Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
6 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Transition from chemistry to biology
Coragyps
Member (Idle past 735 days)
Posts: 5553
From: Snyder, Texas, USA
Joined: 11-12-2002


Message 151 of 415 (498790)
02-13-2009 10:43 PM
Reply to: Message 149 by traste
02-13-2009 10:33 PM


Re: We have the building blocks ...
.All current theories that supports abiogenesis is nothing but exposition of ignorance.
Nonsense. Tell Dr Miller, Dr Orgel, Dr Szostak, or any of their hundreds of colleagues and students who have done thousands of experiments on abiogenisis toplcs that. They will laugh at your ignorance.

"The wretched world lies now under the tyranny of foolishness; things are believed by Christians of such absurdity as no one ever could aforetime induce the heathen to believe." - Agobard of Lyons, ca. 830 AD

This message is a reply to:
 Message 149 by traste, posted 02-13-2009 10:33 PM traste has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 159 by traste, posted 02-14-2009 4:16 AM Coragyps has not replied

Coyote
Member (Idle past 2106 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 152 of 415 (498793)
02-14-2009 12:27 AM
Reply to: Message 149 by traste
02-13-2009 10:33 PM


Re: We have the building blocks ...
The real problem is you could not demonstrate those things(complexities observe in life )came by change whether by mathemathical induction or scientific rigor.All current theories that supports abiogenesis is nothing but exposition of ignorance.The real conclusion is "God" did it.
Mathematics will come up with an explanation for whatever science demonstrates. By itself it is nothing but a modeling tool, and it certainly doesn't prove or disprove the theory of evolution.
There are no theories of abiogenesis; there are hypotheses competing with one another to become a theory. So far none has succeeded. Big deal; give them a little time before you declare the field dead and buried.
And your conclusion that "'God' did it" is a religious belief, not a scientific conclusion. A few centuries ago thunder was ascribed to the gods, as were diseases. To try to fit various deities into gaps in our knowledge is a loosing game, as those gaps are all to soon filled by scientific advances.

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 149 by traste, posted 02-13-2009 10:33 PM traste has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 157 by traste, posted 02-14-2009 3:38 AM Coyote has not replied

Blue Jay
Member (Idle past 2698 days)
Posts: 2843
From: You couldn't pronounce it with your mouthparts
Joined: 02-04-2008


Message 153 of 415 (498796)
02-14-2009 1:21 AM
Reply to: Message 147 by traste
02-13-2009 10:08 PM


Re: Ontogeny vs. Phylogeny
Hi, Traste.
I realize you're getting a lot of pressure from a lot of people, so I understand your frustration. But, let's keep it calm and rational, okay?
traste writes:
Who is Pilbeam in the first place?
I don't know who Pilbeam is. I'd never heard of him before. I was referring to the first thread you posted on at EvC (here is a link to that thread), which had something to do with quote-mining and somebody named Pilbeam.
-----
traste writes:
If I say that I believe that spontaneous generation is just the same as abiogenesis because that is what Stephen Meyer said we will end quoting people isnt it?
Is English your first language? This sentence gives me a headache.
Stephen Meyer was never designated as the official spokesman of the scientific community, so I am not duty-bound to regard his words as sacred. I am also under no obligation to concede an argument because you were able to find somebody who disagrees with me. So, instead of providing the words that somebody once said, I prefer to provide logical argumentation of my own divising.
For example, let's review once again the concepts of spontaneous generation and abiogenesis, in the hopes that you will be able to see that Louis Pasteur tested one of those hypotheses, and not the other.
If you and I were to see spontaneous generation happen right now, we would see, for example, a lump of mud, without provocation, metamorphose into a bullfrog.
If you and I were to see abiogenesis happen right now, we would see one set of molecules become associated with another set of molecules. That's it.
Spontaneous generation is a way for animals to reproduce, and abiogenesis is a way for chemistry to gradually become complex enough to perpetuate itself.
-----
traste writes:
By the way could you demonstrate with mathemathical rigor that the complexities and organization observe in life in general came about by random change?
I don't understand: why do you think that this is necessary?

-Bluejay/Mantis/Thylacosmilus
Darwin loves you.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 147 by traste, posted 02-13-2009 10:08 PM traste has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 154 by Coyote, posted 02-14-2009 1:42 AM Blue Jay has not replied
 Message 156 by traste, posted 02-14-2009 3:23 AM Blue Jay has replied

Coyote
Member (Idle past 2106 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 154 of 415 (498797)
02-14-2009 1:42 AM
Reply to: Message 153 by Blue Jay
02-14-2009 1:21 AM


David R. Pilbeam
David R. Pilbeam is a well-respected anthropologist.
When I took my first evolution course in graduate school in 1973 we used his The Evolution of Man as the text.
See this thread for details on the quote mining referred to.

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 153 by Blue Jay, posted 02-14-2009 1:21 AM Blue Jay has not replied

traste
Member (Idle past 5143 days)
Posts: 173
Joined: 02-09-2009


Message 155 of 415 (498801)
02-14-2009 3:16 AM
Reply to: Message 148 by bluescat48
02-13-2009 10:13 PM


Re: Conclusions
At least you accept it is a fairy tale.Because you imply evolution is well supported by evidence,could you please go further from that rather than asserting it is well supported?You could demonstrate whether by mathemathical induction or scientific rigor.Mathemathics plays a big role here since we are talking chance events.But none of you guys ever me a mathemethical proof that the complexities and precision observe in life came by change.The real conclusion is God did it.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 148 by bluescat48, posted 02-13-2009 10:13 PM bluescat48 has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 175 by Coyote, posted 02-14-2009 6:11 AM traste has replied

traste
Member (Idle past 5143 days)
Posts: 173
Joined: 02-09-2009


Message 156 of 415 (498802)
02-14-2009 3:23 AM
Reply to: Message 153 by Blue Jay
02-14-2009 1:21 AM


Re: Ontogeny vs. Phylogeny
It is necessary since we are talking chance events.Randomness imply change events isnt it?So the science of mathemathical probability plays a big role here.Could you demonstrate now?I hope you absorb well your basic algebra so that I dont get any trouble when explaining.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 153 by Blue Jay, posted 02-14-2009 1:21 AM Blue Jay has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 188 by Blue Jay, posted 02-14-2009 4:08 PM traste has not replied

traste
Member (Idle past 5143 days)
Posts: 173
Joined: 02-09-2009


Message 157 of 415 (498803)
02-14-2009 3:38 AM
Reply to: Message 152 by Coyote
02-14-2009 12:27 AM


Re: We have the building blocks ...
I dont think so that you absorb your mathemathics well.Evolution implies randomness,in fact it implies that the complexities observe in life came by chance.So since the science of mathemathical probabality deal with chance events it plays a big role there.I dont hear any mathemathics supports evolution but mathemathics speak againts it.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 152 by Coyote, posted 02-14-2009 12:27 AM Coyote has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 158 by anglagard, posted 02-14-2009 3:44 AM traste has replied
 Message 164 by cavediver, posted 02-14-2009 5:00 AM traste has replied
 Message 189 by RAZD, posted 02-14-2009 4:58 PM traste has not replied

anglagard
Member (Idle past 837 days)
Posts: 2339
From: Socorro, New Mexico USA
Joined: 03-18-2006


Message 158 of 415 (498804)
02-14-2009 3:44 AM
Reply to: Message 157 by traste
02-14-2009 3:38 AM


Re: We have the building blocks ...
traste writes:
I dont think so that you absorb your mathemathics well.Evolution implies randomness,in fact it implies that the complexities observe in life came by chance.So since the science of mathemathical probabality deal with chance events it plays a big role there.I dont hear any mathemathics supports evolution but mathemathics speak againts it.
Higher mathematics involves proofs. Provide your axioms and also your proof of this assertion.
Edited by anglagard, : replaced thus with proof

Read not to contradict and confute, not to believe and take for granted, not to find talk and discourse, but to weigh and consider - Francis Bacon
The more we understand particular things, the more we understand God - Spinoza

This message is a reply to:
 Message 157 by traste, posted 02-14-2009 3:38 AM traste has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 162 by traste, posted 02-14-2009 4:47 AM anglagard has replied

traste
Member (Idle past 5143 days)
Posts: 173
Joined: 02-09-2009


Message 159 of 415 (498805)
02-14-2009 4:16 AM
Reply to: Message 151 by Coragyps
02-13-2009 10:43 PM


Re: We have the building blocks ...
How about the absurdness that the complexities and organaztion in life came about by chance?You have a lotof theories but nothing explains that the complexities in life came by chance.Can you afford to say that the law of trigonometry came because mathemathicians draw zig zag line?Non sense too isnt it?If mathemathics did not came by chance,how about life that is more complex than it?Logic isnt it?Do you agree if I say the computer you are using now came because the computer manufacturing company exploded?Absurdness isnt it?Now how about life that is more complex than computer do they came by accident?Foolishness isnt it?So because every complex things today have a designer,it is logical to say that life too have a designer.Another logic isnt it?So all the current theories that supports evolution as Dean Kenyon puts it has"fundamental flaw".And by the way who is Dean Kenyon?Isnt it he was a former supporter evolution and co author of the book Biochemical Predestanation.If the evidence of evolution is as strong as what you believe,then why he abandoned it?My conclusion that all current theories that supports evolution is nothing but an exposition of ignorance,in the sense that they dont explain how the complexties ,organization,precision came by chance.Do you understand now?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 151 by Coragyps, posted 02-13-2009 10:43 PM Coragyps has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 161 by anglagard, posted 02-14-2009 4:40 AM traste has not replied
 Message 192 by shalamabobbi, posted 02-14-2009 6:25 PM traste has not replied

traste
Member (Idle past 5143 days)
Posts: 173
Joined: 02-09-2009


Message 160 of 415 (498809)
02-14-2009 4:26 AM
Reply to: Message 137 by Wounded King
02-10-2009 11:25 AM


Re: What Pasteur showed
Pasteur showed that life could not began from non life.Any it seems that you are confused of his words?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 137 by Wounded King, posted 02-10-2009 11:25 AM Wounded King has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 185 by bluescat48, posted 02-14-2009 8:26 AM traste has not replied
 Message 187 by Wounded King, posted 02-14-2009 12:04 PM traste has not replied

anglagard
Member (Idle past 837 days)
Posts: 2339
From: Socorro, New Mexico USA
Joined: 03-18-2006


Message 161 of 415 (498811)
02-14-2009 4:40 AM
Reply to: Message 159 by traste
02-14-2009 4:16 AM


Re: We have the building blocks ...
Jeez, what a blowhard. Got anything to back up all these assertions?

Read not to contradict and confute, not to believe and take for granted, not to find talk and discourse, but to weigh and consider - Francis Bacon
The more we understand particular things, the more we understand God - Spinoza

This message is a reply to:
 Message 159 by traste, posted 02-14-2009 4:16 AM traste has not replied

traste
Member (Idle past 5143 days)
Posts: 173
Joined: 02-09-2009


Message 162 of 415 (498812)
02-14-2009 4:47 AM
Reply to: Message 158 by anglagard
02-14-2009 3:44 AM


Re: We have the building blocks ...
Ok.But mathemathical probabilty is a high mathemathics for you?High mathemathics are like differential equation,set theory, abstract algebra,number theory...just to name a few.One typical example of the mathemathical absurdness of evolution is that amino acids could get in there proper places in one chance in 10 to the 113(ten followed by 113 zeros).Supporters of evolution acknowledge that,but any event that has one chance in 10 to the 50 is dismiss by mathemathicians as never happening.Dont you hear about that?Now I liked to have my own mathemathical proof,we know the cell contains 2000 proteins serving as enzyme,what is the mathemathical probability that they came by chance?Since they should be in there proper places the chance is 2000!A very big number isnt it?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 158 by anglagard, posted 02-14-2009 3:44 AM anglagard has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 163 by anglagard, posted 02-14-2009 4:54 AM traste has replied
 Message 166 by cavediver, posted 02-14-2009 5:20 AM traste has replied

anglagard
Member (Idle past 837 days)
Posts: 2339
From: Socorro, New Mexico USA
Joined: 03-18-2006


Message 163 of 415 (498813)
02-14-2009 4:54 AM
Reply to: Message 162 by traste
02-14-2009 4:47 AM


Re: We have the building blocks ...
blowhard writes:
Ok.But mathemathical probabilty is a high mathemathics for you?High mathemathics are like differential equation,set theory, abstract algebra,number theory...just to name a few.One typical example of the mathemathical absurdness of evolution is that amino acids could get in there proper places in one chance in 10 to the 113(ten followed by 113 zeros).Supporters of evolution acknowledge that,but any event that has one chance in 10 to the 50 is dismiss by mathemathicians as never happening.Dont you hear about that?Now I liked to have my own mathemathical proof,we know the cell contains 2000 proteins serving as enzyme,what is the mathemathical probability that they came by chance?Since they should be in there proper places the chance is 2000!A very big number isnt it?
Guess what genius, natural selection is not random so you can take all your calculations and toss them into the trash can where they belong.

Read not to contradict and confute, not to believe and take for granted, not to find talk and discourse, but to weigh and consider - Francis Bacon
The more we understand particular things, the more we understand God - Spinoza

This message is a reply to:
 Message 162 by traste, posted 02-14-2009 4:47 AM traste has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 165 by traste, posted 02-14-2009 5:14 AM anglagard has not replied

cavediver
Member (Idle past 3643 days)
Posts: 4129
From: UK
Joined: 06-16-2005


Message 164 of 415 (498814)
02-14-2009 5:00 AM
Reply to: Message 157 by traste
02-14-2009 3:38 AM


Re: We have the building blocks ...
I dont think so that you absorb your mathemathics well.
And it appears that you have no understanding of evolution, abiogenesis, and mathematics. Not a good base from which to criticise others' knowledge.
Evolution implies randomness
No, of course it does not - it implies order, by the filtering action of natural selection. The large scale order we see in life is simply a function of its environment. The randomness in the genetic differences across a population simply provides the source data for the filter. If you have any understanding of a Monte-Carlo simulation, then this process will be obvious to you.
I dont hear any mathemathics supports evolution but mathemathics speak againts it.
I suggest you start learning mathematics AND evolution if you don't want to look like an idiot in front of those who do understand...

This message is a reply to:
 Message 157 by traste, posted 02-14-2009 3:38 AM traste has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 167 by traste, posted 02-14-2009 5:25 AM cavediver has replied
 Message 201 by traste, posted 02-15-2009 11:06 PM cavediver has not replied
 Message 207 by traste, posted 02-16-2009 12:54 AM cavediver has not replied

traste
Member (Idle past 5143 days)
Posts: 173
Joined: 02-09-2009


Message 165 of 415 (498815)
02-14-2009 5:14 AM
Reply to: Message 163 by anglagard
02-14-2009 4:54 AM


Re: We have the building blocks ...
Excuse me.That computation is not for natural selection,it is a computation for protein that they will get it just right through random chance. By the way natural selection does not explain how organism arrive but rather it explain how organism survive.Since Iam giving you a mathemathical proof,Ill ask you to give a mathemathical proof of evolution.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 163 by anglagard, posted 02-14-2009 4:54 AM anglagard has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 196 by Dr Adequate, posted 02-15-2009 6:57 PM traste has replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024