Evolution? How?

timberlandko wrote:

farmerman wrote:
... we hadnt even mentioned RNA yet. There were other coding chemicals that began as cyclohexane based polyaromatics began to bind and have surface chem reactions and sorption kinetics.

Bingo. Point, set, game and match.

And I suppose RNA just popped into existence along with the vast void it occupies?

You need more practice on your serving skills...

That one was out of the court... Smile

0 Replies

Not really. I'm still trying to find the research paper by a group that managed to create simple biological molecules under conditions similar to that of a stellar cloud.

It was in 2001, involving the University of California and the NASA Ames Research Centre.

RNA could have been created under the conditions they reproduced. When I find the paper, I'll link it to you, but I'm having difficulties finding it.

It's almost as if it's one of those commercial papers that aren't widely distributed and kept pretty much a secret. I hate those types of papers. They usually have vital data blanked out so you can't copy them and jeopardise their claims to a patent.

0 Replies

Apparently misapprehending, if not in fact mischaracterizing and projecting, in what has become characteristic fashion, Rex wrote:

And I suppose RNA just popped into existence along with the vast void it occupies?

Not at all - no contention that RNA "popped into existence" is made or implied, despite your evident, but wholly unsupported inference and your consequent straw man assertion. What you ignore is that the actual argument made is the chemistry and conditions most reasonably assumed to have existed present the opportunity for a logical developmental sequence of a plausibility bordering on imperative; by the available evidence, it just about had to happen - molecular chemistry works as it does, and what it does leads to no more likely conclusion.

0 Replies

rex

Quote:

That one was out of the court...

,You need glasses. Apparently youive failed to look at the similarities of polymerized batches of PNA's (I just mention cyclohexane cause its the root chemical). You can follow the trail of lab data that 's been published. I havent avoided anything, since its really two separate areas of inquiry , evolution is important to the origins and rise of lifeforms not the origin of life. You shuld read some of those posts and links that timber put up, they are wonderful, also the polymerization work of >/=(and equal to).C24 aromatics and O methylation by Ally and others is a fascinating hunk of work. (and it may even be correct we dont know-but neither do you).

0 Replies

farmerman wrote:

(and it may even be correct we dont know-but neither do you).

Somehow I don't get the impression that Rex is interested in what is "correct" and what is not.

0 Replies

rosborne979 wrote:

farmerman wrote:
(and it may even be correct we dont know-but neither do you).

Somehow I don't get the impression that Rex is interested in what is "correct" and what is not.

I usually know a line a bull when I see it...

I do not disagree with Farmerman on his evolution but I think you all (or most self proclaimed scientists) have a blind spot that they refuse to address? This I believe is correct... Smile

WHAT WAS BEFORE THE BIG BANG?

http://physorg.com/news10295.html

0 Replies

Here is another one for ya...

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/4643312.stm

and another one

http://www.physorg.com/news10263.html

0 Replies

Set:

The similarity of GWB and Hitler are striking. Adolf Hitler, a corporal over-riding Erwin Rommel, an accomplished strategist and Iron Cross winner and GWB ignoring G H W Bush's experienced strategists in favor of Cheney and Rumsfeld's neocon agenda both never having served at all.

0 Replies

Big Bang is a theory and fine mathematics. If it violates the Law of Conservation of Energy then it needs more tuning. A theory cannot overturn a law. Then it must be proven that the Law of Conservation of Energy is false.

0 Replies

RexRed wrote:

I do not disagree with Farmerman on his evolution but I think you all (or most self proclaimed scientists) have a blind spot that they refuse to address? This I believe is correct...

Ok, what blind spot are you talking about?

0 Replies

Ros, please don't be facile. Even the rambling nonsense of RR does have one coherent reference, which is his addled theism. What he believes your blind spot to be is that you can't or won't see the creator which fills his vision to the point that he can see little else. Sadly, it does not obscure his view of the keyboard.

0 Replies

Setanta wrote:

Ros, please don't be facile. Even the rambling nonsense of RR does have one coherent reference, which is his addled theism. What he believes your blind spot to be is that you can't or won't see the creator which fills his vision to the point that he can see little else.

I was bored.

Setanta wrote:

Sadly, it does not obscure his view of the keyboard.

0 Replies

Interesting article.

from http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/4648598.stm

Quote:

Britons unconvinced on evolution[/u]

Just under half of Britons accept the theory of evolution as the best description for the development of life, according to an opinion poll.

Furthermore, more than 40% of those questioned believe that creationism or intelligent design (ID) should be taught in school science lessons.

The survey was conducted by Ipsos MORI for the BBC's Horizon series.

Its latest programme, A War on Science, looks into the attempt to introduce ID into science classes in the US.

Over 2,000 participants took part in the survey, and were asked what best described their view of the origin and development of life:

* 22% chose creationism
* 17% opted for intelligent design
* 48% selected evolution theory
* and the rest did not know.

Intelligent design is the concept that certain features of living things are so complex that their existence is better explained by an "intelligent process" than natural selection.

Education questioned

Andrew Cohen, editor of Horizon, commented: "I think that this poll represents our first introduction to the British public's views on this issue.

"Most people would have expected the public to go for evolution theory, but it seems there are lots of people who appear to believe in an alternative theory for life's origins."

When given a choice of three descriptions for the development of life on Earth, people were asked which one or ones they would like to see taught in science lessons in British schools:

* 44% said creationism should be included
* 41% intelligent design
* 69% wanted evolution as part of the science curriculum.

Participants over 55 were less likely to choose evolution over other groups.

"This really says something about the role of science education in this country and begs us to question how we are teaching evolutionary theory," Andrew Cohen added.

The findings prompted surprise from the scientific community. Lord Martin Rees, President of the Royal Society, said: "It is surprising that many should still be sceptical of Darwinian evolution. Darwin proposed his theory nearly 150 years ago, and it is now supported by an immense weight of evidence.

"We are, however, fortunate compared to the US in that no major segment of UK religious or cultural life opposes the inclusion of evolution in the school science curriculum."

In the US, a recent high profile court case ruled that the intelligent design movement is motivated by a desire to introduce God into the classroom after parents in Pennsylvania took a school board to court over its demand that biology classes should not teach evolution as fact.

0 Replies

Idiocy knows no ideology, why should ID-iocy be confined to just one continent's intellectual undercrust? I'm sure Europe, Asia, and Australia alike have sufficient numbers of ignorant, uncritical, gullible sorts as to provide ready markets for all sortsa foolishness, from supermarket tabloids to miracle body-part enhancers. There's bound to be plenty of room in there for ID-iocy.

0 Replies

rosborne979 wrote:

RexRed wrote:
I do not disagree with Farmerman on his evolution but I think you all (or most self proclaimed scientists) have a blind spot that they refuse to address? This I believe is correct...

Ok, what blind spot are you talking about?

Simply put?

This so called event horizon...

Who or what is launching these "events"?

Events are usually a result of a type of sequencer usually equipped with a clock to regulate or measure it's own events...

Yet much of todays science is happy to just put a blind spot there and say there is a big bang and NOTHING before that.

Or do you know what positions science takes immediately one moment before the "big bang"? I thought not...

Something from nothing... a blind spot...

I am convinced evolution of bio forms does not even nearly answer how the universe came to exist. A "big bang " is rather crude and unscientific explanation. It is less theory and pure speculation... A big bang, that is like calling sound waves a big noise... or calling a dozen eggs a whole bunch... Yet, this is vehemently defended by scientists over a force theory or ultimate observer/creator...

A creator or force at least gives some possible explanation as to "how" the physical world (not necessarily the biological) came to exist. Some think that by disputing creation of the biological world that they then have succeeded to cut God or a preexistent force out of the equation but the physical world most likely existed long before the biological. To recreate the biological complexity of life in a lab (which has not been done yet) does not negate a creator of the physical realm... remember this.

Like a young baby, when mommy leaves room, is mom gone forever or just in the other room? (Depth perception and all...)

Science insists it goes back to the big bang and then, NOTHING...

Does science think that the average person does not see that the big bang did not just become on it's own? Things just never happen that way even in nature and physics. It is insulting to human intelligence (there is that word) to presume there was "nothing" that caused the big bang...

Now it turns out science is touting their dimensions theories (which I accept)... this is because they need an explanation for the blind spot or this event horizon... Maybe they are waking up and seeing how foolish this event horizon thing is.

If there are other dimensions then there are simply unknown powers that be and existed possibly long before the "big bang".

The current big bang theory just drops off and that is not how science says the universe works... One of the most basic laws of science (in my opinion) is that something cannot come from nothing. Everything has an cause and effect... If it were any other way then science would believe in magic and meta science. Yet the big bang requires a magician... Poof, there it is...

Considering how great the "effect" of the universe coming to exist is, it is logical and most probable we must be dealing with an equal or greater "cause"...

But to push evolution thinking that if proven in a petri dish it cuts out a creator or force is futile...

Physics need to exist long before complex biology. This is the blind spot.

I believe biology was formed from the physics of the ground...
to "form" something takes time... like forming a piece of clay sculpture...

But where did the physics come from? We could all possibly agree that we do not know that answer. But! I refuse to agree it came from nothing... That does not agree with any bit of logic I can honestly muster.

Look, I do believe in evolution and I am a proud Christian and biblical believer... So I am being honest to myself and where I believe the spirit world/Bible/God/force and the physical world meet...

We just need to look for this creator or force... then that same force could have also, through possibly magnetism and fields etc... have "helped" organize biology too. Why not?

Neutrinos do have an effect on biology... there are possibly even more minute powers/forces/waves/energy that be that we may never be able to detect or measure... This is where faith is in my opinion, appropriate...

Please correct me Ros if you see any gaping holes in my logic I respect your opinion...

Maybe we can find some common ground here and possibly resolve the bulk of this issue to a reasonable resolution.

I am not saying there is a creative force... but I cannot convince myself there is not something "before" in regard to todays drop off big bang theory.

It is late and I am zonked goodnight all.

Thx Ros for the question, hope all is well, hope I made sense...

Laterz Smile

0 Replies

timber wrote-

Quote:

Idiocy knows no ideology, why should ID-iocy be confined to just one continent's intellectual undercrust? I'm sure Europe, Asia, and Australia alike have sufficient numbers of ignorant, uncritical, gullible sorts as to provide ready markets for all sortsa foolishness, from supermarket tabloids to miracle body-part enhancers. There's bound to be plenty of room in there for ID-iocy.

I have said all along that this is a status matter and to do with self esteem.

Here's timber implicitly denying his membership of the "undercrust".And he is obviously seeking to convince everyone,including himself,that he is not "ignorant","uncritical","gullible","foolish" or an "idiot".All you need do to avoid being any of those is believe in evolution except when evolution contradicts you in which case you just ignore the contradictions as they do with price gouging which is pure evolutionary wisdom.(Unless you are being gouged when,of course,it's evil.)

One can hardly get more self-servingly subjective than that.

Evolution arose in the most bourgeois society in the world and provided for it a justification of why it is right for such a class to have plenty whilst all around the "unfit" lived shorter lives in perpetual squalor.The theory,derived from a teleological reading of a carefully selected choice of fossils out of what is presumably a vast field of such things,was indeed welcomed with open arms by the bourgeois for quite simple and obvious reasons.The bourgeois was on top because it was the fittest and therefore deserved to be and the inheritance laws it passed enshrined that this fitness was inheritable.

It's a load of hocus-pocus.It most certainly doesn't work in sport where actual proof of superiority is visibly demonstrated rather than a farrago of carefully constructed solipsistic theology which you all seem to have fallen for.Nor does it work in the business field in a similar manner.

It justifies the dumbing down and keeps talented members of the "undercrust" in their place.It arranges the environment in which it is the fittest which,if unchecked,cannot but lead to monstrosity.
It allows married men with children and investments,a most objectively minded group I must say,to take over society from priesthoods which,with their vows of chastity and poverty,do have some chance of remaining objective.

0 Replies

RexRed wrote:

rosborne979 wrote:
Ok, what blind spot are you talking about?

Simply put?

This so called event horizon...

Who or what is launching these "events"?

By Event Horizon, do you mean the Schwarzschild radius around a black hole? Those are natural aspects of a black hole, just like a shoreline is a natural aspect of an ocean.

RexRed wrote:

Events are usually a result of a type of sequencer usually equipped with a clock to regulate or measure it's own events...

Yet much of todays science is happy to just put a blind spot there and say there is a big bang and NOTHING before that.

Actually, science doesn't say there was "nothing", it just says that it doesn't know. There's a big difference.

RexRed wrote:

Or do you know what positions science takes immediately one moment before the "big bang"? I thought not...

Yes, it doesn't know. Our physical understanding of the Universe does not extend before the Big Bang. Everyone should know that.

RexRed wrote:

Neutrinos do have an effect on biology... there are possibly even more minute powers/forces/waves/energy that be that we may never be able to detect or measure... This is where faith is in my opinion, appropriate...

Please correct me Ros if you see any gaping holes in my logic I respect your opinion...

You obviously have a creative mind Rex, but you are not using the scientific method to validate your facts, and you are not using a valid stream of logic to draw your conclusions.

It's fine for people to have wild opinions about things, we need people to write fantasy novels, but that's not a good way to do science (build airplanes, read x-rays, explore other planets, etc). Nobody will argue with you much if all you claim to do is spin yarns, but if you try to convince people that those yarns are facts, that's where you run into trouble.

Just like the harsh reality of waking after a pleasant dream, science probably seems pretty dry compared with your expectations of the world. But at least it's functional, and at least it's awake.

0 Replies

real life wrote:

Quote:
Britons unconvinced on evolution[/u]

So evolution is still a fact, because that can't be changed without science. But now we know how many people don't understand that fact.

Quote:

* 22% chose creationism
* 17% opted for intelligent design
* 48% selected evolution theory
* and the rest did not know. (13%)

13% of the population couldn't even figure out how to answer the question, but at least they were smart enough to say they didn't know.

17% could see evidence for evolution but really wanted to squeeze their god in there somewhere.

22% just figure magic can account for everything

and 48% understand evolution well enough to recognize that gods aren't required to get it done.

A hundred years ago, it was probably 2% evolution and 98% magic, so this is good. Education is making progress.

0 Replies

"Good" for what ros? You're side of the argument?
Shows you in a good light eh?

Why not try to make the case that it is "good" for your nation.

How does it line up for isolationists or for interventionists.Or for proponents of Big Government.

Most liberals genuinely "believe" that their ideals are,or ought to be,shared by all sensible people and that any suggestion of their ideals being self-serving are wounding.

We know that your use of "good" is to be expected in this regard as also is the definition of "education" one presumes you have which is likely to be self-serving as well.

I presume you are a democrat,interventionist,Big Government propagandist but you ought to know that your use of "good" and "education" represent exactly the sort of self-righteousness which causes liberals to be viewed with suspicion by people of an equable temperment and it is therefore counter-productive from your own point of view.You obviously believe in the "magic" of your own word spinnings if you think we are all going to agree that what you say is "good" is actually good without the slightest indication of how it is good in terms of social action.

And there's a "probably" in there to save you saying anything that actually means anything.

Whether it is "good" or not is the subject of the debate and thus your use of the word asserts that there is no point in the debate taking place because you have clarified the issue so decisively.
As of course any self respecting Big Brother wannabee can easily be predicted to do.Big Brother knows instinctively what is "good".

I think your side,by discrediting yourselves so transparently, as you do in almost every post you write,must make serious scientists cringe with embarrassment to see themselves being represented with such vacuous pronouncements.

If it wasn't for me these threads on this subject would descend into a love-in of those who agreed that what you think is "good" is good in fact and if you get away with that it won't be long before you are deciding all our futures in those brief periods when you have a break from congratulating each other on being the sole repositories of wisdom and,as such,entitled to run the world.

I should think it is less harmful to society to believe in a God than to believe in that stuff.

0 Replies

RexRed wrote:

rosborne979 wrote:

Ok, what blind spot are you talking about?

Simply put?

This so called event horizon...

Who or what is launching these "events"?.............

an "event horizon" refers to a 'black hole', the scene of an extreme physics event, but not 'a' big bang event.

The point of 'nothingness' is what has been refered to as the 'cosmic egg' highly misleading, because it is neither an object, as is an egg, nor is it a point; it is a NON point - the infinite nothingness occurring at the end of 'everythingness colapsing into itself.

"blind spots" are frequently the result of a 'blinding (god like) light' eclipsing one's ability to "see"!
[the universe is what it is]

0 Replies

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know