For the alternative theorists:

Discussion in 'General Science & Technology' started by paddoboy, Apr 2, 2014.

  1. leopold Valued Senior Member

    what gives you the impression i am seeking anything other than a natural explanation?
    if i wanted a "god" explanation then the discussion is over, there is nothing else to question is there.
    unfortunately that isn't the case.

    you are letting the likes of paddoboy . . . nevermind.
    i don't give a rats ass about the supernatural in the current discussion.

    where is all this "supernatural" shit coming from??????????????????:"?"?????????????????????????
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  3. exchemist Valued Senior Member

    Leopold if you are happy to dismiss supernatural explanations for abiogenesis then I am all the more delighted.

    But then, I wonder, what you can possibly mean by statements such as:

    - things becoming alive is the most absurd thing I ever heard apart from intelligence without substance, and

    - there is no evidence that adaptations account for the diversity of life,

    and your apparent conviction that consciousness represents some fundamental stumbling block for scientific theory?

    If you think spontaneous abiogenesis is ridiculous, you decline to accept that evolution is a reasonable mechanism for the diversity of life and you think science cannot explain consciousness, it is hardly surprising that rest of us may think we are dealing with a creationist of some sort.

    What, then is your position? If you would only articulate it, I suspect everyone would be less frustrated.
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  5. Gerry Nightingale Banned Banned

    In reply to JimmyRoberts, re: your #1410.

    "The forefront of physics?" Which aspects of physics might this be? "Progress?" What progress?

    Completely unprovable speculation is NOT the case of t' Hooft!!! (paddo's "wiki" is correct)


    Pursuing mathematical "blinds" of theory will not solve anything...even Hawking has realized this! (forty years of work never came to fruition, because there was no quantum "tree" to

    bear "quantum" fruit. (read Gerardus' previous published works over the last twenty years or so, and you will realize what I mean)


    "Dead sixty years" is took me forty years just to understand "how to think" rather than "what" to think! "Blind Faith" is a good name for a band...not so good regarding

    "modern physics".

    (Thanks for reading!)
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  7. leopold Valued Senior Member

    what do you mean by "dismiss"?
    i never even considered it a possibility.
    the concept is as ludicrous as "things becoming alive".
    well aren't they?
    what leads you to believe "things become alive"?
    what has science shown you that makes you believe that?
    i want to see what you base your answer on.
    the basis for my stand comes directly from a respected science source.
    where in the physical world is there even a hint at consciousness other than life?
    i don't remember mentioning any kind of "stumbling block".
    the entire notion is ludicrous in the extreme.
    we not only have "things becoming alive, they are now becoming aware of themselves".
    what has science shown you that makes you believe this stuff?
    it's always easier to ad hom than to present any real discussion.
    i don't know why i must keep saying this, but yes, it's logical and reasonable to ASSUME life "arose from the elements".
    on the other hand you must admit logic and reason IS NOT infallible and it's definitely NOT any kind of evidence.

    my position is science HAS NO CLUE as to the origins of life.
    yes, it has a "working theory", but as of right now nothing has come from it.
    it really yanks my chain for certain posters to say science has this stuff down cold when in fact the opposite is true.
    it yanks my chain when science pushes the opposite of what it has always observed.
    it yanks my chain for people to say science has all these wonderful transitional fossils when in fact the opposite is true.
    it yanks my chain that "science"gets its name dragged through the mud because it dared to print an article.
    it yanks my chain for dr. ayala to get allegedly misquoted but yet he never complains to "science" but instead complains to authors of personal websites.

    now tell me you don't have a problem with that.
  8. Russ_Watters Not a Trump supporter... Valued Senior Member

    Yes, we know what your position is on science. But that wasn't the question you were asked. The question is: what is your position on the origin of life? How do you think it happened?
  9. leopold Valued Senior Member

    there are only a few possibilities:
    1. life is infinite, there was no beginning.
    2. life arose from the elements.
    3. life is the product of some sort of "quantuum irregularity".
    4. life is the result of "divine inspiration".
    all of the above are possibilities, although some deserve more merit than others.
    i don't know whether to side with 1 or 2.

    the origins of life isn't the only riddle in this concern.
  10. exchemist Valued Senior Member

    Well I'd better go carefully to pick out of this the bits that are not purely rhetorical. But here goes.

    As I said previously, I quite agree science has only speculative hypotheses for abiogenesis. That, I think is an uncontroversial view within science and I share your scepticism when people occasionally over claim the degree to which it is understood.

    But as to "transitional fossils", Robert Asher's book "Evolution and Belief has a list, said to be non-exhaustive, of over 150 of them (Table 8.1, p144). Considering the intrinsically low probability of preservation of individual fossils, which has then to be multiplied by the low probability of them being found by us, this strikes me as a pretty decent set of evidence for the evolutionary process leading species to develop from one another. I do not understand why you seem to think it is not good enough.

    As to science pushing "the opposite of what it has always observed", what on earth do you mean by that?

    I know nothing of a Dr. Ayala or the article you cryptically refer to, again you'll have to explain what you are talking about, if you want to know if I have a problem with it.

    While I have been writing this I see you have made a reply to Russ W, in which you list the 4 possibilities for the origin of life, as you see them:

    1. life is infinite, there was no beginning.
    2. life arose from the elements.
    3. life is the product of some sort of "quantuum irregularity".
    4. life is the result of "divine inspiration".

    I don't understand why you list (4) since you have dismissed it.

    (1) would be inconsistent with current cosmology so cannot be accepted unless one pays the high price of chucking all of cosmology out of the window, which nobody is going to do at this stage.

    (2) is one I can't understand. To say life arose "from the elements" does not seem to mean a great deal as it stands. Arose how? In what sense from "elements"? Do you mean elements as opposed to compounds? Or elements in the sense that life arose by chemistry between elements?

    But, if you mean the last of these, then yes that is what most people presume.

    (3) Sounds like woo to me: I presume you are not serious about it.
    Last edited: Jun 30, 2014
  11. Trippy ALEA IACTA EST Staff Member

    Hasn't yet isn't the same as won't ever, and as I have pointed out to you repeatedly now, we have many of the pieces.

    Biochemistry, not organic chemistry. The chemistry of life is biochemistry, not organic chemistry. While the chemistry of life may contain some organic chemistry, it contains much that is not, and organic chemistry contains even more chemistry that is NOT related to life.

    You would be wrong - many cells have specialized functions that mean they are more complex than a simple living cell.

  12. Gerry Nightingale Banned Banned

    In reply to AIP's this thread, re: origin of life.

    I have enjoyed reading this thread! Very contentious as to "causations".

    Here is another to mull over.


    It is likely (at least to me) that "life" came about because conditions mandated it should occur. The "triumvirate" of matter/energy/gravity formed the "causations" necessary for life

    to exist...a reaction to circumstances.

    Of the three factors, I believe "energy" to be the "prime mover"...a factor that is always present. (different thread of mine)


    Did "evolution" play a role? Yes...once things progressed beyond a "chemical soup" stage, evolution reveals itself a prime factor, perhaps in ways still not fully understood.

    (Thanks for reading!)
  13. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    That is nothing but a cop out. Pls standard cosmology says different.

    OK, life arose from non life. Good.

    Not bad again either. Or more simply, life arose from non life.

    That isn't a scientific answer.
  14. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Another very recent article and new research data......

    Evolution of life's operating system revealed in detail
    55 minutes ago

    In the new study, Williams and Research Scientist Anton Petrov compared three-dimensional structures of ribosomes from a variety of species of varying biological complexity, including humans, yeast, bacteria and archaea. The researchers found distinct fingerprints in the ribosomes where new structures were added to the ribosomal surface without altering the pre-existing ribosomal core from the last universal common ancestor. Credit: Loren Williams/Georgia Institute of Technology.

    Read more at:
  15. paddoboy Valued Senior Member


    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    On this occasion Gerry, I read you as 100% correct....The details are another thing, but the "message" you convey, re the absolute certainty of life from non life [ignoring any non scientific explanatory deity myths]
    Chemistry is responsible for some amazing stuff. Life is certainly one of them.
    Abiogenesis I see as the only viable answer, and then life on Earth via possible Panspermia, then Evolutionary processes as a follow up.

    Objectively speaking, I can not see any other means, and any opinions contrary to that scenario, are more driven by the myths I and others have spoken on, rather then any real scientific possible alternative.
  16. leopold Valued Senior Member

    the really big problem in this area is consciousness.
    "creating life" might not be enough to adequately explain things.
    not according to the respected source i had available.
    science has never observed life coming from non life, but yet what are we told?
    see post 1424 about what yanks my chain with dr. ayala.
    i don't remember god being ruled out of the equation.
    sorry, ludicrous isn't good enough.
    i'm being honest here and i SWEAR i will be called a creationist for it.
    nobody is asking you to do any such thing.
    i'm not anyway.
    what we are now observing as the big bang could be nothing more than a localized expansion.
    that's where all matter comes from isn't it, the elements?
    i think einstein said it best:
    not only is the universe stranger than we imagine, it's stranger than we CAN imagine.
    heavy stuff when you think about it.
  17. humbleteleskop Banned Banned

    It is indeed very complex interaction, it can not be understood in exact terms. Even motion of only 4-body gravitational system is unpredictable and indescribable to us, we call it "chaotic". Combine that with electric and magnetic interactions between atoms and molecules and the result is simply unimaginably complex. But we can simulate it, we can simplify it. We can simulate self-replicating polymers, we should be able to simulate abiogenesis.

    I'm talking about complexity on all scales. One cell is complex, but one cell can not be one meter in size or five kilograms in mass, for that many single cells need to assemble into some kind of structure, and this structure has to be of certain complexity in order to support itself. It's just natural path of the least resistance, like air shapes rain water into drops because that's the most efficient geometry of water molecules in that environment and under those conditions, a "strange attractor" defined by energy equilibrium.

    I think you expect too much of what is innately uncomprehending to human mind, simply out of perceptive scope. The interaction is recursive and integrates over time, it's just too complex to grasp. We need to simulate it, either on a computer or practically with actual molecules like Jack W. Szostak is doing, then we will be able to say we understand it. And I think Szostak's experiments are convincing, offering a good degree of understanding. The real mystery for me here is how the hell these electrons, protons and shit came about with these properties they have, and why in the world do they even exist. Why is there something, rather than nothing?
    Last edited: Jul 1, 2014
  18. Trippy ALEA IACTA EST Staff Member

    It's already been explained to you how your interpretation of that news editorial is not only flawed, but contradicted by other sources attending the same convention.
  19. leopold Valued Senior Member

    the issue is probably available at jstor . . . for a price.
    anybody with the funds can take a gander for themselves.

    while you are browsing jstor try to find an issue with any kind of errata concerning said article.
  20. Trippy ALEA IACTA EST Staff Member

    It's also been explained to you why you're the only person that expects an errata regarding this article.

    Although the irony is there have been several pointed criticisms of the article and its sensanstionalist headlining published, including in science.
  21. leopold Valued Senior Member

    yes, lots of explanations, very little data.
    heh, i believe THAT was in the article too.
    oh wait, let me guess . . .
  22. Aqueous Id flat Earth skeptic Valued Senior Member

    Abiogenesis produced life that existed for, say a billion years or so, before that first organism (probably jellyfish) evolved a tactile sense in their umbrellas. Flatworms had true ganglia (primitive brains), in which the tactile network was extended to centralized processing. But it's hard to draw a line, working backwards from modern humans, as to those species which never had a "consciousness". But of course sentience is a consequence of brain activity, so as brains evolved, so did the capacity to sense and become self-aware.

    Hopefully you are mostly told the truth. But of course the quest for truth is elusive. It takes a lot of research. You really don't have to be told everything. There's plenty to learn. And that builds critical thinking skills.

    I'm surprised you limit your reading to this very tiny bit of information from among the vast amount of science papers out there.

    I have never called you a creationist (except I may have when I first encountered your posts) but I think you have accused me of doing so. Lately I've been speculating on why you tow the Creationist line rather than to trash talk them for the nonsense they fabricate. It's that reluctance to call a spade a spade which invites readers to associate you with creationism. That, and arguing the creationist platforms, plus citing creationist web sites. It just doesn't add up.

    The observable universe is all there is. Otherwise we would see more, right? To assume anything else is to say "the laws of physics can be suspended" (at some hypothetical boundary) which, esp. when claimed without evidence, is plain nuts. So folks will tend to reject it. (Here I'm not referring to the real meaning of "observable" -- as opposed to the region that extends to the edge of the universe, but strictly to what I think you mean by "observable universe".)

    The elements (atoms) are made of particles which are at least made of elementary particles (quarks).

    Very heavy. All the more reason to reign in the imagination, and always defer to best evidence. At present, best evidence supports Big Bang theory, planetary accretion of the Earth from supernovae remnanants; the collision with another planet, volcanism (geo-thermal and -chemical energy sources); abiogenesis per the RNA-world hypothesis from those sources; evolution per Darwin and as amended; giving rise to simplest anaerobic microbes living on mineral energy, to cyanobacteria which built the oxygenated atmosphere, to colonial (cooperative signaling microbes) to metazoans, eventually fish, then fish with limited ability to perambulate, to amphibians, to reptiles to quadruped precursors of mammals (sort of reptile and sort of mammal) to true mammals, and, eventually primates, and, eventually, modern humans; and the evolution of self awareness from primitive afferent pathways and brain development (with some other unknown kind of sentience among the common zoo animals you seem to be only considering). Except for the Big Picture (all the details I left out) which you would get from a degree plan in Cosmology and Evolutionary Biology, the rest is pretty much superstition. If you don't go with the best evidence then you're betting on a losing proposition. You seem to be worried that the next card in the deck won't be the ace of spades when in fact odds are it's a safe bet. In this case the odds you're picking are those of drawing the ace out of a million or so deuces. It's the preponderance of evidence that makes people choose the picture you are seeing painted in all the classrooms--not only in America, but around the world. Why pick the losing proposition, esp. when you (all of us) have so little information to draw from?

    That I think kind of summarizes the rationale that flickers through most posters' minds when they read your posts. And I think that's because just enough of them are just literate enough in science to walk through the same logic I did.
  23. Trippy ALEA IACTA EST Staff Member

    See, this is why you get accused of being dishonest.

Share This Page