An evolutionary question

[Jack]

And the lack of a theistic answer does not automatically suppose a scientific answer.

I don't believe I've ever suggested that. I don't consider theistic answers to have much if any relevance to science in either their presence or absence.

[rez]

Quote by: Kuldeep What makes a cell alive to begin with. !!

It can reproduce? It takes in energy and dispenses it as waste. The nucleus of the cell could be considered the brain of the cell. The cell does have organs technically.

Biologists are slowing learning how to create life from non-life, so keep watching.

[rez]

Quote by: ZNFYRH And the lack of a theistic answer does not automatically suppose a scientific answer.

Nope it doesn't. It just puts the theistic answer in the "low-probability" category.

[ZNFYRH]

Isherwood
rez

You both say that, but there are plenty here on VC who confuse "low-probability" with "impossible"... or who think a lack of answer for one automatically proves the other.

[Jubloz]

ZNF, in logic, some claims are so improbable that they are categorize as impossible. Consider the claim that the character "Superman" is actually based on me. Right now, your brain is almost instantly coming up with numerous examples that are weighing what you know against my claim and, unless you're actually a nut-job, by now I'm sure you've concluded that my statement is false, or, if you'd prefer a different word, "impossible". With a claim like "I am actually Superman" it is illogical to even consider an extremely low-probability factor that I actually run into telephone booths and fly around in spandex and a cape when nobodies looking. This is what it means to be logical.

[Kuldeep]

Quote by: rez It can reproduce? It takes in energy and dispenses it as waste. The nucleus of the cell could be considered the brain of the cell. The cell does have organs technically.

That is understanable, cell is functioning just like gross animal. System of working is same. But, what starts such a system to function in the begining, is the basic point.

Biologists are slowing learning how to create life from non-life, so keep watching.

Meaning Scientists are trying to find out that basic reason. No harm in trying. Then, they would be able to convert dead cell into a living cell or dead body into a living body...would be a real challenge to nature/super-power/God or the like!!......If I am alive by then. I would love to watch Scientists creating life from non-life.

[Jubloz]

Quote by: Kuldeep That is understanable, cell is functioning just like gross animal. System of working is same. But, what starts such a system to function in the begining, is the basic point.

To what degree? It's hard to answer your question unless you're a little more specific. Are you asking about the abiogenesis of cellular life, or are you simply asking what physically makes a cell alive? Both have very different answers, although perhaps each are equally complex. As for creating new life from scratch, unless you're planning on dying soon, I imagine it will be a scientific accomplishment that you'll be seeing within your lifetime. It's already possible to create a virus from scratch (although whether a virus classifies as life is debatable), and recently some geneticists were able to insert the code of one bacterium into another, turning the second bacterium into a clone. This is actually pretty amazing when you think about it, because it's, albeit on a smaller level, the equivalent of my putting all of my DNA into you and your body turning into an exact copy of me. To my knowledge, there's some very promising programs working on actually piecing together an entirely new cell from scratch.

[Greg Iles]

Not having all the answers makes everything more interesting.

[ZNFYRH]

Quote by: Jubloz ZNF, in logic, some claims are so improbable that they are categorize as impossible.

Did you want to talk logic, or probability.

There is no such thing as probability in logic, or science.

Logic is a conclusion, based on premises, deduced through a process. That's all.

Science is the means for testing that the premises are valid, and that the conclusion is valid.

No where in there does probability come into play.

No matter how ridiculous the question is from the view of probability, science still has to do the experiments to write it off.

[rez]

Quote by: ZNFYRH Did you want to talk logic, or probability. There is no such thing as probability in logic, or science. Logic is a conclusion, based on premises, deduced through a process. That's all. Science is the means for testing that the premises are valid, and that the conclusion is valid. No where in there does probability come into play. No matter how ridiculous the question is from the view of probability, science still has to do the experiments to write it off.

not to be off topic or anything, but there are degrees of validity within logic such as nil, weak, moderate, strong, and deductively valid. If one can come up with a bunch of other real-possibilities that turn the conclusion from true to false, then one would categorize the reasoning as nil, weak, or moderate.


Anywaaayyy...
Besides ToE, there are no other explanations that do a better job at explaining how life changes over time.

[Jubloz]

Quote by: ZNFYRH There is no such thing as probability in logic, or science.

This is incorrect. While logic does deal with deduction, which is not an expression of probability, logic also deals with induction, which can be expressed in terms of being "strong" or "weak". Science also deals frequently with issues of probability, although this isn't always the case, but instead fully situational. If you do want some examples of scientists regularly expressing ideas and possibilities in terms of probability, I highly suggest engaging into some reading that relates to astrophysics. Furthermore, if you don't think that logic and science are interrelated, you're heavily mistaken.

Quote by: ZNFYRH Logic is a conclusion, based on premises, deduced through a process. That's all.

Incorrect. While you're correct in that logic does deal with conclusions derived from premises, deduction is not the only process. Furthermore, there is a lot of other subject matter that is inclusive to logic, which includes the recognition of fallacious and rhetorical argumentation.

Quote by: ZNFYRH Science is the means for testing that the premises are valid, and that the conclusion is valid.

Yep.

Quote by: ZNFYRH No where in there does probability come into play.

Nope. Once again, look into induction, not to mention the correlation between science and statistics.

Quote by: ZNFYRH No matter how ridiculous the question is from the view of probability, science still has to do the experiments to write it off.

Not true; this is the burden of proof fallacy. As an example, if I say there is a demon that keeps causing my car to break down, but I cannot provide any level of evidence to support my claim, it is not the responsibility of science to prove me incorrect. That would be illogical, if not impossible. Science is pretty cool in that, despite this, it can go a long ways in providing evidence against such a claim should someone decide to actually devote the time into doing so. Now, if I were to actually provide some sort of physical evidence to support my claim, like, let's say, I actually catch a demon, yeah, it's at this point vital for scientists to investigate. In short, science deals with testable concepts, or, if you will, reality. Just because someone can pull an idea out of their *** doesn't mean that it's the responsibility of science to disprove it.

[Nemiroff]

there is no such thing as lack of theistic answer, it is simply god did it.

[ZNFYRH]

Quote by: Jubloz Just because someone can pull an idea out of their *** doesn't mean that it's the responsibility of science to disprove it.

That's correct.

If you say there is a auto-demon, you have to prove it.

If you fail to prove it, a scientifically minded person does not say, "Then it doesn't exist." That person says, "Then you still have to prove it."

[Jubloz]

Quote by: ZNFYRH If you fail to prove it, a scientifically minded person does not say, "Then it doesn't exist." That person says, "Then you still have to prove it."

If a scientifically minded person is trying to be perfectly accurate, they'll say something to the effect of "it almost certainly does not exist." This type of language is not often used because, firstly, when an extraordinarily strong inductive argument debunks another claim it is logical to disregard the opposing claim and assume what's probable: that the claim is incorrect. Linguistically, it's then acceptable to say, "No, this does not exist." Secondly, many scientists choose to take this linguistic "shorthand" version of saying things because people who are ignorant to the scientific method, either by their own choice or a lack of exposure, misinterpret this extraordinarily low probability as allowing for at least enough of a chance that the exception does exist, and therefore it's worth pursuing the alternative route. People, in most circumstances, do not respond in this irrational manner; if someone hands you a pill that is 99.99999999999999% sure to kill you, you'd be insane to decide that, because there's a 0.00000000000001% chance that you'll live, it's worth taking the pill and disregarding the warning. No, you would, as a rational person, conclude that this pill will kill you if you take it and, instead, throw it away. ZNF, you're being caught up in the extremely improbable, which is, by very definition, irrationality.

[ZNFYRH]

Quote by: Jubloz ZNF, you're being caught up in the extremely improbable, which is, by very definition, irrationality.

Extremely improbable?

How extreme?

Could you tell me the probability?

[Jubloz]

Quote by: ZNFYRH Extremely improbable? How extreme? Could you tell me the probability?

I'll just skip the chase to the catch, since you have a specific goal in mind; how about the existence of an invisible Him with a complete lack of evidence, yet a heap of evidence to the contrary? Yes, accepting the invisible Him would be irrational.

[ZNFYRH]

Jubloz

This thread is about evolution, not theism.

[Jubloz]

Quote by: ZNFYRH Jubloz This thread is about evolution, not theism.

Rofl. Wow, ZNF, way to worm your religious perspectives into the conversation, and when it's called out, worm your way back out for the sake of smearing the debate and your opponent. I'm disappointed in you. That being said, I agree, theism should be left out of the evolutionary conversation; they are in no way related.

PS: Actually, you were talking about theism before I was. In fact, I didn't even discuss religion until you started into it, and my addression of theism has only been in response to your posts, which is exceedingly ironic.

Quote by: ZNFYRH And the lack of a theistic answer does not automatically suppose a scientific answer.

If you want to have a debate with me, fine, but please have the courtesy to be consistent, otherwise you're wasting my time. I've been kind enough to read and consider your posts and I have, I believe, done a fairly good job of responding to all of your points, so please show me the same level of respect.

[ZNFYRH]

Quote by: Jubloz Wow, ZNF, way to worm your religious perspectives into the conversation

It's called self-moderation. I realized the thread was going off-topic. I'm not "worming" out of anything.

You guys are awfully effing brave with how you talk to people online.

Quote by: Jubloz Actually, you were talking about theism before I was. In fact, I didn't even discuss religion until you started into it, and my addression of theism has only been in response to your posts, which is exceedingly ironic.

Did you want to play the quote game?

Read posts 18, 20, 21, 23, and 24.

In fact, start with 18 and read very carefully.

YOU were the first person to mention God specifically... in post #36.

I never once mentioned God, Creationism, or theism.

I specifically addressed Isherwood's comment and maintained that unless there is direct observation of a thing, you cannot say for sure whether or not that thing is true.

In fact, read 18, 20, 21, 23, and 24 again.

Focus on 24.

I think I quite clearly criticize both sides. Did you make the mistake of thinking that because I happened to be addressing two atheists that I was automatically a theist?

[Jubloz]

Quote by: ZNFYRH It's called self-moderation. I realized the thread was going off-topic. I'm not "worming" out of anything.

Wait, so it's perfectly acceptable for you to engage in an off topic debate, but as soon as someone destroys your arguments, your a moderator? Uhh, what?

Quote by: ZNFYRH You guys are awfully effing brave with how you talk to people online.

Is this a threat?

Quote by: ZNFYRH Did you want to play the quote game?

I just looked through the entire list of smilies, and not a single smilie rolling its eyes?

Quote by: ZNFYRH Read posts 18, 20, 21, 23, and 24. In fact, start with 18 and read very carefully.

M'kay, I already did, but now I've read them a second time. Now, if you would, please take the time to actually read my responses debunking your posts.

Quote by: ZNFYRH YOU were the first person to mention God specifically... in post #36.

Actually, this is incorrect. There's a very neat feature that you can use on forums and a number of other programs called "Ctrl+F", which allows you to more accurately search for used words by utilizing the 'find' tool. Upon having used "Ctrl+F", I discovered that three other people (prior to your most recent post) have used the word God, none of which were me. And, since you want to get really specific, I wrote 945 words in three posts that had absolutely nothing to do with theism or faith, and didn't even begin to discuss this topic until you had already started into it. ZNF, if you're going to tell me to do the reading (which I clearly have), at least have the respect to do the same.

Quote by: ZNFYRH I never once mentioned God, Creationism, or theism.

Haven't we already been over this?

Quote by: ZNFYRH And the lack of a theistic answer does not automatically suppose a scientific answer.

By the way, that's post #20.

Quote by: ZNFYRH I specifically addressed Isherwood's comment and maintained that unless there is direct observation of a thing, you cannot say for sure whether or not that thing is true.

I realize you discussed this, and then I responded to your post. I'm fairly positive that I'm allowed to do that.

ZNF, please calm down; it's okay to be wrong sometimes. If anything, it's admirable to be able to admit when you are. People aren't always going to agree with you, especially on a place like this. If you can't get over that, this might not be the best atmosphere for you.