I have read that there are approximately 3 billion sequences in the human genome. Personally, I find the number quite irrational when compared to the estimated age of the earth. If the sequence count is reasonably close, and a previous estimate of the earthâ€™s age is about 3 billion years old dates change weekly is seems, then there had to be about one evolutionary development per year of the earthâ€™s existence. Adding in the three catastrophes, Darwinian-like evolution would have had to evolve perhaps 10 or more genome sequences per year to create humans, which does not appear rational since we would be observing evolutionary steps during one personâ€™s life.
Stefanâ€™s post is excellent. The chance for life to occur according to popular evolutionary methods is all but zero.
To my current way of thinking, life on earth had help from a source that is not visible today. Was the earth seeded as Stefan said? Perhaps. Was life created by spirit entities as Edgar Cayce said? Perhaps. Was life created as a natural rhythmic development of natural laws as sacred geometry? Perhaps. Was this 3D created by non-dimensional entities as like a game? Perhaps. Was life an evolutionary hit-and-miss-chance creation as modern theories say? I strongly doubt it.
You seem to be arguing from the position that a lot of IDers take, which is to assume - perhaps intuitively but fallaciously - that it's not possible for highly complex, self-organising systems to arise from a very simple set of natural laws.
These don't seem to be so different as propositions to me necessarily. Actually they may be identical.unpardag73 said:Was life created as a natural rhythmic development of natural laws as sacred geometry? Perhaps.
These don't seem to be so different as propositions to me necessarily. Actually they may be identical.
You could consider the rules of Life sacred in that they work in a specific way to produce complex results. Change the rules even slightly and the game may not generate any interesting forms.
Where I'm coming from is that you specifically opined that unpardag73's post did not recognise that it is "possible for highly complex, self-organising systems to arise from a very simple set of natural laws.", and to be fair, I think it does.Weeell, call me an old kill-joy but it's the word 'sacred' that puts me off most about that sentence. I do see where you're coming from, though, in fact if it weren't for that one word I could more or less endorse the whole idea. The laws of physics and cosmology are intimately linked to geometry, that's certainly true.
I like how you inserted "deliberate" and "intentional results" in there.Hmm. "[T]hey work in a specific way to produce complex results" is starting to sound teleological, inasmuch as it sounds like the laws of nature are working in some specific and deliberate way so as to produce intentional results - in which case we're back to ID, clearly.
Another definition of sacred.Another argument is that there may well be many universes (or at least causally disconnected parts of a single universe), perhaps an infinite number of them, where the laws of physics are different from ours, and that we happen to live in a universe conducive to our kind of life, by definition of course, while there are any number of "barren" universes out there with no life because they have no stable nuclei, the wrong number of dimensions or whatever.
If they were so inclined then presumably that same someone would then remark that the laws that determine the properties of atomic nuclei seem "designed" to create water and by extension to support (this kind of) life? I realise you were replying to something somebody didn't say but it's not much use as an argument in that form.For example, someone might remark that water has certain very special properties that make it seem like it's been "designed" to support life, given the huge range of properties it could have had; but of course the properties of water (and every other substance besides) are inevitable once you have laws that determine the properties of electrons and atomic nuclei.
Not sure if that's a fair summation. Rejects or considers unlikely? Only logical alternative according to you or unpardag? And perhaps more importantly, all life or this life?Ultimately I have to disagree with unpardag because he rejects life as a chance occurrence, and the only logical alternative is some form of intelligent design - willful act by a sentient Creator.
i thought s/he was arguing more for alien intervention than sentient creator? if life is a chance occurrence then it possibly occurred somewhere else as well and way before us. the classic scenario of selectively breeding us for parts to prop up a dying alien race springs to mind.the only logical alternative is some form of intelligent design - willful act by a sentient Creator.
Where I'm coming from is that you specifically opined that unpardag73's post did not recognise that it is "possible for highly complex, self-organising systems to arise from a very simple set of natural laws.", and to be fair, I think it does.
Your reaction to the word sacred being 100% predictable I went on to suggest that the rules of Life (notice the capital L) can be considered sacred, change them and it's not the same, a delicate balance. So there are different ways of thinking about what that means. You may have misunderstood.
While it's not exactly teleological it is sort of ID in that John f'ing Conway D'd it and he's probably at least a bit I.
You do realise I was referring to Conway's Life there don't you? :slanted:Mr. Tea said:Hmm, maybe I have. What I really should have used in that sentence is the word "spontaneously" - I mean, of course a beautiful and complex tapestry can 'arise' from a piece of canvas and some bits of coloured thread, but it takes a conscious and intentional act on the part of a creative agent to make it happen.
Then there's still the word 'sacred'...maybe I'm reading too much into it, and being as you put it "poetically challenged" but this would seem to imply (to me) some divine agency, namely a supernatural principle as opposed to a natural one.
See above.Mr. Tea said:Well the big difference here is that Conway merely set up some very simple "natural" laws for his "universe" and then let it evolve deterministically; he didn't write in the complexity from the start. I don't think even he was prepared for the degree of complexity that arose - I mean, what would be the point of fine-tuning the laws of his universe so as to create complex systems?
Well for a start it's not about the Universe is it, it's about life as we know it. One possibility as suggested by unpar, Rwav and myself just now is that life may have arisen by "chance" somewhere and been "designed" elsewhere.It's an exhaustive dichotomy; what other option is there? So if the universe isn't accidental and natural, the only alternative is to invoke some kind (inherently supernatural) ID.
Oil pervades our civilization; it is all around you. The shell for your computer is made from it. Your food comes wrapped in it. You brush your hair and teeth with it. There’s probably some in your shampoo, and most certainly its container. Your children’s toys are made from it. You take your trash out in it. It makes your clothes soft in the dryer. As you change the channels with the TV remote you hold it in your hands. Some of your furniture is probably made with it. It is everywhere inside your car. It is used in both the asphalt you drive on and the tires that meet the road. It probably covers the windows in your home. When you have surgery, the anesthesiologist slides it down your trachea. Your prescription medicine is contained in it. Your bartender sprays the mixer for your drink through it. Oh yes, and the healthy water you carry around with you comes packaged in it Be careful. If you decide that you want to throw this book out, your trashcan is probably made from it. And if you want to call and tell me what a scaremonger I am, you will be holding it in your hands as you dial. And if you wear corrective lenses, you will probably be looking through it as you write down a number with a pen that is made from it. Plastic is a petroleum product, and its price is every bit as sensitive to supply shortages as gasoline. Oil companies do not charge a significantly different price for oil they sell to a plastics company than they charge a gas station owner. If the wellhead price goes up, then every downstream use is affected.
Oil and gas are irreplaceable if the world is to continue pumping out enough food to feed 6.5 billion people. And that says nothing about the additional 2.5 billion that are projected to be here before the middle of this century. Organic farming or permaculture is responsible and respectful of nature and may ultimately be nearly as productive as hydrocarbon-based agriculture. But the infrastructure is not in place to implement it. You could ask several billion people to stop eating for a year or two while we switch over and work out the bugs. Do you want to volunteer? Would you volunteer your children?