You are viewing a single comment's thread from:

RE: Speciation of Humans Colonizing Mars

in #science7 years ago (edited)

My background is in physics. A standard tactic, in physics, when faced with extremely complicated problems is to make simplifying assumptions. Simplifying assumptions are very useful to determine whats reasonable and whats not. We see that life is here on earth and some postulate that it is here through a process of random mutations where the non-beneficial mutations are selected out. So the first thing that needs to be done is to see if this postulate is reasonable. If the postulate is not reasonable a lot of time and resources would be wasted going down a dead end research path. The above calculation is done with simplifying assumptions that over estimate the probability that life is here by chance. So what we can conclude is that; life is NOT here through a process of random mutations where the non-beneficial mutations are selected out.

Now where do we go? Like it or not there is only one direction to go. Life is here because it has to be here and life is the way it is because it has to be the way it is. We are forced down a deterministic road.

There is evidence that cells must avoid mutations and repair DNA and or RNA. This is the direction that life extension research is going.

Is there evidence that the development of life is catalyzed? Yes there is.

Sort:  

My background is in IT... You're response is both interesting and will now lead me down many rabbit holes to gain further understanding. Thank you for that.

First my belief in the Big Bang Theory is shaken and now you're causing me to doubt evolution... This has been an interesting couple months. Conscious Incompetence ;)

When I first did the calculation I realized that the theory of evolution is statistically imposable. If you look at the history of science you will find theories that today are considered false where taught as being true. That situation still exists today. My goal of the original post was to hopefully get someone who understands statistics to see the contradiction. I don't have all the answers but its fun looking for them.

I've found some arguments against evolution being random chance.

This objection is fundamentally an argument by lack of imagination, or argument from incredulity: a certain explanation is seen as being counterintuitive, and therefore an alternate, more intuitive explanation is appealed to instead. Supporters of evolution generally respond by arguing that evolution is not based on "chance," but on predictable chemical interactions: natural processes, rather than supernatural beings, are the "designer." Although the process involves some random elements, it is the non-random selection of survival-enhancing genes that drives evolution along an ordered trajectory. The fact that the results are ordered and seem "designed" is no more evidence for a supernatural intelligence than the appearance of complex natural phenomena (e.g. snowflakes).[114] It is also argued that there is insufficient evidence to make statements about the plausibility or implausibility of abiogenesis, that certain structures demonstrate poor design, and that the implausibility of life evolving exactly as it did is no more evidence for an intelligence than the implausibility of a deck of cards being shuffled and dealt in a certain random order.[41][113]

It has also been noted that arguments against some form of life arising "by chance" are really objections to nontheistic abiogenesis, not to evolution. Indeed, arguments against "evolution" are based on the misconception that abiogenesis is a component of, or necessary precursor to, evolution. Similar objections sometimes conflate the Big Bang with evolution.[24]

What are your thoughts in response to this?

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Objections_to_evolution

I don't like the argument it seems a bit incoherent. The argument wouldn't sway me in any direction. The statistical argument above is simple and only falsifies the random hypothesis. Note that I'm not proposing an alternative theory. I'm simply stating that if its not random then it must be deterministic. This is all that I can conclude from the statistical argument above.