|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 66 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,483 Year: 3,740/9,624 Month: 611/974 Week: 224/276 Day: 64/34 Hour: 1/2 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: The Simplest Protein of Life | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Alfred Maddenstein Member (Idle past 3989 days) Posts: 565 Joined: |
I translated for you the sentence the Universe is 13.7 billions years old and you agree it makes no sense.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Alfred Maddenstein Member (Idle past 3989 days) Posts: 565 Joined: |
Not the cat's impression, Coy. What ulterior motives ID theorists may or may not have is irrelevant. Anybody is motivated by something or other. They may crave to have been designed and created by a highly intelligent friend. What's wrong with that motivation if it helps to do the job well?
And their job is to aim for the jugular of you lot's contradictions. If they find the target and strike it well, the cat is satisfied. That serves the advance of science better than you do. The point is if you build your hypothesis on impossible premises, somebody will knock it down. Face it, something from nothing you borrow from bigbangism is invalid. Impossible creationism. They point it out to you. Instead of thanking them for identifying your conceptual errors you lot go into impotent rage. How scientific is that? Edited by Alfred Maddenstein, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Alfred Maddenstein Member (Idle past 3989 days) Posts: 565 Joined: |
That's not what they mean though, Oni. The theory goes that 13.7 billion years away from here the absence of space and time and matter was no more. Whereas if that is just the observable cosmos is of that age like it is in your sentence, then it is an entirely different proposition.
Not an explosion of space. Then the observable part of cosmos is expanding into the unobservable part of it. Matter moving in outward uniform direction into the accommodating outside volume, not space itself expanding and the measurable duration of that process since its beginning till the present day is 13.7 billion years. Is that what you believe is the case? Edited by Alfred Maddenstein, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Alfred Maddenstein Member (Idle past 3989 days) Posts: 565 Joined: |
I said for my purposes, which are the advancement of My understanding and not the conservation of any one's dogma. So for those purposes the book on life's origins by Thaxton, Olsen and Bradley is as good as the one by Robert Shapiro. I could not care less whether either of them was peer-reviewed or not and which side any of the authors were on.
Yes, abiogenesis as such is something from something, yet it is Dawkins who is talking with his head deep in the arse of Hawking and not the other way round. Speculative cosmogony puts constraints on biology, whereas it should by rights be the other way round. Edited by Alfred Maddenstein, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Alfred Maddenstein Member (Idle past 3989 days) Posts: 565 Joined: |
They use information to mean anything it could be possibly derived from. Any cause is information that could be possibly read in any effect. This way the cat loves to debunk the blackholists' concept of an event horizon where the flow of information is allegedly in one and only direction - across the horizon and into the purported hole. The moggy points out that the gravity the hole is exerting on the rest of the galaxy is passing oodles of information from the hole to the galaxy and further to Penrose and Hawking heads.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Alfred Maddenstein Member (Idle past 3989 days) Posts: 565 Joined: |
No, you don't get it. The Universe may not have any origin necessarily and by definition. Therefore as the Universe may not have any measurable age and is a collective idea not compatible with the notion of age or duration, life might not have any traceable origin or age either.
Whereas the speculative consensus-nonsensus cosmogony definitely claims that the Universe, ie, the existence as a whole and as such is 13.7 billion years old. That, if accepted at face-value makes life as such to be necessarily no older than that. No life is logically possible in an absence of the Universe. That is the constraint on biology put by the fancy cosmogony the cat is talking about. You lot don't take hints. You need everything chewed carefully out. Edited by Alfred Maddenstein, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Alfred Maddenstein Member (Idle past 3989 days) Posts: 565 Joined: |
No, that is nothing but your conjectures and bare assertion. Solar system is an island in the galaxy but is not by any means a perfectly isolated system. Exchange of matter between star systems is slow but steady. Extremophiles are known to last for millions of years as endospores so life could well be dormant inside rocks, comets, planet debris, rogue planets captured by new suns and so on. The Solar System formation is not understood any too well either.
These ideas are present now even in the dogmatic mainstream. The cat read not so long ago a paper by a Spanish astrobiologists team where they ran a computer simulation of such a process claiming that such was the most likely way life had first appeared on earth.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Alfred Maddenstein Member (Idle past 3989 days) Posts: 565 Joined: |
I must admit, Percy, that I am well and truly puzzled by the whole thing. I've no facile explanation. Any death escaping machine is a mind-boggling structure. The cat got no clue.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Alfred Maddenstein Member (Idle past 3989 days) Posts: 565 Joined: |
You read too much into it, Larn. Did I say I had no clue about the natural origin and evolution of your dogma? That's transparent, silly. The entire mechanism is clear, no missing bits.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Alfred Maddenstein Member (Idle past 3989 days) Posts: 565 Joined: |
That's different from quanta, silly. I am a death escaping machine myself. I may have no clue about the prospects of chemical evolution you propose but I can read languages so I can read enough of what you write to conclude that first you have even less of a clue and second is that you cheat on top of that. That's my communication to you and that is quite different from the method snowflakes pass information to the same you. Got it?
You don't like the cat? Poor dear. You want the circle jerk with your mates undisturbed here? Is that what you want? Or you rather fancy a back-patting competition with them? For the sake of overkill. All causal action is passing of information. Not all causal action is coded passing of information. What is the purpose of the code? To modify and neutralise the way the chemical interactions of the inert would run otherwise. That is very cunning of the living machines. None of the causal action of the inert is cunning in that fashion. Why? It has no purposes to stay in one intricate piece. Molecules just don't care one way or the other. None of the chemical interactions however intricate and complicated exhibit that cunning. Some of the causal action of the death escaping machines is coded in that way and some is not. Some is going the way the snowflake communicates. That leads to the conclusion that all life is intelligent in principle and in a way none of non-life is. How do you explain that? Either the intelligence is imparted by an outside agent like the ID people want to believe or it is intrinsic to life which is always present. If you contest that you need to show the mechanism of transition of the inert into the intelligent and that is exactly what you lot fail to do to the delight of ID folks.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Alfred Maddenstein Member (Idle past 3989 days) Posts: 565 Joined: |
No, problem, Taq. The only objection is the use of we. If you need to move the assumed origin further away, no problem. Just don't say we because it is only who assumes anything as a fact. I don't. I see life coming from life only. Other scenarios I do not observe so just take note of them without taking anything for granted.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Alfred Maddenstein Member (Idle past 3989 days) Posts: 565 Joined: |
Sorry, that is your trouble not mine. It is your beliefs that are immaterial. My belief that life comes from another life is easy to support. Apart from your words the evidence life has come from non-life that are in your possession is zero exactly. Zilch, remember? So trim your chutzpah down in accordance to that magnitude.
Edited by Alfred Maddenstein, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Alfred Maddenstein Member (Idle past 3989 days) Posts: 565 Joined: |
I already explained that but you failed to pay attention or your memory is selective so I repeat. Death-escaping does not mean immortal. It is continuous tense. An individual machine like you escapes death while it can only. It's the aim of its actions only not hitting the target always. Understand? No eternal guarantee of success. Not forever. A system of death escaping machines might last longer or indefinitely and so on. That is open.
Inert in this context means not alive and not completely still or not chemically reacting.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Alfred Maddenstein Member (Idle past 3989 days) Posts: 565 Joined: |
I said I take a good note that the concept that life may come from non-living matter by an unspecified gradual chemical process is present in people's minds. And I take a good note that there is another concept that life may come about from a supremely intelligent, powerful object called God equally poorly specified.
That is all I can do with these concepts and no more. Take a good note of them, assume the proposals at face-value without reservation and see what may be the logical implications and consequences of each, what the inherent contradictions are and what their strong points seem to be and so on. Not take either of them for a fact of nature. Life coming from another life is an entirely different kettle of fish as this is a given fact of nature so is the only scenario that may be taken for granted thus far. Sorry.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Alfred Maddenstein Member (Idle past 3989 days) Posts: 565 Joined: |
What else the living are replicating for if not to escape death, silly? Only the bluntly dumb need this to be chewed out for them. That descriptor fully implies the frantic tendency for replication. Love is compensation for death as Schopenhauer and Freud pointed out. That is common to all the living. It captures what exactly the machines aim to do and the intensity of that goal which distinguishes them from other configurations of matter.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024