3
   

In Science We Trust: Evolution Creates Life

 
 
oristarA
 
  1  
Reply Thu 19 Jan, 2017 10:16 am
@farmerman,
Do you have difficulty in understanding what is main author or vital contributor, poor farmerman?

Hawking is the main author of The Grand Design with his name enormously enlarged, while the font size of the secondary author Leonard seems so small that I believe some readers may have ignored him. But he should be payed attention, of course).
oristarA
 
  1  
Reply Thu 19 Jan, 2017 10:29 am
@farmerman,
He's read quickly and precisely. Because my clear expression facilitates his reading.
0 Replies
 
layman
 
  1  
Reply Thu 19 Jan, 2017 10:38 am
@oristarA,
oristarA wrote:

But he should be payed attention, of course).


So you sayed.

No big deal, Oris, but those who want to grammar police the language of others invite such "corrections."
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Thu 19 Jan, 2017 10:54 am
@oristarA,
Quote:
Hawking is the main author of The Grand Design with his name enormously enlarged, while the font size of the secondary author
Laughing Laughing

I like how you back down. First you made a big deal that Hawking was alone

Then you made a big deal thatLenny was merely an editor (when that was untrue)

Now hes a de-minimus secondary author.

What nxt?? full agreement??

I guess you hqve minimal knowledge of how the book racket works. Hqwking is the BIG DRAW, . Like those Bill O reilly books that are mostly written by real historians who get co-authorship and O'Reilly gets the spotlight.



Youre on the right trail pilgrim , Im sure youre trying to learn, its just that many Asian cultures (beside Karlqn) are so damned literal about verything.



oristarA
 
  0  
Reply Thu 19 Jan, 2017 09:46 pm
@layman,
layman wrote:

oristarA wrote:

But he should be payed attention, of course).


So you sayed.

No big deal, Oris, but those who want to grammar police the language of others invite such "corrections."


I did write "paid" and then rewrote it as "payed." Wink

See some explanations as below:

An American from California explains:

Quote:
Payed vs. Paid
Payed is now considered obsolete according to some dictionaries. However, it is in the Bible (both as paid and payed!), and may be the reason some still spell it the 'archaic' way.
...
Archaic does not mean incorrect. Nevertheless, I would stay with paid simply because it has become the accepted spelling, especially in business.



And a British man explains as well:

Quote:

I know I'm probably in the minority, but in the expression "to pay a visit", the past tense I would write as payed a visit, I don't know why, but it just seems more natural to me. If the standard accepted form is different, then I guess it's something I am personally at odds with. Every other usage I can think of would be consistent with paid. Maybe the "paid" version seems to much like "purchased/gave money for", so in line with it being a different meaning, my mind has given it the different past tense.


And an American from Massachusetts explains it as well:

Quote:

Most readers would consider "payed" to be an error. While it may have been used at an earlier time in history, and the English language doesn't have a central body that can decree "this is no longer correct," to me that's enough of a reason not to use it.


Another American from Colorado explains:

Quote:
These are just variant spellings, nuggets. Our dictionary mentions "payed" as an alternate spelling for "paid". There is no difference in meaning. I ordinarily use "paid". "Payed" looks strange to me.


An English speaker from Singapore wrote:

Quote:
I think it is clear that paid is the accepted spelling these days. However, we write stayed instead of staid: this struck me as I read Jane Austen writing in the early 19th century who consistently wrote staid. Many other similar words also use -ed: prayed, sprayed, bayed.

Two other words have -aid: laid and said, although it might be added that said contains a different vowel than say.


A British person says:

Quote:
I'm not sure how to take that, Sparky. I thought my grammar and spelling skills were above the British average, and I do care about these things. I used "payed" earlier in the thread and explained why.


A Scotsman went further:

Quote:
Anyway call it ignorance but I didn't know until now that 'payed' was an incorrect spelling, I always assumed it was one of those variable spellings like 'spelled' and 'spelt'. I preferred 'payed' because it's the less irregular of the two, and I'll continue to use it in informal settings because I don't like propagating irregularities. To be perfectly honest I think the English language would be a little better off without all the 'paids' and 'saids', but then that's partly the result of coming from (an area of) Scotland where we pronounce 'said' as 'sayed' so that's how I'd like to write it. Anyway, rant over, I suppose we must stick to the 'correct' usage for now and hope that the ignorance of the youth will eventually restore the more logical 'payed' spelling.


An Australian wrote:

Quote:
I also have the same question in my mind. I'm confused what to use just like in check deposit or cheque deposit. Well, great to know that I can use both paid and payed!


Well, my opinion is:

It is ALWAYS safe to use paid, except you want to use payed in a humorous way (like you use "goodest" instead of "best") (or in a nautical way).





0 Replies
 
oristarA
 
  1  
Reply Thu 19 Jan, 2017 10:02 pm
@farmerman,
farmerman wrote:

Quote:
Hawking is the main author of The Grand Design with his name enormously enlarged, while the font size of the secondary author
Laughing Laughing

I like how you back down. First you made a big deal that Hawking was alone

Then you made a big deal thatLenny was merely an editor (when that was untrue)

Now hes a de-minimus secondary author.

What nxt?? full agreement??



That is a lie!

Oh yes, two lies, not simply one.

I knew Leonard Mlodinow is the coauthor at the very beginning. Because his image is on the book cover.

Never have I said he's editor or non-existent.

You've made a straw-man and hit it. Turn back and check out.
nacredambition
 
  1  
Reply Thu 19 Jan, 2017 10:44 pm
@farmerman,
Quote:
Too bad he doesnt know of what the hell he speaks(Therefore you know even less).


Those that comprehend what I highlight, by way of quote, and post might appreciate the sardonicism inherent in the encouragement.

I wouldn't miss a blessed moment of his excellent contributions to my entertainment here.

Or yours.

0 Replies
 
farmerman
 
  2  
Reply Thu 19 Jan, 2017 11:52 pm
@oristarA,
Quote:
I knew Leonard Mlodinow is the coauthor at the very beginning.
Apparently you didnt, your posts revealed it.
Im kinda through with you, youre a dishonest little twerp who has an inflated opinion of your knowledge in this subject.


oristarA
 
  0  
Reply Fri 20 Jan, 2017 12:54 am
@farmerman,
You useless wimp! Post your "evidence" here and let us see how your poor understanding runs.

farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Fri 20 Jan, 2017 03:18 am
@oristarA,
I dont need "evidence" I wasnt the one who claimed that abiogenesis was a discipline of evolution. STill, I provided plenty of evidence to show you your claims of "poesy" in Hawkings lqnguage skills are incorrect , you just want to deny those facts of the existence of HAwkings editor and his co-author. When presented with that evidence youve done a slow turn in your position hoping that no-one would notice your inept perfidy.

Youre just a tiny- minded little weenie who wants to assert some dubious claim and then challenges everyone who disagrees with you.Ive gotten the "goods on you" against which you just want to deny .
If you cannot debate civilly (even after someone has shown you the exhibit of the very cover of the book that is NOT(as you asserted) the sole work of Hawking ), you shouldn't keep dwelling on this subject because youve already lost huge credibility by your baldfaced lying and denial.It makes you look, not only stupid, but quite childish also.



Youre really not worth my time .You used to ask for help as an ESL, now you seem to wish to mindlessly challenge your very mentores. Is this a new phase of ESL training ??

0 Replies
 
oristarA
 
  0  
Reply Tue 24 Jan, 2017 07:45 am
Reread the scientific research report, to be inspired by hard-working scientists.

With the inane, insane babbling of that Pennsylvanian hick gone, it will be a great time for you to probe into the secret of nature's wonder.

Evolution Created Life From Lifeless ‘Primordial Soup,’ Scientists Suggest
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Tue 24 Jan, 2017 10:35 am
@oristarA,
Heres what the evo-library at U Cal Berkely has to say about "evolution being responsible for the origins of life on earth" and "neutrality of all evolution"


Quote:
MISCONCEPTION: Evolution is a theory about the origin of life.

CORRECTION: Evolutionary theory does encompass ideas and evidence regarding life's origins (e.g., whether or not it happened near a deep-sea vent, which organic molecules came first, etc.), but this is not the central focus of evolutionary theory. Most of evolutionary biology deals with how life changed after its origin. Regardless of how life started, afterwards it branched and diversified, and most studies of evolution are focused on those processes.

MISCONCEPTION: Evolutionary theory implies that life evolved (and continues to evolve) randomly, or by chance.

CORRECTION: Chance and randomness do factor into evolution and the history of life in many different ways; however, some important mechanisms of evolution are non-random and these make the overall process non-random. For example, consider the process of natural selection, which results in adaptations — features of organisms that appear to suit the environment in which the organisms live (e.g., the fit between a flower and its pollinator, the coordinated response of the immune system to pathogens, and the ability of bats to echolocate). Such amazing adaptations clearly did not come about "by chance." They evolved via a combination of random and non-random processes. The process of mutation, which generates genetic variation, is random, but selection is non-random. Selection favored variants that were better able to survive and reproduce (e.g., to be pollinated, to fend off pathogens, or to navigate in the dark). Over many generations of random mutation and non-random selection, complex adaptations evolved. To say that evolution happens "by chance" ignores half of the picture. To learn more about the process of natural selection, visit our article on this topic. To learn more about random mutation, visit our article on DNA and mutations.



As a former chemist there are many really fine chemical process terms for the origins of life on earth, why must you , without anything but eagerness to accept whatever is written for Huffpo, dismiss the way most scientists (THOSE OF US ACTUALLY WORKING IN THE FIELD), consider the entire nature and focus of naturql selection.
Your streak of obtuse stubborness is kinda funny to me.
We alrady have names for molecular prebiotic reactions such as " zymatic Cascades" , "polymerization reactions" or even "Surface chem reactions (including 'sorption mechanism chains). Today there are about 15 different abiogenic methods through which life appeared (and then evolution took over). The Huffpo says only 7.
ALL these methods are, as of today, hypotheses, some with included evidence (like adsorption of polymers onto expanding clays )(or development of other polymers by the chemistry of H2S at mid ocean vents). The rules are strictly chemical which , to most of our minds, are NOT definable by natural selection as first proposed by DArwin.




Oh well, I can only try to get you to eat your spinach.
0 Replies
 
oristarA
 
  1  
Reply Sat 28 Jan, 2017 12:37 am

Hawking's characteristic wit, like the chemical below, which, in the sense of academics, could heal those who are spiritually ill.

http://pic.baike.soso.com/p/20140122/20140122170946-393254245.jpg

Some one said very well in his greetings to Stephen Hawking:

Quote:
The world is a more exciting place to live in knowing that people like you also lived in it. Many thanks for all your mind-opening researches and for constantly remaining positive and giving the best of yourself despite your health condition. Because of this, I will always keep you in mind as a moral and intellectual example.
0 Replies
 
oristarA
 
  1  
Reply Fri 9 Feb, 2018 02:22 am
@farmerman,
References for In Science We Trust: Evolution Creates Life:

Chemical Evolution

Scientists usually propose a four-stage process of formation for the first life:
1A. formation of small organic molecules (amino acids, nucleic acid bases,…),
1B. and these combine to make larger biomolecules (proteins, RNA, lipids,…),
2A. which self-organized, by a variety of interactions, into a semi-alive system
2B. that gradually transformed into a more sophisticated form, a living organism.

Link (1)


Chemical Evolution of Life (pdf file)

Dictionary definition for chemical evolution

Abiogenesis: Chemical Evolution
oristarA
 
  1  
Reply Fri 9 Feb, 2018 02:50 am
@oristarA,

Chemical Evolution - The primitive Earth
0 Replies
 
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Fri 9 Feb, 2018 05:34 am
@oristarA,
Quote:
Scientists usually propose a four-stage process of formation for the first life:
1A. formation of small organic molecules (amino acids, nucleic acid bases,…),
1B. and these combine to make larger biomolecules (proteins, RNA, lipids,…),
2A. which self-organized, by a variety of interactions, into a semi-alive system
2B. that gradually transformed into a more sophisticated form, a living organism.
Once the living organism arrived, evolution took over.


"chemical evolution" is a correct term since "pre- living" biomolecules did evolve, but not as life. Youre still on a wrong lane .

I understand where you are trying to go here but the word evolution has a specific precise meaning in biology .IT DOES NOT INCLUDE ABIOGENESIS and those who insist on using the term are just incorrect. Im presenting this as fact not something that is debatable.

Your title that "Evolution Creates Life" is just flat wrong.
0 Replies
 
oristarA
 
  1  
Reply Fri 9 Feb, 2018 08:50 am
Free tutoring:

Chemical Evolution Creates Life

=======>>>>

(Chemical) Evolution Creates Life

======>>>>

Evolution Creates Life

farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Fri 9 Feb, 2018 09:47 am
@oristarA,
First line OK , Id still say that chemical evolution culminates in the appearance of life .

second line (quotes are meaningless but still OK

Third line, just dumb and indefinable> Evolution does NOT CREATE LIFE, it refines already existing life.
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Fri 9 Feb, 2018 09:54 am
@farmerman,
You dont seem to get it but English words have precise meanings as well as colloquial meanings. You are delving into a colloquial realm. Everybody knows what youre talking about, its just that youre flat wrong with equating Evolution and Creation, since evolution of life occurs AFTER the act of abiogenesis (or Special Creation I care not which you choose there because thats really a different argument)
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Fri 9 Feb, 2018 09:55 am
@farmerman,
PS DARWIN DAY SEMINARS starting today through Feb 14. We celebrate a whole week for Darwin's Birthday
 

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 © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.04 seconds on 04/23/2024 at 03:24:21