How does the creationist accept that a DNA test shows they're related to their father but reject that a DNA test shows they're related to a chimp? [Spirituality & Religion]

@GerOttman Any ‘design’ is a result of sex and death in a constantly-changing environment... nothing more is needed

@GerOttman
Yeah it is. It creates more questions than it answers.

@DocSavage I'm sure it does. That does not refute the statement.

@newjaninev2 ongoing evolution will play into the outcome, but this does not reveal the origin.

@GerOttman That’s abiogenesis, of course... a different topic

@GerOttman
Any being or race capable of it , would have to evolved themselves. And they could colonized a world, rather plant a new life form on a world. Intelligent design requires an agenda. What reason can you think of that would make it practical? It took millions of years just to get where are now. Could anyone wait that long, or plan that far ahead?

@DocSavage Light speed remains an apparently insurmountable obstacle to interstellar travel. However an advanced alien race might consider using interstellar 'dandelion seeds' in an attempt to propagate their line.

@newjaninev2 maybe, but I'm still talking about the first thing.

@GerOttman Sorry, just to be clear... by ‘the first thing’ do you mean abiogenesis, as opposed to evolution?

Abiogenesis is the formation of life, whereas evolution doesn’t care about that, of course... it deals with what happens after abiogenesis.

To give clarity, some definitions at this point might keep us on track

Life: any self-sustaining chemical system capable of Darwinian evolution

Evolution: change in the frequency and distribution of alleles

Yes?

@GerOttman
Still doesn’t make sense without a purpose for the design. Form follows function. A “dandelion” sent out to seed random worlds, obviously doesn’t predict what
The end results will be. Every species has gone through millions of years of evolution.or become extinct.
A designer, would probably want something of their culture or identity to survive.
Abiogenesis happened on one planet that we know of, it can logically happen else where
In the universe. There is no reason to think one planet planted it on all the others.

@DocSavage Indeed. Postulating that life arrived on Earth from elsewhere simply poses the question of the origin of the life that arrived, and that quickly forms an endless regression... leaving aside the insurmountable problems in explaining how it even reached here.

We know that abiogenesis has happened once. That’s all we know. Perhaps it has happened elsewhere (statistically as close to certainty as uncertainty can reach), but it’s stunningly unlikely that we’ll ever know... unless we find it in the Solar System.

@DocSavage I’ve always liked this image: Humans have been radiating radio signals into space for just over 100 years. As you know, those waves move at the speed of light. This is how far they’ve now reached in our galaxy... which has around 100 billion stars, and is one of at least 200 billion other galaxies in the observable universe.

Separate abiogenesis elsewhere... almost certainly

‘Dandelion’ seeding from elsewhere... that’d be a very impressive feat

Identifying life outside the heliosphere... strictly for Hollywood


We’re alone, people, and we need to realise that and to start acting accordingly.

@GerOttman
The universe is full of all kinds hazards. Dandelion seeds wouldn’t survive the trip .if you go with intelligent design, the only way to assure it will produce results would be for the agent to actually travel to the location. Which brings you back to the choice of colonization.
The more you work out the details, the less probable it becomes. It simply can not work on a mortal scale.

@newjaninev2 Finding life, or it's remnants, in our own system would do an awful lot to advance understanding of its origins. If we find active life on Europa, for example, does it resemble our own life or is it completely different? What would each possibility imply? If life arises of its own accord, it may or may not resemble our own. If life was seeded from afar, it should be very similar despite evolutionary branching. To clarify, I'm not advocating one or the other. It's just something I enjoy thinking about.

@GerOttman Life is a self-sustaining chemical system capable of Darwinian evolution. While that certainly doesn’t preclude various bases for life, it does limit them. Silicon has been suggested.

Humans commonly suppose alien life will be, in some completely unnecessary fashion, humanoid, but that’s merely our anthropocentric hubris showing itself.


Indeed so. There are at least three Jovian moons which show promise.

@DocSavage "Dandelion seeds wouldn’t survive the trip" Did you know they have found live bacteria on the >>outside<< of the international space station? Seems fairly hostile to me. Life was thought impossible in the deep ocean, then they found colonies around thermal vents. Are we sure that our life span is the only valid measurement? Does less likely mean more impossible? It's a big galaxy in an even larger universe. Did you know that if commercial air travel was 99% safe there would be something like 40 airplane crashes every day? Small odds can still produce big results!

@newjaninev2 "Indeed so. There are at least three Jovian moons which show promise." At least one around Saturn and we still have not eliminated Mars!

@GerOttman
Still doesn’t point to an intelligent design. Mars and the three moons show promise, for what ? Maybe a man made base ? You’re still talking otherworldly life altering life here for unknown reasons , why ? If life can develop and evolving to highly advanced state somewhere else in the universe, it can do so here.
The whole idea of intelligent design is that someone created us, for some purpose. That purpose is apparently beyond our comprehension, which is why there is no clue to it.
You’re arguments are pointless assumptions. Unless you can support them with practical motives.

@DocSavage My arguments are assumptions, they are not pointless. The practical motive, as I thought I had been clear on, is to spread life beyond one inhabited world to another. The means, what I have called 'dandelion seeds' is to send packets of programmed material, DNA for example, in hopes of seeding life and carrying on a races existence beyond its origins. Whatever they may be... Life could also evolve independently. This is not beyond possible, I'm not stating that it is. I am pointing out a possibility, nothing more. Finding life on another remote body would be highly revealing. If for example life exists on Europa and it is based on almost identical DNA, how did that happen? If on the other hand it is comprised of some other completely alien means of reproduction, what would that indicate?

@GerOttman I think what you are describing is an extension of the panspermia hypothesis; giving it a purpose rather than just blind luck. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think you are proposing a mechanism for how the senders of the dandelion seeds (love that analogy) were created, but just life on earth and, possibly elsewhere in the solar system.

While I disagree with your idea, you have at least presented a potential test (if life is found on other planets), something that creationists don't seem capable of doing.

@GerOttman I'm not sure your idea could be called intelligent design, though.

@Bushranger I have recently been fascinated with the possibilities of advanced gene splicing. CRISPR-CAS9 has opened a whole new way of thinking about genetic engineering. It is not only possible to make modifications and corrections to the existing genome of an organism but potentially unlocks the ability to custom design an entirely new being. The technique is still very new and in my opinion relatively undeveloped. I sense the possibility to one day treat DNA as though it were a computer program and thereby 'design' desired outcomes. Hence the speculation that an advanced civilization could have 'intelligently designed' a genetic package to produce a desired result.

@GerOttman No matter what you start with, evolution is non-teleological, so there can never be a desired result.

Constantly changing environments bring Natural Selection into play, so inevitably you simply get what you get

@newjaninev2 It's a nice theory. I'm not sure that it can be proven. Evolution is a powerful tool but I feel your statement is based on what we know now. I am speculating on what we do not know but may be possible.

@GerOttman
Yes, of course 😀

Evolution is the process, and Natural Selection is the mechanism. Many people forget that the environment is constantly changing, which is why evolution is not teleological.

If the environment were completely stable there would be no Natural Selection (because there would be no selection pressures), so there would be no evolution (the only organisms on the planet would be clones of the original organism). Zero change, so zero diversity... the original DNA may as well have simply stayed home and watched Netflicks or something 😀