in another
equivalent way, "The entropy of a closed system cannot decrease."
Entropy is an indication of unusable energy and often (but not
always!) corresponds to intuitive notions of disorder or randomness.
Creationists thus misinterpret the 2nd law to say that things
invariably progress from order to disorder.
However, they neglect the fact that life is not a closed system. The
sun provides more than enough energy to drive things. If a mature
tomato plant can have more usable energy than the seed it grew from,
why should anyone expect that the next generation of tomatoes can't
have more usable energy still? Creationists sometimes try to get
around this by claiming that the information carried by living things
lets them create order. However, not only is life irrelevant to the
2nd law, but order from disorder is common in nonliving systems, too.
Snowflakes, sand dunes, tornadoes, stalactites, graded river beds, and
lightning are just a few examples of order coming from disorder in
nature; none require an intelligent program to achieve that order. In
any nontrivial system with lots of energy flowing through it, you are
almost certain to find order arising somewhere in the system. If order
from disorder is supposed to violate the 2nd law of thermodynamics,
why is it ubiquitous in nature?
The thermodynamics argument against evolution displays a misconception
about evolution as well as about thermodynamics, since a clear
understanding of how evolution works should reveal major flaws in the
argument. Evolution says that organisms reproduce with only small
changes between generations (after their own kind, so to speak). For
example, animals might have appendages which are longer or shorter,
thicker or flatter, lighter or darker than their parents.
Occasionally, a change might be on the order of having four or six
fingers instead of five. Once the differences appear, the theory of
evolution calls for differential reproductive success. For example,
maybe the animals with longer appendages survive to have more
offspring than short-appendaged ones. All of these processes can be
observed today. They obviously don't violate any physical laws.
"There are no transitional fossils."
A transitional fossil is one that looks like it's from an organism
intermediate between two lineages, meaning it has some characteristics
of lineage A, some characteristics of lineage B, and probably some
characteristics part way between the two. Transitional fossils can
occur between groups of any taxonomic level, such as between species,
between orders, etc. Ideally, the transitional fossil should be found
stratigraphically between the first occurrence of the ancestral
lineage and the first occurrence of the descendent lineage, but
evolution also predicts the occurrence of some fossils with
transitional morphology that occur after both lineages. There's
nothing in the theory of evolution which says an intermediate form (or
any organism, for that matter) can have only one line of descendents,
or that the intermediate form itself has to go extinct when a line of
descendents evolves.
To say there are no transitional fossils is simply false. Paleontology
has progressed a bit since Origin of Species was published, uncovering
thousands of transitional fossils, by both the temporally restrictive
and the less restrictive definitions. The fossil record is still
spotty and always will be; erosion and the rarity of conditions
favorable to fossilization make that inevitable. Also, transitions may
occur in a small population, in a small area, and/or in a relatively
short amount of time; when any of these conditions hold, the chances
of finding the transitional fossils goes down. Still, there are still
many instances where excellent sequences of transitional fossils
exist. Some notable examples are the transitions from reptile to
mammal, from land animal to early whale, and from early ape to human.
For many more examples, see the transitional fossils FAQ in the
talk.origins archive, and see
http://www.geo.ucalgary.ca/~macrae/talk_origins.html for sample images
for some invertebrate groups.
The misconception about the lack of transitional fossils is
perpetuated in part by a common way of thinking about categories. When
people think about a category like "dog" or "ant," they often
subconsciously believe that there is a well-defined boundary around
the category, or that there is some eternal ideal form (for
philosophers, the Platonic idea) which defines the category. This kind
of thinking leads people to declare that Archaeopteryx is "100% bird,"
when it is clearly a mix of bird and reptile features (with more
reptile than bird features, in fact). In truth, categories are
man-made and artificial. Nature is not constrained to follow them, and
it doesn't.
Some Creationists claim that the hypothesis of punctuated equilibrium
was proposed (by Eldredge and Gould) to explain gaps in the fossil
record. Actually, it was proposed to explain the relative rarity of
transitional forms, not their total absence, and to explain why
speciation appears to happen relatively quickly in some cases,
gradually in others, and not at all during some periods for some
species. In no way does it deny that transitional sequences exist. In
fact, both Gould and Eldredge are outspoken opponents of Creationism.
"But paleontologists have discovered several superb examples of
intermediary forms and sequences, more than enough to convince any
fair-minded skeptic about the reality of life's physical genealogy." -
Stephen Jay Gould, Natural History, May 1994
Conclusion
These are not the only misconceptions about evolution by any means.
Other common misunderstandings include how geological dating
techniques work, implications to morality and religion, the meaning of
"uniformitarianism," and many more. To address all these objections
here would be impossible.
But consider: About a hundred years ago, scientists, who were then
mostly creationists, looked at the world to figure out how God did
things. These creationists came to the conclusions of an old earth and
species originating by evolution. Since then, thousands of scientists
have been studying evolution with increasingly more sophisticated
tools. Many of these scientists have excellent understandings of the
laws of thermodynamics, how fossil finds are interpreted, etc., and
finding a better alternative to evolution would win them fame and
fortune. Sometimes their work has changed our understanding of
significant details of how evolution operates, but the theory of
evolution still has essentially unanimous agreement from the people
who work on it.
Further Reading
Five Major Misconceptions about Evolution
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-misconceptions.html
Introduction to Evolutionary Biology
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-intro-to-biology.html
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "LP" |
|
| Title: Re: Wald on spontaneous generation |
03 Oct 2003 12:17:19 AM |
|
|
On Thu, 2 Oct 2003 17:21:26 +0000 (UTC), david ford
<dford3@gl.umbc.edu> wrote:
In "The Origin of Life," _Scientific American_ (August 1954),
45-53, George Wald states that the question of how life began has
been of interest to humans throughout history. In the years
around 1850, there were 2 proposed possibilities:
1) life arose from a supernatural entity's active creation, and
2) life arose and arises from non-life.[45]
"There is no third position."[46]
Here is a much shorter version of the previously posted article, for
those with short attention spans. : )
------------------------------------------------------------
"The theory of evolution says that life originated, and evolution
proceeds, by random chance."
There is probably no other statement which is a better indication that
the arguer doesn't understand evolution. Chance certainly plays a
large part in evolution, but this argument completely ignores the
fundamental role of natural selection, and selection is the very
opposite of chance. Chance, in the form of mutations, provides genetic
variation, which is the raw material that natural selection has to
work with. From there, natural selection sorts out certain variations.
Those variations which give greater reproductive success to their
possessors (and chance ensures that such beneficial mutations will be
inevitable) are retained, and less successful variations are weeded
out. When the environment changes, or when organisms move to a
different environment, different variations are selected, leading
eventually to different species. Harmful mutations usually die out
quickly, so they don't interfere with the process of beneficial
mutations accumulating.
Nor is abiogenesis (the origin of the first life) due purely to
chance. Atoms and molecules arrange themselves not purely randomly,
but according to their chemical properties. In the case of carbon
atoms especially, this means complex molecules are sure to form
spontaneously, and these complex molecules can influence each other to
create even more complex molecules. Once a molecule forms that is
approximately self-replicating, natural selection will guide the
formation of ever more efficient replicators. The first
self-replicating object didn't need to be as complex as a modern cell
or even a strand of DNA. Some self-replicating molecules are not
really all that complex (as organic molecules go).
Some people still argue that it is wildly improbable for a given
self-replicating molecule to form at a given point (although they
usually don't state the "givens," but leave them implicit in their
calculations). This is true, but there were oceans of molecules
working on the problem, and no one knows how many possible
self-replicating molecules could have served as the first one. A
calculation of the odds of abiogenesis is worthless unless it
recognizes the immense range of starting materials that the first
replicator might have formed from, the probably innumerable different
forms that the first replicator might have taken, and the fact that
much of the construction of the replicating molecule would have been
non-random to start with.
(One should also note that the theory of evolution doesn't depend on
how the first life began. The truth or falsity of any theory of
abiogenesis wouldn't affect evolution in the least.)
From:
Five Major Misconceptions about Evolution
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-misconceptions.html
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Kevin D. Quitt" |
|
| Title: Re: Wald on spontaneous generation |
03 Oct 2003 02:59:00 PM |
|
|
On Thu, 2 Oct 2003 17:21:26 +0000 (UTC), david ford <dford3@gl.umbc.edu> wrote:
1) life arose from a supernatural entity's active creation, and
2) life arose and arises from non-life.[45]
"There is no third position."[46]
False on the face of it. The third position is that life will arise when
conditions are favorable and enough time elapses. There is no need to require
that life continue to be continuously created.
In the 1800s, possibility 2 was shown to be not credible.[45]
This statement is false. What was demonstrated is that complex life did not
arise spontaneously, as was the common belief. It also demonstrated that life
of any detectable form does not occur under any arbitrary set of circumstances
in a very short time.
And as for your proof by incredulity, you clearly don't understand the
calculations. What are the usually quoted odds against life spontaneously
forming? Billions to one? We'll ignore that fact that those "calculations"
don't take into count the fact that molecules are self-organizing, and so it is
not a purely random process for life to occur. And just to be on the safe side,
instead of calling it 10^9, let's call it 10^18.
Now, what, exactly does that mean? Presumably that's the odds against the
spontaneous creation of life in any given reaction. Let's assume that this
applies to a cubic millimeter of water for a period of one second. Let's see
what that yields.
According to http://wwwga.usgs.gov/edu/earthhowmuch.html, the Earth has 326x10^6
cubic miles of water. That works out to 1.34x10^27 cubic millimeters. Given
that there can be billions of possibly-involved-with-life molecules in that
volume, it seems a reasonable volume to choose, and even yields you several
orders of magnitude more leeway.
And since you're unhappy about using 2 billion years, will you settle for one
billion? Using just 365 days/year, that's 31.5x10^6 seconds in a year, and
31.5x10^15 seconds in a billion years.
So our 1.34x10^27 cubic millimeters each has 31.5x10^15 seconds to try to create
life; that gives them roughly 42x10^42 (hmmm...) chances at creating life.
Let's increase the odds against from 10^18 to 10^36, shall we? That still
provides odds of better than 42 million to one in favor of the creation of life.
All the arguments against the non-deity-involved creation of life are made from
ignorance (of the initial conditions - something true for everybody, not just
the anti's), and/or ignorance or avoidance of the fundamentals of forming
live-required molecules and the chances therein, and/or proof by incredulity.
There may have been a deity involved; we can never know. Perhaps that deity is
the one that set the odds, knowing what would happen. We will never know, and
can never know. We do know that first there was no life, then there was. You
cannot know and certainly cannot prove that one or more gods were involved. You
cannot even present meaningful evidence that such was the case, because we truly
cannot know what the conditions were.
People can argue for and against a reducing atmosphere, but that's as likely
meaningless as not - it assumes the atmosphere was an integral part of the
formation of life. There has been strong evidence for decades that the type and
condition of the atmosphere were of no concern, and that life developed at
depth, rather than at the surface as was so long assumed. So all the
calculations made for the odds against become doubly meaningless.
It boils down to this (pardon the pun): one cannot rule out the involvement of a
deity, but neither can one rule one in. What evidence we do have indicates that
the direct action of a deity is not required to form life. You can argue that
the god(s) that created the universe did so in such a way that life could appear
without direct action; that's fine, nobody with sense will argue with you.
But your belief in god(s) is just that: a belief. Beliefs do not require proof.
If you have faith in the existence of god(s), then you need no proof, and none
is possible.
--
_
Kevin D. Quitt 91387-4454
96.37% of all statistics are made up
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "dave e" |
|
| Title: Re: Wald on spontaneous generation |
03 Oct 2003 02:30:19 PM |
|
|
david ford <dford3@gl.umbc.edu> wrote in message news:<Pine.LNX.4.44L.01.0310021326030.23080-100000@linux3.gl.umbc.edu>...
| |
