Another vote for panspermia

Swampcat · Nov 28, 2005

Again, I appreciate your rational approach to this discussion. It is indeed refreshing. And as you said, "where I disagree I try to understand why others believe differently." My problem with your support of intelligent design is simply that it presumes the existence of some entity that provided the informational input and too quickly disposes of randomness as a factor in the processes you refer to. It would indeed be unscientific of me to reject one hypothethis over the other, but at least the concept of randomness has a scientific basis, whereas the existence of your intelligent designer, IMHO, does not. Unless, of course, you consider "God" to be simply an alien of some sort that would appear God-like from our perspective. There is at least the possibility of proof in such a definition of "God," but you have not addressed that issue. With all due respect, I would ask you to define that entity and speak to how such a being itself came into existence. As most anyone who has taken a sophomore philosophy class will tell you, that line of argument will simply become reiterative and prove nothing. We would be left with an endless string of creators of creators of creators. Being an agnostic, I cannot rule out this possibility, but it is hardly a basis for scientific progress. Honestly, I cannot argue genetics or any of the other finer points of natural science with you. My "science" degree is in applied science and is only an associates's degree. However, it doesn't take a PhD to see how introducing an Intelligent Designer as a causative agent in a natural process appears to avoid the scientific issues of cause and effect rather than address them...unless you are prepared to take this line of reasoning to the next level, i.e., If such an entity indeed directs evolution, how does it do so? Magic? Supernatural powers? Advanced technology? Address that point and we may perhaps find ourselves in complete agreement. Or not <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> ------------------------------------------------------------------- "I hold it that a little rebellion now and then is a good thing, and as necessary in the political world as storms in the physical. Unsuccessful rebellions, indeed, generally establish the encroachments on the rights of the people which have produced them. An observation of this truth should render honest republican governors so mild in their punishment of rebellions as not to discourage them too much. It is a medicine necessary for the sound health of government."Thomas Jefferson </div>

newtonian · Nov 28, 2005

Nexium (Neal) - Thanik you. I need to research that subject more. Remember I am postulating a catastrophic event, and simply comparing it with the normal processes. Photons and charged particles from the sun would not simply approach - at the poles they would tend to be at an angle, sometimes even at a right angle if not deformed by earth's magnetic field (as in the case of ions [= charged atoms, molecules]. I'll bite - how heavy are those heavier ions from the sun?

newtonian · Nov 28, 2005

swampcat - Thank you again. Note that those of my faith are not part of the ID movement, and we have not specified which detailed model concerning origins is correct. For example: Which informational sequences in life's DNA on earth came from God directly? And which came from processes God created in our universe which is fine tuned in favor for life? For example, the laws of chemistry, and related probability and statistics which explain chemical reaction product proportions - notably the law of large numbers which makes certain the results of a large enough sample, etc. And the laws of genetics, still being learned, which govern change and limits of change in inheritance of traits. Recently studies in dog breeding determined a new method for microevolutionary change in length of dog snout (nose) - alas, I forget the method, but it was reported on in Science News. Many of the mechanisms involving change in traits (aka mutations) are not simply random. Rather, they are a combination of both random factors and informational coding. You posted: "at least the concept of randomness has a scientific basis, whereas the existence of your intelligent designer, IMHO, does not." First, what does the abbreviation IMHO stand for? Intelligent Manipulation by a Higher Organism? The concept of randomness has more of a scientific basis in scenarios where chance is more likely the cause. The concept of informational input has more of a scientific basis where chance is less likely to be the cause. This is one way astronomers are looking for evidence for life elsewhere - looking for markers which are less likely by chance and more likely caused by life, which involves informational content. Consider, as Hoyle did, the probability of a protein forming by chance! Really, the precise 3-d fit of enzymes and receptors do argue for intel

earthseed · Nov 28, 2005

swampcat, I would ask you to define that entity called "randomness"! I wonder if it is indeed a valid scientific concept, or is it simply fancy talk for "we don't understand what is going on?" Take the example of a coin toss - the outcome is supposedly random: heads or tails. In reality, the coin was launched into the air with a fixed direction and velocity, and the outcome is entirely predictable with simple physics. However, the observer is not capable of making those measurements and calculations, so the result appears random to him. I suspect this is the case with most, if not all, supposedly random events in nature. In addition, while the outcome of a single coin toss may appear random, we can make a pretty good prediction of the result of a thousand coin tosses - about half heads and half tails. Again more predictability than was first evident. So let us apply these ideas to the "random" mutations that drive evolution. There may be more "purpose" (in the sense of behavior being selected for some advantage it brings) to these mutations than we realize. And most mutations are harmful and are eliminated. The selection of those that survive is anything but random, it for their ability to survive and reproduce in their environment. All this says nothing about the concept of Intelligent Design, in all its varied meanings. And I have nothing to say about it until I see a hypothesis that can be tested.

newtonian · Nov 28, 2005

swampcat - a quick cut and paste quote from our literature concerning astronomer Fred Hoyle's calculations for origin of proteins: "British astronomer Sir Fred Hoyle has spent decades studying the universe and life in it, even espousing that life on earth arrived from outer space. Lecturing at the California Institute of Technology, he discussed the order of amino acids in proteins. “The big problem in biology,” Hoyle said, “isn’t so much the rather crude fact that a protein consists of a chain of amino acids linked together in a certain way, but that the explicit ordering of the amino acids endows the chain with remarkable properties . . . If amino acids were linked at random, there would be a vast number of arrangements that would be useless in serving the purposes of a living cell. When you consider that a typical enzyme has a chain of perhaps 200 links and that there are 20 possibilities for each link, it’s easy to see that the number of useless arrangements is enormous, more than the number of atoms in all the galaxies visible in the largest telescopes. This is for one enzyme, and there are upwards of 2000 of them, mainly serving very different purposes. So how did the situation get to where we find it to be?” Hoyle added: “Rather than accept the fantastically small probability of life having arisen through the blind forces of nature, it seemed better to suppose that the origin of life was a deliberate intellectual act.”" - "Is There a Creator Who Cares About You," 1998, page 41.

newtonian · Nov 28, 2005

swampcat - Another quote of Hoyle: "Evolutionists admit that the probability of the right atoms and molecules falling into place to form just one simple protein molecule is 1 in 10113, or 1 followed by 113 zeros. That number is larger than the estimated total number of atoms in the universe! Mathematicians dismiss as never taking place anything that has a probability of occurring of less than 1 in 1050. But far more than one simple protein molecule is needed for life. Some 2,000 different proteins are needed just for a cell to maintain its activity, and the chance that all of them will occur at random is 1 in 1040,000! “If one is not prejudiced either by social beliefs or by a scientific training into the conviction that life originated [spontaneously] on the Earth, this simple calculation wipes the idea entirely out of court,” says astronomer Fred Hoyle." - "Mankind's Search for God," 1990, pages 335-336. [Note: 10^50 = impossible needs qualification - probably for earth, in view of the more limited time and more limited atoms availble for reaction. Also, this would not apply to single events, i.e. single step events, since the law of large numbers would not apply. The formation of a protein involves many steps and the law of large numbers does apply in that case.]

newtonian · Nov 28, 2005

swampcat - you posted: "Unless, of course, you consider "God" to be simply an alien of some sort that would appear God-like from our perspective. There is at least the possibility of proof in such a definition of "God," but you have not addressed that issue." Well, I have addressed that issue on other threads! God does appear God-like to us, of course. God is extraterrestrial, i.e. life from beyond earth. Actually, God resides in another heaven or universe that existed long before our universe was created. But those details cannot be proven by science at this time, though the possibilities can certainly be addressed. Isaiah 40 shows that the nations are like a drop from a bucket, even like an unreality, compared with our heaven or universe. To consider humans are the highest, most intelligent, form of life in our universe is presumptuous, to say the least. Many astronomers consider the real possiblity that other forms of life exist even in our local section of universe. Theoretical physicists, more precisely astrophysics, consider also that it is unlikely that our universe is the only universe - consistent with the Bible not containing a Hebrew or Greek equivalent for "universe" (with its singular prefix) and often uses the word "heaven" in plural. It is therefore scientifically tenable to believe that a much higher form of life capable of terraforming our earth does exist. God is such a form of life - and angels may also be capable to some extent of doing this. God is capable of much more than that however. Are you aware of how fast our universe was fine-tuned for life, and how much energy was involved in this fine tuning? The precise properties involving the 4 forces of physics are among these things, as are the laws governing our universe. That involves in depth scientific study - it is not a mere religious cop-out discouraging

newtonian · Nov 28, 2005

earthseed - The Bible contains many things that can be tested for accuracy scientifically. Of course, it is not merely an Intellegent design model. Here is one simple statement that can be tested, and applies in many ways to the issue of intelligent design vs. chance or random processes: (Hebrews 3:4) . . .Of course, every house is constructed by someone, but he that constructed all things is God. . . Note this does not say if the "bricks" arrived on earth from space, for one of many applications of this simple statement. I.e., the builder of the house may not be the maker of the bricks, etc., etc. There are often a long line of causes and effects, but ultimately it goes back to a FIRST CAUSE.

newtonian · Nov 28, 2005

swampcat - you posted: "With all due respect, I would ask you to define that entity and speak to how such a being itself came into existence." (Psalm 83:18) . . .That people may know that you, whose name is Jehovah, You alone are the Most High over all the earth. Jehovah is that entity. And the definition of God's name, found nearly 7,000 times in the original Hebrew Scriptures of the Bible, really does define God to some extent: Briefly, the name Jehovah comes from the Hebrew verb "to be" in the causative sense and one definition therefore is: "He causes to be." As such, Jehovah is the First Cause. This is scientifically tenable - it involves the observations of cause and effect. There are two basic scientific possibilities: 1. There are an infinite number of past causes and effects in infinite past time. 2. There is a first cause. The Bible specifies this second choice as correct. Clearly, the first cause always existed. This is in harmony with two other scientific observations: 1. The law of conservation of matter and energy. Isaiah 40:26 links the existence of stars to plural forms of energy and power. Further study of our universe shows energy precedes matter. God is an energy based life form: (John 4:24) 24 God is a Spirit, and those worshiping him must worship with spirit and truth.. . . The Greek word for spirit is pneuma and is defined as "invisible active force," or invisible energy. This harmonizes both with the law of conservation of matter and energy and observations concerning our universe's origin: energy preceded matter and could not come from nothing - therefore came from plural forms of energy as indicated in Isaiah 40:26. 2. Biogenesis. Contrary to chemical evolution scenarios, actual observation shows that life always comes from life. Therefore, life always ex

newtonian · Nov 29, 2005

swampcat - A more in depth response to your request for me to define the entity God, namely: Jehovah. On the more detailed definition of God's name: NW footnote on Genesis 2:4: "“Jehovah.” Heb., ???? (YHWH, here vowel-pointed as Yehwah´), meaning “He Causes to Become” (from Heb., ??? [ha·wah´, “to become”]); LXXA(Gr.), Ky´ri·os; Syr., Mar·ya´; Lat., Do´mi·nus. The first occurrence of God’s distinctive personal name, ???? (YHWH); these four Heb. letters are referred to as the Tetragrammaton. The divine name identifies Jehovah as the Purposer. Only the true God could rightly and authentically bear this name. See App 1A." [Note: Pasting to SDC does not allow the Hebrew and Greek letters, hence the question marks; e.g. the four Hebrew letters of God's name are yod he vau he] NW footnote on Exodus 3:14: "“I SHALL PROVE TO BE WHAT I SHALL PROVE TO BE.” Heb., ???? ??? ???? (´Eh·yeh´ ´Asher´ ´Eh·yeh´), God’s own self-designation; Leeser, “I WILL BE THAT I WILL BE”; Rotherham, “I Will Become whatsoever I please.” Gr., E·go´ ei·mi ho on, “I am The Being,” or, “I am The Existing One”; Lat., e´go sum qui sum, “I am Who I am.” ´Eh·yeh´ comes from the Heb. verb ha·yah´, “become; prove to be.” Here ´Eh·yeh´ is in the imperfect state, first person sing., meaning “I shall become”; or, “I shall prove to be.” The reference here is not to God’s self-existence but to what he has in mind to become toward others. Compare Ge 2:4 ftn, “Jehovah,” where the kindred, but different, Heb. verb ha·wah´ appears in the divine name." "Scholars are not in full agreement as to the meaning of God’s name, Jehovah. After extensive research on the subject, however, many believe that the name is a form of the Hebrew verb ha·wah´ (become), meaning “He Causes to Become.” Hence, in the New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures, the account at Exodus 3:14, where Moses asked God his name, is translated this way: “At this God said to

newtonian · Nov 29, 2005

swampcat - your post was excellent, btw - which is why I am taking so long responding to the many good points you posted: "If such an entity indeed directs evolution, how does it do so?" First, God is a person who loves us - and I love Jehovah. "It" is the wrong pronoun. I do not believe in macroevolution. I don't know how God created "kinds." I suspect it was in part by genetic engineering, using already existing cells from other life forms already created. That would explain, for example, the platypus. And the many life forms with similar organs though obviously not received by common decent - as with luminous species. "Dust" is literally what man was created from, which, we now know, contains many micro-organisms. However, Eve was created from Adam's rib - which therefore involves stem cells though Eve was not a mere clone. I hope you don't expect me to give you all the details as to how God created each life form! I'm not smart enough for that! But the Biblical hints at what was obviously a very complex process certainly stimulates scientific research into exactly how the myriads of life-forms were created! [Another Biblical hint: (Genesis 1:2) . . .Now the earth proved to be formless and waste and there was darkness upon the surface of [the] watery deep; and God’s active force was moving to and fro over the surface of the waters. . . Why was God's spirit, intelligent directed invisible energy, going to and fro over earth's primordial waters? Psalms 104:30 links God's active force with the creation of life. And darkness would shield newly created complex informational molecules from destruction by UV irradiation. To go further on this would, of course, involve in depth scientific research] I don't know if God directs microevolution, but I doubt it. The processes seem to proceed as was originally designed and need no further in

newtonian · Nov 30, 2005

swampcat - concerning this point you posted: 'With all due respect, I would ask you to define that entity and speak to how such a being itself came into existence. As most anyone who has taken a sophomore philosophy class will tell you, that line of argument will simply become reiterative and prove nothing. We would be left with an endless string of creators of creators of creators." Substitute "cause" for "creator" and note my above responses to you. Remember, the Creator in the Bible is named Jehovah (tetragrammaton yod he vau he = YHWH or JHVH) which is derived from the Hebrew verb hawah for 'to become' and means "He causes to become." Hence, Jehovah is the first cause. The problem you refer to of infinite past creators is roughly equivalent to infinite past causes. The problem is solved by accepting a first cause. You also fail to address another factor: TIME. Cause and effect cannot proceed without time. While our universe's space time was created at the origin of our universe, the cause of that creation could not have proceeded without PRIMORDIAL TIME. In other words, your problem of infinite past creators assumes infinite past time. There is an alternate scientific possibility, namely: that Primordial Time was created. The Bible does not state one way or the other. The Big Bang theory also does not address this, since the cause of the Big Bang is not addressed partly because the question of the existence of primordial time before the big bang is not addressed. This also involves panspermia models. If life did not originiate on earth this does indeed solve the problem of the early earth's conditions not being conducive to the random chemical evolution of life. However, it still does not explain how life was created (or evolved) elsewhere. It is, in effect, a similar problem to the creator of the creator of the creator.

newtonian · Nov 30, 2005

chew_on_this - Still chewing on that Scientific American article (11/05, pp. 64-71). There is so much good material to discuss in that article! For this post I am zeroing in on probability, and this quote: "Scientists who study panspermia used to concentrate only on assessing the basic plausibility of the idea, but they have recently sought to estimate the probability that biological materials made the journey to Earth from other planets or moons." - "Scientific American," 11/05, article entitled "Did Life Come from Another World?," by David Warmflash and Benjamin Weiss, p. 67. As has been noted in many posts on this thread, probability calculations are very important, but also the actual results are extremely variant depending on which factors are included in the calculations and equations, etc. A clue to the factors necessary to mathematically calculate the probabilities is in this quote: "Several panspermia scenarios are possible. Molecules of ribonucleic acid (RNA) might have assembled on Mars from smaller compounds and then traveled to Earth. Or perhaps the RNAs combined to form protein factories similar to present-day ribosomes before making the interplanetary journey. It is also possible that Martian meteorites delivered living cells akin to Deinococcus radiodurans, a modern bacterium that is highly resistant to radiation." - Sciam 11/05, p. 68, caption to illustration. Obviously, each model would have its own probability. Does anyone know the actual calculations and the resulting probability - i.e. formulas or equations and actual numbers? Or a link to the same?

Swampcat · Dec 2, 2005

Newtonian, I apologize for not having responding to your posts at this point. I was called back to work for a couple of days and have been out of town. You have some interesting lines of reasoning (and lots of words <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" />) that I would like to stew over for a few days before commenting on. Otherwise, I fear I'd say something stupid <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" />. Just wanted you to know that I wasn't bailing out on this discussion. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> ------------------------------------------------------------------- "I hold it that a little rebellion now and then is a good thing, and as necessary in the political world as storms in the physical. Unsuccessful rebellions, indeed, generally establish the encroachments on the rights of the people which have produced them. An observation of this truth should render honest republican governors so mild in their punishment of rebellions as not to discourage them too much. It is a medicine necessary for the sound health of government."Thomas Jefferson </div>

newtonian · Dec 5, 2005

swampcat - Similar here - we had a very severe thunderstorm yesterday and I have been busy building my tornado shelter - and have a long day at work tomorrow. I look forward to your responses. You all - I will study the Sciam article further and meanwhile look forward to your responses.

newtonian · Dec 7, 2005

igorsboss - You ealier posted 3 questions concerning your eden model: 1) Do any of the individual steps in the "Eden" model's sequence violate natural laws? 2) Does the complete "Eden" sequence violate natural laws? 3) How well does the "Eden" model fit observed facts? Would you consider intelligent design by a superior extraterrestrial intellignence to violate natural laws? In the Biblical model, God does not violate the laws he created, which means the Biblical model does not violate natural laws. However, your eden model does require intelligent design. It boils down to informational input, and informational molecules like informational RNA and informational proteins. To get back to the Sciam article at the start of this thread: "In present-day cells, specialized RNA molecules help to build proteins. Some RNAs act as messengers between the genes, which are made of deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA), and the ribosomes, the protein factories of the cell. Other RNAs bring amino acids--the building blocks of proteins--to the ribosomes, which in turn contain yet another type of RNA. The RNAs work in concert with protein enzymes that aid in linking the amino [p. 67:] acids together, but researchers have found that the RNAs in the ribosome can perform the crucial step of protein synthesis alone. In the early stages of life's evolution, all the enzymes may have been RNAs, not proteins. Because RNA enzymes could have manufactured the first proteins without the need for preexisting protein enzymes to initiate the process, abiogenesis is not the chicken-and-egg problem that it was once thought to be. A prebiotic system of RNAs and proteins could have gradually developed the ability to replicate its molecular parts, crudely at first but then ever more efficiently." - "Scientific American," 11/05, pp. 66,67. The problem with your model, which is also a problem with the above Sciam quote, is that you h

newtonian · Dec 7, 2005

sirfer - Good concise post. You posted: "Well all this talk of panspermia is nice but it doens't really answer the question of how life even formed from non-life...it just shifts the attention somewhere else." Indeed, there is no evidence that life preceded from non-life - it is assumed without evidence. There is a big difference between bubbles, like Fox's protenoids, and life! Likewise, there is a big difference between a random mixture of amino acids and life! The degree of information common to all life on earth, including the "simplest" observed living cell, is really amazing!

chew_on_this · Mar 3, 2006

Here's an interesting link to add fuel to the flame. Bacteria survive fiery shuttle re-entry. shuttle bacteria

Another vote for panspermia

Swampcat

Guest

newtonian

Guest

newtonian

Guest

earthseed

Guest

newtonian

Guest

newtonian

Guest

newtonian

Guest

newtonian

Guest

newtonian

Guest

newtonian

Guest

newtonian

Guest

newtonian

Guest

newtonian

Guest

Swampcat

Guest

newtonian

Guest

newtonian

Guest

newtonian

Guest

chew_on_this

Guest

Similar threads

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Share this page