How science investigate the feasibility of abiogenesis.

[Rolf]

Fascinatinng research:

"At the origin of cell division: The features of living matter emerge from
inanimate matter in simulation"

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/04/140416090439.htm

Rolf

[AlwaysAskingQuestions]

Before anyone gets too excited- "... Giomi and DeSimone's artificial cells
are in fact computer models"

[Robert Carnegie]

I, for one, welcome our new inanimate overlords.

[jillery]

You assume that anyone might get too excited. Yet you have no
evidence for said assumption. Which makes you the one who reacted
prematurely. But don't worry, premature exclamation is a problem that
can be overcome with maturity.

[Rolf]

"jillery" <69jp...@gmail.com> skrev i melding
news:2s12l910b5vdin4oa...@4ax.com...

We take things as they come and 'they' keep coming all the time. Science
does as science does - and doesn't give up before it is beaten.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/04/140415195712.htm

The resarch into possible naural causes for the origins of life on our
planet won't come to an end before we have determined that no such natural
pathways exist.

But even a creator would have to avail him of the services offered by
chemistry and other natural resources. Magic alone is powerless - it has to
move atoms and molecules, jsut like nature itself does.

I have a special problem for no-religious versions of ID: How would a
designer be able to keep evolution of new species going on on the ocean
floor, over multimillions of years at depths down to several thousand
meters? Laboratory, design and implementation work at that depth all around
the globe, I can't for my life understand how it could be done excpet by
magic beyond imagination.

[jillery]

On Fri, 18 Apr 2014 13:45:35 +0200, "Rolf" <rolf.a...@gmail.com>
wrote:

[...]

>We take things as they come and 'they' keep coming all the time. Science
>does as science does - and doesn't give up before it is beaten.
>
>http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/04/140415195712.htm
>
>The resarch into possible naural causes for the origins of life on our
>planet won't come to an end before we have determined that no such natural
>pathways exist.
>
>But even a creator would have to avail him of the services offered by
>chemistry and other natural resources. Magic alone is powerless - it has to
>move atoms and molecules, jsut like nature itself does.
>
>I have a special problem for no-religious versions of ID: How would a
>designer be able to keep evolution of new species going on on the ocean
>floor, over multimillions of years at depths down to several thousand
>meters? Laboratory, design and implementation work at that depth all around
>the globe, I can't for my life understand how it could be done excpet by
>magic beyond imagination.

That's why it's important to specify the nature of the alleged
designer. A designer constrained by limits is testable within those
limits, while an omnipotent designer has no limits by definition, and
so is not testable by definition.

[AlwaysAskingQuestions]

It must be spring indeed ... I can hear a cricket chirping.

[jillery]

There are none so deaf as those who refuse to listen.

[broger...@gmail.com]

A few months back, there was a creationist here who was almost indignant that there were no computer models of the first cells. Now there's one complaining that these computer models of cells are just computer models.

Of course they are just computer models. The words "in simulation" are right in the title. It's a tiny, tiny step in a long effort to understand the origin of life. Science mostly works by the accumulation of tiny steps.

[RonO]

Just think if IDiots could get excited about anything. What would the
computer simulation of their alternative look like? How would they
justify any part of the simulation. Didn't Behe admit that there was a
lot of smoke and poofing in his alternative? CG effects are becoming
more realistic, so they likely could simulate the smoke and poofing, but
what good would it do them?

Ron Okimoto

[AlwaysAskingQuestions]

broger...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Saturday, April 19, 2014 6:59:18 AM UTC-4, AlwaysAskingQuestions
> wrote:
>> AlwaysAskingQuestions wrote:
>>
>>> Rolf wrote:
>>
>>>> Fascinatinng research:
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>> "At the origin of cell division: The features of living matter
>>>> emerge
>>
>>>> from inanimate matter in simulation"
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>> http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/04/140416090439.htm
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>> Rolf
>>
>>>
>>
>>> Before anyone gets too excited- "... Giomi and DeSimone's artificial
>>
>>> cells are in fact computer models"
>>
>>
>>
>> It must be spring indeed ... I can hear a cricket chirping.
>
> A few months back, there was a creationist here who was almost
> indignant that there were no computer models of the first cells. Now
> there's one complaining that these computer models of cells are just
> computer models.

Assuming you are referring to me, where was I complaining? BTW I am not a
Creationist in the sense it is generally understood around here.

[alias Ernest Major]

You might note that the original post said "in simulation". You weren't
telling us anything new.

--
alias Ernest Major

[alias Ernest Major]

On 19/04/2014 14:49, AlwaysAskingQuestions wrote:
> broger...@gmail.com wrote:
>> On Saturday, April 19, 2014 6:59:18 AM UTC-4, AlwaysAskingQuestions
>> wrote:
>>> AlwaysAskingQuestions wrote:
>>>
>>>> Rolf wrote:
>>>
>>>>> Fascinatinng research:
>>>
>>>>>
>>>
>>>>> "At the origin of cell division: The features of living matter
>>>>> emerge
>>>
>>>>> from inanimate matter in simulation"
>>>
>>>>>
>>>
>>>>> http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/04/140416090439.htm
>>>
>>>>>
>>>
>>>>> Rolf
>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>> Before anyone gets too excited- "... Giomi and DeSimone's artificial
>>>
>>>> cells are in fact computer models"
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> It must be spring indeed ... I can hear a cricket chirping.
>>
>> A few months back, there was a creationist here who was almost
>> indignant that there were no computer models of the first cells. Now
>> there's one complaining that these computer models of cells are just
>> computer models.
>
> Assuming you are referring to me, where was I complaining?

Your reference to chirping crickets came across as a complaint that
no-one was complimenting you on your perpiscacity.

> BTW I am not a
> Creationist in the sense it is generally understood around here.

You gave off a creationist vibe in this case, in that you seemed to be
down on naturalistic abiogenesis.

>
>>
>> Of course they are just computer models. The words "in simulation"
>> are right in the title. It's a tiny, tiny step in a long effort to
>> understand the origin of life. Science mostly works by the
>> accumulation of tiny steps.
>
>

--
alias Ernest Major

[AlwaysAskingQuestions]

alias Ernest Major wrote:
> On 19/04/2014 14:49, AlwaysAskingQuestions wrote:
>> broger...@gmail.com wrote:
>>> On Saturday, April 19, 2014 6:59:18 AM UTC-4, AlwaysAskingQuestions
>>> wrote:
>>>> AlwaysAskingQuestions wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Rolf wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>> Fascinatinng research:
>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>> "At the origin of cell division: The features of living matter
>>>>>> emerge
>>>>
>>>>>> from inanimate matter in simulation"
>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>> http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/04/140416090439.htm
>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>> Rolf
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> Before anyone gets too excited- "... Giomi and DeSimone's
>>>>> artificial
>>>>
>>>>> cells are in fact computer models"
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> It must be spring indeed ... I can hear a cricket chirping.
>>>
>>> A few months back, there was a creationist here who was almost
>>> indignant that there were no computer models of the first cells. Now
>>> there's one complaining that these computer models of cells are just
>>> computer models.
>>
>> Assuming you are referring to me, where was I complaining?
>
> Your reference to chirping crickets came across as a complaint that
> no-one was complimenting you on your perpiscacity.

That wasn't what he was talking about, he said that I was complaining that
these computer models of cells are just computer models. Since when does
pointing something out become a complaint? Same principle applies to
observing background noise.

>
>> BTW I am not a
>> Creationist in the sense it is generally understood around here.
>
> You gave off a creationist vibe in this case,

Ah ... right, I have to be wary of other people's hypersensitivity.

[jillery]

On Sun, 20 Apr 2014 02:22:11 -0700, "AlwaysAskingQuestions"
<alwaysaski...@gmail.com> wrote:

>Since when does
>pointing something out become a complaint?

Since when is it necessary to point out what is explicitly expressed?

>Same principle applies to observing background noise.

You have become that. See, I'm pointing something out.

[Rolf]

"AlwaysAskingQuestions" <alwaysaski...@gmail.com> skrev i melding
news:brc15e...@mid.individual.net...

You seem to be the only one getting excited, the rest of us recognize the
fact that what we have here is a simulation, you probably have not yet
learned that simulations have become a very useful tool for both science,
forensics, engineering and I don't know but there's got to be much more.
Probably everywhere people bother to study things... .

Rolf

[Walter Bushell]

In article <lir39h$qu$1...@news.albasani.net>,

"Sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic."

And if the designers were aiming at us they took a roundabout way,
evolution certainly looks like an undirected process. Who would have
our mammalian ancestors subjugated for 10 of millions of years by
dinosaurs? Or the several mass exterminations?

Mayhap we evolved from a the equivalent of a discarded coke bottle or
an insufficiently deeply buried waste dump. In any event _The Gods
Must Be Crazy_.

--
Never attribute to stupidity that which can be explained by greed. Me.

[Walter Bushell]

In article <6103fea7-da6b-498f...@googlegroups.com>,

Which prepare the way for the big leaps, like Newton who based his
theory largely on Galileo and Kepler, lens grinders and a host of
technological innovations and Einstein who drew on the advances like
Maxwell and Rutherford and associates. Darwin famously accumulated
facts for *years* and drew upon many people's observations, before
dropping his bombshell. It looks so easy in the books, but there was a
lot of skull sweat behind each major advance. Hmm, with the Curies it
took real sweat to produce that tiny bit of radium and of course it
killed her.

[R. Dean]

That's the problem, Jill. some _assume_ infallibility, so when they
speak, it's final authority, it's the _last_ word; there's no leeway
for any disagreement. If one disagrees it's because he refuses to
listening.

[jillery]

On Tue, 29 Apr 2014 01:56:56 -0400, "R. Dean" <"R. Dean"@gmail.com>
wrote:

That's not the problem, Ronnie. Of course, it's possible that AAQ
meant something else, but referring to crickets in T.O. generally
means that nobody has replied to a particular post, or the respondee
in particular hasn't replied.

But that's not what happened here. Not only did several other posters
reply to AAQ, including myself, but so did Rolf. Of course, AAQ seems
to think I don't count, because he pretends that he doesn't see my
posts, but I hope you understand that I think otherwise.

And considering that AAQ posted nothing more than a truism not in
dispute, it's reasonable to say that his post received more replies
than it deserved.

It's also possible that you and I agree on who assumed infallibility
here, but that's a point you're would have to make explicit in order
to know for sure. Being explicit is something that you don't do very
well or very often.

This looks like just another case where you jumped head first into
very shallow water. Just sayin'.