Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


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


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   the source of life
DevilsAdvocate
Member (Idle past 3101 days)
Posts: 1548
Joined: 06-05-2008


Message 196 of 211 (497000)
01-31-2009 9:02 PM
Reply to: Message 194 by Buzsaw
01-31-2009 8:09 PM


Re: Buzsaw Source Of Life Hypothesis
Buzsaw writes:
Myself writes:
Unknowns are not "accepted" in science. If it is unknown it is unknown until science can make it known. Scientific hypothesis and theories attempt to explain the previously unknown causes of known phenomena. That is mission statement of what science is all about i.e. making the unknown, known!
1. By "accepted" I mean they are acceptable aspects of the given hypothesis or theory. For example, the unknown aspects of the BB and of abiogenesis are integral to the scientific ideology.
You are not understanding what I am saying. A scientific theory explains what are the discovered and known causes of a phenomena. The unknown, undiscovered part(s) are left for future scientific theories to explain. Thus the BB theory only explains that which we currently understand and know, not that which we don't know or yet understand (though a theory can always be expounded, modified and refined with future evidence and observational/experimentation data).
The same is true with biogenesis though biogenesis does not yet have an all-encompassing theory that cosmogenesis does i.e. the Big Bang Theory. Instead there are several competing and noncompeting hypotheses of abiogenesis which are still collecting data and evidence to confirm there validity.
2. Again, the points you made are debatable but this is not the place to diverge into them in debth. My purpose was to summarize my reasons for staying with the Biblical record and why I do not regard it as empirically falsified.
The historical reliability of the historical, non-supernatural events of the Bible though should theoretically be able to be falsified by historical & scientific analysis (though there is lost historical evidence that we will never be able to recover thus making this full analysis very difficult if not downright impossible). However, Christians (as well as adherents of other religions) require that there holy book to be not only historically accurate but divinely inspired as well. The problem is that the supernatural (both events in the Bible as well as its divine authorship) by its very nature is unfalsifiable and thus by its very definition unscientific (not able to be confirmed/not confirmed by science) thus making your claim a moot point. Therefore, a leap of faith has to be made to attribute the Bible's authorship to divine inspiration as well as accepting the "miracles" in the Bible to both be what truelly occured and supernatural in origin.
3. I regard the mysterious aspects of the Biblical record on origins to be no more so than the mysterious aspects of particle and negative energy physics, for example.
However, the first (Biblical record as inspired by God) requires a leap of faith and the second (science) does not (it can be deduced through experimentation and observation).
For me, a source of eternal energy, design and life, as per the Biblical record, relative to what is observed, make more sense than what conventional science has to offer.
Conventional science makes no claim to the ultimate source of energy, design, and life. This is more of a philosophical/metaphysical/religious claim.
Edited by DevilsAdvocate, : No reason given.
Edited by DevilsAdvocate, : No reason given.
Edited by DevilsAdvocate, : No reason given.

For me, it is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring.
Dr. Carl Sagan

This message is a reply to:
 Message 194 by Buzsaw, posted 01-31-2009 8:09 PM Buzsaw has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 199 by Buzsaw, posted 02-01-2009 10:09 AM DevilsAdvocate has replied

  
subbie
Member (Idle past 1255 days)
Posts: 3509
Joined: 02-26-2006


Message 197 of 211 (497006)
01-31-2009 11:03 PM
Reply to: Message 194 by Buzsaw
01-31-2009 8:09 PM


Buzsaw's Ignorant Misunderstanding of Virtually Everything Scientific
quote:
1. By "accepted" I mean they are acceptable aspects of the given hypothesis or theory. For example, the unknown aspects of the BB and of abiogenesis are integral to the scientific ideology.
Your continued repetition of utter nonsense illustrates your complete, total and unadulterated inability to understand even the smallest part of science.
"[U]nknown aspects of the BB and of abiogenesis" are not "integral to the scientific ideology." There are parts of those things that are not completely understand (not nearly so much as you think, however). But the theories are accepted (to the extent they are) not because of what is not understood, but because of what they do tell us about the real world. Let me repeat that last little bit because, if you can at least understand that one sentence, you'll make some progress.
Scientific theories are accepted, to the extent that they are, not because of what the don't tell us, but to the degree that they do tell us something about the real world.
This, in part, is why creos miss the mark so badly by trying to find piddly little things in evolution that can't be explained. Most of the "mysteries" that creos talk about aren't mysterious at all. But there are countless thousands and tens of thousands of parts of the ToE, and natural history on this planet, that aren't well known. The ToE doesn't explain everything, and probably never will. But it does an unbelievably good job explaining more than any other theory in the field ever has.
quote:
For me, a source of eternal energy, design and life, as per the Biblical record, relative to what is observed, make more sense than what conventional science has to offer.
Given your demonstrated depth of ignorance about virtually all things scientific, this shouldn't come as a surprise to anyone. It's hardly unprecedented, either. Untold millions have hidden from real world knowledge behind the safety of dozens of different myths. So what?
Edited by subbie, : tyop

For we know that our patchwork heritage is a strength, not a weakness. We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and non-believers. -- Barack Obama
We see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat

This message is a reply to:
 Message 194 by Buzsaw, posted 01-31-2009 8:09 PM Buzsaw has not replied

  
Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 198 of 211 (497031)
02-01-2009 6:38 AM
Reply to: Message 194 by Buzsaw
01-31-2009 8:09 PM


Making sense
For me, a source of eternal energy, design and life, as per the Biblical record, relative to what is observed, make more sense than what conventional science has to offer.
I'm not sure what relationship you think 'making sense' should have to 'being true'. It makes sense that all other things being equal, heavier things should fall faster than lighter things but it doesn't pan out that way.
After all, something that makes sense to Bob might not make any sense to Wakhashem. If Bob is a civil engineer in 21st Century New York and Wakhashem is a priest in 1st Dynasty Egypt, then there is bound to be significant differences between what makes sense to each of them.
If you and Wakhashem were to somehow cross paths, what makes sense to him (Wakhashem might think it makes sense that Ra/Khepri brought forth the earth and physically placed it on justice and order (the primal stable foundation of reality, Maat) and that man formed from his tears) would not make sense to you (and visa versa, I'm sure Wakhashem would stare at you like you were a lunatic when you tried to explain to him that a single deity is in control of all things and that this God is an eternal source of 'work-performing-forces' and that the universe is composed of billions of galaxies filled with things trillions the times the size of Egypt that are exploding with a violence a million times more powerful than oil etc etc)
I would have thought that some kind of systematic methodology for sorting through these kinds of things is precisely the kind of thing we should look to when trying to resolve the matter when two people with different concepts of what makes sense.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 194 by Buzsaw, posted 01-31-2009 8:09 PM Buzsaw has not replied

  
Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 199 of 211 (497052)
02-01-2009 10:09 AM
Reply to: Message 196 by DevilsAdvocate
01-31-2009 9:02 PM


Re: Buzsaw Source Of Life Hypothesis
DA writes:
DA writes:
Myself writes:
Unknowns are not "accepted" in science. If it is unknown it is unknown until science can make it known. Scientific hypothesis and theories attempt to explain the previously unknown causes of known phenomena. That is mission statement of what science is all about i.e. making the unknown, known!
Buzsaw writes:
1. By "accepted" I mean they are acceptable aspects of the given hypothesis or theory. For example, the unknown aspects of the BB and of abiogenesis are integral to the scientific ideology.
You are not understanding what I am saying. A scientific theory explains what are the discovered and known causes of a phenomena. The unknown, undiscovered part(s) are left for future scientific theories to explain. Thus the BB theory only explains that which we currently understand and know, not that which we don't know or yet understand (though a theory can always be expounded, modified and refined with future evidence and observational/experimentation data).
OK, let's analyze our statements:
DA: Unknowns are not accepted in science.
Buz: unknown aspects of the BB and of abiogenesis are integral to the scientific ideology
DA: The unknown, undiscovered part(s) are left for future scientific theories to explain.
But BB science assumes T=O preceded the BB and there are unknowns & debatables relative to aspects of T=O; unknowns relative to where the energy came from, whether the energy was hidden in a vacuum as negative energy, what precipitated the expansion, etc.

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW.
The immeasurable present eternally extends the infinite past and infinitely consumes the eternal future.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 196 by DevilsAdvocate, posted 01-31-2009 9:02 PM DevilsAdvocate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 200 by DevilsAdvocate, posted 02-01-2009 10:48 AM Buzsaw has not replied

  
DevilsAdvocate
Member (Idle past 3101 days)
Posts: 1548
Joined: 06-05-2008


Message 200 of 211 (497058)
02-01-2009 10:48 AM
Reply to: Message 199 by Buzsaw
02-01-2009 10:09 AM


Re: Buzsaw Source Of Life Hypothesis
But BB science assumes T=O preceded the BB
Yes and no. The BB theory covers mainly what happens after the point of singularity (t=0) not where this singularity itself came from (cosmogenesis). My understanding of current cosmology is that one itteration of cosmogenesis interpolates that t=0 preceded the BB however there are other competing hypothesis i.e. the multi-world hypothesis that states that our current universe is one "bubble" amongst many other universes in a massive multiverse. Space and time are intrigately linked so that when our universe emerged from singularity that spacetime itself was birthed from this singularity. What I am not sure is, if theoretical physicists infer that if this multi-world cosmogenesis hypothesis is true that spacetime resets to 0 in our current universe or that it extends backwards before this single point of singularity. This is where my layman knowledge is limited and possible Cavediver or someone else more knowledgable in the subject can expound.
and there are unknowns & debatables relative to aspects of T=O
Yes, but like I said earlier theories are not truley all-inclusive they only explain the cause of phenomena that are discovered and deductively/inductively known. The T=0 part of cosmogenesis like biogenesis is still in the grey are of unverified hypothesis.
unknowns relative to where the energy came from,
Some of this is still unknown , some is known but not adequately verified and some is known and verifiable (and falsifiable). As to where energy came from, you need to clarify what type of energy (normal energy, dark energy, etc), how much energy (all the energy in the universe?). When you say where did the energy come from, in essense I am interpreting this as where did the universe come from, since space, time, energy and matter are all integrately linked and you can't ask where one comes from without implying where the others come from as well.
whether the energy was hidden in a vacuum as negative energy
This is what happens when uninformed (notice I did not say unintelligent as we all are uninformed in any matter of things) people make statements which they do not have a clue of what they are asking. BTW I am guilty of this as well, just ask Cavediver
What do you mean by "hidden"? And what do you mean by "negative energy" and "vacuum"? It seems like you are talking about dark energy which is currently causing the universe to accelerate in its expansion. Is that what you are talking about?
what precipitated the expansion, etc
The expansion of the universe when? During the initial inflation phase of expansion during the BB or the accleration of the expansion of the universe now? Modern cosmology explains both, these are not unknowns. We have an idea of what the dark energy that is causing this accelerated expansion is. We are just figuring out ways of verifying the validity of these ideas.

For me, it is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring.
Dr. Carl Sagan

This message is a reply to:
 Message 199 by Buzsaw, posted 02-01-2009 10:09 AM Buzsaw has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.3


Message 201 of 211 (497083)
02-01-2009 2:40 PM


Abiogenesis and the Big Bang
Unless someone can describe how issues related to the Big Bang bear on the source of life, I think the Big Bang might be off-topic in this thread.
--Percy

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


Message 202 of 211 (497108)
02-01-2009 7:59 PM
Reply to: Message 191 by Buzsaw
01-31-2009 6:33 PM


Re: Buzsaw Source Of Life Hypothesis
Hi, Buzz.
Buzsaw writes:
Shades are cool, you know, and perhaps suited to folks who walk in the brightness of enlightenment.
However, shades are not suited to those of us who wallow in cautious ignorance and refuse to assume that we are ever enlightened.
-----
Buzsaw writes:
Having read most of your input in this thread (I tend to hone in on your input as I regard it to be fair and balanced, for the most part,) I am flattered that this is all you've come up with in response to the points of my message. Likely if there were substantial arguments to my points, you would have cited them.
Thank you, Buzz.
I read your post and realized that what you were seeing was a red dingo, while what I was seeing was a blue snake. If we can't even agree what the evidence is, there's no point trying to make a discussion out of that.

-Bluejay/Mantis/Thylacosmilus
Darwin loves you.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 191 by Buzsaw, posted 01-31-2009 6:33 PM Buzsaw has not replied

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


Message 203 of 211 (498395)
02-10-2009 7:30 AM
Reply to: Message 7 by Larni
01-23-2009 5:10 AM


Re: Goldilocks
Hi!You said that life could rise in extreme temperature.Ohh to say that is to defy experiment and reason.For example could the theoritical first cell survive the extreme environment?Certainly experiment does not suggest that.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by Larni, posted 01-23-2009 5:10 AM Larni has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 204 by Modulous, posted 02-10-2009 7:53 AM traste has replied
 Message 209 by Larni, posted 02-10-2009 10:54 AM traste has not replied

  
Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 204 of 211 (498406)
02-10-2009 7:53 AM
Reply to: Message 203 by traste
02-10-2009 7:30 AM


Re: Goldilocks
You said that life could rise in extreme temperature.
I think the words used were
quote:
life can flourish in the most extreme places
This is an observed fact, within certain boundaries, for which Larni provided a source. What experiment does it 'defy'?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 203 by traste, posted 02-10-2009 7:30 AM traste has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 205 by traste, posted 02-10-2009 8:10 AM Modulous has replied

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


Message 205 of 211 (498412)
02-10-2009 8:10 AM
Reply to: Message 204 by Modulous
02-10-2009 7:53 AM


Re: Goldilocks
Does it suggest to you that because the experiment you talk about show that life could began in extreme temperature,means life before survive the harsh environment?Does the theoritical first living cell overcome the destructive rays?Maybe if they wear a bulletprof.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 204 by Modulous, posted 02-10-2009 7:53 AM Modulous has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 206 by Modulous, posted 02-10-2009 8:15 AM traste has replied

  
Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 206 of 211 (498414)
02-10-2009 8:15 AM
Reply to: Message 205 by traste
02-10-2009 8:10 AM


extreme
Does it suggest to you that because the experiment you talk about show that life could began in extreme temperature,means life before survive the harsh environment?
It suggests that thinking that life can only exist in an environment that is comfortable to mammals is fallacious reasoning.
Does the theoritical first living cell overcome the destructive rays? Maybe if they wear a bulletprof.
Proto-life is often theorized to have spent time under water. Water absorbs UV light.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 205 by traste, posted 02-10-2009 8:10 AM traste has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 207 by traste, posted 02-10-2009 8:40 AM Modulous has replied

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


Message 207 of 211 (498418)
02-10-2009 8:40 AM
Reply to: Message 206 by Modulous
02-10-2009 8:15 AM


Re: extreme
I think you dontknow that beneath the surface of the water there would not be enough energy for further chemical reactionand water in any condition inhibits the growth of more advanced molecules(I MEAN COMPLEX MOLECULES).

This message is a reply to:
 Message 206 by Modulous, posted 02-10-2009 8:15 AM Modulous has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 208 by Blue Jay, posted 02-10-2009 9:22 AM traste has not replied
 Message 210 by Modulous, posted 02-10-2009 11:13 AM traste has not replied

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


Message 208 of 211 (498426)
02-10-2009 9:22 AM
Reply to: Message 207 by traste
02-10-2009 8:40 AM


Re: extreme
Hi, Traste.
traste writes:
I think you dont know that beneath the surface of the water there would not be enough energy for further chemical reactionand water in any condition inhibits the growth of more advanced molecules(I MEAN COMPLEX MOLECULES).
I'm not sure what to make of this.
Surely you're aware that fish, squid, lobsters, plankton and seaweed "grow advanced molecules" underwater all the time? Surely you're also aware that your cells, where all the chemical reactions in your body happen, are filled with water?
Have you ever taken a chemistry class, particularly an organic chemistry class? What you'll notice is that common lab experiments in chemistry use water as the solvent. This is because a liquid medium facilitates chemical reactions. Water is particularly good at this for a wide number of reasons (polarity, specific heat, coherence, wide liquid range, etc.).
This is actually the primary reason why science hypothesizes that life began in the sea or in some other body of water.
-----
For new EvC members:
you can quote somebody with a "qs" or "quote" command. Type...
[qs]quote text[/qs]
And it looks like this:
quote
Or, replace "qs" with "quote" to make this:
quote:
quote text

-Bluejay/Mantis/Thylacosmilus
Darwin loves you.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 207 by traste, posted 02-10-2009 8:40 AM traste has not replied

  
Larni
Member (Idle past 164 days)
Posts: 4000
From: Liverpool
Joined: 09-16-2005


Message 209 of 211 (498434)
02-10-2009 10:54 AM
Reply to: Message 203 by traste
02-10-2009 7:30 AM


Re: Goldilocks
Hi traste, welcome to EvC!
Now to business.
Please provide the experiment that shows that extremophiles could not flurish in extreme conditions.
Please also provide the 'reason' why extremophiles don't flourish in extreme conditions.
Also, please provide the details of the theoritical (sic) 'first cell' so that it can be used to support your unsupported assertion that it could not survive.
Should be pretty simple, really.
Btw: please put a space between the end of a sentance and the start of a new one; it makes it easier for me to read (what with the mask and all).

This message is a reply to:
 Message 203 by traste, posted 02-10-2009 7:30 AM traste has not replied

  
Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 210 of 211 (498436)
02-10-2009 11:13 AM
Reply to: Message 207 by traste
02-10-2009 8:40 AM


water and complex chemistry
I think you dontknow that beneath the surface of the water there would not be enough energy for further chemical reactionand water in any condition inhibits the growth of more advanced molecules(I MEAN COMPLEX MOLECULES).
That's right, I don't know that. Nor do I know that a circle is square. Do you know how much energy is required to 'further chemical reaction'? How does this compare with the quantity of energy next to an underwater thermal vent?
Now - since your posts have been very short, I am not sure how much biochemistry you actually know. I would hazard a guess at 'not much' based on what I have seen so far (in itself that's no big deal, I'm no expert either. The thing is, I don't go around implying that I know better than the people that do biochemistry as a full time job). It is true that water can be problematic when it comes to certain chemical reactions. So, one might suppose that some kind of catalyst might come into play to overcome this inhibition. Biochemists that are studying the origin of life have shown that certain clays can act as catalysts in the formation of more complex molecules.
If you know a great deal more than you are letting on, perhaps you could spend the time to spell out your argument rather than continue with the rather enigmatic and short posts you have posted so far?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 207 by traste, posted 02-10-2009 8:40 AM traste 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