Chemical evolution:

Discussion in 'Biology & Genetics' started by paddoboy, Aug 7, 2020.

  1. Q-reeus Banned Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,695
    Imagining microtubules as self-created magical prime movers of biology and evolution in general is something I will leave to you. Most rational folks involved realize they are 'simply' an integral feature of extremely complex and interconnected cell machinery, with zero real evidence they ever had any existence preceding or in any way separate from existent cell physiology. The whole is not only far greater than the sum of the parts, it is necessary from the outset.

    You will furiously disagree. Fine. Just actually leave miocrotubules out of it here. Having flogged that obsession to death elsewhere across many threads. Stick to the actual thread topic.
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. dumbest man on earth Real Eyes Realize Real Lies Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,522
    Please provide Direct Quotes of the Post where I, "In actual fact, appear to be...conflating the unsupported myth of ID with the logic of extrapolation back to the obvious...Abiogenesis."
     
    Last edited: Nov 29, 2020
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. dumbest man on earth Real Eyes Realize Real Lies Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,522
    Please provide Direct Quotes of James Tour admitting/stating that "he would not stray from his so called rightous path, guided by the bible, no matter what the evidence for Abiogenesis. "
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. dumbest man on earth Real Eyes Realize Real Lies Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,522
    Please provide Direct Quotes of Tour's "own words" stating that "even if direct evidence of the methodology of Abiogenesis, was validated, it would not deter his fanatical faith in the word of the bible, and the nonsense therein".
     
  8. dumbest man on earth Real Eyes Realize Real Lies Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,522
    Achieved?
    Who are these "two well known ID advocates on this forum" that you are referring to that were allegedly "achieved" by Tour?
     
  9. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    27,534

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  10. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    27,534
    The videos and links are there for all to see and read....

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  11. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    27,534
    It's there for all with eyes to see.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  12. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    27,534
    It's there in the links and references I have provided.
     
  13. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    27,534
    One of the best pieces in the links and references I have given, pointing out the fanaticism of James Tour, is the following little quote.......
    https://sandwalk.blogspot.com/2014/03/a-chemist-who-doesnt-understand.html
    "What a comfort it must be to be pleasantly settled in one camp or the other, but I can not be so settled, and hence I have few tent-fellows. Based upon my faith in the Scriptures, I do believe (yes, faith and belief go beyond scientific evidence for this scientist) that God created the heavens and the earth and all that dwell therein, including a man named Adam and a woman named Eve. As for many of the details and the time-spans, I personally become less clear. Some may ask, What’s “less clear” about the text that reads, “For in six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth”? That is a fair question, and I wish I had an answer that would satisfy them. But I do not because I remain less clear".

    Note the enlarged red text!

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!


     
  14. foghorn Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,006
    Have you been to James Tour's own site where that quote comes from...

    https://www.jmtour.com/personal-topics/evolution-creation/

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
    paddoboy likes this.
  15. dumbest man on earth Real Eyes Realize Real Lies Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,522
  16. dumbest man on earth Real Eyes Realize Real Lies Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,522
    Note : the evolution of complex life from already existing simpler life forms is a different area of real science and does not account for, nor does it address any pathways to explain how those simpler life forms developed from non-living matter in the first place.

    ...abiogenesis, by its very definition, is not part of any theory on the evolution of any life

    https://biologydictionary.net/abiogenesis/
    "Abiogenesis is the creation of organic molecules by forces other than living organisms."

    https://futurism.com/abiogenesis-theory-origins-life
    "Abiogenesis is the origin of life from non-living matter."

    and of course, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenesis
    "In evolutionary biology, abiogenesis, or informally the origin of life (OoL),[3][4][5][a] is the natural process by which life has arisen from non-living matter, such as simple organic compounds"
     
    Last edited: Nov 29, 2020
  17. foghorn Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,006
    Quote from James Tour's own site.
    https://www.jmtour.com/personal-topics/evolution-creation/
    ''yes, faith and belief go beyond scientific evidence for this scientist''
    My bold.
     
  18. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    18,598
    Your ignorance speaks louder with every word you utter on the subject.
    Really? I don't have to counter your arguments at all. You're doing a bang-up job all by yourself.....

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
    Last edited: Nov 29, 2020
  19. Michael 345 New year. PRESENT is 72 years oldl Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    12,310
    Are there statues we can bow down to for this new addition to the sciences?

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
    foghorn and paddoboy like this.
  20. Q-reeus Banned Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,695
    A concerted campaign is under way implying that theistic beliefs renders one incapable of rational thinking in other fields. Applied here to the matter of abiogenesis. So cheap. And contrary to the evidence:
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Christians_in_science_and_technology
    I could likewise link to lists of say Muslims or orthodox Jews or Buddhists or Hindus in science and technology, but one is enough to drive home the point.
     
    dumbest man on earth likes this.
  21. dumbest man on earth Real Eyes Realize Real Lies Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,522
    toadies pop-scientific method in action
     
  22. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    18,598
    I searched high and low for a branch of Science named 'Theism"
    A lot of them, mostly to do with pain and suffering. Little useful science though. An unexplained miracle here and there and that's basically it.
     
    Last edited: Nov 29, 2020
  23. Yazata Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,599
    So am I. At least I've grown a lot more skeptical about popular news articles that proclaim "Scientists Say...!" (usually something to the effect that everything that other people believe is wrong). Just wait a little while, and you are apt to see articles proclaiming scientists announcing the exact opposite.

    A lot of that isn't really coming from the scientists, it's coming from journalists who have somehow inserted themselves between scientists and the people. If we read the actual papers that the scientists in question published, they are often couched in qualifiers that the journalists leave out, like 'maybe' and 'could have'. What the papers are often presenting are hypotheses about some open scientific question, clearly identified as such. The paper may be announcing the hypothesis itself, or perhaps some bit of evidence in favor of a particular hypothesis. Yet it's presented to the people as conclusive, supposedly with all of the social authority of science behind it.

    Medical science knows a tremendous amount about how the body works. More than anyone could learn in a single lifetime. The problem is often a matter of turning all that knowledge into effective treatments. (Life is just so incredibly complex...)

    That introduces a very different set of questions. What is conscious experience? That's far more of a work-in-progress and little besides vague (and probably wrong) hypotheses exist at present. Even the neuroscientists can't speak with any authority about the phenomenology of consciousness. When the science journalists write about it, no matter how interesting and stimulating it might be, it's probably not something that you should accept as hard truth. It's still just guesses.

    Many scientists are more circumspect. (Or at least were.) I think that it's the science journalists in search of a hook that more often try to turn a scientific community speculating about answers to a scientific problem into a battle to the death, often with one faction identified as the good guys and the other as the obscurantist villains. They think that it's more interesting to their readers that way. Scientists might have some responsibility for it themselves, when egos and future careers are riding on the success of particular hypotheses.

    Yes. The scientific process is subverted when researchers start out with their conclusions already fixed in their minds, typically for extrascientific reasons, and their work is designed around "proving" whatever these scientists already believe. So science ceases to be an open-minded search for truth and turns into a project to advance the scientists' careers, serve the interests of those who fund them, or to advance a particular social/political agenda that the scientist might believe in for their own perhaps a-rational reasons.

    My confidence in science is declining, I must say. Perhaps that's mostly a function of my having long held an unrealistic and overly idealistic Paddoboyish mental picture of science that was never entirely accurate. So perhaps part of it is my fault and I'm just waking up to reality.
     

Share This Page