Knowledge and subjectivity. Origin of life

Discussion in 'Biology & Genetics' started by mjs, Mar 17, 2014.

  1. Dywyddyr Penguinaciously duckalicious. Valued Senior Member

    You use of the word "proof" show that you don't really understand what you're talking about.

    You appear to be severely confused here.
    "Self change" has already been observed. In the lab and in the "real world".

    Was it your intent to ramble incoherently and claim that there's no more "proof" of god than there is (in your mind) of evolution?

    The thing here is is that anyone can make up an analogy.
    And also make up the internal "logic" of that "analogy" using specious examples.
    Making an analogy between a actuality and a speculation is doing the wrong way round.

    Given your continually displayed lack of both science (of just about any sort) AND logic why should we just take your word?

    This is entirely crap.
    Chaos is amenable to mathematics. "God" isn't.

    Unsupported claim.
    Please provide evidence.

  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  3. chinglu Valued Senior Member

    If TOE is not a theory according to mathematical logic, what kind of theory is it? Show your work.

    On one hand you claim TOE is a fact and then on the other you claim it is a theory and "theories get modified". Can you explain how a fact can be modified.

    You see, if TOE is a fact, then it is an absolute fact that cannot ever be challenged. Yet, I already posted an experiment that proved TOE is refuted by the experiment.

    So, you are left claiming TOE is both a theory and a fact, which is a contradiction.
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  5. chinglu Valued Senior Member

    Note to thread.

    This should not be a point of contention. TOE cannot explain abiogenesis and in fact no scientific verifiable method can do this.

    So, instead of attaching to failed theories, we really do not know what is going on.

    In the first place, none of this should be here. Somehow, things emerged from nothing for this place to exist one way or another.

    And in the second place, this does not work in any form of reasoning.
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  7. Dywyddyr Penguinaciously duckalicious. Valued Senior Member

    It's a scientific theory, as has been pointed out so your claim, while true, is moot and worthless.
    Science is not, nor is it predicated upon, mathematical logic.
    If you bothered checking you'd find that there's a definition for "theory" as used by mathematical logic and one for the word as used by science as a discipline.
    The one is not the other.

    I see that you either can't read or that you have very selective comprehension.
    What I actually wrote was:
    You'll also note that no one has claimed that the TOE is a fact.

    This is incorrect.
    Evolution is not the theory of evolution any more than gravity is the theory of gravity.

    Of course it doesn't.
    It's neither intended nor required to do so [sup]1[/sup].
    Evolution is about what happens after life started.
    Abiogenesis is about how it started.

    1 Correction: it is "required" to do so by idiots who don't understand the subject. But they don't count.
  8. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Note to chinglu:
    Do some science for once in your life.
    Abiogenesis and Evolution are two different things. Evolution is not meant to explain Abiogenesis.
    Abiogenesis is simply explained by chemical reactions, according to conditions which exist.
    Evolution is a fact. Bozo up there swinging in the trees, has evolved into you.
    Abiogenesis is a fact. Life is here, and probably elsewhere.
    Since there is no God, or magic pixie in the sky, and it is unscientific to claim there is, it must have arose some time after the BB from inanimate matter.

    The reasoning problem is you.
    Remember in an old thread how you were claiming the ticking of a manmade clock was hard-wired to the movements of astronomical bodies?
    You were shown to be grossly wrong then.
    You at this time are once again, trying to shoe-horn your mythical deity/pixie into invalidating science [SR] and now Evolution and Abiogenesis.
    Do you really believe you are impressing anyone? Other than a couple of fellow creationists/God botherers.
    The mainstream scientific community accept SR, Evolution and Abiogenesis as fact.
    Your error ridden maths and warped interpretations of science in general, and as proved by many on this forum, will not change the fact that these ideas of yours are religiously driven, and not worth a pinch of salt.

    Are you are missionary??? Evenagelist???? Out to win over some souls to your mythical cause?
    Religion is outdated chinglu...Science has pushed it back and continues to push it back into oblivion where it should be.
    It explains nothing, other then give some comfort as opposed to an existence in a Universe where we do not really matter.
  9. chinglu Valued Senior Member

    What is a scientific theory if it is not a logical theory? That way we can communicate on your terms.

    You wrote:
    Now, are you claiming there is a difference between an observed fact and a logical fact? If so, explain. That should be amusing.

    TOE (Theory of Evolution) is not a theory?

    That is where you are wrong.The point of TOE is that modifications can be explained in terms of natural chemical processes. One modification in particular is the natural chemical processes that emerge into life.
  10. chinglu Valued Senior Member

    Can I help you understand the math in the SR thread?
  11. Dywyddyr Penguinaciously duckalicious. Valued Senior Member

    A scientific theory is a scientific theory.
    Science is NOT mathematical logic.

    Not everything supported by logic is visible in actuality.
    Logic is not reality.

    I wonder why it's called the THEORY of evolution?
    You appear to have not understood the difference I noted, with an example, between fact and theory.
    Evolution is a fact.
    The theory of evolution is a theory explaining HOW evolution works.

    And again.. no.
    Evolution concerns itself with things ONLY after the start of life. Not how it arrived.
    If you think otherwise then please provide links that support your claim.
    And not links from creationist sites attempting to debunk evolution - the scientific parameters of what evolution investigates are set by the people doing that work. Not a bunch of nutcases who don't like (or can't understand) the work.
  12. Aqueous Id flat Earth skeptic Valued Senior Member

    But wait: that excludes Chinglu.
  13. Aqueous Id flat Earth skeptic Valued Senior Member

    No, but come back when you can.
  14. exchemist Valued Senior Member

    That's just wrong. Creationists are fond of conflating abiogenesis with evolution, but it is just a dishonest rhetorical trick.

    They like to popularise terms such as "molecule to man" evolution, in an attempt to pretend that the theory of evolution somehow depends on abiogenesis. This would be convenient for them, because of course there is no established theory of abiogenesis, so it would allow them to pretend that this somehow undermines the foundations of evolution.

    But it's cock. Darwin had no theory of abiogenesis at all, yet that did not stop him. Evolution is the theory if how one species of organism gives rise over time to others. It is about the origin of species, not the origin of life.

    In a similar way, the theory of the lifecycle of stars does not depend for its validity on the theory of the Big Bang. And organic chemistry does not depend on the accuracy of the theory of the structure of the atomic nucleus.

    Creationists have been told this time and again, but their cheerleaders persist in propagating this falsehood.
  15. Dinosaur Rational Skeptic Valued Senior Member

    Some Nit-Picking.

    TOE has been used for quite some time to mean: Theory Of Everything, not Theory Of Evolution.

    In the context of this Thread, it will not be misunderstood. In other contexts, it could be misleading if you expect it to refer to evolution.
  16. chinglu Valued Senior Member

    1) Science theories are a posteriori or a priori. TOE is a priori and is therefore a theory that claims postulates. For example, postulate (1) Life is modified by random mutation and then natural selection.

    A posteriori science is strictly based on verifiable experimentation that can be reproduced.

    Therefore, TOE is a logical theory as I said.

    2) Perhaps you should define evolution. Do you mean creatures must always change?

    3) You say evolution only concerns itself with events after life arrived. TOE must concern itself with all. So, are you claiming TOE has nothing to do with evolution? Specifically, how do you separate these 2?
  17. chinglu Valued Senior Member

    You are totally ignorant.
  18. Dywyddyr Penguinaciously duckalicious. Valued Senior Member


    But NOT one of mathematical logic, which was your specific claim.

    Yes I see.
    You prefer to keep making the claim that TOE must include how life started.
    But you still haven't provided a single shred of support for that claim.
    There is ZERO reason for the TOE to include how life started (despite your unsupported claim), this is an invention, either of your own of some creation nutcase who doesn't know what he's talking about.

    I'm not sure whether this is ignorance and the inability to read/ parse/ comprehend what I wrote or deliberate dishonesty. Perhaps you can find where where I stated (or even implied) that and link to my words.
  19. wellwisher Banned Banned

    The reason it is important to know how life begin, is to see if any of these same variables continue to have an impact on future change. If you leave out the origin the curve can become biased high or low, or left or right and not know the difference. The only variable there from the beginning and still playing a major role within life, is water. Water was there when only small gases existed, even before animo acids began to form from water and simple gases, etc.

    If we start in the middle, such as at replicators, will we make this the central variable. We then have to depend on random things to fill the gaps which the theory can't explain to the level need by the doubters. Any layers from the origin are not seen as important i random can be used to fill in the gaps.

    For example, all replicator theories depend on hydrogen bonding between base pairs so there are templates. Where did the hydrogen bonding come from that makes the template process possible? It had to do with reactions that involve water.

    If we mix or agitate water and oil, to get an emulsion, we will increase the system entropy (disorder). This system will not retain this high level of entropy but rather it will phase separate back into two layers, thereby defining lowered entropy. This has to do with free energy.

    Since the entropy of the universe needs to increase over time, one way to get these two layers to blend, in a more permanent way, is if the organic or oil layer takes on more water like properties, while the water layer takes on more organic like properties. Hydrogen bonding is one way for the organics to take on more water like properties, with DNA the most hydrated molecules in life.
  20. Dywyddyr Penguinaciously duckalicious. Valued Senior Member

    The "origin of the curve" as far as evolution is concerned is life from when it started: not HOW it was started.
    To use the kind of largely naff analogy that you resort to so often: your argument here is the equivalent of claiming that Grand Prix results don't mean anything because they don't take into account the design and construction processes of the cars involved.
  21. wellwisher Banned Banned

    The analogy I see is like starting the origins of the automobile with the 1920 Lincoln, and not the horse and buggy. The 1920 Lincoln is in the middle and has features that took decades to develop, and did not just appear like a lottery jackpot. That POV needs fuzzy math.

    If we start with the 1920 Lincoln, it will bias the mind. Cars continued to evolve in 1920, building on what came before with many things staying the same; four tires. Other things are added as new. The 1920 Lincoln had both of these at the same time.
  22. Dywyddyr Penguinaciously duckalicious. Valued Senior Member

    If you include the horse & buggy then, by definition, you aren't studying automobiles.
    "How did we get to the automobile" is NOT a study of them.
  23. dumbest man on earth Real Eyes Realize Real Lies Valued Senior Member

    Dywyddyr, you "quoted" wellwisherrs statement where he clearly says "origins of the automobile".

    In any "study" of the "origins of the automobile", or Horseless Carriage, would it not seem that the "origins of the automobile" may have begun with the search for a replacement for the "horse & buggy"?

Share This Page