the END goal...

Get Email Updates Email this Topic Print this Page

richrf
 
Reply Sun 21 Jun, 2009 11:42 am
@manored,
manored;70858 wrote:
I dont think life is cyclical, because that would be boring... dont feel like remembering why I think a boring world is impossible though, I hope you know it Smile


Yes, change makes the world interesting. I'm always changing. Everyday I do something different.

Rich
 
TurboLung
 
Reply Mon 22 Jun, 2009 07:46 pm
@Dave Allen,
Dave Allen;70795 wrote:
What's the context?


Can you stop prevaricating and just explain what you meant?



By all means, but what did you actually mean?


:poke-eye:


Dave Allen;70795 wrote:
Look - whatever - I accept your insulting remarks. Feel free to throw more my direction - it takes a lot to make me cry.


oh dr. contradiction, don't we remember this?

Quote:
...it's probably best you head back to Sunday School to hear some explanations anyone can easily understand.


or perhaps, this;

Quote:
...it's aimed at people like you who seem to struggle to grasp the nuts and bolts


:Not-Impressed:



Dave Allen;70795 wrote:
Seeing as it's, in my view, picayune - yes.


i am glad you have finally made it clear that you throw your faith into possible answers the float about theroies in their infancy that have more holes than swiss cheese..

Dave Allen;70795 wrote:
Depends on the validity of the critique.


so, the theory in its infancy you so whole-heartedly embrace holds little validity, but to question the theory in its infancy is unacceptable in your eyes?

Dave Allen;70795 wrote:
But special relativity has not been disproven. See, the links you posted did not disprove it, they merely posited some possible issues with it.


exactly, but the links show that other scientists can easily find replacement theories, even when it comes to einstein. theories can easily be muddied by other scientists and eventually you start to wonder if you can take on board any theories without a grain of salt. so, what i am pointing at is, yes, your theory in its infancy may be hold some truth, however, it is not something we can accept as fact [as you so readily do], especially when it is not widely accepted by scientists and especially when it is full of holes.

Dave Allen;70795 wrote:
Well, it's fully compatitble with a lot of what is known about physics - so to say it isn't built on a body of facts is terribly misleading.


Quote:
The basic problem with string theory is that it is thought-based -- not reality-based. For the past 35 years string theory has brought about an infinite variety of universes, multiverses, parallel universes, membrane universes, wormholes, singularities, and a whole plethora of fantasy-math concepts that no one understands including their creator and the Creator. No successful theory of anything has ever been this complex. The great geniuses of our time have misspent their lives on this mathematical version of alchemy.
[/COLOR]

&

Quote:

Theory Failure #1: In order to make string theory work on paper our four dimensional real world had to be increased to eleven dimensions. Since these extra dimensions can never be verified, they must be believed with religious-like faith -- not science.
Theory Failure #2: Since there are an incalculable number of variations of the extra seven dimensions in string theory there are an infinite number of probable outcomes.
Theory Failure #3: The only prediction ever made by string theory -- the strength of the cosmological constant -- was off by a factor of 55, which is the difference in magnitude of a baseball and our sun.
Theory Failure #4: While many proponents have called string theory "elegant," this is the furthest thing from the truth. No theory has ever proven as cumbrous and unyielding as string theory. With all of its countless permutations it has established itself to be endless not elegant.
Theory Failure #5: The final nail in the coffin of string theory is that it can never be tested.


Dave Allen;70795 wrote:
Again, just because objections have been raised to the theories does not mean they have been overturned. (In fact I think most of the theories you are referring to are actually hypotheses, particularly in regards to Hawkins).


no. hawkins biggest blunder was his fully fledged theory that black holes destroyed information. now, scientists always believed that information in the universe could NEVER be destroyed, only transferred and dispersed. hawkins publically admitted that his theory was wrong years later.

Dave Allen;70795 wrote:
So a theory is actually something much more important than a fact - it is a framework that accounts for a body of facts.


i would say that it could be considered dangerous. it might be dangerous to believe a story based on a few facts, while filling in the gaps. do you think a court of law would base their decision on someone's testimony based on a few facts and the rest assumptions? no, what would happen would be that the case would be thrown out.

my theory is that stars run on double-a batteries. well, it must be true because stars glow and need some type of power... there is my theory and it frames a fact. do you believe it?


Dave Allen;70795 wrote:
Well, that's not really true.
Dave Allen;70795 wrote:


There are scientists who gloss over things in their hypotheses or research - we call them bad scientists.


how do you know your theory in its infancy hasn't been partially worked on by "bad scientists"?


Dave Allen;70795 wrote:
Sure, I know of physicists who just couldn't give a fig for biology or metaphysics.


you know, and i know, that everyone would be interested in the beginning of life. now you are being silly.

Dave Allen;70795 wrote:
No, a net isn't held together by the gaps but by the framework.


but a net has more holes than framwork. :rolleyes:


Dave Allen;70795 wrote:
Yes - you can't get far without assumptions and the best ones are the ones for which there is evidence.


if there was evidence, then it wouldn't be an assumption. you assume when you don't have evidence.


Dave Allen;70795 wrote:
How could quantum theory make replicating organisms appear in a static environment with no catalyst?That will put me in my place.


i have put you in your place with the quantum mechanics argument. do you agree?
 
Dave Allen
 
Reply Tue 23 Jun, 2009 04:53 am
@TurboLung,
TurboLung;71245 wrote:
oh dr. contradiction, don't we remember this?

or perhaps, this;

:Not-Impressed:

OK we seem to be stuck over some childish mudslinging. Let's try and move on - for my part I apologise if my words caused offence. There's no need to apologise for your own insults, as I'm not offended by them and they haven't prevented me from answering your questions. I didn't mean for the injection of a little cut and thrust into the debate to get in the way of providing answers.

I'll anticipate what you might of meant by (I paraphrase) "when did the molecules decide to live".

When did self-replicating molecules reach such a degree of complexity that they began to display the qualities of life shared by all organisms which display such qualities?

The evidence points to a common ancestor of all multicellular and single-celled life. The form is likely to have been prokaryotic rather than eukaryotic as eukaryotes are more complex, carrying a nucleus and other cell furniture not found in prokaryotes.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/19/Phylogenetic_Tree_of_Life.png

As you can see from the diagram the first branch is - based on the best evidence and arguments - thought to be Firmicutes. These gram-positive bacteria are simpler than gram-negative ones, lacking an additional layer of outer cell wall.

Modern Firmicutes looke like this:

http://www.sflorg.com/sciencenews/images/imscn080706_01_01.jpg

So this is the best example of what the very first forms of life might have been like.

That's my hypothesis, anyway. I can think of objections - it's always risky to assume ancestral forms share characteristics with modern ones. However, these are the simplest lifeforms (quibbles over what makes a lifeform aside) that are known to science today and the fossil record records a gradual lack of complexity the further back we go and logically this ties in with natural selection.

So the basal form of all life was probably a lot like this. They obviously didn't live inside human guts - probably in snottites.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/caves/images/extr_snottites.jpg

Fossils of such organisms exist in the Paleoarchean rocks - which range in age from 3,200,000,000 to 3,600,000,000 years old.

There are contested claims about fossil bacteria from even older rocks, though the only clear fossils of recognisably fully-formed prokaryotes date from the Paleoarchean.

So, circa 3,400,000,000 BCE as an estimate.

Quote:
i am glad you have finally made it clear that you throw your faith into possible answers the float about theroies in their infancy that have more holes than swiss cheese..

You're conflating two different issues. Scientific consensus is pretty much reached over the criteria for life. There is a bit of controversy over the exact place where the line is drawn, as there is on many issues, but the quibbles are pretty trifling and irrelevent really. I'd ignore them for all practical purposes - but it seemed dishonest not to note that there is some minor quibbling.

That aside... I don't see any answers other than "possible" answers - by all means elucidate a counter structure that has better arguments to support it. So where it comes to me "throwing my faith" - at the risk of seeming martyrly I feel like I've had to state my position on this a dozen times already - I trust the best made arguments for which there is the most evidence.

This is a leap of faith to a degree - but it strikes me as the shortest jump of all the alternatives, and the one which actually takes me to a place I find a lot more interesting to be than either the paralysis of abiding by Cartesian doubt or the myths of religion.

What alternative do you suggest?

1) Doubt everything - go nowhere.
2) Trust the scientific method - go places I find interesting, that tell lots of fascinating stories backed up by interlocking theory and evidence that has practical application to where, how and why I live. Increase my practical understanding of things.
3) Trust in myth - a lot of confusing and contradictory ideas backed up by nothing but anecdotal evidence that seems to offer a satisfying metaphysical meal until you try and query it when you are invariably told that you are making wrong interpretations, have to exercise poetic license, or that you are seeking answers to questions that should be left unspoken.
4) Or what?

I like option 2. Sometimes I indulge in option 1 because I like a bit of sessile indulgence from time to time - though it's tedious to overapply it. Option 3 is merely of use for fiction and imagination as far as I see it - useful for exercising certain human faculties, but far inferior to option 2 for actually learning about life the universe and everything. Others seem to like it, but it just doesn't do anything for me. It's too easy and boring.

Quote:
so, the theory in its infancy you so whole-heartedly embrace holds little validity, but to question the theory in its infancy is unacceptable in your eyes?

This is just the same objection as the one that inspired my response but reworded, as far as I can tell. If I think the critique is valid then I'll not dismiss it. If it's a pat observation made and debunked over and over again I will.

Saying "it's just a theory" is pat - because scientific theory is a poweful tool.
Saying "it's not complete" is pat - because no theory is (the theory of special relativity accounts for some oddities in the theory of gravity, and the links you posted point out some holes in the theory of special relativity) and you have yet to point me to a more likely alternative.

I'm not "whole-heartedly" embracing anything - but I'll throw my lot in with the infant. Why? An infant is weak and small, but also holds potential. What else is there? If the baby's all there is - I'm with the baby.

He seems to be growing fast.

Quote:
exactly, but the links show that other scientists can easily find replacement theories, even when it comes to einstein.

The links shows that other scientists can hypothesise about apparent problems with the theory - it does not show that they can junk it or replace it. No one in the links seems to propose a new framework, they highlight a few issues that need further examination.

As I already admitted, it may need tweaking, rebuilding or junking as a result of these issues, but it has not been "disproven" - it just doesn't seem to account for certain things and there is currently no better alternative.

So if you want to try and understand and predict the things Special Relativity seeks to predict there is still nothing better to do it with than SR - despite a few areas of objection.

Quote:
theories can easily be muddied by other scientists and eventually you start to wonder if you can take on board any theories without a grain of salt.

True, but what's the alternative?

Quote:
so, what i am pointing at is, yes, your theory in its infancy may be hold some truth, however, it is not something we can accept as fact (as you so readily do). especially when it is not widely accepted by scientists and especially when it is full of holes.

Colloquially, I accept as fact that which is the best argument, and I don't see any better arguments than abiogenesis. By all means fight a negative campaign - but what have got to propose that's any better?

Scientifically, I accept as fact what can be observed as true - because science takes that conceptual leap which philosophy distrusts - I don't accept abiogenesis as fact - I accept it as theory, which is an organising structure of facts.

Quote:
i would say that it could be considered dangerous. it might be dangerous to believe a story based on a few facts, while filling in the gaps. do you think a court of law would base their decision on someone's testimony based on a few facts and the rest assumptions?

It happens regularly. Witness testimony is assumed on it's merits - not hard facts - and cases are often built on little else. Judges and juries are assumed impartial.

As an example - pretty much all rape convictions. There's no real physical evidence to seperate consensual sex from many cases of rape - so the testimony of those involved, character witnesses, and so on, are required to make or break a case.

Quote:
my theory is that stars run on double-a batteries. well, it must be true because stars glow and need some type of power... there is my theory and it frames a fact. do you believe it?

Your hypothesis is that stars run on AA batteries.

Your next step is to imagine some ways that you could test this hypothesis through calculation, experimentation and coordination with currently accepted theory. An easy test might be to figure out the amount of energy taken to power the reactions that take place within a star and see if an AA battery could supply such energy for the lifespan of various stars. A problem to overcome would be to explain how all the current theories about solar fusion are wrong. You would have to show how they are better explained by the insertion of a power source heretofore thought to be produced by human manufacture alone.

If your research shows that the hypothesis was wrong then you should review your hypothesis. If you are a 'bad' scientist you might refuse to admit to the shortcomings and move on anyway.

Once you run your experiments and make your calculations you can then submit your research to peer review by writing a paper about your hypothesis and the method by which you proved it works.

Peer review is the first process which weeds out bad science - your papers will be circulated about a number of experts in your field who will double check your calculations, review your experiments and raise objections or point out things you might have missed.

If your paper passes peer review, or is rewritten to account for peer review and subsequently passes it again, you can use it as an article for a scientific journal, letting the world know about your hypothesis. The journal will be read by huge numbers of people interested in the field.

If no one finds the hypothesis presented in the journal to be problematic, and if they find it a useful tool to explain the power of suns, then it is said to have passed into "scientific consensus", and can be tentatively termed a theory. However, during this period if scientists point out issues with it it will probably need reworking in order to qualify. If it gets a thorough junking at this stage it still can't be claimed as a scientific theory. However, if your working convinces the scientific community in general that previous theories or hypotheses about the sun were wrong and the "battery theory" is a better explanation then it's obviously got some merit.

Perhaps the "battery theory" is so good that it helps generate a new level of understanding - perhaps the qualities of AA batteries help explain why suns go nova. Perhaps based on the qualities of AA batteries scientist can better predict the lifespan of the stars.

If such a hypothesis passed peer review would I believe it? It would be hard to, I admit - I'd want to see the reasoning behind it before I did so. But the journey it takes from a hypothesis to a theory will have had to demonstrate it's plausability in order to be undertaken at all.

The problem here is that the colloquial use of the word "theory" is actually incorrect and pervasive to the point where almost everyone outside of the scientific community uses the term when they mean "hypothesis".

Such misuse is even found in a lot of popular science books, and pervades the media. So it's easy to see how confusion arises.

Quote:
how do you know your theory in its infancy hasn't been partially worked on by "bad scientists"?

It probably has been, but the aspects of the theory that have passed through the process outlined above are those that carry weight and will be pretty robust. The bad science will have been exposed and those scientists who provided it called into question.

Quote:
you know, and i know, that everyone would be interested in the beginning of life. now you are being silly.

No I'm not - some people are just blase about the issue. A few are highly religious, for example, and don't want to know anything that might contradict their religious beliefs.

Quote:
but a net has more holes than framwork. :rolleyes:

And is used to catch fish - the analogy wasn't meant to demonstrate a comprehensive set of simularities.

Quote:
if there was evidence, then it wouldn't be an assumption. you assume when you don't have evidence.

Science is born partly out of the philosophical observation that you can't be certain about anything. However, science makes the conceptual leap away from this in that it takes as read that facts based on observables lead you closer to the truth. Philosophy distrusts this jump because of philosophy's reluctance to seperate the nomenal and phenomenal. In philosophy there are no facts because ideas such as "am I the sage who dreampt he was a butterfly or the butterfly who dreampt he was the sage" are regarded as wise (and why not?).

Philosophy looks at that problem and says "interesting point" and subjects the question to various lines of enquiry depending on the school.

Science looks at that problem and says "you seem to be the sage, people encountering you who show no signs of delusion corroborate that you are the sage, butterflies have never been known to utter philosophical axioms, biologists say you display all the characteristics of a human and hardly any of a butterfly, so we think it's a pretty safe bet that you are the sage."

So science does deal in evidence and makes certain assumptions in order to link the pieces of evidence together, the process of reseach, testing, peer review, scientific consensus reinforces or junks those assumptions depending on how solid they turn out to be. Facts, laws and theories are still types of assumption, it just seems that no one can offer a better assumption.

To judge science by philosophy's standards, as richf seems to do, strikes me as fair enough on a philosophy forum. However, as Aedes points out, the end resort of this might be some sort of paralysis where the assumption that an observable is unreal is just as valid as the assumption that it is not, regardless of criteria - which is pretty impractical (as far as I can tell). I can respect the intellectual rigour, but I think it would be boring and impractical to answer "you can't really tell" to each and every question - even if it's true because the nature of reality is ulitmately unknowable as far as I know.

The view you seem to advocate above - that there must be a more concrete way to discover things - well, what is it? I'd love to know, but I think it's quite pie in the sky to claim we can reach statements of fact without making any assumptions. Even "I think therefore I am" is a subject of debate on this very forum.

Quote:

i have put you in your place with the quantum mechanics argument. do you agree?

If you want to call me on this I concede - though I will raise the objection that you seem in this case to be standing solidly by a hypothesis which is actually a whole lot less scientifically sound than may of the others that you have raised loud criticisms against.

So I'll stand down on quantum by all means as it appears I have a lot to learn.

I'd still like to know where Hawking talks about men walking through walls though, I have a copy of his book and don't know where the story is told.
 
Dave Allen
 
Reply Tue 23 Jun, 2009 08:12 am
@TurboLung,
Regarding the String Theory objections:
Firstly, a theory doesn't "fail" just because it can't account for something. No theory is a unified theory of everything (though string theory makes a move in this direction).

Secondly some of the objections raised are pretty spurious. "No succesful theory has been this complex" - well so what? One of the theories has to be the most complex.

Lastly - while there are obvious problems and lots left to discover about the theory the fact that people raise issues with it does not make my assertion that it corrolates with much of what we know about physics false. It does fit with a lot of known physics as well as making conceptual leaps. Whilst there are objections raised - none of them junk the theory or propose a better framework.

It's another negative campaign.

Also, looking at the site where you probably got your list from:

Quote:
I have a couple of reservations about your 'Theory Failure' list:

1. Theory Failure #1 and Theory Failure #5 appear to be redundant. They also may be false, as I can think of (and have read about) several, experimental approaches to testing the veracity of multiple dimensions empirically. Just because you can't measure something directly does not place outside the scrutiny of physcial science.

FOR EXAMPLE: It occurs to me that if physicists can produce convincing evidence of quantized space-time, that in itself may be an empirical suggestion of a God/Prime Mover/Uber-programmer. I won't boggle you with my argument on that - it still boggles me. I do not, however, think that we puny mortals should sell ourselves short on what can be verified vs. what is a matter of faith.

2. Theory Failure #2: I've seen this argument posited against a number of non-related situations. I am not a theoretical mathematician nor would I try to pass myself off as one, but the basic math training which I have had in public school and college leads me to understand that (anything that is finite) WILL NOT EQUAL OR PRODUCE (anything that is infinite). Unless there is some weird, esoteric, transcendental math discipline in which 5 + 3 = 1,4948 (in base 10: gotcha!) In other words no conceivable, finite amount of elements produce and infinite number of anything.

FOR EXAMPLE: There are trillions of stars in the known universe. They are made up of (roughly) about 102-105 atomic elements. Both 'trillions' and '105' are finite concepts. Big, but finite. They can never produce an 'infinite' possible number of life-form permutations. It is the only thing on which I disagreed with the late Dr. Carl Sagan.

Hope that made some sense.
Respectfully,
B. Fischer, Dogpatch, MN.


and

Quote:
Point #2 is wrong and should say a landscape of 10^500 different universes result from the different compactifications of the 6-d manifold, not an incalculable number.

Failure #3 contains a typing error and should read 10^55 not 55. If string theory predicted the cosmological constant off by just a factor of 55, it would be hailed a success. (Interestingly I predicted the acceleration of the universe and hence CC accurately in 1996 and published it, but nobody wants to know because it's not fashionable to build theory on facts!)


Now these quotes certainly point to further problems with the theory as well, and I think their authors have their own agendas too - I don't stand by them myself by any means, but they also show that the list of "failures" is flawed in both philosophy and data.

So my point about String Theory being the best currently available, and that it stands by a lot of physics, stands. Do I think it an unassailable edifice of truth - no - but it's the closest we have yet to come as far as I can tell.
 
manored
 
Reply Tue 23 Jun, 2009 01:12 pm
@TurboLung,
TurboLung;71245 wrote:

but a net has more holes than framwork. :rolleyes:
Does it falls apart because of that? Smile
 
TurboLung
 
Reply Thu 25 Jun, 2009 09:16 pm
@Dave Allen,

[QUOTE=Dave Allen;71343]
I'll anticipate what you might of meant by (I paraphrase) "when did the molecules decide to live".[/quote]

you know and i know that all along, you knew exactly what i meant. you were being stubborn. i can't hold that against you, because so was i.

[quote]The evidence points to a common ancestor of all multicellular and single-celled life. The form is likely to have been prokaryotic rather than eukaryotic as eukaryotes are more complex, carrying a nucleus and other cell furniture not found in prokaryotes...[/quote] etc etc...

okay, so i understand all this. as interesting as it is [and i would lean towards some of it having some merit]. however, the you have to ask these questions:

1] is it not mind-blowingly coincidental that there happened to be a whole lots of parts available [that when put together] created life? and, further to this, that these parts [just floating about the planet doing nothing] just so happened to be able to connect together? if anything, if the theory we are speaking of were true, then, it would be more believable that these ingredients were available and connectable by design, than say, just a total-off-the-bat-fluke.

2] let's get past the fact that these ingredients were just there on earth and that they co-incidentally were able to join up and form some type of life form; what was the point of the transition to life?
why were these ingredients able to join in such a way to lead to a life form? did it benefit the non-living matter to replicate into life forms?

3] if mere chemicals accidently formed to create life, then, what is the point of humans enjoying art, music etc? wouldn't all our functions only relate to survival?

[quote]This is a leap of faith to a degree - but it strikes me as the shortest jump of all the alternatives, and the one which actually takes me to a place I find a lot more interesting to be than either the paralysis of abiding by Cartesian doubt or the myths of religion.[/quote]

i would tend to agree. it is a huge leap of faith, but i too, find it very interesting; even though many of my answers are not, or, cannot be answered by this model/theory.

[quote]What alternative do you suggest?

2) Trust the scientific method - go places I find interesting, that tell lots of fascinating stories backed up by interlocking theory and evidence that has practical application to where, how and why I live. Increase my practical understanding of things.[/quote]

i do follow the scientific model, if there is enough evidence. this theory is not solid enough. also, i doubt all the science in the next 1000 years will not come close to answering our questions. although i am not religious [repeat: not religious] i believe there is a lot more to our surroundings/life that we will ever know.

[quote]3) Trust in myth - a lot of confusing and contradictory ideas backed up by nothing but anecdotal evidence that seems to offer a satisfying metaphysical meal until you try and query it when you are invariably told that you are making wrong interpretations, have to exercise poetic license, or that you are seeking answers to questions that should be left unspoken.[/quote]

i am of the belief that all religions are completely stupid in one way or another, however, i would say that where there is smoke, there is fire. i am not 100% convinced myself of this, but i can not dismiss the thought.

[quote]Saying "it's just a theory" is pat - because scientific theory is a poweful tool.[/quote]

as i have pointed out, this powerful tool is not bullet proof. many theories by big-name scientists have been proven false.


[quote]It happens regularly. Witness testimony is assumed on it's merits - not hard facts - and cases are often built on little else. Judges and juries are assumed impartial.[/quote]

there would need to be facts. example; three witnesses claim that they saw the accused murder another person. this is not enough if there is no body or person missing. this wouldn't even make it to court.

[quote]As an example - pretty much all rape convictions. There's no real physical evidence to separate consensual sex from many cases of rape - so the testimony of those involved, character witnesses, and so on, are required to make or break a case.[/quote]

this is incorrect. there is always evidence. police document injuries to the alleged victim. they also have a swab test of the vagina and look for injuries there. there may also be witnesses. they will look for clues of a struggle. interview all parties, take dna tests, look into the victim's background, look into the perpetrator's background. never, has there been a rape case where a person was convicted soely on the alleged victim's testimony - ever.


[quote]Your hypothesis is that stars run on AA batteries.[/quote]

yeah, you got me there. i was lazy and gave a bad example of what i was trying to convey.

[quote]Peer review is the first process which weeds out bad science - your papers will be circulated about a number of experts in your field who will double check your calculations, review your experiments and raise objections or point out things you might have missed.[/quote]

this has happened, and, guess what, there is NOT a big consensus on the theory.


[quote]No I'm not - some people are just blase about the issue. A few are highly religious, for example, and don't want to know anything that might contradict their religious beliefs.[/quote]

repeat: i would find it improbable that ANY scientists would not be interested in how life formed.

[quote]I'd still like to know where Hawking talks about men walking through walls though, I have a copy of his book and don't know where the story is told.[/QUOTE]

me either, and i'm NOT reading it again! Smile

all in all, you put up a strong argument and i enjoy your posts Smile
 
Aedes
 
Reply Thu 25 Jun, 2009 09:29 pm
@TurboLung,
TurboLung;72319 wrote:
1] is it not mind-blowingly coincidental that there happened to be a whole lots of parts available [that when put together] created life? and, further to this, that these parts [just floating about the planet doing nothing] just so happened to be able to connect together?
The "parts" are polymers formed out of a relatively narrow set of monomers. To go from elemental hydrogen and carbon dioxide to methane (CH4) is easily performed in the lab. And do you know what this is: CH3-CH2-CH2-CH2-CH2-COOH? It's a fatty acid. In an aqueous environment, fatty acids slurp together with the hydrophobic parts together and the hydrophilic acid part on the outside. (Just take a drop of olive oil and drop it in a glass of water, you'll see).

And it's no coincidence. Remember, the subsequent steps might have been highly probable. The odds of point A going to point B are exceptionally small if those two are 2 billion years apart. But each day proceded to the next. Impossible to predict what happens 2 billion years later, but you know SOMETHING will happen. And multicellular life in some form or another might have been extremely probable.
 
manored
 
Reply Fri 26 Jun, 2009 10:48 am
@TurboLung,
TurboLung;72319 wrote:


1] is it not mind-blowingly coincidental that there happened to be a whole lots of parts available [that when put together] created life? and, further to this, that these parts [just floating about the planet doing nothing] just so happened to be able to connect together? if anything, if the theory we are speaking of were true, then, it would be more believable that these ingredients were available and connectable by design, than say, just a total-off-the-bat-fluke.

2] let's get past the fact that these ingredients were just there on earth and that they co-incidentally were able to join up and form some type of life form; what was the point of the transition to life?
why were these ingredients able to join in such a way to lead to a life form? did it benefit the non-living matter to replicate into life forms?

3] if mere chemicals accidently formed to create life, then, what is the point of humans enjoying art, music etc? wouldn't all our functions only relate to survival?

1. Its not. How the hell would we be born in places winhout this huge coincidence? It would be strange if we were born in pluto or something.

3. There is some randowness involved into evolution.
 
Dave Allen
 
Reply Fri 26 Jun, 2009 12:46 pm
@TurboLung,
TurboLung;72319 wrote:
you know and i know that all along, you knew exactly what i meant. you were being stubborn. i can't hold that against you, because so was i.
Well, to pursue a theme, I guessed based on the available evidence, I did not 'know'.

But the likely conclusion could have been ceded earlier - true.

Quote:
1] is it not mind-blowingly coincidental that there happened to be a whole lots of parts available [that when put together] created life? and, further to this, that these parts [just floating about the planet doing nothing] just so happened to be able to connect together? if anything, if the theory we are speaking of were true, then, it would be more believable that these ingredients were available and connectable by design, than say, just a total-off-the-bat-fluke.

Well, physics teaches us that the early universe as we know it was essentially bunches of hydrogen atoms acting under the theory of gravity (itself incomplete and accounted for in part by special relativity).

If we take this as a base the formation of suns through nuclear fusion of hydrogen is not something that is unlikely - instead it is to be expected.

If we therefore take this as given the formation of the other elements is not unlikely, as they are the by products of this fusion and the lifecycle of suns.

Taking this as given, the formation of planets around suns is likely, and that carbon, oxygen, water and so on are likely to be pretty commonplace.

A certain degree of these planets will exist with in the 'habitable zone' around suns, and in solar systems with large "asteroid hoover" gas giants to protect them from meteor bombardment.

Of those habitable zone planets a certain number will contain the correct chemical conditions to set up the process of Abiogenesis - or something equivalent to it.

The following video examines the chemistry in more detail. FFWD to 2:45 to get the explanation (as the first few minutes are pretty irrelevent really).
YouTube - The Origin of Life - Abiogenesis
The following is also very good, if you ignore the interent memes that the author includes every now and then. If you don't want to watch the whole thing FFWD to 5:00 to see some excellent animation of how charged clay forms polynucleotides and how fatty acids form vesicles.
YouTube - How Abiogenesis Works
There may be millions of such worlds, or Earth may be the only one - but it's not necessarily massively coincidendental.

Furthermore massively coincidental things happen all of the time. For example - how likely was it that the particular sperm produced by your father to merge with the particular egg produced by your mother to produce you? Astronomical odds, and if you think about the particular sperms and eggs of your parents' parents producing them - that's a near miracle surely (unless you think on all those potential people you usurped)?

[quote]2] let's get past the fact that these ingredients were just there on earth and that they co-incidentally were able to join up and form some type of life form; what was the point of the transition to life? [/quote]
Quote:

why were these ingredients able to join in such a way to lead to a life form? did it benefit the non-living matter to replicate into life forms?
I think that when it comes down to point or purpose it has to be a matter of personal preferences. Even if someone believes in a point of life quite anthetical to my own I think I have to resepct their right to ponder what makes life worthwhile to them (though I would hope to oppose them carrying out anything too antisocial). It seems a bit starry and mystical to me to say "the point of these chemicals was simply to be" - but I honestly think that's the closest we can come without myth-making.

Which is maybe why myth-making is so popular.

Quote:
3] if mere chemicals accidently formed to create life, then, what is the point of humans enjoying art, music etc? wouldn't all our functions only relate to survival?
I think it's fundamental to survival that ways are found with which to appreciate existence - whether it's the endorphin rush a fish feels when it satisfys hunger - or whether it's the awe a fan of classical music feels watching a well orchestrated concert.

To return to point two - it given that appreciating life leads to survivability (suicide or terminal apathy being indicative of a total lack of appreciation of life) perhaps the point of trying to find a purpose is that it leads to appreciation of life?

I like to enjoy a bit of nihilism from time to time, because I think there's an austere beauty in acknowledging the chaos - and that it's character forming to take the odd peek at the abyss. However, I think the dangers of letting it become a habit are pretty obvious. I reckon having a plan of a few things you'd like to do before you die - ranging from the trivial to the transcendant - are just needed in order to enjoy yourself.
[quote]as i have pointed out, this [/quote]
Quote:
powerful tool is not bullet proof. many theories by big-name scientists have been proven false.

Well you keep saying - but as far as I can see the only real objections you raise that palpably hit the idea are metaphysical. What is demonstrated solidly by the theory is imperiveous to the bullets fired at it so far - what is not known is not known. So it may or may not be bullet proof - but what is visible to us appears to be.

Quote:
this is incorrect. there is always evidence. police document injuries to the alleged victim. they also have a swab test of the vagina and look for injuries there. there may also be witnesses. they will look for clues of a struggle. interview all parties, take dna tests, look into the victim's background, look into the perpetrator's background. never, has there been a rape case where a person was convicted soely on the alleged victim's testimony - ever.
In cases of date rape (which occur much more regularly than violent violations in back alleys) there often are no witnesses or injuries - yet there are convictions. Rape is often a case of one's word against another - as would be an accusation of pilfering between aquaintances ('you said I could have it') - reporting a vandal or anti-social behaviour - whether an assault was provoked or not - discrimination or harrasment in the workplace - whether or not somone who got the better of another in an informal deal is a confidence trickster or not.

Convictions in all these arenas are often reached without any exhibits or hard proof, and often on testimony alone.

[quote]this has happened, and, guess what, there is [/quote]
Quote:
NOT a big consensus on the theory.
There is widespread scientific consensus.

There are skeptics - as there are for all theories.
 
Arya
 
Reply Sat 27 Jun, 2009 12:57 pm
@TurboLung,
i think Everyone in life has a special reason for whyhe wants to live longer, some of them depend on the cause of religious, social or psychological,,,so we cannot specify sepcial end goal for all people your qustion is so general Smile

 
manored
 
Reply Sun 28 Jun, 2009 11:33 am
@Arya,
Arya;72773 wrote:
i think Everyone in life has a special reason for whyhe wants to live longer, some of them depend on the cause of religious, social or psychological,,,so we cannot specify sepcial end goal for all people your qustion is so general Smile

He means "end goal" as in the end goal of life, that is, why life strives to continue if it will do nothing other than continue itself. Only a few animals can have a purpose other than reproduction.
 
Aedes
 
Reply Sun 28 Jun, 2009 12:51 pm
@manored,
manored;73067 wrote:
Only a few animals can have a purpose other than reproduction.
I don't think reproduction is a purpose for ANY animal.

It happens to perpetuate animals (and plants and fungi and others...) but that doesn't make it their purpose, i.e. why they do things.

Animals act to satisfy instinctual drives. In the case of eating, it's because hunger induces food-seeking behaviors. In the case of mating it's because various signals trigger mating behavior.

But do you really think that a pair of humping dogs are thinking about having puppies?
 
manored
 
Reply Mon 29 Jun, 2009 04:45 pm
@TurboLung,
That is true, but all their instincts are aimed at reproduction, making their instincts kinda analogous to thinking about reproduction all the time... thats sort of what was on my head then I posted that Smile
 
TurboLung
 
Reply Mon 6 Jul, 2009 07:20 am
@Dave Allen,
Dave Allen;72495 wrote:

Well, physics teaches us that the early universe as we know it was essentially bunches of hydrogen atoms acting under the theory of gravity (itself incomplete and accounted for in part by special relativity).

If we take this as a base the formation of suns through nuclear fusion of hydrogen is not something that is unlikely - instead it is to be expected.

If we therefore take this as given the formation of the other elements is not unlikely, as they are the by products of this fusion and the lifecycle of suns.

Taking this as given, the formation of planets around suns is likely, and that carbon, oxygen, water and so on are likely to be pretty commonplace.

A certain degree of these planets will exist with in the 'habitable zone' around suns, and in solar systems with large "asteroid hoover" gas giants to protect them from meteor bombardment.

Of those habitable zone planets a certain number will contain the correct chemical conditions to set up the process of Abiogenesis - or something equivalent to it.

The following video examines the chemistry in more detail. FFWD to 2:45 to get the explanation (as the first few minutes are pretty irrelevent really).
YouTube - The Origin of Life - Abiogenesis
The following is also very good, if you ignore the interent memes that the author includes every now and then. If you don't want to watch the whole thing FFWD to 5:00 to see some excellent animation of how charged clay forms polynucleotides and how fatty acids form vesicles.
YouTube - How Abiogenesis Works
There may be millions of such worlds, or Earth may be the only one - but it's not necessarily massively coincidendental.



Big bang + hydrogen + the formation of planets around suns is likely + carbon, oxygen, water and so on are likely to be pretty commonplace + habitable zones + suns + solar systems + asteroid hoover gas giants to protect against meteor bombardment + correct chemical conditions + simple chemicals + polymers + replicating polymers + hypercycle + protobiant + bacteria = ... life.


well, isn't it [just a little even] co-incidental that all these things happen to be, which, eventually lead to life forms. and, i have only stated a few from your posts. in reality, this would only entail a microscopic sample of the billions of formulas, items, reactions and co-incidences that all lead to life.

as stated before, i am not religious. i feel i need to assert this point, as i can understand that i would appear to lean towards some religious belief.

at best, i would say that i am agnostic. now, there are degrees of being agnostic and mine lies in the realm of not believing in a god, however, not ruling the possibility out; a fence sitter if you will. i would say that the sheer co-incidences leading to life forms in our universe are just one of the reasons i remain agnostic.


so, even though i do have some faith in our debate over abiogenesis, i believe that it is just as possible that the mere fact that some of these chemicals react in such a manner to produce self replicating organisms that can grow, compete and evolve, that the whole system is designed. in fact, the answer seems more sensible than believing that the big bang, all these co-incidental chemicals and processes are just that - co-incidence or just accidental.


let's think about that for a second. it would take just one of these missing parts of co-incidences to screw the whole system leading to life forms. i have used this example before and i will again; the co-incidences are like a tornado tearing apart a town and accidently creating a boeing 747 with the parts sucked up.


i have heard all sorts of retorts, like, 'the universe is huge, so, there is a lot of room for co-incidents'. well, maybe there is, nevertheless, these processes and building blocks for life are all over the universe and, again, remove one and the universe would be lifeless, or, should i say, habitable planets would not exist.


and then i have heard, 'there are probably an infinite amount of universes. this could be just one of billions that has the formulas for life. with an infinite amount of universes, there would be bound to have one that hit the jackpot with the right ingredients' sure, i could believe this, then again, maybe we are getting a little ahead of ourselves.


Quote:
Furthermore massively coincidental things happen all of the time. For example - how likely was it that the particular sperm produced by your father to merge with the particular egg produced by your mother to produce you? Astronomical odds, and if you think about the particular sperms and eggs of your parents' parents producing them - that's a near miracle surely (unless you think on all those potential people you usurped)?


there is a difference with these co-incidents. the example you gave is like picking out a marble from a bag of a million, hoping to find the red one for example. this is not really a co-incidence, or, not the type we are using in this debate. what you are talking about is luck, odds or probabilities.
i am talking about this:


(kō-ĭn'sĭ-dəns, -děns') http://cache.lexico.com/g/d/dictionary_questionbutton_default.gif






n. [LIST=1]
[*]The state or fact of occupying the same relative position or area in space.
[*]A sequence of events that although accidental seems to have been planned or arranged.
[/LIST]
the co-incidents leading to life is much more complex. the enormity of the differences in the two co-incidences is like a black hole vs a tennis ball.

the co-incidences of life, which remember can only think [i have placed the word think in italics so you understand that i am not using the word literally Smile] about beginning once all of the co-incidences that allow the universe not to implode and actually exists are established, are incomprehensible. once the universe has sorted itself out, then, life, through a myriad of processes, chemicals, fatty acids, lipids, planet proximity to a star etc etc etc can begin.


[quote]I think that when it comes down to point or purpose it has to be a matter of personal preferences. Even if someone believes in a point of life quite anthetical to my own I think I have to resepct their right to ponder what makes life worthwhile to them (though I would hope to oppose them carrying out anything too antisocial). It seems a bit starry and mystical to me to say "the point of these chemicals was simply to be" - but I honestly think that's the closest we can come without myth-making.[/quote]


it's funny how science will tell you that everything happens for a purpose. this apple falls because of gravity, the black hole captures light because of the extreme bending of space-time, this animal eats this food because...

but, when it comes to life, then, all of a sudden, there is no reason. it is just an accident...


everything we see has reason and consequence, as science has shown us. then, would it make sense to believe this for lifeforms?

Quote:
Which is maybe why myth-making is so popular.



i guess it is popular for many reasons; fun, stupidity, fear, lack of education, religion, etc etc,

[quote]I think it's fundamental to survival that ways are found with which to appreciate existence - whether it's the endorphin rush a fish feels when it satisfys hunger - or whether it's the awe a fan of classical music feels watching a well orchestrated concert.[/quote]


usually, we appreciate as a mechanism to survive. for example, fatty foods taste better than apples. this is because in nature, fatty foods are more scarce than apples [fruits and vegetable] and so the better taste is a reward for hunting fatty foods.


so, where is the benefit for enjoying music or art to the point of feeling strong emotions that can lead to tears?

Quote:
To return to point two - it given that appreciating life leads to survivability (suicide or terminal apathy being indicative of a total lack of appreciation of life) perhaps the point of trying to find a purpose is that it leads to appreciation of life?
Quote:


I like to enjoy a bit of nihilism from time to time, because I think there's an austere beauty in acknowledging the chaos - and that it's character forming to take the odd peek at the abyss. However, I think the dangers of letting it become a habit are pretty obvious. I reckon having a plan of a few things you'd like to do before you die - ranging from the trivial to the transcendant - are just needed in order to enjoy yourself.



good points, nevertheless, all of this does not mean that life is not created out of some type of design. in fact, it may even strengthen the idea that life is designed. we are designed to enjoy fatty foods so that we hunt them down. we are designed to feel fear so we don't approach that big animal, etc. in fact, i don't think any of this argument actually dismisses that life may be the result of design. it actually adds to the argument that it is possible that life is designed. it can flow both ways.

and our debate brings us full cirlce to evolution. i would argue that natural selection is almost too fine-tuned to be a mistake. i would say that natural selection is too convenient to be an accidental process that leads to intricate life forms.

of course, i don't believe this 100%, but, as stated, i would not dismiss the idea as it seems to make more sense than this:

BANG! co-incidence co-incidence co-incidence co-incidence co-incidence co-incidence co-incidence co-incidence co-incidence co-incidence co-incidence co-incidence co-incidence co-incidence co-incidence co-incidence co-incidence co-incidence co-incidence co-incidence co-incidence co-incidence co-incidence co-incidence co-incidence co-incidence co-incidence co-incidence co-incidence co-incidence co-incidenceco-incidence co-incidence co-incidence co-incidence co-incidence co-incidence co-incidence co-incidence co-incidence co-incidence.... [to the power of ???] =

LIFE


Quote:
Well you keep saying - but as far as I can see the only real objections you raise that palpably hit the idea are metaphysical. What is demonstrated solidly by the theory is imperiveous to the bullets fired at it so far - what is not known is not known. So it may or may not be bullet proof - but what is visible to us appears to be.



but if anything, hasn't science proven to us that what is visible to us is not what it appears to be?

[quote]In cases of date rape (which occur much more regularly than violent violations in back alleys) there often are no witnesses or injuries - yet there are convictions. Rape is often a case of one's word against another - as would be an accusation of pilfering between aquaintances ('you said I could have it') - reporting a vandal or anti-social behaviour - whether an assault was provoked or not - discrimination or harrasment in the workplace - whether or not somone who got the better of another in an informal deal is a confidence trickster or not.[/quote]
Quote:


Convictions in all these arenas are often reached without any exhibits or hard proof, and often on testimony alone.



i repeat: this is incorrect. there is always evidence. police document injuries to the alleged victim. they also have a swab test of the vagina and look for injuries there. there may also be witnesses. they will look for clues of a struggle. interview all parties, take dna tests, look into the victim's background, look into the perpetrator's background. never, has there been a rape case where a person was convicted soely on the alleged victim's testimony - ever.

[quote]There is widespread scientific consensus.[/quote]

actually, it may be largely accepted, but i do not believe majority accepted.
 
No0ne
 
Reply Mon 6 Jul, 2009 01:41 pm
@Aedes,
Evolution, is basicaly a form of change, which is product of the existence around that of which exists.

The law of self preservation is the single goal of all life forms that exists reguadless of the state of awareness of the existence around it, which is dictated by cause and effect, and is bound by the rules of the exitence that such life form exists in.

If the law of self preservation is not the goal of all life forms that exists, humans, animals, plants, trees, and ect, would not have a instinctive urge to consume, convert, and dispell madder by dictaion of cause and effect and bound by the rules of the existence that such exist in.

Saddly, all things that exist are just puppets of the rules of the existence that they exist in, yet some puppets have more control over such rules, and instinctive urges due to the level of self awareness of there existence and the existence around them and there means of obtaining, processing, and understanding information via there senses...

(*Note Im short on time, I cannot finish now.)
 
Aedes
 
Reply Mon 6 Jul, 2009 01:53 pm
@No0ne,
No0ne;75447 wrote:
The law of self preservation is the single goal of all life forms that exists reguadless of the state of awareness of the existence around it, which is dictated by cause and effect, and is bound by the rules of the exitence that such life form exists in.
I dispute that there is such a "law of self-preservation".

Behaviors that lead to preservation of self are perpetuated. That's all there is to it.

There is no "law" that these behaviors correspond to. There are all kinds of behaviors. Look at Michael Jackson -- was he living his life according to a law of self-preservation? The behaviors that do not lead to self-preservation fall victim to selection. That is true whether or not it's a 'goal'.
 
manored
 
Reply Mon 6 Jul, 2009 02:51 pm
@Aedes,
Aedes;75450 wrote:
Michael Jackson
OMG!!! Must everone speak on this man? Smile

Turbolung: If you are agnostic, then there is no way to escape the design: A god exists in some level wich designed things, as well as a god that designed him, and etc.
 
Aedes
 
Reply Mon 6 Jul, 2009 09:12 pm
@TurboLung,
TurboLung, inasmuch as you keep using the word coincidence, and even provide us with a definition, you still are applying it completely inappropriately to the concept of evolution.

NO ONE in evolutionary biology says "it's a random coincidence that we went from primordial soup to humans".

It happened stepwise. 200 years ago, it would have been an unbelievable longshot that your great-great-great-great grandfathers would have you (specifically) as a descendent. But in your parents' generation the odds were much higher.

Extend that to evolution. One step leading to the next has various degrees of probability, and in some cases high likelihood.
 
No0ne
 
Reply Tue 7 Jul, 2009 03:08 pm
@Aedes,
Rule Of Action #1
For a action to be preformed, the minimum requirments of that actions conditions must be met for that action to be preformed.

Hence oxygen and hydrogen cannot bond into water if the minimum requirments of that actions conditions are not met.

Oxygen and hydrogen have no choice in the matter of bonding or not bonding, they are simply following a script...So to this is true for everything that dose not met the minimum requirments to preform the action called "choice" which allows one to deveate from a script.

(*Note I have no more time to finish)
(*Note I ment a "genetic law", cells dont need a "Why" they do what they are made to do, hence a law/rule is needed to make them do what they do, just as computers, yet human didnt make the ones the allow water to form if said conditions are met...)
(*Note Rule Of Action #1 was obtained by means of D.D.O.O.R)
 
Aedes
 
Reply Tue 7 Jul, 2009 03:25 pm
@No0ne,
No0ne;75717 wrote:
Oxygen and hydrogen have no choice in the matter of bonding or not bonding, they are simply following a script
But that doesn't mean that under given conditions a bond is a foregone conclusion. We have no evidence or even rationale to believe so. There are probabilities but no certainties. If any individual event is potentially influenced by an infinitude of other factors in the universe, then every event is going to be 100% unique.
 
 

 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 04/25/2024 at 04:52:25