[michealb]

So there is purpose in the universe? What end does the universe have in mind? :confused:

Why does it have to have a purpose why can't it just be. The universe as far as we know is an object with no mind at all. So it has no end in mind because it has no mind it just does what it does without purpose. What happens happens. When a stone falls it doesn't fall with purpose but it does fall.

Since the mathematical odds are 10^3000, we diverge onto philosophizing? :confused:

You stated this as the chance a human cell would develop spontainiously, no one has said a human cell was the first cell. What we are talking about is much much simpler more like a nanobe. What are the chances that most of the water molicules in the ocean formed with exactly 2 hydrogen and 1 oxygen? When taken alone with out knowing the chemistry involved you could make up some pretty astonomical odds.

Remember, a genetic code cannot stand alone, it needs to be in a cell

Do you have proof of that what about nucleotides, polynucleotides or RNA?

And what exactly was the catalyst? Another unproven hypothesis. ;)

Probably montmorillonite, I agree however that this is a hypothesis. However montmorillonite has shown the ability to form complex chemical chains such as RNA. If it is at all possible that life could have formed out of a natural cause doesn't that rule out the supernatural. Just like we don't think that lighting is thrown by Zeus anymore because we have a natural probable solution.

[inthebox]

quoting Cap on purpose in the universe.

As to the genetic code: nucleotides make up the "N" in Deoy["R"]iboNuleic "A"cid .

Bio 101 - read about DNA transcription [ copied ] and translation [ into polypeptides ].
This takes place in a cell.

Viruses [ dna or rna ] need to take over another's cell machinery to reproduce itself - they cannot do it themselves.


Smallest Genome of Living Creature Discovered | LiveScience

160,000 base pairs - compare that to the odds for Capuchin's 1300 cards - [ "1 in 10 to the 3500th power"] - try that for 160,000 - still mathematically impossible to come by random purposeless chance :rolleyes: ;) :eek:

[michealb]

Your missing the point life is chemistry just because the first replicating molecules aren't life doesn't mean they aren't the beginning of life.

You complain that we discount the supernatural but you are discounting the natural solution before we even have a working theory. Wouldn't it make sense to at least be open to the idea that there is a natural solution to this problem since so far every solution that we have found an answer to has had a natural solution.

[Capuchin]

Inthebox, I said there wasn't an end that the universe had in mind, please re-read.

[Credendovidis]

Inthebox, i said there wasn't an end that the universe had in mind, please re-read.

Neither is there any purpose for the universe to exist. It exists. Period.

;)

[inthebox]

That is interesting: a purposeles universe with inhabitants that want and search for purpose in their lives. :confused: :rolleyes: ;)


And no one can address the mathematical impossibility of us even existing. :confused: :eek:

[michealb]

That is interesting: a purposeles universe with inhabitants that want and search for purpose in their lives. :confused: :rolleyes: ;)

Evolution explains why we want and search for purpose. Beings that feel they exist for a reason and that living is important are more likely to survive. Just because you want there to be a purpose for something doesn't make it so.

And no one can adress the mathematical impossibility of us even exisiting. :confused: :eek:

We did you just didn't listen or didn't understand. I don't know which.

Look at it another way though the odds don't matter. Even if the odds are 10^99999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999 999999999999. You can still get the correct answer the first time but if you really want to play the odds game I trump your odds with infinite parallel universes and with the universes ability to randomly generate particles I can say it is completely possible that we all popped into existence last Tuesday with memories intact and the odds can not prove me wrong because I have an infinite number of rolls.

However if you want to come back to something closer to reality, your basic premise is wrong because you want an entire cell to pop into existence. It probably didn't happen that way. More than likely it started with simple chemical compounds that with the absence of life that utilises these compounds were able to get more complex until it became life.

[excon]

That is interesting: a purposeles universe with inhabitants that want and search for purpose in their lives. :confused: :rolleyes: ;)

Hello in:

Religious people search for "purpose". They're caught up in their own self importance, I guess. The rest of us know our "purpose", from an evolutionary perspective, is to do nothing other than procreate.

excon

[Capuchin]

That is interesting: a purposeles universe with inhabitants that want and search for purpose in their lives. :confused: :rolleyes: ;)

Yep.. That's a consequence of our intelligence, of our evolutionary past, and I personally wouldn't trade it in.

And no one can adress the mathematical impossibility of us even exisiting. :confused: :eek:

But we're here - so the mathematical impossibility is obviously mathematically possible. (and yes, we have addressed it several times - I personally have given you at least 2 or 3 examples of how impossible things happen, and how your logic of saying something is statistically impossible is false - but you seem to ignore them or refuse to understand them)

[Credendovidis]

The rest of us know our "purpose", from an evolutionary perspective, is to do nothing other than procreate.

We even make a hobby out of it!!

:D :D :D :D :D :D

.

[inthebox]

Evolution explains why we want and search for purpose. Beings that feel they exist for a reason and that living is important are more likely to survive. Just because you want there to be a purpose for something doesn't make it so.



We did you just didn't listen or didn't understand. I don't know which.

Look at it another way though the odds don't matter. Even if the odds are 10^99999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999 999999999999. You can still get the correct answer the first time but if you really want to play the odds game I trump your odds with infinite parallel universes and with the universes ability to randomly generate particles I can say it is completely possible that we all popped into existence last Tuesday with memories intact and the odds can not prove me wrong because I have an infinite number of rolls.

However if you want to come back to something closer to reality, your basic premise is wrong because you want an entire cell to pop into existence. It probably didn't happen that way. More than likely it started with simple chemical compounds that with the absence of life that utilises these compounds were able to get more complex until it became life.

How does evolution explain a search or desire for purpose?

Are we the only species that feel or act this way?

Do insects have a "purpose" or intelligence - they have been around much longer and their biomass is much greater than ours?

Are there true evolutionists / Darwininst out there ready to proclaim that there life is meaningless and purposeless? Come out and proclaim it!

As to the origins of life - there is no scientific explanation.

And to get a more complex organism from "simple chemical compounds" - explain that.

Link me to a scientific experiment that they can take "simple chemicals" and, without using intelligence or a design, show me a sponge or yeast or amoeba developing?

As to odds...

It is easy for the powerball winner say I got the one in 10 to the 8th [ only ]
But for all the others that have tried for years and have never won, it is impossible.

It is circular to say we are the proof of zero odds - unless you rely on the divine.


Science and the demand for evidence says - reproduce the results.

Try winning the lottery 10 times in a row :D:eek::rolleyes:;):p

[excon]

Are there true evolutionists / Darwininst out there ready to proclaim that there life is meaningless and purposeless? Come out and proclaim it!

Hello in:

I don't know who you been talking to, but there IS purpose in my life - absolute and clear cut PURPOSE.

That purpose is to procreate.

If you want to attach meaning to it, go ahead. THAT'S what religions try to do. Personally, I don't think my existence MEANS anything.

excon

[inthebox]

If that is true - how about people who have abortions, or are homosexuals or are infertile, or post menopausal females that have not procreated?

They have no "evolutionary" purpose?

[excon]

If that is true - how about people who have abortions, or are homosexuals or are infertile, or post menopausal females that have not procreated?

They have no "evolutionary" purpose?

Hello again, in:

Oh, the purpose is still the same. You're even emphasising it, actually. The idea behind the "purpose", is survival of the fittest. If homosexuals aren't fit, they'll go extinct. If abortionists aren't fit, they too, will go extinct.

Of all the species, WE are the only ones endowed with choice. Some of us choose to deny our purpose. Others of us just go on screwing and loving every minute of it.

excon

[michealb]

How does evolution explain a search or desire for purpose?

Evolution explains it by saying at one point in our history the desire for purpose was useful perhaps by saying I have a purpose I need to live.

Are we the only species that feel or act this way?

I don't think so, almost all species have the desire to live.

Do insects have a "purpose" or intelligence - they have been around much longer and their biomass is much greater than ours?

They don't have our intellect but they fill their particular spot in the eco system very well in way they are more successful than we are as far as evolution is concerned.

Are there true evolutionists / Darwininst out there ready to proclaim that there life is meaningless and purposeless? Come out and proclaim it!

Meaning and purpose are merely points of view. I might think the life of one gnat is meaningless purposeless. However if you are the gnat, you might beg to differ. Let philosophy worry about meaning, let science worry about science.

As to the origins of life - there is no scientific explanation.

There is no definitife scientific explanation. We have tons of explanations for it; we just haven't narrowed it down to which one actually happened. It's symantics but there is a difference.

And to get a more complex organism from "simple chemical compounds" - explain that.

Sure. DNA can be broken down into RNA. RNA can be broken down into polynucleotides. Polynucleotides break down into nucleotides. Nucleotides break down in to nitrogenous base, a sugar, and a phosphate group.

Link me to a scientific experiment that they can take "simple chemicals" and, without using intelligence or a design, show me a sponge or yeast or amoeba developing?

Again just because we don't know something doesn't mean god did it. It also took millions of years for life to develop on earth. Meaning we don't have the time to or the laboratory the size of a planet to put simple compounds in and let them stew.

As to odds...

It is easy for the powerball winner say I got the one in 10 to the 8th [ only ]
But for all the others that have tried for years and have never won, it is impossible.
It is circular to say we are the proof of zero odds - unless you rely on the divine.
Science and the demand for evidence says - reproduce the results.
Try winning the lottery 10 times in a row :D:eek::rolleyes:;):p

So circular logic is okay as long as your using it got it.
I don't agree with your premise though. Since we have no proof of god doing it. We have to infer that there is a natural solution, just as every problem has had since the dawn of mankind. Every answer we have ever found not one has been god did it. So given that I can say the fact that we are here is proof the odds are not impossible, unlikely sure but not impossible.
Also science is the demand for evidence, but we can look at a crater and say a metor hit the earth without reproducing the results. We don't do thinks like say the only way we could make this crater is with nuclear weapons so this crater must have been formed by aliens with nuclear weapons.

[michealb]

If that is true - how about people who have abortions, or are homosexuals or are infertile, or post menopausal females that have not procreated?

They have no "evolutionary" purpose?

You have a narrow understanding of evolutionary purpose. Drones in a bee hive don't reproduce yet they allow the queen to reproduce more. Which gives them evolutionary purpose. You have to understand that for much of our evolutionary history we lived in small groups, things that have no purpose now might have been useful then.

Abortions,
Could have purpose because they would allow the person to raise better children later or again if they don't have a purpose they would go extinct. That's the way evolution works its random so random things happen so bad some good the bad ones die out the good ones procreate.

Homosexuals,
Could have purpose because often the second brother is the homosexual if the second brother being gay allows the first brother to produce more ofspring maybe because he isn't fighting his brother for mating rights or the brother helps to raise those children to adulthood so they can reproduce more he might be of assistance or again if they don't have a purpose they would go extinct. That's the way evolution works its random so random things happen so bad some good the bad ones die out the good ones procreate.

infertile or post menopausal females that have not procreated
Could have purpose because perhaps it requires more adults than two to raise a human child. If infertile people take some of the stain off parents raising children it might be beneficial to have a portion of you species infertile or again if they don't have a purpose they would go extinct. That's the way evolution works its random so random things happen so bad some good the bad ones die out the good ones procreate.

[asking]

If that is true - how about people who have abortions, or are homosexuals or are infertile, or post menopausal females that have not procreated?

They have no "evolutionary" purpose?

One biological "purpose" of an abortion is to allow the parent to invest more resources in preexisting children or to save resources for future children, to reproduce when times are better. Animals do exactly this kind of thing all the time. They don't have as many offspring as they possibly can. Instead, they have as many offspring as they can successfully raise to maturity. If times are harsh, they put off reproduction until a better time. They even engage in infanticide at times. I'm not promoting that. I'm just saying that there IS a biological imperative to limit reproduction.

This is more obvious in parents that invest a lot into the offspring. In animals where the fathers don't do anything but donate sperm, they tend to try to maximize the number of offspring and also their size. (Fathers that help raise the offspring are less likely to do this.) This results in the father giving genes to the offspring that make the baby take lots of calories from the mother and get very large, and the mother, in turn, passing on genes that minimize these effects, so she can has the resources to raise other offspring and live long enough to raise the one she's carrying, instead of dying...

All of this is well documented in the field of "parental investment."
Parental investment - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[Credendovidis]

I like to go back to the original topic question :

One of the latests ICR articles on some Artificial DNA Molecule :

Recently... Japanese chemists have discovered how to mimic DNA... According to the American Chemical Society, "The researchers used high-tech DNA synthesis equipment to stitch together four entirely new, artificial bases inside of the sugar-based framework of a DNA molecule. This resulted in unusually stable, double-stranded structures resembling natural DNA."... If high-tech equipment is required simply to mimic DNA, then how much more "high tech" must the mind and power of God be for inventing it?

My comments :

It is totally irrelevant in the case of artificial DNA to refer to the ICR's claims of "Godly involvement" in design of real natural DNA.
Trillions upon trillions upon trillions upon trillions upon trillions upon trillions upon trillions upon trillions upon trillions upon trillions upon trillions upon trillions upon trillions of cells daily use natural DNA to produce new cells. Without any need for any high-tech equipment.

All that these Japanese chemist prove is that it is not easy to develop a simple DNA structure for data storage.
No wonder of course, as it took nature more than 3.500.000.000 years to perfect the DNA process to what it is today.

But to see the hand of a not-proved-to-exist-entity in this all is a conclusion that shows that these Japanese chemists are a lot smarter than the staff of the ICR !

ICR's First Intelligent Article ? No. Not even almost. Not even near ....

Any (more) comments?

:rolleyes:

.

[inthebox]

Sure. DNA can be broken down into RNA. RNA can be broken down into polynucleotides. Polynucleotides break down into nucleotides. Nucleotides break down in to nitrogenous base, a sugar, and a phosphate group.



Also science is the demand for evidence, but we can look at a crater and say a metor hit the earth without reproducing the results. We don't do thinks like say the only way we could make this crater is with nuclear weapons so this crater must have been formed by aliens with nuclear weapons.

D in DNA is deoxy - ribonucleic acid. R in RNA is ribonucleic acid.

Explain how DNA with a 2 H bonds at the 2nd carbon gets "broken down" into RNA with 1 H bond and 1 OH [ hydoxyl] bond at the 2nd carbon?

You went from complex to simple. Take sugars, phosphates and nucleic acids - mix in a test tube and see if you can come up with a functioning genetic code = at least 160,000 base pairs - good luck :)

There is evidence of multiple meteor impacts on the earth - that is reproducible observable events. The same cannot be said for the origin of life, or evolution.

[inthebox]

One biological "purpose" of an abortion is to allow the parent to invest more resources in preexisting children or to save resources for future children, to reproduce when times are better. Animals do exactly this kind of thing all the time. They don't have as many offspring as they possibly can. Instead, they have as many offspring as they can successfully raise to maturity. If times are harsh, they put off reproduction until a better time. They even engage in infanticide at times. I'm not promoting that. I'm just saying that there IS a biological imperative to limit reproduction.

This is more obvious in parents that invest a lot into the offspring. In animals where the fathers don't do anything but donate sperm, they tend to try to maximize the number of offspring and also their size. (Fathers that help raise the offspring are less likely to do this.) This results in the father giving genes to the offspring that make the baby take lots of calories from the mother and get very large, and the mother, in turn, passing on genes that minimize these effects, so she can has the resources to raise other offspring and live long enough to raise the one she's carrying, instead of dying...

All of this is well documented in the field of "parental investment."
Parental investment - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

So the only evolutionary imperiative is to survive, yet humans, being no different than animals except in their ability to kill, uses abortion to survive? Or because it not convenient to have a child?

Evidence is to the contrary among humans:

White Europeans: An endangered species?

Europeans are not becoming less fertile as a consequence of war, or famine, or disease, but rather as a consequence of their Western, consumerist lifestyles. Some, such as social critic Mark Steyn, have suggested that European civilization is in the middle of committing voluntary demographic suicide, and it’s not hard to see why: A civilization that is producing a tiny succeeding generation and shows no signs of attempting to remedy the problem is violating fundamental Darwinist principles of gene propagation

Western Europe is also very secular.

The irony is that the highest birth rates and population growth is among the poorest nations or among Muslim nations.

List of countries by population growth rate - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia