Aliens and religious beliefs.

[Subduction Zone]

I'm suggesting there is more DNA for species that have undergone more change; that a species DNA is a record of where it has been. I would guess there is a correlation after peeling off any duplicate genes.



Just logic. I haven't followed the literature very much since human genome was first mapped. I'm waiting for something new.

I can't make heads nor tails out of that post.

If you understood evolution you would understand why gene duplication adds DNA to the genome. Can you explain this in your own words?

 

[Subduction Zone]

I wasn't aware that the eukaryote genome had been mapped already.

Well there is a huge non sequitur.

 

[cladking]

Of course, you don't accept evolution, so the evolved genetic material derived through some unexplained process that so closely mimics evolution that the evidence supports evolution?

An extraterrestrial origin is not a simpler explanation.

No. I don't accept the Look and See Science assumptions that change is gradual and caused by survival of the fittest.

Species will tend to keep a record of where they have been and this record suggests that life has been elsewhere, long before 3.8 billion years ago.

 

[Subduction Zone]

No. I don't accept the Look and See Science assumptions that change is gradual and caused by survival of the fittest.

Species will tend to keep a record of where they have been and this record suggests that life has been elsewhere, long before 3.8 billion years ago.

Here is a big problem of yours: You don't understand the science so that means you can't see the assumptions. When challenged you have never been able to identify specific assumptions.

And your last statement is one that you need to support with evidence. Just claiming things is worthless in a debate. Claiming and refusing to support is the same as admitting that you are wrong.

 

[Polymath257]

I'm suggesting there is more DNA for species that have undergone more change; that a species DNA is a record of where it has been. I would guess there is a correlation after peeling off any duplicate genes.

And have you tested this hypothesis against actual data? We have basic sequencing for several organisms and chromosome sizes for vastly more. This should be an easy thing to test and verify if it is true (it isn't).

Just logic. I haven't followed the literature very much since human genome was first mapped. I'm waiting for something new.

OK, in that case, you have *at most* a hypothesis. No testing. No evidence. Nothing to base that hypothesis upon except that you like what it says.

Fair enough. Until there is actual evidence, as opposed to speculation, there isn't anything scientific to discuss.

 

[Polymath257]

No. I don't accept the Look and See Science assumptions that change is gradual and caused by survival of the fittest.

What does that even mean?

Science *is* 'look and see'. We test our ideas by observation (looking and seeing what happens).

The *conclusion* (no the assumption) is that change is gradual on a scale of generations (it can be quite quick on a geological time scale).

Species will tend to keep a record of where they have been and this record suggests that life has been elsewhere, long before 3.8 billion years ago.

How precisely does it suggest life has been elsewhere? What is the expected rate of accumulation of this DNA record? is there any actual evidence that it grows as you claim? or are there other mechanisms that are dominant?

 

[rational experiences]

When a human can do a science experiment without oxygenation of water. Then they will tell their only truth.

As they will be deceased. Is their answer to subjective human reasoning.

 

[Subduction Zone]

When a human can do a science experiment without oxygenation of water. Then they will tell their only truth.

As they will be deceased. Is their answer to subjective human reasoning.

Scientists almost never oxygenate water, so I guess they always tell the truth.

 

[cladking]

Fair enough. Until there is actual evidence, as opposed to speculation, there isn't anything scientific to discuss.

And as far as whether life ever arose on earth there is no science either. I am merely suggesting the most likely scenario based on logic and very scant evidence.

We know that all change in life is sudden so abiogenesis would be a rare exception rather than the rule if it's true that life is common in the universe.

 

[Subduction Zone]

And as far as whether life ever arose on earth there is no science either. I am merely suggesting the most likely scenario based on logic and very scant evidence.

We know that all change in life is sudden so abiogenesis would be a rare exception rather than the rule if it's true that life is common in the universe.

Oh so wrong. Do you need a link to scientific papers? There are thousands of them.

Google Scholar

 

[cladking]

Science *is* 'look and see'. We test our ideas by observation (looking and seeing what happens).

Modern science is experimental science for the reasons already stated.

What is the expected rate of accumulation of this DNA record?

Highly variable.

But it looks like half a genome in three billion years.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Modern science is experimental science for the reasons already stated.



Highly variable.

But it looks like half a genome in three billion years.

Where is your evidence?

 

[pearl]

Any alien capable of traveling lightyears, would have to be able to destroy our whole planet with hardly an effort. But, why make the effort? Could they visit us merely for scientific curiosity? To see if our civilization differs from theirs, and how?

Able to destroy, maybe, but that's assuming they don't come in peace. I imagine them , if they exist at all, to be highly evolved intellectually. Sort of like those in 'Close Encounters of the Third Kind', my favorite alien movie.

 

[gnostic]

Sort of like those in 'Close Encounters of the Third Kind', my favorite alien movie.

I fell to sleep at the cinema when it came out.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I fell to sleep at the cinema when it came out.

I do believe that is what my brother said about Star Wars. We have not spoken since.

 

[Polymath257]

Modern science is experimental science for the reasons already stated.

Not just experimental: observational.

And that is how it should be.

Highly variable.

But it looks like half a genome in three billion years.

Less time than that, depending. Gene duplication can drastically increase genome size quickly (exponential growth is very fast). And we have many examples where gene duplication is involved in diversity.

 

[Yazata]

That's where I would disagree. The notion of God seems to be related to a hierarchical societal structure with a single leader on top.

Or at least the "Abrahamic" conception of 'God'. There's an ancient Middle Eastern concept of 'God' that imagines "him" as a heavenly king. Emperor of the universe, something like that. That's where the "Lord" talk comes from.

But that's not how I (or arguably the Deists) conceive of 'God'. Deism was a 17th century religious current that accepted natural theology while expressing increasing doubt about revealed theology. So like the contemporary Protestants, the Deists questioned Catholic church tradition. But unlike the Protestants, the Deists doubted the Bible as well. Which left them with natural theology, the strand of religious thought, older than Christianity, extending back to ancient Greek philosophy. Deism was moved by the first cause argument, the design argument and so on. Ultimately there's the question of why existence exists in the first place.

I would suspect that a race from a different planet would likely have very different biology and thereby very different social structures, probably leading to different defaults on how such metaphysical questions play out

But presumably they would have some concept of causation, and hence speculate about a hypothetical first cause. They would wonder about the source of the order that the universe seemingly displays. They would wonder what the ultimate substance of reality might be. Its 'ground of being', its svabhava to apply an Indian philosophical term for it.

I would expect another race to have very similar physics, probably similar basic mathematics, but I would be very surprised if it has the same religion or even the same metaphysics.

How could they have a similar physics unless they had a similar metaphysics? Physics requires a whole conceptual vocabulary, extending from logic and mathematics to ideas like space, time, matter and cause. They will have ideas about knowledge and how knowledge is obtained. They will have ideas about the objects of knowledge and how to conceive of them.

My thought is that if these intelligent aliens are curious, which may or may not be implied by intelligence, they will ask fundamental questions and seek fundamental answers. While I agree with you that they may not picture the answer as a single heavenly king (perhaps they don't have anything resembling kings), I'm speculating that if they are intelligent they will ask the big questions and hypothesize about what the answers might be.

I can imagine a solitary intelligence, perhaps a group mind of some sort, with no concept of society or social organization. But it might still ask 'What am I?', 'What is this reality around me?' What explains it? What is my relation to it? Where did both I and the rest of reality come from? Why does existence seem orderly and where did the order originate? And all that...

And in the Deistic manner, we might define 'God' as whatever the ultimate answer(s) might be, even if they are unknown.

That's how I conceive of 'God' and I wouldn't be surprised if there are intelligent aliens out there with similar ideas.

 

[Polymath257]

Or at least the "Abrahamic" conception of 'God'. There's an ancient Middle Eastern concept of 'God' that imagines "him" as a heavenly king. Emperor of the universe, something like that. That's where the "Lord" talk comes from.

But that's not how I (or arguably the Deists) conceive of 'God'. Deism was a 17th century religious current that accepted natural theology while expressing increasing doubt about revealed theology. So like the contemporary Protestants, the Deists questioned Catholic church tradition. But unlike the Protestants, the Deists doubted the Bible as well. Which left them with natural theology, the strand of religious thought, older than Christianity, extending back to ancient Greek philosophy. Deism was moved by the first cause argument, the design argument and so on. Ultimately there's the question of why existence exists in the first place.



But presumably they would have some concept of causation, and hence speculate about a hypothetical first cause. They would wonder about the source of the order that the universe seemingly displays. They would wonder what the ultimate substance of reality might be. Its 'ground of being', its svabhava to apply an Indian philosophical term for it.

Why would causation lead to the thought that there must be a first cause? It seems far more likely to lead to the notion of an infinite sequence of causes or even a branching tree of causes.

And why would you suspect that there is an 'ultimate substance'? Nothing in the real world points to such a possibility. if anything, we see a plenitude of different types of things, all interacting.

How could they have a similar physics unless they had a similar metaphysics? Physics requires a whole conceptual vocabulary, extending from logic and mathematics to ideas like space, time, matter and cause. They will have ideas about knowledge and how knowledge is obtained. They will have ideas about the objects of knowledge and how to conceive of them.

Humans have had a hard time agreeing upon metaphysics, so why would aliens have anything like what we have produced? Space, time, and matter are observables, causality is a hypothesis. If they have science, they have the basics of how knowledge is obtained: observation and testing.

Metaphysics tries to go beyond this, but usually fails to do anything more than rearrange biases. In asking what an 'ultimate substance' would be, it assumes such must exist. In asking about duality vs monism, it assumes those are the only options.

If anything, I would hope that an intelligent group of aliens has go beyond pointless debates about things that cannot be proved one way or another and more to solving actual problems by testing and learning from their mistakes.

My thought is that if these intelligent aliens are curious, which may or may not be implied by intelligence, they will ask fundamental questions and seek fundamental answers. While I agree with you that they may not picture the answer as a single heavenly king (perhaps they don't have anything resembling kings), I'm speculating that if they are intelligent they will ask the big questions and hypothesize about what the answers might be.

I can imagine a solitary intelligence, perhaps a group mind of some sort, with no concept of society or social organization. But it might still ask 'What am I?', 'What is this reality around me?' What explains it? What is my relation to it? Where did both I and the rest of reality come from? Why does existence seem orderly and where did the order originate? And all that...

And in the Deistic manner, we might define 'God' as whatever the ultimate answer(s) might be, even if they are unknown.

Why would they make that leap? Why assume that there *is* a single, ultimate answer? why identify it as a consciousness, or a personality? Why assume that there *is* an explanation for why there is anything as opposed to nothing? Why assume there is a single answer to the question of how 'I' relate to the rest of the universe?

And, more importantly, why assume that simply because they are smart and curious, that they are inclined to the sorts of explanations we apes are prone to searching for?

That's how I conceive of 'God' and I wouldn't be surprised if there are intelligent aliens out there with similar ideas.

I would be. In fact, I would be shocked if they have anything close to what we have conceived along these lines. It is assuming answers that are very much not in evidence.

 

[cladking]

Not just experimental: observational.

Since science is both observation and experiment it is difficult to argue with your point.

However theory must be based on experiment. Some observation is very similar to experiment but there is a distinction between the confirmation of experiment through observation and the establishment of theory through observation. We all see what we expect whether what we expect is derived from the interpretation of experiment or through blind faith. No expert can just observe anything and invent theory but this is the way a great deal of "science" is done now days. There is no science in predicting the genome of long extinct simple species. Such predictions are merely going to reflect whatever we believe rather than theory or observation.

Observation and experiment are not the same thing even though there is some "overlap". But no theory can be based on anything except experiment. The "theory" of evolution has no support for its conclusions based on Darwin's belief that populations are stable even over the long term. According to Darwin's thinking when populations went down its food supply would go up resulting in an increase in population. He was wrong and he was wrong about abiogenesis because he was unaware of consciousness. Darwin was what he ate and his conclusions were founded on his assumptions. This is just the way it is for "homo omnisciencis". Abiogenesis is most probably quite rare in the cosmos and probably because of contamination from space.

As to the dearth of visible life it's because it's so far away, perhaps faster than light travel is impossible, and anyone who has come chose to remain hidden. Other than to colonize or restock there might be very little reason for any species to visit earth.

 

[cladking]

How could they have a similar physics unless they had a similar metaphysics? Physics requires a whole conceptual vocabulary, extending from logic and mathematics to ideas like space, time, matter and cause. They will have ideas about knowledge and how knowledge is obtained. They will have ideas about the objects of knowledge and how to conceive of them.

All "known" science is experimental science and all experimental science would progress similarly. Any creature that invented science would do so only because he had no other recourse and would do so to make predictions. Determining what will be is the essence of curiosity.