Re:Feasibility of Panspermia
on
Space Lichens
·
· Score: 1
From what I have read, the heat of re-entry is usually exagerated. The interior of meteorite is cold. Google "taggish lake meteorite" and you will see that this carbonaceous chondrite landed on a frozen lake in Canada, was gathered by an alert person and "kept" cold in his freezer so the volatiles would not sublimate away. In other words, it was cold when it hit the ground. The reading I have done seems to suggest that surviving re-entry inside a meteorite would not be that hard.
Transposons found in whales and cows but not in hippos.
Now that we have the ability to decode genomes, we may find something like this. I don't think it would falsify evolution, though. Viral transposition could account for the same genes in cows and whales but not in hippos. I think we can be fairly certain that genes hop around quite a bit, even in eukaryotes.
Sorry, I'm still working on formatting...
Yes, it proves it's possible; however, it does nothing to change the fact that it's improbable. In fact, seeing as how it's taken us this long just to get together the wherewithal to do it, I think that might be construed as evidence for how improbable ID might be.
It hasn't taken long at all. We have developed the ability to directly modify genes in less than 500 years. This is certainly an eyeblink in terms of geological time. One might suppose that in the next 5000 years we might be able to create custom genomes of our own. Again, in an eyeblink.
If something can be done deliberately, then -- unless we can prove that whatever would trigger it cannot occur randomly -- it can happen randomly.
Are you arguing that because I can walk into the room and reassemble the flowerpot back together (maybe it was made of lego blocks), that it can reassemble without outside help if given enough time? Theoretically, yes, but the time necessary for that highly improbable outcome to occur is outside the bounds of reason.
If you consider a simple enough instruction set, it is easy to generate valid programs randomly. If every possible value for the order field represents a valid operation, then there can never be an invalid order and hence the validity of a program only depends upon it not producing an overflow condition
Exactly my point, in order to demonstrate random generation of meaningful code you have to dumb your instruction set way down. If you use an even moderately complex instruction set, the set of possible instructions becomes staggeringly huge while the set of working instructions is comparatively miniscule. This is, apparently, the state of things in the DNA world. Huge set of possible combinations, extremely small set of working combinations.
Swedes, cabbages, turnips, Brussels sprouts, broccoli, cauliflower and oil-seed rape are all descendants of a now-extinct plant, Brassica sativa. All these distinct species have come about since humans began practising agriculture {you might say they are the original genetically-modified organisms}. Unless humans once possessed and have since lost the technology for doing genetic modifications, it is reasonable to suppose that they represent random genetic mutations which proved beneficial to survival in a particular environment {farmers planted more of the seeds which produced the best vegetables}.
I cannot say for certain, but I would expect that all of those descendants involved expression or non-expression of existing genes, but not the creation, by mutation, of new genes. Lots of genes get turned on or turned off or shifted around by viruses, but mutations tend to be fatal.
Yes, it proves it's possible; however, it does nothing to change the fact that it's improbable. In fact, seeing as how it's taken us this long just to get together the wherewithal to do it, I think that might be construed as evidence for how improbable ID might be.
It hasn't taken long at all. We have developed the ability to directly modify genes in less than 500 years. This is certainly an eyeblink in terms of geological time. One might suppose that in the next 5000 years we might be able to create custom genomes of our own. Again, in an eyeblink.
If something can be done deliberately, then -- unless we can prove that whatever would trigger it cannot occur randomly -- it can happen randomly.
Are you arguing that because I can walk into the room and reassemble the flowerpot back together (maybe it was made of lego blocks), that it can reassemble without outside help if given enough time? Theoretically, yes, but the time necessary for that highly improbable outcome to occur is outside the bounds of reason.
If you consider a simple enough instruction set, it is easy to generate valid programs randomly. If every possible value for the order field represents a valid operation, then there can never be an invalid order and hence the validity of a program only depends upon it not producing an overflow condition
Exactly my point, in order to demonstrate random generation of meaningful code you have to dumb your instruction set way down. If you use an even moderately complex instruction set, the set of possible instructions becomes staggeringly huge while the set of working instructions is comparatively miniscule. This is, apparently, the state of things in the DNA world. Huge set of possible combinations, extremely small set of working combinations.
Swedes, cabbages, turnips, Brussels sprouts, broccoli, cauliflower and oil-seed rape are all descendants of a now-extinct plant, Brassica sativa. All these distinct species have come about since humans began practising agriculture {you might say they are the original genetically-modified organisms}. Unless humans once possessed and have since lost the technology for doing genetic modifications, it is reasonable to suppose that they represent random genetic mutations which proved beneficial to survival in a particular environment {farmers planted more of the seeds which produced the best vegetables}.
I cannot say for certain, but I would expect that all of those descendants involved expression or non-expression of existing genes, but not the creation, by mutation, of new genes. Lots of genes get turned on or turned off or shifted around by viruses, but mutations tend to be fatal.
I think you and I pretty much agree. I don't believe that ID has debunked unguided evolution. I believe that irreducible complexity has not been demonstrated.
My only suggestion is that there are other possibilities that may be explored, maybe panspermia (I know, it only shifts the time-frame), maybe something we just don't have any concept of now. There is a lot of evidence available now that suggests panspermia is not so far-fetched. http://www.panspermia.com/. There is a large part of the genome that is highly preserved and we don't know what it does (so-called junk DNA).
Intelligent Design (the pseudo-scientific movement) requires irreducible complexity (a miracle) and is therefore not scientific. The idea that some intelligent entity may have performed design work on our genome does not require a miracle and can be shown to be possible. We ourselves perform design work on genomes, therefore, it is possible to do so. There is still the question of who created the first genome, which, I assume, is the "infinite regression" you are talking about. I don't know the answer to that question. I don't propose that either theory is the Truth. I merely point out that one can be shown to be possible and the other cannot. We cannot recreate random chance generation of working genes in the laboratory or in computer simulations.
I have to say that I have no arguments with the idea that we may have been intelligently designed, but the Intelligent Design (ID) movement is not scientific. Materialistic evolution SHOULD be criticized, but not with the ulterior motive of promoting religion. The problem with ID is that it makes the same mistake you made (with all due respect). You said: *****"By eliminating materialistic evolution, the only remaining hypotheses are by definition non-materialistic, or "supernatural", or even "non-scientific".***** Just because one scientific theory of the emergence of species has weaknesses, or even if it is completely discredited, one does not have to jump to supernatural explanations. One merely looks further for a scientific explanation. To be completely clear, looking for evidence of a process of design by intelligence is scientific. To claim supernatural processes, (as ID does) is not scientific, it is religion.
I'm just curious. What would it take to falsify evolution in your mind? My point is that while I do not accept ID as a scientific theory, and while everyone says that evolution is falsifiable, very few science oriented individuals consider how evolution might be falsified. They just accept it as fact and continue blithely onward. Is there anything scientific that would falsify evolution?
You said: *****"Evolution is a demonstrable fact. Around the time of the Industrial Revolution, white butterflies turned dark because it gave them better camouflage against the trunks of silver birch trees {which were now sooty from all the factory chimbleys chuffing out smoke}. When Thatcher closed down all the factories, the butterflies turned white again." ***** This is natural selection, merely a part of the evolution argument. The genes for light and dark moths already existed in the genome, they were merely expressed in differing ratios based on the survival benefits of one over the other. This example did not involve the "evolution" of new genes. You also said: *****"The fact that it is possible to create genetically modified organisms in the laboratory indicates that evolution is possible in theory".***** I would say that this proves that ID is possible (in theory) since it is a example of an intelligence (us) doing design work. I have a hard time believing that modifying something in the lab proves that it can be generated spontaneously through random chance. I can open my computer up and make mods, but I don't expect one to come into existence through random shuffling of computer parts. I modify code, but a random character generator will not create a working program. I agree with you that ID, as it is being presented, is not scientific. "Irreducible Complexity" is not demonstrable, therefore not scientific. I still see weaknesses in the random creation of new genes that Evolution requires.
I had some formatting issues - reposting my FULL reply:
First, let me say that I do not support ID as a scientific theory, but I also must say that evolution has some holes as a scientific theory. Natural Selection (a part of evolution) is scientific (testable, falsifiable), but the creation of working genes through random chance mutation is not. In fact, ID, in one sense, is MORE scientific. We can actually DO Intelligent Design ourselves (to some degree), thereby proving that it is possible. We manipulate genes all the time. We can't yet create new functional genes, but at least we have taken some of the first steps. Nobody can DO random chance mutation to generate a new, functional gene. We've never seen it happen and we can't seem to get it to happen, even working with fast-cycle bacteria. 25,000+ generations so far and STILL no new genes.
My disagreement with you is in your statement that computer based organisms have evolved to much more complex behavior than they started with. This statement is only true of tests in which the new, workable genes already exist in the environment. The virtual organisms are able to assimilate those genes and, through a process of natural selection, find the best combinations. No virtual life has been seen to "evolve" new functional genes. For that matter, no real life has been seen to do this either. Reshuffling of existing genes, yes, this has been seen. But the question still remains; Where do the new functional genes come from?
First, let me say that I do not support ID as a scientific theory, but I also must say that evolution has some holes as a scientific theory. Natural Selection (a part of evolution) is scientific, but the creation of working genes through random chance mutation is not. In fact, ID, in one sense, is MORE scientific. We can actually DO Intelligent Design ourselves (to some degree), thereby proving that it is possible. We manipulate genes all the time. We can't yet create new functional genes, but at least we have taken some of the first steps. Nobody can DO random chance mutation to generate a new, functional gene. We've never seen it happen and we can't seem to get it to happen, even working with fast-cycle bacteria. 25,000+ generations so far and STILL no new genes.
My disagreement with you is in your statement that computer based organisms have evolved to much more complex behavior than they started with. This statement is only true of tests in which the new, genes already exist in the environment. The virtual organisms are able to assimilate those genes and, through a process of natural selection, find the best combinations. No virtual life has been seen to "evolve" new functional genes. For that matter, no real life has been to do this either. Reshuffling of existing genes, yes, this has been seen. But the question still remains; Where do the new genes come from?
Slashdot Mirror
From what I have read, the heat of re-entry is usually exagerated. The interior of meteorite is cold. Google "taggish lake meteorite" and you will see that this carbonaceous chondrite landed on a frozen lake in Canada, was gathered by an alert person and "kept" cold in his freezer so the volatiles would not sublimate away. In other words, it was cold when it hit the ground. The reading I have done seems to suggest that surviving re-entry inside a meteorite would not be that hard.
Transposons found in whales and cows but not in hippos.
Now that we have the ability to decode genomes, we may find something like this. I don't think it would falsify evolution, though. Viral transposition could account for the same genes in cows and whales but not in hippos. I think we can be fairly certain that genes hop around quite a bit, even in eukaryotes.
Sorry, I'm still working on formatting... Yes, it proves it's possible; however, it does nothing to change the fact that it's improbable. In fact, seeing as how it's taken us this long just to get together the wherewithal to do it, I think that might be construed as evidence for how improbable ID might be.
It hasn't taken long at all. We have developed the ability to directly modify genes in less than 500 years. This is certainly an eyeblink in terms of geological time. One might suppose that in the next 5000 years we might be able to create custom genomes of our own. Again, in an eyeblink.
If something can be done deliberately, then -- unless we can prove that whatever would trigger it cannot occur randomly -- it can happen randomly.
Are you arguing that because I can walk into the room and reassemble the flowerpot back together (maybe it was made of lego blocks), that it can reassemble without outside help if given enough time? Theoretically, yes, but the time necessary for that highly improbable outcome to occur is outside the bounds of reason.
If you consider a simple enough instruction set, it is easy to generate valid programs randomly. If every possible value for the order field represents a valid operation, then there can never be an invalid order and hence the validity of a program only depends upon it not producing an overflow condition
Exactly my point, in order to demonstrate random generation of meaningful code you have to dumb your instruction set way down. If you use an even moderately complex instruction set, the set of possible instructions becomes staggeringly huge while the set of working instructions is comparatively miniscule. This is, apparently, the state of things in the DNA world. Huge set of possible combinations, extremely small set of working combinations.
Swedes, cabbages, turnips, Brussels sprouts, broccoli, cauliflower and oil-seed rape are all descendants of a now-extinct plant, Brassica sativa. All these distinct species have come about since humans began practising agriculture {you might say they are the original genetically-modified organisms}. Unless humans once possessed and have since lost the technology for doing genetic modifications, it is reasonable to suppose that they represent random genetic mutations which proved beneficial to survival in a particular environment {farmers planted more of the seeds which produced the best vegetables}.
I cannot say for certain, but I would expect that all of those descendants involved expression or non-expression of existing genes, but not the creation, by mutation, of new genes. Lots of genes get turned on or turned off or shifted around by viruses, but mutations tend to be fatal.
Yes, it proves it's possible; however, it does nothing to change the fact that it's improbable. In fact, seeing as how it's taken us this long just to get together the wherewithal to do it, I think that might be construed as evidence for how improbable ID might be. It hasn't taken long at all. We have developed the ability to directly modify genes in less than 500 years. This is certainly an eyeblink in terms of geological time. One might suppose that in the next 5000 years we might be able to create custom genomes of our own. Again, in an eyeblink. If something can be done deliberately, then -- unless we can prove that whatever would trigger it cannot occur randomly -- it can happen randomly. Are you arguing that because I can walk into the room and reassemble the flowerpot back together (maybe it was made of lego blocks), that it can reassemble without outside help if given enough time? Theoretically, yes, but the time necessary for that highly improbable outcome to occur is outside the bounds of reason. If you consider a simple enough instruction set, it is easy to generate valid programs randomly. If every possible value for the order field represents a valid operation, then there can never be an invalid order and hence the validity of a program only depends upon it not producing an overflow condition Exactly my point, in order to demonstrate random generation of meaningful code you have to dumb your instruction set way down. If you use an even moderately complex instruction set, the set of possible instructions becomes staggeringly huge while the set of working instructions is comparatively miniscule. This is, apparently, the state of things in the DNA world. Huge set of possible combinations, extremely small set of working combinations. Swedes, cabbages, turnips, Brussels sprouts, broccoli, cauliflower and oil-seed rape are all descendants of a now-extinct plant, Brassica sativa. All these distinct species have come about since humans began practising agriculture {you might say they are the original genetically-modified organisms}. Unless humans once possessed and have since lost the technology for doing genetic modifications, it is reasonable to suppose that they represent random genetic mutations which proved beneficial to survival in a particular environment {farmers planted more of the seeds which produced the best vegetables}. I cannot say for certain, but I would expect that all of those descendants involved expression or non-expression of existing genes, but not the creation, by mutation, of new genes. Lots of genes get turned on or turned off or shifted around by viruses, but mutations tend to be fatal.
Sorry, that doesn't count. I asked for scientific answers. ;^)
I think you and I pretty much agree. I don't believe that ID has debunked unguided evolution. I believe that irreducible complexity has not been demonstrated.
My only suggestion is that there are other possibilities that may be explored, maybe panspermia (I know, it only shifts the time-frame), maybe something we just don't have any concept of now. There is a lot of evidence available now that suggests panspermia is not so far-fetched. http://www.panspermia.com/. There is a large part of the genome that is highly preserved and we don't know what it does (so-called junk DNA).
Intelligent Design (the pseudo-scientific movement) requires irreducible complexity (a miracle) and is therefore not scientific. The idea that some intelligent entity may have performed design work on our genome does not require a miracle and can be shown to be possible. We ourselves perform design work on genomes, therefore, it is possible to do so. There is still the question of who created the first genome, which, I assume, is the "infinite regression" you are talking about. I don't know the answer to that question. I don't propose that either theory is the Truth. I merely point out that one can be shown to be possible and the other cannot. We cannot recreate random chance generation of working genes in the laboratory or in computer simulations.
I have to say that I have no arguments with the idea that we may have been intelligently designed, but the Intelligent Design (ID) movement is not scientific. Materialistic evolution SHOULD be criticized, but not with the ulterior motive of promoting religion. The problem with ID is that it makes the same mistake you made (with all due respect). You said: *****"By eliminating materialistic evolution, the only remaining hypotheses are by definition non-materialistic, or "supernatural", or even "non-scientific".***** Just because one scientific theory of the emergence of species has weaknesses, or even if it is completely discredited, one does not have to jump to supernatural explanations. One merely looks further for a scientific explanation. To be completely clear, looking for evidence of a process of design by intelligence is scientific. To claim supernatural processes, (as ID does) is not scientific, it is religion.
I'm just curious. What would it take to falsify evolution in your mind? My point is that while I do not accept ID as a scientific theory, and while everyone says that evolution is falsifiable, very few science oriented individuals consider how evolution might be falsified. They just accept it as fact and continue blithely onward. Is there anything scientific that would falsify evolution?
You said: *****"Evolution is a demonstrable fact. Around the time of the Industrial Revolution, white butterflies turned dark because it gave them better camouflage against the trunks of silver birch trees {which were now sooty from all the factory chimbleys chuffing out smoke}. When Thatcher closed down all the factories, the butterflies turned white again." ***** This is natural selection, merely a part of the evolution argument. The genes for light and dark moths already existed in the genome, they were merely expressed in differing ratios based on the survival benefits of one over the other. This example did not involve the "evolution" of new genes. You also said: *****"The fact that it is possible to create genetically modified organisms in the laboratory indicates that evolution is possible in theory".***** I would say that this proves that ID is possible (in theory) since it is a example of an intelligence (us) doing design work. I have a hard time believing that modifying something in the lab proves that it can be generated spontaneously through random chance. I can open my computer up and make mods, but I don't expect one to come into existence through random shuffling of computer parts. I modify code, but a random character generator will not create a working program. I agree with you that ID, as it is being presented, is not scientific. "Irreducible Complexity" is not demonstrable, therefore not scientific. I still see weaknesses in the random creation of new genes that Evolution requires.
I had some formatting issues - reposting my FULL reply: First, let me say that I do not support ID as a scientific theory, but I also must say that evolution has some holes as a scientific theory. Natural Selection (a part of evolution) is scientific (testable, falsifiable), but the creation of working genes through random chance mutation is not. In fact, ID, in one sense, is MORE scientific. We can actually DO Intelligent Design ourselves (to some degree), thereby proving that it is possible. We manipulate genes all the time. We can't yet create new functional genes, but at least we have taken some of the first steps. Nobody can DO random chance mutation to generate a new, functional gene. We've never seen it happen and we can't seem to get it to happen, even working with fast-cycle bacteria. 25,000+ generations so far and STILL no new genes. My disagreement with you is in your statement that computer based organisms have evolved to much more complex behavior than they started with. This statement is only true of tests in which the new, workable genes already exist in the environment. The virtual organisms are able to assimilate those genes and, through a process of natural selection, find the best combinations. No virtual life has been seen to "evolve" new functional genes. For that matter, no real life has been seen to do this either. Reshuffling of existing genes, yes, this has been seen. But the question still remains; Where do the new functional genes come from?
First, let me say that I do not support ID as a scientific theory, but I also must say that evolution has some holes as a scientific theory. Natural Selection (a part of evolution) is scientific, but the creation of working genes through random chance mutation is not. In fact, ID, in one sense, is MORE scientific. We can actually DO Intelligent Design ourselves (to some degree), thereby proving that it is possible. We manipulate genes all the time. We can't yet create new functional genes, but at least we have taken some of the first steps. Nobody can DO random chance mutation to generate a new, functional gene. We've never seen it happen and we can't seem to get it to happen, even working with fast-cycle bacteria. 25,000+ generations so far and STILL no new genes. My disagreement with you is in your statement that computer based organisms have evolved to much more complex behavior than they started with. This statement is only true of tests in which the new, genes already exist in the environment. The virtual organisms are able to assimilate those genes and, through a process of natural selection, find the best combinations. No virtual life has been seen to "evolve" new functional genes. For that matter, no real life has been to do this either. Reshuffling of existing genes, yes, this has been seen. But the question still remains; Where do the new genes come from?