Knowledge and subjectivity. Origin of life

Yes, I noticed that too.
A study of the origins of the automobile is not a study of automobiles themselves (or how they have "evolved").
This is explained by comments:

WW's statement - quoted by above - thus becomes "In any "study" of the "origins of life"...".
Which makes such a study - by definition - NOT part of evolutionary theory.
(And also means that his argument, such as it is, is tautological: any study of X is the study of X).

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

The evolution of life happens , just not the slow change that Darwin based his theory on , evolution can have jumps

And for me all matter and energy has tucked in side it the energy of life its self. It just needs the enviroment and the right chemicals to bring this energy to the point of manifestation

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

You did not follow my correct reasoning on theories.

And, I proved Darwin believed life is naturally emergent from chemicals in my post above. Please read my posts so that I do not have to repost them and you do not make false statements.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2745620/

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Yes, evolution happens for some reason. We just do not have a correct explanation on how that happens.

 

Your "reasoning" (such as it was) was incorrect.
There was nothing to follow.

What Darwin believed is entirely irrelevant with regard to theory actually put forward in his book.
The quote you gave "When Charles Darwin published The Origin of Species 150 years ago he consciously avoided discussing the origin of life.[/quote] highlights this quite specifically.

Exactly. If one has to resort to "other texts and correspondence" that's a pretty good indicator that it was left out of the book entirely.
Regardless of his own thoughts on the subject they were not included in his theory.
It's that simple.

What you should have written was "do not make statements that I (Chinglu) subsequently, and erroneously [sup]1[/sup], claim to be false".
Please learn to think.

1 Whether this error of yours is due to genuine misunderstanding or wilful obtuseness is a question for other readers. I have my own view.

 

The automobile was called the horseless carriage. The link between horse and buddy and horseless carriage was trading a motor, for the horse. Motors are still defined in terms of horsepower or the pulling power of horses. The motor created new utility, but also led to new problems. The weight of the motor needed to be carried on the carriage, requiring changes in the carriage itself.

The horse was not sitting in the carriage, so the former carriage could be lighter and mostly wood. This extra weight and horse replacement would also lead to the need for better brake design, since the horse used to help with the braking and turning, but the motor had no built in brakes, while adding weight and momentum to the carriage down hills, etc.

If you has a smart horse who knew his way, you had a living GPS system with the horse and buggy. The horseless carriage lost this and needed to go retro for 100 years until the GPS returns. The original horse and buggy was totally green, using solar power via grass as its fuel. This too took decades to come back with solar still not that efficient.

The evolution from the horse and buggy to the horseless carriage was is not just random events but also solutions to problems that a one critical change can bring. Maybe the approach for each need, like brake design, has a level of trial and error in terms of prototypes, but a problem to overcome was often the goal.

 

Still wrong.
Still diverting.

That wasn't claimed.

Go back and read your (and my) posts on this particular subject.

The study (and theory) of evolution is equivalent to the study of automobiles as automobiles.
The study of automobiles (as automobiles) cannot take place until automobiles exist.
If it's not an automobile it's not included in the study.
A horse and buggy were not, by definition, automobiles.

 

You make a good point in that the subjectivity of language is often used to define how we catalog, thereby adding subjectivity to an objective science. Other than tradition, there is no rational explanation for why we enforce, any given line in the sand, other than to protect the status quo. It is like the child with the ball gets to make the rules so he can win easier. He will not pick rules that make him look weaker, even if this is more rational. For example, the bias about replicators starting life, makes the line in the sand, favor this assumption, while making it harder for other ideas to meet language subjectivities.

As an analogy, say a child has a bunch of blocks of various shapes and colors. We give him a bunch of storage bins and have him catalog the blocks. He places then by shape in the various bins. This becomes the tradition that we blindly except. Say another person decides to do this by color or size. This is just as valid but will appear to be alien with respect to the defined tradition. It messes up the mind in terms of building the same things, because one is so used to getting the blocks in a sequence defined by the old catalog system. But the other may make it easier, once you get the hang of it, but since the line in the sand defines storage in terms of shape, it has to be wrong in some irrational way.

 

The fact that you say this AT ALL indicates that you've failed to understand what was written.

Utter crap.
We "draw lines in the sand" for various reasons.
In the case of a scientific endeavour it's done to define what is going to be studied and how that study takes place.
Leave it loose and end up with no f*cking idea of what you're doing.

 

You did not logically refute my post so you lose here.

OK let's see. Darwin invented the theory based on his principles. Now, we need to find out if you agree or disagree with them.

He believed that life forms were composed exclusively of chemicals. Now, do you think a life form has some force or not. If not, then TOE based on chemical evolution encloses the emergence of life from chemicals.

So, you need to clarify your belief system.

Hence, are you saying Darwin was a crackpot and was wrong about chemical evolution into life?

 

You seem to have this fascination for "logic" while completely failing to understand or apply it.
A scientific theory is NOT a theory of mathematical logic.
Much in the same way that a cow is not a peanut.

No he didn't.

But neither referenced nor called on that belief while proposing the TOE.

Your "argument" here is along the lines of "Einstein was married therefore relativity is based on/ encloses heterosexuality".

And you need to learn rationality.

Oh look.
Another utter failure to think things through.
I'm saying neither. I implied neither (except so far as certain people with an agenda might manage to deliberately insert into my statements).

 

When Darwin developed his theory, he had visited Galapagos Islands which was an isolated and remote place. A point I have made before was, picture if Darwin, instead, had visited Yellowstone National Park in the USA, several years before and after a major forest fire. In this case, rather than a closed system, he would have witnessed and had to developed his theory using an open system, where major changes in the flora and fauna occur within years and not in eons like at Galapagos.

The unique closed conditions of Galapagos caused Darwin to explain evolution based on closed systems, better than in open systems. He could have developed a theory while staying in England, if it had been universal, since they have lots of life there. Those conditions were too open to work as well as in Galapagos. This is nothing against Darwin, just that the experimental parameters; open versus closed, sets limits on what can be inferred, narrowing conclusive accordingly.

 

Really?
Evolutionary changes in species occur within years at Yellowstone?

Bull.

Is this some sort of claim that evolution isn't "universal"?

Ah right.
England was a bad place to study evolution (compared to the Galapagos) because England is an "open system" and the Galapagos isn't.
But Yellowstone is a better place for such a study than the Galapagos because Yellowstone is open and the Galapagos isn't.
In other words Open is worse than Closed which is worse than Open.

And you expect to be taken seriously, do you?

 

In the YellowStone National Park example, a major forest fire burnt millions of acres and change a closed system overnight. If Darwin was there before the fire he would have seen and cataloged all types of flora and fauna, from apex predators all the way down. If he returned to Yellowstone 10 years after the fire, expecting to see another closed system like Galapagos, where all is still the same, he would have instead witnessed the entire flora and fauna distribution of Yellowstone is now different over millions of acres; WTF? Even new species, he did not catalog before, may have appeared in only 10 years. These would have migrated elsewhere but his theory says evolution caused this. He would sense this is not exactly right.

The best explanation for changing life, in a changing natural environment of this scope and sped, would not be competition between males of the same species for reproduction rights. This open system would be better explained with mobility of individuals seeking food and shelter. As the system reaches steady state and becomes closed, then the other may be more appropriate.

Where you and I differ is I am not using evolution as religious dogma meant to be a certain way. Rather I am changing the parameters of Darwin's experimental conditions, so the logic results come out differently.

England would not fit his theory either, since there were other wild cards. England was in flux with human intervention such as selective breeding of livestock, development of the land, and foreign trade connected to animal and plant collectors, so the system would be too open for that theory. If a English child received a fish from India and he lets it go in the lake, now we have a new species in the area that might mate with the local fish; mutation. Galapagos was closed enough to factor this out. I suppose Darwin needed to start with a simple foundation before he and others could build the finished model.

Birds often eat fruit and then fly off only to excrete the seeds far way, introducing a new species in the area. If we assume this was a closed system, we would call that a mutation.

 

Still nothing but your unsupported claim that evolution takes place in the space of years.

In other words you're not talking about evolution, you're making up your own shit and "supporting" that with even more made up shit.

 

1) You don't understand what a theory is.

2) Take a position.

What Darwin right or wrong?

 

That would be an incorrect assumption on your part.

With regard to what?
Your claim - that the TOE (as published by Darwin) is predicated on "chemical evolution into life" - has been shown to be false.
If this is what you're asking it's not possible to answer since he made claims about it.
Rather hard to say if a guy is right or wrong on something he didn't claim.

 

1) You do not understand what a theory is. Otherwise, prove it.

2) I have proven that Darwin believed in the chemical evolution of life.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2745620/

Now, is Darwin right in this belief yes or no.

 

No, you do not and never have understood what a theory is....otherwise you would not be asking to prove it, and your second statement is utterly false.
Evolution and Abiogenesis are two different things, although both near certain in their applications.

If you refute either, then show some evidence supporting your claim.
You cannot.

 

SFW?
Like I said earlier:
What Darwin believed is entirely irrelevant with regard to the theory actually put forward in his book.