13
   

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

 
 
Quehoniaomath
 
  0  
Reply Fri 2 Jan, 2015 04:00 am
@FBM,
Quote:
Get your **** together, stop posting ignorant **** and embarrassing humanity as a whole. This is the upteenth time we've corrected you factually and/or logically, yet you stubbornly persist in remaining ignorant. Ignorance itself isn't a problem; everybody's born knowing nothing, but wilful ignorance is a culpable character fault. You make me embarrassed to know that we both evolved to share 99.9% of the same DNA.


Sahred DNA doesn't say a t5hing about evolution, mate!
TheJackal
 
  1  
Reply Fri 2 Jan, 2015 05:00 am
@Quehoniaomath,
Quote:
Sahred DNA doesn't say a t5hing about evolution, mate!


I would love to see you argue that in court... It would be like saying "DNA doesn't say or show I am the father".. Shared DNA most certainly does however, and it's not just the DNA, but the homology, anatomy, physiology, and the fossil record that collaborate the fact of evolution .. But then again we have observed evolution taking place, so your argument is pretty damn moot. Thus all I need say is "Go eat your vegetables".. You lost your argument at "Broccoli"
0 Replies
 
Herald
 
  1  
Reply Fri 2 Jan, 2015 05:26 am
@TheJackal,
TheJackal wrote:
How the biosphere formed or how it came to be has nothing to do with the validity of evolutionary theory.
     These are the assumptions and the preconditions of the Evolutionary theory. Without valid assumptions the theory cannot exists ... as a theory, not as a set of particular claims. No matter that it is constructed backwords, unless it acquires some valid assumptions with validated and convincing justification it is not valid as a theory. If you cannot explain how and why the green algae appear on a planet without any biosphere, and with concentration of CO2 in the air of 7000 ppm and how they succeeded to reduce that down to 150 ppm in this way turning the planet into ideal place for creation/evolution/assembling/installing/conception (or whatever the process there might be) of biosphere we cannot explain actually anything.
     Thus for example if the biosphere on the Earth has spontaneously emerged (and this is validated by sound justification) the hypotheses of the theory will look in one way, and if it is designed & installed the hypotheses of the theory will look very much different, don't you think? Without the assumptions you cannot complete and assemble the theory ... ever.
     All that is because in Ancient Greek and in the Western Philosophy later the standard view is that the world is driving along causality - defined as: the relation between an event (the cause) and a second event (the effect), where the second event is understood as a physical consequence of the first and the transition between the cause and the effect is driven by time (defined much later).
     Both the Evolution theory and the Big Bang theory never succeeded to find some valid assumptions for themselves and at some stage of 'their development' they both start claiming that they don't need any assumptions and any validation at all ... and this is 'their main advantage'.
     This is as if to claim that you have designed a great building, but as you don't have any information about the foundations, actually you will not need any engineering calculations & geological reports for the foundations ... 'and this is the main advantage of the proposed method'.
FBM
 
  2  
Reply Fri 2 Jan, 2015 07:21 am
@Herald,
What are the "valid assumptions" for your "45% g0d-of-the-gaps" explanation?
0 Replies
 
Krumple
 
  2  
Reply Fri 2 Jan, 2015 07:33 am
@Banana Breath,
Banana Breath wrote:

The most popular theories are that life arose ONCE from a chemical soup and thrived basically on earth and nowhere else. But given that life exists, not only on land but in basically every crevice we look in, isn't it more likely that life is an inevitable consequence of matter and energy and that given enough time it will appear pretty much anywhere that conditions allow? I'm suspecting for instance that in the early days of earth, life probably arose thousands of times. Some died out, others appeared, and the various kingdoms of life may well have evolved from separate chemical pools.


Well RNA has been created in a sterile environment in the lab. The experiment which brought it about was based on research of data from various sources that suggest Earth's early climate after the initial cooling of the crust. Far greater amounts of carbon dioxide and very little to no actual oxygen in the air.

Through the process of adding chemicals to water so they could mix and then evaporating the water leaving a residue which was then put against ultraviolet radiation (simulating the sun's light) and static electricity (lightning) and reintroducing the water (rain) the process ended up creating RNA chains within the sterile container. However; they haven't created DNA yet but they think they have the initial process by which life came about.

Now this process can happen all over the earth. It didn't have to happen in one tiny pool. The entire planet could have been covered by this RNA residue. Next is to discover how the RNA combined to form DNA. Once this has been determined a very appealing hypothesis as to how life could have arose on earth will be solidified.
0 Replies
 
parados
 
  3  
Reply Fri 2 Jan, 2015 07:47 am
@Herald,
Quote:
These are the assumptions and the preconditions of the Evolutionary theory.

No, they aren't. Evolution doesn't care when or how life came about.
Quote:
Without valid assumptions the theory cannot exists ... as a theory, not as a set of particular claims.
Then stick to the theory and stop trying to argue things that aren't in the theory. Valid assumptions means they should be valid. Arguing that evolution can't occur until we can prove how life was formed is not a valid assumption. It is deflection and idiocy.

Quote:
If you cannot explain how and why the green algae appear on a planet without any biosphere, and with concentration of CO2 in the air of 7000 ppm and how they succeeded to reduce that down to 150 ppm in this way turning the planet into ideal place for creation/evolution/assembling/installing/conception (or whatever the process there might be) of biosphere we cannot explain actually anything.
By that argument, we can completely discount anything you want to say. If you can't show us why the one sperm out of millions chose to create you then you don't exist using your idiotic logic. So if we use your logic, your arguments are meaningless since you don't exist.
TheJackal
 
  1  
Reply Fri 2 Jan, 2015 11:20 pm
@Herald,
Quote:
These are the assumptions and the preconditions of the Evolutionary theory. Without valid assumptions the theory cannot exists ...


There is no assumption that vegetables evolved from mustard plants.

Quote:
Without valid assumptions the theory cannot exists


Without sufficient evidence you cannot have a scientific theory. A theory is the best explanation of the evidence to which the evidence itself dictates. Such as Broccoli evolving from a mustard plant, or the genetics and forensic evidence.. Your argument is like saying we can't tell a murder happened based on the forensic evidence, or how it happened. Sorry, when we have the evidence, we can forego "assumptions".

Quote:
If you cannot explain how and why the green algae appear on a planet without any biosphere,


Are we supposed to? Where in evolutionary science does it claim that algae appear on a planet without an Atmosphere? Do please make a citation because that is not what evolution is about.. I swear you are seriously intellectually challenged or entirely inept if you can't comprehend that evolutionary synthesis is only to explain how life has and is evolving. You know, like total and complete genome duplication in sterile flower that gave birth to an entirely new species we know as the Monkey Flower.

Quote:
with concentration of CO2 in the air of 7000


Earth's atmosphere, including CO2 came large in part from the Earth cooling down, and due to out-gassing from geological processes. You can see this happening to this very day. This evidence is in the very rock layers themselves... Hence yes, we have a very good idea of what Earth's early conditions were. And maybe you can go visit a volcano or deep sea vent sometime to cure yourself of your ignorance.


Quote:
with concentration of CO2 in the air of 7000 ppm and how they succeeded to reduce that down to 150 ppm in this way turning the planet into ideal place for creation/evolution/assembling/installing/conception (or whatever the process there might be) of biosphere we cannot explain actually anything.


Though this has nothing to do with evolutionary theory, CO2 is harmful to some living things and not to others. Earth's primary form of life billions of years ago was microbes. The question you are trying to ask here is how did life begin under Early Earth conditions. That is abiogenesis, and that is still under investigation even though we have several processes under consideration for which that could have happened. This unknown does not in anyway invalidate evolutionary theory.

Quote:
if it is designed & installed the hypotheses of the theory will look very much different, don't you think?


No.. It actually is irrelevant how life began here. Hence it doesn't matter if you believe life was installed or emerged from natural processes. The answer to that question has nothing to do with out the diversity of life came to be. Dogs didn't magically appear or get created by magic elves. They evolved from wolves, and thus increased the diversity of life. Broccoli from mustard plant is an increase in the diversity of life. Gene duplication also is observed to increase the diversity of life. Changes in the Phenotype results in the increase of the diversity of life. Single celled algae to multi-cellular algae is the increase of the diversity of life.. This is evolution, and it's been observed.


Quote:
Both the Evolution theory and the Big Bang theory never succeeded to find some valid assumptions for themselves and at some stage of 'their development' they both start claiming that they don't need any assumptions and any validation at all ... and this is 'their main advantage'.


Nor can anything reliant on cognition since cognitive systems are also governed by the very same natural laws... News flash, sentience is an emergent property in itself from natural processes. If you want the simple answer to causality, it is Existence itself to which is Causality. Existence is a self-generating system from itself to which we, and any other living or sentient animal, thing, or being are products of. Existence is a complex adaptive system in which is self-organizing through system feedback.

So before you go on about how life can't spontaneously emerge, or can't evolve without design because you feel they are complex, you let me know when you can describe for me how a cognitive system can function and support a conscious state without applying the same principles in which evolution and life require to exist, form, and function. Such as the inertia of a system and information...., such as the processing of information with feedback.. I don't think you realize how self-refuting your argument is.

So as they say, the Universe is so fine tuned for life, but yet so it is so for the support, function, emergence, and existence of Conscious being. One cannot create the system itself requires to exist, or the system in which one's self is a product of. To wit, you can't have a conscious existence at T-O, the state of a system in which there is no inertia. Let that sink into your head a bit.


FBM
 
  4  
Reply Fri 2 Jan, 2015 11:29 pm
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA100.html

Quote:
Index to Creationist Claims,
edited by Mark Isaak, Copyright © 2004

Claim CA100:

It is inconceivable that (fill in the blank) could have originated naturally. Therefore, it must have been created.


This argument, also known as the argument from ignorance or "god of the gaps," is implicit in a very many different creationist arguments. In particular, it is behind all arguments against abiogenesis and any and all claims of intelligent design.

Response:

Really, the claim is "I can't conceive that (fill in the blank)." Others might be able to find a natural explanation; in many cases, they already have. Nobody knows everything, so it is unreasonable to conclude that something is impossible just because you do not know it. Even a noted antievolutionist acknowledges this point: "The peril of negative arguments is that they may rest on our lack of knowledge, rather than on positive results" (Behe 2003).

The argument from incredulity creates a god of the gaps. Gods were responsible for lightning until we determined natural causes for lightning, for infectious diseases until we found bacteria and viruses, for mental illness until we found biochemical causes for them. God is confined only to those parts of the universe we do not know about, and that keeps shrinking.

References:

Behe, Michael. 2003. A functional pseudogene?: An open letter to Nature. http://www.arn.org/docs2/news/behepseudogene052003.htm
Rickoshay75
 
  1  
Reply Sun 4 Jan, 2015 05:32 pm
@FBM,
FBM wrote:

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA100.html

Quote:
Index to Creationist Claims,
edited by Mark Isaak, Copyright © 2004

Claim CA100:

It is inconceivable that (fill in the blank) could have originated naturally. Therefore, it must have been created.


This argument, also known as the argument from ignorance or "god of the gaps," is implicit in a very many different creationist arguments. In particular, it is behind all arguments against abiogenesis and any and all claims of intelligent design.

Response:

Really, the claim is "I can't conceive that (fill in the blank)." Others might be able to find a natural explanation; in many cases, they already have. Nobody knows everything, so it is unreasonable to conclude that something is impossible just because you do not know it. Even a noted antievolutionist acknowledges this point: "The peril of negative arguments is that they may rest on our lack of knowledge, rather than on positive results" (Behe 2003).

The argument from incredulity creates a god of the gaps. Gods were responsible for lightning until we determined natural causes for lightning, for infectious diseases until we found bacteria and viruses, for mental illness until we found biochemical causes for them. God is confined only to those parts of the universe we do not know about, and that keeps shrinking.

References:

Behe, Michael. 2003. A functional pseudogene?: An open letter to Nature. http://www.arn.org/docs2/news/behepseudogene052003.htm



It's really not all that complicated - we either came from the sun in ever changing forms or we were created out of nothing, Can you imagine what it must have been like sizzling and popping in that extreme heat?
FBM
 
  3  
Reply Sun 4 Jan, 2015 05:58 pm
@Rickoshay75,
Not sure which is the more atrocious fallacy, the strawman or the false dichotomy.
0 Replies
 
TheJackal
 
  1  
Reply Sun 4 Jan, 2015 10:42 pm
@Rickoshay75,
Quote:
It's really not all that complicated - we either came from the sun in ever changing forms or we were created out of nothing, Can you imagine what it must have been like sizzling and popping in that extreme heat?


Well, we most certainly are made of the stuff of stars. We are star stuff! However in response to the second part of your statement, one cannot come out of which does not exist or have any capacity or volume to contain anything in.. It's like saying something somehow came from non-existence while ignoring that non-existence doesn't exist to be a place of where from which we could have come from.. Sure someone could try and say a car created came from non-existence as it had not existed before its invention, but in reality it had not. Hence those atoms that make up the car preexisted the car.. The car is just the current form and state in which those atoms currently are in. Even to construct the idea of a car, the brain must have a concept of existing geometry, shapes, and an understanding of existing physics etc. There isn't anything here today to which had come from "nothing".

Thus I offer you this simple and most likely solution for your confusion, and so you can better understand the above in principle... :

Existence is the source origin, essence, and totality of all that exists by definition. It is every person, thing, or place of where, and there is nowhere else, or anything else to which you could have come to be from. Existence is, as far as we can tell, a self generating system from itself to which things like our Universe, the galaxies, the stars, life, and us are are emergent from.

Now Existence is the simple answer, but if you want to know more about it, that is what science is for. Hence knowing the base answer and understanding it are two separate things. So if you must, you can remain woefully ignorant, or attempt to educate yourself so you can better understand the world from which we are made.
0 Replies
 
Quehoniaomath
 
  0  
Reply Mon 5 Jan, 2015 01:06 am
@Rickoshay75,
Quote:
It's really not all that complicated - we either came from the sun in ever changing forms or we were created out of nothing, Can you imagine what it must have been like sizzling and popping in that extreme heat?


FBM is stuck in his religious scientiic mode!
btw it is easy to find out the planet wasn't that warm or hot in the past.
search for 'halos' !
TheJackal
 
  1  
Reply Mon 5 Jan, 2015 04:20 am
@Quehoniaomath,
And you are stuck in fat kid trolling retard mode, and probably as a life time career. Though both of you equally idiotic in your discourse, I suspect sock-puppetry .
Rickoshay75
 
  1  
Reply Mon 5 Jan, 2015 12:48 pm
@TheJackal,
TheJackal wrote:

And you are stuck in fat kid trolling retard mode, and probably as a life time career. Though both of you equally idiotic in your discourse, I suspect sock-puppetry .



You can either ignore this self- serving garbage, or laugh at it. He really can't help who and what he is.
TheJackal
 
  1  
Reply Mon 5 Jan, 2015 07:21 pm
@Rickoshay75,
Oh I am definitely laughing at it..., hence the mockery Wink Besides, if he really wanted to call a belief system and methodology in which is dictated by evidence and facts a religion, this being science, I fail to see how he thought that would be an insult lol.. Thus the premise of my mockery of his commentary. He is just likely a poor little fat kid behind a keyboard trying to be a clever internet troll, and he can't even do that well o.O

So you are correct, we can only really laugh at this point.
0 Replies
 
Herald
 
  1  
Reply Sat 17 Jan, 2015 10:15 am
@parados,
parados wrote:
No, they aren't. Evolution doesn't care when or how life came about.
     If it really doesn't care about the appearance of the bio-code on the planet, perhaps it should not deal with explaining anything related to life.
parados wrote:
Then stick to the theory and stop trying to argue things that aren't in the theory.
     They are and even how. If the Intelligence and life in the Universe have always existed (the probability for which is 50%) can you explain what exactly the Evolution has created?
parados wrote:
Arguing that evolution can't occur until we can prove how life was formed is not a valid assumption. It is deflection and idiocy.
     How can one start solving a problem from the middle - this is the real 'deflection and idiocy'.
parados wrote:
By that argument, we can completely discount anything you want to say.
     How (by what means; in what way) have the green algae (primitive cryptogams) appeared (come into existence) on the Earth? Will you need any other subtitles to start understanding the question?
parados
 
  1  
Reply Sat 17 Jan, 2015 10:16 am
@Herald,
Quote:
If it really doesn't care about the appearance of the bio-code on the planet perhaps, it should not deal with explaining anything related to life.

It has been pointed out to you before that you are simply bastardizing what evolution says. If you can't get the theory correct, no one will take your arguments against it seriously.
Herald
 
  1  
Reply Sat 17 Jan, 2015 10:18 am
@parados,
parados wrote:
If you can't get the theory correct, no one will take your arguments against it seriously.
     ... and where is the answer to the question?
parados
 
  1  
Reply Sat 17 Jan, 2015 10:19 am
@Herald,
Quote:
How can one start solving a problem from the middle - this is the real 'deflection and idiocy'.

More idiocy from you. The only way to solve a problem is to define it correctly. The correct definition of evolution is that it tells us how life changes over time. Under your idiotic argument you shouldn't be using a computer because you can't tell us how the atoms used to make that computer work came into existence. Shouldn't you apply the same standard to yourself that you want to apply to others? Or are you exempt because you know so much?
parados
 
  1  
Reply Sat 17 Jan, 2015 10:20 am
@Herald,
Herald wrote:

parados wrote:
If you can't get the theory correct, no one will take your arguments against it seriously.
     ... and where is the answer to the question?

Asking a question that has nothing to do with the subject requires no answer. When you can tell us specifically where the atoms that make up your computer came from then you can ask your question that has no bearing on evolution theory.
 

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 03:01:30