A debate about debates by dreamtrove

Quote:
Originally posted by SevenPercent:
You know the saying "you can lead a horse to water?" There should be one for Creationists.

He who arrives at a conclusion by faith cannot be moved by reason

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, October 16, 2006 3:42 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Quote:
Are the fruit flies that have been experimented on to show the effects of mutations after thousands of generations still, well,...fruit flies? All phenotypes of cows, humans, cats, and dogs have always been here.

So. uh, speaking of missing links... if the phenotypes have always been here, where are their fossils?

---------------------------------
Reality sucks. Especially when it contradicts our cherished ideas.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, October 16, 2006 4:09 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

While science is not competing with religion it can in fact destroy it. The two can only exist together insofar as the human mind can believe two contradictory thoughts at the same time... which is a well-known human phenomenon. The basis for religion is "belief" in something that is not proven by... and in some cases is contradicted by... observable evidence. Many religions can be described as delusional because RELIGION IS NOT SELF CORRECTING. The touchstone for science is observation of the material world. THe method of science fosters self-correction.

---------------------------------
Reality sucks. Especially when it contradicts our cherished ideas.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, October 16, 2006 5:30 AM

Citz wrote,
"Species adaption through survival of the fittest is a form of evolution, and has been soundly proven."

"Micro-Evolution is a fact. The sticking point is Macro-Evolution, and whether it takes place and/or the mechanisms behind it."

"Macro-Evolution being impossible? What they disproved one mechanism?"

Once again, Natural selection is not a form of evolution. When you understand that I will allow you to have an opinion on the matter.
How do you go from the whole "sticky" thingy to scientific fact, in regards to macro-evolution, in a week? Wash would be proud, Citz, you are like a leaf on the wind.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, October 16, 2006 5:33 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

So BTW- where ARE those cat/ dog/ human fossils?

---------------------------------
Reality sucks. Especially when it contradicts our cherished ideas.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, October 16, 2006 5:34 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Quote:
So. uh, speaking of missing links... if the phenotypes have always been here, where are their fossils?

---------------------------------
Reality sucks. Especially when it contradicts our cherished ideas.

Everywhere. You can see them at your local farm. That's if they display their fossils.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, October 16, 2006 6:05 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by kaneman:
Citz wrote,
"Species adaption through survival of the fittest is a form of evolution, and has been soundly proven."

"Micro-Evolution is a fact. The sticking point is Macro-Evolution, and whether it takes place and/or the mechanisms behind it."

"Macro-Evolution being impossible? What they disproved one mechanism?"

Once again, Natural selection is not a form of evolution. When you understand that I will allow you to have an opinion on the matter.
How do you go from the whole "sticky" thingy to scientific fact, in regards to macro-evolution, in a week? Wash would be proud, Citz, you are like a leaf on the wind.

Natural Selection was proposed by Darwin as the mechanism for species adaption ala-Micro-Evolution. There was no concept of Natural Selection via Survival of the Fittest until Darwin proposed it as part of his theory of Evolution. When you understand this very simple concept, stop lying and stop being a Troll, I'll allow you to have an opinion on the matter.

Now dear, Macro Evolution is a sticking point because unlike Micro Evolution it's mechanisms are not understood. But saying Macro-Evolution hasn't been shown to happen is like saying Gravity doesn't exist because we don't know how it works, i.e. idiotic. Maybe its actually intelligent falling:
http://www.theonion.com/content/node/39512

Species changing, becoming different species over time, proven scientific fact. How it works, like Gravity, is not known.

The whether it takes place part is more specific to the scientific theories, I wasn't commentating on whether more complex species have appeared from less complex ones over millenia. Besides me saying one thing last week and a different thing this week doesn't mean science has changed over the week, merely that I've done more research, read up on the subject and come to a different understanding.

You know, understanding, that thing you can't do

.

What's next on your bullshit triad? Continental Drift doesn't occur because you can't see it perhaps?

Oh and I notice that you're better Scientific theory to better fit the available evidence than evolution is not forth coming. You just spouted more bullshit instead, now do we remember what I said that meant?

Yes it means you're full of shit and don't know what you are talking about

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, October 16, 2006 10:09 AM

Casual,

Not lumping anyone in. Just saying, this debate serves nefarious ends. I don't object to holocaust questioning, the official story is full of unquestioned bogosity, but holocaust denial is stupid. My ancestors, and a lot of other people's, were killed in the holocaust, it's hard to deny a historical event. But there's a lot of quibbling to be done. I'm in favor of a debate *on* evolution. But not a debate on the *existance* of evolution. That's either a really dumb idea, or it's totally malicious. My strong suspicious is that it's totally malicious. We should not be drawn into a debate that was essentially created for radical revisionist purposes.

Back to the holocaust. If someone opens a debate to argue the pro-nazi version vs. the jew version, they might be maliciously trying to rewrite history to say "nazis were good decent caring people who never harmed anyone" which is nonsense, holocaust aside, they depopulated whole towns in europe during their military campaigns. But if someone raises a question of "the nazis didn't kill *these particular people*, but that was the soviets" then that's a different story, which turned out to be the case in th first polish camp.

So sure, an *unquestioning* evolution would be like a new religious dogma, but evolution does not need to question its own existance, only what evolved from what where and why, or how.

Evolution is history and statistics, it's not a strong parallel to cosmology. There's a hell of a lot of speculation left in cosmology. There's not a lot of wiggle room in the fossil record.

I think you may be missing the part where efforts to turn evolution into a debate are malicious.

Let me explain:

I read this piece a while back on Henry Regnery of Regnery Publishing, a right wing small press. The article was by a guy who had worked for him, and with him. He said Regnery had one secret which was his ability to create argument out of air. The strategy was to take a known fact, and create its antithesis as a position, and then set the two in opposition, creating a controversial debate. Then he would hope for one of two things: 1) a generally accepted compromise which was somewhere closer to his invented position than the accepted fact was, or 2) to force a wide popular schism and siphon off a small portion of the population into his extremist position.

This sort of this isn't honest and open debate, and it's a waste of everyone's time. It's also a malicious rhetorical trick which makes debate out of knowns, and falsehood out of fact, and does so intentionally. I am very sure this is what is going on in this case.

This is not even in the same galaxy as Einstein. If there were a mountain of evidence threatening the supremacy of biological evolution as accepted science, then we would have a debate. This is what happened in every case of those old science theories. Intelligent design isn't a new theory of science with evidence. It's the old religious doctrine with a new set of shoes. ID'ers are the Einsteins, evolutionists are still the Einsteins. The truth is, that sadly, though most people now accept evolution on the face of it, because of the overwhelming evidence, their thinking is still pre-evolution.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, October 16, 2006 10:24 AM

Citizen,

You might win *this* debate that way, but you lose the concept of *debate*. There is a reason for the title of this thread, I think that the evolution so called debate and several like it are attempting to assault the concept of debate in much the way that Bush and Blair have assaulted the concept of process.

Cartoon isn't the problem, I think he's reasonably reasonable, he's just sounding off as what he perceives as my Kim Jong Il stance on debates. But I think he's missing the point. It's not about silencing debate, it's about stopping corruption before it's out of control.

Free speech is not about one person gets to say anything, and no one can countermand it. If it were, Pfizer would say "Vioxx cures AIDS, Acne and old age" and they would make a lot of money. If the creationists say "now we'll discuss these two competing sciences" I get to throw my surgeon generals warning in that says "these are not competing sciences, and there is no debate between them" If they want to go on and say "Now I will spout my religious dogma" there is nothing I can, or should, do to stop them. But when *all* parties are allowed to speak, not just the purveyors of the new information, everything gets properly identified as what it actually is, and the people are not mislead. Which is what this so-called debate about evolution is trying to do, to mislead the public.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, October 16, 2006 10:27 AM

Kaneman,

This seems like a silly argument on the genome. I think Rue understands the science here.

You can change a genome. I can change a genome, at least in theory. If I make a retrovirus than splices genes back into the system. Anyone can do it by exposing people to existing retroviruses, though not with any desireable results, and also, it's not a nice thing to do.

But, scientifically, it's all kinds of possible.

Edit: I see now that Citizen already said this

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, October 16, 2006 10:30 AM

Mi di di da

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, October 16, 2006 10:33 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by dreamtrove:
Citizen,

You might win *this* debate that way, but you lose the concept of *debate*. There is a reason for the title of this thread, I think that the evolution so called debate and several like it are attempting to assault the concept of debate in much the way that Bush and Blair have assaulted the concept of process.

Cartoon isn't the problem, I think he's reasonably reasonable, he's just sounding off as what he perceives as my Kim Jong Il stance on debates. But I think he's missing the point. It's not about silencing debate, it's about stopping corruption before it's out of control.

Free speech is not about one person gets to say anything, and no one can countermand it. If it were, Pfizer would say "Vioxx cures AIDS, Acne and old age" and they would make a lot of money. If the creationists say "now we'll discuss these two competing sciences" I get to throw my surgeon generals warning in that says "these are not competing sciences, and there is no debate between them" If they want to go on and say "Now I will spout my religious dogma" there is nothing I can, or should, do to stop them. But when *all* parties are allowed to speak, not just the purveyors of the new information, everything gets properly identified as what it actually is, and the people are not mislead. Which is what this so-called debate about evolution is trying to do, to mislead the public.

Cartoon isn't reasonable. I indicated that some fanatical Christians want a war on Science, they want to destory science and freedom of speech in order to force Christianity on all, and go back to the good old dark ages, complete with stoning of heretics.

Cartoon is one of these Christians.

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, October 16, 2006 10:45 AM

Frem,

In my book. I think you took issue with some of my right wing positions, at other times you come across as a right wing extremist, but generally speaking, I think there are basically two crowds, the partisans and moderates, and then there are hybrids of those.

Antimason,

Quote:
we're not trying to compete with you Citizen, i think we can find a lot of common ground.

Which sounds good, but sometimes compromise is what the fraud was about in the first place. If someone backs off from the position of "let's rape all the women" to "only the cute ones" that's not really a compromise.

If you want a better theory, place it within the conept of science, somewhere, in a way which fits with the dataset we all have to work with. If you don't, then stay out of science, call it religion, and present it as such. But recognize that religion doesn't cancel science anymore than it cancels history. If a religious group fails to believe in the existance of Rome, that doesn't mean there was never a Rome, or that anyone else should seek compromise of a middleground on the issue of Rome's existance.

Everyone

Quote:
Kaneman: Ciizen wrote...

Which is the problem. No offense, seriously, but the problem with this debate is that the scientific work of 150 years should not be forced to stand on Citizen's ability to argue the point. Which is why we shouldn't argue the point. Which is not to nitpick his arguments, just to say that you can't defeat evolution by defeating Citizen.
I'm sure Citizen puts a fair amount of time into his efforts to explain, and a fair amount of emotional investment, but this actually weakens the case. The record is the record, and can stand on itself. The constitution of the united states shouldn't have to stand on my ability to defend it, or anyone elses. If you choose to abandon it, just say so, if you choose to abandon science, just say so, but PLEASE, PEOPLE, recognize that this is a SCIENCE FICTION FORUM. This is not a community of creationists and theocrats, there are endless forums for that sort of thing, which are not here.

The basic premise of this show, which, yes, does deal with religion, is still science, and it deals with a world of scientific realities and possibilities, even when its biochemistry doesn't quite make sense. (Because the theory of biochemistry shouldn't have to stand on Joss Whedon's understanding of it)

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, October 16, 2006 11:12 AM

Debate the debate, I didn't create another thread to debate the merits of evolution and it's equal counterpart, creationism.

For the record, dogs were not always here, dogs are a kind of cat. descended from cats. etc. Whales and dolphins are dogs, humans are monkeys, and monkeys are mice. Got a problem with that? prove me wrong. Until then, shut up and sit down.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, October 16, 2006 11:12 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by dreamtrove:
Kaneman,

This seems like a silly argument on the genome. I think Rue understands the science here.

You can change a genome. I can change a genome, at least in theory. If I make a retrovirus than splices genes back into the system. Anyone can do it by exposing people to existing retroviruses, though not with any desireable results, and also, it's not a nice thing to do.

But, scientifically, it's all kinds of possible.

Edit: I see now that Citizen already said this

Not if the earth is 100,000 yrs or 46 billion yrs old. It has been easily proven by statistics that it is impossible to go from nothing - one protein - one lipid - an organism that contains one gazillion of aft fore- mentioned parts . Never mind going from that to something that has even one chromosome(which "houses" thousands of genes"which are millions of proteins to create amino acids" to a poly-chromosomal organism that contains Gazillions of proteins that makes gazillion more amino acids that in turn makes a gazillion amino acids that work together to produce an organism that can debate this.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, October 16, 2006 12:11 PM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Quote:
So. uh, speaking of missing links... if the phenotypes have always been here, where are their fossils?-Signy

Everywhere. You can see them at your local farm. That's if they display their fossils.- Kaneman

WHOA!! That non-responsive answer deserves -10 credibility points!

---------------------------------
Reality sucks. Especially when it contradicts our cherished ideas.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, October 16, 2006 12:36 PM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

In fact, maybe we should have some kind of scorekeeping... like in a formal debate. That would keep people like Kaneman from his trollish answers. or at least point them out. It seems like a person who loses more points than they earn should get ignored for a month, no matter WHAT they post.

---------------------------------
Reality sucks. Especially when it contradicts our cherished ideas.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, October 16, 2006 4:00 PM

Quote:

Not if the earth is 100,000 yrs or 46 billion yrs old. It has been easily proven by statistics that it is impossible to go from nothing - one protein - one lipid - an organism that contains one gazillion of aft fore- mentioned parts . Never mind going from that to something that has even one chromosome(which "houses" thousands of genes"which are millions of proteins to create amino acids" to a poly-chromosomal organism that contains Gazillions of proteins that makes gazillion more amino acids that in turn makes a gazillion amino acids that work together to produce an organism that can debate this.

Case in point. One would not want Kaneman's argument to stand on Kaneman. I read this twice and could not make hide nor hair our of it. I think this may well be the most illiterate post ever.

If you're saying that you can't go from a single molecule to a complex life form by random chance, you don't have to. Once you have a very simple life form, it starts exerting its will to cause more molecular interaction. To go from a simple molecule to a simple life form is far from impossible. Consider all the alien forms of life on earth: cellular organisms, ten unrelated families, plus viruses, mitochondria and prions.

Evolutionists say "oh, they all share a dna coding style and a membrane, they must be related" maybe, maybe not. There's a tremendous amount of congegation going on, after a million years or so, everyone would be using the optimum membrane, everyone would be using the common gene coding. Mitochondria don't use the common coding scheme, but then, they're not in a position to engage in conjugation, so it wouldn't apply.

It's like the eyeball question. Why do a human and an octupus have more or less the same eye? Discarding the idea that humans are related to an octopus, which has no real scientific basis to be so, Competing theories are that a) there's only one way to make an eye., which though possible, I suspect fails the reality test, since there are other types of eyes, or b) which I prefer, which is that some genetic editor transfered the genes of the eye from one ancestor of octupus to one ancestor of humans. But who knows for sure?

So, lots of ways to make life. Probably a wide variety before DNA came along, but dna made such a whopped of a life form that it ate everyone else. After all, if organisms from a million years ago are extinct and microorganisms from last year, than what chance would there be that a micro micro organism from 4 billion years ago never got turned into plankton chow?

Evolutions #1 winner:

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, October 16, 2006 4:09 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by dreamtrove:
Quote:

Not if the earth is 100,000 yrs or 46 billion yrs old. It has been easily proven by statistics that it is impossible to go from nothing - one protein - one lipid - an organism that contains one gazillion of aft fore- mentioned parts . Never mind going from that to something that has even one chromosome(which "houses" thousands of genes"which are millions of proteins to create amino acids" to a poly-chromosomal organism that contains Gazillions of proteins that makes gazillion more amino acids that in turn makes a gazillion amino acids that work together to produce an organism that can debate this.

Case in point. One would not want Kaneman's argument to stand on Kaneman. I read this twice and could not make hide nor hair our of it. I think this may well be the most illiterate post ever.

If you're saying that you can't go from a single molecule to a complex life form by random chance, you don't have to. Once you have a very simple life form, it starts exerting its will to cause more molecular interaction. To go from a simple molecule to a simple life form is far from impossible. Consider all the alien forms of life on earth: cellular organisms, ten unrelated families, plus viruses, mitochondria and prions.

Evolutionists say "oh, they all share a dna coding style and a membrane, they must be related" maybe, maybe not. There's a tremendous amount of congegation going on, after a million years or so, everyone would be using the optimum membrane, everyone would be using the common gene coding. Mitochondria don't use the common coding scheme, but then, they're not in a position to engage in conjugation, so it wouldn't apply.

It's like the eyeball question. Why do a human and an octupus have more or less the same eye? Discarding the idea that humans are related to an octopus, which has no real scientific basis to be so, Competing theories are that a) there's only one way to make an eye., which though possible, I suspect fails the reality test, since there are other types of eyes, or b) which I prefer, which is that some genetic editor transfered the genes of the eye from one ancestor of octupus to one ancestor of humans. But who knows for sure?

So, lots of ways to make life. Probably a wide variety before DNA came along, but dna made such a whopped of a life form that it ate everyone else. After all, if organisms from a million years ago are extinct and microorganisms from last year, than what chance would there be that a micro micro organism from 4 billion years ago never got turned into plankton chow?

Evolutions #1 winner:

Wrong again. What I am saying is you can not have a dendrealite turn into a a chromosome it has to be god!!!!

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, October 17, 2006 2:02 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Kaneman- Evolution has been simulated on computer many times over. Starting with a very simple code with only a few instructions (eat bits and multiply) with RANDOM code changes tossed in to simulate mutations, entire ecologies - primary producers, parasites, predators, symbiots, scavengers/ recyclers - have emerged. In other words: macroevolution occurred. I suggest you give up on the whole "macroevolution couldn't occur because of statistics" approach because it HAS been demonstrated mathematically than it can and does occur.

Now, if you're like me you're thinking- AHA! The program was "seeded" with a bit of self-replicating code. In "real life" where did this bit of code come from? THe answer is- I don't know. I'm not enough of a biologist to lay out a credible starting point. The question surely occupies a fair number of Noble-prize caliber biologists. But I'm enough of a chemist to know that self-replication occurs in something as simple as crystal formation, prion replication, and nanotechnology. It doesn't even need to be "alive" to eat, self replicate, and seed other areas.

I think the problem is that you can't imagine 4 billion years. Four billion years is a f*ck of a long time for chemicals to interact. Also, when you say "statistics" let us know what branch or study of "statistics" it is that "proves" that life couldn't have evolved by chance.

---------------------------------
SO anyway- where ARE those cat/dog/human fossils?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, October 17, 2006 4:31 AM

ANTIMASON

science is not really my field, so i stay away from the specifics of the evolution debate as best i can, but mainly because its not totally relevant to me. it doesnt lessen my appreciation, or curiosity, or understanding of how certain mechanisms work, i just 'believe' they were designed that way. i believe that the evolutions of species does occur, and i can imagine the universe came about in a similar process. the way i like to look at it is that its possible that the complexities of the physical universe may be governed by a higher 'brain' in another plane or dimension or something; and that this brain is God. i know there are some pretty intelligent astrophysicists and the like- who leave open the 'God' factor, so its not quite a dead concept, but maybe taking on a different context.

i realise that i am acting on 'faith' by favoring a concept that has no direct evidence, which i am not disputing(guilty as charged); i do think its an option though, and it allows me to leave open, as a wild card, the possibility that what we've alleged to be ancient mythology, may actually once have had some factual basis in reality. i know thats a leap for some, im not asking anyone to accept it, but it does feel relevant to me in the real world, given the progression of modern mans spiritual and religious archetypes and behavior; i think a lot has been covered up and removed from the public domain by the Vatican and other secret societies over time that illude to this, whether it literally happened or not.

i dont want to rule out that we could all be right, so thats where im at( and also why im prone to conspiracy theory.. )

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, October 17, 2006 5:26 AM

CARTOON

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Also, when you say "statistics" let us know what branch or study of "statistics" it is that "proves" that life couldn't have evolved by chance.

Hi.

I can't speak for Kaneman, but there are several pages of material which deals with the "statistics" of evolution from Heeren's Show Me God (to which I've previously referred elsewhere). Naturally, I cannot quote them all here, but I will quote a brief segment from just one of the places where Heeren addresses this.

As stated previously, in another thread, I recommend Heeren's book if you want a more complete picture (400 pages).

The following passage is from Heeren's "Show Me God" (pp 61-62)

Theorists are at a loss to explain how, even in a rich prebiotic soup filled with organic compounds, a sequence that creates the information necessary for life can be produced by any means where intelligence is not already involved. Using information theory, astrophysicist Edward Argyle calculated the probability that a simple organism arose on the early Earth by chance. Information theory measures information in "bits". A combination lock, for example, may contain 20 bits of information, representing about a million possible combinations.

Argyle concluded: "It would seem impossible for the prebiotic Earth to have generated more than about 200 bits of information, an amount that falls short of the 6 billion bits in E.coli [a species of bacteria] by a factor of 30,000."**

**When Argyle says that E.coli has an information content of 6 million bits, this means that it would require 10 to the 1,800,000th power of different possible cases or states for this to occur. We can get some sense of this number when we realize that scientists believe there to be 10 to the 80th power subatomic particles in the entire visible universe.

He also found that when he expanded the probability to include our entire galaxy (and assumed a billion earth-like planets), this combination of assumed pre-biotic soups still could not produce anything close to the amount of information in a simple virus.

(NASA astronomer) Michael Hart's calculations also demonstrate the difficulties in assuming abiogenesis as a common process. He wrote:

"The simplest known organism which is capable of independent existence includes about 100 different genes. For each of the 100 different specific genes to be formed spontaneously (in 10 billion years) the probability is (10 to the 30th power) to the 100th power = 10 to the 3,000th power. For them to be formed at the same time, and in close proximity, the probability is very much lower."

The result is that, for anyone who believes that the development of life is a truly random process, it appears unlikely, not only that life exists anywhere else in the universe at this moment, but that it will never ever exist anywhere else -- unless we are the ones who do the colonizing.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, October 17, 2006 7:06 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

I think what these scientists may be failing to account for is that once there is even a small piece of self-replicating protein it will, by nature of being more efficient than a random process, simply overtake all of the random reactions that are occuring. And any cahnges that result in being more efficient will overtake the ones that are less efficient, and so on. The major flaw in their appraoch is that they seem to be applying "random chance" math to a process that is self-replicating and self-honing.

---------------------------------
Reality sucks. Especially when it contradicts our cherished ideas.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, October 17, 2006 7:36 AM

CARTOON

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
I think what these scientists may be failing to account for is that once there is even a small piece of self-replicating protein it will, by nature of being more efficient than a random process, simply overtake all of the random reactions that are occuring. And any cahnges that result in being more efficient will overtake the ones that are less efficient, and so on. The major flaw in their appraoch is that they seem to be applying "random chance" math to a process that is self-replicating and self-honing.

I don't know. I'm neither a biologist nor a mathematician.

But, from what I can understand of what I've read on the subject, for something to become "self-replicating" in the first place, it needs to have a basic "code" (enabling it to be so), which by its very nature, would have to be arrived at either by a) chance (which, according to the above quotation, along with several other similar examples throughout Heeren's work, seems to lie beyond the scope of mathematical probability), or by b) design.

But, as I said, I'm neither a biologist nor a mathematician, so don't take my word for it. Check out the book. There's a lot more to it than the passage from which I've quoted. Whether or not you'll agree or disagree with its premises, I can't say. But, without reading all of it (in context), neither can anyone else.

I don't have the expertise to vouch for the scientific merit of the book, and they can easily have pulled the wool over my eyes. However, as I attempted to point out in the other thread -- there are those with far more credentials than any of us in here, who have endorsed the book. So, on that merit alone, it at least justifies a basic reading by anyone with an interest in the subject, one way or the other.

Thank you for the civil reply, btw.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, October 17, 2006 3:36 PM

Antimason,

Or we all could be wrong. You're a smart guy, you should study this stuff. What's going on underneath all of the accepted science is truly bizarre. I haven't been led to the conclusion that there is one operational consciouness guiding it, but it's really far stranger than our society seems to think. We have an accepted science which worships occums razor, and so the version of events we learn is probably inaccurate in that it's oversimplified. I'm fairly sure that natural selection by random mutation, pretty much accepted, is not actually what's going on here. But it's a lot closer to whats going on than creationism. Which is all why I say, I'd be happy to have a debate *about* evolution.

But here's a tip to take with you, if you choose to take this journey. As with all things in life, I always say, whether religious or scientific, political or personal, always check you're baggage at the door. set aside your preconceptions of what you want to find, and try to find what's really there. It's already damn near impossible without your own predisposition getting in the way.

I certainly have the feeling that what's really going on is far stranger than either standard point of view.

Myself I tend to limit what I believe in to the bones of what *has* to be true, covered with the flesh of what is closest to the truth, with the skin of what is most probably true of the remaining evidence. I tend to eschew that which does not *need* to be true, until the evidence supports it, or the need is mandated by the other facts.

Evolution *must* be true, in order for logic itself to make sense, how it happened and why is, sure, still up to debate. As a scientific debate, the one who falls closest to the truth, where ever that may be, not where you would like it to be, but where it turns out to be, is bound to be the winner.

The existance of a designer, for me, don't have to be true. The nature of existence doesn't mandate it. Doesn't mean it's false, but I can't believe in something which might blind me to other truths if I have no necessity for it.

Cartoon,

This is pretty well understood, I laid out what I thought was the winning argument a couple of posts ago. An early pro-biotic soup would not create complex life forms, it would create simple self replicating molecules, and "sticky" compounds, which would enhance future interact. A soup made of these, would make a more advanced form, and so on until it evolved into something we would recognize as 'life.' Each generation would like ly consume the generation before it, and only oddities would remain. It pretty much reflects, imho, what we see. Being the only logical explanation with any statistical possibility of success, I feel pretty sure that's a decent approximation of what happened.

It doesn't need a code to replicate. Prions replicate without a code, they're the sort of thing which would fit the pattern of what we're talking about here.

But all of this misses a key logical fallacy in the argument: The creation science crowd is arriving at a conclusion that they were predisposed to arrive at, which almost completely invalidates anything they say. If someone sets out with the preconception that black people are dumber than white people, and set forth to prove this, any evidence presented outside of the accepted common evidence, and any conjecture drawn, will be entirely suspect. No one will be surprised when they arrive at the conclusion, because it will be the whole point of doing the study, to essentially rationalize a position they already had.

At best, the so called science of creationism is a paradigm of wishful thinking, and at worse, it's a deliberately malicious and divisive rhetorical trick with the probably goal of separating christians from the rest of society.

Finally, I think it's safe to say that you will never fing the smoking gun which proves evolution wrong on a scientific basis. I suspect Antimason is on a better path with the idea of evolution covers the how, but not the why.

It's been an interesting battle royale though. I hope you can see all of the psychological nuances going on, the motivations, and the emotional human needs that the argument fill.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, October 17, 2006 4:28 PM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

It took me a while to get to this thread.

This is just a 'me too' post.

There are MANY examples of self-replicating and self-assembling chemicals. And once they start to assemble/ replicate they use up raw materials which drives the reactions that create the raw materials to create even more raw materials (drives the chemical equilibrium forward).

Once that happens it takes over a random system.

One could say that life might even be inevitable, given the right conditions and enough time.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, October 18, 2006 4:09 AM

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rue:

One could say that life might even be inevitable, given the right conditions and enough time.

Exactly!

I even would take the radical position that scientific data has sometimes been altered to disguise this fact. When I was studying the formation of the solar system I could find essentially zero concrete evidence to support the idea that the habitable surface of the earth was 4.6 billion years old, and the assumption had been thrown into every text to support the equally common conclusion that "life is an amazingly unlikely event." This, in turn, supported the conclusion "earth is unique" and "humans, as earth's dominant species, are unique" and "uniquely superior" which enforces, underhandedly, the idea "chosen by god, enacted by god, because it's either that or a huge coincidence, and you don't believe in huge coincidences, right?"

Furthermore, when I nitpick the big bang, it's that I see these common elements recur in science, which all share the common unscientific element that they seek to find a particular answer. ie. big bang = hand of god. The fundemental truth is going to be the one that is there even if your not trying to find it.

My own dabbling led me to this very conclusion, life is inevitable, given the right conditions and enough time.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, October 18, 2006 4:40 AM

YINYANG

You were busy trying to get yourself lit on fire. It happens.

Quote:
Originally posted by dreamtrove:
My own dabbling led me to this very conclusion, life is inevitable, given the right conditions and enough time.

Me three. I would even argue that we're not the only planet in the universe(s) with life, and there are at least a few more (granted, not any real close to us, although it's a possibility).

But, that's just me, and my tangent thought.

::shrugs::

---
"What the world needs now is love, sweet love - it's the only thing that there's just too little of. What the world needs now is love, sweet love. No, not just for some, but for everyone."

Trouble-Maker in the House!

http://richlabonte.net/tvvote

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, October 18, 2006 6:48 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Me four!

Quote:
Furthermore, when I nitpick the big bang, it's that I see these common elements recur in science, which all share the common unscientific element that they seek to find a particular answer. ie. big bang = hand of god. The fundamental truth is going to be the one that is there even if your not trying to find it.

Science is (pardon the word) bedeviled with assumptions that are deeply embedded in world view. And the more fundamental the assumptions are, the harder they are to root out. So European biologists, deeply steeped in capitalism, hierarchy, and paternalism looked at the whole animal kingdom as one giant struggle for male dominance. Humans, thinking that they are somehow supremely evolved, can't imagine that we MIGHT just be a tool of viral DNA. Cosmologists may be overlooking a much simpler answer in favor of the big bang.

That's why it try to question assumptions rather deeply, because they can really distort a view of reality.

---------------------------------
Reality sucks. Especially when it contradicts our cherished ideas.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, October 18, 2006 9:44 AM

"I laid out what I thought was the winning argument a couple of posts ago. An early pro-biotic soup would not create complex life forms, it would create simple self replicating molecules,"

That is the most ridicules post I have ever read(outside of some of my own...when I'm joking just to watch the clenched as*holes on this board). How on earth do molecules reproduce? Sexually or Asexually? What a tool you are. Oh, and an Idiot.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, October 18, 2006 10:16 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Kaneman, do you know what makes up DNA? They're basically strands of small nitrogen-containing molecules (nucleosides) zippered to another strand by hydrogen bonds (a very weak bond that occurs between molecules like alchohol and water) Only FIVE nucleosides make up all known DNA (adenine, cytosine, guanine, thymine, and sometimes uracil) and even they're not terribly unique since adenine and guanine are based on one molecule (purine) and cytosine, uracil and thymine are based on another molecule (pyrimidine). Altho the eventual structure becomes complex because of repetition, the basic chemistry is fairly tame.

---------------------------------
Reality sucks. Especially when it contradicts our cherished ideas.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, October 18, 2006 10:22 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Kaneman, do you know what makes up DNA? They're basically strands of small nitrogen-containing molecules (nucleosides) zippered to another strand by hydrogen bonds (a very weak bond that occurs between molecules like alchohol and water) Only FIVE nucleosides make up all known DNA (adenine, cytosine, guanine, thymine, and sometimes uracil) and even they're not terribly unique since adenine and guanine are based on one molecule (purine) and cytosine, uracil and thymine are based on another molecule (pyrimidine). Altho the eventual structure becomes complex because of repetition, the basic chemistry is fairly tame.

---------------------------------
Reality sucks. Especially when it contradicts our cherished ideas.

And? They just decide to reproduce to do what? How?.....I have a Bio degree, I teach animals how to act like humans for a living...I don't get it...nor do you...you think you know, but you don't ...there must be a god(energy, alien)

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, October 18, 2006 10:24 AM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

Since we humans are so afraid of death, I think the hardest thing to grasp is that life is - well - viral. Because the function of life is to take over non-living stuff and incorporate it, it outcompetes non-living random arrangements. Once life happens by accident, however it happens and in whatever form it takes, it will grow and swallow the non-living environment.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, October 18, 2006 11:09 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

They reproduce just because they can. One strand acts as a template for the other. Kind of like prions, or viruses. "Why" ("what for") is the wrong question because it pre-supposes a purpose, and it eventually gets either "Because I said so" or "God done it". I suppose the correct question is "how", and maybe other useful questions are "what", "when" and "where".

---------------------------------
Reality sucks. Especially when it contradicts our cherished ideas.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, October 18, 2006 11:14 AM

Sig, allow me to think about that for a bit.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, October 18, 2006 11:52 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Take your time Kaneman. I'm just about tapped out on biology and philosophy.

---------------------------------
Reality sucks. Especially when it contradicts our cherished ideas.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, October 18, 2006 11:54 AM

SEVENPERCENT

Quote:
Originally posted by kaneman:
Sig, allow me to think about that for a bit.

Why start now?

From what I've read, you haven't done any thinking so far in this thread; it'd be a wonder of wonders (and would probably make your brain happy) to get those neurons firing for once.

...well it's true.

------------------------------------------
"A revolution without dancing is no revolution at all." - V

Anyone wanting to continue a discussion off board is welcome to email me - check bio for details.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, October 18, 2006 12:39 PM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

MEEEOOOWWW! HISS!

---------------------------------
Reality sucks. Especially when it contradicts our cherished ideas.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, October 18, 2006 1:30 PM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

That claimed bio major ... how could anyone with even the barest exposure to education be so ignorant? A 101 entry course should have cleared up a chunk of the obvious mental confusion. But for crying out loud, as it is with that blather bio majors everywhere are getting sullied by association. OUCH

One of my degrees is bio.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, October 18, 2006 1:39 PM

CARTOON

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
They reproduce just because they can. Reality sucks.

Yes, granted. Things reproduce because they "can" -- i.e. have the "ability" to reproduce. But where does a non-living, non-reproducible, inorganic thing suddenly get an ability to reproduce and become a living, organic thing -- particularly in light of the above quote about the impossible odds of such a thing ever happening without previously having been designed/encoded to act that way?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, October 18, 2006 2:05 PM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

You have got to be kidding. Prions. Viruses. They're just crystals, like many other chemicals - self-assembling.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, October 18, 2006 2:53 PM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Quote:
Yes, granted. Things reproduce because they "can" -- i.e. have the "ability" to reproduce. But where does a non-living, non-reproducible, inorganic thing suddenly get an ability to reproduce and become a living, organic thing -- particularly in light of the above quote about the impossible odds of such a thing ever happening without previously having been designed/encoded to act that way?

You're conflating two topic- "reproduction" and "life". In terms of reproduction, just because proteins are made of carbon, oxygen, nitrogen and hydrogen instead of silicon, oxygen, hydrogen and (toss in your favorite chemicals here) doesn't make them different from other self-assembling molecules. Do you know what prions are, for example? They are proteins that create other proteins of the same form without the intervention of DNA, RNA and all that other stuff... protein crystals, if you will. Self-assembling, reproducing molecules which are fairly well-known in chemistry.

The OTHER issue is "life". I'm not enough of a biochemist to detail what "life" is, other than to say that the chemical reactions that power "life" depend on controlled transport of electrons that are released during oxidation (I think).

One more issue- you speak of this as happening "suddenly". I'm sure that nothing was "sudden".

--------------------------
Reality sucks. Especially when it contradicts our cherished ideas.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, October 18, 2006 4:45 PM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

There used to be a definition of life about carrying out "life processes" (ingestion, digestion, inorporation, growth, respiration, reproduction) but viruses challenged the definition. Until they bond to a cell they don't do anything. They're just chemicals that self assemble into little crystals. By common usage they're now considered to be a form of life, but prions are now challenging the definition.

Google "what is life" to get a variety of answers.

My personal definition of life is that it uses environmental energy to create more of itself.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, October 18, 2006 10:13 PM

Any scientific creation Intelligent Design theory is going to have a hole bigger than Evolution itself untill it can tell us where the Intelligent Designer came from. If a few missing links are tiny pinpricks letting out the water of credibillity in Evolution then the absence of evidence for an intelligent designer (and no the smile on a childs face isn't good enough) and the absence of any indication where this designer came from is a gaping blackhole which sucked all credibillity away from the 'theory' (myth) the moment it was created.

If a simple chemical can't spontaneously reproduce, how pray tell, did God spontaneously appear? If simple organic life can't spontaneously come into existance, how can the most awesome intelligence in the universe?

Sticky backplastic glue and glitter perhaps?

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, October 19, 2006 5:18 AM

CANTTAKESKY

Quote:
Originally posted by Causal:
I simply believe, whole-heartedly, that to silence opinion, even a foolish one, is to rob mankind of his greatest boon: the freedom to think as he will and express himself as he will. The silencing of expression is a slippery slope; I would not have this forum slide down it.

I'm with you, Causal. Not just on the principle of freedom of thought either. How many times in our history has the consensus of authorities decided that X was absolutely true beyond debate, only to be turned on its ear later?

For the sake of advancement, we have to allow debate on even ideas that we KNOW to be true, such as 1 + 1 = 2, or the earth is spherical and not planar. We entertain debate on the basis of the strength of the arguments, not on the content of the subject matter. If someone argues that outside of Euclidian geometry, 1 + 1 is not equal to 2, we consider it. If someone says, "you dumbass, 1 + 1 is obviously equal to 4" because his momma says so, we don't consider it.

And DT, evolution, or any other scientific theory, is NOT beyond debate, even amongst scientists. Evolution is a "theory" which means it is the best model we have to explain the data we have. But it is not "Truth." Microevolution is a very reproducible fact, but macroevolution is little more than elaborate speculation. It is speculation I happen to agree with, but let's not make it more than what it really is.

Can't Take My Gorram Sky

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, October 19, 2006 5:37 AM

CAUSAL

Quote:
Originally posted by canttakesky:
I'm with you, Causal. Not just on the principle of freedom of thought either. How many times in our history has the consensus of authorities decided that X was absolutely true beyond debate, only to be turned on its ear later?

For the sake of advancement, we have to allow debate on even ideas that we KNOW to be true, such as 1 + 1 = 2, or the earth is spherical and not planar. We entertain debate on the basis of the strength of the arguments, not on the content of the subject matter. If someone argues that outside of Euclidian geometry, 1 + 1 is not equal to 2, we consider it. If someone says, "you dumbass, 1 + 1 is obviously equal to 4" because his momma says so, we don't consider it.

And DT, evolution, or any other scientific theory, is NOT beyond debate, even amongst scientists. Evolution is a "theory" which means it is the best model we have to explain the data we have. But it is not "Truth." Microevolution is a very reproducible fact, but macroevolution is little more than elaborate speculation. It is speculation I happen to agree with, but let's not make it more than what it really is.

[ sincerity ]Wow. Good post, CTS! [ /sincerity ]

I was hoping someone would pick this strand up and run with it. I felt that I was being challenging enough just saying, "Whoa, hold on a moment"--and the fact that I was accused of supporting various crack-pot theories is plenty of evidence that I was not totally listened-to!

In all seriousness, though, I have to agree with respect to the notion that no scientific theory can ever be called true and declared as being beyond debate. Hubble was mocked for proposing his expanding universe--the static-eternal model eventually lost out, though, thanks to his red-shifted galaxies. And where is the plum-pudding model of the atom? These scientific theories were ultimately shown to be incompatible with the data, and were rejected in favor of theories that more closely conformed to the data.

Take for instance the theory the the solar system formed when a massive gas cloud collapsed in on itself. This certainly fits much of the data--for instance, why most planetary motion is counter-clockwise (including rotation and orbit of the planets): the cloud began spinning that way as it collapsed. It also explains the planets rotate in roughly the same orbital plane. But that doesn't mean that the scientific community has accepted it as beyond disputation. Certain data (like the axial tilt of Neptune or the backward rotation of Venus) doesn't fit that model. So the scientific community goes looking for data to explain these facts. Ultimately, they'll either find data to explain these anomalies within the current model, or they'll have to abandon the current model in favor of one that better fits the data.

The real strength of science (and, I would argue, all reasonable thinking) is that it holds it theories loosely, ready to modify or even abandon them if necessary. It is not scientific to say, "This is fact, and it is beyond debate." It could always be the case that the theories will have to change. To cling dogmatically to theories and to admit no debate or disputation is no better than the dogmatism of the religious believer; both believe they have arrived at objective truth (though by different means) and neither will brook any disagreement to that "truth". I suggest that responsible thinkers--the scientists and the faithful alike--would do well to hold their beliefs loosely, carefully considering all evidence so as not to play the fool if they are contradicted.

************************************************************************
Edited to add: I do agree with CTS and others on this board--if you're going to engage in debate, you'd better bring data--or at the very least, good arguments--to the table. Ad hominem attacks and genetic fallacies are no good way to argue, on either side.

________________________________________________________________________
Grand High Poobah of the Mythical Land of Iowa, and Keeper of State Secrets

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, October 19, 2006 6:21 AM

Quote:
granted, not any real close to us

I don't see why not. I nominate all four gas giants for starters.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, October 19, 2006 6:30 AM

SignyM,

didn't you see the sign?

:)

I know it might break my own rule, but this was humoroys.

Quote:
How on earth do molecules reproduce? Sexually or Asexually?

Sexuality is a highly advanced form of life. Even simple lifeforms don't have it. We're all sure that we don't know, but it's very unlikely that there was/is a major differentiation mechanism in proto-life or pseudo-life.

Kaneman isn't just a troll, he's not very bright. It's like sometimes when you argue the bible with christians and then realize they haven't even read the book.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, October 19, 2006 6:32 AM