Abiogenesis and Probabilities

[DrNoGods]

I'm creating a new thread here to continue debate on a post made by EarthScience guy on another thread (Science and Religion > Artificial life: can it be created?, post 17). This post challenged probability calculations in an old Talkorigins article that I had linked in that thread:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/abioprob/abioprob.html

Are the arguments (on creationist views) and probabilities presented reasonable in the Talkorigins article? If not, why not?

[DrNoGods]

[Replying to Noose001 in post #331]

And when is that? Brain developement starts from the formation of pluripotent cells which is a few days to weeks within fertilization, to postnatal period (around adolescent age).

Pluripotent cells have no awareness of their surroundings and are not a working brain, and it is clearly true that a freshly born baby has some awareness (ie. is conscious, which was my point). The neural tube starts to form at around 4-5 weeks after conception, and some believe that it is around 24-25 weeks that consciousness first emerges:

https://www.nature.com/articles/pr200950

https://www.irishtimes.com/opinion/the- ... -1.3506968

So somewhere in that ballpark is probably a reasonable answer for "when is that."

No t=0 in your model of time. My model only requires awareness.

Time itself is independent of anyone's awareness of it. We exist within time, and if we die time marches on for everyone and everything else. Have you published your model anywhere? Does it have any attributes that are inconsistent with modern scientific consensus? If so, how do you explain those differences?

Shift from no awareness to awareness by a mind is the shift from t0 to t1. I can comfortably describe the conditions before the beginning of the universe.

How are these two sentences related? I don't see the connection. I don't doubt that you can comfortably describe the conditions before the beginning of the universe, but I would question whether your description was correct. Some people in Stockholm might also be very interested.

[Noose001]

Pluripotent cells have no awareness of their surroundings and are not a working brain, and it is clearly true that a freshly born baby has some awareness (ie. is conscious, which was my point). The neural tube starts to form at around 4-5 weeks after conception, and some believe that it is around 24-25 weeks that consciousness first emerges:

https://www.nature.com/articles/pr200950

https://www.irishtimes.com/opinion/the- ... -1.3506968

So somewhere in that ballpark is probably a reasonable answer for "when is that."

We have levels of awareness. A new born has a level of awareness greater than that of a foetus and a foetus is at a level greater than a zygote which is aware at least that it needs to attach itself on the endometrium.

Time itself is independent of anyone's awareness of it. We exist within time, and if we die time marches on for everyone and everything else. Have you published your model anywhere? Does it have any attributes that are inconsistent with modern scientific consensus? If so, how do you explain those differences?

What scientific consesus are you talking about?
The reason i said science failed when it based all its argument on time but ASSUMED time. Only philosophy has made strides on this front.

"We exist within time..", No. Only our material/energy self exists in time, so there must be some other underlying reality above time.

"if we die, time marches on.." Yes, only for those that'l continue to experience time.
If time stops, there'l be no experience. If we all die, there'l be no experience.

"Have you published..." Consciousness being the most fundamental feature of reality is more common and very ancient than you think. So much has been published already.

I don't doubt that you can comfortably describe the conditions before the beginning of the universe, but I would question whether your description was correct.

My description was definately correct.

Darkness doesn't begin to exist because it is nothing. If the universe began to exist then it must have been dark before the universe existed.

OR

If light came into existence and the absence of light is darkness, then before light existed, there was absence of light.

So, it was dark before the universe began. TRUE
Again, darkness or the conditions are not the issue, time is the issue because we are now discussing a 'time period' before time as per your model of time.

[DrNoGods]

[Replying to Noose001 in post #333]

We have levels of awareness. A new born has a level of awareness greater than that of a foetus and a foetus is at a level greater than a zygote which is aware at least that it needs to attach itself on the endometrium.

Are you suggesting that a zygote "knows" that it needs to attach itself to the endomentrium? There is no reason to believe that a brainless, nerveless zygote has any ability whatsoever to be aware or conscious. It is not making any attempt on its own to travel to the uterus ... it is moved entirely by physical and chemical processes.

What scientific consesus are you talking about?

Consensus of the scientific community who publish their results (worldwide) in peer-reviewed journals so that everyone can throw darts at their ideas and results, challenge them rigorously, etc. If your ideas on time and the past, etc. have any merit then the scientific community would certainly like to know as it could shed light on other problems. But if you only post them on internet forums I doubt the mainstream science community knows anything about them.

No. Only our material/energy self exists in time, so there must be some other underlying reality above time.

Such as? Care to elaborate?

Consciousness being the most fundamental feature of reality is more common and very ancient than you think. So much has been published already.

Yes, but I'm asking about your ideas, not what other people have published. You commented in post 331 "my model only requires awareness." What is your model of time and consciousness?

If light came into existence and the absence of light is darkness, then before light existed, there was absence of light.

Exactly what do you mean by "light"? Is it only the tiny subset of the electromagnetic spectrum (roughly 350 - 800 nm ... the so-called visible range) that humans can see? Or does it include all electromagnetic radiation at all wavelengths both below and above the visible range. Anything outside of the visible range would be "dark" to humans. So does "dark" mean the absence of any electromagnetic radiation at any wavelength?

[EarthScienceguy]

[Replying to DrNoGods in post #328]

The abortion debate has nothing to do with when a brain has developed sufficiently to create awareness of self. Many people's views on abortion are driven entirely by their religious beliefs, and those vary from every sperm and egg being sacred, to a fretilized egg, to later periods. These are not scientific viewpoints and have no relation to when a fetus becomes aware of its existence.

So are you saying that those with a severe mental handicap should be put to death because they are not human? Or are you saying that those who are mentally handicapped are not human in general? If you are saying that only those self-ware are human enough to live.

[DrNoGods]

[Replying to EarthScienceguy in post #335]

So are you saying that those with a severe mental handicap should be put to death because they are not human? Or are you saying that those who are mentally handicapped are not human in general? If you are saying that only those self-ware are human enough to live.

I said nothing whatsoever about abortion as a decision or policy, or what a human is or is not. What I said was this:

"The abortion debate has nothing to do with when a brain has developed sufficiently to create awareness of self."

This was in response to Noose001 in post 329 where he/she stated:

"It is not known at what point a 'person' becomes a 'person' after conception, hence the abortion debate."

How you got from that to your above quote is beyond me. My point was that the abortion debate has nothing to do with the physical development of a brain, because brain development proceeds independently of any religious (or otherwise) views humans may have on abortion. There are certainly many people who form opinions on when abortion may or may not be sensible (both under various circumstances, and gestation time), but physical brain development will occur regardless of those opinions. That was my point.

[Diagoras]

Only our material/energy self exists in time, so there must be some other underlying reality above time.

Surely this other reality would be below time, if it's underlying?

[Noose001]

Are you suggesting that a zygote "knows" that it needs to attach itself to the endomentrium? There is no reason to believe that a brainless, nerveless zygote has any ability whatsoever to be aware or conscious. It is not making any attempt on its own to travel to the uterus ... it is moved entirely by physical and chemical processes.

Bacteria are very much aware of their environment even without having nerves or a brain. In the same manner, a zygote is aware of its environment.

Consensus of the scientific community who publish their results (worldwide) in peer-reviewed journals so that everyone can throw darts at their ideas and results, challenge them rigorously, etc.

That's not how other disciplines work because many other real things are not 'testable'.
So far physics (science) 'describes' time as what is read by a clock. This is not a defination nor is it a description but an assumption; there's no peer review of it.

Such as? Care to elaborate?

Yes, all energy/material exist in time (including our bodies), nothing to elaborate.

Yes, but I'm asking about your ideas, not what other people have published. You commented in post 331 "my model only requires awareness." What is your model of time and consciousness?

Haven't i been saying that consciousness creates reality through time. Time being a perception of the mind, makes 'physical reality' to be only a perception.

So, the shift from T0 to T1 is nothing more than the shift from not being aware to being aware. Therefore i can easily talk about T0 (before the beginning).

Haven't i been saying that presentism is the best bet and that the past and the future don't exist? And that 'present' requires a mind?

Exactly what do you mean by "light"? Is it only the tiny subset of the electromagnetic spectrum (roughly 350 - 800 nm ... the so-called visible range) that humans can see? Or does it include all electromagnetic radiation at all wavelengths both below and above the visible range. Anything outside of the visible range would be "dark" to humans. So does "dark" mean the absence of any electromagnetic radiation at any wavelength?

Whatever you want it to mean; before it existed, there was its absence which i'm refering to as darkness.
Or
I can still ask, was there nothing before the universe began?
And, i've said several times that the question is not about electromagnets or light or darkness or nothingness, it is about Time. The word before and its implication on your model of time.

You can choose any other language or even come up with completely new words to explain your ideas but i doubt it would be of any help.

[Difflugia]

Bacteria are very much aware of their environment even without having nerves or a brain. In the same manner, a zygote is aware of its environment.

If chemotaxis and what you're calling awareness are the same thing, you're using "aware" much, much differently than everyone else is.

[Noose001]

If chemotaxis and what you're calling awareness are the same thing, you're using "aware" much, much differently than everyone else is.

Yes, it's part of it and i like being different.

[Difflugia]

Yes, it's part of it and i like being different.

What's the other part of bacterium and zygote awareness?