Denial of Evolution VII (2015)

Discussion in 'Biology & Genetics' started by davewhite04, Jan 5, 2015.

  1. Jason.Marshall Banned Banned

    Messages:
    654
    "The sum of all fears" can you feel it upon your planet its about to be released do you hear it talking do you feel it coming??
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. Jason.Marshall Banned Banned

    Messages:
    654
    Thanks and praises to the most high.
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. Jason.Marshall Banned Banned

    Messages:
    654
    Its seems the sleep was upon more than two thousand years the OHM has spoken now awakened...
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. Bells Staff Member

    Messages:
    23,278
    Why does that make sense? Do you have any evidence that this was so?

    There is not even any biblical evidence to support such a theory.

    No, it does not.

    It only makes sense to those who refuse to believe that they are not somehow preordained to exist, that they are so important that a god made sure mass extinction events occurred just so that they could exist one day. Do you see how implausible that is?

    We would get the point if you made sense.

    There is no evidence at all, none whatsoever of a supernatural interference.

    Only if you believe that fairies also exist in the bottom of the garden, because, well, it does make sense.

    What makes sense is evidence and what can be observed, for example. There is absolutely no evidence of supernatural interference.
     
  8. Bells Staff Member

    Messages:
    23,278
    Mod Note

    John Marshall, here is a brush up on this site's rules:

    24. Preaching is giving a sermon, often but not always of a religious nature, stating how people should or should not act, as if the sermon itself were self-evidently true.

    25. Proselytising is attempting to convert others to one’s own beliefs, often with threats of adverse consequences if one refuses to convert.

    26. Evangelising is where the poster’s main aim is to spread the word about his or her beliefs, without being interested in real discussion or critical analysis.

    27. The moderator team takes a dim view of propaganda, preaching, proselytising and evangelising. Engaging in these activities is not guaranteed to get you banned, but you do so at your own risk.


    This is particularly so in a science forum. Please keep your religious woo restricted to the religious forum.

    Failure to do so will result in moderation.

    Thank you.
     
  9. billvon Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    17,460
    The mighty Georg Ohm spoke about 200 years ago actually. And he said "Let there be a voltage potential proportional to the current times the resistance." And it was so. And he saw that it was good.
     
    Kristoffer likes this.
  10. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    Messages:
    34,224
    Failure to do so has resulted in moderation - a 10 point warning in this instance.
     
    Jason.Marshall likes this.
  11. Jason.Marshall Banned Banned

    Messages:
    654
    Yes and he was inspired indeed.
     
  12. Jason.Marshall Banned Banned

    Messages:
    654
    Thanks James its about time someone stood up to bells.
     
  13. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    Messages:
    34,224
    You would have received the warning and the points, Jason. Apparently you didn't realise that I'm 100% in agreement with Bells (just less tolerant, maybe). You picked a bad thread to preach in, by the way.
     
  14. Jason.Marshall Banned Banned

    Messages:
    654
    I gave you a gift James I gave you all a gift ,we are all going to die... "smile" in between.
     
  15. Rav Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,422
    In saying this you have revealed a deficiency in your perspective regarding the true spatial and temporal extent of the arena in which events play out. In the observable universe alone there are hundreds of billions of galaxies each with hundreds of billions of stars (and that's just the small ones -- there are an innumerable number of giant elliptical galaxies that contain several trillion stars of their own). And again, that's just the observable universe; the universe itself is almost certainly considerably more massive (some recent estimates suggest that it may be at least 250 times bigger). Combine this with matters obvious propensity for self-organization and complex behaviour (as should be obvious by now -- also see this, this and this) particularly given changing environmental conditions, and multiply this already utterly mind-boggling number of opportunities by the extent of the temporal dimension in question (the total time during which planetary systems have been forming, which is a very long time) and I think it becomes perfectly reasonable to suggest that it would be impossible for life not to emerge in at least a few places.

    In other words just like so many others your real problem is that you are simply too small-minded to get a proper handle on what is possible, or probable. It's not unexpected of course since it's neither natural or easy for us to think so big but if you're gonna tackle the big topics you at least need to try.

    And this hopelessly inadequate analogy is just further proof. The truth is that the emergence of life on just one planet is something more like a billion people buying a billion lottery tickets in a billion different draws every day for a billion years until some seemingly unlikely but at this point statistically inevitable series of wins occurs. That's abiogenesis, and as pointed out earlier because the nature of matter is conducive to it anyway the draws are never actually random; they are constrained to a mere subset of possibilities by the natural order. So this leaves plenty of opportunities for the process to actually get started and then fail (for whatever reason) before finally assuming more robust forms in more favourable conditions for much greater lengths of time.
     
    Last edited: Feb 6, 2015
  16. Bells Staff Member

    Messages:
    23,278
    I gave you a warning about it in the thread. James issued you with an infraction for it.

    We really do not tolerate preaching that well here. So please don't do it anymore. I do need to be less "nice" about it in the future.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  17. wellwisher Banned Banned

    Messages:
    5,160
    Abiogenesis and evolution both have a connection to water, since water was there from the beginning, and is still a critical component of life. Water reduces randomness, because water is able to induce a reversal of organic entropy or disorder. For example, consider the system of water and oil. If we mixed water with oil and then agitated we will form an emulsion. This agitation will randomize the system into a state of high entropy. If we stop agitation, the system will spontaneously reverse entropy and form reproducible order as two layers/phases. You can agitate left, right, up or down or any random combination. As it settles, we get two layers again. All roads lead back to Rome; specific order.

    The reason this occurs is because the hydrogen bonding of water stabilizes the water through networks of secondary bonding. Organics tend to increase the aqueous network energy by disrupting the optimized aqueous bonding. As such, any increase in system entropy comes at the price of causing the energy of the water to increase. The aqueous system will attempt to lower energy, meaning the water will try to exclude the organics; lower the entropy.

    Other solvents, especially organic solvents, tend to allow the organic molecules to be more soluble. They don't exclude as strongly, allowing more solvent-organic randomness. Protein folds in water in an exact way, with a probability of 1.0. Odds do not apply to protein folding in water. This natural selection occurred in water and is optimized to minimize the aqueous network potential. The goal was never random. Other solvents will not have exact folds but will more in line with the random assumptions.

    The system of oil and water and the concept of entropy, is also educational in another way. This lesson is connected to a key aspect of life; cell cycles. If we go back to water and oil and an agitator, the agitator can induce a state of high entropy; emulsion state. Entropy needs energy to increase, with the agitator supplying that energy. The agitator is supplying energy beyond the environment; adding work, with the system forming an equilibrium. If we take away this external supply of energy; stop the agitation, the system will lowers entropy back to the level implicit of the environmental energy. The background energy can only supply enough energy for the entropy of two layers.

    In cell cycles, the mother cell does the same thing as adding an agitator. She adds this by adding a lot of extra energy into the cell, as reflected her very high level of metabolism. Her adding of energy is loosely analogous to the entropy of the water-oil emulsion. This state is above and beyond normal background equilibrium. This is useful because when she starts to rest, the background energy cannot support as much entropy. The system begins to form two layers/daughter cells each of which also then precipitate out various phases; nuclear membrane. This is very reproducible due to phase energies and entropy.

    Before life proper formed, during advanced abiogenesis, all this needed is a mechanism that can increase internal energy/work and the ceiling of internal entropy; emulsion analogy. When this energy stops, the lowering energy background will cause a lowering entropy ceiling. Things will begin to snap into order, always trying to approach the sweet spot with water. That sweet spot places things where they need to be for life to emerge; phase diagram of proteins phases with exact folds.

    Water has the biggest push against carbon components of all solvents. However, adding chaos, in a regulated way, by increasing the ceiling when needed, through an agitation analogy, helps the selection process. Most of the mutations and defects on the DNA occur when there is a higher entropy ceiling. Non replicating cell use a lower energy ceiling making it more stable against entropy increase; good for survival. In both cases, there is equilibrium so even this is not as random as it might appear; dice still loaded. The changes net improve the situation and not make it net worse. The push of water against organics assures that.
     
    Last edited: Feb 6, 2015
  18. davewhite04 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,667
    That was the shortest "sermon" I ever saw... but at least you've got off your high horse "Thank You" goes a long way somewhat, which I'm happy for.
     
  19. davewhite04 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,667
    You still remain a prick, a thorn in sciforums side, the sooner you fuck off the better.
     
  20. davewhite04 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,667
    They are fools, grasping onto a hypothesis to justify no need for a God at all. Fools would say abiogenesis is a scientific theory, look it up if you want to learn.
     
  21. GeoffP Caput gerat lupinum Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    22,087
    Are you still confused about this? Abiogenesis is about the naturalistic evidence for the formation of life. It offends you because it does not require a deity to initiate it. It is not about disproving God. It was not picked expressly to piss you off.
     
  22. davewhite04 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,667
    Last post on this. You believe what you want, the day abiogenesis becomes a scientific theory is the day I'll take it seriously.
     
  23. billvon Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    17,460
    So first you claim that they don't say that. Then you admit that they do but they are fools?

    Scientists do make that statement all the time. Scientists have even duplicated many of the steps required in the lab. None of that means "there is no need for a God at all." Some people have a very strong need to believe in God, which is not changed by new scientific discoveries.

    It's true, there are a few unfortunate people who conflate their faith in God with the Earth being the center of the universe, or a belief that God drives evolution, or that God created life. These people are unfortunate because their faith is weak; new scientific discoveries (which happen all the time) may topple their faith at any time. Fortunately, most people's faith is stronger than that.
     
    davewhite04 likes this.

Share This Page