Denial of Evolution VI.

That's the basic issue with naming things in science.

"Electrons" are "electrons" not because they are fundamentally electron-like but because we choose to class certain evidenced phenomena as "electrons" because it's convenient for communication and predictive modeling. For some purposes "electrons" may be viewed as point-like Newtonian particles with such-and-such electromagnetic properties, for some purposes "electrons" may be viewed as particular excitations in the electron-field-component-of-the-standard-model with properties as side-effects of the definition. For some purposes, what are classified as "positrons" in Wikipedia may legitimately be called "electrons."

Likewise "Rabbits", "Life" and "E. coli". The evidence is what the evidence is -- the names are what we choose. Identifying new-but-related types of phenomena is a problem of classification which is fuzzy when the data is fuzzy and in many cases the data is fuzzy because the gathered evidence accurately reflects reality.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

it was my take on things, an opinion.
yes, one can easily say we, humans, are animals.
i am saying our mental prowess sets us apart from "them", our ability to reason very complex topics for example, our opinions, concepts such as modesty, you can't deny animals lack such traits.
granted, some of this is by degree, but some others are of kind.

like i said, it's my take on things, my opinion.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

This why we now use the terms homo sapiens sapiens
from wiki,

Obviously h. sapiens sapiens means the "smart" smart hominid. Is that not sufficient?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

i must agree with you.
machines can indeed become alive but the chances of that happening are so slim that i believe you will find god first.

i know what you mean.
i find the concept of god impossible to swallow but yet lack the evidence to say it actually is impossible.

yes, i firmly believe we are a product of this reality, the question is how.
chemists are looking for chemicals, i believe the answer is somewhere else.

 

In terms of suddenly looking different - agreed.

In terms of suddenly becoming a new species - there's a discrete point at which that happens, when two members of the two new species can no longer reproduce.

Political definitions are all well and good but most scientists don't use them. (But if you like them, I'll decide to be the species Homo Creatus.)

 

What do the Homo Creatus do that makes them a new species?

 

There are some humans who can't reproduce, for various reasons. However, some will periodically reproduce in spite of the condition. Is this a new species of humans with their reproduction limited to other similarly evolving humans? We assume the lack of human reproduction ability in their narrow world of attempts has nothing to do with a new species, yet this is the theory of species.

 

Yet when a specific set of chemical reactions is bundled and wrapped in a lipid, we call it life. I'm just saying that this is a rather arbitrary decision, especially in the context of genesis.

It especially breaks down as we get closer and closer to defining the simplest life form conceivable. I was offering RNA plus a cell membrane, but I forgot to mention that it would need to be swimming in an amino acid rich environment. (Which isn't that unlikely, given some of the scenarios under which a single strand might happen to get trapped inside a naturally occurring lipid bubble.)

All of the arguments against evolution and abiogenesis are the ones raised by Creation Science sites. You just happen to be arguing in favor of them. The real enemy is out there, and its name is Creation Science. I can't overlook that fact any more than I can accept any of their claims.

By definition, presumably. The self-replicating RNA I mentioned challenges that somewhat.

I was referring to reactions inside a cell, which have no deliberacy to them, no soul or intelligence pushing any invisible buttons. The progress of a cell can be tied exclusively to random motion inside the cytoplasm, as dictated by the organelles present. Those organelles are completely specified in the DNA although it's through a rather intricate layered protocol, as far as individual reactions go. The remarkable way the chromatids line up and split apart (and the spider web of telomeres that accomplishes it) seem too bizarre to be either properly defined as either living or non-living. However, they do resemble the way a machine might work, if ever people succeed in exploiting bio-technology in this way.

I don't think either of us will resolve this, I just think that once someone produces a true living cell in the lab, from some inert muck, the Creationists will be satisfied and even you might at that point consider changing your definition a little.

I think you misunderstood me. I posted the lab abiogenesis of self-replicating RNA as a sign that Creationists are on the verge of losing their old complaint about abiogenesis. My suggestion was that, if all they (or you or anyone else) are complaining about is that it has no cell membrane, then add one and the question is answered.

The reason anyone has the exact DNA they have. That may be a little too complex to treat mathematically, but a simpler accident without a cause is the one that pays you the jackpot in a casino vs. the one that wipes you out.

 

They create.

 

the simplest lifeform conceivable as far as life on earth goes is the living cell.
life as we know it cannot exist without the cell.

bullshit aqueous, there are a number of questions about evo that are raised by science itself, especially about what exactly is life and questions about human consciousness.
to imply this stuff comes solely from creationist sites is, well you are terribly misinformed.

the question i have is, "is life somehow using the organic framework to manifest itself or is life a direct result of the chemical processess involved".

people aren't going to exploit ANYTHING unless they are made aware of it.

you know what else would work?
"killing" a cell then bringing life back to it.
the concept is so simple i doubt if very many overlooked it.
apparently life "rides" on the chemical process of cells.

 

The simplest lifeform conceivable is a self replicating molecule. Viruses almost fit this definition, but need a living cell to run in. Self replicating RNA just needs the right food (a 'soup' of RNA fragments.) That RNA molecule shows all the characteristics of life.

Why not?

There is no difference between the two. We live via organic chemistry.

 

I don't know of any scientific sites that question - in the sense of cast doubt on - Darwinian evolutionary theory.

That kind of "questioning" comes exclusively from creationist sites, afaik. Do you have an example or two?

Your lack of conceptual capabilities is not universal, and if it were would not be evidence of any state of reality.

Routine. Frozen and dehydrated fungal spores would be the most obvious example. Your typical creationist just denies they were ever dead.

I question whether you have any idea what the difference between those two possibilities could possibly be. I can't think of any.

 

no.

i was talking about plant/ animal/ human cells.
spores and viruses aren't alive are they?

i'm not sure either except maybe through quantum physics.

 

The difference (as I see it) in this is that one implies that "life" exists independantly of the organic framework - the same way some people try to insist that consciousness exists independantly of the brain/mind. (AKA - a soul.)

 

Just curious, but are we defining life as anything with a metabolism?

 

OK, you can define it that way if you want. In that case, viruses are not cells.

 

I tend to the view that consciousness, or a part of it at least, is outside of the brain. When you get to experience premonitions and psychic vision things like that you are forced to think there is no way that was in my brain. If it was in my brain the brain works a lot different than I realize.
If you said some part of memory is like picking up radio waves I'd go along with that. You need a brain but all that you can dream up doesn't seem to be in your brain. I'd love to know the real answer to this.

 

i don't think life can exist outside the cell.
yes, you nailed the point i was making.

found a great site for the cell:
http://www.ebiomedia.com/vmchk/Inside-the-Living-Cell/View-all-products.html

 

There is only one thing which by definition can exist outside of physical reality; potential (that which may become reality). Even then it depends on something which has properties in one form or another.