Abiogenesis

Page 18 of 21 [ 322 posts ] Go to page Previous 1 ... 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21 Next

Previous topic | Next topic

iamnotaparakeet
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 31 Jul 2007
Age: 40
Gender: Male
Posts: 25,091
Location: 0.5 Galactic radius

17 Dec 2009, 4:24 pm

Jono wrote:

iamnotaparakeet wrote:

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c7lnLCatp64[/youtube]

Another quote from Sarfati:

Quote:

... after all, we share 50% of our DNA with bananas but that doesn't mean we're half banana

No, but does mean that humans and bananas have a common ancestor. Just like humans and chimps have a common ancestor.

Actually, whether you metaphysically infer a common designer or a common ancestor, the percentage of genes in common more physically relates to the percentage of biochemical processes in common.

Jono
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 10 Jul 2008
Age: 45
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,677
Location: Johannesburg, South Africa

17 Dec 2009, 4:48 pm

iamnotaparakeet wrote:

Jono wrote:

Another quote from Sarfati:

Quote:

... after all, we share 50% of our DNA with bananas but that doesn't mean we're half banana

No, but does mean that humans and bananas have a common ancestor. Just like humans and chimps have a common ancestor.

Actually, whether you metaphysically infer a common designer or a common ancestor, the percentage of genes in common more physically relates to the percentage of biochemical processes in common.

So?

Jono
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 10 Jul 2008
Age: 45
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,677
Location: Johannesburg, South Africa

17 Dec 2009, 4:58 pm

Meta wrote:

Jono wrote:

I never said that it should trivial overall.

In general strictly natural processes/forces don't do things which are non-trivial on a macroscopic level. So to require a strictly natural process does imply for a large part that is is trivial to do. Otherwise the plausibility goes down really fast.

I disagree. Look up statistical mechanics and solid state physics. Properties of certain materials, like certain kinds of magnetic materials, can have pretty complicated properties. These properties arise out of the "trivial" interactions of their atoms and molecules. And which also arrange themselves in sophisticated manner by purely natural processes.

Meta wrote:

Jono wrote:

I don't remember saying that evolution was simple.

I did not say that you did; I said it was way more complicated and a lot less straight forward then you seemed to imply. Not only is it not simple, it's really difficult, fragile and not at all clear.

In my statements, how did I imply that it was simple and straight forward? I don't see that implication.

iamnotaparakeet
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 31 Jul 2007
Age: 40
Gender: Male
Posts: 25,091
Location: 0.5 Galactic radius

17 Dec 2009, 6:26 pm

Jono wrote:

iamnotaparakeet wrote:

Jono wrote:

Another quote from Sarfati:

Quote:

... after all, we share 50% of our DNA with bananas but that doesn't mean we're half banana

No, but does mean that humans and bananas have a common ancestor. Just like humans and chimps have a common ancestor.

Actually, whether you metaphysically infer a common designer or a common ancestor, the percentage of genes in common more physically relates to the percentage of biochemical processes in common.

So?

Well, which creature would you think would have more dna in common with another? A horse and a bat or a horse and a cow?

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn9 ... hummy.html

Something to consider is that the functions of life require a high degree of shared functions between all members.

http://creation.com/refuting-evolution-2-chapter-6-argument-common-design-points-to-common-ancestry wrote:

Scientific American repeats the common argument that DNA comparisons help scientists to reconstruct the evolutionary development of organisms:

Macroevolution studies how taxonomic groups above the level of species change. Its evidence draws frequently from the fossil record and DNA comparisons to reconstruct how various organisms may be related. [SA 80]

DNA comparisons are just a subset of the homology argument, which makes just as much sense in a biblical framework. A common Designer is another interpretation that makes sense of the same data. An architect commonly uses the same building material for different buildings, and a car maker commonly uses the same parts in different cars. So we shouldn’t be surprised if a Designer for life used the same biochemistry and structures in many different creatures. Conversely, if all living organisms were totally different, this might look like there were many designers instead of one.

Since DNA codes for structures and biochemical molecules, we should expect the most similar creatures to have the most similar DNA. Apes and humans are both mammals, with similar shapes, so both have similar DNA. We should expect humans to have more DNA similarities with another mammal like a pig than with a reptile like a rattlesnake. And this is so. Humans are very different from yeast but they have some biochemistry in common, so we should expect human DNA to differ more from yeast DNA than from ape DNA. So the general pattern of similarities need not be explained by common-ancestry.

pandd
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 15 Jul 2006
Age: 53
Gender: Female
Posts: 2,430

17 Dec 2009, 6:58 pm

Meta wrote:

When I say (non)trivial, I mean "(non)trivial to replicate, reproduce, repeat (even if it would require absurd amount of resources)". Something trivial is something which could happen without any help from us, if the conditions are just right and the chance for that is very good.

Right, so when you asserted as an argument in support of your position that natural forces cannot produce non-trivial things, what you meant by this is that natural forces cannot produce things that cannot be produced by natural forces. While given this definition of non-trivial your argument about natural forces not producing such must be true (it is in fact a tautology), it is also an utterly meaningless statement that cannot therefore advance or substantiate your conclusion. Very obviously natural forces and processes cannot cause something that cannot be caused by them, none of which proves or even indicates that life happens to be something that natural forces cannot cause.

In effect by calling life non-trivial where non-trivial means cannot be caused by natural forces/processes, you are simply begging the question.

Letum
Deinonychus

Joined: 20 Jan 2007
Age: 39
Gender: Male
Posts: 306

17 Dec 2009, 7:10 pm

Jono wrote:

iamnotaparakeet wrote:

Jono wrote:

Another quote from Sarfati:

Quote:

... after all, we share 50% of our DNA with bananas but that doesn't mean we're half banana

No, but does mean that humans and bananas have a common ancestor. Just like humans and chimps have a common ancestor.

Actually, whether you metaphysically infer a common designer or a common ancestor, the percentage of genes in common more physically relates to the percentage of biochemical processes in common.

So?

So the percentage of common genes is more of a result of bananas and humans doing some of the same chemical processes than it is to do with a common ancestor.

Even without a common ancestor you would expect bananas and humans to have a lot of common DNA because they both need to make many of the same proteins.

Sand
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 15 Sep 2007
Age: 100
Gender: Male
Posts: 11,484
Location: Finland

17 Dec 2009, 11:46 pm

Letum wrote:

Jono wrote:

iamnotaparakeet wrote:

Jono wrote:

Another quote from Sarfati:

Quote:

... after all, we share 50% of our DNA with bananas but that doesn't mean we're half banana

No, but does mean that humans and bananas have a common ancestor. Just like humans and chimps have a common ancestor.

Actually, whether you metaphysically infer a common designer or a common ancestor, the percentage of genes in common more physically relates to the percentage of biochemical processes in common.

So?

Anyway, what does "half banana" mean? It's an idiotic comparison and some macho guys wouldn't at all be daunted by the concept.

iamnotaparakeet
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 31 Jul 2007
Age: 40
Gender: Male
Posts: 25,091
Location: 0.5 Galactic radius

18 Dec 2009, 12:14 am

Sand wrote:

Letum wrote:

Jono wrote:

iamnotaparakeet wrote:

Jono wrote:

Another quote from Sarfati:

Quote:

... after all, we share 50% of our DNA with bananas but that doesn't mean we're half banana

No, but does mean that humans and bananas have a common ancestor. Just like humans and chimps have a common ancestor.

Actually, whether you metaphysically infer a common designer or a common ancestor, the percentage of genes in common more physically relates to the percentage of biochemical processes in common.

So?

Anyway, what does "half banana" mean? It's an idiotic comparison and some macho guys wouldn't at all be daunted by the concept.

Half banana: that since 50% of the genome is in common, that we are 50% banana. Such as since 99.99999999999999999999999999999999999999999% of the genome is in common with chimps that we are 99.99999999999999999999999999999999999999999% chimps... (ok, so that's not quite the exact percentage value for humans to chimps... humor is not the same as a strawman... oy vey gevault, I know the accusation is on its way though...)

pandd
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 15 Jul 2006
Age: 53
Gender: Female
Posts: 2,430

18 Dec 2009, 12:29 am

iamnotaparakeet wrote:

It's actually a much easier to recall number than that. We are precisely 0% chimp, and 100% primate. We are also 100% ape, and better still we're grrrreat!

iamnotaparakeet
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 31 Jul 2007
Age: 40
Gender: Male
Posts: 25,091
Location: 0.5 Galactic radius

18 Dec 2009, 12:57 am

pandd wrote:

and better still we're grrrreat!

Are we Tony the tiger?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tony_the_Tiger

Meta
Toucan
Toucan

Joined: 15 Jun 2009
Age: 51
Gender: Male
Posts: 276

18 Dec 2009, 12:09 pm

panda wrote:

In effect by calling life non-trivial where non-trivial means cannot be caused by natural forces/processes, you are simply begging the question.

Thank you for pointing it out. I noticed (typo) that too. I will give a better definition which does not have this defect in a future post.

A related question in this regard: Is there, in your opinion, anything which a strictly natural process could not generate? Do some things require an intelligent agent to create it before they can exist?

Edit: Trivial -- something so easy and likely that it can happen by chance alone?

Last edited by Meta on 20 Dec 2009, 8:21 am, edited 2 times in total.

Sand
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 15 Sep 2007
Age: 100
Gender: Male
Posts: 11,484
Location: Finland

18 Dec 2009, 12:15 pm

Meta wrote:

panda wrote:

In effect by calling life non-trivial where non-trivial means cannot be caused by natural forces/processes, you are simply begging the question.

Thank you for pointing it out. I notched that too. I will give a better definition which does not have this defect in a future post.

A related question in this regard: Is there, in your opinion, anything which a strictly natural process could not generate? Do some things require an intelligent agent to create it before they can exist?

Considering the general behavior of humanity I can sympathize with the thought that intelligence is unnatural but I have doubts.

Jono
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 10 Jul 2008
Age: 45
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,677
Location: Johannesburg, South Africa

18 Dec 2009, 12:57 pm

iamnotaparakeet wrote:

O.K. So lets calculate a few figures. But first of all, you do know that there are variations within human DNA right? The variation within human DNA is around 0.03%. Chimps have 98% of their genome common with humans (I assume you won't mind me using this figure because you admitted that yours was over-exaggerated). Therefore chimps have a 2% difference in genome from that of humans which would mean that the genetic variation between chimps and humans is 2/0.03 = 66.67 times more than the genetic variation in humans. If the 50% figure is true for bananas then the genetic variation between bananas and humans are 50/0.03 = 1666.67 times more (remember I used your numbers). Chimps are therefore still a lot closer to humans than bananas and its not simply a linear relationship between the number of genomes in common.

Jono
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 10 Jul 2008
Age: 45
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,677
Location: Johannesburg, South Africa

18 Dec 2009, 1:49 pm

Letum wrote:

Jono wrote:

iamnotaparakeet wrote:

Jono wrote:

Another quote from Sarfati:

Quote:

... after all, we share 50% of our DNA with bananas but that doesn't mean we're half banana

No, but does mean that humans and bananas have a common ancestor. Just like humans and chimps have a common ancestor.

Actually, whether you metaphysically infer a common designer or a common ancestor, the percentage of genes in common more physically relates to the percentage of biochemical processes in common.

So?

Comparisons of DNA are a bit more complicated than quick comparisons of chromosomes and how many there is in common. It also depends on the detailed structure in terms of sequences of genes and so on. A chimps DNA is also similar in structure to that of humans. What I've been able to find out (when I looked it up in order to reply to this thread) is that banana genomes have not been decoded yet. So it's a bit misleading to say that bananas contain 50% of the same genome as humans.

Meta
Toucan
Toucan

Joined: 15 Jun 2009
Age: 51
Gender: Male
Posts: 276

18 Dec 2009, 2:13 pm

Does anyone know what was actually counted in those percentages of similarity? Similarity on which level? With of without counting so called junk DNA? Do these numbers take into account the significance of place, duplications or only occurrence? One would expect very different results depending on the method used?

If one only counts the occurrence of genes then the percentage of similarity is more or less meaning less. It would be alike to looking for similarities of cars or computers based on which kind of metals, plastics, ceramics where used in its construction. Only a recycling plant would care about this kind of similarity.

With the same pile of bricks one can build many very different buildings. It's not the similarity of construction material which is important but the similarity in layout. In the case of complex adaptive systems it's the software that makes all the difference.

Jono
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 10 Jul 2008
Age: 45
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,677
Location: Johannesburg, South Africa

18 Dec 2009, 5:19 pm

Meta wrote:

Good question. The above percentages are probable just chromosome counts, I'm not sure. But if you want see a detailed comparison between chimpanzee and human DNA, look up the chimpanzee genome project:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chimpanzee_genome_project

Page 18 of 21 [ 322 posts ] Go to page Previous 1 ... 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21 Next

Jump to:

Abiogenesis Post Reply New Topic

Abiogenesis