E
edwest211
Guest
There is no valid reason to believe lifeless chemicals became alive.
News Flash!“In science, a theory can never be proven true, because we can never assume we know all there is to know.”
Yes. And it was wrong. Are you actually saying that you can prove theories?My error? Pope Benedict wrote that, not me.
Please read what I posted. It is not an either/or rather it is and and/both. My argument is solid. It’s absurd to suggest that on abiogenesis Aquinas “absolutely” did not review and be influenced by Augustine’s work.The influence of Augustine’s interpretation Genesis on Aquinas’ reasoning is only an issue because you are insisting, without demonstration, that Aquinas’ conclusions about abiogenesis are derived from Augustine and not Aristotle.
If you prefer not to engage then why did you invite me to do so?Again, I will not engage on the subject of what some historical figure would believe …
That being said, you’ll have to express why you think Aquinas would not accept theistic evolution if you’re going to claim that he probably wouldn’t.
How does one respond? Is it possible to discuss it with the mods to determine exactly why something is flagged?Bradskii:
Yes, it’s unpleasant behaviour. I’m not sure how this flagging thing works, but it seems on present evidence subject to abuse.What on EARTH is happening here? I have made two totally inoccuous posts and both have been flagged and removed. Am I not allowed to make reasonable comments on this thread?
Help yourself. I wonder if “liking” has any ameliorating effect?Excuse me, Picky. But I might try to flag yours to see how this works
In statistics, once the known variables make an event impossible, it is a fool’s errand to search for more:As for your assertion that abiogenesis is impossible due to improbability, you are assuming the value of variables that you can’t possibly know.
Biologists currently estimate that the smallest life form as we know it would have needed about 256 genes. (See Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences Volume 93, Number 19, pp. 10268-10273 at http://journals.at-home.com/get_doc/1854083/8551). A gene is typically 1000 or more base pairs long, and there is some space in between, so 256 genes would amount to about 300,000 bases of DNA. The deoxyribose in the DNA ``backbone’’ determines the direction in which it will spiral. Since organic molecules can be generated in both forms, the chance of obtaining all one form or another in 300,000 bases is one in two to the 300,000 power. This is about one in 10 to the 90,000 power. It seems to be necessary for life that all of these bases spiral in the same direction. Now, if we imagine many, many DNA molecules being formed in the early history of the earth, we might have say 10 100 molecules altogether (which is really much too high). But even this would make the probability of getting one DNA molecule right about one in 10 to the 89,900 power, still essentially zero. And we are not even considering what proteins the DNA generates, or how the rest of the cell structure would get put together! So the real probability would be fantastically small.
Department of
Computer Science
University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill
OK. Flagging chat with Picky over. Now back to the question I asked earlier. Do you think a theory can be proved?That represents the reality, which includes a number of recent articles about the genome and cellular function which include “it was more complex than we thought.”
There is nothing in Aquinas’ discussion of abiogenesis that doesn’t directly come from Aristotle. Augustine’s exegesis of Genesis may have also reflected the science of his own day, but Aquinas gives no indication that he is drawing on Augustine to interpret Aristotle, and he certainly wasn’t relying on Augustine (much more of a Platonist) to justify his own acceptance of Aristotle.Please read what I posted. It is not an either/or rather it is and and/both . My argument is solid. It’s absurd to suggest that on abiogenesis Aquinas “absolutely” did not review and be influenced by Augustine’s work.
I invited you to explain your reasoning rather than merely assert because I had no idea where you were coming from. In responding to your explanation I restated my position on such speculation before engaging the only point (the probability of abiogenesis given modern scientific data) that I am willing to address.If you prefer not to engage then why did you invite me to do so?
For what it’s worth I can still see your posts despite the flags.What on EARTH is happening here? I have made two totally inoccuous posts and both have been flagged and removed. Am I not allowed to make reasonable comments on this thread?
Both relate to the lack of understanding of a basci scienific concept: That theories cannot be proved. Is it against forum rules to point that people are in error in claiming that they can be?
The link you gave only takes us to the N. Carolina Uni home page. The article you cut and pasted appears to come from a garish Creation web site. Following the links to its home page takes us here: A Creation PerspectiveGhosty1981:
In statistics, once the known variables make an event impossible, it is a fool’s errand to search for more:As for your assertion that abiogenesis is impossible due to improbability, you are assuming the value of variables that you can’t possibly know.
Biologists currently estimate that the smallest life form as we know it would have needed about 256 genes. (See Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences Volume 93, Number 19, pp. 10268-10273 at http://journals.at-home.com/get_doc/1854083/8551). A gene is typically 1000 or more base pairs long, and there is some space in between, so 256 genes would amount to about 300,000 bases of DNA. The deoxyribose in the DNA ``backbone’’ determines the direction in which it will spiral. Since organic molecules can be generated in both forms, the chance of obtaining all one form or another in 300,000 bases is one in two to the 300,000 power. This is about one in 10 to the 90,000 power. It seems to be necessary for life that all of these bases spiral in the same direction. Now, if we imagine many, many DNA molecules being formed in the early history of the earth, we might have say 10 100 molecules altogether (which is really much too high). But even this would make the probability of getting one DNA molecule right about one in 10 to the 89,900 power, still essentially zero. And we are not even considering what proteins the DNA generates, or how the rest of the cell structure would get put together! So the real probability would be fantastically small.
Department of
Computer Science
University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill
Sorry, Ed. Was that in response to my question?1There is no possibility of abiogenesis even with modern data.
We know neither the variables nor their values, so this point is irrelevant.In statistics, once the known variables make an event impossible, it is a fool’s errand to search for more: