Evolution

Advances in the investigation of the physical universe we live in.
Mr. Perfect
Posts: 16973
Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2011 9:35 am

Re: Evolution

Post by Mr. Perfect »

Lol these all seem to come from the same boilerplate.
In the primordial soup that was early Earth, life started small. Elements joined to form the simple carbon-based molecules that were the precursors of everything that was to come. But there is debate about the next step.
:D :D :D :D

This side has lost the debate at every step. Carbon=>DNA, shoes =>Michael Jordan. These read like kids fairy tales.

Honestly I think they should drop primordial soup. It just gets dumber with each usage.
assumed to have occurred
And that covers the rest.
Censorship isn't necessary
User avatar
Nonc Hilaire
Posts: 6168
Joined: Sat Dec 17, 2011 1:28 am

Re: Evolution

Post by Nonc Hilaire »

8nr8SYrJ53g

"If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down."

Charles Darwin, Origin of Species
“Christ has no body now but yours. Yours are the eyes through which he looks with compassion on this world. Yours are the feet with which he walks among His people to do good. Yours are the hands through which he blesses His creation.”

Teresa of Ávila
User avatar
Typhoon
Posts: 27242
Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2011 6:42 pm
Location: 関西

Re: Evolution

Post by Typhoon »

Nonc Hilaire wrote:8nr8SYrJ53g

"If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down."

Charles Darwin, Origin of Species
Lovely video. Not clear to me how it relates to Darwin's quote.
May the gods preserve and defend me from self-righteous altruists; I can defend myself from my enemies and my friends.
User avatar
Zack Morris
Posts: 2837
Joined: Mon Dec 26, 2011 8:52 am
Location: Bayside High School

Re: Evolution

Post by Zack Morris »

Mr. Perfect wrote:
Zack Morris wrote: It's usually assumed that people asking this question want to know the current state of scientific thought on the matter
How do you know that.
Because I'm smart.
-- what the leading hypotheses and areas of investigation are. "Uhhhh. I dunno." is useless.
It's the only honest answer.
No.
"What has been proposed is X" is far more informational and gives you something to dig into.
It can also be completely wrong. I'm not interested in completely wrong.
If you want to explore uncharted scientific territory, it often helps to know where people have been and where they're trying to move forward.
I guess then science is not for you.
Tell that to the scientific journal that published my work.
No. Abiogenesis is not science therefore should not be science books. There is no science to support it. At all.
Abiogenesis itself is a thoroughly scientific idea even if the exact mechanism remains unknown because there is evidence that life at one point did not exist and then later, it suddenly did. Virtually all of our scientific understanding confirms or is based around the observable fact that complex phenomena and structures arise from basic interactions between particles. Nothing suggests organic molecules and living organisms can somehow be compartmentalized away from this.

On the other hand, there is zero evidence for life -- or anything in this world -- arising from a nonphysical process.
Abiotic genesis of life is not observable and has failed every test applied to it. It isn't science. That's the whole point. Your creation myth is impossible.
It is a testable hypothesis and like it or not, every other observable process is itself a form of evidence, however weak or indirect, for it until either a more detailed understanding is achieved or a counterexample can be demonstrated.

Your argument is akin to claiming that fusion cannot possibly be happening in the sun because we cannot demonstrate self-sustaining fusion reactions here on Earth nor have we fully inspected the core of the sun.
The Bible will long outlast you bro. Hitchens is dead and God lives.
I'm sure the Koran will outlast me, too. Muslims will probably out-reproduce your descendants :)
Are we agreed.
I think most of us here agree you don't understand the science behind any of what you write.
User avatar
Zack Morris
Posts: 2837
Joined: Mon Dec 26, 2011 8:52 am
Location: Bayside High School

Re: Evolution

Post by Zack Morris »

Mr. Perfect wrote: This side has lost the debate at every step. Carbon=>DNA, shoes =>Michael Jordan. These read like kids fairy tales.
That's okay -- your whole life revolves around a book of fairy tales involving angels, the creation of matter from nothing, and people being turned to salt :)
User avatar
Typhoon
Posts: 27242
Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2011 6:42 pm
Location: 関西

Re: Evolution

Post by Typhoon »

Science |Chemists may be zeroing in on chemical reactions that sparked the first life
Chemical reactions on early Earth could have created all four building blocks of RNA molecules, triggering the beginning of life.
May the gods preserve and defend me from self-righteous altruists; I can defend myself from my enemies and my friends.
Mr. Perfect
Posts: 16973
Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2011 9:35 am

Re: Evolution

Post by Mr. Perfect »

Zack Morris wrote: Because I'm smart.
:D

No. You are not smart. At all.
No.
"I don't know" is the only honest answer. Because you have no earthly idea.
If you want to explore uncharted scientific territory, it often helps to know where people have been and where they're trying to move forward.
Cool story bro. But you have no idea how DNA could originate. And you and I both know it's impossible abiotically.
Tell that to the scientific journal that published my work.
I will. Give me their contact information.
Abiogenesis itself is a thoroughly scientific idea
No. It is not. It is impossible.
even if the exact mechanism remains unknown
The inexact mechanisms are also unknown. Everything about it is unknown.
because there is evidence that life at one point did not exist and then later, it suddenly did.
Lol. So what. Have you heard of a tautology.
Virtually all of our scientific understanding confirms or is based around the observable fact that complex phenomena and structures arise from basic interactions between particles.
Lol all of our understanding confirms that there are severe limits on structures that arise from chemical processes. Eg, the random creation of DNA is as impossible as a duck reproducing with a goat. You have no science whatsoever.
Nothing suggests organic molecules and living organisms can somehow be compartmentalized away from this.
Everything suggests the random generation of DNA is impossible.
On the other hand, there is zero evidence for life -- or anything in this world -- arising from a nonphysical process.
There is zero evidence that DNA came from a random spontaneous process. You have such a huge problem on your hands.
It is a testable hypothesis and like it or not, every other observable process is itself a form of evidence, however weak or indirect, for it until either a more detailed understanding is achieved or a counterexample can be demonstrated.
Lol absolutely not. T here is no science whatsoever supporting abiotic genesis of DNA.
Your argument is akin to claiming that fusion cannot possibly be happening in the sun because we cannot demonstrate self-sustaining fusion reactions here on Earth nor have we fully inspected the core of the sun.
No, that is not my argument at all. My argument is since Na meeting Cl cannot form lead, DNA cannot spontaneously generate. Anyone studying the issue for 5 minutes will come to the same conclusion.
I'm sure the Koran will outlast me, too. Muslims will probably out-reproduce your descendants :)
Probably not.
I think most of us here agree you don't understand the science behind any of what you write.
Lol what I'm getting is several pages of blubbering because you couldn't even get your cord to ignite let alone get anything to launch, and I appear to be the only one who knows what science even is.
Censorship isn't necessary
Mr. Perfect
Posts: 16973
Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2011 9:35 am

Re: Evolution

Post by Mr. Perfect »

Typhoon wrote:may-be

could have
Yawn. They get you with the same tactics time after time.
Censorship isn't necessary
Mr. Perfect
Posts: 16973
Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2011 9:35 am

Re: Evolution

Post by Mr. Perfect »

Zack Morris wrote:
That's okay -- your whole life revolves around a book of fairy tales involving angels, the creation of matter from nothing, and people being turned to salt :)
True. But I don't try to pass my fairy tales off as supported by science. They aren't. Your fairy tale is as scientific as mine is I'm just honest about it while you are not.
Censorship isn't necessary
Mr. Perfect
Posts: 16973
Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2011 9:35 am

Re: Evolution

Post by Mr. Perfect »

Typhoon wrote:Science |Chemists may be zeroing in on chemical reactions that sparked the first life
Chemical reactions on early Earth could have created all four building blocks of RNA molecules, triggering the beginning of life.
Oh man on 2nd thought thanks for posting this, I missed it the first time.

This article encapsulates why DNA self formation impossible.

We have the 4 building blocks of RNA already, you put them in a lab under various conditions and they NEVER trigger life. Ever.

Anyone know why?
Censorship isn't necessary
User avatar
Zack Morris
Posts: 2837
Joined: Mon Dec 26, 2011 8:52 am
Location: Bayside High School

Re: Evolution

Post by Zack Morris »

Mr. Perfect wrote:
Typhoon wrote:Science |Chemists may be zeroing in on chemical reactions that sparked the first life
Chemical reactions on early Earth could have created all four building blocks of RNA molecules, triggering the beginning of life.
Oh man on 2nd thought thanks for posting this, I missed it the first time.

This article encapsulates why DNA self formation impossible.

We have the 4 building blocks of RNA already, you put them in a lab under various conditions and they NEVER trigger life. Ever.

Anyone know why?
:lol:

The other day I saw a little ship inside of a bottle. There's no way it could have fit into that tiny opening. I've seen model ships in the vicinity of of bottles and never have I seen a ship-in-a-bottle form itself!
User avatar
Zack Morris
Posts: 2837
Joined: Mon Dec 26, 2011 8:52 am
Location: Bayside High School

Re: Evolution

Post by Zack Morris »

Mr. Perfect wrote:
Zack Morris wrote:
That's okay -- your whole life revolves around a book of fairy tales involving angels, the creation of matter from nothing, and people being turned to salt :)
True. But I don't try to pass my fairy tales off as supported by science. They aren't. Your fairy tale is as scientific as mine is I'm just honest about it while you are not.
The key difference is that there is evidence for my "fairy tale." None for yours.
User avatar
Zack Morris
Posts: 2837
Joined: Mon Dec 26, 2011 8:52 am
Location: Bayside High School

Re: Evolution

Post by Zack Morris »

Mr. Perfect wrote: No. You are not smart. At all.
Far smarter than you :) For example:
Cool story bro. But you have no idea how DNA could originate. And you and I both know it's impossible abiotically.
A smart person would know that there is absolutely no proof that this is physically impossible. A smart person would understand how molecules are formed. A smart person would understand that these molecules appeared after ~1 billion years in an environment radically different than our own. A smart person would understand what those time scales, probabilistic interactions, and an unfathomably large state space imply.
Mr. Perfect
Posts: 16973
Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2011 9:35 am

Re: Evolution

Post by Mr. Perfect »

Zack Morris wrote: :lol:

The other day I saw a little ship inside of a bottle. There's no way it could have fit into that tiny opening. I've seen model ships in the vicinity of of bottles and never have I seen a ship-in-a-bottle form itself!
Here is how it works bro. Now you show me your video.

fRuj4wChPtA
Censorship isn't necessary
Mr. Perfect
Posts: 16973
Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2011 9:35 am

Re: Evolution

Post by Mr. Perfect »

Zack Morris wrote: The key difference is that there is evidence for my "fairy tale." None for yours.
There is no science whatsoever that supports abiotic genesis of DNA. Zero. Page several pages back, not one thing was offered.

You are exercising as much faith as 3rd world Voodoo doctor.
Last edited by Mr. Perfect on Sat May 20, 2017 5:54 am, edited 1 time in total.
Censorship isn't necessary
Mr. Perfect
Posts: 16973
Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2011 9:35 am

Re: Evolution

Post by Mr. Perfect »

Zack Morris wrote: A smart person would know that there is absolutely no proof that this is physically impossible. A smart person would understand how molecules are formed. A smart person would understand that these molecules appeared after ~1 billion years in an environment radically different than our own. A smart person would understand what those time scales, probabilistic interactions, and an unfathomably large state space imply.
Bro, there are demonstrable limits on all chemical, biological and physical interactions. When hyrdrogen meets 2 oxygens in nature it never results in pizza. A man cannot jump over mt everest under his own power. If a pig and a cat have sex they cannot reproduce. these are known impossibilities.

You should read these threads before commenting. Your diversion tactics of billions of years was already blown out of the water.

Abiotic genesis of DNA is impossible. You are as religious as a Muslim in Afghanistan but don't have the courage to face it.
Censorship isn't necessary
User avatar
Zack Morris
Posts: 2837
Joined: Mon Dec 26, 2011 8:52 am
Location: Bayside High School

Re: Evolution

Post by Zack Morris »

Mr. Perfect wrote:
Zack Morris wrote: :lol:

The other day I saw a little ship inside of a bottle. There's no way it could have fit into that tiny opening. I've seen model ships in the vicinity of of bottles and never have I seen a ship-in-a-bottle form itself!
Here is how it works bro. Now you show me your video.

fRuj4wChPtA
HOLY MOLY!!! Look at that!

You've discovered a specific series of chemical and physical interactions with just the right conditions that have resulted in a ship being assembled inside of a bottle! As improbably as it seemed, there turned out to be a set of state transitions in a vast, virtually limitless space, no matter how improbable. Consider how infrequently this reaction happens. It has occurred perhaps only tens of thousands of times in the entire history of the universe. A low probability event -- almost zero -- but yet under just the right circumstances, it happens!
User avatar
Zack Morris
Posts: 2837
Joined: Mon Dec 26, 2011 8:52 am
Location: Bayside High School

Re: Evolution

Post by Zack Morris »

Mr. Perfect wrote:When hyrdrogen meets 2 oxygens in nature it never results in pizza.
Strawman argument. The universe is not limited to single interactions happening instantaneously. Given sufficient quantities of only hydrogen atoms, and enough time, pizza will result.
You should read these threads before commenting. Your diversion tactics of billions of years was already blown out of the water.
I think you need to read some physics textbooks.

You claim there is a demonstrable limit in how atoms can interact that would prevent them from producing pizza. Yet pizza happens millions of times per day. It's a complex series of chemical reactions involved to produce the ingredients (including the humans that are essential to the process) to be sure, but impossible for this to happen on a newly-formed planet? Well, luckily there is a consistent mathematical framework for these fundamental interactions. If you have a proof that it simply cannot happen under any circumstances, write it down and collect your Nobel prize already.
User avatar
NapLajoieonSteroids
Posts: 8390
Joined: Fri Dec 23, 2011 7:04 pm

Re: Evolution

Post by NapLajoieonSteroids »

Mr. Perfect wrote:
NapLajoieonSteroids wrote: speculate .
Gack.
It's a perfectly acceptable word for a testable hypothesis.
Mr. Perfect
Posts: 16973
Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2011 9:35 am

Re: Evolution

Post by Mr. Perfect »

Sorry for the delay
Zack Morris wrote:
HOLY MOLY!!! Look at that!

You've discovered a specific series of chemical and physical interactions with just the right conditions that have resulted in a ship being assembled inside of a bottle! As improbably as it seemed, there turned out to be a set of state transitions in a vast, virtually limitless space, no matter how improbable. Consider how infrequently this reaction happens. It has occurred perhaps only tens of thousands of times in the entire history of the universe. A low probability event -- almost zero -- but yet under just the right circumstances, it happens!
Yeah I did and it was easy. Now show me your video.
Censorship isn't necessary
Mr. Perfect
Posts: 16973
Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2011 9:35 am

Re: Evolution

Post by Mr. Perfect »

Zack Morris wrote: Strawman argument. The universe is not limited to single interactions happening instantaneously. Given sufficient quantities of only hydrogen atoms, and enough time, pizza will result.

I think you need to read some physics textbooks.

You claim there is a demonstrable limit in how atoms can interact that would prevent them from producing pizza. Yet pizza happens millions of times per day. It's a complex series of chemical reactions involved to produce the ingredients (including the humans that are essential to the process) to be sure, but impossible for this to happen on a newly-formed planet? Well, luckily there is a consistent mathematical framework for these fundamental interactions. If you have a proof that it simply cannot happen under any circumstances, write it down and collect your Nobel prize already.
Anyone want to help out your "intellectual" brother here? He apparently has never done this before.

Without the intervention of MAN, pizza NEVER happens randomly EVER in nature. Man is required for Pizza to happen.

Pizza CANNOT happen EVER under any circumstance except by the intervention of man. NEVER EVER.

Just like DNA.

There are extremely hard limits on what can happen in nature. All kinds of stuff is completely impossible,
Censorship isn't necessary
Mr. Perfect
Posts: 16973
Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2011 9:35 am

Re: Evolution

Post by Mr. Perfect »

NapLajoieonSteroids wrote:
Mr. Perfect wrote:
NapLajoieonSteroids wrote: speculate .
Gack.
It's a perfectly acceptable word for a testable hypothesis.
Test it already.
Censorship isn't necessary
User avatar
NapLajoieonSteroids
Posts: 8390
Joined: Fri Dec 23, 2011 7:04 pm

Re: Evolution

Post by NapLajoieonSteroids »

Mr. Perfect wrote:
NapLajoieonSteroids wrote:
Mr. Perfect wrote:
NapLajoieonSteroids wrote: speculate .
Gack.
It's a perfectly acceptable word for a testable hypothesis.
Test it already.
I could introduce you to people at working on it right now. :)
Mr. Perfect
Posts: 16973
Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2011 9:35 am

Re: Evolution

Post by Mr. Perfect »

At least introduce them to this thread, then they'll know what they are trying to do is impossible and they are wasting their life energy.
Censorship isn't necessary
User avatar
NapLajoieonSteroids
Posts: 8390
Joined: Fri Dec 23, 2011 7:04 pm

Re: Evolution

Post by NapLajoieonSteroids »

Mr. Perfect wrote:At least introduce them to this thread, then they'll know what they are trying to do is impossible and they are wasting their life energy.
How about this? They can do their own thing, and if it works they'll be award winning scientists and if it doesn't, it doesn't.

And you can keep being the guy telling the Wright brothers that their plane is just too heavy to fly through the air.
Post Reply