Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

At SciTech Daily: Scientists Solve an Origin of Life Mystery

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

Seawater might have supplied the phosphorus required for emerging life.

Researchers from the Universities of Cambridge and Cape Town may have found a solution to the mystery of how phosphorus came to be an essential component of life on Earth by recreating prehistoric seawater containing the element in a laboratory.

Their findings, which were published in the journal Nature Communications, suggest that seawater may be the missing source of phosphate, suggesting that it could have been present in sufficient quantities to support life without the need for particular environmental conditions.

Phosphate is a crucial component of DNA and RNA, which are the building blocks of life, although it is one of the least common elements in the universe relative to its biological significance. Phosphate is also relatively inaccessible in its mineral form – it can be difficult to dissolve in water so that life can utilize it.

Scientists have long suspected that phosphorus became part of biology early on, but they have only recently begun to recognize the role of phosphate in directing the synthesis of molecules required by life on Earth, “Experiments show it makes amazing things happen – chemists can synthesize crucial biomolecules if there is a lot of phosphate in solution,” said Tosca, Professor of Mineralogy & Petrology at Cambridge’s Department of Earth Sciences.

However, there has been debate over the precise circumstances required to create phosphate. According to some research, phosphate should actually be even less accessible to life when iron is plentiful. However, this is disputed since the early Earth’s atmosphere was oxygen-poor and iron would have been widespread.

They used geochemical modeling to simulate the early Earth’s conditions in order to understand how life came to rely on phosphate and the kind of environment that this element would have evolved in.

The article goes on in this vein, but one wonders if it got written just for the sake of the overstated title.

For example, “chemists can synthesize crucial biomolecules…” – but how much intelligent intervention is required by the trained chemists to reach their desired goal?

Also, “the early Earth’s atmosphere was oxygen-poor and iron would have been widespread.” – Does this make any sense at all?

Again, why do intelligent scientists fall into the assumption that finding a chemical ingredient in the environment that is necessary for life equates with the ability of natural processes to form all the biomolecules necessary for life, and without guidance to arrange these into coordinated functionality in a microscopic locality so that the outcome is a living cell? So many steps in this imagined process are mediated against by the known laws of physics, that to suggest it happened naturally is to depart from scientific credibility.

Full article at SciTech Daily.

Comments
Bornagain77: When you, personally, actually want to talk about science in your own words let me know. Otherwise . . .JVL
October 22, 2022
October
10
Oct
22
22
2022
03:40 AM
3
03
40
AM
PDT
The neuronal illusion of JVL paraphrases Laplace's quote, "I have no need of that hypothesis", in order to try to defend his atheism. Yet, even according to wikipedia itself, (hardly a friend to ID), Laplace's oft quoted paraphrase is in all likelihood a "garbled version of what had actually happened"
In 1884, however, the astronomer Hervé Faye[76][77] affirmed that this account of Laplace's exchange with Napoleon presented a "strangely transformed" (étrangement transformée) or garbled version of what had actually happened. It was not God that Laplace had treated as a hypothesis, but merely his intervention at a determinate point: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pierre-Simon_Laplace#Religious_opinions
As the following article and book notes, "it is not clear that Laplace was motivated by atheism to solve this problem, Laplace cites with approval Leibniz's criticism of Newton's invocation of divine intervention to restore order to the Solar System: "This is to have very narrow ideas about the wisdom and the power of God."
d) Finally, and most ironically perhaps, it is not clear that Laplace was motivated by atheism to solve this problem, Laplace cites with approval Leibniz's criticism of Newton's invocation of divine intervention to restore order to the Solar System: "This is to have very narrow ideas about the wisdom and the power of God.", to them, it would count as evidence against intelligent design if God had to intervene to prevent the solar system from collapsing. So intelligent design could just as easily be a motivation to prove the stability of the solar system. (of note: original article modified since originally accessed) https://letterstonature.wordpress.com/2015/11/04/neil-degrasse-tyson-on-newton-part-1/ "Leibniz, in his controversy with Newton on the discovery of infinitesimal calculus, sharply criticized the theory of Divine intervention as a corrective of the disturbances of the solar system. "To suppose anything of the kind", he said, "is to exhibit very narrow ideas of the wisdom and power of God'." - Pierre-Simon Laplace https://books.google.com/books?id=oLtHAAAAIAAJ&pg=PA73&lpg=PA73
Contrary to popular belief, Laplace, like Leibniz, was not championing atheism but instead he was objecting strenuously to the notion that God would be so inept that He would have to step in to 'remedy the defects of His creation' from time to time. Moreover, at the 16:47 minute mark of the following video, Dr. Stephen Meyer reveals that Sir Isaac Newton himself did not actually believe in a 'tinkering God' who had to step in from time to time to 'remedy the defects' of His creation, but instead Newton believed that God was "constantly sustaining the universe by the word of His power".
Stephen Meyer Answers Questions about the Judeo-Christian Origins of Science - video https://youtu.be/YBwRC8qJSoI?t=994
And as to not having to "remedy the defects of His creation", I hold that both Newton and Leibniz, (and even the often misquoted Laplace), would all be very pleased by what modern science has now revealed about the wisdom and power of God in creating this solar system:
“You might also think that these disparate bodies are scattered across the solar system without rhyme or reason. But move any piece of the solar system today, or try to add anything more, and the whole construction would be thrown fatally out of kilter. So how exactly did this delicate architecture come to be?” R. Webb - Unknown solar system 1: How was the solar system built? - New Scientist – 2009 Is the Solar System Stable? By Scott Tremaine - 2011 Excerpt: So what are the results? Most of the calculations agree that eight billion years from now, just before the Sun swallows the inner planets and incinerates the outer ones, all of the planets will still be in orbits very similar to their present ones. In this limited sense, the solar system is stable. However, a closer look at the orbit histories reveals that the story is more nuanced. After a few tens of millions of years, calculations using slightly different parameters (e.g., different planetary masses or initial positions within the small ranges allowed by current observations) or different numerical algorithms begin to diverge at an alarming rate. More precisely, the growth of small differences changes from linear to exponential:,,, As an example, shifting your pencil from one side of your desk to the other today could change the gravitational forces on Jupiter enough to shift its position from one side of the Sun to the other a billion years from now. The unpredictability of the solar system over very long times is of course ironic since this was the prototypical system that inspired Laplacian determinism. Fortunately, most of this unpredictability is in the orbital phases of the planets, not the shapes and sizes of their orbits, so the chaotic nature of the solar system does not normally lead to collisions between planets. However, the presence of chaos implies that we can only study the long-term fate of the solar system in a statistical sense, by launching in our computers an armada of solar systems with slightly different parameters at the present time—typically, each planet is shifted by a random amount of about a millimeter—and following their evolution. When this is done, it turns out that in about 1 percent of these systems, Mercury’s orbit becomes sufficiently eccentric so that it collides with Venus before the death of the Sun. Thus, the answer to the question of the stability of the solar system—more precisely, will all the planets survive until the death of the Sun—is neither “yes” nor “no” but “yes, with 99 percent probability.” https://www.ias.edu/about/publications/ias-letter/articles/2011-summer/solar-system-tremaine Rare Planetary System BY HUGH ROSS - JUNE 12, 2017 Excerpt: Thanks in large part to research on extrasolar planets, astronomers also know that every planet in the solar system fulfills a key role in making advanced life possible on Earth. Two Brazilian astronomers showed that even tiny adjustments in the orbits of Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus, and Neptune would prove catastrophic for life in our solar system.5 Regions beyond the precise orbital positions of Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus, and Neptune abound in destructive mean motion resonances. As it is, Uranus is close to a 7:1 resonance with Jupiter (where Jupiter would make exactly 7 orbits around the Sun for every single orbit of Uranus), a 2:1 resonance with Neptune, and a 3:1 resonance with Saturn. Meanwhile, Jupiter and Saturn are very close to 5:2 resonance. If any of the solar system gas giant planets’ orbital positions were to shift ever so slightly, that shift would destabilize the orbit of one or more of the eight planets in the solar system with catastrophic consequences for a long history of life on Earth. Three Canadian astronomers further demonstrated that the orbital positions of Venus, Earth, and Mars must be fine-tuned so as to break up mean motion resonances that could be damaging for life on Earth. They showed that even the orbital features of the Earth-Moon system must be fine-tuned for this purpose.6 The Earth-Moon system suppresses a resonance in Venus’ orbit that is generated from the orbital patterns of Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus, and Neptune. Unless the Earth-Moon system is configured the way it is, both Venus’ and Mercury’s orbits would destabilize and generate destructive chaos throughout the inner solar system. Every planet in our solar system and Earth’s Moon contribute to making advanced life possible on Earth. The solar system’s array of eight planets must be exactly the way it is. Have you thanked God today for Mercury, Venus, Mars, Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus, and Neptune? https://www.reasons.org/explore/blogs/todays-new-reason-to-believe/read/todays-new-reason-to-believe/2017/06/12/rare-planetary-system
bornagain77
October 22, 2022
October
10
Oct
22
22
2022
03:24 AM
3
03
24
AM
PDT
Bornagain77: in the atheist’s denial that God exists as a real person, I have never denied the existence of God. I've certainly never met 'him' nor have I seen credible evidence 'he' exists or exerts any kind of influence in the universe. So, when looking for explanations of phenomena I 'have no need of that hypothesis'. You, convinced that God exists and does intervene in the universe, have no trouble ascribing to 'him' various things. Your logic is faulty by the very fact that if your basic assumption (that God exists) is wrong then all your arguments fall to pieces. If you were making real scientific arguments you would have to acknowledge that your basic assumption might be wrong and what would the consequences of that be. This you will never do because, deep down, you are NOT making a scientific argument. You are making a faith-based argument. Which is fine by me but you really should own up to that. All your quote-mining doesn't change that basic, stark fact. Which is why most people on this forum never even read your lengthy screeds of things other people have said, frequently ripped out of context. I really have no trouble with faith as I've mentioned many times. But faith attempting to be something else is false. Perhaps you enjoy 'preaching' at those you disagree with out of some kind of duty or missionary zeal. But when you misrepresent others and their statements you just make yourself look like a fool and a knave. Tell your own story, simply and truthfully. That's the best way to share your faith.JVL
October 22, 2022
October
10
Oct
22
22
2022
02:48 AM
2
02
48
AM
PDT
JVL, "I was trying to have a conversation with a real person, not a quote-mined database." But alas, under the reductive materialism of your Darwinian worldview, there are no 'real persons' for you to have conversations with, only 'neuronal illusions', and/or ‘controlled hallucinations’ of a very distinctive kind”
“Our experiences of being and having a body are ‘controlled hallucinations’ of a very distinctive kind.” Anil Seth, "The Real Problem" at Aeon - (Nov. 2, 2016) - per evolution news - Oct. 2022 The Confidence of Jerry Coyne – Ross Douthat – January 6, 2014 Excerpt: But then halfway through this peroration, we have as an aside the confession (by Coyne) that yes, okay, it’s quite possible given materialist premises that “our sense of self is a neuronal illusion.” At which point the entire edifice suddenly looks terribly wobbly — because who, exactly, is doing all of this forging and shaping and purpose-creating if Jerry Coyne, as I understand him (and I assume he understands himself) quite possibly does not actually exist at all? The theme of his argument is the crucial importance of human agency under eliminative materialism, but if under materialist premises the actual agent is quite possibly a fiction, then who exactly is this I who “reads” and “learns” and “teaches,” and why in the universe’s name should my illusory self believe Coyne’s bold proclamation that his illusory self’s purposes are somehow “real” and worthy of devotion and pursuit? (Let alone that they’re morally significant: But more on that below.) Prometheus cannot be at once unbound and unreal; the human will cannot be simultaneously triumphant and imaginary. https://douthat.blogs.nytimes.com/2014/01/06/the-confidence-of-jerry-coyne/?mcubz=3 “You are robots made out of meat. Which is what I am going to try to convince you of today” Jerry Coyne – No, You’re Not a Robot Made Out of Meat (Science Uprising 02) – video https://youtu.be/rQo6SWjwQIk?list=PLR8eQzfCOiS1OmYcqv_yQSpje4p7rAE7-&t=20 “(Daniel) Dennett concludes, ‘nobody is conscious … we are all zombies’.” J.W. SCHOOLER & C.A. SCHREIBER – Experience, Meta-consciousness, and the Paradox of Introspection – 2004 The Brain: The Mystery of Consciousness - Monday, Jan. 29, 2007 Part II THE ILLUSION OF CONTROL Another startling conclusion from the science of consciousness is that the intuitive feeling we have that there's an executive "I" that sits in a control room of our brain, scanning the screens of the senses and pushing the buttons of the muscles, is an illusion. Steven Pinker - Professor in the Department of Psychology at Harvard University - per academia Sam Harris: “The self is an illusion.” – Michael Egnor Demolishes the Myth of Materialism (Science Uprising EP1) https://youtu.be/Fv3c7DWuqpM?t=267 "There is no self in, around, or as part of anyone’s body. There can’t be. So there really isn’t any enduring self that ever could wake up morning after morning worrying about why it should bother getting out of bed. The self is just another illusion, like the illusion that thought is about stuff or that we carry around plans and purposes that give meaning to what our body does. Every morning’s introspectively fantasized self is a new one, remarkably similar to the one that consciousness ceased fantasizing when we fell sleep sometime the night before. Whatever purpose yesterday’s self thought it contrived to set the alarm last night, today’s newly fictionalized self is not identical to yesterday’s. It’s on its own, having to deal with the whole problem of why to bother getting out of bed all over again.,,, - Alex Rosenberg - Professor of Philosophy Duke University - The Atheist’s Guide to Reality, ch.10 "The first thing to understand, I believe, is that there is no thing like “the self.” Nobody ever had or was a self. Selves are not part of reality. Selves are not something that endures over time. The first person pronoun “I” doesn’t refer to an object like a football or a bicycle, it just points to the speaker of the current sentence. There is no thing in the brain or outside in the world, which is us. We are processes… the self is not a thing but a process." - Thomas Metzinger is a German philosopher. As of 2011 he holds the position of director of the theoretical philosophy group at the department of philosophy at the Johannes Gutenberg University of Mainz At the 23:33 minute mark of the following video, Richard Dawkins agrees with materialistic philosophers who say that: “consciousness is an illusion” A few minutes later Rowan Williams asks Dawkins ”If consciousness is an illusion…what isn’t?”. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HWN4cfh1Fac&t=22m57s Atheistic Materialism – Does Richard Dawkins Exist? Dr. Dennis Bonnette – video 37:51 minute mark Quote: “It turns out that if every part of you, down to sub-atomic parts, are still what they were when they weren’t in you, in other words every ion,,, every single atom that was in the universe, that has now become part of your living body, is still what is was originally. It hasn’t undergone what metaphysicians call a ‘substantial change’. So you aren’t Richard Dawkins. You are just carbon and neon and sulfur and oxygen and all these individual atoms still. You can spout a philosophy that says scientific materialism, but there aren’t any scientific materialists to pronounce it.,,, That’s why I think they find it kind of embarrassing to talk that way. Nobody wants to stand up there and say, “You know, I’m not really here”. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rVCnzq2yTCg&t=37m51s
You see JVL, in a shining example of poetic justice, in the atheist's denial that God exists as a real person, the atheist ends up having to deny that he exists as a real person. Without God being a real person, there simply is nothing for the atheist to ground the entire concept of 'personhood' on!
Nothing: God's new Name - Antoine Suarez – video Paraphrased quote: (“it is impossible for us to be 'persons' experiencing 'now' if we are nothing but particles flowing in space time. Moreover, for us to refer to ourselves as 'persons', we cannot refer to space-time as the ultimate substratum upon which everything exists, but must refer to a Person who is not bound by space time. i.e. We must refer to God!”) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SOr9QqyaLlA
And JVL, it is not just our 'sense of self', i.e. our very 'personhood', that Darwinists end up denying the reality of, Darwinists end up, because of their reductive materialistic framework, being forced to deny the reality of many things that everyone, including the vast majority of Darwinists themselves, accept as being undeniably real.
Basically, because of reductive materialism (and/or methodological naturalism), the atheistic materialist (who believes Darwinian evolution to be true) is forced to claim that he is merely a ‘neuronal illusion’ (Coyne, Dennett, etc..), who has the illusion of free will (Harris, Coyne), who has unreliable, (i.e. illusory), beliefs about reality (Plantinga), who has illusory perceptions of reality (Hoffman), who, since he has no real time empirical evidence substantiating his grandiose claims, must make up illusory “just so stories” with the illusory, and impotent, ‘designer substitute’ of natural selection (Behe, Gould, Sternberg), so as to ‘explain away’ the appearance (i.e. the illusion) of design (Crick, Dawkins), and who also must make up illusory meanings and purposes for his life since the hopelessness of the nihilism inherent in his atheistic worldview is simply too much for him to bear (Weikart), and who must also hold morality to be subjective and illusory since he has rejected God (Craig, Kreeft). Who, since beauty cannot be grounded within his materialistic worldview, must also hold beauty itself to be illusory (Darwin). Bottom line, nothing is truly real in the atheist’s worldview, least of all, beauty, morality, meaning and purposes for life.,,, April 18, 2021 - Defense of each claim https://uncommondescent.com/philosophy/philosopher-mary-midgeley-1919-2018-on-scientism/#comment-728595
Thus JVL, although a Darwinian Atheist and/or Methodological Naturalist, such as yourself, may firmly, and falsely, believe that he is on the terra firma of science (in his appeal, even demand, for naturalistic explanations over and above God as a viable explanation), the fact of the matter is that, when examining the details of your materialistic/naturalistic worldview, it is found that Darwinists/Atheists themselves are adrift in an ocean of fantasy and imagination with no discernible anchor for reality to grab on to. It would be hard to fathom a worldview more antagonistic to modern science, indeed more antagonistic to reality itself, than Atheistic materialism and/or methodological naturalism have turned out to be.
2 Corinthians 10:5 Casting down imaginations, and every high thing that exalteth itself against the knowledge of God, and bringing into captivity every thought to the obedience of Christ;
And to put a cherry on top of all this, and in keeping with the neuronal illusion of JVL wanting to talk about 'science', empirical science has now proven, via the falsification of ‘realism’ by Leggett’s inequality, that material particles themselves, (which Darwinian materialists hold to be the ultimate foundation, and/or definition, for all of reality), are themselves not ‘real’.
Quantum physics says goodbye to reality – Apr 20, 2007 Excerpt: Many realizations of the thought experiment have indeed verified the violation of Bell’s inequality. These have ruled out all hidden-variables theories based on joint assumptions of realism, meaning that reality exists when we are not observing it; and locality, meaning that separated events cannot influence one another instantaneously. But a violation of Bell’s inequality does not tell specifically which assumption – realism, locality or both – is discordant with quantum mechanics. Markus Aspelmeyer, Anton Zeilinger and colleagues from the University of Vienna, however, have now shown that realism is more of a problem than locality in the quantum world. They devised an experiment that violates a different inequality proposed by physicist Anthony Leggett in 2003 that relies only on realism, and relaxes the reliance on locality. To do this, rather than taking measurements along just one plane of polarization, the Austrian team took measurements in additional, perpendicular planes to check for elliptical polarization. They found that, just as in the realizations of Bell’s thought experiment, Leggett’s inequality is violated – thus stressing the quantum-mechanical assertion that reality does not exist when we’re not observing it. “Our study shows that ‘just’ giving up the concept of locality would not be enough to obtain a more complete description of quantum mechanics,” Aspelmeyer told Physics Web. “You would also have to give up certain intuitive features of realism.” http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/27640
Verse:
1 Thessalonians 5:21 but test all things. Hold fast to what is good.
bornagain77
October 22, 2022
October
10
Oct
22
22
2022
02:31 AM
2
02
31
AM
PDT
Bornagain77: So you are not talking about “unguided evolutionary theory”??? I was trying to have a conversation with a real person, not a quote-mined database.JVL
October 22, 2022
October
10
Oct
22
22
2022
12:42 AM
12
12
42
AM
PDT
Per Martin at 1, "And now, let’s get serious…. Dr. James Tour’s latest presentation:"
Dr. Tour EXPOSES the False Science Behind Origin of Life Research https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v36_v4hsB-Y
bornagain77
October 21, 2022
October
10
Oct
21
21
2022
01:26 PM
1
01
26
PM
PDT
"I am (talking about science)". So you are not talking about “unguided evolutionary theory”???
Sociobiology: The Art of Story Telling – Stephen Jay Gould – 1978 – New Scientist Excerpt: Rudyard Kipling asked how the leopard got its spots, the rhino its wrinkled skin. He called his answers “Just So stories”. When evolutionists study individual adaptations, when they try to explain form and behaviour by reconstructing history and assessing current utility, they also tell just so stories – and the agent is natural selection. Virtuosity in invention replaces testability as the criterion for acceptance. https://books.google.com/books?id=tRj7EyRFVqYC&pg=PA530 “... another common misuse of evolutionary ideas: namely, the idea that some trait must have evolved merely because we can imagine a scenario under which possession of that trait would have been advantageous to fitness... Such forays into evolutionary explanation amount ultimately to storytelling... it is not enough to construct a story about how the trait might have evolved in response to a given selection pressure; rather, one must provide some sort of evidence that it really did so evolve. This is a very tall order.…” — Austin L. Hughes, The Folly of Scientism - The New Atlantis, Fall 2012 Atheist and Darwinian Science and Story Telling, part 1 of 9 Excerpt: (Darwinists) must deal with the fact that abiogenesis (abiotic synthesis) is not observed anywhere and is not producible in any experiments (and if it was it would be evidence of intelligent design).,,, What is their answer? They can imagine a time, long, long ago in the Earth’s past, when everything happened just so and abiogenesis was possible. What about filling the various gaps in our knowledge? They can imagine a time in the distant future when their beliefs will be proven true: in other words they think that eventually material causes will be discovered for all material effects including the universe itself.,, Herein lies the fallacies: they merely regress to an unknown past in which they can imagine thing occurring that do not occur today (what happened to uniformitarianism?) and they can project into an equally unknown future at which time we will discover that absolute materialism is true. Atheists of this sort appeal to inaccessible, unobserved, un-experimented upon, ideal and self-service concepts and replace evidence for imagination. As long as they can imagine it, it must be true: this appears to be what Richard Dawkins meant by being an intellectually fulfilled atheist. https://truefreethinker.com/atheist-and-darwinian-science-and-story-telling-part-1-of-9/
bornagain77
October 21, 2022
October
10
Oct
21
21
2022
12:58 PM
12
12
58
PM
PDT
Relatd: “unguided evolutionary theory” I have rejected this. Then why are you trying to argue with me? You're not going to change your mind. You're not engaging in a conversation for any real purpose. Why do you keep responding when it's clear there is no point in you doing so?JVL
October 21, 2022
October
10
Oct
21
21
2022
12:53 PM
12
12
53
PM
PDT
Bornagain77: But I thought you said that you wanted to talk about science? I am. It's you that keeps dodging the issues with you incessant copy-and-paste style of argumentation. It's almost like you have no real opinion of your own that you can present without copious quote-mined references. Why don't you try, for once, to actually have a real conversation with someone, without all the smoke screen of links. If you really understand the issues then you should be able to make the arguments on your own without so much propping up.JVL
October 21, 2022
October
10
Oct
21
21
2022
12:49 PM
12
12
49
PM
PDT
JVL at 44, "unguided evolutionary theory" I have rejected this.relatd
October 21, 2022
October
10
Oct
21
21
2022
12:45 PM
12
12
45
PM
PDT
"I’m happy to talk about unguided evolutionary theory" But I thought you said that you wanted to talk about science?
Charles Darwin to Asa Gray – 29 November 1857 My dear Gray, ,,, What you hint at generally is very very true, that my work will be grievously hypothetical & large parts by no means worthy of being called inductive; my commonest error being probably induction from too few facts. https://www.darwinproject.ac.uk/letter/DCP-LETT-2176.xml “There are five standard tests for a scientific hypothesis. Has anyone observed the phenomenon — in this case, Evolution — as it occurred and recorded it? Could other scientists replicate it? Could any of them come up with a set of facts that, if true, would contradict the theory (Karl Popper’s “falsifiability” tests)? Could scientists make predictions based on it? Did it illuminate hitherto unknown or baffling areas of science? In the case of Evolution… well… no… no… no… no… and no.” – Tom Wolfe – The Kingdom of Speech – page 17
bornagain77
October 21, 2022
October
10
Oct
21
21
2022
12:38 PM
12
12
38
PM
PDT
Bornagain77: You are the one who said you wanted to talk about science. I just wanted to know why you did not want to talk about Darwinism anymore. I'm happy to talk about unguided evolutionary theory when someone asked me a direct question and is willing to engage in a real conversation.JVL
October 21, 2022
October
10
Oct
21
21
2022
12:31 PM
12
12
31
PM
PDT
Reatld: You apparently missed the “zero mention of God” part. Why bring up God at all? If it's not pertinent then it should never have been introduced. But you did.JVL
October 21, 2022
October
10
Oct
21
21
2022
12:29 PM
12
12
29
PM
PDT
JVL, no need to get upset. You are the one who said you wanted to talk about science. I just wanted to know why you did not want to talk about Darwinism anymore.
Top Ten Questions and Objections to ‘Introduction to Evolutionary Informatics’ – Robert J. Marks II – June 12, 2017 Excerpt: “There exists no model successfully describing undirected Darwinian evolution. Hard sciences are built on foundations of mathematics or definitive simulations. Examples include electromagnetics, Newtonian mechanics, geophysics, relativity, thermodynamics, quantum mechanics, optics, and many areas in biology. Those hoping to establish Darwinian evolution as a hard science with a model have either failed or inadvertently cheated. These models contain guidance mechanisms to land the airplane squarely on the target runway despite stochastic wind gusts. Not only can the guiding assistance be specifically identified in each proposed evolution model, its contribution to the success can be measured, in bits, as active information.,,,”,,, “there exists no model successfully describing undirected Darwinian evolution. According to our current understanding, there never will be.,,,” https://evolutionnews.org/2017/06/top-ten-questions-and-objections-to-introduction-to-evolutionary-informatics/ Robert Jackson Marks II is an American electrical engineer. His contributions include the Zhao-Atlas-Marks (ZAM) time-frequency distribution in the field of signal processing,[1] the Cheung–Marks theorem[2] in Shannon sampling theory and the Papoulis-Marks-Cheung (PMC) approach in multidimensional sampling.[3] He was instrumental in the defining of the field of computational intelligence and co-edited the first book using computational intelligence in the title.[4][5] – per wikipedia
bornagain77
October 21, 2022
October
10
Oct
21
21
2022
12:06 PM
12
12
06
PM
PDT
JVL at 40, You apparently missed the "zero mention of God" part.relatd
October 21, 2022
October
10
Oct
21
21
2022
11:20 AM
11
11
20
AM
PDT
Relatd: Science? What kind of science would that be? Discredited evolution – OR – Origin of Life with zero, I mean zero mention of God? I've never figured out how to test 'God' in a lab. If you have any insight into that issue I'm open to persuasion.JVL
October 21, 2022
October
10
Oct
21
21
2022
11:13 AM
11
11
13
AM
PDT
JVL at 38, Science? What kind of science would that be? Discredited evolution - OR - Origin of Life with zero, I mean zero mention of God?relatd
October 21, 2022
October
10
Oct
21
21
2022
11:04 AM
11
11
04
AM
PDT
Relatd: Stop it. Just stop it. When you want to talk about science let me know.JVL
October 21, 2022
October
10
Oct
21
21
2022
11:01 AM
11
11
01
AM
PDT
JVL at 33, With apologies to Al Jolson. Sung to the tune of Swanee. Si - ence! How I love ya How I love ya My dear old Si - ence!relatd
October 21, 2022
October
10
Oct
21
21
2022
10:08 AM
10
10
08
AM
PDT
JVL at 35, Stop it. Just stop it.relatd
October 21, 2022
October
10
Oct
21
21
2022
10:05 AM
10
10
05
AM
PDT
Bornagain77: What?, you don’t want to talk about Darwinism anymore? I wasn't talking to you was I? With your history of spamming conversations with tons of quote-mined references one of which I showed was completely opposite of what you claimed it was. Instead of just trying to hijack conversations why don't you actually engage in a particular argument as opposed to just showing off you database of quotes.JVL
October 21, 2022
October
10
Oct
21
21
2022
10:01 AM
10
10
01
AM
PDT
"When you want to talk about science let me know." What?, you don't want to talk about Darwinism anymore?
"nobody to date has yet found a demarcation criterion according to which Darwin can be described as scientific" - Imre Lakatos - 1973 LSE Scientific Method Lecture Dubitable Darwin? Why Some Smart, Nonreligious People Doubt the Theory of Evolution - John Horgan - July 6, 2010 Excerpt: Early in his career, the philosopher Karl Popper ,, called evolution via natural selection “almost a tautology” and “not a testable scientific theory but a metaphysical research program.” Attacked for these criticisms, Popper took them back (in approx 1978). But when I interviewed him in 1992, he blurted out that he still found Darwin’s theory dissatisfying. “One ought to look for alternatives!” Popper exclaimed, banging his kitchen table. http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/cross-check/dubitable-darwin-why-some-smart-nonreligious-people-doubt-the-theory-of-evolution/ “In fact, over the last 100 years, almost all of biology has proceeded independent of evolution, except evolutionary biology itself. Molecular biology, biochemistry, and physiology, have not taken evolution into account at all.” - Marc Kirschner, founding chair of the Department of Systems Biology at Harvard Medical School, Boston Globe, Oct. 23, 2005 “While the great majority of biologists would probably agree with Theodosius Dobzhansky’s dictum that “Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution”, most can conduct their work quite happily without particular reference to evolutionary ideas. Evolution would appear to be the indispensable unifying idea and, at the same time, a highly superflous one.” - A.S. Wilkins, editor of the journal BioEssays, Introduction to “Evolutionary Processes” – (2000).
bornagain77
October 21, 2022
October
10
Oct
21
21
2022
09:56 AM
9
09
56
AM
PDT
Relatd: The two scientists are gone. God is having a good laugh. When you want to talk about science let me know.JVL
October 21, 2022
October
10
Oct
21
21
2022
09:41 AM
9
09
41
AM
PDT
JVL at 31, Let's see: Evolution CAUSES: "Compared to the US it has better heath care, lower rates of violent crimes, better life expectancy, lower infant mortality." "... ongoing research into the area." Research? Imagine the following two panel cartoon in black and white. Two scientists are sitting in a lab discussing the Origin of Life on Earth. In the background, God is standing there. "So, I'm leaning toward aliens." Why is that? "Isn't it obvious? Aliens are more advanced than we are and can do anything." Anything? That's it? What about chemical reactions on Earth? Or any other idea? "Well, chemical reactions was my second choice. I can't think of anything else." PANEL TWO The two scientists are gone. God is having a good laugh.relatd
October 21, 2022
October
10
Oct
21
21
2022
09:39 AM
9
09
39
AM
PDT
Relatd: Every time you post, the needle on my Nonsense-O-Meter goes into the red. Obviously we disagree. So? You seem to want an eternal stalemate or eternal vagueness. I don't think it makes sense to call something done and dusted when there is ongoing research into the area. Kids in school need to be told that someone made them – today. Right now. Why is that? Evolution is taught all over Europe and has been done for decades. And Europe is doing just fine. Compared to the US it has better heath care, lower rates of violent crimes, better life expectancy, lower infant mortality. Somehow. Yes, well, not at all… Life had to start somewhere at some time. If you have an explantation which can be tested in a lab and has predictive power and does not make assumptions about causes or agents for which there is no evidence then please present it.JVL
October 21, 2022
October
10
Oct
21
21
2022
09:22 AM
9
09
22
AM
PDT
Marfin: So you will never accept any law as there is not one scientific law that has been tested by every single scenario known to man especially scenarios that may be found in the future. No, I didn't say that either. Do you always carry on discussions by widely exaggerating what you think the other person might have meant? The law of life from only preceding life is just that a LAW , it fits the criteria that most if not all scientific laws are judged on, ” something which is a regularity in nature with no known exceptions experimental or observational “. We don't know if it's a law or not. Also, because of the lack of evidence for any other kind of source for life on Earth, our best guess right now is that somehow life arose via basic chemical and physical laws which we do know. That's something you can work with and study and test and experiment with. AND it doesn't include any processes or agents that we don't know about and there is no evidence of them existing at the time. Your argument is a classic argument from ignorance: we've never seen this or that so we conclude it couldn't have happened which is exactly what you are saying by claiming its a scientific law. The second law of thermodynamics IS a law because it has been tested over and over and over again AND it can successfully predict outcomes. Life exclusively comes from life has not been extensively tested yet. It's in the process. AND, if it were true, then how did life on Earth come about? Alien visitation? One of the other commenters said that's a stupid idea. Why do you WANT it to be a law? What is your motivation? Aliens did it does not break this law actually it confirms it , assuming you believe the aliens are alive. I've already addressed this issue.JVL
October 21, 2022
October
10
Oct
21
21
2022
08:55 AM
8
08
55
AM
PDT
JVL at 28, The ol' dodge and weave. Your tactics - and that's what they are - need to be pointed out. That's all I'm doing. Every time you post, the needle on my Nonsense-O-Meter goes into the red. You seem to want an eternal stalemate or eternal vagueness. Just like those who write about a fictional idea called evolution. There's no time for such things here and in the real world. Kids in school need to be told that someone made them - today. Right now. Not: "... a first basic replicator. Which came about somehow." Somehow. Yes, well, not at all...relatd
October 21, 2022
October
10
Oct
21
21
2022
08:51 AM
8
08
51
AM
PDT
Relatd: So, JVL, you’re here for no particular reason? Did you really not even read my very next sentence? Do I have to repeat it 'cause you chose not to read the entirety of one short paragraph? . . . the foot that trips up others who have good, credible things to say In case you hadn't noticed . . . not only are my opinions in the minority here but I have no control over who posts or what they post. If they find my questions a bit tricky then perhaps they should work on the answers. Let’s look at “Aliens did it.” You are listing some of the reasons I find that explanation exceedingly improbable. So what's your point? I didn't say I was supporting the idea. Except for the evolution part; that I think is probable AFTER there was a first basic replicator. Which came about somehow.JVL
October 21, 2022
October
10
Oct
21
21
2022
08:45 AM
8
08
45
AM
PDT
JVL , So you will never accept any law as there is not one scientific law that has been tested by every single scenario known to man especially scenarios that may be found in the future. The law of life from only preceding life is just that a LAW , it fits the criteria that most if not all scientific laws are judged on, " something which is a regularity in nature with no known exceptions experimental or observational ". Aliens did it does not break this law actually it confirms it , assuming you believe the aliens are alive.Marfin
October 21, 2022
October
10
Oct
21
21
2022
08:34 AM
8
08
34
AM
PDT
Let's look at "Aliens did it." They were just sitting around one day and someone said, "I know. Let's seed other planets with life". Here's the first, and only problem that matters. You can't send an Earth plant to Mars and expect it to grow there. In order to seed life on an alien planet you have to make sure that it won't die before it takes hold. What stupid, stupid thinking on the part of scientists wedded to the false idea that "evolution" would take over and eventually lead to human beings - for no particular reason. Beyond stupid.relatd
October 21, 2022
October
10
Oct
21
21
2022
08:16 AM
8
08
16
AM
PDT
1 2 3 4 5

Leave a Reply