Odds of other life in the Universe (Page 6)

Evelyn99
Evelyn99: The chances for you to win topp prize in every lottery from now is much greater than a universe without life other then here on earth. It’s completely clear and logic. Kinda like fishing a fish and convince yourself that it’s the only fish inn the ocean
4 years ago Report
0
kittybobo34
kittybobo34: Well I can bet that once life is found out there, the bible thumpers will regroup and claim "God did that too. it says so in the bible."
4 years ago Report
0
MrNoone 0
MrNoone 0: yes
4 years ago Report
0
bitemykayak
bitemykayak: There is much more proof that life on earth originated on earth than there is of divine origins.
4 years ago Report
0
Blackshoes
Blackshoes: Life is proof ! That Something happen ! Seek the truth !
bitemykayak: You're more welcome in my forum ,too show your " much proof " if any that life developed on it's own here on Earth ?
So far' no one has been able to show such proof

My God ! At lease believers in Alien Visitation have eye witness accounts

•Look deep into nature, and then you will understand everything better. ...
•Life is like riding a bicycle. ...
•No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right; a single experiment can prove me wrong. ...
•Education is what remains after one has forgotten what one has learned in school.

Albert Einstein
(Edited by Blackshoes)
4 years ago Report
1
bitemykayak
bitemykayak: Life is proof that something happened, that this is of divine origin however is no more than conjecture. My use of proof is not the best phrasing, i should have used the word evidence.
4 years ago Report
0
kittybobo34
kittybobo34: Evolution is built on a strong foundation of facts and evidence both from the fossil record and genetics..... where as creationism is based on a collection of letters and dubious history, written at the command of Emperor Constantine, called the Bible. Which was edited in 312AD throwing out about half because it didnt agree with the other half. (Personally I think they threw out the wrong half)
Now 2000 years later, we have people desperately trying to cherry pick the facts they like, and ignoring the ones they don't, in order to prove that document, and evolution false.... And they are telling us we are idiots.
4 years ago Report
0
Blackshoes
Blackshoes: "Evolution is built on a strong foundation of facts and evidence both from the fossil record and genetics..... "

Yet: you never show anything other than Assumption and conclusion .
The Fossil record Only Shows Species Coming into existence, and becoming extinct through out time ',that's the facts ! What you Believe ', Isn't science ! It's just bias believers in Evolution lining up fossils that they believe became,Apes , humans, trees, plant life, fish , Dinosaurs etc.
It's not even logical without any Microbiological evidence too support it !
They're assumption are just dead ends .
I have begged and pleaded for REAL evidence ! Yet : all Evolution has ever done is make up theories upon theories claiming that's science . Filling pages after pages with rhetoctic and illustration .Making unrealistic claims about Abiogenesis and Just plain make up Processes that allow for the development of DNA
Evolution has become a joke .

Just unbelievable that so many accept Academia endless preaching and acceptant of this pseudoscience !


Evolution is not Science according to all present and past Scientific methodology ! It's a Religious belief !
Other than the geological record , Which is inconclusive, and suggestive ",All of the Scientific evidence and facts show this !


"
'Genetic Entropy and the Mystery of the Genome'









Introduction



Dr. John Sanford is an imminently qualified geneticist, a long-time Professor and Researcher at Cornell University. Among his many contributions is his invention of the "gene gun", a method of direct gene transfer used in plant genetic engineering.



In the Prologue to Genetic Entropy he begins with this statement:


"In retrospect, I realize I have wasted much of my life arguing about things that don't really matter."

It takes a supremely honest man to make a statement like that, but he admits to previously subscribing to the,


"ideological foundation of undirected and pointless Darwinian evolution."

He admits also to previously being, at heart, a eugenicist.



Not all evolutionists believe in eugenics, but many do believe that the future of the human race depends on our helping evolution along by assuring the survival of the fittest of our race. Not many, fortunately, have the opportunity as did Adolph Hitler, to actually begin such a program.

In the Prologue to this revolutionary book, Dr. Sanford states that the foundation of modern Darwinism is built upon what he calls "The Primary Axiom", the idea that man is merely the product of,


"random mutations plus natural selection."

In graduate school he accepted the Primary Axiom primarily by trust in the authorities rather than by his own personal understanding.



As Dr. John Baumgardner points out in the Foreword to the book, most professional biologists are not aware of the unjustifiable assumptions that form the foundation of evolutionary beliefs.

It is rare to find anyone in academia in this country who would dare to question Darwinism. And yet, late in his career, Dr. Sanford did something that seemed unthinkable to a Cornell professor; he began to question the Primary Axiom. He stated that he did so with "great fear and trepidation."



This is understandable, as anyone who has been through the educational system will testify, especially those in many of the science curricula.

But to Dr. Sanford's great amazement, he found that the revered foundation built around the Primary Axiom was a "house of cards"; the theory itself extremely vulnerable and indefensible. And in the final analysis the Axiom stands on little but the faith of the true believers.



Consequently he began to realize that he would probably be offending the very religion of many people.



But whatever the cost, he came to the place where he must say it out loud:


"The Emperor has no clothes!"

Dr. Sanford does a masterful job of presenting a complicated subject in a way that can be understood by non-scientists. He promises that with "a reasonable mental effort" on the part of the reader, he can persuade the reader that the Primary Axiom is false.



And if the Primary Axiom is wrong, there is an ominous and surprising consequence:


"When subjected only to natural forces, the human genome must irrevocably degenerate over time."

He states that such a sober realization should cause us to reconsider where we should place our hope for the future.







The Genome



The size and complexity of the human genome is staggering; there is simply nothing designed by man with which to compare it.



The genome is the sum total of our genetic makeup - the blueprint or instruction manual that determines our physical makeup. Genetic coding within the genome is carried with the chemical DNA.



DNA forms the familiar "double helix" that looks like a twisted ladder.



Letters in the blueprint are molecules - nucleotides known symbolically as A, T, C, and G that form the cross pieces of the DNA ladder. Each cross piece (base pair) is composed of a pair from the group of the four nucleotides.

A human genome consists of two sets of 3 billion individual letters. If the letters were arranged linearly, in one long string, the result would be equivalent to many complete sets of a large encyclopedia. But the genome is not just a long, one-dimensional string of information.



Most DNA sequences carry information on several different levels; i.e. they are poly-functional. And because they carry information on several levels, any change at one level will effect a change in another message contained on another level.



Geneticists call this attribute poly-constrained.

For example, imagine a sentence that coveys a certain message when read in the usual way, from left to right, and an entirely different message when read from right to left. Then suppose another message was stored by reading every other letter, or every other word, and so on.



It is obvious that changing one letter would impact more than one instruction. More complex schemes make the problem worse with respect to tolerance for misspellings or other "typographical" errors.

For example consider the so-called Sator Square, a Latin palindrome (reads the same left to right and right to left) written as a square.



This example dates back to 79AD, and loosely translated says "The Farmer named Arepo works with wheels". Notice it reads the same up and down and left and right.



If you change just one letter in "ROTAS" across the top, you have not only changed that word, but have also messed up all the words that read up and down.




R O T A S
O P E R A
T E N E T
A R E P O
S A T O R


To add further to its complexity, the genome is full of countless loops and branches.



Linear DNA can also fold into two- and three-dimensional structures, providing coding for still higher levels of information through data compression. And all of this complexity is stored in a genome that resides inside a cell's nucleus in a space much smaller than a speck of dust.



This is what the author calls the "mystery of the genome".



He concludes (p. 154) that,


"It should be very clear that our genome could not have arisen spontaneously."

Suffice it to say that we know enough about the complexity of God's blueprints to be in awe, but will probably never come close to knowing everything about it.



It is likely that there is coding imbedded in the DNA that we cannot even anticipate or imagine.







What are Mutations?



The current thinking of evolutionists is that all biological information arose through mutation and selection ("survival of the fittest". Mutations are errors that occur when a DNA segment (gene) is damaged or changed.



And here we come to what Dr. Sanford sees as a major flaw in evolutionary theory:


Darwinists must believe that the genome is gradually improved by being damaged and changed in a random and un-ordered fashion through natural selection.

Imagine a modern automobile factory using a highly complicated system of robotics and human workers placing individual parts as the chassis moves along the assembly lines.



Let's further suppose that there is an Instruction Manual that is the guide to the entire operation.



Every step, every operation goes strictly by the Instruction Manual. Now let's introduce "mutations" - random errors in the instructions. Admittedly, the operations could survive a few random errors. A misspelled word now and then, a letter or even an entire word occasionally deleted might not spell doom for the production process.



But it certainly wouldn't help.

If an occasional error is introduced into this Instruction Manual, any effect at all would be detrimental - there is no way it could be otherwise unless guided by intelligence, purpose, and design. Therefore if random errors can be introduced without intelligent oversight (as they could if copies of the Manual were produced by typists re-typing every additional copy), the quality of the Instruction Manual, and therefore the automobiles coming off the assemble line, would slowly deteriorate over time.



Eventually, the effects would be made known not only in the appearance of the product, but in how well the engine and other critical components function.

Only in the minds of devoted Darwinists could this system even maintain the status quo, much less improve the product. But evolution from microbes to man depends on coding errors not only improving the quality of automobiles (in Dr. Sanford's example), but even in transforming them into space ships!



Even if randomly introduced errors in the Instruction Manual could, on occasion, produce a car with a rocket engine (not likely), it would immediately be eliminated by the Inspector.



What good is a car with a rocket engine? It would be a complicated monstrosity that would not even qualify as a good car, much less as a spacecraft.

The only way small changes in the Instruction Manual can improve the automobiles is if they are guided by intelligence. And the Primary Axiom does not allow the introduction of any intelligence, purpose, or forethought!



An important point is that, as a genetic principle, the Primary Axiom also does not allow for direct selection for misspellings themselves, but only for the finished product. This is only one of many serious obstacles to the widely held belief that natural selection improves the genome.



The reasons for this are convincing but too numerous to be mentioned here.







Can Random Mutations be Beneficial?



"Random mutations consistently destroy information."

(P. 15)

Mutations cause birth defects. Cancer is caused by mutations, and there is growing evidence that aging itself is caused by the accumulation of mutations.



But random mutations are not observed to increase genetic complexity. In fact, in studies of bacterial resistance to antibiotics (one of the Darwinists favorite examples of "evolution", it has been shown that mutations that have imparted resistance to populations of the bacteria have actually digressed (lost genetic information).

But in the special case of the environment inside a host's body infused with an antibiotic there are cases in which mutant bacterial strains happened to have resistance to the antibiotic, and thus survive.



These strains are rapidly replaced by superior strains with natural genetic makeup as soon as the selective pressure (the antibiotic) is removed.



And yet, thanks to an extensive miss-information campaign, many today have been led to believe that microbial resistance to antibiotics is some of the best "proofs" of molecules to man evolution!

Dr. Sanford gives several examples in his own field of plant genetics where much research was done in order to screen mutations for beneficial effects.



From a huge number (billions of mutation events) many,


"small, sterile, sick, deformed, aberrant plants were produced."

Almost no meaningful crop improvements resulted.



The exceptions were a very few cases where, although a mutant was beneficial in a certain context (low phytate corn for animal feed, for example), the mutant strain had lost genetic complexity and could not possibly be an example of evolution through favorable mutations.

Other examples given were in the field of ornamental plants, where dysfunctional attributes were found to be valued for aesthetic or other reasons.



These attributes include sterility, dwarfing, mottled and variegated foliage, and misshaped flowers. Beneficial mutations are much too rare to be used for genome-building; their acceptance for this purpose is based on unquestioned acceptance of the Primary Axiom.

One of the well-known problems (that is, well-known to geneticists!) with thinking that natural selection can fix the mutation problem in the genome is Selection Interference due to physical linkage.



As it turns out, there is a,


"tight physical linkage between beneficial and deleterious mutations."

(p. 81)

The ability to separate good and bad mutations is obviously a basic requirement for natural selection to work at all. The death knell for this procedure is the fact that essentially the entire genome exists in large linkage blocks.



So even though the rare presence of a few beneficial mutations would seem to offer a glimmer of hope for forward evolution, the presence of physical linkage erases those beneficial mutations from consideration.







Is the human genome deteriorating?



Geneticists have long worried about the impact of mutations on the human population, and that at a rate of one deleterious mutation per person per generation, genetic deterioration would result.



Earlier reports were based on estimates of mutation rates considerable lower than what we now know to be the case.



Findings going back to 2002 show that the human mutation rate is at least 100 mistakes (misspellings) per person per generation. Some scientists believe the rate is closer to 300.

Even a rate of 100 has profound implications, and the mutation rate is itself increasing.



Furthermore, most, if not all, mutations in the human genome must be deleterious.


"And nothing can reverse the damage that has been done during our own generation, even if further mutations could be stopped."

(P. 40)

It would appear that the process is an irreversible downward spiral that will end in "mutational meltdown".

A considerable array of information is presented to show why natural selection is unable to stop this deterioration of the genome. Many of these arguments are too involved to be covered in a short review such as this one.



To quote the author,


"On a practical level, it means natural selection can never create, or even maintain, specific nucleotide sequences."

(p. 55)

One problem is that selection occurs on the level of the whole organism, while mutation is occurring on the molecular level,


"It is like trying to fix a computer with a hammer."

(p. 147)

To qualify his statements on the limits of natural selection, Dr. Sanford makes it clear he is not saying that selection does not work.



In his work as a plant breeder, many useful plant varieties were derived by selecting desirable traits from each generation. And natural selection has eliminated the very worst human mutations. But both natural and artificial selection have very limited ranges of operation; and they can never create higher genomes.



An example with selective breeding of animals are modern swine breeds.



Although converting pig feed to bacon more efficiently than their forbears, they are definitely not more fit in general, except in the pampered and protected environment of a pig farm.







What are the implications of genomic deterioration?



The author cites research showing that the human race is currently degenerating at 1-2 % per generation due to accumulation of mutations.



At a 1% decline in fitness per generation, there is a sharp reduction in fitness after 300 generations (about 6,000 years). One of the most interesting revelations in Genetic Entropy is Dr. Sanford's and other workers' analysis of the Biblical account of life expectancies.



In a statistical regression analysis of declining life spans since Noah (lived 950 years), after 32 centuries since Noah the life expectancy has declined to about 70. The remarkable aspect is that this curve, which shows a sharp drop-off after Noah and a more gradual decline about 1,000 years ago, is that it is very similar to theoretical curves presented by other researchers that show genetic degeneration.



Either Moses faithfully recorded the events (and ages) recorded in Genesis, or he was a skilled statistician who made up data with a remarkable fit to an exponential curve!

On page 83 the author states,


"The extinction on the human genome appears to be just as certain and deterministic as the extinction of stars, the death of organisms, and the heat death of the universe."

In a summary statement on p. 139 he states,


"We have reviewed compelling evidence that, even when ignoring deleterious mutations, mutation/selection cannot create a single gene within the human evolutionary timescale.



When deleterious mutations are factored back in, we see that mutation/selection cannot create a single gene, ever.



This is overwhelming evidence against the Primary Axiom. In my opinion this constitutes what is essentially a formal proof that the Primary Axiom is false."






Conclusions



This review can not do justice to the vast amount of scientific information which Dr. Sanford meticulously presents in the book, which includes 81 reference citations.



Some of the many problems with natural selection improving the genome are covered in topics such as Invisible Mutations, Nearly Neutral Mutations, Too Many Minor Mutations, Reproductive Elimination, The Low Heritability of Fitness, and Excessive Noise Overrides Selection.



Major problems, from the scientific literature, are presented in Appendix 1.



Topics included are,


• "Muller's Fear"


• "Muller's Ratchet"


• "Neel's Realization"


• "Kondrashov's Question"


• "Kondrashov's Numbers"


• "Nachman and Crowell's Paradox"


• "Crow's Concerns"


• "Lynch et al.'s Mutation Meltdown"


• "Higgins and Lynch - More Meltdown"


• "Hoyle's Big Picture"


• "Howell's Challenge"


• "Loewe's Limit"


We hope the reader will read the book to learn just how strong the case is for Genetic Entropy - and against the Primary Axiom. "

by Gerald H. McKibben and Everett C. McKibben

2008
(Edited by Blackshoes)
4 years ago Report
0
Evelyn99
Evelyn99: Wow you write a lot! But how did we get here? How did I get here? If you follow my genetic tree down you get to a type of humans quite different from me or us. Shorter with a smaller brain different intellect than we are capable of. You can go further back simply on DNA and you know as well as me that DNA holds up in the court system to day. We can find our similar DNA string in other types of humans ( not homo sapient) and keep going down the line. They can show you this. Of course spices die out but some survive and they are just alittle different just enough to adapt to change and environment. And so it goes. You write widely against evolution and that is fine but you need to write more about how we got here without evolution and prove your points so we can look it up and say yes! Not just use words. Because words alone means nothing. Facts that have substance in proven science matter and if creationism is right then that is science and will stand it’s day. Agree? It’s nothing to do with believing. It’s too do with facts on the table that hold up. Would be interesting to see what exactly you have to show the world that will beyond any resnble doubt prove evolution wrong. Sometimes I wonder why you dislike it so much? It’s more than just healthy arguments against it. It’s becoming a irrational obsession kinda. Like extremism in some form. Let’s be friends and have healty thoughts and concepts about this. Hug from Evelyn
4 years ago Report
0
Blackshoes
Blackshoes: Evelyn99 I didn't write all of that . I wrote the beginning paragraph .The Authors are given at the bottom of the Article. I copy and paste interesting, and informative articles so/as to show reference to what I've stated .I'm just a old fart ' neither a Scientist or intellectual.
Your assuming that everything you been told by the Evolutionist is true ? . Just a little research, and you see how that the DNA strand cannot lead too everything that Evolutionist claim it does ! DNA though it Is said too be the Blueprint of life, it's could be better describe as a Parts list . Even small changes with in DNA from one species too another 'can account for huge difference between species . They're conclusions are based on bias of they're Primary Axiom. This is clearly show by a Evolutionary Video on DNA below .




" The very people who claim that Bible believers are beholden to ancient mythology and fables without evidence are beginning to admit that they, in fact, are the ones guilty as charged. In his classic text, The Immense Journey, the late evolutionary anthropologist, Loren Eiseley, said the following regarding the idea of spontaneous generation:


With the failure of these many efforts, science was left in the somewhat embarrassing position of having to postulate theories of living origins which it could not demonstrate. After having chided the theologian for his reliance on myth and miracle, science found itself in the unenviable position of having to create a mythology of its own: namely, the assumption that what, after long effort, could not be proved to take place today, had, in truth, taken place in the primeval past (1957, pp. 201-202, emp. added).

Hoyle and Wickramasinghe concluded:


It is doubtful that anything like the conditions which were simulated in the laboratory existed at all on a primitive Earth, or occurred for long enough times and over sufficiently extended regions of the Earth’s surface to produce large enough local concentrations of the biochemicals required for the start of life. In accepting the “primeval soup theory” of the origin of life, scientists have replaced religious mysteries which shrouded this question with equally mysterious scientific dogmas. The implied scientific dogmas are just as inaccessible to the empirical approach (1978, p. 26, emp. added)."

http://apologeticspress.org/apPubPage.aspx?pub=1&issue=1018
(Edited by Blackshoes)
4 years ago Report
0
Evelyn99
Evelyn99: Okay okay I see that but was just trying to give it a try:-) that’s all my friend.
4 years ago Report
0
Blackshoes
4 years ago Report
0
kittybobo34
kittybobo34: The whole primeval soup idea was based on the premise that life started near the surface. Since then much as been found of early life at the deep sea volcanic vents. So all those earlier experiments were missing some key components.
4 years ago Report
0
Blackshoes
Blackshoes: No matter how many Experiments!
No matter how many times a Evolutionist wish upon a star!
You will never Make the Impossible possible !
Evolution Died with the discovery of the Complexity of DNA !
Only those that believe Fairytales and Fables' still accept the ridiculous Preaching of Academia that Life evolved from non life in the Pass ! Through Unknown unnumbered and unscientific processes over eons of unknown amounts of time
4 years ago Report
0
Evelyn99
Evelyn99: Think it’s time to talk about something else than evolution? It’s just a little part of much more interesting to argue about))
4 years ago Report
0
bitemykayak
bitemykayak: Because of the distances involved between earth and other planets its difficult to explore extraterrestrial life. But within 15 to 20 years its believed more powerful and accurate spectrometers will be built. These will be able to idntify "free oxygen" even at great distances. Free oxygen exists in nature only when life is present. This will positively conclude this debate, until then its all speculation and inuendo.
4 years ago Report
0
kittybobo34
kittybobo34: Good point bite, although I am not sure how we would bet a spectrograph of a planet without some kind of burning on the planets end.
4 years ago Report
0
Corwin
Corwin: They're called "lines of absorption".

All we need to do is to isolate the light that reaches us from a distant planet and study the spectrum of that light. Different elements absorb different specific wavelengths of light, so the spectrum will be missing certain narrow bands of wavelengths called "lines of absorption", when specific elements are present.

Just a single pixel of that planet's light and we would know the composition of its atmosphere.
And Kayak is correct... if we see Oxygen in that atmosphere it pretty much wraps up the case for the presence of life (at the very least, microbial life). We know of no other possible mechanism other than biology that can enrich a planet's atmosphere with free Oxygen.
4 years ago Report
0
Corwin
Corwin: The real trick is isolating that planet's reflected light. At great distances, and when a planet is near to the star (in the habitable-zone such as Earth is ), the glare around that star completely swallows up any possible light reflected from a planet.

With our present methods of extra-solar planet-finding we either measure the red/blue-shift of the parent star to detect the gravitational "wobble" that the planet exerts on the star... or we measure the slight dimming of that star at regular intervals as the star is eclipsed by the planet orbiting it.

But hopefully with much more powerful telescopes we will be able to use a filter to blot out the star's light and remove the glare, and observe the light of the planets directly. We already use something similar called an occulting-disk to aid in observing our Sun's corona through telescopes. We just need to be able to do this at interstellar distances.
4 years ago Report
0
kittybobo34
kittybobo34: Looking forward to those new telescopes, especially the concept of having 2 of them for binocular vision, and more accurate distance measurment.
4 years ago Report
0
Corwin
Corwin: I just hope I see it in my lifetime... this kind of Science is very expensive.

When I was a kid we were promised to see a Man walk on Mars by 1990. And if we had have had that same initiative that put a Man on the Moon we very well may have achieved that.

But the Apollo missions weren't about doing Science... they were a Cold War stunt to one-up the Soviets, and it was going to be done at all costs. We didn't follow through with a manned Mars program because we found out that the Soviets were broke, and we didn't have to beat them there.
3 years ago Report
0
kittybobo34
kittybobo34: Corwin, quite true, I think of it like it was when Columbus found the americas, it was hundred years before real colonization finally got underway. Same here, we are awaiting the technical advances that will make it easy. I think the biggest is Drone Robots, Operator sits in a secure pod while his hands and eyes are operating through the robot outside, getting some real work done. AI will be the next big need.
3 years ago Report
0
Corwin
Corwin: Yep... and so in a manner of speaking, we "have" gone to Mars... we sent our eyes, our hands, and even our ears there, in the form of our robots. And we don't have to bring them back alive to reunite with families and loved ones.

Perhaps a Human boot-print in the sand isn't that important, at least for the time being.

But a permanent and self-sustaining Human presence elsewhere than Earth is also a very important and NECESSARY goal over the long-term. The future survival of our species depends on it.
Arthur C. Clarke is quoted saying "The best way for Humanity to survive the next major asteroid impact is to make sure we're not all here on Earth when it happens."
There's one out there with our name on it... a planet-killer... it might not hit us for millions of years... or it could happen tomorrow. We're overdue as it is, and for all we know that thing could be the size of Texas.

So if there "isn't" other life out there... we'd better do something about that.
Another favorite Arthur C. Clarke quote of mine, "Either there's other life out there in the Universe, or there isn't... and either prospect is terrifying."
3 years ago Report
0
bitemykayak
bitemykayak: Thanks Corwin for expanding.
3 years ago Report
0
kittybobo34
kittybobo34: I agree Corwin, that would be another use for AI , small robot packages that attach themselves to an asteroid, calculate the right angle and fires its rocket or detonates its explosive package, ending that particular danger.
3 years ago Report
0