13
   

Aren't scientists rather arrogant and elitist in abiogenetic theories?

 
 
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Sun 18 Jan, 2015 06:22 am
@FBM,
Its gotta go back to some kind of science trauma. It takes him just s long to read, digest, and then finally accept the crap he posts as it does to do a little study of science in order to at least develop an argument or two to develop with a modicum of intelligence.
Maybe intelligence isn't high on his list of skills.


0 Replies
 
parados
 
  2  
Reply Sun 18 Jan, 2015 06:29 am
@Herald,
Quote:
I am asking you what are the assumptions of the Evolution 'theory' - and the truth of the matter is that you don't have the vaguest idea.

It seems you don't know the meaning of the word "vaguest".

Evolution is the theory that life changes over time. (That sounds like a nice vague idea about evolution, don't you think?)


Quote:
Evolution 'theory' will never start working properly (if at all) without having the assumptions and their verification and validation in the first place.
Evolution theory has a rather large amount of data to support it. We see evolution happening around us. This year's flu shot is a good example of how evolution happens because the flu has evolved enough from last year that most of the current strain is not covered by the shot.

What do you think isn't validated?
I'll bet that I can present more that is validated than you can present that isn't validated. Your only argument is that you have never seen a fruit fly become a dog. Since evolution doesn't say that will happen in a single life time, your argument is not against evolution but is for your ignorance.
0 Replies
 
Brandon9000
 
  2  
Reply Sun 18 Jan, 2015 11:06 am
@Herald,
Herald wrote:
Brandon9000 wrote:
but here's something that is possible - random chemical reactions in the oceans over a billion years finally resulted in a molecule that copied itself.
     Where have you proved that 1) random chemical reactions can create bio-code at all 2) such reactions can change subsequently the bio-code from PNA (green algae) to DNA (higher organisms) (in order to preserve the green algae just in case?! - how does that happen without any intelligence) 3) why such random chemical reactions are not observed anywhere else in the Solar System, the Galaxy, and the Universe.
     BTW, the second law of thermodynamics is claiming just the opposite: the total amount of disorder always increases with the time, so if your random chemical reactions have been chaos in the ocean from the very beginning how have they succeeded to end up with a beautifully synthesized and with the ability to replicate bio-code - this is in absolute contradiction with the Second Law of Thermodynamics - can you prove that this is possible: to arrange a bio-code from ground zero to a beautifully structured entity with ability to process actively chemical elements from the environment in its benefit, and also to replicate ... against the laws of physics?

The 2nd Law of Thermodynamics states that the entropy of the whole system will increase, not that no part of the system can experience an increase in order. The mechanism is simple to understand. When creatures reproduce, some tiny fraction of the genetic errors will result in an improvement, and beneficial traits will tend to propagate through the gene pool. The process would have been initiated by a simple molecule that copied itself, and over time it would have picked up more and more improvement by the mechanism of error and natural selection, eventually resulting in the diverse life forms we see on the Earth today.



Herald wrote:
Brandon9000 wrote:
Under the influence of mutation and natural selection, this eventually produced green algae, as well as other things.
     Can you write down with math formulas into a formal model all the processes engaged with the casual statement 'under the influence of mutation and natural selection, this eventually produced'?

Some people can and do. Not being in the field, I cannot. However, this is still a debatable assertion and your question serves mainly as a battering ram so that you can avoid debating specific assertions. The specific assertion is that reproducing lines of creatures slowly drift towards greater functionality because of the tendency of favorable genetic accidents to spread through the population and unfavorable traits to be weeded out over time. This is a perfectly understandable assertion. If you have no capacity to suggest a reason why this is unlikely, then you lose the argument. You cannot prevail by insisting that every assertion whatever be accompanied by a thorough study right here on the message board.



Herald wrote:
Brandon9000 wrote:
And that's what evolutionary biologists do.
     Don't make a fool of yourself ... that you have not understood the statement: 'Evolution can't explain' means 'the scientists (not only evolutionary biologists) dealing with evolution' cannot start explaining anything without constructing the formal model in the first place ... with the properly validated assumptions.

They do, but the fundamental concepts of evolution can also be debated, in this case, that some genetic accidents result in improvements and that in favorable traits tend to spread whereas unfavorable traits tend to die out in populations over time. That is the crux of the theory of evolution and you need to offer a reason why it is implausible or else shut up. Mainly, so far, you have simply fled a debate on the subject. Scientific theories should have a formal basis, but broad statements of principle can be debated as to indications that they make sense or don't. I can also hang aroung you screeching "show me a study" any time you say anything.


Herald wrote:
Brandon9000 wrote:
You didn't answer the question which was whether you have another theory that meets that standard.
     There have been a large number of other theories 'meeting the standard' (whatever this might mean for a theory without assumptions), and some of them not entirely bad - only my theory is missing.
     I don't have any intentions to make any new theories (especially in a field that is none of my business) - all I want is to find the truth, and the truth starts with the formulation, assigning the probability values, belief revision, verification & validation of the assumptions of the formal model (scientific theory in this case). If this does not concern me as a human and as a part of the 7.3 BN population on a planet with constraint resources and nothing like it within a radius of several light years - I would not even read such theories.
So, it is your claim that you have no belief whatever about the origin of life on Earth? And, am I correct in suggesting that based on your assertions here, you would find the Bible to be a complete crock since nothing in it is ever justified logically with evidence on a formal basis?
0 Replies
 
rosborne979
 
  1  
Reply Sun 18 Jan, 2015 11:14 am
Richard Dawkins explains his reasons for being a "militant" atheist. He makes a lot of good points....

Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Reply Sun 18 Jan, 2015 11:57 am
@rosborne979,
Why not pick out the two or three most important points he made...and mention them...rather than requiring that we view a half hour of him mostly doing stand up?

I really am more interested in what you consider good reason for being a "militant atheist" (whatever that means) than what Dawkins does.

I cannot question him on his reasons, however I can ask you questions.
0 Replies
 
Quehoniaomath
 
  1  
Reply Sun 18 Jan, 2015 03:18 pm
@rosborne979,
Hmmmm wasn't TED not the one who refused Sheldrake and another 'alternative' bloke?

I don't take TED any serious anymore! They are ridiculous!
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Sun 18 Jan, 2015 04:47 pm
@Quehoniaomath,
TED talks have a simple requirement."Anything allowed on the air shall be demonstrable in the real world" (or something like that). Rupert is such a clown.
FBM
 
  1  
Reply Sun 18 Jan, 2015 06:43 pm
@farmerman,
Sheldrake? If so, his TED talk was withdrawn and banned. Not sure if it was ever reinstated.
0 Replies
 
hingehead
 
  1  
Reply Sun 18 Jan, 2015 07:03 pm
I thought this was a really cool TED talk that touches on evolution but is really about the universe's accidental fight against the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics.

http://www.ted.com/talks/david_christian_big_history?language=en
rosborne979
 
  1  
Reply Sun 18 Jan, 2015 08:28 pm
@hingehead,
hingehead wrote:
I thought this was a really cool TED talk that touches on evolution but is really about the universe's accidental fight against the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics.

It's a nice presentation, but he doesn't really answer his own question. He details the threshold events, but fails to say why the Universe evolves in this way given the second law of thermodynamics. It's possible he doesn't know the answer, but it was frustrating to hear him pose the question and then watch him lose track of it amidst the rendition of events.
hingehead
 
  1  
Reply Sun 18 Jan, 2015 09:09 pm
@rosborne979,
He seemed to be implying (to me) that it was chance, that 'goldilocks' moments happen and the universe ups it ability to organise out of chaos, and each step creates the conditions that make new 'goldilocks' moments possible.

I took out of it that while 'initial conditions' are incredibly crucial they are not do not map out the future, only the possibility of change. In a state of absolute chaos any change must result in less chaos. But I was doing gym work watching so my thoughts were probably the result of an oxygen high.
rosborne979
 
  1  
Reply Mon 19 Jan, 2015 08:42 am
@hingehead,
hingehead wrote:
He seemed to be implying (to me) that it was chance, that 'goldilocks' moments happen and the universe ups it ability to organise out of chaos, and each step creates the conditions that make new 'goldilocks' moments possible.

If that's what he meant, then I don't find it a very compelling argument. To me that's like saying that biological evolution is just chance, which may seem weakly compelling until someone recognizes Natural Selection and we have a big "dope slap" moment and say "Of course! How didn't we see it before."

Also, if we consider the very early Universe and how elementary particles condensed out of the cooling BB, and how stars later condensed in an ever expanding (and cooling) space, it doesn't seem like chance or goldilocks conditions, it seems like a process which is driven by the cooling and expansion. It's like a supersaturated solution, hot enough at first to remain fluid, but as it cools it becomes unstable with a tendency to crystalize into structures around tiny "seeds" of instability. None of this process violates the second law of thermodynamics as the latent heat of the BB is simply converted into matter/structure.

The deeper question we need to consider, and which I had hoped he would address, is why does the Universe "crystalize" into structures of increasing complexity? What innate force in the structure of the Universe is it that counterbalances the tendency toward complete homogenized diffusion of all the initial energy. Just as in a supersaturated solution in which the solution itself contains elements which want to align into more efficient low-energy structures (crystals), there may be some component of the Universe which is analogous to the elements in solution. There is some structural component to the Universe which we do not see (yet) which results in the conditions we do see. Our challenge is to deduce what that unseen structural component is by observing the tracks it leaves.
Banana Breath
 
  1  
Reply Mon 19 Jan, 2015 10:02 am
One thing I've been wondering about lately is how the egg-and-sperm strategy came to be. It's a dramatically different approach from asexual reproduction strategies. "Asexual reproduction is the primary form of reproduction for single-celled organisms such as the archaebacteria, eubacteria, and protists. Many plants and fungi reproduce asexually as well." ... but "A complete lack of sexual reproduction is relatively rare among multicellular organisms, particularly animals. It is not entirely understood why the ability to reproduce sexually is so common among them."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asexual_reproduction

What I'm wondering is if, long ago, perhaps there was a virus-like life form that infected a single celled organism, and their DNA/RNA/PNA/TNA mixed and interacted, forming a new creature, yet one that later produces copies of the original single cell AND the virus-like life form. We know there are and have been many battles between different domains of life, for instance fungi and bacteria, but this would have represented a truce, a synergistic co-existence, and the appearance of the proto-sperm and proto-egg. Maybe others have come up with this theory previously, it's a bit far from my own field so I don't know, let me know if you do.

Banana Breath
 
  1  
Reply Mon 19 Jan, 2015 10:58 am
@Banana Breath,
Following up on this I found a related article, it barely hints at this possibility though.
http://community.seattletimes.nwsource.com/archive/?date=19920420&slug=1487453
0 Replies
 
hingehead
 
  1  
Reply Mon 19 Jan, 2015 04:31 pm
@rosborne979,
You sound like you'd be interested in anthropic physics
http://www.science20.com/news_articles/anthropic_principle_physics_new_paper_says_universe_situated_for_human_life-152365

In my innards I don't think this is right. But it's just a gut sense. It seems cart before horse to me. Any self-replicating life had to survive the conditions - the conditions weren't set to make the self-replicating life possible. But I probably really don't understand the use of anthropic (I just don't believe human life was inevitable).

It's pretty accepted that the tiny variations in energy density immediately post big bang led to the formation of matter and everything developed from there. So I do think it's chance driving it. Each of the goldilocks moments happened because it could, and without regard to what might happen next.
rosborne979
 
  1  
Reply Mon 19 Jan, 2015 08:20 pm
@hingehead,
hingehead wrote:
It's pretty accepted that the tiny variations in energy density immediately post big bang led to the formation of matter and everything developed from there. So I do think it's chance driving it.

Was it chance that there were tiny variations in energy density, or was that inevitable? And once those variations existed did baryonic matter have any other option but to form?

It may have been chance that the Universe formed with the laws it has, but once those physical laws were in place there may have been highly probably outcomes for a lot of conditions.

The Anthropic nature of our Universe may merely be because we have not witnessed the countless zillions of other Universes which came into being and failed to produce entities like us who can observe the Universe.
hingehead
 
  1  
Reply Mon 19 Jan, 2015 09:03 pm
@rosborne979,
Don't know enough to even have an opinion on the tiny variations being inevitable. Interested to know if anyone has read more on this.

I still struggle with the multiverse. And I have deep philosophical desire that 'initial conditions' aren't deterministic. But it's not scientific. I hate the idea of predestination. I don't want be going through pre-ordained footsteps. But who knows?
DNA Thumbs drive
 
  1  
Reply Mon 19 Jan, 2015 09:06 pm
@hingehead,
A multiverse, is impossible, at least at this point, because the universe that we are in is still a complete mystery.
TheJackal
 
  1  
Reply Tue 20 Jan, 2015 02:34 am
@DNA Thumbs drive,
That doesn't even make any coherent sense. It's like saying a forest is impossible because a single tree is a complete mystery. Sorry, we know one Universe is possible, and therefore it is not unreasonable to suggest there can be others, or that there are likely others.. For all you know, big bangs are as common as lightning in the infinitely vast expanse of existence just as trees are common in a forest. Hence how many things have we discovered where there is only one of? Stars, Galaxies, and why not Universes?
Quehoniaomath
 
  1  
Reply Tue 20 Jan, 2015 05:22 am
@DNA Thumbs drive,
Quote:
A multiverse, is impossible, at least at this point, because the universe that we are in is still a complete mystery.


Well, we ARE multiverse beings!
And of coure we are still in a complete mystery! -> thanks to the religion called 'science' No Kidding!
 

Related Topics

New Propulsion, the "EM Drive" - Question by TomTomBinks
The Science Thread - Discussion by Wilso
Why do people deny evolution? - Question by JimmyJ
Are we alone in the universe? - Discussion by Jpsy
Fake Science Journals - Discussion by rosborne979
Controvertial "Proof" of Multiverse! - Discussion by littlek
 
Copyright © 2022 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.04 seconds on 05/25/2022 at 04:04:26