1
   

The root of the human genome

 
 
yovav
 
Reply Mon 8 Nov, 2021 12:54 am
We know that about 90 percent of the periodic table are elements we got from dying stars and supernovae.
And what about our genome? Did we also get this molecular code from the same process?
  • Topic Stats
  • Top Replies
  • Link to this Topic
Type: Question • Score: 1 • Views: 421 • Replies: 21
No top replies

 
Leadfoot
 
  0  
Reply Mon 8 Nov, 2021 06:47 am
@yovav,
They both appear to have been intelligently designed, so yes.
yovav
 
  1  
Reply Mon 6 Dec, 2021 11:47 am
@Leadfoot,
So and the positive answer to how much may the next be correct? (Video in a new post).
0 Replies
 
maxdancona
 
  -2  
Reply Mon 6 Dec, 2021 11:50 am
@yovav,
Is this a science thread, or a philosophy thread. If you want this to be a science thread, then you need to talk about testable experiments. I might participate in an actual scientific discussion.

In Philosophy you can make up anything that sounds good to you.

What experiment would you suggest to determine whether "we get this molecular code from the same process"? I don't see a way to test the proposition in a scientific way.
yovav
 
  2  
Reply Mon 6 Dec, 2021 11:55 am
@maxdancona,
That's right, there's no research I can do to test my claims.
0 Replies
 
Leadfoot
 
  0  
Reply Mon 6 Dec, 2021 03:45 pm
@maxdancona,
Quote:
. If you want this to be a science thread, then you need to talk about testable experiments.

Still waiting on a successful experiment proving abiogenesis via all natural causes.
Or even a lab full of scientists for that matter. It ain’t for lack of trying that they’ve failed.
maxdancona
 
  -1  
Reply Mon 6 Dec, 2021 04:11 pm
@Leadfoot,
Science knows what can be tested. No one claims that science knows everything. You are right, science has no real idea on how abiogenesis happened; although the fact that life exists should be seen as testable proof that it did happen.

I don't get your point. My point is that any scientific knowledge has been tested experimentally.
The Anointed
 
  -2  
Reply Mon 6 Dec, 2021 07:53 pm
@maxdancona,
There are as many, if not more, scientific theories as to the origin of our universe, as there are differing religious bodies, such as Christianity, Hindu, Abrahamic, Muslim, etc.

One of which, is a theory put forward by Niayesh Afshordi, an astrophysicist with Perimeter Institute for Theoretical Physics in Canada, which he believes, could explain the singularity within a Super massive Black Hole, from which singularity our ‘Three Dimensional’ Universe was born.

Niayesh Afshordi, proposes that our three-dimensional universe floats as a membrane in a “bulk universe” that has four dimensions and that the “Bulk Universe” has four dimensional stars, which go through the same life cycles as our three-dimensional stars.

The most massive ones explode as supernovae, and their central core collapses into a black hole, (As a Singularity) like in our universe, only in four-dimension. The four-dimensional black hole has its own four dimensional “Event Horizon,” the boundary between the inside and the outside of a black hole.

In a three-dimensional universe, the event horizon appears to be two dimensional. In a four-dimensional universe, it appears to be three dimensional. The four-dimensional black hole, then blows apart, (THE BIG BANG) with the leftover material forming a three-dimensional membrane surrounding a ‘Three Dimensional’ event horizon, which expands---and is essentially our universe.

So, according to the theory proposed by Niayesh Afshordi, our universe is the vomited-up guts of a Super massive fourth dimensional black hole, in which the singularity that is said to have been the origin of our three dimensional universe, had been crushed. The expansion of the event horizon explains our universe's expansion; the fact that its creation stems from another 4D universe explains the weird temperature uniformity.

As attractive as Niayesh Afshordi’s theory is, I will continue to believe in the eternal oscillating universe, which is the evolution of the eternal energy that has neither beginning or end, and that each stage of its activity is a separate generation, and each generation of its eternal evolution, occupies its own position in Space-Time.

As the scriptures state that God gathers all creation back to himself, before creating for us a new heavens and a new earth, (A new universe) I will continue to believe, that this entire universe, which began as a ‘singularity,’ will burn up and fall as fire into the Great Abyss, which is created by the black holes within the condensing Galaxies devouring each other, where it will be crushed back into the singularity from which it was created, only to be blasted out and resurrected to continue on in its eternal process of evolution.

As said previously, “According to the ancients, we live in an eternal oscillating universe that expands outward and contracts back to its beginning in space time. A universe that exists in the two states of seemingly visible matter and invisible energy.”

“Universe after universe is like an interminable succession of wheels forever coming into view, forever rolling onwards, disappearing and reappearing; forever passing from being too non-being, and again from non-being to being. In short, the constant revolving of the wheel of life in one eternal cycle, according to fixed and immutable laws, is perhaps after all, the sum and substance of the philosophy of Buddhism. And this eternal wheel has so to speak, six spokes representing six forms of existence.” ---- Mon. Williams, Buddhism, pp. 229, 122.

The days and nights of Brahma are called Manvantara, or the cycle of manifestation, ‘The Great Day,’ which is a period of universal activity, that is preceded, and also followed by ‘Pralaya,’ a dark period, which to our finite minds would seem as an eternity, or but a moment in time.

‘Manvantara,’ is a creative day, a period of universal activity of light and life, as seen in the six days of creation in Genesis. ‘Pralaya,’ is the evening that proceeds the next creative day, and is seen as the period of rest for the “GREAT THOUGHT’. The six periods of Creation and the seventh day of rest in which we now exist are referred to in the book of Genesis 2: 4; as the “GENERATIONS OF THE UNIVERSE.”

The English word “Generation,” is translated from the Hebrew “toledoth,” which is used in the Old Testament in every instance as ‘births,’ or ‘descendants,’ such as “These are the generations of Adam,” or “these are the generations of Abraham, and Genesis 2: 4; it is written concerning the six days of creation; “These are the generations of the Universe or the heavens and earth, etc.” And the ‘Great Day’ in which the seven generations of the universe are eternally repeated, is the eternal cosmic period, or the eighth eternal day in which those who attain to perfection, are allowed to enter, where they shall be surrounded by great light and they shall experience eternal peace, while those who do not attain to perfection are cast back into the refining fires of the seven physical cycles of endless rebirths that perpetually revolve within the eighth eternal cosmic cycle.

To the Hindu, Lord Krishnu, the ‘EIGHTH’ manifestation, or rather, the eighth descendant =generation of Vishnu the savior, is the Supreme Personality to have developed within the eighth manifestation of Brahman, who, to the Hindu, is the essential reality of the universe, the eternal and divine spirit, from who all being originates and to who all must return at the close of each period of universal activity.

Enoch the righteous, wrote that God created an ‘EIGHTH’ day also, so that it should be the first after his works, and it is a day eternal with neither hours, days, weeks, months or years, for all time is stuck together in one aeon, etc, etc, and all who enter into the generation of the Light beings, are able to visit all those worlds that still exist in Space-Time, but not in our time.

A series of worlds following one upon the other-- each world rising a step higher than the previous world, so that every later world brings to ripeness the seeds that were imbedded in the former, and itself then prepares the seed for the universe that will follow it.

in other words; 'A never ending, everlasting, universal 'MIND=THOUGHT', evolving from generation to generation.
Leadfoot
 
  1  
Reply Tue 7 Dec, 2021 05:39 am
@maxdancona,
Quote:
Science knows what can be tested. No one claims that science knows everything. You are right, science has no real idea on how abiogenesis happened; although the fact that life exists should be seen as testable proof that it did happen.

That it exists, is not in question (by me anyway).
And I assume you mean it happened 'naturally' by the known forces in physics.

So why can’t it be tested? They are trying you know.

But the main thing I want to point out is the circular reasoning in your statement “ The fact that life exists should be seen as testable proof that it did happen.” Implicit in the statement is the assertion that everything we can observe happened without any sentient guidance or intervention. There is no scientific reason to assume this.

My contention is that it could not have happened without an intelligent actor. This too is testable. There are many scientists hard at work trying to disprove it.

You are correct that a scientific hypothesis should be both testable and have predictive power. Mine would predict that they will never succeed and that biological life will not be found all over the universe as they predict.




maxdancona
 
  -1  
Reply Tue 7 Dec, 2021 08:20 am
@The Anointed,
If you delete the word "scientific" from your post, then I see nothing wrong with what you wrote.

A scientific theory is one that can be tested by experiment. For any scientific theory scientists can tell you what experimental result will disprove it (that is what testable means).

So if you say "There are many, if not more, theories as to the origin or our universe..." then I will agree. They aren't scientific theories since they can't be tested by experiment.
maxdancona
 
  -1  
Reply Tue 7 Dec, 2021 08:23 am
@Leadfoot,
Quote:
I want to point out is the circular reasoning in your statement “ The fact that life exists should be seen as testable proof that it did happen.”


There is nothing circular in this statement.

I didn't make any "implicit" assertion. You made that assertion. I have never asserted that there is no "sentient guidance intervention". That was all you.
0 Replies
 
maxdancona
 
  -1  
Reply Tue 7 Dec, 2021 08:25 am
@Leadfoot,
Quote:
Mine would predict that they will never succeed and that biological life will not be found all over the universe as they predict.


I want to give you credit for this statement. You are making a testable prediction that can be disproven (in this case, if we find biological life that is not of terrestrial origin than you admit that your theory has been disproven).
0 Replies
 
Leadfoot
 
  1  
Reply Tue 7 Dec, 2021 09:15 am
@maxdancona,
Quote:
A scientific theory is one that can be tested by experiment. For any scientific theory scientists can tell you what experimental result will disprove it (that is what testable means).

That’s right. If scientists are able to demonstrate biological life self-assembling in the lab with no intelligent intervention, the theory of intelligent design will be disproven. i.e., ID is a valid scientific theory.


Quote:
I didn't make any "implicit" assertion [that biological life happened without intelligent intervention]. You made that assertion [about me]. I have never asserted that there is no "sentient guidance intervention". That was all you.


My bad then. I think you are the first to make that clarification in an ID argument.
maxdancona
 
  0  
Reply Tue 7 Dec, 2021 01:21 pm
@Leadfoot,
The problem with intelligent design is that it is meaningless. Science doesnt say whether there is a God or not, anyone who says science has dosproven the existence of God is lying.

No, if scientists generate random self-replicating life in the lab, that still doesn't disprove intelligent design.
The Anointed
 
  -1  
Reply Tue 7 Dec, 2021 01:58 pm
@maxdancona,
Quote:
Science doesnt say whether there is a God or not, anyone who says science has dosproven the existence of God is lying.


Quite the opposite in fact, and I believe that science has proven the existence of God.

It has now been revealed that matter is no more than an illusion. Quantum physicists have revealed that so called physical atoms are made up of vortices of energy that are constantly spinning and vibrating, each one radiating its own unique energy signature.

If you observe the composition of an atom with a microscope you would see a small, invisible tornado-like vortex, with a number of infinitely small energy vortices called quarks and photons. These are what make up the structure of the atom. As you focused in closer and closer on the structure of the atom, you would see nothing, you would observe a physical void. The atom has no physical structure, we have no physical structure, physical things really don’t have any physical structure! Atoms are made out of “INVISIBLE ENERGY”, not tangible matter.

Pioneering physicist Sir James Jeans wrote: “The stream of knowledge is heading toward a non-mechanical reality; the universe begins to look more like ‘A GREAT THOUGHT’ than like a great machine. Mind no longer appears to be an accidental intruder into the realm of matter, we ought rather hail it as the creator and governor of the realm of matter. (R. C. Henry, “The Mental Universe”; Nature 436:29, 2005)
Leadfoot
 
  1  
Reply Tue 7 Dec, 2021 02:37 pm
@maxdancona,
Quote:
No, if scientists generate random self-replicating life in the lab, that still doesn't disprove intelligent design.

Technically that’s right.
But in that sense, neither would finding life elsewhere in the universe.

But - in the sense Dawkins mistakenly said that Darwin made intellectually honest atheism possible, lab grown life would come closer to making that true. But until that time, it isn’t.



0 Replies
 
maxdancona
 
  1  
Reply Tue 7 Dec, 2021 02:58 pm
@The Anointed,
Your description of science is nonsense.
The Anointed
 
  -1  
Reply Tue 7 Dec, 2021 07:54 pm
@maxdancona,
Quote:
Your description of science is nonsense.


It's not my description kiddo. Its the description of the greatest names in the field of Quantum Physics. And I am afraid that you do not have the intellectual capacity, to call the results of their work 'NONSENSE'.
maxdancona
 
  0  
Reply Wed 8 Dec, 2021 04:12 am
@The Anointed,
The greatest names in physics are not talking about little tornado vortices. Your posts are silly.
The Anointed
 
  -1  
Reply Wed 8 Dec, 2021 04:30 am
@maxdancona,
Quote:
The greatest names in physics are not talking about little tornado vortices. Your posts are silly.


Come back when you have read up on Quantum physics. Perhaps then you will cease dribbling your verbal dysentery.
 

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
 
  1. Forums
  2. » The root of the human genome
Copyright © 2021 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.04 seconds on 12/08/2021 at 07:57:11