What are the Odds of Life evolving by chance alone?

[iNow]

11 minutes ago, GalvestonTommy said:

I can't. It's beyond my understanding.

It’s really not. You just need to look beyond your god fog. 

[Strange]

13 hours ago, GalvestonTommy said:

For evolution to work as advertised the following must happen:

1. Something in an organism must be modified to make it different from its parents.

2. The modification must be caused by something that can be inherited by descendants.

3. The modification must be beneficial to the organism.

4. The benefit derived from the modification must provide an advantage to the organism such that natural selection will cause descendants to increase in numbers in the population.

5. If multiple modifications are required in order for the change in the organism to be beneficial then all of those required modifications must be present in the organism at the same time for the change to occur.

It is much simpler than that. All that is required is:

1. Heritable characteristics (We know this exists: compare yourself to your parents)

2. Variability of those characteristics in the population (We know this exists: look at the people around you)

3. Some of those characteristics having an effect on survival and/or reproductive success (examples of this can be seen all around us)

4. A source of further variation (sexual reproduction, errors during reproduction, random mutations, etc)

As we know all of those exist, it would take divine intervention to stop evolution from happening.

Regarding your points:

1. OK. Equivalent to my point 4.

2. It's not quite clear what this means. The cause of the modification doesn't have to be from the parents; it can be external, such as radiation changing germ cells or just errors during reproduction. 

3. No.

Changes can be beneficial, harmful or neutral. Or even a combination of these (e.g. sickle cell disease). Some that are beneficial or neutral when they occur may be harmful later or in combination with other genes (as in the offspring of sexual reproduction).

Some that are harmful or neutral now may turn out to be beneficial in different circumstances (or in combination with other genes). 

Also, this positive or negative effect may be environment dependent. For part of the population (who have access to a particular food or who live higher up the mountain, or whatever) a change in the genome might improve their survival and reproduction. For another subset of the population, it might have negative consequences. This might then cause the two sub-populations to drift further apart (in the ecological sense): one group eating more of food A and the other concentrating on food B (or one moving higher up the mountain, and the other lower). And now, guess what, those sub-populations have taken the first step on the path to speciation.

Importantly, as someone said above: evolution happens to populations not individuals.

4. Correct (my point 3). But that is only part of the story. They may have no effect (immediately) or they may have a negative effect.

5. Absolutely not. This is basically the "irreducible complexity" argument beloved by creationists. (They do love a good fallacy.)

Organisms can accumulate a number of changes to the genome that have no effect on the organism (because they are not expressed, or because they produce a variant of a protein that behaves almost identically,  or because the change has a negligible effect on the relative reproductive success of the individual). So changes can be accrued incrementally which later appear to be required "all at once". (I have only a limited knowledge of biology or evolution so I can't give any specific examples of this, but maybe someone else can if you want to pursue that point).

10 hours ago, GalvestonTommy said:

As mentioned in my post of Thursday at 11:46, I have studied the subject.

I am puzzled by this. Do you read explanations in these books and then say to yourself, "I can't see how that could work so it must be wrong"?

I know that is an easy trap to fall into. I used to do it a lot (I am still horrified that, in an attack of hubris on Usenet, I told one of the world's leading linguists that he was wrong - before I had even started studying linguistics). I still find myself doing it occasionally. The thing is to force yourself to be more open minded. Stop yourself from saying "that can't be right, it must be like this instead" (e.g. your point 5 above) and make a real effort to understand what is being explained.

With regard to your point 5, the evolution of the eye might be a good example; it is very well understood (and has happened multiple times). It involved a series of incremental changes each of which added some extra functionality. (With, quite probably, some changes along the way that were neutral and some that were less useful until a later modification made them advantageous.)

Edited January 28, 2018 by Strange

[GalvestonTommy]

4 hours ago, Strange said:

then say to yourself, "I can't see how that could work so it must be wrong"?

I'm not saying it must be wrong. As you might guess my name is Thomas. I'm a natural doubter. As a youngster, my mother said a visitor once asked her why she let met dismantle the new toy I just received. She said I always did that to see how it worked and then put it back together and enjoyed playing with it. I want to see how evolution works. I'm not saying it doesn't, but explanations with so many "I believes" and "might have been's" bring out the doubter in me. After studying, not just reading, at least 7 of Dawkins' books, I came away with the conclusion that there was a whole lot of speculation and not enough solid evidence to erase my doubts. His video on the evolution of the eye was interesting also, but was such an oversimplification that it left me with more questions than answers.

My forum ID might also lead one to jump to the conclusion that I live in Galveston. I was born there, but moved away in 1953 when I was 14. Jumping to conclusions without adequate information is also an easy trap to fall into, I've found. I've done it myself.

5 hours ago, Strange said:

2. It's not quite clear what this means. The cause of the modification doesn't have to be from the parents; it can be external, such as radiation changing germ cells or just errors during reproduction. 

I'm not saying the modification came from the parents, only that it can be inherited by descendants

[Strange]

1 hour ago, GalvestonTommy said:

I'm not saying it doesn't, but explanations with so many "I believes" and "might have been's" bring out the doubter in me.

That’s fine. I’m not an expert on the subject so I don’t want to make definitive statements in hat may be wrong (but I am pretty confident that my explanations are accurate )

1 hour ago, GalvestonTommy said:

After studying, not just reading, at least 7 of Dawkins' books, I came away with the conclusion that there was a whole lot of speculation and not enough solid evidence to erase my doubts. His video on the evolution of the eye was interesting also, but was such an oversimplification that it left me with more questions than answers.

These are popularisations and you aren’t going to find the level of detail you want in those sources. I can’t remember if Dawkins books have references to the original papers supporting what he say. If so, you might find more detail there (and in the papers they in turn reference). You may have to pay to access those though. (And they might be pretty incomprehensible if you haven’t studied the subject in depth.)

[Moontanman]

On 1/25/2018 at 11:53 PM, GalvestonTommy said:

I'd be willing to watch the 3 hour video for my own education. I'm scheduled for an esophajectomy next Wednesday and if and when I make it I'll probably have lots of time on my hands after a few weeks. Send me a link. By the way, was he not technically correct in his description of molecular synthesis?

Because we weren't there when either abiogenesis or creation happened it might just be a matter of faith on either account. It looks like a case of God-of-the-gaps versus Deep-Time-of-the-gaps. It's sort of like what Louis Nizer wrote in The Implosion Conspiracy concerning which witness is telling the truth. You almost have to be there for the testimony. And even then the most believable witness may be the best deceiver. I'll keep studying. This will probably be my last post for a while.

If you are still looking for ways to kill time here is another series that might help you figure this out. He goes into considerable detail about the jaw in  several episodes and in fact jaw structure is one of the ways we differentiate between groups of animals... 

 https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLXJ4dsU0oGMLnubJLPuw0dzD0AvAHAotW

 

[MigL]

I don't see how anyone can challenge evolution, especially in the winter when we all get colds and flu from mutated viruses, that the previous year's vaccine has no effect on.

As to the original OP, and the chances of life arising by chance ( anywhere in the universe ), I will only quote Jeff Goldblum once in my life...

"Life, uh, finds a way"        from Jurassic Park

[Strange]

1 hour ago, MigL said:

I don't see how anyone can challenge evolution

Indeed. Since the domestication of plants and animals umpty-thousand years ago, the fact that evolution happens has been obvious. The only debate can be about the mechanisms and, given the mountains of evidence, there isn’t much room for debate there, either. 

[GalvestonTommy]

On 1/26/2018 at 8:17 AM, Moontanman said:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PqPGOhXoprU

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CJ5jh33OiOA

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jfq5-i8xoIU

I've had time the past few weeks to view the above videos by Professor Szostak. He definitely presents strong arguments regarding the OP's main question regarding abiogenesis. And previous comments on Dr. Tour's video have compared what he (Dr. Tour) has done in the lab to what happens in nature are valid questions.  I guess, at this time, I'm not inclined to get further into this line of discussion until I can digest what are the most compelling thoughts on both sides.

I've also viewed Aron Ra's 25 videos regarding the "Systematic Classification of Life." I realize that this subject is basically concerned with evolution, not abiogenesis. I'm afraid I'm guilty of hijacking this thread and got it going in this direction. I apologize. I would be interested in pursuing the evolution questions I have. Is there another thread where this would be appropriate? Would it be acceptable to start another one? Please advise.

Thanks for your consideration.

 

[Itoero]

On ‎22‎-‎7‎-‎2012 at 8:23 PM, Alan McDougall said:

there is no scientific proof that life did (or ever could) evolve into existence from non-living matter. Further, there is substantial evidence that spontaneous generation is impossible. Only DNA is known to produce DNA. No chemical interaction of molecules has even come close to producing this ultra-complex code which is so essential to all known life.

There are interesting differences between RNA and DNA. It looks like DNA developed/evolved from RNA.

DNA can be considered as a modified form of RNA, since the “normal” ribose sugar in RNA is reduced into deoxyribose in DNA, whereas the “simple” base uracil is methylated into thymidine. The synthesis of DNA building blocks from RNA precursors is a major argument in favor of RNA preceding DNA in evolution. It seems that DNA originated from RNA in an RNA/protein world. The origin and evolution of DNA replication mechanisms thus occurred at a critical period of life evolution that encompasses the late RNA world and the emergence of the Last Universal Cellular Ancestor (LUCA) to the present three domains of life (Eukarya, Bacteria and Archaea).

The first step in the emergence of DNA has been most likely the formation of U-DNA (DNA containing uracil). Some modern viruses indeed have a U-DNA genome, possibly reflecting this first transition step between the RNA and DNA worlds.https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK6360/

Experiments like Miller Urey and many that followed show how building blocks can 'spontaneously' form.

There is a remarkable resemblance in biochemical structure between plants and animals (and other lifeforms) which points to abiogenesis.

In 2017, fossilized microorganisms, or microfossils, been discovered in hydrothermal vent precipitates in the Nuvvuagittuq Belt of Quebec, Canada that may be as old as 4.28 billion years old, the oldest record of life on Earth, suggesting "an almost instantaneous emergence of life" after ocean formation 4.41 billion years ago, and not long after the formation of the Earth 4.54 billion years ago.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earliest_known_life_forms

We will probably never find scientific evidence for abiogenesis. I think some day we will find sufficient evidence for the possibility of abiogenesis on Earth.

 

[beecee]

On 7/23/2012 at 4:23 AM, Alan McDougall said:

- During all recorded human history, there has never been a substantiated case of a living thing being produced from anything other than another living thing.

- there is no scientific proof that life did (or ever could) evolve into existence from non-living matter. Further, there is substantial evidence that spontaneous generation is impossible. Only DNA is known to produce DNA. No chemical interaction of molecules has even come close to producing this ultra-complex code which is so essential to all known life.

However what do your scientific minds have to say about the above?

 

We most certainly as yet do not have any evidence [ other then we are here anyway] that  Abiogenesis is a valid concept. But the main point is that scientifically speaking, Abiogenesis is the only posssible answer to the existence of universal life. Of course I'm ignoring all the many supernatural, paranormal, unscientific and mythical fabricated answers that pervade humanity. I accept that science can reasonably and logically explain how matter evolved, how the elements evolved, how stars and planets evolved, and since life is made up of those elements created at the BB and in Supernova explosions, how life arose from non-living matter. To quote the great Carl Sagan, we were all born in the belly of stars.

And logically, no matter how slim the chances of Abiogenesis occurring are, how much more slimmer, and unbelievable is it to accept that some supposedly omnipotent, omniscient, magical being that has existed forever, but has never shown himself, as an alternative answer?

[GalvestonTommy]

On 1/26/2018 at 2:16 AM, Strange said:

Not at all. Tour may well be an excellent chemist. I haven't looked at his work in that area. It isn't relevant. There are a few creationists who are good scientists in their own fields; it is just when it comes to evolution that they reject it unscientifically.

Again, Tour's video presents his scientific opinion regarding abiogenesis. He does not present it from a creationist's point of view nor does he give his opinion on evolution. In "An Open Letter to my Colleagues" he states:

"We synthetic chemists should state the obvious. The appearance of life on earth is a mystery. We are nowhere near solving this problem. The proposals offered thus far to explain life’s origin make no scientific sense."

He seems to disagree with the deep-time-of-the-gaps opinion that anything can happen if given enough time and that if abiogenesis cannot be achieved in the controlled environment of a laboratory then the odds of it happening in nature are insurmountable. He just states that we aren't close to solving the problem.

I stated that I have not been able, so far, to erase some of the doubts I have regarding both abiogenesis and evolution.

As far as Tour's credentials, see the following:

Tour has over 640 research publications and over 120 patents, with an H-index = 129 (107 by ISI Web of Science) and i10 index = 538 with total citations over 77,000 (Google Scholar). He was inducted into the National Academy of Inventors in 2015. Tour was named among “The 50 Most Influential Scientists in the World Today” by TheBestSchools.org in 2014; listed in “The World’s Most Influential Scientific Minds” by Thomson Reuters ScienceWatch.com in 2014; and recipient of the Trotter Prize in “Information, Complexity and Inference” in 2014; and was the Lady Davis Visiting Professor, Hebrew University, June, 2014. Tour was named “Scientist of the Year” by R&D Magazine, 2013. He was awarded the George R. Brown Award for Superior Teaching, 2012, Rice University; won the ACS Nano Lectureship Award from the American Chemical Society, 2012; ws the Lady Davis Visiting Professor, Hebrew University, June, 2011 and was elected Fellow of the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS), 2009. Tour was ranked one of the Top 10 chemists in the world over the past decade, by a Thomson Reuters citations per publication index survey, 2009; won the Distinguished Alumni Award, Purdue University, 2009 and the Houston Technology Center’s Nanotechnology Award in 2009. He won the Feynman Prize in Experimental Nanotechnology in 2008, the NASA Space Act Award in 2008 for his development of carbon nanotube reinforced elastomers and the Arthur C. Cope Scholar Award from the American Chemical Society for his achievements in organic chemistry in 2007. Tour was the recipient of the George R. Brown Award for Superior Teaching in 2007. He also won the Small Times magazine’s Innovator of the Year Award in 2006, the Nanotech Briefs Nano 50 Innovator Award in 2006, the Alan Berman Research Publication Award, Department of the Navy in 2006, the Southern Chemist of the Year Award from the American Chemical Society in 2005 and The Honda Innovation Award for Nanocars in 2005. Tour’s paper on Nanocars was the most highly accessed journal article of all American Chemical Society articles in 2005, and it was listed by LiveScience as the second most influential paper in all of science in 2005. Tour has won several other national awards including the National Science Foundation Presidential Young Investigator Award in Polymer Chemistry and the Office of Naval Research Young Investigator Award in Polymer Chemistry.

Tour is the founder and principal of NanoJtech Consultants, LLC, performing technology assessments for the prospective investor. Tour is also a founder of Weebit (silicon oxide electronic memory), Dotz (graphene quantum dots from coal), Tubz (graphene nanopillar electrodes for energy storage devices), Acelerox (antioxidant particles for mitigating oxidative stress during trauma and autoimmune diseases) and Avid Chemotherapeutics (drug delivery for cancer chemotherapy). He has served as a visiting scholar at Harvard University, on the Chemical Reviews Editorial Advisory Board, the Governor’s Mathematics and Science Advisory Board for South Carolina, the Defense Science Study Group through the Institute for Defense Analyses, the Defense Science Board Chem/Nano Study Section, the Department of Commerce Emerging Technology and Research Advisory Committee and the MD Anderson Cancer Research Center’s Competitive Grant Renewal Board. He has been active in consulting on several national defense-related topics, in addition to numerous other professional committees and panels.

[StringJunky]

1 hour ago, GalvestonTommy said:

Again, Tour's video presents his scientific opinion regarding abiogenesis. He does not present it from a creationist's point of view nor does he give his opinion on evolution. In "An Open Letter to my Colleagues" he states:

"We synthetic chemists should state the obvious. The appearance of life on earth is a mystery. We are nowhere near solving this problem. The proposals offered thus far to explain life’s origin make no scientific sense."

He seems to disagree with the deep-time-of-the-gaps opinion that anything can happen if given enough time and that if abiogenesis cannot be achieved in the controlled environment of a laboratory then the odds of it happening in nature are insurmountable. He just states that we aren't close to solving the problem.

I stated that I have not been able, so far, to erase some of the doubts I have regarding both abiogenesis and evolution.

As far as Tour's credentials, see the following:

Tour has over 640 research publications and over 120 patents, with an H-index = 129 (107 by ISI Web of Science) and i10 index = 538 with total citations over 77,000 (Google Scholar). He was inducted into the National Academy of Inventors in 2015. Tour was named among “The 50 Most Influential Scientists in the World Today” by TheBestSchools.org in 2014; listed in “The World’s Most Influential Scientific Minds” by Thomson Reuters ScienceWatch.com in 2014; and recipient of the Trotter Prize in “Information, Complexity and Inference” in 2014; and was the Lady Davis Visiting Professor, Hebrew University, June, 2014. Tour was named “Scientist of the Year” by R&D Magazine, 2013. He was awarded the George R. Brown Award for Superior Teaching, 2012, Rice University; won the ACS Nano Lectureship Award from the American Chemical Society, 2012; ws the Lady Davis Visiting Professor, Hebrew University, June, 2011 and was elected Fellow of the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS), 2009. Tour was ranked one of the Top 10 chemists in the world over the past decade, by a Thomson Reuters citations per publication index survey, 2009; won the Distinguished Alumni Award, Purdue University, 2009 and the Houston Technology Center’s Nanotechnology Award in 2009. He won the Feynman Prize in Experimental Nanotechnology in 2008, the NASA Space Act Award in 2008 for his development of carbon nanotube reinforced elastomers and the Arthur C. Cope Scholar Award from the American Chemical Society for his achievements in organic chemistry in 2007. Tour was the recipient of the George R. Brown Award for Superior Teaching in 2007. He also won the Small Times magazine’s Innovator of the Year Award in 2006, the Nanotech Briefs Nano 50 Innovator Award in 2006, the Alan Berman Research Publication Award, Department of the Navy in 2006, the Southern Chemist of the Year Award from the American Chemical Society in 2005 and The Honda Innovation Award for Nanocars in 2005. Tour’s paper on Nanocars was the most highly accessed journal article of all American Chemical Society articles in 2005, and it was listed by LiveScience as the second most influential paper in all of science in 2005. Tour has won several other national awards including the National Science Foundation Presidential Young Investigator Award in Polymer Chemistry and the Office of Naval Research Young Investigator Award in Polymer Chemistry.

Tour is the founder and principal of NanoJtech Consultants, LLC, performing technology assessments for the prospective investor. Tour is also a founder of Weebit (silicon oxide electronic memory), Dotz (graphene quantum dots from coal), Tubz (graphene nanopillar electrodes for energy storage devices), Acelerox (antioxidant particles for mitigating oxidative stress during trauma and autoimmune diseases) and Avid Chemotherapeutics (drug delivery for cancer chemotherapy). He has served as a visiting scholar at Harvard University, on the Chemical Reviews Editorial Advisory Board, the Governor’s Mathematics and Science Advisory Board for South Carolina, the Defense Science Study Group through the Institute for Defense Analyses, the Defense Science Board Chem/Nano Study Section, the Department of Commerce Emerging Technology and Research Advisory Committee and the MD Anderson Cancer Research Center’s Competitive Grant Renewal Board. He has been active in consulting on several national defense-related topics, in addition to numerous other professional committees and panels.

The only random element of the evolution  of the universe, and everything in it, is the incidence of molecules colliding. Once they they do, the outcome is predetermined by the inherent properties of the reactants and reaction conditions.  It's not on the probabilistic level of monkeys typing Shakespeare.

Edited April 11, 2018 by StringJunky

[beecee]

5 hours ago, GalvestonTommy said:

The proposals offered thus far to explain life’s origin make no scientific sense."

Totally false bunkum. In fact Abiogenesis is the only scientific answer as to how life arose in the universe. 

The odds of some all powerful all knowing magical spaghetti monster is far more difficult to believe and like all paranormal/Supernatural myths, are for the impressionable and gullible.

[StringJunky]

19 minutes ago, beecee said:

The odds of some all powerful all knowing magical spaghetti monster is far more difficult to believe and like all paranormal/Supernatural myths, are for the impressionable and gullible.

There lies the same problem but with another cosmic-level layer of complexity.

[Moontanman]

14 hours ago, GalvestonTommy said:

Again, Tour's video presents his scientific opinion regarding abiogenesis. He does not present it from a creationist's point of view nor does he give his opinion on evolution. In "An Open Letter to my Colleagues" he states:

"We synthetic chemists should state the obvious. The appearance of life on earth is a mystery. We are nowhere near solving this problem. The proposals offered thus far to explain life’s origin make no scientific sense."

He seems to disagree with the deep-time-of-the-gaps opinion that anything can happen if given enough time and that if abiogenesis cannot be achieved in the controlled environment of a laboratory then the odds of it happening in nature are insurmountable. He just states that we aren't close to solving the problem.

I stated that I have not been able, so far, to erase some of the doubts I have regarding both abiogenesis and evolution.

As far as Tour's credentials, see the following:

Tour has over 640 research publications and over 120 patents, with an H-index = 129 (107 by ISI Web of Science) and i10 index = 538 with total citations over 77,000 (Google Scholar). He was inducted into the National Academy of Inventors in 2015. Tour was named among “The 50 Most Influential Scientists in the World Today” by TheBestSchools.org in 2014; listed in “The World’s Most Influential Scientific Minds” by Thomson Reuters ScienceWatch.com in 2014; and recipient of the Trotter Prize in “Information, Complexity and Inference” in 2014; and was the Lady Davis Visiting Professor, Hebrew University, June, 2014. Tour was named “Scientist of the Year” by R&D Magazine, 2013. He was awarded the George R. Brown Award for Superior Teaching, 2012, Rice University; won the ACS Nano Lectureship Award from the American Chemical Society, 2012; ws the Lady Davis Visiting Professor, Hebrew University, June, 2011 and was elected Fellow of the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS), 2009. Tour was ranked one of the Top 10 chemists in the world over the past decade, by a Thomson Reuters citations per publication index survey, 2009; won the Distinguished Alumni Award, Purdue University, 2009 and the Houston Technology Center’s Nanotechnology Award in 2009. He won the Feynman Prize in Experimental Nanotechnology in 2008, the NASA Space Act Award in 2008 for his development of carbon nanotube reinforced elastomers and the Arthur C. Cope Scholar Award from the American Chemical Society for his achievements in organic chemistry in 2007. Tour was the recipient of the George R. Brown Award for Superior Teaching in 2007. He also won the Small Times magazine’s Innovator of the Year Award in 2006, the Nanotech Briefs Nano 50 Innovator Award in 2006, the Alan Berman Research Publication Award, Department of the Navy in 2006, the Southern Chemist of the Year Award from the American Chemical Society in 2005 and The Honda Innovation Award for Nanocars in 2005. Tour’s paper on Nanocars was the most highly accessed journal article of all American Chemical Society articles in 2005, and it was listed by LiveScience as the second most influential paper in all of science in 2005. Tour has won several other national awards including the National Science Foundation Presidential Young Investigator Award in Polymer Chemistry and the Office of Naval Research Young Investigator Award in Polymer Chemistry.

Tour is the founder and principal of NanoJtech Consultants, LLC, performing technology assessments for the prospective investor. Tour is also a founder of Weebit (silicon oxide electronic memory), Dotz (graphene quantum dots from coal), Tubz (graphene nanopillar electrodes for energy storage devices), Acelerox (antioxidant particles for mitigating oxidative stress during trauma and autoimmune diseases) and Avid Chemotherapeutics (drug delivery for cancer chemotherapy). He has served as a visiting scholar at Harvard University, on the Chemical Reviews Editorial Advisory Board, the Governor’s Mathematics and Science Advisory Board for South Carolina, the Defense Science Study Group through the Institute for Defense Analyses, the Defense Science Board Chem/Nano Study Section, the Department of Commerce Emerging Technology and Research Advisory Committee and the MD Anderson Cancer Research Center’s Competitive Grant Renewal Board. He has been active in consulting on several national defense-related topics, in addition to numerous other professional committees and panels.

Big whoop, are you constructing an argument from authority? Even Einstein had to show his work... 

[Strange]

17 hours ago, GalvestonTommy said:

As far as Tour's credentials, see the following

Name that fallacy.

[GalvestonTommy]

On 4/11/2018 at 1:37 AM, StringJunky said:

The only random element of the evolution  of the universe, and everything in it, is the incidence of molecules colliding. Once they they do, the outcome is predetermined by the inherent properties of the reactants and reaction conditions.  It's not on the probabilistic level of monkeys typing Shakespeare.

"predetermined" sounds suspiciously like "predestined" or like all of existence (say a 747) was bound to happen from the beginning of molecular collisions. This is a rather limited definition of the idea of randomness.

The insurance salesman finally convinced the old farmer to buy a policy. Before getting him to sign, he asked, “Would you like to add a double indemnity clause?”. The farmer replied, “A double what?” The insurance salesman said, “That is if you die by accident, the policy will pay double.” “Why sure I want that,” the farmer said, “If I die, it shore won’t be a-purpose.”

The farmer’s view was that anything that wasn’t on purpose (by design) was an accident. Of course, the insurance company had a list of non-accident and non-on-purpose causes that mainly involved what they referred to as natural causes.

In the life science fields, an accident is referred to as a random occurrence, without design and not attributed to natural laws. Some scientists like to minimize random events by stating that natural selection is not random and therefore the process of descent with modification is not random. See Douglas J. Futuyma, Evolution; ISBN 0-87893-187-2 (2005) page 534; “…natural selection is a deterministic, not a random, process. The random processes of evolution—mutation and genetic drift—do not result in the evolution of complexity, as far as we know.” Having one non-random event in the “descent with modification” process is like having just one strong link in an otherwise very weak chain of events. Delving into the theory of descent with modification will show that it is predominantly random (by accident) in spite of one phase of it (natural selection) be something less than completely random.

I'm still trying to learn the scientific interpretations of words like random and phrases like deep time.

Quote

"For reasons I cannot explain, there's a part of me wants to see Graceland."-- Paul Simon

 

[DrP]

4 hours ago, GalvestonTommy said:

"predetermined" sounds suspiciously like "predestined" or like all of existence (say a 747) was bound to happen from the beginning of molecular collisions. This is a rather limited definition of the idea of randomness.

 

Predetermined and predestined are different.  (I think this is right - maybe I should look them up in the dictionary to check)

If you plan that you are going to assemble all of the parts of a 747 correctly next month then the plane that will be built is predetermined by the set of plans you are working from. i.e. it is predetermined that the plane will be a 747 (because the plan says so, so IF you follow the plan then the plane will be a 747). It is predetermined because you have decided that the 747 is what is to be built.  It is NOT however predestined! You do not know if the assembler will die, or the plant explodes or is bombed, etc...  there are many unknown factors that you could put in that put the probability of the 747 being built between 0 and 1. IF it gets built it WILL be a 747 as that is predetermined by the plans and the decisions made to build a 747, but you could not know for sure that it is predestined - how could you?

 

With the chemistry  -  IF Hydrogen meets Oxygen under the right conditions it WILL react to make water. This WILL happen so the out come is pre determined. You can say that the out come WILL be water IF they meet. Whether or not they actually meet has nothing to do with it - nothing is predestined (or nothing can be proven to be predestined or not ayway).

 

 

4 hours ago, GalvestonTommy said:

Some scientists like to minimize random events by stating that natural selection is not random

It isn't random.  Mutations are random  -  but the selection of which get to survive and reproduce is not random.

[Strange]

20 minutes ago, DrP said:

It isn't random.  Mutations are random  -  but the selection of which get to survive and reproduce is not random.

There may be chance involved, but it isn't random. (Maybe part of the problem with some creationist arguments is that they don't understand the difference?)

[StringJunky]

7 minutes ago, Strange said:

There may be chance involved, but it isn't random. (Maybe part of the problem with some creationist arguments is that they don't understand the difference?)

The trouble with belief is that one will perform any amount of mental contortions to make the world fit it.

[Strange]

1 minute ago, StringJunky said:

The trouble with belief is that one will perform any amount of mental contortions to make the world fit it.

Which is no doubt easier if you don't fully understand the thing that you are distorting to make it fit ...

[Ten oz]

7 hours ago, GalvestonTommy said:

"predetermined" sounds suspiciously like "predestined" or like all of existence (say a 747) was bound to happen from the beginning of molecular collisions. This is a rather limited definition of the idea of randomness.

The insurance salesman finally convinced the old farmer to buy a policy. Before getting him to sign, he asked, “Would you like to add a double indemnity clause?”. The farmer replied, “A double what?” The insurance salesman said, “That is if you die by accident, the policy will pay double.” “Why sure I want that,” the farmer said, “If I die, it shore won’t be a-purpose.”

 

The farmer’s view was that anything that wasn’t on purpose (by design) was an accident. Of course, the insurance company had a list of non-accident and non-on-purpose causes that mainly involved what they referred to as natural causes.

Yes, individual people have different perspectives. Consciousness itself allows for reality to be conceptualized. Natural selection is a process and not a conscious thing with a perspective. So while we can argue over definitions they (definitions) ultimately have no impact on the process itself. A Rose by any other name in still a Rose. Words are used to help us understand the process. The words we use do not determine the process. 

8 hours ago, GalvestonTommy said:

In the life science fields, an accident is referred to as a random occurrence, without design and not attributed to natural laws. Some scientists like to minimize random events by stating that natural selection is not random and therefore the process of descent with modification is not random. See Douglas J. Futuyma, Evolution; ISBN 0-87893-187-2 (2005) page 534; “…natural selection is a deterministic, not a random, process. The random processes of evolution—mutation and genetic drift—do not result in the evolution of complexity, as far as we know.” Having one non-random event in the “descent with modification” process is like having just one strong link in an otherwise very weak chain of events. Delving into the theory of descent with modification will show that it is predominantly random (by accident) in spite of one phase of it (natural selection) be something less than completely random.

Human seek at mates purposefully. Even an "accidental" pregnancy is the result of a purposeful act consensual or non-consensual. This doesn't mean all babies are predetermined or predestined. That all gene mutations predetermined or predestined. Rather there is a natural process being followed and many variables exist outside the control of those acting purposefully. Who a human mates with and when is contained to numerous factors  beyond a persons control. Some humans never mate at all. Those humans with the absolute broadest options for mating are constrain by time, distance, environment, and etc. Those with the broadest option still have absolutely no control of the mutations which will exist in their offspring or how advantageous those mutations will be to future environments. 

[Moontanman]

On 3/18/2018 at 10:08 PM, GalvestonTommy said:

 

 

Life is chemistry, chemistry is not random, certain atoms only connect in certain ways with specific atoms in specific configurations.Mutations can be random but mutations cannot cause any atom to merge with any other. the rules of chemistry still apply. There is Intelligent Design involved in some cases, females choose partners but I'm betting that is not the ID you are talking about.... 

[GalvestonTommy]

2 hours ago, Ten oz said:

So while we can argue over definitions they (definitions) ultimately have no impact on the process itself. A Rose by any other name in still a Rose. Words are used to help us understand the process. The words we use do not determine the process. 

A good example of how words are defined is found in J. Edgar Hoover's Masters of Deceit (1958) where he tells of different definitions of the word "peace". In negotiations between the West and the USSR. The West's definition of peace was that each sovereign nation could determine their own type of government without outside interference. The USSR's definition was that peace was the absence of everything except communism in the world. So, while a rose is still a rose, the implication is that there is consensus of what a rose is before another name is applied.

Random by any other name is still random; accident, chance, what have you. In this case there seems to be no consensus of what random is. It's like not being able to agree what is meant by the word "rose."

To me, the whole process of "descent with modification" has enough randomness to it by the fact that a beneficial modification must be a rare event when you consider the size of a gene (if the modification is a mutation) like BMP4 and how it came into a useful arrangement of nucleotides. It contains over 9000 bases. There are many arrangements that will not work compared to the arrangements that will. I don't know the odds because I don't know which will not work. One arrangement that does work, of course, is the one that currently exists in organisms that have this gene.

This argument applies mainly to evolution, but I think there is a similarity to understanding abiogenesis. As a lifelong doubter (questions keep nagging at me for reasons I cannot explain) I'm still seeking the scientific explanation I can understand.

 

[Ten oz]

14 minutes ago, GalvestonTommy said:

So, while a rose is still a rose, the implication is that there is consensus of what a rose is before another name is applied.

Consensus of what a Rose is doesn't change what it is. Consensus all impacts the perspective of those looking at the Rose. 

15 minutes ago, GalvestonTommy said:

Random by any other name is still random; accident, chance, what have you. In this case there seems to be no consensus of what random is. It's like not being able to agree what is meant by the word "rose."

The process of mutation exists with or with a consensus you accept. 

1 hour ago, GalvestonTommy said:

To me, the whole process of "descent with modification" has enough randomness to it by the fact that a beneficial modification must be a rare event when you consider the size of a gene (if the modification is a mutation) like BMP4 and how it came into a useful arrangement of nucleotides. It contains over 9000 bases. There are many arrangements that will not work compared to the arrangements that will. I don't know the odds because I don't know which will not work. One arrangement that does work, of course, is the one that currently exists in organisms that have this gene.

What is or is not "Rare" is purely relative. The is no requirement to the process be something common as opposed to rare by human intellectual standards. It is more important to analyse the process than ones feels towards the process if the goal is to understand.

1 hour ago, GalvestonTommy said:

This argument applies mainly to evolution, but I think there is a similarity to understanding abiogenesis. As a lifelong doubter (questions keep nagging at me for reasons I cannot explain) I'm still seeking the scientific explanation I can understand.

I don't understand why there is an "s" in the word  island but that doesn't cause me to question language.