Life outside of Earth

[donsnow]

Originally Posted by NoMoreGames

I have not yet red the book, but I have found a common argument among the idea of intelligent design: irreducible complexity. Those investigating the idea claim that when they find biological structures that cease to function if you remove any port of their structure, it implies there must have been some transcendental force behind it. There are 2 flaws with this argument.

1. That assumption cannot be tested. Science does not draw conclusions that cannot be tested.
2. The assumption is not based on evidence. Perhaps the structure had simpler origins, but became more complex over time. Just because it is complex and needs all of its features to function doesn't mean that it began exactly as it is now. They find something that is not yet understood and is therefore attributed to some sort of higher being. Humans have done that since the beginning of history (Why does it rain? Why does the sun rise?). At the time there is no explination, but that does not mean there will never be one.

Is the book based on this sort of logic?

I am focusing on your "1. That assumption cannot be tested. Science does not draw conclusions that cannot be tested."
There are much data, information and situations in life which science cannot test. Science's limits does not invalidate that data, information and those situations. Science is not the authority in these things. As a matter of fact, science is not an authority in nor on anything. Science is a search for, and an attempt to explain, knowledge. Why do people continue to attempt to put science in an authoritative position that it does not by its nature, fit?

[Nozzferrahhtoo]

Originally Posted by ricmat

You seem to think that the book I recommended has to do with the probability of any kind of life arising.

Ricmat,

I am making no such assumptions about the book, though you do assume I have not read it. I am merely pointing out that anyone who tries to tell you the probability of “life” arising, is doing so while making 2 massive errors:

1) They do not actually know how life arose here on earth and so do not have the starting variable to work with and..
2) Are basising all their fantasy calculations on only one form of life when we do not know what other forms are possible, especially given recent discoveries of life that does not require oxygen shows that all our assumptions about those requirements already need re-evaluating.

So I stick by my assertion, if someone in any book is telling you the probability of this event having occurred they are likely lying to you, given that they can not possibly have the data required to make any probabilistic assessments on the subject.

Making assumptions on data you simply do not have is dangerous.

[Nozzferrahhtoo]

Originally Posted by lemondiesel

1) we can easily simulate conditions that were the same as the beginning of Earth. We then try to find areas on Earth that best resemble these areas....WITHOUT O2

We do not yet know all the conditions at this time, just some of them. We also do not yet know which of these conditions led to the rise of life. We also do not yet know if there were any once off or rare conditions or events that were connected to this.

In other words all I am saying is that there are people who would presume to put a probability on something having occurred despite not having the starting variables on which to work.

Originally Posted by lemondiesel

2) Life as we know it is all made of the same elements throughout the universe. We may not look the same, but life is still made up of basic elements (carbon, hydrogen, etc)

Again life as we know it is made up of these things. That does not prove that all life possible has to be made up of these things. I recommend reading some Carl Sagan on this issue as he goes into some lengths of theorising what other forms of life could be possible and how it is dangerous to assume that life as we know it is the only one that could have occoured.

[NoMoreGames]

I'm confused by a few things that you said.

Originally Posted by donsnow

I am focusing on your "1. That assumption cannot be tested. Science does not draw conclusions that cannot be tested."
There are much data, information and situations in life which science cannot test.

Can you give me specific examples?

Originally Posted by donsnow

Science's limits does not invalidate that data, information and those situations.

I didn't say it invalidated any data. I'll go back to the example of irreducible complexity. This is the part of ID that says essentially "when we find a structure that ceases to function with one of it's parts are removed, we draw the conclusion that a transcendental force designed it." Their unprovable, or perhaps more importantly unfalsifiable, conclusion does not invalidate any data. These structures still exist. I don't understand what you mean.

Originally Posted by donsnow

Science is not the authority in these things. As a matter of fact, science is not an authority in nor on anything. Science is a search for, and an attempt to explain, knowledge. Why do people continue to attempt to put science in an authoritative position that it does not by its nature, fit?

So science is the search for and attempt to explain knowledge, but searching for the origin of life and explaining its evolution is outside the realm of science You say science is not an authority, but don't offer a replacement. Again, I'm confused by the point you're trying to make.

[tonyrey]

Originally Posted by Nozzferrahhtoo

We do not yet know all the conditions at this time, just some of them. We also do not yet know which of these conditions led to the rise of life. We also do not yet know if there were any once off or rare conditions or events that were connected to this.

In other words all I am saying is that there are people who would presume to put a probability on something having occurred despite not having the starting variables on which to work.

Again life as we know it is made up of these things. That does not prove that all life possible has to be made up of these things. I recommend reading some Carl Sagan on this issue as he goes into some lengths of theorising what other forms of life could be possible and how it is dangerous to assume that life as we know it is the only one that could have occurred.

The success of science is not based primarily on what we don't know but on our existing knowledge. We are justified in estimating probability from the established facts about life and the universe until we have further evidence to the contrary. All scientific theories are provisional anyway... We should not be pusillanimous even though we are incredibly minute specks in an immense system. We know the universe exists whereas it doesn't know we exist. (Pascal) So we are already at least one up!

[Nozzferrahhtoo]

Yes science is provisional and very amenable to change. But that does not change the fact there is good science and bad science.

Good science is the creation of theories based on data we do have while 1) not ignoring any data you have and 2) not assuming any data you have not.

This is why the attempt to put a probabilistic estimate on the rise of life is bad science. To achieve it you have to rely on data we simply do not have, such as, HOW life in fact did arise in the first place.

This is, as I said, why this mans “Theory” made it into a book, and not a peer reviewed journal. Not that journals are infallible either, but it is a good first test of a Theories claims.

Now if you personally are aware of any peer reviewed science, rather than novels, supporting a probability estimate on the rise of life I would gladly read over them. Make sure whatever you cite has first established how life arose in order to base these calculations in reality first however.

[ricmat]

Originally Posted by Nozzferrahhtoo

Ricmat,

I am making no such assumptions about the book, though you do assume I have not read it. I am merely pointing out that anyone who tries to tell you the probability of “life” arising, is doing so while making 2 massive errors:

1) They do not actually know how life arose here on earth and so do not have the starting variable to work with and..
2) Are basising all their fantasy calculations on only one form of life when we do not know what other forms are possible, especially given recent discoveries of life that does not require oxygen shows that all our assumptions about those requirements already need re-evaluating.

So I stick by my assertion, if someone in any book is telling you the probability of this event having occurred they are likely lying to you, given that they can not possibly have the data required to make any probabilistic assessments on the subject.

Making assumptions on data you simply do not have is dangerous.

You are making a dangerous assumption because you don't have the right data yourself.

The book is not about the absolute probability of any kind of life arising.

I am assuming that you haven't read the book, or that if you did, that you misunderstood something.

Have you read the book? Yes / no.

[ricmat]

Originally Posted by Nozzferrahhtoo

This is why the attempt to put a probabilistic estimate on the rise of life is bad science. To achieve it you have to rely on data we simply do not have, such as, HOW life in fact did arise in the first place.

You seem to derive endless pleasure from knocking down this particular totally unrelated straw man. Rather than beat it to death, why don't you read the book and the peer-reviewed papers it references (so you'll know exactly what it is that you're attacking), and then tell us what is incorrect regarding mathematical or scientific methodology, or assumptions, or conclusions.

I'm starting to come to my own conclusion that you actually have read the book, but have no actual way to refute it. ergo your reliance on an unrelated straw-man.

[ricmat]

Originally Posted by NoMoreGames

I'll go back to the example of irreducible complexity. This is the part of ID that says essentially "when we find a structure that ceases to function with one of it's parts are removed, we draw the conclusion that a transcendental force designed it."

Where did you get this quote? Is this how Behe would phrase it (he's the originator, after all)?

[donsnow]

Hi, NoMoreGames,

Thank you for your response. I shall try to address each of your replies.

Originally Posted by NoMoreGames

I'm confused by a few things that you said.
Can you give me specific examples?

Yes.
1.Some scientists dismisses anecdotal evidence out of hand, yet such reports by ordinary people are interesting data, information and situations and can be acted upon by the public at large. And, on a common sense level are often acted upon by members of the public who do not accept the binders of science to their perspectives.
Some of these common sense activities are a) composition of music; b) compostion of lyrics and other poetry; c) successfully building a structure without a blueprint; d) performing songs and humor; e) and hunting for Bigfoot and other exotic creatures.. A lot of the Arts remain outside the purview of Science.
2. Some people use Science as an excuse to dismiss that which Science cannot test, such as God, angels and other spirits; and the Biblical Creation account. Science cannot test these things yet these things exist to the perception of all cultures and civilizations throughout recorded history. These are data, information and situations common to all human experience which some scientists belittle because they can't test them.
I'm saying it's not right for a person who limits an institutional perspective to only that which can be tested, to disrespect the common knowledge of the community. There are scientists who have no respect for religon, the Holy Bible, God, Church and mysterious creatures whose existance they disparage when common effort has produced some evidence. Those scientists give science a bad name, with ordinary people and that's the scientists' fault, not the wrongdoing of the ordinary people. That is to say, that some scientists insult the intelligence of some ordinary, and of some self-educated, people.

Originally Posted by NoMoreGames

I didn't say it invalidated any data.

I'm saying that some people, some of which claim to be scientists, either act like or present the attitude that the only valid information is that which is tested by Science. It's those people who give science a bad name. And all of you who let those people act that way deserve to share the onus they give Science.

Originally Posted by NoMoreGames

I'll go back to the example of irreducible complexity. This is the part of ID that says essentially "when we find a structure that ceases to function with one of it's parts are removed, we draw the conclusion that a transcendental force designed it." Their unprovable, or perhaps more importantly unfalsifiable, conclusion does not invalidate any data. These structures still exist. I don't understand what you mean.

Hey, NoMoreGames, I disagree with ID on religious grounds. That may surprise you. So, when you decry ID to me, if I may say so, "you're preaching to the choir."

Originally Posted by NoMoreGames

So science is the search for and attempt to explain knowledge, but searching for the origin of life and explaining its evolution is outside the realm of science

Yes, that is the realm of the Arts, Religion and Philosophy. Science cannot possibly test to reproduce the beginning of Creation. By its own parameters, Science puts itself outside the consideration of the beginnings of life, imho.

Originally Posted by NoMoreGames

You say science is not an authority, but don't offer a replacement. Again, I'm confused by the point you're trying to make.

OK, here's the context to my statement, that Science is not an authority: Government, Education, the Military and Industry have given to Science some authority. On its own, Science is not an authority. There are several existing authorities, imho: God, Church, Religion, Law, Government, the Military and the Medical establishment share in authority. And, as noted before, Educators have been given government authority. Among all those existing forms of authorities, I get to pick my choice. I'm sure we all want our individual freedom of choice, and I get mine . I'm not in school, so educators are not an authority over me; I'm not in politics so politicians have only the authority over me that I grant them, and few of them do I grant that. The law is an authority which I except, in all its courts, law enforcement and legislations. However, since we elect the legislators, then they're our employees and it's my civic duty to evaluate what these employees produce that I am paying for. The Church and its priests and Bishops are an authority over me. God is an authority over me and this whole planet, solar system, galaxy, galactic cluster and superclusters and so forth, to magnify the Lord God Most High the Holy Trinity. But, only the Christian religion has any authority over me. I'm out of the Marines and Navy, so the military is no longer an authority over me, except when it's physically present on a government assigned mission.

Do you get my drift, now? FYI, I have observed a contest between these different authorities for the hearts and minds of people and for power over them. I have chosen sides in these contests as listed above.

I hope this resolves your confusion.

[NoMoreGames]

Originally Posted by ricmat

Where did you get this quote? Is this how Behe would phrase it (he's the originator, after all)?

Turns out I mixed tow sources from when I was looking up information.
1) "One easily testable form of CSI is irreducible complexity, which can be discovered by experimentally reverse-engineering biological structures to see if they require all of their parts to function. When ID researchers find irreducible complexity in biology, they conclude that such structures were designed." from http://www.intelligentdesign.org/whatisid.php

2) "ID suggests that the mysteries surrounding life and existence are so complex that there must be a transcendental force subtly guiding the process." from http://www.blatner.com/adam/consctra...entdesign.html

Considering most of what I said (sans "transcendental") is from intelligentdesign.org, I'm guessing that is pretty close to how Behe would say it. interestingly his book was rejected by the scientific community due to the fact that is we merely an elevated form of "argument from ignorance" (essentially, it hasn't been proven false, therefore it is true (or the other way around, which applies to evolution), and I think we've come the consensus that science can't prove God, so his theory can never be proven wrong, a major no-no in science). Still think ID is science?

[Thing]

Originally Posted by NoMoreGames

Turns out I mixed tow sources from when I was looking up information.
1) "One easily testable form of CSI is irreducible complexity, which can be discovered by experimentally reverse-engineering biological structures to see if they require all of their parts to function. When ID researchers find irreducible complexity in biology, they conclude that such structures were designed." from http://www.intelligentdesign.org/whatisid.php

2) "ID suggests that the mysteries surrounding life and existence are so complex that there must be a transcendental force subtly guiding the process." from http://www.blatner.com/adam/consctra...entdesign.html

Considering most of what I said (sans "transcendental") is from intelligentdesign.org, I'm guessing that is pretty close to how Behe would say it. interestingly his book was rejected by the scientific community due to the fact that is we merely an elevated form of "argument from ignorance" (essentially, it hasn't been proven false, therefore it is true (or the other way around, which applies to evolution), and I think we've come the consensus that science can't prove God, so his theory can never be proven wrong, a major no-no in science). Still think ID is science?

Would'nt the 'argument from ignorance' also say we cannot know we evolved by random meaningless chance; since we are so unique and successful as a species it would be strange that we were the result of a stupid accident.

[NoMoreGames]

Originally Posted by Thing

Would'nt the 'argument from ignorance' also say we cannot know we evolved by random meaningless chance; since we are so unique and successful as a species it would be strange that we were the result of a stupid accident.

Perhaps to some, but there is overwhelming evidence to support the contrary. We have incredible fossil records. Look up to recent find of ardipithecus. It's essentially the primate with long, flat feet, like those made for climbing, but the pelvis of a creature that walks upright. It's absolutely fascinating. We have comparative genetics and can essentially trace the genes throughout a huge portion of life. Gene mapping has essentially changed to 5 kingdom classification system into a 3 domain system.

You say we are to successful to be the result of an accident. Isn't any species that is currently alive considered successful? I recommend discovery's/BBC's newest documentary, Life. It's awe inspiring to say the least.

But anyway, it boils down to evidence. If there is evidence, it's not an argument from ignorance.

[Thing]

Originally Posted by NoMoreGames

Perhaps to some, but there is overwhelming evidence to support the contrary. We have incredible fossil records. Look up to recent find of ardipithecus. It's essentially the primate with long, flat feet, like those made for climbing, but the pelvis of a creature that walks upright. It's absolutely fascinating. We have comparative genetics and can essentially trace the genes throughout a huge portion of life. Gene mapping has essentially changed to 5 kingdom classification system into a 3 domain system.

You say we are to successful to be the result of an accident. Isn't any species that is currently alive considered successful? I recommend discovery's/BBC's newest documentary, Life. It's awe inspiring to say the least.

But anyway, it boils down to evidence. If there is evidence, it's not an argument from ignorance.

A fossil primate is not necessarily a fossil human. Lots of creatures including monkeys walk upright but have nothing to do with humans, biologically.

No other creature has built spaceships to fly to the moon! All other creatures live by instinct alone. I think there are people who feel a disconnect when they see nature on the one hand and all the, frankly, extraordinary achievements of humans in the last few decades, on the other hand. It might even be so strong a disconnect that it can disturb some people so they hardly feel like they fit this world at all. I'm trying to imagine a dog or a monkey in its natural habitat feeling out of place in its surroundings. People are different in some way or other.

[NoMoreGames]

Originally Posted by Thing

A fossil primate is not necessarily a fossil human. Lots of creatures including monkeys walk upright but have nothing to do with humans, biologically.

You realize, genetically, humans share 98.4% of their genome with chimpanzees, right? This is true of many other mammals as well. Obviously I'm not trying to say they are human, but I'd say that's a huge connection, biologically.

Originally Posted by Thing

No other creature has built spaceships to fly to the moon! All other creatures live by instinct alone. I think there are people who feel a disconnect when they see nature on the one hand and all the, frankly, extraordinary achievements of humans in the last few decades, on the other hand. It might even be so strong a disconnect that it can disturb some people so they hardly feel like they fit this world at all. I'm trying to imagine a dog or a monkey in its natural habitat feeling out of place in its surroundings. People are different in some way or other.

Humans have technology, but that doesn't mean each other species isn't unique. I'm also kind of confused at to how human ingenuity disproves evolution and reduces it to an argument from ignorance.