21
   

What do you believe is true, but cannot prove?

 
 
Fil Albuquerque
 
  1  
Reply Tue 18 Apr, 2017 08:36 am
@farmerman,
See?
Philosophy, not Science, can address his nonsense.
...oh wait, you don't see. Right...n back to Chemical techno-talking about Super Nova...address the philosophy of the Maths if you have the lobes for it.
aaah, oh wait again...ya don't think philosophy of maths is a thing...right...
later Farma! Wink
0 Replies
 
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Tue 18 Apr, 2017 08:37 am
@Leadfoot,
Quote:
ID will obviously be involved.

I believe, but cannot prove, that such ARCHEA will never be created by natural causes.


Evidence is often slow to show up, so in the meantime, party like its 2017 and keep reading the growing evidence that does show up.

Theyeve found two or three Archea species that have dna complexes of less than 100 , and a growing sequence of archea unique to specific environments that are from 100 to 200. Some grad student in Canada was working on a cladistics diagram of archea and , like the recent discoveries of the eveolution of theropodal fish in the lower Devonian, we may be seeing some "Archean missing links" in our life times.


I see that the answer to "why" is important to you. Id rather know "how" and "when" , Ill let the guys like Albaquerque Phil answer "say wht"?

Fil Albuquerque
 
  1  
Reply Tue 18 Apr, 2017 08:43 am
@farmerman,
A Pattern doesn't need a "when"... it has a when present tense all over it.
Now go read Parmenides!

Einstein would put it in terms you maybe can grasp. Time is just more space.
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Tue 18 Apr, 2017 11:31 am
@Fil Albuquerque,
why dont you read Wolcott, Wendt, or even "Strata Smith". To ignore the importnce of "when" denies times role.

Thts ok, I keep retelling myself that you assert usually from an evidence-free basis.


PS Einstein fucked up with several major blunders , maybe you were aware?


0 Replies
 
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Tue 18 Apr, 2017 11:32 am
@Fil Albuquerque,
Quote:
A Pattern doesn't need a "when


I forgot up top. That statement of yours is just flat silly.
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Tue 18 Apr, 2017 12:25 pm
@farmerman,
I agree; everything has a 'when.' Especially after this planet started having life.
http://www.ecology.com/2011/09/10/earths-beginnings-origins-life/
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Tue 18 Apr, 2017 12:53 pm
@cicerone imposter,
hes just establishing turfitude Wink
0 Replies
 
Fil Albuquerque
 
  1  
Reply Tue 18 Apr, 2017 01:28 pm
@farmerman,
Yeah sure you nailed it. Wink
Pull out a string of film old fashioned way n measure its length...
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Tue 18 Apr, 2017 03:30 pm
@Fil Albuquerque,
I dont wanna know how long it is,I wanna know high HIGH it is
Fil Albuquerque
 
  1  
Reply Tue 18 Apr, 2017 06:48 pm
@farmerman,
Didn't you get yet that a pattern can be composed of several "when's" that have an order? It's just a one-dimensional string for frack sake. Pick length or height I don't give a shizz. That order of time patterned events with successive "when's" is counting space back n forward...sheesh f stubbornness! The analogy of the 4D movie was not clear enough?

If you want go reductionist do it properly and be minimalist!
Time is just another "corridor" of Space!
Fil Albuquerque
 
  1  
Reply Tue 18 Apr, 2017 06:59 pm
@Fil Albuquerque,
How implies when, n order of events, "space" blocks (which are not empty) suffice for describing any pattern. Saying when is like redundant.
0 Replies
 
Leadfoot
 
  1  
Reply Wed 19 Apr, 2017 06:23 am
@farmerman,
Quote:
Theyeve found two or three Archea species that have dna complexes of less than 100

It should be noted that you mean < 100 genes, not < 100 DNA base pairs.
That complicates the problem for abiogenesis a lot more than your comment would imply to most people. A single gene can have hundreds to millions of base pairs.
Leadfoot
 
  1  
Reply Wed 19 Apr, 2017 06:30 am
@farmerman,
Quote:
We now routinely analyze the spectra of stars to see those low in Fe because those are the very oldest.

I'll have to look that up. It seems very counterintuitive because the build up of Fe is what causes stars to go nova at the end of life. Fe is poison to a star so I would assume low Fe means young, not old.
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Wed 19 Apr, 2017 06:36 am
@Leadfoot,
Its not not the oldest star. The iron spectra give us a sense that the youngest stars we can see give us a view back in time in which these stars were very young which is very long ago. Am I being confusing?
We still have to compare the stars against standard "candles" from stars like cepheids or Hubble candles.
A star very low in iron is young. Its existence in the deep universe lets us see back to a time to the very early universe. (That means OLD) Sorry, I reread what I wrote and I was confusing.
However, you are right, iron is an element that tags along with fuel depletion in stars. If we look at spectra of aging stars we see buildup in Helium and heavies, Iron being one.


Leadfoot
 
  1  
Reply Wed 19 Apr, 2017 06:38 am
@Fil Albuquerque,
Quote:
You insist in separating creator and creation.

Why yes, I do.
My third wife surprised me by insisting that you are right about it being otherwise. I'd say that POV led directly to our divorce.

If there is anything I'm sure of it is that I could not have made 'me'.
0 Replies
 
Leadfoot
 
  1  
Reply Wed 19 Apr, 2017 06:43 am
@farmerman,
Quote:
We now routinely analyze the spectra of stars to see those low in Fe because those are the very oldest.

Quote:
A vrrry young star is very low in iron

These statements sound contradictory. What am I missing?
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Wed 19 Apr, 2017 07:04 am
@Leadfoot,
dna "complexes" include things that are singularly unique to a string of species and demonstrate familial relationships. These include genes, pseudogenes, retrogenes, species codons, transposons, telomeres, exxons etc. No I meant DNa Complexes .
These re "pckges of evolutionry information that extend through genera.

Like humn genomes have a series of DNa complexes that identify the genetic differences between a chimps chromosome' s 1 and 2 and (by virtue of transposon, redefined centromere and two hundred or more acquired (post separation) single function genes and several more multifunctional. genes

Theyve pretty much got these genetic components identified as "pqckages" of evolution
0 Replies
 
farmerman
 
  2  
Reply Wed 19 Apr, 2017 07:08 am
@Leadfoot,
Quote:
That complicates the problem for abiogenesis a lot more than your comment would imply to most people. A single gene can have hundreds to millions of base pairs.
Youre being purposefully reticent to accept the point. Looking for simpler and simpler genetic structures in Archea and "linking" these functional dna complexes may lad us back to finding our most ancient ancestors and their environment o existence
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Wed 19 Apr, 2017 07:12 am
@Leadfoot,
Quote:
These statements sound contradictory.
Not at all. The very young star is hunted for in a segment of space that is among the very oldest. I was confusing I admit but think about it. We are looking farther back in time nd we are using spectral methods as a pretty useful tool.
0 Replies
 
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Wed 19 Apr, 2017 07:17 am
@Fil Albuquerque,
Quote:
Pick length or height I don't give a shizz
Izzy keeps boasting about how you Brits are masters o irony. I think humor, and its appreciation resides on a bell shaped curve of attention, not intelligence as he seems to claim.
You just been ironized and it jut went over yer head.
Lets back up, what is up today?
 

Related Topics

How can we be sure? - Discussion by Raishu-tensho
Proof of nonexistence of free will - Discussion by litewave
morals and ethics, how are they different? - Question by existential potential
Destroy My Belief System, Please! - Discussion by Thomas
Star Wars in Philosophy. - Discussion by Logicus
Existence of Everything. - Discussion by Logicus
Is it better to be feared or loved? - Discussion by Black King
 
Copyright © 2022 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.05 seconds on 05/22/2022 at 10:40:43