And you have no science.Typhoon wrote: Okay, I get it, you have no clue that you have no clue.
Evolution
-
- Posts: 16973
- Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2011 9:35 am
Re: Evolution
Censorship isn't necessary
-
- Posts: 16973
- Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2011 9:35 am
Re: Evolution
Derp, I never said so, noddy asked me for my motivation and I gave it to him. Complete lack of science invalidates things.NapLajoieonSteroids wrote: Welcome from 1955!
non-sequitur- fanaticism doesn't invalidate anything
Again completely irrelevant to anything, this is nothing to do with bravery or arguments, but science, which you do not have.People say so all the time. Saying-so is not brave and it doesn't advance an argument.
You are kidding me right. Things produced artificially have no bearing on what occurs in nature. Key fobs are produced artificially.prebiotic organic compounds as well as short rna molecules have been artificially produced in labs
How much of your time are you willing to waste. Why so many levels of denial.
Censorship isn't necessary
- NapLajoieonSteroids
- Posts: 8535
- Joined: Fri Dec 23, 2011 7:04 pm
Re: Evolution
Nope- in conditions mimicking a young earth, these things were artificially created. So at minimum, there is a possibility.Mr. Perfect wrote: You are kidding me right.
Jack Szostak has also replicated procellular membranes from the same fatty acids and single-chain lipids in the prebiotic environment.
Re: Evolution
apparently circles are better than triangles.
i now have a new term -> circulator.
i now have a new term -> circulator.
ultracrepidarian
-
- Posts: 16973
- Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2011 9:35 am
Re: Evolution
NapLajoieonSteroids wrote: Nope- in conditions mimicking a young earth, these things were artificially created.
Did Zack Morris hijack this account.
No. There is not.So at minimum, there is a possibility.
Hohoho, I cannot wait for you in your own words to explain how this would support the possibility of the random creation of DNA. I am quivering in my chair. I cannot wait to see what you are about to write. Please do not disappoint me.Jack Szostak has also replicated procellular membranes from the same fatty acids and single-chain lipids in the prebiotic environment.
Censorship isn't necessary
- NapLajoieonSteroids
- Posts: 8535
- Joined: Fri Dec 23, 2011 7:04 pm
Re: Evolution
evolution makes no claims on the origin of dna, NONE, its a lie to say it does, all evolution has is areas of research.
the only answer that is scientifically accurate right now is "dont know".
round and round in circles we go.
the only answer that is scientifically accurate right now is "dont know".
round and round in circles we go.
ultracrepidarian
-
- Posts: 16973
- Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2011 9:35 am
Re: Evolution
Every single science book in US public schools claims it. Every single one. I would bet in AUS as well. What would you call it. Someone is lying, no question about it. But your pointing the wrong way.noddy wrote:evolution makes no claims on the origin of dna, NONE, its a lie to say it does, all evolution has is areas of research.
Why don't atheists/evolutionists give this answer, ever.the only answer that is scientifically accurate right now is "dont know".
Some of us.round and round in circles we go.
Censorship isn't necessary
Re: Evolution
every science textbook teaches science theories in the science class, they also teach what the word theory means and how its subject to change as new information arrives.Mr. Perfect wrote:Every single science book in US public schools claims it. Every single one. I would bet in AUS as well. What would you call it. Someone is lying, no question about it. But your pointing the wrong way.noddy wrote:evolution makes no claims on the origin of dna, NONE, its a lie to say it does, all evolution has is areas of research.
.
they also provide the evidence that backs the theory, so some theories are stronger than others due to extra evidence.
nothing shocking about any of this.
ultracrepidarian
-
- Posts: 16973
- Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2011 9:35 am
Re: Evolution
Yeah, look at the responses here and see how well theory vs fact is understood. Then, you and I can head over to the Richard Dawkins forum, drop the same topic on them and watch the volcano erupt. At some point we have to examine where the irrational emotional responses are coming from.
Censorship isn't necessary
- Zack Morris
- Posts: 2837
- Joined: Mon Dec 26, 2011 8:52 am
- Location: Bayside High School
Re: Evolution
Well, dealing with autistic tics is very trying after a while. It's unfortunate but that's just the way it is.Mr. Perfect wrote:Yeah, look at the responses here and see how well theory vs fact is understood. Then, you and I can head over to the Richard Dawkins forum, drop the same topic on them and watch the volcano erupt. At some point we have to examine where the irrational emotional responses are coming from.
- Zack Morris
- Posts: 2837
- Joined: Mon Dec 26, 2011 8:52 am
- Location: Bayside High School
Re: Evolution
It's usually assumed that people asking this question want to know the current state of scientific thought on the matter -- what the leading hypotheses and areas of investigation are. "Uhhhh. I dunno." is useless. "What has been proposed is X" is far more informational and gives you something to dig into.Mr. Perfect wrote:Why don't atheists/evolutionists give this answer, ever.the only answer that is scientifically accurate right now is "dont know".
Duh.
Science is for rational, inquisitive minds. It's for people who want to figure things out. The reason you would prefer this material expunged from your home school textbooks is that deep down, you don't want anyone to ever find out and put another nail in the coffin of your Bedouin folk religion. And you certainly don't want your children forming a belief system about the origin of life that's based on observation of the physical world they inhabit and is testable. They might stop looking for answers in the Bible.
Re: Evolution
Mathematicians and scientists are routinely pestered by such crackpots* who are certain about something,Mr. Perfect wrote:And you have no science.Typhoon wrote: Okay, I get it, you have no clue that you have no clue.
but have not made or, for some dogmatic/personal reason, won't make any effort to understand the underlying math and/or science
and furthermore reject any explanations when they are offered.
It is an all too common occupational annoyance.
*To the point that there is a physics crackpot index
and one for mathematics
The usual suspects:
"I have a simple arithmetic solution to the Riemann hypothesis."
"Special relativity is wrong."
"General relativity is wrong."
"Evolution is impossible."
All tedious old news.
Meanwhile mathematics and science continue and will continue to make progress regardless of the protestations of crackpots.
So, no worries.
May the gods preserve and defend me from self-righteous altruists; I can defend myself from my enemies and my friends.
-
- Posts: 16973
- Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2011 9:35 am
-
- Posts: 16973
- Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2011 9:35 am
Re: Evolution
How do you know that.Zack Morris wrote: It's usually assumed that people asking this question want to know the current state of scientific thought on the matter
It's the only honest answer.-- what the leading hypotheses and areas of investigation are. "Uhhhh. I dunno." is useless.
It can also be completely wrong. I'm not interested in completely wrong."What has been proposed is X" is far more informational and gives you something to dig into.
I guess then science is not for you.Duh.
Science is for rational, inquisitive minds. It's for people who want to figure things out.
No. Abiogenesis is not science therefore should not be science books. There is no science to support it. At all.The reason you would prefer this material expunged from your home school textbooks is that deep down, you don't want anyone to ever find out and put another nail in the coffin of your Bedouin folk religion.
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.And you certainly don't want your children forming a belief system about the origin of life that's based on observation of the physical world they inhabit and is testable.
The Bible will long outlast you bro. Hitchens is dead and God lives.They might stop looking for answers in the Bible.
But that's a different story. The issue at hand is, is there any science to support the spontaneous generation of DNA because it appears to be impossible. The thundering reply from OTNOT is "no we have no science at all to support our myth".
Are we agreed.
Censorship isn't necessary
-
- Posts: 16973
- Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2011 9:35 am
Re: Evolution
Looks like he couldn't do it. Why am I not surprised.Mr. Perfect wrote: Hohoho, I cannot wait for you in your own words to explain how this would support the possibility of the random creation of DNA. I am quivering in my chair. I cannot wait to see what you are about to write. Please do not disappoint me.
Censorship isn't necessary
-
- Posts: 16973
- Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2011 9:35 am
Re: Evolution
I would for historical purposes like to catalog the fallacies, dodges, diversions, distractions and backflips used in this episode.
1. Anything is possible (no, anything is not possible. Horses will never outrun cars, men cannot jump over Everest, a horse and a chicken cannot reproduce together. There are enormous lists of impossibilities and limitations in this universe)
2. More is possible with billions of years (I'm reminded of an exchange with aferim some time ago. I liked him. Wish he was still around. I asked him if immaculate conception was possible given billions of years. He said categorically no. I then asked him if abiotic genesis could happen with billions of years and his head exploded. It's a good memory).
3. This science over here validates that science over there (lol, Na meeting Cl forming salt does not mean that cows can levitate).
4. Science can't be bothered with you (amusingly the same argument used by MMGW fundamentalists. This might be the most anti-science attitude of all, because science recognizes no authority structures whatsoever. Scientists are documented in believing laughably ridiculous things, like anyone else)
What I have found is atheists seem to be more emotionally defensive of their myths than any theist I've ever met. I mean their brains just melt down. Theists are used to people deriding their stories. We've learned to live with it and let it roll of their back to varying extents. Atheists do not seem to be able to cope with the idea that their myths aren't real. It's as if they wouldn't know how to go on living. It's as if they wouldn't know how to understand reality anymore.
1. Anything is possible (no, anything is not possible. Horses will never outrun cars, men cannot jump over Everest, a horse and a chicken cannot reproduce together. There are enormous lists of impossibilities and limitations in this universe)
2. More is possible with billions of years (I'm reminded of an exchange with aferim some time ago. I liked him. Wish he was still around. I asked him if immaculate conception was possible given billions of years. He said categorically no. I then asked him if abiotic genesis could happen with billions of years and his head exploded. It's a good memory).
3. This science over here validates that science over there (lol, Na meeting Cl forming salt does not mean that cows can levitate).
4. Science can't be bothered with you (amusingly the same argument used by MMGW fundamentalists. This might be the most anti-science attitude of all, because science recognizes no authority structures whatsoever. Scientists are documented in believing laughably ridiculous things, like anyone else)
What I have found is atheists seem to be more emotionally defensive of their myths than any theist I've ever met. I mean their brains just melt down. Theists are used to people deriding their stories. We've learned to live with it and let it roll of their back to varying extents. Atheists do not seem to be able to cope with the idea that their myths aren't real. It's as if they wouldn't know how to go on living. It's as if they wouldn't know how to understand reality anymore.
Censorship isn't necessary
Re: Evolution
Whatever.
May the gods preserve and defend me from self-righteous altruists; I can defend myself from my enemies and my friends.
-
- Posts: 16973
- Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2011 9:35 am
Re: Evolution
Normally I am surprised when I enter a debate and my opposition is completely unable to formulate a response on any point. I mean, what are the odds that people actually believe in something but cannot support their belief in any way shape or form.
In this case, since I know the science, I am actually not surprised that not a single point was raised in defense. In this case I expected it, and I was proven right.
In this case, since I know the science, I am actually not surprised that not a single point was raised in defense. In this case I expected it, and I was proven right.
Censorship isn't necessary
-
- Posts: 16973
- Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2011 9:35 am
Re: DNA
The prosecution rests.
Mr. Perfect wrote:I have a problem. I have been learning too much. My science education centers around Physics but due to certain factors I have been learning A LOT of biology. A LOT.
I have a non trolling question. I bring it here because if you go to forums specializing in this field it's a shouting match of word sophistry.
So it goes as follows.
1. Can a key fob randomly and spontaneously generate in nature? No
2. Can a blank sheet of paper generate E=MC^2 in writing randomly and spontaneously? No
3. Can a blank hard drive randomly and spontaneously generate an operating system? No
4. Can a chemical structure that is more complex than any computer operating system (DNA) spontaneously and randomly generate itself in nature? No (and this is before we get to the complexity of a cell)
It seems that the religion of Sam Harris/Dawkins/de grasse Tyson is as fake as any other.
Censorship isn't necessary
- NapLajoieonSteroids
- Posts: 8535
- Joined: Fri Dec 23, 2011 7:04 pm
Re: Evolution
I had more important things to do.Mr. Perfect wrote:Looks like he couldn't do it. Why am I not surprised.Mr. Perfect wrote: Hohoho, I cannot wait for you in your own words to explain how this would support the possibility of the random creation of DNA. I am quivering in my chair. I cannot wait to see what you are about to write. Please do not disappoint me.
It is an organization of nucleotides with different sugars. DNA, of course, has a more complex sugar.
The thing about DNA is that it is poorly catalytic. Most heavy lifting is done by proteins and unlike RNA, there is a good chance it has always been that way.
So how did it spread? Unlike RNA (or maybe any other *NAs floating out there) it is stable in the face of stresses.
All it would take is RNA appropriating DNA in the similar sense to how we know biocatalytic RNA will accumulate (and exchange) polymer chains, and spreading thus because of its stability.
Last edited by NapLajoieonSteroids on Wed May 17, 2017 1:06 am, edited 2 times in total.
-
- Posts: 16973
- Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2011 9:35 am
Re: Evolution
I'll wait. But ask yourself the question, why are you having to do the work that others have not done.NapLajoieonSteroids wrote:I had more important things to do.Mr. Perfect wrote:Looks like he couldn't do it. Why am I not surprised.Mr. Perfect wrote: Hohoho, I cannot wait for you in your own words to explain how this would support the possibility of the random creation of DNA. I am quivering in my chair. I cannot wait to see what you are about to write. Please do not disappoint me.
It is an organization of nucleotides with different basal sugars.
Censorship isn't necessary
- NapLajoieonSteroids
- Posts: 8535
- Joined: Fri Dec 23, 2011 7:04 pm
Re: Evolution
There are a number of people who speculate that DNA grew out of RNA completely. There are pros to that idea but I think a bit too many cons, a big one being such an expense of energy for an uncertain outcome.NapLajoieonSteroids wrote:I had more important things to do.Mr. Perfect wrote:Looks like he couldn't do it. Why am I not surprised.Mr. Perfect wrote: Hohoho, I cannot wait for you in your own words to explain how this would support the possibility of the random creation of DNA. I am quivering in my chair. I cannot wait to see what you are about to write. Please do not disappoint me.
It is an organization of nucleotides with different sugars. DNA, of course, has a more complex sugar.
The thing about DNA is that it is poorly catalytic. Most heavy lifting is done by proteins and unlike RNA, there is a good chance it has always been that way.
So how did it spread? Unlike RNA (or maybe any other *NAs floating out there) it is stable in the face of stresses.
All it would take is RNA appropriating DNA in the similar sense to how we know biocatalytic RNA will accumulate (and exchange) polymer chains, and spreading thus because of its stability.
Moreover, it in line with what we've observed in nature or in a lab.
-
- Posts: 16973
- Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2011 9:35 am
Re: Evolution
May the gods preserve and defend me from self-righteous altruists; I can defend myself from my enemies and my friends.