Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
7 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/7


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Is there a legitimate argument for design?
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 106 of 638 (720345)
02-21-2014 7:40 PM
Reply to: Message 105 by Omnivorous
02-21-2014 6:40 PM


same old same old
dadman writes:
however .. before we can continue ... we need to nail down this truth until all are onboard . . . I plan to leave no one behind
Too late.
Yeah, nobody's behind him. It's the old creationist-thinks-he's-the-big-answer-due-to-ignorance position that we've seen so many times before.

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 105 by Omnivorous, posted 02-21-2014 6:40 PM Omnivorous has not replied

  
Atheos canadensis
Member (Idle past 2997 days)
Posts: 141
Joined: 11-12-2013


Message 107 of 638 (720351)
02-22-2014 12:01 AM
Reply to: Message 99 by Stile
02-21-2014 3:16 PM


Re: pratt trolling
Well you called that one. I guess that's experience talking. Hopefully you and other experienced members will be able to head off any further sanctimonious pseudo-didactic coyness from dadman.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 99 by Stile, posted 02-21-2014 3:16 PM Stile has seen this message but not replied

  
herebedragons
Member (Idle past 857 days)
Posts: 1517
From: Michigan
Joined: 11-22-2009


(2)
Message 108 of 638 (720365)
02-22-2014 9:06 AM
Reply to: Message 86 by dadman
02-21-2014 2:04 PM


Re: okay: I'll give you all a hint
I just laid a book on the table ... it's 5 inches thick ... can someone name for me all the elements involved in all books in general .. here, let me start by claiming: paper (matter) / ink (matter) .. if you burn a book you might get some (energy) .. what else is involved ... maby glue (matter) ... what else (not related to matter or energy) .........
Man ... what ... is ... up ... with ... the ... ellipses ... ? and I thought I overused them
So a book has matter, energy - potential (at rest), kinetic (if falling) and chemical (burning) - and information; all three elements required for life. Why is it not alive? Is there a fourth element that maybe you forgot to mention? Magic maybe?
HBD
Edited by herebedragons, : spelling error

Whoever calls me ignorant shares my own opinion. Sorrowfully and tacitly I recognize my ignorance, when I consider how much I lack of what my mind in its craving for knowledge is sighing for... I console myself with the consideration that this belongs to our common nature. - Francesco Petrarca
"Nothing is easier than to persuade people who want to be persuaded and already believe." - another Petrarca gem.
Ignorance is a most formidable opponent rivaled only by arrogance; but when the two join forces, one is all but invincible.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 86 by dadman, posted 02-21-2014 2:04 PM dadman has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 110 by RAZD, posted 02-22-2014 11:35 AM herebedragons has replied

  
herebedragons
Member (Idle past 857 days)
Posts: 1517
From: Michigan
Joined: 11-22-2009


(1)
Message 109 of 638 (720366)
02-22-2014 9:24 AM
Reply to: Message 83 by Stile
02-21-2014 12:10 PM


Re: science and life
Almost everywhere agrees that these are "Oxygen, Hydrogen and Carbon."
What about nitrogen and phosphorus? They get no respect as "elements of life."
Which seems to maybe, kinda indicate that the 3 elements of life are mass, energy and "the Breath of God."
I have thought about this kind of thing before. I mean why can we not just put all the components of a cell into a test tube, add a bit of ATP, a little heat and generate life? There IS something missing from that formula. Why is it that life only comes from other life? There is something that is being passed on - life. Not that dadmom has a clue; and I don't want to get into a "what is information" b.s. discussion.
Oh, and he ruined ellipses for me, now I feel stupid using them
HBD

Whoever calls me ignorant shares my own opinion. Sorrowfully and tacitly I recognize my ignorance, when I consider how much I lack of what my mind in its craving for knowledge is sighing for... I console myself with the consideration that this belongs to our common nature. - Francesco Petrarca
"Nothing is easier than to persuade people who want to be persuaded and already believe." - another Petrarca gem.
Ignorance is a most formidable opponent rivaled only by arrogance; but when the two join forces, one is all but invincible.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 83 by Stile, posted 02-21-2014 12:10 PM Stile has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 118 by Stile, posted 02-24-2014 9:28 AM herebedragons has not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 110 of 638 (720375)
02-22-2014 11:35 AM
Reply to: Message 108 by herebedragons
02-22-2014 9:06 AM


non-science non-sense
So a book has matter, energy - potential (at rest), kinetic (if falling) and chemical (burning) - and information; all three elements required for life. Why is it not alive? Is there a fourth element that maybe you forgot to mention? Magic maybe?
Again, this is demonstration that his description of "life" is invalid (unless you do consider books to be alive). So it's just non-science non-sense.
We've seen a whole thread on the Definition of Life and it didn't include these "elements" ... because they are not terms that differentiate life from non-life:
quote:
Message 69: See wikipedia
Life - Wikipedia
particularly the "conventional definition"
Life - Wikipedia
While there is no universal agreement on the definition of life, scientists generally accept that the biological manifestation of life exhibits the following phenomena:
1. Organization - Living things are composed of one or more cells, which are the basic units of life.
2. Metabolism - Metabolism produces energy by converting nonliving material into cellular components (synthesis) and decomposing organic matter (catalysis). Living things require energy to maintain internal organization (homeostasis) and to produce the other phenomena associated with life.
3. Growth - Growth results from a higher rate of synthesis than catalysis. A growing organism increases in size in all of its parts, rather than simply accumulating matter. The particular species begins to multiply and expand as the evolution continues to flourish.
4. Adaptation - Adaptation is the accommodation of a living organism to its environment. It is fundamental to the process of evolution and is determined by the organism's heredity as well as the composition of metabolized substances, and external factors present.
5. Response to stimuli - A response can take many forms, from the contraction of a unicellular organism when touched to complex reactions involving all the senses of higher animals. A response is often expressed by motion: the leaves of a plant turning toward the sun or an animal chasing its prey.
6. Reproduction - The division of one cell to form two new cells is reproduction. Usually the term is applied to the production of a new individual (either asexually, from a single parent organism, or sexually, from at least two differing parent organisms), although strictly speaking it also describes the production of new cells in the process of growth.
(bold in the original)
(note the second wiki link above works, but it takes you to the same place as the first wiki link and should be replaced by Life - Wikipedia)
Now I have a simpler definition: life is something that is capable of evolution -- changes in the composition of hereditary traits, and changes to the frequency of their distributions within breeding populations from generation to generation, in response to ecological challenges and opportunities -- and this approach raises interesting questions in defining when life occurs and what we view as life.

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 108 by herebedragons, posted 02-22-2014 9:06 AM herebedragons has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 111 by herebedragons, posted 02-22-2014 12:11 PM RAZD has replied

  
herebedragons
Member (Idle past 857 days)
Posts: 1517
From: Michigan
Joined: 11-22-2009


Message 111 of 638 (720379)
02-22-2014 12:11 PM
Reply to: Message 110 by RAZD
02-22-2014 11:35 AM


Re: non-science non-sense
life is something that is capable of evolution -- changes in the composition of hereditary traits, and changes to the frequency of their distributions within breeding populations from generation to generation, in response to ecological challenges and opportunities
Maybe change "breeding" to "reproducing" otherwise it would exclude non-sexual populations. But other than that I think that definition fits rather well.
and this approach raises interesting questions in defining when life occurs
This definition could only apply on a population basis, since a organism could be born sterile and incapable of reproduction, and therefore, as an individual, not part of the breeding or reproducing population but still be considered alive.
and what we view as life.
Yea, defining life is kind of like defining species; we intuitively know what it means but to create a one-size-fits-all definition is rather elusive.
Do you consider viruses to be alive?
HBD

Whoever calls me ignorant shares my own opinion. Sorrowfully and tacitly I recognize my ignorance, when I consider how much I lack of what my mind in its craving for knowledge is sighing for... I console myself with the consideration that this belongs to our common nature. - Francesco Petrarca
"Nothing is easier than to persuade people who want to be persuaded and already believe." - another Petrarca gem.
Ignorance is a most formidable opponent rivaled only by arrogance; but when the two join forces, one is all but invincible.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 110 by RAZD, posted 02-22-2014 11:35 AM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 112 by RAZD, posted 02-22-2014 12:42 PM herebedragons has not replied
 Message 119 by Stile, posted 02-24-2014 9:45 AM herebedragons has not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 112 of 638 (720383)
02-22-2014 12:42 PM
Reply to: Message 111 by herebedragons
02-22-2014 12:11 PM


Re: non-science non-sense
Maybe change "breeding" to "reproducing" otherwise it would exclude non-sexual populations. But other than that I think that definition fits rather well.
I think breeding still works for asexual organisms.
breeding noun
1. the producing of offspring.
This definition could only apply on a population basis, since a organism could be born sterile and incapable of reproduction, and therefore, as an individual, not part of the breeding or reproducing population but still be considered alive.
Or of a non-reproductive age (too young, too old).
Do you consider viruses to be alive?
I do, I believe they are the remnants of life in the RNA world, and thus represent a primitive form of life, where prokaryotes are more derived life, and eukaryotes are even more derived.
They are the stepping stone between replicating molecules and cellular life.
Edited by RAZD, : fixed first quote

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 111 by herebedragons, posted 02-22-2014 12:11 PM herebedragons has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 113 by NoNukes, posted 02-22-2014 11:24 PM RAZD has replied

  
NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 113 of 638 (720408)
02-22-2014 11:24 PM
Reply to: Message 112 by RAZD
02-22-2014 12:42 PM


Re: non-science non-sense
I think breeding still works for asexual organisms.
breeding noun
1. the producing of offspring.
The terminology is problematic for some types of organisms. When one bacteria becomes two, is either one an 'offspring'?

Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)
I have never met a man so ignorant that I couldn't learn something from him. Galileo Galilei
If there is no struggle, there is no progress. Those who profess to favor freedom, and deprecate agitation, are men who want crops without plowing up the ground, they want rain without thunder and lightning. Frederick Douglass

This message is a reply to:
 Message 112 by RAZD, posted 02-22-2014 12:42 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 114 by RAZD, posted 02-23-2014 7:31 AM NoNukes has replied
 Message 122 by Meddle, posted 02-24-2014 5:28 PM NoNukes has seen this message but not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 114 of 638 (720421)
02-23-2014 7:31 AM
Reply to: Message 113 by NoNukes
02-22-2014 11:24 PM


Re: non-science non-sense
yes

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 113 by NoNukes, posted 02-22-2014 11:24 PM NoNukes has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 115 by NoNukes, posted 02-23-2014 7:01 PM RAZD has seen this message but not replied

  
NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 115 of 638 (720447)
02-23-2014 7:01 PM
Reply to: Message 114 by RAZD
02-23-2014 7:31 AM


Re: non-science non-sense
NoNukes writes:
When one bacteria becomes two, is either one an 'offspring'?
RAZD writes:
yes
Which one is the offspring? The one on the left?

Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)
I have never met a man so ignorant that I couldn't learn something from him. Galileo Galilei
If there is no struggle, there is no progress. Those who profess to favor freedom, and deprecate agitation, are men who want crops without plowing up the ground, they want rain without thunder and lightning. Frederick Douglass

This message is a reply to:
 Message 114 by RAZD, posted 02-23-2014 7:31 AM RAZD has seen this message but not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 116 by Omnivorous, posted 02-23-2014 9:35 PM NoNukes has not replied

  
Omnivorous
Member
Posts: 3978
From: Adirondackia
Joined: 07-21-2005
Member Rating: 7.3


(4)
Message 116 of 638 (720449)
02-23-2014 9:35 PM
Reply to: Message 115 by NoNukes
02-23-2014 7:01 PM


Re: non-science non-sense
NoNukes writes:
Which one is the offspring? The one on the left?
In my experience, the one's on the right are always a little off.
Anyway, you have to teach offspring:
"When an amoeba loves itself very much..."

"If you can keep your head while those around you are losing theirs, you can collect a lot of heads."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 115 by NoNukes, posted 02-23-2014 7:01 PM NoNukes has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 117 by RAZD, posted 02-23-2014 9:50 PM Omnivorous has not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


(2)
Message 117 of 638 (720450)
02-23-2014 9:50 PM
Reply to: Message 116 by Omnivorous
02-23-2014 9:35 PM


Re: non-science non-sense
ah yes the old omnipresent amorphous amorous amoeba ...
NoNukes writes:
Which one is the offspring? The one on the left?
In my experience, the one's on the right are always a little off.
hint: offspring are generically generally genetically different from their geriatric parents ...

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 116 by Omnivorous, posted 02-23-2014 9:35 PM Omnivorous has not replied

  
Stile
Member
Posts: 4295
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004


Message 118 of 638 (720478)
02-24-2014 9:28 AM
Reply to: Message 109 by herebedragons
02-22-2014 9:24 AM


Re: science and life
herebedragons writes:
What about nitrogen and phosphorus? They get no respect as "elements of life."
If you're wondering... they actually were mentioned a lot in my web-searchings. But I just stuck to the main 3 here for simplicity.
I mean why can we not just put all the components of a cell into a test tube, add a bit of ATP, a little heat and generate life?
I'm not very well versed in the biological sciences.
My guess, however, would be to make the airplane-in-a-junk pile analogy:
You can add all the parts for an airplane into a giant shaker, including a dude to put them together, a whack of energy and pages and pages of directional blueprints... no matter how much you stir it up, you're not going to get an airplane out of it.
There IS something missing from that formula.
For sure. Maybe it's something we haven't discovered yet.
But (and I think this is more likely), maybe it's just a part of the process that needs to be done in the correct way that we don't know enough about yet.
If it helps... I can all but guarantee that the first cell was not created by jamming stuff into a test tube and shaking it around...
Why is it that life only comes from other life?
I don't think this is true.
Just 'cause we don't currently know exactly how it happens doesn't mean we can't ever know, or that it's impossible.
In fact, we have much evidence to say that life does indeed come from non-life.
4 billion years ago the planet was devoid of life.
3 billion years ago the planet had some life.
What happened in that billion years? Is it something that took a billion years? A few million? An instant?
Again... I can guarantee that a test-tube was not involved
There is something that is being passed on - life.
I will certainly admit that this is the easier way to create life: get it from pre-existing life.
But the evidence tells us that this is not the only way.
Oh, and he ruined ellipses for me, now I feel stupid using them.
Yeah, me too. But, it also made me realize that I use "quotes" around words too much... so I'm trying to cut down on that too.
Edited by Stile, : Injected: Life.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 109 by herebedragons, posted 02-22-2014 9:24 AM herebedragons has not replied

  
Stile
Member
Posts: 4295
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004


Message 119 of 638 (720480)
02-24-2014 9:45 AM
Reply to: Message 111 by herebedragons
02-22-2014 12:11 PM


Re: non-science non-sense
herebedragons writes:
Yea, defining life is kind of like defining species; we intuitively know what it means but to create a one-size-fits-all definition is rather elusive.
Yes, very much so.
We also need to remember that definitions are human constructs. Just ideas we've imagined in order to make things simpler to understand for ourselves. (I'm not really sure where this post is going... I'm just rambling, feel free to ignore me).
We make classifications so that we can organize things into simpler terms.
But none of these definitions actually force what they represent to be anything more than they actually are.
Did you know that cats just think their owners are big cats?
We have this propensity in ourselves, too... to think that things are the way we are. To think that everyone thinks the way we think... and when people see things differently... they're just weird.
Our intelligence allows us to understand differently... that sometimes people are just different and think in different ways. This doesn't make them weird... just different.
Our classifications are ways to divide things, but in the end, we're all just energy and matter.
Cats see us as big cats... and we may think that's strange because we're not the same species.
But are they really all that wrong?
We may not actually be cats... but we are animals, the same as cats. We're also both mammals. And we're both vertebrates. At certain levels, we are the same... just different representations.
Sometimes if we get too "accustomed" to our classifications they can force us into believing the divisions are more than they actually are.
I'm not saying "we are cats." I'm saying that if we focus on our differences (external appearance), we can begin to create a barrier from seeing our similarities.
My point, getting back to life/non-life, is that maybe there's not such a huge distinction between life and non-life.
Maybe it's just a big human construct and we want there to be a huge distinction because it makes us feel special.
But, really, what makes you and I more special than a rock?
I'm not trying to go down some human-lives-are-worthless road... I'm just trying to explore the actual reality behind everything. Seriously... is there anything.. anything objectively from reality (in a not-from-humans context) that says people are really more special than rocks?
Maybe rocks are part of the process that is required in order to have "life"?
For one... we wouldn't be here without our planet, and our planet is, indeed, made of rock.
Meh... that's enough rambling for today.
I wish I knew more biological sciencey stuff... then I wouldn't be left with thinking of philosophical mumbo-jumbo instead.
If we do want real answers... the biological sciences are our best bet, I would think.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 111 by herebedragons, posted 02-22-2014 12:11 PM herebedragons has not replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 9972
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.5


(2)
Message 120 of 638 (720513)
02-24-2014 3:30 PM
Reply to: Message 94 by dadman
02-21-2014 2:42 PM


Re: very good stile .... you are correct
information is the correct answer . . . now, how do I plan to make the connection to all life ?
Every single chemical and physical state has information. Finding information is not a way to distinguish life from non-life.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 94 by dadman, posted 02-21-2014 2:42 PM dadman has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024