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: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Transition from chemistry to biology
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 196 of 415 (498969)
02-15-2009 6:57 PM
Reply to: Message 165 by traste
02-14-2009 5:14 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.
Any mathematical model that does not model natural selection is not a model of evolution and has no relevance to it.
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 165 by traste, posted 02-14-2009 5:14 AM traste has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 198 by traste, posted 02-15-2009 8:57 PM Dr Adequate has replied

traste
Member (Idle past 5142 days)
Posts: 173
Joined: 02-09-2009


Message 197 of 415 (498983)
02-15-2009 8:53 PM
Reply to: Message 11 by crashfrog
01-09-2004 7:46 PM


I seem to recall that "spontaneous generation" was the term used for the position that organisms regularly arose from non-living matter - maggots arising from rotting meat, etc. The pummelling was for the person claiming that Pasteur's disproving of spontaneous generation applied to abiogenesis, too.
You are so vigilance in spotting simalarities between organism and believe that those simalarities is an evidence for evolution,but you dont noticed the simalarities between spontaneous genartion and abiogenesis which is very obvious.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by crashfrog, posted 01-09-2004 7:46 PM crashfrog has not replied

traste
Member (Idle past 5142 days)
Posts: 173
Joined: 02-09-2009


Message 198 of 415 (498984)
02-15-2009 8:57 PM
Reply to: Message 196 by Dr Adequate
02-15-2009 6:57 PM


Re: We have the building blocks ...
Any mathematical model that does not model natural selection is not a model of evolution and has no relevance to it.And what is an example of natural selection mathemathical model?Can you provide some?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 196 by Dr Adequate, posted 02-15-2009 6:57 PM Dr Adequate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 225 by Dr Adequate, posted 02-16-2009 7:05 PM traste has not replied

traste
Member (Idle past 5142 days)
Posts: 173
Joined: 02-09-2009


Message 199 of 415 (498988)
02-15-2009 9:12 PM
Reply to: Message 8 by NosyNed
01-05-2004 9:58 PM


Re: A bio genesis
Here's my translation:
A - without (just like Athiest is without theism)
bio life
genesis beginning/start/creation
It is a beginning without life (from non life to life)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Common sense isn't Here's my translation:
A - without (just like Athiest is without theism)
bio life
genesis beginning/start/creation
It is a beginning without life (from non life to life)
(You are now in conflict with Blue Jays translation.You are very dis honest guys.)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by NosyNed, posted 01-05-2004 9:58 PM NosyNed has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 200 by RAZD, posted 02-15-2009 9:51 PM traste has replied

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


Message 200 of 415 (498991)
02-15-2009 9:51 PM
Reply to: Message 199 by traste
02-15-2009 9:12 PM


Re: A bio genesis
It is not difficult to learn how to do quotes. You can "peek" at the coding other use with the "peek" button next to the reply button, or you can use one of these tips:
type [qs]quotes are easy[/qs] and it becomes:
quotes are easy
or type [quote]quotes are easy[/quote] and it becomes:
quote:
quotes are easy
For other formating tips see Posting Tips
It is a beginning without life (from non life to life)
(You are now in conflict with Blue Jays translation.You are very dis honest guys.)
Really? Care to show how Bluejay's definition of abiogenesis is different?
Abiogenesis - Wikipedia
quote:
In the natural sciences, abiogenesis, or origin of life, is the study of how life on Earth could have arisen from inanimate matter. It should not be confused with evolution, which is the study of how living things have changed over time. Amino acids, often called "the building blocks of life", occur naturally, due to chemical reactions unrelated to life. In all living things, these amino acids are organized into proteins, and the construction of these proteins is mediated by nucleic acids. Thus the question of the origin of life is a question of how the first nucleic acids came into existence.
(color for empHAsis).
Is that not similar?
Bluejay in Message 136 says:
Abiogenesis is the common idea underlying many hypotheses about the origin of the very first life form. In simplest terms, "abiogenesis" basically means that, at some point, there was a first life form, and, since no life predated that life form, that life form could only have come from something other than a pre-existing life form. This concept has no templates: it is a haphazard compilation of random elements into something workable.
Bluejay in Message 153 says:
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.
... and abiogenesis is a way for chemistry to gradually become complex enough to perpetuate itself.
I see no conflict between these definitions - they all proceed from non-living chemicals to living biological systems sufficiently developed to be subject to evolution.
How many more posts are you going to waste on not understanding this really simple concept? This is what the term means, you do not get to revise it, you do not get to redefine it, you do not get to argue about it, you do not get to vote on it, you get to live with it.
Enjoy.

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 199 by traste, posted 02-15-2009 9:12 PM traste has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 203 by traste, posted 02-16-2009 12:00 AM RAZD has seen this message but not replied

traste
Member (Idle past 5142 days)
Posts: 173
Joined: 02-09-2009


Message 201 of 415 (499002)
02-15-2009 11:06 PM
Reply to: Message 164 by cavediver
02-14-2009 5:00 AM


Re: We have the building blocks ...
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.
You are in a very weak ground now.Prof.Richard Dawkins in his book the Selfish Gene deals with many improbable accident I think you have a trouble with him in understanding that thing.So because you said order it implies intelligent design.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 164 by cavediver, posted 02-14-2009 5:00 AM cavediver has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 202 by RAZD, posted 02-15-2009 11:47 PM traste has replied
 Message 211 by traste, posted 02-16-2009 1:38 AM traste has not replied

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


Message 202 of 415 (499008)
02-15-2009 11:47 PM
Reply to: Message 201 by traste
02-15-2009 11:06 PM


Re: We have the building blocks ...
See, when you don't use quotes all you create is confusion. People reading this think the first paragraph is you rather than cavediver.
By your own admission (Message 14) it appears that you are not concerned with clarity and preventing confusion:
quote:
Thanks for the suggestion but,I like to do things in my own style.
You may find that people get tired of posters that play games.
You are in a very weak ground now.Prof.Richard Dawkins in his book the Selfish Gene deals with many improbable accident I think you have a trouble with him in understanding that thing.So because you said order it implies intelligent design.
Except that Dawkins and cavediver both use the filter of selection rather than any implication of intelligent design.
Misrepresenting what people say is either because you don't understand it or because you are being dishonest.
One can be cured.
Enjoy.
Edited by RAZD, : added

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 201 by traste, posted 02-15-2009 11:06 PM traste has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 208 by traste, posted 02-16-2009 1:02 AM RAZD has seen this message but not replied

traste
Member (Idle past 5142 days)
Posts: 173
Joined: 02-09-2009


Message 203 of 415 (499009)
02-16-2009 12:00 AM
Reply to: Message 200 by RAZD
02-15-2009 9:51 PM


Re: A bio genesis
[qs] see no conflict between these definitions - they all proceed from non-living chemicals to living biological systems sufficiently developed to be subject to evolution.
How many more posts are you going to waste on not understanding this really simple concept? This is what the term means, you do not get to revise it, you do not get to redefine it, you do not get to argue about it, you do not get to vote on it, you get to live with it.
(Thanks for the suggestion but, I like to do things in my own style.There's a lot of dishonesty among you guys.And they fall in my trick.First those people said that spontaneous genaration should be distinguished from abiogenesis for the reason that abiogenesis implies replication and spontaneous genaration implies living things started to develop from non living things.But here we are you are now talking that abiogenesis genaration means living things started to develop from non living things.In general spontaneous genaration is just the same as abiogenesis since both implies that living things is came from non living things.See the logic?And by the way I dont believe that you guys are honest for the reason that you are hiding evidence that are in conflict with evolution.The New Scientist reported that"an increasing number of scientist most particularly a growing number of evolutionist argue that darwinian evolutionary theory is no genuine scientific theory at all many of the critics have the highest intellectual credentials."Yet when one question evolutionary theory some of those scientist come to defend of the theory that they themselves have serious doubts.For me these kind of attitude is unthinkable.There must be a psychological reason behind these things.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 200 by RAZD, posted 02-15-2009 9:51 PM RAZD has seen this message but not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 210 by lyx2no, posted 02-16-2009 1:26 AM traste has replied

traste
Member (Idle past 5142 days)
Posts: 173
Joined: 02-09-2009


Message 204 of 415 (499010)
02-16-2009 12:07 AM
Reply to: Message 123 by eial
10-13-2008 11:54 PM


Re: Conclusions
We can still counter them even we are just few.Keep up the good work watch out for there fraud.-traste (supporter of intelligent design movement.)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 123 by eial, posted 10-13-2008 11:54 PM eial has not replied

traste
Member (Idle past 5142 days)
Posts: 173
Joined: 02-09-2009


Message 205 of 415 (499011)
02-16-2009 12:20 AM
Reply to: Message 13 by Loudmouth
01-09-2004 7:55 PM


[If Pasteur had created pre-biotic earth conditions and let it go for 1 billion years, they might be able to compare the two. However, he If Pasteur had created pre-biotic earth conditions and let it go for 1 billion years, they might be able to compare the two. However, he did nothing close to that. Instead he found the source of food spoilage, which was good in its own right.]
(You dont sound reasoning,so do you mean all the current theories should be subjected for billions of years for there comfirmation?---TRASTE-----evolution buster.))))

This message is a reply to:
 Message 13 by Loudmouth, posted 01-09-2004 7:55 PM Loudmouth has not replied

traste
Member (Idle past 5142 days)
Posts: 173
Joined: 02-09-2009


Message 206 of 415 (499012)
02-16-2009 12:33 AM
Reply to: Message 125 by onifre
10-14-2008 12:43 PM


Re: Conclusions
[[The evidence IS life. There is a point where there is NO life, then a point where there IS life, something happened, right? ]
-- (Correct there is a point that thre is no life in earth,but the problem is life did not develop from non living things.)So what is the area of study that there is life?----traste (evolution buster).

This message is a reply to:
 Message 125 by onifre, posted 10-14-2008 12:43 PM onifre has not replied

traste
Member (Idle past 5142 days)
Posts: 173
Joined: 02-09-2009


Message 207 of 415 (499013)
02-16-2009 12:54 AM
Reply to: Message 164 by cavediver
02-14-2009 5:00 AM


Re: We have the building blocks ...
1.And then go ahead give a mathemathical proof for evolution 2. It sounds you dont have any understanding in evolution.Im not learning mathemathics but I am a veteran in mathemathics.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 164 by cavediver, posted 02-14-2009 5:00 AM cavediver has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 209 by anglagard, posted 02-16-2009 1:21 AM traste has not replied

traste
Member (Idle past 5142 days)
Posts: 173
Joined: 02-09-2009


Message 208 of 415 (499014)
02-16-2009 1:02 AM
Reply to: Message 202 by RAZD
02-15-2009 11:47 PM


Re: We have the building blocks ...
In general, what I imply are order and random.Dawkins said accident,while cave diver said order.Are they the same?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 202 by RAZD, posted 02-15-2009 11:47 PM RAZD has seen this message but not replied

anglagard
Member (Idle past 836 days)
Posts: 2339
From: Socorro, New Mexico USA
Joined: 03-18-2006


Message 209 of 415 (499016)
02-16-2009 1:21 AM
Reply to: Message 207 by traste
02-16-2009 12:54 AM


Re: We have the building blocks ...
traste writes:
1.And then go ahead give a mathemathical proof for evolution 2. It sounds you dont have any understanding in evolution.Im not learning mathemathics but I am a veteran in mathemathics.
Well there veteran, perhaps you could use some of your mathematical superiority to master the DBcodes on your left when you post. I don't remember anyone else who has had as much trouble, regardless of position.
Also, just to reiterate what pretty much everyone else says, proof is a concept limited to mathematics and law. There is no mathematical proof of evolution any more than there is a mathematical proof of gravity or the germ theory of disease.
Perhaps as one who appears to deny what practitioners consider ironclad evidence, you may be so kind as to offer any mathematical proof of intelligent design or Last Thursdayism.
Edited by anglagard, : grammar and a hedge

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 207 by traste, posted 02-16-2009 12:54 AM traste has not replied

lyx2no
Member (Idle past 4716 days)
Posts: 1277
From: A vast, undifferentiated plane.
Joined: 02-28-2008


Message 210 of 415 (499017)
02-16-2009 1:26 AM
Reply to: Message 203 by traste
02-16-2009 12:00 AM


You are Confused
(Thanks for the suggestion but, I like to do things in my own style.
This isn't style. It's unintelligible rejection of style.
There's a lot of dishonesty among you guys.
Do you not yet realize that your understanding of the English language in not sufficiently acute for you to determine if the person you are conversing with is being disingenuous, or if you are failing to garner what is being said.
After all,the tell-tale sign of lying in English prose is a lack of spaces following punctuation.See.
And they fall in my trick.
No one has fallen for a trick you silly, little troll. You're just failing to understand what it is you're being told.
First those people said that spontaneous genaration should be distinguished from abiogenesis for the reason that abiogenesis implies replication and spontaneous genaration implies living things started to develop from non living things.
No one said this. This is a jumbled interpretation of whatever argument you imagine you're having. Stop, listen and think about what is actually being said, and have that argument instead.
Abiogenesis: One day there was no life. The next day there was. The unspecified thing that happened somewhere in between is abiogenesis.
Spontaneous generation: One day some wheat and rags in a box is left in the barn and mice poofed into existence over the course of the next few days.
The first must have happened, the second, ala L. Pasteur, doesn't.
See the logic?
Here's your logic.
Pasteur lived in a world where it was widely held that life sprang whole from disorder and uncleanliness. He thought otherwise and preformed experiments where he created situations where life should arise. In one case he left the situation open to the general environment. In a second case he sealed the situation against the general environment with a mesh fine enough to exclude the expected creature. In cases where extra-experimental critters could sneak in life appeared. In cases where extra-experimental critters were excluded by the mesh no life appeared. From this Pasteur concluded that vermin are not generated spontaneously from filth but attracted by it.
Nothing in Pasteur's experiments could make a determination about life's ultimate origin, and they were not designed to.
And by the way I dont believe that you guys are honest for the reason that you are hiding evidence that are in conflict with evolution.
Well then, you must be a liar a zillion times over because you are hiding evidence that are in conflict with Genesis. (Well, maybe that's a bit rough. You just plain ol' don't know what you're talking about. Not lying per se)
The New Scientist reported that"an increasing number of scientist most particularly a growing number of evolutionist argue that darwinian evolutionary theory is no genuine scientific theory at all many of the critics have the highest intellectual credentials."Yet when one question evolutionary theory some of those scientist come to defend of the theory that they themselves have serious doubts.
As your understanding of the English language is so poor as evidenced by your repeated inability to grasp even the simplest of arguments it would behoove you to report exactly where you got your information. It would be very foolish for anyone to trust your interpretation of what was actually stated. For instance, by "The New Scientist" do you mean "NewScientist"? January 24-30, Pg. 34 maybe even?
For me these kind of attitude is unthinkable.There must be a psychological reason behind these things.
Was this another one of those things that you neglected to put a quote box around? Who said this about you?
Edited by lyx2no, : Correct double nneeggaattiivvee.

Genesis 2
17 But of the ponderosa pine, thou shalt not eat of it; for in the day that thou shinniest thereof thou shalt sorely learn of thy nakedness.
18 And we all live happily ever after.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 203 by traste, posted 02-16-2009 12:00 AM traste has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 213 by traste, posted 02-16-2009 2:07 AM lyx2no 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