General Music Chat

I don't know Jimmy. The arguments being given are as thin as the arguments being taken.
I'm a big science buff too. Thats why I argue so strongly about NASA.
Not trying to change the topic.
God, can not be argued against if you have ever watched the birth of another living creature.

The sad thing is way that show politicized it, to show how only stupid, ignorant , low life people, could believe in God.

Now to scare you,,,, Every time you play your guitar,,,,, you are making a joyful noise to the lord.
It is completely out of your control.
Keep Rocking!!!!

Jimmy

I got me one a them gol durned booky things and I is a readin it. But I found a problem here so I know that a smart fella like you will have the answer. I was aware that it takes DNA to produce DNA so the whole thingy about the wild proteins from outer space that caused life on this planet is a bit confusing to me. Regardless, I find this type of superstitious babbling quite interesting. Never the less, I think my story of how life began (previous post) is more fun to read. This stuff makes me wonder just exactly how long that first protein would have had to live to replicate itself. Good thing that "nature" provided meals for it while it was deciding what it wanted to evolve into.

Here is part of an article. Naturally a simple denial of the fact that the first life form had to have a complicated DNA chain to produce DNA will suffice. (Needed to reproduce itself)

Experiments Show Functional Proteins To Be Extremely Rare
Among The Possible Combinations

So, what are the chances (probabilities) that a never-before-seen functional (folding) protein-type would result from such a mutation-driven random "search"?

--Experimental work using actual folding proteins from living things, indicates that more than
99.999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999 percent of the possible combinations of randomly ordered amino acids would result in non-folding, useless junk chains. They would be non-functional for actual proteins which could build and comprise the structures in living cells.

--This is explained in the following article: http://www.leaderu.com/orgs/fte/darwinism/chapter6.html

The above article refers to both the work of Dr. Hubert P. Yockey and the laboratory experiments of Dr. R.T. Sauer (MIT), who extensively analyzed the make-up of actual proteins from living cells. The work of these scientists does take into account that there is a small degree of interchangeability of a certain amino acid or two along the sequence of a protein, and the protein still being able to retain some function. ...However, this experimental evidence still indicates that functional classes of proteins are extremely rare among the possible chains of junk sequences that are most likely to assemble by chance. --Despite some amino acid interchangeability, the result of these experiments is that the odds of assembling (by random processes) one new functional protein (which properly folds), are about one chance in 1065. --- (1065 is the number one, with 65 zeros behind it, and is about the number of atoms in all the matter in an average galaxy.) So, the odds of one new functional protein assembling by the random chance processes, would be the equivalent of randomly finding one specific atom out of the galaxy.

This is sort of like saying that if there were a galaxy-sized ocean full of reproducing A-bacteria, that galaxy of baceria might produce one functional protein by means of random assembly of amino acids, while at the same time there would also be (on average) 1065 failed attempts or trials, which would be non-functional, junk amino acid chains. -- (A single "attempt" or trial would involve the random assembly of about 200 to 700 hundred amino acids into a chain. It is as if each atom in the galaxy represents "a trial" of randomly putting together a chain of 200 to 700 amino acids.) -- So, the research demonstrates that almost all attempts would be non-functional for life (because they don't fold properly) and useless for the construction and function of living things. If this galaxy-sized mass of trash-sequences of amino acids were to stay assembled for a certain length of time, they would (during that time) clog up all the A-bacteria cells and obstruct that one functional protein from getting together with any other new functional protein a galaxy distant away. --Thus, any one functional protein that might hypothetically form would be isolated and lost in galaxy-sized ocean of non-functional, useless amino acid chains.

-- So, if the earth and every other planet in our solar system were filled entirely with reproducing A-bacteria, we would expect there to be basically ZERO chance that even one novel and new functional protein would randomly assemble.
...and we would expect basically those same odds even if there were A-bacteria reproducing on a hundred billion earth-like planets in the galaxy.
...We might somewhat possibly expect one single functional protein to form in a galaxy if every planet, star and body in it were filled with A-bacteria.
--But in one galaxy, we would not expect a second novel functional protein to randomly assemble in order to begin to build something like a flagellum.

--In all the matter in a galaxy, we would not expect the required DNA code for the assembly of even 2 of the 40 new flagellum-construction proteins to occur in one of the A-bacteria by random processes. But even if 2 new proteins were coded for and built inside an A-bacteria cell, this is not close to the 40 required for a flagellum. With only 2 new proteins, there would be no flagellar function, and so this would not give the A-bacterium a darwinian "advantage" for better survival. In fact, it is more likely that the 2 proteins (having as yet no function) would merely clog up the "works" of the cell, and confer a disadvantage on the organism.

Much worse: The new DNA flagellar assembly instructions (which cause the cell to assemble those 40 proteins) have not even been considered yet, ...and those instructions are probably just as complicated as the 40 proteins that go into the flagellum. The new assembly instructions in the DNA would have to develop at the very same time as the new coding for building the 40 proteins.

NOTE: You can try your own hand at intelligently designing a properly folding protein at the following web site:

http://fold.it/portal/info/science

(And if any of your amino acid chains do not properly fold into a discrete shape,
they are then examples of a non-functional chains which cannot be an actual protein.)

Probabilities Spelled Out Further

In this "WorldView Site", I have an article entitled "A Mathematical Proof of Intelligent Design in Nature." It addresses the statistical odds of the random protein-building situation just spoken about. --Please read it, if you have not already.

JimmyD

Your claim that the 'G' word hasn't been uttered much in science is ridiculous. The great scientists of the renassaince honored God as they became humbled by the works of His hands, as those works came more and more into focus...

As did the great composers. Music was to them, a way to honor the majesty of God.

This secular theory that we are all pond scum on steroids is a fairly recent phenomenom.

Talbot

Slacker, yes the odds were very long that the molecules that formed the first DNA would arrange themselves into the required pattern for self-replication. The molecules themselves are simple, and there's only four in DNA. The only thing that made it possible at all was the immense period of time that passed before this happened. It's like a password hacking program where often millions of combinations are tried before the right one is discovered. We're talking a couple of billion years here. The first simple life form - algae - was probably the only life for eons. Complex life is less than a billion years old - the Cambrian Explosion was about 500 million years ago, a drop in the bucket in cosmological terms. Yes life is very special, and it may not develop just anywhere there is water and moderate temperatures. Odds are that we are the only life in this solar system, and possibly for hundreds or thousands of light years in all directions. We are more alone than anyone would think, and that's why it's important to take care of our spaceship earth - and each other.

Mike, don't forget that Galileo was found guilty of heresy for going against the teachings of the church. Scientists may have publicly declared their belief in God, but over the centuries the evidence started to build up, and doubt started to set in. It is difficult for scientists to have faith in that which has no evidence; science is built upon evidence from repeatable experiments that produce the same results each time. That's not to say that science does not believe that a supreme being or creator is possible, but without evidence it says it's very unlikely.

As all of these discussions go, it's very fun and interesting to talk about but ultimately pointless. Please believe whatever makes you happy, as long as your beliefs do not interfere with my life.

The argument for "Intellectual Design" creationism and the argument for Evolution both miss a salient point:

On the plane of existence, All things which 'are", but where not all possibilities prevail... It is less important to dismiss a GOD than it is to Acknowledge one. Importance... necessarily depends on some degree of possibilities. Therefore, To dismiss GOD, is to render all possibilities extinct.

For some of you Ph.D.s out there , that basically means you've been touting a dead end road at the end of life (on earth) ... and so , the big question remains...What on earth stops you from putting a gun to your head now, to expedite your escape from the most transient and doomed depot (Planet Earth) of your entire existence? (Please hurry, Since we need the lot youre taking up)

I could turn that around to believers and ask if you really believe you're going to a better place, why not go now? Like many things, the destination in life is not important, it's the journey that counts.

Slacker, yes the odds were very long that the molecules that formed the first DNA would arrange themselves into the required pattern for self-replication. The molecules themselves are simple, and there's only four in DNA. The only thing that made it possible at all was the immense period of time that passed before this happened. It's like a password hacking program where often millions of combinations are tried before the right one is discovered. We're talking a couple of billion years here. The first simple life form - algae - was probably the only life for eons. Complex life is less than a billion years old - the Cambrian Explosion was about 500 million years ago, a drop in the bucket in cosmological terms. Yes life is very special, and it may not develop just anywhere there is water and moderate temperatures. Odds are that we are the only life in this solar system, and possibly for hundreds or thousands of light years in all directions. We are more alone than anyone would think, and that's why it's important to take care of our spaceship earth - and each other.

Mike, don't forget that Galileo was found guilty of heresy for going against the teachings of the church. Scientists may have publicly declared their belief in God, but over the centuries the evidence started to build up, and doubt started to set in. It is difficult for scientists to have faith in that which has no evidence; science is built upon evidence from repeatable experiments that produce the same results each time. That's not to say that science does not believe that a supreme being or creator is possible, but without evidence it says it's very unlikely.

As all of these discussions go, it's very fun and interesting to talk about but ultimately pointless. Please believe whatever makes you happy, as long as your beliefs do not interfere with my life.

Science has done a reasonably good job at debunking a lot of the silly cosmological speculations, and other nonsense, that has been put forward by religions. But when it ventures into any speculation on the likelihood of an intelligent order larger than humans, at this point of it's relative infancy, it is obviously overreaching it's competence ...

" without evidence it says it's very unlikely"

Without evidence, what is there for science to stand on to even make that speculation? It should just admit that most of the universe is still completely unknown, and unaccounted for, by science at this time.

I could turn that around to believers and ask if you really believe you're going to a better place, why not go now? Like many things, the destination in life is not important, it's the journey that counts.

Good response JimmyD . My point in the question I had asked (re gun) was intended to invoke some awareness about what keeps us around, following the rules and conventions of life, which by all accounts would seem pointless for any 'long term' journeys.

There is a lot to be said about the journey...But What is a journey with no destination, and what is a destination with no journey. I am inclined to believe that we stick around for both. Manic depressives, with profound suicidal tendancies will typically state that the journey they are on was too unbearable - or- the destination was hopeless and out of their reach . In either case, its journey without destination or destination with out journey. We need both.

"Slacker, yes the odds were very long that the molecules that formed the first DNA would arrange themselves into the required pattern for self-replication. The molecules themselves are simple, and there's only four in DNA. "

OK. Lets say I buy into that. It takes DNA to make a life-form as we know them. So the DNA came first, lined itself up in a perfect manner in order to do what to make itself a life-form? OK

Lets say I buy that, even though I don't. What did it eat Rock? It couldn't have had much to eat to sustain its life since no other life existed. Suppose it didn't eat food of any sort. I'll buy into that.

Just how long do you suspect that this living cell designed with its simple DNA had to live in order to reproduce itself?

As in the paragraphs I previously posted the odds of it reproducing itself seems rather slim, and being able to adapt to this new environment is quite miraculous in itself. But I'll give you that.

How long, knowing the odds of a cell creating the perfect DNA strand would would you imagine would it take to mutate into something more advanced with a double helix?

Just curious since I am just looking into this for the first time.

"Slacker, yes the odds were very long that the molecules that formed the first DNA would arrange themselves into the required pattern for self-replication. The molecules themselves are simple, and there's only four in DNA. "

OK. Lets say I buy into that. It takes DNA to make a life-form as we know them. So the DNA came first, lined itself up in a perfect manner in order to do what to make itself a life-form? OK

Lets say I buy that, even though I don't. What did it eat Rock? It couldn't have had much to eat to sustain its life since no other life existed. Suppose it didn't eat food of any sort. I'll buy into that.

Just how long do you suspect that this living cell designed with its simple DNA had to live in order to reproduce itself?

As in the paragraphs I previously posted the odds of it reproducing itself seems rather slim, and being able to adapt to this new environment is quite miraculous in itself. But I'll give you that.

How long, knowing the odds of a cell creating the perfect DNA strand would would you imagine would it take to mutate into something more advanced with a double helix?

Just curious since I am just looking into this for the first time.

Slacker, according to many theorists (Anthropologists), they say that mutations occur everytime a cell splits and generates a copy. That's a lot of cells mutating ... every minute.. The theorists claim that in order for a mutation to take hold as a significant pro-generator (in order to evolve and last) , it must be able to withstand its environment , reproduce faster and more often, than its competition (Other mutations) and thrive successfully for @2k yrs.

There are numerous case studies to support this. (going all the way back to Dawrins theories) And as an FYI, Adaptation is TYPICALLY predisposed by a mutation. That is to say, a living organism's fate appears to already be sealed for either life or extinction. HOWEVER, in some cases, conditions, (despite predisposition) can be engineered to override this... Take for example: Furry critters and dinosaurs.... Critters would not really stand much chance of prolonged evolution with the big lizards hanging around... So one day an Asteroid (from Stephan Spielberg?) and voila, critter fate radically changes.

A man without spirit, and one who rules out his own possibilities beyond life on earth, simply doesn't see his own susceptibility to another asteroid, somewhere. Nor does he consider that such an asteroid, (in which all bets on mutations and predispositions are off), might very well be the work of an intelligence, such as God.

Science can only show what God did, it can not explain how God did it, neither can it explain God.

not so....more accurate would be "Science can only show what god did to those who believe in god.....and to those who believe god is responsible for creating everything.


of course w no scientific proof of god's existence....."science can not explain how God did it, neither can it explain God."

I'm rather convinced that liberals want to evolve back to amoebas and live again in the peaceful ocean where their reasoning would makes some sort of sense.

well that's the problem in a nutshell.....only YOUR reasoning makes sense to you and you can't fathom how or why anyone might "reason" differently.

alrighty then, libs all want to devolve back to amoeba......now THERE'S some sound reasoning! personally i have no desire to move backwards.

but it seems there's plenty of conservative thinkers who want to jump in the 'ol DeLorean and travel back to the "good ol days"...to "devolve" to before we had this problem w all them mexicans, before gays started getting married, before abortion was legal, before......

It must be AWESOME to be as smart as You! I just don't have the patient to deal with your point counterpoint Liberal anti-american (anti-Texan) Arrogant @ss! You Sir are from this point further on ignore! Congratulations!

As some of you may know, I'm a huge science buff, particularly cosmology and paleontology. For the past few years I've been watching a series on the science channel called Through The Wormhole hosted by Morgon Freeman (that dude's voice is everywhere). Last night's show was called "Did Man Invent God?", which has become a valid topic in science (for most of the history of science the G word was not uttered). One of the more interesting questions was why do uneducated, poor and marginalized people tend to be more religious. The answer seems to be that the mind always tries to find order and patterns in the world around us when the person has less control over their lives. Those who have more control over their lives - education, position, power, etc - tend to be less religious. Therefore God may be a construct developed by people who had little control over their lives - the Jews in Egypt for example. Over time some people recognized this and created organized religion as a way of controlling large populations of people. The ironic part of all this is that science is now asking what came "before" the Big Bang, and one of the valid answers is that a supreme being created the universe. Bear in mind that it's just as likely that the universe spontaneously created itself. Fascinating stuff, I encourage those of you with interest in these subjects to check out this series.

Jimmy, I love this show I wait eagerly for EVERY episode! I also like "The Universe" I would like to say another fav is "How The Universe Works" Yet another is "Egyptian Code"

Mr Haley,, You are wrong.
This guy is more fun than leaving a squishy bag on fire,, outside of some ones front door.
I have to agree he is probably the smartest commie to play up here.
I just have to figure the best way to screw with him.
He is very quick with name calling, but that is not his weakness.
He is very quick to avoid the truth when confronted with it.
For some strange reason,,,, he keeps using some of the same lines I have heard from some one else. I wouldn't mention it, but it is the same as recognizing a man by the way he walks.
Geeze,,, Maybe I'm wrong. He is just another liberal that believes stealing is a blessing.
Mr Haley,, You are wrong, I meant right!

Mr Haley,, You are wrong.
This guy is more fun than leaving a squishy bag on fire,, outside of some ones front door.
I have to agree he is probably the smartest commie to play up here.
I just have to figure the best way to screw with him.
He is very quick with name calling, but that is not his weakness.
He is very quick to avoid the truth when confronted with it.
For some strange reason,,,, he keeps using some of the same lines I have heard from some one else. I wouldn't mention it, but it is the same as recognizing a man by the way he walks.
Geeze,,, Maybe I'm wrong. He is just another liberal that believes stealing is a blessing.
Mr Haley,, You are wrong, I meant right!

Glenny, did you get my message the other night? I think when he was a BOY he sh!t in a bag then left it on his neighbors porch on fire and rang the doorbell!

Of course I did. That is why you have to Email me through the address on my profile.
If any one just wants to blow my ass away, E mail me and I'll give you details on how to do it